Open Orthodoxy

YCT leadership rejects musmach's participation on "non-halakhic beit din"

2008-10-19T14:05:00.006-07:00

On Hirhurim today, Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Dov Linzer of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah responded to the fact that YCT musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg participated on an interdenominational conversion bais din, as discussed in my previous blog post. This is the first time I have seen YCT's leadership break with their unspoken policy of “don’t publicly address critics or problems”. I commend both Rabbi Weiss and Rabbi Linzer for their swift public response repudiating participation on an interdenominational conversion bais din. I’m sure it was not easy for them to do, but it was the right thing to do. Aside from the religious issues involved, from a humane perspective, there should be zero doubt whether a conversion is valid or not, especially for a child who has little or no say in the matter.

One statement of YCT’s response I do not agree with is the following: “Rabbi Kleinberg's statements and actions should not be assumed to be representative of YCT's positions and principles.” While Rabbi Weiss and Rabbi Linzer believe and wish for that to be true, it is somewhat an unfair expectation. To a certain degree, a musmach is an extension of his smicha granter, whether both like it or not. Fundamental religious hashkafic and halachic issues expounded by a musmach are innately considered as reflective of his smicha granting institution or individual. For example, if YCT would have known in advance that Rabbi Kleinberg was going to participate on an interdenominational geirus bais din, would they still have accepted him as a smicha candidate? If the answer is yes, then Rabbi Kleinberg most definitely represents their positions and principles. If the answer is no, then are his actions grounds for revocation of smicha, especially if Rabbi Kleinberg is resolute to participate on interdenominational batei din in the future?

Here is the complete YCT response:

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg was ordained as a rabbi by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, an Orthodox rabbinical school, in June 2004. Since then, he has been engaged in many positive endeavors as a rabbi on behalf of the Jewish people. However, recently, Rabbi Kleinberg has participated on a non-halakhic beit din for conversion. This violates the standards and principles of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and YCT categorically rejects this action. Rabbi Kleinberg's statements and actions should not be assumed to be representative of YCT's positions and principles.

Rabbi Avi Weiss
Founder and President

Rabbi Dov Linzer
Rosh HaYeshiva and Dean

YCT-ordained rabbi joins "Conservative conversion bais din"

2008-10-16T00:01:00.019-07:00

Updated 10/19/2008

The fall 2008 edition of Chosen magazine describes how Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate Rabbi Darren Kleinberg participated on a conversion bais din with a Conservative woman rabbi and Conservative male rabbi. Chosen magazine states,

[The girl] was immersed in the mikvah at [Reform] Congregation Beth Israel in a traditional conversion ceremony. A beit din of three rabbis, Robin Damsky of Congregation Or Chadash of the Northeast Valley, where the [adoptive family] are members; Mark Bisman, of Har Zion Congregation and Darren Kleinberg of KiDMa-The Southwest Community, officiated.

Wow. Will YCT publicly repudiate their musmach's participation in this? Is this grounds for revoking smicha? Does YCT or Rabbi Avi Weiss (founder and President of YCT) even care?

In various articles over the past two years Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, has supported interdenomination batei din. YCT has not once publicly condemned those positions or any others of Rabbi Kleinberg's. However, this is the first time I have seen evidence that Kleinberg (or any YCT musmach) has actually participated on an interdenominational bais din. Here are links to some of Rabbi Kleinberg's pluralistic writings about conversion:

- Getting pluralism back on track

(Much longer version of previous article by Kleinberg, promoting broad-based pluralism and an inter-denomination beis din)
- Getting Pluralism Back on Track: Conversion and the Challenge of Jewish Peoplehood

- Not-so-universal conversion

If anyone has any doubts why Yeshivat Chovevei Torah has not been and should not be admitted to the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), this should lay those doubts to rest...especially if YCT does not swiftly publicly condemn participation of it's musmachim on interdenominational geirus batei din. If YCT does not vocally condemn such participation, then it may be time for them to remove "Orthodoxy" from "Open Orthodoxy".

Open Orthodoxy blog mentioned in Forward newspaper

2008-08-15T07:30:00.024-07:00

I noticed on the FailedMessiah blog that the Open Orthodoxy blog was mentioned in Forward newspaper:

Though Uri L’Tzedek earned praise from prominent Orthodox leaders for leading the boycott, they have also stirred up anger. Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council for Young Israel, an umbrella group for Orthodox synagogues, publicly slammed one of his member congregations for inviting Uri L’Tzedek’s executive director to speak on “Ethical Issues and Kashrut in Jewish Law.”

“I feel embarrassed for the membership of the Young Israel of Stamford,” Lerner wrote, in a statement published by the blog Open Orthodoxy on July 28. “If they want to be lectured to by a young man with limited knowledge of ethics, of kashrut, of the totality of Judaism, by a young man who has limited experience in life in general, in Judaism more specifically, I guess that is their prerogative.”

Lerner’s tone was so scathing that the blog’s editor, wrote that he had originally been reluctant to publish the statement and had only done so at Lerner’s urging.

I want to be very clear that the reason I was hesitant to post Rabbi Lerner’s comments (see Rabbi Pesach Lerner's unedited response) is not that I don’t agree with the feelings behind them, but the comments about Rabbi Ari Weiss appear to be primarily an ad hominem attack, which is the “scathing tone” that I was uncomfortable with. When I provide criticism or sarcasm, I hope that I do my best to associate it with readily presented facts/sources. I certainly agree with Rabbi Lerner’s implication that a Young Israel (or in my opinion any Orthodox congregation) should not host the Executive Director of Uri L’Tzedek (or IMO anyone from Uri L’Tzedek) as a lecturer. I also agree with Rabbi Lerner’s sentiments of embarrassment for the Young Israel of Stamford. Although, if I was in his position I’m not sure I would have publicly voiced those sentiments.

From my interview with Ari Hart in Uri L'Tzedek, an Exposé, and review of other Uri L’Tzedek material it appears to me that their values and actions (e.g. the way they handled their Agriprocessors boycott) are divisive, self-serving, and represent a radical sliver of the Orthodox community. Uri L'Tzedek has also been inconsistent in their positions, shown poor fact checking, and displayed a high degree of ineptness concerning basic issues like obtaining their domain name (see Agriprocessors still not "kosher" enough for Ari Hart). Is Uri L'Tzedek an organization that deserves respect?

It appears to me that Uri L’Tzedek and its leadership (young men who are either Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical students or graduates) has very little clout and are publicity hounds concerning Agriprocessors. Uri L’Tzedek has received an excessive amount of news coverage for doing very little. When one reads Uri L’Tzedek’s statements, they give the impression that they’re “on the inside” in regular contact with Jim Martin (Agriprocessors compliance officer) and have directly affected changes in Agriprocessors policies. Anyone following the Agriprocessors saga can see that’s far from the case. For example, Uri L'Tzedek was not invited to partake in the recent and only Orthodox delegation to visit Agriprocessors. (Note: The delegation was led by the National Council of Young Israel and somewhat represented Orthodox diversity. If NCYI or Agriprocessors thought Uri L'Tzedek had any clout, credibility, or value then either would have insisted on Uri L'Tzedek's presence.)

Forward stated Uri L’Tzedek has "earned praise from prominent Orthodox leaders for leading the boycott". None of those leaders are mentioned in the article. Also, those "prominent Orthodox leaders", which I assume are the likes of Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Shlomo Riskin may be prominent, but only within their left-wing constituencies. No credible mainstream broad-spectrum Orthodox organization has shown any support for Uri L'Tzedek.

As I stated in previous blog posts, I am disturbed by the allegations against Agriprocessors. I believe that Agriprocessors issues are being dealt with by the company and the government. If they don't get a handle on their problems, it appears that ultimately Agriprocessors will lose it kosher certification and go out of business.

Shmarya Rosenberg of the FailedMessiah blog has been an on-going critic of Agriprocessors. I find FailedMessiah interesting to read even though there are many aspects of the FailedMessiah approach to dealing with the Agriprocessors affair (and in general) that I do not agree with -- but it appears that one thing that crosses ideological boundaries is criticism of Uri L'Tzedek, albeit from a different perspective. Here are some FailedMessiah links about Uri L'Tzedek:

- Uri L'Tzedek Spins Victory

- BREAKING! Agriprocessors' Compliance Officer Refuses To Comply With Deal Made With Uri L'Tzedek

- Breaking! Uri L'Tzedek Cancels Rubashkin Boycott

Other left-wing criticism of the Uri L'Tzedek boycott:
- A Half-Hearted Defense of AgriProcessors

Rabbi Pesach Lerner's unedited response

2008-07-28T00:30:00.008-07:00

update (7/28/08): It's interesting that Rabbi Pesach Lerner's criticism of Uri L'Tzedek Executive Director Rabbi Ari Weiss lecturing at a Young Israel, converges with a news release that states,
The National Council of Young Israel is coordinating and leading a mission of several dozen Jewish community and rabbinic leaders representing major Orthodox Jewish organizations and large Jewish cities to the Agriprocessors plant in Postville, Iowa on Thursday, July 31.
Rabbi Pesach Lerner is quoted,
This mission is meant to provide Jewish leaders from across the United States with a factual perspective of the true situation at the Agriprocessors plant, untainted by the rumors and innuendos that have been circulating in many circles. As one of the major producers of kosher meat in the U.S., the success or failure of Agriprocessors is an issue that will directly impact Jewish communities that purchase kosher meat and poultry across the country. The situation warrants that we approach this with an open mind and obtain a first-hand account of the situation so that we can draw our own conclusion for the betterment of the American Jewish community.
This may be one reason why Rabbi Lerner is "embarrassed" -- A Young Israel congregration announces that they're hosting a leading critic of Agriprocessors while NCYI announces that they're leading a delegation, that one might infer, is biased towards supporting Agriprocessors. I give NCYI a lot of credit for leading a delegation with "several dozen Jewish community and rabbinic leaders representing major Orthodox Jewish organizations and large Jewish cities". That seems to be one visit more to Postville than any of Uri L'Tzedek's leaders.

From my back/forth email dialogue with Rabbi Pesach Lerner it is apparent that Rabbi Pesach Lerner's original intention was for me to publish his unedited response to Uri L'Tzedek leader to lecture at Young Israel.

After I posted Rabbi Pesach Lerner Responds, Rabbi Lerner emailed me, "You have added words, phrases to indicate things I did not say or possibly mean. You could have put up my response w/o your commentary—" I then edited my original article with clarifications based on his criticism.

I wrote Rabbi Lerner that "I am more than happy to still post your complete response to me. Please just let me know. The reason I did not do so was because your tone appears scathing and incendiary in a way that I couldn't imagine you would want to be published 100% verbatim."

Rabbi Lerner responded, "I have no problem for you to post my original. I made some honest statements and asked some basic questions."

Rabbi Lerner is the executive director of a national Jewish organization and the Jewish community deserves to hear his thoughts on this matter. Since I solicited a response from Rabbi Lerner, it is only fair that I post his unedited response to ensure that his comments were not taken out of context, especially if that is his desire. As one can see from my comments above, I was hesitant to publish Rabbi Lerner's response, as-is. Hence, I wanted to doubly confirm that it was acceptable to publish his complete response. Some of Rabbi Lerner's "strong" comments were included in my blog post, Rabbi Pesach Lerner Responds. However, I (hesitantly) included certain comments of Rabbi Lerner's only after accepting his criticism of my original article.

If Rabbi Ari Weiss would like to respond to Rabbi Lerner's questions and comments, I would be happy to post his unedited response at my blog. Although, I think that is a generous offer considering that Ari Hart, Director of Uri L'Tzedek has not answered follow-up interview questions that I emailed to him and questions I published in my posts Uri L'Tzedek, an Exposé and Agriprocessors still not "kosher" enough for Ari Hart .

Here is Rabbi Lerner's unedited response:

I feel embarrassed for the membership of the young Israel of Stamford.

If they want to be lectured to by a young man with limited knowledge of ethics, of kashrut, of the totality of Judaism, by a young man who has limited experience in life in general, in Judaism more specifically, I guess that is their prerogative.

Ethics is not just a buzzword, it is real. One must earn the right to discuss the ethics of something. Let the members of YI of Stamford decide if this young man has earned that right.

Does he have direct first hand knowledge of what he speaks? Ethics or kashrut?

Does his ethics dictate to him to harm other Jews?

Does his ethics dictate that one not give another person the benefit of a doubt?

Is his ethics applied to everything he does?

I am just wondering—

There are so many experienced, educated individuals ---starting with the Young Israel of Stamford’s new rabbi, who impressed us with his breadth of knowledge and presentation ---within the synagogue, the Jewish community of Stamford and greater Jewish community, who can speak on a myriad of Jewish and general topics. It is a shame that they are not asked to share their knowledge.

Sept 13 is two weeks before Rosh Hashana, there are so many people to invite and so many relevant topics to discuss. Sept 13 is two days after Sept 11, an event that carries with it so much memory, discussion, introspection.

I am sure that many members of the Young Israel are embarrassed by this topic and speaker; I feel for them.

The National Council of Young Israel has access to so many wonderful speakers on so many topics.

We share this information to our branches, all over the country. We are happy to assist the Young Israel of Stamford as well.

Rabbi Pesach Lerner Responds

2008-07-27T00:30:00.010-07:00

Updated: 7/27 Based on Rabbi Pesach Lerner's feedback, I have updated this article.

In my previous blog post I discussed that Rabbi Ari Weiss, Executive Director of Uri L’Tzedek (a social justice organization) and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach (ordainee) is scheduled to lecture at the Young Israel of Stamford, CT about “Ethical Issues and Kashrut”. I wondered what the Executive Director of the National Council of Young Israel, Rabbi Pesach Lerner thought about this speaking engagement since from several newspaper statements Rabbi Lerner appears to be an Uri L’Tzedek detractor. I contacted Rabbi Lerner via email and received a timely response from him on 7/25, which I appreciate. He stated to me via email that he "feels embarassed for the membership of the Young Israel of Stamford" and that he is "sure that many members of the Young Israel are embarrassed by this topic and speaker; I feel for them". However, Rabbi Lerner also stated "that it is their prerogative" to have Rabbi Ari Weiss lecture.

Rabbi Lerner’s criticism can be distilled to one key statement he wrote to me, “Ethics is not just a buzzword, it is real. One must earn the right to discuss the ethics of something." Rabbi Lerner continued, "Let the members of YI of Stamford decide if this young man has earned that right.” It was apparent that Rabbi Lerner does not believe that Rabbi Ari Weiss has "earned that right", stating that Weiss is a "young man with limited knowledge" of the lecture subject matter and the "totality of Judaism", as well as has "limited [Judaic life] experience". Based on that criteria it seems that Rabbi Lerner would not approve of other individuals from Uri L'Tzedek lecturing at a Young Israel, since their backgrounds appear to be similar to Rabbi Weiss' (see YCT Alumni and The Uri L'tzedek Leadership Team).

Rabbi Lerner provided examples of "experienced" and "educated" lecturers one might expect at a Young Israel:

There are so many experienced, educated individuals ---starting with the Young Israel of Stamford’s new rabbi [Rabbi Naftali Wolfe], who impressed us with his breadth of knowledge and presentation ---within the synagogue, the Jewish community of Stamford and greater Jewish community, who can speak on a myriad of Jewish and general topics.
…
Sept 13 is two weeks before Rosh Hashana, there are so many people to invite and so many relevant topics to discuss. Sept 13 is two days after Sept 11, an event that carries with it so much memory, discussion, introspection…The National Council of Young Israel has access to so many wonderful speakers on so many topics. We share this information to our branches, all over the country. We are happy to assist the Young Israel of Stamford as well.

I noticed that the Stamford YI presents themselves as being affiliated with with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. I wonder what Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, Executive Vice President of the Orthodox Union thinks about this, especially since Uri L'Tzedek was attacking Agriprocessors, a kashrus customer of the OU. I emailed him this blog post, requesting a statement. We'll see if he responds.

Uri L'Tzedek leader to lecture at Young Israel

2008-07-25T07:00:00.009-07:00

The Young Israel of Stamford, CT appears to be thumbing their noses at Rabbi Pesach Lerner, Executive Director of the National Council of Young Israel. On Sept. 13th, Rabbi Ari Weiss, Executive Director of Uri L'Tzedek is scheduled to lecture there about "Ethical Issues and Kashrut". That's very interesting, since Rabbi Lerner blasted Uri L'Tzedek for their "ethical kashrut" activism against Agriprocessors. In Forward, Rabbi Lerner chastized Uri L'Tzedek's boycotting efforts against Agriprocessors by stating "'we’re a bunch of idiots' to be Jews boycotting other Jews". Rabbi Pesach Lerner "described Uri L’Tzedek’s organizers as being 'young kids who need something to put them on the map' who are taking advantage of Agriprocessor’s current problems".

Another concern might be that Rabbi Ari Weiss (class of '07) is a graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah since it appears that the National Council of Young Israel is not very fond of YCT students. It has been speculated that the NCYI targeted Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduates in its tightening of rabbinical candidate requirements to weed out YCT candidates. I wonder if that covers speaking engagements as well - especially ones that are potentially controversial.

I have contacted Rabbi Lerner for a statement. We'll see if he responds.

Native American Judaism

2008-07-24T00:30:00.011-07:00

Rabbi Gershon Winkler is a controversial figure who is the founder of the Walking Stick Foundation which is “dedicated to the restoration and preservation of aboriginal Jewish spirituality, occasionally sharing events with teachers indigenous to Native American and other earth-honoring traditions.” In an article titled Times of transition, written a little over a year ago by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, there are parallel themes. Rabbi Kleinberg has presented many controversial views in his writings, however this has to be one of the strangest things to originate from Kleinberg: He discusses his experiences at a Native American "bar mitzvah".

When Kleinberg refers to the “bar mitzvah boy” I am not completely sure whether Kleinberg is referring to a Native American lad or an actual Jewish bar mitzvah boy partaking in a Native American ritual. It appears that Kleinberg is referring to a Native American boy as the “bar mitzvah boy”. My cognitive dissonance may be due to the fact that I am hesitant to believe the more idiotic of the two asinine options - that Kleinberg would repeatedly refer to a coming-of-age Native American male as a "bar mitzvah boy" and bizarrely integrate Jewish motifs such as the "young warrior" was prepared for the "day he would be called to the Torah and join his tribe alongside his elders." Regardless, it’s stuff like this that delegitimizes Open Orthodoxy, and makes others wonder what YCT's criteria for smicha (rabbinical ordination) is. Here’s the article:

Anyone that has ever been to a shvitz will know how cleansing it can be to sit in a room at extreme temperatures. One of my fondest memories from living in New York City was making my too-infrequent visits to the Russian/Turkish Bath House on 10th Street in Manhattan. And so, I recently jumped at the opportunity to experience a Southwestern-style shvitz.

The difference here was that I was not only cleansed from the inside out, but I was also replenished with a spirit of connectedness from the outside in.

It was my great honor to attend a "warrior initiation" ceremony for a young man about to join his elders as a bar mitzvah.

The ritual we shared began with a Native American prayer-chant accompanied by the rhythmic beating of a drum. The song, although in a foreign language, directed my senses to what was to follow.

Following the chant, 12 men and two not-yet-men (the bar mitzvah boy was accompanied by his younger cousin) got onto their hands and knees and crawled, one after the other, into the cramped hut. The diameter of the hut was no more than 15 feet and was no greater than five feet at its highest point. Just as the Mishna describes how the courtyard of the Temple expanded, as it were, on Yom Kippur to allow for the people to bow down during the service, so too, as the ritual continued and the intensity grew, it seemed as if the hut was expanding around us.

The ceremony consisted of four separate rounds inside the small willow-ribbed hut commonly known as a sweat lodge. In the first round, there were seven "stones," or coals, brought in to heat the enclosure. In each subsequent round, another seven were introduced in the ritual manner, totaling 28 stones by the fourth round. As each round got hotter, so too the intensity of the experience increased.

For the next two or more hours, I participated in one of the most moving and meaningful rite-of-passage ceremonies I have ever experienced. Once inside, the doorway closed, enveloping us in darkness, the smell of herbs rose from the pit in the center and the temperature increased. Each of us shared with the bar mitzvah some insight from our own journeys in life and offered with it a blessing for his.

I listened to a grandfather's sense of connection to a grandson named after his own deceased father; a stranger's blessing of wisdom and meaning in life; and a father's tears of joy and hope for his son's future.

As well as prayers and blessings for our "warrior," we also offered prayers for loved ones in need of healing and for a world in need of fixing. And with the passing of each of the four rounds, we concluded with a traditional Hebrew song, or a Native American chant or a good, old bluegrass sing-a-long.

By day's end, after the sun had dropped below the horizon - appropriately drawing our attention to times of transition and transformation - we crawled back out of that hut not only cleansed, but also spiritually replenished by our experiences with each other and by the knowledge that we had appropriately prepared our young "warrior" for the day he would be called to the Torah and join his tribe alongside his elders.

Big Questions

2008-07-23T00:30:00.014-07:00

Big Question: Which Yeshivat Chovevei Torah alumni does YCT currently endorse?
Big Answer: All of them!

In previous blog posts I discuss how YCT explicitly and implicitly endorses their alumni. One simple example is that every graduate is proudly listed on the YCT Alumni page. Some graduates receive recognition above and beyond the alumni page and are featured in other YCT media. For example, Rabbi Josh Feigelson was recently featured by YCT on the "IN AND ABOUT CHOVEVEI" Alumni News page in the latest edition of the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah newsletter for his AskBigQuestions.com project:

Rabbi Joshua Feigelson (YCT Class ‘05), Rabbi of the Northwestern Hillel, has launched AskBigQuestions, an initiative to bring people together for “conversations about questions that matter.” The initiative consists of a website (www.askbigquestions.com) as well as a print media campaign and faculty-student discussion series.

The AskBigQuestions site presents “Big Questions of life that all human beings wonder about” and that anyone can answer. The selection of questions appears to be very limited and very deliberate since the questions are ultimately controlled by AskBigQuestions, not its consumers. AskBigQuestions asks profound questions such as "Can you be religious and queer?", "What are you addicted to?", and "Can you ever really be just friends?"

Are those questions "big enough" to be topics of YCT shiurim? I wonder if any YCT rabbis have been inspired by their fellow alumnus to pose those same questions to their respective congregants.

There are some very informative links on the "Want to go further?" section of the Can you ever really be just friends? page, such as "Crushes & Friends: One lesbian's reflections", and "Friends, Fun and Sex: Writer Jay Michaelson’s thoughts." As Rabbi Feigelson might say, “This is good stuff.”

Some previous items of interest about Rabbi Feigelson are:
- Feigelson has stated that it's ok if Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt) is fictional (Pesach: Celebrate or Cancel)
- Feigelson has praised Zalman Schachter-Shalomi's Jewish Renewal-oriented book on Tehillim (Weeping for Psalms)
- Feigelson has praised Norman Fischer's Buddhist-oriented book on Tehillim (Weeping for Psalms)
- Feigelson is rabbinic advisor for a Shira Hadasha-style congregation (Open Orthodox congregations)

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah certainly appears to tacitly accept Feigelson and his efforts. It seems obvious that an Orthodox rabbinical seminary like YCT would be conscientious to only publish people and news stories they approved of, or otherwise provide a disclaimer if those views did not reflect YCT’s.

Big Question: Who and what won't Yeshivat Chovevei Torah endorse?

Open Orthodox congregations

2008-07-22T07:00:00.003-07:00

The Yeshivat Chovevei Torah alumni page promises, "BRINGING OPEN ORTHODOX RABBINIC LEADERSHIP TO A COMMUNITY NEAR YOU!" YCT appears to be making good on that promise.

Rabbi Josh Feigelson, a Yeshivat Chovevei Torah alumnus, is the recently installed rabbinic advisor of the Kol Sasson congregation. The home page states:

At Kol Sasson, women lead kabbalat shabbat, pesukei dezimrah, the Torah service, and fully participate in the Torah reading. This is done in the context of a traditional minyan with ten men and a mechitza. For a detailed discussion of the halakhot surrounding women's participation in Torah reading and in leading some parts of the service, please visit the links on our site.

Rabbi Feigelson's congregation seems to be exactly like a Shira Hadasha egalitarian prayer congregation. I wonder if there is any difference? Rabbi Feigelson has been featured on this blog before:
- Pesach: Celebrate or Cancel
- Weeping for Psalms

Here is a previous blog post that descibes another, now defunct Open Orthodox congregation, Kidma: Open Orthodox rabbis further radicalize left-wing Orthodoxy

Shabbos for everyone!

2008-07-21T17:30:00.005-07:00

In my second blog post, I discussed a controversial Pesach Haggadah project that Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow (a Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate) was involved in. We now see Rabbi Katz Orlow in a YouTube video giving a brief dvar Torah about Pesach, stating that the liberation of Pesach (from ha lachma anya) means “that we say we’re the hosts”. Rabbi Orlow translates this idea into practicality by stating how wonderful it was for him to participate in a recent “interfaith Shabbat” (e.g. hosting others) and that he had the “distinct pleasure and honor of doing a learner’s service”.

Who knows what exciting interfaith encounters are on the horizon for future YCT graduates! Maybe partnering with a Messianic congregration on Yom Kippur? Here's the video (at 2 minutes he discusses the "interfaith Shabbat"):

Chicken hugger, chicken killer

2008-07-18T00:30:00.010-07:00

In the recent edition of the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah newsletter there is an article titled “Animal Instincts: Student Seeks Insight Through Sh’khitah [ritual slaughter] Training”. The article was probably written with genuine solemnity, but instead is hilarious. I don’t think I’m being insensitive at all. Everyone I have read selected passages to has burst out laughing. (Or, maybe we’re all just insensitive.) To preface, I’m not a vegetarian. In fact, writing this blog post made me hungry for some BBQ chicken. I’m sure that PETA could have a field day with this:

Andy Kastner, a second-year rabbinical student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, spends a lot of time thinking about animals. He believes all life is sacred and every living creature deserves to be treated with respect and dignity.

The slight, curly-haired rabbi-to-be looks and sounds like a young man who wouldn’t hurt a fly. And yet, on a rainy afternoon in late February, he stood in the backyard of a Scarsdale synagogue, holding a knife to the throat of a six-week-old chicken. Moments later, Andy’s borrowed white butcher’s coat was stained with the animal’s blood and the chicken was dead.
…
Andy says he believes his love of animals sparked his interest in sh’khitah [ritual slaughter]. “When I was exploring my role as a rabbi, I realized this was [a] project I could take on,” the 28-year-old student explains. “I wanted to feel the fear of taking an animal’s life out of this world to sustain myself. I wanted to reconnect with the sanctity and fragility of life.”

Let me get this straight, Kastner kills animals because he loves them and wants “to feel the fear of taking an animal’s life out of this world”. That's just creepy. Since it seems like he has a bad case of being born under the sign of Mars (Shabbos 156a), I guess it's better that his predilection is for animals.

Kastner states, "The first time I performed sh’khitah I broke down in tears—I was inconsolable, it was an incredible feeling to watch an animal leave this world at my hands". While Andy was experiencing the "euphoria of the kill", was the chicken blubbering too?

Leslie [Andy’s wife] says Andy has learned a great deal throughout the training process. “He has a deep sense of kavannah when doing sh’khitah,” she says. “I still remember his first time. He called to tell me the details and we both had so many emotions. The meal we ate that evening—his first chicken—was very meaningful. We felt a deep connection to the food we were putting into our bodies.”

Just beautiful. I wonder if that's a new YCT pastoral counseling technique to strengthen spousal intimacy - "slaughter therapy".

Kastner says, "I’m a little afraid this is going to become a circus or a novelty act and people will just want to see it, it’s not the kind of thing most Jewish boys learn how to do.” Why not allow others to "feel the fear of taking an animal’s life out of this world" and experience the "incredible feeling to watch an animal leave this world at [his] hands"? I can't wait to see what Andy kills next!

Kastner’s goal is to create a kosher meat brand called “Tikun Harvest” that “provide[s] a holistic eating experience that invites spirit and God to the table”. It sounds like a marketing ploy to sell expensive meat to guilt-ridden carnivorous chicken hugging vegan wannabees.

I have some serious commentary on Kastner’s and YCT’s agenda, but this whole thing is just too ridiculous to be serious.

Rebbetzin role-models

2008-07-17T07:45:00.012-07:00

A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a rabbi (who was a Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate) of an “Open Orthodox” congregation. One topic we discussed was that his rebbetzin was not aligned with some principles of tznius (Jewish modesty laws). The Rebbetzin wore pants, shorts, short-sleeved mid-riffed shirts and most importantly did not cover her hair except maybe when attending shul. Using hair-covering (a tznius requirement for Orthodox Jewish married women) as a basic guideline, I asked the rabbi how could married women who adhered to a stricter standard of modesty than his wife be expected to view his wife as a role model for themselves. Why should they attend a shul where they felt they were more observant than the rebbetzin? I’m certain that the rabbi wanted his shul to be “open” to everyone, but realistically an entire segment of practicing Orthodox Jews were inherently alienated by this inconsistency. The rabbi understood my viewpoint, but his bottom-line response was that it was his wife’s choice.

In the most recent issue of the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah newsletter it is encouraging to read an article about a couple of “YCT rebbetzins” who are concerned about being role-models for other Jewish women. Both rebbetzins cover their hair and wear skirts in public. Toby Goldfisher Kaplowitz the wife of a YCT musmach states, “It’s very complicated for me because I have a real leadership role in the community, I think a lot of how my decisions will be viewed by other people.” Gabi Gelman the wife of an honorary YCT alumnus relates, “When I grew up, I wore pants but I don’t anymore, I am concerned about how people will view me – they’ll feel like I’m not observant because I wear pants.”

Some right-wing Orthodox Jews might take issue with the degree of hair-covering being done, or that the rebbetzins' tznius motivation appears to be driven by the perception of others, but please give some credit where it is due.

Agriprocessors still not "kosher" enough for Ari Hart

2008-07-16T00:30:00.003-07:00

Ari Hart, co-director of Uri L'Tzedek was recently interviewed by The Jew and the Carrot blog.

First, let me say that I commend Hart that he acknowledged (whether intentional or not) a couple of key points that I raised in my article Uri L'Tzedek, an Exposé by stating “[Uri L'Tzedek] recognize[s] that Agriprocessors provides a critical service to the industry in supplying kosher meat to far-flung locations where there would normally be no other options.” and “There are bigger, more systemic questions to ask around industrial-beef in general.” I don't necessarily agree with Hart's questions, but at least his statement somewhat acknowledges that Agriprocessors problems aren't merely a Jewish one.

Ari Hart also makes statements that I find troubling,

Given everything that has happened at Agriprocessors, I personally doubt the holiness of the intentions of the owners of Agriprocessors, and I doubt their ability to produce the kosher meat that I would feel comfortable eating at my personal Shabbat table. Because of these issues, in addition to the recent deceptive, mean spirited, and divisive PR campaign recently run by Agriprocessors’ PR team where they impersonated a rabbi, bought up Uri L’Tzedek domain names, and used other nasty tactics, I am not comfortable supporting the company.

Hart's statement is correct that 5WPR (Agriprocessors PR firm), has acted "deceptive" and "mean spirited" by impersonating real people in the comments section of web sites that have been critical of Agriprocessors. On the other hand, maybe Hart can explain why he is accusing 5WPR of buying the UriLTzedek .com and .org domain names. I haven’t seen any evidence yet proving they’re responsible, and FailedMessiah who broke this story is fairly thorough.

Concerning Uri L’Tzedek’s domain names, how incompetent can Uri L’Tzedek be? The inception of Uri L’Tzedek was over a year ago! Why didn't they register their domain names in the past fourteen months? It takes two minutes to do. Did they even bother to trademark their name?

It's interesting that Hart states there was a "consensus among the Uri [L'Tzedek] leadership" to end the public Agriprocessors boycott, and yet feels compelled to be vocal that he is still continuing his personal boycott by making a conscientious decision to not eat Agriprocessors products because he "doubt[s]" the "holiness of the intentions of the owners of Agriprocessors", "doubts [Agriprocessors] ability to produce the kosher meat that [he] would feel comfortable eating at [his] personal Shabbat table", and because Agriprocessors PR firm has acted "deceptive, mean spirited" and "used other nasty tactics". Of course Ari Hart doesn't have to purchase Agriprocessors products. That's his right. But, his dual position of ending the public boycott and being aggressively outspoken that he is still maintaining one privately seems not only inconsistent but "wussy". From a diplomatic perspective, if Hart truly felt that ending the public boycott was justified, he might have either kept his personal thoughts to himself or chose innocuous verbiage. Or, Hart might be expressing his personal feeling that the public boycott ended prematurely.

Hart discussed Uri L'Tzedek's efforts with Agriprocessors over the past two months,

Our one struggle as [the Uri L'Tzedek] leadership team was that since the end of May, we’ve had to shift almost all our organizational energies into this [Agriprocessors] project at the expense of the other issues we’ve engaged with this year, such as the rights of domestic workers, health care, racism, and others.

How much "energy" has Uri L'Tzedek expended with Agriprocessors activism in the last two months or the past eight months for that matter? From my interview with Hart it appears Uri L'Tzedek has accomplished very little concerning Agriprocessors. How has Uri L'Tzedek been spending their time that they "had to shift almost all [their] organizational energies" into Agriprocessors?

Who leads Uri L'Tzedek?

2008-07-09T18:00:00.006-07:00

update 7/20/08: Looks like the leadership link is back up.

There is a curious update on the Uri L'Tzedek web site main menu. Within the last two days, the link to their "Leadership Team" page has disappeared.

Here's a snapshot of the menu before and after:
The Uri L'Tzedek leadership team page is still available at Uri L'Tzedek leadership team. Here is it's contents:

From left: Aaron Finkelstein, Shmuly Yanklowitz, Ari Hart, Tsufit Daniel

From left: Ari Weiss, Ari Hart, Shmuly Yanklowitz

If Uri L'Tzedek's leadership has changed, maybe Uri L'Tzedek can issue a press release? Or, maybe the removal of the leadership team link was a mistake, in which case they should immediately put it back. Since Uri L'Tzedek is a non-profit organization collecting donations from the public, the public has a right to know who is currently running Uri L'Tzedek.

Uri L'Tzedek, an Exposé

2008-07-08T17:30:00.020-07:00

Last week via email, I interviewed Ari Hart, Co-director of Uri L'Tzedek about their activism against Agriprocessors. I then sent him a draft review copy of the following article. I stated, "If you would like to provide a response to go with [my article], I'll post that too." I also asked him to provide factual corrections as needed. I have not received any response from Hart since last Thursday. I was waiting about 5-7 days to hear back from him before publishing my article.

How interesting that today, I just saw the following headline on JTA: Orthodox group [Uri L'Tzedek] drops meat boycott and also a statement by Uri L'Tzedek. Ari Hart gave me no inkling in my interview that they were even considering dropping the boycott a mere five days later.

The JTA states, "On Tuesday, the group said it was suspending the boycott because the company "is beginning to take significant steps towards directly addressing the concerns" raised about treatment of its workers."

I praise Uri L'Tzedek for dropping the boycott. Kudos to them! It's the right thing to do for the kosher consumer. It looks like they removed the link to Establishments in your area that use non-Agriprocessors meat on their main menu.

It is very interesting that because of "early signs of reform, Uri L'tzedek is no longer calling for the community to abstain from purchasing Agriprocessors' products." The Uri L'Tzedek boycott of "less than a month" was certainly short-lived. Hmm...I wonder if my impending article had anything to do with with their decision to suspend their boycott? Maybe, maybe not, but I won't ever know since it appears that Ari Hart has decided to not respond to me. It looks like Hart is following the Avi Weiss public relations handbook that the best way to respond to criticism is to not respond. If that's so, why should Agriprocessors or any of Uri L'Tzedek's future activist "partners" (as Ari Hart labeled Agriprocessors) respond to Uri L'Tzedek?

I am still publishing my article with the hopes that Uri L'Tzedek truly commits itself as a positive vehicle for activism instead of one centered around on-line petitions and boycotts. In the eight months that Uri L'Tzedek has been targeting Agriprocessors, this is the first "positive" Agriprocessors activism I have seen from Uri L'Tzedek:
There are still matters of great concern in Postville: shattered families left without wage earners, mothers unable to find jobs to pay for basic necessities, children thousands of miles from home living in fear of another raid, a broken Postville economy, and deeply flawed federal immigration policy. Addressing these larger issues is integral to our work as activists. Uri L'Tzedek leadership has helped raise significant funds for the families deeply hurt by the raids...
I hope that Uri L'Tzedek knows exactly where the donation money is ending up and what it is being used for.

I hope that Uri L'Tzedek is more deliberating if they choose to institute a boycott in the future. The following statement alludes to future boycotts, if Uri L'Tzedek deems it necessary,
If Agriprocessors does not implement Mr. Martin's recommendations or demonstrates that it is not committed to full compliance with all laws regarding worker safety, pay, and rights, then we will once again raise our concerns with Agriprocessors and with the community of kosher consumers.
I also think that Shmuly Yanklowitz owes Agriprocessors an apology for labeling their conduct as "atrocities".

With Hart's consent, at the end of my article, I include our brief interview in its entirety.

It's been over a year since my last blog entry. That hiatus shouldn't be construed as though there hasn't been any Open Orthodox news. Quite the contrary. The Open Orthodox world has become more vocal with Rabbi Avi Weiss forming a new liberal rabbinical fellowship to accommodate YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah) graduates who have been shut out of the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America).

Another recent project Weiss’ YCT students (Shmuly Yanklowitz, Aaron Finkelstein, and Michael Schultz) have been involved in is the creation of Uri L’Tzedek, a “social justice” organization. The primary focus of that new organization has been criticizing Agriprocessors (Rubashkin's) kosher meat processors for various ethical “violations”. I requested an interview with the founder of Uri L’Tzedek, Shmuly Yanklowitz. Ari Hart, YCT student and co-director of Uri L’Tzedek, initially refused to grant me an interview stating the following in an email:

Mark,

Thank you for your request. Since Uri L'Tzedek does not represent, is not an agent for, or act under the supervision of, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, we feel that an interview with your publication would not be productive at this time.

Best,
Ari
Co-director, Uri L'Tzedek

I explained to Hart that “I have prepared questions exclusively related to your organization [Uri L’Tzedek] and the Agriprocessors affair. My questions have absolutely nothing to do with YCT.” After not hearing back from Ari in a day’s time, I wrote Ari and informed him that I was going to release an article I had just completed. Hart then sent me the following communication:

Mark,

I'm sorry I wasn't able to respond. Things have been very, very busy. Can I send you a response tomorrow afternoon? It might be better actually to talk on the phone if you have a few minutes. Are you free tomorrow in the afternoon?

Best,
Ari

I requested that we communicate via email, which Ari Hart graciously consented to. Initially, Hart stated to me that he would not grant me an interview because “Uri L'Tzedek does not represent, is not an agent for, or act under the supervision of, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah”. The fact that he chose to grant me an interview, implies that Hart felt that Uri L’Tzedek does have a connection to YCT and Open Orthodoxy. That connection makes Uri L’Tzedek relevant to this blog. I also believe that connection provides insight as to how Uri L'Tzedek operates.

There are other connections between YCT and Uri L’Tzedek. The three founders of Uri L’Tzedek are or were students (Michael Schultz graduated this year) of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. I have stated my reasoning in a previous blog post why musmachim (those ordained) of a rabbinical school inherently represent the yeshiva they were ordained from. In the case of rabbinical students the representation is even more overt since they're still directly linked with the institution.

The news media seems to think that the YCT connection is relevant. In multiple news stories and blog articles Uri L’Tzedek is linked with Yeshivat Chovevei Torah:

- The founding of Uri L'Tzedek was funded with “award money” that Shmuly Yanklowitz received from a Yeshivat Chovevi Torah award.

5th Annual Lieberman Award Ceremony
Shmuly specified the recipient of the award money - that it would be a new and innovative initiative that he and Mike Schultz (last year's recipient) are creating. We believe that there needs to be a central body for social justice within the Orthodox movement. Our intended name for such a central body is Uri L’Tzedek...

Here’s a picture of him accepting his award at the YCT podium:

- Rabbinical Students Launch Social Justice Group
This is why this fall, three rabbinical students from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Aaron Finkelstein, Mike Schultz, and Shmuly Yanklowitz, founded Uri L’Tzedek, a network that enables Jews to learn about and take action on social justice issues. “[We address] social justice issues that our community chooses to ignore,” Finkelstein explained.

- Agriprocessors boycott commences
Uri L'tzedek, an initiative started by students at the liberal Orthodox rabbinical seminary Yeshivat Chovevei Torah in New York City, set Monday as the date it would stop patronizing Agriprocessors if the company did not agree to abide by certain ethical labor standards.

- Social Justice — An Orthodox Cause?
Another vocal proponent of social justice in the Orthodox world is Shmuly Yanklowitz, a rabbinical student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah who, in May 2007, founded Uri L’Tzedek, a non-profit that educates the American Orthodox community regarding pressing social justice causes on a global scale.

The news links were found at the Uri L’Tzedek in the news web page.

Uri L’Tzedek has been one of Agriprocessor’s harshest critics. I believe that there are significant issues with Uri L’Tzedek‘s approach of the Agriprocessors affair. I’m not going to defend Agriprocessors nor will I discuss their issues here. There’s enough public information on that matter. It must be said that news stories like the following portray Agriprocessors very negatively and are extremely troubling to read: Agriprocessors escapes big fines for violations and Postville plant paid to settle fraud case, and many other news stories.

And yet, Uri L’Tzedek appears to be unfairly biased against Agriprocessors by making them their exclusive “target” in the meat industry. Agriprocessors is a small player in a much larger meat industry with widespread problems. See Blood, Sweat, and Fear for general criticism of the meat industry. Uri L’Tzedek purports to be a general social justice group but has failed to recognize the broader scope of the issue.

For at least eight months (see An Uri L’Tzedek Report 11/9/2007), Uri L'Tzedek has been targeting Agriprocessors and no other meat processor. In fact, Agriprocessors has been Uri L’Tzedek’s main social issue. Almost half of the links on their in the news page are focused directly on Agriprocessors. Also, it’s the only social issue that has an exclusive link, Information on the Agriprocessor’s Effort, on their web site’s main menu.

Via email, I asked Ari Hart, co-director of Uri L’Tzedek, about their Agriprocessors bias and he did not directly address it. An indirect answer from Hart was "We believe that there is a large segment of the kosher buying population that is...concerned about the yashrus of ethical practices in addition to the kashrut of the meat." I asked Hart, "What percentage (and actual numbers) of genuine adherents to kashrus consider 'yashrus' as a requirement of their kosher meat?" He did not respond directly, but did state that "2000 kosher consumers have signed on [the Uri L'Tzedek petition letter against Agriprocessors]." and "We have received hundreds of letters, phone calls, and emails from Orthodox Jews who are deeply concerned about these issues". I don't think that either of those sources are quantitatively or qualitatively legitimate in determining that "a large segment of the kosher buying population that is...concerned about the yashrus of ethical practices", or that those respondents are Orthodox Jews, observe kosher meat laws, and even more so, are Agriprocessors' customers.

A simple response to the criticism that Uri L'Tzedek has only focused on Agriprocessors might be that (some believe) that Agriprocessors is a "poster-child" for what's wrong with the meat industry and an example should be made of them. Another simple response might be that kosher meat should be held to a higher standard. Another potential retort is that Agriprocessors is in Uri L'Tzedek's own “Jewish backyard” and that is why Uri L’Tzedek is specifically scrutinizing them. It makes a stronger impression when a group is criticized by one of its own, a “cultural whistleblower”. However, social justice is not exclusive to Jews, as Uri L'Tezedek knows very well with their Free Tibet activism. Uri L'Tezedek's exclusive focus on Agriprocessors is even more conspicuous considering that the "issues [Uri L'Tzedek] featured in the past were largely external to the Jewish community" as Finkelstein stated. It makes sense that Uri L'Tzedek would at least provide some broader context around Agriprocessors issues - if only to be culturally sensitive and merely illustrate that Agriprocessors problems are not exclusively a Jewish problem.

One way to understand the Uri L’Tzedek agenda is that its founders are protégés of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Rabbi Avi Weiss. The Weiss agenda has revolved around self-promotion in conjunction with social activism. When one thinks of Rabbi Weiss, they see the "trademark" image of him protesting some issue, wearing a tallis, chained to something, being escorted away by the police. For example, see Photo Essay: For Zion I will not be Silent. US Rabbis Arrested, it has everything but the chains. Weiss certainly has accomplished some good for the Jewish community with his social activism, however, it is clear that Weiss’ self-promotion via activism has also been instrumental in obtaining support for projects that are important to him, such as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.

Agriprocessors is hot in the news. Jews criticizing Jews makes a much better headline then Jews criticizing anyone else; at least in the Jewish media world, where it gives them the best chance of obtaining publicity that would be relevant to a Jewish seminarian’s career. In fact, as of 7/8/08, twelve out of twelve news articles linked on the Uri L’Tzedek In the News web page are from Jewish media sources, and as stated before, about half focus on Uri L'Tzedek's Agriprocessors activism.

One might intonate that Uri L’Tzedek’s members are utilizing this forum of “social justice” as a stepping-stone resume item for a prestigious synagogue pulpit, or lucrative “not-for-profit” career. Case in point, director of Uri L’Tzedek Shmuly Yanklowitz:

Yanklowitz’s goal is to become a pulpit rabbi at the helm of a synagogue “known for serious social change,” as well as a university professor (he’s currently a Ph.D. student in epistemology and development psychology at Columbia).
- 36 Under 36: The Next Wave SOCIAL JUSTICE & GLOBAL CHANGE

Rabbi Pesach Lerner, executive vice president of the National Council of Young Israel "described Uri L’Tzedek’s organizers as being 'young kids who need something to put them on the map' who are taking advantage of Agriprocessor’s current problems". The opportunism of Uri L'Tzedek's leaders would be palatable if their message and methodology concerning Agriprocessors didn’t appear so disingenuous and incredulous.

The United States government was investigating Agriprocessors’ long be Uri L’Tzedek was involved. The government is still involved and becoming further involved. In fact, there are dozens of federal inspectors already monitoring the Agriprocessors plant! It's obvious that either Agriprocessors will comply with government mandates, or go out of business. Jim Martin, Agriprocessors newly hired compliance officer and former U.S. attorney indirectly acknowledges this by stating that "he has zero tolerance for any wrongdoing and that anything it takes to bring [Agriprocessors] up to where they’re supposed to be he’s going to do."

Because Agriprocessors issues are already being addressed in a highly-scrutinized legal forum, it seems that Uri L’Tzedek is accomplishing nothing meaningful for the public or Agriprocessors’ workers - that leaves only themselves. Even the militant animal rights activist group PETA has more credibility than Uri L’Tzedek concerning Agriprocessors. They have been active in a hands-on investigation of the Agriprocessors’ plant since 2004, albeit they were more concerned about the animals than the workers.

Uri’ L’Tzedek does believe they are accomplishing something, as Hart states, "partnership" with Agriprocessors “to improve conditions at the Agriprocessors' Postville plant and restore consumer confidence in the Agriprocessors' brand”.

Agriprocessors representatives did meet one time with Uri L’Tzedek in New York. I believe Agriprocessors acquiescing to that meeting was a grave public relations mistake. Agriprocessors believes the same, as Agriprocessors consultant Menachem Lubinsky suggested, "if [Agriprocessors] representatives had anticipated that Uri L’Tzedek would report to the media about the meeting, they would not have agreed to meet." Agriprocessors should have followed the Avi Weiss public relations handbook: the best response to critics is no response. Throughout the entire criticism of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah from the Yated newspaper and other sources, Rabbi Avi Weiss nor has YCT ever officially responded to criticism. The Weiss tactic has proven to be very successful. The proof is that YCT has been successfully moving full-stream ahead with no indication of slowing down, as one might infer from the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah web site and newsletter.

If Agriprocessors has issues then they should proactively fix them while working with government officials. From a corporate standpoint, they should be in the driver’s seat as to how to handle their public relations. If they work with Uri L’Tzedek, then why not PETA, or any other militant activist group that has a grievance with them? They will spiral into the domain of activist gehinnom. However, because of the broad bad publicity (which may or may not go away and is at least a perceived chillul Hashem) Agriprocessors should consider establishing a web site to address concerns that have been raised by legitimate media sources.

Uri L’Tzedek has spearheaded a boycott against Agriprocessors. There is an emotional do-gooder aspect of boycotting Agriprocessors that I completely understand and might want to agree with...but, ultimately it is illogical and wrong. From a policy standpoint a boycott will have zero affect on Agriprocessors. Any Agriprocessors’ policy changes that occur will be the result of the extreme government scrutiny and intervention which is already underway. It's Agriprocessors right to work within the framework of government regulation, not what Uri L'Tzedek deems is "just". If Uri L'Tzedek genuinely wants to do something that has a chance of being effective, they would pressure the government for information and any necessary resolution, not Agriprocessors. That makes sense, since the government has more clout with Agriprocessors than Uri L'Tzedek has. If Uri L'Tzedek believes that government regulations are unjust, then they should protest the government not Agriprocessors. The only potential affect a boycott against Agriprocessors might have, if successful, would be to hurt kosher consumers while Uri L’Tzedek further reaps the benefits of Agriprocessors publicity.

Ari Hart states, “I don't understand how some kosher consumers not buying a product will hurt other kosher consumers.” His comment is very surprising. One typical goal of a consumer boycott is to affect change by hurting a company’s bottom-line. Why else should a for-profit company care about bad publicity? If a boycott is punitively effective, then a boycotted company will lose profits - resulting in the likelihood of higher prices and the removal of products from the marketplace. Yanklowitz must think that a boycott against Agriprocessors is punitively effective, as he states “A lot of Hillels and restaurants around the country are changing their meat [from the Agriprocessors brands]."

Consumers who still want or need a successfully boycotted company's products are collateral damage. (Or, maybe boycotters think that non-boycotters are bad apples for not joining the boycott.) In the case of Agriprocessors, the most victimized consumers of Uri L’Tzedek will be adherents to kashrus living in small Jewish communities where the main supply of reasonably-priced kosher meat is from Agriprocessors. Rabbi Lerner states, "I’ve been eating their meat in places where no other company gets to, and for that the Jewish community owes them a debt of gratitude and at least the benefit of the doubt."

There is already concern that due to the Agriprocessors affair there will be a shortage of kosher meat in certain regions of the US. See: Weeks after raid of Agriprocessors, kosher meat in short supply, Agriprocessors fallout still affecting local kosher shops, Kosher meat shortage? It depends, and Nashville Jews face shortage of kosher meat. When Agriprocessors is not doing well, it truly is the individual kosher consumer that suffers. If Agriprocessors were to close today, the free market would eventually fill the vacuum...but when?

One might say that it's the right of consumers to decide whether or not to purchase a product based on market information, such as a boycott. However, it appears to me that Uri L'Tzedek is focused on pressuring large (e.g. commercial) consumers of kosher meat to use sources other than Agriprocessors. From an organization perspective, why be labeled as "socially unjust" or worse if they are able to purchase non-Agriprocessor meat instead? Fortunately, I do not believe that a boycott by Uri L’Tzedek is going to compound Agriprocessors problems for the short or long-term. I believe that the main customers of Agriprocessors will continue to purchase Agriprocessors' products regardless of Uri L’Tzedek. My point is that Uri L’Tzedek appears to be only concerned about their agenda and not about the potential ramifications of their actions. Or, maybe Uri L’Tzedek really believes their boycott is punitively ineffective but that it still is an effective vehicle for publicity, which it certainly has been.

I asked Hart the following questions, "Has anyone from Uri L'Tzedek actually visited Postville or the Agriprocessors plant or interviewed any actual workers who are claiming harm? If not what are you basing your social justice information concerning Agriprocessors?" Hart's response was, "We are not an investigative team, nor do we claim to be. We rely on the following sources for our information." Hart then listed five web news stories. Afterwards, I noticed that a news article (not provided by Hart) stated, "the group [Uri L'Tzedek] has taken some action regarding the issue of domestic workers. Its members recently interviewed workers at Rubashkin’s Kosher Meat Plant in Postville, Iowa." Aaron Finkelstein, co-founder of Uri L'Tzedek appears to be the main source for that article. I then sent Hart follow-up questions, including, "Did a delegation of Uri L'Tzedek members ever visit Postville and/or conduct interviews or not?" I have yet to hear back from Hart.

Hart's original response and lack of follow-up leads me to believe that after at least eight months of activism against Agriprocessors, it appears that no one from Uri L’Tzedek's leadership (Yanklowitz, Hart, etc.) has actually travelled to Agriprocessors in Postville to protest or meet with anyone claiming to be wronged. Has anyone from Uri L’Tzedek's leadership even communicated with a single alleged Agriprocessors "victim"? Postville, the location of the Agriprocessors plant, is not in Tibet, where one might be better suited to investigate or protest by proxy. Postville, Iowa is a cheap, quick plane ride away from Uri L’Tzedek headquarters in New York. It would seem that a main criterion of activist credibility is to be on-site and hands-on, as Rabbi Avi Weiss has done concerning the desecration of European Holocaust sites.

Uri L'Tzedek's main Agriprocessors activism has been via an on-line petition. The web can be a powerful tool for activism, however it appears that Uri L’Tzedek has dehumanized the most humane part of activism – actually dealing with live victims - and Uri L'Tzedek certainly believes there are victims. While I believe (and I could be wrong) that Uri L'Tzedek's protesting and boycotting is and will be ineffective, Uri L'Tzedek might still be effective by directly assisting those they believe to be wronged.

I found one web site from almost two months ago that states the following, "Ari Hart, one of the leaders of Uri L’Tzedek, has been in contact with people on the ground, and he found this church, St. Bridget’s Catholic Church, which is working very hard with the families in town. However, the church’s resources are stretched thin, and they need donations." How did Ari get in touch with this group? What has Uri L'Tzedek accomplished with the “people on the ground”? I would be interested in knowing, if Hart would respond to me.

At the Uri L’Tzedek web site there is no “heart-warming” information on any of Uri L’Tzedek's work with Agriprocessors employees, families of Postville, or contact with anyone providing local Postville support. Uri L’Tzedek's Information on the Agriprocessors effort is completely fixated on a petition, boycott, Establishments in your area that use non-Agriprocessors meat and How restaurants can join the effort. It is ironic that Uri L’Tzedek's punitive efforts may ultimately be responsible for “the families in town” losing their Agriprocessors jobs and further the suffering of local small business owners, if those efforts are successful. Adolfo Lopez's hand was amputated due to a horrific on-the-job accident at Agriprocessors and afterwards still continued to work at the plant because he needed the job. Apparently Uri L’Tzedek knows better than Agriprocessors workers (whether illegal aliens or not), that no job is better than working at Agriprocessors.

For an organization purporting to be rooted in Orthodoxy, Uri L’Tzedek appears to be acting less than such. Yanklowitz’s states:

We don’t need to wait for a verdict. There are hundreds of interviews that have already happened exposing atrocities and past charges over many years that have not yet been addressed. Also, we are not a court of law. We are concerned consumers. We have lost faith. Faith of a consumer can not wait for verdicts. It must respond to the hundreds of pieces of evidence.
-Agriprocessors: Presumed Innocence

Yanklowitz attempts to justify his perspective within a religious context:

The mitzvah to issue tochecha (rebuke) to a sinner that will respond is very clear in the Talmud (Yevamot 65b, Shabbat 55a). How is it justified to lead so passively and wait for secular legal certainty on all accounts when the dignity of hundreds of human beings is at stake? Do not our Torah’s halakhic requirements demand more in cases of chashash for an issur d’oreita of oshek (serious concern of the Torah law against worker oppression)?
- And Yanklowitz…

A simple response to Yanklowitz is that the government is a valid source for determining whether abuses have occurred or not, and they’re already intervening. If Uri L’Tzedek was genuinely interested in justice, they would follow the lead of the Orthodox Union (OU) who has taken a wait-and-see approach. One might criticize the OU as being too cautious and deem their approach as biased since Agriprocessors is their customer. I have another terminology for their approach: “Socially Just”. The allegations against Agriprocessors are disturbing and extensive and I believe that it is a reasonable knee-jerk response to want to punish them. On the flipside, Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America makes a level-headed observation, "The ethical offense [by those boycotting Agriprocessors] I see here is a different one. It violates something not only rooted in Judaism but part and parcel of American jurisprudence and respectable journalism as well. It is called the presumption of innocence." Avi Shafran has a back/forth exchange with Yanklowitz about the ethics of rebuke concerning Agriprocessors. Yanklowitz's statements above were part of that dialogue. See the end of this article for links to their complete exchange.

It is shocking that Yanklowitz labels Agriprocessors alleged conduct as "atrocities". Even if the worst allegations against Agriprocessors are true, they're not "atrocities". The word "atrocity" has an obvious association with the Holocaust, and to label any Agriprocessors conduct as such is insulting to the Jewish people. His statement, "We don’t need to wait for a verdict...Faith of a consumer can not wait for verdicts." is something you might expect to hear from the leader of a lynch mob.

Another criticism of the Uri L’Tzedek approach is the attempt to combine non-related ethical elements of meat production with Jewish slaughter rituals. Ari Hart states, “We are not trying to impose any type of mandatory anything - hasgacha, etc.” But, I have hard time believing that mandatory "ethical certification" of kosher food products is not a goal of Uri L’Tzedek. Hart makes a direct correlation between Glatt Kosher, a genuine halachic (Jewish legal) standard for kosher meat, and Glatt Yoshor, an ethical standard for kosher meat that is not a halachic qualifier for whether meat is defined as kosher or not. Hart states, "We [Uri L'Tzedek] believe that there is a large segment of the kosher buying population that is, as Rav Breuer zt'l famously put it [see "Glatt Kosher — Glatt Yoshor], regarding food, concerned about the yashrus of ethical practices in addition to the kashrut of the meat." Hart's equation between kashrus and yashrus certainly gives the impression that “ethical hashgacha” is on their radar.

If Agriprocessors or any other kosher butcher or kosher meat processor wants to see a real boycott, regardless of consumer consequence, that will put them out business, the only thing they need to do is adopt an “ethical hashgacha” as a condition of kashrus.

The two main Yated articles criticizing Yeshivat Chovevei Torah:
- Yeshivat Chovevei Torah: Is It Orthodox?
- Yeshivat Chovevei Torah’s Continuous Assault on Judaism

Also see:
- Rhyme and Reason By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

I highly recommend the following back and forth exchange with Avi Shafran and Shmuly Yanklowitz:
- A missing ethic - Avi Shafran - 6/22/08
- Agriprocessors: Presumed Innocence - Shmuly Yanklowitz - 6/23/08
- Rabbi Shafran Responds - Avi Shafran - 6/25/08
- And Yanklowitz… - Shmuly Yanklowitz - 6/26/08

This is a politically incorrect, but humorous perspective on Uri L'Tzedek...
- Uri L’Tzedek Cashes in for $60,000 for Blackmailing Kosher Meat
- Blackmailing Uri L’Tzedek Wankers Call Off Fake Boycott of Agriprocessors
- Shut the Hell Up: My Petition to Ari Hart and Uri L’tzedek
- Uri L’Tzedek Wankers Threaten to Begin Eating Kosher Meat for Kosher Boycott

This is interesting: The True Story Of Postville

Here is the list of email questions that I sent to Ari Hart:

1) The US government was investigating Agriprocessors (Agriprocessors) long before Uri L’Tzedek got involved. Why get involved with the Rubaskin's affair?

2) From all the materials I have read about Uri L’Tzedek you have been exclusively focused on Agriprocessors concerning meat processing plants. Why focus exclusively on them? It is clear that they are a small fish in a much larger industry of meat processing with alleged worker violations. Unlike many of those companies, Agriprocessors is now under heavy government scrutiny. Wouldn’t your time better be focused on investigating companies (whether kosher or not) that aren’t currently under government scrutiny but there are rumors/reports of violation? Uri L’Tzedek promotes itself as a general social justice organization, so it would seem reasonable that you would focus on issues where you would have the most impact.

3) Has anyone from Uri L'Tzedek, actually visited Postville or the Agriprocessors plant or interviewed any actual workers who are claiming harm? If not what are you basing your social justice information concerning Agriprocessors? Do you have any information beyond hearsay?

4) Why aren’t you taking an approach like the OU? It seems not only very reasonable but a fairly religious dan l'kaf zchus [benefit of the doubt] approach?
- Business as usual after Rubashkin raid
- Agriprocessors fallout still affecting local kosher shops

5) Uri L’Tzedek has called for a boycott against Agriprocessors. If a boycott is successful than it would seem that the person really getting hurt is the kosher consumer, especially kosher consumers in small Jewish towns. A boycott might be reasonable if the ends justify the means. However, what change of Agriprocessors policies do you think will be accomplished with a boycott that won’t be accomplished through the legal processes in motion? Is there any benefit to a boycott beyond what the government is already going to accomplish concerning Agriprocessors policies?

6) In summary, what has Uri L'Tzedek accomplished concerning the Agriprocessors affair?

Instead of responding to me point-for-point, Hart responded with this:

Mark

I've tried my best, and I believe the statements and information I've included below will answer all your questions.

1) We believe that there is a large segment of the kosher buying population that is, as Rav Breuer zt'l famously put it, regarding food, concerned about the yashrus of ethical practices in addition to the kashrut of the meat. Please read the following essay by Rav Breuer for an introduction into our way of thinking:

Glatt Kosher — Glatt Yoshor
The conscientious and minute observance of the laws of Kashruth belong to the sacred obligations to which we are to live up if our Jewish houses are to rise in purity before God and His Torah. Supplying our families with totally reliable foods is one of the major tasks a Kehilla has to fulfill.We may note with satisfaction that the supervision of our meat products from the time of Shechita until they reach the customer meets all the requirements of total Kashruth. This enables our Rabbinate to assume full personal responsibility for the reliability of our Kashruth.The concept "Glatt Kosher" refers to certain situations when an animal is rejected because of an existing "Sha'aloh" generally involving the lung — even if the halachic decision would be favorable. Just as all ethical strivings should extend beyond the prescribed boundaries — "lif'nim mi'shuras haDin" — so the practice should be adopted to declare only such meat as kosher that has not been involved in any kind of "Sha'aloh" (comp. Chulin 37b). Such practice would indeed deserve the title of "Glatt Kosher."

A further comment: "Kosher" is intimately related to "Yoshor." God's Torah not only demands the observance of Kashruth and the sanctification of our physical enjoyment; it also insists on the sanctification of our social relationships. This requires the strict application of the tenets of justice and righteousness which avoid even the slightest trace of dishonesty in our business dealings and personal life.

God's Torah not only demands of us to love our neighbor in that we concern ourselves with his welfare and property, but it insists further on a conduct of uncompromising straightness ("Yoshor") which is inspired not only by the letter of the law but is guided by the ethical principle of honesty which, then, would deserve the honorable title of "Yeshurun."

"He fears God who walks in uprightness" (Mishle 14:2).
We would welcome a campaign to link a drive for "Glatt Kosher" with an equally intensive one for "Glatt Yoshor." This objective is given hopeful expression by the Prophet Zephaniah (3:13):
"The remnants of Israel will not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither will a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth."

We are not an investigative team, nor do we claim to be. We rely on the following sources for our information. Please read.

- Postville, IA - Supervisor Under Investigation For Selling Used Cars And Favors At Rubashkin Plant Fled To Israel
- Postville, IA - Workers: Problems Persist at Agriprocessors
- Milwaukee - Orthodox Rabbi Raises Halachic Question, Rubashkin Meat Kosher To Eat, But Not Kosher To Buy
- Iowa meat plant taken to task for abusive practices
- 'There's something bad in this town'

Regarding your questions of what we hope to accomplish:
Uri L'Tzedek and Agriprocessors are currently taking concrete steps to improve conditions at the Agriprocessors' Postville plant and restore consumer confidence in the Agriprocessors' brand. At a June 11 meeting between company representatives and Uri L'Tzedek (who were representing 1300 petition signers), Agriprocessors executives agreed to produce a document that explained Agriprocessors' worker protection policies and to detail the role of Jim Martin, the former U.S. Attorney hired by the company as a compliance officer.

"We've been in touch with Mr. Martin and are impressed with changes he is going to put in place, such as a tip line for employees to report potential compliance violations anonymously," said an Uri L'Tzedek spokesperson. "This is a positive step. In the interests of fully restoring consumer confidence, we have asked that the company be transparent about Mr. Martin's findings, recommendations, and new policies instituted. We are also looking forward to receiving the document that Agriprocessors has promised to provide that will detail Agriprocessors' policy towards the rights of its workers. Provided that Agriprocessors supplies the information that it has promised to provide and is willing to make Mr. Martin's reports and conclusions available to the public, we are hopeful that we can resolve these issues positively for the workers at Agriprocessors, the Rubashkin family, kosher consumers, and klal yisrael."

My reply to Ari Hart:

Hi Ari,

I've already seen all of the news information that you offered below. I believe that you did not answer many of my questions. I would appreciate if you read my responses carefully and respond to them directly.

- You stated "We are not an investigative team, nor do we claim to be. We rely on the following [internet news] sources for our information." Do you think it's credible to base social justice policy based on the sources you provided? Most of those sources describe the Agriprocessors situation in terms of allegations, not facts. Would those sources presented as-is be credible in a bais din or even a court of law? PETA at least has some credibility since they have sent investigators to Postville firsthand (albeit their focus was animals). Is it credible to be an "arm-chair" activist?

You admit that your organizations actions are based completely on the testimony of others, and your organization has done no first-hand investigation. The sources you presented are based on allegations [which MAY very well be true], not established facts. Yet, you have already criticized Agriprocessors, based on allegations and you have already taken punitive action against Agriprocessors by leading a boycott.

Please explain if you feel that dan l'kaf zchus is not applicable here and why you are not taking an approach like the OU's wait-and-see approach. How is it fair from a halachic or ethical perspective to even consider commencing a boycott when the facts are still allegations?

Shmuly Yanklowitz stated: "We don’t need to wait for a verdict. There are hundreds of interviews that have already happened exposing atrocities and past charges over many years that have not yet been addressed. Also, we are not a court of law. We are concerned consumers. We have lost faith. Faith of a consumer can not wait for verdicts. It must respond to the hundreds of pieces of evidence."

Aside from appearing to be a non-halachic attitude, by labeling Agriprocessors actions as factual "atrocities" rather than alleged, Yanklowitz comments seems to be ethically defamatory. Isn't Yanklowitz being presumptuous?

You stated, "Agriprocessors executives agreed to produce a document that explained Agriprocessors' worker protection policies and to detail the role of Jim Martin, the former U.S. Attorney hired by the company as a compliance officer."

In your email to me you make it seem that your relationship with Agriprocessors is amicable and they are capitulating, however this news article linked at your web site shows otherwise: In Heated Meeting, Orthodox Activists Spar With Kosher Meat Company

So far, Agriprocessors has given you nothing tangible. Since you did not receive the document, you decided to commence a boycott (Agriprocessors boycott commences) - a boycott, for issues that will be resolved anyway since the Government IS at the plant first-hand and commencing a broad investigation. It is probably the most governmentally scrutinized meat processor in history. Please explain how you are going to accomplish more than the government? Besides potentially hurting kosher consumers with a boycott, again, what are you really accomplishing?

- You state that you believe that "there is a large segment of the kosher buying population that is...concerned about the yashrus of ethical practices in addition to the kashrut of the meat." Do you have empirical evidence (e.g. such as scientific survey) to back your statement up? What percentage (and actual numbers) of genuine adherents to kashrus consider "yashrus" as a requirement of their kosher meat? Actual numbers are a fair questions, since it appears that you are attempting to impose a mandatory "ethical hashgacha", which certainly right-wing Orthodoxy would never accept.

- I will review your Glatt Yoshor philosophy in more detail.
Thank you for your time.

Best Regards,
Mark

Ari provided a final response to me:

Mark,

A few points, this may or may not answer all your questions, but with the time that I have this is all I can give to you relating to this matter. Thank you for your understanding.

1 - I don't understand how some kosher consumers not buying a product will hurt other kosher consumers.

2 - We are not creating any kind of policy. We have made a simple request as consumers - we would like to see that Agri is committed to maintaining the minimum threshold of worker safety, pay, and rights as defined by US law. We made that request three weeks before any action went into effect. Agri had a choice whether or not to capitulate to that request. We met with Agri reps the week before the action was supposed to go into effect. We left that meeting under the impression that we were going to work together, based on mutual agreements made at that meeting. We are still waiting for Agri to fulfill their end as they promised.

3 - I don't know what an "arm-chair" activist is.

4 - I don't know what a "non-halachik attitude" is. If you are accusing us of violating halacha I could respond, but I don't know what a non-halachik attitude is.

5 - Regarding our relationship, we had hoped that they would be in the spirit of partnership, but if it appears to you that they are not, so be it.

6 - What are we accomplishing? 2000 kosher consumers have signed on the letter. We believe that there are very few, if any, voices in the orthodox community speaking out on behalf of these consumers and their concerns. We believe that there are very few, if any, orthodox leaders expressing concern workers and the immigrants who are suffering. We are speaking out on behalf of the over a dozen children between the ages of 13-17 who were arrested for working at the plant on May 11 (fact). I know you may not think like I/we do, but there is an orthodox constituency who is concerned about these issues.

We have received hundreds of letters, phone calls, and emails from orthodox jews who are deeply concerned about these issues and thankful that an orthodox voice is speaking up. I know you will probably say we are not orthodox, or something to that effect, in your article. So be it. We believe this is important and the support we have received from strangers across the country, reaching out to us and telling us to keep going gives us chizuk.

We are not trying to impose any type of mandatory anything - hasgacha, etc.

Mark, this is really all I can give you. Hatzlacha with your piece. I know we all feel passionately about this stuff, but the more civil the debate the better it will be for klal yisrael.

Best,
Ari

Open Orthodox innovation: "synagogue without walls"

2007-04-01T00:00:00.003-07:00

update 7/21/08: a short time after this blog post Kidma was removed from the Jewish News of Phoenix "Valley Congregations" page.

Here's some final chometz until after Pesach...

Even though it's April Fools' Day, this is no joke: Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg is now the rabbi of a "synagogue without walls".

Kleinberg's "synagogue" will "host occasional Shabbat services, most likely in private homes". Since this is a "synagogue without walls", does that include the mechitza?

Rabbi Kleinberg states "We don't see this as being a step back...". I agree. I think infrequent 'wall-less worshipping' is a radical step toward streamlining this whole religion thing. Next Open Orthodox innovation: synagogue without congregation and rabbi.

I just sent this letter to the Jewish News of Phoenix:

Editor:

I read about Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's new "synagogue without walls" ("KiDMa changes focus", March 30) with great excitement. His innovative spirit has inspired me to establish the MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder) synagogue. In addition to my current personality I am developing nine others, creating a "synagogue without sanity". Minyanim will be available 24x7.

If the Jewish News continues to list alternative synagogues, such as the "synagogue without walls" on it's "Valley Congregations" page, I hope they will list mine as well.

(How's that for responding to the absurd with the absurd.)

What's at stake

2007-03-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

I read a comment on a blog that I think sums up what's at stake for YCT:

[The Yated article criticizing YCT] is a pretty big deal, or at least has the potential to be. Legitimacy is socially defined, and a concerted campaign by the Chareidim and countenanced (for their own political/economic/turf reasons) by YU and other MOs will land YCTers and their ilk outside the pale, and pronto. No more davening at their shuls, eating at their homes, edus issues, the whole kit and caboodle. - a comment from Taking each other down a peg

One thing I don't agree with is the commenter's rationale for the alleged YU/MO "campaign" criticizing YCT. I believe most criticism of YCT is well-intentioned and theological in nature.

Is the aforementioned quote merely conjectured hyperbole, or will answers to the following questions illustrate something else?:
What is the RCA policy concerning YCT musmachim? Do all local Orthodox Rabbinical Councils accept YCT musmachim? Do Orthodox synagogue organizations, such as Young Israel have any particular policy concerning YCT musmachim? What is the general relationship of "Open Orthodoxy" to the diverse expressions of Orthodoxy? Is it "open" and friendly, or something else? I have heard others ask these questions, and I wish to know the answers as well.

From an Orthodox communal perspective, this situation may get worse for YCT and its musmachim unless YCT publicly addresses the public credible criticism levied upon it.

A time for answers and action!

2007-03-23T15:24:00.000-07:00

This was just published on Hirhurim: "Rabbi Zev Farber, Yeshiva Chovevei Torah and the Orthodox Community" by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde.

Rabbi Broyde's letter rebukes Yehivat Chovevei Torah in a polite, articulate, and highly credible manner. Rabbi Broyde states "Yeshiva Chovevei Torah is in its infancy and has, in my view, made a number of mistakes, which if not corrected will ultimately undermine its credibility within the Orthodox community." He presents serious issues that YCT must publicly redress.

Rabbi Broyde states "The creation of additional yeshivot which serve the Modern Orthodox community is good, both because competition creates intellectual vibrancy and because variety is important for serving many different students' needs." Who doesn't agree? Who doesn't want another Orthodox yeshiva ordaining dedicated, passionate rabbeim serving spiritually hungry Jewish communities? However, for a Yeshiva to be credible in accomplishing that mission, it must act in a non-ambiguous, proactive manner when serious issues are brought to its attention, as fully articulated by Rabbi Broyde.

I'm not saying that YCT specifically is able or not able to be a credible, positive force within the Orthodox community at large. The greater Orthodox community will ultimately decide that. One thing I will say, is that Yeshivat Chovevei Torah's message of "transforming Orthodoxy" is disturbing. Concerning the "creation of additional yeshivot which serve the Modern Orthodox community", while I don't agree with certain aspects of the Modern Orthodox message, it is clear that MO is widely-recognized as one of the credible mainstream expressions of Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Broyde says that "it is important to me that YCT speak publicly and directly about five matters". I couldn't agree more. Four of Rabbi Broyde's issues "B,C,D,E" were publicized on this blog.

Because Rabbi Broyde is a highly respected Modern Orthodox authority, I believe his letter represents a critical turning point for YCT. YCT will either "eradicate the wrong within [its] midst" or irrevokably "undermine its credibility within the Orthodox community".

I think it is important for YCT to also present its viewpoints on the following:
- Haskalah 2.0
- Open Orthodox rabbis further radicalize left-wing Orthodoxy
- Mechitza magic: now you see it, now you don't
- Now playing in synagogue theaters: Shonda, Shonda, Shonda
- Is your rebbe the "Golden Calf"? (this "apology" does not negate the original premise)
- Stand up (what is YCT policy on agunah issues? A YCT musmach (the rabbi of "Kidma") has aligned with a radical approach that completely ignores the strides made with the RCA mandated prenup)
- Pesach: Celebrate or Cancel
- Weeping for Psalms
- Interdenominational Pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style
- Interfaith pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style (specifically, interfaith prayer)
- Woman rabbi receives ordination from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah...
- Yated exposes YCT as a "Threat to Halachic Judaism" (YCT should address the allegations in the Yated article. Also discussed in this post, YCT should elaborate on its views of the Rambam's "13 Principle of Faith".)

The first part of Rabbi Broyde's letter addresses criticism of Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right? by Rabbi Zev Farber. I never thought Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah represented "halachic heresy", as I inferred in Rabbi Zev Farber responds to Yated. I accept Rabbi Broyde's remarks concerning the dvar Torah and Rabbi Farber except those items which overlap with my brief criticism - which I believe still stands. (Who cares about my opinion anyway?) Regardless, I believe there has been ample productive discussion for this matter to be considered as concluded.

Hashem works in mysterious ways. If it wasn't for Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah, there might not finally be credible MO criticism of YCT.

Here is Rabbi Broyde's letter in it's entirety:

Rabbi Zev Farber, Yeshiva Chovevei Torah
and the Orthodox Community
A Brief Statement

Michael J. Broyde

A number of people have asked me about the Yated Neeman article criticizing Yeshiva Chovevei Torah generally and Rabbi Zev Farber, the director of the Atlanta Torah Mitzion Kollel. The criticism of Rabbi Farber focused on a dvar torah he wrote which can be found at http://www.yctorah.org/content/view/176/56/. (For the sake of full disclosure, I note that I am among the founders of the Atlanta Torah Mitzion Kollel, and that it learns every day in the Young Israel of Toco Hills, where I am the rabbi.)

I write this brief note to share my views.

It is clear to me that Rabbi Farber's dvar torah is far from heretical and certainly does not make him a kofer. Even if one disagrees with the way he formulated the ideas he presented (and I do in a detail, as I explain below), it is a sad reflection on our Orthodox society that these disagreements are manifest in allegations of heresy. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Jewish tradition ought to know that the ideas Rabbi Farber presented were not heretical at all. Indeed, each of them has echo in the remarks of commentators from previous generations. There is no heresy in his writing.

Having said that, I think that Rabbi Farber did not present his dvar torah in the proper form or format and the absence of sources within Chazal documenting his insights was an error of style. In general, claims of moral imperfection of the Avot are complex to advance and ought to be diligently supported by references to rabbinic literature and done in the course of lengthy essays on topics with long explanations of reasons and rationales This type of mistake in style and expression on his part comes from lack of experience and nothing more. Anyone who has read his defense of his comments sees that his comments are well vested in the approach of tanaim, amoraim, rishonim and achronim, in fact -- even if he did not tell us this in his initial dvar torah. I hope he has learned the lesson of providing supporting sources for the less than obvious to readers who are sometimes ignorant of the breadth and depth of Chazal's insights. Let me add something else. Anyone who knows Rabbi Farber, knows very well that he is a learned, God-fearing, young, Torah-scholar who, although he wrote this dvar torah in the wrong tone, has a wonderful future ahead of him and could go on to greatness and accomplishment.

The creation of additional yeshivot which serve the Modern Orthodox community is good, both because competition creates intellectual vibrancy and because variety is important for serving many different students' needs. Thus, I view the creation of Yeshiva Chovevei Torah in a positive light, even as my own primary loyalty resides with Yeshiva University, where I was privileged to learn for fourteen years. Indeed, I have spoken at Chovevei Torah a number of times, and I arranged for a YCT musmach to direct the Atlanta Torah Mitzion Kollel (see above).

Yeshiva Chovevei Torah is in its infancy and has, in my view, made a number of mistakes, which if not corrected will ultimately undermine its credibility within the Orthodox community. To me, the biggest mistake Chovevei Torah is making is the policy of never announcing that it made a mistake and letting accusations fester against it without either a rebuttal or an acknowledgement of error. Orthodox institutions (like all others) err and they sometimes engage in conduct that with hindsight was far from ideal or even just plain wrong and assur. When that happens, it is important that they note such conduct publicly, so that all can understand that what happened was not proper. Silence confuses people as to whether what occurred was ideal or less than ideal or simply wrong. YCT's policy of silence in the face accusations of impropriety by its musmachim, staff, Chairman of the Board, and others in its institution or its publicity is simply unwise and misleading about what YCT is. Because YCT is a leftward leaning yeshiva, YCT bears a special responsibility to make sure that those who speak for YCT are representing YCT accurately and when a misrepresentation of YCT occurs, it needs to actively correct it. (Let me be equally clear that YCT should not be judged because of the actions of others and YCT is not in the rebuking business -- nor is any yeshiva. However, when someone affiliated with YCT speaks in the name of YCT, it is reasonable to assume that unless YCT speaks to the contrary, that is YCT’s view.)

In particular, it is important to me that YCT speak publicly and directly about five matters, so that the Modern Orthodox community can hear the authentic voice of YCT on these matters. I do not mean to imply at all that YCT’s conduct in each of these cases has been incorrect (indeed, in some of them, I am comfortable with YCT's conduct and in others, not) -- what I mean to note is that YCT is not sharing with the community its full views on these issues, and a reasonable person who simply reads what YCT itself has done or published can not determine were YCT stands on many of these issues. (For those who are unfamiliar with the details of these particular five events, see the note here.)
1. First, it is important that YCT address the comments of its Chairman of the Board from three years ago about Yeshiva University and a number of its erudite scholars. Do those statements represent YCT or not? These comments, said publicly from the dais in the course of the YCT annual dinner, sound like the official pronouncements of YCT. Are they?
2. Secondly, it is important that YCT address the question of the publicity YCT has itself put out with regard to one of its musmachim's work with the gay and lesbian community and its hagadah. YCT needs to tell us whether the publicity it shared with the community represents the YCT ideal as a reasonable person could conclude from the way YCT publicized this work?
3. Third, it must address the questions related to its vision of am hanivchar and the perfection of our Creator, so as to inform our community whether the comments of a particular YCT musmach is representative of YCT, as he has indicated he is.
4. Fourth, YCT must address question of interfaith cooperation and interfaith interactions -- was the Cardinals’ visit to YCT a manifestation of the ideal or something less.
5. Finally, it must present a consistent vision to the community of its vision of inter-denominational interactions within Judaism. Are the non-Orthodox clergy on the faculty of YCT part of the YCT approach?
I recognize that one of the hardest mitzvot in the Torah is to eradicate the wrong within one's own midst, and that it is very hard for anyone or any institution to speak about mistakes. Writing this note pains me, to be honest. But without such guidance by YCT as to its own philosophy, it is reasonable to assume that YCT's own conduct speaks for itself. I, for example, will not support any Yeshiva that publicly attacks my own teachers at Yeshiva University or is supportive of creating a gay and lesbian hagadah or denies the notion of am hanivchar. Others might have other criteria -- and YCT ought to share its own vision so as to clarify the reality.

A little bit of light drives away a lot of darkness is an old rabbinic adage, and YCT has the chance to clarify its views in a public and open way. That light will drive away much darkness and ought to be done.

Sources listed from the article:
(A) Philanthropist Attacks University for Right Turn
(B) summer 2005 newsletter (page 7)
(C) Reaching for perfection
(D) Cardinals Study with Orthodox Students
(E) list of the YCT faculty

Pesach: Celebrate or Cancel

2007-03-23T06:13:00.000-07:00

Celebrate Pesach
Yesterday, YCT rabbinical student Ben Greenberg stated:

The narrative of the redemption from Egypt is, in my opinion, one of the most powerful accounts of human liberation.The call from Rabban Gamliel in the Mishnah in Pesachim to "view oneself as if they had personally been redeemed from Egypt," and all the theology that is attached to that becomes irrelevant if the actual account of the redemption from Egypt is not viewed as truth.

While Ben Greenberg has posted views on various blogs that I disagree with, his sentiments on the Exodus appears to be one that we fundamentally share.

Cancel Pesach
One year ago today, YCT musmach Rabbi Josh Feiglson stated (which I am very surprised has not been removed from his blog):

The point of the Exodus is less whether or not it happened than the fact that the Jewish people has made the story of its enslavement and liberation the central story of its existence.

Feigelson further states in the comment section:

Do I believe the Exodus happened? Absolutely. Does it matter to me if someone digs up archaeological evidence to the contrary? No, because even if the story did not happen just as it is related in the Torah, we have observed the mitzvah to tell the story and make it our own for generation upon generation. And that story tells a much larger truth about what it means to be human than the small question of whether or not the Exodus "really" happened.

To requote Greenberg, celebrating Pesach "becomes irrelevant if the actual account of the redemption from Egypt is not viewed as truth." Specific parts of the Torah may be viewed as allegorical. The Exodus is not one of them. Notwithstanding the purported archaeological/historical context of "How to read the Bible", the presented standalone statements allow for the rejection of the Exodus as a masoretic fact originating from the first-hand experience of an entire nation.

updated: 3/26/07

Links:
- Emunah/Faith
- How to read the Bible
- Weeping for Psalms

Go, go "Modern Conservative"!

2007-03-23T06:12:00.000-07:00

In this weeks Jewish News of Phoenix, I read this interesting Letter to the Editor:

Editor:
I have been closely following the emergence of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) and its leadership for some time. Your city and your newspaper are fortunate to have the enjoyable writing and avant garde thinking of Rabbi Darren Kleinberg.

The emergence of Chovevei Torah reminds me of the aspirations of the Conservative movement of yore. As a former seminarian myself, I hear in the voice of Rabbi Kleinberg and his brave YCT colleagues the voices of "reform" from an antiquated Orthodoxy and "conservation" of an essential, but modified, halachic framework that motivated the common path of my generation away from traditional observance. I applaud them for reigniting the theological flame of the early Conservative movement and wish Rabbi Kleinberg continued success in spreading a "modern" Torah in your city.

I only wish he and his leaders would call this brave venture the more apt "Modern Conservative" that I, at my age, believe it to be.

Alan Siegel
Netanya, Israel

Less than golden apology

2007-03-22T19:46:00.000-07:00

In this week's Jewish news of Phoenix, Rabbi Darren Kleinberg apologizes for something he wrote in an op-ed titled "To not know":

Editor:
In my most recent Torah Study article ("To not know," Jewish News, March 9), I chose unfortunate wording. The sentence including the words "that rabbi has become the golden calf" may have given the impression that I was suggesting that the revered Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan (the "Chafetz Chaim") was synonymous with the golden calf.

I should have written "the rabbi has become the golden calf." My intention was that viewing rabbis as authorities in all areas of a person's life (commonly understood as the sociological phenomenon know as "da'as Torah") is an error of judgment.

I ask forgiveness from those who may have taken offense at my unintended slight of one of the great rabbis, teachers and role models in Jewish life.

Darren Kleinberg
Rabbi, KiDMa - The Southwest Community
Phoenix

To be clear, my and other people's issues with the "Golden Calf" dvar Torah was not with the replacement of the definite article "the" (referring to any rabbi), with the pronoun "that" (implying the Chofetz Chaim specifically). see My rebbe is not the "Golden Calf"!

I was offended that Rabbi Kleinberg disrespected the Chofetz Chaim and every great rabbi that ever represented daas Torah, as was done in "To not know". I forgive him because he requests it, but that is really unnecessary because I nor the general public are the ones he owes an apology to. Although the great Chofetz Chaim is no longer with us, Kleinberg should have fallen down on his hands and knees and cried in front of the Aron Kodesh begging for posthumous mechila from the Chofetz Chaim and every great rabbi past who can no longer receive corporeal forgiveness. That is what he should have written about, and maybe every reader would have cried with him. Or, maybe a simple apology directed towards the Chofetz Chaim would have sufficed.

A rabbi friend told me that if he had disrespected (I assume even in negligent error) someone as great as the Chofetz Chaim, he would fear divine retribution from Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He was dead serious, no joke.

Normative Orthodoxy

2007-03-20T23:08:00.000-07:00

In How Do You Look For Chometz?, R’ Pinchos Lipschutz, the editor of America’s Yated Ne’eman clarifies the intent of the Yated article that criticized Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.

The Yated article provided awareness of those that label themselves as Orthodox but are non-normative or worse. R' Lipschutz states "...it is our compassion for the hapless targets of this [non-normative] approach who are being fed a forged version of Torah and halacha which motivates us. It is our concern for the integrity of Torah learning which drives us to publicly reject their approach", "We must not sit silently in the name of peace when a mockery is made of divrei Chazal", and other statements.

The similarities between Yeshiva (aka Chareidi) Orthodox and Modern Orthodox are defined by the word "Orthodox", or better yet the term "normative Orthodoxy". R' Lipschutz infers that both YO and MO pass as "normative Orthodoxy" while any group that "that does not even attempt to tie itself to any defining authority, but which accepts the practices of anyone calling themselves Orthodox", does not pass. Normative Orthodoxy is the catalyst for YO and MO Jews to religiously interact.

In my opinion, sadly the engagement between YO and MO isn't as cohesive as it should be (see Of Shtieblach and Kiddush Clubs). Just as Yated criticized YCT, which I believe was very appropriate, so too Yated should be constructive and build bridges with legitimate Modern Orthodox leaders. I digress...

R’ Pinchos Lipschutz's article is long, so I only excerpt the latter half which is the heart of the discussion. I bold passages of particular interest to me:

A recent Yated article titled “Is It Orthodox?”, which raised the alarm regarding the threat posed by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, elicited a voluminous response from readers, some of which reminded us of Churchill’s failure to grasp the essence of Jewish survival.

Words of support and encouragement for our position flowed from a wide spectrum of readers. The response from the YCT camp and their supporters, however, made it clear that they appeared to totally misconstrue the basic premise underlying our opposition.

That premise - both the foundation and a powerfully protective guard to Yiddishkeit - can be summed up in a word: mesorah.

Mesorah is meant here not merely as the transmission of texts from one generation of teachers to the next, replaceable by a capacious hard-drive. Rather, mesorah refers to the contextual basis for understanding the words of Chazal. Mesorah refers to the process by which uniquely Jewish mores, values and sensitivities, which define us as a nation, are passed down from one generation to the next.

Only through mesorah can we grasp the unalterable elements of a true and timeless Torah philosophy.

The article presented examples in the teaching and practices which are departures from mesorah. It showed how a student of Torah at that school, sundered from his moorings to traditional Torah thought, is left in his studies to bob on a sea of “Torah-Relativism.” In that nebulous terrain, he is buffeted by the waves of other theologies, swept by the winds of value systems anathema to Torah.

It is our conviction that the rank and file of contemporary Orthodox Jewry - Modern, Chareidi and everything in between - still possess authentic Torah sensibilities which are repulsed by the erasing of historic conceptual boundaries on the part of YCT faculty and students.

Torah values are not acquired through academic study alone, but through immersion in the atmosphere that once permeated every frum home. They are absorbed from studying at the feet of rabbeim who themselves personify fealty to traditional values. And it is this value system which is eroded by the philosophy of YCT as previously illustrated in these pages.

A pair of responses to the Yated article has been circulated on the internet. Sadly, rather than address the concerns that were raised, these “rebuttals” serve only as further illustration of the failure of this new approach to learning Torah. Having burnt their bridges to traditional Torah thought and values, the authors prove themselves incapable of grasping the simple nature of our objections.

As an example: We expressed repugnance at the portrayal of one of the Avos that dragged the patriarch of the Jewish people down to a base level. What to us is an act of desecration is dismissed in their response as a mere stylistic lapse. We are asked to accept a portrayal of impure motives that, were it ascribed to the author’s teachers at YCT, would be slammed as cynical and offensive. Yet, this twisted portrayal is given a pass as “poetic license” when applied to Yaakov Avinu.

We lamented the state of affairs in which a yeshiva allows the publication, under its official imprimatur, of statements that are clearly contrary to the Torah. In response, we are told that due to “a whole panoply of issues,” this travesty must be tolerated.

When a yeshiva shirks its primary responsibility for guiding its students and graduates in the ways of the Torah and still persists in calling itself a yeshiva, it makes a mockery of a term which denotes a sacred link to the historic system of Torah learning and transmission begun at Volozhin. Such an institution perverts the meaning of “yeshiva.” It redefines it to mean a free-wheeling bazaar of ideas and practices culled from various theologies and cultures.

In our critique, we pointed out the deceptive practice of labeling deviations from accepted halacha as Orthodox. We were told in response of this or that Orthodox rabbi or professor who also deviates in the same way. How do these deviations confer legitimacy? Are we really expected to accept an amorphous definition of Orthodoxy that does not even attempt to tie itself to any defining authority, but which accepts the practices of anyone calling themselves Orthodox as determining what passes for normative Orthodoxy?

We are told that we are mean-spirited and “lacking in ahavat Yisrael.” Actually, it is our compassion for the hapless targets of this approach who are being fed a forged version of Torah and halacha which motivates us. It is our concern for the integrity of Torah learning which drives us to publicly reject their approach. And we are deeply troubled that fellow compassionate, hard-working and dedicated Jews are being trained in a fashion that denies them the ability to appreciate true Torah values.

Ahavas Yisroel does not require turning a blind eye to the blurring of mesorah and the sacred values that have traveled down the centuries. Our trailblazing kiruv programs testify to our solidarity with our Jewish brothers and sisters. But we trod the path laid out by rabbonim muvhakim and our bubbes and zaydes. We dare not compromise our values in the name of kiruv rechokim. We must not portray a dishonest version of the Torah in order to be more attractive to the world at large.

We must not sit silently in the name of peace when a mockery is made of divrei Chazal. It is precisely by remaining true to our mesorah, and by our intolerance of ziyufim, that we will be zoche to the siyata diShmaya to succeed in spreading the light of the Torah, intact and unsullied by winds of change.

So, erev Pesach, when you stand there grating the horseradish and tears flow down your cheeks, think of your grandparents performing the same function, the same way, in some little town in Lithuania, Poland, Hungary or Syria. On Sunday night, when you go from room to room with the candle in your hand, remember that living in the 21st century has not made you smarter than the generations that preceded you. It is presumptuous and naïve for anyone to try to modernize and improve upon the mesorah.

Think of the strength of the Jewish chain and remember that it is you who makes it strong. It is the faith-imbued traditions that you pass on to your children which will guarantee you the merit to welcome Eliyahu Hanavi when he arrives with his joyous, long-awaited message: higiah zeman geulaschem.

Open Orthodox shul is officially closed

2007-03-20T16:31:00.000-07:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: KiDMa
Date: Mar 20, 2007 2:32 PM
Subject: IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT - PLEASE READ
To:

KiDMa - The Southwest Community will be suspending regular Shabbat and holiday services,
effective immediately.

KiDMa will be redirecting its energies towards
Jewish learning and programming.

We hope to see you all at future events.

For further information, please e-mail us at kidma@kidma.org

Stop calling yourself Orthodox

2007-03-18T22:02:00.000-07:00

In "What 'Modern Orthodoxy' means", Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg claims that his shul Kidma and himself are "Modern Orthodox". Here are some quotes from "How Big, the Tent of Modern Orthodoxy?" by Rabbi Harry Maryles (of the popular blog Emes Ve-Emunah) that disagree:

[Kleinberg] seeks to distort Orthodoxy into something that is unrecognizable. And this is quite in concert with why he says YCT was founded:

“YCT was founded in 2000 by Rabbi Avi Weiss "to transform Orthodoxy. "From the role of women in ritual, to recognition of the value of non-Orthodox movements…”

To his credit, he does admit that he does “not speak on behalf of the institution.” He doesn’t want any aspersions to be cast due to any of his own innovations. But the fact is that he simply put into practice the mission statement of "Open Orthodoxy" of his school.
...
Accepting Rabbi Kleinberg’s approach de-legitimizes YCT’s claim to be Modern Orthodox. They would do well to remove the word “Orthodox” from its identity.

One of the things that really bothers me in Rabbi Kleinberg's op-ed is the way he disingenuously attempts to distance himself from YCT with the disclaimer, "To be clear...while I am a graduate of YCT, I do not speak on behalf of the institution."

Let me be clear, while Rabbi Kleinberg may not be a formal representative of YCT, he certainly represents YCT. Also, YCT legitimizes and endorses Rabbi Kleinberg and his shul Kidma:
1) Rabbi Kleinberg is a musmuch of YCT. Orthodox smicha (rabbinical ordination) is not like receiving a college degree. With smicha, whether the musmach likes it or not, he represents the person or institution he received smicha from. If Rabbi Kleinberg converted to Christianity, you can be certain that YCT would revoke his smicha. Some rabbis formally make their musmachim sign a document that they will adhere to certain values. YCT has done nothing to publicly distance itself from Rabbi Kleinberg. In fact, it has done the opposite.

2) Rabbi Kleinberg's picture and bio is listed on a YCT web page titled "Bringing Open Orthodox Rabbinic Leadership to a Community Near You".

3) On multiple occasions Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean & founder of YCT) has promoted Rabbi Kleinberg and Kidma with his live presence (at Kidma), declaring the highest praises of Rabbi Kleinberg as a graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Rabbi Saul Berman has also lectured at Kidma.

4) As a showcase of "Open Orthodoxy", the YCT newsletter presented a full-page Community Profile of Kidma, "YCT Alumnus Brings Open Orthodoxy to the Southwest". Rabbi Kleinberg was that alumnus.

5) Rabbi Avi Weiss has explicitly stated support for Kleinberg and Kidma in an interview for Canonist:

Rabbis Kleinberg and East are developing communities where there was no Modern Orthodoxy in effect, certainly, no Orthodoxy that we would call ‘open’ and inclusive. Development of new open Modern Orthodox congregations is an important aspect of YCT’s vision. In fact, the yeshiva [YCT] finds it so critical that we assist by financially supporting these new communities [e.g. Kidma].

I wonder if Rabbi Kleinberg's attempt to distance himself from YCT was his idea or YCT's.

Another statement by Rabbi Kleinberg that I have an issue with is, "Ultimately I have come to understand that I am a member of the Jewish people before I am a member of Orthodoxy, that my personal religious convictions cannot stand in the way of my responsibilities to the entire Jewish people."

In my opinion, the obvious way to read that statement is that Rabbi Kleinberg's religious beliefs (assumedly driven by some form of Jewish Law) are trumped by his responsibilities, his personal authority. If that is correct, that is definitely not Orthodox. If Rabbi Kleinberg wishes to clarify this specific point with direct non-ambiguous language, I welcome his communication. I have emailed him recently but received no response, so he will have to contact me.

My rebbe is not the "Golden Calf"!

2007-03-15T19:17:00.001-07:00

In "To not know", Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate Rabbi Darren Kleinberg denegrated "daas Torah", and in affect every Orthodox rabbi past and present.

In the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix were a couple of responses to Rabbi Kleinberg:

Editor:
In last week's Torah Study ("To not know," Jewish News, March 9), the author accused the Orthodox establishment of encouraging its members to submit to rabbinic authority on all decisions - of essentially demanding that they give up independent thought. That has not been my experience.

The institutions that I attended all placed a heavy emphasis on taking personal development and life decisions seriously. As part of that, we were given an appreciation for the opinions of those who were older, wiser and more righteous than we. But our teachers and counselors more often than not did not directly give opinions; rather, they brought up issues that perhaps the young student had not considered, and in that way not only guided a particular decision but helped mature our decision-making process. They sought to develop deliberate and well-grounded graduates.

Perhaps, looking from the outside, it appears as if this method of education strips the student of independence of thought; in reality, it endows wisdom. This stands in stark contrast to the conditioning of many of today's youth to resist the guidance of others because they believe it interferes with their freedom of choice; instead it leaves them uninformed and unable to relate to others' points of view.

Rabbi Raphael Landesman
Phoenix Community Kollel
Phoenix

Editor:
Kudos to the Jewish News for correctly listing KiDMa and its rabbi as a new category of Judaism on your Area Congregations page.

In Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's last three Torah Study pieces in Jewish News, he has stated that Moses carelessly presided over the murder of the biblical blasphemer ("The blasphemy of injustice," May 12, 2006), that God is imperfect ("Reaching for perfection," Nov. 3, 2006), and that the Hafetz Haim's respect for rabbinic authority is a modern-day golden calf ("To not know," March 9).

These errant explanations are examples of a Judaism that cannot be found under the heading of classical Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or any other previously known label.

Leo Rozenberg
Mesa

Here's the response I sent to the paper. They didn't publish it. Maybe they didn't like the word "vomit"?

In "To not know", Rabbi Darren Kleinberg references the Chofetz Chaim (an exceptional rabbi of the 20th century) to provide a definition for Daas Torah. Kleinberg distills the concept of Daas Torah to one myopic sentence: "The idea of Da'as Torah is that, for any given problem, there is a Torah answer." Rabbi Kleinberg then berates Daas Torah with snide embellished rhetoric, "There is a political election taking place and you don't know who to vote for? Ask your rabbi. You want to know where to give charity? Ask your rabbi. You want to know who to marry? Ask your rabbi". Finally, Rabbi Kleinberg states that in the Daas Torah model of Judaism the "rabbi has become the golden calf".

To millions of Orthodox Jews, the Chofetz Chaim and countless other great rabbis (including Moses, Maimonides, etc.) throughout the ages, represent Daas Torah. The implication that those rabbis are the "Golden Calf" is the epitome of disrespect and apikorsus, and makes me want to vomit.

Related Links:
- The Haredim: A Defense

Haskalah 2.0

2007-03-14T20:13:00.000-07:00

To understand the Open Orthodox agenda, I recommend the following dvar Torah by YCT student Ari Weiss (class of '07) on the YCT Web site this past Chanukah: Chanukah Revisited: A Festival of Light or a Festival of War?

I've been meaning to post this for a while. I thought I was going to eventually post a lengthier response, but I think the piece speaks for itself. This is the most disconcerting dvar Torah I have read at the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah web site and I would have been remiss not to give it some attention.

A brief excerpt from the article:

...while we have to continue translating the Torah into Greek, we have to open up the possibility of translating Greek thought into the language of Torah!

Instead of understanding the message of Chanukah as a war between competing ideologies [Judaism and Hellenism], we should understand Chanukah and the symbol of the menorah as the possibility of being nourished and enlightened by two sources. While at times we have to fight wars, and have commitments which life would not be worth living if we could not fulfill them, we have to realize that this is not ideal.

Rhetorical final questions from the article:

The question which we have to ask ourselves as Chanukah approaches is what symbol of Chanukah do we see as primary and which symbol do we see as secondary? Do we speak a language of war of a clash of civilization, or of light of enlightenment?

Rabbi Zev Farber responds to Yated

2007-03-10T22:50:00.000-07:00

The Yated newspaper criticized Rabbi Zev Farber's dvar Torah, Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right?. I would not be suprised if the Yated became aware of Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah from my post, Yaacov led astray by his infatuation with Rochel.

Here is Rabbi Farber's lengthy response: A Letter from R. Zev Farber: Maligning a Rabbi – Did Yated Ne’eman Get it Right?

Rabbi Farber introduces the core of his rebuttal by hesitantly conceding "...I admit that a few statements could have been phrased less provocatively. The title was chosen specifically to catch the eye. In retrospect, I probably should have been less flashy in my presentation." This acknowledgement almost seems like teeth-pulling, and is quite ambiguous.

Rabbi Farber states that his rebuttal is focused on "an approach found in classical meforshim". Rabbi Farber's non-specific concession statements, plus the sources in meforshim (even the "extreme interpretation" of the Zohar) do not negate or account for the problematic idea that Yaacov was "led astray" by his "infatuation" with Rochel. If Rabbi Farber would have been specific as to what he would have changed in retrospect that may have provided some real clarity.

In my opinion, while Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah was inapproriate and his rebuttal does not sufficiently alleviate that assessment, I concede that there appears to be merit in his statement,

...if I had had no basis in Chazal, it would still not have been a heresy. The question of whether one is bound to interpret a story in the Torah – as opposed to a mitzvah or halakha - the way Chazal do, is an old question. The consensus amongst the Geonim, backed up by many Rishonim and Aharonim, is to unequivocally permit it.

I am not sure whether the Yated was referring to the halachic concept of kefirus, or a definition of heresy that is more contemporary. (e.g. heresy - "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.")

Here are selected responses to Rabbi Farber's letter (they are from the Hirhurim comments section of In Defense of YCT II):

from Ojoe:

The issue is not whether Chazal and the Rishonim spoke about the mistakes of the Avos. Of course they did! The issue is that a young fellow like Farber has come up with a new fault, unmentioned before.
...
Comments such as "If Yaakov had followed the example of Avraham’s servant, and chosen personality criteria as opposed to physical ones, perhaps the story of Bereishit would have gone differently...If one of our forefathers could be led astray by external criteria..." are not defended simply by saying that Chazal also criticized the Avos.

I am disappointed in this 'defense' and think it hurts his case more than helps.

from C.T Hirsch:

The problem is that one needs a tradition or a mesorah in order to understand how statements by chazal which are negative of the avos and other spiritual giants in tanach are supposed to be understood.
...
At any rate, one needs a mesorah in order to understand the seemingly harsh statements of chazal, and we certainly ought to be very cautious before we invent our own.

from Gil Student:

I just read R. Farber's devar Torah, finally, and I have to say that I find it in very poor taste. Not deserving of the hysterical reaction in Yated, but not something I'd allow on my blog or, when I was editing Mesukim Mi-Devash, in my parashah sheet.

Related Links:
- Musings on the Proper Way to Learn Chumash

Is your rebbe the "Golden Calf"?

2007-03-09T06:13:00.000-07:00

Here is an excerpt of a dvar Torah (hot off the presses) on parshas Ki Tisa by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, titled "To not know":

One of the central ideological aspects of Orthodoxy has been the ideology of Da'as Torah. Da'as Torah is perhaps best defined in this statement attributed to Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan, the Hafetz Haim: "The person whose view (da'as) is the view of Torah (Da'as Torah) can solve all worldly problems, both specific and general. However, there is one condition attached. The Da'as Torah must be pure, without any interest of bias." The idea of Da'as Torah is that, for any given problem, there is a "Torah answer."

There is a political election taking place and you don't know who to vote for? Ask your rabbi.

You want to know where to give charity? Ask your rabbi.

You want to know who to marry? Ask your rabbi.

This is a model of Judaism that says, "We know." In this [Daas Torah] model of Judaism, that rabbi has become the golden calf.

Daas Torah can be best distilled in two words: Torah Authority. Daas Torah is the empowerment of Gedolim (exceptional Torah scholars including Moshe Rabbeinu, Rambam, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, etc.) with authoritative guidance because of their vast Torah knowledge which instills broad insight.

To millions of Torah Observant Jews, the Chofetz Chaim and countless other Gedolim throughout the ages, represent Daas Torah. The implication that those rabbis are the Egel Hazahav ("Golden Calf") is the epitome of disrespect and apikorsus (by being mevazeh talmidei chachamim).

I personally heard Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean of YCT) describe Rabbi Kleinberg as "brilliant in Tanach and Oral Law", "best of the best [of YCT graduates]", and a "pastoral genius". Those comments were said sometime after two other very controversial (to say the the least) divrei Torah by Rabbi Kleinberg. (Here are letters to the editor commenting on those divrei Torah: To stone or not to stone and Debating the nature of God)

I can only assume that now Rabbi Avi Weiss will compare Rabbi Kleinberg to Moshe Rabbeinu or declare Rabbi Kleinberg as Moshiach.

For a Torah discussion of Daas Torah, please see: Da'as Torah & Emunas Chachamim.

Yated article reaches intended audience

2007-03-07T09:06:00.000-07:00

From The kids are Actually Rabbis:

Founded by Rabbi Avi Weiss from the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale,NY, (www.hir.org) Chovevei is attempting to create a generation of "open Orthodox" rabbis and leaders. Not everyone is: a) accepting of them and their ideas; and b) tolerant of their existence. I provided a link in an earlier post that referenced a recent article about how Chovevei is evil and dangerous. (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah: Is It Orthodox?) This was an article that was referenced over and over again last night as the "kids" [YCT rabbinical students] spoke [at the YCT 4th annual dinner].

Here's some left-wing rhetoric from the same blog post as above:

There was a post I read yesterday, about a religious woman riding an Egged bus to the Kotel for sunrise services. Without a long winded explanation, she refused to move to the back of the bus, (which is where women are supposed to sit apparently, according to a recent halachic ruling) and was beaten severerly by a group of Charedim. She did not go quietly, and attempted to have the perpetrator arrested, and scolded those on the bus for allowing a religious woman on her way to davening to be beaten.

And this is why we need Chovevei. So that our women will not be beaten because they want to daven.

I see this blogger's point of view...we need Yeshivat Chovevei Torah to fight the rampant epidemic of right-wing/Chareidi misogynistic women beaters! This problem is especially virulent in the U.S., where YCT is based and has focused its musmachim. Thank you YCT for working hard to end the violence against our Jewish women.

I think Chovevei Torah needs more advocates like this blogger.

Defending the indefensible

2007-03-02T15:19:00.000-07:00

Rabbi Nathaniel Nethaniel Helfgot, Chair of Departments of Bible and Jewish Thought at YCT, responded to the recent Yated article that addressed issues with Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. This is not the first time that Rabbi Helfgot has responded to criticism of YCT.

Here are my responses to Rabbi Helfgot:

Rabbi Helfgot:

"R. Linzer’s quote about struggling with difficult mitzvot that challenge our ethical notions and our conception of a just God (a conception that emerges from many parts of the Torah) is a badge of honor...Gedolei olam from time and immemorial struggled with difficult mitzvot such as the commandment to obliterate Amalek."

Response:
There is a difference between a person's internal struggles and making public statements which give the perception that Hashem is unjust. Rabbi Linzer's public "challenging" statements open the door to disregarding those "difficult" laws. Stating that Rabbi Linzer's statements are a "badge of honor" is shocking. Rabbi Linzer is not one of the "Gedolei olam". Rabbi Linzer is the Rosh Yeshiva of a liberal institution whose clear agenda is the liberalization of Orthodox Judaism. For YCT's general audience, are Rabbi Linzer's statements geared to strengthen someone's emunah or weaken it?

Rabbi Helfgot:

YCT has never claimed it follows in the footsteps of the Rav zt”l as Hasidim follow a rebbe.
...
YCT takes inspiration from the teachings of the entire panoply of great rabbinic figures of previous generations as well as the current generation.

Response:

We now see that YCT professes that it does not follow RYBS and that it follows whichever Gadol for which it can find support for a practice or custom-despite the absence of any evidence that the Gedolim cited had any knowledge or familiarity with the American Jewish community after WW2. (from a quote by Steve Brizel)

Rabbi Helfgot:

First, let us get some facts down correctly, irrespective of reports on blogs or newspapers. As far as I understand, The World Jewish Congress asked YCT (as well as Yeshiva University) to host a visit of prominent Catholic cardinals who also wanted to see how a beit medrash functions and what hevruta learning is.
...
...Yeshiva University-Stern College for Women hosted the Cardinals the very next day and they also learned Gemara be-hevruta with some of the women in the Stern Graduate Talmud program as I recall it was reported in the YU-Stern College Observer.

Response:
Here are some very interesting comments from someone called member of stern Grad Program:

...the cardinals were not invited to study b'chavrutah with the Stern women- they were merely observing. Some cardinals did ask questions of the women as the women studied. This is very different than organizing a joint text study. Rabbi Helfgott constantly tries to justify chovevei with what YU does but is sometimes not accurate with his facts. Also Menachem [another commenter] correctly noted that Rav H. Schachter had never given a shiur or even visited the Stern Graduate Program until the visit with the cardinals that morning.

Rabbi Helfgot introduced his defense of YCT by nobly stating,

There is something profoundly disturbing and unethical and lacking in basic derekh eretz and kevod ha-beriyot in a “Torah “newspaper not doing basic fact checking nor in engaging in the simple journalistic (and ethical) protocol of calling up the subjects of one’s reportage for comment, reaction, clarification, questions before publishing a lengthy and harsh attack.

This may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Regardless, YU never participated in the kind of interfaith dialogue that YCT participated in. For example, here's Rabbi Avi Weiss, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical students, cardinals, and bishops dancing around the YCT bais midrash (see Interfaith pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style):
Based on the verified differences between YU's and YCT's interfaith engagement, Rabbi Helfgot's attempt to make an equivalency between YU and YCT concerning interfaith dialogue is misleading, disingenuous, and reprehensible.

Rabbi Helfgot:

...there is much to be gained in the areas of pastoral counseling, leadership training, speaking skills, making life-cycle events meaningful, homiletical ideas and even in selected areas of Jewish thought from non-Orthodox speakers and clergy. While the core faculty of the Yeshiva are classical talmidei hakhamim and fully Orthodox rabbanim and professionals, we appreciate and value the insights and experiences of others beyond our immediate community when they can help us train our students to be effective, compassionate and professionally trained rabbis. In that context, in addition to inviting other Orthodox rabbis and professionals to occasionally speak to our students in various areas of the curriculum we have also opened our doors to non-Orthodox rabbis and professionals in areas where they can contribute positively to the education of our students.

Response:
YCT is supposed to be an Orthodox Yeshiva! YCT's curriculum is not academic, it's theological. Teachers are not teaching mathematics and English, but how to relate to congregants, hopefully from an Orthodox Torah viewpoint. Shouldn't the entire YCT faculty be Orthodox? Why not hire Orthodox professionals exclusively for pastoral educational positions? What is gained by conscientiously staffing non-Orthodox women "rabbis" in those roles? Rabbi Helfgot's attitude is mind-boggling. If someone wants to become a secular psychologist, there are many fine universities to enroll in.

Rabbi Helfgot:

[Rabbi Zev Farber's] essay analyzing some of the life choices of Yaakov Avinu raised the ire of the author of the Yated essay. I do not want to address the cogency of the specific ideas of the essay or whether I would have used this or that formulation or more nuanced language. These are all issues which one can calmly debate. The issue at hand, however, is much more fundamental. Learning and teaching about the greatness, achievements, holiness and stature of our biblical heroes such as the Avot and Imahot coupled with an honest and rich understanding of the human dimension, feelings, as well as struggles, mistakes and errors of those very characters has been discussed in many forums. It is one of the dividing lines between contemporary Hareidi (and Hardal and right wing-Modern Orthodox) parshanut and classical modern-and contemporary open Orthodox parshanut.
...
What is fascinating to me is that in this issue it is really the Hareidi position which is really "modern” as Hazal and the Rishonim were much more open to these nuances than contemporary Hareidi writers. Indeed if one reads Bereishit and Shemot Rabbah systematically one sees Hazal's deep assessment of the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great.

Response:
Rather than address the content of Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah, Rabbi Helfgot averts the discussion with the tangential issue of Avos/Imahos analysis. Rabbi Helfgot seems to imply that it is acceptable for YCT students to engage in broad psychoanalytical drash because it is in the tradition of Chazal to assess “the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great.” Are YCT musmachim the modern manifestation of Chazal? I think not.

Rabbi Helfgot:

All of us are human and occasionally a young musmach can and does make a mistake in p’sak or in a d’var Torah or in dealing with a difficult text or attempting to formulate a theological concept.
...
...sometimes, in a desire to present an idea in a meaningful and arresting way young musmachim and students do not judiciously choose careful language.
...
Here and there, there have also been formulations that I would consider have crossed some lines. Whether, when and how an institution should respond to such phenomena is a difficult issue touching on serious issues that include a whole panoply of considerations. One thing I am sure of, the forum for such a discussion is not a mean-spirited attack article that reflects no generosity of spirit nor understanding of the real people involved, the work and context in which they operate and the world-views and perspectives that they come from.

Response:
Rabbi Helfgot is ambiguous whether he believes Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah "crossed the line" or not. However, Rabbi Helfgot seems to have missed the reason of why Rabbi Farber was "singled-out" by Yated. Yated merely epitomized Rabbi Farber’s dvar Torah as a key example of hashkafic improprieties concerning YCT musmachim. What should Yated do? List every example? That would take an entire newspaper. The Yated also presented divrei Torah from YCT musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg. I find it interesting that Rabbi Helfgot did not explicitly defend Rabbi Kleinberg who certainly had much more Yated coverage than Rabbi Farber. Why is that?

Rabbi Helfgot's position and tone are defensive. What he subjectively labels as a "mean-spirited attack article" I label as a blunt public service message in the spirit of principle #6 of Open Orthodoxy, "Public Protest".

Rabbi Helfgot:

The attempt to somehow tar YCT and some of its faculty with the taint of being anti-Israel is beneath contempt.
...
Guilt by association is not an honorable tactic and in America is usually associated with the specter of McCarthyism. It is a fact that some of the faculty of YCT spoke last year at a conference on human rights abuses in the United States at the invitation of the North American Rabbis For Human Rights. The conference was to focus on the American front and not on issues related to Israel (that being the condition that the YCT faculty agreed to participate in the first place). The fact that this group is also allied with a group in Israel that has harshly critiqued the IDF and the Israeli government does not in any mean that everyone whoever has anything to do with the North American branch magically agrees with every or anything posited by the Israeli organization (That is guilt by association squared!) Furthermore, the fact that one or two students in our history participated in a left-wing rally or signed on to a petition five years ago critical of the tactics of the IDF (positions, that despite my personal opposition to them, are part of the legitimate discourse that takes place amongst committed Zionist and supporters of Israel both and in the Israel) no more means that this is the position espoused by a majority or even a significant minority of students at YCT.

Response:
The comparison of Yated to McCarthyism is offensive. Rabbi Helfgot indicted the Yated article as a "mean-spirited attack". The McCarthy label is "mean-spirited".

Rabbi Helfgot verbosely vents, but simply misses the point. The point is not whether a hundred, fifty, or even one YCT student attended a rally they shouldn’t have. The point of Yated is not to indict everyone at YCT "with the specter of McCarthyism" because a couple musmachim do any one inappropriate thing. The point is that each item Yated referenced is part of a larger tapestry and preponderance of evidence that YCT has serious hashafic problems that are rapidly precluding it from mainstream Orthodoxy.

Lastly, it is interesting that Rabbi Helfgot glossed over issues with two other YCT musmachim presented in the Yated article:
- Rabbi Darren Kleinberg
- Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow

Rabbi Farber is less controversial than those two YCT graduates. Maybe Farber was easier, or more palatable to defend?

I hope that other YCT senior faculty respond to the Yated article. They can do no better job of revealing what "Open Orthodoxy" is truly about.

Yated exposes YCT as a "Threat to Halachic Judaism"

2007-02-26T08:05:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Yated newspaper published an article titled: "Yeshivat Chovei Torah: Is it Orthodox? An Expose on a Threat to Halachic Judaism". The article comprehensively discusses Orthodox halachic and hashkafic concerns with "Open Orthodoxy". Althought the Yated readership is ideologically right-wing Orthodox, it appears from Googling that the article has found its way to the target Modern Orthodox audience. At the end of this blog post I provide a list of links.

In my opinion, the Yated article accurately and appropriately critiques the hashkafah of YCT and Open Orthodoxy from the top down. The article first discusses the ideologies of Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean and founder of YCT) and Rabbi Dov Linzer (YCT Rosh Yeshiva), then focuses on the behaviors of YCT musmachim.

There are a couple of web sites where the article is available:
- Yeshivat Chovevei Torah: Is It Orthodox?
- Click here for a pdf of the article, scanned from the original Yated newspaper.

While the Yated article is comprehensive, I find it interesting the amount of material that wasn't discussed:
- Open Orthodox rabbis further radicalize left-wing Orthodoxy (Yated did write that they might cover Open Orthodox feminist ideology in a future article)
- Mechitza magic: now you see it, now you don't
- Weeping for Psalms
- Stressful God of "tension" and "anxiety"
- and more...

The Yated article has generated a fair amount of response (or should I say backlash) in the blogosphere. Harry Maryles' blog post, YCT: Time to-Take a Stand is the only one I could find that takes a somewhat balanced (centrist) approach to reviewing the Yated article. While I think that Rabbi Maryles could be harsher, at least he approaches the facts rationally instead of emotionally.

Scrutiny of YCT hashkafah is not exclusive to Chareidim. Here are recent heartfelt comments from someone who considers "Rabbi [Avi] Weiss a good friend and a mentor." I have bolded passages that I find most insightful.
From Rabbi Joshua Maroof at The Yated - a Mamzer?:

I consider Rabbi Weiss a good friend and a mentor. During my time in Riverdale, he was the primary source of encouragement for me to leave my chosen career path as a psychologist and take up the pulpit rabbinate - something I had never ever even imagined pursuing professionally and in fact had a strong aversion to at first.

He is a human being of profound sensitivity and I learned a great deal from observing his interactions with congregants, interns and employees (I was none of these, being the Rabbi of the Sephardic congregation that borrowed space from his shul - although I did teach the Daf Yomi at HIR every morning for 2 years, and contributed to educational programs there as well.)

Rabbi Weiss is genuine and sincere and I owe him a lot for the inspiration he gave me to change my path in life. I spoke about this publicly at the last HIR dinner I attended before relocating to Maryland.

That being said - with all due respect to Rabbi Weiss, Rabbi Linzer and many of the YCT graduates whom I consider personal friends (one is my wife's brother-in-law and a wonderful rabbi in his own right) - I have an issue with any institution that considers itself Orthodox but questions the binding force of the 13 principles of the Rambam.

The religious leadership of YCT, at least in part, seems to advocate a bottom-line Orthopraxy with an option of Orthodoxy for those who are so inclined. With the passage of time, this trend has become increasingly pronounced, as far as I can tell, with the musmachim of YCT looking and talking more and more like Conservative rabbis as the years go by.

Again, I have a deep affection for Rabbi Weiss and many of the teachers and graduates of YCT (admittedly, even some of the very controversial ones who've been lambasted in the papers are people whose company I enjoyed immensely while I was in NY and whom I consider my friends.) However, I believe that Orthodoxy must draw the line when it comes to the fundamental tenets of the Torah system, i.e., the 13 principles. And, as I know from personal dealings and discussions with YCTers, the 13 principles are far from being universally accepted in its Bet Midrash.

Commenting on Is YCT treif or not? Rabbi Maroof states,

I think an institution must be judged by its leaders and the philosophy and outlook they espouse. In this case, sadly, [Rabbi Dov] Linzer (a friend of mine whom I admire very much) has endorsed a form of Orthopraxy that essentially makes the 13 principles optional.

He has a right to take this position and to have his own opinion - although I believe it is erroneous - but he cannot then insist on being Orthodox which, by definition, means having the "correct beliefs."

I think that Rabbi Avi Weiss and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah should applaud Yated. The Yated is adhering to principle #6 of the Open Orthodoxy philosophy: Public Protest

Should YCT and Open Orthodoxy be scrutinized? Are they a threat to all legitimate expressions of Torah Judaism (aka Orthodoxy)? Judge for yourself.

Links that discuss the Yated article:
- Yated Ne’eman’s Latest Against Chovevei
- Not Taking A Stand
- Glass Houses Alert
- Cross Posted at DovBear: The Yated, the Rav and YCT
- The Challenge of Constructive Criticism
- There was an article that appeared in last weeks issue of Yated
- Yated's YCT Critique Critiqued
- The Challenge of Constructive Criticism
- Strange Bedfellows
- Conflicted about YCT, Yated and R' Harry Maryles
- YCT-Yated Ne’eman Dustup
- Rabbi Chaim Rapoport -- Open Letter to the Yated Ne'eman
- pre-LA and rightwing jews
- How mighty are the righteous....
- Learning with the Yated
- Taking Each Other Down A Peg
- In the following pages, we will quote...
- paradoxical faith

Everything is revealed…in time

2007-02-01T18:13:00.000-07:00

A couple of months ago, there was an anonymous blogger that viciously attacked Yiddishkeit, this blog, and me personally. That blog is now gone.

I know with 100% certainty the identity of that blogger. I possess incontrovertible evidence that associates that blogger’s real name and numeric, unchangeable system-assigned ID to multiple Blogger.com blogs, which are now defunct.

To verify (to those in the know) that I know the identity of the anonymous blogger, I will say that the blogger’s first name is one of the two son’s of Rochel. That blogger was also married within the past 12 months. (Nice wedding photos on OnlySimchas.com.) A wife usually wishes her husband to avoid controversy that may affect them negatively.

Within the forum of a public blog, I will not state the name of this individual. That may be damaging in a way that I don’t intend.

The reason I wrote this post is because the blogger is a rabbinical student at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah - one of the main topics this blog discusses. The "anonymous" blog was an affront to Orthodox Judaism and an embarrassment to YCT. If a person is concerned about being a Ben Torah, maintaining a credible and admirable image, and influencing others, then his viewpoints should be presented respectfully and rationally. I wonder if this student represents the kind of midos that YCT teaches.

Caveat emptor to anonymous bloggers: even if you take extreme precautions to remain anonymous, your identity may be revealed through unconventional methods - for example, stylometry, or maybe a former roommate.

It would be interesting if that blogger emailed me with his phone number. I would love to call him and talk with him. I wonder if he has the guts to contact me. I think we would have a pleasant and productive conversation.

Ad finem

2006-12-15T06:13:00.000-07:00

The previous topic of interdenominational pluralism brings me full-circle to the core reason I started examining Open Orthodoxy. A year ago, I never heard of Open Orthodoxy, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, or the name Rabbi Avi Weiss (except maybe in some reference to Soviet Jewry). At that time, I read in the local Jewish newspaper that a local "Open Orthodox" rabbi, Rabbi Darren Kleinberg (spiritual leader of Kidma) joined the faculty of a pluralistic kollel, called Kol-El.

Kol-El was founded by a rabbi (Reform) who wrote a scathing sermon about "Jewish fundamentalists". That sermon was well-known by local Orthodox leadership. In my opinion, that sermon was an affront to all Orthodox Jews. At the Shabbos grand opening of the Kidma storefront shul, to my dismay, I personally saw Kidma's non-normative "Orthodox" practices and publicly heard Rabbi Kleinberg declare the Kol-El founder (who was in attendance) as his mentor. I entered Kidma because of curiosity. I exited with a strong belief in principle #6 of the Open Orthodox Creed: Public Protest.

Before attending the grand opening of the Kidma shul, I approached multiple "Open Orthodox" related parties with my concerns of Orthodox participation in Kol-El, but to no avail. I also know others who attempted to reconcile the local issues with Open Orthodoxy. Their result was no different. Initially, I was cautiously hopeful (or maybe naive) that issues with Open Orthodoxy were resolvable - as illustrated in my letter to the editor about the Kidma grand opening, KiDMa shakes things up in Phoenix:

Although I staunchly disagree with some of KiDMa's shul practices (e.g. Torah reading facing congregation) and Rabbi Kleinberg's alliance with non-Orthodox denominations, I praise Rabbi Kleinberg for doing something.

I do not feel that way today.

Based on my experience, research, and personal perspective, I have come to believe that Open Orthodoxy is quite closed. When you profess ideology that is not Orthodox and adopt extreme non-normative Orthodox practices, you have severed and closed yourself from Orthodoxy. Why bother to label yourself Orthodox? Why mislead?

Maintaining this blog has been time-consuming, as I stated in Winding down. I have completed my initial list of topics that I felt were important to discuss, so I am, im yirtza Hashem, done. If someone truly has the urge to continue this blog, please contact me at OpenOrthodoxy@hotmail.com. We can discuss it. I encourage readers to review the following YCT links on a regular basis:
- YCT Home page (lists dvar Torahs on the weekly parsha)
- Parshat HaShavuah
- Newsletter
- Alumni
- In the press
- You can Google the names listed at the following pages: Alumni, Administration, Faculty

There is plenty of information I haven't posted: provocative divrei Torah, controversial hashkafa and halacha, former Open Orthodox participants, unwarranted publicity hounding, and more. I leave it as an exercise for you, the reader, to investigate further. As Rabbi Saul J. Berman says "We must shine a light of truth on the corruption around us."¹

In a disturbing dvar Torah about Chanukah, Ari Weiss (YCT '07) asks rhetorically "Do we speak a language of war of a clash of civilization, or of light, of enlightenment?"²

In honor of Chanukah starting tonight... in protest against all modern manifestations of the ancient Yevanim...I say "Be all that you can Maccabee."

Good Shabbos, freiliche Chanukah.
Good night, and good luck.

Sources:
1 The Pope, Islam, and Chanukah 12/14/2006
2 Chanukah Revisited: A Festival of Light or a Festival of War? 12/14/2006; enlightenment link added by me

Interdenominational Pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style

2006-12-14T00:51:00.000-07:00

In Orthodoxy Has Chance to Reshape Role, Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky states, "Orthodox rabbis have practically disappeared from interdenominational boards of rabbis. In some communities, the Orthodox Rabbinical Council actually forbids its members from joining interdenominational boards." However, one Orthodox sub-category where interdenominational participation is increasing is Open Orthodoxy - specifically Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduates and proteges of Rabbi Avi Weiss, founder of the Open Orthodox movement. This is not unexpected as Open Orthodoxy encourages pluralism.

To understand the root hashkafa of Open Orthodox interdenominational pluralism one should read Open orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi's creed and an article by Rabbi Weiss presented on the Orthodox Union web site, Preaching a Common Message.

Pragmatic reasons why Orthodox participation on pluralistic board of rabbis is problematic:
- Pluralistic board of rabbis address issues and represent values that are antithetical to Orthodoxy.

- In a practical sense, Orthodoxy does not recognize the ordination of non-Orthodox rabbis. Nor does Orthodoxy bestow the title of Rabbi to a woman. So, I will assume that Orthodox participation on a pluralistic board of rabbis is to foster a spirit of Jewish unity with recognized non-Orthodox spiritual leaders. But what if members of the board weren't halachically Jewish?

There may be a time in the near future when much of the non-Orthodox representation on pluralistic board of rabbis is not considered Jewish by Orthodoxy (e.g. via patrilineal descent or non-Orthodox conversion). Currently, intermarriage is rampant. There already may be non-Orthodox rabbis that meet that criteria. If so, membership on a pluralistic board of rabbis epitomizes the acceptance of intermarriage, at least in perception. If an Orthodox rabbi embraces non-Jewish (according to Orthodoxy) rabbis as bona fide fellow members of a board of rabbis, then from an Orthodox perspective it appears that rabbi is trivializing the Orthodox Jewish status criteria to participate in the Jewish community. I believe it's that type of laxed attitude that has contributed to the general scrutiny of Orthodox conversions by the Israeli Rabbinate.

For a halachic discussion why Orthodox rabbis should not participate in religious pluralism, see Einei Haeda.

Related links:
- Religious Movements in Collision: A Jewish Culture War?
- Who is a Jew?
- Conversion to Judaism

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg
- Rabbinic peer group
- Denominational Landscapes

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky
- Orthodoxy Has Chance to Reshape Role
- Jewish Journal - Letters - Orthodoxy’s Role
- Bnai David - Judea - Rabbi Profile

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld
- Board of Rabbis gets first Orthodox member
- A Rabbi's Unorthodox Revival

Hiring a rabbi: caveat emptor

2006-12-13T08:07:00.000-07:00

If your Orthodox synagogue is evaluating rabbinical candidates, whether from YU, Chovevei Torah, or other yeshivos I encourage you to ask the following interview questions:

- Does the Rabbinical Council of America recognize your smicha? If no, why not?
- Will you be granted membership to our local Orthodox board of rabbis?
- Do you plan on joining an interdenominational board of rabbis?
- What are your halachic, ritualistic, and hashkafic visions for our shul? For example, what do you think of Shira Hadasha minyanim?
- What are your conceptions of God? Is he perfect? Does he make mistakes?

When will YCT be admitted to the RCA?

2006-12-09T23:05:00.000-07:00

In my previous post, I discussed that Rabbi Asher Lopatin, an RCA member rabbi was a faculty member at an interdenominational religious conference attended by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah students. As stated in Rabbi Lopatin's profile, he is also a member of a pluralistic board of rabbis. So are some YCT graduates, as pluralism is a prominent theme of Open Orthodoxy. Rabbi Lopatin is also listed as a member of the YCT Honorary Alumni Board.

Are there differences between YCT graduates and current RCA members? If so, what are they? What (if any) are the obstacles preventing YCT institutional admission to the RCA?

When will YCT be on the RCA list of Approved Semichas from Yeshivot? Maybe the RCA can publish a statement clarifying the current status of YCT admission to the RCA.

Related link:
- Orthodox Rabbis Eye Liberal Seminary
- Join the RCA

Interdenominational pluralism: retreat or embrace?

2006-12-09T23:01:00.000-07:00

Click here for original source
The previous picture evokes strong disparate emotions depending on your point of view. If you are a religious feminist, the pictures may evoke emotions of pride - reflecting the religious liberation of women. If you are an Orthodox Jew you may feel something different.

The picture was taken at a Jewish interdenominational conference, Panim's Re-Imagining the American Synagogue rabbinical student retreat.

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah participation
The retreat was attended by three YCT students as discussed by YCT seminary student Drew Kaplan:

There, I, along with two other students from YCT, came together with students from several other rabbinical seminaries.
...
I enjoyed it, as I got to spend time working on trying to create some sort of vision towards my rabbinate and future shul(s), which was good.
-Re-Imagining the Synagogue Rabbinical Student Retreat

Drew Kaplan made it convenient to find pictures of the retreat, as photo gallery links were posted by him. For more Panim photos check out: set one, set two

RCA participation
On Dec. 7, the Rabbinical Council of America published a policy statement condemning the ordination of gays and lesbians, and same-sex "commitment ceremonies" in response to the recent acceptance of those practices by the Conservative movement.

On Dec. 8, the RCA published a Meet the Chaverim profile of RCA rabbi, Rabbi Asher Lopatin, a faculty member at the Panim retreat with other Jewish denominations that permit/accept gay and lesbian ordination, same-sex unions and corresponding sexual behaviors. So, it is possible that there were Reform or Reconstructionist gay and lesbian rabbis at the retreat. In the future, there may be Conservative G&L rabbis at such conferences. I assume that the RCA is aware of Rabbi Lopatin’s participation in the retreat as it published that information in his profile.

Is there an incongruity between RCA policy and practice?

Related links:
- What is [Reform] Judaism's view on homosexuality?

Public protest is important for achieving change

2006-12-07T06:45:00.000-07:00

In a dvar Torah for parshas Vayishlach, Two Important Elements in Achieving Change (12/7/2006), Rabbi Avi Weiss illustrates with Yaacov that public protest is an effective means of achieving change:

The message of the dual name [of Yaacov/Yisrael] is clear; both the Yaakov approach of behind the scenes discussion with authority and a willingness to negotiate and compromise and the Yisrael component of outspoken advocacy are crucial.

Rabbi Weiss elaborates on the crucialness of public protest in principle #6 of his creed on Open Orthodoxy:

What we have learned from fifty years ago is that public protest does not render our community more vulnerable, rather, it protects our community.
- Open orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi's creed

Concerning the modern churban perpetrated against Torah Judaism by "open" advocacy, I couldn't agree more.

What does the "Y" think of the "U"?

2006-12-06T22:52:00.000-07:00

Picture description: Rabbi Avi Weiss and & Mr. Richard Joel at the 2003 Areyvut Annual Inaugural Lecture given by Mr. Joel at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale. Rabbi Weiss is founder & dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and rabbi of HIR. Mr. Joel is president of Yeshiva University.

“With so much to be done for the Modern Orthodox community I view [Chovevei] and RIETS as complementing each other. While our academic and professional curriculums may differ we share a common goal — the strengthening of Modern Orthodoxy and the whole of the Jewish community. I especially look forward to working together with my dear friend President Richard Joel.”
- Rabbi Avi Weiss, Philanthropist Attacks University for Right Turn, Forward 4/2/2004

Related links:
- Richard Joel Elected Yeshiva President in Board Vote

Megillah 28a

2006-12-05T13:03:00.000-07:00

This past Sunday, I attended a lecture by Rabbi Avi Weiss (founder & dean of YCT, rabbi of HIR). Since I blog about Open Orthodoxy, I thought it would be an interesting experience. I also brought my oldest (young) daughter with me. I thought it would be a good learning experience for her.

Rabbi Weiss started off by singing a Carlebach niggun (melody). He sang the tune several times, encouraging audience participation. The second time he sang the tune he requested audience members to hold hands (with no qualifier) with the person sitting next to them. It was a mixed-seating audience of men and women.

I asked my daughter if anything was wrong with what Rabbi Weiss said. She informed me that it was not tznius and that men and women who are not married should not hold hands, but father and daughter like us was OK. My daughter asked me why that man was telling people to hold hands. My answer was a lengthy discussion with her on Megillah 28a that pertains to eyesight. Out of concern for her vision, my daughter wasn't sure whether to close her eyes or not.

Although trivial and possibly laughable to the non-Orthodox, from an Orthodox perspective, the hand-holding directive is unOrthodox, even in a kiruv (outreach) setting.

Most of Rabbi Weiss' lecture was focused on Israel. He also told a few stories and anecdotes. It was a packed house with approximately 70-90 middle-aged attendees. I recognized maybe five people there. The demographic of the crowd was not reflective of the local Orthodox community which is comprised of Modern Orthodox, Chareidi, Bukharian, and Lubavitch. On many occasions I have seen crossover from all those groups at minyanim and at community events. At those events, everyone is a familiar face. Kidma, the local Open Orthodox shul that Rabbi Weiss spoke at, is a pariah to the local Orthodox community as it represent left-wing halacha and hashkafa that is contrary to basic, mutually shared values of the greater Orthodox community. Kidma and its rabbi's hashkafic and halachic viewpoints have been discussed in earlier blog posts.

In my opinion, Rabbi Weiss insulted the entire local Orthodox community, as an apparent response to the shunning of his brand of Orthodox Judaism. Rabbi Weiss stated that there are Orthodox sects that are moving further to the right and "becoming more insular" and "circling the wagons". Rabbi Weiss depicted the local community as an example of this. He also stated that there are Jewish sects moving further left, such as the Conservative movement shifting towards Reform. Weiss depicted Open Orthodoxy as centrist, mainstream Orthodox Judaism.

I find it interesting that every other local Orthodox group can co-exist and interact in relative harmony with the exception of Open Orthodoxy. It appears if you don't accept the values of Open Orthodoxy, you're labelled as right-wing and insular ("closed").

On this blog, I have been critical of Kidma and its spiritual leader Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, a Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach. It is apparent that Rabbi Weiss disagrees with my assessment. Rabbi Weiss addressed Rabbi Kleinberg as "brilliant in Tanach and Oral Law", "best of the best [of YCT graduates]", and a "pastoral genius".

At the conclusion of the lecture there was a Q&A session. A question was asked about the inclusivity of women in religious services. Rabbi Weiss prefaced his response by stating that he operates within the confines of Orthodox Halacha. Rabbi Weiss then discussed the concept of Shira Hadasha minyanim. His response seemed to advocate this style of communal prayer, if not many aspects of it. Rabbi Weiss also said that he did not see anything halachically wrong with women leading pesukei dezimra. Whether technically correct or not, it is a significant deviation from a normative Orthodox service.

I am fascinated to know whether Rabbi Weiss' viewpoints are sanctioned and aligned with the OU and RCA. Rabbi Weiss is an RCA rabbi, and Rabbi Weiss' congregation (HIR) is an OU shul.

Batter up

2006-12-04T00:01:00.000-07:00

I was hoping to "wind down" this blog but I heard multiple things this weekend that were very disturbing to me.

I also attended Rabbi Avi Weiss' lecture as I stated that I might in my blog post, "Free advertising for Open Orthodoxy". I'm working on a blog post about that experience. Here's a quote I heard from Rabbi Weiss that I couldn't agree with more, "There are countless examples of the mighty who have been on the wrong path who have fallen." After listening to Rabbi Weiss it is apparent that Open Orthodoxy is on the path to Shira Hadasha...falling down, falling down, falling down. Of course, Rabbi Weiss was clear to say that he only operates within the framework of Orthodox halacha.

To protect anonymity, I won't mention any names in the following two items:

The root of all evil
I was informed that an Open Orthodox rabbi showed the documentary "The Root of All Evil?" to his high school "philosophy" class. This documentary was "written and presented by [renowned atheist] Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. "

The school is a pluralistic Jewish high school, and the class was for seniors. When I heard this, it sent a chill through me as I reflected on the sickness of this.

I was told that a Jewish counter-view was presented and that many of the students may already be agnostic. But why, why, why would such anti-Torah material be presented to impressionable Jewish young people? We should inoculate them with Truth, not defile their minds with anti-religious rhetoric.

Young people ask lots of great questions. Questions should be answered. In a controlled forum such as a religious school, we should provide the Torah tools they need to answer those challenging questions. We shouldn't inadvertently reinforce contrary beliefs by proactively presenting heretical ideas then expect to undo the damage by rebutting them. Young people will have a lifetime of anti-religious influences to contend with.

It's your problem, not mine
Another person informed me that someone he knew contacted one of the main rabbinical leaders of Open Orthodoxy about religious concerns with a local Open Orthodox rabbi. To paraphrase, the rabbi responded back to the person, "What are the local Orthodox rabbis doing about it?" The person said to the rabbi, "What do you mean? He's one of your graduates...it's your problem!" The rabbi apparently did not think so.

Yaacov led astray by his infatuation with Rochel

2006-12-03T22:40:00.000-07:00

infatuation n. A foolish, unreasoning, or extravagant passion or attraction. An object of extravagant, short-lived passion.

The title of this blog post, "Yaacov led astray by his infatuation with Rochel", is my blurb describing a recent Vayetzeh dvar Torah, "Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right?" (11/27/2006) by YCT musmach Rabbi Zev Farber. I believe my title accurately distills that dvar Torah, using contextually correct verbiage from the dvar Torah. The ultra-humanization of the Avos is a style of divrei Torah that is prevalent and acceptable by left-wing Modern Orthodox adherents. However, it is quite revolting by right-wing Orthodox standards. Here is an excerpt from the dvar Torah that evokes that dichotomous response:

An even deeper look reveals that Yaakov’s infatuation with Rachel and her beauty, leads him not only to favor her over her sister, but most probably carries over into his infamous favoring of Yosef and Binyamin over his other children, almost leading to a permanent rift in his family.

If Yaakov had followed the example of Avraham’s servant, and chosen personality criteria as opposed to physical ones, perhaps the story of Bereishit would have gone differently, avoiding much of the tragedy and pain our ancestors suffer throughout the Joseph narrative. Would Yaakov have chosen Leah?

Would he have married both of his own accord? It is impossible to know the answer to such questions.

Nevertheless, it would seem that the Torah is unfavorably comparing Yaakov’s process of choosing a wife with that of the servant of Avraham. Perhaps this can be a lesson to us all. If one of our forefathers [Yaacov] could be led astray by external criteria at such a momentous occasion [marriage], we must articulate our own values before we undertake those decisions that may set the course of our lives.

Winding down

2006-11-23T01:44:00.000-07:00

My initial intention with this blog was to provide a centralized resource of documented cases of ultra-left-wing Orthodox Judaism, as well as provide some common-sense commentary on those issues. My initial goals are nearly complete. Maintaining a blog takes time and energy. I hope to spend substantially less time on this endeavor and more time learning Torah. I will still try to get in a weekly or bi-weekly post...or possibly as needed.

I was using blog comments as a vehicle for readers to communicate with me. To alleviate confusion, I removed the comments feature on this blog. If a reader wishes to contact me, he or she can do so via the following email address: OpenOrthodoxy@hotmail.com.

For Torah sources that are relevant to issues presented at this blog, I recommend Rabbi Eliyahu Ferrell's blog, Einei HaEdah. I appreciate his chizuk and guest contributions. Aside from myself, he appears to be one of a handful of people who are willing to publicly critique "Open Orthodoxy" related subject matter. Is YU, the OU or the RCA ever going to get involved...

Blog Guest: Response to "Construction begins on Valley's first community mikvah"

2006-11-23T01:40:00.000-07:00

"An emerging tradition: Construction begins on Valley's first community mikvah" (Jewish News of Phoenix, 11/17/06) discusses the construction of a community mikvah in Phoenix, AZ. The article states the following about Orthodox involvement in the mikvah:

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, spiritual leader of KiDMa - The Southwest Community,which is Modern Orthodox, explained that CBI's mikvah "stands for hope and rebirth for the Jewish community." He added that the new mikvah is expected to be built "according to halachic standards" making it "kosher" for all denominations, including those who are Orthodox.

"The fact that this mikvah will be on the campus of a Reform synagogue does not make it a Reform mikvah," he said.

Rabbi Eliyahu Ferrell gave me permission to post a Letter to the Editor he sent to the Jewish News of Phoenix. Rabbi Ferrell states his concerns with Rabbi Kleinberg's involvement in the mikvah.

To the Editor:
In my opinion, any connection of Rabbi Darren Kleinberg to the new mikvah is very dismaying.

It seems to me that, in his house of worship, Talmudic law is abrogated at will. For example, the order of public prayer there does not include recital of the three Talmudic blessings through which a man thanks G-d for having been given the sanctity of a Jew and the responsibilities of Jewish manhood. [An individual man at services is allowed to say these three blessings on his own, though.] Instead, his service contains a made-up blessing. And--as I have documented in a previous Letter to the Editor--Rabbi Kleinberg's articles on the weekly Torah portion are rife with conceptions of G-d alien to Judaism.

In my opinion, he has thereby rendered himself unfit to certify the kosher status of a mikvah. And in my opinion, it is horrible that he will anyway "certify" the mikvah, because it will lead people to think it has an authentic Orthodox imprimatur.

Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell
Instructor of Talmud and Jewish Law
Passaic Torah Institute
Passaic, NJ

Interfaith pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style

2006-11-22T08:26:00.002-07:00

Martin Luther King memorial concert 2006 in cooperation with the Green Pastures Baptist Church, in front of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale paroches in the sanctuary:

- Click here for original source.
- Hebrew Institute of Riverdale's paroches

Rabbi Avi Weiss, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical students, cardinals, and bishops dance around the YCT bais midrash:

- Click here for original source.

- Click here for original source.

Interfaith shteiging (original title: "Havrusa action"):

- Click here for original source.

Full picture gallery : Cardinals and Bishops Visit to YCT 2006

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, a public figure of discussion on this blog, is far left in the following photo taken at an interfaith conference (description underneath the photo "...[the conference attendees] bow their heads in [interfaith] prayer during a conference at the Brandeis-Bardin Institute"):

- Click here for original source.

Related links:
- Cardinals Study With Orthodox Students (Forward, March 2006)
- Jewish Interfaith Endeavors: Academic Programs

Positive Pluralism

2006-11-22T08:26:00.001-07:00

There are two types of pluralism of interest to Orthodox Jews: interdenominational (e.g. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox) and interfaith (Christian, Muslim, Jew). An example of interdenominational pluralism is a non/multi-sectarian Jewish Federation. An example of interfaith pluralism is interfaith dialogue with non-Jews. Both of those examples can be positive in the proper context.

Pluralism is one of the first topics I should have written about. However, this topic is already well-documented and well-known, while other issues I have addressed are not. For completeness, I address this topic.

Some expressions of interdenominational and interfaith pluralism are quite controversial. Here are some positive viewpoints and examples of interdenominational and interfaith pluralism (albeit some are controversial):

Jewish interdenominational pluralism
- Pluralism and Jewish Unity - By Rabbi Marc D. Angel
- Pluralism

Interfaith pluralism
First and foremost, Jews must respect non-Jews:
- In The Image Of God
- Respect for others
- We Diminish Ourselves By Denigrating Non-Jews

Practical applications of interfaith pluralism:
- International Fellowship of Christian and Jews
- Noahide Laws
- Sanhedrin Moves to Establish Council For Noahides (note: my point is not whether this sanhedrin is valid or invalid, or this Noahide council is positive or negative, only that the concept of assisting sincere Noahides with Noahide matters is a positive expression of pluralism)
- RCA and OU Join with US Bishops in Calling for Expanded School Choice Options and Support

There are Jewish perspectives that consider faithful Christians to also be Noahides.

Free advertising for Open Orthodoxy

2006-11-20T16:33:00.000-07:00

Someone forwarded an email to me that Rabbi Avi Weiss will be lecturing at Kidma in Phoenix, AZ. I'm thinking about attending. Anyone who is familiar with my blog should also be familiar with Kidma. Consider this a follow-up post to Haskama: I endorse ye.

Subject: ***SAVE THE DATE***
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:09:40 -0700
From: KiDMa - Rabbi Kleinberg

Please join us for a special community lecture delivered by

Rabbi Avi Weiss

Founder and Dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School,
and one of the most influential rabbinic personalities
in the American Jewish Community today

Rabbi Weiss will speak on the topic of:
"Challenges Facing the Jewish People in the 21st Century"

Date: Sunday, December 3rd
Time: 6:30pm - refreshments will be served
Place: KiDMa - The Southwest Community
727 E. Glendale Avenue, Suite 2A, Phoenix, AZ 85020

THERE IS NO CHARGE FOR THIS PROGRAM

For more information,
please contact kidma@kidma.org, or call (602) 330 2335

Fundamental nature of God is not debatable

2006-11-16T18:19:00.000-07:00

In response to Rabbi Darren Kleinberg’s article, “Reaching for Perfection”, the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix published two rebuttal Letters to the Editor. I also sent in a response, but it wasn’t published. I'm glad, as the printed letters were better than my own.

The newspaper titled the letters, “Debating the nature of God”. Rabbi Ariel Shoshan and Rabbi Andrew Gordimer were not partaking in a debate, but presenting viewpoints which they obviously believe are not debatable.

Here are Rabbi Shoshan's and Rabbi Gordimer's eloquent letters:

Editor:
Count me among those saddened to read that someone would state, in the name of the Torah, that God is "less than perfect," that his choosing the Jewish people was "a moment of imperfection in God's creation and decision-making," and that Abraham and his family are "the founders of the three great religions of the West" ("Reaching for perfection," Jewish News, Nov. 3).

A simple reading of Deuteronomy 32:4 - "Perfect is His work, for all His paths are justice; a God of faith without iniquity" - as well as Maimonides' Foundations of Torah and Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith clearly illustrates that the author's assertions are not in consonance with traditional Torah beliefs.

Rabbi Ariel Shoshan
Scottsdale

Editor:
I read with dismay "Reaching for Perfection," in which the writer negates two basic principles of Judaism: the perfection of God and the unique, eternal chosen status of the Jewish people. These concepts are essential and clear in our basic religious texts, and I am shocked that a rabbi - no less one who calls himself Orthodox - could dare contradict these basics of our faith.

It is unfortunate that this incident is one of many in which the writer and fellow graduates of his rabbinic school, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT), have undermined the fundamentals of traditional Judaism. YCT graduates participating in interfaith prayer, writing articles that question the authority of Halacha and adopting non-halachic practices are all too well-known. If this can be called Orthodox Judaism, I do not know what cannot.

Rabbi Andrew Gordimer
New York

Relevant links:
- Blog guest: response to "Reaching for perfection"
- Heresy? or, Heresy!

Raiders of the Lost Dvar Torah

2006-11-15T17:16:00.000-07:00

Seven years ago next week (parshas Toldos) Rabbi Avi Weiss published the dvar Torah, “Yitzhak: Teaching us about Downs Syndrome”. It should be listed at the HIR (Rabbi Avi Weiss’ congregation) web site at Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat – parshas Toldos (Kislev 5760 November 12-13, 1999), however for a well-known essay it is conspicuously missing. The dvar Torah was titled as a "Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat", and the years 5759 and 5761 are listed, but no 5760.

One blog reader harshly and presumptuously stated to me that there are no 5760 divrei Torah listed at the HIR "Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat" site:

Why is it conspicuous that the article is missing when THERE IS NOT A SINGLE FORSHPEIS FROM 5760 ON THE WEBSITE??? You are being deceitful and misleading as usual. If you want to criticize things Rabbi Weiss said, that's one thing, but don't make things up.

That commenter is incorrect. Oddly, the divrei Torah are only missing for the book of Bereishis. Shemos, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Dvarim, all have 5760 divrei Torah listed in those sections. It is anomalous that this high-profile well-known dvar Torah is not also there. Thank you reader, for ensuring that my blog readers are not mislead.

The complete dvar Torah can be found here: Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 133

“Yitzhak: Teaching us about Downs Syndrome” represents a prototypical drash style of liberal divrei Torah. It contains elements of shock value and a tone that humanizes our holy Avos in a way that is untraditional. Open Orthodoxy, a movement started by Rabbi Avi Weiss, is a controversial, growing sect of Orthodox Judaism. I believe it is important to understand the hashkafic origins of provocative divrei Torah that are being elicited by Open Orthodox proponents.

The most audacious controversial idea of the dvar Torah is that Yitzhak’s alleged attributes are compared to the pathology of the genetic disorder, Down’s syndrome:

The upshot: Yitzhak is easy to deceive, he lacks individuality, is spared grief, is compliant and is even laughed at. My dear friend, Rabbi Saul Berman points out that there is a common thread that weaves itself through each of these characteristics - they are often found in those who have Downs Syndrome.
...
There is no classical opinion that suggests that Yitzhak had Downs. Still, the fact that his attributes fit into this mold, teaches a vital lesson - those with Downs possess the image of God and have the ability to spiritually soar, to spiritually inspire and yes, even to lead.

There are other statements within the dvar Torah that are provocative by traditional Orthodox standards:

"There is something naive, almost simplistic, about our second patriarch Yitzhak (Isaac)"

"there was something funny about Yitzhak; when you looked at him, you would laugh"

"Yitzhak is absolutely compliant. He goes to Moriah to be slaughtered without persistent argument. He seems to agree with everything he's asked to do, no matter the consequences"

"Once again Yitzhak is depicted as one for whom key decisions are made and one, who felt especially attached to his mother."

When this dvar Torah was published, many readers condemned it. One comment that best distills the criticism is the following:

Ribono shel Olam! Forget the Down's Syndrome issue...By the time you finish with this totally appalling material, to say Yitzchok Avinu had DS (r"l) is almost a limud zechus.
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 133

Rabbi Weiss responded to critics that his dvar Torah was only meant to illustrate compassion for those that are challenged:

For some, spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect. Those of lesser intelligence are not viewed as having the capacity to have spiritual depth. The Forshpeis was an attempt to say that spirituality emerges from the whole being-not only from the mind, but also from the soul. Those with Downs may be blessed with the spiritual brilliance to become the greatest tsadikim or tsidkaniot of their generation. - "An Addendum to Last Week's Forshpeis on Down's Syndrome"

Rabbi Weiss' sentiments are compassionately well-intentioned but disregard the main criticism of “depictive disrespect”, which he unfortunately did not address at all in his "addendum".

Since Rabbi Weiss defended his dvar Torah, why did HIR either remove or not post it at the HIR web site? Why not post the dvar Torah with Rabbi Weiss’ follow-up statements? Is the “missing” dvar Torah an implicit recanting/repudiation of that dvar Torah?

Update: Parshas Toldos 5767 (2006)
In a dvar Torah for parshas Toldos, Yaakov and Yisrael: The Integration of Body and Soul, Rabbi Avi Weiss stated the following:

One wonders how Yitzchak could have been so naive to prefer his eldest son Esav more than the younger Yaakov.

One may wonder why Rabbi Weiss didn't use more terse, less connotative language such as, "One wonders how Yitzchak preferred his eldest son Esav more than the younger Yaakov." Or, maybe not.

Relevant links:
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 131
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 132
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 133
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 134
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 135

Stressful God of "tension" and "anxiety"

2006-11-14T07:46:00.000-07:00

Akiva Herzfeld (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of '07) wrote a dvar Torah titled "Lech-lecha and the Marriage of Sarah, God, and Abraham" (11/2/2006) that depicts Avrohom and Sorah with pessimistic contemporary psychoanalysis. God is listed between Sarah and Abraham in the title, illustrating God as an intermediary source of tension between them. That idea is the focus of the dvar Torah. Here are some highlights from Herzfeld's dvar Torah:

God is a source of blessing in their [Avrohom and Sorah's] marriage...But God is also the source of anxiety in their marriage. The need to fulfill God's covenant had been the principal point of tension between Abram and Sarai, as they struggled to have a child and fulfill the covenantal promise.
...
Abram tells Sarai that she is more important to him than the pregnant Hagar, and by extension she [Sorah] is more important than the future of his name and covenant with God.
...
God can be a source of tension in a marital relationship, but He is also the source of all blessing and happiness. Abraham and Sarah's marriage is evidence of the struggle entailed in managing the appropriate space for God in a relationship.

Is God to blame for the alleged tension and anxiety in Avrohom and Sorah's marriage? Is Sorah "more important than the future of [Avrohom's] name and covenant with God"? Do Avrohom and Sorah manage the "appropriate space" for God in their relationship as though religion was an extracurricular hobby rather than a lifestyle?

Regardless of depictive mode and illustrative license, accurate or not, it's only drash (interpretation), right? There are critics of "liberal" divrei Torah who are concerned not only with the ideas that are communicated, but how (attitude) those ideas are communicated. For example, are those ideas presented positively and respectfully.

Does God create stress in a relationship or does he provide challenges/tests? Is Sorah "more important than the future of [Avrohom's] name and covenant with God" because Avrohom listens to her by sending Hagar away? Or, is Sorah fulfilling Hashem's mutual desires, Avrohom's namesake and covenant with Hashem by sending Hagar away? Is God "managed" within a marriage or does God encompass a marriage?

Is there a recurring theme of superfluous provocative negativity in liberal divrei Torah?

Other interesting divrei Torah:
- Women and the Mitzvah of Pru u’Rvu
- Noach the Tzadikel
- Why Sarah? A Midrash
- Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right?

Haskama: I endorse ye

2006-11-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

Rabbis of "Open Orthodoxy", go forth and preach pluralism, feminism, relativism, and open Torah for all closed by radical Orthodox fundamentalist theology.

I was working on a series of blog posts when someone informed me that some of my blog readers may have the impression that certain YCT musmachim referenced at my blog are not endorsed by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Other people have said to me, "Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean of YCT) and Rabbi Dov Linzer (rosh yeshiva of YCT) must not know what is going on with their "controversial" musmachim, they would never accept it." My response to both of those items: au contraire mon frere (to the contrary, my brother).

YCT implicitly endorses their graduates by proudly listing pictures and bios of their alumni on a web page titled "Bringing Open Orthodox Rabbinic Leadership to a Community Near You". Every YCT rabbi referenced on my blog is listed on that page. The bios showcase the accomplishments of YCT graduates. For example, Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's bio states:

"...he [Rabbi Kleinberg] is a faculty member of Kol-El – The Kollel for living Judaism, a multi-denominational learning program headed by [Reform] Rabbi William C. Berk."

Rabbi Avi Weiss has explicitly stated support for specific YCT graduates in an interview for Canonist:

Rabbis Kleinberg and East are developing communities where there was no Modern Orthodoxy in effect, certainly, no Orthodoxy that we would call ‘open’ and inclusive. Development of new open Modern Orthodox congregations is an important aspect of YCT’s vision. In fact, the yeshiva [YCT] finds it so critical that we assist by financially supporting these new communities [e.g. Kidma].

There are other instances where YCT has shown support of specific graduates. As stated in an earlier post, Rabbi Saul Berman lectured at the Open Orthodox Kidma congregation. So has Rabbi Weiss. YCT musmachim I have blogged about have been featured in the YCT newsletter. Take a look at the full page Community Profile of Kidma, "YCT Alumnus Brings Open Orthodoxy to the Southwest" (YCT Fall 2006 newsletter, p.7).

Concerning what the YCT administration "knows" about their graduates, I have sent emails to both Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Dov Linzer discussing musmach concerns. I also sent them a link to my blog. Neither Rabbi Weiss or Linzer has responded to me.

Blog guest: response to "Reaching for perfection"

2006-11-08T16:43:00.000-07:00

Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell gave me permission to post his response to Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's article, "Reaching for perfection":

In Rabbi Kleinberg’s articles, we seem to read of a deity who is not the G-d of Judaism. Indeed, in all my adult years in yeshivos and in all of the years in my youth spent in non-Orthodox institutions, I never heard any Jew describe G-d the way Rabbi Kleinberg describes his god.

(1) The G-d of Judaism is good and wise beyond our capacity to imagine or describe. We state during every morning service, “Who among the supernal beings or the terrestrial beings can say to You [G-d], ‘What are You doing?’” We bless G-d as the True Judge after a bitter occurrence, affirming that He is correct in all that He does (see Talmud, Berachos 54/a and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 222:2). Rabbi Kleinberg seems to impugn G-d’s goodness: “How do we come to terms with a God that seemingly acts outside of the moral compass that our tradition (including the biblical tradition) passes down to us? What does it mean to attempt to live ‘in the image of God’ when that image is sometimes one that we wish to turn away from?...” [from "Challenge of the text"]

As the great (truly) Modern Orthodox sage Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein said, “I do not judge God. I assume, a priori, that ‘His deeds are perfect, for all His ways are just; a faithful God, without iniquity, righteous and upright is He’ (Deuteronomy 32:4). If He commands, ‘Take your son and offer him as a sacrifice,’ then it must be good (in a sense which perhaps, at the moment, I do not understand). But within the context of my a priori obedient submission, I may try to understand.”

(2) The G-d of Judaism is consummately perfect and all-knowing. He is unchanging—including growing from learning (Malachi 3:5; Jeremiah 23:24; Proverbs 15:3; Maimonidean Code 1:2-3, 1: 10-11, 2:9-10; Guide to the Perplexed 1:11, 3:13, 3:25; #10 of the 13 Faith Tenets). Rabbi Kleinberg—without any specific citations—seems to reject this description of G-d: “[T]he most fascinating aspect of the Torah [is] its depiction of God as less than perfect…And so it must be asked: ‘Did God not know that man would be alone?’ Is God not, after all, all-knowing (omniscient)? One answer that has been given to this question is that the Torah is teaching us a lesson that even God learns, and therefore, so should we…Another more mystical approach suggests that God is in a process of reaching perfection...”

(3) The Chosenness of the Jewish people by the G-d of Judaism has never in 33 centuries of religious Jewish thought been described as an error made by G-d. And never in 33 centuries has any religious Jewish thinker said that, in actuality, all of humanity is chosen. Precious, yes!—but not chosen. This is stated in unnumerable sources and is encapsulated in the Torah blessings recited every day and at every Torah-reading: “He chose us from all other nations and gave us His Torah.” In the holiday liturgy, this basic principle is also encapsulated: “You have chosen us from all other nations; You have loved us and been pleased with us.” Yet Rabbi Kleinberg dismisses this: “I would like to suggest that this idea - the idea that we Jews are the ‘Chosen People’ - is another example of a moment of imperfection in God's creation and decision-making…We must consider this awesome and wonderful privilege to be the inheritance of all peoples. There is no one who is exempt from this obligation. We have all been chosen.”

America grants freedom of speech. No one can stop Rabbi Kleinberg from expressing his opinions—but there are laws against false advertising. His articles are not representative of Orthodox Judaism.

I ask Rabbi Kleinberg to tell me if I have misunderstood him and to assert without ambiguity or obfuscation his belief that G-d never makes a mistake, never does anything immoral or unjust, and chose the Jewish people and only the Jews.

Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell
Member, Talmud Faculty
Passaic Torah Institute
Passaic, NJ

Relevant links:
- Rabbi Ferrell maintains the excellent Einei HaEdah blog

Heresy? or, Heresy!

2006-11-06T16:33:00.000-07:00

In a dvar Torah titled "Reaching for perfection" (11/03/2006), Rabbi Darren Kleinberg (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2005) of Kidma wrote some provocative remarks concerning the perfection of God and the “choseness” of the Jewish people.

Rabbi Kleinberg suggests that God is imperfect by providing an approach “that God is in a process of reaching perfection.” Rabbi Kleinberg also suggests that God made a mistake in the selection process of the Jewish people as his Chosen People by stating that “the idea that we Jews are the Chosen People - is another example of a moment of imperfection in God's creation and decision-making.” Rabbi Kleinberg reluctantly identifies ("Rabbi Darren Kleinberg dislikes labels but identifies as Modern Orthodox") as a Modern Orthodox rabbi, and yet, these are not Orthodox viewpoints.

I know of at least three Orthodox rabbis in Phoenix, AZ (where Kidma is located) who were compelled to rebut the dvar Torah’s assertions in their weekly Shabbos drashas.

Here's true pluralism at work: I communicated with Modern Orthodox, Chareidi, and Lubavitch rabbis. All condemned the contents of "Reaching for perfection".

I wonder what Yeshivat Chovevei Torah thinks of all of this…

Relevant links:
- Why Harold Kushner Is Wrong
- The Problem with Proofs of God

Mechitza magic: now you see it, now you don't

2006-11-01T16:27:00.000-07:00

This post discusses some of Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2005) views about mechitza. Foremostly, I wish to stress that his shul (Kidma) DOES have a mechitza. However, I make no assertions as to its usage or kashrus. You can see Kidma's mechitza in action at "YCT Alumnus Brings Open Orthodoxy to the Southwest" (YCT Fall 2006 newsletter, p.7).

Rabbi Kleinberg wrote an op-ed titled "Getting pluralism back on track" (8/11/2006). Here's an excerpt that implies that it's acceptable for a Jew to partake in a co-ed prayer gathering without a mechitza and without other non-negotiable Orthodox considerations:

For Jews from different segments of the community to gain a deeper understanding and therefore a deeper respect for one another, they must engage in a process of exposure to one another's experience as Jews. That includes crossing the thresholds of other denominations' houses of worship, not only for a celebration but also to pray together.

I addressed Rabbi Kleinberg’s assertions in a Letter to the Editor (8/25/2006):

Kleinberg states that we must cross "the thresholds of other denominations' houses of worship, not only for a celebration but also to pray together." However, it is against Halacha for an Orthodox Jew to pray in a synagogue with a woman cantor and without a mechitza (a divider between men and women).

For clarification of the mechitza issue, I had a brief email dialogue with Rabbi Kleinberg on 8/18/2006…

My letter to Rabbi Kleinberg:

In your recent article in Jewish News of Phoenix, you stated that we Jews must cross "...the thresholds of other denominations' houses of worship, not only for a celebration but also to pray together."

However, in an article in Forward magazine (9/20/2002), your mentor Rabbi Avi Weiss was quoted as stating: "Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School, as an Orthodox institution, requires that its students daven only in synagogues with mechitzot."

Rabbi Kleinberg's Response:

Rabbi Weiss and I may well have different stands on this issue - although I believe that that statement refers specifically to regular attendance as opposed to what I was referring to.

My Response...
Via email, I said to Rabbi Kleinberg that I fail to see the difference between attending (a non-mechitza prayer service) one time or a hundred times.

Rabbi Kleinberg's Response:

In halacha we do have precedent for the idea that something can be done infrequently but should not become the regular practice. For an interesting example of this, see Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins discussion of "biah shelo c'darka" - i.e. sexual practice that deviates from the missionary position.

The reason I use this example is because it deals with an area of living in which one might expect halacha to be more rigid (compare to Catholics) - and yet R.Moshe is very broad-minded in his responsa.

So too here - the distinction between regular attendance in a non-Orthodox shul for fulfillment of one's personal prayer obligations and a more "now-and-then" attendance for the greater good of the Jewish people (if one sees it as such - of course many will not agree with me on this point either) is an important one.

An unnamed rabbi suggested that I should have titled this post, "Mechitza shelo c'darka". Or, I was thinking maybe a Shakespearean Jewish motif: "To be-ah shelo c'darka" or "Not to be-ah shelo c'darka", that is the question of mechitza.

The $64,000 question...where and how can I learn to make such fascinating Torah connections and insights?

Weeping for Psalms

2006-10-30T18:57:00.000-07:00

Rabbi Josh Feigelson (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2005) reviewed two books on the translation of Tehillim (Psalms) in his article for Zeek Magazine titled “Singing God's Praises: Psalms and Authenticity”. One book was "Psalms in a translation for praying: A work in progress by Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, the other was "Opening to You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms" by Norman Fischer.

Zalman Schachter-Shalomi is the primary leader and a significant founder of the Jewish Renewal Movement. From Wikipedia, here's a brief excerpt describing Jewish Renewal:

Jewish Renewal is a new religious movement in Judaism that attempts to reinvigorate what it views as a moribund and uninspiring modern Judaism with mystical, Hasidic, musical and meditative practices drawn from a variety of traditional and untraditional, Jewish and other, sources.
...
In seeking to augment Jewish ritual, some Renewal Jews borrow freely and openly from Buddhism, Sufism, Native American religion, and other faiths; this is termed syncretism. Many Jews outside this movement view religious syncretism as outside the bounds of Judaism.

Norman Fischer is a Jewish-American Soto Zen Buddhist priest. He is what some refer to as a Jubu, a Jewish Buddhist.

Here are quotes from Rabbi Feigelson's article, with my commentary:

Zalman frequently switches God's gender back and forth between male and female, highlighting the limitations of our language and our thinking about sexuality and its ascription to God. Also, more often than not he addresses God in the second person, as You, even when the Hebrew original is in the third person. Take Psalm 77, for instance. The JPS opens, "I cry aloud to God; I cry to God that He may give ear to me." Who is being addressed here? The reader, who is told that the Psalmist is crying out to God, and is perhaps invited to participate, or comforted in knowing that someone else also wants to cry out to God. But Zalman dispenses with the middleman: "I raise my voice to cry out to You, God. I raised my voice and You gave ear to me." This is good stuff, helpful stuff-it brings the davenner, the person doing the praying, to a much more personalized encounter with God through the text. It is certainly a more comfortable translation for our non-traditional Jew than a traditional translation.

Response: Rabbi Feigelson states that in Schachter-Shalomi’s translation of Tehillim he “…switches God's gender back and forth between male and female” and “…addresses God in the second person, as You, even when the Hebrew original is in the third person.” Concerning this approach, Rabbi Feigelson states that “This is good stuff, helpful stuff…” Should an Orthodox rabbi critique Schachter-Shalomi’s approach with these affirmations...or maybe condemnations instead?

Fischer addresses God as "you," not "You." The style is comfortable and intimate, almost conversational, but still at enough of a remove to feel set-apart and holy.

Response: From a lashon hakodesh (Hebrew) perspective, addressing God as “you" or "You” in English seems to be a silly semantic point. However, it is not silly when an Orthodox rabbi discusses and affirms this convention in a context that is completely misaligned with Orthodoxy.

A better translation [of Psalms] from a language standpoint, however, is Norman Fischer's Opening to You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms. Fischer is a poet, as well as a Zen abbot, and he acknowledges in his excellent introductory essay that his is not a translation directly from the Hebrew: "Since I am a poet and a religious practitioner, and not a Hebraist, my work with the Psalms rests largely on the work of translators. In that sense they are 'versions' rather than translations, perhaps as much original English-language poems as faithful replicas of the Hebrew text."
…
He [Fischer] is not quite translating Psalms, as he admits-so is this Psalms at all? Does it matter? If it doesn't, what's the point of this project?

Fischer answers this question in his introduction, with a sharp insight: "Buddhism begins with suffering and the end of suffering." In contrast, "the Psalms make it clear that suffering is not to be escaped or bypassed… I would go so far as to say that for Western Buddhist practitioners, a sensitive and informed appreciation of the problematic themes included and so powerfully expressed in the Psalms is probably a necessity." (pp. xvi-xvii) Fischer is starting from Buddhism and using the Psalms to inform his Buddhist practice, and thus he has less at stake in the question of the authenticity of his translation. His work feels more comfortable in its own skin than Zalman's as a consequence.

Response: To a certain degree, Rabbi Josh Feigelson legitimizes Norman Fischer's book by reviewing it analytically instead of critically, and sometimes affirmatively. Why would an Orthodox rabbi bestow credibility onto a religious book written from a "Jewish Buddhist perspective", to be used by Buddhists? Why would an Orthodox Rabbi review this book at all?

An authentic translation, like any authentic and true human expression, cannot take place on the page. It can only-maybe-happen inside the mind and soul of a human being relating to the Other: God, human, or text.

Response: An authentic translation of Jewish holy writings begins with an accurate written lexical translation. An accurate translation can certainly convey emotion and elicit spirituality without compromising the content and context of the original text. Mistranslations may result in serious halachic ramifications. Rabbi Feigelson’s statement that an authentic translation “can only-maybe-happen inside the mind and soul of a human being relating to the Other...” epitomizes relativism.

Here is a partial list of related articles listed at the end of Rabbi Feigelson's article:
- Hasidism and Homoeroticism Jay Michaelson July, 2004
- How I Finally Learned to Accept Christ in my Heart Jay Michaelson June, 2000

To say the least, Zeek Magazine is an interesting choice of publication for an Orthodox rabbi to be published in...

Here are some quotes from the Zeek "About" page:

We welcome the heretical, honor the sincere, and are generally bored by in-jokes, apologetics, and irony.
...
We find the smugness of the cynic and the soft-mindedness of the believer equally repellent to truth. 'Secular' and 'religious' are idols of identity, which we wish to efface.
...
We are committed to building a new form of Jewish community and identity, one which is serious, playful, pluralistic, committed, inclusive, and cosmopolitan. We are interested in wherever the new Jewish cultures lead.
...
We are suspicious of any truths that claim to be universal...and any ideologies which reduce the complex to the simple.

Here is a sampling of articles published by Zeek Magazine:
- Star Wars, George Bush, Judaism, and the Penis
- God on Ecstasy
- Wrestling with Esther: Purim Spiels, Gender, and Political Dissidence
- How can you be gay and Jewish?
- Am I "Religious"?

Rabbi Feigelson's rabbinical alma matar, YCT, certainly respects his religious insights, as they have recently published a dvar Torah of his, "The Spirit of Song" (9/30/2006).

Relevant links:
- Josh Feigelson Northwestern Hillel Campus Rabbi
- The Feigelsonian Theory of Smurfian Communism in the Post-War Era

From Rabbi Josh Feigelson's Blog:
- Aaron's is Treif
- Slavery and Kashrut
- How to read the Bible

Madda uTorah instead of Torah uMadda

2006-10-26T21:44:00.000-07:00

I came across interesting comments by a Ya'akov Simon. The email address of the commenter corresponds to Rabbi Ya'akov Simon, a Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate (at the time, he was a YCT student). The commenter responds to "negative reactions" of the Jewish Week op-ed article, "Choosing Public School Over Yeshiva" by a Ms. Bat Sheva Marcus (a founding board member of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance). The synopsis of the Jewish Week article is that Ms. Marcus sent two of her three children to public school instead of a Yeshiva/Jewish school because of secular considerations.

My commentary is interspersed within the commenter's text:

I am shocked at the negative reactions to Ms. Marcus' Op-Ed piece in the Jewish Week. I grew up non-observant and attended public school in the 80's. I agree with the critiques that the challenges that are faced in public school are difficult, but I do not think that they are insurmountable.

Response: Should an Orthodox Jew view public school as a viable educational alternative to Jewish school, but with challenges that can be overcome? Whether or not a Jewish child/teenager can successfully integrate within a secular educational system and still be a Torah-observant Jew is irrelevant. Public schools represent values (e.g. immodesty) that a young Jewish person should not have to contend with on a protracted, unrelenting basis.

Day-School education is very expensive and it is understandable that a family would choose not to spend money on it.

Response: "Day-School education is very expensive." That is obvious. The Jewish educational system is very broken in this regard. However, it is not "understandable that a family would choose not to spend money on it." That is a cop-out. There are options (e.g. scholarships) to make the finances work better. It's unfortunate that the finances of Jewish education can be a burden, but that is an issue to be dealt with, not disregarded by leaving the system.

If a child has a n'tiah [proclivity] for secular subjects that are taught better in a public school, then let them learn in public school and receive private tutoring for liumdei kodesh.

Response: I am troubled that this statement prioritizes secular over religious studies. Why not hire tutors for secular subjects instead? There are other great ways to supplement both limudei chol and kadosh outside the confines of standard school. For example, computer-learning, and some Torah-observant Jews may disagree with this secular suggestion - supplemental classes provided by a public school or university. The primary schooling must remain Jewish.

If we are willing to send our children to secular universities, then one could make a convincing case that it is similarly acceptable to send our children to secular secondary schools. Because a high school student will live at home, unlike a university student. And a strong home environment and influence can counterbalance the influence of secular culture in public school.

Response: A Jewish way of life is a Torah way of life that rigorously revolves around time (e.g. daily prayers and Jewish holidays), religious observance and service, and community. Should pre-college Jewish students be placed into a daily environment that is antithetical to that way of life? At the college level, there are very few Orthodox Jewish options available and one would expect a college student to have a less-influenceable established pattern of behavior than a secondary school student living at home or not.

However there is one important caveat, education is unique to each child. One child can thrive in public school where another will fail. How do you know that this child, Yedidyah, would thrive in day school. It is possible that he could be intellectually bored and frustrated and have a negative Jewish experience. I have met many adults that were turned-off to Torah and Mitzvot because of their Jewish Day School experience. I agree that as a general rule it is better to send a Jewish child to Day School than public school. But exceptions can and should be made. I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with Ms. Marcus' specific decision, but I think that a blanket rejection and personal attacks are unwarranted.

Response: Personal attacks are unwarranted. Blanket rejection of full-time public school attendance by pre-college age Torah-observant Jews is warranted. A Torah-observant Jew should prioritize religious education and environment over secular.

There are reasonable extenuating circumstances why a (pre-college) Jewish student would attend a secular school instead of a Jewish one. For example, a student may be denied admissions to a Jewish school because of insurmountable behavioral problems. Or, a child may have severe special needs that cannot be met by a Jewish school. Lack of an exceptional secular education is not a "special need" that warrants leaving the Jewish school system. Parents should expect academic excellence in both religious and academic subjects from Jewish schools - with the presupposition that Jewish education comes first.

I wonder if Yeshivat Chovevei Torah or Yeshiva University concur with the idea that secular academic standards are a valid reason for a Jewish child/teenager to attend a public school over a Jewish one.

Jewish Week letters to editor, responding to "Choosing Public School Over Yeshiva":

Best For Child (01/17/2003), David L. Blatt
Rabbis Agree (01/17/2003), Rabbi Hershel Billet
Brother Speaks Up (01/10/2003), Yishai Schwartz
Improper Forum (01/10/2003), Rabbi Binyamin Blau
Statistical Evidence (01/10/2003), Michael Feldstein
Two Articles (01/10/2003), Stuart Pilichowski
Yeshiva Tuitions (01/10/2003), N. Horowitz
Choosing Schools (01/03/2003), Daniel Goodman
Jewish Education (01/03/2003), Michael Schulder
Secular Temptations (01/03/2003), Gary Heller

Relevant links:
- Evanston Jew: Orthodox Poverty and Wealth

Now playing in synagogue theaters: Shonda, Shonda, Shonda

2006-10-25T09:44:00.000-07:00

In September 2006, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate Rabbi Darren Kleinberg organized a screening of "Sentenced to Marriage" in conjunction with his shul Kidma and the Phoenix Jewish Film Festival. Here's a description of the film:

...this shocking documentary exposes the Kafkaesque process of divorce for women in Israel where secular law does not exist, and divorce is dealt with according to archaic and fundamentalist orthodox Jewish law. Filmmaker Anat Zuria, maker of the award-winning Purity, gained rare access to the rabbinical courts to follow two women caught in the demoralizing legal labyrinth. Though husbands can live with other women and even withhold child support, wives are forbidden contact with other men. In some cases, these very modern, independent and well-educated women are forced to buy a divorce from their husbands for huge sums. As a result, thousands of Jewish women have lived in limbo indefinitely, both in Israel and in other communities around the world.

This is not the first time that a controversial video has been shown by a protege of Rabbi Avi Weiss. Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky and Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld organized screenings of "Trembling before G-d", a film that deals with Orthodox Judaism and homosexuality. Rabbi Herzfeld, assistant rabbi of HIR at the time, screened "Trembling before G-d" for the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale in the Bronx. Rabbi Kanefsky screened the film for his synagogue.

Rabbi Kleinberg appears to have taken a different approach, screening "Sentenced to Marriage" in a pluralistic manner (see Reform Temple Chai Newsletter page 15). Kidma not only partnered with a "secular" film festival, but the film was shown at a Conservative synagogue. Afterwards there was a discussion panel of three rabbis that included Rabbi Kleinberg (Orthodox), and a Conservative and Reform (woman) rabbi.

The Orthodox agunah issue is a serious one that must be addressed. That said, whose issue is it? Why would an Orthodox rabbi spearhead the screening of a film (that portrays Orthodoxy negatively) with those whom the issue is not pertinent to? Conservative Judaism has its own way of dealing with their agunah issue. Reform Judaism does not adhere to the Orthodox or Conservative concepts of agunah. Regardless, "Sentenced to Marriage" deals with the Orthodox agunah issue.

Should Orthodox Jews proactively engage Conservative and Reform Jews (who may have been completely oblivious what an agunah is) about sensitive, Orthodox-specific issues such as agunah? Should an Orthodox rabbi seek opportunities to coordinate events with and at non-Orthodox places of worship to promote hotbutton Orthodox issues that are irrelevant to the non-Orthodox?

Some might say that we should do everything possible to promote understanding between the different sects of Judaism. However, profound culturally contextual issues such as agunah can only generate an unwarranted negative perception of Orthodoxy when addressed within the confines of a 1-2 hour film and discussion. Why not embrace issues that accentuate Orthodox similarities with the non-Orthodox instead of spotlighting culture-shock issues that radicalize our differences?

I reliably heard that Rabbi Kleinberg contacted other local Orthodox congregations to participate with this video presentation. They declined. I can't imagine why they said no...

Relevant links:
- Temple Chai Newsletter page 15
- "Till Death Do Us Part..."
- The Rabbis Respond contains interesting comments by Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld about "Trembling before G-d" (for a commenter: you shouldn't assume that my intention is controversy or condemnation merely because I list a link. I am merely providing relevant information of interest.)
- "Trembling before G-d" Aish.com review

Why did Rabbi Avi Weiss/YCT hire Rabbi Saul Berman?

2006-10-22T11:33:00.000-07:00

Recently (Sept. 2006), Rabbi Saul Berman was a special Shabbos weekend guest lecturer at the local "Open Orthodox" shul, Kidma. As a point of interest, I Googled Rabbi Berman. Instantly, I saw surprising information that I was unaware of: Rabbi Saul Berman (former director of Edah) defended Mordechai (Marc) Gafni (an admitted sex abuser) on multiple occasions. Even more surprising was that Rabbi Avi Weiss, dean of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah hired Rabbi Berman (as Director of Rabbinic Enrichment) with no apparent regard for or acknowledgement of Rabbi Berman's role in the Gafni fiasco.

One only needs to Google "Saul Berman Marc Gafni" to see dozens of related links.

Considering the controversy surrounding Rabbi Saul Berman, Kidma's choice of lecturer was at the very least, questionable. However, I am not surprised, since Kidma's spiritual leader is Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, a YCT graduate and protege of Rabbi Avi Weiss.

Based on Rabbi Berman's adamant support for Gafni, there are individuals who believe that Chovevei Torah should not have hired Rabbi Berman. So, why did Chovevei Torah hire Rabbi Berman?

Rabbi Berman is a preeminent liberal Modern Orthodox scholar and former director of the flag-ship liberal Modern Orthodox Edah organization. Rabbi Berman's viewpoints complement and support YCT's philosophies. With Edah closing, the hiring of Rabbi Berman was a major recruit for YCT. Due to Rabbi Berman's extensive credentials and compatibility, did YCT deliberately overlook certain factors in their hiring decision?

Related sources/links in date sequence:
Rabbi Saul Berman defended Gafni when Rabbi Shlomo Riskin and Rabbi Yosef Blau wouldn't: The Re-Invented Rabbi The Jewish Week 9/22/2004

Defending Rabbi Gafni By Rabbi Saul Berman, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and Rabbi Tirzah Firestone - Jewish Week (NY) Letters - 10/8/2004:

We pray that this unfair, scandalous moment will soon be forgotten and that Rabbi Gafni will be able to free his spiritual energy and formidable intellect in order to help build Jewish consciousness and commitment.

Letter from Rabbi Saul Berman presented by The Awareness Center (undated but presumably after 2004 and before the 5/26/2006 Jewish Journal article, "Rabbi Gafni Ousted for Misconduct"):

Indeed, I firmly believe that the notion suggested by Vicki Polin of the Awareness Center that he [Marc Gafni] poses any danger whatsoever is patently absurd.
...
I urge the readers of this letter to continue to support Rabbi Gafni's work, including his public teachings, writings, television projects and social activism. We are in need today of hearing the emerging voices of the next generation of Jewish leadership, and Rabbi Gafni's voice is one of them. I look forward to learning what he has to teach in the decades to come.

Gafni's Letter to Aleph 5/15/2006:

I want to say I understand I have made grave mistakes. I made choices that clearly hurt people I love. I am infinitely saddened and profoundly sorry for the pain I have caused.

I take full responsibility for all the pain I have inflicted. Clearly all of this and more indicates that in these regards I am sick. I need to acknowledge that sickness and to get help for it. That is what I am doing in this letter.

Rabbi Saul Berman Must Be Removed From Public Jewish Life Immediately Failed Messiah blog 5/18/2006

Rabbi [Marc Gafni] Fired Over Sex Claims, Defenders Offer Mea Culpa Forward 5/19/2006

Rabbi Gafni Ousted for Misconduct Jewish Journal 5/26/2006:

Rabbi Saul Berman, the founder and director of Edah in New York, has been an outspoken defender of Gafni. In a letter taking this reporter to task for writing about the controversy in 2004, Berman, Rabbi Tirzah Firestone and ethicist and author Joseph Telushkin said they had looked into past allegations and found them “totally unconvincing.” They described the article as “unfair” and “scandalous.”

This month, Berman said he is “deeply regretful” of his prior support for Gafni, and worried that his past defense may have prolonged the rabbi’s “predatory behavior against women.”

“I was clearly wrong in stating that Rabbi Gafni’s continued role as a teacher within the Jewish community constitutes no risk to Jewish women,” he wrote in a statement.

Rabbi Saul Berman Hired by Chovevei Torah - letter from Rabbi Avi Weiss Canonist.com 7/2/2006:

Coming in at the unprecedented time of growth for the Yeshiva, Rabbi Berman will shape the way for the institution's support of the growing number of chevre in the field.
...
I am proud and delighted that Rabbi Berman, a person of great brilliance, integrity and sensitivity, has agreed to come on board [YCT].

Should the Community be Concerned About YCT's Berman Hiring? Canonist 7/4/2006:

Berman hasn't made any significant apology for his conduct, and when I left repeated messages for him seeking comment on Gafni, he did not return my calls. If he'd made an effort to immediately and fully apologize for his conduct after the recent Gafni revelations, and had made a full accounting of where he'd gone wrong and how he'd hope to avoid such missteps in the future, one could argue that this episode shouldn't factor into an assessment of his ability to "enrich" dozens of future rabbis, but that simply hasn't happened. At this point, the question for those concerned about clergy abuse is more about why Berman should be allowed in this position than why he shouldn't be.

Open Letter regarding Rabbi Saul Berman (addressed to Rabbi Avi Weiss) by Jewish Whistleblower, reprinted at Jewish Survivors blog 7/4/2006. This letter harshly questions the hiring of Rabbi Berman by Chovevei Torah.

Does Rabbis Saul Berman, Joseph Telushkin, Tirzah Firestone and Psychiatrist, Stephen Marmer have the courage to do Teshuva? Jewish Survivors blog 9/28/2006

Other related links:
- Case of Rabbi Mordechai Gafni - The Awareness Center
- Rabbi Saul Berman Profile - Like Ford
- Mordecai (Marc) Gafni Profile Part 1 - Luke Ford
- Mordecai Gafni Profile Part 2 - Luke Ford
- "Secular spiritualists" have the common-sense to repudiate Marc Gafni: A Statement About Marc Gafni from "What Is Enlightenment?"

Alternatives and Replacements

2006-10-19T12:37:00.000-07:00

An anonymous commenter stated the following about my post "Is Open Orthodoxy the future of Orthodox Judaism?",

you are grasping at straws-rabbi weiss does not say "open orthodoxy is what the future is about", but rather, "the future is what open orthodoxy is about." he is so clearly talking about having open orthodoxy as an alternative in the jewish world...

The discussion of Open Orthodoxy as an alternative to Modern or Chareidi Orthodoxy is not equivalent to whether you like Coke and I like Pepsi. Sometimes an alternative is a replacement.

A devout Coke drinker may drink Pepsi if he is thirsty and there is no other alternative. I doubt that any Chareidim (and many Modern Orthodox) would ever attend an Open Orthodox shul.

I say tomato, you say tomahto...

Open Orthodox rabbis further radicalize left-wing Orthodoxy

2006-10-17T17:45:00.000-07:00

Before Simchas Torah, I received an email that contained the following:

We [Kidma] are proud to announce that all men and women will have an opportunity to be called to the Torah on Simchat Torah.
If you have any questions regarding this, contact Rabbi Kleinberg at rabbi@kidma.org.

I contacted Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, rabbi of the Open Orthodox Kidma synagogue with following email message:

I received an email that you are offering aliyos for men and women on Simchas Torah. Per the email, I am contacting you for further information.
As a member of the Orthodox Jewish community, I am intrigued by the idea of aliyos for men and women. What will be the aliyos procedure for men and women? For example, separate Torah readings or mixed?

A general question...is this the direction that Kidma is moving in:
http://judaism.about.com/od/feminism/a/shirahadasha.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_Minyan

Rabbi Kleinberg did not respond to me. I confirmed with a couple of Kidma Simchas Torah attendees that women read and were called to the Torah on the women's side of the sanctuary. Kidma has one main sanctuary separated by a mechitza. If someone would like to provide me with a detailed description, please send it to me via blog comments.

Rabbi Kleinberg distributed a hand-out, titled "Women, Torah Reading and the Dignity of the Congregation: A Halachic Analysis". It referenced Talmud, Shulchan Oruch and other sources. His source material was clearly extracted from the following sources:
- Congregational Dignity and Human Dignity - Hebrew
- Congregational Dignity and Human Dignity - English
- Qeri’at ha-Torah by Women: A Halakhic Analysis

"Women's Krias HaTorah" is only one of the non-normative Orthodox practices that Rabbi Kleinberg has instituted in his Open Orthodox congregation.

Kidma's non-normative Orthodox practices include:

Replacing the three "shelo asani" brochos with "Se'asani Yisrael"

Before Torah reading, a woman carries the Torah onto the women’s side of the mechitza

The Bima is located on the men’s side of the mechitza but beyond the end-point of the mechitza

The Baal Koreh reads the Torah facing the congregation with his back to the Aron (Ark)

Kidma's practices are not unique. It appears that Rabbi Avi Weiss' (Rabbi Kleinberg's mentor) congregration (HIR) recently had a Kallat Torah and Kallat Bereishit (presumably on Simchas Torah). This is not surprising, considering that HIR has instituted extensive Women's Tefillah.

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky (another Rabbi Weiss protege) also has a woman carry the Torah onto the women’s side of the mechitza before his congregation's Torah reading.

Orthodox rabbis that I have spoken with believe that "Open Orthodox" synagogues will eventually become Shira Hadasha congregations/Partnership Minyanim. From what I've seen first-hand, I can't say that I disagree.

Aside from non-normative Orthodox religious practices, Rabbi Weiss proteges also profess radical left-wing hashkafa (ideology). That has been and will be addressed in future blog posts.

I find it intriguing that the Orthodox Union (HIR is an OU congregation) and the Rabbinical Council of America (contemplating YCT membership) have not yet either publicly embraced or repudiated "Open Orthodoxy" and its adherents.

Relevant links:
- Women, Simhat Torah, & Drew
- Quick Musing On Simhas Torah
- What's wrong with the women?
- Women's Prayer Groups: Rav Soloveitchik's Position
- Women and communal Torah reading - I

From the right: Kosher and treif Jewish music

2006-10-12T09:53:00.000-07:00

Although I am focused on ultra-left-wing Orthodoxy, occasionally there will be something from the right that MUST be reviewed.

Concerning Jewish music concerts, I find this VERY disturbing:

We encourage instruments that can produce authentic, Jewish sounds, mainly clarinet and violin," Blau said, revealing his own taste or that of the rabbis in whose name he has built up his power in the Haredi community.

What about electric guitars? "Electric guitars are fine as long as the sound isn't loud and strident. The important thing is not to 'Judaize' all sorts of songs from abroad that are, well, unkosher. No rap, no jazz. If there's a singer whose style is authentically Hassidic but there are lapses here and there, we make sure to set his playlist before he comes to perform at an approved event.
Sanctity Guard vets all music at Haredi Sukkot events / Beware of 'some John Lennon with a kippah'

There are Orthodox individuals who believe that Jewish music concerts are a completely inappropriate Jewish event. That's their perspective. However, it's apparent that contemporary music styles are being "banned" at some Jewish concerts. I think it's inferred that those supposedly non-Judaic styles should be completely banned.

Based on the standard presented in the article, MOST of the Jewish music at MostlyMusic.com should be banned -- contemporary a capella, rock, pop, reggae, children's and novelty/parody music like Uncle Moishy, Shlock Rock, Gershon Veroba...

Lipa Schmelczer has a lot of contemporary sounds in his music. I think he's really great, but oh well, ban him too!

I don't think this issue is wide-spread in the Orthodox community...yet.

Relevant links
- Rabbi Mordechai Blau:Tznius Cop Emes Ve-Emunah blog

Woman rabbi receives ordination from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah...

2006-10-09T12:00:00.000-07:00

...that is what the newspaper headlines may be in the future. There is interesting circumstantial evidence that this is the direction that YCT may eventually go in.

The Past: Let's start at the top of the slope...
The 1998 cover story from Religion & Ethics, "Women Rabbis" (Episode no. 124. 2/13/1998) featured the first Orthodox woman "Congregational Intern" at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, instituted by Rabbi Avi Weiss (rabbi of HIR and founder and dean of YCT).

MARY ALICE WILLIAMS: What you are looking at is a revolution, an innovation in Orthodox Judaism, and it's embodied in this 24-year-old. Sharona Margolin Halickman has broken through a gender barrier unbreached for 5,000 years. She is one of the first women to serve in a professional role like this in a Orthodox synagogue. Her title is Congregational Intern. She is not a rabbi, but she's darn close.
...
Rabbi MOSHE FASKOWITZ (National Council of Young Israel): What we've always learned is that it starts very innocently, very quietly and eventually -- there's an agenda here, and eventually what will happen is this internship will grow into a different kind of position, and it will be a different job definition, and it will include those areas in which women are absolutely prohibited.

Rabbi Avi WEISS: I respectfully disagree. I think that this enhances spirituality and brings more women into our fold. But look, when you do something that's different, it's bound to create controversy.
...
Ms. HALICKMAN: If we use the term "rabbi," you know, for something similar to what I'm doing, it would really exclude most of the Orthodox community, and it wouldn't become accepted, and we want to keep it accepted within the Orthodox community.

The Present: What's good for the faculty is good for the students
Rabbi B. Elka Abrahamson was listed as a member of the YCT adjunct faculty. She received ordination from Hebrew Union College, a Reform seminary. Rabbi Naomi Kalish, a Conservative woman rabbi, has also been listed as a member of the YCT adjunct faculty. All YCT instructors teach seminary-related classes. YCT is a rabbinical seminary, not a 4-year university.

By listing the title "Rabbi" before a man's or woman's name, YCT is certainly acknowledging that anyone with that title is recognized as a rabbi. I see no YCT distinction in the rabbinical title of their women rabbi faculty from that of Rabbi Avi Weiss (Dean) or Rabbi Dov Linzer (Rosh Yeshiva).

Based on their Reform and Conservative women rabbi faculty precedents, YCT may eventually hire an Orthodox woman rabbi. Recently, a woman received Orthodox rabbinical ordination (it was not from YCT, and it was noted that it was not exactly the same as for men). More Orthodox woman rabbis may follow.

If women rabbis are good enough to teach YCT male seminary students, then why shouldn’t YCT also ordain those same women? At a private religious seminary, doesn’t the student body typically reflect the faculty?

Anything you can do, I can do better
Ms. Dina Najman, an Orthodox woman, was appointed spiritual leader of an Orthodox-oriented congregation.

Concerning Ms. Najman’s appointment, Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh Yeshiva of Chovevei Torah, stated “She can do a better job than a large number of rabbis just coming out of rabbinical school.”

I will assume that Rabbi Linzer is referring to male orthodox rabbis ”just coming out of rabbinical school”. So, doesn’t his comment imply a rhetorical follow-up question…”Why not make her a rabbi?”

Rabbi Linzer’s comment can also be perceived as a backhanded compliment that Ms. Najman may better qualified than many men, but because she is an Orthodox woman she can never obtain the status/title of Orthodox rabbi.

Why even compare Ms. Najman to male rabbis? Why not compare her to learned men and women - focusing on her abilities instead of titles? Or better yet, why compare at all?

The Future...
Will YCT or a YCT sister school eventually ordain women rabbis? Only time will tell…

Side point: In the Hebrew language, the title "rabbi" may not be grammatically correct for a woman, however "rabbi" is unisex in the English vernacular. See On the Grammatical Question of Women Rabbis by YCT student, Drew Kaplan

It's milah time!

2006-10-04T18:28:00.000-07:00

Break out the icy cold Manishewitz, it's milah time...

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld (protege of Rabbi Avi Weiss¹) approves of the idea of circumcising male children born to a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother:

Herzfeld approvingly cited a 19th-century rabbinic ruling concerning a case of intermarriage in America, where a man married to a non-Jewish woman had his son circumcised despite the objections of the local rabbi."Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer though the child should be circumcised, offering two arguments which should be taken seriously by the Modern Orthodox community today," explained Herzfeld. First, though the offspring is not a legal Jew, on a mystical level the child retains a Jewish element. Not only does he argue that it is a mitzva to perform that circumcision, he also states that it's a mitzva to convert that child, and implies that it's important to bring the non-Jewish child to Judaism."His second argument is much more practical. If we ever want the father to return to Judaism, the only way we can do that is to embrace the family as well. If we want to bring back the father, we have to embrace the child in communal life."Herzfeld's provocative presentation epitomized the challenges and opportunities of Modern Orthodoxy--plumbing the past to consider seemingly modern-day issues, seeking leniency in ways that accord with Jewish law and reality."Open Orthodoxy" is the term Edah program director Rabbi Bob Carroll prefers to highlight his organization's ideological position.
- Who's "Modern" It's Academic: A Conference Offers a New Definition for a Movement of "Centrists"

I have issues with Rabbi Herzfeld's "approval" of Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer's psak:

Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer's opinion was a lone dissenting opinion and not binding. Hence, one should not actively endorse Rabbi Kalischer's ruling in a way that gives the perception that a non-normative halachic viewpoint is one that is potentially acceptable in practice.

In modern times, would Rabbi Kalischer still rule the same? During Rabbi Kalischer's time period of the 19th century, intermarriage was almost non-existent. His ruling was only applicable to a small percentage of the Jewish population. Since intermarried couples were an anomaly, his ruling would provide a way for those families to return to Judaism instead of suffering complete alienation. That is not the case today. Today, intermarriage is an accepted reality of the unaffiliated, conservative and reform Jewish population with a combined rate of 30 to over 50%, depending on the study. In today's world, Rabbi Kalischer's ruling would add fuel to the fire, giving the appearance of Orthodox acceptance of intermarriage.

The article stated that Rabbi Herzfeld is "seeking leniency in ways that accord with Jewish law and reality." That is problematic. Rabbis should seek/provide a normative halachic leniency to alleviate reasonable hardship, not for mere convenience. Seeking a leniency for someone who made a free-will choice to intermarry, is antithetical to that ideal. Also, "seeking leniency..." implies a leap from mere approval of non-normative (yet not invalidated) rulings to actual practice. Concerning fundamental halacha/hashkafa, do attitudes like that disintegrate the undercurrent of cohesiveness between Orthodox sects?
Should Orthodox Jews encourage circumcision where none is required or expected?

1 "Herzfeld, a New York native and graduate of Yeshiva University there, is the protege of Rabbi Avi Weiss, head of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, N.Y., where Herzfeld was associate rabbi for the past five years."
- A Rabbi's Unorthodox Revival The Washington Post

Intermarriage links
"The Jewish intermarriage rate in Hesse [Germany] slowly rose from under 1 percent in the early 1870s to about 3.4 percent in the first five years of the twentieth century."
- Jewish Intermarriage and Conversion in Germany and Austria
- Out-marriage
- Re-examining Intermarriage: Trends, Textures and Strategies, Bruce A. Phillips. Phillips, Bruce A. (1997)

Other relevant links
- Conversion Is Not An Outreach Strategy
- You Never Know
- Intermarriage Ask the Rabbi - Union for Reform Judaism

Is Open Orthodoxy the future of Orthodox Judaism?

2006-10-01T10:43:00.000-07:00

According to Rabbi Avi Weiss, dean of the Open Orthodox YCT seminary, the answer may be yes:

Both Weiss and Pollak preach the doctrine of open Orthodoxy, with Weiss arguing that the future is "what open Orthodoxy is all about."
- Rabbi says his shul and Orthodoxy are both open The Villager, September 20 - 26, 2006

Concerning the Open Orthodox YCT seminary, Rabbi Weiss stated the following in an interview at Canonist:

With Orthodox rabbis who are open and non-judgmental and inspired to reach out all Jews, YCT will, God Willing, transform the future of the Jewish people.
...
From my perspective, the success that we have had in placing rabbis is beyond what we ever imagined. We are succeeding because we clearly identified a need. Our vision of placing at least 100 rabbis over the next 10 years is becoming a reality.
-Chatting With R’ Avi Weiss About Chovevei, Canonist.com, 4/12/2006

Rabbi Weiss also stated the following in a NY Times article:

"We can literally transform the fabric of the Jewish community in America," he said in an interview. "And that's our goal."
- A Challenge to an Orthodox Bastion", reprint of NY Times article, 4/19/2004

Michael H. Steingardt (founder of the Jewish Life Network/Steinhardt Foundation), a guest lecturer at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, corroborates the idea of "open Orthodoxy" creating an "alternative" and "new kind of Orthodoxy":

I want to acknowledge that the philosophy of “open Orthodoxy” represents the alternative Orthodoxy that the Jewish community badly needs. However, Orthodoxy has let the separatists and the judgmentalists come to dominate community policy and public perception. I appreciate the ethic of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, with its commitment to engaging the world, and I see the students and graduates here as part of a new kind of Orthodoxy. I only ask that you join the rest of us to ensure that the joy in Jewish experience is felt by more than a minority of Jews. With the right attitude and with an urgent and massive effort, I believe that we may usher in a Jewish renaissance.
- A Challenge to Orthodoxy: Remarks at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, February 9, 2006

Does YCT have an agenda to monopolize Orthodoxy with "Open Orthodoxy"? I wonder what the expected future is for Modern Orthodox, Chareidi, Chassidic, and other Orthodox Jews with "narrower" viewpoints...

Kol Isha for some, not for others

2006-09-30T22:47:00.000-07:00

Drew Kaplan (a Chovevei Torah seminary student) stated that he attended a musical performance of Pharaoh's Daughter.

Here is the chat transcript when someone questioned him about the potential transgression of Kol Isha:

Eliyahu said...
Drew, with all due respect, doesn't going to Pharaoh's Daughter violate Kol Isha?
9/25/2006 5:06 PM

Drew_Kaplan said...
Eliyahu,It all depends on one's understanding of kol isha. So, for me, Pharoah's Daughter is fine, although, for example, listening to Neshama Carlebach live is something with which I am not comfortable.
Here's an interesting continuation of that discussion in the same thread:
jdub said...
could you explain the distinction b/w Pharaoh's daughter (lead singer, Basya Schechter) and Neshama Carlebach? Not challenging, just questioning the distinction. Is it because Basya (a college classmate of mine from way back) is backed by a band? I'm not sure I understand how you draw the line.
10/04/2006 3:44 PM

Drew_Kaplan said...
JDub,It's not necessarily that Schechter is backed by a band, but in this case, it is. Such that Schechter's voice doesn't hit my ears the same way that Carlebach's does. It's about how it sounds.
10/04/2006 4:11 PM

jdub said...
so it's a subjective thing? I don't think that's exactly supportable by halacha. I personally draw a live vs. recorded distinction, which is well supportable, but I don't think the "how it sounds" has any textual support. Can you support that?10/05/2006 5:50 PM

Drew Kaplan is an Orthodox seminary student. I wonder if terse statements like his give a misguided perception of the halachos of Kol Isha.

Kol Isha halachic sources
- Sources Regarding Kol Isha
- Cherney, Ben. Kol Isha Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 10, 57-75.
- Kol Isha by Rabbi Saul Berman

Feeling passionate about...Christ?

2006-09-30T22:29:00.000-07:00

Here are comments from Rabbi Darren Kleinberg (YCT class of 2005) about the "Passion of the Christ" movie:

Darren Kleinberg, 27, another Orthodox rabbinical student in New York, said the movie made him feel passionate toward Christians for their having to wrestle with the painful story.

"I wanted to hug everyone in the room," Kleinberg said. "In Judaism, we don't have that kind of weight."
- As Passion Movie Premieres, Debate--and Dialogue--Continue InterfaithFamily.com

Do comments like these implicitly denigrate Judaism...especially from someone being portrayed as an "Orthodox rabbinical student"? I don't like the ambiguity that "weight" can either be interpreted as "burden" or "clout".

Is there a point when empathy becomes misguided and compromises the integrity of one's own beliefs?

It is interesting that in the same article, Rabbi Avi Weiss (Dean of YCT) presented a harsher viewpoint:

The Passion "casts Jews as being Jesus-killers," said Rabbi Avi Weiss, veteran activist and president of Amcha-The Coalition for Jewish Concerns. "This lie planted the seeds of the Holocaust."

Coming out of the closet for Purim!

2006-09-30T21:43:00.000-07:00

Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow (YCT class of 2004) analogized the story of Esther into a LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) coming-out-of-the closet narrative:

… two years ago Keshet members handed out hamentashen to students on campus. The message was to "come out for Purim." Rabbi Orlow explains, "Esther was a young Jewish woman who closeted her Jewish identity to keep a favored position with the Persian king. When she learned of Haman's plot she revealed her identity and saved her people. It was a very courageous act." The moral: "Take a risk and share your identity and speak truth to power," Rabbi Orlow says. "It was a wonderful moment any student could join in. Who would think the hamentashen could be a traditional yet current articulation of Jewish life?" He says Keshet members are planning to repeat the event next Purim.
- Some find things have changed, but challenges remain St. Louis Jewish Light

Is this how Tanach should be interpreted?

Open Orthodoxy is like open marriage...

2006-09-29T08:50:00.000-07:00

In reference to Open Orthodoxy, I just saw the following comment on YudelLine.

"Open Orthodoxy must be like Open Marriage. You get to fool around." Posted by: Yori yanover at May 23, 2006 05:57 AM

What do people think about it?

The Haggadah, yetzias mitzrayim, and gay liberation

2006-09-28T18:33:00.000-07:00

Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2004) participated in the creation of a Haggadah for an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) seder. He endorsed it so strongly, that he "incorporated a lot of it into [his] own seder."

Keshet also sponsored an LGBT seder. "In preparation for it, the group wrote a haggadah and put it up online," Rabbi Orlow says. "Not that the traditional haggadah is homophobic, but this was a tremendous opportunity in the traditional seder to talk about liberation in many ways. It's a wonderfully rich haggadah, and I've incorporated a lot of it into my own seder."
- Some find things have changed, but challenges remain St. Louis Jewish Light

The Spring 2005 edition of the YCT newsletter published a full-page profile on Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow. Rabbi Orlow stated:

"We created a meaningful Haggadah for the GLBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, transgender] community, which spoke to their understanding of what it means to be liberated. Our sages teach us that in every generation we must come to see ourselves as having left Egypt’s enslavement. The Torah that emerged from these students’ serious study of the Haggadah shows their keen awareness of the Sages’ teaching and will remain with me for every Pesach to follow."

Since this was published in the YCT newsletter, does this mean that YCT validates the LGBT Haggadah concept and Rabbi Orlow's participation in that Haggadah?

Some Torah commentary
Taking a Torah approach, I discuss the incongruity between the concept of an LGBT Haggadah and what the traditional Haggadah actually represents. This is NOT my personal commentary or opinion concerning individual sexual preferences/orientation. Jews should outreach to all Jews. I merely question if participation in and endorsement of an LGBT Haggadah is appropriate for an Orthodox rabbi.

In the book of Vayikra, parshas Achrei, chapter 18, verse 2, Hashem states, "Do not perform the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled…"

The Torah then admonishes Eqypt for engaging in specific behaviors, listing the laws of "Forbidden Relationships". One of those laws forbids male homosexuality - which the Torah labels as Toevah (abomination). In the book of Vayikra, parshas Achrei, chapter 18, verse 22, Hashem states, "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination."

In the last pasuk of parshas Achrei, Hashem reinforces the severity of emulating the Egyptians, "You shall safeguard my charge not to do any of the abominable traditions that were done before you [in Egypt] and not contaminate yourselves through them; I am Hashem your G-d."

In the sefer Gvuros Hashem (chapter 4) the Maharal explains that the galus (exile) is suffering that is the exact opposite of the composite spiritual makeup of the Jewish people. The Maharal specifically refers to "abominable acts" as an example of that suffering. Hence the Jews were being liberated from the behaviors of Egypt…including homosexuality.

I wish I had a copy of the LGBT Haggadah to evaluate, but I don’t. I will give the benefit of the doubt that the Haggaddah has no references at all to LGBTs. Even so, is it appropriate to associate the liberation of the Jews from Egypt and its "abominable acts" with the promotion of an act that the Torah says is abominable? Isn’t a Haggaddah that represents Gay liberation completely antithetical to the Jewish people’s liberation from Egypt?

Does anyone have a link to download this Haggadah?

Open Orthodoxy

2006-09-26T13:24:00.000-07:00

In the title "Open Orthodoxy" I use "Open" as a verb, not as an adjective:

"to become disclosed or revealed."
"to come into view; become more visible or plain."

This blog is focused on ultra-left-wing Orthodox Judaism. Topics include: A-Open Orthodoxy (adjective "Open" Orthodoxy), pluralism, non-normative shul practices, interfaith participation, Orthodox membership on non-Orthodox board of rabbis, "liberal" Divrei Torah, and more!

I hope to provide a centralized resource of documented ultra-left-wing hashkafah and behaviors that push the left-most envelope of Orthodox Judaism. I ask questions. I hope others will provide provide answers...

Question: If "Open" is an adjective, then is "Open Orthodoxy" an oxymoron?