National Scholar Updates

To the editor,

I am writing in response to Rachel Tanny’s article, “Religious Jews Leaving Religious Life,” printed on June 14, 2013, and distributed last week via email.

I was raised in a loving Orthodox household in the wonderful Jewish community in Sharon, Massachusetts. But the intolerance I faced at Maimonides School in Brookline and the disinterest I had in continuing a lifestyle with so many prohibitive restrictions on my interaction with the modern world led me to stop leading a religious lifestyle when I left for college. As I made this decision, and as I have continued to work out how I would like to lead my life and raise a family, I have felt accepted and supported by my religious family, friends, and members of the Sharon community.

Rebbetzin Tanny’s article was written in such a way that it would resonate very strongly with relatives and friends of those who have chosen a different religious path, but the tone of the article — which made it sound as though the relatives of religious-turned-non-religious Jews should actively try and bring them back into the faith — was such that anyone who has decided not to be religious would be turned off simply by reading it. When I read the article, I thought it came across as exceptionally judgmental and patronizing of those who have made the active choice not to continue leading a religious lifestyle. Many of the factors that she listed as justification for religious Jews leaving Orthodoxy were accurate — but she failed to mention that sometimes a person chooses to leave Orthodoxy completely of their own volition, and that there is nothing a relative or a friend could do to prevent it or change their mind.

Rebbetzin Tanny’s article had the right intentions, but it should have given the audience one final piece of advice: that it’s okay if someone chooses to practice their religion in a different way. If the author had written that Judaism is a religion of tolerance and acceptance, and that as Jews we must embrace people for who they are, she would have done a service to religious and non-religious readers alike.

I hold no animosity for people who choose to live a religious lifestyle because for me and others like me, choosing how to live my life had nothing to do with ‘going off the derekh.’ It was about choosing to discover my own.

Ari Massefski, 22
Sharon, Massachusetts

Dear Ari,
Thank you very much for your letter sharing your views on my recent article, “Religious Jews Leaving Religious Life.” Please understand that this article is a mere summary of some of the main ideas in the book “Freiing Out,” written by my husband, Rabbi Binyamin Tanny. In the conclusion to his book, he writes, “This entire book is a summary,” thereby giving rise to the challenge of writing a summary of a summary. I apologize if the tone of the article was hurtful to you in any way.

I am glad to hear you hold the Sharon community with high regard. My husband spent a lot of time with people from there and is in fact an Eagle Scout from Sharon’s Jewish scouting group, which is chartered out of the Brookline school. It is possible you even know some of the same people!

I am sorry to hear you had a troubled time in school, an experience with which you are not alone. Problems in the educational system are quite common among people who choose to leave religious life. Please read Rabbi Binyamin Tanny’s book “Freiing Out” and you will see that there are others like you who have gone through similar – or possibly even worse – situations.

You write, “Sometimes a person chooses to leave Orthodoxy completely of their own volition.” I would not say ‘sometimes;’ but rather, ‘all the time.’ Anyone who leaves orthodoxy does so of their own volition. Those who are confident in their decision and happy with their choice and their new lifestyle will take the credit personally. Those who are angry, frustrated, and unsure will blame others, such as their parents, rabbis, religious institutions, etc.

You also write that “it sound[s] as though the relatives of religious-turned-non-religious Jews should actively try and bring them back into the faith.” The religious person should always try to bring their fellow Jews to the beauty of Judaism. The truly religious and spiritual Jew knows how beautiful a Friday night Shabbat meal with the family can be, how much brilliance is transmitted in the Torah, and how much love their can be in a harmonious community. Why should they not want to share this with their fellow Jews? To not share is to not care.

Finally, you say you “hold no animosity for people who choose to live a religious lifestyle.” I am happy to hear this because part of our religious lifestyle is to spend time every day finding Jews who have not experienced a beautiful Judaism and actively try to bring them back. They may not like us for this, but we are okay with that because as long as they feel some irritation there is still a fire burning.

Thank you again for your letter and my husband and I both wish you a peaceful and meaningful life that you find spiritually and emotionally fulfilling.

Rebbetzin Rachel Tanny

The pace of technology grows so dizzyingday by day that it’s likely we’re now living more in the future than we are in the present.What were once mere imaginings of science fiction films -- the “futuristic” landscapes of Fritz Lang’s silent classic Metropolis,the flame-belching towers of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, and the gravity-defying dream scapes of Christopher Nolan’s Inception, to name but a famous few-- have proven, in fact, to be visionary. They have become our actual homes, our daily workplaces, our shopping malls and amusement parks. Stepping out of the subway into the digital blitz of Times Square after dark, for example, we might feel much as though we werehurtling headlong into cyberspace itself. Doubtless, we already inhabit a world where, as one modern author has observed, “technology is visceral…pervasive…Not outside us, but next to us. Under our skin; often, inside our minds.” Standing herein the midst of this brilliant, hypnotic, infinitely distracting (and, one might argue, ultimately illusionary)21st century atmosphere, would any of us notice the unadorned glow of a Hanukkiyah, Hanukkah lamp?

I raise the question to make a simple point. As human beings, we are eminently fallible, always distractable. Rabbi Moses Isserles (the “Rema”),in a gloss on the Laws of Prayer (Hilchot Tefillah 101:1),clearly suggests as much when he questions whether we ought to repeat a section of the Shemoneh Esrei if our attention wandered when we recited it the first time.The Rema’sargument is straightforward.What’s to prevent us from being similarly distracted the second time around? Still,though as physical beings we are all of us prone to distraction, as spiritual beings we try to transcend. As Jews in particular, we try to develop a capacity to hone in on a more truthful spiritual realm beyond the often-illusory realm of distractions in the material world. And that is the metaphorical significance of the question about Hanukkah lights in Times Square.

As thinking Jews,with an abiding allegiance to Jewish ideas and ideals,we try to see beyond the big lights of the big city in order to discover a more permanent, a more honest beacon that shines true, no matter how hidden, no matter how small. As thoughtful beings, we come to recognize true worth in the quality of our experience not in its quantity. Perhaps that, too, is what the Rema above is getting at, cautioning us against mere repetition of a blessing without a concomitant unclouded concentration and a meaningful change in spiritual perspective.

In his essay“Maamar al ha’Emunah,”Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman wonders how the great Greek philosopher Aristotle – to whom the Rambam attributed genius just below the level of ru’ach ha’kodesh and nevuah, divine spirit and prophecy – could somehow, despite his great intellect, fail to see past the illusions of the material world. Rav Wasserman concludes that Aristotle’s failing was an overriding attraction to the very physical olam ha’zeh and a consequent reluctance to turn away from its many seductive attractions.

Among the many heirs to Aristotle,committed to the continued transmission of Greek thought and practices known as Hellenism, were the Seleucid Syrians, whose kingdom was established from a slice of the divided empire of Alexander the Great, himself a world conqueror tutored first-hand by Aristotle. It is against these Seleucid Greeks that the warrior Maccabees fought long and hard, their ultimate spiritual victory coalescing into the very essence of the Hanukkah holiday. If we examine the decrees issued against the Jews of the Seleucid Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes – as traditionally described in the discussion of Hanukkah by the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (139:1) – we find the inevitable battle lines of Hellenism versus Judaism being drawn. Unsurprisingly, Antiochus sought to annul the Covenant between Israel and its Lord, “And Antiochus decreed prohibitions against the Jews, forbidding them to study and practice their Torah Laws.” The ancient extra-canonical Scroll of Antiochus, Megillat Antiochus,specifies (in verse 11) three gezerot, prohibitions, in particular. The enemy king’s designs were to uproot and eradicate the practice of a) Shabbat, b) Rosh Chodesh, and c) Brit Milah.

What makes this precise choice of prohibitions so pointed, in light of the above discussion, is the symbolic spiritual value they possess. First, the light of the Shabbat candles is analogous to the light of the Temple Menorah rededicated by the Maccabees; indeed, the Talmud itself (Shabbat 21a) introduces this analogy between Shabbat and Hanukkah candles in launching its locus classicus discussion of the Hanukkah holiday. Next, the so-to-speak “rekindled” light of the moon at Rosh Chodeshi s analogous to the renewal of the Menorah’s light after a period of spiritual darkness.Finally, the eight days of Brit Milah are analogous to the Talmud’s description of a tiny cruse of pure oil that, nonetheless, burned by divine miracle for eight days, exemplifying the transcendence of quality over quantity.

This theme of quality versus quantityi s reflected again in the Hanukkah “Al haNissim” prayer, which speaks of“the strong defeated by the assumed-to-be-weak,the many defeated by anacknowledged few.” The small burning “wicks” of Judaism outshone the bright lights of the imperial force of the Syrian army, the spiritual light of the Temple Menorah here dispelled the illusory darkness of the physical, earthbound Seleucid empire indebted in so many ways to Aristotle and Alexander. Despite the variety of traditional and ethnic culinary delights that have come to be associated with the “feast of lights,” there is no chiyuv of seudat mitzvah attached to Hanukkah, no obligatory festive spread. In celebrating the holiday, we acknowledge Israel’s rescue from spiritual annihilation. By contrast, because of the threat of physical annihilation that faced the Jews at the first Purim,we indeed rejoice n that holiday with the mitzvah of a substantive physical meal.

By publicizing the true meaning of Hanukkah, by placing the Hanukkiyah in the public eye – even in Times Square – we appeal to all humankind, Jew and non-Jew alike, to come and share, as an agudah achat,in the spiritual insights the Hanukkah lights afford us. The Talmud itself (Shabbat 21b) affirms this.Beit Shammai, the School of Shammai,maintains that we kindle the Hanukkah lights “keneged pri ha’chag.” The suggestion is that the lights correspond to the mussaf sacrifices of Sukkot that were brought specifically in consideration of the seventy gentile nations, meant to beseech Divine protection of the shivim umot ha’olam as our colleagues and compeers on this earth.

Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher quotes a midrashic parable on the Torah portion of Beha’alotcha. A king once asked a beloved subject to prepare his home for a royal visit. Rather than flushing with pride, the poor fellow grew mortified. How could he host in his humble cottage a king accustomed to glorious gifts, golden goblets, and bountiful banquets at court?When the king arrived, resplendent in his retinue, the subject nervously fumbled to hide in shame the simple meal he had prepared. Yet, the king declared, “For love of you, my humble servant, I prefer this simple, heartfelt offering to all the artificial trappings my palace provides.”

The lights of Hanukkah are the Jewish nation’s simple offering for all the world to wonder at and reflect upon. They are a gift to God from the heart and soul of the People of Israel. Is it any wonder that the Master of the Universe, Who created at will the blazing sun, the bright moon, the luminous stars and galaxies, nonetheless, like the king in Rabbeinu Bahya’s parable,prefers our tiny, flickering lights of the Hanukkiyah which continue to outshine, from the time of the Maccabees to this very day, the brightest lights and biggest cities of history’s greatest empires.

It’s painful to have one’s rabbinic credentials challenged by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. But that’s exactly what’s happened to me. In truth, it’s much more hurtful to the many people I’ve been honored to serve over the years.

In recent days, I have been informed that letters I’ve written attesting to the Jewishness and personal status of congregants have been rejected by the office of the Chief Rabbinate. I’m not the only Orthodox rabbi to have his letters rejected – there are others.

I have chosen to go public because the issue is not about me, it’s about a Chief Rabbinate whose power has gone to its head. As Israel’s appointed rabbinate, it is accountable to no one but itself.

Nor could the Chief Rabbinate have denied letters from me or other rabbis without input from select rabbis here in America who, I believe, are whispering into the Chief Rabbinate’s ears. For me, they’ll whisper one thing, for another they will find some other reason to cast aspersions.

This is an intolerable situation. It not only undercuts the authority of local rabbis who are in the best position to attest to the religious identity of those living in their community, but wreaks havoc for constituents whom these rabbis serve.

Penning these harsh words about Israel’s Chief Rabbinate is not easy for me. I grew up in a home that venerated the Chief Rabbinate. After my parents made aliya, my father served as rabbi of Shikun Vatikin in the outskirts of Netanya, Israel. There he worked with Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, then Chief Rabbi of Netanya who went on to become Israeli’s Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi. Over the years I’ve met with many chief rabbis. I found them individually to be not only learned but caring.

But for some time, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Chief Rabbinate as an institution just doesn’t work. Built into the very fabric of the institution is the principle of kefiyah, rabbis overlording the citizenry, forcing their religious dictates down their throats. Indeed, the Chief Rabbinate has become a subject of scorn amongst the grassroots public in Israel.

Spiritual striving and religious growth can only be nourished in a spirit of openness. For this reason, Israel as a state should give equal opportunities to the Conservative and Reform movements. Their rabbis should be able to conduct weddings and conversions. For that matter, civil weddings should also be recognized by the State. As in America, it should be left to the general public – if they wish, in consultation with their local rabbis – to decide whether to accept or reject these conversions and wedding ceremonies.

Such an open attitude is not only important for non-Orthodox Jewry, but for Orthodoxy as well. When Orthodoxy is presented as the only option, when it’s forced upon people, it turns people off. A spirit of openness will make Orthodoxy more attractive.

A related reason that the Chief Rabbinate does not work is that it involves centralization of rabbinic power, that is, rabbinic power left in the hands of a select few who dictate religious policy throughout the country.

When the Chief Rabbinate years back questioned American Orthodox conversions, an Orthodox rabbinic organization, the Rabbinical Council of America, (RCA), rather than challenge the Chief Rabbinate and say clearly we have faith and trust in our rabbis in the field, capitulated to the Chief Rabbinate, and imported Israel’s failed rabbinic centralized format to the US.

And so they established a system where only a select, relatively few rabbis are permitted to sit on conversion courts, undermining the authority of local community rabbis, and placing unnecessary stumbling blocks before serious potential converts. In a piece I co-authored over five years ago, I strongly criticized this policy.

I predicted then that this would be but the first step towards further centralization. That it would not be long before a centralized rabbinic body fully usurps the authority of local rabbis, deciding which select few can do marriages. And only this body will be able to sign off on letters attesting to the Jewishness or the personal status of individuals from across the country. Is this the type of religious authority we want here in America?

The time has come for the government of Israel – its Prime Minister and Knesset – to pronounce in clear terms that the Chief Rabbinate will no longer have a monopoly on religious dictates of the State. This will present challenges. But these challenges pale in comparison to a coercive and centralized system which is vulnerable to abuse. As the motto goes, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It’s only in the spirit of openness that Israel as a Jewish democracy will thrive. It’s in that framework that Israel’s citizenry will be able to reach higher heights – spiritually and religiously.
–

RCA deal hurts rabbis, converts
By Rabbi Marc Angel And Rabbi Avraham Weiss, JTA, March 10, 2008

(Rabbi Marc Angel is Director of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, the rabbi emeritus of Congregation Shearith Israel in New York and past president of the Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Avraham (Avi) Weiss is the senior rabbi of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and founder of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and Yeshivat Maharat.)

NEW YORK (JTA) – The Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Rabbinical Council of America have concluded an agreement related to conversion that will allow the two groups to work together. This solves a problem that reached its peak when Israel’s Sephardic chief rabbi, Shlomo Amar, announced in April 2006 that he would no longer automatically recognize conversions performed by rabbis belonging to the RCA, the main union of Orthodox rabbis in America.

According to the terms of the agreement, the Chief Rabbinate approved a list of about 15 RCA rabbinic courts and approximately 40 rabbinic judges whose conversions will be accepted. From this point on, only conversions done by these rabbis or tribunals will be recognized. Any rabbi who wishes to be added to that list needs the approval of two leading Yeshiva University rabbis representing the RCA and one from the Chief Rabbinate. The RCA and the Chief Rabbinate also agreed that all conversions previously performed by rabbis, other than the 40, are subject to re-evaluation by the head of the RCA’s Beth Din of America.

This agreement is deeply disturbing on many levels. What is most troubling is that conversions, done years ago with the informal backing of the RCA, are now being scrutinized. This, we believe, strikes at the very ethical fabric of halacha. Over the years, thousands of people have been halachically converted and now they and their children, and for that matter, their marriages, will all be questioned. The pain that this will cause the convert, a person whom the Torah commands to love, will be unbearable.

Indeed, the RCA’s capitulation to the demand of the Chief Rabbinate to scrutinize past conversions done by its members raises the strong possibility that down the line the bar may be raised even higher. Already, the Israeli institution no longer represents the centrist, religious Zionist ideology, but is, in effect, made up of religious appointees of the haredi world. Years from now a new, more extreme Chief Rabbinate may very well pressure the RCA to question “sanctioned” conversions being done now.

Not only is the convert’s status questioned here, but the respected position of the local rabbi is also at stake. The policy sends a clear message that rabbis who have Orthodox ordination and are not among the chosen 40 do not have sufficient knowledge, judgment and wisdom to perform conversions – and they never have.

There is an irony here in that, from a certain perspective, congregational rabbis have a greater understanding of the issues surrounding conversion than those who are primarily situated in the Beit Midrash. These synagogue rabbis who are “in the trenches” with the potential converts have a unique understanding of the situations and conditions that affect their respective constituents. As is displayed on their ordination documents (smicha klaf), these rabbis are sent to spread Torah to their communities and have been invested with the trust, power and weight of our Torah to help shape the Jewish world. This decision undermines their mission.

If this agreement was meant to develop a mechanism of oversight, there are other ways in which this could have been accomplished. One proposal could have been that junior rabbis in their first three years do conversions under the guidance of senior rabbis. Additionally, the RCA could have questioned individual rabbis whom they suspected were doing conversions improperly.

We are not the first to raise concerns about the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. Over the last few years, there have been legitimate and important Orthodox voices in Israel that have expressed opposition to its rightward trend and its hard-line position concerning conversions in Israel. Now, through its deal with the RCA, the Chief Rabbinate is dictating its specific conversion standards to those living thousands of miles away in the United States.

Rather than extend the Chief Rabbinate’s reach to the Diaspora, the RCA should display confidence in its loyal members by declaring that their conversions are valid and acceptable in the eyes of God and halacha. This should be our posture as we move forward together with like-minded voices in Israel.

This was a moment of truth. The criteria on conversion as drafted by the RCA/Chief Rabbinate are the most stringent and do not reflect the range of legitimate halachic opinions. The approach insists, for example, that parents converting an adopted child commit to 12 years of yeshiva education. But suppose parents are only prepared to make an eight-year commitment; suppose they are committed to sending their child to a community day school; suppose, as is a growing trend in our Jewish world, they simply cannot afford tuition; and suppose their child has a learning disability and must be sent to a secular school?

We have received reports that such potential converts have already been turned away. What is next? Will past conversions, such as these, now be nullified retroactively?
If these standards become the criteria for who is a Jew, it means there will be only one voice – enforced by just two rabbis – speaking for Modern Orthodoxy in America.

The first issue is the question of who is overseeing the overseers: What are the criteria for appointment? What makes these 40 judges competent and hundreds of others not? What communities do they represent? Are the appointments based on merit? On politics? On being dedicated students of particular rabbis?

To consolidate so much power in the hands of so few rabbis – whether left, center or right – is a frightening step. Making matters worse, the RCA has chosen as its representatives two Yeshiva University rabbis who speak only for the right-wing of Modern Orthodoxy – effectively abandoning the organization’s trademark commitment to providing a home for both right- and left-wing voices. With its cowering to outside dictates, the RCA appears to have opted to reflect the haredi-controlled voice of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, instead of insisting that the broad spectrum of Modern Orthodox positions be part of the solution.

What makes this chapter especially sad is that the new arrangement not only undermines the power of the local rabbi as teacher and spiritual guide, but even worse, puts fear into the hearts and minds of many wonderful converts who are upstanding Torah-observant and God-fearing Jewish souls.

“Home” is a concept not easily put into words. It is our refuge, our sanctum, our institution for the whole. It evokes the pictures of the happy family, of children playing in security, and the nurturing environment in which people grow into themselves. It is the place you go back to, that you belong to.

When home is not where your heart is, and the individuals comprising that home have no cohesive identity, there is no belonging – and sooner or later, those individuals (since, after all, that is all they are) learn that their home is broken, and they therefore run away to the refuge of their castles in the air (of which their psychologists collect the rent).

Today’s times have a need for stable homes, in any form, more than any other. Teens at risk, high school pregnancies, disappearing morals, urban blight, the wonderful statistic that one in four American college students possess an STD, the rise of postmodernism and its moral irreverence and irrelevance, the erosion of what is called “Judeo-Christian values”, the rise in cultural glorification of youthful promiscuous sex and violence (not to mention youth in and of itself)…Even Orthodox Judaism, bastion of the ironclad safety net, has begun cracking at the seams from an internal pressure created by its teenagers and the external pressure of the society described.

Today’s feel good stories which populate the self-help shelves in book stores all over the planet (Chicken Soup for the Soul and its genre) have one amazing quality worth noticing – a brilliant summation, in one moment, where everything comes together. We are inspired by these stories, taking solace in that perfect moment and its unspoken comfort that perhaps one day we will reach ours...and never think about where it may take us. We watch the poor family get their new house on Extreme Makeover, see their tearful reactions, and never see what happens when they can’t make the tax payments on the house, or simply get conceited and entitled with their newfound wealth/status symbol and wind up divorced. Or we see athletes winning the gold medal in the Olympics, shedding tears of joy while basking in the adulation of the crowd in their accomplishment, but do not see them return home broken and lost as to what on earth they should do next, now that the moment they have invested the last four years in has now passed. We all long for a “clockwork universe”, a world that responds to us and gives us what we need when we need it; years of watching TV shows and movies that operate on this principle may have something to do with it. Either way, this growing dream of the perfect moment, the clockwork universe striking twelve, is indicative of dreamers who feel their life is coming apart, directionless, and the loosening of bonds of family and friendship that give us the love and nurturing we need.

Listening to mental health professionals and community workers, the fast paced life of the twenty first century has robbed us of our family values, and our lost and confused children are acting out because they need to feel valued and validated; as the family is intended to provide the value and validation of the children as they embark on their quest for self, when it does not, the children look elsewhere – with disastrous results.
This may or may not be true.

The psychological need to be validated, to be valued, is nothing new. Self-help books and parenting manuals (and other such tomes of fiction) all stress the need for validation. This, in and of itself, is harmless at worst. It might carry the strange threat of turning people into hollow shells of themselves because they objectify everything about their own self, but that doesn’t really affect people too badly, right?

Living in the age of scientific reason, in which (ridiculously) something being “unscientific” means it cannot possibly be true, we seek validation from what is outside of ourselves; this is perfectly acceptable for investigating worldly phenomena, but comes up woefully inadequate for validating our own existence, and its experiences.
The root that “value” and “validation” share comes from the old French valoir, meaning "be worthy," which itself is originally "be strong," from the Latin valere "be strong, be well, be worth, have power, be able". Notice the difference in the shades of the meaning, though. It went from something within you, an enabling force of Selfhood, to something outside of you that you need in order to be that very Self in the first place.

Anyone who is a student of the Western zeitgeist’s evolution, or was simply alive at the right time, has seen this shift in meaning accelerate in the last fifty years. We live in a society in which people see this need for validation as a fact of life. Were this to just be a fact of Western life, that would be fine. But it has crept into Jewish life in insidious ways, and this has in turn corrupted our life beyond recognition. [1]

Of course, values are what we ourselves hold to be important, whereas validation is what gives us our worth. This is because the definition we give to ourselves (our “values”) is what creates our sense of validation.

In the West, the objectifying that people do of themselves is conceptual based – I am a doctor, an athlete, a religious man of faith, or any other such idea. This is who I am, it is what I think is important, and because it is what I hold dear and significant I, too, am significant for being this way.

The problem is when Torah observant Jews, such as many of those today, define themselves as those who do the XYZ of mitzvoth. Because the definition is action based, the value is doing these things (eating the properly baked crackers on Passover, only carrying on Saturdays within a proper string enclosure) – and the validation is their being done. Which has nothing to do with you at all.

Now, I bet you those who already have all the answers are jumping out of their chairs and screaming “of course it’s about you doing it – you go to Olam Haba for it!”
And I will answer you that if that is your motivation, you are no different than the four year old who needs a cookie to clean his/her room (or go to the toilet). It isn’t the cookie that is important, even if it is the reason the four year old is doing it. [2]
But if that four year old ritualizes cleaning his room for the sake of the cookie, he will never come to value a clean room. Nor will he develop feelings of self worth by having a clean room, because THERE IS NO SELF – only what needs to be done. And so we have adults who treat their marriages as rituals (“but honey, I bought you a nice new dress! See, I love you!” “But you haven’t paid any attention to me at all, you do not share your dreams, emotions, your experience of Life with me…”), who engage in magical thinking (“if I give $18 to this charity, then I will succeed in my business), and who have no fulfillment or self-expression in anything they do.

We naively think that the reasons for doing mitzvoth that we learn when we are four years old hold water when we are 16, or 60…and the consequence of this is the systematic destruction of any kind of self-validation that is predicated on a healthy sense of self, instead of its negation.

It is here, in that ridiculous, unintended, vicious, self-negating definition of value that Torah Observant Jewry finds itself. What is important is the prescribed actions and properly prescribing the proper actions. A self, a “me” with dreams and ambitions, goals and relationships, fears and loves, is at best extraneous and at worst a problem to overcome in the pursuit of perfectly prescribed perfect actions.

This world? Why bother? It’s only a stage – we do our actions and play our parts. Knowledge? What for? It only takes time away from prescribing perfect actions, and doing them. Worldview? Philosophy? Perspective? What do you need any of that for? It’s all simple – do whatever you can while you can for the biggest and best reward in the Next World.

In short, our vision of the ultimate human being is a well informed, perfectly efficient action machine with the worldview of a four year old.

Perhaps the greatest area this has become true is with learning itself. People spend more time learning today than ever before, yet asking them WHAT they learned usually yields a parroting of arcane subjects at best and a puzzled look as they simply say the name of the Masechta or Sefer. Learning has become an action, something you DO, instead of the acquiring of new information to fit into a worldview.

Of course, we make allowances and exceptions for those who want to do things like work. The actions remain paramount, only the focus changes. Instead of learning being the action one should focus on, we have others – tzedaka, for example. But regardless of the prescribed action, it remains the DOING that is important, and importance granting. People’s growth, their self discovery, their level of understanding of the world and of He Who is behind it, their depth, their humanity – it isn’t important.

Small wonder our children are off seeking validation from pop psychology and faceless strangers on internet chatrooms (that they are turning to under their covers on shabbat, perhaps [3]). It’s more than family that creates validation, it is Home. And the Bayit that was supposed to be there to validate and value the world itself is now a golden onion filled with those who find value in submission and in death, and we console ourselves with some parable about a flask in the sky that collects tears [4].

This worldview has serious historical underpinnings – it did not arise by accident.

Following the Holocaust, people came to the shores of a strange land (whichever strange land that was – America or Israel) to rebuild. As most people react in times of horrible loss, they hunker down defensively and seek to recreate what they had before. In this case it was the Europe of old, with its simple shtetl folk and overall educationless masses.

Judaism is a tradition based movement. Precedent and tradition are the two pillars of all Halakhic debate as well as Friday night conversations. It is no surprise that the ideals of the old world were imported as the pinnacles of achievement to strive for. The model person would be one motivated by faith, not reason, and action, not perspective; their identity would be one set and defined by a marked distance from intellectualism – after all, wasn’t that the problem with those Reformniks in Berlin who brought the Holocaust on us in the first place? Oh, no, never. Who needs questions – can anyone answer where God was during the Holocaust? So of what use are questions? Better to do what God told us to do and leave the questions alone.

This idea is said to have appeared in Europe around the time of the Chasam Sofer, who himself was battling those Reformers in their infancy. In an effort to combat their growing appeal and allure to the typical (unlearned) Jew on the street, he created the single most destructive pun in all of history - “haChadash assur min haTorah” [5]. From this nobly intended idea, a branch of arch-conservatism in Halakha was born. Or so goes the narrative.

It isn’t true.

Ashkenazi Jewry had this streak in it from the time of the early Acharonim. It is the tendency of exiled people to absorb influences from their host cultures (one only needs to look at our calendar; the names for the months in the Jewish calendar are Babylonian (!) in origin, and so were pretty much half the names of the amoraim living in Bavel - Abaye, Rava, Pappa, Huna, Rabbah, Rami, Rafram, Geviha, to name a few). The predominant influence in the lands of Ashkenaz was the Church. Looking through the Mussar/machshava seforim written in Europe, we find themes of needing to be saved from sin (albeit those of our own doing instead of some original flavor), emphasis on faith as the guiding principle of worship, a philosophical/ontological worldview based on the soul and a spiritual world in which its actions or beliefs are meaningful, a break from science, a religious worldview predicated on the personal (it is YOU and your being righteous or wicked which counts, as opposed to the Klal), among other examples. These are all Christian themes.

(For those who are going to point to the split between the Vilna Gaon and the Chassidim and say that innovation in Jewish life was alive and well, it is fairly argued that both camps were conservatively based. The Chassidic camp quickly ritualized everything in their way of life, venerating the simple unlearned faith of the farmer and wagon driver as the GOAL of Torah life. The stories passed down to each generation focused on a mystical happiness that could be experienced by those who believed, and denigrated those who learned but did not live their learning. The Litvish camp, while stressing the need to learn and know, valued a disconnected knowledge base that was not tied into experience – learn, but keep it in pilpul which is intellectually dazzling and utterly useless for answering a simple question of what to do. Both sides refused to engage the world around them, or even each other; both approaches preached the “hold on tight and do what you need to do” that we are calling attention to. Their namesakes and descendants still do.)

This cross-evolution is best referenced by the “Judeo-Christian values” the western world continues to use as its moral compass. It isn’t just that the Christian ones are based on the Jewish morals of the Old Testament (though that is true as well) – they work in tandem, are perceived to be the same thing. It is no accident that the support for Israel that is still present in the West is based on ethics, on shared morals, on shared beliefs in the primacy of the “Old Testament God”, a Messiah that will redeem the chosen ones from the Ishmaelite, etc.

This is why Western civilization exerts such a strong pull on Jews – it isn’t just that we are absorbing modern culture from them (hence the black hats, suits, and white shirts from the 1950s, for example) – we subconsciously see ourselves as one of their kind. The typical Ashkenazi looks at himself as a Westerner – not a Middle Easterner! And eventually, the need to be different and distinct begins to fade as the need to be echad min ha’amim takes over. As “enlightened humans”, who are “logical, rational, scientific” beings, why would it matter if I watch some pornography? Or eat only properly slaughtered chickens? Or not use my phone on Saturdays? Indeed, even in Israel, there are those who protest Israel passing a law designating the country to be a Jewish State, instead preferring to be a regular (read: Western) democracy.

Why are we different? Why is God setting us apart – to do the proper rituals? What’s the difference? Who wants to believe in an arbitrary God who desires Burger Delights instead of Big Macs? I want to be a person, not an action/ritual machine. A human being.

This, sadly, is what Rav Shimon bar Yochai was alluding to with his derasha of “ki adam atem – atem k’ruyim adam v’hem lo k’ruyim adam” (Yevamot 61a) – what Judaism IS is simply the way to be a human, Adam, the pinnacle of Creation. We all want to be something real, something valuable. And that is what it means to be Adam. To be Man, primal Man. Not a belief machine, not a ritual doer – Man. The human who is where the falling star meets the rising ape (in the words of Terry Pratchett).

And so, in a terrible way, our children are NOT turning to the outside for validation. They are, in their eyes, REturning to what is truly valuable, and valued – themselves – in the only way they know how.

Until we understand that, there is nothing we can do. For them, and for ourselves.

And so we have a generation where ALL are lost, confused, adrift…off course.
Those who follow after their hearts and eyes sometimes do not come back to the fold. Some do. Others die inside, leaving the passion and dreams of their youth behind in a maze of socially acceptable ways to numb their pain and disbelief. Some find consolation in highly personal relationships with the Divine, trying to navigate the slippery precipice of insanity and religious devotion.

And all suffer from a broken values system, crying out for God to validate their lives, their selves, their souls.

Now, we all know what you’re going to say next. “Is the rest of the world any better? Do they, too, not have this problem of a lack of self value in their lives? Does the rise in teen pregnancies, drug usage, gang participation, crime, and other markers of social deviancy not speak of this problem being present, and much worse, in the outside world?”

You are a hundred percent right.

And that doesn’t change a thing about what I said. Just because someone else has a broken nose doesn’t mean yours isn’t broken too. And if we are to reconnect with what it truly means to be a Jew and if we are to take steps to reach for Tikkun, then we must acknowledge what is broken, regardless of how it compares to others.

Of course, those of you who haven’t thrown this essay away in disgust by now are probably saying “but of course, I agree, it is important for our children to experience things, but what of the Torah? If it is assur, then you can’t do it! Obviously our children are just baalei taavah and not motivated by any of this higher calling of wanting to be Adam or whatever. You’re just making excuses for our kids.”

What of the Torah, indeed? What, exactly, IS the Torah? We have touched on this issue, skirted around it, illuminated one facet or another perhaps here and there – but a working definition, or a relatable one at least, is certainly needed. Those who have the answers will not hear or see the question, and those who are not looking for a life of Realness, of Truth, of living as Man (and instead prefer their own interpretations and a life in their own heads) don’t care about anything other than their fantasy/simulation based experiences. But those who do care and are searching, looking, seeking a life that is bound within the covenant of living in two worlds and being One with their Creator – they instinctively know the need to understand the Torah that is itself called the Berit (im lo beriti yomam valayla chukot shamayim va’aretz lo samti - Yirmiyahu 36:25).

The long and terrible descent of the Torah from Supernal Wisdom and blueprint of the Universe to antiquated and outdated rulebook has been one with disastrous consequences. Chazal trace the darkness we find ourselves in (and certainly the very same darkness we associate with the “Dark Ages”) to the translation of the Torah into Greek (which is altogether odd, as we know that you are allowed write a sefer torah in Greek, as the Mishna in Masechet Megilla states), which theoretically would mean that your Artscroll Chumash just may be a horrific destruction of what Torah was meant to be.

The wonder of what was so bad about the events of Ptolemy requesting a translation of Torah is ongoing. So is the fast day we keep to mourn its taking place (Asarah b’Tevet – though really it is the fast of the 8th of Tevet, which we do not observe; instead we lump the events of the 8th, 9th, and 10th together and fasting on the 10th). It is made especially confounding by our own enthusiastic embracing of the Targumim, which themselves are translations of Torah. So it can’t be the act of learning the Torah in another language that is the issue, right?

Perhaps the most innocuous and subtlest problem of translating the Torah is its being turned into a book. Books are dead, they do not speak – they merely record information that you can decode later, perhaps. Torah was meant to be given by speech (hence HaShem trying to give the Aseret HaDibrot by telling them to us directly!), has an essential component to it that is supposed to be ONLY speech (Torah she’Baal Peh…You know, the one that everyone thinks is written down, fixed and unchanging), and can only be given over by a teacher to a student in the guise of a relationship (gadol shimusho shel torah mi’limudo - Berachot 7b)…through communication.

So it comes as no surprise that the single most destructive element of what passes for Torah Judaism today is the slavish devotion to the rules, the cemented behaviors, and the “always ask someone who knows (because you do not and cannot)” attitude that arises from a text-based Judaism. “Dos shteit!” is the rallying cry of the current generation of teachers, educators, rabbonim and learned men. If it says it in the book, it must be true.

Of course, the CONTEXT you place your text in can possibly make all the difference in the world, but then again, why would we bother with trivial matters like that?
It is no accident that today’s communication on all levels has broken down due to contextual wrangling. We consistently worm out of things, or shoehorn them into other things, all while attempting to have our preconceived views win out. Isn’t it funny how we all know what the Rabbi is going to say before he says it? Or how we can know what Shas or the Agudah will think and hold of a certain issue – before they say so? We know their agenda, and therefore we know them too. The context they have of the world defines them.

And it defines each person too. We are what we see – the I and the eye are the same. This is so true that Nevuah is influenced by the perceiver [6]! When Yoshiyahu was king, he sent his messengers to ask Chulda HaNeviah for a message regarding the impending doom portended by the Torah scroll that was found in the Beit HaMikdash, bypassing Yirmiyahu. The Gemara (Megillah 14b) asks why he would do this, and answers that he thought that since she was a woman, she would have more rachamim – which is an absurd answer, unless you understand that the Navi shapes his/her Nevuah!
The Torah is no different – it, too, is completely dependent on the context we place it in. Perhaps the greatest disaster facing the Jewish people today is the loss of context to Torah, to Yahadut, to what it means to be Yisrael.

This is something we already touched on earlier – the prevailing context of the Torah lifestyle is one of actions, of doing, of being a vehicle. There is no mental picture, no vision, no overarching and all encompassing idea to what Torah is supposed to be. We take a pasuk here, a gemara there, and make it mean what we want it to mean, or turn it into a stand alone moral lesson, or simply treat it as a nuclear utterance of the Holy One.

Torah is defined by Halikha/halakha. That is to say (since the words mean practically the same thing) that Torah is meant to be a vehicle in and of itself; it is a path, a book of direction, a roadmap. The only way you can bridge two worlds is by constructing a bridge. And when you realize that Torah only shows up after Adam is thrown out of Paradise, then it makes perfect sense that it is intended to be the way to get back to it.
This is why the favorite simile of Torah is an ocean – it is the yam shel Torah. And it is no accident there that the term for a boat is the term for a Self. For self, boats, perception, eyes and “I”…they are all parts of the same Halikha from here to There.

This idea is made clearer by looking at Moshe’s request of HaShem after the sin of the golden calf– of all insanely wild things he asks for, it is the “Halo belechtecha imanu” that he insists on. But of course he does – he is demanding that haShem Himself accompany us along that twisted, winding, journey of Selfhood. And the sin of the golden calf itself is only seen within the context of ma’amid Har Sinai – Torah itself!

This is where the vibrancy, the personal connection, the very dependence of Torah she’Be’al Peh on a person’s own experiences, lessons learned, and sense of self comes from – and the ice cold death knell of that same self when it is removed from Torah itself. Do you think there is a list of souls and corresponding letters in Heaven? What do you think the Midrash means when it says each of us is a letter in the Torah? It is our life itself that sheds Light on the Torah – ki heim chayeinu, in the most beautifully obvious understanding of the term (!).

There is an old Greek parable of the ship of Theseus, which set sail over the course of many years. Over time, every one of its parts had been replaced as they had worn down or broke. Yet it is still the same ship of Theseus – for the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Torah is that ship – over the years, each part of Torah has been re-interpreted, revitalized, and relearned by those who delve into it. We add layers of context, meaning, and shed new light and understanding on things not seen before. In fact, the things we add to it are pieces of ourselves, literally – an insight here, a lesson learned there, a painful and delicate balancing act of applying what Life has taught us. But it is still the same Torah given on Sinai! And we sail that ship from shore to shore, from one world to the next, turning our mundane experiences of the world into Light, and Truth.
Yet today our leaders see all of planet Earth and all it has to offer us as some sort of twisted siren’s song, luring us to our deaths. “Why bring the ship of Torah into those waters?” they ask. As if there are ANY waters that are not part of that Yam shel Torah in the first place! It is perhaps the saddest thing of all that the very ship of Theseus that was meant to live forever and give life to those who create it anew each generation has been hijacked by those seeking to steer it safely away from any Sirens that would tempt those who sail it; yet it is they who are driving everyone to jump ship and swim for the Sirens – without the benefit of the Ship, which was what would have kept them safe in the first place. For it is Torah that grants us the ultimate Self– with it, we can face anything and emerge victorious. Rav Yosef celebrated each Shavuoth by announcing that the Torah he learned is what made him himself [7] – because, as we’ve said, the I and the eye are the same. Without it, you’re just another puff of stardust adrift in a cosmos with no meaning.

So instead of sailing ships of Selfhood through the world, integrating our experiences and consciousness, and bringing the ideas of Torah to Life, we peer into books of which we decided that we have no right to argue with, and look up our lives in a table of contents that does not have any content of our Soul. We have created a belief system around it that says that the subjugation of oneself to their dicta and rulings is what the Heavenly Court will judge our lives on, and that anything outside the purview of these books is not called life.

This text/sefer based Judaism and its slavery, which itself is the ultimate mockery of the dictum of Chazal which states “ein lecha ben chorin elah mi she’osek baTorah” (Avot 6:2), makes it is obvious that the preconceived notions and givens and agendas of those interpreting the books are alive and well; they govern how things work, invade the space of Halakha, and make a farce of the halikha of that Halakha. It is not a boat of Selfhood in a sea of Existence to these charlatans, but itself the siren’s song offering power, connection to God, or perhaps even a cheap way to sell your soul in return for some heaven. But mostly, it offers power – power over others, power over your environment, and most importantly power in the sense being able to define what is True and what is not.

For the ultimate issue we all have with a Torah lifestyle that no amount of cute PR campaigns, Project Inspire shabbatons, and glitzy Gateways seminars can fix is: simply, deep down, we all know that the helm of the ship has been hijacked by those who seek to define their present little worlds as Heaven itself…who seek to be the Arbiters of Truth, according to their understanding of it, and to revel in the power that affords them.

Have you ever noticed the correlation between people’s concretizing Truth and their abandonment of a progress-based worldview/narrative? It seems that the more we think the Truth is here, the less there is a need to keep looking for anything else. Again, look at the Church and the Dark Ages, or the fundamentalist Islamists of today – medicine? Faith. Science? God. Rights and Freedom? Submit to God through faith. There is nothing left to do other than believe…right? Or at our current crop of leaders, who hide behind a self-referentially manufactured empowerment called “Daas Torah” while advising other to their doom in the name of the L-rd . [8] And why? To keep their own power, of course .[9]

There is a nagging doubt in everyone’s mind that asks in a hushed whisper “But where is this GOING?!” which is beaten down by an enthusiastic, Tertullian-esque “af al pi kein!!!” in frenzied hope that perhaps we can figure out later, without having to change now. We develop a bordering-on-insane hero worship cult for a few great men, and lament what we will do because there is no one who can fill their shoes; and we enthusiastically follow everything the people who use these men as mouthpieces say.

Only we can rent a stadium, pack in 40,000 people, and decide the biggest evil in all of the known universe is cell phones and internet. Then we congratulate ourselves for a Maariv davened by 40,000 people together, while the rest of the world laughs themselves sick over how ridiculous it is to rent the stadium for crying about the internet in the first place. Of course, no one is happy about the night’s events, because everyone had a different agenda to advance . [10] But hypocrisy and flattery are alive and well, so everyone says what an unmitigated success this was, because the gedoilim spoke and the oilam listened. Even though there were no gedoilim talking, as they were just being used as mouthpieces for some filter software. Even when the whole world is laughing in our faces, we still hold onto the stupidities of being good sheep and doing what you’re told as you’re driven to the edge of the cliff by some internet filter selling snake charmer who convinced some people with beards the importance of his product [11,12, 13] . And many, many people shook their heads in disbelief and wondered if this is the vision for the future that we are selling ourselves. Or if we have one at all anymore.
And considering that it is the Torah itself that is meant to give us the Way to the destination, the very Home we have been chasing all this time, this is the saddest thing of all.

So what to do? Is it truly hopeless?

I say not.

Children have what Einstein termed Holy Curiosity; they have an instinctive need to find the Truth, both within themselves and in the world. There is a golden lining to this “calamity” of “teens at risk” – sometimes, the children can remind the parents of what is supposed to be, just the same as parents teach children of what was before – it is no accident that our mevaser ha’geulah, Eliyahu HaNavi, is tasked with “v’heshev lev avot al banim, v’lev banim al avotam” – for both are necessary, both are true, both are part of the ongoing Tikkun.

We, the children of Avraham Avinu, who was enjoined “hit’halech lefanai v’heyei tamim”, must continue to search, to inquire, to reject falsehoods and idols manmade, to be the Man for which the world was created.

If there is something to be done, it is to simply encourage, to engage in meaningful and passionate conversations with passionate people searching for meaning, and to teach Torah to our children in the way that Shelomo HaMelech entreated us to – Chanoch L’Naar al pi darko, gam ki yazkin lo yasur mimenah.

We must remember (and this word means to reconnect – to re-member, to connect to again) the rich tradition, the contextual Judaism of yore, the Torah that demands of us to See and Know (and not simply obey [14] and follow). It is this Judaism, this Yahadut, that our children can thrive in as they become themselves in a world that was made for nothing else.

[1]What once set the Jewish people apart from all others was its Life, its “joie de vivre” for lack of a better way to put it. Jewish people had a cheekiness, a sense of self, an Existential Chein that both proclaimed that Jews were distinct, yet open to all possibilities. “We are not you, but we could be anything…” The youthful abandon of “Lechteich acharai baMidbar”, mixed with the seriousness and self-definition of “Naaseh v’nishma”, is the perfect snapshot of the genetic personality of those descended from Yaakov/Yisrael.
Instead, it is seen today to be a need to be removed from all possibilities, to run away from fundamental science and knowledge, to build fences to keep the world away; we glorify Heaven at the expense of Earth, creating castles in the air of minute distinctions between super-kosher and supersuper¬-kosher so as to say we are better Jews than the person next door (who, nebach, eats that hechsher). We venerate the Gedolim and denigrate ourselves, questioning whether we have a right to our perceptions on the parasha or p’shat in the Gemara. Who are we, after all? They are men, and we are donkeys, and donkeys don’t have the right to have a p’shat in Gemara…

[2] Much like the apocryphal story (attributed to Bertrand Russell, Winston Churchill, and Groucho Marx among others) about a man who asks a girl if she will sleep with him for a million dollars. Of course, she says yes. He then offers her two dollars and she slaps his face, saying, ‘What do you think I am?’ He answers, ‘I know what you are. We are just haggling over the price.’
So there are those who will only put on black boxes if the price is Heaven (“a million dollars”).
[3]A sarcastic and caustic reference (from pain that it is something these teenagers feel a need to do) to the “half shabbos” phenomenon written about by the OU and others.
[4] The famous medrash (which I do not know its source) about how G-d collects all of our tears and when the flaskis filled, the Messiah will come. Besides the obvious point that this implies that the L-rd is a sadist, it’s also completely ridiculous in the context it is placed in by this understanding.
[5] Taken from the Halachos of grain harvested before and after the Omer, the pun reads to mean “all things new are prohibited by Torah law”.
[6] The prevailing understanding of Nevuah as a phone call from G-d is a mistaken one. The one person whose Nevuah was as such was Shimshon’s mother, whose name is Tzlelponi…which technically MEANS “phone call”.
[7] Pesachim 68b – “chado’i nafsho’i…ki harbei Yosi ika ba’shuka…” One of my favorite lines in Sha”s. There are many Tzvi’s in this world, but there’s only one me.
[8] “College? Feh! Don’t worry about employment prospects. You have a chiyuv to learn.” Or “You’ve been out with her 8 times already. You don’t have a reason to say no, so marry her!” Or, and I am really not making this up, in 1933-1945, “Don’t leave Europe, we are meant to stay here…”
[9] God forbid for you to think I am accusing them of consciously doing this. I am simply saying they are no different than the Miraglim, who made the same mistakes.
[10] Can you imagine the Kiddush HaShem that would have been made had we invited all those (Jewish and not) who suffer from the inadvertent evils the internet provides (community leaders, social workers, school principals, to name a few) to join us in an open dialogue to find a solution, for all the world? What better example of an ohr la’amim than that?
[11] Which, sadly, is not much different than the salmon fishery guy who revived a question of parasites in fish in order to create an in effect rule to buy his product. Although this fish man’s chutzpa was far greater, as his question he raised was already asked by the Gemara and ruled to not be a problem, so he announced that Nature has changed and therefore those very same parasites are now reason to say the fish is assur.
[12]And that doesn’t even hold a candle to the kashrut agencies who publicized their important findings on the status of some bourbon distilleries ownership by (irreligious) Jews and the subsequent problem of chametz she’avar alav haPesach and their insistence that due to this people should only buy bourbons with an acceptable hechsher…except this SAME AGENCIES ARE PUTTING A HECHSHER ON THOSE SAME DISTILLERIES once their new batches are finished aging.
[13] Not to mention the new push to not drink sherry cask scotches, as it may be a problem of yayin nesach. Except Rav Moshe Feinstein, who is the halachic benchmark for these communities in just about everything else, says it is not a problem at all (and supposedly drank them himself). However, now that you can see kosher symbols on scotches, you can understand the sudden difference in understanding of the halacha…
[14]It is worth noting there is no word in Lashon HaKodesh for “obey”. Modern Hebrew invented one, l’tzayet, as it was necessary for the army…

Question to Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, Rosh Yeshiva of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikva:

I ask you to bravely write an answer to a question that has been disturbing me very much for quite some time. I am a thirty-six years old woman, rather pretty, educated and well taken care of, who has been attempting for over fifteen years to get married, but to no avail…

I want to have a child!!! I dream all the time about him and I want a child!!!

I beg of you: please articulate for me the entire issue from the very beginning till its end. with a specific conclusion. Am I allowed to bring a child to the world while I am not married? To be exact “How may I have a child?”

Response from Rabbi Cherlow:

I shall attempt to the best of my ability to articulate the entire matter and all its various considerations.

1. The fundamental principle of our existence is the complete Jewish family. The Torah has written in the story of Garden of Eden: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh,” and it taught us that all the elements of the family are concentrated in one place: Living with a mate [shall a man leave his father and his mother], in matrimony [shall cleave unto his wife] and the fertilization [and they shall be one flesh.] Therefore, the constant yearning and goal is to establish a family, and the framework to give birth to children. Since the issue is already mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden, we may learn of its high importance, and its being the foundation of human continuity. In contrast with the culture of the world in which we live now, which is a world of taking apart and colorful reassembling, this is the stability and holiness of the Jewish family. Therefore, before considering any other option, it is essential to make every effort to establish a legal and proper family in which to give birth to children.
2. Due to the holiness of the Jewish family there exists a deep hesitation to giving birth to children outside of such family framework, which could be established. The Rabbis integrated the mitzvah of “be fruitful and multiply” to the mitzvah of marriage, and they explained that is the reason why the mitzvah to get married is not an independent ‘stand-alone’ commandment. The halakha expects people who wish to get married to build a Jewish home on principles of concession, mutuality, respect, willingness to compromise, the acceptance of a spouse–even if not perfect- and much more.
3. When a woman reaches a point when it becomes probable that she will not be able to establish a Jewish home despite her strong will to do so and her willingness to compromise towards that goal, coupled with the continuous ticking of her biological clock and the declining chances of giving birth, but she nonetheless still wishes very much to have a child-- there exists a serious unresolved question that is still disputed among the halakhic authorities. Some claim that a woman’s strong wish for a child should not outweigh the significance of the holiness of the Jewish family, nor the benefit of a child to be born into a family with a father and a mother: thus there is no way to move in this direction. Moreover, there is a social framework that one must consider as well, namely, the desire to prevent the slippery slope of the wish to give birth to children out of wedlock in much younger ages, and in fact where giving birth with no husband may become the normative or even ideal mode of life. Sometimes, social tenets designed to protect the holiness of the Jewish family restrict the private will of the individual.
4. On the other hand,  some rabbis claim that when one reaches the stage where the chances of pregnancy are about to fade, and when a person demonstrates that she did all in her power to get married but did not succeed, there is no way to prevent, halakhically, the realization of her hope to bear children.  That is because even the Torah describes that a childless woman feels as if her life without children is not a life, [“Give me children, if not I am a dead “(woman)]. The Midrash comments that Jacob pained Rachel when he replied to her in an inappropriate manner; that is because there is no clear prohibition on a woman to give birth without first establishing a home. That is due to the fact that one is prevented from entering into the issue of “the right to become pregnant”, for it is an issue of human conduct that preceded the Torah, and is a fundamental of human existence. That is because sometimes a woman may give birth to a unique child of her own with no father, and raise him/her with love and care more than in a dysfunctional family which continues to give birth to children.
5. I tend to lean toward the second opinion; however, because of the serious responsibility attached to maintaining the holiness of the Jewish family, there is a need to limit that permission to women who are about thirty seven years of age, and who have reached that age unwedded through no fault of their own. The age was arrived at from the research of the medical sciences regarding the declining chances of a woman’s impregnation, which is close to the last possible deadline for it. There is no way to permit this at a younger age, but one should continue to try every way possible to establish a Jewish family [by marrying].   
6. Obviously, even after the process of impregnation has been successfully completed, the woman should still attempt to establish a Jewish home [by getting married].

The ways to do so:

In today’s medical technologies, there are three main possible ways. First is the regular way, namely sexual relationship. On the one hand, it is the natural and simple way, yet on the other hand in these types of relationships there exist a direct violation of Jewish holiness – pre-nuptial sexual relationship.

1. The second possibility is artificial insemination. The advantage here is that it is not a complicated medical procedure. On the other hand, it involves some degree of discomfort, and in addition, there exists the possibility of using a relatively large amount of sperm in the process, giving rise to the issue of “wasting sperm purposelessly”.
2. The third possibility is in vitro fertilization; this too has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are its high level of probable success, fertilization with no sexual relationship etc. The main disadvantage is that it requires a medically invasive procedure with no medical cause, in an ovarian stimulation, which may lead to a hyper stimulus, and in full anesthesiology in harvesting the eggs etc. Of the above three ways, it appears that artificial insemination is the preferred method. As a second choice I tend to favor the IVF, which has become the relative norm, better than a sexual relationship intended for the exclusive purpose of impregnation.
3. An independent question is which sperm to use. Here there are three basic choices. The first and best of them is the sperm of an identified Jew. It is assumed that we are referring to a person who will be willing to recognize the child as his own, and who reaches an agreement with the woman about the essence of such recognition. One may reach different types of agreements, some which will require nothing from the donor and/or an agreement of full partnership in caring for the child, similar to those that exist among divorced couples.
4. The second possibility is to use sperm of an anonymous donor. It is halakhically preferred to use sperm of a non-Jew, in order to avoid the need to define the child as one of unknown parentage (where we need to be concerned whether the child is illegitimate), for even though one is dealing here with a rabbinic prohibition [rather than a Torah prohibition] we observe all those prohibitions very carefully, especially when we deal with genealogy. One has to remember that according to halakha a woman may not marry an illegitimate man. Therefore, it is entirely possible to argue that by [using sperm from an anonymous Jewish donor who may be illegitimate] one may cause harm to the child who was born from the sperm of an anonymous Jew. There are several reasons to prefer a gentile’s sperm; some of them are medical [avoiding marriages between relatives]. It is indeed true that there may be a desire for the child to be born from Jewish sperm, but the halakhic preference for non-Jewish sperm is unequivocal, and one should not use sperm of an anonymous Jew.

The above is written with a deep feeling of pain for this reality where there are women who have reached this age but did not find a way to establish a home despite their strong wish to do so. These things are very personal; obviously, and one should not employ this route a priori, for it stands in clearly against the Torah’s ideal goal, and compromises the holiness of the Jewish family. It is self-understood that there is a long journey following the birth-- raising the child lovingly and with warmth, with proper education in mitzvoth; but these are topics of their own.

(In light of the many reactions to Rabbi Cherlow’s first responsum, he wrote a second responsum on this topic.)

According to our tradition, when a person enters the hall of study, he recites the prayer of Rabbi Nehunyah Ben Hakana that includes the words: “May it be thy will, Lord my God, that no stumbling-block be caused by me and that I shall not fail in matters of halakha, and that my colleagues shall rejoice in me, and that I shall not say on the defiled that it is pure and conversely, on the pure that it is defiled, and may my colleagues not err in matters of halakha so that I may rejoice in them.”  This prayer was not completely fulfilled in my case. Many of my colleagues did not rejoice in what I’ve written, and a small number even claimed that I have erred in matters of halakha and that I declared the defiled to be pure. I therefore decided to add clarifications to what I have written, and may be the number of those who rejoice in my teaching surpass those who do not rejoice in my teaching. As previously, I pray to the Master of the Universe begging that I shall not fail nor err in matters of halakha, and not err in the way I write it. I predicate my response on the belief that all those who did not rejoice in my teaching had pure and worthy intentions and their position deserves a carefully weighed response.  There were almost no foolish comments nor statements that should not have been made.  This issue is worthy of a serious discussion among scholars of halakha, and there are many opinions, which are not so far from each other, as I shall demonstrate, despite the clear variances among them. I wish to thank all those who responded, particularly those who disputed my arguments and required me to re-examine what I’ve written.

My response will deal with three subjects: The first is my ruling itself, and the decision regarding the status of she who reached the age of almost being unable to give birth to a child of her own. Second are the various considerations that may lead to a different ruling, particularly the fear of the slippery slope leading to the destruction of the institution of marriage. Third is the publication policy and public discussion of such issues. The delving into halakha should always take precedence to the issue of general publication. 

Let us commence with the common denominator among all the rabbis: there is no one who disputes the idea that the Jewish family is the unique and basic holy path for a happy and complete life.  That is how I started my discussion last time, and I dedicated to it more than a few sentences. Even beyond that, in my daily life I dedicate the majority of my time to this topic. Ten years ago, I acted as a partner in the establishment of the rabbinic association, “TZOHAR”, [let me clarify that “TZOHAR” has no common halakhic stand in this matter, and therefore let there be no doubt that my previously stated opinions do not reflect the position of “TZOHAR”; indeed, some of my colleagues there disagree with me]. Since then I have dedicated many days and nights facilitating the establishment of a Jewish home in accordance with the laws of Moses and Israel. I merit the [opportunity] to participate with the rest of Israel’s rabbis, whose main preoccupation is to assist in establishing families, peaceful homes, avoidance of divorces, finding solutions to problems of fertility—these are an integral part of their lives. The accusations against me, claiming that I allegedly assist in the destruction of the sacredness of the Jewish family, ought to be refuted by my constant investment of time and effort in these matters. In my two sites “MORESHET” and “KIPAH” alone there are about 15,000 correspondences dealing with these issues. The majority of these correspondences are not made public due to their private and intimate nature. Moreover, a large share of my rabbinical work is involved with similar topics. Therefore, there is no variance between all Israel’s rabbis, who see the establishment of a Jewish home as the basis of national sanctity. The previous article opened with a discussion about the Jewish family, which comprise three principles whose origin is already mentioned in the story of the Garden of Eden - living with a mate, matrimony and children – and only when all three elements are simultaneously fulfilled one may speak of complete family sanctity.

Because of the above and due to the extreme importance of the family’s sacredness in Israel, I already wrote previously that one must do all needed in order to be married. A part of the spiritual prerequisite is to fully comprehend the deep meaning of living with a mate, the fact that none of us is perfect, and a prospective mate is also imperfect. One must convert the dreams of a charming prince or princess coming into their lives riding on a white horse, into a realistic relationship with people with positive and negative traits. One should be willing to pay some price in order to fulfill dreams – in order to build a proper Jewish family. Moreover, it should be made abundantly clear that any sexual relationship out of wedlock is strictly prohibited. I’ve written about this topic many times, and in the great disputation regarding immersion [in a Mikvah] of single women, I’ve stated unequivocally that such action is strictly prohibited, and I find no way to permit it under any circumstances, even if it involves declaring the transgressor as deserving the punishment of  “Karet” in this context. 

This position is not one of Judaism attempting to guard itself from self-destruction. It is far beyond that, and it is the radical message that the Torah projects to the entire world; it calls on us to resist the major trend of the destructive process in which we find ourselves. In the Western world, in which we live, the various elements of establishing a family are diverse, and what is taking place is the profane destruction and uprooting of sacredness as a basis of the family unit. We strongly deride this major destruction, and we continue to strongly adhere to what is considered to be a novel idea – the molding of the man-woman relationship into the concept of sacredness of the Jewish family unit. This holiness is one of the great messages which we are spreading around the world, and we do so with strength. We believe that this special flag will redeem the world from its current destruction, and will sanctify the reality, and will return the concept of family to its proper position. The preceding, as stated earlier, is a common denominator among all the rabbis in Israel, and as much as I am aware, despite all the multitude of disputation in the rabbinical world, no rabbi disputes this.   

The question that must be dealt with is one of “a posteriori” [Bediavad]: single women who have done all in their power in order to be true to the concept of family sacredness, and did not merit, for whatever reason, to establish a home in Israel, yet wish to experience parenthood and to raise a Jewish child--what is the law for them? I shall emphasize, particularly addressing the secular public and its criticism of what I wrote, that the intention is by no means to, Heaven forbid, bring the rabbi unto the privacy of the bedrooms of people. The proper place of a rabbi is in the Torah academy and not in people’s bedrooms. A believer incorporates in his considerations as a vital element the spiritual and halakhic implications of his deeds. Then he turns to his rabbi, whose specialty is exactly in those domains, in order to learn how the Torah rules on these subjects. No one knows how many women are perplexed by this question; therefore, any empirical statement will be of no real value. This question is not an exclusive one to women, but to all who seek the true knowledge of the faith, because much of the spiritual world is especially built on principled inquiries on various issues. This is the essence of Torah study; we tell the Yeshiva students repeatedly that we cover the entire Talmud regardless of its practical implications for actual life, exactly because what the Torah in its entirety projects on the rabbinic personality. Therefore, this question relates not only to adult women who are frustrated because of this issue, but to all whose proper study of Torah is important.

In this a posteriori situation I irrevocably think that such action is permissible. From the many critics from the rabbinic world, I heard no one who claimed that this is prohibited in principle, and that there is no halakhic way for a single adult woman to give birth. I even heard the Chief Rabbi of Israel Rabbi Amar in a radio interview on Kol Israel, say that when an extraordinary situation such as this exists one must inquire of a knowledgeable authority. I must emphasize that I do not claim that Rabbi Amar has agreed with what I have said.  I simply infer from his reply, as I do from all the critics, that what I said is correct regarding marital issues, There is no prohibition on an adult woman to become pregnant and give birth in a specific manner, when her goal is to merit parenthood and child-bearing.

From the wide public response to what I said, there were those who argued that one must keep in mind the child’s welfare. Because of that, one should prevent a single adult woman from bearing children. There is no dispute with the fact that it is better for a child to grow up in a family with a father and a mother; to the best of my knowledge all the researches agree with that premise. However, the insertion of this argument of ‘the child’s welfare’ into this discussion constitutes a horrible slippery slope, which one must avoid at all cost, even before one commences this slide downwards. I shall emphasize that I am not just talking about a potential slippery slope [which will be discussed later] but about a factual slippery slope. For if we were to incorporate the argument of “the child’s welfare’ in the question of child-bearing, then we will be required to investigate all the world’s couples, leading to a situation where one will require a permit to bear a child. It is possible to unequivocally determine that there are numerous couples that any child born to them may expect a miserable life. Therefore, the insertion of the argument of “the child’s welfare” in order to prevent an unwedded woman from impregnation will stand to no test. Deciding who is worthy of having a child and not, based on the argument of ‘the child’s welfare”, will inevitably enable a child to sue his parents for living in Tel Aviv with all its pollution, or similarly against parents who live in Hebron and bore children in a dangerous environment.

Beyond that, one may not, in the name of halakha, invoke the argument of “child’s welfare” when the concept of child’s welfare appears almost nowhere in a halakhic discussion.  To remove all doubts I shall emphasize, that there is no body of laws, which considers the child’s welfare as does the halakha; however, it is exceedingly difficult to find a single limitation which was placed on the parents because of the argument of “the child’s welfare”. A halakhic discussion must be conducted on the basis of a search for the truth and not be manipulative in nature. Therefore, one may not employ the argument of “the child’s welfare” in places where it is convenient and fits well a priori, and conversely reject it in rulings regarding issues of matrimony, such as birth etc. Such practice may distort the issue of family planning in certain circumstances [mistaken in our view] regarding the damage caused by families with many children and many other issues.  Therefore, from the principled or from the empirical aspects one should not regard the consideration of “child’s welfare” as an influencing argument on the discussion at hand. Whoever inserts the argument of “child’s welfare” to this discussion will cause a far greater damage to the family institution in Israel.  

Similarly, it is impossible to invoke an argument against a woman as selfish in the name of halakha. Do women who wish to give birth think of themselves only? About such claims the Midrash says: “Is that the way one answers a painfully hurting women?” Many adult women are tormented with great pain and are abused by men who drag them along for a long time. They see their friends readying their children to get wedded: may we call such women selfish? Even the suggestion that their problem may be solved by adoption resembles the consolation Elkanah [gave his wife Hannah] “Am I not better to you than ten children?” His loving words did not console Hannah at all. In general, I find it difficult to comprehend how one can dare to judge those in such a terrible state and then offer alternative suggestions, while the Torah itself describes such state as “I am dead”.

I wish to comment here that there is a severe contradiction in many of the replies:  they argue that a married woman should do everything possible and more regarding impregnation, claiming that in the end the reward exceeds the price demanded of her, and the matter is important not only from the ideological and religious aspects but also a matter of mere existence. These proponents are strict in regard to postponements of pregnancies etc., yet when it concerns a single woman who is tormented, all these considerations evaporate. Obviously, they claim, the answer is unequivocally that it must be prohibited. Is there any selfishness spoken about here?

In sum, I have reviewed all the arguments of those who disagreed with the essence of what I’ve written related to this matter and I found no refutation which proves that what I have written is wrong.

Since the second part of my article –how to do it- did not merit a real discussion, I shall not repeat it. I shall say only that three main arguments were advanced. The first is a medical one: There are those who think that there exists another solution, namely freezing one’s eggs [and using them at such later time when one is married]. Being a member of the Helsinki Committee for medical and genetic experimentations, I am proficient in the research subject of freezing eggs. In the last few weeks I have been dealing intensively on various aspects of egg freezing [IMF], both in slow freezing and in the emerging technologies of flash freezing. One should not deceive women in this matter. The percentage of successful impregnations via these methods is about 2-4% per egg, and the flash freezing which is still in progress is far from being a successful medical procedure. It is still in the realm of research and not a medical protocol. Similarly, it is a complex problem because in reality what is suggested actually tells the woman to freeze her eggs [meaning to prefer harvesting eggs by invasive methods] and to gamble –if she is lucky and gets married then it was a wise decision, if not she will be forced to be impregnated only on the day she defines it as that day when all her chances to bear children have faded away, I find it very difficult to comprehend this logic. Above all, making the procedure of egg freezing into a modus operandi creates with it very serious ethical problems [maintaining one’s fertility even beyond the normal age of fertility etc.] and my ethical stand is that one should minimize such procedures. The same argument applies to the suggestion of partial implantation of an ovary. To this day, the scientific research is not convinced that what enables one’s impregnation following a partial ovary implantation is due to the implanted portion. There are many researchers who suggest that pregnancy is enabled by the portion of the ovary that was there before. Moreover, what is the medical and halakhic rationale to employ such a drastic procedure?

The second matter regards the order of priorities in impregnation. In view of the fact that in general I tend to articulate my ideas in a very gentle and composed manner, on occasion some matters require a sharp and unequivocal statement. Therefore, I shall repeat and say, in my humble opinion, the preferred manner, from the halakha’s point of view, is insemination by an identified Jewish man. This is the great fundamental of preserving the Jewish pedigree. Many commented that it is difficult to find men who would agree to this, because from the legal point of view, even if the woman is willing to waive the recognition of his fatherhood, the child may be able to sue and chances are that his claim may be granted. There are legal remedies, however, and I am not the expert in this field; I am just pointing it out to prevent any stumbling blocks [for the woman]. If the above way is not feasible, the only other way is a gentile’s insemination. Under no circumstances is one permitted to enter into a sexual relationship out of wedlock, and if due to my gentle style of expression in my previous article [it might have been understood] that there exists such a possibility, now all is crystal clear.

The suggestion that the woman should be married for one day in a fictitious marriage contradicts all my halakhic way of thinking. The halakha was not designed to create fictions, even though we required them on rare and critical occasions [e.g. the permission to sell hametz before Passover]. One must minimize this method and not create situations where they should be utilized.

The second area is the fear that such a ruling, and certainly making it public, will exacerbate the deterioration of the family’s sanctity in Israel. Many claimed that once women will be cognizant of this option, they will not adequately exert themselves to get married. Once this is permitted by halakha, they will prefer to bear a child via that route without paying the price of being married – compromise etc. Moreover, it will draw women of younger ages into this realm, since the age of 37 cannot be upheld unequivocally.

I shall emphasize at the outset that the arguments brought forth by my detractors were more than legitimate in a halakhic discussion; they were essential arguments. The rule of halakha is not decided based upon analytical considerations alone. There are numerous considerations, and this is the reason one must support scholars of halakha so that one may learn from their method of ruling.  Even in this article I base my unequivocal rejection to prenuptial relationship on something that is far beyond the formal aspect of the issue at hand. That is the way the halakha has been decided over the generations, and similarly it is true for this matter here and now. Thus, in principle, arguments such as these are truly of extreme import, and one must deal with them seriously. The question is if in the case we are discussing, these arguments allow an adult woman to go through a fertilization process enabling her to have a child.

The confrontation with these heavily weighed arguments has to be conducted on three levels. The first level is the empirical one – would the number of women who will opt not to get married as a result of this ruling, increase substantially? My position that rejects this possibility is based on the Torah itself, as it says that the origin for marriage is “It is not good that a man should be alone, I will make a help meet for him.” Similarly the principle position of the Talmud is that “It is better to dwell with a load of grief than to dwell in widowhood,” [Kidushin, 41A]. Because of my constant preoccupation with the human soul, I increasingly know the reality that the majority of single women want very much to get married. There is no real temptation to remain alone, and it is very difficult to raise a child alone. The assumption that there are many women who marry at an advanced age just to bear a child and now will refuse to be married – is an assumption whose factual support is very weak.

Concerning the biological time-clock, the age of 37 is not arbitrary, but is determined by medical research which affixed this age as the last opportunity [to bear children]. This is the basis for setting this age, and not the fear of the advancing of age. Therefore, my evaluation is that no substantial slide will occur that will draw younger women into this decision that could contribute to the slippery slope of destruction of the family unit.

The second level is the essential question of making a ruling based on the fear of a “slippery slope”. One has to recognize that invoking the argument of “slippery slope” is problematic in essence, for it injures one woman in order to prevent another one from sliding down the slope. This consideration caused our sages to minimize such decrees. One should not make a decree upon a decree, maintaining all the discussions in the Talmud where the question of “should one decree or not decree” are present. Those who believe in the value of the argument of “slippery slope” must be very cautious from the very same concept, due to the hyper usage of this argument [as a basis for ruling,] for if not, one will find himself in a state of self-contradiction.  As a result, one who wishes to prohibit suffering single women from bearing children must be the one to produce proof that the usage of the argument of “slippery slope” indeed justifies such prohibition. In my humble opinion no such proof was presented.

The third level is that, opposed to the prohibitive ruling are other fundamental and solid considerations, especially the halakha’s recognition of the horrible suffering of the childless woman left to live alone because she found no one with whom to build a family. Therefore, the assumption that it is better to prohibit [her from bearing children] lest this cause a deterioration of the institution of the family, as I’ve said, I strongly doubt if this is empirically correct, and it is problematic from the halakha’s point of view. Whenever a decree is issued, one must consider the price, and the price here appears very heavy, as we claimed above when we cited Rachel, our matriarch. The suffering of an unmarried woman who is also deprived from having a child is extremely severe. Therefore the ruling prohibiting women to do so is problematic in itself, and the burden of proof is on those who prohibit.  One who wishes to decree that a single woman may not be allowed to bear a child, he is the one who much bring forth a proof [for his prohibition] and not the person who permits her to do so.

The most problematic issue is the publicizing of these issues. This is also the main critique which I received, and it requires me to investigate again and again the issue of making such topics public.  Much of what I heard from my rabbinic colleagues has made an impact on me, and definitely shook my feeling of certainty in regard to the importance of making these issues public. The heavily weighed arguments against publicity made me reach a certain conclusion. However, prior to that decision I wish to elaborate on the arguments supporting publicizing [such issues].

I shall commence with the personal dimension. I think that one has to live a very “transparent” life in areas of principles [not in matters of personal feelings or other intimate matters]; namely, one should reduce the gap that exists between his genuine thoughts and what he says aloud; he must seek complete harmony. In my opinion, it manifests the Torah’s commandment that one should not lie, as well as the obligation that one’s yes is true and one’s no is also true. By that I see the fulfillment of the Torah’s commandments “Thou shall fear no one” and on occasion “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil”. I see in it a wonderful tool to confront the temptation to gossip in private; one has to accustom himself to think that everything he utters in private is as if it were stated in public. By doing so, he will not permit himself to say something he ought not say; it surely is a wonderful controlling device. I resent situations where people say one thing but think something else; [that is the reason I do not assign great importance when various groups of people convene, because the most important thing is not what they say in these conventions but what they say at home; and even more important is that every one would listen to what the other one truly says at home about himself.] I dislike apologetics, where people frequently are not willing to stand courageously behind the true position of the Torah; instead they present all sort of excuses etc. Therefore, naturally I feel that a person must truthfully tell what he thinks and not mask it.

Furthermore, our holy Torah, our sages, the composers of the codes of laws and all the books I know –never hid anything. I assume that if the people who claim that one should avoid making things public had lived during the time of Moses, they would have suggested to him not to write the rules of divorce in the Torah, but to write that if a couple has marital problems they should go to their rabbi to ask for his advice, since if the divorce rules were written in the Torah it would cause the danger of “slippery slope” toward divorce even if it were possible to save the family. Indeed, there exists in halakha a concept of “this matter should not be spoken of in front of the ignorant”; however, it is applied very rarely. All the laws of the oral Torah are fully exposed, all are accessible, and parts deal with subjects much bolder than the relatively narrow one which I dealt with in my responsum. The clear majority [of halakhic opinion] does not require one to ask the advice of a scholar on the specific personal level, but [halakhists] write clear and concise halakha which involves the public at large, and this involves a much larger slippery slope. Thus, it is again incumbent on those who claim that one should hide the halakhic rulings from the public to prove that position.

Beyond that, the main reason we give for learning all of the disputations in the Talmud is that this is a means to attain the spirit of the Torah. The discussion of the topic of adult single women who wish to bear children is not restricted to itself alone but has further implications. It illuminates several general rules, from the great importance of establishing a family, as well as indicating the great sensitivity the Torah demonstrates to those in great pain and suffering. This topic might turn into such a key subject on both of these aspects, and on exposing the world of halakha regarding this subject in its entirety. Finally, it may cause many more to come back in full repentance. It is so important to me to illustrate how the halakha operates with courage and integrity, and to state out loud that a Cohen may not wed a divorcee, that intermarriage is among the most harmful acts to Jewish holiness, and that a man and a woman sign a truthful covenant with no permission of any kind to sway to one side or the other and defile the sacredness of this covenant. Conversely, one must state courageously and honestly what is permissible.  

Essential is the understanding of the period in which we are living today. We are living in a period in which the control over knowledge is not the way by which one advances dear and important topics in the world. One of the main characteristics of our time is the fact that the hierarchy in the realm of knowledge is completely different. In view of that, the main struggle is not conducted by attempts at stopping or halting, but by constant nurturing of the free choice. We the rabbis from all affiliations must invest our strongest efforts to refrain from issuing decrees and building walls, to the side of strengthening and glorifying the will, to guard the words of the living God and the deep spiritual direction by which one should live. In our post-modern world people live lives of free choice in all areas, also in this area. Therefore, one cannot treat the public in general as if it was waiting for the rabbis to give permission to bear children out of wedlock. The public at large is faithful to God’s words and His Torah, particularly because of the fact that they choose to do so from free will. Our major effort must be in that direction. Therefore, personally, I tend to strengthen the family unit in Israel in a way of empowerment of the free choice and not by concealing the information.  Thus, I find it hard to accept the principle that there are matters one does not divulge to the public. As previously mentioned, the written law did not act that way, and the oral law too did not act that way. Thank God, we are exposed to all that our sages have written, and I find it very difficult to understand why we must start acting differently now.

The claim that making this issue public will bring about the destruction of the institution of the Jewish family unit demands a solid and true proof, and those who criticized me did not present those proofs. The institution of the family unit has been finding itself in great trouble for a long time. Some of the reasons for this have nothing to do with what the rabbinical world does, but emanate from the general culture and from the post-modern world in which we live. However, a major portion of its weakness originates in other areas of the rabbinical world that has no bearing on the subject I discussed above. On the contrary, let the critics ask the women who are not married why are they not married in accordance to the laws of Moses and Israel, and let them discover how many of them do not get married because they are planning to bear children at an advanced age out of wedlock, and how many of them are not married for a variety of reasons which are connected to very restrictive and problematic rulings. Each couple which lives together out of wedlock without a proper Jewish wedding constitutes a painful testimony to this reality.

The strengthening of the Jewish family unit will not be attained by building higher barriers of entry. The building of the family unit is attained from the other direction, i.e. encouragement of proper free choice, education to good family life, exposure to holiness and purity, the establishment of rabbinical authorities the likes of “TZOHAR”, and other such groups, which draw the nation to the sacred. In general, there is no room in our world where one can build things by concealment of information. We need to come out stressing the message that emphasizes the strength of the family unit in Israel. Part of this message is the clear spelling out of those things which are prohibited, and part of the message is the humane and compassionate approach of the halakha where it employs those considerations.

Among the many elements that contribute to the destruction of the family unit in Israel is the fact that the halakha is regarded by many as unfair and unethical. This subject is not simple at all, and it requires a thorough examination.  The great message of the Jewish family unit also contains the pain sometimes caused to some individuals e.g. a Cohen who wishes to marry a divorcee, a young woman whose husband was injured and is vegetating in a hospital, and many more such cases.   We need to stand strong, without apologies, and declare that indeed this is the price we are asked sometimes to pay in order to preserve our holiness and purity. Even then there are occasions where the courts find a solution. Exactly because of that, our Torah must be one of Truth. In areas where the halakha makes possible the utilization of human pity and compassion that do not contradict the manifestation of The Master of the Universe-- one must do so with all his might. I deemed it very important to publicize this issue, as an integral part of the struggle to advance the proper way of the family unit in Israel.

The weighing of all the pro and con reasons led me to conclude in favor of publicizing the issue. Much of what friends and colleagues have told me caused me serious inner doubt about my decision. I intend from now on to consult some of my friends before publicizing such issues. I shall not publicize issues without hearing a second opinion regarding the principle of publication. I assume that there will still be a gap between my thoughts and those of others, yet there is nothing better than having another eye looking at things. This will be the modification that I will implement following the large criticism, which consisted of many true ideas which were stated for the sake of the ‘fear of God’ and the desire to correct. 

Let it be the will of God that all will merit to establish a healthy, faithful, pure and holy home in Israel, and that they should not need radical solutions in difficult circumstances, and that they should not need to take apart the three main ingredients of marriage but will build a proper home, and that these issues that we dealt with shall remain in the realm of theory only, and that every one shall find his proper mate.

Storied Jewish Lives around the World, by Hillel Goldberg

Feldheim Publishers, 2013, 228 pages

Rabbi Hillel Goldberg, an award winning author who has published inspiring Jewish stories for over 45 years, and has authored five previous books, has now given us three dozen well-crafted, easy-to-read, inspiring tales of people who we will admire, people we should emulate.

“There is greatness,” Rabbi Goldberg writes, “not only in well known leaders. ‘There is no person who does not have his hour.’ I have known this person too – the ‘simple Jew,’ the poshuteh Yid – shining in his moment of distinction. I have tried to capture” the greatness of these Jews, and their contribution to those around them.

The rabbi succeeds. His stories are interesting, inspiring, and very moving. He tells of people who lived normal lives, but unexpectedly became angels of God.

Among many others, Rabbi Goldberg tells about Professor Frank Talmage who died at age fifty. Despite being very ill, he devoted himself to what became a classic work on the Bible commentator David Kimchi (1160-1235). Although at times quite ill, he continued to teach and inspire students.

He tells us about Daniel Kravitz who because of kindness to a skinhead neo-Nazi, he was able to persuade him to reconnect with his parents and abandon his neo-Nazi group.

There are also stories of an eighteenth century Polish nobleman who converted to Judaism and surrendered his life for his new religion; a holocaust survivor who died years
after the holocaust with the same pious behavior as his grandfather when he died; and the tale of Werner and Lucie who despite numerous difficulties, including the horrors of
the holocaust, difficulties created by the British when they administered Palestine, and a separation of seven years, were able to remain true to each other, reunite, and marry.

In short, this is an inspiring book that readers will enjoy because the stories are fascinating and because of the positive feelings they will produce when they are read.

The mid-nineteenth century was a heady era for Reform Judaism in America, with a strong influx of German Jewish immigrants for whom the modernity of Classical Reform resonated. By the middle of the twentieth century, the whole world seemed to be moving toward Conservative Judaism—certainly Orthodox Judaism was the odd man out, or so it appeared. The Jewish community fully embraced suburbanization, and whether in the city or in the suburb, new synagogues being built were almost entirely without mehitsot (partitions between men and women) and with large parking lots. In fact, in many parts of America in the 1950s and 1960s there was no question about the survival of mainstream Orthodoxy as a force—that was easily dismissed out of hand. The question was whether the Traditional movement, a type of “advanced” Orthodoxy where men and women could sit together and hear a hazzan with a microphone and a state-of-the-art speaker system would be able to compete long term with the Conservative movement.

On the one hand, Conservative and Reform proved to be far more resilient than the short lived Traditional, quasi-Orthodox movement. On the other hand, over the past four decades, Orthodoxy has come roaring back, and, at least according to the newest Jewish population survey in the New York area, is returning to a demographic dominance it might have not had since the millions of Eastern European Jews came to America at the turn of the nineteenth century. Moreover, the Orthodox Jews who are increasing their share of the Jewish pie today, are not just Orthodox in name, but they are observant and seem to be passing observant Judaism down to the next generation. By any measure, the Orthodox community—from its most Modern and Open elements to its most Hareidi sectors—should feel confident that it is growing in influence and stature within the established Jewish world and even within the powerful corridors of American power. Whereas in the past we could look to senators and members of the Cabinet who were merely Jewish, now many of them are outright Orthodox—Treasury secretary Jack Lew, Senator Lieberman, Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer, just to start.

While the other movements are engaged in soul-searching on how to deal with dwindling and aging membership in synagogues, the challenges to Orthodoxy are how to deal with its burgeoning numbers: how to cost-effectively educate the hordes of children the Orthodox are having, how to expand ever-growing synagogues, and where to establish new communities where housing costs—for large homes—are low. But from college campuses, to urban communities of singles and young couples, to suburban communities with families and empty nesters—the numbers all show that Orthodoxy is an attractive type of Judaism, one that is easily replacing any fall-off, and is actually expanding through a relatively high birthrate and an expanding professional outreach movement.
It would stand to reason that Orthodoxy’s greatest challenge—in America, Israel, and around the world—would be having too much self-confidence and sense of triumphalism.

If there is any competition between the denominations, and there certainly is, then Orthodoxy would be expected to feel a sense of pride and smugness after having made an incredible comeback in the past 50 years. However, although the world Orthodox community does have a sense of zeal for its principles, and a loyalty to its leaders and its religious goals, it is stunning that in most sectors, it retains the same fear of destruction and unraveling that it had 50 years ago. Orthodoxy feels vulnerable and susceptible to challenges from feminism, liberalism, foreign influences, and temptation from the worst of American culture. The same fears of legitimating Reform or Conservative rabbis, or women wearing tefillin, or people whose conversions might not be as pure as others pervade the Orthodox community.

Think about it: Why should the huge Hareidi community fear a few women—on the women’s side of the Kotel wearing a tallit and singing and dancing once a month for an hour? Do they really think that all women will start wearing tallitot and tefillin and will start coming to the Kotel all the time and daven all the time? Do they see a revolution on the part of Hareidi women about to take off? All the fears on women’s and gender issues on the part of many in the Orthodox community point to a general fear that the slope is slippery, and the Orthodox world in general is on the verge of slipping off that cliff to religious anarchy. In fact, one Rosh Yeshiva at a prominent rabbinical school was quoted by his student that allowing for same sex civil marriage was the beginning of the end of heterosexual society as we know it! If we legitimize two men or two women starting a family together, why will anyone want to start a heterosexual family? Similarly, when in my own neighborhood I tried to team up with a Conservative rabbi to give a joint kosher supervision—an attempt that failed for other reasons—I faced tremendous opposition from the Orthodox establishment who were mainly afraid of the Conservative world taking over supervision. What is the basis of this fear, when every single national kosher supervision—even the ones that are not entirely reliable—are in the hands of Orthodox rabbis and organizations? It is stunning that with all the measurable, incontestable successes of the Orthodox community—and with all the momentum that the numbers show into the next generation—the Orthodox community is still scared and lacks the self-confidence necessary to take on the role it now has as a dominant force in American Jewish life.

As a Modern and Open Orthodox Jew, I realize that one of my most important tasks is to help give the Orthodox community as much self-confidence as possible. Self-awareness is critical to self-fulfillment—and for the Orthodox community to assume the responsibilities it should take on in its position, it needs to realize that it is strong and successful. In fact, I think the Modern and Open segments of the Orthodox community, along with the many people in the Hareidi world engaged in outreach, have a unique role in bolstering the self-confidence of our brothers and sisters in the Centrist and Hareidi communities. The more open to contemporary concepts and the more aware of contemporary realities and trends that we are, the more we have to bond with those who are not part of Orthodoxy to assure them that they are no threat to traditional Jewish values: women clergy, gay members in shul, women wearing tefillin, Jews who may not be halakhically Jewish but are part of our community, and even interfaith work are all not going to cause our mesorah and our Torah—the pillars that Orthodox Judaism is built on—to come crashing down. Over a decade ago, Rav Yehuda Amital, zt”l, said that Reform and Conservative Judaism were no longer threats to the Orthodox community, but, rather, they had become gateways to people to get closer to Judaism and the Jewish community. In a recent article in Commentary, Professor Jack Wertheimer quotes Hareidi outreach professionals saying the same thing. These people get it—they understand how powerful Orthodoxy is today, and that thinking that the other movements are a threat to Orthodoxy is from a by-gone era. In fact, Rabbi Ilan Feldman wrote a powerful article in Cross Currents, a Hareidi publication, where he calls on the frum Orthodox community to not focus on the fear of the “other” coming in and contaminating our communities, but, rather, to model the community upon the home of Abraham and Sarah, which was open and welcoming to everyone, convert or idolator. It is the responsibility of those in the outreach community and the pluralistic Orthodox community, who are comfortable counting Conservative, Reform, or Renewal rabbis as mentors and teachers, to find a way to show other Orthodox Jews that pluralism is only going to strengthen an already strong Orthodoxy, not destroy it.

How successful the Modern and Open Orthodox community will be at convincing the rest of Orthodoxy to be more confident and less scared, I’m not sure. I do know that it will only happen if we are able to create a big-tent Orthodoxy, which is based more and more on a desire to include, based on self-confidence, and less on a fear to exclude. The more Modern and Open elements of the Orthodox community need to be the advocates and architects of that big tent because they are the ones who feel most comfortable bringing in more and more elements into the tent. The Modern and Open Orthodox parts of the Orthodox community do feel less fear of the world around them, and fit in well with the American environment. But even though that sense of ease has all the advantages of avoiding harmful fear, it presents its own challenges:

Easier to be Religious: Need to have more rigor, not less!

Just three months ago, a fantastic kosher (CRC supervision—the best!) BBQ restaurant and bar opened smack in the middle of Lakeview, a trendy urban neighborhood in Chicago with a 400 family Modern Orthodox synagogue. Suddenly there was no excuse for people to eat in non-kosher restaurants; Milt’s BBQ for the Perplexed even has an impressive vegetarian menu. Jews and non-Jews have poured into the restaurant: Hareidim from Peterson Park along with local Modern Orthodox Jews are eating within inches of men and women from the heavily gay and hipster community. Everyone loves it. As a frum, Orthodox Jew in America you can have it all: great eating options, eruvs to carry on Shabbat and build community, kosher cruises, kosher bed and breakfasts in Maine, etc. Most people have no problem at all getting off early on Friday afternoons for Shabbat, or taking off the Holidays, or getting their co-workers to either order in kosher or have the office lunch at a kosher restaurant downtown. The synagogue has an early quickie Shabbat minyan, a slower regular minyan, five groups for the kids every Shabbat, and free ice-cream sponsored by the shul in the local ice-cream shop almost every Shabbat. It is easier than ever in America to be fully observant and fully successful—fully Orthodox and fully American.

The challenge is, will this ease make us more complacent and numb, or make us more rigorous and passionate Jews? In Los Angeles, where it is even easier to be Orthodox than Chicago, there is the Happy Minyan. Yes, those attending are living the happy American life. However, they channel the ease in a healthy way: they push themselves to be more rigorous, more passionate, more elevated on Shabbat—they don’t take the easy way out. Likewise, do we allow the easy, ready make Passover experiences in bungalows in Florida to make us forget about the homeless and the poor even more, or do we use the ease and joy in being Orthodox in America to push us to be at the forefront of advocating and working with the homeless and the underprivileged? Will people take advantage of kosher food to commit to eating strictly kosher and to inviting more strangers over to their homes for Shabbat? Or will they let the consumer culture of America drag them away from the values of thoughtfulness and care in our food that kashrut is all about? In the past people kashered their own meat in the bathtub (removing the blood), or at least went to the butcher to get the right cut. Now that it is all done for us, are we going to spend more time learning the laws of kashrut, saying the blessings before and after eating, or donating to food drives and food pantries—both Jewish and non-Jewish? We have an incredible opportunity to enable our children to get involved more in civics, or to take time off before or after college to work or study in Israel: will we take this God-given opportunity to find more rigor and passion in Judaism and the Jewish community, or will we be lulled to sleep by the ease and success that we have achieved? Will we become leaders and pilots of a new and exciting, reinvigorated Orthodoxy—pushing issues that we believe in—or will we go on auto-pilot and ignore the opportunities that we have been blessed with?

Finding the Passion—and the Difficulty Finding a Way of Relating to It

Actually, the Orthodox community does have a lot of passion and commitment, but it is usually coming from the right-wing groups, and frequently the more modern, centrist Jews (of, let’s say, Teaneck, Scarsdale and the Upper West Side) see that passion as either misplaced of foreign. The passion of the Hareidi world is admirable, but it gets mixed up with protesting women at the Kotel, or avoiding army duty, or asking the government of Israel—or of the United States—to pay for things that the Modern and Centrist Orthodox communities believe individual families should pay for themselves.

This disconnect—between the beauty of self-sacrifice and the ugliness of the politics behind it—is tragic: those who have perhaps the most serious sense of self-sacrifice are not able to impart its beauty to the community that needs to adopt it in their lives because they are challenged by Jewish life becoming too easy and to convenient. One group is enjoying kosher meals at Disney World, while the other group is rejecting any form of secular education for their children so that they are not corrupted by the world around them. Moreover, it is specifically the Hareidim of Israel, those who are even more extreme in their avoiding the Western world and Western education who are the most profound example of self-sacrifice. It is true that a typical middle class Modern Orthodox family is sacrificing tens of thousands of dollars—at least—every year on their children’s education; but as difficult as that is, it is not necessarily instilling passion, or a sense of sacrifice for Torah, in the life of the family. My wife tells the story of her parents taking out a home equity loan in order to make a substantial donation to the day school’s capital campaign because their rabbi asked them to: how often do we see that today in the Open, Modern or Centrist Jewish community? Perhaps not even in the American Hareidi community.

So we have passion in some parts of Orthodoxy, and we have the ability to integrate Orthodox observance with the Western world, American life, in other parts of the Orthodox community. The challenge is to bring the two together. To succeed, I believe the Modern and Open Orthodox community has to make an effort to understand the Hareidi community better. Not by compromising values such as pluralism, gender sensitivity, openness to the entire world—Jewish and not-Jewish—and prioritizing inclusion, but, rather, by reaching out and making the first steps for our students and children to meet with Hareidi families, for our rabbinical students to meet with Hareidi rabbinical students, and for the leaders of all the communities to make more of an effort to come together on issues that concern all of us—education, caring for the poor, Israel, and other important issues.

Are We Truly an Open Tent?

Earlier I mentioned Rabbi Ilan Feldman’s critique of the Orthodox community for stressing preservation of the community over reaching out and welcoming outsiders. He is correct that the fear of the “other”—ideas, people, cultures—which we also discussed earlier, has the more right wing members of the Orthodox community circling the wagons in preservationist mode rather than open up the tents in “modeling” mode as Feldman calls it. However, the other side of the Orthodox community, the more Modern and Centrist, is also not opening up their homes, and not even their shuls as much as they should, because of the complacency and easy living that we discussed earlier. Why should they bother to take in a guest who is not a friend or a relative? Why should they bother speaking to someone they don’t know at kiddush? Why should they make their shuls comfortable for people who know less than they do? Even in Israel this is an issue, and I have heard of congregants who complain to the rabbi for announcing pages—the most basic of welcoming acts—because it bothers them—suddenly they feel the shul as catering to the outsider! Orthodoxy, then, as strong as it is, is facing the perfect storm in not doing its work in opening up the tent: fear of the outside meets up with disdain for the work necessary to welcome the outsider, and, together, this united front of Orthodoxy is not reaching out to thousands, if not millions, who would love to be exposed to the gifts that Orthodoxy has to offer. If we didn’t have the model of Abraham and Sarah, maybe we wouldn’t think this kind of Open Tent Orthodoxy was important; we know better.

It is worth noting that there are small signs of changes in the Hareidi community regarding opening up: first there is a growing professional group of Hareidi kiruv (outreach) rabbis and families who do see it as their responsibility to connect with the rest of the Jewish community—as Chabad has been doing for decades. But even more significant, I have been told that regular Hareidi families are requesting these professionals to send non-observant Jews to their Shabbat dinners and lunches. This is not true pluralism in the Hareidi world; the families don’t necessarily want to learn about Kant or feminism from their guests, but they do what to connect with them, and it is an encouraging first step towards the openness of Abraham and Sarah’s tent.

Rav Avi Weiss has pushed the Open Orthodox community, and the students of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, to specifically seek out ways of connecting, as Orthodox rabbis and Orthodox lay people, to the broader Jewish community, on college campuses, in hospitals and especially in Orthodox synagogues that are frontier and outreach synagogues, where many of the members are not Orthodox but are open to learning and growing. My own synagogue, Anshe Sholom, in Chicago has been made up of many members of all ages who would not classify themselves as Orthodox, but they choose an Orthodox synagogue to a great extent because of the efforts my wife and I make to reach out and connect with them and make sure synagogue regulars are connecting with the new people and guests. Orthodox communities are uniquely positioned to reach out and welcome and connect outsiders to insiders and create community—just like Abraham and Sarah—but only if Orthodoxy is not afraid and not complacent will it make the effort and take the seeming risks (which are more imagined than real) to make it happen.

It may be that Open Orthodoxy’s niche, and the important role of the hundreds of future ordainees of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, the Modern and Open Orthodox yeshiva in Riverdale, New York, will be not only to open the tents of Orthodoxy to anyone interested—and in a sense of mutuality, learning from each other—but to go beyond welcoming to actually making the journey to where our fellow Jews are. Both Hareidi and Chabad outreach welcome all Jews to come to Orthodox homes, Orthodox Shabbat tables and Orthodox places of prayer—and that is admirable connecting. A confident, self-assured Orthodox community will be able to go even further and connect with students, young adults and families where they are. This means learning together with Reform, Reconstructionist, and renewal teachers and students; it means being willing to be on panels even with other rabbis or leaders who will be saying things that are not consistent with Orthodoxy; it means being willing to have Orthodox students spend time with non-Orthodox students, and then Orthodox families find ways of going to the non-Orthodox homes for Shabbat. All without compromising the beliefs or the practices of Orthodoxy! Beit Hillel in Israel produced a brochure outlining how religious Jews could “safely” go over for dinner with more secular Jews—on the one hand this was not a revolution in halakha, but on the other hand, how many Orthodox Jews in American synagogues are doing that? Either we don’t feel safe or we are lazy. Shabbat, Holidays, kashrut, Torah: all these pillars of Orthodox Judaism are strong, and we have to have the confidence that they can all survive—nay, thrive!—when experienced with less observant, non-Orthodox Jews. This might be the frontier which Open and Modern Orthodoxy can move to, and, by so doing, inspire the rest of Orthodoxy to follow suit.

Orthodoxy is reaching a golden age in America, and all the statistics suggest that it will continue to gain strength and prominence. This era should be offering Orthodoxy great opportunities to make a difference and fulfill its destiny, which is really the destiny of the entire Jewish people begun with Abraham and Sarah. But Abraham and Sarah, when they were true to form, displayed self-confidence and passion—loyalty to a difficult life, but joy in knowing it was the will of God. My hope is that Orthodoxy in America, and throughout the world, can follow their model of understanding how strong we are, but using that strength go make us more rigorous, more passionate, more Open and welcoming and filled with the courage and confidence to go that extra mile to connect with our fellow Jews and with a world that needs us and the entire Jewish people so much.

Development of Formal Jewish Education for Women in the Orthodox Community The issues surrounding the education and status of women have been universal over time and cultures. As late as 1868, the English parliament was debating whether women could own property. One of its statesmen announced the following, which was picked up by The London Times, “giving women the right to own property will destroy marriages and society as we know it” (Munday, 2012). This issue, incidentally, was resolved by the Torah thousands of years ago in the divine decision relayed by Moses to the five daughters of Zelophehad, giving them the right to own land (Num. 27:1–11). But the defining issue today for Orthodox women are the problems caused by their rise to the top of the educational ladder in both secular and religious studies. Their rise in status, by virtue of their professional achievements in the secular world, is well known. What is not as well known are their professional achievements in the religious world. In the last century, formalized Torah education for women began with the Bais Yaakov movement founded by Sarah Schnirer (1883–1935). This pioneer Jewish educator from Krakow, Poland felt the need to establish a structured school system for girls, which opened there in 1918 with 25 students. It later spread throughout Poland with a complete curriculum of Hebrew and secular studies. Of special interest was the formidable religious studies curriculum, which consisted of Tanakh (Bible) with commentaries, explanations of the liturgy, Dinim (laws), Jewish history, Hebrew language, Yiddish, and Jewish ethics and values. A teachers’ seminary sprang up later to train future women educators (M.M. Brayer, 1986, pp. 122–125). In America, the Bais Yaakov movement began in the Williamsburg section of New York City in 1937, when it came under the umbrella of the Agudath Israel movement and has since grown considerably throughout the country. An early supporter of Sarah Schnirer was the world-famous sage, Chofetz Chaim (1838–1932), who gave a pragmatic reason for the need to establish the Bais Yaakov schools: Formerly a woman lived in her father’s home and was ensconced in Jewish tradition and followed the halakhot she observed there. In this home-oriented society there seemed to be no necessity of teaching a woman Torah; but in our mobile society, where women are no longer confined to the home and secular education is open to them, one should teach them Torah to prevent them from leaving Judaism and forgetting their traditional values. (M.M. Brayer, 1986, p. 129) If this was true of the Chofetz Chaim’s generation in Europe, how much more so is it necessary in twenty-first century America, where assimilation and intermarriage are at an all-time high. This legacy of Torah scholarship for women that took root during that era has flowered into the advanced level of scholarship we witness today in America and Israel. Although there have always been exceptional women who had higher education, they were relatively few. Beruriah, wife of R. Meir (second century C.E.), Yalta, wife of R. Nahman bar Yaakov (fourth century C.E.), and the daughters of Rashi (eleventh century C.E .) are noteworthy examples (M.M. Brayer, 1986, pp. 156–160). Each came from prominent rabbinical families and their arranged marriages with leading rabbinical figures of their respective generations helped cement their deserved reputations. The story of Beruriah, in particular, is worthy of special mention. Her vast knowledge, character, and scholarly reputation rivaled that of her husband Rabbi Meir. She took issue with the talmudic statement that women are literally “simple-minded” (Da’atan Kalot) or better said “emotionally fragile.” Her husband insisted that this statement was true. To prove his point, Rabbi Meir resorted to unbefitting actions that ultimately led to her death (Rashi, Avodah Zara18b). Although circumstances today are far more favorable for learned women, there nevertheless remains a deep-seated resistance to granting them a greater voice in religious affairs, as evidenced by the increased efforts to divide and separate the genders. Never in our history have there been so many highly learned Orthodox women in the scholarly text-based realm of Torah, Talmud, and halakha. In Israel we have an abundance of scholarly professional Orthodox women, heretofore unheard of in Jewish tradition: To’anot, professional women (advocates) who help in dealing with halakhic matters of divorce; Dayanot/Yo’atzot (Judges/Advisors) who make halakhic decisions on women’s issues relating to family purity; Menahalot (Directors) of women’s teacher seminaries such as Michlalah, Machon Gold, and so forth; and Women’s yeshivot (academies) such as Matan, Migdal Oz, and so forth. This virtual explosion of higher learning inevitably seeks an outlet in communal leadership in more proactive ways. As a result, we now find Orthodox women serving on community religious councils in Israel, a venue previously reserved only for men. In a recent column published in The Jerusalem Post (June, 2012, pp. 22–28) Rabbi Shlomo Riskin wrote, “Women’s greater involvement in Torah learning and teaching will produce different dimensions to the quality of Torah which is emerging.” Rabbi Riskin also reported, in an interview he had with the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, in which the Rebbe stated that “the greatest challenge facing Orthodox Jewry is the position of women in society and our halakhic response to a newly found acceptance of female equality within Western culture.” The Rebbe’s observation is indicative of one of the prime motivating factors behind this unprecedented growth. It is the rise of the Feminist Movement that began in the 1960s and that has propelled women’s issues to the forefront of Western culture. Under the leadership of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug, and other outspoken American Jewish feminists, this movement has impacted Modern Orthodox women’s thinking as well. A number of Orthodox women led by Blu Greenberg established the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA), which challenges traditional views about women’s participation in Jewish life cycle events and in religious services. In its wake came the emergence of separate Women’s Prayer Groups, which began to appear in larger Jewish communities around the country. These services gave well-educated Orthodox women an opportunity to practice their skills and to assume leadership positions in conducting their own services, hitherto only open to their male counterparts. Subsequently, other Orthodox women’s organizations and adult schools began to emerge. The formation of the American women’s adult school Drisha occurred in 1979, which as its Hebrew name indicates, involves inquiry into fairly advanced Hebrew religious texts. These new female-driven developments both here and in Israel pose a threat to the traditional hegemony of male Orthodox leadership. They are coming at a time when the American Orthodox rabbinate is also undergoing increased growth in numbers and influence. We therefore now turn our attention to tracking this Orthodox rabbinical growth pattern, and how it interfaces with the changes in status experienced by Orthodox women discussed above. The Growing Empowerment of the Orthodox Rabbinate In the pre-Holocaust era, “parish” rabbis served the religious needs of American Jewry, serving in communities large and small scattered throughout the length and breadth of this great country. These local Orthodox rabbis were the posekim (decisors) of Jewish law as it applied primarily to ritual questions relating to prayer services, holiday observances, kashruth, marriage and divorce, and death and burial. Their influence in addressing broader social, economic, and political issues was quite limited. The role of the rabbi was more insular, as he was tied to the religious needs of the local community. This is in stark contrast to the role of the Hassidic rebbe, who is viewed as a personal family mentor in all facets of life both secular and religious. The Hassidim were at that time a small minority within the Orthodox fold. After World War II this picture began to change dramatically. Orthodox communities gravitated to cities with large concentrations of Jews— Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, and so forth. This movement was in no small measure a response to growing assimilation of American Jewry, especially in smaller far-flung communities. To counter this wave of assimilation, the Orthodox communities began to build Jewish Day Schools, which gained momentum in the 1940s. This centralization of Orthodox Jewry together with improved communication via the media allowed the Orthodox rabbinate to exert a wider sphere of influence on a national scale, especially in kashruth (kosher dietary) matters (for example, the Orthodox Union, and in Day School education—Torah uMesorah). Strong centralized rabbinic leadership represented greater security and safety not only in combating assimilation and intermarriage, but also in developing an intensive expanding educational system that would produce future Orthodox scholars and lay leaders. As a result, rabbinic bodies became stronger, larger, and more powerful in the lives of their constituents. Although numerically much smaller than the Conservative and Reform movements, the Orthodox are now the fastest growing of the four American religious denominations. In a recent population study The New York Times reported that of the 1.1 million Jews living in New York City, over 40 percent are Orthodox, a rise from 33 percent in 2002, a decade earlier, and that 74 percent of all Jewish children in the city are Orthodox (UJA Federation of New York, 2010). Considering that its ally is the powerful Orthodox rabbinic establishment of the State of Israel (which did not exist in the pre-Holocaust era), Orthodoxy has become a formidable presence today in the world Jewry. This population increase is due not only to the increased birth rate among Orthodox Jews, especially among the Hassidim, but also to the growing numbers of ba’alei teshuvah, disaffected young Jews seeking a more intensive expression of their Jewishness. There is a growing number of Orthodox outreach organizations and yeshivot. Internal Issues within Orthodoxy The challenge for expanding Orthodoxy is no longer external, survival in secular America, but internal, containing and bridging the widening divergence of ideology and practice within its ranks. On the left are the more liberal Modern Orthodox, and on the right are the proliferating Hareidi Orthodox. This ideological divide centers on their respective responses to modernity and to their attitudes toward the surrounding secular environment. Within this attitudinal diversity, there is a perceptible “sliding to the right” (S.C. Heilman, 2006) within centrist Orthodox ranks. As for the role of the local centrist rabbi, he is seen more and more assuming the image of a “rebbe.” The Hassidic rebbe, by virtue of his exalted position, enjoys a special personal relationship with his Hassidim. This translates into the centrist rabbi now becoming more involved in many life issues of his congregants that previously were not part of his job description and for which he was not trained. He is now called upon as a consultant on business financial matters, occupational choices, personal family issues, parenting, sexual abuse, and the sundry societal problems afflicting our youth. Since clergy are often viewed unconsciously as parental figures, the new role of the rabbi as “super parent” induces their congregants to become more “childlike” in this relationship, which means less autonomy and more dependence. This slide to the right is not only apparent in the increasing empowerment of the rabbi, but more so in the intense impact Day School and yeshiva rebbes have in relationship to their students. As a result of their more right-wing education, this generation of students has become very visible today in the Orthodox community. One needs but visit a centrist Orthodox synagogue to observe a conformist trend, where the growing number of young men are garbed in their popular wide-brimmed black hats, black suits, and white shirts. This has come about because they attend Day Schools and yeshivot where the rebbes are recruited from the large pool of candidates available among the Hareidi Orthodox. These students comprise the future leadership of their respective congregations, which are moving in the same right wing direction in which their yeshiva rebbes were educated. This direction embodies a more insular approach to Judaism than that which was experienced by their parents. This rebbe-talmid (teacher-student) model is similar to that of the rebbe-Hassid relationship reflecting a more exclusionist outlook toward Jewish and secular life. Into this more insular social and religious milieu, we now find the learned accomplished Orthodox woman seeking greater acceptance and participation in what were previously traditional male roles. The Psychology of Groupthink To understand the underlying tension between these two movements: aspiring highly educated Orthodox women and the right-leaning Orthodox leadership, we need to examine group psychodynamics in their way of thinking as well as in action. In so doing we can better anticipate what lies ahead between these two contending groups. We are taught in Pirke Avot (4:1), “who is wise, one who learns from everyone.” Whereas Sigmund Freud is viewed as hostile to religion, his psychological insights into the workings of groups termed “groupthink” can nevertheless be instructive in analyzing our subject. One of people’s most basic needs is to belong. As a result, people will attach themselves to one or more persons. They receive satisfaction from belonging and being part of the group. The human tendency pushes us to connection with and acceptance by others. One of the difficulties that people anticipate is the fear of loss of love from others in the group. People will, therefore, conform to the group ethos at all costs. As Freud puts it, An individual forming part of a group acquires solely from numeric considerations, a sentiment of invincible power which allows him to yield to instincts, which had he been alone he would perforce had kept under restraint…We know today that by various processes an individual may be brought into such a condition that having entirely lost his conscious personality he obeys the suggestions of the operator (leader) and commits acts in utter contradiction to his character and habits. (Freud. Vol. 18, pp. 67f) Freud argues that there is a contagion of affect in groups. This is best demonstrated at organized sports games, where the enthusiasm and identification with the winner is seen in clothing identifying with the team and other external signs. This enthusiasm and affect help keep the group cohesive. The downside of this is that group thinking predominates and critical thinking is suspended. This allows the leadership to deliver an edict and there is no questioning or critical thinking regarding something that as individuals may not be acceptable. The power of the leader and the group as a whole is strong enough that to experience being excluded from the group is viewed as punishment and inclusion as reward. Freud lists the army and the church as prime examples of this theory. How do these Freudian insights help illuminate the sources of tension building up in the Orthodox community over the changing status of women? They help explain the psychological causes behind this mentality of “groupthink,” and how this in turn fosters greater conformity, dependency, and compliance with the leaders’ views. These traits of conformity, compliance, and dependence may not be discerned at first. Over time, however, in order to feel accepted by the religious community the person eventually “falls in line.” Dissent and individualism place one on the fringe of the group at best, and rejected at worst. In Freudian terminology, the leader’s demands bypass the person’s superego, i.e. conscience, in the interest of group unity. Groupthink has enabled rabbinic bodies to issue various edicts or humrot (restrictions) designed to further separate the sexes not only at religious services and functions, but also at organizational dinners, lectures, and social functions. The separation of the sexes at religious services has always been the Orthodox model. However, these new humrot exceed normative Orthodox practice that existed in pre-Holocaust America. It may be argued that they are even more stringent than what was observed in most Orthodox communities in pre-Holocaust Europe. This groupthink, however, is regressive because it takes well-educated Orthodox adults and puts them into a childlike role of accepting the arbitrary paternalistic authority represented by Orthodox leadership. The success of these efforts in groupthink finds some Orthodox women not only complying with these segregationist measures, but also abetting them by censuring those individualist women who may think and act differently. In a recent gathering (Asifah) of thousands of Orthodox men concerning issues relating to the use of the Internet, an interviewer asked several men why they were there. They answered in kind, “We cannot seem to control ourselves, so we came to get the rabbi’s guidance to help control our behavior.” This is another example of groupthink, where one’s behavior is controlled by the leader, rather than determined by one’s own free will. Noted psychoanalyst, Eric Fromm, in his discussion of humanistic versus authoritarian ethics provides another psychological source bearing on our subject. In analyzing the concept of authority, he distinguishes between rational and irrational authority. In speaking of the empowerment of the Orthodox leadership, to what kind of authority are we referring, rational or irrational? According to Fromm, irrational authority always seeks power over people, which can either be physical or mental. It is built upon fear because criticism of the authority figure is forbidden. Rational authority, on the other hand, is based on equality of both authority and subject, who differ only in the degree of knowledge and skill in a particular field. Authority on rational grounds is not intimidating and does not call for irrational awe. Rational authority not only permits but also requires constant scrutiny of those subjected to it (E. Fromm, 1942). Rational authority in our case, would allow for Orthodox leadership to adjust to the changing status of women rather than distancing and dividing them from the rest of the community. There is no need for a display of power and control by issuing arbitrary edicts such as we see in the following cases. A number of years ago a Lashon haRa (gossip) campaign targeting women swept the Orthodox community. The women were given stickers to affix to their phones reminding them not to use this means for speaking Lashon haRa. Men apparently are not suspected of violating this restriction! Another campaign directed toward women is the importance of observing higher standards of tseniyut (modesty). It is argued that some of the moral failings of Orthodox men are caused by women’s lack of tseniyut observance. A recent event occurred that illustrates the “progress” of this trend of regressive actions toward women. In 2012, in a large Orthodox community a number of unfortunate events occurred, such as severe accidents, premature illnesses, and sudden deaths. In response to these events a community meeting was called for women with the expectation that it would emphasize the reciting of Tehillim. Several inspirational speakers were invited who would offer comfort to a shaken community. The first male speaker declared that these unfortunate events occurred because women had not adhered sufficiently to the Orthodox tseniyut dress code. The solution presented was for women to become more aware of appropriate modesty, which would help prevent further disasters. A female speaker then offered a more “creative” solution. Each woman upon leaving the meeting was advised to go home and search for a garment that is not tseniyut and discard it. Though it may appear comical to believe that the unfortunate events and the solutions offered had any logic, it certainly demonstrates the psychology and power of groupthink. It also betrays an unconscious fear of the perceived power of women. It shows a tendency to concern oneself with externals such as what we wear, rather than to search internally for ethical and moral failings that apply to both men and women. A number of years ago, I attended an international conference for Orthodox mental health professionals. The theme of a major seminar was “What is happening to Orthodox youth once they attend college?” The two main speakers were very experienced Orthodox professionals. One was the Hillel director of an Ivy League College. The other was the female director (PhD) of an accredited Orthodox women’s college. Each related stories of students who had completed 12 years of Day School education prior to their admission to college. The male director bemoaned the fact that a number of Orthodox students had “forgotten” to bring their tefillin with them to college, did not attend the minyan, and were even seen eating at McDonald’s. He also reported questioning students about a hypothetical case involving cheating on a final exam. Of the religious denominations he questioned, the Orthodox students scored lowest in ethical behavior. The female director of the Orthodox women’s college then spoke about her interviews with Day School graduates applying for admission. Many reported negatively about their previous seminary and Day School experiences, specifically citing their frustrations when asking challenging religious questions. Some complained that teachers were more concerned with externals such as the length of their skirts and the color of their shoes than with their inner spiritual growth. At this point many of the women in the audience spontaneously arose and applauded enthusiastically because they felt, for the first time, someone had validated their own personal experiences. Although these reports were difficult to hear, one would have expected that mental health professionals and clergy in attendance would have taken this as a “wake-up call” to look for ways of addressing these issues. Much to my surprise, the following morning the woman speaker received a verbal reprimand by the conference authorities for her views, unlike the male speaker whose observations on Day School education were even more damaging. Ironically, the next day’s speaker, a rabbi of note, reported about his recent trip to Israel, where he had rushed to prevent his daughter’s expulsion from a seminary for asking too many challenging questions relating to faith. It was disturbing to observe the disproportionate anger directed at the female director, instead of addressing the underlying issue, which is the failure of Day School students to internalize Orthodox religious values. The Day Schools are very successful in teaching texts and rituals to those who remain within the protective environment of the system. However, after they graduate and move on to college, it is apparent that many have not mastered the internal religious discipline needed to adjust to a challenging, secular environment. The discriminatory reaction of the establishment in this episode is further evidence of the growing tension of these two parallel movements, that is, the changing status of women and the implied threat to male leadership. The question persists, how is it, at a time when the status of Orthodox women has risen to unprecedented heights in both secular and religious life that we are witnessing these new regressive actions? As in the previous discussion based on group psychodynamics, here too we may profit from viewing the problem from a psychological perspective. Traditionally, Orthodox leadership was male-dominated primarily because men were the most educated. They therefore are experiencing the change of status of Orthodox women today as a narcissistic injury because they experience it as taking away from, or interfering with their identity as religious leaders. This destabilizing effect upon Orthodox leadership is felt on both a personal and communal level. The male experiences the change in women’s status as an attack on his sense of self and identity. To redress this narcissistic injury requires an immediate response in order to reestablish his sense of value, self-esteem, and equilibrium. The way to do this is apparently to return the status of both men and women to an earlier time and space. Given the growing empowerment of the new rebbe-model in Orthodox life sustained by the groupthink mentality of the laity, these newly instituted edicts represent attempts to redress perceived rabbinical power losses caused by the rise of women’s stature in religious life as will be illustrated in the following timeline chart. These restrictions are not merely random symptoms of a “sliding to the right,” but their chronological and psychological pattern betrays a reactionary policy undeserved by our accomplished women. The following is a partial chronological list of Orthodox women’s professional/educational accomplishments since the 1970s. Timeline of the Rise of Orthodox Women’s Stature in Educational/Religious Life 1970s • Earlier graduates of Orthodox women’s colleges and teacher seminaries, such as Stern College in New York and Machon Gold and Michlalah in Israel, assume positions in Jewish life in America and in Israel. 1976 • Midreshet Lindenbaum, women’s Talmud study movement in Israel (originally Michlelet Bruria founded by Rabbi Chaim Brovender) 1979 • Establishment of Drisha Institute in New York • Establishment of Matan women’s yeshiva in Jerusalem 1980s • Increased Bat Mitzah celebrations for Orthodox girls • Introduction of separate women’s Orthodox prayer groups 1986 • Eshel-Sephardic School for Orthodox Women established in Israel • Midreshet Ein Hanatziv, an Orthodox Women’s college, established by Kibbutz Hadati 1988 • Women begin serving on Israeli Religious Councils. 1990s • Rabbi S. Riskin of Ohr Torah Stone spearheads movement to establish a school for To’anot (female rabbinical advocates) dealing with women’s halakhic issues 1997 • Nishmat, Torah study center for women begins to train Yo’atzot (female halakhic advisors) regarding Niddah (laws of Jewish family purity) • Beginning of J.O.F.A. (Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance) in America • Migdal Oz, a women’s Bet Midrash, established in Israel 1998 • Machon L’Parnasah – Orthodox women’s college established by Touro College in New York 2009 • Sara Hurwitz receives ordination from Rabbi Avi Weiss of Hebrew Institute of Riverdale New York as a “Maharat” • Rabbi Weiss opens Yeshivat Maharat in New York The following is a partial list of various edicts/restrictions enacted by some of the male Orthodox leadership targeting women from 1970s to the present. Whereas these may not reflect the views of many centrist Orthodox rabbis, they are included because the general rightward drift of the Orthodox movement. Measures Taken by Orthodox Leadership to Distance/Separate Men and Women • Greater pressure on women to observe more strictly the laws of tseniyut, with less pressure on males to exert self-control • Introduction of separate seating for Orthodox women at non-religious functions, such as congregational banquets, lectures, and social events • More and more congregational/organizational shiurim (classes) designed separately for men and women • Mehitzot increasingly being erected on the dance floor at weddings to separate men and women • Kiddush celebrations following services increasingly being separated for men and women • National Orthodox organizations press for the closing of separate Orthodox women’s prayer groups because “it divides the family.” (See 1980s on women’s list) • After the first graduating class of To’anot, Israeli rabbinate protested that women are entering an exclusive male space. The following year the To’anot exam was made unusually difficult to prevent further women graduates from entering the field. The Israeli Civil High Court of Justice condemned the rabbinate’s exclusionary policy (see 1990s in women’s list) • National Orthodox rabbinic organizations protest granting of Semikha (ordination) to women and censure Rabbi Avi Weiss for his actions (see 2009 in Women’s list). The following extreme measures are characteristic of some Hareidi communities both in America and Israel. • Signs warning women to observe strictly the laws of tseniyut • Separate entrances for men and women entering into Orthodox buildings • Separate entrances for men and women entering private homes hosting a public celebration or religious simha • Separate shopping hours for men and women in certain upstate New York stores • Separate sidewalks for men and women • Women instructed to sit in the back of public buses in certain neighborhoods in New York and Israel • Male relatives, includeing fathers and grandfathers, are not invited to attend graduations, plays, and even Siddur presentations (1st grade) in certain girl’s schools. Conclusion The beauty of halakha is its adaptability to meet the changing needs of the Jewish people. In less than a century since the advent of formal Jewish education for girls via the Bais Yaakov movement in the beginning of the twentieth century, education for Orthodox Jewish girls and women has reached unprecedented heights in quantity and quality. Orthodox women have established a vast network of schools of higher learning and organizations to sustain this movement. They have reached a stage where they are seeking opportunities for greater positions of leadership, within the framework of halakha that befits their newly won status in Orthodox life. Their motivation is generated by a sincere need to express their deep commitment to God and to religious life. There are enough examples to show where halakha, in the past, has been sensitive to the special needs of women and has adapted accordingly (M.M. Brayer, 1986, p. 152). Moreover, as early as the eleventh century, Jewish women in Franco-Germany demanded the privilege to perform mitzvoth (religious commandments) from which they are exempt if they choose to do so on their own, and Rabbi Yitzhak Halevi (one of Rashi’s teachers) permitted them to do so (Siddur Rashi, 1912, p. 127). However, we are currently seeing in Orthodox leadership a regressive divisive tendency via various edicts that further separate women from their families and from normal social interactions. Although one may consider the occurrence of these new restrictions as mere coincidence, their timing precisely during the decades of women’s greatest achievement in attaining professional leadership positions in the religious community, draws one to the inescapable conclusion that a causal relationship exists between women’s actions and establishment’s reactions. This is causing a growing internal division within an otherwise expanding successful movement. This division arises more from human frailty, than from purely religious considerations. They derive from fear of loss of power in religio-political terms or from feelings of narcissistic injury in psychological terms. This perceived loss could be overcome if we but learn to accept and even embrace this rise in women’s stature in a spirit of greater unity. In so doing our Orthodox leadership can find the creative means to do this within the framework of halakha. Bibliography Brayer, Menachem, M, The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature (Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House, 1986). Freud, Sigmund, “Group Psychology and the analysis of the ego.” The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of S. Freud, vol. 18 (London, England: Hogarth Press, 1955), 67–134. Fromm, Eric, Man for Himself, An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics (New York: Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, 1942). Georgeson, John G., and Monica J. Harris, “The Balance of Power; Interpersonal consequences of differential power and experiences” (University of Kentucky, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc., 2008) 1239–1257. Granite, Lauren B., and Deborah Weissman, “Bais Yaakov Schools,” Jewish Women’s Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia, March 1, 2009; Jewish Women’s Archives September 5, 2012. Grossman, Avraham, Pious and Rebellious (Waltham, MA: Brandies University Press, 2004). Heilman, Samuel J., Sliding to the Right: The Contest for the Future of American Jewish Orthodoxy (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2005). Helfbrand, S., From Sara to Sara (New York: Art Scroll Series: Eishis Chayil Books, 1980). Kohut, Heinz, The Analysis of Self (New York: International Universities Press, Inc., 1975) 11–13. Munday, Lisa, “Women, Money and Politics,” Time Magazine, March 20, 2012, pp. 23–24. Ostow, Mortimer “The Nature of Religious Controls,” The American Psychologist, vol. 13. 1958, 571–574. Rashi, On “Bruria,” Avoda Zara 18b. Riskin, Shlomo “The Voice of Women,” The Jerusalem Post, Feb. 2, 2012.

Review by Israel Drazin
A Synagogue Companion, by Rabbi Hayyim Angel
Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, 2014, 351 pages

Rabbi Hayyim Angel is a scholar who writes very readable, interesting, and informative books. He presents “a vision of the Torah that is authentic, passionate,
reasonable, and embracing of people of all backgrounds.” He exposes the plain meaning of biblical texts. He raises thought-provoking questions. He shows that many biblical
books do not state what people think they state, and surprises and delights readers by revealing what the Bible actually says.

In his Synagogue Companion, Angel, the National Scholar of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, has brief essays of no more than a page and a half on the 54
Torah portions and the readings from the prophets that are recited with these portions, and short to-the-point articles on many prayers.

Starting his discussion of the Five Books of Moses, for example, he talks about the “clashes between the literal reading of the Torah and the findings of modern science.”
He quotes and explains Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, “the verses do not pretend to teach us science, but rather spiritual ideas,” and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz that the idea that God “descended on Mount Sinai to compete with the professor who teaches history or physics is ludicrous, if not blasphemous.”

When speaking about the trees in the Garden of Eden, Angel tells us that “Professor Umberto Cassuto found that nearly every ancient mythology had a tree, a
plant, or a fountain of life. The quest for immortality was an obsession of the ancient world.” And Angel shows how this information helps us understand the depth of the Garden of Eden story.

The Bible gives no reason why Moses shattered the Decalogue, and many scholars offered their ideas. Rashbam thought that Moses was tired and dropped them
since he lost the energy to carry them. Nechama Leibowitz disliked his view: “Rashbam, a literalist par excellence, veers far from the plain sense here. There is no clue in the
text for his interpretation.” Professor Elazar Touito of Bar Ilan University suggested that Rashbam was engaged in an anti-Christian polemic. He was denying the medieval
Christian claim that Moses destroyed the tablets to show that God’s covenant with Israel was cancelled. Rashbam deflated this argument by stating in essence: no, he dropped the tablets by accident.

Rabbi Angel mentions the view of Malbim to contrast and later explore the differences between the leadership of Moses and his successor Joshua. When Moses had an experience of God at the burning bush in Exodus 3:5, he removed both shoes. When Joshua had a vision of the presence of an angel in Joshua 5:15, he stripped off a single shoe. “Shoes symbolize human involvement in the world. Jews are required to remove their shoes while in the Temple precincts and also on Yom Kippur to elevate themselves to the level of angels.” Moses reached the highest level. But according to Malbim’s analysis of Joshua’s “one sandal on, one sandal off” leadership he “had one foot in Moses’ ideal world of prophecy, but at the same time kept the other with his people.” Yet, his shortcomings “enabled Joshua to succeed as a leader in a manner that even his master could not.” Moses suffered continually from Israelite dissatisfactions, but Joshua never faced his people’s discontent.

Among much else about the Torah, Angel discusses the enigmatic, indeed incredible longevity of the early biblical people; the apparent revelation that God wanted humans before Noah to be vegetarians, Professor Uriel Simon’s, Joseph Bekhor Shor’s, Yehuda ha-Hasid’s, Abarbanel’s, and Ramban’s explanations why Joseph, who had the ability to inform his grieving father that he was still alive, did not do so; and why the Torah ordered the creation of a hereditary priesthood.

Commenting upon Joshua 2, the prophetical haftarah reading for the Torah portion Shelah, Rabbi Angel points out that the Canaanite woman, Rahab, with whom Joshua’s two spies communicated, referred to God several times when she assured the spies that the Israelites can easily defeat her people and conquer her land. Gersonides felt she was only flattering the spies to seduce them to accept the deal she planned to make with them. However several Midrashim took Rahab at her word; she genuinely accepted God and even converted (Mekhilta Yitro 1 and Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:28). “One rabbinic tradition asserts further that Rahab eventually married Joshua (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 14b).” Whether one accepts these midrashic statements as historical facts, “our sages make a remarkable point: Someone from the lowest echelon of the most depraved society can convert sincerely and marry a prophet.”

Angel contrasts Rahab’s acts with the misdeed of the well pedigreed Achan of the tribe of Judah who in Joshua 6 and 7 is executed for plundering the city of Jericho against Joshua’s religious ban. The contrast make crystal clear that it is not ethnic or pedigree that is significant, but behavior. “Canaanites such as Rahab who acted righteously were accepted, whereas Israelites who acted wickedly such as Achan were not accepted.”

In his section on prayer, Angel discusses the meaning, purpose, and challenges of prayer; the origin of the leader of the prayers, called Hazan and Sheli’ah Tzibbur; the differences between biblical and pagan prayer; and the meaning of the more famous prayers, such as Shema and Amida. Among much else, he quotes Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik: “The foundation of prayer is not the conviction of its effectiveness but the belief that through it we approach God intimately.”

In short, this book contains a wealth of information presented in a clear and interested manner by a scholar who understands his subject well.