National Scholar Updates

LAMENTATIONS

PUTTING THE MOUTH BEFORE THE EYE

INTRODUCTION

         For over forty years preceding the destruction of the first Temple (627-586 B.C.E.), Jeremiah incessantly warned his people that Jerusalem, the Temple, and their lives were in the gravest jeopardy. The people mocked, threatened, and physically mistreated the prophet. Most scorned his message, thereby sealing their own doom.

          Finally, Jeremiah’s nightmarish visions became a reality. The Babylonians breached the walls of Jerusalem, killing and plundering, and burning the city to the ground. Other nations, including spurious allies, mocked Israel, looted her wealth, and even turned Jewish captives over to the Babylonians. The Temple was destroyed, and most of the humiliated survivors were dragged into captivity, wondering if they would ever see their homeland again.

         The Book of Lamentations describes this calamity from the perspective of an eyewitness. It contains five chapters. Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 5 contain twenty-two verses each, and chapter 3 contains sixty-six verses (three verses per letter). Chapters 1-4 are arranged in aleph-bet acrostics. There is meaning in the content of Lamentations, and in its structure. Both make the book particularly poignant.

          Chapter 1 casts the destroyed Jerusalem as a woman whose husband has abandoned her. While this initial imagery evokes pity, the chapter then adds that she took lovers and therefore deserved this abandonment. Israel admits that she has sinned and asks for mercy and for God to punish her enemies.

         Chapter 2 asks: how could God be so harsh? The tone shifts from one of shame and despair to one of anger. There also is a shift of emphasis from Jerusalem as a victim to God as the Aggressor. At the end of the chapter, there is another plea for God to help.

         Chapter 3 presents the voice of the individual who begins in a state of despair but who then regains hope. He expresses a desire to restore order and return to the pre-destruction state.

         Chapter 4 is a painful step-by-step reliving of the destruction. It also contains lamenting over how the destruction could have happened, and it curses Israel’s enemies.

         Chapter 5 depicts the people left behind as looking at the ruins, absolutely miserable. They call on God for help, but conclude with disappointment and uncertainty as to what the future will bring.

REFLECTIONS ON THE TRAGEDY[1]

        Chapter 1 acknowledges that the destruction of Jerusalem is God’s work (1:12-15). While the main theme of chapter 1 is mourning, the author repeatedly vindicates God for the disaster, blaming it squarely on Israel’s sins (see 1:5, 8, 14, 18, 20, 22).

        Throughout chapter 1, the author adopts a rational, transcendent perspective. Reflecting an ordered sense of the world, the aleph-bet order is intact, poetically showing a calculated sense of misery.[2]

          While chapter 1 acquits God, chapter 2 adopts a different outlook. Suddenly, the author lashes out at God:

How has the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven to the earth the beauty of Israel, and remembered not His footstool in the day of his anger!...He has bent His bow like an enemy...He has poured out His fury like fire... (Lam. 2:1-4)

          Chapter 1 gave the author a chance to reflect on the magnitude of this tragedy: death, isolation, exile, desolation, humiliation. In this context, the point of chapter 2 is clear: although Israel may be guilty of sin, the punishment seems disproportionate to the crimes. Nobody should have to suffer the way Israel has. The deeper emotions of the author have shattered his initial theological and philosophical serenity.

          This emotional shift is reflected in the aleph-bet order of chapter 2. While the chapter maintains the poetic acrostic order, the verse beginning with the letter peh precedes the verse beginning with ayin. Why would Lamentations deviate from the usual alphabetical order? At the level of peshat, one might appeal to the fluidity of the ancient Hebrew aleph-bet, where the order of ayin and peh was not yet fixed in the biblical period. If this is the case, then there is nothing unusual or meaningful about having different orders since each reflects a legitimate order at that time.[3]

          On a more homiletical level, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 104b) offers a penetrating insight. The Hebrew word peh means “mouth,” and ayin means “eye.” The author here put his mouth, that is, words, before what he saw. In chapter 1, the author evaluates the crisis with his eyes, in that he reflects silently, and then calculates his words of response. But in chapter 2, the author responds first with words (peh) that emerge spontaneously and reflect his raw emotions.

          In the first section of chapter 3, the author sinks further into his sorrow and despairs of his relationship with God (verses 1-20). However, in the midst of his deepest sorrow, he suddenly fills with hope in God’s ultimate fairness (3:21-41). The sudden switch in tone is fascinating:

And I said, My strength and my hope are perished from the Lord; Remembering my affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall. My soul remembers them, and is bowed down inside me. This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. The grace of the Lord has not ceased, and His compassion does not fail. They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness. The Lord is my portion, says my soul; therefore will I hope in Him. (Lam. 3:18-24)

The final section of chapter 3 then vacillates between despair, hope in God, and a call to repentance:

Let him sit alone and be patient, when He has laid it upon him. Let him put his mouth to the dust—there may yet be hope. Let him offer his cheek to the smiter; let him be surfeited with mockery. For the Lord does not reject forever, but first afflicts, then pardons in His abundant kindness. For He does not willfully bring grief or affliction to man…Let us search and examine our ways, and turn back to the Lord; Let us lift up our hearts with our hands to God in heaven: We have transgressed and rebelled, and You have not forgiven. You have clothed Yourself in anger and pursued us, You have slain without pity. (Lam. 3:28-43)

          In chapter 4, there are further details of the destruction. Horrors are described in starker terms, climaxing with a description of compassionate mothers who ate their own children because of the dreadful famine preceding the destruction (4:9-10). The author blames God for the destruction (4:11), blames Israel for her sins (4:13), and expresses anger at Israel’s enemies (4:21-22). In both chapters 3 and 4, the poetic order remains with the peh before the ayin, reflecting the author’s unprocessed painful feelings. The author’s conflicting emotions create choppiness in the thematic order and logic:

Those who were slain with the sword are better than those who are slain with hunger; for these pine away, stricken by want of the fruits of the field. The hands of compassionate women have boiled their own children; they were their food in the destruction of the daughter of my people. The Lord has accomplished His fury; He has poured out His fierce anger, and has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations...It was for the sins of her prophets, and the iniquities of her priests, who have shed the blood of the just in the midst of her. (Lam. 4:9-13)

          Chapter 5 opens with a desperate appeal to God, a profound hope that He will restore His relationship with Israel. After further descriptions of the sufferings, the book ends wondering whether the Israelites would ever renew their relationship with God:

You, O Lord, are enthroned forever; Your throne is from generation to generation. Why do You forget us forever, and forsake us for so long? Turn us to You, O Lord, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old. But You have utterly rejected us; You are very angry against us. (Lam. 5:19-22)

Such a painful confusion leaves the reader uneasy. The author does not propose any solutions or resolution to the state of destruction. Reflecting this passionate plea, chapter 5 has no aleph-bet acrostic at all. With no clear end of the exile in sight, the author loses all sense of order. Perhaps the fact that chapter 5 still contains 22 verses suggests a vestige of hope and order amidst the breakdown of the destruction and exile.

          To review: the aleph-bet pattern goes from being completely ordered in chapter 1, to a break in that order for three chapters. The last chapter does not follow the controlled aleph-bet order at all, signifying a complete emotional outburst by the community. The book ends on a troubling note, questioning whether or not it is too late for Israel to renew her relationship with God.

CONCLUSION

          Although Lamentations attempts to make sense of the catastrophe of the destruction, powerful and often conflicting emotions break the ordered poetic patterns. This sacred work captures the religious struggle to make sense of the world in a time of tragedy and God’s ways and the effort to rebuild damaged relationships with God following a crisis.

          Our emotional state in the aftermath of tragedy often follows the pattern of Lamentations—we begin with an effort to make sense of the misfortune, but then our mouths come before what we see—that is, our deeper turbulent emotions express themselves. Ideally, we come full circle until we again turn to God. Our expression of persistent hope has kept us alive as a people.

          In the wake of catastrophe, people have the choice to abandon faith, or hide behind shallow expressions of faith, but even while emotionally understandable, both are incomplete responses. We must maturely accept that we do not understand everything about how God operates. At the same time, we must not negate our human perspective. We must not ignore our emotions and anxieties. In the end, we are humbled by our smallness and helplessness—and our lack of understanding of the larger picture. Through this process, the painful realities of life should lead to a higher love and awe of God.

National Scholar

Sixth Year Report

June 1, 2018—May 31, 2019

            To our members and friends,

            I now am completing my sixth year of working as the National Scholar of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. It has been an honor and privilege working to promote our vision nationwide primarily through teaching and teacher training, and also through writing and online classes. This report summarizes my various projects and activities over the past year.

            My major areas of focus have been:

Communal Symposia

This year, we reinstituted communal symposia, which is a wonderful way to bring our conversations to the broader community. Hosted by Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan, the two events were well-attended and both were videoed and are posted on YouTube. We look forward to bringing more of these events to communities throughout the country in the coming years.

On Sunday, October 21, we held a symposium on Conversion to Judaism, featuring our Founder and Director, Rabbi Marc Angel, Rabbi Yona Reiss (Head of the Chicago Beth Din and the Director of the Rabbinical Council of America’s conversion courts), and myself. The event was exceptional, and you can watch the presentations on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG17aaahdPQ. As of this writing, we have had over 1600 views!

On Sunday, February 10, we held a wonderful symposium on the need for our schools and communities to do more to promote ethical behavior as a basic Torah teaching. Our program featured Rabbi David Jaffe, a National Jewish Book Award Winner for his book, Changing the World from the Inside Out; Dr. Shira Weiss, author of several books on ethics; Rabbi Daniel Feldman, a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University who has authored several books on ethics in halakhah; and myself. You may now view the symposium on YouTube, at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjL_o2e4B68.

Teacher Training

• • One of our central goals is to train rabbis and educators to spread our vision of Torah to schools and communities. We build bridges with people in the field to work together, and have a greater impact on students and communities across the country and beyond.

• • I have been serving as the Tanakh Education Scholar of Ben Porat Yosef Yeshiva Day School in Paramus, New Jersey. I have worked closely with the senior administration and faculty to develop a more rigorous Tanakh curriculum that encapsulates our Institute’s core values.

• • I also give monthly adult education lectures in conjunction with this curriculum for parents to see how these values can be applied.

• • Our new Sephardic Initiative created a very successful program this past year in Paramus, New Jersey, and held another program in Los Angeles. We bring educators together to discuss means of incorporating the best of Sephardic and Ashkenazic teachings in a robust way. Participants used our materials in their classrooms, and shared reports on their methods of implementation. We also provide educational materials and are creating a network that currently numbers at 122 educators throughout the country and beyond. We look forward to expanding this program in the coming years so that educators throughout the country and beyond will help further our work.

Community Education

• • There is a serious thirst for the kind of learning represented by our Institute, and a sizable number of communities have invited me to give lectures, Shabbat scholar-in-residence programs, and classes in Tanakh and Jewish Thought. Through a combination these programs, we reach thousands of adults directly each year.

Below is an itemized listing of the various classes and programs I have given over the past year in my capacity as National Scholar of the Institute:

June 24-25: I gave five classes at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah’s annual study days on Bible and Jewish Thought.

Shabbat, July 6-7: Shabbat scholar-in-residence for the Sephardic Community Alliance in Deal, New Jersey.

July: Three-part series at Lamdeinu, Teaneck.

September: High Holiday lecture at Lamdeinu, Teaneck.

September 30-October 1: Scholar-in residence in the DAT Minyan, Denver Colorado for Shemini Atzeret-Simhat Torah.

October: Four-part series on the religious significance of the Land of Israel in the Bible. These lectures, done in partnership with the Sephardic Community Alliance, are available on our website https://www.jewishideas.org/online-learning/classes-lectures.

November: Four-part series at Lamdeinu Teaneck.

Shabbat, November 30-December 1: Shabbat scholar-in-residence at the Young Israel of Teaneck.

December: One lecture at Lamdeinu, Teaneck.

Shabbat, February 22-23: Shabbat scholar-in-residence at the University of Pennsylvania.

March-April: Three lectures on Purim and Pesah at the Young Israel of East Brunswick, New Jersey.

March: Pre-Pesah lecture at CareOne, Teaneck, New Jersey.

March-April: Six-part series at Lamdeinu Teaneck.

Shabbat March 22-23: Shabbat scholar-in-residence at the Boca Raton Synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida.

Shabbat, May 3-4: Shabbat scholar-in-residence at Congregation Ohav Sholom in Manhattan.

May: Keynote speaker at Annual Breakfast for the Beit Midrash of Teaneck, New Jersey.

• I also continue to teach courses to advanced undergraduates at Yeshiva University, something I have done since 1996.

• This past year, I also taught at the newly established Beit Midrash of Teaneck, New Jersey. This program meets twice weekly. This program, open to retired men, has been a remarkable success in every way. We have created a learning community that has involved over 100 participants thus far.

Publications  

I am the guest editor for Conversations 34, which will feature a collection of Rabbi Marc D. Angel’s essays in celebration of his fifty years in the rabbinate. I also wrote an introductory essay, “Battling for the Soul of Orthodoxy: The Essential Teachings of Rabbi Marc D. Angel.” The essay outlines my father’s central teachings, and represents our core values at the Institute. We also plan on holding several events in honor of this momentous occasion in the coming year.

I also am working on a pamphlet on Tanakh and Sephardic Inclusion in the Yeshiva High School Curriculum, to be published and distributed through our Institute as part of our Sephardic Initiative. The goal of this pamphlet is to make Sephardic Bible interpreters from the 16^th-19^th centuries a meaningful part of their Tanakh curricula without any radical changes to their preparations or lesson plans. Additionally, the pamphlet calls attention to the need to bring Sephardic and Ashkenazic customs into the Tanakh classroom.

            University Network

I had the privilege of coordinating the University Network and the Campus Fellowship again this year. Our fellows ran a remarkable gamut of programs to promote our vision and Institute on their campuses. You can read the most recent report about our campus fellows and their contributions on our website,

https://www.jewishideas.org/article/campus-fellows-report-may-2019

Looking Ahead

We reach thousands of people each year with our many classes and programs, teacher trainings, Conversations, our website, and our University Network. Looking forward, we will be expanding and streamlining our focus more into teacher trainings through our Sephardic Initiative—where we will work with Jewish Studies teachers to teach a more holistic picture of the Jewish People and their ideas.

We will continue to develop larger symposia and conferences where we can promote greater conversation and dialogue within our community as we build bridges between people who hold different religious viewpoints.

Our view is that we always must keep conversations alive, rather than allowing those who dogmatically espouse one or the other side of a debate to shut down dissent or alternative viewpoints from within tradition.

I am very excited about these developments and believe we will greatly increase our impact in the Jewish community through these new focused efforts. Stay tuned for upcoming reports!

As always, I am grateful to all our members and supporters, who generously make our work possible and who give so much hope for a better Jewish community of tomorrow.

Thank you all for your support and enthusiasm, and I look forward to promoting our Torah vision for many years to come.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Is it appropriate for a Jew in America to have an English first name?  If yes, is it appropriate for him or her to use this English name in daily life?

If American Jews have English first names and use them in their daily and business lives, that’s fine. If they prefer using Hebrew names, that’s also fine. No one should stand in judgment about how people are named or what names they prefer to use.

Throughout Jewish history, Jews have had non-Hebrew names. In Talmudic times, great sages went by the Greek names of Antigonos, Avtalyon, Tarphon, Dostai, Dosa, Pappa and others. Akiva is the Greek form of the name Yaacov. Alexander was a popular name among Jews of antiquity.

Gaonim had non-Hebrew names such as Saadia and Natronai. Maimon is an Arabic name.  In the modern period, rabbis with non-Hebrew first names have included Rabbis Abdullah Somekh, Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Herman Adler… and many others.

If all these learned and pious Jews had non-Hebrew first names, it would be chutzpah to cast aspersions on them.

People name their children (or adopt names of their own) for a variety of reasons. One should have the decency to respect the choices of others.

A Midrash teaches that each person has three names: the name given by parents, the name given by fellow human beings, and the name which one acquires for him/herself.

The name given by parents represents their hopes for the child and reflects their values and traditions. The name given to us by fellow human beings represents our reputation in our community and world. The third name is what we acquire for ourselves. Inside each of us is our own "name", our own real being. Whatever name we are called by others, our main concern should be to acquire our own good name in the eyes of the Almighty. And that name transcends any particular human language.

Is there anything wrong with a frum Jewish man looking super stylish?

The way people dress is a reflection of their own psychological makeup.  Some people like to appear sloppy and unkempt as a way of showing disdain for “middle class” values. Some like to dress to impress others with expensive designer clothes, thinking that by so doing they demonstrate their level of “success.” A man (or woman!) who seeks to be “super stylish” probably has a lot of personal issues to sort out, including feelings of insecurity, competitiveness, arrogance, and exhibitionism. This is true whether they are “frum” or not, although I think we would expect a “frum” person to have a more modest sense of personal dignity.

 Rabbi Eliezer Papo of 19th century Sarajevo wrote a classic musar volume, the Pele Yoetz, in which he offered the following sensible advice:  Follow a middle standard in clothing. Do not wear elaborate and expensive outfits even if you can afford them. Moderation in clothing is proper. One’s clothing should be neat and clean.

 We need to remind ourselves not to participate in the rat race of one-upmanship. When we really know who we are and have confidence in who we are, we gain a fine sense of our own freedom. We can be strong unto ourselves; we can stop playing games of who has more, who has better, who has control. When we are free within, we have the confidence to live our own lives, not the counterfeit lives that others would impose on us; we are free of the real or self-imposed rat race.

We don't need to be "super stylish" in order to be super good.

Is the music at frum weddings too loud?

According to the Deafness Research Foundation, about one in three cases of hearing loss in the United States is not about aging—but purely about noise! And much of the noise is self-inflicted. We literally are making ourselves deaf! Noise can cause permanent damage to our ears when it reaches about 85 decibels. A typical rock concert is around 120 decibels.

Music at “frum” weddings (and also at “non-frum” weddings!) tends to be excessively loud. The musicians think that this is what people want…and many people do seem to want very loud music. They think it adds to the joy of bride and groom. They don’t seem to mind that they are damaging their hearing and are making it difficult (impossible?) for people to carry on conversations.

At the wedding of one of our daughters, the band was playing overly loud music as is customary. We asked the band leader to lower the decibels, but he said that people wanted loud music. Fortunately, our in-laws agreed that the music was too loud, so our cousuegra (the Ladino equivalent of machatenesta) also asked the band leader to quiet down the music. He again refused. So she told him: if you want to get paid tonight, you’ll lower the music. He did!

It’s up to the hosts of the weddings to set the rules for the band…not to be victimized by “what everyone does” or “what everyone wants” and not to be coerced by the band leader.

One can have lively music for dancing and everyone can have a wonderful time…even when the music is at a moderate and healthy decibel level. During the meal itself, the music should be soft background music so that guests can actually speak to each other…and hear each other.

Is it appropriate for young men and women from more sheltered backgrounds to attend singles events if they haven't met their bashert after three or four years of dating?

I would like to frame this question in a different way. We are discussing a decision to be made by young men and women who are of marriageable age—who will be trusted to establish their own households, deal with their own finances, have children etc.  The question is: why shouldn’t such individuals have the right—and responsibility—to decide for themselves whether to attend whatever event they deem relevant? They are adults! Even if they have been raised in “more sheltered backgrounds,” doesn’t a time arrive when they must take responsibility for their own lives? And isn’t approaching marriage such a time?

It seems to me that religious young men and women should have wholesome occasions to meet each other and socialize within a group of like-minded individuals.  Opportunities should be created where young women and men can meet in a natural, respectful and religiously appropriate context. “Singles events” of this nature can be valuable for participants.

While attending “singles events,” even those of a religiously appropriate nature, can be a source of anxiety for “sheltered” young men and women, they have to grow up some time. They must develop the social skills of responsible adults and not see themselves—or be seen by others—as infantilized individuals.

The late United States Supreme Court Justice, Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, once observed:  “Three mysteries there are in the lives of mortal beings: the mystery of birth at the beginning; the mystery of death at the end; and, greater than either, the mystery of love. Everything that is most precious in life is a form of love.”

We pray that men and women who are looking for their bashert will experience the mystery and preciousness of love in the near future.

  Is enrolling in a secular college ever appropriate in today's day and age?

 The Talmud (Hagiga 12b) records a statement by Rabbi Yosei: “Woe unto people, who see but do not know what they see; who stand, but do not know on what they stand.”

Rabbi Yosef Hayyim, of 19th century Baghdad, interpreted this statement:  “One who does not know what occurs on the earth below will not succeed in understanding what occurs in the heavens above. A lack in the wisdoms of the world is a bar to knowledge of the Torah”(Imrei Binah, 1:2).

Knowledge of the sciences and humanities enables us to see…and know what we see. It enlarges the scope of our thinking; it prods us to reach a greater “wholeness” in our religious worldview.

Today, the university is the institution that fosters advanced general knowledge among the young generation. By studying the humanities and sciences, students are exposed to the best that has been thought and said over the centuries. Moreover, a college degree is a prerequisite for many professions and occupations.

For observant Jews, negative factors exist—anti-religious professors, lax moral standards among students, difficulties in maintaining an Orthodox lifestyle.

I was fortunate to have attended Yeshiva College, where Torah and college education are conducted in an intellectually and religiously proper environment. But not all students can attend YU for various reasons.

Students may choose universities best suited to their talents, or best in line with their professional goals. Some opt for public universities where tuitions are more affordable.

It is appropriate—and necessary—for students to have access to university education. But choices should be limited to campuses with a thriving Orthodox Jewish community. 

If we want Jews to function successfully in our society, college education is a sine qua non. The alternative is to condemn Jews to live in physical and spiritual ghettoes.

Is it appropriate to eat kosher imitation bacon, crab, or any other such food?  (The question assumes the food is 100% kosher from a halachic point of view.  The question is if there's anything wrong with eating fake bacon etc. from a hashkafic point of view.)

Some years ago, my wife and I were eating in a kosher vegetarian Chinese restaurant. A Hassidic couple sat at the table next to ours. When the waiter asked for their orders, the Hassidic man said in a loud voice: “I’d like the pork ribs.” His wife chimed in: “And I’d like the eel.”

Surely, everyone present knew that the food served by the restaurant was 100% kosher. There was no question of mar’it ayin. Indeed, we ourselves were eating there, albeit sticking to the vegetarian chicken options.

There is no halakhic problem with eating kosher food, even if the food looks and tastes like non-kosher food. The famous Gemara (Hulin 109b) cites Yalta, wife of Rav Nahman, who stated that for any item the All Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar item.

Kosher consumers have grown accustomed to non-dairy milk and cheese served with meat; and with vegetarian “meat” served with dairy products. In the not too distant future, we’ll be dealing with artificially produced “meat” that may be deemed to be kosher and parve.

Having said this, it still struck me as odd to see a Hassidic couple order pork and eel…and to order with an obvious sense of glee. On the other hand, why shouldn’t they have derived satisfaction from eating an otherwise forbidden product, as if to say along with Yalta: we are not deprived of the various cuisines and tastes available to the non-kosher world.

Although such foods are kosher, some will have a visceral negative reaction to being served “fake pork” or “fake crabs.”  I think that each individual will make a personal decision on what is and is not comfortable to consume.

Should a G-d-fearing Jew have the Internet at home?

If a person indeed fears God and feels God’s presence at all times, he/she should indeed have internet access at home. Such a person will draw on the vast repository of Torah sources available on the internet and will have access to a tremendous array of information in a matter of seconds.

The problem is for a person who is not God-fearing, or for one who doesn’t trust himself/herself to use the internet in appropriate ways. The internet has much content that is antithetical to the values of Torah…and to the values of all honest and decent people. Moreover, it is possible to fritter away hours of life on nonsense…and surfing the net can be “addictive.”

Every effort must be made to use the internet in a God-fearing way.

Those who forbid the internet are essentially asking Jews to disconnect themselves from the major means of communication among the people of the world. They want to march us back into the pre-modern era, thinking that if we only close our eyes and plug our ears, all the evils of the modern world will somehow vanish. This approach consigns us to the backwaters of human civilization, living as an isolated sect with no message to and no engagement with humanity?

The internet is “neutral”—and can be used for good and for ill. The correct strategy is to take advantage of its immense powers and to avoid its negative elements. To do this requires that we develop genuine yirat Shamayim!

Leaving aside any halachic considerations that may be involved, is it a Jewish value to have a large family?

It depends on who defines what a “Jewish value” is.

For some, it is a Jewish value to worry about over-population in the world. With 7 billion people and growing, the world population runs the risk of food shortages, environmental damage, water and air pollution etc. Some would argue that it is a basic Jewish value to safeguard humanity and the environment by having fewer children.

For others, it is a Jewish value for Jews to have large families in order to replenish our numbers after the Holocaust. Jews represent an infinitesimal percentage of humanity, and we need to vastly increase our numbers to offset assimilation, intermarriage etc.

And yet for others, it is a Jewish value to allow couples to decide for themselves how many children they want to bring into the world. Each couple should have the right to decide—free of external pressures—what makes most sense for them. Their decision will factor in their financial situation, their physical and emotional preparedness to raise children etc.

The Talmud (Yevamot 61b) cites the opinions of Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai as to how one fulfills the mitzvah of peru u’rvu. Both sides agree that the minimum is to have two children. Rambam and Shulhan Arukh follow the opinion of Bet Hillel that one fulfills the obligation by having at least one boy and one girl.

It is a Jewish value to be inclusive and respectful to others, regardless of the number of children they have.  The non-judgmental approach applies to those who, for various reasons, are unable to have children, as well as to those who have smaller or larger families.

Professor Chaim Waxman, a prominent and highly respected sociologist of contemporary Orthodoxy, has made a superb assessment of the history, development, and current and future situation of Orthodoxy in his relatively short but comprehensive 178-page book, “Social Change and Halakhic Evolution in American Orthodoxy,” with 48 additional pages of bibliography and index. Readers will receive a wealth of information from the book and much in it will surprise them, especially the finding that Orthodoxy is changing and different styles of Orthodoxy exist in different countries. The following is a summary of a few of the many insights that he offers in his insightful book.

A few statistics of Jews in the US
Waxman quotes the Pew Center Survey that estimates that 1.5 percent of US citizens, about 3,638,000, are Jews by religion. Pew also estimates that about 12 percent of this number, 437,000, are Orthodox. Of these 12 percent, 66 percent, about 291,000 are ultra-Orthodox, and half this number, 33 percent, about 146,000, are Modern Orthodox. Orthodox Jews have an average income lower than non-Orthodox Jews, and ultra-Orthodox have a lower income than Modern Orthodox. Pew found that the percentage of divorced or separated Orthodox Jews, 9 percent, is lower than that of Mainline Protestants, 12 percent, and Catholics, 10 percent. Pew also found that among Jews with no denominational affiliation, only 31 percent had a Jewish spouse, while the figure for Orthodox was 98 percent. Surprisingly, while 79 percent of ultra-Orthodox are married, only 52 percent of Modern Orthodox are married, a slightly lower rate than that of Conservative Jews.

The origin of Orthodoxy
The term Orthodox did not exist before the nineteenth century. It was invented by Reform Jews in eastern Europe who used it to disparage what they considered backward, old style, more observant Jews. Soon thereafter, the more observant Jews accepted the title as a badge of honor. The term Orthodox is based on Greek words: ortho = right or true, and dox = belief or opinion. Despite what Orthodox means, many Orthodox Jews in the past and today are not literally people who agree with the traditional “beliefs and opinions.” They are Orthopractic, Jews who have decided to continue all or many of the traditional “practices” of Judaism. They accept many ancient Jewish laws and traditions “but not meticulously or rigidly so.”

Among Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews, those descendant from Europe, there are two main groups today, each divided into sub-groups: Ultra-Orthodox and Modern Orthodox. The former is subdivided into yeshivish who contend that Jewish males should separate themselves from modernity as much as possible and spend their life studying Talmud, and hasidish who follow the demands of Hasidic leaders called Rebbes. Modern Orthodox is subdivided into Centrist Orthodox and Open Orthodox, with the last adopting less restrictions and are more open to the involvement of women in the synagogue.

The Orthodox in America have a stronger attachment to Israel than do non-Orthodox American Jews. Orthodox Jews place greater emphasis on the law focusing on humans, bein adam ladam, while the ultra-Orthodox emphasize laws that focus on God, bein adam lamakom, generally ignoring the former. Thus, for example, 56.9 percent of Modern Orthodox feel that homosexuality should be accepted by society, but only 35.6 percent of ultra-Orthodox agree.

Rabbis
Contrary to what people suppose, ancient rabbis did not have a significant role in synagogues, they were “viewed as talmudic scholars and halakhic experts. Particularly in the area of isur veheter, ritual law, which includes kashrut, sexual conduct, sabbath observance, and so on. However, when it came to questions relating to broader matters, such as issues of communal policy, most people gave no special weight to the rabbi’s opinions and did not consult with them.” Rabbis “did not reign supreme” as they do today. The current notion that rabbis are elite individuals whose views must be followed did not exist in America until the twentieth century, is not a traditional teaching, but a copy by Orthodox Jews of the Hasidim and the Hasidic Rebbe.

Also contrary to what many think, “customs start with the masses, and go from the bottom up, sometimes to the point where they become actual laws.” Thus, despite the recent powers given to rabbis, we can expect that the more educated Orthodox Jews of today will bring about changes in laws and behavior. Many Orthodox Jews are dissatisfied with how Orthodoxy is practiced today and this will prompt change. “The 1990 National Jewish population survey indicated that ‘among those raised Orthodox, just 24 percent are still Orthodox.’”

In the recently published “Megillat Esther Mesorat Harav,” Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik recognized this phenomenon. He is reported as recognizing that Purim was instituted as a holiday by common people, not rabbis nor Jewish leaders, and it was only after the people instituted the practice that the rabbis accepted it. He is right. This is how the book of Esther portrays what happened.

Turning to the right
Just as the Orthodox swerved to the right in copying the Hasidic view concerning rabbis, they did so also regarding education. While Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik is highly respected in Modern Orthodox circles, and despite his co-educational classes in his Maimonides School in Boston, many Modern Orthodox day schools today separate boys and girls in different classes. Similarly, because the ultra-Orthodox insist on their own “higher” standards for the laws of kosher, many certifying agencies require food sellers to bow to their requests to obtain their certification resulting in much higher prices for kosher foods, often twice the price of non-kosher foods. Still another radical change was pioneered by ArtScroll and Mesorah Publications which publishes many books on Judaism and Jewish history, “Critics have argued that ArtScroll censors its books to present only Orthodox accounts and Perspectives.” Also, lamentably, many Orthodox synagogues have recently rejected the teaching of Maimonides, who quoted the Greek non-Jew Aristotle in his writings, and who explained that “The truth is the truth no matter what its source,” and replaced the highly respected “Pentateuch” by Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz with the censored ultra-Orthodox ArtScroll Chumash because Rabbi Hertz included explanations of the Torah from non-Jewish scholars. Many other examples of mistaken turnings to the right can be cited, such as the new stringencies that the Chief Rabbinate in Israel have placed on conversions.

Waxman states: “The ‘turn to the right’ in American Orthodoxy was in large measure, a reflection of the broader turn to the right and the rise of fundamentalism in a variety of different countries and continents.” This seems to put the lie to the claim of many Orthodox Jews that they are not affected by non-Jews. “Much as many might deny it, Orthodoxy is affected by and does respond to its social environment. This is why American Orthodoxy today is different from what it was a century ago, and it is different from Orthodoxy in the United Kingdom, Europe, and even Israel.”

Torah from heaven
As late as fifty years ago, Orthodox Jews were united in believing that both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah were given by God to Moses at Sinai, with some, “such as Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Moshe Tendler, [who] went so far as to axiomatically assert a literal version of both parts of the credo, while others simply expressed a general allegiance to the credo itself without discussing the detailed implications.” But, “Today the situation is dramatically different.” Orthodox Jews in America, and even more so in Israel, are accepting many critical views about the Torah, as can be seen on the website “The Torah.com.” Waxman attributes the change to “the emergence of a generation of college-educated Jews” in the second half of the twentieth century. Orthodox schools, including yeshivas, in the past were like the Catholics of the Middle Ages who prohibited the translation of the Bible because they felt that when the masses read the Bible, they can be misled away from Catholicism. Like them and for the same reason, Orthodox schools did not teach Torah only Talmud and selected books on ethical behavior in the past. But now, there is an “increase in the [study of the] Bible within the religious and traditional communities since the 1960s.”

Similarly, while Orthodoxy in the past rejected the idea of evolution and even called it heresy, most Orthodox Jews today accept it as a fact: “in 2005, even the [Orthodox] Rabbinical Council of America issued an, admittedly very guarded, pro-evolution position.”

Conclusion
Waxman concludes: “As has been shown throughout this book, American Orthodoxy is anything but static. It has changed and will continue to do so…. Although we cannot know precisely what the group will be like in the future, one thing is certain: it will not be the same as it is now.”

In 1998, I wrote a paper in which I presented a number of sociological factors that inevitably lead Orthodoxy in modern society to greater ritualistic stringency. I then referred to the process as “hareidization,” but because some of the patterns are very different from what is typically associated with Hareidim in Israel, I subsequently suggested labeling the process as “humrazation.” Recent developments in American “Centrist Orthodoxy” seem to validate both my original thesis and my relabeling the process as “humrazation.” What I am referring to is not hareidization because American Centrist Orthodox Jews, by and large, do not deprecate general education. Most value higher education, even if largely for its utilitarian value. Also, most are engaged to one degree or another with the larger Jewish community and the larger general society. They are overwhelmingly not only pro-Israel but view the State of Israel as having religious significance and, thus, pray in synagogues that recite the prayers for the Welfare of the State and for the Israel Defense Forces. At the same time, some leaders of Centrist Orthodoxy have become increasingly assertive and acerbic, and they attempt to define Centrist Orthodoxy in more rigid terms.

Let me begin with the observation that, strange as it may initially seem, American Orthodoxy is more rigid than its Israeli counterpart. We are used to thinking of Israeli Orthodoxy as more rigid, primarily because of the greater gap there—qualitatively and quantitatively—between the Hareidi and religious-Zionist communities. Indeed, the gap is greater in Israel because of several key factors:

1. Whether or not one views the State of Israel as having religious significance, it is located in Erets Yisrael, which has religious significance even to the staunchest anti-Zionist Orthodox Jew. What takes place there has religious significance, even if the state has none.

2. Religious significance aside, Israel is a Jewish country by virtue of its population and governance. It is therefore home even to non-Zionist Jews. Individuals behave much more openly, freely, and passionately at home than they do in an environment where they do not feel completely at home. That is one reason that ultra-Orthodox Jews in the United States feel free to hold demonstrations in New York but would not in the Midwest.

3. The primary issues that divide in Israel are economics and the military. In both cases, there is much more of a zero-sum relationship between the Hareidim and the religious Zionists than there is between "right-wing" or "ultra" or "yeshivish" or "hassidish"
Orthodox and the Centrist Orthodox in the United States. In the United States, Jews are a very small percentage of the overall population, and Orthodox Jews are less than a third of one percent of the American population. Whether or not a Jew or group of Jews earns a living and pays taxes is much less of a direct concern to most others than is the case in Israel, where Orthodox Jews—“hareidim” and “dati’im”—are almost 20 percent of the population. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, 8.8 percent of Israel’s Jewish population are “ultra-Orthodox” (hareidim), 10 percent are “Orthodox” (dati’im), and another 15.1 percent are “Traditional-religious” (masortim dati’im).[1] All three groups are relatively large ones. They are somewhat in competition with each other over control of the political offices and financial budgets that define the religious standards of portions of both the public and private spheres, and they are significant proportions of the population whose behavior affects the entire society.

As a result, the gap, including the ideological antagonism between the Hareidim and religious Zionist communities, is much deeper and louder in Israel than it is in the United States.

At the same time, however, non-Hareidi Orthodoxy in Israel is considerably broader and more inclusive than is Centrist Orthodoxy in the United States. There is nothing in American Orthodoxy akin to the openness of, for example, the “Shabbat” literary supplement of the “Makor Rishon” newspaper. Almost every Friday, the “Shabbat” literary supplement contains articles, reviews, and letters from a wide variety of knowledgeable writers; these pieces frequently challenge and probe in depth a range of issues of interest to religious/observant Jews. The candid public discussions of religion-related matters by respected religious personalities with a range of perspectives is almost unthinkable in American Orthodoxy. Perhaps it exists in Israel precisely because neither Makor Rishon nor its literary supplement are, formally, religious publications, even though the majority of their readership is religious/dati.

Israeli Orthodoxy’s broadness was made even more evident to me when, about five years ago I wrote an article in this very publication in which I wrote that the second season of the popular Israeli television series about Modern Orthodox Jews, Serugim, would include homosexuals, and that there are several openly gay Orthodox groups in Israel.[2] In fact, I wrote, one such group had recently held its first anniversary event in Jerusalem and the guest of honor was one of the heads of a very highly respected Hesder yeshiva, and a number of other prominent Orthodox religious personalities also participated in that event. Shortly after my article appeared, I received a message from a friend who is a scholar and a professional in the Jewish community and who writes regularly on developments in the Orthodox community. He said that he had been unaware of a number of matters on the Israeli scene of which I had written and, in particular, the Rosh Yeshiva attending a gay Orthodox gathering. “This is impossible to conceive in the U.S. and shows that at least some sectors of Israeli Religious Zionism don’t have the inferiority complex vis-à-vis Hareidim that Modern Orthodoxy in the U.S. does,” he wrote. Being a sociologist, I suspect that there is more than American Modern (Centrist) Orthodoxy’s inferiority complex involved. There are also structural factors that account for the greater openness in Israeli Orthodoxy than in the United States.

Not only is American Orthodoxy more rigid than its Israeli counterpart, but it is becoming increasingly so. I am not referring only to the institutional shift in the major rabbinic organization, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), which, as Rabbis Marc Angel and Avi Weiss have argued, is currently more restrictive than it once was, especially with respect to the area of conversion. [3] They point to a letter sent to the Office of the Chief Rabbinate in which the Beth Din of America, founded by the RCA, averred that “we cannot accept the conversion of any rabbi who served in a synagogue without a mehitza [a partition between men and women].” Such a policy flies in the face of the not-uncommon practice prior to the 1980s, of Yeshiva University-ordained and placed rabbis in good standing within the RCA, serving in mixed-seating congregations. As Gerald/Yaacov Blidstein points out, even Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, the Rav, who “uncompromisingly rejected synagogues that did not seat men and women separately, . . . did not insist—as far as I know—on excluding rabbis who served such synagogues from the Rabbinical Council of America.”[4] Although previously accepted, the conversions of any of those rabbis are now rejected, and that can have horrible consequences for the children and grandchildren of and of those converts.

That is an institutional shift that parallels and, indeed, reflects the shift in the Chief Rabbinate in Israel. As the Israeli Rabbinate has become dominated by Hareidim, their conversion policies have become more restrictive—which is why there are now intense political efforts to remove conversion from the exclusive control of the Rabbinate. The RCA and the Beth Din of America fear that their conversions will not be accepted by the Rabbinate, so, rather than challenge it, they accede to its demands.

But the shift in American Centrist Orthodoxy goes beyond issues related to the Israeli Rabbinate and was starkly apparent in the recent controversy concerning a letter implicitly reprimanding a semikha-ordination student at Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS). The letter, sent by the sent the (then-Acting) Dean, asserts that graduates of RIETS

"are certainly expected to discuss sensitive halakhic issues with their rebbeim muvhakim [established teachers] and look to the psak of individuals who would be recognized by their Roshei Yeshiva as legitimate poskim [decisors]. Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah [tradition] of the establishment of normative halakhah."

The letter continues to assert that “the communal authority vested in each musmakh [ordainee] demands that decisions, and certainly decisions in controversial areas of Jewish thought and practice, be made in consultation with the proper authorities” and “they are expected to defer, in matters of normative practice, to the opinions of recognized poskim.” Finally, the student was requested to respond “in writing, affirming or denying [his] ability to agree to these principles.” The issue which prompted the letter was sanctioning and participating in a so-called partnership minyan. Leaving aside the matter of whether such minyanim are halakhically legitimate—they have received more approval than mixed-seating congregations—the requirement that a student at RIETS sign a document affirming the principles spelled out in the letter is unprecedented. Following strong public reaction to the entire incident, Yeshiva University (YU) and its RIETS affiliate issued a statement assuring that the student in question would be ordained along with 225 other at the forthcoming Hag haSemikhah. The statement explained that the letter was in response to previous discussions with the student over issues that raised questions about his views of the halakhic process, and the student asked that the expectations of the yeshiva be set in writing so he could carefully consider his commitment to them.

The statement did not, however, dispel the perception that there are afoot in RIETS both a retrenchment process and an attempt to expand the area of exclusive control. The RIETS letter asserted that, “Following the halakhic opinion of a scholar or rabbi who is not recognized as a posek would represent a fundamental breach in the mesorah of the establishment of normative halakhah . . . even when there are no purely halakhic issues at stake.” To some this was seen as the Hareidi-like assertion of exclusive authority over all arenas under the banner of “da’as Torah.”[5] Hitherto, Modern Orthodoxy has dissented from the relatively recent Hareidi assertion that rabbis have authority over all areas, even non-halakhic ones. To see affirmation of this concept stipulated by RIETS as a prerequisite for receiving semikha was very surprising, to put it mildly.

The threat to withhold ordination over the issue of sanctioning and participating in a partnership minyan may have also been a reaction to an institutional issue. Some faculty and graduates of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) have expressed their approval of partnership minyanim, and, since YCT is viewed as competition to RIETS, RIETS may have been wishing to distinguish itself entirely from YCT and implicitly disparage it in terms of its halakhic competence. Ironically, the empirical evidence suggests that, in fact, YCT is not a threat to RIETS. According to a press release from YU, the 2014 Hag haSemikhah was comprised of the largest cohort ever, more than 230 musmakhim (ordained rabbis). This just a few months before YCT celebrates its tenth Hag haSemikhah. The 10 years of YCT’s existence obviously have not had any negative impact on the RIETS semikhah program.

Apparently there is more than just institutional competition at play, a sense that is strengthened when one looks at the handling of the two most recent episodes in what is perceived as the gender status quo, namely, partnership minyanim and women putting on tefilin, phylacteries. Aaron Koller, an Associate Professor and Associate Dean at YU, asserts that the opposition to both of these by Rabbi Herschel Schachter, a leading Rosh Yeshiva and halakhic authority at RIETS, as expressed in his two responsa on them, is essentially sociological and political.[6] He argued that Rabbi Schachter asserts that halakhic authorities have the ability and right to determine the validity of partnership minyanim and women wearing tefilin, that they have determined them to be unacceptable.[7] Rabbi Schachter also argued, he continues, that they are dangerous and part of the threat of Conservative Judaism, which is the contemporary “Korach rebellion.” This threat, according to Rabbi Schachter, is as serious today as it was in the mid-twentieth century when the Rav vociferously condemned deviations from Orthodox practice advocated by Conservative Judaism. Koller responds that those who sanction both of the innovations for women rely on their own halakhic sources and do not automatically submit to the authorities recognized by Rabbi Schachter. As for prohibiting innovations due to the threat of Conservative Judaism, that may have been valid a half-century ago but may now produce diminishing returns and thus be counterproductive.

The two major published responses to Koller did little to detract from his basic arguments.[8] The first was oblivious of the history and sociology of pesika, halakhic decision-making, but was significant for its title, which indicated the structural underpinning of the controversy. This response, “The Boundaries and Essence of Orthodoxy” is reflective of the concern in Centrist Orthodoxy to establish boundaries. Lest it be assumed that this was simply one individual’s concern, an opinion piece in the Jewish Week several weeks later highlighted what its author sees as the necessity of “Determining the Parameters of Modern Orthodoxy.”[9]

Why, one may ask, this fixation with setting boundaries and establishing parameters? That may have made sense for Judaism in mid-twentieth-century America, when it was comprised of competing denominations, each of which claimed legitimacy and authenticity and threatened the others.[10] In such a situation, there may well be a need for each to develop techniques of boundary maintenance, to clearly distinguish itself from other denominations. But this is the twenty-first century, and the denominational character of American Judaism has changed dramatically. As the recent Pew report indicates, the biggest challenge is the increasing number of Jews who do not identify religiously, period. Orthodoxy is growing—among those who identify as Jewish by religion they are now 12 percent, up 2 percent since the 2001 and 6 percent since 1990, according to the National Jewish Population Surveys for those years. Moreover, the Pew study indicates that the fact that American Orthodox Jews “are much younger, on average, and tend to have much larger families than the overall Jewish population, . . . suggests that their share of the Jewish population will grow.”[11] Orthodoxy thus has little to fear from Conservative Judaism, a movement that is apparently shrinking quickly, and there is no longer (assuming there once was) any need build a solid barrier against other denominations. Quite the contrary, those for whom Judaism is meaningful are seeking to intensify their religiosity and many want to identify with Orthodoxy. Does Orthodoxy need to fear that people who might not otherwise daven, pray, will now do so in earnest? It also appears that, with respect to the issues under discussion, Orthodoxy need not fear the old “slippery slope” that legitimated so many humrot in the past. Why, then, the concern about boundaries? [12]

This, of course, does not mean agreeing with everything that passes or tries to pass as acceptable. There are many things that other observant people do that I don’t care for. One may have no desire to daven in a Shira Hadasha-type congregation and even feel uncomfortable doing so without questioning the religious sincerity of those who do. Similarly, there are Modern Orthodox women who have neither need nor desire to don tefillin, but can readily understand that there are sincere, religious women who do. Indeed, castigating them derisively contrasts with the sage and constructive advice of Kohelet (9:17), “The words of the wise are heard [when spoken] softly,” and will almost certainly not bring them any closer what their detractors view as “authentic” Orthodoxy. A concern solely with what is deemed to be “authentic,” regardless of what consequences that may have for others, is much more characteristic of the Hareidi “saving remnant” approach, i.e., the “purists” who view the majority as hopelessly lost and concern themselves with solely with preserving their own purity.

Ironically, although the emphasis is on establishing boundaries on the left, the real issue is on the right. Looking at the numbers, my friend may well have been correct when he referred to Centrist/Modern Orthodoxy’s “inferiority complex” vis-à-vis Hareidim. Much to the chagrin of most of its constituents, the proportion of Centrist/Modern Orthodoxy is decreasing. Until recently, it was estimated that the Modern Orthodox comprise as much as two-thirds of American Orthodox Jewry. The ratio has apparently now changed. According to the 2011 UJA-Federation of New York’s Jewish Community Study of New York, in the city with the largest Orthodox population in the country, the Modern Orthodox are a minority, comprising only 43 percent of the city’s Orthodox population. The majority, 57 percent, are “Hasidic & Yeshivish.”[13] Further, the Pew Center found the proportion of Modern Orthodox to be even lower in the country as a whole. Of those identified as Orthodox, two-thirds are “Ultra-Orthodox” and one-third are “Modern Orthodox.” [14]

If Centrist/Modern Orthodoxy’s increasing minority status is the reason that has an inferiority complex, one might expect it to be much more open and welcoming to those on its left flank. It is the traditionalists in non-Orthodoxy that are the most likely candidates for joining Modern Orthodoxy, but they would only do so if they felt welcome. That does not mean that Centrist/Modern Orthodoxy needs to agree with everything that some of its constituents do. No one is forced to join a partnership minyan, and no women are forced to don tefilin. At the same time, it is counterproductive to dispassionately and sneeringly castigate and reject those who sincerely want to be draw closer to God and do mitzvoth as they view them.

In earlier times, Modern Orthodox manifested the credo of Rabbi Akiva,
“Love thy neighbor as thyself.” Modern Orthodoxy was much more open and, indeed, reached out to the non-Orthodox with compassion. Ironically, as Adam Ferziger has shown, it is now the products of Lakewood who, in addition to Chabad, are the ones engaged in outreach.[15] Modern Orthodoxy has pulled back from outreach and many seem to have adopted the interpretation of Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students, whose death is commemorated during the days of the Counting of the Omer. They allegedly interpreted their teacher’s credo as, “Love thy neighbor when he is as thyself,” when he thinks and acts as you do, but not when he thinks and acts differently.

[1] Statistical Abstract of Israel 2013, p. 340, Table 7.1.
[2] “It's All Relative: The Contemporary Orthodox Jewish Family in America,” Conversations, No. 5, Autumn 2009, pp. 1–17.
[3] Rabbi Marc Angel and Rabbi Avi Weiss, "‘And you shall love the proselyte,’” Jerusalem Post, April 22, 2014, p. 13.
[4] Gerald J. Blidstein, “Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s Letters on Public Affairs,” Torah u-Madda Journal 15, 2008–09, p. 15. A Hebrew version appears in Yosef Da'at: Studies in Modern Jewish History in Honor of Yosef Salmon, Yossi Goldstein, ed., Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2010, pp. 67–84.
[5] On the ideology of Da’as Torah, see Lawrence Kaplan, "Daas Torah: A Modern Conception of Rabbinic Authority,” in Moshe Sokol, ed., Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy (Orthodox Forum Series), Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1992, pp. 1–60.
[6] “Women in Tefillin and Partnership Minyanim: A Response to Rabbi Herschel Schachter,” The Commentator, Feb. 19, 2014.
[7] http://www.rcarabbis.org/pdf/Rabbi_Schachter_new_letter.pdf and http://www.joshyuter.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/RHS-on-Women-Wearing-Tefill….
[8] The Commentator, Feb. 21, 2014 and March 4, 2014.
[9] The Jewish Week, March 24, 2014.
[10] Another reason that there is greater tolerance among dati’im in Israel is the much greater ethnic heterogeneity among Israel’s Jews and the fact that Ashkenazim are the numerical minority there. In contrast to Ashkenazi denominationalism, Sephardim, the Edot Mizrah, Yemenites, and others never experienced denominationalism in their cultures.
[11] Pew Reseach Center, “A Portrait of Jewish American,” Oct. 1, 2013, p. 10.
[12] Some are so fixated on boundaries that they are ready to exclude from Orthodoxy an entire movement that is arguably contributing more to it than any of its other components.
[13] UJA-Federation of New York, “Jewish Community Study of New York: 2011, Comprehensive Report,” Exhibit 7-1, p. 212.
[14] Pew, “A Portrait of Jewish American,” p. 48.
[15] Adam Ferziger, "From Lubavitch to Lakewood: The Chabadization of American Orthodoxy," Modern Judaism, Vol. 33, No. 2, May 2013, pp. 101–124.

Until the early twentieth century, women in most countries
had limited roles in civic life. In 1917, for example only
five countries in Europe allowed women to vote—
Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Soviet Russia. The women’s suffrage
movement in the United States and Europe was ultimately successful
in gaining the vote for women, but victory came only after a period of
protracted social and political agitation.

The issue of women’s right to vote and to be elected to office were subject
to heated controversy among the Jewish community in the land of
Israel beginning in 1917. Zvi Zohar, in an article about the debates concerning
women’s suffrage which raged in the land of Israel 1918-1921,
noted that the rabbinical leadership of the Ashkenazic Old Yishuv was
generally opposed to granting women the rights to vote and be elected to
office. On the other hand, the Sephardic leadership generally favored these
rights for women. (see Zvi Zohar’s article in Sephardi and Middle Eastern
Jewries: History and Culture, edited by Harvey Goldberg, Indiana
University Press, 1996, pp. 119-133.)

Zohar pointed out that the leading Ashkenazic rabbinical figure,
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, was adamantly opposed to letting women
become involved in political life. He argued that the Torah tradition relegated
civic authority to men, and that women were to remain in the private,
domestic domain He rejected the “modern innovation” of allowing
women political involvement, believing that this was a threat to traditional
Jewish morality and family life. (See Rabbi A. I. Kook, Ma’amarei ha-
RaAY’aH, Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 189-194.)

Zohar views Rabbi Benzion Uziel as the most articulate spokesman of
the opinion shared by most of the Sephardic rabbis of the time. Rabbi
Uziel’s approach differed substantially from that of Rabbi Kook (Piskei
Uziel, no. 44; Mishpetei Uziel, 5700, no. 6.)

Rabbi Uziel rejected the opinion that innovation was necessarily an
evil. On the contrary, innovation may be embraced where there was no
clear Torah prohibition involved. Concerning the question of whether
women should be allowed to vote, Rabbi Uziel argued that
we have not found any clear foundation to forbid. It is unreasonable to
deprive women of this human right, since in these elections we choose our
leaders and give our elected representatives the power to speak in our
names, to arrange the affairs of our settlement and to tax our property.
Women, directly or indirectly, accept the authority of those elected, and
obey their rulings and communal and national laws” (ibid.).

Rabbi Uziel said that it was unjust to expect women to follow the decisions
of the elected officials if they did not even have the right to participate
in the election in the first place.

Some opponents found rabbinic sources indicating that women’s
understanding was limited. Therefore, they reasoned, women should not
be allowed to vote. To this, Rabbi Uziel stated that there were many men
with limited understanding: Should they too be deprived of the right to
vote? Moreover, Rabbi Uziel indicated that women were endowed with
intelligence and sound judgment, no less than men. Simply looking at the
actual situation today would prove that women were quite capable and
competent to vote. (For more on women’s intellectual capacities see
Sha’arei Uziel, vol. 1, pp 124, 200.)

Rabbi Uziel dismissed the argument that allowing women to vote
would threaten morality and family life. What immorality could ensue
from allowing women to go to the ballot box to register their votes? If the
worry was that men and women would mix together in a public venue,
then we would have to prohibit people from walking in the street or going
to a store where men women might be together. We would have to forbid
any business conducted between men and women. But no one had ever
made such ridiculous suggestions. Why then did they raise this specific
argument when it came to voting?

One opponent wrote that women should not be allowed to vote
because they were excluded from official status in Biblical times. Rabbi
Uziel brushed this objection aside, noting that it had no bearing on the
question at hand. Women, as well as men, were created in God’s image.
They had a basic right to be able to vote for those who would have authority
to pass laws which they would have to obey. Not only was there no prohibition
to letting women vote, said Rabbi Uziel, but depriving them
would be unjust and would cause them humiliation and pain.

Having resolved that women should be granted the right to vote,
Rabbi Uziel then turned to the question of whether women had the right
to be elected. Halakhic literature includes the notion that women should
not be in positions of authority over men. Rabbi Uziel analyzed these
sources carefully, concluding that there was no objection to a woman
being in a position of authority—if the community willingly accepted her.
Thus, women could be elected to office, since their very election demonstrated
that the public accepted their authority. Rabbi Uziel further argued
that when women and men sat together in public deliberations, this did
not constitute a threat to morality and family life. These were not social
events but serious conversations and debates on major issues.

In conclusion, Rabbi Uziel ruled that women were permitted to vote
and to be elected. This view obviously came to prevail in the land of Israel.
In another responsum (Piskei Uziel, no. 43; Mishpetei Uziel, 5700, no.
5), Rabbi Uziel found halakhic grounds to permit women to serve as
judges as long as the community accepted their authority to judge. Yet, he
harbored doubts as to whether a woman should serve as a judge, even
though she might be permitted to do so. Rabbi Uziel felt that women were
innately compassionate and sensitive and that their judgments would be
colored by their emotions. Moreover, he thought that women should
devote their time and talents to raising their children rather than to
assume the burdensome responsibilities of a judge. Although he personally
did not approve of women serving as judges, he was intellectually honest
enough to present the halakhic justification to permit women judges.
Those who disagreed with his personal feelings could still find halakhic
authority in his arguments to allow women to serve as judges.

Rabbi Uziel likewise found halakhic grounds to accept women as witnesses
in civil cases when the public agreed to this practice. However, he
ruled unequivocally that women could not serve as witnesses in matters
of marriage and divorce since no communal ordinance could overrule the
Torah law prohibiting female witnesses in these areas. (Rabbi Uziel’s statements
are included in R. Herzog, Tehukah le-Yisrael, vol. 3, pp. 66—67.)
The newly established state of Israel passed legislation guaranteeing
the equal rights of men and women. Women were granted economic
equality, including the right to inherit. Halakha, though, does not grant
full economic equality to women nor does it generally allow women to
inherit. Rather, Halakha provides its own ways of protecting the economic
interests of women while at the same time granting women the full
opportunity to devote themselves to their families. Indeed, women had
the essential role of seeing to the well-being of their children and were
therefore exempted from certain financial responsibilities which would
interfere with child rearing.

In these areas, Rabbi Uziel argued that the Halakha was far better for
the interests of women than the modern legislation granting economic
equality. He felt that rabbinical courts, following the teachings of Halakha,
should be authoritative in cases of financial disputes involving women. He
called on the government of Israel not to attempt to force the rabbis to cast
aside Halakha: They would never do so; they would struggle courageously
to maintain the halakhic standards. (See ibid., pp. 68—72; and Shaarei
Uziel, vol. 1, pp. 124, 200—201; and vol. 2, pp. 203ff.)

From the above discussion, it is clear that Rabbi Uziel blended his profound
traditionalism with a remarkable sensitivity to modern conditions.
His rulings were animated by the view that halakha was the sine qua non
of proper Jewish life and that the interests and needs of women—and
men—were best met by fidelity to the classic teachings of Jewish law.

We are thrilled by the creative programming of our Campus Fellows across the country and in Canada. Here is a brief summary of their latest activities.

Thank you all for your support,

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar, Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Yona Benjamin, Columbia

On Shabbat April 12-13, I will be co-sponsoring a small Shabbaton for Columbia students with the Moishe House of the Upper West Side. We thought it would be nice to bring together some undergraduates from Columbia and some of the young professionals on the UWS (many of whom are Columbia grads) to spend time together over Shabbat. There will be a number of peer led shiurim throughout the weekend surrounding the theme of "how we can understand the laws relating to Avodah Zarah in our contemporary lives."  There will also be a Melaveh Malka which I am helping to organize.  I will be pitching the University Network to all participants and hope to bring some copies of the publication to distribute. 

Corey Gold, Harvard

This semester we hosted Sarah Cheses, a graduate of Nishmat's Yoetzet Halacha Program. She gave a shiur to undergraduates and community members on Sunday, February 3 titled "Assisted Reproduction and Gender Selection: Playing G-d?” It was really successful. Everyone enjoyed welcoming her and hearing her teach Torah.

Then, February 8–10 we hosted an off-campus shabbaton for Orthodox undergrads. Though we have a strong and broad Orthodox Minyan community at Harvard Hillel of grad students, young professionals, etc. and a dynamic, pluralistic Hillel undergraduate community, this was a unique opportunity for just the Orthodox undergraduates to spend Shabbat together. 27 undergraduates came––a significant increase in the number of participants since last year when we started the program. Throughout the weekend, students enjoyed Shabbat, reflected together, and learned Torah from a fellow student.

Mikey Pollack and Aryeh Roberts, University of Maryland

At UMD, we are planning on running the following two events. 

On March 31, we hosted a a “Chessed and Chabura” learning event, cosponsored with Kedma. Together we packaged $700 worth of food to be disturbed to DC families who need it via Jewish Social Services. We then had three separate charburas to learn about different aspects of chessed. Overall about 30 people showed up. 

The second is UMD's annual Sermon Slam, a Jewish poetry slam centered around a Jewish theme. It is always a really powerful event. 

Yoni Gutenmacher, University of Pennsylvania

I hosted a Shabbat lunch with 25 guests during which we explored the topic of family history with a particularly Jewish perspective. Everyone shared snippets of his/her family history and heritage before we entered a discussion on the values of Jewish history and questions arising from it.

I also hosted a Shabbat lunch together with two other students who are particularly passionate about Chassidut. At the lunch, we sang zmirot, shared divrei Torah and spoke about how Chassidut both informs and is informed by our contemporary culture.

Devora Chait, Queens College

This semester, we are running two mishmar events called "Pop-Up Mishmars", where 2-3 students each give a 10-minute dvar Torah followed by a group discussion and socializing. One will be a week before Pesach, and one will be the last Thursday night of the semester.

Jakob Glogauer, Ryerson University

Event 1:  Discussion on History of Jewish people. Participants gained a new understanding of the history of the Jewish people in a modern context. Major detail on Exodus from Egypt and exile from Israel eras. 

Event 2: Purim in the 21st Century. Conversations on how the story of Purim exists in 2019. Participants debated and conversed in their opinions on this matter. Emphasis was put on how religion plays a big part in daily life. 

Ari Barbalat, University of Toronto

In the past months, I undertook a few attempts at holding programs. The program topics were:

A) The English Renaissance Play “The Jew of Malta” by Christopher Marlowe

This topic intended to discuss this controversial play from Shakespeare’s time which has generated analogous controversy to its more famous counterpart The Merchant of Venice. Is the play bad as scholars say it is? What lessons can we learn from both the text and the conversation surrounding it? What is the true character of racism? 

B) Stories of Self-Harm in Judaism that Most People Don’t Know 

This lecture examined texts from the Apocrypha depicting the psychology of self-harm: Tobit, Sirach, Fourth Maccabees, and others. What can these texts teach us about this psychology? How do they challenge contemporary conceptions of self-harm? Why are they on the periphery of Judaism?

Last term I did two programs.

A) Jewish Philosophy and the Yemenite Children Affair

What happened during the infamous Yemenite Children Affair in Israel? How can we philosophically and theologically come to terms with it? I did this during Parashat Vayechi during the Joseph story saga and tried to connect the kidnappings to the Joseph story.

B) What Can Medieval Jewish and Islamic Philosophy Teach the Contemporary World?

What similarities exist between Jewish and Islamic philosophers in the Middle Ages? How can the differences and similarities between them address contemporary concerns over psychology, sociology and politics?

Yonatan Abrams and Ora Friedman, Yeshiva University

On April 9, Shira Hecht Koller gave a Tanach shiur called "Texts that anchor, texts that fly" about the 28th chapter of Genesis. She made a pitch to join the 929 program, and everyone walked away with various Conversations journals.

Our next event is coming up on Tuesday, May 7. It is with Rabbi Chaim Hagler, Head of School of Yeshivat Noam, who is speaking on the topic of the latest issue of Conversations, “The Impact of Jewish Education on Moral Character and Development.”

To our members and friends

It has been an incredibly productive spring with our Institute programs and classes. We continue to build bridges throughout the community and promote our vision in communities, college campuses, and schools.

Here are some upcoming highlights:

On Shabbat, May 3-4, I will be the scholar-in-residence at Congregation Ohav Sholom in Manhattan (270 West 84^th Street, between Broadway and West End Avenue). Please see here for the schedule: https://www.jewishideas.org/rabbi-hayyim-angel-scholar-residence-congregation-ohav-sholom-manhattan

On Shabbat, June 1, I will be the scholar-in-residence at Congregation Bnai Yeshurun in Teaneck, New Jersey (641 West Englewood Avenue).

On Sunday-Monday June 23-24, I will present four papers at the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Yemei Iyun on Bible and Jewish Thought. The annual conference is co-sponsored by the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, and I participate every year. For a complete schedule and registration information, see here https://www.yctorah.org/giving/yemeiiyun/

Our Campus Fellows of our University Network continue to run effective programming through the United States and Canada. Please see our latest report here https://www.jewishideas.org/article/campus-fellows-report-may-2019

If you know of eligible university students who would be good Campus Fellows for the 2019-2020 academic year, please have them contact me at [email protected], or have them go online here https://www.jewishideas.org/university-network/application. Applicants first must join the University Network, which is free, here https://www.jewishideas.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=9

I continue to serve as the Tanakh Education Scholar at Ben Porat Yosef Yeshiva Day School in Paramus, New Jersey. Ben Porat Yosef creates a complete feeling of what the Ashkenazic and Sephardic worlds of thought, halakhah, custom, and history can do to complement one another, very much in line with our vision at the Institute. We are currently developing an innovative Bible program for grades 1-8 that likewise reflects our deepest values at the Institute, which combine commitment to tradition with critical-mindedness, openness to ideas, and a rationalist, non-fundamentalist approach to sacred texts. It is a privilege partnering with this singular institution.

I also am the guest editor for Conversations 34, which will feature a collection of Rabbi Marc D. Angel’s essays in celebration of his fifty years in the rabbinate. We also plan on holding several events in honor of this momentous occasion in the coming year.

If you have not yet seen our two symposia on Conversion and Ethics, please see them here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG17aaahdPQ and here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjL_o2e4B68.

As always, thank you for all of your support, and we will continue to spread our vision to educators, university students, and the broader Jewish community.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

At this time of crisis, we pray that Hashem will bless all of us with good health and wellbeing. I offer this interpretation of a passage in the Haggadah and hope it provides a framework for coping better.

The Haggadah tells of five sages who observed Pessah in Benei Berak. They lived in the generation following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The situation was exceedingly bleak.

The Haggadah describes them as mesubin, reclining. They acted as though they were noblemen. They studied Torah all night, as though everything was right in the world. They dreamed of a new redemption. By their example, they were teaching: yes, the reality outside is frightening—but we are not afraid. We have a vision, a grander reality in our minds. We foresee happy Jewish families around their Seder tables; we foresee flourishing Torah study; we foresee the reconstitution of the Jewish State.

The students witnessed their rabbis’ sense of a larger reality.  “Our teachers, we now see that there is a new dawn. You are leading us through the darkness of night.”

These sages taught their generation—and all future generations—not to lose heart at times of crisis. With Hashem’s help, we will overcome.

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer were the elders; Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon were of the next generation; Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah was younger. The students who attended them were younger. When all the generations can confront shared problems together, a new day will dawn.

As our sages of old envisioned a better future, so let us look forward to a new and blessed dawn.