Guidance for the Perplexed? - Does the Orthodox community offer help to those who are struggling with religious beliefs?

What is Orthodox Judaism?

If it is a sociological group, a club of sorts, then we can make any membership rules we want. Want to join? Believe what we do, think as we do, or you are not welcome. If however we use the term Orthodox Judaism to describe a (the? the best? the only? -as some might say) way of being Torah observant, than what is our responsibility towards those who want to be part of that world, but struggle to accept or believe some some aspects of our belief system?

In a recent article, Rabbi Francis Nataf wrote about the things that he admires about Open-Orthodoxy. Whatever one thinks of his article, he got me thinking about one particular thing that I admire about the OO world. Many of the detractors of the OO world have suggested, basing themselves on the Rambam and others, that certain theological statements made by OO rabbis are out of the pale. There are, they insist, certain things that Orthodox Jews must believe. While the detractors might be correct, even if we haggle over the particulars, there is one thing that they almost never seem to do; offer meaningful answers to people who are struggling to accept certain Orthodox beliefs. “You are out, while we are in” they say, seeming to not care about (or is it not knowing how to answer?) the questions of those who are struggling.

What do we do with our religious struggles and doubts? What happens when, despite our best efforts to accept established doctrine, we are unable to do so? Can one be a believer while simultaneously accepting some ideas that conflict with traditional theology? These are tough questions to answer, and those of us who have gone through periods of religious struggle, not only search for answers, but also must think about which ideas that might seem true, can also be expressed publicly.

Those within the OO world take those who are struggling with religious doubts, as well as their questions, seriously. They recognize that various aspects of the modern world make it difficult to accept claims that seemed obvious in earlier times. Whatever one thinks of their answers, it’s hard to not admire the sense of עמו אנכי בצרה, I am with you in the pain of your struggles, that comes from the OO rabbis. While I am sure that those who oppose them care about their fellow Jews, their lack of putting forth other answers is, at the very least, curious.

At the same time, I wonder whether attempts to publicly wrestle with these questions can be productive. Almost every time an attempt was made by an Orthodox thinker to spell out some sort of theology or approach that might make more sense to the modern perplexed Jew, the result led to its writer being “expelled” from the orthodox community. Whether it was Louis Jacobs or Tamar Ross and Torah MiSinai, or Eliezer Berkovits, and his approach to halacha, to name just a few examples, their approach to various aspects of Torah were found to be unacceptable by members of the Orthodox world.  Courageous answers which push at the edges of traditional belief, even if ever so slightly, arouse tremendous defensiveness and pushback.

I believe that the Rambam in his introduction to his Moreh Nevuchim warns us about the dangers of espousing beliefs that will be difficult for the community to accept. There he says that his work will contain seeming contradictions, and that he will not help resolve them. He further says that he leaves it to the intelligent reader to figure out what he truly intends. The Rambam seemed to believe that some of his views needed to be kept secret in order to avoid communal reproach.

So where does that leave the Jew is struggling to believe? Perhaps, as I discovered when I myself was struggling, the questioner has to seek out learned and scholarly individuals who are willing to privately suggest that there are more nuanced approaches to Jewish theology than the commonly accepted ones. There are great thinkers, including some from the charedi world, who while outwardly professing to believe that which their community thinks is necessary, privately are much more broad than their congregants, followers, or students might realize. While it might be unfortunate that these discussions can not take place more publicly, those who are questioning should not despair, and realize that they need not go it alone.

"What is Orthodox Judaism? If it is a sociological group, a club of sorts, then we can make any membership rules we...

Posted by Pesach Sommer on Thursday, December 17, 2015

Unhealthy Obsession- Gil Student's RCA Fiasco

I hesitate to write this, and it is with a sense of regret that I do so. Rabbi Gil Student is a talmid chacham and someone who has helped spread Torah, both through Torah Musings, as well as through articles he has written, and books which he helped publish. I have personally gained a lot from many of his writings. He is a man of integrity and yiras shamayim. Still, in what I can only describe as his obsession with pushing Open Orthodoxy out of the door of Orthodoxy, he has crossed the line of propriety and judgment.

Nearly two years ago, I reached out to Student in the hope that, as someone who was a moderate thinker in the Right-Wing Modern Orthodox camp, he could help try and bridge the chasm that was growing between the MO and OO worlds. He made it clear that not only was he not interested in closing the gap, but that he wanted to do the opposite, and see that the OO world would be clearly seen as being outside of  the world of Orthodoxy. As disappointed as I was, I saw his decision as regrettable, but not severe enough to change my view of him as a moderate thinker who ought to be speaking for his community.

Recently, as Rabbi Avraham Gordimer became the self-appointed, and seemingly single-minded, critic of all things OO, Student appeared more temperate and balanced, and to my mind was not worthy of strong criticism. However, as the one who brought the ill-fated RCA Declaration on female rabbis to a vote, he seems to have crossed the line into obsession and lack of judgement, and thereby joined the ranks of Gordimer and others. Even for those who are opposed to women’s ordination, or to the approach to women’s ordination taken by the OO world (as is true about myself for reasons that I will not elaborate upon here), the timing of the proposal was clearly ill-conceived, and the lack of anticipation of a negative reaction was shocking. As Yoel Finkelman convincingly and astutely noted, the proposal had the very opposite effect that Student and those who share his opposition could have hoped for. Not only did it galvanize those who support women’s ordination, and bring new supporters into their ranks, but it also made those who oppose it seem clumsy, sexist, and biased.

More problematic is the fact that Student’s connection to the RCA is questionable. As someone who has private semicha, he would not be entitled to membership  in the RCA, if not for a recent rule change. Additionally, as opposed to the many members who are shul rabbis, and thus have a mandate to speak for their community (many of whom opposed Student’s proposal), Student is not a practicing rabbi, and has no constituents to whom he must answer. While he does consult with several rabbis about what he posts on Torah Musings, one of those with whom he consulted, Micha Berger, a noted talmid chahcham and thinker, was removed from his position, apparently for pushing back too much on Student’s zealotry. Furthermore, while he enjoys and makes use of the power that comes with membership in the RCA, he seems to speak with a degree of dishonesty when he says that women do not need semicha, as it does not give one more power.

Perhaps most shocking of all is the fact that Student not only does not regret his actions, but continues to believe that he was correct in forcing the RCA vote. While he might justify his actions as he has in the past by saying that he consulted with a posek on this issue, choosing a posek who is not American, does not understand the facts on the ground here, and is not always so sociologically astute again suggests that Student has lost the ability to be a moderate spokesman on this, and, perhaps other issues.

Watching the fiasco that he started and the damage that it brought about, I can’t help but think of Ahab the obsessive captain in Melville’s Moby Dick, whose inability to back off from his goal, proved so costly to his crew and ultimately himself. A chacham, we are told in Pirkei Avos is one who can anticipate the results of his actions. When a talmid chacham loses this ability, it is either time for him to look more critically at his actions, or for those who trusted him to look for a more temperate, honest and responsible voice.

 

"I hesitate to write this, and it is with a sense of regret that I do so. Rabbi Gil Student is a talmid chacham and...

Posted by Pesach Sommer on Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Fanning the Flames- The Wrong Way to Move Forward

I am frustrated and upset. My recent posts have repeatedly been about YCT and Open Orthodoxy. I had planned to write something else today, but feel compelled to respond to a very unfair article by Gil Student in his online journal Hirhurim. In “Tzelofchad's Daughters”, Student deals with a section of a letter that was sent from Rabbi Ysoscher Katz to Rav Herschel Schachter. In the letter, Rabbi Katz suggests that Bnos Tzelofchad were proto-feminists in that they they asked for land for themselves as women (the letter is quoted in Student's article). Student not only objects to this reading, which he is certainly free to do, but smears Rabbi Katz by showing that it was Reform scholars who first made this claim, with the obvious implication that Katz's reading is not Orthodox.

One problem that I have with this article is that following on the heels of Yoram Hazony's thought-provoking article on Open Orthodoxy, where he challenges the Open Orthodox world to explain how their views fit into traditional Orthodox thought, Student seems to show that he has no interest in hearing their response and is only interested in keeping YCT and OO out of the orthodox camp.

Equally disturbing is that Katz's reading was possibly anticipated nearly 2000 years ago by Chazal. In the Sifrei on parshas Pinchas, which I loosely translate here, it says:

When the daughters of Tzelofchad heard that the land was being divided according to the tribes, and not being given to the women, they gathered together to think of an idea (of how to approach this). They said, “The mercy of God is not like the mercy of flesh and blood, for by flesh and blood there is more mercy for males than for women, but for The One Who spoke, and created the world, it is not this way, as He has mercy on males and females as it says 'and His mercy is on ALL of his creatures' ".

While this passage is a bit enigmatic, it seems to, at least, allow for a reading that suggests that Bnos Tzelafchad were motivated by a desire for fairer treatment for themselves, rather than for their father, as Student suggests.

Of course, my purpose in writing this is not to talk about how to read an episode in the Chumash. It is also not to take a side in who is correct about theological red lines. It is just to point out that if you issue a challenge, it is only fair to wait for a response. Rather than attempting to help the Modern Orthodox community deal with a challenging situation, Gil Student suggests that his way is the only way. To that, I must strongly object.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

The Uncomfortable Split

I am not sure whether the Volvo commercial with Jean-ClaudeVan Damme performing a truly “epic” split led to more sales of trucks. What I do know is that in addition to going viral, the commercial got me thinking, and for me, the split has become a metaphor.

It is either a sign of my nuanced views and/or an indication of my poor writing skills that as I have worked to try to create a middle ground between the worlds of Right-wing Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy, it has been assumed by some that I am a musmach of YCT, a believer in the need for the ordination of women, a supporter of partnership minyanim, a puppet to the “right-wing” roshei yeshiva of YU, a charedi and beholden to Rabbis Gil Student or Ysoscher Katz. In fact, I am none of the above. I am however, a believer in serious learning opportunities for women, making women as comfortable as possible in shul within the limits of halacha, that moderation is not a dirty word, that halacha has rules, and that Rabbis Katz and Student, are acting l'sheim shamayim and have contributed to the world of Torah. Although I am more comfortable within the world of YU, and lean towards halachic conservativism, I am sympathetic to some of the motivations behind psak that has come from musmachim of and teachers at YCT. I have been spiritually and intellectually nurtured by many of the Roshei Yeshiva at YU, even as I do not fully identify with most of them hashkafically.

I suppose that it is fitting that I write these words on Yom Yerushalayim, living in a community where most shuls said tachanun this morning. More and more, I find myself most sympathetic to Israeli institutions where serious Torah scholarship, combines with moderation and a willingness to make slow but steady progress in advancing thoughtful progressive change. Yeshivat Har Etzion's Roshei Yeshiva and rabbeim serve as models of what I aspire to in Torah. At Gush, as the yeshiva is known, there is a commitment to openness to the challenging questions on Torah and halacha, within a clear spirit of yirat shamayim. Beit Hillel acts to promote women's learning and leadership positions, tolerance and a values based approach to psak and the klal.

I find myself wondering what it is about Israel that allows for these institutions to achieve a balance that American institutions struggle to achieve. Looking for the chance to, once again teach Torah, I wonder if there is an institution which would be comfortable with my views. Being that aliyah is most likely at least a few years off, I remain stuck in this uncomfortable split, hoping that the supports on which I am precariously balanced, don't move further apart.

The Farber Affair Part III- Talking to and Not Past Each Other

Already, in the time of the gemara, there was a recognition that few knew how to properly give or receive rebuke. If that was true then, it is even more true today. When Zev Farber published his article on the origins of the Torah, there were a number of responses. I already addressed the least serious and valuable of the responses. In this post, I'd like to analyze the other responses.

Part of the problem with looking at the response to Farber's articles is that for the most part, they were not just about what he said. Instead, the critique of his position, which was seen by many as being one which could not be reconciled with Orthodoxy, was used as a way to challenge the legitimacy of Yeshiva Chovevei Torah, the institution from which Farber received his ordination. For those who believe that YCT can not be considered an Orthodox institution, such as Gil Student and Avraham Gordimer, Farber's article was lumped together with other alleged problematic positions taken by YCT musmachim, and policies and positions of YCT itself, as a way of criticizing the institution.

To me, this was a mistake for several reasons. It prevented an appropriate analysis and response to the particulars of Farber's claims. Perhaps more importantly, it put YCT on the defensive, and made it close to impossible for them to respond in a way that might have been productive. While it may be legitimate to discuss who should be accepted into an Orthodox semicha program, it most definitely is not acceptable to judge an institution based on changes that a musmach undergoes after receiving semicha. Furthermore, even if one would want to suggest that YCT deserves a level of criticism, the critique needs to be about ideas and not people. Unfortunately, that line has, at times, been blurred, if not crossed.

I was particularly heartened to read Yoram Hazony's article “Open Orthodoxy?”, which was posted on Gil's online journal “Hirhurim”. Using his experience at an Open Orthodox shul as the background, Hazony asked some very strong questions, with sophistication, and without getting personal. I was happy to see Ysoscher Katz's initial response:

“Yasher Koach Yoram Hazony for rebuking Open Orthodoxy. This essay is a model for proper tochacha. Successful tochacha is kind, constructive and said with sophistication. 
And, to answer your question: No, what you experienced isn't Open Orthodoxy. Open Orthodoxy is devoutly orthodox and passionately open, without ever compromising one for the other.

In the interest of making those two work perfectly well together we explore multiple options. Some of the approaches work and some of them need to be discarded. Healthy mussar is a valuable tool in helping us sort out the bad ideas from the good ones. “

What remains to be seen is whether the leadership at YCT responds in a reasoned fashion. While they do not owe anybody a response, a detailed and specific official response could be used to express which mistakes have been made, and how they might be rectified. It is my hope that will be the next response so that those of us, like myself, who find ourselves somewhere in the middle between YCT and its critics, can gain some clarity. YCT has a chance to play a pivotal role in the development of Modern Orthodoxy. The ball is in their court.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

If we must "fight', let us do so as brothers

Meanwhile, over on the Times of Israel, I discuss the current philosophical battle between the right wing Modern Orthodox world and the Open Orthodox world, followed by an invitation to Rabbis Gil Student and Ysoscher Katz to engage in a public dialogue, and a follow-up invitation.

Post by Pesach Sommer.