YU's Next President- who gets a say?

While the selection for the next president of the United States is on many people’s minds, there is an additional presidency that many in the Jewish community have been discussing. With the recent announcement by Richard Joel that he will not continue as president of Yeshiva University, once his current contract ends, the Jewish world is abuzz with suggestions and speculation of who will fill this important role. What hasn’t been discussed is the process that will be used to find the right candidate. While one writer suggested the criteria through which the new president should be chosen (albeit with such specificity that all but one or two people in the world  have been eliminated from the discussion), he gives no reason why he should be the arbiter of this decision.

I strongly believe that the future of YU matters for the American Jewish community in general, and specifically for the future of Modern Orthodoxy. If I am correct, the decision of how to choose the next president and who will do the choosing, is too important to be done behind closed doors. While it is obviously not possible for the whole process to be open, the process leading up to the search needs to be public.

I strongly believe that a committee should be put together consisting of a broad swath of the different constituencies in the Modern Orthodox world; men and women, Jewish professionals, rabbis and laymen, YU graduates and even students, should be chosen to decide which qualities and qualifications the next president should have. Additionally, at least some of these same type of people should be on the search committee once an open process has led to a public discussion of what YU should be as it moves into the future. A secret and closed process made by the Board of Trustees and/or unpublicized members risks too much.

In essence, I am arguing that the future of YU, much of which will be shaped by its next president, will not just affect future students, it will affect all of us who identify so strongly with Modern Orthodoxy. On some level, YU belongs to all of us, and as the flagship of Centrist orthodoxy, is too important to fail. With the economic situation of the school in peril, and with many possible paths that YU might take, our voices need to be heard and seriously considered. Anything less than this risks too much.

 

"I strongly believe that the future of YU matters for the American Jewish community in general, and specifically for the...

Posted by Pesach Sommer on Thursday, October 29, 2015

W(h)ither Modern Orthodoxy?- Does Modern Orthodoxy still speak to us?

During the approximately two years during which I went through a crisis of faith, I spent a lot of time reading, as well as having conversations with many rabbis, academics and friends, in the hope of finding my way back to faith. Perhaps the most important piece of advice that I received was to go through the aspects of Judaism with which I was struggling, and figure out which, in fact, were essential to Jewish belief. Ultimately, I came to recognize that there was a much wider range of theological options available that could fit within a world of belief.

There was a time when Modern Orthodoxy was less doctrinaire. A perusal through the index of the issues of Tradition from the ‘60s and 70s shows that both in terms of content and writers, Modern Orthodoxy of that time had more theological room than does the Modern Orthodoxy of today. I will leave it to sociologists to evaluate the reasons for the change. Instead, I will talk about a way that we might go back to those more open days.

I begin with a discussion of a theory put forth by Thomas Kuhn about paradigm shifts in science. For those who are unaware of the theory, the following is a summation of the theory from an article by Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman of Bar Ilan University:

A mature science, according to Kuhn’s hypothesis, is one in which there exists a dominant paradigm—a conceptual framework that informs the scientist of what to expect as he engages in his or her scientific inquiry. It delineates the parameters of what can and cannot be considered acceptable solutions to a problem. Only that which conforms to the paradigm is deemed true. The training of scientists consists of inculcating them with the tenets of the paradigm, the rules of the game, before they embark on their own research. To engage in “normal science” is to endeavor to tie up loose ends and adjust the paradigm to reality. Paradigms introduce a sociological factor into science. To practice science is to engage the mysteries of the natural order not in unmediated fashion, but through the lens of the paradigm, itself a human construct. This dogmatic aspect determines who is considered “in” in the scientific community, and who is “out.”
Inevitably, results will begin to arise that are inconsistent with the reigning paradigm. At first these will be dismissed and faults will be found either with the method employed or with the assumptions upon which they rest. As these bothersome findings persist and accumulate, however, a creative scientist will come forward to challenge the axioms of the paradigm and propose a new one that encompasses the “problematic” results as well in a systematic fashion. Because the old paradigm is but a human construct, it is subject to human foibles: its articulators will typically dig in their heels, and the new paradigm will gain traction only as the masters of the old one pass from the scene. New paradigms do gain influence, but only slowly

Essentially, once a theory is accepted by the scientific community, it becomes a type of dogma which can not be challenged. Those who offer such challenges are ignored and/or rejected. Only when the challenges become strong enough, does the theory change. Although we are talking about religion and not science, the comparison is instructive. Jewish theology changes with the times. Throughout our history, challenges from within Judaism or from other religions have caused Jewish theology to pivot, as it were. While traditionalists at first fought back, eventually the pressure became great enough that change occurred. Even then, the change happened slowly, and usually, almost imperceptibly.

We live in a time when belief in Jewish dogma is very challenging. In various ways, scholarly or not, there have been those who have talked of these challenges and offered new ideas. As in Kuhn’s theory, these attempts have been rebuffed. Traditionalists have dug in their heels and insisted that certain beliefs are essential and not up for debate. Still, the attempts to spell out a theological approach that works for modern sensibilities, speak to some of the angst that is felt by many in our community.

So where do we go from here? Ideally religious thinkers from Yeshiva University, the institution that for many represents Modern Orthodoxy, would step into the void and try to address some of these concerns in a theologically sophisticated manner. Sadly, this has not been the case. Many of the roshei yeshiva are firmly in the traditionalist camp, and consider certain beliefs and concepts to be inviolable. Those roshei yeshiva and professors who are more open to modern sensibilities, have, to some degree, both in recorded lectures and in writing, addressed some of these issues, but there is yet to be an attempt at spelling out a full theology from those within the walls of YU. To some degree, some of the rabbis and students from Yeshivat Chovevei HaTorah have tried to bring about a paradigm shift, but in ignoring the idea contained in Kuhn’s warning that change occurs slowly in science,a truth that applies to the world of Orthodoxy as well, these attempts have failed to gain significant traction. I would hope that the leadership of YCT would think about why a community that hungers for a sophisticated more modern approach, has not taken to their approach. In America, new attempts are coming from the likes of Michael Fishbane, while the Modern Orthodox world fails to produce works along the lines of Rav Shagar’s works, which show how Orthodoxy might deal with the challenges of Post-Modernism.

Who, if anyone, will step into this void? If Modern-Orthodoxy is to stay relevant, a work will have to be produced that shows a level of theological sophistication, while, at the same time speaks to the layman. A new paradigm is needed for those, like myself, who passionately belief in the world of Torah and Mitzvohs, while at the same time recognize the challenges of the times in which we live.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

Coming Home- On Modern-Orthodoxy's move from the US to Israel

There was a time when, for the most part, America was the home of serious Modern-Orthodoxy. This was true both because institutions like Yeshiva University embodied Modern-Orthodoxy’s ideals, and was thriving, and because, beyond Yeshivat Har Etzion and Bar Ilan University, Israel lacked institutions that advocated living a serious halachic lifestyle while making use of the best that modernity has to offer. Some observers made the mistake of assuming that kippah-serugah world in Israel, led by rabbis from Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav, was modern, while failing to recognize that there was little connection to modernity beyond Zionism, and secular education.

Today the reality has changed. Yesterday, I attended the Tzohar Conference on Education, Community and Country,  in Yerushalyim. Tzohar is a rabbinical organization committed to making Judaism meaningful and accessible to all Israeli Jews, including women, chilonim, olim from the FSU and converts. As I attended four fascinating sessions, led by Roshei yeshiva, world-class scholars and leading educators, during which I wished I could clone myself so that I could attend other sessions that I was missing, I found myself wondering whether a program of this kind could be put on within an American Modern-Orthodox framework. How many Roshei Yeshiva at YU would participate in a conference like this? Which organization would put it on? Would many hundreds of people attend?

Tzohar is just one example. This week, Machon Herzog, which is connected to Yeshivat Har Etzion, is hosting their annual Tanach Yemei Iyun. Thousands of Jews will hear shiurim from some of the biggest talmidei and talmidot chachachmim in the field. Where is a program in the US that can rival the yemei iyun in size, scholarship and scope? I could also discuss many other examples of Modern-Orthodoxy’s shift to the shores of Israel, including women’s Torah learning at institutions like Matan and Nishmat, think-tank/advocacy by Beit Hillel, and scholarship coming from Bar-Ilan and Beit Morasha, but the point has been made.

Meanwhile, YU struggles to maintain a Modern-Orthodox identity, with few Roshei Yeshiva who fully identify with the Modern-Orthodox world, serious financial problems, a diminishing student-body and a slew of scandals and controversies. Organizations like the RCA, to whatever degree they represent Modern-Orthodoxy, are mostly irrelevant to the average Jew who is looking for leadership, education, and vision. While Rabbi Asher Lopatin seems to be trying to rebrand Yeshivat Chovevei Torah as modern rather than open orthodox, it remains to be seen whether he will be successful and whether YCT can become large enough and mainstream enough to make a real difference.

Does the shift from the US to Israel matter? For those who believe in Modern-Orthodoxy, I think it does. As much as some of us might wish to see an increase in American aliyah, the American Jewish community is, for the most part, staying put. Modern -Orthodox shuls and schools, particularly those outside of New York, struggle to find like-minded rabbeim and teachers. As American orthodoxy further splits, with moves to both the right and the left, those who feel comfortable in neither camp, will find themselves increasingly isolated. While aliyah is not an option for all of us, the shift of Modern-Orthodoxy to Israel’s shores is just another reason to think about where we belong, and what kind of options we wat our children to have.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

Give or Take?- Using the Torah to Choose the Right Kind of Leaders

We live in a time when, sadly, we are no longer surprised to see those who lead religious institutions, yeshivahs and communities in the news for unethical behavior. While actions done to raise money to help others can at least be somewhat explained away, misusing positions of leadership for personal gain can not. In 2008, Chaim Saiman, a law professor at Villanova, wrote an article for the Forward about the Madoff scandal and its religious implications for Yeshiva University. Taking that a step further, I'd like to look at the Torah's expectations for leaders, by dealing with a number of questions on this weeks parsha.

Parshas Korach tells the story of how a large group of men, theoretically led by Korach, attempted to gain positions of leadership and influence within Bnei Yisrael. It begins with the passuk

וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח בֶּן־יִצְהָר בֶּן־קְהָת בֶּן־לֵוִי וְדָתָן וַאֲבִירָם בְּנֵי אֱלִיאָב וְאוֹן בֶּן־פֶּלֶת בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן

All commentators ask the same question. The pasuk begins with the word וַיִּקַּח, which means "And he took", without saying what exactly was taken. Furthermore, it is written in the singular despite ostensibly talking about more than 200 men.

Furthermore, in pasuk טו when Moshe pleads with God not to accept Korach's offering he says

 וַיִּחַר לְמֹשֶׁה מְאֹד וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־יְהֹוָה אַל־תֵּפֶן אֶל־מִנְחָתָם לֹא חֲמוֹר אֶחָד מֵהֶם נָשָׂאתִי וְלֹא הֲרֵעֹתִי אֶת־אַחַד מֵהֶם

"I have not taken a single donkey from any of them and not done badly to them". Why does Moshe feel the need to justify himself? Even stranger is the fact that this statement seems to be the basis for the choice of the haftarah of the parsha.

As Shmuel HaNavi, who has been the leader of Bnei Yisrael, is coming to the end of his life, he is asked by the people to appoint a king to rule over them. As he goes to annoint Shaul, Shmuel gives a valedictory address. At the beginning he says:

הִנְנִי עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה' וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ אֶת ־שׁוֹר ׀ מִי לָקַחְתִּי וַחֲמוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי וְאֶת־מִי עָשַׁקְתִּי אֶת ־מִי רַצּוֹתִי וּמִיַּד־ מִי לָקַחְתִּי כֹפֶר וְאַעְלִים עֵינַי בּוֹ וְאָשִׁיב לָכֶם

Echoing Moshe's words, Shmuel asks the people to confirm that he has taken nothing from them. What are Chazal trying to emphasize?

Finally, at the end of the parsha, the Matnos Kehuna V' Leviyah, the gifts that the Kohanim and Leviyim receive from Bnei Yisrael, are listed. Going on the assumption that halachos that are introduced after a narrative episode have a thematic connection, what do these gifts have to do with the story of Korach and his co-conspirators?

Korach saw leadership as a way of getting things. He assumed that a leader would be in position to accrue wealth, comfort and luxury for himself. He wanted to have such a position for himself. He, along with his group wanted to rule in order to be able to take for themselves וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח. Even as they came together to complain, each one wanted power for his own benefit and thus וַיִּקַּח is written in the singular.

Moshe and Shmuel, in contradistinction to Korach and his men, recognized that to be a true leader was to be a selfless giver, with the goal of helping the flock rather than themselves. They sacrificed comfort, family and more all for Bnei Yisrael. In return, they took nothing, not even a donkey.

At the end of the parsha, in discussing the various gifts, the Kohanim and Leviyim are given the task of guarding the mishkan to keep Bnei Yisrael safe. In return, they are given certain gifts. At first, this seems to suggest that serving God leads to personal gain. HaShem stresses

וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל־אַהֲרֹן בְּאַרְצָם לֹא תִנְחָל וְחֵלֶק לֹא־יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּתוֹכָם אֲנִי חֶלְקְךָ וְנַחֲלָתְךָ בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל

"You will not receive a portion of land in Israel. I, Hashem, am your portion". Land was the primary way of accruing wealth in an agrarian society. The gifts are given to the Kohanim and Leviyim for sustenance. Their job is to serve, not to accrue gain for themselves. HaShem, who is the ultimate giver, the נתן התורה is their inheritance, and thus, their role model.

A leader's goal must be to help those who leads, not himself. To give to others, and not to take for himself. Perhaps it is time to reasess our goals in choosing leaders in our community.

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.

Possession is 10/10 of the Lords- A Torah perspective on ownership and control

This devar Torah is in memory of Herb Smilowitz z'l, who recently passed away. He was a humble and kind man, and a ba'al tzedaka and ba'al chessed of the highest order. Among other causes, Mr. Smilowitz was a big supporter of RIETS and Yeshivat Har Etzion (Gush). Although I did not know Mr. Smilowitz well, through his children, I met him a number of times. I was zocheh to hear some meaningful and powerful stories from his family, during the time I was menachem avel. Mr. Smilowitz had money, it did not have him. In a quiet and humble way, he used his wealth in the most Godly manner possible. Yehi Zichro Baruch.

Herb Smilowitz z'l surrounded by Rabbi Zevulun Charlap and Rabbi Mark Smilowitz

This might be the only time in history when a man had to be "tricked" into being honored.

It's one of the best known Rashis in the Torah

מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני

What does Shemita have to do with Har Sinai?

This question is asked by Rashi on the first passuk in Parshas Behar

וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָֹה אֶל־ מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי לֵאמֹר

Unlike almost every time that HaShem speaks to Moshe, here, in introduction to the laws of Shemitah and Yovel, the Torah notes that it happened on Har Sinai. Why single out these mitzvos? Were all mitzvos not given at Har Sinai? To answer the question Rashi explains that just as Shemitah and all of its details were taught at Har Sinai, this also applies to all of the other mitzvos in the Torah.

What Rashi does not explain is why this mitzvah is singled out to teach this lesson. What is unique about Shemitah that it is chosen as an example?

Additionally, we see elsewhere that Shemitah is serious enough to lead to exile and other serious consequences when it is not followed. Why is this mitzvah singled out for such severe consequences?

By way of introduction, I will start with the second question first. The Ramban suggests that shemitah teaches us about the messianic era, which is represented by resting during the 7^th year. The Kli Yakkar suggests that Shemitah and Yovel are a re-creation of Har Sinai. To prove his point, he points to several allusions including the number 50 and the use of a shofar, which is referred to in both contexts as a "yovel". As we will see later on, there is no reason to suggest that these explanations are mutually exclusive.

To answer the first question, we need to look at some of the mitzvos that are mentioned in this parsha:

• Shemitah
• Yovel
• Freeing of an Eved Ivri by Yovel at the latest
• Ona'as mamon (limits on profits) as well as Ona'as Devarim (hurtful words)
• Prohibition to permanently sell a field or most homes in Israel
• Returning of field to their original owner by Yovel
• Prohibition on charging interest
• Prohibitions against mistreating an Eved Ivri
• Requirement to redeem a Jewish slave from a non-Jewish owner

If we look at the common denominator between these mitzvohs, we see that the Torah is focusing on ownership and property in parshas Behar. Despite the claims by different proponents of modern economic theory, the Torah's approach to property and ownership is neither capitalist or socialist. It is a unique system.

Bnei Yisrael have left Egypt. They were there long enough to become virtually identical to the Egyptians, both culturally and socially. Just as somewhat paradoxically an abused child runs the risk of becoming an abusive parent, and a captive runs the risk of experiencing Stockholm Syndrome, there was a very real risk that, with the gaining of independence and power, Bnei Yisrael would take an Egyptian view of possesions, particularly to ownership of slaves. It is not surprising that the Torah here uses the word פרך the very same word used to described how BY were enslaved, in discussing the prohibitions of mistreating an Eved Ivri. The Torah also talks of treating him as a תושב, another allusion to the slavery which took place in Egypt. Most telling are the words of HaShem כִּי־עֲבָדַי הֵם אֲשֶׁר־הוֹצֵאתִי אֹתָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם. Do not think of your slaves as your own. All of you belong to me.

The other mitzvos listed above, also place strong limitations on ownership, from limiting profit, to prohibiting permanent sale of land and property, to prohibiting the charging of interest. What, in the name of Adam Smith is going on here?

After creating man, HaShem blesses them saying

וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־ הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל ־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־ הָאָרֶץ

Be fruitful, fill the land and be koveish it. What is the meaning of that word? Ordinarily, we translate it as conquer, but I think it could also mean something else here. Chazal speak of being koveish one's Yetzer HaRa. In that context, I would suggest it means more of channeling one's physicality, rather than conquering it. Here God is dealing with something inherent in man, and, I believe, particularly inherent in men. Man can be a conqueror. One who aims to control everything and everyone. A person who views the world in a binary way, saying "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" and "kochi v'otzem yadi". God is blessing us to view things differently. In the next passuk he says

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת ־כָּל ־עֵשֶׂב ׀ זֹרֵעַ זֶרַע אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי כָל ־הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת ־כָּל־ הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר ־בּוֹ פְרִי־עֵץ זֹרֵעַ זָרַע לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאָכְלָה

Remember, says HaShem, I am the source of everything you have. Use it, but use it for a Divine purpose.

Now we can return to our original question, Why are these mitzvos specifically mentioned as coming from Har Sinai? If we think of what we know of Har Sinai, we begin to see an answer. Chazal say that by the giving of the Torah, Bnei Yisrael reached the level of Adam HaRishon before the sin. The goal of the Torah is for us to perfect ourselves and through our actions, the world. Although that level was inherently unsustainable at the time of Matan Torah, the Kli Yakar suggests that we receive a reminder of that goal through Shemitah, Yovel, and, I would add, the other mitzvos of this parsha. Moving over to the Ramban, these mitzvos are a reminder of the messianic era, the time when God's ideal world will be realized. Through a recognition of the limits of our ownership, we are reminded that we and all that we have, belong to HaShem, and that we should treat each other and make use of our possessions, in a way that shows we realize this. Our choice is to conquer and control the world, or to perfect it.

Post by Pesach Sommer.