Reactions to Avi Ciment’s “The Modern Orthodox Conundrum”

Avi Ciment’s recent series, The Modern Orthodox Conundrum (Part I, Part II and Part III), is an absolute must-read. The author rivetingly lays forth the issues facing Modern Orthodoxy and suggests solutions, with great detail and plenty of personal and third-person narrative, making the topic come alive and demonstrating just how serious and compelling the matter is.

Although many people have plenty of anecdotal information about this topic, and it was studied and documented systematically in The Nishma Research Profile of American Modern Orthodox Jews of 2017 (summary report; complete report), Avi Ciment’s passionate presentation and quest to resolve the problems make The Modern Orthodox Conundrum all the more important.

Most of us are aware of the challenges facing much of the Modern Orthodox community, in particular its more “modern” component (“MO-Lite”), including large-scale laxity in mitzva observance, far lower retention rates than the rest of Orthodoxy, and stagnant growth rates. While no segment of Orthodoxy is free from problems, in the MO-Lite world, the issues are immensely greater than among the rest of Orthodoxy. While losing even one fellow Jew to the world of nonobservance is a tragedy, it is magnified in this case, as MO-Lite constitutes a very large percentage – likely the largest percentage – of Jewry that identifies as Modern Orthodox. Although the Modern Orthodox community is the smallest component of Orthodoxy (the numbers in the yeshivish and Chassidic communities are multiple times those of Modern Orthodoxy), Modern Orthodoxy faces nothing less than a long-term existential threat, as the bulk of its adherents are in a precarious religious situation.

I have no interest in rehashing the serious and pervasive problems depicted in The Modern Orthodox Conundrum. Its author does a very thorough and realistic job at that, and readers are urged to see for themselves what he describes in vivid and moving detail. In the paragraphs that follow, I refrain as much as possible from using names and hyperlinks, as we must keep focus on the issues; the last thing I want is for this to be viewed as targeting personalities or institutions – the target is the issues.

In Part III of his article, Avi Ciment suggests some solutions. Aside from the “gap year in Israel”, which is transformative for many but yields very little long-lasting religious impact for others (largely due to teens being constantly connected with [read “distracted by”] social media, and due to some gap year programs not filling the roles of traditional yeshivos and seminaries, but instead being “academic” or pluralistic), in my mind, the only avenue for comprehensive rectification of the problem is the general Modern Orthodox educational system. (This is the second solution suggested in Avi Ciment’s article.) Parents of Modern Orthodox youth who are at risk are themselves often not inspired and do not serve as role models of Torah observance, and they are therefore not about to start talking to their children about Hashem and the importance of mitzvos, nor will they usually change trajectory and suddenly refuse to send their kids to secular colleges. Effecting change by way of the Modern Orthodox day school system would appear to be the best route, as it starts at a young age, endures for a decade and a half for each child, and includes an array of daily, normative and sustained religious observances, such as Torah learning, davening, reciting berachos, discussing life experiences through a Torah lens, and so forth.

Effecting change through the day school system is for sure the way to go, but is it not as simple as one might think.

Such change can only be achieved if the teaching staff is on board and recognizes that inspiring the students to have a lifelong relationship with Hashem and to make Torah learning and mitzva observance the most important aspect of their existence is the fundamental goal, which cannot be compromised. The truth is that much of the Jewish studies curriculum in Modern Orthodox day schools is either presented in a less than inspiring manner, and/or is applied with a secular approach, such as discussing figures in Tanach from the standpoint of critical literary analysis, like characters in a novel. When Torah is taught this way, it will not motivate students to love and revere it, much less view its teachings as paramount in their lives.

Related to this is the method of “Tanach B’gova Enayim” – a methodology that has taken hold in some liberal Israeli Religious Zionist circles, in which biblical personalities are viewed and discussed like everyday people, rather than with a very heightened sense of veneration. Midrashim and classical commentaries are often not used, and the result is that the greatest of our leaders can be perceived quite differently than our Mesorah (Tradition) presents them. When taken on a very literal, raw basis, without the input of Torah She-b’al Peh (the Oral Tradition) and classical Meforshim (Commentators), Yishmael, Eisav, Korach and his crew, and even Bilaam and Balak can be viewed as the good guys, while our saintly Avos and Imahos (Patriarchs and Matriarchs) and Moshe and Aharon can be regarded as highly errant, unethical and even villainous.

Here is a brief excerpt from a 1953 letter penned by the Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l of RIETS, to then-RCA President Rabbi Theodore Adams, regarding Orthodox participation in a new interdenominational Bible translation project on the part of Jewish Publication Society (JPS):

I am afraid that the purpose of this undertaking is not to infuse the spirit of Torah she-be-al peh into the new English translation, but, on the contrary, following the footsteps of the Protestant Liberal ministers who recently revised the English text of the Bible, to satisfy the so-called modern “scientific” demands for a more exact rendition in accordance with the latest archeological and philological discoveries… I cannot see how we, representatives of Torah she-be-al peh, can lend our name to such an undertaking.

Another recent challenge is the phenomenon of Modern Orthodox youth entering the world of professional sports, in some cases reportedly with the endorsement of their local rabbis. Although the occurrence of Orthodox Jews becoming major league athletes is obviously extremely rare, when it is presented as a “kosher” endeavor that is enthusiastically welcomed, despite the very serious religious compromises that by definition go along with it, the car gets steered in a very bad direction, as tens of thousands of Modern Orthodox youth are advised that it is acceptable and something to celebrate when an Orthodox Jew gets drafted to the major leagues – where he will clearly not be in a frum environment at all, to put it mildly, will rarely be attending shul, and will have to make countless concessions regarding Torah observance. Please see this important, recent article by Rav Hershel Schachter about one aspect of this Orthodox professional athletes phenomenon.

It is no secret that the level of Torah learning in Modern Orthodox day schools is generally quite low. Seniors often can barely read even one line of Gemara without great difficulty, in contrast with boys in traditional yeshivos, who are taught to “make a leining” (read a Gemara proficiently) starting in sixth grade. (This is the case not only in “very Charedi” chadarim, but in every elementary-level traditional yeshiva, including all “modern yeshivish” schools.) The challenge this poses religiously is that a major segment of Modern Orthodox youth will never be exposed to advanced Torah learning, and hence will never gain an appreciation or experience the inspiration and sheer excitement of deeply delving into a sugya (section or topic in Gemara), discovering the profound beauty of Torah at its highest and most sophisticated levels and closely encountering the Torah’s dynamic aura of kedusha (holiness).

Modern Orthodoxy is in trouble, and with Hashem’s help, it can and will do what is needed to save its youth and bring them nearer to Torah and mitzvos. But this can only happen if a major realignment of priorities, methods and standards is seriously undertaken, including at the rabbinical and day school leadership levels.

If Modern Orthodoxy is to remain viable and thrive in the future it needs to return to its roots and demand that despite its constituents being encouraged to engage the broader world educationally and professionally and to maintain a large degree of integration with society at large, its day school system must be traditional in terms of how Torah is taught and the necessity of infusing inspiration and reverence, in a palpable atmosphere of kedusha, throughout all Torah education.

 

 

You may also like...

64 Responses

  1. Steven Brizel says:

    R Gordimer Kdardko BaKodesh hits the nail on the head-All of the issues referenced and discussed by R Gordimer , Mr Ciment and many others have been festering for years in the MO world which has ignored them for too long in pilpuls over the legacy of RYBS, self congratulatory word soup, false nachas in Ivy League acceptances and too much wasted agony and gritting of the teeth about the so called shift to the right-which is much overplayed and fully dependent on what you do after you spend a year in Israel by such choices as who one marries, where you live and which yeshivos your kids will attend , and hjow much time you spend on Limud HaTorah in your spare time.

    R Dr Ari Berman as the president of YU deserves a huge Yasher Koach for recognizing thisissue , great hires such as R Aryeh Leibowitz and Dr Wasserman, the head of Sy Syms, fearlessly standing up to a woke world inspired lawsuit and understanding that one does not win wars by fighting with the tactics , strategies and weapons of the previous genderation

  2. William Gewirtz says:

    All forms of traditional observance face problems. An openness to the general culture in which they live presents challenges in the here and now. On the other hand, the Hareidi world’s attempt to avoid secular knowledge and exposure to its innovations, creates the potential for a catastrophic downfall as was experienced in Eastern Europe between the World Wars.

    Is there a magical path somewhere? If it exists, it has not yet been demonstrated. Until it is, the universally accepted goal of continuity will not avoid a continual search for the shvil haZahav. It has not been and is not easy.

    • Steven Brizel says:

      There is no magic path but thinking that the Intellectual equivalent of the Maginot Line will protect you against a social Intellectual cultural and political Blitzkrieg is foolhardy to use the most polite adjective available To think that the secular American culture of today is as wholesome as that of the mid to late 1950s is a serious mistake on a personal and communal religious level

      • William Gewirtz says:

        As one with a distinctly conservative orientation, I would never promote the current woke culture that is so prevalent in multiple environments. The Rav ztl promoted Harvard half a century ago when the climate was not awash with a BDS, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic weltanschauung. Today, ipḥa mistabrah; what Jewish student would be attracted by the vile rhetoric now so prevalent on most college campuses? Our traditions face different challenges in every generation; an attempt to escape by hiding in a cave is not, in general, a viable solution.

      • Reb Yid says:

        The “wholesome” American culture of the 1950s was, in fact, racist, sexist and xenophobic. This was the era of McCarthyism.

        See the brilliant movie PLEASANTVILLE (1998) which made wonderful use of black and white and color to highlight the distinctions between those living in this one dimensional world and others who managed to transcend it.

    • Steven Brizel says:

      Yet Rambam in Hilcos Deos 6:1 advised that when the society around you is morally decadent you should retreat to a desert or a cave to avoid being influenced by your surroundings. Thinking that today is the same as a society requires us to think about creating our own caves or deserts as opposed to earlier tones where there was at least a pretense of adherence to moral values .That strikes me as equally relevant as the idea of the Shviis HsZav . There are times when you have to go Lifnei Mshuras HaDin just to make sure that you are a person who is a Holech snd spiritually growing rather than being an Omef and spiritually stationery .I think that CI in one of his letters mentions that spiritual striving in such areas us far preferable than to being and raising individuals and children who are spiritually mediocre or Beinonim

  3. Reb Yid says:

    The “wholesome” American culture of the 1950s was, in fact, racist, sexist and xenophobic. This was the era of McCarthyism.

    See the brilliant movie PLEASANTVILLE (1998) which made wonderful use of black and white and color to highlight the distinctions between those living in this one dimensional world and others who managed to transcend it.

    • Nachum says:

      Seriously? You’re using a Hollywood production from the 1990’s to prove what America was like in the 1950’s? That’s all that needs be said.

      What’s your problem with McCarthyism, by the way? Not pro-Communist enough?

      • Reb Yid says:

        Not to prove it–we have ample enough evidence, thank you very much.

        But to simply an excellent literal illustration of how the imagined mythical past was anything but.

        If you see nothing wrong with McCarthyism then we really have nothing more to talk about.

    • Steven Brizel says:

      Don’t judge the 1950s by your woke standards The 1959s were when the civil rights movement really hits its stride and families were headed by a man and woman who were a husband and wife and Senators of both parties who were anti Communist realized that McCarthy was a sever hindrance in fighting Communist influences which existed in the Federal government as well as in American academia and culture it is important to note that most American Communists supported the Nazi Soviet Non Aggression Pact of 1939 and only in 1941 supported American entry in WW2 with their hypocritical cries of immediately opening a second front in Europe

  4. mycroft says:

    The Rav ztl promoted Harvard half a century ago when the climate was not awash with a BDS, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic weltanschauung. Today, ipḥa mistabrah; what Jewish student would be attracted by the vile rhetoric now so prevalent on most college campuses?

    Cambridge was not exactly free of what you’re complaining about then.
    See eg https://historycambridge.org/articles/50-years-later-harvards-1969-protests/
    I am not saying what was good and bad but certainly Harvard and Cambridge then were full of things that you object to. In fact I was trying to find an Internet Reference but couldn’t but IIRC Prof I Twersky ZT”L was vocal about his being upset what was happening to Harvard at the time. I recollect he was even on some administrative committee dealing with the problems. RYBS was certainly aware of the changes that happened in Harvard and Cambridge in the 60s and 70s

    • Steven Brizel says:

      RYBS ZL in one of his Teshuvah drashos as recorded in Al HaTeshuvah recounted how he warned against sending a child to a fancy college and the consequences of what happened when the parent ignored his advice

      • William Gewirtz says:

        Puleeeze, Quoting the Rav ztl without context is an insult to his nuanced viewpoints. He sent students to elite colleges to study philosophy. Undoubtedly, he would also discourage attendance for some individuals. It has become all too prevalent to quote the Rav without adequate attention to the complete circumstances.

  5. mycroft says:

    Re the article by Rav Schachter-I’m certainly glad that he wrote it-but the sad fact is that he needed to write it. That his point was not obvious to all when the person first was talking about playing Pro Basketball is sad. No one associated with the institution should have taken any pride in his actions is obvious. That some from at least associated with Orthodox institutions did publicly is a very bad sign.
    Re the comparison of MO students from HS and Gemarrah knowledge-sadly many who attend all types of day schools from most Modern MO to most Chareidi sadly have a decent percentage who can’t read a Siddur fluently in 12th grade-having spent more than a decade in day schools/Yeshivot. I have spoken to teachers Rebbeim in all types of schools and hashkafot and get the same answer roughly 25-35
    per cent have difficulty reading vocalized Hebrew at a speed that schules daven in. Children will know Ashrei Shma etc by heart but anything new can’t do it. Not a problem of hashkafa but sadly those who can’t daven besides that big problem, may well not go to schule which also means in North America very unlikely to stay frum.
    We simply don’t know much about successes of various types of day schools must consider post ergo post hoc fallacy. That a higher percentage of those brought up inb Lakewood will stay frum than those brought up in North Carolina says nothing about the added input of education in those places. Issue needs extensive study and I dont believe there has ever been an objective study on the matter one way or the other

    • Steve Brizel says:

      The real issue is how many male students in a MO school as of their senior year put on Tefilin ., daven three times a day and fully keep Shabbos snd then maintain any sort of observance if they go to the Ivies even after a year in Israel I have heard very clear evidence that the numbers are at most 40-50% .Then ask the same question if students who are in the 12th grade of any so called Charedi Yeshiva in the US

      Take a look at what people do on Motzaei Shabbos I have been in both Passaic and Teaneck on Motzaei Shabbos and can report the following anecdotal observation – In Passaic a strong Charedi community bachurim hang out with their friends of the same gender and BY students gather with their friends of the same gender or their families at an amazing mall called Isle 1 . In Teaneck you can see much evidence of teens of both genders hanging out together in restaurants without much thinking as to whether that is proper behavior for a Ben or Bas Torah

    • Steve Brizel says:

      When the son of the coach of the YC basketball team announced his desire to play pro baseball anyone who questioned whether that was a sound decision from the point of view of Chinuch was subjected to what can only be called cancel culture in many of the local free publications that are available Erev Shabbos

    • Steve Brizel says:

      Textual literacy in all of the bedrock sources is critically important regardless of one’s hashkafa

      • mycroft says:

        It is scandalous if an Orthodox institution or any of its agents encourage behavior which is not behavior that is positive. It is clear to anyone that playing basketball on Shabbos is problematic, playing it as a profession totally not desirable. There have been too many people honored for secular success even if one knows that they work on Shabbos-in a non pikuach nefesh situation.

    • Steven Brizel says:

      The challenge of Chinuch for all involved is to transmit the Mesorah , impart textual literacy and inculcate Yiras Shamayim -regardless of hashkafa

  6. Nachum says:

    I’m sorry, but the author begins with a real problem and then devotes himself to two hobbyhorses.

    The sports thing is a major issue…but it is a symptom, not a cause. That there are ostensibly “Orthodox” Jews out there who don’t see a problem with this is emblematic of everything wrong with much of Modern Orthodoxy (and even some parts of Charedism). It’s become very *easy* to keep kosher, Shabbat, etc. No one even thinks about them any more, and no one is mocked for keeping them. On the other hand, it’s very *hard* to stand up to the things society *does* care about, whether it’s sexual deviance or (at the other end) sportsball. To many Orthodox Jews- again of all stripes, but probably more at the Modern end- there’s a “live and let live” attitude which is is stark contrast to what Judaism *actually* preaches.

    As to Tanach…no, I have to strongly disagree there. No one’s leaving observance because of supposedly “lax” attitudes toward figures in Tanach or gedolim. Halevai people cared enough about Tanach to learn it! People leave observance because it’s easy to do so, because observance is hard, because they’re lazy, because society tells them religious tradition is weird. Because they might learn p’shat in last week’s parsha? (E.g., Esav kisses Yaakov?) No. My own rebbeim taught me Tanach this way, and taught me that our reverence for Tanach and its figures is only *increased* if we learn it that way. And they were right. Maybe it’s not for everyone. But it’s certainly not for *no* one.

    (It goes without saying that the second you start learning Tanach to get rid of halakha- which, of course, means homosexuality- then of course the method is invalid.)

  7. mycroft says:

    Midrashim and classical commentaries are often not used, and the result is that the greatest of our leaders can be perceived quite differently than our Mesorah (Tradition) presents them.
    It is one thing if Mesorah is universal-it very rarely is on a midrash going against Pshat. Halacha we are bound by whatever has been accepted. How we view people in Tanach has different approaches-thus for example those influenced by R A Kotler ZT”L will have one approach those influenced by RSRH will have a different approach. But it certainly is not the cause of people leaving Yahadus that some parts of our Mesorahj treat the sins as actual sins and others only sins for those in such high level. Remember we don’t pasken most of these issues-we only know what is in Tanach because of the issue what is mtamei et hayadaim.
    One could argue that a straighter forward approach would actually keep more to be frum, showing that we have a good product as RYBS would say no need to lie about it. Emes attah hu rishon. Extensive forced apologetics is not a good marketing device. Obviously, when Mesorah is agreeing on a pasuk its one thing but when we have different viewpoints, no reason to pick the more stretched one.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      All true but many Halachic and hashkafic fundamentals can only be understood via a careful study of the Mefarshim and the statements of Chazal that are the basics of Tefilah Brachos etc .One can maintain very easily that the divisions between Halacha Aggadah and Hashkafic are by no means intellectual and spiritual no man’s lands

      • mycroft says:

        RSRH ‘s approach is certainly a valid one, we often have different Chazal and meforshim taking different approaches.
        Certainly, Aggada and Hashkafa are crucial BUT we dont have uniformity in many cases. Unlike Halacha where we have psak and practice we dont have that decision made when there are different meforshim

  8. Ben Waxman says:

    “Related to this is the method of “Tanach B’gova Enayim” – a methodology that has taken hold in some liberal Israeli Religious Zionist circles, in which biblical personalities are viewed and discussed like everyday people, rather than with a very heightened sense of veneration. Midrashim and classical commentaries are often not used, and the result is that the greatest of our leaders can be perceived quite differently than our Mesorah (Tradition) presents them.”

    This is a horribly unfair depiction of what Tanach B’gova Enayim means. First of all the people engaged in this method include some of the greatness rabbanim alive today. it is not “some liberal rabbis”, it is main line rabbanim who teach in many of the most important yeshivot. Secondly, they don’t treat Avrahama and Yosef and David as ordinary people. If they did, the stories immediately become boring. The entire question of understanding Tanach is based on the recognition of their greatness. Lastly, one of the main differences between the Kav and Tanach B’gova Enayim is that the latter have greatly increased the sources used, sources otherwise ignored by the tradition.

    So yes, you get into discussions about David sinning with Bat Sheva because classical sources read the story exactly that way. These classical sources are perfectly aware of what Rav Shmuel Bar Nachmani said and they still say that David sinned. None of this is ignoring the sources or turning David into just one more newspaper story.

    There is an incredible amount of great material out there about Tanach B’gova Enayim. One only needs to watch some of the videos of the Gush’s Yamei Iyun to see their love for Torah, their veneration of the people in the Tanach. It really behoves the people here to learn the subject better before coming down on those learning Torah in a different manner.

    • ben dov says:

      A weakness in the article is that the author targets some of his pet peeves rather than offer a real analysis of what does and does not inspire in day school education. I doubt we can correlate teacher effectiveness based on a formal teaching methodology of X or Y. I’m not advocating Tanach B’gova Enayim, but I’m not jumping to the conclusion that a teacher who uses it is a culprit for the MO-lite phenomenon.

    • William Gewirtz says:

      hazal’s approach to tanach cannot be taken literally. often meforshim, assuming the relevance of tanach’s lessons in their time, what is called omni-significance, retrojected their circumstance into the events depicted. taking Hazal’s Interpretation literally or yet worse taking it as the authorized peshat, leads to untold orthodoxies that many will be find challenging.

      • Steven Brizel says:

        Many insights of Chazal into Tanach comprise bedrock principles in Halacha and Hashkafa Many Halachos that are clearly of rabbinic origin have Halachic ramifications on a Torah level . Detaching Hashkafa from Chazal is in effect denying the supremacy of TSBP as the ultimate source of all Parshanut

      • Steven Brizel says:

        IOW, the view of Chazal is merely one narrative which was relevant for their times but which has zero or limited relevance to us as opposed to being Asher Nasan Lanu Toras Emes vChayei Olam Bsocienu? R”L that we should approach the words of the Tanaim and Amoraim HaKedoshim in such a cavalier way

      • william l gewirtz says:

        Steven Brizel, not taking various midrashim literally has a respected history since at least the period of rishonim. Again, you choose to exaggerate my position beyond what was written. Remember as a student of the Rav ztl and a grand student of Kurt Godel, nuance runs deep in my approach to issues.

      • Steven Brizel says:

        Yes-Rashi and Ramban both state which Medrashim they deem close to Pshat and which Medrashim they reject-that does not mean or imply that we may do so

      • william l gewirtz says:

        The idea that “they could but we cannot” is among the weakest of theological arguments promoted in Hareidi circles.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      A fair critique and description of the above referenced methodology as documented by R Adam Ferziger is that the same was developed by scholars affiliated with JTS whose beliefs in Torah Mi Sinai and Torah Min HaShamayim are dubious and who exported the same to the R Z world when these scholars made Aliyah .One would be hard pressed to find such a methodology either in Chazal or the Gdolei HaMefarshim and the use of the same leads many times think its teachers know more about Tanach than the Gdolei Mefarshim and a lack of appreciation for the fundamentals of Hashkafa and Emunah in their commentaries .IMO it is a grave mistake to detach the study of Tanach from the Mefarshim and the word of Chazal

    • Ben Waxman says:

      Very interesting. Within 24 hours we went from an accusation that “Midrashim and classical commentaries are often not used” to “the view of Chazal (me: and presumably many of the classical commentaries) is merely one narrative which was relevant for their times but which has zero or limited relevance to us”.

      IOW there is a clear admission here that the people in Har Etzion do refer back to our 2000 year masoret and in fact they may use many more sources than the people of the Kav, but since that may not give the desired result we can denounce their adherence to the masoret. Somehow Chazal and the Abarbanel and the Radak and the Ramban and who knows how many other classical sources became irrelevant.

  9. Steven Brizel says:

    William Gewirtz-there you go again claiming nuance and context about anything that RYBS said when in fact the public record is what counts not the advice given to selected individuals in an era when learning in a Kollel in RIETS was beyond the pale of consideration in the MO world or when such was in its infancy as an acceptable way of high level Limud HaTorah

    • dr. bill says:

      NOT “about anything”; be more nuanced even wrt me. Anyone who claims that the Rav ztl opposed a secular college, where his grandchildren went, is OBLIGATED to describe the context. And you gratuitously add some facts about kollel that has nothing to do with what is being discussed,

      • Ben Waxman says:

        Maybe the time has come to stop talking about what the Rav wanted or didn’t want, or at least stop trying to define what should be simply because the Rav tz”l believed something? The Rav stopped playing an active role in American Jewish life some 40 years ago. There are new people, new developments. These discussions simply repeat themselves time and time again. Why not say what you think instead of trying to prove something based on some statement made by RYBS?

      • Steven Brizel says:

        The secular college (Harvard) was not the primary focus of their lives .IMiO , based on the anecdotal evidence of a well documented drop off in level of observance .it is wrong to claim that such a choice is optimal for the average individual graduating a MO high school today even with a gal year in a Yeshiva or seminary is a very dubious choice of an environment for such an individual

      • william l gewirtz says:

        Ben Waxman, On the one hand I agree with you; how the Rav ztl would have judged current events is often a reflection of the biases of the one invoking his perspective. On the other hand, the deep insights of his perspectives on what was happening around him are often better appreciated when viewed years later.

      • Ben Waxman says:

        william l gewirtz: As long as we are all aware that we’re really not talking about the what the Rav tz”l thought but what we think (and we’re just using the Rav as a prop) all is good.

      • Steven Brizel says:

        Ask youself what RYBS would have trhought that if he knew or had reason to know as I have heard from very strong sources, that the overwhelming number of senior students in Maimonides in a class that would have been devoted to studying RYBS’s hashkafic works, had not been on Teffilin for an extended period of time

  10. Echochamber Much? says:

    Shame.
    The vitriol and holier-than-thou attitude masquerading as rechilut l’toelet is astonishing.
    The article can be summed up as: I applaud someone who pointed out perceived problems with a section of orthodoxy and I would like to use this forum to pile on unsubstantiated grievances with nary a word towards a solution.
    Bravo!

    R’ Gordimer’s McCarthy-like crusade to root out any form of Orthodoxy that doesn’t conform with his world view is a sad reminder that thinly veiled sinat chinam toward anyone viewed as ‘more to the left’ (often described with the watch word ‘Erev Rav’) is de rigueur in the yeshivish/chareidi world.

    Let’s take each item in turn
    Tanach b’govah eynaim is perhaps the single most important and impactful tool in teaching Tanach today. Creative luminaries such as the Roshei Yeshiva of Gush Etzion (“some liberal Israeli Religious Zionist circles”) employ this approach to produce new insights which in turn motivate generations of students to explore Tanach. Can the same be said for the Yeshiva/Chareidi world? Does the average yungeleit even know who Hoshea was? Note the previous sentence further exposes the lack of education of anyone whose response doesn’t note the fact that there are actually 3 famous Hosheas in Tanach.

    “Another recent challenge is the phenomenon of Modern Orthodox youth entering the world of professional sports”
    Yes, this is certainly the underlying problem facing modern orthodoxy today, the fact that much hoopla has been made about less than a handful of students who have entered the bottom rung of professional sports! When orthodox Jews have mainstream success in unexpected ways both the media and their community tend to make a big deal about it. Chabad was proud of a reggae star until they weren’t. Jew in the City, herself an orthodox social media personality routinely shares the mainstream successes of Chareidi women (and occasionally men) such as the head of Government cybersecurity, a civil court judge etc.

    Obviously if that mainstream success comes at the cost of halacha it is out of bounds for orthodox Jews, but are we really worried that Dan or Sarah at Hebrew Academy X is shirking their yiddishkeit because of their dreams of getting into the league?

    The premise is so laughable that I am hoping it was incompetence rather than malice which led to it being raise in the first place.

    Bottom line – if you feel any part of the orthodox world needs help, by all means draw attention to it, but only if you are both genuine and solutions-driven.

    • afrumrabbi says:

      Sorry, echochamber, but most of us see no vitirol, no holy attitudes, no masquerades, and no rechilut in the writings of Rabbi Gordimer. He is sincere and straight-forward, and bemoaning the tragic demise of modern orthodoxy, who are losing their youth and the next generation at a startling pace. Perhaps you don’t want to face up to the raw facts that have been staring us in the face for the past twenty years, but please don’t attack the messenger. It’s great that you enjoy the way they study tanach at Gush Etzion, but Rabbi Gordimer is – sadly – right on the mark. Wake up.

    • Steven Brizel says:

      It may be more important and indeed far more desirable as a matter of transmitting the Mesorah for a student to understand what the Mefarshim are saying on any verse in Tanach and to be Able to make a laining on a blatt Gemara and to understand the roots of the Halacha in the Gemara than to study Tanach in that manner

      • mycroft says:

        I believe that Steve represents the traditional attitude to learning Tanach-why is Rashi more popular than Rashbam. Obviously, if one wants to learn Pshat in a Pasuk Rashbam likely to give it-BUT since purpose of learning certainly for beginners is to learn hashkafot why Rashi became more important.

      • mycroft says:

        On the one hand I agree with you; how the Rav ztl would have judged current events is often a reflection of the biases of the one invoking his perspective. On the other hand, the deep insights of his perspectives on what was happening around him are often better appreciated when viewed years later.

        Essentially agreed-NO ONE can be sure how the Rav would have ruled on any specific sheila-he was very nuanced-yet there are certain general; ideas and approaches which were consistent by the Rav. Taking those approaches, it is clear the Rav would not have been in favor of certain approaches

    • mycroft says:

      Ben Waxman December 12, 2022 at 11:24 am
      Maybe the time has come to stop talking about what the Rav wanted or didn’t want, or at least stop trying to define what should be simply because the Rav tz”l believed something? The Rav stopped playing an active role in American Jewish life some 40 years ago. There are new people, new developments.

      Would you take the same attitude and not quote the views of Rave Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yacov Kamentzky who were niftar over 35 years ago, Rav Aaron Kotler niftar 6 decades ago, Rav Eliezer Silver niftar almost 55 years ago. If not, does everything in Yahadus start from beginning every generation, or if so-why care about Rav Moshes psak and positions and not care about those of RYBS

      • Ben Waxman says:

        “Would you take the same attitude and not quote the views . . ”

        A few points:

        1) If we are talking about social, communal issues – absolutely. Whatever America and the American Jewish community was like back in the 80s is hardly relevant to today.
        2) Regarding psak – let’s be honest here. No one posek ever has the final word. So while I might quote a poseik who lived 35 (or 350) years ago, that doesn’t mean that nothing else has been said since then.

    • mycroft says:

      Ben Waxman December 13, 2022 at 10:40 am
      william l gewirtz: As long as we are all aware that we’re really not talking about the what the Rav tz”l thought but what we think (and we’re just using the Rav as a prop) all is good.

      Would you say that about all works representing to be the Ravs positions? If not, why not?

      • mycroft says:

        If we are talking about social, communal issues – absolutely. Whatever America and the American Jewish community was like back in the 80s is hardly relevant to today.

        Please explain-how one handled issues and reasoning is certainly relevant to how we handle issues today. The same way psak has principles which we apply to new facts, so BTW is Hashkafa tries to predict what our priors would have said given current conditions and issues. We base our life on applying mesorah to new circumstances

      • Ben Waxman says:

        If people would actually discuss a section of the Rav’s writings that would be a huge step up over this constant “The thought this, the Rav thought that” dialogue. Reading and discussing texts is what we are supposed to do.

        My real point is that people are giving the Rav a monopoly on what is supposed to be Modern Orthodox life in America. Neither life nor Torah works that way. One can be a Modern Orthodox Jew and not agree with the Rav. Or want to add on to classical RYBS thought. Or bring in other ideas. Or even disagree with the Rav. There are all sorts of possibilities.

        Corollary: People disagree as to what RYBS thought about all sorts of issues.

      • Ben Waxman says:

        “. The same way psak has principles which we apply to new facts, so BTW is Hashkafa tries to predict what our priors would have said given current conditions and issues. ”

        A) There is huge disagreement about the principles of psak. Let’s make that clear right from the start.
        B) Again, I am not saying “don’t mention ideas brought up by Rav X, Y, or Z”. I am saying that these people can’t be used as vetoes on new ideas. Religious Zionism includes a lot more today than Orot (and I say this as someone who has been learning kitvei Rav Kook for years). In addition, two people can understand the same text written by RYBS in two different ways and that’s legit.
        c) On a personal note: I never met the Rav, didn’t learn in YU, and in fact basically know nothing about YU. I’m married to someone who grew up in Brookline. That doesn’t make me an expert on the Rav’s thoughts. I lived in Efrat and heard wildly different descriptions of what the Rav said, did, and thought. This was stuff coming from multiple people who did learn with him. In the end, I became very cynical about people speaking in his name. When Rav Aharon Lichtenstein tz”l would say something about RYBS tz”l, I’d take that statement as accurate it but I don’t extend that belief to many other people.

      • mycroft says:

        People disagree as to what RYBS thought about all sorts of issues.

        See how he acted -and how institutions that he controlled acted. Extrapolating to different circumstances is difficult and problematical-but same applies to everyone else.

  11. YC says:

    Regarding Tanach BGovah Einayim.

    It is worthwhile to read the comments of Rav Nebenzhal on the topic. He is probably the leading Tanachist of the generation. He has dozens and dozens of chiddushim in peshat in Tanach spread amongst his many seforim. He is certainly one of the Gedolei hador. That combination makes him a perfect candidate to have an authoritative position on how to learn Tanach.
    Let us see how he describes this new approach to Tanach.
    (The English translation does not include everything in the original Hebrew citation.)

    Yerushalayim BeMoadeha, Bein HaMetzarim, pp. 138-143:

    If one studies Tanach “b’gova einayim,” he is comparable to an ant looking at an elephant “at eye
    level.” What does the ant see? The elephant’s toe nail, and nothing else!… The same is true regarding
    us. It is not possible for us to look at the spiritual giants of Tanach at our “eye level.” We must study
    Tanach at the “eye level” of Chazal, not our own… The Rambam writes that only four individuals
    achieved the level of complete deveikus baHashem in all of their actions – Moshe Rabbeinu and the
    three holy Avos (Moreh Nevuchim 3:51)… How can we possibly look at them at our “eye level”?! It is
    utter foolishness to evaluate these great people at our “eye level” and to measure and value their deeds
    according to our way of thinking.

    הלומד תנ”ך “בגובה עיניים” למה הוא דומה? לנמלה המתבוננת בפיל “בגובה עיניים” שלה. מה היא רואה? היא רואה רק את קצה ציפורנו של הפיל ותו לא… את התנ”ך צריך ללמד “בגובה עיניים” של חז”ל, לא שלנו. לחז”ל היו עיניים גבוהות, הם הסתכלו למעלה, ראו עם מי יש להם עסק…. בנוסף לנ”ל קושיא גדולה לי על אלה שטוענים שצריך ללמד תנ”ך בגובה העיניים: אם האבות הקדושים היו פחות או יותר באותה דרגה שאנו עומדים עליה, מדוע מתגלה הקב”ה רק אל אברהם יצחק ויעקב, ולא אלי אן אליך? ומדוע כרת ברית דווקא עם אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא איתי או עם פלוני ואלמוני?… אדם צריך לשאול את עצמו את השאלות האלה, כדי להבין שאי אפשר להביט “בגובה העיניים” על ענקי הרוח של תנ”ך. צריך להבין את המרחק הגדול בינינו לבינם… הרמב”ם כותב שרק ארבעה אנשים הגיעו לדבקות מוחלטת בקב”ה בכל מה שעשו- משה רבינו ושלשת האבות הקדושים (מורה נבוכים ג:נא)… מה שייך להסתכל עליהם “בגובה העיניים” שלנו?! הרי זו טפשות מוחלטת להסתכל על הגדולים בגובה העיניים שלנו, ולמדוד ולהעריך את מעשיהם על פי המושגים שלנו

    See also Rav Shlomo Aviner’s strong criticism of this approach to Tanach as well, https://musaf-shabbat.com/2012/07/06/פולמוס-לימוד-התנך-הרב-שלמה-אבינר-והרב/

    • Ben Waxman says:

      Instead of copying what people have to say, why not tell us in your own words, what is wrong with a specific book written by Rav Meidan, Rav Ben Nun, or one of the talks given in a Yamei Iyun? We all know that Rav Aviner doesn’t like this way of learning. Why don’t you try and tell us what is wrong with something specific?

      • afrumrabbi says:

        Obviously, Ben, the comments section is not the right forum for a learned discussion on a specific sugya. The only thing that could be accomplished here is simply to insult each other.

  12. Ari Rosman says:

    During the tkufa of Rabbi Soloveichik, the secular world and its universities were far more aligned with the intellectualism of Albert Einstein and Dr. Francis Collins,
    while that of the current tkufa are far more fascinated with the anti-intellectualism of Sarah Silverman, Kanye West, and the other powerful lowlives of Hollywood who influence American culture with their assaults on Traditional Family values. And the rhythm they put into their depraved entertainment is awfully catchy and instantly gratifying.

    Therefore, to preserve the intellectual rigor of its past, Modern Orthodox rabbis and laypeople must boycott and divest from Hollywood and Pop Culture.
    Day schools must prohibit their bus drivers from playing all FM radio stations other than WQXR, as having their students listening to Z100, 92.3, or Hot97.1 on the bus ride to school is poretz geder.
    Additionally, TikTok, Twitter, and Netflix should be vorboten, while all digital Television stations other than the History Channel or channels dedicated to courses on German philosophers and Religious Zionism
    shall remain filtered out of the homes of every family who subscribes to Torah U’Madda.
    All while adequately balancing that secular exposure with one BMG/BJJ-leveled learning seder.

    If today’s MO youth are unwilling commit to flex their muscles with such drastic measures, it will be impossible to
    #MakeModernOrthodoxyGreat Again.

    Ari Rosman

    • mycroft says:

      tkufa of Rabbi Soloveichik, the secular world and its universities were far more aligned with the intellectualism of Albert Einstein and Dr. Francis Collins,

      Dr Collins was a contemporary of many bloggers and writers in Cross-Currents -he was not a leader during your imagined glory time.
      Albert Einstein was certainly a famous physicist, but on a blog that believes in Torah Misinai-one can’t treat as admirer one who believed that there was no personal God and God was not concerned with individuals and any belief in such a God is naive. Not someone who should be admired in our circles

  13. Steven Brizel says:

    https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/modern-orthodoxys-moral-failure/2022/12/12/This linked article is very relevant to this and prior discussions that have transpired here.

  14. Steven Brizel says:

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/364514?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=dlvr.it This article by R Wein discusses many of the issues that we have discussed re Parshanut

  15. Shades of Gray says:

    “Yishmael, Eisav, Korach and his crew, and even Bilaam and Balak can be viewed as the good guys”

    Compare with Rav Hutner’s educational method as described in R. Yaakov Feitman’s 2010  Mishpacha appreciation for him, linked below: 

    “The Rosh Yeshivah opposed the educational shitah that advocated presenting Eisav, Yishmael, Bilaam, etc., to children as gedolim who possessed a subtle flaw. His strong contention was that children need to identify heroes and villains, virtue and evil. Later, much later, they can be taught subtleties and nuances. 

    He utilized this opinion in the introduction of Gemara teaching as well. Some rebbeim, for instance, teach the basic definition of robbery by utilizing the innovative thought of Reb Chaim Brisker, that every ganav (robber) is a mazik. The Rosh Yeshivah strongly disagreed. “A ganav is a ganav and a mazik is a mazik,” he would say. “Later they can learn the Reb Chaim.”

    https://mishpacha.com/a-life-of-majesty-and-mystery-an-appreciation-of-rav-yitzchok-hutner/

  16. Steven Brizel says:

    This article IMO https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/modern-orthodoxy-and-morality-in-response-to-ben-shapiro/2022/12/21/ trots out all of the classic sources of MO thought but IMO offers the following tepid solution:

    “Applied to our discussion, this means that the greater the demand for ideological purity, the greater the countervailing need for compassion for those who, through no fault of their own, struggle desperately with their inclinations and their genuine desire to be true to the Torah. To the extent that one demands ideological purity, zeh le’umat zeh, one must increase efforts to provide appropriate support for LGBTQ+ members – without endorsing prohibited behaviors and without holding that biology is destiny.”

    This reconcilation IMO looks great on paper but ignores the facts on the ground as to what the LGBT movement demands-namely to be treated as nornal and the right to teach children that such a lifestyle is normal, and cannot serve as a basis for any solution because it is contrary IMO to basic views in Chazal about this issue One cannot teach any Masecta in Seder Nashim without confronting the fact that Chaal championed traditional marriage as the sole institution for permissible physical intimacy and rejected both Greco Roman hedonism which had a strong element of same gender sexuality and celiibacy

  17. Shades of Gray says:

    On the issues of inspiring students and of Tanach methodology discussed by R. Gordimer, Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Etzion Foundation had the following series of discussion panels in NYC in 2019:

    — From The Yeshiva to The Academy; Opportunities and Challenges in Academic Jewish Studies

    — Is The World Too Much with Us? The Devar Hashem in The Digital Age

    — Passing Torah from Generation to Generation: Engaging Post-Millennials in a 2020 Jewish World

    — Teaching Morally Difficult Sections of Tanakh in Our Day and Age

    Below is a link to these discussion panels and a review of them on Torah Musing:

    https://www.torahmusings.com/2019/06/audio-roundup-special-18/

  18. Shades of Gray says:

    “The truth is that much of the Jewish studies curriculum in Modern Orthodox day schools is either presented in a less than inspiring manner”

    In this vein, R. Alan Haber published through ATID in 2014 his research and recommendations for improving the effectiveness of religious education in yeshiva high schools, linked below:

    http://www.atid.org/publications/pdfs/sharpening.pdf

    To summarize R. Haber’s observations, he begins by writing that Modern Orthodox education and indeed Modern Orthodoxy itself can be described as a paradox with both phenomenal success and at the same time much that cries out for improvement. While in Teaneck, for example, one can find minyanim at many hours and numerous Torah learning opportunities, rabbis also bemoan problems, including those mentioned by Avi Ciment and R. Gordimer.

    R. Haber’s diagnosis is that education has been bifurcated into two distinct compartments: the academic program based in the classrooms is designed to impart knowledge and skills through intellectual and cognitive activities, and the informal educational program — such as Shabbatons, trips and summer camps– is designed to inspire religious feelings and commitments. The corrective is to integrate the two spheres of the program into a single holistic unit by applying some of the methods and content of each one to the other, and by guiding students to draw connections between the different parts.

    Some of R. Haber’s other ideas are for schools and teachers to have and speak about a clearly defined religious education mission statement and to talk about Hashem in the classroom. He also recommends that every high school create a four-year “Basic Jewish Concepts” curriculum covering issues such as emunah, the halachic process, prayer and berachos to be presented in a systematic and integrated way.

    While R. Haber’s research and recommendations focused primarily on Modern Orthodox Yeshiva High Schools in the United States, he notes that the message is fairly universal, and can be adapted and applied to many other Jewish educational settings and/or communities with other ideological affiliations.

  19. Bob Miller says:

    The general academic world’s hostile stance toward traditional religion, over many decades, is in large part due to John Dewey’s efforts. There has been a long-standing push to diminish traditional parents’ influence on students.

    From “Bob Dylan” we have the perfect expression of this spirit:

    Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
    And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
    Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
    Your old road is rapidly aging
    Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
    ‘Cause the times, they are a-changin’

    Christians have taken note of this, as seen in the links below. Secular departments in our Jewish schools should not be run according to Dewey’s principles borrowed from general academia.

    https://www.iwp.edu/articles/2018/02/01/the-tragedy-of-american-education-the-role-of-john-dewey/

    https://illinoisfamily.org/education/john-deweys-public-schools-replaced-christianity-with-collectivist-humanism/

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This