My rebbe is not the "Golden Calf"!

In "To not know", Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduate Rabbi Darren Kleinberg denegrated "daas Torah", and in affect every Orthodox rabbi past and present.

In the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix were a couple of responses to Rabbi Kleinberg:

Editor:
In last week's Torah Study ("To not know," Jewish News, March 9), the author accused the Orthodox establishment of encouraging its members to submit to rabbinic authority on all decisions - of essentially demanding that they give up independent thought. That has not been my experience.

The institutions that I attended all placed a heavy emphasis on taking personal development and life decisions seriously. As part of that, we were given an appreciation for the opinions of those who were older, wiser and more righteous than we. But our teachers and counselors more often than not did not directly give opinions; rather, they brought up issues that perhaps the young student had not considered, and in that way not only guided a particular decision but helped mature our decision-making process. They sought to develop deliberate and well-grounded graduates.

Perhaps, looking from the outside, it appears as if this method of education strips the student of independence of thought; in reality, it endows wisdom. This stands in stark contrast to the conditioning of many of today's youth to resist the guidance of others because they believe it interferes with their freedom of choice; instead it leaves them uninformed and unable to relate to others' points of view.

Rabbi Raphael Landesman
Phoenix Community Kollel
Phoenix

Editor:
Kudos to the Jewish News for correctly listing KiDMa and its rabbi as a new category of Judaism on your Area Congregations page.

In Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's last three Torah Study pieces in Jewish News, he has stated that Moses carelessly presided over the murder of the biblical blasphemer ("The blasphemy of injustice," May 12, 2006), that God is imperfect ("Reaching for perfection," Nov. 3, 2006), and that the Hafetz Haim's respect for rabbinic authority is a modern-day golden calf ("To not know," March 9).

These errant explanations are examples of a Judaism that cannot be found under the heading of classical Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or any other previously known label.

Leo Rozenberg
Mesa

Here's the response I sent to the paper. They didn't publish it. Maybe they didn't like the word "vomit"?

In "To not know", Rabbi Darren Kleinberg references the Chofetz Chaim (an exceptional rabbi of the 20th century) to provide a definition for Daas Torah. Kleinberg distills the concept of Daas Torah to one myopic sentence: "The idea of Da'as Torah is that, for any given problem, there is a Torah answer." Rabbi Kleinberg then berates Daas Torah with snide embellished rhetoric, "There is a political election taking place and you don't know who to vote for? Ask your rabbi. You want to know where to give charity? Ask your rabbi. You want to know who to marry? Ask your rabbi". Finally, Rabbi Kleinberg states that in the Daas Torah model of Judaism the "rabbi has become the golden calf".

To millions of Orthodox Jews, the Chofetz Chaim and countless other great rabbis (including Moses, Maimonides, etc.) throughout the ages, represent Daas Torah. The implication that those rabbis are the "Golden Calf" is the epitome of disrespect and apikorsus, and makes me want to vomit.

Related Links:
- The Haredim: A Defense

Haskalah 2.0

To understand the Open Orthodox agenda, I recommend the following dvar Torah by YCT student Ari Weiss (class of '07) on the YCT Web site this past Chanukah: Chanukah Revisited: A Festival of Light or a Festival of War?

I've been meaning to post this for a while. I thought I was going to eventually post a lengthier response, but I think the piece speaks for itself. This is the most disconcerting dvar Torah I have read at the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah web site and I would have been remiss not to give it some attention.

A brief excerpt from the article:

...while we have to continue translating the Torah into Greek, we have to open up the possibility of translating Greek thought into the language of Torah!

Instead of understanding the message of Chanukah as a war between competing ideologies [Judaism and Hellenism], we should understand Chanukah and the symbol of the menorah as the possibility of being nourished and enlightened by two sources. While at times we have to fight wars, and have commitments which life would not be worth living if we could not fulfill them, we have to realize that this is not ideal.

Rhetorical final questions from the article:

The question which we have to ask ourselves as Chanukah approaches is what symbol of Chanukah do we see as primary and which symbol do we see as secondary? Do we speak a language of war of a clash of civilization, or of light of enlightenment?

Rabbi Zev Farber responds to Yated

The Yated newspaper criticized Rabbi Zev Farber's dvar Torah, Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right?. I would not be suprised if the Yated became aware of Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah from my post, Yaacov led astray by his infatuation with Rochel.

Here is Rabbi Farber's lengthy response: A Letter from R. Zev Farber: Maligning a Rabbi – Did Yated Ne’eman Get it Right?

Rabbi Farber introduces the core of his rebuttal by hesitantly conceding "...I admit that a few statements could have been phrased less provocatively. The title was chosen specifically to catch the eye. In retrospect, I probably should have been less flashy in my presentation." This acknowledgement almost seems like teeth-pulling, and is quite ambiguous.

Rabbi Farber states that his rebuttal is focused on "an approach found in classical meforshim". Rabbi Farber's non-specific concession statements, plus the sources in meforshim (even the "extreme interpretation" of the Zohar) do not negate or account for the problematic idea that Yaacov was "led astray" by his "infatuation" with Rochel. If Rabbi Farber would have been specific as to what he would have changed in retrospect that may have provided some real clarity.

In my opinion, while Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah was inapproriate and his rebuttal does not sufficiently alleviate that assessment, I concede that there appears to be merit in his statement,

...if I had had no basis in Chazal, it would still not have been a heresy. The question of whether one is bound to interpret a story in the Torah – as opposed to a mitzvah or halakha - the way Chazal do, is an old question. The consensus amongst the Geonim, backed up by many Rishonim and Aharonim, is to unequivocally permit it.

I am not sure whether the Yated was referring to the halachic concept of kefirus, or a definition of heresy that is more contemporary. (e.g. heresy - "any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.")

Here are selected responses to Rabbi Farber's letter (they are from the Hirhurim comments section of In Defense of YCT II):

from Ojoe:

The issue is not whether Chazal and the Rishonim spoke about the mistakes of the Avos. Of course they did! The issue is that a young fellow like Farber has come up with a new fault, unmentioned before.
...
Comments such as "If Yaakov had followed the example of Avraham’s servant, and chosen personality criteria as opposed to physical ones, perhaps the story of Bereishit would have gone differently...If one of our forefathers could be led astray by external criteria..." are not defended simply by saying that Chazal also criticized the Avos.

I am disappointed in this 'defense' and think it hurts his case more than helps.

from C.T Hirsch:

The problem is that one needs a tradition or a mesorah in order to understand how statements by chazal which are negative of the avos and other spiritual giants in tanach are supposed to be understood.
...
At any rate, one needs a mesorah in order to understand the seemingly harsh statements of chazal, and we certainly ought to be very cautious before we invent our own.

from Gil Student:

I just read R. Farber's devar Torah, finally, and I have to say that I find it in very poor taste. Not deserving of the hysterical reaction in Yated, but not something I'd allow on my blog or, when I was editing Mesukim Mi-Devash, in my parashah sheet.

Related Links:
- Musings on the Proper Way to Learn Chumash

Is your rebbe the "Golden Calf"?

Here is an excerpt of a dvar Torah (hot off the presses) on parshas Ki Tisa by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, titled "To not know":

One of the central ideological aspects of Orthodoxy has been the ideology of Da'as Torah. Da'as Torah is perhaps best defined in this statement attributed to Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan, the Hafetz Haim: "The person whose view (da'as) is the view of Torah (Da'as Torah) can solve all worldly problems, both specific and general. However, there is one condition attached. The Da'as Torah must be pure, without any interest of bias." The idea of Da'as Torah is that, for any given problem, there is a "Torah answer."

There is a political election taking place and you don't know who to vote for? Ask your rabbi.

You want to know where to give charity? Ask your rabbi.

You want to know who to marry? Ask your rabbi.

This is a model of Judaism that says, "We know." In this [Daas Torah] model of Judaism, that rabbi has become the golden calf.

Daas Torah can be best distilled in two words: Torah Authority. Daas Torah is the empowerment of Gedolim (exceptional Torah scholars including Moshe Rabbeinu, Rambam, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, etc.) with authoritative guidance because of their vast Torah knowledge which instills broad insight.

To millions of Torah Observant Jews, the Chofetz Chaim and countless other Gedolim throughout the ages, represent Daas Torah. The implication that those rabbis are the Egel Hazahav ("Golden Calf") is the epitome of disrespect and apikorsus (by being mevazeh talmidei chachamim).

I personally heard Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean of YCT) describe Rabbi Kleinberg as "brilliant in Tanach and Oral Law", "best of the best [of YCT graduates]", and a "pastoral genius". Those comments were said sometime after two other very controversial (to say the the least) divrei Torah by Rabbi Kleinberg. (Here are letters to the editor commenting on those divrei Torah: To stone or not to stone and Debating the nature of God)

I can only assume that now Rabbi Avi Weiss will compare Rabbi Kleinberg to Moshe Rabbeinu or declare Rabbi Kleinberg as Moshiach.

For a Torah discussion of Daas Torah, please see: Da'as Torah & Emunas Chachamim.

Defending the indefensible

Rabbi Nathaniel Nethaniel Helfgot, Chair of Departments of Bible and Jewish Thought at YCT, responded to the recent Yated article that addressed issues with Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. This is not the first time that Rabbi Helfgot has responded to criticism of YCT.

Here are my responses to Rabbi Helfgot:

Rabbi Helfgot:

"R. Linzer’s quote about struggling with difficult mitzvot that challenge our ethical notions and our conception of a just God (a conception that emerges from many parts of the Torah) is a badge of honor...Gedolei olam from time and immemorial struggled with difficult mitzvot such as the commandment to obliterate Amalek."

Response:
There is a difference between a person's internal struggles and making public statements which give the perception that Hashem is unjust. Rabbi Linzer's public "challenging" statements open the door to disregarding those "difficult" laws. Stating that Rabbi Linzer's statements are a "badge of honor" is shocking. Rabbi Linzer is not one of the "Gedolei olam". Rabbi Linzer is the Rosh Yeshiva of a liberal institution whose clear agenda is the liberalization of Orthodox Judaism. For YCT's general audience, are Rabbi Linzer's statements geared to strengthen someone's emunah or weaken it?

Rabbi Helfgot:

YCT has never claimed it follows in the footsteps of the Rav zt”l as Hasidim follow a rebbe.
...
YCT takes inspiration from the teachings of the entire panoply of great rabbinic figures of previous generations as well as the current generation.

Response:

We now see that YCT professes that it does not follow RYBS and that it follows whichever Gadol for which it can find support for a practice or custom-despite the absence of any evidence that the Gedolim cited had any knowledge or familiarity with the American Jewish community after WW2. (from a quote by Steve Brizel)

Rabbi Helfgot:

First, let us get some facts down correctly, irrespective of reports on blogs or newspapers. As far as I understand, The World Jewish Congress asked YCT (as well as Yeshiva University) to host a visit of prominent Catholic cardinals who also wanted to see how a beit medrash functions and what hevruta learning is.
...
...Yeshiva University-Stern College for Women hosted the Cardinals the very next day and they also learned Gemara be-hevruta with some of the women in the Stern Graduate Talmud program as I recall it was reported in the YU-Stern College Observer.

Response:
Here are some very interesting comments from someone called member of stern Grad Program:

...the cardinals were not invited to study b'chavrutah with the Stern women- they were merely observing. Some cardinals did ask questions of the women as the women studied. This is very different than organizing a joint text study. Rabbi Helfgott constantly tries to justify chovevei with what YU does but is sometimes not accurate with his facts. Also Menachem [another commenter] correctly noted that Rav H. Schachter had never given a shiur or even visited the Stern Graduate Program until the visit with the cardinals that morning.

Rabbi Helfgot introduced his defense of YCT by nobly stating,

There is something profoundly disturbing and unethical and lacking in basic derekh eretz and kevod ha-beriyot in a “Torah “newspaper not doing basic fact checking nor in engaging in the simple journalistic (and ethical) protocol of calling up the subjects of one’s reportage for comment, reaction, clarification, questions before publishing a lengthy and harsh attack.

This may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Regardless, YU never participated in the kind of interfaith dialogue that YCT participated in. For example, here's Rabbi Avi Weiss, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical students, cardinals, and bishops dancing around the YCT bais midrash (see Interfaith pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style):
Based on the verified differences between YU's and YCT's interfaith engagement, Rabbi Helfgot's attempt to make an equivalency between YU and YCT concerning interfaith dialogue is misleading, disingenuous, and reprehensible.

Rabbi Helfgot:

...there is much to be gained in the areas of pastoral counseling, leadership training, speaking skills, making life-cycle events meaningful, homiletical ideas and even in selected areas of Jewish thought from non-Orthodox speakers and clergy. While the core faculty of the Yeshiva are classical talmidei hakhamim and fully Orthodox rabbanim and professionals, we appreciate and value the insights and experiences of others beyond our immediate community when they can help us train our students to be effective, compassionate and professionally trained rabbis. In that context, in addition to inviting other Orthodox rabbis and professionals to occasionally speak to our students in various areas of the curriculum we have also opened our doors to non-Orthodox rabbis and professionals in areas where they can contribute positively to the education of our students.

Response:
YCT is supposed to be an Orthodox Yeshiva! YCT's curriculum is not academic, it's theological. Teachers are not teaching mathematics and English, but how to relate to congregants, hopefully from an Orthodox Torah viewpoint. Shouldn't the entire YCT faculty be Orthodox? Why not hire Orthodox professionals exclusively for pastoral educational positions? What is gained by conscientiously staffing non-Orthodox women "rabbis" in those roles? Rabbi Helfgot's attitude is mind-boggling. If someone wants to become a secular psychologist, there are many fine universities to enroll in.

Rabbi Helfgot:

[Rabbi Zev Farber's] essay analyzing some of the life choices of Yaakov Avinu raised the ire of the author of the Yated essay. I do not want to address the cogency of the specific ideas of the essay or whether I would have used this or that formulation or more nuanced language. These are all issues which one can calmly debate. The issue at hand, however, is much more fundamental. Learning and teaching about the greatness, achievements, holiness and stature of our biblical heroes such as the Avot and Imahot coupled with an honest and rich understanding of the human dimension, feelings, as well as struggles, mistakes and errors of those very characters has been discussed in many forums. It is one of the dividing lines between contemporary Hareidi (and Hardal and right wing-Modern Orthodox) parshanut and classical modern-and contemporary open Orthodox parshanut.
...
What is fascinating to me is that in this issue it is really the Hareidi position which is really "modern” as Hazal and the Rishonim were much more open to these nuances than contemporary Hareidi writers. Indeed if one reads Bereishit and Shemot Rabbah systematically one sees Hazal's deep assessment of the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great.

Response:
Rather than address the content of Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah, Rabbi Helfgot averts the discussion with the tangential issue of Avos/Imahos analysis. Rabbi Helfgot seems to imply that it is acceptable for YCT students to engage in broad psychoanalytical drash because it is in the tradition of Chazal to assess “the humanity, struggles, failings, emotions of the greatest of the great.” Are YCT musmachim the modern manifestation of Chazal? I think not.

Rabbi Helfgot:

All of us are human and occasionally a young musmach can and does make a mistake in p’sak or in a d’var Torah or in dealing with a difficult text or attempting to formulate a theological concept.
...
...sometimes, in a desire to present an idea in a meaningful and arresting way young musmachim and students do not judiciously choose careful language.
...
Here and there, there have also been formulations that I would consider have crossed some lines. Whether, when and how an institution should respond to such phenomena is a difficult issue touching on serious issues that include a whole panoply of considerations. One thing I am sure of, the forum for such a discussion is not a mean-spirited attack article that reflects no generosity of spirit nor understanding of the real people involved, the work and context in which they operate and the world-views and perspectives that they come from.

Response:
Rabbi Helfgot is ambiguous whether he believes Rabbi Farber's dvar Torah "crossed the line" or not. However, Rabbi Helfgot seems to have missed the reason of why Rabbi Farber was "singled-out" by Yated. Yated merely epitomized Rabbi Farber’s dvar Torah as a key example of hashkafic improprieties concerning YCT musmachim. What should Yated do? List every example? That would take an entire newspaper. The Yated also presented divrei Torah from YCT musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg. I find it interesting that Rabbi Helfgot did not explicitly defend Rabbi Kleinberg who certainly had much more Yated coverage than Rabbi Farber. Why is that?

Rabbi Helfgot's position and tone are defensive. What he subjectively labels as a "mean-spirited attack article" I label as a blunt public service message in the spirit of principle #6 of Open Orthodoxy, "Public Protest".

Rabbi Helfgot:

The attempt to somehow tar YCT and some of its faculty with the taint of being anti-Israel is beneath contempt.
...
Guilt by association is not an honorable tactic and in America is usually associated with the specter of McCarthyism. It is a fact that some of the faculty of YCT spoke last year at a conference on human rights abuses in the United States at the invitation of the North American Rabbis For Human Rights. The conference was to focus on the American front and not on issues related to Israel (that being the condition that the YCT faculty agreed to participate in the first place). The fact that this group is also allied with a group in Israel that has harshly critiqued the IDF and the Israeli government does not in any mean that everyone whoever has anything to do with the North American branch magically agrees with every or anything posited by the Israeli organization (That is guilt by association squared!) Furthermore, the fact that one or two students in our history participated in a left-wing rally or signed on to a petition five years ago critical of the tactics of the IDF (positions, that despite my personal opposition to them, are part of the legitimate discourse that takes place amongst committed Zionist and supporters of Israel both and in the Israel) no more means that this is the position espoused by a majority or even a significant minority of students at YCT.

Response:
The comparison of Yated to McCarthyism is offensive. Rabbi Helfgot indicted the Yated article as a "mean-spirited attack". The McCarthy label is "mean-spirited".

Rabbi Helfgot verbosely vents, but simply misses the point. The point is not whether a hundred, fifty, or even one YCT student attended a rally they shouldn’t have. The point of Yated is not to indict everyone at YCT "with the specter of McCarthyism" because a couple musmachim do any one inappropriate thing. The point is that each item Yated referenced is part of a larger tapestry and preponderance of evidence that YCT has serious hashafic problems that are rapidly precluding it from mainstream Orthodoxy.

Lastly, it is interesting that Rabbi Helfgot glossed over issues with two other YCT musmachim presented in the Yated article:
- Rabbi Darren Kleinberg
- Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow

Rabbi Farber is less controversial than those two YCT graduates. Maybe Farber was easier, or more palatable to defend?

I hope that other YCT senior faculty respond to the Yated article. They can do no better job of revealing what "Open Orthodoxy" is truly about.

Public protest is important for achieving change

In a dvar Torah for parshas Vayishlach, Two Important Elements in Achieving Change (12/7/2006), Rabbi Avi Weiss illustrates with Yaacov that public protest is an effective means of achieving change:

The message of the dual name [of Yaacov/Yisrael] is clear; both the Yaakov approach of behind the scenes discussion with authority and a willingness to negotiate and compromise and the Yisrael component of outspoken advocacy are crucial.

Rabbi Weiss elaborates on the crucialness of public protest in principle #6 of his creed on Open Orthodoxy:

What we have learned from fifty years ago is that public protest does not render our community more vulnerable, rather, it protects our community.
- Open orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi's creed

Concerning the modern churban perpetrated against Torah Judaism by "open" advocacy, I couldn't agree more.

Yaacov led astray by his infatuation with Rochel

infatuation n. A foolish, unreasoning, or extravagant passion or attraction. An object of extravagant, short-lived passion.

The title of this blog post, "Yaacov led astray by his infatuation with Rochel", is my blurb describing a recent Vayetzeh dvar Torah, "Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right?" (11/27/2006) by YCT musmach Rabbi Zev Farber. I believe my title accurately distills that dvar Torah, using contextually correct verbiage from the dvar Torah. The ultra-humanization of the Avos is a style of divrei Torah that is prevalent and acceptable by left-wing Modern Orthodox adherents. However, it is quite revolting by right-wing Orthodox standards. Here is an excerpt from the dvar Torah that evokes that dichotomous response:

An even deeper look reveals that Yaakov’s infatuation with Rachel and her beauty, leads him not only to favor her over her sister, but most probably carries over into his infamous favoring of Yosef and Binyamin over his other children, almost leading to a permanent rift in his family.

If Yaakov had followed the example of Avraham’s servant, and chosen personality criteria as opposed to physical ones, perhaps the story of Bereishit would have gone differently, avoiding much of the tragedy and pain our ancestors suffer throughout the Joseph narrative. Would Yaakov have chosen Leah?

Would he have married both of his own accord? It is impossible to know the answer to such questions.

Nevertheless, it would seem that the Torah is unfavorably comparing Yaakov’s process of choosing a wife with that of the servant of Avraham. Perhaps this can be a lesson to us all. If one of our forefathers [Yaacov] could be led astray by external criteria at such a momentous occasion [marriage], we must articulate our own values before we undertake those decisions that may set the course of our lives.

Related links:
- Stressful God of "tension" and "anxiety"
- Raiders of the Lost Dvar Torah

Fundamental nature of God is not debatable

In response to Rabbi Darren Kleinberg’s article, “Reaching for Perfection”, the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix published two rebuttal Letters to the Editor. I also sent in a response, but it wasn’t published. I'm glad, as the printed letters were better than my own.

The newspaper titled the letters, “Debating the nature of God”. Rabbi Ariel Shoshan and Rabbi Andrew Gordimer were not partaking in a debate, but presenting viewpoints which they obviously believe are not debatable.

Here are Rabbi Shoshan's and Rabbi Gordimer's eloquent letters:

Editor:
Count me among those saddened to read that someone would state, in the name of the Torah, that God is "less than perfect," that his choosing the Jewish people was "a moment of imperfection in God's creation and decision-making," and that Abraham and his family are "the founders of the three great religions of the West" ("Reaching for perfection," Jewish News, Nov. 3).

A simple reading of Deuteronomy 32:4 - "Perfect is His work, for all His paths are justice; a God of faith without iniquity" - as well as Maimonides' Foundations of Torah and Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith clearly illustrates that the author's assertions are not in consonance with traditional Torah beliefs.

Rabbi Ariel Shoshan
Scottsdale

Editor:
I read with dismay "Reaching for Perfection," in which the writer negates two basic principles of Judaism: the perfection of God and the unique, eternal chosen status of the Jewish people. These concepts are essential and clear in our basic religious texts, and I am shocked that a rabbi - no less one who calls himself Orthodox - could dare contradict these basics of our faith.

It is unfortunate that this incident is one of many in which the writer and fellow graduates of his rabbinic school, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT), have undermined the fundamentals of traditional Judaism. YCT graduates participating in interfaith prayer, writing articles that question the authority of Halacha and adopting non-halachic practices are all too well-known. If this can be called Orthodox Judaism, I do not know what cannot.

Rabbi Andrew Gordimer
New York

Relevant links:
- Blog guest: response to "Reaching for perfection"
- Heresy? or, Heresy!

Raiders of the Lost Dvar Torah

Seven years ago next week (parshas Toldos) Rabbi Avi Weiss published the dvar Torah, “Yitzhak: Teaching us about Downs Syndrome”. It should be listed at the HIR (Rabbi Avi Weiss’ congregation) web site at Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat – parshas Toldos (Kislev 5760 November 12-13, 1999), however for a well-known essay it is conspicuously missing. The dvar Torah was titled as a "Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat", and the years 5759 and 5761 are listed, but no 5760.

One blog reader harshly and presumptuously stated to me that there are no 5760 divrei Torah listed at the HIR "Taste of Torah in Honor of Shabbat" site:

Why is it conspicuous that the article is missing when THERE IS NOT A SINGLE FORSHPEIS FROM 5760 ON THE WEBSITE??? You are being deceitful and misleading as usual. If you want to criticize things Rabbi Weiss said, that's one thing, but don't make things up.

That commenter is incorrect. Oddly, the divrei Torah are only missing for the book of Bereishis. Shemos, Vayikra, Bamidbar, Dvarim, all have 5760 divrei Torah listed in those sections. It is anomalous that this high-profile well-known dvar Torah is not also there. Thank you reader, for ensuring that my blog readers are not mislead.

The complete dvar Torah can be found here: Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 133

“Yitzhak: Teaching us about Downs Syndrome” represents a prototypical drash style of liberal divrei Torah. It contains elements of shock value and a tone that humanizes our holy Avos in a way that is untraditional. Open Orthodoxy, a movement started by Rabbi Avi Weiss, is a controversial, growing sect of Orthodox Judaism. I believe it is important to understand the hashkafic origins of provocative divrei Torah that are being elicited by Open Orthodox proponents.

The most audacious controversial idea of the dvar Torah is that Yitzhak’s alleged attributes are compared to the pathology of the genetic disorder, Down’s syndrome:

The upshot: Yitzhak is easy to deceive, he lacks individuality, is spared grief, is compliant and is even laughed at. My dear friend, Rabbi Saul Berman points out that there is a common thread that weaves itself through each of these characteristics - they are often found in those who have Downs Syndrome.
...
There is no classical opinion that suggests that Yitzhak had Downs. Still, the fact that his attributes fit into this mold, teaches a vital lesson - those with Downs possess the image of God and have the ability to spiritually soar, to spiritually inspire and yes, even to lead.

There are other statements within the dvar Torah that are provocative by traditional Orthodox standards:

"There is something naive, almost simplistic, about our second patriarch Yitzhak (Isaac)"

"there was something funny about Yitzhak; when you looked at him, you would laugh"

"Yitzhak is absolutely compliant. He goes to Moriah to be slaughtered without persistent argument. He seems to agree with everything he's asked to do, no matter the consequences"

"Once again Yitzhak is depicted as one for whom key decisions are made and one, who felt especially attached to his mother."

When this dvar Torah was published, many readers condemned it. One comment that best distills the criticism is the following:

Ribono shel Olam! Forget the Down's Syndrome issue...By the time you finish with this totally appalling material, to say Yitzchok Avinu had DS (r"l) is almost a limud zechus.
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 133

Rabbi Weiss responded to critics that his dvar Torah was only meant to illustrate compassion for those that are challenged:

For some, spirituality is exclusively bound with the intellect. Those of lesser intelligence are not viewed as having the capacity to have spiritual depth. The Forshpeis was an attempt to say that spirituality emerges from the whole being-not only from the mind, but also from the soul. Those with Downs may be blessed with the spiritual brilliance to become the greatest tsadikim or tsidkaniot of their generation. - "An Addendum to Last Week's Forshpeis on Down's Syndrome"

Rabbi Weiss' sentiments are compassionately well-intentioned but disregard the main criticism of “depictive disrespect”, which he unfortunately did not address at all in his "addendum".

Since Rabbi Weiss defended his dvar Torah, why did HIR either remove or not post it at the HIR web site? Why not post the dvar Torah with Rabbi Weiss’ follow-up statements? Is the “missing” dvar Torah an implicit recanting/repudiation of that dvar Torah?

Update: Parshas Toldos 5767 (2006)
In a dvar Torah for parshas Toldos, Yaakov and Yisrael: The Integration of Body and Soul, Rabbi Avi Weiss stated the following:

One wonders how Yitzchak could have been so naive to prefer his eldest son Esav more than the younger Yaakov.

One may wonder why Rabbi Weiss didn't use more terse, less connotative language such as, "One wonders how Yitzchak preferred his eldest son Esav more than the younger Yaakov." Or, maybe not.

Relevant links:
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 131
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 132
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 133
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 134
- Avodah Mailing List Volume 04 : Number 135

Stressful God of "tension" and "anxiety"

Akiva Herzfeld (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of '07) wrote a dvar Torah titled "Lech-lecha and the Marriage of Sarah, God, and Abraham" (11/2/2006) that depicts Avrohom and Sorah with pessimistic contemporary psychoanalysis. God is listed between Sarah and Abraham in the title, illustrating God as an intermediary source of tension between them. That idea is the focus of the dvar Torah. Here are some highlights from Herzfeld's dvar Torah:

God is a source of blessing in their [Avrohom and Sorah's] marriage...But God is also the source of anxiety in their marriage. The need to fulfill God's covenant had been the principal point of tension between Abram and Sarai, as they struggled to have a child and fulfill the covenantal promise.
...
Abram tells Sarai that she is more important to him than the pregnant Hagar, and by extension she [Sorah] is more important than the future of his name and covenant with God.
...
God can be a source of tension in a marital relationship, but He is also the source of all blessing and happiness. Abraham and Sarah's marriage is evidence of the struggle entailed in managing the appropriate space for God in a relationship.

Is God to blame for the alleged tension and anxiety in Avrohom and Sorah's marriage? Is Sorah "more important than the future of [Avrohom's] name and covenant with God"? Do Avrohom and Sorah manage the "appropriate space" for God in their relationship as though religion was an extracurricular hobby rather than a lifestyle?

Regardless of depictive mode and illustrative license, accurate or not, it's only drash (interpretation), right? There are critics of "liberal" divrei Torah who are concerned not only with the ideas that are communicated, but how (attitude) those ideas are communicated. For example, are those ideas presented positively and respectfully.

Does God create stress in a relationship or does he provide challenges/tests? Is Sorah "more important than the future of [Avrohom's] name and covenant with God" because Avrohom listens to her by sending Hagar away? Or, is Sorah fulfilling Hashem's mutual desires, Avrohom's namesake and covenant with Hashem by sending Hagar away? Is God "managed" within a marriage or does God encompass a marriage?

Is there a recurring theme of superfluous provocative negativity in liberal divrei Torah?

Other interesting divrei Torah:
- Women and the Mitzvah of Pru u’Rvu
- Noach the Tzadikel
- Why Sarah? A Midrash
- Choosing a Wife - Did Yaakov Get It Right?

Blog guest: response to "Reaching for perfection"

Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell gave me permission to post his response to Rabbi Darren Kleinberg's article, "Reaching for perfection":

In Rabbi Kleinberg’s articles, we seem to read of a deity who is not the G-d of Judaism. Indeed, in all my adult years in yeshivos and in all of the years in my youth spent in non-Orthodox institutions, I never heard any Jew describe G-d the way Rabbi Kleinberg describes his god.

(1) The G-d of Judaism is good and wise beyond our capacity to imagine or describe. We state during every morning service, “Who among the supernal beings or the terrestrial beings can say to You [G-d], ‘What are You doing?’” We bless G-d as the True Judge after a bitter occurrence, affirming that He is correct in all that He does (see Talmud, Berachos 54/a and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 222:2). Rabbi Kleinberg seems to impugn G-d’s goodness: “How do we come to terms with a God that seemingly acts outside of the moral compass that our tradition (including the biblical tradition) passes down to us? What does it mean to attempt to live ‘in the image of God’ when that image is sometimes one that we wish to turn away from?...” [from "Challenge of the text"]

As the great (truly) Modern Orthodox sage Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein said, “I do not judge God. I assume, a priori, that ‘His deeds are perfect, for all His ways are just; a faithful God, without iniquity, righteous and upright is He’ (Deuteronomy 32:4). If He commands, ‘Take your son and offer him as a sacrifice,’ then it must be good (in a sense which perhaps, at the moment, I do not understand). But within the context of my a priori obedient submission, I may try to understand.”

(2) The G-d of Judaism is consummately perfect and all-knowing. He is unchanging—including growing from learning (Malachi 3:5; Jeremiah 23:24; Proverbs 15:3; Maimonidean Code 1:2-3, 1: 10-11, 2:9-10; Guide to the Perplexed 1:11, 3:13, 3:25; #10 of the 13 Faith Tenets). Rabbi Kleinberg—without any specific citations—seems to reject this description of G-d: “[T]he most fascinating aspect of the Torah [is] its depiction of God as less than perfect…And so it must be asked: ‘Did God not know that man would be alone?’ Is God not, after all, all-knowing (omniscient)? One answer that has been given to this question is that the Torah is teaching us a lesson that even God learns, and therefore, so should we…Another more mystical approach suggests that God is in a process of reaching perfection...”

(3) The Chosenness of the Jewish people by the G-d of Judaism has never in 33 centuries of religious Jewish thought been described as an error made by G-d. And never in 33 centuries has any religious Jewish thinker said that, in actuality, all of humanity is chosen. Precious, yes!—but not chosen. This is stated in unnumerable sources and is encapsulated in the Torah blessings recited every day and at every Torah-reading: “He chose us from all other nations and gave us His Torah.” In the holiday liturgy, this basic principle is also encapsulated: “You have chosen us from all other nations; You have loved us and been pleased with us.” Yet Rabbi Kleinberg dismisses this: “I would like to suggest that this idea - the idea that we Jews are the ‘Chosen People’ - is another example of a moment of imperfection in God's creation and decision-making…We must consider this awesome and wonderful privilege to be the inheritance of all peoples. There is no one who is exempt from this obligation. We have all been chosen.”

America grants freedom of speech. No one can stop Rabbi Kleinberg from expressing his opinions—but there are laws against false advertising. His articles are not representative of Orthodox Judaism.

I ask Rabbi Kleinberg to tell me if I have misunderstood him and to assert without ambiguity or obfuscation his belief that G-d never makes a mistake, never does anything immoral or unjust, and chose the Jewish people and only the Jews.

Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell
Member, Talmud Faculty
Passaic Torah Institute
Passaic, NJ

Relevant links:
- Rabbi Ferrell maintains the excellent Einei HaEdah blog

Heresy? or, Heresy!

In a dvar Torah titled "Reaching for perfection" (11/03/2006), Rabbi Darren Kleinberg (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2005) of Kidma wrote some provocative remarks concerning the perfection of God and the “choseness” of the Jewish people.

Rabbi Kleinberg suggests that God is imperfect by providing an approach “that God is in a process of reaching perfection.” Rabbi Kleinberg also suggests that God made a mistake in the selection process of the Jewish people as his Chosen People by stating that “the idea that we Jews are the Chosen People - is another example of a moment of imperfection in God's creation and decision-making.” Rabbi Kleinberg reluctantly identifies ("Rabbi Darren Kleinberg dislikes labels but identifies as Modern Orthodox") as a Modern Orthodox rabbi, and yet, these are not Orthodox viewpoints.

I know of at least three Orthodox rabbis in Phoenix, AZ (where Kidma is located) who were compelled to rebut the dvar Torah’s assertions in their weekly Shabbos drashas.

Here's true pluralism at work: I communicated with Modern Orthodox, Chareidi, and Lubavitch rabbis. All condemned the contents of "Reaching for perfection".

I wonder what Yeshivat Chovevei Torah thinks of all of this…

Relevant links:
- Why Harold Kushner Is Wrong
- The Problem with Proofs of God

The Haggadah, yetzias mitzrayim, and gay liberation

Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2004) participated in the creation of a Haggadah for an LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) seder. He endorsed it so strongly, that he "incorporated a lot of it into [his] own seder."

Keshet also sponsored an LGBT seder. "In preparation for it, the group wrote a haggadah and put it up online," Rabbi Orlow says. "Not that the traditional haggadah is homophobic, but this was a tremendous opportunity in the traditional seder to talk about liberation in many ways. It's a wonderfully rich haggadah, and I've incorporated a lot of it into my own seder."
- Some find things have changed, but challenges remain St. Louis Jewish Light

The Spring 2005 edition of the YCT newsletter published a full-page profile on Rabbi Avi Katz Orlow. Rabbi Orlow stated:

"We created a meaningful Haggadah for the GLBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, transgender] community, which spoke to their understanding of what it means to be liberated. Our sages teach us that in every generation we must come to see ourselves as having left Egypt’s enslavement. The Torah that emerged from these students’ serious study of the Haggadah shows their keen awareness of the Sages’ teaching and will remain with me for every Pesach to follow."

Since this was published in the YCT newsletter, does this mean that YCT validates the LGBT Haggadah concept and Rabbi Orlow's participation in that Haggadah?

Some Torah commentary
Taking a Torah approach, I discuss the incongruity between the concept of an LGBT Haggadah and what the traditional Haggadah actually represents. This is NOT my personal commentary or opinion concerning individual sexual preferences/orientation. Jews should outreach to all Jews. I merely question if participation in and endorsement of an LGBT Haggadah is appropriate for an Orthodox rabbi.

In the book of Vayikra, parshas Achrei, chapter 18, verse 2, Hashem states, "Do not perform the practice of the land of Egypt in which you dwelled…"

The Torah then admonishes Eqypt for engaging in specific behaviors, listing the laws of "Forbidden Relationships". One of those laws forbids male homosexuality - which the Torah labels as Toevah (abomination). In the book of Vayikra, parshas Achrei, chapter 18, verse 22, Hashem states, "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, it is an abomination."

In the last pasuk of parshas Achrei, Hashem reinforces the severity of emulating the Egyptians, "You shall safeguard my charge not to do any of the abominable traditions that were done before you [in Egypt] and not contaminate yourselves through them; I am Hashem your G-d."

In the sefer Gvuros Hashem (chapter 4) the Maharal explains that the galus (exile) is suffering that is the exact opposite of the composite spiritual makeup of the Jewish people. The Maharal specifically refers to "abominable acts" as an example of that suffering. Hence the Jews were being liberated from the behaviors of Egypt…including homosexuality.

I wish I had a copy of the LGBT Haggadah to evaluate, but I don’t. I will give the benefit of the doubt that the Haggaddah has no references at all to LGBTs. Even so, is it appropriate to associate the liberation of the Jews from Egypt and its "abominable acts" with the promotion of an act that the Torah says is abominable? Isn’t a Haggaddah that represents Gay liberation completely antithetical to the Jewish people’s liberation from Egypt?

Does anyone have a link to download this Haggadah?