Pesach: Celebrate or Cancel

Celebrate Pesach
Yesterday, YCT rabbinical student Ben Greenberg stated:

The narrative of the redemption from Egypt is, in my opinion, one of the most powerful accounts of human liberation.The call from Rabban Gamliel in the Mishnah in Pesachim to "view oneself as if they had personally been redeemed from Egypt," and all the theology that is attached to that becomes irrelevant if the actual account of the redemption from Egypt is not viewed as truth.

While Ben Greenberg has posted views on various blogs that I disagree with, his sentiments on the Exodus appears to be one that we fundamentally share.

Cancel Pesach
One year ago today, YCT musmach Rabbi Josh Feiglson stated (which I am very surprised has not been removed from his blog):

The point of the Exodus is less whether or not it happened than the fact that the Jewish people has made the story of its enslavement and liberation the central story of its existence.

Feigelson further states in the comment section:

Do I believe the Exodus happened? Absolutely. Does it matter to me if someone digs up archaeological evidence to the contrary? No, because even if the story did not happen just as it is related in the Torah, we have observed the mitzvah to tell the story and make it our own for generation upon generation. And that story tells a much larger truth about what it means to be human than the small question of whether or not the Exodus "really" happened.

To requote Greenberg, celebrating Pesach "becomes irrelevant if the actual account of the redemption from Egypt is not viewed as truth." Specific parts of the Torah may be viewed as allegorical. The Exodus is not one of them. Notwithstanding the purported archaeological/historical context of "How to read the Bible", the presented standalone statements allow for the rejection of the Exodus as a masoretic fact originating from the first-hand experience of an entire nation.

updated: 3/26/07

Links:
- Emunah/Faith
- How to read the Bible
- Weeping for Psalms

Stop calling yourself Orthodox

In "What 'Modern Orthodoxy' means", Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach Rabbi Darren Kleinberg claims that his shul Kidma and himself are "Modern Orthodox". Here are some quotes from "How Big, the Tent of Modern Orthodoxy?" by Rabbi Harry Maryles (of the popular blog Emes Ve-Emunah) that disagree:

[Kleinberg] seeks to distort Orthodoxy into something that is unrecognizable. And this is quite in concert with why he says YCT was founded:

“YCT was founded in 2000 by Rabbi Avi Weiss "to transform Orthodoxy. "From the role of women in ritual, to recognition of the value of non-Orthodox movements…”

To his credit, he does admit that he does “not speak on behalf of the institution.” He doesn’t want any aspersions to be cast due to any of his own innovations. But the fact is that he simply put into practice the mission statement of "Open Orthodoxy" of his school.
...
Accepting Rabbi Kleinberg’s approach de-legitimizes YCT’s claim to be Modern Orthodox. They would do well to remove the word “Orthodox” from its identity.

One of the things that really bothers me in Rabbi Kleinberg's op-ed is the way he disingenuously attempts to distance himself from YCT with the disclaimer, "To be clear...while I am a graduate of YCT, I do not speak on behalf of the institution."

Let me be clear, while Rabbi Kleinberg may not be a formal representative of YCT, he certainly represents YCT. Also, YCT legitimizes and endorses Rabbi Kleinberg and his shul Kidma:
1) Rabbi Kleinberg is a musmuch of YCT. Orthodox smicha (rabbinical ordination) is not like receiving a college degree. With smicha, whether the musmach likes it or not, he represents the person or institution he received smicha from. If Rabbi Kleinberg converted to Christianity, you can be certain that YCT would revoke his smicha. Some rabbis formally make their musmachim sign a document that they will adhere to certain values. YCT has done nothing to publicly distance itself from Rabbi Kleinberg. In fact, it has done the opposite.

2) Rabbi Kleinberg's picture and bio is listed on a YCT web page titled "Bringing Open Orthodox Rabbinic Leadership to a Community Near You".

3) On multiple occasions Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean & founder of YCT) has promoted Rabbi Kleinberg and Kidma with his live presence (at Kidma), declaring the highest praises of Rabbi Kleinberg as a graduate of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Rabbi Saul Berman has also lectured at Kidma.

4) As a showcase of "Open Orthodoxy", the YCT newsletter presented a full-page Community Profile of Kidma, "YCT Alumnus Brings Open Orthodoxy to the Southwest". Rabbi Kleinberg was that alumnus.

5) Rabbi Avi Weiss has explicitly stated support for Kleinberg and Kidma in an interview for Canonist:

Rabbis Kleinberg and East are developing communities where there was no Modern Orthodoxy in effect, certainly, no Orthodoxy that we would call ‘open’ and inclusive. Development of new open Modern Orthodox congregations is an important aspect of YCT’s vision. In fact, the yeshiva [YCT] finds it so critical that we assist by financially supporting these new communities [e.g. Kidma].

I wonder if Rabbi Kleinberg's attempt to distance himself from YCT was his idea or YCT's.

Another statement by Rabbi Kleinberg that I have an issue with is, "Ultimately I have come to understand that I am a member of the Jewish people before I am a member of Orthodoxy, that my personal religious convictions cannot stand in the way of my responsibilities to the entire Jewish people."

In my opinion, the obvious way to read that statement is that Rabbi Kleinberg's religious beliefs (assumedly driven by some form of Jewish Law) are trumped by his responsibilities, his personal authority. If that is correct, that is definitely not Orthodox. If Rabbi Kleinberg wishes to clarify this specific point with direct non-ambiguous language, I welcome his communication. I have emailed him recently but received no response, so he will have to contact me.

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?

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.

Yated exposes YCT as a "Threat to Halachic Judaism"

Recently, the Yated newspaper published an article titled: "Yeshivat Chovei Torah: Is it Orthodox? An Expose on a Threat to Halachic Judaism". The article comprehensively discusses Orthodox halachic and hashkafic concerns with "Open Orthodoxy". Althought the Yated readership is ideologically right-wing Orthodox, it appears from Googling that the article has found its way to the target Modern Orthodox audience. At the end of this blog post I provide a list of links.

In my opinion, the Yated article accurately and appropriately critiques the hashkafah of YCT and Open Orthodoxy from the top down. The article first discusses the ideologies of Rabbi Avi Weiss (dean and founder of YCT) and Rabbi Dov Linzer (YCT Rosh Yeshiva), then focuses on the behaviors of YCT musmachim.

There are a couple of web sites where the article is available:
- Yeshivat Chovevei Torah: Is It Orthodox?
- Click here for a pdf of the article, scanned from the original Yated newspaper.

While the Yated article is comprehensive, I find it interesting the amount of material that wasn't discussed:
- Open Orthodox rabbis further radicalize left-wing Orthodoxy (Yated did write that they might cover Open Orthodox feminist ideology in a future article)
- Mechitza magic: now you see it, now you don't
- Weeping for Psalms
- Stressful God of "tension" and "anxiety"
- and more...

The Yated article has generated a fair amount of response (or should I say backlash) in the blogosphere. Harry Maryles' blog post, YCT: Time to-Take a Stand is the only one I could find that takes a somewhat balanced (centrist) approach to reviewing the Yated article. While I think that Rabbi Maryles could be harsher, at least he approaches the facts rationally instead of emotionally.

Scrutiny of YCT hashkafah is not exclusive to Chareidim. Here are recent heartfelt comments from someone who considers "Rabbi [Avi] Weiss a good friend and a mentor." I have bolded passages that I find most insightful.
From Rabbi Joshua Maroof at The Yated - a Mamzer?:

I consider Rabbi Weiss a good friend and a mentor. During my time in Riverdale, he was the primary source of encouragement for me to leave my chosen career path as a psychologist and take up the pulpit rabbinate - something I had never ever even imagined pursuing professionally and in fact had a strong aversion to at first.

He is a human being of profound sensitivity and I learned a great deal from observing his interactions with congregants, interns and employees (I was none of these, being the Rabbi of the Sephardic congregation that borrowed space from his shul - although I did teach the Daf Yomi at HIR every morning for 2 years, and contributed to educational programs there as well.)

Rabbi Weiss is genuine and sincere and I owe him a lot for the inspiration he gave me to change my path in life. I spoke about this publicly at the last HIR dinner I attended before relocating to Maryland.

That being said - with all due respect to Rabbi Weiss, Rabbi Linzer and many of the YCT graduates whom I consider personal friends (one is my wife's brother-in-law and a wonderful rabbi in his own right) - I have an issue with any institution that considers itself Orthodox but questions the binding force of the 13 principles of the Rambam.

The religious leadership of YCT, at least in part, seems to advocate a bottom-line Orthopraxy with an option of Orthodoxy for those who are so inclined. With the passage of time, this trend has become increasingly pronounced, as far as I can tell, with the musmachim of YCT looking and talking more and more like Conservative rabbis as the years go by.

Again, I have a deep affection for Rabbi Weiss and many of the teachers and graduates of YCT (admittedly, even some of the very controversial ones who've been lambasted in the papers are people whose company I enjoyed immensely while I was in NY and whom I consider my friends.) However, I believe that Orthodoxy must draw the line when it comes to the fundamental tenets of the Torah system, i.e., the 13 principles. And, as I know from personal dealings and discussions with YCTers, the 13 principles are far from being universally accepted in its Bet Midrash.

Commenting on Is YCT treif or not? Rabbi Maroof states,

I think an institution must be judged by its leaders and the philosophy and outlook they espouse. In this case, sadly, [Rabbi Dov] Linzer (a friend of mine whom I admire very much) has endorsed a form of Orthopraxy that essentially makes the 13 principles optional.

He has a right to take this position and to have his own opinion - although I believe it is erroneous - but he cannot then insist on being Orthodox which, by definition, means having the "correct beliefs."

I think that Rabbi Avi Weiss and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah should applaud Yated. The Yated is adhering to principle #6 of the Open Orthodoxy philosophy: Public Protest

Should YCT and Open Orthodoxy be scrutinized? Are they a threat to all legitimate expressions of Torah Judaism (aka Orthodoxy)? Judge for yourself.

Links that discuss the Yated article:
- Yated Ne’eman’s Latest Against Chovevei
- Not Taking A Stand
- Glass Houses Alert
- Cross Posted at DovBear: The Yated, the Rav and YCT
- The Challenge of Constructive Criticism
- There was an article that appeared in last weeks issue of Yated
- Yated's YCT Critique Critiqued
- The Challenge of Constructive Criticism
- Strange Bedfellows
- Conflicted about YCT, Yated and R' Harry Maryles
- YCT-Yated Ne’eman Dustup
- Rabbi Chaim Rapoport -- Open Letter to the Yated Ne'eman
- pre-LA and rightwing jews
- How mighty are the righteous....
- Learning with the Yated
- Taking Each Other Down A Peg
- In the following pages, we will quote...
- paradoxical faith

Interdenominational Pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style

In Orthodoxy Has Chance to Reshape Role, Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky states, "Orthodox rabbis have practically disappeared from interdenominational boards of rabbis. In some communities, the Orthodox Rabbinical Council actually forbids its members from joining interdenominational boards." However, one Orthodox sub-category where interdenominational participation is increasing is Open Orthodoxy - specifically Yeshivat Chovevei Torah graduates and proteges of Rabbi Avi Weiss, founder of the Open Orthodox movement. This is not unexpected as Open Orthodoxy encourages pluralism.

To understand the root hashkafa of Open Orthodox interdenominational pluralism one should read Open orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi's creed and an article by Rabbi Weiss presented on the Orthodox Union web site, Preaching a Common Message.

Pragmatic reasons why Orthodox participation on pluralistic board of rabbis is problematic:
- Pluralistic board of rabbis address issues and represent values that are antithetical to Orthodoxy.

- In a practical sense, Orthodoxy does not recognize the ordination of non-Orthodox rabbis. Nor does Orthodoxy bestow the title of Rabbi to a woman. So, I will assume that Orthodox participation on a pluralistic board of rabbis is to foster a spirit of Jewish unity with recognized non-Orthodox spiritual leaders. But what if members of the board weren't halachically Jewish?

There may be a time in the near future when much of the non-Orthodox representation on pluralistic board of rabbis is not considered Jewish by Orthodoxy (e.g. via patrilineal descent or non-Orthodox conversion). Currently, intermarriage is rampant. There already may be non-Orthodox rabbis that meet that criteria. If so, membership on a pluralistic board of rabbis epitomizes the acceptance of intermarriage, at least in perception. If an Orthodox rabbi embraces non-Jewish (according to Orthodoxy) rabbis as bona fide fellow members of a board of rabbis, then from an Orthodox perspective it appears that rabbi is trivializing the Orthodox Jewish status criteria to participate in the Jewish community. I believe it's that type of laxed attitude that has contributed to the general scrutiny of Orthodox conversions by the Israeli Rabbinate.

For a halachic discussion why Orthodox rabbis should not participate in religious pluralism, see Einei Haeda.

Related links:
- Religious Movements in Collision: A Jewish Culture War?
- Who is a Jew?
- Conversion to Judaism

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg
- Rabbinic peer group
- Denominational Landscapes

Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky
- Orthodoxy Has Chance to Reshape Role
- Jewish Journal - Letters - Orthodoxy’s Role
- Bnai David - Judea - Rabbi Profile

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld
- Board of Rabbis gets first Orthodox member
- A Rabbi's Unorthodox Revival

Interdenominational pluralism: retreat or embrace?

Click here for original source
The previous picture evokes strong disparate emotions depending on your point of view. If you are a religious feminist, the pictures may evoke emotions of pride - reflecting the religious liberation of women. If you are an Orthodox Jew you may feel something different.

The picture was taken at a Jewish interdenominational conference, Panim's Re-Imagining the American Synagogue rabbinical student retreat.

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah participation
The retreat was attended by three YCT students as discussed by YCT seminary student Drew Kaplan:

There, I, along with two other students from YCT, came together with students from several other rabbinical seminaries.
...
I enjoyed it, as I got to spend time working on trying to create some sort of vision towards my rabbinate and future shul(s), which was good.
-Re-Imagining the Synagogue Rabbinical Student Retreat

Drew Kaplan made it convenient to find pictures of the retreat, as photo gallery links were posted by him. For more Panim photos check out: set one, set two

RCA participation
On Dec. 7, the Rabbinical Council of America published a policy statement condemning the ordination of gays and lesbians, and same-sex "commitment ceremonies" in response to the recent acceptance of those practices by the Conservative movement.

On Dec. 8, the RCA published a Meet the Chaverim profile of RCA rabbi, Rabbi Asher Lopatin, a faculty member at the Panim retreat with other Jewish denominations that permit/accept gay and lesbian ordination, same-sex unions and corresponding sexual behaviors. So, it is possible that there were Reform or Reconstructionist gay and lesbian rabbis at the retreat. In the future, there may be Conservative G&L rabbis at such conferences. I assume that the RCA is aware of Rabbi Lopatin’s participation in the retreat as it published that information in his profile.

Is there an incongruity between RCA policy and practice?

Related links:
- What is [Reform] Judaism's view on homosexuality?

Megillah 28a

This past Sunday, I attended a lecture by Rabbi Avi Weiss (founder & dean of YCT, rabbi of HIR). Since I blog about Open Orthodoxy, I thought it would be an interesting experience. I also brought my oldest (young) daughter with me. I thought it would be a good learning experience for her.

Rabbi Weiss started off by singing a Carlebach niggun (melody). He sang the tune several times, encouraging audience participation. The second time he sang the tune he requested audience members to hold hands (with no qualifier) with the person sitting next to them. It was a mixed-seating audience of men and women.

I asked my daughter if anything was wrong with what Rabbi Weiss said. She informed me that it was not tznius and that men and women who are not married should not hold hands, but father and daughter like us was OK. My daughter asked me why that man was telling people to hold hands. My answer was a lengthy discussion with her on Megillah 28a that pertains to eyesight. Out of concern for her vision, my daughter wasn't sure whether to close her eyes or not.

Although trivial and possibly laughable to the non-Orthodox, from an Orthodox perspective, the hand-holding directive is unOrthodox, even in a kiruv (outreach) setting.

Most of Rabbi Weiss' lecture was focused on Israel. He also told a few stories and anecdotes. It was a packed house with approximately 70-90 middle-aged attendees. I recognized maybe five people there. The demographic of the crowd was not reflective of the local Orthodox community which is comprised of Modern Orthodox, Chareidi, Bukharian, and Lubavitch. On many occasions I have seen crossover from all those groups at minyanim and at community events. At those events, everyone is a familiar face. Kidma, the local Open Orthodox shul that Rabbi Weiss spoke at, is a pariah to the local Orthodox community as it represent left-wing halacha and hashkafa that is contrary to basic, mutually shared values of the greater Orthodox community. Kidma and its rabbi's hashkafic and halachic viewpoints have been discussed in earlier blog posts.

In my opinion, Rabbi Weiss insulted the entire local Orthodox community, as an apparent response to the shunning of his brand of Orthodox Judaism. Rabbi Weiss stated that there are Orthodox sects that are moving further to the right and "becoming more insular" and "circling the wagons". Rabbi Weiss depicted the local community as an example of this. He also stated that there are Jewish sects moving further left, such as the Conservative movement shifting towards Reform. Weiss depicted Open Orthodoxy as centrist, mainstream Orthodox Judaism.

I find it interesting that every other local Orthodox group can co-exist and interact in relative harmony with the exception of Open Orthodoxy. It appears if you don't accept the values of Open Orthodoxy, you're labelled as right-wing and insular ("closed").

On this blog, I have been critical of Kidma and its spiritual leader Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, a Yeshivat Chovevei Torah musmach. It is apparent that Rabbi Weiss disagrees with my assessment. Rabbi Weiss addressed Rabbi Kleinberg as "brilliant in Tanach and Oral Law", "best of the best [of YCT graduates]", and a "pastoral genius".

At the conclusion of the lecture there was a Q&A session. A question was asked about the inclusivity of women in religious services. Rabbi Weiss prefaced his response by stating that he operates within the confines of Orthodox Halacha. Rabbi Weiss then discussed the concept of Shira Hadasha minyanim. His response seemed to advocate this style of communal prayer, if not many aspects of it. Rabbi Weiss also said that he did not see anything halachically wrong with women leading pesukei dezimra. Whether technically correct or not, it is a significant deviation from a normative Orthodox service.

I am fascinated to know whether Rabbi Weiss' viewpoints are sanctioned and aligned with the OU and RCA. Rabbi Weiss is an RCA rabbi, and Rabbi Weiss' congregation (HIR) is an OU shul.

Batter up

I was hoping to "wind down" this blog but I heard multiple things this weekend that were very disturbing to me.

I also attended Rabbi Avi Weiss' lecture as I stated that I might in my blog post, "Free advertising for Open Orthodoxy". I'm working on a blog post about that experience. Here's a quote I heard from Rabbi Weiss that I couldn't agree with more, "There are countless examples of the mighty who have been on the wrong path who have fallen." After listening to Rabbi Weiss it is apparent that Open Orthodoxy is on the path to Shira Hadasha...falling down, falling down, falling down. Of course, Rabbi Weiss was clear to say that he only operates within the framework of Orthodox halacha.

To protect anonymity, I won't mention any names in the following two items:

The root of all evil
I was informed that an Open Orthodox rabbi showed the documentary "The Root of All Evil?" to his high school "philosophy" class. This documentary was "written and presented by [renowned atheist] Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion. "

The school is a pluralistic Jewish high school, and the class was for seniors. When I heard this, it sent a chill through me as I reflected on the sickness of this.

I was told that a Jewish counter-view was presented and that many of the students may already be agnostic. But why, why, why would such anti-Torah material be presented to impressionable Jewish young people? We should inoculate them with Truth, not defile their minds with anti-religious rhetoric.

Young people ask lots of great questions. Questions should be answered. In a controlled forum such as a religious school, we should provide the Torah tools they need to answer those challenging questions. We shouldn't inadvertently reinforce contrary beliefs by proactively presenting heretical ideas then expect to undo the damage by rebutting them. Young people will have a lifetime of anti-religious influences to contend with.

It's your problem, not mine
Another person informed me that someone he knew contacted one of the main rabbinical leaders of Open Orthodoxy about religious concerns with a local Open Orthodox rabbi. To paraphrase, the rabbi responded back to the person, "What are the local Orthodox rabbis doing about it?" The person said to the rabbi, "What do you mean? He's one of your graduates...it's your problem!" The rabbi apparently did not think so.

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

Blog Guest: Response to "Construction begins on Valley's first community mikvah"

"An emerging tradition: Construction begins on Valley's first community mikvah" (Jewish News of Phoenix, 11/17/06) discusses the construction of a community mikvah in Phoenix, AZ. The article states the following about Orthodox involvement in the mikvah:

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, spiritual leader of KiDMa - The Southwest Community,which is Modern Orthodox, explained that CBI's mikvah "stands for hope and rebirth for the Jewish community." He added that the new mikvah is expected to be built "according to halachic standards" making it "kosher" for all denominations, including those who are Orthodox.

"The fact that this mikvah will be on the campus of a Reform synagogue does not make it a Reform mikvah," he said.

Rabbi Eliyahu Ferrell gave me permission to post a Letter to the Editor he sent to the Jewish News of Phoenix. Rabbi Ferrell states his concerns with Rabbi Kleinberg's involvement in the mikvah.

To the Editor:
In my opinion, any connection of Rabbi Darren Kleinberg to the new mikvah is very dismaying.

It seems to me that, in his house of worship, Talmudic law is abrogated at will. For example, the order of public prayer there does not include recital of the three Talmudic blessings through which a man thanks G-d for having been given the sanctity of a Jew and the responsibilities of Jewish manhood. [An individual man at services is allowed to say these three blessings on his own, though.] Instead, his service contains a made-up blessing. And--as I have documented in a previous Letter to the Editor--Rabbi Kleinberg's articles on the weekly Torah portion are rife with conceptions of G-d alien to Judaism.

In my opinion, he has thereby rendered himself unfit to certify the kosher status of a mikvah. And in my opinion, it is horrible that he will anyway "certify" the mikvah, because it will lead people to think it has an authentic Orthodox imprimatur.

Rabbi Eliyahu W. Ferrell
Instructor of Talmud and Jewish Law
Passaic Torah Institute
Passaic, NJ

Interfaith pluralism: Open Orthodoxy style

Martin Luther King memorial concert 2006 in cooperation with the Green Pastures Baptist Church, in front of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale paroches in the sanctuary:

- Click here for original source.
- Hebrew Institute of Riverdale's paroches

Rabbi Avi Weiss, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah rabbinical students, cardinals, and bishops dance around the YCT bais midrash:

- Click here for original source.


- Click here for original source.

Interfaith shteiging (original title: "Havrusa action"):

- Click here for original source.

Full picture gallery : Cardinals and Bishops Visit to YCT 2006

Rabbi Darren Kleinberg, a public figure of discussion on this blog, is far left in the following photo taken at an interfaith conference (description underneath the photo "...[the conference attendees] bow their heads in [interfaith] prayer during a conference at the Brandeis-Bardin Institute"):

- Click here for original source.

Related links:
- Cardinals Study With Orthodox Students (Forward, March 2006)
- Jewish Interfaith Endeavors: Academic Programs

Positive Pluralism

There are two types of pluralism of interest to Orthodox Jews: interdenominational (e.g. Reform, Conservative, Orthodox) and interfaith (Christian, Muslim, Jew). An example of interdenominational pluralism is a non/multi-sectarian Jewish Federation. An example of interfaith pluralism is interfaith dialogue with non-Jews. Both of those examples can be positive in the proper context.

Pluralism is one of the first topics I should have written about. However, this topic is already well-documented and well-known, while other issues I have addressed are not. For completeness, I address this topic.

Some expressions of interdenominational and interfaith pluralism are quite controversial. Here are some positive viewpoints and examples of interdenominational and interfaith pluralism (albeit some are controversial):

Jewish interdenominational pluralism
- Pluralism and Jewish Unity - By Rabbi Marc D. Angel
- Pluralism

Interfaith pluralism
First and foremost, Jews must respect non-Jews:
- In The Image Of God
- Respect for others
- We Diminish Ourselves By Denigrating Non-Jews

Practical applications of interfaith pluralism:
- International Fellowship of Christian and Jews
- Noahide Laws
- Sanhedrin Moves to Establish Council For Noahides (note: my point is not whether this sanhedrin is valid or invalid, or this Noahide council is positive or negative, only that the concept of assisting sincere Noahides with Noahide matters is a positive expression of pluralism)
- RCA and OU Join with US Bishops in Calling for Expanded School Choice Options and Support

There are Jewish perspectives that consider faithful Christians to also be Noahides.

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

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

Weeping for Psalms

Rabbi Josh Feigelson (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah class of 2005) reviewed two books on the translation of Tehillim (Psalms) in his article for Zeek Magazine titled “Singing God's Praises: Psalms and Authenticity”. One book was "Psalms in a translation for praying: A work in progress by Zalman Schachter-Shalomi, the other was "Opening to You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms" by Norman Fischer.

Zalman Schachter-Shalomi is the primary leader and a significant founder of the Jewish Renewal Movement. From Wikipedia, here's a brief excerpt describing Jewish Renewal:

Jewish Renewal is a new religious movement in Judaism that attempts to reinvigorate what it views as a moribund and uninspiring modern Judaism with mystical, Hasidic, musical and meditative practices drawn from a variety of traditional and untraditional, Jewish and other, sources.
...
In seeking to augment Jewish ritual, some Renewal Jews borrow freely and openly from Buddhism, Sufism, Native American religion, and other faiths; this is termed syncretism. Many Jews outside this movement view religious syncretism as outside the bounds of Judaism.

Norman Fischer is a Jewish-American Soto Zen Buddhist priest. He is what some refer to as a Jubu, a Jewish Buddhist.

Here are quotes from Rabbi Feigelson's article, with my commentary:

Zalman frequently switches God's gender back and forth between male and female, highlighting the limitations of our language and our thinking about sexuality and its ascription to God. Also, more often than not he addresses God in the second person, as You, even when the Hebrew original is in the third person. Take Psalm 77, for instance. The JPS opens, "I cry aloud to God; I cry to God that He may give ear to me." Who is being addressed here? The reader, who is told that the Psalmist is crying out to God, and is perhaps invited to participate, or comforted in knowing that someone else also wants to cry out to God. But Zalman dispenses with the middleman: "I raise my voice to cry out to You, God. I raised my voice and You gave ear to me." This is good stuff, helpful stuff-it brings the davenner, the person doing the praying, to a much more personalized encounter with God through the text. It is certainly a more comfortable translation for our non-traditional Jew than a traditional translation.

Response: Rabbi Feigelson states that in Schachter-Shalomi’s translation of Tehillim he “…switches God's gender back and forth between male and female” and “…addresses God in the second person, as You, even when the Hebrew original is in the third person.” Concerning this approach, Rabbi Feigelson states that “This is good stuff, helpful stuff…” Should an Orthodox rabbi critique Schachter-Shalomi’s approach with these affirmations...or maybe condemnations instead?

Fischer addresses God as "you," not "You." The style is comfortable and intimate, almost conversational, but still at enough of a remove to feel set-apart and holy.

Response: From a lashon hakodesh (Hebrew) perspective, addressing God as “you" or "You” in English seems to be a silly semantic point. However, it is not silly when an Orthodox rabbi discusses and affirms this convention in a context that is completely misaligned with Orthodoxy.

A better translation [of Psalms] from a language standpoint, however, is Norman Fischer's Opening to You: Zen-Inspired Translations of the Psalms. Fischer is a poet, as well as a Zen abbot, and he acknowledges in his excellent introductory essay that his is not a translation directly from the Hebrew: "Since I am a poet and a religious practitioner, and not a Hebraist, my work with the Psalms rests largely on the work of translators. In that sense they are 'versions' rather than translations, perhaps as much original English-language poems as faithful replicas of the Hebrew text."
…
He [Fischer] is not quite translating Psalms, as he admits-so is this Psalms at all? Does it matter? If it doesn't, what's the point of this project?

Fischer answers this question in his introduction, with a sharp insight: "Buddhism begins with suffering and the end of suffering." In contrast, "the Psalms make it clear that suffering is not to be escaped or bypassed… I would go so far as to say that for Western Buddhist practitioners, a sensitive and informed appreciation of the problematic themes included and so powerfully expressed in the Psalms is probably a necessity." (pp. xvi-xvii) Fischer is starting from Buddhism and using the Psalms to inform his Buddhist practice, and thus he has less at stake in the question of the authenticity of his translation. His work feels more comfortable in its own skin than Zalman's as a consequence.

Response: To a certain degree, Rabbi Josh Feigelson legitimizes Norman Fischer's book by reviewing it analytically instead of critically, and sometimes affirmatively. Why would an Orthodox rabbi bestow credibility onto a religious book written from a "Jewish Buddhist perspective", to be used by Buddhists? Why would an Orthodox Rabbi review this book at all?

An authentic translation, like any authentic and true human expression, cannot take place on the page. It can only-maybe-happen inside the mind and soul of a human being relating to the Other: God, human, or text.

Response: An authentic translation of Jewish holy writings begins with an accurate written lexical translation. An accurate translation can certainly convey emotion and elicit spirituality without compromising the content and context of the original text. Mistranslations may result in serious halachic ramifications. Rabbi Feigelson’s statement that an authentic translation “can only-maybe-happen inside the mind and soul of a human being relating to the Other...” epitomizes relativism.

Here is a partial list of related articles listed at the end of Rabbi Feigelson's article:
- Hasidism and Homoeroticism Jay Michaelson July, 2004
- How I Finally Learned to Accept Christ in my Heart Jay Michaelson June, 2000

To say the least, Zeek Magazine is an interesting choice of publication for an Orthodox rabbi to be published in...

Here are some quotes from the Zeek "About" page:

We welcome the heretical, honor the sincere, and are generally bored by in-jokes, apologetics, and irony.
...
We find the smugness of the cynic and the soft-mindedness of the believer equally repellent to truth. 'Secular' and 'religious' are idols of identity, which we wish to efface.
...
We are committed to building a new form of Jewish community and identity, one which is serious, playful, pluralistic, committed, inclusive, and cosmopolitan. We are interested in wherever the new Jewish cultures lead.
...
We are suspicious of any truths that claim to be universal...and any ideologies which reduce the complex to the simple.

Here is a sampling of articles published by Zeek Magazine:
- Star Wars, George Bush, Judaism, and the Penis
- God on Ecstasy
- Wrestling with Esther: Purim Spiels, Gender, and Political Dissidence
- How can you be gay and Jewish?
- Am I "Religious"?

Rabbi Feigelson's rabbinical alma matar, YCT, certainly respects his religious insights, as they have recently published a dvar Torah of his, "The Spirit of Song" (9/30/2006).

Relevant links:
- Josh Feigelson Northwestern Hillel Campus Rabbi
- The Feigelsonian Theory of Smurfian Communism in the Post-War Era

From Rabbi Josh Feigelson's Blog:
- Aaron's is Treif
- Slavery and Kashrut
- How to read the Bible