National Scholar Updates

Rabbi Marc Angel honored me with a request to restate some of the points made in my book, Must a Jew Believe Anything? (Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999; expanded second edition, 2006). In that book I sought to lay out a foundation for how Orthodox Jews should view the rest of the Jewish people, and attempt to provide an intellectual framework for meaningful Orthodox participation in general Jewish life. I also point out how the prevalent Maimonidean framework poses serious problems of heresy-hunting and seeing "non-believers" as enemies with whom we want no ties.

The core argument of that book was that for pre-medieval Judaism the notion of emunah, belief, is best captured by English words like 'trust', 'reliance', 'trustworthiness', and not by terms like 'intellectual acquiescence', or 'agreement'. A believing Jew on this account was a Jew who trusted in God (and whose life-choices and behavior exemplified that trust) and one in whom God could, so to speak, trust. It is not hard to prove that this is the case and I do so in the book. On this understanding of Judaism, membership in the Jewish people and identification with the Jewish past and the Jewish future is what makes a person a Jew in good standing. This reality reflects Ruth's statement to Naomi: "your people are my people, your God is my God," and the process of conversion as outlined in Yevamot 47a-b (and as bravely championed in our day by Rabbi Angel himself). There is no room on this conception of Judaism for systematic theology or dogma and, indeed, neither is to be found in Torah or Talmud.

Maimonides introduced a dramatic change in Jewish self-understanding by insisting that a Jew in good standing was Jew who accepted without demurral certain clearly defined beliefs (now widely known as 'Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith'). This attempt to change Judaism from a community defined by shared history, shared hopes, and shared patterns of behavior to a church of true believers aroused considerable opposition and resistance, as shown in Must a Jew…?, in my Dogma in Medieval Jewish Thought (published by Oxford University Press in 1986 and available now from the Littman Library of Civilization), and in Marc Shapiro's The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: Littman Library of Civilization, 2004).

Maimonides' principles only became normative in the 19^th century. Pre-emancipation Judaism had been an unselfconscious amalgam of religion and what came to be called nationality. With very few exceptions (the forced converts of Iberia being the most prominent example), Jewish authorities never had to define who a Jew was, since the matter was clear, both to Jews and to non-Jews. After the French Revolution, when Jews were invited to participate in the world around them, they found a world in which religion had been largely ‘privatized’, in which religion had been severed from nationality, and in which there developed a confusing myriad of new ways of being Jewish. It was suddenly no longer so clear who was a Jew, and it was certainly no longer clear who was a ‘good’ Jew. In a world in which membership in good standing in the Jewish community was no longer determined by descent (since so many Jews by descent had ceased being Jewish in terms of belief and practice, or were adopting new beliefs and practices, while still calling themselves ‘good’ Jews), in a world in which membership in the Jewish community was no longer determined by identity with a shared Jewish past and hopes for a shared Jewish future (since so many Jews who identified with the shared Jewish past hoped for a shared Jewish future defined primarily in national or cultural terms), in a world in which Jews might be willing to violate every single one of the 613 commandments of the Torah while still being prepared to lay down their lives in defense of the Jewish collective, Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles, wholly ignored by halakhic decisors since their publication, and largely ignored by theologians (with the exception of those of Iberia between 1391 and 1492), suddenly came into their own and were used, with increasing vigor, to demarcate the line between ‘good’ Jews and those who must be excluded, those with whom no religious co-operation may be permitted, those who, for the most lenient, are tinokot shenishbu, and, who, for the most stringent, are out-and-out heretics.

My argument in Must a Jew Believe Anything? called for a return to a vision of Judaism according to which Jews are judged as Jews, not by how closely they proclaim adherence to this, that, or the other interpretation of Maimonides' 'Thirteen Principles', but by their loyalty to the Jewish people and its future. Adopting such a standard allows Orthodox Jews to disagree – strongly! – with the theologies of non-Orthodox movements while enthusiastically working with such Jews in order to assure a stronger future for the Jewish people as a whole.

Since the original publication of Must a Jew Believe Anything? the situation has, if anything, gotten worse. The Haredi world has been treated to the Kaminetzky and Slifkin affairs, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was forced into withdrawing a brave and prize-winning book, and the modern Orthodox community has been subjected to the unedifying spectacle of Professor Tamar Ross being accused of heterodoxy in an article written by a colleague in a journal published by her own Bar-Ilan University (a journal on whose editorial board I sit, but I was not consulted about the article in question). These (and the many other episodes one could mention) are internal to Orthodoxy; our relations with other segments of the religious Jewish world have certainly not improved.

There is a core confusion at the heart of the rush to label views with which we disagree as heresy. This confusion lays behind an halakhic query send to none other than Maimonides. Maimonides was asked a pointed and interesting question on his position concerning the place of heretics in the Jewish community and in the world to come. Maimonides' questioner (Responsa, Blau ed., no. 264) had pointed out an apparent inconsistency in the Master's Mishneh Torah. In 'Laws of Idolatry' II.5 Maimonides had stated in no uncertain terms that "Jewish sectarians (minim) are not considered as Jews in any fashion, and they are never accepted as penitents." In 'Laws of Repentance' III.14, on the other hand, Maimonides maintained that sectarians and heretics "are excluded from the world to come only if they die unrepentant. But if he repents his evil, and is a penitent (ba'al teshuvah), he has a share in the world to come, since nothing stands in the way of repentance." The apparent contradiction is obvious. Maimonides' reply is illuminating and may help us in our conversation about relations among Jews of differing religious convictions today. Maimonides replied to his questioner as follows:

What you consider to be a contradiction concerning sectarians – there is no contradiction whatsoever. One of the texts states 'they are never accepted as penitents.' I.e., We do not accept their repentance and do not see them as falling under the category of penitents, but, rather, continue to see them as the sectarians they were, and assume that the righteousness of their behavior is motivated by fear or a desire to fool people. But the second text states that if they truthfully repented in all that concerns their relationship with their Creator, they have a share in the world to come. This [second] law concerns their relationship with their Creator, while the first concerns their relationship with other human beings.

We here gain a valuable insight into the nature of heresy from Maimonides' perspective. Heresy is not only a theological matter, it is also has crucial social aspects. Heretics are so dangerous that they must be excluded from the Jewish community even if they repent. Following Maimonides here would undermine all efforts at kiruv, would close down Habad houses all over the United Federation of Planets, and would bring about even greater divisions among Jews than those from which we suffer today.

No Jew alive today follows Maimonides in this teaching. While paying lip-service to adherence to Maimonidean conceptions of orthodoxy, Orthodox Jews actually behave (as they should) as if they agree with Kellner, and not with Maimonides. They use the 'Thirteen Principles' as a cudgel with which to batter each other but do not actually believe what they say. The clearest proof of this is the case of my friend and respected colleague David Berger. He has proved conclusively that (even without reference to their messianist delusions) contemporary Habad hasidism is heretical, yet no Orthodox rabbi that I have ever heard of is willing to follow him in adopting the operative conclusions that follow from this finding. This is so, despite the fact that most Orthodox rabbis persist in saying, with Berger, that ‘membership in good standing in the community of Israel rest[s] on certain articles of faith’. Berger is consistent: Habad fails a crucial theological test (divine unity and incorporeality, i.e. the absolute transcendence of God) and followers of Habad cannot therefore be considered members in good standing in the community of Israel. Berger's rabbinic colleagues insist that the test is applicable, and some (in private) are willing to admit that Habad fails the test, but none are willing (in public) to join Berger in his condemnation of Habad. Why is that? Leaving aside questions of communal policy and the nature of rabbinic leadership, it seems obvious to me that in their heart of hearts the rabbis who agree that Habad is heresy but who refuse to condemn it as such are adherents (without knowing it) of the approach I advocate---other considerations (for them, halakhic obedience; for me, identification with the past and future of the people of Israel) trump theological orthodoxy.

God's name is truth and His seal is peace. If Orthodox Jews were a little more truthful with themselves, we could have more peace in the Jewish co

Over the generations, Jewish commentators have interpreted the texts of Tanakh using traditional methods and sources.  Many, however, also drew from non-traditional sources when they contributed positively to the discussion.  For example, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra frequently employs Karaite scholarship.  In his Guide to the Perplexed, Rambam draws extensively from Aristotle and other philosophers.  Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel frequently cites Christian commentaries and ancient histories.  In the 19^th century, rabbinic scholars such as Samuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) and Elijah Benamozegh in Italy; and Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel (Malbim) and David Zvi Hoffmann in Germany, benefited from more recent trends in archaeological and literary scholarly endeavors.

Many other rabbinic thinkers, however, have strenuously opposed the use of outside sources in explicating Tanakh. These rabbis did not want assumptions incompatible with Jewish tradition creeping into our religious worldview. This tension, i.e., whether or not to incorporate outside sources in Tanakh study, lies at the heart of many of the great controversies within Jewish tradition.  An important survey and analysis of various facets of this age-old debate can be found in the essays in Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures: Rejection or Integration? (1997).  

Since Jewish tradition places a premium on scholarship and intellectual honesty, we should stand willing to hear the truth from whoever says it.  Rambam stated this axiom long ago in the introduction to his Shemonah Perakim commentary on Avot, and many of the greatest rabbinic figures before and after him have espoused this policy as well.  One of the outstanding 20^th century thinkers, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (the first Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel), stressed that we must fear God, not intellectual challenge:

The greatest deficiency in the quality of fear of God…is that fear of thought replaces fear of sin. When a person begins to be afraid of thinking, he goes and immerses himself in the morass of ignorance, which robs him of the light of soul, weakens his vigor, and casts a pall over his spirit (introduction to Orot ha-Kodesh, vol. 3, p. 26).

To implement these ideas in Bible scholarship, Rabbi Kook inspired his student Rabbi Moshe Seidel to embark on an ambitious project.  Under Rabbi Seidel’s leadership, a group of scholars convened in 1956 and carefully formulated the underlying principles for a new Orthodox commentary on the entire Bible.  The first two volumes of the Da’at Mikra series were published by Mosad HaRav Kook in 1970, and its final volume was published in 2003.  This exceptional series incorporates the gamut of traditional interpretation as well as contemporary research.

Literary tools, comparative linguistics, as well as the discovery of a wealth of ancient texts and artifacts have contributed immensely to our understanding the rich tapestry and complexity of biblical texts. Great traditional scholars of the previous generation such as Professor Nehama Leibowitz and Rabbi Mordechai Breuer; and contemporary scholars such as Rabbis Yoel Bin-Nun, Shalom Carmy, and Elhanan Samet have benefited from contemporary literary and archaeological scholarship while working from the viewpoint of traditional Jewish learning. 

Though we should be thrilled to gain a better sense of the biblical period as a result of contemporary scholarship, we must approach this endeavor with prudent caution as well. We first need to understand our own tradition—to have a grasp of our texts, assumptions, and the range of traditional interpretations.  Additionally, everyone enters the fray with biases; non-Orthodox Jews or non-Jews bring beliefs and assumptions with them that often are incompatible with our tradition.  We must carefully sift to distinguish between genuine evidence and underlying assumption.

This tension is expressed poignantly in an anecdote cited by R. Yosef ibn Aknin in his commentary to the Song of Songs (12^th century).  After noting the works of several rabbinic precedents for utilizing Christian and Muslim writings, he quotes a story related by Shemuel HaNagid:

R. Mazliah b. Albazek the rabbinic judge of Saklia told [Shemuel HaNagid] when he came from Baghdad…that one day in [R. Hai Gaon’s] yeshivah they studied the verse, “let my head not refuse such choice oil” (Psa. 141:5), and those present debated its meaning.  R. Hai of blessed memory told R. Mazliah to go to the Catholic Patriarch and ask him what he knew about this verse, and this upset [R. Mazliah].  When [R. Hai] saw that R. Mazliah was upset, he rebuked him: “Our saintly predecessors who are our guides solicited information on language and interpretation from many religious communities—and even of shepherds, as is well known!”

Although R. Hai Gaon emerges victorious, the voice of R. Mazliah serves as a constant reminder that there is another side to this debate that must be weighed seriously.  The religious pursuit of truth for the sake of Heaven is our highest goal in learning; but it must be a careful search for genuine truth, not a pursuit of the latest fads.  In his Faith and Doubt, Dr. Norman Lamm has set the tone for this mode of inquiry:

Torah is a “Torah of truth,” and to hide from the facts is to distort that truth into myth…It is this kind of position which honest men, particularly honest believers in God and Torah, must adopt at all times, and especially in our times. Conventional dogmas, even if endowed with the authority of an Aristotle—ancient or modern—must be tested vigorously.  If they are found wanting, we need not bother with them.  But if they are found to be substantially correct, we may not overlook them.  We must then use newly discovered truths the better to understand our Torah—the “Torah of truth.”

For further study:

Rabbi Hayyim Angel, “From Black Fire to White Fire: Conversations about Religious Tanakh Learning Methodology” (2008), at www.jewishideas.org/node/50.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel, “Torat Hashem Temima: The Contributions of Rav Yoel Bin-Nun to Religious Tanakh Study,” Tradition 40:3 (Fall 2007), pp. 5-18.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel, “Review of Rabbi Elhanan Samet, Iyyunim be-Parashot ha-Shavua,” in Through an Opaque Lens (New York: Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2006), pp. 21-33.

Rabbi Shalom Carmy, “A Room with a View, but a Room of Our Own,” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations, ed. Shalom Carmy (Northvale, NJ:  Jason Aronson Inc., 1996), pp. 1-38.

Prof. Barry L. Eichler, “Study of Bible in Light of Our Knowledge of the Ancient Near East,” in Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah:  Contributions and Limitations, ed. Shalom Carmy (Northvale, NJ:  Jason Aronson Inc., 1996), pp. 81-100.

Prof. Marvin Fox, “Judaism, Secularism, and Textual Interpretation,” in Modern Jewish Ethics: Theory and Practice, ed. Marvin Fox (Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1975), pp. 3-26.

Prof. Uriel Simon, “The Pursuit of Truth that is Required for Fear of God and Love of Torah” (Hebrew), in ha-Mikra va-Anahnu, ed. Uriel Simon (Ramat-Gan: Institute for Judaism and Thought in our Time, 1979), pp. 28-41.

Prof. Ephraim E. Urbach, “The Pursuit of Truth as a Religious Obligation” (Hebrew), in ha-Mikra va-Anahnu, ed. Uriel Simon (Ramat-Gan: Institute for Judaism and Thought in our Time, 1979), pp. 13-27.

Blacklists: Another Black Eye for the Israeli Chief Rabbinate

By Rabbis Marc D. Angel and Avraham Weiss

The Talmud teaches that the mission of rabbinic scholars is to increase peace in the world. One interpretation is that they are to bring peace between Jews and the Almighty. Another interpretation is that they are to bring peace among all Jews, and indeed, among society as a whole. The challenge of rabbinic leadership is to actualize both interpretations.

Peace between Jews and God: Orthodox Judaism sees Torah, mitzvot and halakha as the key ingredients in our relationship with God. Orthodox rabbis devote their lives to fostering the ideals, values and observances of Torah Judaism. The hope is that when Jews find spiritual fulfillment in Torah and mitzvot, they will also find peace in their relationship with the Almighty.

This is precisely what the Chief Rabbinate represented when it was led by such luminaries as Rabbi BenzionMeir Hai Uziel and Rabbi Yitzhak Herzog, both of blessed memory. It was then an honored institution. It was visionary, inclusive, loving, compassionate, inspiring Jews across the spectrum to come closer to Torah.

With profound sadness we note that the present Rabbanut has not lived up to these ideals. Rather, it has fostered policies and attitudes that are exclusionary, insensitive and alienating. It has generated controversy and ill-will within our community. It has caused unnecessary grief to countless many who have come before the rabbinate with personal status issues; in particular, converts and those seeking to marry. 

Indeed, the Orthodox rabbinic establishment in Israel has lost sight of its responsibility to bring peace between Jews and God. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate, in its increasing authoritarianism and insularity, is a chief source of dissension within Israel and the world Jewish community. Instead of being a bastion of God’s Torah, the Rabbanut is perceived as a power-hungry, extremist entity that is bent on forcing its narrow views on Jewish society.

In a most recent outrage, it has been discovered that the Chief Rabbinate blacklists Orthodox rabbis who do not fit into their extreme, haredi worldview. Thus, hundreds of devoted, learned and upright rabbis are not trusted by the Rabbanut to perform conversions or even to attest to the Jewishness of individuals.

This egregious disregard for upstanding Orthodox rabbis is another black eye for the Orthodox rabbinic establishment. It demonstrates the suppression of legitimate diversity within halakha; it seeks to discredit anyone who will not fall into line with the narrow Orthodoxy that the Rabbanut espouses. The Chief Rabbinate and its cohorts promote policies that alienate Jews from God, that alienate would-be converts from Judaism, and that undermine the religious idealism that is the true foundation of Torah Judaism.

Peace among Jews: Matters have gotten worse. In its most recent ploy, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate has released a draft of a plan to accept only designated diaspora courts, not only for conversions – but for marriage and divorce as well. The stakes are higher, as invalidating divorces, sometimes going back years, could lead to irreversible problems of mamzerut in Israel, America and throughout the world. The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) is mentioned as a court that will help the Chief Rabbinate carry out its decree. 

It is critical that the Knesset and Jews worldwide challenge these dicta. The time has come for the Knesset and the Israeli government to restrict this increasing authoritarianism that attempts to exclude rabbis from the diaspora who do not share such narrow haredi opinions. The time has come for rabbis within the RCA to join in raising a voice of protest and not capitulate to the demands of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.

Today, Israel’s citizenry is pushing back against the Chief Rabbinate. Many conversions in Israel are being done outside of the rabbinate. An alternative Kashrut authority is certifying food kosher. A growing number of Israelis are marrying outside of the rabbinate. 

It is precisely now when the Rabbanut is losing standing amongst Israelis, that it is doubling down and attempting to consolidate its power by introducing stricter ordinances not only in Israel, but in the diaspora. This effort must be rejected by all. The Knesset must declare that the Chief Rabbinate is no longer authorized to establish policies for the State of Israel and for Jews around the world. The Orthodox community worldwide, who wish the State of Israel to function as a modern Jewish democracy, must raise a voice of protest. 

We believe that Israeli and diaspora Jewry want—and deserve—a rabbinate that is intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive.

It has been aptly noted that it is better to walk alone than to walk with a crowd going in the wrong direction. The Orthodox rabbinic establishment in Israel and the diaspora have been going in the wrong direction. It is time for all thinking Jews to turn the tide back in a proper direction. It is time for us to foster real peace between us and our God. It is time to work to bring genuine peace among ourselves.

“Rabbinic scholars increase peace in the world.” Let this be so.

“It isn’t enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.”

       —Eleanor Roosevelt ^[1]

       Many people wish to break social bonds and instill fear between groups. I’ve seen this attitude firsthand. Recently, I posted a picture of a Jewish-Muslim dialogue session I led for the local community. The purpose of the session was to encourage interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding between communities. The reaction to the dinner on social media, which I thought—hoped—would be uniformly positive and respectful, included comments that were anything but. Of the hateful comments my photo received, the one that stood out in my mind was: “Not the first time terrorists and bankers have worked together.”

       I was sad—disappointed—to see how many ignorant Jews started Muslim-bashing and how many ignorant Muslims started Jew-bashing. Aren’t we, as a modern society, better than this? Haven’t we moved beyond the baseless hatreds that defined earlier generations? I came to realize that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are tied together, and that all vulnerable minorities need to stick together.

       One of the central commitments of the Jewish faith is to work to improve the world. More than 3,000 years ago, God told Abraham: “And you shall be a blessing” to others (Genesis 12:2). Rabbi Akiva taught that the principle to love one’s neighbor “is the major principle of the Torah.”^[2] It was Hillel who taught: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” This is Judaism’s central teaching. He added: “This is the whole Torah! All the rest is commentary” (BT Shabbat 31a). Rambam explains that the two goals of halakha are to perfect our inner world and to eradicate injustice and suffering from the outer world.^[3] “The commandments were given only to refine God’s creatures.”^[4]

       If we believe in Jewish virtues, we have to study them and make them manifest in our lives. What is one way we can begin to understand the universality of Jewish social justice action? At the most basic level, the imperative to save life is a crucial concept of the Torah’s understanding of interpersonal responsibility; it is undeniable that the ethos of Judaism is about affirming the inherent holiness of life. Rabbi Dr. Irving (Yitz) Greenberg, one of Modern Orthodoxy’s most influential theologians, writes:

Judaism’s ultimate dream… is to vanquish death totally. In fact, since God is all good an all life, ideally there should be no death in God's creation in the first place. Classic Judaism therefore taught that when the ultimate redemption is achieved, when the Messiah comes, all those who have died will come to life again. Resurrection of the dead will nullify death retroactively.^[5]

       Rav Yitz’s comment is a powerful reminder that we are to affirm life in this world. And, as Rav Yitz teaches, we don’t have to consider about the quantity of life (as has been traditionally emphasized), but also about the quality of life, an idea he suggests has increased weight in the post-Holocaust era of humanity. But how do we approach this view? In an earlier generation, Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik wrote:

There is nothing so physically and spiritually destructive as diverting one’s attention from this world. And, by contrast, how courageous is halakhic man who does not flee from this world, who does not seek to escape to some pure, supernal realm.^[6]

       Thus, through the appreciation of life, we not only affirm an ethical commitment to others but also a belief in God. It is for this reason that embracing Tzelem Elokim—that all humans are created in the image of God—is so foundational to Jewish values. The essence of the creation in relationship to the Creator is an undeviating bond. And because of this link, we learn repeatedly of its importance to the idea of humanity’s shared and singular heritage:

Adam was created alone in order to teach us that causing a single to perish is like destroying the entire world, and saving a single soul is like saving the entire world. Another teaching: Adam was created alone for the sake of peace, so that we cannot say to each other: “My ancestor was greater than yours.” We are all created from the dust of the earth… and none of us can claim that our ancestors were greater than anyone else’s (BT Sanhedrin 38a).

       Moreover, because mitzvot ben adam l’haveiro (ethics) may actually have more religious weight than mitzvot ben adam laMakom (religious engagement with the divine), social justice work naturally follows a path of treating every human being with the respect they inherently deserve. On this point, Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, one of the most prominent pre-war Lithuanian rabbis, writes:

For “among two hundred is to be found a hundred,” [a common rabbinic idiom], meaning that in all mitzvot between man and his fellow there is also a component between man and God. Why then should they be lessened by being between man and his fellow? And it is for this reason that the Rosh saw mitzvot between man and his fellow as being more weighty, for they contain both elements.^[7]

       As we discern from the above passage, to be religious is to emulate the compassionate ways of God. Thus, this principle underlies all Torah study and related Jewish social justice activities:

Rabbi Elazar quoted this verse, “He has told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requires of you: Only to do justice (literally, “to do mishpat”), to love goodness (hessed), and to walk modestly with your God” (Micah 6:8). What does this verse imply? “To do justice” means to act in accordance with the principles of justice. “To love goodness” means to let your actions be guided by principles of loving-kindness. “To walk modestly with your God” means to assist needy families at their funerals and weddings [by giving humbly, in private]. (BT Sukkah 59b)
 

       Engaging in Jewish social justice work as a religious enterprise means that activists don’t merely seek the win at the end. To paraphrase Levinas, human “uniqueness lies in the responsibility for the other man.”[8] The means to social betterment must be just and holy to ensure just and holy ends. Rav Ya’akov Yitzchak of Pzhysha (the “Holy Yehudi,” an eighteenth-century Hassidic rebbe) was asked: “Why in the verse, ‘Justice, justice you shall pursue’ [Deuteronomy 16:20] is the word ‘justice’ repeated?” The rebbe answered that the repetition is meant to convey that not only must the ends we pursue be just, but so too must the means we employ to achieve those ends.^[9]

       Who are the ones who must bear the burden of repairing the world and bending it toward justice? The work of repair cannot be solely upon the Gentiles (who make up the majority of the world's population) while Jews, a small minority in the world, benefit but do not contribute. Rabbi Soloveitchik was adamant about this point:

Since we live among Gentiles, we share in the universal historical experience. The universal problems faced by humanity are also faced by the Jews. Famine, disease, war, oppression, materialism, atheism, permissiveness, pollution of the environment—all these are great problems which history has imposed not only on the general community but also on the covenantal community. We have no rights to tell mankind that these problems are exclusively theirs… the Jew is a member of humanity.^[10]

       Working to bring more peace and justice into the world is a big task. It is not enough to look into legal codes solely to inform our decision-making process and moral considerations. Consider the words of Ramban:

Now this is a great principle, for its impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of a person’s conduct with one’s neighbors and friends, and all of one’s various transactions, and the ordinances of all societies and countries. But since God mentioned many of them—such as “you shall not go about as a talebearer” (Leviticus 19:16), “you shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge” (Leviticus 19:18), “neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor” (Leviticus 19:16), “you shall not curse the deaf” (Leviticus 19:14), “you shall rise before the elder” (Leviticus 19:32), and the like—God reverted to state in a general way that, in all matters, one should do what is right and good, including even compromise and going beyond the requirements of the law.^[11]

       Indeed, peace and redemption depend on work happening all over the globe. Religious conscience has the potential to ensure peace while also having an effect of furthering justice, compassion, and dignity in regions of the world where these notions are not yet entrenched. There is a need to harmonize gratitude in the quiet prayerful presence of God, while also knowing there is real suffering and brokenness in the world. Therefore, one of the most powerful tools in this field of work is the strength to refuse to look away and be silent.

       But how do we proceed knowing that the path ahead is difficult? At the most basic level, working together supports spirits during hard times. Doris Haddock, a social activist also known as “Granny D” (1910–2010) was 98 years old when she gave a speech about how she was transformed during her experiences of living in the time of the Great Depression. She remarked: “Maybe we were hungry sometimes, but did we starve? No, because we had our friends and family and the earth to sustain us….”^[12] For the human mind, the darkest times are among the most frightening. When we cannot clearly see what is happening around us, we shrink inward, unable to navigate the world physically and emotionally. Certainly, our presence has the possibility to remove the darkness in others. There are rare and unique moments when we can show up for other groups in a way that builds trust.

       Too often, societal norms teach us that independence is the primary virtue. But in fact, the notions of living in states of inter-dependence and co-existence are just as powerful. To be sure, we must learn to hold one another close in challenging times. Rabbi Joseph Telushkin relates a parable:

A little boy was struggling to lift a heavy stone but could not budge it. The boy’s father, who happened to be watching, said to his son, “Are you using all your strength?”

         “Yes, I am,” the boy said with irritation.

               “No, you’re not,” the father answered. “You have not asked me to help you.”^[13]

       It is undeniable, however, that there is much hate within the hearts of a vast number of people around the world. How best to engage with these individuals who, seemingly, have already closed off their internal avenues of reasoned dialogue? Is it even worth engaging with them? On this topic, Rav Kook teaches:

When interacting with a morally corrupt person, it would be appropriate to hate them as a result of their moral faults. But from the perspective of their Tzelem Elokim (inner sparks of Godliness), it's appropriate to treat this person with love….”^[14]

       To seek another’s deepest inner value is fundamental to Jewish consciousness and social justice actions. Why, then, does finding the inner value in others not seem to be a central concern for Jewish discourse today? There are five primary challenges to the Jewish community engaging fully in Jewish social justice leadership right now:

1.   Elitism. Among some, there is a sense that Jews are more special and holier than Gentiles.

2.   Narrow-Minded Traditionalism. There is increasingly a slide to the right in traditional communities that are moving toward deeper societal isolation.

3.   Watered-Down Tikkun Olam. Jewish activists often join secular social justice movement without bringing real Jewish wisdom or spirituality to the engagement.

4.   Moral Priorities. There is a sense that Jews are alone or are hated in the world, and thus we should only take care of ourselves since no one else will.

5.    False Sense of Relevance. There is a perception (based upon civil rights stories) that Jews are still at the epicenter of change-making.

       How do we remedy these challenges? There is no doubt that Jews are feeling more isolated today than in the past 70 years. But the opposite story can also be told. American Jews have never experienced such security, acceptance, and integration. It is true that we have unique obligations to our fellow Jews but that does not preclude us from also actualizing another existential component of the Jew: our humanity. Jewish solidarity can be coupled with human solidarity.

       One of the vital decisions activists can make is to decide whether we wish to be on the side of listening and healing or on the side of waiting. Activists do not engage in this crucial work because we are promised a reward. As it says: “Whoever has compassion for [God’s] creatures is shown compassion from Heaven” (BT Shabbat 151b). Rather than waiting to witness the spiritual recompense for our deeds, we engage in this work because we love others and feel empathy for others’ suffering. We seek to emulate God’s ways:

The Talmud teaches: “The Torah begins with an act of kindness, and ends with an act of kindness. It begins with an act of kindness, for it says, ‘God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them’ (Genesis 3:21).  And it ends with an act of kindness, for it says, ‘He [God] buried him [Moses] in the valley.”^[15]
 

       One of the costs of opening our hearts to vulnerable populations of the world is the nightmares and anxiety it produces. It is haunting to deal with echoes of orphans crying from broken cribs, hospital rooms filled with casualties from senseless civil wars, refugee camps filled with generations of families, factory farms slicing jugular veins without pause, jail cells stuffed with people who need to be rehabilitated rather than punished, and janitor closets where invisible workers toil out of sight and out of mind from the greater populace. But we must do our best to accept the challenges of assisting these people, even at great sacrifice to our emotional cores.

       Each of us has something to share. Anne Frank’s message of not needing “to wait a moment before make the world better” is an inspirational aphorism that can push us to use the talents we have to actualize our unique potential. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks explains that Judaism cannot be reduced to some strict Kantian calculation of a “universal imperative.” Rather, Judaism is a deeply subjective and relative religion where everyone has a unique calling in this world:

There is no life without a task; no person without a talent; no place without a fragment of God’s light waiting to be discovered and redeemed; no situation without its possibility of sanctification; no moment without its call. It may take a lifetime to learn how to find these things, but once we learn, we realize in retrospect that all it ever took was the ability to listen…. He whispers our name—and the greatest reply, the reply of Abraham, is simply hineni: “Here I am,” ready to heed your call, to mend a fragment of Your all-too-broken world.^[16]

       I think the basis of values-driven and mission-driven efforts is the notion that we just don’t look at the small annoyances that hold us back. Instead, there is an obligation to look beyond the inconveniences of the work and look towards the ultimate goal of healing the world. To be a passionate advocate means worrying less about folks throwing water on our embers of compassion, and focusing more on feeding our fires. In other words, more than battling the darkness that surrounds us, let's infuse ourselves and those around us with light. We are to be focused on the big picture.

       While Jews have a unique holy mission in the world, we dare not look down upon Gentiles or other faith groups in our pursuit of universal justice. Indeed, we must emerge in a faith-rooted manner that is transformative for us, as well as for populations who experience oppression and injustice. To be sure, there are texts from Jewish tradition that imply we have a higher obligation to Jews than to Gentiles (BT Bava Metzia 71a). Yet, there are also texts that instruct that we are equally obligated to all (BT Gittin 61a). Nachmanides teaches that: “We are commanded to save the life of a non-Jew and to save him from harm, that if he was drowning in a river or a stone fell on him, that we must use all of our strength and be burdened with saving him and if he was sick, we engage to heal him” (Sefer haMitzvot, Mitzvah 16).

       Human solidarity is something to work toward and cultivate. When immigrant children recently found themselves under attack in America, I found myself praying, under the stars, in a circle of strangers. A young woman to the left took my hand. A young woman to the right took my hand. They were no longer Mexican, Christian, brown, women, DREAMers. I was no longer Jewish, American, white, a man, a citizen. They were all those things and I was all of those things. But, for a brief moment, difference fell away. We were one: Not strangers, just humanity. All of us humbly sinking together into the harmonious unity of the cosmos, in solidarity with each other and with creation.

Pathologizing normal stages of faith development negatively impacts individuals who choose to identify with Jewish faith communities. In this article, I will discuss the merits of a developmental approach to faith, and will demonstrate that a developmental view of faith is consistent with ancient Jewish tradition. I hope that my approach will allow us to reframe the discussion about some of the observed phenomena in the Jewish community that we tend to pathologize, and to approach these phenomena from a different perspective.

In this article I will:

• Introduce Fowler’s structural stages of faith development;
• Demonstrate that Fowler’s stages are consistent with traditional Jewish sources;
• Discuss an optimal environment in which faith stage development can occur; and
• Give examples of normal faith stage development that are pathologized and discuss the negative impacts that arise as a result.

Fowler’s Structural Stages of Faith Development

A classic treatment of faith development commonly taught in pastoral curricula is James Fowler’s book, Stages of Faith.[1] Fowler’s book is based on his own original research, as well as on Jean Piaget’s work in the area of cognitive development,[2] Lawrence Kohlberg’s work in the area of stages of moral development,[3] and Erik Erikson’s work in the area of stages of psychosocial development,[4] as well as the work of numerous others. Readers wanting more information about Fowler’s methodology and conclusions are directed to his excellent book. It is worthwhile reading for those who want to understand their own faith journey in a more profound way.

Fowler posits seven structural stages of faith development (see chart below[5]). Individuals progress through these stages over the course of their entire life (well beyond the end of Piaget’s cognitive developmental stages) and they do so in a stepwise (or spiral) fashion—first learning and knowing something with what Fowler terms “the logic of rational certainty,” and at some later point assimilating this with the “logic of conviction,” thus providing a foundation for the next structural stage.[6]

To address his concern that some readers might find his model judgmental, thinking that later stages are “better” or more “mature,” Fowler states that each stage has its own dignity and integrity, and that people at later stages are not inherently more valuable or more spiritual. Additionally, a significant percentage of individuals that Fowler surveyed remained at Stage 3, or even Stage 2, throughout their adult life.

What is important, then, is not that individuals progress through the stages to achieve a higher degree of spirituality; as Fowler states, spirituality can be achieved at any stage. The important observation is that individuals can progress through stages and be at different stages at different points in their life. The same individual’s spirituality and outlook may manifest differently at each stage. Fowler’s faith stages are a model[7] for understanding human faith in a composite sense, and may in fact not be universal to all individuals or to faiths other than two major Western monotheistic religions represented in his studies (Judaism and Christianity).

Are Fowler’s Stages Consistent with Jewish Tradition?

The Mishna in Avot 5:24 presents, as Robert Travers Herford writes in his commentary Pirke Aboth—The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers,[8] “the stages in the life” of an individual who follows the Torah. This Mishna, as well as the following two Mishnayot, are redacted beyond the original end of the last chapter of Avot.[9] Evidence that it has been moved from its original placement elsewhere in the tractate[10] points to the possibility that the redactors moved it because of its homiletical and representative value of the entire tractate.[11]

For the purpose of the subsequent discussion, please see the chart below, where I present Avot 5:24 and my own translation, organized in pairs and numbered as “stages” corresponding to Fowler’s stages. In cases where my translation departs from Herford’s more conventional translation, I have cited Herford’s translation and supported my choice to depart from it in the endnotes.

The parallels between Avot 5:24 and Fowler’s structural stages demonstrate that our sages embraced a stages of faith model, and that Fowler, Piaget, Kohlberg, Erikson, et al support observations that our sages made thousands of years ago about human spiritual development. While there are chronological differences between the Avot 5:24 epochs and Fowler’s stages, what is important is that the text of Avot 5:24 outlines the movement of an individual’s spiritual life through a progression of stages, each stage having different hallmarks.

In Avot 5:24 there are fourteen “ages,” or epochs. Pairing the epochs yields seven sets. The first of each set of epochs is a physical activity, or, if you will, an experience. The second of each set of epochs is a spiritual or emotional benchmark, or watershed. These correspond to Fowler’s “logic of rational certainty” and “logic of conviction” at each stage.

The epochs of “Being Commanded” and “Logical Reasoning” (ages 13 and 15) correspond to Fowler’s Intuitive-Projective stage (Stage 1) where “religion is learned through experiences.” Since young children at Stage 0 are not yet capable of learning about religion through experience, there is no reason for them to be obligated to have those experiences except for hinukh—to habituate them to those experiences so that they are not totally foreign. Only at Stage 1 do children become obligated to have religious experiences, since they are now at a stage where they can learn religion through those experiences.

The epochs of “Physical Strength” and “Understanding” (ages 30 and 40) correspond to Fowler’s Synthetic-Conventional stage (Stage 3.) Many, but not all, people at this stage choose to live their lives by “conventional wisdom.” People at this stage typically are well into their career, perhaps settling down and having a family. People who choose to follow this route might feel that their choice is justified because they have reaped the “obvious” rewards of having done so: a family, a sense of financial security, competence at one’s vocation, and a sense of fitting in to a community. The understanding at this stage might be that working hard at a career is rewarding.

The epochs of “Advising” and “Age” (ages 50 and 60) map to Fowler’s Indivituative-Reflective stage (Stage 4). When one has a conventional understanding of how life works, one is tempted to advise or mentor others and suggest that since a particular set of choices worked for them, the same choices ought to work well for others. Of course, people lives their own lives and are often loath to listen to advice. Even when they do, the results are often quite different.[16] One who is in the habit of advising others, only to be disregarded, or to be disappointed that the same choices made by others lead to a different result for them, may feel “aged”—that they are no longer relevant and no longer have any insight to contribute. Individuals at this stage, which is characterized by a sense of conflict generated by the types of feelings described above, sometimes act in ways that appear non-normative and may even profess non-belief and may appear to others at Stage 3 as lapsed in their faith.[17]

The epochs of “Return” and “Self-mastery” (ages 70 and 80) correspond to Fowler’s Conjunctive stage (Stage 5). One has resolved the conflicts in one’s tradition by developing an understanding that can accommodate multiple different “truths” that overlap in some areas and are disjointed in others. This allows an individual to once again find comfort in his or her tradition and return to it. While an individual at this stage may continue to act in ways that might appear non-normative, they no longer profess non-belief. Their behavior is driven by re-embracing one’s belief rather than an appearance of tentative rejection of it due to conflict.

Is There an Optimal Way to Foster Faith Development?

The parallels between Avot 5:24 and Fowler’s stages suggest that our sages viewed an individual’s life as a progression of stages, and that a faith stage model is consistent with traditional Jewish thought. A separate, related question is whether faith stage development is a positive value in Judaism. Ought Jewish communities invest time in thinking about how to foster the natural process of faith development?

Fowler asserts that each stage has its own dignity and integrity, and that later stages are not “better” or “more mature” than earlier stages, only different. Individuals can attain and live fully spiritual lives in each stage, although the means by which that might be done differ from stage to stage. In Abraham Maslow’s work Motivation and Personality, he elaborates on how one might achieve “self-transcendence” by presenting his Hierarchy of Human Needs.[18] In secular literature, self-transcendence might be termed “spirituality,”[19] and in a traditional Jewish worldview, one might term this concept temimut.[20] One important goal of faith in Jewish tradition is striving for a relationship with God that reflects the value of temimut. This striving is experienced in different ways at each stage of faith development.

R. Abraham Kook, in his discussion of the purpose of life in his Ein Ayah,[21] asserts a similar idea. Rav Kook suggests that the sole purpose of human life is to fulfill a specific personal mission that the soul was given by God, at a particular moment in history. When God creates a particular human, it is evidence that the moment to fulfill her or his specific mission has arrived.

According to R. Kook, during each of our lives, we each are bid to intuit God’s mission for us and execute that mission. To discern that mission, we must each engage in a personal relationship with God. When we do not engage in a relationship with God, we will not be able to discern that mission and our lives will be irrelevant, as if we had never existed.

Rav Kook’s framing strongly reinforces the idea that Jewish communities must support individuals[22] in their personal quest for temimut (self-transcendence) in their relationships with God. Jewish communities must create emotional and physical spaces that facilitate encounters with God and support individuals during their quest to discern the reason for their existence in this world and fulfill their God-given mission.

Maslow asserts that self-transcendence is impossible to attain unless lower human needs, such as physical, economic, and emotional safety are assured. Many of our values, such as tzedakah (charity,) gemilut hassadim (acts of kindness,) and ahavat hinam (embracing the other) are aimed at assuring that those needs are met to support individuals in their quest for temimut. When we, as communities, do not work to provide physical safety, economic safety, and emotional safety we prevent individuals from achieving temimut. When we pathologize that which is a normal manifestation of a faith development stage, we deprive individuals of their much-needed emotional safety and self-esteem, and ultimately prevent them from fulfilling the purpose that their Creator has intended for them.

At the end of Fowler’s book Stages of Faith, he speculates as to how one advances from one faith stage to another. Is it purely a matter of will, or is something else involved? Fowler discusses interventions of what he calls “extraordinary grace,” and what our tradition might call in Aramaic si’yata dishmaya, or in Hebrew, hashgaha peratit (divine assistance.) Fowler concludes that “the question of whether there will be faith on earth is finally God’s business.” In order to create and support healthy Jewish communities, we need to conduct ourselves in ways that will not interfere with the process of making space to let God into our lives so the important business of faith development can take place. We need to be careful not to interfere with “God’s business.”

I want to turn to a few practical examples of contemporary issues in the normatively religious Jewish community and analyze whether they are pathologies or whether they are manifestations of normal faith development stages.

Early Childhood Education

Many individuals who have been educated in Jewish schools reach a point in their lives where they go looking in the Pentateuch for the stories that they were taught as children, only to discover that they are nowhere to be found. For example, the midrashic story about Avraham Avinu smashing the idols in his father Terah’s workshop is nowhere to be found in the Book of Genesis.[23] Many adults criticize Jewish schools for presenting this material literally, misleading children, and setting them up to be disillusioned with our tradition when they become teenagers or young adults and discover the “truth” about those stories. They treat the teaching of these midrashic Bible stories literally as a pathology.[24]

Based on a faith stages model, a child at Stage 0 or Stage 1 of their faith development is not yet ready to process this midrashic material in any other way. The midrashic material must be taught in a literal, engaging way, as if it in fact actually happened, if one expects children to continue to develop their Jewish faith later on in life. Material must be taught differently, depending on the audience and probable faith stage, with an eye to presenting material in an age- and developmentally appropriate way.

The future of the Jewish people depends on being able to transmit our traditions to our children in a way that is engaging and speaks to where they are in their faith development. Additionally, the disappointment they might experience as teenagers or young adults when they discover that perhaps Midrash is not meant to be entirely or only literal is to be expected, and is part of the normal course of their faith development.

Educators must understand this dynamic, and be mindful that how they present the material depends on the faith stage of the target audience. Students must be given developmentally appropriate information and tools to enable them to grow in understanding of our tradition, and be prepared for the inevitable conflicts they will experience. In the prevalent educational model, students are largely classed by age rather than individual developmental stage, and there is sound social reasoning for this practice. Nevertheless, educators must be aware that developmental stages track only roughly, not exactly, by age. Thought must be given to evaluating the faith developmental stage of each student and possibly creating multiple tracks within each cohort to present material in an appropriate way.

“Nonbelieving” Members of Normatively Religious Communities

Another phenomenon of interest is the rise of self-professed non-believers who affiliate with normatively religious communities for purely social reasons.[25] Some view this phenomenon as a pathology and are concerned about the threat it poses to their communities.[26] In considering Fowler’s Stage 3, one can view these self-professed non-believers as a manifestation of a normal faith development stage rather than a pathology. The “authority” in this particular Stage 3 manifestation is peer pressure.

In other communities, this conformity may manifest in less obvious ways—conformity in dress and theology, for example—but it is there, and it is normal. When our communities treat this form of purely social affiliation with a community, or other forms of conformity, as a pathology, rather than the normal developmental faith stage that it is, any corrective interventions taken interfere with the basic human needs these individuals have, such as belonging or self-esteem, and prevent their ability to attain temimut (self-transcendence) at that stage.

The Religious Crisis of Stage 4 as a Pathology

An individual at Stage 4 of faith development may experience deep doubts about the fundamental assumptions taken to be true at previous stages of faith, and act in a way perceived by others as rejection of belief or practice. A cursory look at various websites that discuss how normatively religious individuals and Jewish communities “ought to” behave[27] might lead one to the conclusion that one must observe the commandments a particular way: lack of particular beliefs (such as a literal belief in Maimonides’ Thirteen Principles), the choice of a particular synagogue or school, and even what material one chooses to read, are all grounds for exclusion in some normatively religious Jewish communities. Fowler predicts that at least a significant percentage of people will experience Stage 4 at some point in their faith journey, where they question numerous aspects of their faith that are a source of conflict for them. People experiencing Stage 4 may not look or act as members of a normatively religious Jewish community, yet Fowler and Avot 5:24 assert that such behavior is a normal manifestation of faith development, even in a normatively religious community.

Individuals who are at Stage 4 of their faith development and who belong to normatively religious communities that treat Stage 4 as a pathology rather than a normal stage of faith development, and experience criticism of their questions and misgivings as a result may experience a deep sense of loss and shame when they are told that are not normatively religious and that they ought to be excluded from their faith community because of perceived heresy. Treating Stage 4 behaviors as pathological deprives some such individuals of the basic human needs for belonging and self-esteem that they must have in order to achieve temimut (self-transcendence) at Stage 4.

The View of Divorce as a Crisis in Normatively Religious Communities

Many people bemoan the high divorce rate in the Modern Orthodox community,[28] and attribute that problem primarily to factors external to the community.[29] While this might be true, one of the many factors driving divorce is how Jewish communities sometimes construe normal faith development stages as pathological.

When two people choose to marry, there is no automatic guarantee that both will progress through faith stages at the same rate, and at the same time, or that either or both of the spouses will progress through faith stages at all. A significant percentage of those surveyed by Fowler in doing his research remained at Stage 3 or even Stage 2 well into mid-life and old age. It is quite likely that spouses may experience significant periods of time where they are at different faith stages. Spouses who are at different structural faith stages, and buy into some of the beliefs about how normatively religious people ought to behave (discussed in the previous section,) may be unable to empathize with their spouse’s experience and feelings. When spouses are unable to validate each other and empathize with each other, a serious handicap is introduced into the relationship.

For example, one spouse might be at Stage 3, while the other is deep in the questioning of their faith that often accompanies Stage 4. A spouse who is at Stage 3 might view the questioning Stage 4 spouse as departing from what they thought was a shared vision of their lives together. A spouse who is at Stage 4 might experience the Stage 3 spouse as being unsympathetic or judgmental. When we do not prepare our communities for the almost certain inevitability of differing rates of progression through the faith stages, some of which may present as retrograde progress, we set them up for misery and troubled or failed marriages.

The causes of divorce in any particular marriage are complex. Explicitly or implicitly communicating that various manifestations of faith stage development are pathological introduces yet another handicap into the mix of factors that may lead a couple to divorce. An explicit message that a progression through different faith stages is normal and consistent with Jewish tradition would support individuals and couples and help them view their spouses more kindly and charitably in the eventuality of a faith stage disparity.

Perhaps this is what is meant by the phrase ezer k’negdo in Genesis (2:18 and 2:20). Even when one spouse opposes the other ritually or theologically with every fiber of his or her body due to a faith stage disparity, one must still find a way to support the other spouse’s spiritual growth. Couples who are unable to grow spiritually together, with all the pain and struggle that might entail, will surely grow apart.

Conclusion

I am hopeful that we can frame future discussions in a way that we can view some of the phenomena presented above as normal as opposed to pathological. We need to give each member of our community space, at whatever faith stage they are, to experience that stage and to attain the convictions of that stage, free from outside interference, free from judgment, and free from any of the messages or behaviors on the part of others that might threaten their physical, emotional, economic, or spiritual safety. As a community, we can afford to be much more “on message” about normal faith development and conduct ourselves in ways that are conducive to individuals attaining temimut at whatever faith stage they are, thereby enabling them to fulfill their mission in this world and bring about the ultimate redemption, please God, speedily and in our days.

To our members and friends,

It has been a remarkably productive year for our educational offerings through the Institute for Jewish Ideas an Ideals. For my annual report, please see here https://www.jewishideas.org/article/national-scholar-fifth-year-report.

Here are some upcoming offerings for the summer months:

On June 24-25 (Sunday-Monday), I will give five classes at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah’s annual study days on Bible and Jewish Thought. It will be held at the SAR High School in Riverdale: 503 W 259th St, Bronx, NY. The event is co-sponsored by the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals.

For more information and to register, go to http://www.yctorah.org/giving/yemeiiyun/.

On Shabbat, July 6-7, I will be scholar-in-residence for the Sephardic Community Alliance in Deal, New Jersey.

On Wednesdays, July 11, 18, and 25, from 10:30-11:45 am, I will give a three-part series on the Parashah at Lamdeinu, Teaneck, at Congregation Beth Aaron, 950 Queen Anne Road, Teaneck, New Jersey. To register, go to http://www.lamdeinu.org/

This past year, I have worked with the senior administration at Ben Porat Yosef Yeshiva Day School in Paramus, New Jersey on a revolutionary new Tanakh curriculum. They will be rolling out the first phase, for grades 1-3, this coming year. You can read the recent newspaper article by Rabbi Saul Zucker in the Jewish Link of New Jersey at https://www.jewishlinknj.com/features/25472-fluency-and-mastery-beginning-with-foundations

We are coming along beautifully for our special communal programs for the coming year. In my next report, I will post the final schedule. These new programs will take our educational offerings to a much higher level of involvement in the broader Jewish community.

As always, thank you for all of your support, and we will continue to spread our vision to the broader Jewish community.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Even rationalists like me can read, enjoy, and learn from the writings of mystics. We do not have to accept everything they say as being true, but there are things they say which are true.

Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook was born in Latvia in 1865 and died in Jerusalem in 1935. His father was a Mitnaged, opposed to mysticism. His mother was a descendant of Chabad, a Chasidic group. When asked “What will you be?” he answered “I will be both.” In 1920, at the age of fifty-five, he moved to Jerusalem and became its Ashkenazic chief rabbi.

Rabbi Kook’s writings are generally, but not always very mystical and difficult to understand. However, Rabbi Ari Ze’ev Schwartz’s book “The Spiritual Revolution of Rav Kook” unravels the writings with a new translation, with each chapter being divided into clearly stated topic headings added by Rabbi Schwartz, such as the individual, Torah, God, teshuvah, prayer, creativity, Zionism, science, and vegetarianism. Rabbi Schwartz also introduces each section with a clear explanation of what Rabbi Kook is saying.

Rabbi Kook became Ashkenazic chief rabbi long before the State of Israel was reestablished in 1948. He lived during a period when the vast majority of pioneers who sacrificed their lives and came to Israel and faced difficulties in their attempts to build up the land of Israel were irreligious Jews, often men and women who were antagonistic to religion. He is properly credited and even commended for working to draw all people close, even those who rebelled against religion. He taught that each person should want to influence friends and be influenced by them for the increase of the greater good. It is through the combining of different talents within each individual that a society is formed. He also taught that everyone should find a personal Torah and realize that there is not just one type of Torah, but an endless variety that can speak to countless individuals in different ways.

The following are some other of Rabbi Kook’s ideas:

The highest type of thinking remains open to new ideas. No one has a monopoly on truth. There is truth in other religions.

Secular knowledge is important. We must teach our children what is necessary for them to know as they confront the trials of life.

I walk around with an overwhelming jealousy of the secular world. It is a jealousy that consumes me. For is it really possible that the power of creativity has ceased within the religious world?

Atheists may be on the right track. They may be denying an immature and distorted image of God. In other words, their denial of God is really a deeper quest for a higher, more sophisticated understanding. Atheism comes to purify the dirt, the embarrassments, that have stuck to a religion that lacks any comprehension. Religious people should understand this, and pay attention to what is bothering them.

One should not only study a religious text to receive a new idea; it should serve as a tool toward understanding oneself.

The role of an author of any book is to begin the discussion of an idea, yet it is the reader’s responsibility to respond by searching for personal meaning.

The ideal perfection of a person can only be accomplished by focusing one’s energy on improving one’s own individual self as much as possible. Yet at the same time a person should keep in mind that one’s own individual perfection will never be completed until the Jewish people have successfully reached national perfection.

People should realize that being totally perfect is unattainable and should understand that a person’s true greatness is found in the journey of constantly striving to become a little better.

More than asking God to forgive our misdeeds, we should learn to forgive ourselves and work to assure we do not repeat our mistakes.

Personal growth requires us to first clarify what is the character trait we want to assume, and only after knowing this to try to embody it.

A person who thinks that prayer changes God’s will is blaspheming.

The demand for physical activity is enormous. We need healthy bodies. But we have focused on our souls and have forgotten the holiness of the body.

We must agree with Maimonides who taught that the stories of creation told in the Torah should not be understood literally; rather, they have a deeper lesson to teach.

It is hard to believe that God created a world that Genesis 1:31 calls “very good,” and yet made it impossible for humankind to survive without distorting its moral sensitivity by murdering animals.

Over the last 50 years American Orthodoxy has managed to
create a national community that is successful in the realm of
imparting knowledge, Jewish commitment and continuity.
Over the past years Orthodox rabbis convinced entire communities to
change their eating habits by refraining from “eating out” and to raise a
generation of Jewishly literate and deeply committed youth by sending
their children, at great personal expense, to Jewish day schools. It is precisely
these rabbis, on the heels of these successes, who can galvanize the
Orthodox community to broaden its focus in a way that can contribute so
much to the American Jewish community, and the world at large. Because
of the strength and vitality of our community, in many ways the envy of
other denominations, an engaged and relevant Orthodoxy could reshape
the way Orthodoxy is perceived by broadening the Orthodox conversation.

Orthodoxy represents a very small part of American Jewry. Small
numbers notwithstanding, Orthodoxy, specifically Modern Orthodoxy,
must start believing that it has a contribution to make to the larger Jewish
world. While not all Jews will become Orthodox, Modern Orthodoxy
must begin to speak to all Jews. Modern Orthodoxy must make a claim of
relevance. A number of strategies need to be employed if Modern
Orthodoxy wishes to be heard beyond the boundaries of her adherents.

First, Modern Orthodoxy must see itself as a full participant in the
activities of the wider Jewish community. This would include participation
and support of Federation activities, Jewish Family Services, Local Boards
of Jewish Education, communal endeavors of Jewish learning as well as
National Organizations like American Jewish World Service. In order for
our opinions to matter, we must be seen and heard in the places where the
broader Jewish community meets and studies.

Related to this is the need for Modern Orthodoxy to become a movement
that speaks to all Jews by relating to the full gamut of human conditions.
This includes Jews whose lifestyle deviates from Halakhic norms.
Modern Orthodox communities have managed to integrate those who do
not observe Shabbat and Kashrut in the traditional sense without creating
the perception of condoning that behavior; we can and must do the same
for all Jews.

Second, Modern Orthodoxy needs to speak out on the major cultural
and ethical issues of the day. Darfur, materialism, poverty, global warming
and immigration are just some of the issues facing the American and
world public. The imperative to imitate God, understood by Maimonides
as stemming from the verse “God is good to all and his kindness extends
to all His creations,” establishes a moral responsibility on our part to speak
out and to act on issues facing humanity.

While Orthodoxy must maintain concern for the details of the laws of
the Torah, Modern Orthodoxy must expand the discussion to include the
ethical, moral and social issues that are part and parcel of the broader message
of the Torah. We have a unique potential to make the wisdom of an
ancient tradition compelling to a modern diverse audience. The broader
American Jewish community, indeed, all of our fellow citizens, both
Jewish and gentile, could benefit from the Torah’s perspective on contemporary
issues translated into modern language.

Third, Modern Orthodoxy must promote those traditional, though
often neglected interpretations of Halakha which are faithful to Jewish law,
while at the same time compassionate and open. Jewish law must be
applied in ways that make halakhic living attainable to as many Jews as
possible. Kashrut, conversion and family purity are all areas where stringent
rulings can give way to halakhically recognized approaches that
would help people realize that living according to Halakha is a realistic
goal. Orthodoxy is fast becoming a world of humrot—stringencies, while
the koah d’hetera, the priority often given to leniency, is quickly disappear
ing. The point of is to bring more people to observance of Halakha; as
more people recognize that they can live according to Halakha in specific
areas, more will be willing to try it in other areas.

In a similar vein, while community rabbis should consult with academics
and rabbinic scholars, it is the rabbis who are in the synagogues
who must ultimately set the agenda message and tone of the Modern
Orthodox community. It is the community rabbis who are “in the trenches”
and therefore understand the social, religious and economic realities of
the Jewish community. It is the community rabbis who feel a personal
responsibility towards members of the community and will therefore do
all that is possible to find viable answers to those problems.

Finally, Modern Orthodoxy must begin to tackle issues of the spirit,
meaning and relevance of Judaism. When people find meaning in the
Orthodox system they will feel spiritually connected to it.

Questions like: What do the myriad steps that need to be taken before
meat is rendered kosher teach us about the Jewish view of eating meat?
What do the laws of the Sabbatical year teach us about labor relations and
property ownership? How can a full understanding of the laws of Shabbat
impact social and family life? Should the Biblical laws prohibiting waste
and destruction impact on our choice of the cars that we drive, as well as
the food we waste at our lavish weddings and bar/bat mitzvahs?

An Orthodoxy that is able to present a system of Judaism that taps into
these and other foundational issues of life will be viewed as spiritually fulfilling
and meaningful.

In order to achieve all of the above, Modern Orthodoxy must develop
self-confidence and stop looking over its right and left shoulders hoping
for approval and acceptance from others. Doing so is self defeating and is
largely responsible for the reason Orthodox Judaism remains irrelevant to
so many.

Modern Orthodoxy, as a movement grounded in Jewish text and tradition,
while at the same time appreciating the fluid nature of modern reality,
is the Jewish movement in America best suited to speak to the issues
of the day with conviction and confidence. We have a unique message that
can benefit the entire American Jewish community. We have to stop preaching

only to the choir.

One of the remarkable features of the Jewish People is our incredible diversity. We have an amazing treasure of teachings, customs, folklore, spiritual insights...from Jewish communities spanning thousands of years and flourishing in many lands.  As we appreciate the "wholeness" of the Jewish People, we provide ourselves and our new generations with a sense of sharing in the grandness of the Jewish experience.

For a variety of reasons, Jewish education has largely focused on the history, traditions and personalities of the Ashkenazic communities. Indeed, there is much to learn from the Ashkenazic experience, and all of us are strengthened and enlightened by it. However, Jewish education has largely tended to ignore or under-emphasize the history, traditions and personalities of the Sephardic and pan-Sephardic Jewish communities.  In some sense, it is as though the Sephardim dropped out of history after their expulsion from Spain in 1492, and became even more obscure after the Shabbatai Sevi debacle in 1666. The history and culture of Sephardim, Middle Eastern and North African Jews are relatively unknown to large numbers of Jews.  And when attempts are made to be inclusive, they generally relate to foods and music...and almost never to intellectual and spiritual contributions.

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals and the Sephardic Educational Center have launched a "Sephardic Initiative," to promote a greater inclusiveness and "wholeness" in Jewish education.

TEACHER EDUCATION:  We have sponsored three conferences for teachers in Jewish schools. In October 2017, 25 educators from 9 schools in the New York City area participated. In March 2018, 15 educators from 7 schools in the Los Angeles area participated.  In October, we held a conference in Paramus, New Jersey, with 20 educators in attendance. We are planning other conferences in cities throughout North America. These conferences provide practical information on how inclusiveness in Jewish education can be enhanced. Teachers engage in serious discussion and serious learning. Teachers are given a set of publications to help them in their own study of Sephardic/pan-Sephardic civilization.  Teachers write reports on how they have gone on to implement a Sephardic component in their classes, and these reports are circulated among the group so that they can learn from each other.

PUBLICATIONS: The Institute is planning a series of publications that will provide readily accesible material for educators, as well as for the general public. We have recently reprinted our pamphlet "Exploring Sephardic Customs and Traditions," and are in the process of arranging for other publications.

ONLINE EDUCATION:  We are planning to greatly increase our online presence, so as to be able to reach educators throughout the world. Rabbi Hayyim Angel recently conducted an inter-active session for teachers in South Africa...while he was at his desk in New Jersey.

EDUCATORS' RESOURCE CENTER:  Educators are invited to enroll in our Educators' Resource Center. There is no fee to register, and educators will receive various emailings, publications, links to informative material etc. To register, go to this link:  https://www.jewishideas.org/resources-educators

The "Sephardic Initiative" will certainly be of benefit to children who are themselves of Sephardic/Middle Eastern/North African backgrounds. By including materials from their traditions, they will feel a stronger sense of self-worth and a greater pride in their own community's role in the Jewish adventure. But this initiative is vitally important for children of non-Sephardic backgrounds as well. It will enhance and deepen their vision of the "wholeness" of the Jewish People. It will teach them the value of diversity and inclusivity, and will enable them to learn Jewish ideas and ideals that they otherwise would have missed.

The "Sephardic Initiative" has received initial funding from Nugi and Isabelle Jakobishvili, who provided a generous matching grant with the goal of our raising a minimum of $100,000 for this project.

We invite you to support the "Sephardic Initiative," so that you will be the Institute's partner in advancing a highly significant enhancement of Jewish education. You may contribute online at jewishideas.org or you may send your check to Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, 2 West 70th Street, New York, NY  10023. If you contribute on our website, please also email [email protected] to let us know that the contribution is to be earmarked for the "Sephardic Initiative."  If you send a check, please note in the memo section that it's for the "Sephardic Initiative."

A hundred years from now, the ethnic components of Judaism will be very different from what they are now. We will have a Judaism that is composed of many of the best contributions of Jews and Jewish communities from throughout our history and throughout the world. We need to ensure that the voices of the Sephardic/pan-Sephardic world are part of the Jewish future. We need to do this as an investment in a stronger, happier and wiser Jewish People.