National Scholar Updates

One of the most contentious religious issues to roil Israeli society ever since the creation of the State has been the role of women in national service in general and in the military in particular. Israel was one of the first states to draft women into the military; the government gave religious young women the option of entering national service.  Haredi authorities considered even national service as a most serious violation of halacha, indeed an outright sin. R. Avraham Yeshaya Karelitz, the undisputed leader Israel’s Ashkenazi Haredi community when the state was proclaimed (he is generally known by the title of his best known writings as Chazon Ish), was unequivocal in his opposition. He asserted that national service was the virtual equivalent of adultery, idolatry and murder, three sins which Jews are mandated to resist even at the cost of their lives (yehareg ve’al ya’avor).[1] Needless to say, military service was totally out of the question as well. Indeed, R. Zvi Pesach Frank, the head of Haredi Beit Din and Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem for 36 years until his passing in 1961, explicitly stated that the drafting of women into the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) was a gzerat shmad, a decree compelling Jews to abandon their faith for another.[2]  Such hyperbolic statements reflect the depth of opposition that the Haredi leadership[3]evinced toward the policy of drafting women into the military.

The starting point for R. Karelitz’ opposition, and that of his many colleagues and followers, was the Biblical verse that forbids a woman to wear a man’s implements: “A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man.”[4] Onkelos, whose translation of the Torah from Hebrew to Aramaic was one of the few that were accepted by the rabbis of the Talmud, interpreted the passage to read, “a woman should not wear men’s armaments.” Similarly, the Talmudic sage R. Eliezer b. Yaakov asked, “How do we know that a woman should not go to war bearing arms? Scripture says, 'A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man.'[5]

Of course, in Onkelos’ time, and that of R. Eliezer b. Yaakov, women did not join military forces or go to war.  As the Talmud pointed out, “it is the practice of man to wage war, not of woman to do so.”[6] Or again as R. Ile'a replied in the name of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon: “Scripture stated, ‘And replenish the earth, and subdue it;’  it is the nature of a man to conquer but it is not the nature of a woman to conquer.[7]”

Commentators in the more recent past expressed a similar viewpoint. Writing in the late nineteenth century, R. Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, known by his acronym Netziv) focused on the inherent differences between the sexes:

Men and women are different both by nature and by custom [i.e. nurture]. It is impossible to change one’s nature in an instant, except through habit, which essentially creates a second nature. And the verse warned against… changing nature by virtue of having a woman bear a man’s equipment, that is, a woman by nature would be unable to carry a sword unless she trained herself to do so over time, and this, in turn would be preparation for her to circulate among men.[8]

R. Berlin did not even bother to note the terrible consequences that naturally would follow: he clearly thought they were self-evident.

The early twentieth century, R. Baruch Halevi Epstein observed in his popular commentary Torah Temimah, “War and conquest are carried out by means of armaments, and since women do not engage in such matters, these implements are meant solely for men.” His observation remained valid until well into the past century. Indeed, it precisely because this view was universally held by Jews and non-Jews alike that the Greek myth of the Amazons, and centuries later, the saga of Joan of Arc, never ceased to capture the popular imagination.

The fact that non-Jews did not conscript women into their armies was cited by R. Eliezer Waldenberg asserted in a lengthy essay in his volume entitled “The Laws of the State” (Hilchot Medina). As he put it after arguing the case from Biblical references,

 We learn from all of the foregoing that it is both a Biblical injunction and a matter of societal      practice conducted and accepted from the beginning of time by the kings of the Nations that women are exempted from the obligation to participate in warfare, whatever its purpose, and is not even obliged to guard installations since her honor is purely focused on the management and sustenance of her household, and it is in this she prides herself.[9]

R. Waldenberg wrote these words in the early 1950s, when the State of Israel was virtually alone in drafting women into the military. He was basing himself on the writings of previous Torah leaders, for whom not only was a woman bearing arms a practice that the “nations” frowned upon, but for whom the notion of a Jewish military was as remote as that of a Jewish state. The laws relating to military matters were laws for Messiah’s times; Maimonides, alone among the greatest of the codifiers, chose to include these laws in his classic compendium, Yad Hahazaka.

Women in Contemporary Armed Forces

Today’s situation is truly different. The State of Israel is a reality that was unimaginable to halachists writing before the 1940s, and indeed, virtually until May 1948. As for women in the military, they now not only serve in the armed forces of most countries, but also serve in combat. The United States enables women to serve in land, air, sea and undersea combat units; since Jewish women, and some number of Orthodox Jewish women, are also serving in the American armed forces, they too are in a position to serve in combat units, indeed they may well be assigned to them.

 Women also have risen to achieve the highest ranks within the US armed forces.  General Lori Robinson, United States Air Force, currently serves as Commander of the Northern Command. Her four-star rank is the highest than can be achieved in peacetime. Admiral Michelle Howard, United States Navy, also a four-star, is commander of US Naval Forces Europe and Africa, and previously served as the four-star Vice Chief of Naval Operations.  The first American female four-star general was Ann Dunwoody, who in 2008 was named commander of the Army Materiel Command, the unit that equips, outfits, and arms U.S. soldiers. While the Material Command is a supporting command, both General Robinson and Admiral Howard are commanding combat forces.  No American Jewish woman has as yet risen to such lofty heights, but Jewish women are serving in the chain of command; indeed, all Jewish graduates of the military academies, like their non-Jewish counterparts, immediately join the active forces as junior officers.

America is certainly not the only military power whose senior commanding officers are females, nor whose women serve in combat roles. Valerie Andre was France’s first three star general; prior to her appointment in 1981, she had served as a combat search and rescue helicopter pilot.  Admiral Anne Cullere became France’s first three-star admiral in 2015; she previously had commanded French maritime forces in the Pacific . Other states that currently have women serving in combat roles include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. Clearly, the argument that “societal practice conducted and accepted from the beginning of time by the kings of the Nations that women are exempted from the obligation to participate in warfare,” no longer is valid.

The Dangers of Fraternization

There is, of course, a second reason why the rabbis forbade, and Haredi rabbis continue to forbid, women to serve in the military: their long-standing concern regarding the mixing of the sexes.  In this view, women have but one mission in life, to procreate, and they should not engage in activities that are certain to lead them to illicit sexual behavior. Thus, the twelfth century Spanish Biblical commentator Abraham ibn Ezra asserted that “a woman was only created to procreate and if she were to join men in war she would alight on the path of adultery.”[10] The thirteenth century scholar R. Hezekiah b. Manoah, better known as Hizkuni proffered a similar opinion in almost identical language:  a woman should never bear arms because “doing so is disgraceful and licentious. For that reason,” he continued, “Yael [the heroine of the Book of Judges] used neither sword nor spear but a sledgehammer and stake to crush [the Midianite general] Sisera’s brain …a woman was created only to procreate and if she goes off to war she will accustom herself to harlotry.”[11]  R. Bahya b. Asher, better known as Rabbeinu Behaye (1255-1340), likewise interpreted the passage forbidding a woman to wear a man’s equipment as an explicit ban on a woman going to war “which will be a cause of harlotry.”[12]

Basing himself of the writings of Ibn Ezra, as well as on Hizkuni, R. Waldenberg extended the prohibition on a woman bearing arms to service in the military even if she did not bear arms at all.  He derived this view from the fact that the medievalists were concerned about a woman being susceptible to harlotry, which could result either from her own inclination, or through seduction by her male counterparts. R. Waldenberg therefore concluded that “the prohibition promulgated by the geniuses and giants of Torah that it drafting women in a military framework of any kind violates a major prohibition, and any law that will be passed by those…who do not heed the Torah will not be binding on the Jewish nation that is bound by its belief, tradition and lifestyle by the Torah.”[13]

R. Zvi Pesach Frank likewise opposed women’s service in the Israeli military on the grounds that it fostered licentiousness. He made it clear that interpreting Talmudic rulings one way or the other was irrelevant because, as he put it,

we see the bitter consequences of drafting girls, for the majority of them were corrupted by their service in the military and the majority of parents [of these girls] ended up in tears seeing their daughters absorbed by apostasy…what is the point of discussing a girl’s entering the military when the matter is clear that the outcome will be her rejection of any element of Judaism and she will be as impure as one guilty of illicit relations.[14]

 R. Ovadia Yosef, whose support for the State of Israel was beyond doubt,[15] nevertheless opposed women’s service in the Israel Defense Forces. For example, in the course of discussing whether one could testify in court under oath that a girl was religious and therefore exempt from military service, he observed that doing so “is certainly a great and good deed (mitzva rabba) and one should not be too self-righteous so as not to testify.”[16] Another leading Sephardi rabbi, R. Haim David Halevy, the former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv and like R. Yosef, a moderate on many halachic issues, unequivocally opposed the notion of women bearing arms in a military context, though he permitted them both to train and bear arms for domestic self-defense purposes.[17]

Most recently, Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, son of R. Ovadia, has reasserted his, and the Chief Rabbinate’s, opposition to women serving in combat roles, or indeed any military role, or even undertaking national service. As he has stated, “it is the ruling of all the great rabbis of the generations, including Israel’s chief rabbis, the position of the Chief Rabbinate—it has always been their position that girls must not enlist in the army…there are female pilots, all sorts of stuff. Is that the way of the Torah?! That’s not the way of the Torah.” Like rabbis of previous generations, he too is deeply concerned about female modesty, stating that “women who went [to war]…didn’t wear uniforms and pants and the likes, of course not. They went in modesty, in purity.”[18]

Is Milhemet Mitzvah the Great Exception?

Despite the prohibition on a woman bearing arms, the rabbis appear to have identified one exception to the principle that a woman should not engage in warfare. This was the case of a milhmet mitzvah, a mandated war. In such a case, the Mishna states: “In obligatory wars all go forth, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy.[19]” Maimonides asserted that defending Israel from an adversary (ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar) qualified as a mandatory war,[20] and therefore, women were called upon to participate in its operations.[21] R. Moshe di Trani (known as Mabi”t), whose published a volume that listed the sources and/or rationales for Maimonides’ rulings, quoted his statement verbatim, with no additional comment, clearly indicating that he supported Maimonides’ position.[22]

Maimonides did not provide sources for his rulings, but he appears to have derived his position from a discussion in the Talmud Yerushalmi explaining the circumstances under which the Mishna asserted that all were called into battle. The Yerushalmi differentiated between a defensive war that involved repelling an attack on the Jewish homeland, and a preemptive operation to prevent such an attack. It was in the case of the former type of conflict that Maimonides issued his ruling, as his employment of the phrase ezrat Yisrael min hatzar haba eleihem (defending Israel from an enemy that was attacking them) clearly attests.[23]

R. David ibn Zimra, the seventeenth century leader of Egyptian Jewry known by his acronym RadVaZ, and one of the foremost decisors of his or any era, explained that Maimonides was referring to what the military in our times terms “service support.” As he put it,” the provision of water and food for their husbands,” with the term “husbands” referring generically to menfolk. Importantly, he cited as the basis for his assertion not a Biblical or Talmudic passage but rather the practice of his time among non-Jewish armies.  He noted: “this is the custom today among the Arabs.”[24]

While at first glance it would appear that RadVaz was writing about women supporting their husbands and no one else, later rabbis, ranging from the nineteenth century Talmudic commentator, R. Shmuel Shtrashun to R. Shmuel Vozner, revered in the Haredi world as one of its leading contemporary decisors, interpreted his statement to mean that women could support all soldiers, not just their husbands.[25]

R. Israel Lifschitz (1782-1860) went further than RadVaz by expanding the range of support permissible to females. Acknowledging that “a woman is not a warrior” he then stated “she can emerge [i.e. even from her wedding canopy] to provide food and fix roads.”[26] And he added that she could do so in both h a mandatory war against Amalek and one against the Seven Nations.   It is noteworthy that neither he, nor RadVaz stated that women could not provide support under fire. In other words, a woman’s role in combat service support could extend what in modern terms would be combat engineering, a task that in American forces is carried out both by a variety of Army battalions as well as by Navy Seabees (Construction Brigades) and the Air Force’s RED HORSE (Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Squadron Engineer) squadrons.

Whether Israel’s wars are indeed mandatory has been the subject of controversy since the founding of the State, and begin with varying interpretation of the aggadic assertion that prior to the exile Jewish people swore not to attempt to retake the land of Israel by force of arms and not to rebel against the nations of the world.[27] The logic behind this aggada was unimpeachable at the time. The first vow derived from the reality that the Roman Emperor Hadrian had utterly crushed the Bar Kochba rebellion of 132-135 CE which had constituted the second armed uprising against Rome in less than a century. While the earlier rebellion in 70 CE had resulted in the destruction of the Temple, the Bar Kochba revolt resulted in the loss of tens of thousands of Jewish lives and the utter destruction of Jerusalem. The failed uprising of the North African Jewish Diaspora against Rome (115-17) during the reign of Trajan, Hadrian’s predecessor, clearly prompted the second vow. The issue that confronted rabbinic leaders with the emergence of the Zionist movement and the prospective creation of a Jewish state was whether the vows still applied under radically different international political circumstances.

Those rabbis who supported the State’s creation and the War of Independence that followed immediately thereafter offered arguments along the lines of those that  the logic that R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin offered in an article that appeared many years later. R. Zevin marshalled several arguments to support his assertion that the two oaths no longer were in force and indeed, may never have been. He pointed out that according to some authorities, the oaths actually were administered to unborn souls to whom they would apply at some future time. R. Zevin noted that such oaths had no halachic validity. Moreover, even if the oaths actually applied in a real sense, the Balfour Declaration, and the vote of the United Nations indicated that the nations of the world accepted the State’s creation and therefore no rebellion was involved. Finally, since the Talmud also records that the nations vowed not to oppress the Jews excessively, an oath which the Holocaust clearly violated, the oaths imposed on Israel no longer were binding.[28]

In addition to the aforementioned arguments, there was the reality that the War of Independence was a defensive war, that fit neatly into Maimonides’ category of ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar as indeed were those of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, as well as the 2006 war against Hezbollah and the various incursions into Gaza in response to rocket attacks on Israeli territory. All of these wars and operations have been what Richard Haass has called “wars of necessity” and therefore mandatory.[29] It is in this light that R. Nahum Rabinovitch has written, “In our current situation where enemies threaten us from every direction…there is no greater milhemet mitzvah, for it is the essence of rescuing Israel from an adversary.”[30]

On the other hand, Haredi rabbis who were ambivalent about the State because of its secular leadership, and even some more modern, but halachically conservative rabbis, have been far more circumspect about designating Israel’s wars as mandatory, while the most extreme of that group, notably R. Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe, actually saw such wars as the work of the devil.[31]

Female Military Service in Israel’s Mandatory Wars

Even those rabbis who view Israel’s wars as mandatory do not agree among themselves regarding the role, if any, of women in the military.

As noted above, RadVaz accepted that women could support men in battle with food and other provisions. R. Yitzhak Yosef appears to have adopted that position in a very literal manner, when he has stated that the only tasks women could carry out in support of –but not as part of—the IDF, are cooking and laundering.[32]  There is, however, an alternative interpretation of RadVaz’ dictum.

Nowadays, the activities that RadVaz permitted are termed combat service support, which, in the United States is often shared between unarmed contractors and uniformed military who may be armed.[33] The range of combat service support activities has, not surprisingly, markedly expanded since the sixteenth century, when RadVaz articulated his views. It applies both at home and in the combat theater, and includes materiel and supply chain management, maintenance, transportation, health services, all of which are geared to enable air and ground forces to accomplish their missions in combat. Beyond these roles are the piloting of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which can take place literally thousands of miles from the combat theatre. While not strictly speaking combat support, much less service support, such operations involve a degree of safety that is at least equal to, if not greater, than in-theatre combat service support activities. Moreover, non-military agencies also fly what are popularly known as drones; is it simply a matter, then, of wearing a uniform? In any event, it is arguable that, according to RadVaz, at a minimum, women could serve as combat service support contractors, and perhaps even in military service support units, since they would probably only carry small arms for self-defense, which, as noted, R. Haim Yosef Halevy would permit.

The anonymous author of Sefer HaHinuch wrote that women were commanded to participate in military operations against the Seven Nations indigenous to the Land of Israel; these operations were mandated by the commandment to eliminate all vestiges of these Nations.[34] On the other hand, when addressing h the commandment to destroy Amalek—another archetype of a mandatory war— he seemed to discount the Mishnaic statement regarding the role of women in such a conflict, writing that it was solely the province of males, “for it is for them to prosecute a war and revenge against the enemy, and not for women.”[35]

The nineteenth-century commentator R. Yosef Babad, author of Minhat Hinuch, the authoritative commentary on the thirteenth century Sefer Hahinuch noted that whereas the Hinuch limited to men the conduct of warfare against Amalek, he included women in another milhemet mitzva, namely the war against the Seven Nations.[36] R. Babad therefore concluded that the Hinuch’s limitation in the case of Amalek was not a prohibition per se, but simply a description of usual practice.[37]

R. Yehuda Hertz Henkin goes beyond R. Halevy in permitting women to bear arms, as in his opinion arms are no longer unique to men. At a minimum, they can do so bediavad (that is, having borne arms, they can continue to do so—and once they have been drafted into the army they are certainly in a bediavad circumstance, as they must follow orders. Though he accepts the reality of women serving in the IDF, he prefers that they not do so and he certainly sees no obligation that they do so. He asserts that the Maimonidean formulation of ezrat Yisrael miyad tzor does not ipso facto mean going to war; one can “help Israel in the face of an enemy” in ways other than by conducting military operations, and, by extension, one need not serve in the military in order to “help Israel.”[38]

R. Yehuda Shaviv does not challenge the generally held notion that ezrat Yisrael miyad tzor is subsumed under the category of milhement mitzva. He also accepts that women can have some roles in the military; indeed, he does not seem to insist that they only do so bediavad. Like RadVaz, he emphasizes logistics support. But he conditions his acquiescence on women being separated from men in the course of their duties.[39] In practical terms, this would mean that women would serve in units segregated by sex, such as the Women’s Army Corps and the Navy’s Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, or Waves that the United States organized during World War II. Such units no longer exist in fully modern militaries. In his view, therefore, women’s service in integrated units cannot be reconciled with the religious prohibitions on relations between the sexes. Therefore, it is difficult to see how R. Shaviv would permit women to perform even medical support, though in peacetime Orthodox women do so alongside men on a daily basis in Israel’s hospitals.

Contrary to R. Yitzhak Yosef’s assertion, noted above, that the Chief Rabbinate opposed any form of women’s military service, Rabbis Isaac Herzog and Isaac Nissim both permitted women to serve in the religious units of the Nahal brigade, the unique combat unit that David Ben Gurion created in 1948 that combined part-time military service with agricultural activities to support newly founded kibbutzim.[40] R. Isser Unterman went even further, permitting women to serve in regular units, as long as they kept their religious traditions.[41]

R. Shlomo Goren likewise took a fully permissive position on this issue. In his volume of responsa on military matters published while Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces, R. Goren devoted an entire section to the female soldier’s religious obligations on Shabbat.[42] For example, he addressed the question of a female soldier lighting candles for Shabbat. When questions such as this one were posed to him, he could easily have replied that a woman should seek to leave the military as soon as possible. Instead, he dealt with the questions at hand; in the case of Shabbat candles he replied that a woman could light them while serving, and that either a man or a woman could do so on behalf of entire units if they were assembled in dining facilities.[43]

Finally, R. Shemariah Menashe Adler devoted an entire volume of his multi-volume work Mar’eh Cohen to make the case that female service in the military was not optional but rather mandatory, and that arguments about nature of the war in question were beside the point. As Marc Shapiro has written:

[R. Adler’s] fundamental point is…If the wars in Israel are to be considered milhemet reshut then there is no difference between men and women; both are forbidden to join the army. On the other hand, if the wars are in the category of milhemet mitzvah, all are obligated to fight. This is a commandment which cannot be annulled simply because of the fear of immodest behavior.”[44]

On the other hand, there are those who would make the case that there is no role for a woman in the military even in a mandatory war. Drawing upon the language of the Sefer HaHinuch in the context of the war with Amalek R. Waldenberg asserted that not only were women not required to participate in a milhemet mitzva, they were absolutely forbidden to do so. He based his opinion not on the prohibition on women carrying arms but, in alignment with R. Frank, to the need to “distance our holy nation from promiscuity.”[45]

R. Yehuda Gershuni also worried about licentiousness, but not on the part of the woman. Reflecting a view that has long been widespread in the Haredi community, he argued that a woman herself would not give in to temptation, or even be tempted. Instead, by circulating among her male counterparts, she would instill a spirit of licentiousness in them. Therefore, better than a woman not serve in the military than that she cause others to sin.[46] As noted above, however, it is questionable whether speculations about human nature that have never been demonstrated scientifically can override an obligation imposed by the Torah.

 R. Shlomo Min Hahar concluded that women could not serve in any military capacity, including combat service support. He offered two justifications for his position. Expanding the argument that others had made before him, he focused on licentiousness during combat, since the same impulses that led a man to kill would also lead to lust.[47] He also offered a second reason: that the Biblical injunction against permitting the fearful to engage in combat would eliminate any females from doing so. Since the majority of women would be fearful, one could ignore the minority who are not.[48] The facts do not support this latter case however: American females have been wounded and killed in battle, yet they continue to volunteer for military service. Since females can avoid military service in the IDF, should they choose to do so, those who serve are essentially volunteers. And there is absolutely no evidence that the majority of women who volunteer fear entering a combat zone, or engaging in combat operations.

Because he was writing in 1983, before the spread of UAVs to many states (and even non-state actors such as Hezbollah), R. Min Hahar did not address the question of a woman. But it would appear that he also would not permit women operating on a base far from the combat zone. Although his argument about females fearing to engage in battle would not be relevant in this case, presumably, he would still be concerned about improper fraternization on base.

R. Avigdor Nebenzahl, rabbi of the Jewish Quarter in the Old City, also rejected the idea of any form of military service for women, even in the context of a “war of necessity.” In his view, women never participated in a milhemet mitzva.[49] Therefore the type of service is irrelevant. He too did not address the issue of “piloting” drones, but his unequivocal opposition to any role for women in the military would seem to indicate that he would make no distinction between service in-theater or out of it.

For those who would accept that a woman can both bear arms and serve in the military, at least in the context of fighting in a defensive or mandatory war—which R. Rabinovitch and others would characterize as a sad but permanent and ongoing condition for the State of Israel for the foreseeable future—there arises the question of whether a woman could command other troops, specifically male troops. Avihud Shvartz has posited that women could only command other women. For him, the issue of fraternization of the sexes is the paramount concern when considering the role of women in the military.[50]

It is arguable, however, that if the basis for determining the role of women in the military is that of what other nations do, per RadVaz, a case could be made that women could indeed assume command of male troops, for, as noted, in many countries today, women not only serve, but are senior military commanders. Certainly, if one is prepared to accept that women can serve in a combat service support role, functioning in a manner that hardly differs, if it differs at all, from that of civilian contractors, it is difficult to see how their command of men in military units would be any different from their assuming management positions in a contractors performing an identical mission.

The Evolving Nature of both Military Operations and the Treatment of Women in the Military

As in many cases where contemporary developments pose particular conundrums for halachot that were promulgated in different times and under different circumstances, decisors and rabbinic legislators are far from in agreement. In the meantime, both the nature of military operations continues to evolve, and with it the role of humans in those operations. The interface between man and machine has yet to be fully consummated: the Department of Defense has only recently launched an initiative that seeks to exploit and expand upon the nature of that interface. The role of the female soldier, sailor and airman, already increasingly integrated into her military unit and service, will also continue to evolve alongside the changing nature of warfare. Indeed, the United States has taken major steps to ensure that “fraternization”—which initially had prompted the enraged outbursts from Hazon Ish and others, is also being reduced, and, when it has taken place, is being dealt with severely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Moreover, no officer is exempt from punishment for violating the code, no matter how high his or her rank.

There is no denying that fraternization was a major issue that the IDF chose to ignore for decades. The IDF has in recent years taken a much harder line in this matter as well. In part its stance is due to anger among the female troops that the IDF was not responsive to their own concerns about being violated by men. Perhaps, too, the increased presence of Haredi men in the IDF, as well as the growing number of Orthodox women serving in the Israeli military, has been a factor as well. In any event, as in the United States, fraternization is no longer as common or as widespread in the IDF as it once was.

America’s wars are, of course, fundamentally different from those of Israel, since the latter, as a Jewish State, is ideally meant to function according to halacha. Still, as R. Herschel Shachter has written, other nations “are only justified in waging wars that are parallel in nature to what would be considered milchemet mitzvah for the Jewish nation. It appears that milchemet mitzvah refers not only to wars of self-defense, but also to wars in defense of one’s country.”[51] Therefore, while it is clearly not the case that wars in which America engages are milhemet mitzvah, it is also arguable that since American military operations are designed to protect its citizens, including its Jewish citizens, it may be possible to stretch the definition of ezrat Yisrael miyad tzor to include such operations as well. After all, many American Jewish congregations, including modern Orthodox ones, pray for the welfare of America’s troops precisely because they are fighting to protect all Americans, among them Jewish Americans. This argument has even more force given the fact that the threats against which America is fighting today are terrorists and other non-state actors who target not only Americans in general, but Jews in particular, and, for that , matter the State of Israel as well.

It is doubtful that the ongoing changes in both the means by which war is fought, and the treatment of women in the military, will have the slightest effect on many Haredi decisors. Their opinions regarding the intermingling of the sexes has hardened in recent years; and neither the evolution of combat operations, nor any regulations adopted either by non-Jewish militaries, or the IDF, will convince them to moderate their views. On the other hand, these changes may further moderate the views of those decisors who have chosen to address in constructive manner the issues of female membership in the military; the military occupational specialties (MOS) they might assume; and the commands to which they could ascend, whether in Israel, the United States, or other freedom-loving democracies.

To our members and friends,

We are in the middle of a very exciting semester of classes with the Institute. Here is a brief schedule of upcoming classes and events:

On Shabbat March 10-11, I will be the scholar-in-residence at the Edmond J. Safra Synagogue in Manhattan (11 East 63^rd Street, between Fifth and Madison Avenue). Free and open to the public.

On Shabbat March 31-April 1, I will be the scholar-in-residence at Congregation Emek Beracha, in Palo Alto, California (4102 El Camino Real). Free and open to the public.

On three Mondays, March 20, 27, and April 3 (1:00pm-2:15pm), I will be teaching a three-part series on the Haggadah at Lamdeinu Teaneck (950 Queen Anne Road, at Congregation Beth Aaron). For registration information, go to http://www.lamdeinu.org/.

My weekly course in Navigating Nach: A Survey of the Prophets, continues with sessions on Esther, Lamentations, and Kohelet on March 8, 15, 22. Wednesdays from 7:00-8:00pm, at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun, 125 East 85^th Street (between Park and Lexington Avenue).

Previous lectures from this series are on our website, jewishideas.org, at Online Learning.

The course is taught at a high scholarly level but is accessible to people of all levels of Jewish learning. Newcomers always welcome. Free and open to the public.
 

Conversations 27: Increasing Peace Through Balanced Torah Study

It is gratifying to have published a collection of essays discussing some of the underlying ideology we promote through our work at the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. We have been distributing this special issue of Conversations, free of charge, to communities and schools where I teach. We also had a book reception at Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun in Manhattan on February 15 to celebrate its publication.

Thank you to the sponsors of this volume: S. Daniel Abraham, Joshua Angel, the Bengualid Family Foundation, Marco Dilaurenti, the Levy Family Foundation, Alan and Kathleen Shamoon, Ronald and Adele Tauber, and the Sephardic Publication Foundation. Their generous support enables our Institute to spread its vision to people and communities across America and beyond.

Radio Broadcast on my new commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Rabbi Harlan Wechler hosted me on his radio show, “Rabbi Wechsler Teaches,” on SiriusXM. We discussed my new commentary, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi: Prophecy in an Age of Uncertainty (Maggid Press).

You can listen to the broadcast on SiriusXM channel 109 Sunday, March 5, 8:00 pm (or at 4:00 am) Eastern Standard Time. Starting Sunday night, it will be available on demand on the SiriusXM app and wel player at siriusxm.com/player.

Citi Field Lecture with the Orthodox Union now online:

On January 15, I presented at the “Torah in the City” program at Citi Field hosted by the Orthodox Union. Nearly 1500 people were in attendance at this remarkable day of learning. They have posted videos of all the lectures at https://www.ou.org/convention/shiur/.

Teacher Training

I am teaching a ten-part series to the Honors Rabbinical Students at Yeshiva University, on Teaching Bible in Synagogues. The goal is to expose students to some of the challenges and opportunities in synagogue education, and to bring traditional Bible study to a contemporary, educated audience. 

I also have been working with the Bible faculty at the Community Hebrew Academy of Toronto (CHAT) on developing a new curriculum that integrates traditional and contemporary scholarship in a manner that is relevant and meaningful to High School students.

As always, I am grateful to our members and supporters who enable us to carry out our educational programs, teacher trainings, campus lectures, and publications to disseminate our Institute’s vision far and wide.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Let me begin by saying how the "ideal Modern Orthodox rabbi" [IMOR] is similar to all other Orthodox rabbis. He shares the belief in the divine nature of Torah, and the binding authority of halakha. He dedicates his life to studying and teaching Torah, and to bringing people to as high a level of religious knowledge and observance as possible.

Yet the IMOR differs in outlook and approach from other types of Orthodox rabbis. He is characterized by the following qualities:

INTELLECTUAL VIBRANCY: While being steeped in traditional rabbinic learning, the IMOR is aware of contributions from modern scholarship. He is interested in the intellectual currents of the time. He reads widely and seeks to learn in a spirit of intellectual curiosity. He brings the wisdom of Torah to the challenges of our time, and the insights of modernity to the study of Torah.

COMPASSION: The IMOR lives and teaches Judaism in the spirit of compassion and kindness. He is sympathetic and tries to be non-judgmental. His goal is to try to understand others, to work with them lovingly and respectfully, and help each person achieve his/her highest level of religiosity. He sees himself as a helper and a guide, not as an authoritarian autocrat. He follows the example of Aaron the High Priest, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving his fellow human beings and drawing them closer to Torah. His method will be characterized by kindness and thoughtfulness. He does not demand or seek honor; he does not demand or seek authority. Rather, he wins the hearts of others through his genuine piety and his deep concern for their welfare.

INCLUSIVENESS: The IMOR loves all Jews and wants his community to reflect the spirit of inclusiveness. All Jews are welcome, regardless of their level of religious knowledge and observance. All Jews have a spiritual home in the Modern Orthodox synagogue. The IMOR seeks to work together in harmony with all members of the community, and to bring people to respect each other and see each other as partners in the Jewish community. The IMOR strives to solve interpersonal conflicts in his community, and seeks to have his community function with shared ideals and shared commitment.

RESPECT: The IMOR must be characterized by genuine respect for those with whom he works. He must be attuned to their spiritual needs, their personal problems, their material concerns. He must show respect to his community--men and women, young and old, rich and poor, religiously observant and not so religiously observant. He wins respect not by demanding it, but by earning it through his genuine respect of others.

COMMITMENT TO ISRAEL: The IMOR sees the State of Israel not only as a political state, but as a reflection of God's providence over the Jewish People. Whereas some Orthodox groups grant no or little religious value to the State of Israel, the IMOR places great value on the religious significance of the Jewish State. He encourages his community to support Israel in every way, to visit, to have their children study there, and even to make aliyah.

PARTICIPATION IN THE GENERAL COMMUNITY: The IMOR participates actively and enthusiastically in the work of the general Jewish community, Orthodox and non-Orthodox, in the belief that we are all part of one people and share a common destiny. All Jews need to work together in a spirit of shared destiny, even if we differ with each other on religious matters. Likewise, the IMOR sees value in working together with non-Jewish individuals and groups on projects for the betterment of society.

The Ideal Modern Orthodox Rabbi believes that the Jewish people exists by virtue of our Torah and our religious traditions, and that Jews are happiest and most fulfilled when they conduct their lives according to our Torah. His duty is to bring the word of Torah to the Jewish public in such a manner that more and more Jews will want to study and observe Torah. "Rabbinic scholars increase peace in the world". That is the goal and the challenge of the IMOR.

In this age of worldwide insecurity, we generally find people rushing for safety by moving more to the far left or right both politically and religiously. The rise of radical Islam marked by violent behavior such as bombings and beheadings, the threat of a nuclear Iran and even the chaotic state surrounding the recent election of the United States’ President are but a few examples of the fear factor gripping the world today.     This fear generates in many, a form of regression and denial, of not seeing the reality of one’s behavior as well as the behavior of the group to which he/she belongs.  In psychological terms, this means that there is a tendency to return to earlier childlike behavior that belies the age and stages of adulthood. There is a tendency to wish to be protected by a parental type authority figure or a charismatic leader. There is even a willingness to assume a childlike role by accepting dependence upon this authority figure. Compliance and conformity become the norms of group behavior to ensure approval of the paternal authority figure. Similarity of outer dress is often adopted as a sign of identification with these group norms. In this way, the illusion of safety can be secured by sacrificing one’s autonomy and independence.

 Dr. Sigmund Freud, a century ago, characterized this mentality in his “Essay on Group Psychology” (1921-Standard Edition). He discusses how the group ego (identity), and the powerful need of the individual for the love and acceptance of its leadership, can bypass one’s superego (conscience) and lead to blind allegiance (shades of the coming Nazi era). This is translated to mean that anything that goes wrong is blamed on the outside, the “other”. In our era, Isis blames the infidels, Iran blames Israel, and religious enclaves blame decadent secular influences, such as the Internet, TV, Movies, Newspapers, etc.…. This leads to greater insularity and isolation since all that is good resides within the group and all that is bad is outside. There is no need to look inside the group to deal with internal issues or to assume any responsibility for making change in one’s own behavior.

This form of regression and denial has permeated the ethos of both the secular and religious worlds. There are sometimes boisterous civil rights demonstrations that are focused solely on blaming others (whites, police,  etc.) instead of looking internally to deal with the basic causes of their rage. Unfortunately, their leadership does not raise that same strong voice to help rebuild and improve their communities, such as forming patrols to combat gangs and drugs, providing classes for single mothers on how to raise their children, etc. So much organization time and effort is expended to fight the “outside”, but they neglect to look internally to their own failings. Repair cannot be done by the outside community for them.  It must come from their own leadership who know how best to help the community repair itself, and who have the responsibility to protectthem. The battle must be fought against the enemies within as well as without.

Another example of this regression where adult responsibility is avoided is the worldwide escalation of anti-Semitism. The word itself is a misnomer, because it avoids looking internally at its real causes. It is more accurately a negative derivative of sibling rivalry/envy, stemming from feelings of deprivation, helplessness, inferiority and greed. It is especially prevalent when economic conditions worsen. Jews (the eternal scapegoat) who have struggled to become financially successful are then blamed as the cause of their inadequacies. To overcome this disparity, to “even the playing field”, the easiest way is to demean and destroy the “other”.  Indeed, if they can shift the blame to the other, they do not have to be reminded of their disadvantaged state. They then begin to coalesce with other like-minded individuals and groups. Strengthened by the power of “group think” and by charismatic leadership, they now feel empowered because they have a virtuous mission. In this way, the need to look at their own failures is avoided, and they no longer have the responsibility to change. This is how regression is acted out via the age-old canard called anti-Semitism.

These developments in the secular world are not without their counterparts in Jewish religious life. Being identified with the Orthodox community, I will focus on this theme as it relates to this branch of Judaism. We are witnessing a similar form of psychological regression within the ranks of right-wing Orthodoxy, specifically among some ultra-Chasidic and Charedi groups. The “modus operandi” is basically the same as discussed above, that is to avoid dealing with internal issues (introspection) by denial and blaming others. In this case the “others” are a reference to the corroding influences emanating from the secular world such as the Internet, TV, Movies, Newspapers, etc.… To counter these influences, a number of regressive/repressive measures have been adopted. For example, discouraging the importance of secular education, women being seated in the back of public buses and being discouraged from driving cars, etc.… The aim of these and other such measures is to produce greater insularity by separation from the outer world. Unfortunately, they also serve as a screen to block action on a number of internal issues, such as the escalating divorce rate among young marrieds, increasing evidence of child sexual abuse, poverty, an educational system in need of revision, increasing unemployment, etc.   

From a psychological perspective, this regressive/repressive environment stymies individual autonomy, creativity and freedom of action. These are replaced by conformity and dependence, which then become the norms of group behavior. Conformity is readily recognized by their uniformity of dress. Whereas this dress code is condoned in the name of “tzniyus” (modesty), the need of the individual for some self-expression is suppressed in this controlled environment. The reassuring Yiddish words of the paternal Rebbe “Gott vet helfen” (God will help) does not always overcome the reality of this regressive mindset, nor reverse the mounting numbers of those opting out of these closed enclaves. The exact numbers of these defections are difficult to come by, because they are hidden from public view. But it is well-known that the numbers have risen to the point where those who leave these communities have organized themselves into groups. One such group numbering in the hundreds is “Footsteps”. The main purpose of this organization is to help former Chasidim integrate into the secular world. These are the more intrepid ones.  There are others who are afraid to break from their Chasidic roots, but rebel in a less conspicuous manner. They act out by resorting to the ancient art of rationalization. This consists of drawing a split between rituals and ethics. They are focused on observing those mitzvot between man and God e.g. Sabbath and holiday rituals, daily prayer, Torah study, etc.…, but are lax when it comes to ethics in conducting their personal business affairs. The Anglo Jewish press have carried many examples of the latter.

These types of deviations and defections can be averted by changing this mindset from insularity and regression to greater introspection and constructive action on the part of their leadership. In more “open” Chasidic/Charedi/Yeshivish groups this is indeed happening. An example of how this is being done is the popular TV series in Israel featuring a Chasidic family coping with a variety of issues within their setting. It has drawn not only religious viewers, but also many secular Israelis. In so doing there is developing a greater understanding and appreciation of their way of life within Israeli society. There are also Chasidic women who are producers and directors of movies that are acceptable within the parameters of Orthodox life. The Internet, Movies and TV are not, therefore, in and of themselves corrosive influences to be avoided or condemned.  On the contrary, they can play a very positive role in portraying the beauty and sanctity of Chasidic life. In these more open right-wing groups the emphasis is less upon control and more on promoting individual growth and autonomy. Control and autonomy are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Despite efforts at further segregating women discussed above, how refreshing it is to see these evidences of Chasidic women being in the forefront of conveying a positive image of their way of life to the rest of Jewry. It is to the credit of those Chasidic rebbes and Charedi leadership who do not feel threatened when women assume leadership positions within their ranks. These are cogent examples of how it is possible within right-wing Orthodoxy to look internally to find creative solutions instead of blaming others and withdrawing from society.

In the more liberal wing of Orthodoxy often referred to as “modern”, we see a less extreme regressive/denial tendency, but the mechanism of avoiding the responsibility of addressing festering internal issues still remains. The main difference between them is greater public exposure and lesser degree of rigidity rather than kind. Because this is a more open branch of Orthodoxy their issues have surfaced in the secular press, thanks largely to bloggers. They are related to the same issues as in right-wing Orthodoxy which are now being characterized as “sliding to the right”. For example, regarding the issue of the separation of sexes, there is a growing trend within modern Orthodoxy to extend this beyond its previous limits. The “Mechitzah” (Partition) which was used exclusively at religious services, has made its appearance on the dance floor at weddings. Today the separation of the sexes is extended to the wedding ceremony itself. Other examples of this slide to the right can be seen in a variety of non-religious functions, such as separate seating at lectures, Synagogue dinners, Shabbat Kiddush, etc. Even in synagogue programing and scheduling of classes, there is increasing attention to gender separation. This is occurring within “centrist” Orthodoxy which has always prided itself on being the more inclusive branch of traditional Judaism.

Contrast this development with the remarkable rise of women’s Torah scholarship as well as their professionalism in secular fields and you have what amounts to a “happy problem” growing within modern Orthodoxy. It centers around providing leadership opportunities within Orthodox religious life commensurate with women’s education and talent. Due in part to a failure of leadership of the organized Orthodox rabbinate, as well as to the vacuum created by the passing of Harav Joseph B. Soloveichik Z”I whose stature and strong voice are sorely missed, the voices of this potential leadership pool are now beginning to be heard. Women appear to be less afraid to speak out and are subtly beginning to fill this vacuum. They are also less embroiled in establishment political infighting which often retards needed action and decision making. In Israel, they have banded together and assumed positions of leadership unparalleled in Jewish history. Unlike in America it has become commonplace to see Orthodox women in the highest echelons of religious life serving as “Dayanot” and “Toanot” (judges and advocates) especially in legal matters affecting women, such as marriage and divorce, “Taharat Mishpachah” (ritual purity) etc.… In a landmark decision, the prominent Religious Zionist Ramban Synagogue in Jerusalem appointed a woman, Karmit Feintuch, to serve as Rabbanit alongside its respected Rabbi Benny Lau. While this may be the first female communal leader to be so named, the way was paved years ago, thanks to the outspoken voice and leadership of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin as well as others who had the courage to look inward to develop creative means to serve the religious leadership aspirations of talented knowledgeable women instead of the usual blaming of the Israeli religious establishment for its regressive stance. In America with the notable exception of Rabbi Avi Weiss, there has been relative silence from the organized modern Orthodox rabbinate on women’s issues. The women themselves have united to determine its course of action led first by the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) then by Edah, and others that have since sprung up. There are continuing signs that positive action can be taken such as Semichah (Ordination) of women in addition to more rabbinic positions opening up for Orthodox women.

Meeting the religious leadership needs of modern Orthodox women is however only one of several other internal issues. For example, it is well-known that the number of divorces has escalated among young modern Orthodox married couples (as was pointed out above among the right-wing Orthodox). To address this particular issue, it is first necessary to obtain figures on the extent of this problem. In turning to the local or national rabbinic bodies for statistics on this important issue, one is “stonewalled” with excuses, such as “we do not have the funds for this type of research”, etc.   In the secular world involving huge samples of the American population, annual reports on the divorce rate are readily available. Why is it so difficult in a comparatively small sample of American Jewry to obtain such basic information as the divorce rate? Other internal issues that need to be addressed are increased drug use among teenagers, child sexual abuse, concern for those opting out of the movement, as well as meeting the needs of many “Baalei Teshuvah” (penitents) entering the fold etc. In general, this whole issue of modern Orthodoxy’s “slide to the right” needs to be seriously confronted by our leadership. The “Chumros” (stringencies) being instituted by the right-wing are creating a kind of mindset that is pulling the more liberal-minded Orthodox in their direction. This needs to be resisted and requires a more vigorous response.

This critique in no way diminishes the positive action undertaken by the modern Orthodox rabbinate on certain issues that deserve commendation. For example, the recent action taken by the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) to publicly endorse reporting directly to police, suspicion of child sexual abuse instead of to the local “Beth Din” (Rabbinic court). They also encourage the community not to be afraid of violating the Halachic ban on “Lashon Hara” (evil talk) often used to cover up the disclosure of embarrassing issues within its ranks. Nevertheless, resistance to publicly airing of internal issues remains.  This is most likely due to an attitude of complacency derived from the remarkable growth of its “Yeshivas” which has lulled our leadership into a “status quo” mode. This is however a mode of regression and denial of dealing with those issues that need to be addressed. It also creates a false sense of safety which inhibits introspection and much needed action.

In the related field of psychology, this stalemate stance is reminiscent of the patient in therapy who begins to explore the origins of his/her presenting difficulties. The initial exploration leads to the early impact of parental failures. Some patients hang on to the mistaken notion that “they” (the parents)” made me this way”. This type of patient will be arrested (stuck) at an early stage of development. If the patient with the help of the therapist can reach a point of recognizing that he/she has the inner resources and strength to move on to further develop themselves instead of continuing to blame the parents, then growth can proceed. The patient can then actualize his/herself as an independent individual capable of choosing one's own lifestyle. This is the road to maturity. Introspection has been the force for growth and change.

This therapeutic model is the antithesis of what we see today. People escape responsibility by giving up a sense of self by letting others determine their fate even on important moral and ethical matters. They are willing to find safety in groups that are arrested and do not sponsor personal growth. A benign leader helps develop the individual as well as the group, unlike the power-seeking charismatic leader who may not consider the best interests of the individual in order to provide an illusion of safety that people long for. The tell-tale conclusion is that one can determine by the amount of autonomy or lack thereof, whether the leader is acting in the best interests of the group or is using it as a method of keeping the group controlled.

This is the challenge in modern Orthodoxy today. We are seeing dramatic positive changes relating to women’s leadership that augur well for the future. These positive developments run counter to the regressive trend (slide to the right) we are seeing in Orthodoxy today. It remains to be seen whether further introspection will develop the type of leadership not only to deal with internal issues, but with its place in the broader troubling world we live in today.

Please join us to celebrate

the 10th Anniversary of

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Monday May 8, 2017 Colbeh, New York City

Honored Speaker Senator Joe Lieberman

Jews are the most warmly regarded religious group in America, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.

The survey, which was released Wednesday, found that Americans generally express more positive feelings toward various religious groups than they did three years ago.

As they did the first time the survey was taken in 2014, Jews topped the survey, in which respondents rank various religious groups on a “feeling thermometer.” On the scale of 1 to 100, 1 is the coldest and 100 the warmest; 50 means they have neither positive nor negative feelings.

Shalom u’vracha to all of our friends and members.

This year has been record breaking for our University Network and Campus Fellowships Program. We are currently on 21 campuses from UCLA to New York University. We have have international fellows at McGill and University of Toronto in Canada, and for the first time in England at Oxford University.

We are off to a great start this semester on our campuses. Our fellows are leading groups tackling various issues in Modern Orthodoxy.

Here are some of our highlights. Many of our students are leading conversations around immigration and refugees. In Binghampton Marc Generowicz and Sara Pincus are leading a discussion about Activism for Aleppo. At Muhlenberg College, Emily Goldberg will be discussing Immigration and Refugees. Other fellows are also making Orthodox Judaism relevant by examining pressing issues through a Torah lense. Samuel Hamermesh at Johns Hopkins, will be looking at LGBT issues. In January, Nicole Mashian and Daniel Levine, at UCLA, looked at what it means to have privilege as a Jewish person. Ari Barbalat, of the University of Toronto, will be doing an event called, “Where is God in Acts of Genocide?”

New York University, Stern College and Baruch College have invited Rabbi Hayyim Angel, our National Scholar, for a downtown New York City lecture. And with thanks to the Rabbi Arthur A. Jacobovitz Institute, Brandeis will be hosting Rabbi Avi Weiss in March. Students will also focus on the Philosophy of Halakha at Rutgers, Being Jewish Outside of Israel at Drexel and The Relationship with Truth, Law, and Authority at Harvard.

Our University Network continues to grow, reaching out to students all over the world. If you are a student, you can join the network for free by simply signing up on our website. Information and registration can be found on our homepage at jewishideas.org

We thank you for your continued support of our students and their efforts.

Review of

The Art of Jewish Pastoral Counseling:

A Guide for All Faiths

Michelle Friedman and Rachel Yehuda

Routledge, 2016, 208 pp.

(Reviewed by Dr. Seth Aronson, Director of Training, Training and Supervising Analyst at William Alanson White Institute)

In a remarkable midrashic passage on the power of empathic listening, illuminating the words  in   Shemot  2,11,  Vayar besivlotam, Moshe understands and feels the suffering of the children of Israel as they struggle  with the impossible work conditions imposed upon  them by the Egyptians. In observing Moshe’s empathy, God decides that just as Moshe left his royal abode to go and be with the suffering people of Israel, God will take leave of the heavenly realm and descend to reveal Himself to Moshe from a lowly burning bush in the arid desert, setting in place the events leading to redemption and exodus. God’s act not only reveals empathy (the midrash teaches us in choosing a lowly bush rather than a lofty tree, for example, God lowers Himself, as it were, to be  with the people in their suffering), but even more remarkably, the Divine learns empathy from Moshe’s human act of compassion.

Michelle Friedman and Rachel Yehuda’s comprehensive book demonstrates the power and significance of empathic listening for clergy of all faiths as these spiritual leaders engage in the divinely inspired work of pastoral counseling.

To truly be with the individuals they serve—and being with involves listening and being attuned to-- pastoral counselors must learn and develop key elements of the process, elements illuminated in careful detail in this book.  

Some of the important topics covered in the book include discerning between a value neutral and religiously informed approach. Mental health professionals are trained to relieve suffering, while the[rabbi] “ may underscore traditional values above and beyond personal joy…..a pastoral approach assumes desire on the part of the congregant to remain connected to religious tradition” (p.24-25). No easy task, especially when the pastoral counselor is him/herself caught in a personal conflict over the very same issue.

The authors also caution counselors to know how and when to recognize true psychiatric conditions and when there is a need to refer to trained mental health professionals. Knowing one’s limitations is just as important as being comfortable in the role of attuned, sensitive and compassionate listener.

Questions to help structure the pastoral interview are described and include:  Where should the meeting occur? How long should the meeting be? Should the pastoral counselor be compensated? 

The authors also frame the listening process and the counselor’s (and congregant’s) response in a model that draws upon transference and countertransference. The counselor is often viewed to be in a position of power, authority and expertise, and the congregant’s feelings about someone in such a position come into play. The counselor will, of course, have her own set of feelings/responses to each congregant and situation, based on her own life history and experiences. To be a sensitive pastoral listener is to know one’s self as well as one can, e.g. how one feels to be elevated to such a position of spiritual authority, so one’s personal issues can have as minimal impact as is possible in the interaction.

“Pastoral boundaries are difficult to establish, confusing to negotiate and easy to transgress”(p.53). For this reason, the need for clear boundaries and confidentiality is emphasized throughout the book. “The very nature of pastoral counseling lends itself to boundary blurring. Disclosure of personal information may lead to a transient but powerful sense of closeness that [in some cases could easily] slide into physical intimacy” (p.153).  The counselor must be keenly aware of the powerful emotional role she/he plays in the individual’s life by dint of the pastoral responsibility.

Throughout the book, to illustrate their points, the authors provide thoughtful and detailed case examples that are clearly drawn from Dr. Friedman’s experience in training rabbis in pastoral care for nearly twenty years. In these down to earth and easily relatable case examples, readers will find so many of the issues that arise in the day to day life of the pastoral counselor. To name just a few:  socializing with congregants, whether or not to personally disclose, dealing with a mentally ill congregant, a halakhic question in the context of a traumatic life event, and conflicts between halakhic and personal feelings.

If there is one topic missing from this important addition to the field of pastoral counseling, it is framing the issue of pastoral care in a distinctly Jewish voice. There are many sources underscoring the importance of sensitive listening (such as the midrash noted above)  as well as  the imperative to heal. But perhaps this may be left for their second volume!

 In his “Daily Prayer of a Physician”, Maimonides wrote:

“In the sufferer let me see only the human being. Illumine my mind that it recognize what presents itself and that it may comprehend what is absent or hidden”(Rosner, 1967).

In their comprehensive work, Drs. Friedman and Yehuda  have helped counselors of all faiths recognize what  might  present itself and learn to discover what may be hidden, so they can better help those in their spiritual care.

References

Rosner, F. (1967). The physician’s daily prayer attributed to Moses Maimonides. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 41, 5, 440-446.

Thoughts to Ponder 529

The Genius and Limitations of Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik z”l *

Nathan Lopes Cardozo

Based on an introduction to a discussion between Professor William Kolbrener and Professor Elliott Malamet (1)

Honoring the publication of Professor William Kolbrener’s new book

“The Last Rabbi” (2)

Yad Harav Nissim, Jerusalem, on Feb. 1, 2017

Dear Friends,

I never had the privilege of meeting Rav Soloveitchik z”l or learning under him. But I believe I have read all of his books on Jewish philosophy and Halacha, and even some of his Talmudic novellae and halachic decisions. I have also spoken with many of his students.

Here are my impressions.

No doubt Rav Soloveitchik was a Gadol Ha-dor (a great sage of his generation). He was a supreme Talmudist and certainly one of the greatest religious thinkers of our time.

His literary output is incredible.

Still, I believe that he was not a mechadesh – a man whose novel ideas really moved the Jewish tradition forward, especially regarding Halacha. He did not solve major halachic problems.

This may sound strange, because almost no one has written as many novel ideas about Halacha as Rav Soloveitchik (3). His masterpiece, Halakhic Man, is perhaps the prime example.

Before Rav Soloveitchik appeared on the scene, nobody – surely not in mainstream Orthodoxy – had seriously dealt with the ideology and philosophy of Halacha (4).

In fact, the reverse is true. While many were writing about Jewish philosophy, the Bible, the prophets, and universalism, no one touched the topic of Halacha and its weltanschauung.

Halacha was ignored as an ideology, and the impression is that most Orthodox scholars were embarrassed by the strange and incomprehensible world of halachic thought and argument, and chose to disregard it. Its highly unusual way of thinking, its emphasis on the most subtle details – often comprised of farfetched arguments, hairsplitting dialectics and casuistry – made it something that no one wanted to approach and it was consequently a non-starter.

I once argued that Halacha is the art of making a problem out of every solution. Its obsessive need to create obstacles where no difficulties exist is well known to all Talmudists. Its constant fixation with creating life-and-death situations out of the grossest trivialities is typical.

Rav Soloveitchik, however, saw the need to deal with this problem head-on and undertook the extremely difficult task. For him, Halacha was the supreme will of God, and behind its strange disposition lay a fascinating and highly original world that needed to be revealed in a society that increasingly tried to undo it. As far as he was concerned, there was nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact, there was no greater and more sophisticated ideology than the world of Halacha.

Single-handedly, he turned the tide and made Halacha the center of philosophical discussion. Not even Rambam, the greatest of all halachists, had done anything like that.

His classic work, Halakhic Man, is highly sophisticated and full of deep insights using general philosophy, psychology and epistemology, which place the philosophy and theology of Halacha not only on the map but at the center of all discussion concerning Judaism. No doubt it took time before this essay had any impact. It was first published in Hebrew in 1944, as Ish ha-Halakhah, in the journal Talpiot (5). When it appeared in English in 1983, as Lawrence Kaplan’s translation Halakhic Man (6), it slowly became the object of serious debate and contemplation.

It may be argued that Halakhic Man forced the Conservative, Reform, and even Reconstructionist movements to give much more attention to Halacha, which grew to be the norm to the extent that general Jewish philosophy almost became of secondary importance. For Rav Soloveitchik, Jewish theology had to be an outgrowth and expression of the normative halachic system. A great example of this would be his teshuva drashot (sermons) where the laws of teshuva and the lamdanut (Talmudic analytic learning) of tzvei dinim become the basis of two dinim and concepts in Jewish philosophy (7).

*****

And here is where we encounter one of the greatest and most tragic paradoxes in Rav Soloveitchik’s legacy.

In complete contradiction to his philosophy of Halacha, Rav Soloveitchik did not move Halacha forward in areas that most urgently needed it. He did not innovate a new, practical halachic approach to major problems confronting the larger Jewish community. While brilliantly explaining what Halacha essentially is, he made no practical breakthroughs (8).

This is true about issues such as the status of women in Jewish law (with the exception of women learning Talmud) (9); the aguna; the mamzer problem; the application of Halacha in the State of Israel; and similar crucial halachic issues. 

In that sense he was not at all a mechadesh but rather a conservative halachist.

He did, however, stand out as a highly gifted exponent of the ideology of Judaism and Halacha. He had no equal – perhaps with the exception of the renowned Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel. In his work God in Search of Man, Rabbi Heschel laid out a theology of Judaism and Halacha, which, while dramatically different from Rav Soloveitchik’s, was also a tour de force explaining what Halacha is really all about (10).

*****

When it came to Talmudic learning, Rav Soloveitchik was an old-fashioned Rosh Yeshiva (in Yeshiva University), whose brilliance was not different from that of my own Roshei Yeshiva in Gateshead, England, and later in Yerushalayim’s Mirrer Yeshiva. He was the proponent of the Brisker method of Talmudic learning, which is widespread in many of today’s yeshivot, and from which I personally have greatly benefited, although I doubt its real value.

*****

Rabbi David Hartman, in his book The God who Hates Lies, rightly criticizes Rav Soloveitchik for his refusal to find a way to allow a kohein to marry a giyoret (convert) (11). While Rabbi Hartman uses purely ethical reasons to oppose the negative response of Rav Soloveitchik, it was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein z”l, the most important halachic authority in America in those days, who often found halachically permissible ways to allow these people to marry (12). This no doubt must have been known to Rav Soloveitchik, and I am utterly astonished that he did not discuss it with or take advice from Rabbi Feinstein. It’s even more mind-boggling when one takes into account that Rav Soloveitchik did not see himself as a posek (halachic authority and decisor) but only as a melamed (teacher).

*****

Rav Soloveitchik’s famous argument with Rabbi Emanuel Rackman – renowned Talmudic scholar and thinker, later to become Dean of Bar-Ilan University – is another example of the former’s sometimes extreme halachic conservatism. In several places, the Talmud introduces a rule that states: Tav Lemeitav tan du mi-lemeitav armelu – It is better to live as two than to live alone (13), which refers to the fact that a woman would prefer to marry almost any man rather than remain alone.  

Rav Soloveitchik sees this as a “permanent ontological principle,” which is beyond historical conditions, and that even in our day needs to be applied and cannot be changed. This principle operates under the assumption that even today’s women prefer to stay in a marriage, no matter how unfortunate the circumstances may be. To be alone is worse. This means that a woman cannot claim that had she known what kind of person her husband is, she never would have married him. If she could make this claim, her marriage would be a “mistaken marriage,” which would not even require a get (bill of divorce), since the marriage took place on a false premise and the woman would never have agreed to it had she known. In that case, she was never considered lawfully married and could leave her partner without receiving a get. Since this obviously has enormous repercussions for today’s society, it could help thousands of women (14). Rav Soloveitchik was not prepared to take that approach and thus blocked the possibility for many of them to leave their partners without a get.

Rabbi Rackman (15), who had the greatest respect for Rav Soloveitchik, strongly disagreed and claimed that a Talmudic presumption such as this depends on historical circumstances, as in the days of the Talmud when women had no option to live a normal life if they were not married. They were often abused and would suffer extreme poverty and other misfortunes. Understandably, women in those days would prefer to remain married; but none of this is true in modern times when women have great freedom and are able to take care of themselves, both financially and physically. If so, there would be good reason for a woman to claim that had she known her husband’s true nature, she would never have married him and she would be able to leave her husband without the need for a get.

There is little doubt that Rabbi Rackman was right in this matter. Interestingly, he noted that Rav Soloveitchik told him: “Rackman, you may be right and I may be wrong. You view the Halacha historically and I like to view it meta-historically” (16) I have heard statements from other students that Rav Soloveitchik admitted this. Even stranger is the fact that, like all his predecessors, Rav Soloveitchik considered Rambam the ultimate halachic authority and defended him whenever possible. Professor Menachem Kellner points out that Rambam viewed Halacha in a historical context and clearly not in an ontological one (17)! So one wonders why Rav Soloveitchik didn’t follow in Rambam’s footsteps and agree ab initio with Rabbi Rackman; unless one argues that Rav Solovietchik didn’t follow Rambam’s philosophical approach to Halacha. 

This observation is astonishing. If Rav Soloveitchik was not even sure himself, and all evidence was against him, he could have singlehandedly liberated many women. No doubt he must have been worried that such a ruling might be misused. But this is an extremely weak justification for his conservatism, considering the immense suffering of so many women whose husbands refused to grant them a get. He could have made a major contribution in this field had he accepted Rabbi Rackman’s compelling argument (18).

*****

It is even more perplexing when we compare Rav Soloveitchik’s highly conservative stand with other great halachists of his day, such as Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, the most famous student of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, author of the responsa Seridei Eish and one of the greatest halachic luminaries of the post-Holocaust era. Rabbi Berkovits was of the opinion that with the establishment of the State of Israel, and the radical changes that had taken place among modern-day Jewry, there was a need to liberate Halacha from its exile status. According to Rabbi Berkovits, the        unfortunate conditions under which the Jews had lived for nearly 2,000 years created a “defensive halacha,” which now had to be liberated. It had been in waiting mode and now had to return to its natural habitat. In his important work HaHalacha: Kochah VeTafkidah, Rabbi Berkovitz shows how we can solve many serious problems related to the status of women, agunot, mamzerim, conversion, and even the shemitta year with its enormous burden on modern Israeli society and its often inconsistent and paradoxical application (19).

In many ways he reminds us of Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn (1857-1935) who, as a first-class halachist, also realized these new conditions and, in his responsa Malki BaKodesh (20), suggested new approaches that would solve many problems.

It was especially in the Sephardic world that two outstanding halachic luminaries – Chacham Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel (1880-1953), Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Mandatory Palestine from 1939-1948, and of Israel from 1948-1953; and Rabbi Yosef Mashash (1892-1974), rabbi of the city of Tlemcen in Algeria and, later, Chief Rabbi of Haifa – demonstrated ways to overcome halachic problems. Their courage is mind-boggling and proves what can be done when one has an approach to Orthodox Halacha that in so many ways is completely at odds with that of Rav Soloveitchik and other traditional Ashkenazic halachists (21).

*****

Most remarkable are the observations of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel when he was asked to give his opinion about Rav Solovietchik’s book Halakhic Man. According to his students, he said the following:

“Ish Ha-Halakha [Halakhic Man]? Lo hayah velo nivra ela mashal hayah [There never was such a Jew]! Soloveitchik’s study, though brilliant, is based on the false notion that Judaism is a cold, logical affair with no room for piety. After all, the Torah does say, ‘Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and soul and might.’ No, there never was such a typology in Judaism as the halakhic man. There was—and is—an Ish Torah [a Torah man], who combines Halakhah and Aggadah, but that is another matter altogether” (22).

While I wonder if these are the exact words of Rabbi Heschel – since there are, after all, some emotional and not only logical dimensions to Halachic Man – it cannot be denied that this work depicts an image of an ideal halachic human being who in many ways lives a mathematical and almost stony life, although various parts of the book paint different if not contradictory images. The book is definitely poetic.

It is interesting to note Rav Soloveitchik’s observations concerning Heschel’s famous book The Sabbath (23). After praising it, he said: “What does he [Heschel] call Shabbat? – A sanctuary in time. This is an idea of a poet. It’s a lovely idea. But what is Shabbat? Shabbat is lamed tet melachot, it is the thirty-nine categories of work and their toladot, and it is out of that Halacha and not of poetry that you have to construct a theory of Shabbat” (24). These are remarkable words, because Rav Soloveitchik was constantly trying to lift the “harsh” Halacha out of its own confines and give it a poetic, perhaps even romantic dimension.

****

The earlier-mentioned poskim thought out of the box when it came to Halacha, and introduced creative and new halachic approaches to major problems. With few exceptions, we see little of that in Rav Soloveitchik’s methodology.

It seems that he did not realize, or did not want to accept, that Halacha had become defensive and was waiting to be liberated from its exile and confinement.

In many ways, this is an extraordinary tragedy. With his exceptional standing in the Modern Orthodox halachic community, Rav Soloveitchik could have made breakthroughs that would have given Orthodoxy – especially Modern Orthodoxy – much more exposure and influence in the Jewish world and would probably have been a major force against the growth of Reform and Conservative Judaism, of which he was so afraid. In many ways, Modern Orthodoxy was unable to develop naturally, because it had become too dependent on Rav Soloveitchik’s conservative halachic approach.

Exactly where Rav Soloveitchik put Halacha on the map, in all its grandeur (without denying its possible shortcomings), and transformed it into the most dominant topic of discussion on Judaism, there is where he seems to have been afraid of his own thoughts and withdrew behind its conventional walls. Had he taken the road of Rabbis Berkovits, Hirschensohn, Uziel, Mashash and others, Orthodoxy would have become a driving force in contemporary Judaism, able to show the way and lead all other denominations.

It seems to me that the above-mentioned rabbis were talmidei chachamim no less than Rav Soloveitchik was. Their disadvantages were that they didn’t occupy a central role in Modern Orthodox and Yeshiva University circles, and above all they didn’t belong to renowned Ashkenazic rabbinical families. Had they been called Soloveitchik, their Torah would have received far more attention and would probably have been much more effective.

*****

Finally, I am deeply disturbed by the almost unhealthy obsession with Rav Soloveitchik within Modern Orthodox circles. It borders on avodah zarah and has almost transformed into a cult, something he would not have liked. In all my years in the Chareidi Gateshead and Mirrer Yeshivot, I never saw such exaggerated admiration for our great Roshei Yeshiva.

There is, however, a very good reason for this. Modern Orthodoxy has always been insecure with its own philosophy and halachic approach. Over the years, it has looked over its shoulder to see what the Chareidi community had to say. As a result, it hid behind Rav Soloveitchik, the only figure who equaled the Chareidi Talmudists in their level of Talmudic learning; and only he could protect them against the onslaught of the Chareidi community.  

What Modern Orthodoxy did not realize is that Rav Soloveitchik himself was a Chareidi, who combined that ideology with religious Zionism and tried very hard to give it a place in the world of philosophy and modernity. He therefore wavered and showed signs of a troubled man who was unable to overcome the enormous tension between these two worlds and turned into a “lonely man of faith,” with no disciples but with many students, each one of whom claimed their own Rav Soloveitchik. The truth is that the real Rav Soloveitchik was more than the sum total of all of them – a man of supreme greatness who was a tragic figure. May his memory be a blessing.    

*****

• With thanks to Yehuda DovBehr Zirkind and Channa Shapiro.

1. We hope to publicize a video of this event in the near future.
2. William Kolbrener, The Last Rabbi: Joseph Soloveitchik and Talmudic Tradition (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 2016). While there have been many books and articles on Rav Soloveitchik’s life and thought, Professor Kolbrener’s book is groundbreaking and entirely novel. It offers a much richer, yet more complicated reading of his life and thoughts. It can be purchased at https://www.amazon.com/Last-Rabbi-Soloveitchik-Tradition-Philosophy/dp/025302224X
3. See, however, notes 10 and 19.
4. See: David Singer and Moshe Sokol, “Joseph Soloveitchik: Lonely Man of Faith,” in Modern Judaism 2, 3 (1982) pp. 232-239. For an Introduction to Halakhic Man, See: David Shatz, “A Framework for Reading Ish ha-Halakhah,” in Turim: Studies in Jewish History and Literature: Presented to Dr. Bernard Lander, ed. Michael A. Shmidman (New York: Touro College Press, 2008) vol. 2, pp. 171-231.
5. Vol. 1, nos. 3-4 (New York, 1944) pp. 651-735.
6. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983.
7. “Two dinim” is a term that is widespread in the lexicon of the yeshiva world. It refers to a method of Talmudic analysis whereby a Talmudic law or concept is divided into two constituent elements. One common example is the distinction between gavra and cheftza (subject and object). This method is the hallmark of the Brisker approach to Talmudic study, championed by Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik of Brisk, Lithuania (1853-1918), the grandfather of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. For an analysis of the Brisker method, see: Norman Solomon, The Analytic Movement: Hayyim Soloveitchik and His Circle (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1993); Yosef Blau, ed., Lomdus: The Conceptual Approach to Jewish Learning, The Orthodox Forum Series (Newark, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2006).
8. For an evaluation (perhaps one-sided) of Rav Soloveitchik as a posek, see: Walter S. Wurzburger, “Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik as Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy,” in Tradition vol. 29, no. 1 (Fall 1994) pp. 5-20. We see a similar phenomenon in the writings of Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, where he suggests the most novel ideas about Halacha but refuses to use them in his responsa.
9. Ibid. – for a few more unusual decisions by Rabbi Soloveitchik.
10.  Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man: A Philosophy of Judaism (New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1955) chs. 22-33. The other person who proposed a philosophy of Halacha was Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits in God, Man and History: A Jewish Interpretation (Middle Village, NY: Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1959) Part 2. 
11.  David Hartman (with Charlie Buckholtz), “Where Did Modern Orthodoxy Go Wrong? The Mistaken Halakhic Presumptions of Rabbi Soloveitchik” in The God Who Hates Lies: Confronting & Rethinking Jewish Tradition, (Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 2011) ch. 5, pp. 131-157.
12.  Rabbi Feinstein was of the opinion that if a family of kohanim was no longer observant and was assimilated, their claim to be kohanim could not be relied upon. I received this information by personal correspondence from one of his students. See his Igrot Moshe, Even Ha’ezer, vol. 4, nos. 12, 39. See also: Rabbi Mordechai Tendler (grandson of Rabbi Feinstein), Masoret Moshe: Hanhagot HaGaon Harav Moshe Feinstein (Jerusalem 5773) p. 396.
13.  See, for example: Talmud Bavli: Ketubot 75a; Yevamot 118b; Kiddushin 7a and 41a; Bava Kama 111a.
14.  For Rav Soloveitchik’s view on this matter, see the transcript of his talk delivered at the RCA convention in 1975, published as “Surrendering to the Almighty,” in Light, no. 116 (17 Kislev 5736) pp. 13-14. A full transcript of this lecture, “Talmud Torah and Kabalas Ol Malchus Shamayim” is accessible online at: http://arikahn.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/rabbi-soloveitchik-talmud-torah-and.html. Remarkable is the fact that some assumptions of the Talmud were definitely lifted in later days. See for example the assumption that a woman would not be so bold as to declare in front of her husband that he had divorced her unless it was in fact true. But Rabbi Moshe Isserles, quoting others, states that nowadays this is no longer true and most of the time can’t be relied on!! (Rema, Even HaEzer 17:2)  See, Rabbi Dr. Nathan Slifkin, The Rav and the Immutability of Halacha in, Rationalist Judaism, 11.7.2011.         

For a comprehensive analysis of this complicated issue, see: Aliza Bazak, “The ‘Tav Lemeitav’ Presumption in Modern Halakhic Discourse,” unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bar-Ilan University, 2012; Moshe Be’eri, “Is the Presumption of ‘Tav Lemeitav Tan Du’ Subject to Change?” [Hebrew] in Techumin vol. 28 (2008) pp. 63-68; Aviad Hacohen, The Tears of the Oppressed – An Examination of the Agunah Problem: Background and Halakhic Sources (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 2004) chs. 6-8; Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, “’Tav Lemeitav Tan Du Mi-Lemeitav Armalu’: An Analysis of the Presumption,” in The Edah Journal 4:1, 2004, Iyar 5764, 1-24; Susan Aranoff, “Two Views of Marriage—Two Views of Women: Reconsidering ‘Tav Lemetav Tan du Milemetav Armelu,’” in Nashim: A Journal of Jewish Women’s Studies and Gender Issues, no. 3, Spring/Summer 5760/2000, pp. 199-227; J.D. Bleich, “’Kiddushei Ta’ut’: Annulment as a Solution to the Agunah Problem,” Tradition–A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 33 (1), 1998, pp. 102-108. Many more articles in Hebrew have been written on this topic. 

15.  Emanuel Rackman, Modern Halakhah for Our Time (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1995) pp. 71-73; Rackman, “From Status to Contract to Status: Historical and Meta-Historical Approaches” [Hebrew], in Marriage, Liberty and Equality: Shall the Three Walk Together, Tova Cohen, ed. (Bar-Ilan University, 2000) pp. 97-100; Rackman, “The Problems of the Jewish Woman in this Generation and the Ways to Solve Them” [Hebrew], in HaPeninah – Sefer Zikaron le-Peninah Refel (Jerusalem: Bnei Chemed, 1989) pp. 187-188. For a comprehensive treatment of Rabbi Rackman’s disagreement with Rabbi Soloveitchik, see: David Singer, “Emanuel Rackman: Gadfly of Modern Orthodoxy,” in Modern Judaism, vol. 28, no. 2 (May 2008) pp. 134-148; Lawrence Kaplan, “From Cooperation to Conflict: Rabbi Professor Emanuel Rackman, Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, and the Evolution of American Modern Orthodoxy,” in Modern Judaism, vol. 30, no. 1, (February 2010) pp. 46-48.
16.  Emanuel Rackman, “Soloveitchik: On Differing with My Rebbe,” in Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility, 15/289, (March 1985), p. 65.
17.  Menachem Kellner, Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism, (Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2007) Afterword: “Contemporary Resistance to the Maimonidean Reform,” pp. 286-296.
18.  See also: Emanuel Rackman, One Man’s Judaism (Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 2000) and Modern Halakhah for Our Time (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1995).
19.  Eliezer Berkovits, HaHalacha: Kochah VeTafkidah (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1981) A shortened version in English – Not in Heaven: The Nature and Function of Halakha (New York: Ktav Pub., 1983).
20.  Chaim Hirschensohn, Malki BaKodesh, new edition of first two volumes (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University / Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2006, 2012). See also: David Zohar, “Rabbi Hayyim Hirschensohn – The Forgotten Sage Who Was Rediscovered,” in Conversations: The Journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, 1 (2008/5768), pp. 56-62; Ari Ackerman, “Judging the Sinner Favorably: R. Hayyim Hirschensohn on the Need for Leniency in Halakhic Decision-Making,” in Modern Judaism vol. 22, no. 3 (2002), pp. 261-280; Marc B. Shapiro’s review of Jewish Commitment in a Modern World: Rabbi Hayyim Hirschensohn and His Attitude to Modernity, by David Zohar, in The Edah Journal 5:1 (2005).
21.  On Chacham Ben-Zion Uziel, see: Marc D. Angel, Loving Truth and Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1999); On Rav Joseph Mashash, see: Marc B. Shapiro, “Rabbi Joseph Messas,” in Conversations: The Journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, 7 (Spring 2010/5770), pp. 95-102.
22.  For all of Rabbi Heschel’s observations, see: Samuel H. Dresner, ed., Heschel, Hasidism, and Halakha (New York: Fordham University Press, 2002) pp. 102-104.
23.  Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Sabbath: Its Meaning for Modern Man (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1951).
24.  See: Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks, “A Hesped in Honor of Rav Yosef Soloveitchik,” in Memories of a Giant: Eulogies in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt”l, ed. by Michael A. Bierman (Jerusalem/New York: Urim Publications, 2003) pp. 286-287. It is interesting to note, however, that in a very illuminating and telling statement, Rav Soloveitchik admitted that during his youth he experienced feelings of discontent toward the dry and rigid halacha-ism of his father and grandfather. “The rebellious son asks: Is it always necessary to live in accordance with Halacha, which appears to him to be dry and lacking emotion? Is it not possible for Judaism to contain more kindness and mercy, delicacy and beauty? Is it necessary for Shabbat to be expressed only through [the laws contained in the chapters of Tractate Shabbat] Ba-meh Madlikin and Klal Gadol?” (Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Yemei Zikaron [Jerusalem: Elinor Library, 1986] p. 104).

****

Questions to Ponder from the David Cardozo Think Tank:                             (We suggest printing out and discussing at your Shabbat table, if you like.)

1) Rav Cardozo mentions several rabbis who had the courage to make serious changes in Judaism (he has also written articles about contemporary rabbis’ lack of courage http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/courage-rabbis-courage-the-need-for-mass-conversion). These rabbis did not become as accepted by the mainstream as R. Soloveitchik did, and Rav Cardozo attributes this to their lack of a famous name or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But couldn’t the opposite be true: having too much courage, and not picking their battles correctly, might have influenced their lack of acceptance by the larger community?

 2) In general, what do you think causes certain rabbis to become gedolei hador over others . Is    it knowledge, courage, politics, sheer luck or something bigger?

3) As Rav Cardozo mentions, R. Soloveitchik had many students, each of whom “claim their own Rabbi Soloveitchik”. This is true also of other great thinkers and early founders of Modern Orthodoxy such as Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Why do you think certain rabbis leave their students so confused about their worldview? Is their unclear worldview on certain matters possibly deliberate in order to maintain support among diverse groups of followers (Haredim, Modern Orthodox etc.), or simply reflective of their way of thinking? From your experience of Rav Cardozo, does he too seem to appeal to a range of people, and put forward contradictory views? How clear or unclear do you think his worldview is?

4) When studying Jewish history, it is difficult to determine if a rabbi’s halachic decision is a symptom of his greater vision or an outcome of that vision. For example, R. Soloveitchik strongly encouraged talmudic studies for women, but he did not push for female ordination. One can argue that (1) the outcome of R. Soloveitchik’s worldview might have been a society where women did exactly that: study Talmud and not strive to become rabbis. Or alternatively that (2) the Rav’s position on women and Talmudic studies was a symptom of his larger vision, in which women would eventually be able to become rabbis; it was only the circumstances of the mid-20^th century Jewish world that prevented this greater vision from manifesting.

5)When we look at piskei halacha, do we regard them as a binding outcome of a rabbi’s worldview or rather as a symptom that opens the door to other possibilities in other circumstances? (Opposition to the latter view is generally made under the title of the “slippery slope” argument.)

6) R. Soloveitchik lived between worlds. This was not simply a philosophical position, but had practical outcomes too. For instance, together with Saul Lieberman (the then dean of the JTS Rabbinical school) he aimed to form an all-encompassing Orthodox Beth Din for both Orthodox and Conservative Jews. Though this initiative failed, it demonstrates that both rabbis aimed to keep the greater Jewish population/community together.  Do you support such ventures, or should each camp contribute to the Jewish people separately? Are all such ventures doomed to fail, as this one did? If so, what might constitute the endemic reasons for the impossibility of such collaborations?

If you find Rabbi Cardozo’s articles of value, please consider supporting the Cardozo Academy, go to: www.cardozoacademy. org and click on Donate tab.

This event  no doubt transformed R. Yehoshua.   He had allowed himself to be humiliated by R. Gamliel because he thought that was what the halakha required of him.  It took his colleagues to bring him to the realization that R. Gamliel was no longer acting in support of the system but in support of his ego.

The uprising humbled R. Gamliel and emboldened R. Yehoshua.  When R. Gamliel subsequently went to him to apologize, he noted in surprise that R. Yehoshua's walls were blackened with coal, indicating that R. Yehoshua was a poor coalman.  "Woe to the generation that has you as a leader," he retorted, "because you never took the time to learn how hard your colleagues have to work to earn a living!"

R. Gamliel manages to mollify R. Yehoshua, and when R. Akiva realizes that R. Yehoshua had in fact been appeased, he offers to go with him to inform R. Gamliel that he was to be reinstated. 

In planning this final visit to R. Eliezedr, R. Akiva, true to character, must have seized the opportunity to organize a delegation to lift the excommunication ‑‑and he understood that now R. Yehoshua would be willing to go along. 

R. Akiva realized that R. Eliezer was too principled to either abandon his position or accept anything other than a fully honest retraction on their part. 

We can well imagine R. Akiva mapping out the meeting in his mind.  R. Eliezer is eager to teach Torah; that is his whole life.  "We have come to learn Torah," they shall tell him, and then ask him about his old areas of disagreement.  He undoubtedly will maintain his position, and they will then apologize for tormenting him for his principled stand and lift the excommunication.

But God has a special punishment for those who wait too long to apologize.  R. Eliezer had grown mordant for having been deserted by his colleagues --and especially by his close student Akiva.  They could not respond quickly enough to his acidic reaction to their visit.  When they finally can pull themselves together, it is too late.  When he answers "Pure," he dies before they can have their say.

The Curtain Falls (Sanhedrin 68a)

One can imagine R. Akiva's response.  He had waited too long and his teacher had died bitter, thinking he had been forsaken by all his colleagues and his student too.  The gates of prayer are never closed to those who cry out in anguish.  Truth is important.  Halakha is important.  Loyalty is indispensable.   

That Saturday night R. Akiva met R. Eliezer's funeral procession as it was going from Casearea to Lod.  He was beating himself until blood flowed.  He stood to eulogize him and said [as Elisha said of Elijah], "'Oh father, father! Israel's chariots and horsemen!' (II Kings 2:12).  I have many coins but no moneychanger to turn them into currency."

Afterword

So ends the Talmudic tale of Torah giants trying to balance the competing ethical demands of dedication to truth, commitment to collegiality, modesty in communal leadership. faithfulness to halakha, and loyalty to one’s teachers.  A challenge to them and an ever-present challenge to us.