National Scholar Updates

Growing up in suburban New York City, I never heard the phrase “secular humanism,” or if I did, I did not find it meaningful enough to remember because I had no concept of religion as a life-encompassing endeavor against which to compare it. Certainly, life offered choices. I could choose to become a doctor or a lawyer, and I might even be so bold as to move to Africa to work for UNICEF, but the mentality of my secular Jewish upbringing would remain underneath any career or geographical choices. In the end, I would be “learning” the New York Times wherever I went. One of the hardest tasks in life is breaking out of one’s Weltanschauung. Few do it, and it is a bona fide miracle that people find their way to Torah observance, which can be a whopper of a life-change in our era.

 A quarter of a century ago when I became frum, the yeshivot for ba’alei teshuvah essentially were Hareidi, or they tried to appear so. My limited experience in the Torah world left me unable to categorize them as such just as my prior life as a secular Jewish middle-class American did not seem to me at age 18 a life choice but rather life itself. I lacked the words to encapsulate it and to contrast it from anything else.

Even though I did not become observant via a kiruv organization, but rather through thinking and reading, I made my way to yeshiva when enough of the people I encountered recommended it. I had expected yeshiva to be a place for further exploration of the religion and of my own thoughts and feelings about it, in part because it was advertised as such, but that’s not what it was at all. Rather, it was a kind of factory for producing Hareidi Jewish men.

I do not say that with outrage. Many of my old classmates function fairly well as Hareidi Jewish men, better than they were functioning as secular Jewish men. They took to yeshiva and found a productive place in life through the lifestyle it promoted. Most importantly, of course, they are Shomer Shabbat.

The problem was for the people who did not precisely fit the mold. If this matter of single-sizing is causing trouble in the schools for the frum-from-birth (FFB), the trouble is magnified for ba’alei teshuvah. Consider, for example, what happens to the academically inclined person who had spent his entire life immersed in secular studies. Whether this happens in public school, which serves largely as preparation for college, or college itself, or graduate school, or a PhD program, or Sunday afternoons with the New York Times, it comprises a life’s work for many people. Suddenly, one hears that it is all narishkite, emptiness, and lies. Try it on yourself; say “My life’s work was a waste of time.” That is a bitter pill to swallow, and it has nasty side effects.

This would not be such a problem if indeed it were all emptiness and lies. Emet serves as an excellent replacement for sheker. Normally, one is happy to unload rocks from his backpack. But what if they are not really rocks?

Consider my coming to Yiddishkite. As I said, I found my way on my own, not through a kiruv group. Ironically, I did it largely through “secular” studies. Despite the claim that the non-Torah observant thinkers and writers of the world are all heathens and enemies of God, there are in fact many who write about morality, monotheism, and spirituality. For example, it was none other than conservative political and social commentator William F. Buckley, whose writings taught me about the concepts of faith, self-restraint, and morality as pursuits to encompass every facet of life. He talked about eschatology, that is, the idea that life on a personal and global level takes place in stages with heaven and hell coming last. He introduced me to the catchphrase “Don’t immanentize the eschaton,” which is an exhortation against utopian secular philosophies such as communism that try to make heaven (the eschaton) on earth. The phrase stems from the writings of Eric Voegelin, a German-born political philosopher who taught at University of Notre Dame and University of Munich.[1]

I am not suggesting that either Buckley or Voeglin were b’nei Torah or that seminary students in Lakewood should read their writings. I am saying merely that the bifurcation of humanity into camps of pure truth or complete lies is not the complete truth. Wonderfully, I have learned after years in the frum world that many great figures from our history would concur with my statement. Take for example what Rabbeinu Bachya wrote in his introduction to Duties of the Heart:

I also quote the pious and wise men of other nations whose words have reached us—such as the words of the philosophers, the discipline of the ascetics, and their admirable codes of conduct—for it is my hope that my readers will incline their hearts to them and listen to their wisdom. Our Masters of blessed memory have already said [in this regard]: One verse says, “But you have acted in accordance with the laws of the nations around you” (Yechezkel 11:12), and another verse says, “Nor have you acted [in accordance with the laws of the nations around you]” (ibid. 5:7). What is the resolution [of the two verses]? You have not acted like the refined among them, but you have acted like the corrupt among them. (Sanhedrin 39b).[2]

Here we learn that not only did Rabbeinu Bachya study the works of gentile thinkers but he incorporated some of their ideas into his masterpiece. Let us remember where Duties of the Heart stands in the cannon of Jewish thought as the Rambam, the Vilna Gaon, and the Hatam Sofer, each one a seminal figure in the Hareidi world, studied and praised it.[3] The grandson of the Hatam Sofer said that “Almost all of his ethical teachings and practices were from the words of this holy book.”[4] In our times, the Steipler Gaon wrote, “Whoever has not seen the lights of the holy words of the Duties of the Heart will be missing very much, he will be wanting inside, in the purity of all that is holy.”[5]

So what do we do with secular studies, much of which obviously is not fit for Jewish eyes or human eyes for that matter? I do not have a simple answer. But I can tell you this, pressuring a person to surrender truths only because of their source or to force them into different terminology that does not feel as true can yield destructive results. As I said, it is a miracle that many people become frum.

The gaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky was sensitive to this idea. He advised kiruv professionals that their goal should be simply to help non-observant Jews to become observant, that is, to keep the mitzvoth. One should not try to impose personality change or to destroy the essence of what defines the person. One should not impose conformity.[6] In other words, do not fold, spindle, or mutilate, to borrow a phrase that used to be printed on machine-readable cards for computers. Rav Yaakov said that it is essential that a ba’al teshuvah feel normal in his Torah observance. He said that, for example, the typical ba’al teshuvah will not feel normal if he does not complete his college education so he should not be discouraged from doing so.[7]

For many ba’alei teshuvah, life in a contemporary Hareidi environment will not feel normal, particularly if one’s mentors are not striving to follow the advice of Rav Yaakov. I have been to more than one shiur where the speaker declared how all secular music was prohibited. Each time I thought to myself, “Bridge over Troubled Water” is osur? Seriously?” I combed through the lyrics, “When you’re weary, feeling small, when tears are in your eyes, I’ll dry them all.” What is the problem here? Is this a hok like shatnes? Am I never allowed again to hear this song that has comforted and inspired me throughout my life? In my view, most of the people who I observed entering and leaving the frum world left not because they could not handle mitzvoth observance but because they could not cope with the more extreme approaches to it. That is a tragedy. Hence, there was and is a great need for Modern Orthodox kiruv yeshivot where the answer to incorporating the good of the secular world is not met with a shochet’s knife, but rather, with discussion, with decisions, and with indecision.

Note that I use the term Modern Orthodox in the broad sense to mean not “Torah only” or not contemporary Hareidi. There are different shades of Modern Orthodox. For example, in my view, the litvaks of old Europe and even mid-twentieth-century America would not fit neatly into either camp. However, the Modern Orthodox world tends to allow more room for a person to match the complete litvish approach to Torah life which usually included the pursuit of parnassah at younger ages and often included secular studies and other matters that we associate today with the Modern Orthodox. As the Hareidi world narrows its scope, the Modern Orthodox world absorbs approaches to Torah life that are not characteristically modern.

I cannot speak for the contemporary kiruv world as I have long moved on to the daily focus of earning a living. But the English speaking kiruv world of decades ago I knew pretty well, particularly the yeshivot. There really was only one place for people who all ready had earned college degrees that I could describe as espousing “Modern” Orthodox sensibilities of any significance and the rabbi who I met after knocking on the door spent our interview testing me on the Gemara. What I did not know at the time, what he evidentially did not know either, is that I was seeking to learn more about Torah Im Derekh Erets and Torah u’Maddah. As the expression goes, you don’t know what you don’t know. I did not know these terms so I did not know to inquire about them. I only knew that the outlook I was trying to hoist upon myself was not working as promised.

You might be surprised if you came into my home today to see very little secular material lying around. One reason for this is my fear that young people in this era cannot manage both Torah and maddah successfully, particularly as the academic world and general society have drifted into some really bizarre and indecent territory. I cannot get my mind around what passes for culture and entertainment today. But also, I want to spare my family the painful choices and sacrifices that I had to endure. I often think that some ba’alei teshuvah would be wise to retain a small percentage of their old interests, as long as they are halakhically permissible. At some point, you have to make peace with your past. You can only discard so much. But as Rabbi Avigdor Miller used to say, you can like chocolate cake, but you don’t have to tell the whole world about it. Let the FFBs in my house have some peace; let them enjoy the simplicity that just was not their father’s lot in life.

Orthodox Singles: Breaking Myths (or: The "Shiddukh Crisis" Revisited) [i]

I'm smart, successful at my career, and fun to be with. I've worked out many of my "issues" in therapy. Here I am, eminently eligible and ready for a relationship, but somehow all of the guys I meet just aren't there yet. I feel like prescribing them a course of therapy, life-skills, and relationship-skills, and telling them to return in a few years, though hopefully I'll have found someone by then…

Sarah, age 27

I really want to get married and build a "bayit ne'eman b'yisrael" and all that other good stuff, but sometimes life gets in the way. I'm struggling really deeply with my conflicting sexual and religious needs, while trying to move forward in my career, and still make it to minyan—all this under the watchful and critical eye of my parents and community. Spending Shabbat with my parents is the opposite of relaxing. I wonder whether they would have gotten married as young and as happily as they did had they had the same challenges to contend with when single as I do.

Avi, age 31  

I hesitate to take up my pen and write about the broad topic of Orthodox singles. It's a topic on which much ink has been spilt and to little effect. I generally confine myself to the topic of singles and sexuality/religious conflict, which has been much less explored and where there are perhaps more constructive things to be written. However, I want to write briefly about some of the broader challenges faced by singles and by the Orthodox community. The issues are manifold and complex—spanning the religious, psychological, phenomenological, existential, physiological, and halakhic realms, among others—and my goals are limited. If I can succeed in making you question your assumptions about singles, or in breaking some of the myths that you hold dear, and shaking your sense of certainty about anything relating to singles and their place in the community, then I will have done enough. Deconstruction is easy compared to reconstruction, but it often needs to come first—I leave the rebuilding to the future.

We often hear mention of the "Shiddukh Crisis" or "Singles Problem" that currently plagues the Orthodox Jewish community. Various groups, organizations, synagogues, and individuals have given much thought to finding the "solution" or a range of "solutions" to this "problem." I don't want to enter into the fray of searching for solutions, partly because some of the "solutions" I've seen have been worse than the problem itself and have augmented the problem rather than solving it, and partly because I disagree with the entire construct of problem-solving that has been set up around Orthodox singles.

Let's start with some definitions: Many today would define the "Shiddukh Crisis" as the fact that today, more than ever before, large numbers of Jews are remaining single for longer, marrying later, or not marrying at all. This definition assumes that the mere status of married or unmarried is how we define success, and the quality of a person's married or single life doesn't matter to us. For many people, the "Singles Problem" is something that needs to be solved simply by getting everyone married as quickly as possible.

I want to suggest a different definition of the "Singles Problem": the crux of the crisis is, on the one hand, deeply personal, surrounding the individual issues that prevent people from either desiring or achieving a meaningful and committed relationship. And on the other hand, there is a wider communal dynamic in which the Orthodox community simply doesn't know how to include the unmarried individuals in its midst and often alienates singles, forcing them to either form their own singles communities or to leave Orthodoxy.

In this article, I want to focus on the intersection between the single and the community and on some of the myths that prevent mutual understanding.

Beginning the Myth-Breaking

The line between straining at truths that prove to be imbecilically self-evident, on the one hand, and on the other hand tossing off commonplaces that turn out to retain their power to galvanize and divide, is weirdly unpredictable. In dealing with an open-secret structure, it's only by being shameless about risking the obvious that we happen into the vicinity of the transformative….

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Epistemology of the Closet, p. 22

Before we can move toward a productive conversation about singles and their place in the community, I need to clear the ground from some of the many and often contradictory myths that currently prevail regarding singles. The very act of generalizing—of making statements that are relevant to "all singles" or "everyone"—does violence to the individual and his or her experience. Individuals come in different shapes and sizes; physically, emotionally, intellectually—and they relate differently to this period in their lives. We simply can't make any general assumptions about people.

I have chosen five common myths that I want to break systematically, though there are many more. I begin with the sexual realm because I think that it is the proverbial  elephant in the room, which often hovers in people's consciousnesses but is not mentioned in polite conversation. Since halakha does not permit pre-marital sex or any physical contact with the opposite sex (“negiah”), singles either are not sexually active, or their sexual activity is illegitimate. Therefore, they are either grappling with sexual denial or repression, or they are violating the halakha. Either way, their situation is one that the wider community cannot easily identify with. The prevalence of assumptions and dearth of real information about people's sexual beliefs and practices—the confusion between myth and fact—may contribute to suspicion mixed with awkwardness in interactions between singles and members of the wider community. In this vein the myths can be especially damaging.

Myth #1: Everyone is "shomer negiah" /No one is "shomer negiah."

These myths, though they contradict each other, are both quite prevalent within the Orthodox community. Each comes from a totalizing perspective that seeks to reduce all singles to the same experience so that we don't need to give the matter further thought. If all singles are shomer negiah, then the system works—everything is fine, there is no conflict to be reckoned with, and we need not concern ourselves with the personal toll that this halakhic observance may be having upon the individual. On the other hand, if no singles are shomer negiah, then there is also no conflict—singles simply don't care about the halakha and thus they aren't part of the community. Each of these totalizing perspectives is detrimental and each ignores the uniqueness of the individual and the fact that people are different and that they cope with singlehood in different ways.

Although sex and sexuality are universal phenomena, they are experienced differently by different individuals and even by the same individual in different stages of life. For some, sexuality is a major challenge during the single years. For others, sexuality is a non-issue, or a minor issue. Some observe negiah with ease, others with difficulty, others not at all. Some are shomer negiah in some relationships and not in others or with some people and not with others. For others, the status changes with time. The endless permutations make stereotypes worthless. There are people who don't look the part who are completely shomer negiah, and people learning in yeshiva who visit prostitutes. A friend of mine recently asked two male friends of hers, of similar age and profession, what they were looking for in a wife in terms of her sexual experience—the answers they gave were diametrically opposed. One would only date women who had never touched men, because "If I waited, why couldn't she?" and the other would only date women who had had some physical contact with men, because, "I don't want someone who's not having sex just so that her ketubah [marriage contract] can say betulah [virgin] (which it can either way)." Leave the stereotypes behind and look at the person who is facing you.

Myth #2: Anyone who engages in premarital sexual activity is totally fine with it.

This myth is particularly damaging because it allows us to ignore the pain and conflict that many Orthodox singles are experiencing. Although there are certainly singles who are not conflicted about their premarital sexual activity, all of the singles with whom I have spoken have struggled very deeply with these issues—either overtly or beneath the surface—and while some eventually made their peace with the choices they made, others continue to struggle.

An extension of this myth is that those who engage in premarital sexual activity simply don't care about the halakha. Most of the singles that I have spoken with cared deeply about the halakha, and it was precisely because they cared so much about the halakha that they were thrown into such a deep existential conflict in its violation. However, the guilt surrounding premarital sexual activity is not purely due to halakhic violation. For many people feelings of guilt are a complex combination of many factors, the halakha being one, and communal or familial expectations and social pressures being another. For women especially, society’s double standard of sexual behavior adds onto the halakhic layer the feelings of being “damaged goods” once one engages in premarital sexual activity, and raises questions about one’s larger identity as a good girl, a good person, and a good Jew. Even those singles I spoke with who chose to leave the halakhic lifestyle retained a lingering sense of guilt and discomfort about their decisions in the sexual realm.

Myth #3: Singles are happy the way they are—they don't want to be part of the "broader Orthodox community."

“Community” means different things to different people. Here I am using this term in an intentionally ambiguous way, though on a basic level I am referring to the community that forms around a synagogue or a neighborhood. In either case, families are generally the building block of the community. Depending on the specific community, singles may have formed their own minyan, or in places with fewer singles, singles may be either invisible within the communal framework or may be full members of the community.

If we take this myth in the specific context of the community that forms around a synagogue, then the exact opposite is often true as well: Many singles feel so alone and isolated that they are often thirsting to be a part of the larger community, if only the community would let them. Especially in the absence of a spouse—who, among other things, provides a regular companion for Shabbat meals—singles often appreciate the sense of belonging or of being part of something larger than oneself.

However, not all singles want to be involved in the community to the same extent, and the community should be sensitive to the range of needs that individuals might have. Some singles might appreciate an invitation to a Shabbat meal, others might appreciate being set up, others might just want a smile and greeting after prayer services, and others might want a more active role on the synagogue board or on various committees. And beyond these concrete actions, there is the ineffable; the sense you get when the person in front of you is being perfunctory in conversation, scanning the room for someone else to talk to, the sense you get when "How are you" is a statement rather than a question. Married people: Be open to singles the same way you would be open to a new family that joins your community, and allow the situation and the person standing in front of you to guide your actions.

Myth #4: Any attempt on the part of the Orthodox community to grapple openly and deal seriously with the challenges and conflicts that singles face will help to legitimize perpetual singlehood and make singles even less likely to marry.

In 2009, when the numbers of unmarried Orthodox Jews in their twenties, thirties and forties have reached an unprecedented high, and when the percentage of Jews who end up never marrying is increasing, failure to confront the issue constitutes an act of burying our heads in the sand, and further alienating those singles who remain part of the Orthodox community. At this point, the question of legitimization of singlehood is almost moot, as the numbers speak for themselves, with the message that people are remaining single, with or without such legitimization. We as a community need to get over the fear of raising questions, and singles are just the tip of the iceberg here.

Several years ago, when single, I was part of a committee of both married and single individuals (which included rabbis and communal leaders) that was dedicated to thinking through the "singles problem" and trying to offer "solutions." Even after a couple of years of conversations, and countless suggestions, this committee was not able to take any definitive steps. We had finally realized the complexity of the issues involved and realized that the proposed “solutions” were merely band-aids that didn’t get to the heart of the problem. At one point this myth surfaced and the committee began to question its existence—was the very fact of our open conversation going to somehow legitimize singlehood? Aside from the fact that none of this committee's deliberations were public, I felt impelled to point out in an email that, "To assume that communal pressure [for marriage] will help the matter is misguided…. Please trust me when I say that no amount of communal acceptance and welcome will ever make any of us forget that we are not your ideal and never will be until we are married with children" (1/2/05).[ii]

Sylvia Barack Fishman puts the issue in more extreme terms, which are perhaps reflective (or perhaps not) of the threat that the community construes in its singles:

The question facing Orthodox communities today has some similarities to Jewish communal questions about how to treat intermarried families: Outreach activists urge inclusiveness—"why not accept the singles community as it is"—while others counter that total inclusiveness would be tantamount to legitimating singleness as an alternative lifestyle for Orthodox Jews. Thinking about the treatment of Orthodox singles thus demands coming to terms with deep philosophical, sociological, and communitarian issues. (Gender Relationships In Marriage and Out, p. 111)

Perhaps the extremity of the comparison is illustrative of how deeply threatened the community feels by the existence of singles.

Myth #5: The sexual restrictions of yihud and negiah have the teleological purpose of ensuring that people have only one sexual partner in life (namely, their spouse); these halakhot are rooted in an awareness of the psychological and spiritual damage that even casual premarital physical contact can cause.

This myth is perhaps the most detrimental myth of all, in that it breaks out of the communal sphere and speaks to each and every single who has ever had even accidental physical contact with a member of the opposite sex, and tells them that they will suffer for this act and it will impact their ability to form a happy marriage; how much more so the individual who has had intentional sexual contact. This idea comes from those popular Jewish authors who, in their quest to convince teenagers to become shomer negiah have—without any use of Jewish texts and sources—read their own pop-psychology into this law.

Although I cannot fully break this myth in the context of the present article, suffice it to say now that the existence of biblical polygamy, concubines, and prostitutes— categories that are all difficult to reconcile with Judaism as we currently live it—and, on a more normative plane, the encouraging of remarriage for those who have been widowed or divorced, serve to dispel the notion that lifelong monogamy is the root of these prohibitions. There is no authoritative source that I am aware of that discusses the psychological or spiritual damage that will ensue upon violating these restrictions, any more than the spiritual damage that results from any sin, and that can be healed through repentance. In fact, a cursory reading of Maimonides (Hilkhot Issurei Bi'ah, chapter 21) and the Shulhan Arukh (Even haEzer 25, Orakh Hayim 240) reveals a very different root to these prohibitions, which is perhaps more disturbing to our modern sensibilities; namely, a striving for asceticism, even within marriage![iii]

To promulgate myths of this nature under the banner of "Judaism," "Torah," and "halakha" has a detrimental effect because it compounds the guilt and anxiety of many singles who are committed to Judaism but for psychological, emotional, or physiological reasons are not observing all of the sexual restrictions mandated by halakha. Although there is certainly value in encouraging abstinence among teenagers, we cannot achieve this at the price of being dishonest about Judaism and halakha.

A corollary of this myth is the assumption that there is no difference between teenagers, and those in their twenties, thirties, and forties who are single. Not distinguishing between adolescent sexuality and adult sexuality reflects a failure to see singles as adults who, among other characteristics, are also fully developed sexual beings, with needs and desires that are substantively similar to those of their married counterparts. There is nothing natural about being a “40-year-old-virgin”—and the halakha itself recognized this and therefore encouraged early marriage. Even if halakha today constrains us from endorsing premarital sexual activity, we as a community need to adopt a more empathetic and understanding stance to those who engage in it; the thirty-year-old woman who is physical with her serious boyfriend is different from the adolescent whose hormones have overtaken him. It is time we stop infantilizing singles under the banner of halakha.

***

   The topic of singles in the Orthodox community is complex and is comprised of many different issues and questions, which are often lumped together into the same category. There are the personal crises that individuals are forced to navigate, the interpersonal issues involved in the process of seeking out and building intimate relationships, the family dynamics that arise during singlehood and the wider communal issues, as well as the religious and sexual issues, to name but a few. We are still a long way from fully understanding any of these issues, let alone knowing how to address them. However, I hope that this exercise in myth-breaking will have helped clear the way toward increasing understanding between singles and the broader community and toward opening the conversation.

            More than forty years ago, one of the stirring voices of Jewish conscience was Professor Abraham Joshua Heschel. Although remembered primarily for his calls to activism in the realms of social and racial justice, Heschel was first and foremost a teacher to rabbis and educators. His words were a charge to me, then a neophyte to the field of Jewish education. He said,

One of our errors has been the trivialization of education. The superficial kind of religious education acquired in childhood fades away when exposed to the challenge and splendor of other intellectual powers           in an age of scientific triumphs. What young people need is not religious tranquilizers, religion as diversion, religious entertainment, but spiritual audacity. ¹

            The proliferation of Day Schools and yeshivot can be seen as a response to this view of the needs of students and communities. When Jewish education began to be the subject of research studies in the post-World War II period, only 5 to 7 percent of the population of students in any form of Jewish school attended Day Schools or yeshivot. Haym Soloveitchik observes that sixty year ago, it was generally held that "Jewishness was something almost innate, and no school was needed to inculcate it." But, he continues,

            in contemporary society…Jewish identity is not inevitable. It is not a

            matter of course, but of choice: A concious preference of the enclave

            over the host society. For such a choice to be made, a sense of                                     particularity and belonging must be instilled by the intentional enterprise                           of instruction…identity maintenance and consciousness raising are                                   ideological exigencies, needs that can be met only by education.²

    Thus it is not surprising that today, by various estimates, some 30 percent of Jewish school-age children in the United States—205,000 young people—attend Day Schools or yeshivot. Eighty percent of these students are enrolled in Orthodox schools.³ Further analysis tells us that 47,416 students (23 percent) attend 165 institutions described as "Centrist" or "Modern Orthodox." ⁴ The territory has expanded.

   Despite qualitative and quantitative growth, the educational landscape is littered with doubt among educators, parents, and students. Yaakov Bieler states the challenge as follows:

Questions are increasingly raised about whether these educational institutions really provide a Modern Orthodox education and produce Modern Orthodox young people. To find the reasons for this malaise we must gauge the effectiveness of the Modern Orthodox Day Schools that go beyond such obvious facts as the manner in which the school day is organized, what extracurricular activities are available, and where the graduates continue their education.⁵

            Urgency notwithstanding, most of the meetings, discussions, plenaries, and public documents do not go deeply into the core issues of schooling. The most well-meaning of presentations by policymakers or researchers that do not bring education professionals into the dialogue may result in half-baked ideas, at best. It is, after all, these professionals who are the "first responders" to the students. It is they who articulate, develop, and implement with teachers the curricula, programs, and strategies that drive their schools. It is they who are uniquely poised to be the agents of change and the conservators of tradition in the lives of students and their families.

            And so we hold this conversation. Through this issue of Conversations and follow-up exchanges using the electronic media, we hope to engage educators and others interested in the role of schooling in Modern Orthodoxy in an open and clarifying presentation and discussion of ideas. There are many good things happening in our schools that are not shared with colleagues. There are difficult experiences that we all encounter and these, likewise, remain dark secrets. This is an opportunity to teach and learn from our colleagues.

            We have selected four questions in areas that are commonplace for our schools:

1. How should a school leader express his or her vision of Jewish education? Can there be a clear line from the school’s mission to what happens in the classrooms? Is there a substantive difference between schools that are “mission-driven” and those that are not?
2. How does an educator experience the personnel shortage in our schools? Does this find expression in General and Judaic Studies? What impact, if any, does this shortage have on a school’s ability to meet its mission and goals?
3. How should Modern Orthodox schools address women’s education and gender equality in terms of content, mastery, and Jewish practice? To what extent is this a divisive issue in the community, and how can a school deal with this?
4. How should Modern Orthodox schools address issues in contemporary culture that conflict with traditional norms? What is the impact on a school’s reach for integration of Judaic and General Studies?

We arranged the conversation as follows:

• An essay by Dr. Moshe Sokolow, which frames the issues
• An article by Rabbi Mark Gottlieb, which addresses hashkafa in our schools
• The four questions above and responses by a panel of education professionals

Since it is neither responsible nor useful to ignore the present fiscal realities, we have included a proposal by Mrs. Zippora Schorr and Rabbi Aaron Frank, which may be instructive for other schools and communities.

            We hope that these essays, questions, and replies will initiate further conversation in the Member’s Forum at www.jewishideas.org.

________________

¹Abraham Joshua Heschel, "The Values of Jewish Education,” in Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly (New York, 1962): 83.

²Haym Soloveitchik, "Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy," in Tradition (Summer, 1994): 90, 93.

³ Jack Wertheimer, “The Current Moment in Jewish Education: An Historian’s View,” in R. L. Goodman, et al., What We Now Know About Jewish Education (Los Angeles: Torah Aura, 2009): 15.

⁴ Marvin Schick, "A Census of Jewish Day Schools in the United States, 2003–2004" (New York: Avi Chai Foundation, 2005).

⁵ Jack Bieler, "Preserving Modern Orthodoxy in Our Day Schools,” Edah Monograph Series 2: 1.

SheLo Asani Isha: An Orthodox Rabbi Reflects on Integrity, Continuity, and Inclusivity

Avraham Weiss

There is a well-known anecdote about the rabbi who carefully prepared a sermon. In its margins were brief notes on how it should be delivered. On the side of one paragraph it read— “weak point, speak loud.” As the argument progressed, the rabbi, in the margins of the next paragraph, jotted down— “weaker still, speak even louder.”

Looking back over my years in the rabbinate, that is how I feel about the way I taught the three negative blessings recited every morning: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe….who has not made me a gentile (goy)…a slave (eved)…a woman (isha).” In countless classes, most often when I taught prayer at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women, I did somersaults to explain this phraseology, especially the last one—“who has not made me a woman—sheLo asani isha.”

Conceptual Analysis

The challenge was obvious. If the goal of the liturgy was to thank God for who we are, why do so by declaring who we are not? Granted, these blessings have a powerful source as they are found in the Talmud.[1] Notwithstanding this authoritative source, the language has grated on the moral conscience of many people, especially women living in contemporary times. And so, I struggled to explain these blessings, sometimes spending several full sessions on their meaning.

My teachings varied. They began with the most commonly given explanation: Men are obligated in more affirmative commandments than women—specifically some of the affirmative mitzvoth fixed by time.[2] Hence, when men bless God for “not making me a woman,” they are expressing gratitude for being obligated to perform more mitzvoth—which are, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks notes, “not a burden but a cherished vocation.”[3]

But if this is the reasoning, why not recite the blessing in the positive and state, “Blessed are You, Lord our God… for making me a man”? For this response, I culled from the thoughts of some of my own teachers. Men, they argued, are by nature more aggressive; in contrast, women are more passive, kinder, more compassionate.[4] Hence, men establish who they are by brazenly proclaiming who they are not. This line of reasoning also explains why women, unlike men, employ a softer language, blessing God for making them “according to His will” she’asani kirtzono.[5] Although less obligated in mitzvoth, women declare their willing acceptance to perform ratzon Hashem—the will of God.[6]

Another justification for sheLo asani isha is that the primary obligation of women to be homemakers is seen as more onerous, requiring a higher level of commitment and spiritual sensitivity. Men, therefore, offer thanks that they are not women encumbered by this more difficult, taxing role. Women, however, say she’asni kirtzono—although their obligations are more difficult, they accept them willingly.

There were other interpretations I presented as well. Yaavetz argues that the blessing relates to women being more susceptible to physical danger during pregnancy and childbirth. By reciting the blessing sheLo asani isha, men offer thanksgiving that they were not placed in such danger.[7]

Other approaches are even more farfetched. One of them points out that after conception, an embryo initially develops into a female. To become a male, the embryo must receive a genetic signal to turn away from its original form. SheLo asani isha reflects this “biological process.” She’asani kirtzono, recited by women, traces their evolution. From the moment of conception they were women.

Another explanation relates to the conclusion reached by the Talmud that it would have been best for the human being not to have been born at all. Once born, however, we are asked to do the best we can to lead meaningful lives.[8] As we only recite blessings for our benefit, and it is not optimal for humans to have been created, the blessing is formulated in the negative.[9]

Still others insist that the negative blessings can be understood in their historical context. These blessings were first introduced by Greek philosophers and Zoroastrian scholars.[10] Hundreds of years later the rabbis incorporated them into the liturgy as a way of rejecting the rise of Roman culture. The blessing “Who has not made me a gentile” specifically referred to the Romans, who were loathed by the Jewish community for their glorification of slavery and treatment of women. “Who has not made me a slave” and “Who has not made me a woman” were blessings through which Jewish men expressed gratitude for not having been victimized as were slaves and women were during that period.[11]

So I taught for many years. In my courses on parshanut haTefillah, I would go over these arguments meticulously, trying to convince my students, and myself, that these ideas were sound.

Then something happened. One of my earlier students, one of my finest, suddenly left the school. Try as I did, I could not find her. Having come from a non-ritually observant background, she had become ritually observant. Then, as quickly as she became more committed, she disappeared.

Years later, walking along the streets of New York, I saw her. We engaged warmly in conversation, like two close friends who had not seen each other in years but could pick up their friendship in an instant. She shared with me that she had left ritual observance. I haltingly asked why. Was it something I said, something I taught? Over the years I’ve come to understand that teachers must be wary of every word; you never know which one could make the whole difference. She then told me it was a composite of reasons, but one that stands out were those classes I gave on sheLo asani isha. I know, she went on respectfully, that this was your understanding but, for me, it was pure rationalization. Yes, she continued, I found those classes dishonest.

I was shattered—shattered that my words, my teachings had contributed to her turning away. It was then, right then for the first time, that something hit me. My heart dropped as I, in that instant, realized that not only did she reject those teachings as poor rationalizations, but so did I. All those classes, which I had carefully crafted, carefully organized, quickly became a maze of apologetics and excuses that ran contrary to the very core of my moral sensibilities.[12] It felt like the moment in the folktale when the child calls out, “The emperor has no clothes.” Of course, sheLo asani isha is only a blessing, mere words. However, words are important, as they translate into deeds; they shape a psyche; they reflect a mission—certainly when they are words that define our attitudes toward those who, too often, are cast aside and suffer discrimination. Furthermore, these words constitute a blessing. In no small measure, words of blessing define our perspectives on life itself.

This encounter with my former student took place many years ago. Simultaneously something else occurred. As I encouraged women mourners to recite Kaddish, some began coming to daily services.[13] Arriving early for the first Kaddish, they would hear the leader of the service recite the blessing, sheLo asani isha. I could see the pain on some of their faces. Several women told me that when they hear those words, they feel violated, as if they do not count. One said, “What do you mean when you say, ‘Thank you that I am not a woman’? But that’s who I am.”

It was then that I was faced with a dilemma. How could I reconcile moral sensibilities with the serious halakhic matter of matbe’ah shel tefillah—the sacredness of the original text of the liturgy? Looking deeply into the halakhic issues, it became clear to me that there were legitimate options—options that allowed the halakha to be true to the words we sing out when returning the Torah to the Ark, derakheha darkhei no’am veKhol neti’voteha shalom—“Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17).[14]

Halakhic Reflections

The birkhot haShahar in which the three negative blessings appear are codified as part of our obligation to recite one hundred blessings daily.[15] It can be suggested that even if one does not recite the three negative blessings, there are certainly ample opportunities during the course of the day to achieve this number.

In the end, the three negative blessings are birkot shevah veHoda’ah, blessings of praise and thanksgiving. There may be room to suggest that not all birkot shevah veHoda’ah are obligatory in the strict sense of the word. An example of this can be found in Magen Avraham's comment that women do not have a custom to recite birkat hoda’ah after going on a trip overseas or through a desert because these blessings are “reshut.”[16] One can logically extend this argument to other birkot hoda’ah as well.

Still, while these blessings may be non-obligatory, they are part and parcel of the liturgy. They take their place in the larger framework of birkhot haShahar, wherein we express gratitude for everything God has given us. It is then that we take a moment to offer thanksgiving for our identity as men and women who are free and part of the Jewish covenantal community. Thus, expression of that identity should be articulated.[17]

SheLo asani isha touches directly on the tension between fidelity to traditional formulations rooted in talmudic directives and other Torah values, such as kavod haBriyot, human dignity, not causing pain to others, and affirming the tselem Elohim in every person. For many people in the community the recitation of sheLo asani isha creates a deep and profound tsa’ar nafshi—personal, soulful hurt. One should therefore bear in mind that there are alternative texts to sheLo asani isha, specifically, she’asani Yisrael, “Who has made me a Jew.” This text is quoted in the Talmud as an alternative view.[18] No lesser giants in halakha than Rosh and Vilna Gaon prefer this language.[19]

Much has been written about the role of minority opinions in deciding Jewish Law.[20] There is ample evidence that, when a minority opinion is supported by accepted luminaries in halakha, their views can be followed beSha’at ha’dhak, in times of pressing need.[21] The tsa’ar nafshi, the soulful pain that these blessings cause is such a sha’at ha’dhak.[22] Following this approach, we can rely on those Gedolim and she’asani Yisrael can be said.[23]

Once she’asani Yisrael is said, as noted by Bah and Arukh Hashulhan, the other blessings, “Who has not made me a gentile,” and “Who has not made me a slave” should be omitted.[24] After all, if I am a Yisrael, a Jewish man, I am not a Yisraelit, a Jewish woman. Nor am I a slave or a gentile.[25]

Rabbi Nati Helfgot has tentatively suggested exploring an alternative approach. In prayer we have a concept that one should not “express falsehoods before God,” dover shekarim lifnei Hashem. In practical terms, this has ramifications during Neilah of Yom Kippur when—if the sheliah tsibbur is reciting haYom yifneh, haShemesh yavoh veYifneh: “the day is passing, the sun will soon set and be gone”—it is already after sunset. In this case, the Mishnah Berurah, citing Magen Avraham, writes that one should change the nussah to haYom panah, haShemesh bah uPanah; “the day has passed, the sun has already set and gone.”[26] Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein offers a similar approach to the Nahem blessing recited on Tisha B’Av in our day and age. He suggests that the words in the blessing hashomeimah haAveilah mi’bli baneha—“[the city] that is desolate, that grieves for the loss of its children” be left out, as it is no longer true today.[27]

Theoretically, one could make a case that if one feels deeply that this idea is untrue and not reflective of what one believes, nor reflective of society, it would make sheLo asani isha a declaration of a personal falsehood. It can thus be another snif leHakel, another factor coupled with others, that may lead one to look for other nusshaot that one can say with honesty and integrity before God. Rav Nati has suggested that although the cases are obviously not analogous in every sense, it is a framework that might be explored.

            My position relative to sheLo asani isha is part of a more general approach to halakha. Halakha is not a computer system of physics or chemistry that operates irrespective of the individual and his or her circumstances. Like Torah from which it emerges, halakha is an eitz hayyim, a tree of life, a living organism, synergizing halakhic decisions transmitted verbally and orally through the generations with the needs of the day. From this perspective, halakha functions within parameters, outside of which the answer to a question may be an emphatic “no.” But within those parameters there is significant latitude and flexibility, allowing the posek—the decisor of Jewish Law—to take into account the sentiments and feelings of the questioner.[28] Halakha is, therefore, not an unyielding system, but one in which there may be more than one answer to a question—and given the situation, both may be correct.

Relative to the issue of sheLo asani isha, and for that matter the larger issue of women and halakha, I have been influenced by different women whom I respect and admire.[29] On the one hand, my wife Toby—a person of profound religious commitment and depth—is comfortable with the traditional role of women in synagogue and is more accepting of the sheLo asani isha text.

On the other hand, I have been impacted by my mother of blessed memory, a woman of valor, who never quite understood why she was so limited in what she could do in traditional Jewish ritual circles. To this day I see her tears as she, for the first time, came to the Torah to recite blessings at our women’s prayer group. If this group was established just for that moment alone—dayenu. And then there is my older sister, one of the great influences in my life who, as a feminist and renowned novelist, grew up attending yeshivot that taught Judaism in a manner she felt was discriminatory against women.

My personal lenses on sheLo asani isha are more in line with the spirit of my mother and sister. Within my heart and soul I find the negative blessing formulation discordant, out of sync with the message of Jewish ethics.[30] Also, as one whose rabbinate seeks to embrace all Jews, I have come to recognize that the sheLo asani isha blessing has become a barrier to the many people who otherwise might be attracted to what Judaism has to offer. The blessing sends the message that women are inferior. Even if this is not its intention, that is the perception it leaves. And the only difference between perception and reality is that it is more difficult to change perception.

And yet, I fully appreciate the posture of those who, like my wife, do not understand the blessing as denigrating women and wish to maintain the text used by their fathers and mothers and grandparents all the way back. Wanting to be sensitive to both positions, I opted early on to instruct the leader of the service in at our shul (the Bayit) to begin with the Rabbi Yishmael prayer, leaving it up to the individual to decide whether to recite these blessings or not.[31] Concomitantly, this approach does not force anyone to hear a blessing they find inwardly painful and unacceptable.

The Berakha in Context: Women in Synagogue

It is my sense that in general, Orthodox synagogues that do not audibly and publicly recite sheLo asani isha are more welcoming to women in a whole variety of other areas. The most obvious relates to the structure and placement of the mehitza. A mehitza is meant to separate women and men. This doesn’t mean that women should see or hear less. For me, the test of a fully welcoming mehitza is the following: When no one is in the sanctuary, one should be unable to know on which side the men or women sit.[32]

The term used for public tefillah also makes a difference. Although the word minyan is commonly used to refer to a prayer service, my preference is to use tefillah. Minyan, in Orthodoxy, includes men but does not count women. Tefillah transcends gender. Women are not part of the quorum of ten, but tefillah describes an experience in which both are critical participants.

A further test of welcome to women is whether they are encouraged to recite Kaddish, even if they are the sole “Kaddish-sayer.”[33] Additionally, do women carry the Torah around their section?[34] Are they welcome to give divrei Torah in synagogue?[35] Most important for an inclusive atmosphere, is to create a safe space in the synagogue where open and honest discussion on such issues as sheLo asani isha can be conducted respectfully.[36]

That is no simple challenge. When my dear colleague Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky wrote in his blog that he no longer says sheLo asani isha, the pushback was shameful—not because people disagreed, but in the way people disagreed. Some went as far as to say that Rav Yosef—a man of profound religious commitment and impeccable integrity—could no longer be considered part of the Orthodox community.[37]

In speaking to many colleagues during this controversy, some told me that they, too, no longer say sheLo asani isha, but were fearful of making this public.[38] Today there is fear, amongst even the most seasoned rabbis, to say what is on their minds. There is concern of being ostracized and cast out of the Orthodox community. This resonates personally. How I remember during the Rabba controversy, colleagues calling to express support for my decision to ordain Rabba Sara Hurwitz and designate her title Rabba, but were afraid to speak their minds and hearts on the issue.

The time has come to stop looking over our shoulders seeking authenticity from the right. We ought to recognize that there are many, many who are proudly Orthodox, but open—open to honest discussion, honest debate, honest struggle with issues of heightened ethical and moral sensibilities. We should not be looking toward others for approval, but toward ourselves and, of course, toward God, Torah, and halakha itself.

The issue of the negative blessings is no small matter. In many ways, these blessings represent three areas that distinguish Open Orthodoxy—our attitude toward the gentile (goy), the most vulnerable (eved), and women (isha). For many people, articulating them in the negative sends a wrong message—that we care less about these people.

Thus, the significance of these blessings goes far beyond their narrow formula. They reveal much about ourselves and our relationship to others. Invoking God’s name in these blessings also reveals how we believe that God wishes for us to interact with the world. The language we use in these blessings goes a long way in defining who we are as individuals and as part of a sacred community, an am kadosh.[39]

To our members and friends,

It has been a very exciting fall semester. In the past month, I have served as a scholar-in-residence in Oak Park Michigan, Monsey New York, and Teaneck New Jersey.

I will give one more public lecture in December:

Wednesday, December 20, from 1:00-2:15 pm, at Lamdeinu Teaneck:

The Books of the Maccabees and Rabbinic Thought: Getting to the Roots of Hanukkah
For more information and to register, go to http://www.lamdeinu.org/.

Since the beginning of September, I have served as the Tanakh Education Scholar at Ben Porat Yeshiva Day School, in Paramus, New Jersey. I am developing a new Tanakh curriculum for grades 1-8, that reflects our core religious values at the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. I also have given lectures to the Ben Porat Yosef parent community in this capacity.

Our University Network, which I now coordinate, continues to do incredible work to promote our religious ideology and vision on campuses across the United States and Canada. We have added several new campuses and fellows this semester. Please see my December report on our Campus Fellows on our website: https://www.jewishideas.org/article/campus-fellows-report-december-2017

I have just published a new book, a collection of twenty essays on the Bible, with Kodesh Press. It is entitled, The Keys to the Palace: Essays Exploring the Religious Value of Reading the Bible. It is now available at amazon.com: https://www.amazon.com/Keys-Palace-Exploring-Religious-Reading/dp/1947857029/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1512501423&sr=8-3&keywords=hayyim+angel

Thanks to the generosity of Yael Cohen, the Levy Family Foundation, Charles and Rochelle Moche, and the Sephardic Publication Foundation, we hope to distribute copies to members of our University Network to help them navigate the relationship between traditional and academic Bible study.

As always, I thank you for your support and encouragement, and look forward to promoting our core values through these and many more venues in the coming year.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

To our members and friends,

As National Scholar of the Institute, I now manage the University Network and Campus Fellowship as well. Since my October report, we have picked up two new Campus Fellows, so that we now have 25 Campus Fellows at 22 schools across the United States and Canada.

Campus Fellows run at least two programs per semester on their campuses, with the goal of promoting our Institute’s vision and enlisting participants in their programs in our University Network.

As you will see below, our Fellows have initiated a wide range of programs and events on their campuses. Here are some of their latest.

Thank you for your support,

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Sarah Pincus, Binghamton

I lead a shiur/discussion after davening on Shabbat about when bad people do good things and have positive contributions. The discussion was inspired by the recent accusations of sexual harassment and discussions about how that may taint other positive things that the person did. People told me that they learned a lot and had a lot to think about. It was really successful and I hope to follow up with some of the people who came. 

Rebecca Jackson, Cornell

On campus I have started a Levinas philosophy Seudah Shelishit shiur series. This is a three-part series and we are currently studying Levinas’ Damages of Fire. I am also involved in promoting female leadership on campus through women’s only learning events throughout the semester in which students give small shiurim and lead discussions. These programs’ goals are to engage students deeply in text and contemporary conversations around tradition, philosophy and modernity. 

Corey Gold, Harvard

We’ve been hosting weekly Sunday lunch and learns in which students and visiting scholars have taught classes on a variety of topics. This year, we’ve also rolled out a new weekly learning program: “Lunch with Rav Moshe.” Every Tuesday, Rabbi Dani Passow (one of the rabbis at Harvard Hillel) gives a shiur exploring one of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s responsa (over lunch, of course). Finally, this Shabbat, Rabbi Saul Berman is coming to Harvard Hillel as a scholar-in-residence. He will be hosting an after-dinner discussion, giving the sermon and a lunch and learn, and hosting a seudah shilishit with Q&A.

Ezra Newman, Harvard Law School

We had four more programs this semester, bringing our total number of classes to six for the semester, or one basically every other week. We had one on the Ten Commandments, one on ze neheneh vizeh lo chaser, one on R' Moshe Feinstein's approach to agunah situations and one on dinah d'malchuta dinah. We had between 10-15 people at every event, and hope to do another six in the next semester.

Zachary Tankel, McGill

Our “Thursday Night Torah” class has a Torah-based discussion on a unique topic every week. The program attracts a consistent group of students living in the university community downtown, as well as students living in the local Montreal Jewish communities. I led a session based on a chapter from one of Rabbi Hayyim Angel’s books. I also used that as an opportunity to put out the word on the University Network. 

Ross Beroff, Northeastern

Round robin peer led shiurim

Mishmar: Thursday night learning with Cholent

Passover Escape the Room text study

Sigal Spitzer, University of Pennsylvania

We started a lunch series called "Why We Do What We Do" about the reasons behind the commandments. It is a cohort of about 15 students who met during lunch on two Thursdays with a local Rabbi to discuss the relevant issues. It was a huge success and I am looking into other mini-series’ in this style for the future. 

Raffi Levi and Benjamin Nechmad, Rutgers

For our last Open Beit Midrash Chabura, I prepared a discussion on Chassidut and Individuality. We went through some of the concepts expressed by Rav Simcha Bunim and the Kotzker Rebbe on authenticity and read a current article on the nature of individuality. In doing so we discussed the existential meaning of individualism and the ability to integrate our modern values with our religious sensibilities.

On December 6th, we ran Thursday night Mishmar, where we hosted Rabbi Aryeh Klapper who spoke on the topic, "Why is Rabbinic Law Possible?" concerning the way in which rabbinic authority functions today. We had nearly thirty students at the event, and signed many people up for the University Network. It was highly enjoyable, and we learned a lot.

For next semester we are working on an event, to have Professor Yehoshua November - a Rutgers professor and famous Jewish Poet - come speak at Hillel and share his poetry with us, as well as speak about his experience as a Jew. Alongside this, we are considering running a Jewish Philosophy book club.

Kalila Courban, Umass

I will be having a showing of the film The Women’s Balcony. It is an Israeli film in which after a bar mitzvah mishap the women’s balcony in the synagogue collapses and the women fall into the men’s section. This movie is very relevant when in the discussion about the modern Orthodox perspective on gender roles, feminism and other relevant topics. Following the movie will be a discussion focused around several questions regarding womens’ roles in Orthodoxy.

Ari Barbalat, University of Toronto

I gave my first presentation last week. The topic was: “Stories of the Prophets: Islamic and Midrashic Perspectives in a Dialogue of Perspectives.”

Synopsis: What similarities and differences exist between the depictions of Biblical heroes in the Jewish and Islamic traditions? I selected themes that underscore both parallels and differences between the sources. What are the differences in ethical perspectives presented in the different religions’ literary sources? Where do they agree and disagree in their understandings of virtue and morality?

Devora Chait, Queens College

For our first event, we ran a “Pop-Up Mishmar”, where two students gave mini-shiurim followed by a discussion of Rabbi Marc D. Angel's article entitled, “The Problematic Practice of Kapparot.” This event is part of an initiative to increase student involvement in their own Torah learning, and “Pop-Up Mishmar” will now be occurring twice each semester.

For our second event, Rabbi Chaim Ozer Chait, Rosh Yeshiva of Migdal HaTorah in Israel, led a lecture and discussion regarding the modern Jewish obligations surrounding Har HaBayit (Temple Mount). He spoke about the history of Har HaBayit from the times of Tanach through the contemporary era, and we examined the possibilities of Jewish access to Har HaBayit today.

END OF YEAR CAMPAIGN

THE INSTITUTE FOR JEWISH IDEAS AND IDEALS NEEDS YOU!  Thank you for your support and encouragement. You have helped the Institute in its work to foster an intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive Orthodox Judaism. PLEASE KEEP THE INSTITUTE IN MIND WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR END-OF-YEAR CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS.

***Our active and informative website, jewishideas.org, reaches many thousands of readers throughout the world; thousands follow us on Facebook and view us on youtube.com/jewishideasorg

***Our National Scholar, Rabbi Hayyim Angel, has been giving classes  and lectures in many communities and on college campuses; our online learning at jewishideas.org features many of his shiurim

***As of December, we will have published 30 issues of our journal, Conversations, read by many thousands

***We have a University Network, through which we provide publications and guidance to students free of charge, and with Campus Fellows on campuses throughout North America

***Our weekly Angel for Shabbat column reaches thousands of readers worldwide

***We have distributed thousands of publications promoting a sensible and diverse Orthodoxy

***We have launched programming and publication projects in Israel together with like-minded groups

***We arrange and staff Teachers’ Conferences for Day School educators, in which we promote the values of diversity, inclusivity and intellectual vitality

***We are an important resource for thousands of people seeking guidance on questions of halakha, religious worldview, communal policies, conversion to Judaism… and so much more!!!

AS WE CELEBRATE OUR TENTH ANNIVERSARY, YOUR PARTNERSHIP IS VITAL TO THE INSTITUTE’S WORK.

If you are already a member of the Institute, please consider making an additional gift at this time. If you are not yet a member, please join our growing community. Each contribution is a vote for a revitalized, intelligent, active and diverse Orthodoxy.

 TO CONTRIBUTE:  You may contribute online at our website:  jewishideas.org   Or you may send your check to Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, 2 West 70^th Street, New York, NY  10023. To contribute securities, please contact us at [email protected] for details.

 THANK YOU FOR CARING AND SHARING.

RESPOND TODAY TO CREATE A BETTER TOMORROW.

From Black Fire to White Fire: Conversations about Religious Tanakh Methodology[1]

Rabbi Pinehas says in the name of Rabbi Shimon b. Lakish: The Torah that the Holy One, blessed be He, gave to Moses was given to him from white fire inscribed by black fire. It was fire, mixed with fire, hewn from fire and given by fire, as is written, “From His right a fiery law to them.” (J.T. Shekalim 6:1, 25b, quoting Deuteronomy 33:2)

This mesmerizing Midrash, so emblematic of Jewish thought, captures the life force of Torah. It is not merely dry ink written on dead parchment. Its words live, and the silent white parchment beneath the black ink represents the non-verbal depth and sanctity underlying God’s revealed word.

            How can we mediate between the infinite word of God and our own finite understanding? How do we balance different approaches to biblical study? When teaching Tanakh to undergraduate students at Yeshiva University, I introduce several major issues in methodology early in the semester, and then my students and I continue the dialogue throughout the term and beyond. What follows is a survey of the main issues addressed in that methodology class.

In his introduction to the Song of Songs, Malbim (Rabbi Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel, 1809–1879) addresses the religious imperative to begin all learning with peshat and only then to move to deeper levels:

Most interpretations [of Song of Songs] … are in the realm of allusion and derush (homiletics); distant from the settlement of peshat.… Of course we affirm that divine words have 70 facets and 1,000 dimensions. Nonetheless, the peshat interpretation is the beginning of knowledge; it is the key to open the gates, before we can enter the sacred inner chambers of the King.

If we attempt to penetrate the deeper levels of Tanakh without examining its words in their context, we will end up staring at blank parchment. Alternatively, if we focus on the words without seeing them as a means to the higher end of encountering God, we are left with ink but no fire.[2]

When studying Torah, we struggle to balance rigorous analysis and religious experience. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein touches on this balance in a broader analysis of Modern Orthodoxy:

I believe that the sin lurking at the door of the Centrist Orthodox or Religious Zionist community, the danger which confronts us and of which we need to be fully aware, is precisely the danger of shikhecha [forgetfulness]. Unlike other communities, this is a community which is not so susceptible to avoda zara [idolatry] in its extension—attitudes the Rambam battled against, such as superstition and gross or primitive conceptions of God—because it is more sophisticated intellectually, religiously, and philosophically. Unfortunately, however, it is very, very susceptible to extended kefira [heresy] or shikhecha, lacking the immanent sense of God felt so deeply, keenly, and pervasively in other parts of the halakhically committed Jewish world.[3]

            Another ever-present struggle relates to the degree of our reliance on the talmudic Sages and post-talmudic rabbinic commentators for guidance. They were truly exceptional religious scholars who viewed the biblical text as the revealed word of God, and therefore they serve as our ultimate teachers. Simultaneously, we must consider them as our “eyes to the text” rather than as substitutes for the text.[4] We try our utmost to learn Tanakh in the manner that our mefarshim (commentators) did. We need our mefarshim to teach us how to learn and think, but we also need to distinguish between text and interpretation.

Much has been written to define the term peshat, and I prefer the working definition that peshat is the primary intent of the author.[5] Our goal is to allow the prophetic words in Tanakh to transform us, rather than imposing our logic and values onto the text. On many verses, however, there is debate about the primary intent. How should we proceed if even our greatest interpreters are uncertain? Addressing this critical issue, Ramban (Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270) stresses that Torah study is not an exact science and is subject to strands of interpretation that require careful evaluation:

Anyone who studies our Talmud knows that the arguments between its interpreters do not have absolute proofs.... It is not like mathematics.... Rather, we must exert all of our efforts in every debate to push aside one of the views with compelling logical arguments... and consider most likely the view that fits the smooth reading of the text and its parallels along with good logic. This is the best we can do, and the intent of every wise and God-fearing person studying the wisdom of the Talmud. (Introduction to Milhamot Hashem commentary on the Talmud)

More emphatically, Rabbi Abraham b. HaRambam (1186–1237) maintains that the blind acceptance of one view over another on the basis of authority as opposed to critical evaluation is against the Torah’s supreme value of truth:

One who wishes to uphold a known view and to elevate the one who said it, and to accept his view without analysis and evaluation whether this view is true or not—this is a bad trait. It is forbidden according to the Torah and according to logic. It is illogical, for it indicates inadequate comprehension of what needs to be believed; and it is forbidden according to the Torah for it strays from the path of truth.… The Sages do not accept or reject views except on the basis of their truth and proofs, not because the one who says them is who he is. (Mavo ha-Aggadot, chapter 2)

Note that Rabbi Abraham b. HaRambam wrote these words in his introduction to aggadah (non-legal texts), not halakhah (legal texts). In the realm of halakhah, there is a system of authority and weight of precedent. Halakhah operates primarily under the principle of issur ve-hetter (what is forbidden and what is permitted), whereas aggadah operates primarily under the principle of emet ve-sheker (truth and falsity).[6] In halakhah, talmudic passages are intended as literal and generally accepted as binding.[7] In aggadah, talmudic passages often are intended as allegorical. Even when they are understood literally, later commentators reserve the right to disagree with them.[8] This distinction is self-evident to Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1579–1654), author of the Tosafot Yom Tov commentary on the Mishnah, who extends the argument to the arena of theoretical halakhah, that is, when there are no practical consequences. After observing that Rambam’s reading of a halakhic Mishnah differs from that of the Gemara, Rabbi Heller explains why Rambam feels free to disagree with the Talmud even in halakhic matters (I have added several clarifying points in brackets):

Since there is no practical legal difference, permission is granted to interpret [the Mishnah in a manner different from the Gemara’s interpretation]. I see no difference between interpreting Mishnah and interpreting Scripture. Regarding Scripture, permission is granted to interpret [differently from how the Gemara interprets] as our own eyes see in the commentaries written since the time of the Gemara. However, we must not make any halakhic ruling that contradicts the Gemara. (commentary on Mishnah Nazir 5:5)

            Some within the Orthodox world adopt only half of that truth at the expense of the other. One side dogmatically adopts talmudic and midrashic teachings as literal, and insists that this position is required as part of having faith in the teachings of the Sages. Another group dismisses the talmudic traditions as being far removed from biblical text and reality. The first group accuses the second of denigration of the Sages, whereas the second group accuses the first of being fundamentalists who ignore science and scholarship.

            The truth is, this rift has been around for a long time. Rambam lamented this very imbalance in the twelfth century in his introduction to Perek Helek in Tractate Sanhedrin. He divided Jews into three categories. The first group piously accepts all rabbinic teachings as literal:

The first group is the largest one…. They understand the teachings of the sages only in their literal sense, in spite of the fact that some of their teachings when taken literally, seem so fantastic and irrational that if one were to repeat them literally, even to the uneducated, let alone sophisticated scholars, their amazement would prompt them to ask how anyone in the world could believe such things true, much less edifying. The members of this group are poor in knowledge. One can only regret their folly. Their very effort to honor and to exalt the sages in accordance with their own meager understanding actually humiliates them. As God lives, this group destroys the glory of the Torah of God and says the opposite of what it intended. For He said in His perfect Torah, “The nation is a wise and understanding people.” (Deuteronomy 4:6)

Such individuals are pious but foolish. They misunderstand the intent of the Sages and draw false conclusions in the name of religion.

Misguided as this first group is, it is preferable to the second group, which also takes the words of the Sages literally but rejects their teachings as a result:

The second group is also a numerous one. It, too, consists of persons who, having read or heard the words of the sages, understand them according to their simple literal sense and believe that the sages intended nothing else than what may be learned from their literal interpretation. Inevitably, they ultimately declare the sages to be fools, hold them up to contempt, and slander what does not deserve to be slandered…. The members of this group are so pretentiously stupid that they can never attain genuine wisdom…. This is an accursed group, because they attempt to refute men of established greatness whose wisdom has been demonstrated to competent men of science.

The first group is reverent to the Sages, whereas the second group is open to science and scholarship but rejects the Sages and their teachings. Both groups fail because of their fundamental misunderstanding of the Sages.

            Rambam then celebrates that rare ideal scholar, who combines those two half-truths into the whole truth:

There is a third group. Its members are so few in number that it is hardly appropriate to call them a group…. This group consists of men to whom the greatness of our sages is clear…. They know that the sages did not speak nonsense, and it is clear to them that the words of the sages contain both an obvious and a hidden meaning. Thus, whenever the sages spoke of things that seem impossible, they were employing the style of riddle and parable which is the method of truly great thinkers.[9]

            In addition to Rambam’s insistence on the fact that the Sages did not always mean their words literally, we must add that the greatest peshat commentators, from Rabbi Saadiah Gaon to Rashi to Ibn Ezra to Ramban to Abarbanel and so many others, venerated the Sages without being bound by their non-legal comments. These rabbinic thinkers combine reverence for the Sages with a commitment to scholarship and integrity to the text of the Torah.[10]

            This discussion leads to another balance, one between hiddush (novel interpretations) and time-honored understandings of the text. It can be difficult to reevaluate traditional interpretations even when attractive alternatives present themselves. Rashbam, citing his grandfather Rashi’s paradigmatic integrity in learning, teaches that the infinite depth of Tanakh necessarily means that we can never exhaust its meaning:

Rabbi Shelomo [i.e., Rashi], my mother’s father, the enlightener of the eyes of the Exiles, interpreted Tanakh according to its plain sense. And I, Shemuel the son of Meir, his son-in-law of blessed memory, debated with him in his presence. He admitted to me that were he to have more time, he would have had to compose different commentaries in accordance with the new interpretations that are innovated each day. (Rashbam on Genesis 37:2)

Abarbanel writes similarly:

And even though the hearts [i.e., minds] of the ancients are like the opening of the ulam [the great open area in front of the temple]… and we are nothing,[11] still we have a portion and inheritance in the house of our Father, and there are many openings [to advance fresh insights] for us and our children forever. Always, all day long, a latter-day [sage] will arise… who seeks the word of the Lord—if he seeks it like silver he will… find food for his soul that his ancestors did not envisage; for it is a spirit in man, and the Lord is in the heavens to give wisdom to fools and knowledge and discretion to the youth. (Ateret Zekenim, p. 3)[12]

Simultaneously, it is worthwhile to ask cautiously why nobody has thought of a particular novel idea. If there are fifteen proposed answers to a problem, there is room for a sixteenth; but it serves us well to consider and evaluate the earlier fifteen before reaching any conclusions.

            Perhaps the most challenging road to navigate pertains to the use of non‑Orthodox scholarship.[13] On the one hand, our tradition’s commitment to truth should lead us to accept the truth from whoever says it. Rambam lived by this axiom,[14] and many of the greatest rabbinic figures before and after him similarly espoused this principle.[15] On the other hand, it is difficult to distinguish between knowledge and theory. Theory almost always is accompanied by conscious and unconscious biases, some of which may stray from traditional Jewish thought and belief.

This tension is expressed poignantly in an anecdote cited by Rabbi Joseph ibn Aknin. After noting the works of several rabbinic predecessors who utilized Christian and Muslim writings in their commentaries, he quotes a story related by Shemuel Ha-Nagid:

Rabbi Mazliah b. Albazek the rabbinic judge of Saklia told [Shemuel Ha-Nagid] when he came from Baghdad… that one day in [Rabbi Hai Gaon’s] yeshivah they studied the verse, “let my head not refuse such choice oil” (Psalms 141:5), and those present debated its meaning. Rabbi Hai of blessed memory told Rabbi Mazliah to go to the Catholic Patriarch and ask him what he knew about this verse, and this upset [Rabbi Mazliah]. When [Rabbi Hai] saw that Rabbi Mazliah was upset, he rebuked him, “Our saintly predecessors who are our guides solicited information on language and interpretation from many religious communities—and even of shepherds, as is well known!”[16]

In a sense, true learning is unsettling, since it is difficult to maintain a view passionately when at any moment we may learn a new opinion that challenges our conviction. At the same time, precisely this energy is one of the most invigorating aspects of Torah study. When kept in balance, the tensions that confront us in traditional study afford constant opportunities to learn from the past wealth of interpretation. This enables us to forge ahead in our attempts to enter the infinite world of Tanakh, so that we may encounter God in His palace.

To our members and friends,

I have a busy fall semester in my role as National Scholar, as we continue to promote the values of our Institute in communities, schools, and beyond.

On Shabbat, November 3-4, I will be scholar-in-residence at the Young Israel of Oak Park, Michigan, 15140 W 10 Mile Rd. For more information, go to their website, https://www.yiop.org.

On Shabbat, November 17-18, I will be a shared scholar-in-residence at Congregation Bais Torah and Community Synagogue in Rockland County, New York. Congregation Bais Torah is located at 89 West Carlton Rd. Suffern, NY. Community Synagogue is located at 89 W Maple Ave, Monsey, NY. For more information, please go to their websites: http://www.baistorah.org/ http://comsyn.org/.

On five Mondays, November 20, 27, December 4, 11, 18, from 1:00-2:15 pm, I will give a series at Lamdeinu Teaneck (at Congregation Beth Aaron, 950 Queen Anne Road, Teaneck, New Jersey):

The Second Temple Biblical Books: The Transition from Prophecy to the Rabbinate, and Lessons for Today

An in-depth look at some of the least studied, but most relevant books of the Bible. By considering the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi in context, we will derive some lessons that are uncanny and pertinent to us today.
 

1. Ezra Chapters 1-6: A Miracle of History?
2. Haggai: Imminent Potential for Redemption
3. Zechariah: God is Hidden, but Ready to Reveal Himself
4. Ezra and Nehemiah: Different Models of Leadership
5. Malachi: End of Prophecy and Transition to the Rabbinate

On Wednesday, December 20, from 1:00-2:15 pm, I will give an additional lecture at Lamdeinu Teaneck:

The Books of the Maccabees and Rabbinic Thought: Getting to the Roots of Hanukkah
 

For more information and to register, go to http://www.lamdeinu.org/.

Since the beginning of September, I have served as the Tanakh Education Scholar at Ben Porat Yeshiva Day School, in Paramus, New Jersey. We are developing a new Tanakh curriculum for grades 1-8, that reflects our core religious values at the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals.

Our University Network, which I now coordinate, is off to a terrific start. Please see my October report on our Campus Fellows on our website: https://www.jewishideas.org/article/campus-fellows-report-fall-2017.

I am coming out with a new collection of twenty essays on the Bible, to be published by Kodesh Press. Thanks to the generosity of Yael Cohen, the Levy Family Foundation, Charles and Rochelle Moche, and the Sephardic Publication Foundation, we hope to distribute copies to members of our University Network to help them navigate the relationship between traditional and academic Bible study.

As always, I thank you for your support and encouragement, and look forward to promoting our core values through these and many more venues in the coming year.

Rabbi Hayyim Angel

National Scholar

Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals

Introduction

There is a naïve belief that traditional Jewish religious communities have preserved pristine models of uninfluenced integrity. The reality is that all Jewish communities have been and are influenced to a greater or lesser degree by the cultures and norms of the host countries they live in. One of the most obvious examples is the variation in culture and custom as between communities who have lived under Christianity and those under Islam.

For all that, the purely halakhic differences between Ashkenazic and Sephardic communities are minimal. No greater than between say, different Hassidic sects. The most well-known halakhic differences between the two worlds are kitniyot on Pesah and whether one accepts Bet Yosef rather than the Remah. But even that is no longer the case in reality.

Once it was thought (stereotypically) that superstition and simplistic Kabbalah were what distinguished the two wings of Judaism. But Orthodoxy in the Ashkenazic world has become so dominated by superstition, miracle workers, miracle rabbis, miracle spells and cures that such distinctions no longer hold true. So why are we so fixated on the differences?

I believe it is one of the tragedies of our age that, in some circles, the Jews of Muslim societies are often regarded as somehow less authentic. This essay is an attempt to bring a different perspective from someone who has worked in both worlds.

History

My first encounter with the Sephardim was in Israel in the 1950s. Arriving as a teenager, from Britain, to study in yeshiva. The Israelis I first met when I arrived in Haifa were tense, left-wing, anti-religious Ashkenazim, bent on establishing a socialist paradise, closer to Marx than Moses.

I don’t want to dwell here on the depressing issue of Ashkenazic discrimination directed at the Sephardic communities that persists particularly in Israeli Hareidi Orthodoxy. And the last thing I want is to sound condescending or patronizing. I am wary of generalizations, even my own. But I saw the disadvantages and the discrimination that so many Sephardic immigrants experienced in their early years. Some of it admittedly, simply because of a lack of resources and planning. But it disturbed me.

Those Sephardim I met in Israel (in my day we did not call them Mizrahim, for that was the name of a Religious Party then) were in general so much warmer, softer, and caring. They did not have the animus toward religion that the Left did. They were more traditional and inclusive religiously than their Ashkenazic colleagues.

In the yeshivot I attended, students from Yemen, Iraq, and Morocco were more emotional and less arrogant than their Ashkenazic colleagues. When I went to spend a Shabbat at home with my Sephardic friends, quite apart from the food, there was a welcoming atmosphere that was unforgettable. In the Bet HaMidrash, they were every bit as learned and brilliant. Yet because they were studying in Ashkenazic yeshivot with Ashkenazic Rashei Yeshiva there was a palpable sense of being on the fringe.

I began to search for the factors that made those Sephardic Jews I met so positively different. Was it the warmer Oriental, Islamic mentality? The emphasis on hospitality in contrast to the Western Christian colder tendency to withdraw into privacy? Was it the fact that in the Sephardic world there was no denominational divide, as we had, between Orthodox and Reform? Sephardim gathered not by denomination or degree of observance, so much as by city or country of origin. Perhaps it was a matter of historical evolution.

The Muslim world that most of the Sephardim lived in was still almost pre-industrial. Those Sephardim who had lived in Western societies such as the Spanish and Portuguese, had moved on and up. In Israel, old established and wealthy Sephardic families formed an elite. Most of the new immigrants, on the other hand, were poor in material goods and education and had been living under Islamic restrictions as second-class citizens. The Sephardic fear of returning to Muslim rule has always made them more proudly nationalist and more right-wing than left.

So why the discrimination? What was it I wondered that made Jews seemed infected with the almost universal disease of wanting to find others to whom we could feel superior? It wasn’t just the Sephardim of course; the early Eastern European Zionists despised the Germans, who looked down on the Sephardim, who in turn marginalized the Ethiopians and then felt superior to the Russians. Perhaps it is the same primitive human nature that feeds prejudice the world over.

I have even wondered if my sense of kinship was a reaction against my Imperialist, Colonialist British education that led me to feel sympathy for the underdog and disadvantaged, as indeed I did at a very early age for those who suffered under Apartheid. The Ashkenazic world seemed to have no notion of the grandeur and the wealth of Sephardic culture or history. They saw the great Sephardic authorities as closet Ashkenazim. Eastern European talmudic study was regarded as superior to the Sephardic methodologies. As a result, a new generation of Sephardic rabbis and leaders in Israel began to ape the dress and mentality, sometimes even the Yiddish, of the Ashkenazic rabbinical elite.

It was when I came across Rav Ovadia Yosef’s “Yabia Omer” that I realized that here was a different, approach, a broader vista, a more lenient and even more scholarly approach to those of the Lithuanian rabbis and followers of the Hazon Ish. Of course, I was under no illusion that there are almost always different opinions. But why was I taught only one and not the other? It was only my personal initiative that opened another world to me.

England

Years later, I was the Principal of Carmel College, the Jewish English residential school near Oxford that attracted a lot of students from outside the UK, particularly from Israel, Iran, Spain, and Gibraltar. The school cultivated a very English academic atmosphere and combined it with an officially Orthodox lifestyle. It was like a Yeshiva High School except that most pupils did not come from Orthodox families. There was certainly a dissonance between the demands of the school religiously and the way the pupils lived Jewishly at home. Parents tended to send their children there for the academics and the social Jewish atmosphere rather than the religious environment.

There, too, I detected a different dimension in the Sephardic pupils. They were much more attached to family life, respectful of parents and tradition. I sensed their need for validation for their Sephardic Judaism in an atmosphere where all the Jewish teachers were Ashkenazic. Years later, I heard New York Sephardim who had gone to elite Ashkenazic schools complain that they were made to feel inferior and that their traditions and rabbis were not as valid as those of the Ashkenazim. And I have noticed over the years how those of my former pupils who have become much more religious after they left the school, regardless of how uninterested they seemed to be in school, were almost all Sephardic. They seemed to have a more spiritual gene!

Yet at Carmel I encountered some parental resistance to these pupils on the spurious grounds that they would lower the academic and social standards. I reacted furiously. I was already sensitized by my experiences in Israel. And I assured anyone who asked that the Sephardic pupils raised the social and academic level of the school. This snobbery offended me to my core. All the more so, since I was brought up in a home where my parents went out of their way to excoriate any kind of racism or discrimination. Once one is inured to such feelings toward outsiders, it inevitably metastasizes into hatred of one’s own.

After the Shah of Persia fell in 1997, Chabad brought almost a thousand Iranian children to Britain, where they awaited American visas. Chabad in London had a humanitarian crisis on its hands. It is one thing to find temporary homes for a handful, quite another to do so for hundreds. Our school, with its huge campus, was able to put up hundreds of Iranian youngsters for months, and we tried our best to teach and integrate them until they were able to rejoin their families. Here, too, I had to field complaints and agitation from non-Jewish teachers as well as parents against “flooding the school with foreigners.” In the end, the process took over, and it went smoothly for everyone. Once again, the attitudes of the Iranian children were impressive on almost every level. They bore the uncertainty and pain of separation with dignity and equanimity. It was a salutary experience for everyone involved. It endeared them even more to me.

Manhattan

Many years later, I retired to New York, where I had no intention of getting involved in the rabbinate. Although most Iranian Jews on the East Coast had gravitated toward Brooklyn or Great Neck, several families of my former pupils from Iran were now living in Manhattan. They had gotten together with other Iranians to establish a small religious community that met only on Shabbat mornings and Festivals. After moving from place to place, they had finally rented space in Park East synagogue on East 68^th Street. They had employed a rabbi from Iran who had served them well for many years but had now retired; and they were looking for a replacement.

My pupils remembered my authoritarian streak and liked my English oratory as well as my open and tolerant approach. They approached me about taking on the assignment. I told them I was not interested in taking on a rabbinic position. But they assured me this was no full-time position, and the community was more like a boutique than a full-service congregation. It was not formally constituted: no board or membership fees; just an informal collection of Iranian Jews; some wealthy, some not. Naturally it is the voluntary contributions of those who can afford it that keep the community alive.

Initially there was some resistance from those who did not know me, to the appointment of an English Ashkenazi, even if several Sephardic communities in New York over the years have had Ashkenazic rabbis. They were anxious to preserve their Persian customs and traditions and feared I might try to Anglicize them. They were worried that my more liberal outlook on life might come into conflict with their more authoritarian mentality. We finally came to an informal understanding that has now lasted for almost 10 years.

There is mutual respect despite our differences. Above all, I have come to enjoy a warmer, more informal relationship than those I experienced in European Ashkenazic communities. And I can indulge my semi-retirement without feeling completely guilty about giving up rabbinical work altogether.

Customs

But what are differences? I found the transition from Ashkenazic customs to Sephardic ones to be unproblematic. The variations in traditional texts and Nushaot are really minor. I was brought up on the Havarah Sephardit, the Sephardic Israeli pronunciation. Besides, even within Sephardic communities, there are differences in the way Hebrew is vocalized between different cities and countries. There are some juxtapositions and additions of Tehilim and different Piyutim. But the core of every service, the Amidah, the Birkhot Keriat Shema, and of course Keriat HaTorah remain the same. The Priestly Blessings are not confined exclusively to Festivals.

What is most obvious is the sound, the music, which is predominantly oriental. If once it was rare to hear oriental music in Western societies, now it is a much more common and familiar choice. Even so, Yemenite and Syrian sounds are different; the influence of Israeli music has spread across almost all communities; and at least half of our Persian music now includes such favorites as Yerushalim Shel Zahav, Eytz HaRimon, Al Kol Eleh, as well as Ta’am HaMan and other popular ethnic songs. Israeli religious singers span the differences, and there is much cross-cultural influence. Our Hazzan, proudly Yemenite, integrates Persian folk songs into the service.

In our Persian services, there is a marked informality and rowdy enthusiasm, ululations of celebration. Women make much more of the Torah, passing additional decorations of the Torah around, holding hands up to kiss, pressing them to their eyes. Men kiss the Parohet and gather round the Reader’s desk for Birkhot HaHodesh. After the services, men and women approach the curtains to pray for some personal reason. Otherwise services are similar. I am too often forced to intervene to stop the chatting and redirect the congregation to the service at hand. But that was equally true of my Ashkenazic communities.

Although Persians like to be well-dressed and elegant, informality of dress is accepted. Head covering for women is what differentiates the more Orthodox from the less. Wigs are more of a rarity in Sephardic communities than in Ashkenazic ones. Very few of the women in our community are comfortable with Hebrew or the services. We try our best to help them navigate. We naturally retain a mehitza, but it splits the small sanctuary down the middle into equal sections.

In many Sephardic communities, congregants who are not themselves Orthodox show above-average knowledge and expertise in Tefilla and Keriat HaTorah. This is less true of many Persian communities. Few of them are Orthodox in the strict sense of the word, but they are proud of their Persian Jewish identities and traditions. There remains a reluctance to identify with Conservative of Reform Judaism. This is of course much truer in Israel than in the United States. But for most Sephardic communities, those who are observant sit and mix with those who are not at all and a range in the middle.

I have succeeded with a few cross-cultural innovations. Services are shorter than the norm. Those who want to say more can do so at the start or the end. We leave out certain optional prayers. I interject in English to give page numbers and during Keriat HaTorah, between sections, to explain where we are and what we are reading. Sometimes when a service goes on for too long we omit the full repetition of the Amidah.

Family life is very strong. Traditional values of hospitality mean that Friday evenings and festivals are celebrated more as social events than as religious ones. Weddings are much more rowdy and enthusiastic and less restrained. And although mourning rituals are similar, there are more public memorials that start with the end of the Shiva. At funerals, spices and perfumed water are passed around. Whereas memorials for the dead are usually confined to the anniversary and Yizkor days in Ashkenazic synagogues, many Persians like to have a Hashkaba whenever they are called to the Torah. And diets, foods, and Kiddushim reflect Persian tastes rather than Ashkenazic ones. But to reiterate, the differences are minor, and are of style, rather than content.

Culture Clash

Persian Jewry, as the only community of Jews living under the Shiites, probably suffered more than any other Sephardic community. It was unable to sustain the range of intensive Jewish institutions that many other communities in the Muslim world could. The arrival of the Alliance Israelite Universelle over 100 years ago brought secular education to Iran’s Jews, and with it a weakening of rabbinic, religious authority. Under assault from Shiite clerics, Jews had been subject to constant pressure, humiliation, and forced conversions. Only under the Pahlavis had things improved significantly. But even so many Jews converted to Islam or to the Baha’i faith to try to escape their inferior position as Jews. Secularism had already made massive inroads, and this is reflected today in the United States, where many Iranians have left the Jewish fold. Almost all the Persians of my community have arrived during the past 50 years, some having come via Israel. And in some families the ties with Judaism were already weak in Persia. In fact, some of my community were and still are more attached to their Iranian heritage than they are to their Jewish heritage.

As in all immigrant communities, there are cultural dislocations and conflicts to be resolved. In the process of acculturation, tensions often erupt between observant and less observant members of the same family. Back home, the role of women was different. Men ruled the roost. Sons and daughters obeyed their parents—very different from the mores of a predominantly secular United States. They are challenged by the issues of how to balance loyalty to tradition with the demands of modernity. Does one retreat behind the security of ghetto walls, with a close support structure? Or does one venture forth into the secular world, with all its risks, and leave tradition behind? And there are all the gradations and varieties of any human society. Some still cling to the idea that one should remain strictly within one’s own ethnic community. Different towns and cities in Iran varied in degree of Orthodoxy and loyalty. Some are still reluctant to intermarry with Iranians who came from different communities back home. There is still a difference between those who came from urban communities as opposed to rural ones.

As with all immigrant groups, there are feelings of insecurity that drive them toward economic success and stability. Persians more than most communities are split between those who see education and academic and professional success as the route to security, and those who think only in terms of making money. In both areas, they have been very successful.

Like most religious communities, they are increasingly being pulled in different directions. One section is assimilating and marrying out. The other is abandoning Sephardic moderation for Hareidi attitudes. Simultaneously, one sector is moving toward rationalism and the other retreating into primitive superstition and credulity. Some are shedding their commitment to Judaism and Israel, and others are intensifying it without any moderation or criticism. Some are anxious to ensure that their children get a good Jewish education. Others prefer to send their children to non-Jewish schools, even with work and activities on Shabbat and Festivals. Some come to synagogue every Shabbat; others come only festivals (and then one day only), and still others only on High Holy Days.

Parents bring their young children to synagogue on Shabbat. But as soon as they become teenagers, the children no longer come regularly. Once the younger generation begin to study and then work, they come only for occasional social interaction. They throw themselves into the social singles whirl of Manhattan. They marry much later than they used to. But when they do, and have children of their own, that is when they begin to return. So, a community like mine sees very few millennials except for festive and social occasions, and goes through a demographic hiatus that denudes it of active young men and women until a later stage in life and circumstances. Yet for all that, there is a most definite sense of Persian and Sephardic identity and pride. Even if some are prepared to relinquish it (which actually includes some who went to Orthodox Jewish Day Schools but have now abandoned religious practice) just as many actively want to continue their specific Iranian heritage, customs, and have a much more tolerant and open-minded approach to difference and variation in degree of practice.

Almost all the members of the community are fiercely proud, positive and protective of Israel. Their views are strongly to the right. Having lived under the influence of the Mullahs, they are under no illusion as to how much better off they are in a free and open society. Together with their Persian heritage, they remain very much more in sync with Orthodox attitudes in the United States than with the more acculturated.

Although presiding over the services is the obvious role of a rabbi, one cannot be involved with a group of people without moving beyond the synagogue into their happy and sad occasions and the challenges of home and work and society that add an informal, pastoral dimension to community life. And this has inevitably brought me into contact with other Iranian communities of different dimensions and origins in Great Neck and Brooklyn, not to mention Los Angeles. The challenges everywhere are similar.

There is a degree of interconnection and intermarriage with other Sephardic communities, notably the longer established, larger, stronger, and some ways more successful Syrian communities. But even they face similar challenges. We have also attracted some Sephardim from Morocco, Egypt, and Iraq, who appreciate my more cerebral and cross-cultural sermons. But we remain small and personal. Perhaps this and the informality is precisely why I enjoy it so much! Everything I have learnt from my community has only confirmed my previous impressions of the strengths and weaknesses of Persian Jewry.

Prediction and Conclusion

The picture and the prognostications are good in parts. But it is clear, that as with American Jewry in general, only those families that stress and emphasize Jewish identity in practice as well as theory are the ones that will survive as Jews. I am often asked why we do not make life easier by lessening ritual demands. And my reply has always been that I very much doubt that would bring anyone closer to religious practice. The lower the expectation, the lower the bar, and the less the achievement. There is a difference between tolerating those who are unable or unwilling to do something, a feature of Sephardic congregations, and removing the idea and requirement of traditional halakha altogether. At least the ideal and tradition are retained de jure if not de facto.

As I listen to the opinions of my younger congregants, I am often worried and upset by the challenges. Many have gone away from home to study, and this has often weakened their ties to family traditions. Some seek partners outside the Jewish community. Others become even more appreciative of what home has to offer. Although in principle, I approve of genuine conversion out of religious conviction, my years of experience in the practical rabbinate have convinced me that those converts who end up living a committed life are very few. And there is a huge difference between someone converting out of conviction rather than for marriage. The attraction of less discipline and another part of the family seeming freer take their toll on the next generation. And that is why, although I would rather like to encourage rather than reject, I am ambivalent and disturbed by the rise in intermarriage I am encountering. At the same time, I often come across those who have drifted, coming back into the fold.

We have always gone for quality over quantity and Shear Yashuv, a remnant returns. I am optimistic about Sephardic Judaism precisely because most have still retained their more open inclusive approach to the way Jews dress, practice, and participate religiously. Religion in the west is more cerebral and theological. Islam shares with Judaism the emphasis on a way of life rather than a series of mental propositions supported by a thin veneer of ritual. The Sephardic approach to religion is more emotional, more mystical.

I believe the Sephardic world with its tolerance, inclusivity, and emphasis on the emotional, offers an important counter-narrative and paradigm for Jewish life in our times. It is better placed to deal with cynicism. It can help us get the most out of the scientific, secular society we live in, rather than fight against it.