The Mind and Thoughts of a Rosh Yeshiva, II
To my beloved talmid,
Your e-mail only reached me Motzaei Shabbat and I have only today been able to answer it. It was a very thought-provoking message which caused a further delay since it requires another long response.
The interview process you describe is typical, at least according to what I have heard from others. It reminds me of an experience of my own over thirty years ago. I applied for an educational position in a community day school. The board of education interviewed all applicants. The chairman was a Conservative rabbi who questioned me closely about my suitability for working with a mostly non-Orthodox student body. “You sound ultra-Orthodox to me,” he said. He was quite serious. I told him that I believed myself capable of relating to students from less traditional backgrounds. “I’d feel much better,” the interviewer said, “if you could prove to me you’re not ultra-Orthodox. Can you tell me at least one halacha you don’t observe?” As far as I could determine, this was not a joke. One established one’s bona fides with this rabbi by proving one could regularly disobey Jewish law.
One establishes one’s bona fides in the Modern Orthodox community in a somewhat similar way. Communities establish litmus tests for rabbinic candidates. These are usually halachic questions for which they have their own answers. Modern Orthodox Jews “know” that Hallel should be recited on Yom ha-Atzmaut with a b’racha. They are not interested in the halachic justification for this position, only that their rabbi so rule. It is what I meant by the words “sociologically Orthodox.” Since we have never discussed it, I should add that I do not recite this b’racha. I say this without pride or smugness; it is merely a fact. I don’t think it makes me any more or less a Zionist than those who do.
The reason I don’t is that my understanding of the halachic sources precludes reciting the b’racha. After discussing this with my own rebbe a number of years ago, we jointly came to the decision that I should not alter my practice to follow the consensus in my community.
I have no complaint against those who follow other legitimate opinions. We live in a age of unresolved halachic controversy bereft of the centralized institutions mandated by the Torah. What does disturb me is the tendency of certain elements of the Orthodox community to espouse positions not on the basis of halachic analysis (either one’s own or that of an acknowledged authority whom one follows in all matters) but on the basis of non-halachic policy considerations.
When a community creates a litmus test for a rabbi based on a particular decision rather than adherence to the halachic process, they place the policy above the process. This is politics, not halacha. I emphatically do not agree with the notion that anything can be justified halachically and we have only to muster the will to do so. This is a functionalist approach to law whose goals are external to the law itself. These goals may be desirable for all manner of reasons and justifiable on political grounds. Functionalism is, however, inconsistent with halacha as understood since Sinai.
The functionalist critique of formalist Jewish law has a long history: the Sadducees, the early Gospels, the reformist movements of the nineteenth century… Whenever policy is elevated over internal analysis of the law, functionalism threatens the law’s integrity.
It is easy to slip into this trap. One of my talmidim has been a rabbi in the Midwest the past few years where he is working hard to build a community under very difficult circumstances. I’m filled with admiration for someone who opted for the midbar when assistantships al sir ha-basar were available. We speak quite frequently about halachic issues. He struggles to keep his focus on halachic integrity in a place where there are few families who are fully observant. Sometimes it falls to me to remind him that he is also a member of the community and that he cannot suspend his own adherence to Jewish law simply to attract more participants.
Halacha is not fashioned in order to be consistent with external policies but to be coherent within itself. My derech in learning emphasis the internal coherence of the law. We studied together the major sugyot for taam k’ikar, for example, the moving parts that the rishonim fit together to form a coherent shita. Halachic study is the quest for coherence.
We seek to operate as insiders within the halachic system, not to study about gemara but to practice the art of gemara itself: to render halachic sources into a coherent whole in accordance with the will of H”KBH as expressed in Torah. All our studies together were directed toward initiating you into the community of those who operate as primary sources of Torah, not as external observers of the halachic process.
Authentic Jewish existence (authentic in the existentialist sense) is participating in the halachic system as an ish ha-halacha, linking our cognitive processes with physical activity. It is a difficult task to teach tinokot she-nishbu to be anshei ha-halacha but it is their rightful heritage. Focusing on policies is a shortcut to a dead end.
Rabbinic search committees use these policy questions as a shortcut to discover commitment. Because those who find no significance religious or otherwise in the State of Israel probably do not recite Hallel on Yom ha-Atzmaut, a rabbinic candidate who does is not likely to be one of them. The converse, however, is not true.
You need not let the policies you embraced during the interview process define your rabbanut. You should certainly live up to your commitments or let the leadership know if your views have changed. That does not mean that your program should be framed by them.
With prayers for a meaningful tzom,
Ozer Glickman
One can argue that each of the above phenomena either became historically irrelevant, failed to pass on its message or became viewed as not PC for its generation. The Aristotelian challenge became philosophically obsolescent.Perhaps, the Moreh has relevance for our understanding of the Rambam. On the other hand, when one mentions the words of the Ramban at the beginning of Parshas Kedoshim , one is accused of being a Charedi or even worse, a Charedi wannabe.
Chasidus and Misnagdus evolved from different views of Avodas HaShem almost into personality cults centering around a rebbe or Rosh Yeshiva with little analyis of any similarities between some of their arguments ( i.e Tanya and Nefesh HaChaim) . The Mussar movement that was so strong before the Holocaust has not yet replicated itself in a way that speaks to the average man and woman on the street except in a larger awareness of the halachos of prohibited speech. One wonders what the Chafetz Chaim or his disciples would think or say about our homes and the shopping guides that proliferate in our communities.
TIDE evolved from an answer to Reform which viewed a college and Torah education as a must to a Charedi approach with German minhagim. Daas Torah is a wonderful extension of the mitzvah of Emunas Chachamim to the realm of public policy. It is a major bulwark for a Charedi world that has rebuilt itself in a way that many in the Modern Orthodox camp should and could emulate in many ways with its devotion to Torah, Avodah and 24/7 chesed opportunities of all types. Yet, one can question without passing judgment in hindsight whether its application on numerous issues such as Zionism, the Holocaust and secular education was correct.
Likewise, TuM is a wonderful theory in the abstract.Unfortunately, TuM also can be pushed to the extreme. In this regard, it rationalizes a lightweight comittment to Torah , Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim. More fundamentally,some advocates of TuM assume that a secular science, math or literature work has the same innate kedusha as a Sefer Torah or sefer kodesh. The absence of any obligation to fast upon the dropping or destruction of a secular science or other work is an argument that no serious advocate of TuM has yet addressed in any manner.
Religious Zionism morphed from being a bridge between secular Zionists and the Torah world to focussing almost one mitzvah -Yishuv EY-to the neglect of all other mitzvos. It is telling that many Religious Zionist youth are more enthusiastic over Yom HaAtzmaut/Yom Yerushalyim than they are about Shabbos, Yamim Noraim and Shalosh Regalim.
The bottom line is that all of these hashkafic trends supplemented the pithy statement of the Mishnah. In my opinion, it is fair to state that all of these trends' advocates forgot that their message was to supplement the Mishnah, as opposed to superceding it. When a rabbinic search committee focuses on Yom HaRatzmaut, as opposed to how a candidate can amplify the role of Torah, Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim, that illustrates the core of the problem. We have become imprisoned by hashkafic constructs that should supplement the Mishnah. Instead of allowing our communities to be enriched by all of the intellectual and spiritual wealth of Torah, we erect an intellectual and spiritual cacoon that prevents us from really growing in a spiritually meaningful manner.