Jewish: October 2003 Archives

Avraham sends over this classic from the ever so humble self-proclaimed "Gedolei Torah." Basically, women are not supposed to get an education to earn a living, yet they have to raise the children by themselves and support their husband who's learning in kollel. This of course despite the fact that the husband is contractually and halakhically obligated to support her. I guess with all that talmud study, no one bothered to learn Aramaic, or they're just relying on the warm fuzzy English translations.

He also seds a nice article on Chassidic Rock. Not only does this demonstrate that they read secular newspapers (unless they have their "shabbes goy" do it for them), but that someone must have listened to rock music in order to indentify it in the first place (unless of course, they are all ba'alei teshuva or they used the aforementioned shabbes goy). Their posek in Rock Music is Mr. Philippe Ayache, a R. Tendler-esque professor of Baroque music - who by the way must have had some secular education. Maybe they should have just seen School of Rock.

In fairness, some songs played at wedding make no sense. Check out some on this list of wedding songs to aviod. In addition to these, I've personally heard part of Live and Let Die played at one wedding (you know who you are) and I've been told by several people of I Will Survive being played at weddings, which of course is the English equivalent of Od Lo Ahavti Di - an old school wedding staple.

Too ticked to comment more on these now and I have a midterm to write. Feel free to rant in the comments.

The secular college debate is what Dr. Lee might call a �chestnut� � one of those belabored topics like the death penalty, gun control, or the failures of Jewish dating life. Rarely will new information come along which will force a reevaluation of one�s positions. However, every now and then something will happen: an event, or in this case a publication, which for some reason has a significant impact on a community.

Recently, two graduate students wrote an essay warning orthodox parents of the dangers pervasive in secular colleges. (I do not know when/where it was initially published � I came across the RCA link accidentally). Gil Perl, a
PhD candidate in Harvard's Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations and Yaakov Weinstein, a PhD Candidate in nuclear engineering at MIT, specify harmful "Onslaught of Ideas" (e.g. biblical criticism) and "Sexual Temptation" to which unsuspecting Modern Orthodox students will be exposed.

In a Jewish Week article covering the reactions to the essay, many considered the manifesto to be "alarmist." And included the requisite range of opinions from those who agreed and disagreed with the authors. Even new YU President Richard Joel specifically disagreed with the negative portrayal of Hillel, an organization which he led as president for several years. (Although he did not address secular colleges vs. YU). Others have been more explicit in condemning this piece as Orthodox's typically sheltering response to challenges. Blogger Dr. Manhattan used the metaphor of a cocoon mentality. Conservative Rabbi Alan Mittleman similarly criticized the authors and their reactionary culture as "Fretful Orthodoxy."

As a YU graduate and musmach now attending a secular college (one not known for its Jewish community), I see that the authors write not from paranoia, but from concern. Before elaborating on this point, we have to take a step back to see the real purpose of the offending essay.

First, reread the title: "A Parent's Guide to Orthodox Assimilation on University Campuses." The intended audience is not the global Jewish community (although it would be naive of the authors not think it wouldn't get out), but specifically to Modern Orthodox (MO) parents of college age students. Many parents and some MO yeshivas believe the ideal is to send their children to Ivy League or other moderately prestigious colleges. YU is to be avoided at all costs. Presumably, parents want their children to remain Jewish, preferably observant. Then they must assume that the Jewish life on the typical secular college campus is sufficient to maintain their child�s Jewish life. The authors aim is to debunk this myth; not only is the secular campus life insufficient to maintain one�s Jewish life, but it may aversly affect whatever religion they do have.

Going to Penn does not condemn someone to hell any more than going to YU guarentees a spot in heaven. From my experience with typical yeshiva high-school students, I would say that 90% of them would do better at YU than elsewhere. That leaves 10% who will either do well elsewhere or perhaps better than they would at YU. The authors are not writing for them, but for the parents of the 15% or so who do have the choice and have a misconception about the reality of a secular campus.

While observance is not guaranteed at YU, nor is apostasy assured at secular colleges, it is undoubtedly easier for one to maintain and certainly to augment their Judaism at YU. Even ignoring the educational elements of shiur and the core requirements, compare anything from accessibility of kosher meals to minyanim.

College guys are lazy. The default would be not to do something. Even at YU students struggle to attend their ubiquitous minyanim. Many of them don�t have to leave their dorms � just head downstairs � imagine if they had to leave their apartments and get on a bus to get to a minyan. For the seriously committed, these inconveniences will not matter, and for the seriously secular, YU won�t change anything. But what about those in the middle who could go either way? This is the contention of the authors � they are talking to the parents of the middle majority.

I do not think it�s as simple to call this debate cocoon vs. non-cocoon. One of the authors himself studies in the Near Eastern Languages dept at Harvard where he is undoubtedly exposed to heresy the likes of which even MJ�s students haven�t seen.

The authors themselves argue that it might be preferable to teach bible-criticism at a younger age. But they are not interested right now in changing the yeshiva educational system, only in assuming it is a given and working from there. They did not necessarily advocate YU as the Answer. In fact, they did offer suggestions as to how one may attend secular college and maintain their Jewish identity e.g. live at home.

YU is hardly the panacea for Jewish education. I mentioned earlier that 10% might do better elsewhere. YU can be intellectually, religously, and emotionally stifiling. Classes are limited, shiurim myopic (depending on the shiur), and there is the excessive pressure to get married by the time one turns 20. There are certianly people who would rebel against YU and would do much better at a secular college. I do not think the authors would deny this, but again, I think they are writing for the majority.

When discussing issues of Modern Orthodoxy�s future, it�s important not to look at the ideal, but the reality. As much as the yeshiva system could use an overhaul, it�s not going to happen in the near future. Ideally, we might like to expose high-school students to bible criticism, but the reality is that many lack the intelligence or interest to take it seriously. Just like ideally we wouldn�t want sex or drugs in the yeshivot, but that doesn�t change the reality. There is certainly a generation gap in that parents probably do not have a good idea of what their children are doing and certainly not what is going on in secular colleges.

The authors� sanctimony did not help their cause and I'm certain it helped unify the opposition. Secular college isn't inherently evil. There are many advantages and opportunites, none of which were discussed. With both secular colleges and YU there are risks to one's religious observance, and these risks must be evaluated carefully and honestly. There is however one prerequisite:

Modern Orthodoxy needs a complete reality check.

Prelude

When I first mentioned that I would be a panelist discussing Egalitarian Liturgy, the immediate reaction I got was cynical to say the least. "Why would I want to get into that," and "you're being railroaded" were just two of the comments reflecting the broad sentiment. Initially, I too was skeptical for probably the same reasons.

First, the word "Egalitarian" recalls the classic conservative vs. orthodox debates, and is oftne employed by those with specific agendas. ¹ However, knowing the nature of the Hillel, and after speaking to the Rabbi, it seemed obvious to me that the panel would be cordial and informative.

Some questions still remain: why take the chance or why bother with this at all? It's a good quesiton; one which requires its own post.

Later.

The Ideological Conflict

I do not want to discuss the details of the other panelists' positions, mainly because I do not want to misrepresent them. However, I can present my own take on egalitarian liturgy and how I presented it in the discussion.

I did not like the title of the panel. The term "ethical" presupposes the discussion is a moral one - that there is some inherent value towards egalitarianism to which all people are subsumed. While there is a value to egalitarianism, I do not see it as an "ethical" imperative, but rather as a "religious" imperative. For the sake of this essay, I will define "religious imperatives" as requirements necessarily for the sufficient observance of one�s faith.

As one of the other panelists correctly noted, the word "liturgy" is not limited to prayer, but it includes all manners of public worship. When discussing inequalities in Jewish liturgy, the most blatant example is the role of the woman. ² Women are relegated to sitting behind a mehitza restricting them from active participation. Furthermore, several prayers themselves are not amiable to many women. How can one properly worship when s/he³ is excluded from the primary religious mechanisms? This is a religious imperative.

However, there is a conflicting religious imperative: to maintain "The Tradition." The current actions of the community - following the practices of the previous generations - are as canonical as the Torah itself. It is arrogant at best � heretical at worst � to alter the practices of the previous generations.

Advocates of Egalitarianism could rightly point to the fact that liturgy has changed over time. Piyutim were added throughout the middle ages, many in response to actual events.⁴ For the proponents of tradition, the changes that happened in the past are valid, but we today have no right - or minimal right to make any further emendations. Furthermore, the nature of some of the changes currently suggested affect essential parts of the prayer service.

Specifics

To further understand this debate, we will have to examine some of the specific examples of the offending elements of Jewish liturgy.

I discussed the specific issue of prayer � the colloquial use of the term "liturgy." I noticed two categories of non-egalitarian prayer. The fist involves language of explicit or implicit exclusion. For example, "bessed are you...that you did not make me a woman" is obviously exclusive of women. Other prayers exclude wicked people; in the amida prayer "velamalshinim" excludes heretics. An implicit exclusion would be the yekum purkan prayer which blesses �the congregation and their women and children� � implying that the women are not part of the community.

The other examples of non-egalitarian prayer do not excluded the petitioner, but somehow make the prayers inaccessible to the petitioner. "God" is most often referred to in the masculine. Or the use of the avot, the fathers and not the imahot, the mothers.

For the proponents of egalitarian liturgy, these types of passages exclude either the prayers from the individuals, or the individuals from the prayers.

Solutions?

Can there be a harmonious solution between the two conflicting religious imperatives? Regarding the issue of God language, I suggest that the imperative could be not to modify the language at all. According to all parties involved, God is supposed to be a non-gender. The Hebrew language lacks a gender-neutral conjugation; the masculine gender is used by default. By making a point of including feminine God language, one removes the neutral aspects of the masculine and instead emphasizes the gender. I will also theorize that this might have more of an impact on those communities who pray in English. The constant use of "Him" or "His" will have a greater impact on those who pray in Hebrew and will not be as sensitive to the masculine usage.

For the other changes, one would have to consider the nature of the prayer being modified. Of the passages mentioned, emmending the yekum purkan would be the most plausible since it would have the least effect on the tradition. Few people would notice the change - assuming they know the aramaic and say all the words - and even if a community would still reject this change for themselves, they would not reject other communities who would adopt this change.⁵

Regarding the Amida, I cannot anticipate any substantive changes in the current siddurim. However, halakhically, it might be possible - if not preferable - to personalize the silent amida.⁶ The petitioner will then have the religious meaning while remaining in the halakhic tradition, and assuming the petitioner uses some discretion, s/he will not offend the social tradition.

Conclusion

Throughout the Jewish history, Rishonim and Achronim have reinterpreted Jewish laws to reflect the religious needs of the community.⁷ However, due to the fragmented nature of the Jewish community, there are rarely new religious needs which are applicable to all. It is not surprising that different communities will have different needs. Therefore, I cannot claim that there is a universal religious imperative for egalitarian prayer. I can say that it exists for certain individuals throughout all communities, and for separate communities themselves. However, so is the religious imperative of "Tradition" equally applicable across the spectrum of Judaism. When faced with this conflict, it is up to the communities to reconcile them for themselves. Each has free will to decide which imperative will take precedence. However, in the areas of conflict, both sides must realize there will be consequences � most often the ostracization of one community by another. This too is a religious imperative - and perhaps the real ethical imperative.