Jewish: November 2003 Archives

Lacking a functional laptop, I've been working on a computer at the Hillel. I never thought I'd say this about YU, but their public computing system is far superior. Knowing it's possible for YU to get some things right makes the politics all the more frustrating.

It's far too easy to find faults in YU. Anyone can complain, but fewer offer plausible suggestions for improvement. On my mind today, specifically, is the YU smikha honors program.

YU's rabbinics program, offers financial fellowships for students accepted into one of the honors programs. Most (perhaps all) of these programs require students to enroll in R. Hershel Schachter's kollel, whereas the kollel is optional for other rabbincal students.

Similar to a "directed study" class, members of the kollel independently study talmud during the afternoon and are tested periodically. Failure to take or pass one of these tests will result in a delay in ordination.¹

I recently had a conversation with someone who participated in this kollel and was somewhat critical of the testing system. According to this person, the tests are not so much on the talmud being studied as they are on R. Schachter's thinking. If one is accustomed to R. Schachter's derekh ha-limud system of learning, then these tests will not be unsual. However, the majority of rabbincal students have no prior experience studying with R. Schachter and would most likely be accustomed to a different system of learning. Since the honors program is contingent on the Kollel, the ramification is that in order for a rabbinical student to be elligible for an honors fellowship, he must eventually re-train himself to think like R. Schachter. This structure unnecesarilly restricts those talented rabbinical students who are not part of R. Schachter'system, especially since the kollel members are not actually taught by R. Schachter.²

I am not going to suggest modifying the kollel, but I do think YU has the resources to offer an alternative program for talented rabbincal students. Instead of testing the kollel students from a specific system, let the students develop as they have been trained. This can easily be accomplished by requiring these students to produce an article based on their learning of the year or of an important contemporary issue. Perhaps these articles could be published in a specialized kollel journal³ which would not only help fundraising, but it's topics could contribute to the Jewish community at large. Therefore, rabbinical students who are so inclined may participate in the honors program with the intellectual freedom to develop their minds and the obligation to contribute to the Jewish community.

In my first-year class's meeting with R. Lamm, someone asked the then-president why YU offers so many choices for smikha co-requisites and which one was "better." Students can get an MA in education, social work, Judaic studies, or learn in kollel. What should a student do? R. Lamm sarcastically commiserated that YU has different options for different types of students. If YU is serious about its role in the Orthodox world, it cannot afford to allienate potential talent. It might be time for yet another option.

1. I personally did not participate in this kollel, opting for the M.A. from Revel instead. I am basing my assessments on the descriptions that I have heard from other people. The fundamental descriptions have been fairly consistent. If I am incorrect, let me know.
2. I am not evaluating R. Schachter's system. I am merely acknowledging that there are other systems of learning, even within YU. For example, R. Tendler, R. Ben-Haim, R. Katz, and R. Weider all have unique styles of learning, none of which are R. Shachter's.
3. Unlike "Beis Yitzchak," this should be more accessible to the Jewish community, and the writing would be of a much higher caliber.

Looking for a good deal on Artscroll's Stone Chumash (BN.com has it cheaper btw), I noticed their new book, "Walking With Rabbi Miller."

I was somewhat disappointed that it's about Rabbi Avigdor Miller and not Rabbi Israel Miller or his unheralded son Rabbi David Miller who barely has any mention of him on the web. Nothing against R. Avigdor Miller at all, but I think that serious Modern Orthodox Jews would benefit greatly from a book about R. Israel Miller and his family.

I only recall meeting R. Israel Miller once. When I was in Gruss a few years ago, we had a Hanukkah haggigah at his son's apartment which was next door to his. He passed away a few months later. Those who know the Miller family know how unique they all are. For those that don't, I can't do them justice here.

I don't know if the family is working on a book. If they're not, someone should. Without any embellishments, it would be inspirational and a refreshing change from the typical mythic "gadol du jour" books and a must read for every Modern Orthodox Jew.

Any volunteers?

Does anyone else find interesting how much MSNBC covers the new-age Kabbalah craze? It could just be the standard mocking of stupid celebrities. Not only are people like Madonna and Britney prime journalistic fodder, but they won't have to worry about the Kabbalah center suing them into oblivion for defamaiton unlike some other "religious" institutions.¹

For example, in a recent Newsweek interview which appeared on MSNBC:

When Spears talks about the South Asian musical influences on �In the Zone,� she says she�s �been into a lot of Indian spiritual religions.� When asked if one of them is Hinduism, she says, �What�s that? Is it like kabbalah?�

So she's not exactly a religion major.² It's possible she has some insightful comments about comparative religion. I doubt it considering her teacher has some trouble keeping her own Kabbalah straight. See for example, MSNBC's review of Madonna's new children's book, Mr. Peabody's Apples:

In her introduction, Madonna explains that �Mr. Peabody�s Apples� is based on a 300-year-old Ukrainian tale called �The Baad Shem Tov.� [sic] She says her instructor in Kabbalah, or Jewish mysticism, first turned her on to the story, which aims to demonstrate the power of words.

This could be a simple typo on the part of Madonna or MSNBC. Frankly I'm curious if Madonna knows something we don't (undoubtedly she does, but regarding Jewish History. On second thought, scratch that too). Did the Baal Shem Tov have an evil twin? Or maybe this guy was a Hassid from the 'Hood?

At any rate, I'm sure MSNBC will continue to humiliate the these two for many months to come. They just make it too easy.

Shavua Tov everyone.

A few things on my mind before I get back to the take home midterm. The first is a response to a critique I found on Heimishtown. In my earlier rant on hareidi community I used the phrase "ever so humble self-proclaimed 'Gedolei Torah.'" Heimishtown rightly points out that in that article the term "Gedolei Yisroel" was used not by the Rabbis themselves, but by the Yated Ne'eman Staff. My understanding is that the term "Gedolei Yisroel" is not just used by the masses to refer to their rabbis. The specific reference was to the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah. If the rabbis are not part of the same organization, then I apologize for the incorrect attribution.

On a slighly different note, we had an interesting speaker come to the Hillel this week: Rabbi Dan Aronson, the Dean of Admissions at the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College (RRC). I must compliment him on two things. First, he carried himself like a professional. He was always polite and civil despite some rather obnoxious comments by a particular audience member (not me). Second, I always have a degree of respect for someone who admits when he doesn't have an answer and he has to think about it some more. While this is an ethic commended in Avot 5:7 (or 5:6 in the Rambam's version), many Rabbis I've met would instead fall in the alternative category of the Golem.

At any rate, there were two major critiques I had of Reconstructionism as he described it. The first is really more of a critique of Mordechai Kaplan, the movement's founder. Admittedly, I have not read much of Kaplan myself, so for now I will rely on what I heard from R. Aronson. As stated on the RRC website, Reconstructionists "define Judaism as the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people." R. Aronson then defined what he meant by "evolving," "religious," and "civilization." However, I noticed he did not define what was meant by "Jewish." It seems to me that this is a circular definition in that the term "Jewish" is used to define "Judaism." Kaplan would certainly hold that some people are not considered "Jews," but I do not know what that precise definition would be. Even resorting to ideas like a "symbol set" or relevant ethics, he would probably not say that a Christian who held these ideas would in fact be Jewish.

The other critique is more fundamental to the purpose of Reconstructionism. As presented to us, Kaplan was trying to stem rampant assimilation. Judaism needed to undergo consious changes in order to survive - the "traditional" model would not be sufficient to maintain the Jewish people. Judaism As a Civilization was published in 1934 (if memory serves). Not being alive then, I cannot possibly know what was the reality of Jewish life in America. However, despite the numerous problems througout the "traditional" world, I would think that it's still in relatively good shape in that it's not going anywhere. Yes, assimilation still happens, but I would say that I don't think that the "traditional" models are going to disappear any time in the near or distant future.

Finally, there was one particularly poignant observation from one of the audience members. Kaplan writes about the need for Judaism to evolve in order for it to survive. However, he does not explan why Judaism ought to survive. What would make the "Jewish" set of understandings significant enough to warrent perpetuating? If it is just to preserve the history, then we could easily set up a museum for it and cease any form of observing it at all. Kaplan's stated goal of combating assimilation only makes sense if there is something in Judaism that's worth not only keeping, but keeing vibrant and alive. If there is indeed something inherently significant to Judaism - it cannot be divine by its nature since Reconstructionists do not belive in divine revelation of the Torah - then what would it be?

R. Aronson recommended Exploring Judaism as a good text to understand more about Reconstructionist Judaism. If there are any experts in Reconstructionism out there, feel free to post your comments.