Before I get to the shticks this year, I want to write about the dangerous practice of drinking on Purim. Each year, some people overdo it and wind up sick, hospitalized, or worse. The problems are exacerbated by Rabbis who encourage and sometimes force students to drink regardless if the students have the alcohol tolerance or are of the legal drinking age.

On the other hand, the Talmud seemingly requires excessive drinking; in which case, even 13 year olds would be obligated. Lets begin with the relevant passage from Megillah 7b:

This is loosely translated as “Rava said: a man is obligated to get drunk on Purim until he does not know the difference between “cursed Haman” and “blessed Mordechai.” This of course, requires an immense degree of intoxication. Some major halakhic works simply cite this dictum without qualification (Rif 3b, Shulhan Aruch Orach Hayim 795:2). Consequently many take this statement at face value, and therefore drink and encourage others to get inebriated, under the assumption that they are fulfilling a rabbinic commandment.

I’ve found several sources on the web which deal with this issue in one way or another, but I’ve found most of them to be lacking in real analysis. What I will show here is that while this statement might be obligatory, it does not require the degree of drinking which is commonly practiced.

(For readability, I will be sacrificing some precision in translations).

It’s time now for my response to Rabbi Daniel Stein. Sorry for the delays, but I do have schoolwork to do here. I’ve been working on a response that will adequately address R. Stein’s points, while not succumbing to ranting. As comical and entertaining as a Grach-type review would be, I feel that R. Stein’s article deserves a serious analysis and critique.
(Rants may come at the end)

Although the MAPPS program offers unparalleled academic freedom, the directors of my program require one particular survey class, “Perspectives in Social Science Analysis.” Over the 10 week quarter, Dr. John MacAloon and various other professors present 9 different perspectives with Dr. MacAloon presenting an overview and another scholar discussing contemporary applications of that perspective.

In week 8, we covered “Structuralism,”¹ and I was surprised to see the similarities between this perspective and ” lomdus” – specifically the Brisker Derekh. There are several decent summaries of Structuralism on the web and some more on one of its main advocates Claude Levi-Strauss.²

For those too lazy to click the links or God forbid do your own research, I’ll give you the short attention span summary.⁴ Levi-Strauss, an anthropologist, utilized aspects of linguistic theory to interpret social phenomenon beyond language.³ Linguists, like Saussure, distinguished between the words used in language and the effect, the symbol and the meaning, the langue and the parol’. How did they do this? After analyzing how speech works throughout all cultures, they realized that some phenomenon repeated themselves and they explained the different phenomenon through polar binary opposites.

Levi-Strauss applied this methodology to social phenomenon like myths. In his work The Structural Study of Myth, Levi-Strauss demonstrates that the Oedipus myth contains elements found in myths from other cultures. He identifies the patterns by breaking down the myth into atomic elements, and “re-structures” these elements into classifications. Once Levi-Strauss classifies these elements into categories, he then uses his categorization to compare the Oedipus myth with similar myths. Although the categories are arbitrary, Structuralists like to formulate categories in binary opposites. E.g. symbol and meaning, personal and communal, etc.

How is this like the Brisker Derekh? Unfortunately, there isn’t much directly written on the methodology of how to do “Brisk.”⁵ However, I picked up a few things from my numerous years in yeshiva, and I can say that the analytical methodology is similar – though perhaps not identical.

Like structuralists, Briskers tend to explain several sources and rulings though binary comparisons. Some popular ones are heftza (object) and gavra (person), shem (name) and halos (legal status), mitzvah hiyuvi (obligatory commandment) and mitzvah kiyyumi (fulfilling a commandment), or simply “qualitative” and “quantitative” differences. Although this might apply to other areas of “lomdus” I’ve noticed that Briskers tend toward the binary opposites more than others. Just about every shiur I can remember from Gush involved a two-way mahloket and tannaim, amoraim, rishonim, and achronim neatly fitting into one of two arbitrary abstract categories.

Some Briskers also apply this perspective to areas of Jewish Thought. R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, perhaps the most famous descendant of the “Brisker Rav” and his tradition. In “The Lonely Man of Faith, R. Soloveitchik contrasts the personalities and religious attitudres of “Adam One” and “Adam Two” from the creation narratives. Elsewhere, R. Soloveitchik’s rational “Halakhic Man” stands in opposition to the more emotional “Homo-Religiosus.” Again, his thought leads him to present theological and religious ideas through manufactured binary oppositions.

Methodologically, Briskers construct and categorize the concepts in ways similar to the structuralists. Specifically, they first remove the sugya from the original context of the gemara. The sugya becomes the unit of analysis as opposed to a chapter, or even a page of talmud. Consequently, Briskers will not concern themselves with literary analysis or even finding the correct version of the talmud,⁶ because the details are not as important as the structure or the concepts. Like structuralism, these concepts are arbitrary and subject to the whim of the scholar. Unlike structuralism, yeshivas have canonized the scholars i.e. the rabbis, and therefore artificial structures become sacred and part of the “tradition.”⁷

I am not surprised that the Brisker Derekh attracts so many followers, nor am I surprised at the criticisms. Structuralism can be useful, and often it may be the best method for explaining a particular data set. Critics, however, will note that as a standalone system – as an “ism” if you will – structuralism assumes and imposes too much on the data. Furthermore, in the social sciences critics will complain that structuralists remove the human participants from the analysis. Social interaction becomes a bloodless game of abstract categories with no attention to human emotions. Similarly, critics of the Brisker Derekh deride the lack of attention to detail of the sugya in its original context. Literary approaches and historical evidence may often contradict the structures imposed on the text of the talmud.

I am not going to speculate on who got what from whom. Levi-Strauss was born and raised Jewish, and it’s likely his background influenced his scholarship. I also don’t think I’m saying anything radical or new here, it’s just an interesting similarity I noticed in class. Take it as you will.

1. Unfortunately, the laptop was in limbo then, so I don’t have typed notes from the lectures.
2. Not to be confused with the guy who made jeans.
3. See Structural Analysis in Linguistics and in Anthropology
4. I.e. don’t cite this description for anything useful.
5. When I was in Gush, a small book called “The Brisker Derekh” came out and it was pretty close to a “How To Brisk.” As I recall, most of the ramim and students dismissed the book as too simplistic, which was probably as good of an endorsement as it could get. At any rate, I can’t find a link to it on the web.
6. The standard “Vilna” edition is loaded with errors. See Dikdukei Soferim or the Lieberman Project for other versions of the Talmud Bavli – and manuscript work is ongoing. If this sounds too heretical for you, consider that a passage may appear in several places throughout rabbinic literature (Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta, Mishna, Midrash Halakha…), but there will be significant changes in their presentation. See for example, Dr. Elman’s Authority and Tradition and many, many, other works.
7. For some ramifications in education, see Hakirah or Mehkar: The Religious Implications of an Historical Approach to Limmudei Kodesh by Rachel Furst and Mosheh Lichtenstein, “What Hath Brisk Wrought: The Brisker Derekh Revisited” Torah U-Madda Journal, volume 9, 1-18, 2000.

I’ve made some veiled references to “Theorizing Judaism.” I’ve recently completed Dr. Martin Risebrodt’s class, Theorizing Religion. Unlike typical survey classes, Dr. Riesebrodt used this class as feedback for his currently unpublished book on religion. Dr. Riesebrodt would present his ideas and one class a week would be a discussion. After he presented the main points of his thesis, the students presented examples from specific religions which may or may not have supported his thesis. In addition, we were to submit two written essays discussing the merits and flaws of his thesis. The following post will explain his thesis, and my applications of the thesis to Judaism.

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.

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.

Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner writes an opinion piece lamenting the lack of scholarship in the Rabbinate across all denominations. Protocols covered the editorial and it was met with some criticism from the Elder Avraham. I quickly posted a comment, but I feel this topic deserves some extra attention.

First, consider the different perspectives of Prof. Neusner, and Avraham. Prof. Neusner is an academic and so he thinks like an academic, valuing the formative intellectual development a PhD provides. (Although he has ordination from JTS, he is more known for his numerous writings than his pastoral skills). Second, Professor Neusner comes from a different generation where almost all Rabbis had PhD’s or equivilant degrees. Nowadays, they are a rarity. (As I mentioned in my comment, R. Aharon Rakeffet-Rothkoff made a similar observation in one of his classes in Gruss). Today’s Rabbis – or at least from what I’ve seen of those leaving YU – are as a whole less knowledgeable, less worldly, and less thoughtful than the rabbis of the previous generation.

Avraham’s response (aside from the dig at Neusner’s own acceptance in the academic field – a debatable point in its own right) is that it doesn’t really matter for the average pulpit rabbi. Most congregations would not want to sit through an hour long dissertation comparing Sir Isaac Newton and Maimonides. Many congregants are either unable or unwilling to concentrate on complex ideas before mussaf, especially if their tired and/or hungry. Assuming people are paying attention, you also have to be careful in terms of how far you can interpret. I once got flack for interpreting Leah as in some ways superior to Rachel. My sense is that most congregants are not interested in serious intellectual stimulation, or at least not at the level which requires a PhD education.

Consider the following quote from Neusner’s editorial: “But they stand for a religious system and are woefully unprepared to carry out their intellectual tasks.” [emphasis mine] It is this point where the divergence occurs. Neusner’s concept of the role of the Rabbi is different than Avraham. While at one point the Rabbi was looked upon as an intellectual as well as a religious leader, today most rabbis are simply pastors (although many would like a larger role). Perhaps Neusner is also lamenting the diminished role of the Rabbi as well (ignoring for the moment the question of causation).

Avraham is correct in that academic credentials are not essential for many pulpits. I’m sure many rabbis can go through their careers and not be seriously challenged intellectually. However, I think Neusner is correct that to some extent Rabbis do still stand for a religious system. I say this because as a Rabbi, I get questions about every aspect of Judaism – halakha and hashkafa. On some level I’m expected to know everything – otherwise people wouldn’t think of asking the Rabbi. I am viewed by others as someone who has, or more importantly should have all the answers. As I’m sure Avraham will agree, the RIETS education is hardly that thorough.

For a more specific example, assume a congregant goes off to a secular college and is exposed to bible criticism for the first time. The bewildered student then turns to his/her rabbi for some reconciliation. How can the rabbi respond effectively? Telling the student to drop the heretical class will not be helpful as it doesn’t answer any of the arguments. Nor would resorting to blind faith quell the student’s conflict. In order for an Orthodox rabbi to seriously answer this question, he must know the bible criticism as well as the critics, and know enough to formulate an intelligent response.

PhD’s are not magic pills which bestow knowledge – rather it is the culmination of a process of intellectual growth. Although the topic of one’s dissertation might never come up in one’s pulpit, minimally, the analytical skills will assist the Rabbi in formulating and articulating intelligent responses to the most difficult questions.

I’d like to add that I am turning into my father. Not that this is a bad thing, just a little scary.