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.

The following was given as a shiur of a given on 9 Av 5763, Aug 7th 2003

Introduction

For those of you who haven’t been following this blog, I’ll give you a quick recap. A week ago, someone asked me what happened on 9 Av. My first resposne was quoting M. Ta’anit 4:6. She then asked what else happened on 9 Av, meaning event that happened later in Jewish history – the Spanish Expiulsion and World War I (WWI) in particular. Not being confident to answer either way at that time, I started doing research.

Ohr Torah has a thorough chart of these events. For reasons which will be explained later, I will divide these events into three categories:

• Hazal – M. Ta’anit 4:6
1. Decree that the dor ha-midbar wouldn’t enter Eretz Yisrael
2. Hurban I
3. Hurban II
4. Beitar destroyed
5. Yerushalayim destroyed
• Post-Hazal, Pre-1792
1. First Crusade
2. English Expulsion
3. Spanish Expulsion
• Post-1792
1. Start of World War I (WWI)
2. Liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto
3. Iraq Walks out of Talks with Kuwait
4. AMIA Bombing in Argentina

Hazal

M. Taanit 4:6 lists the more “traditional” events for which we mourn on 9 Av. The Gemara (bTan 29a) attempts to prove the accuracy of the Mishna’s statement through available canonical material. Although there is no specific date given for narrative of the spies, the gemara uses the verses to count from the days which are given, and come up with 8 Av. Rabba citing R. Yonahan explains that the spies came back on the 8th, and the events actually happened on the 9th.

There are two verses in the Navi which give dates for the first hurban. II Melakhim 25:8 (can’t find Hebrew searchable on-line nach) has the first hurban happening on the 7th day of the 5th month(5th month being Av, Nissan being the first). Yirmiyahu 52:12 says the hurban happened on the 10th of the month. So, not only are these dates not consistent, but neither one matches 9 Av. The Gemara explains that the Temple was breached on the 7th, started burning on the end of the 9th, with the majority of the destruction occuring on the 10th. Although R. Yohanan would have had the mourning on the 10th, the Rabbis legislated that we mourn at the beginning of the destruction – 9 Av.

There are no biblical sources for the remaining three events, and hazal do not even ask the question minalan – from where do we know this – for the final event. For the second hurban the Gemara simple states that we “roll over” positive events to positive days and negative events to negative days and for Beitar the Gemara simply says that it’s a “gemara” or tradition.

Post-Hazal, Pre 1752

After the time of Hazal, we have a more accessible calendar which makes it easier to determine what happened when. An excellent program for converting Hebrew and English calendars is Hebcal. However, this program does not take into account the switch from the Gregorian to Julian system and will return the following message:

WARNING: Results for year 1752 C.E. and before may not be accurate. Hebcal does not take into account a correction of ten days that was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII known as the Gregorian Reformation.

Despite Hebcal’s limitations, it is possible to do the calculation manually by following the Papal Bull of February 1582.

Of course, following this pattern tapers off towards the end.

There is another excelent downloadable program called Kaluach which does compute the Hebrew dates for the Julian calendar, but I cannot confirm how accurate it is.

Despite the complication in the calendar systems, some events are obviously way off. Pope Urban II issued his proclamation starting the first Crusade on November 27th 1095 – a few months after 9 Av.

The Jews were expelled from England on July 18th 1290. Hebcal returns 2 Av 5050, but Kaluach does indeed give us 9 Av. (I don’t see an on-line interface to provide a link, but you can download the program and run the tests yourself.

The edict expelling the Jews from Spain was signed on March 30th 1492 set to take effect on July 30th. Kaluach returns 2 Nissan 5252 for March 30th and 6 Av for July 30th. If we rely on Kaluach for the English Expulsion, we cannot accept that the Spanish Expulsion also took place on 9 Av.

Post-1752

The start of WWI easily falls within Hebcal’s range. The question is which date should we use? Archduke Ferdinand was assasinated on June, 28th 1914. This translates to 4 Tammuz 5674.

The first formal declaration of war came on July 28th when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Hebcal returns 5 Av.

Russia mobilizes against Austria and on July 31 (8 Av), Germany gives Russia an ultimatum to either disarm or face war. Due to Russia’s refusal, Germany formally declared war on Russia on Aug 1st. This was in fact 9 Av. The fighting began on Aug 2nd when
Germany invaded Luxembourg, and Britain joined in on Aug 4th (this blogger’s B-Day) when Germany invaded Belgium.

So the first declaration of war came on June 28th and fighting actually began on Aug 2nd. Neither one of which is 9 Av.

The liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto began on July 22nd 1942 (Also see the timelines of The Raoul Wallenberg Museum, Bronx School of Science. Yad Vashem only says the deportations started sometime in July with no specific date.)

However July 22nd 1942 returns 8 Av 5702 – unless they started after sunset.

The uprising began on April 19th 1943 (14 Nissan 5703) and ended on May 16th (11 Iyyar). The Warsaw Ghetto was ultimately destroyed on June 3rd 1943 or 29 Iyyar.

I haven’t been able to confirm the date of the Iraq / Kuwait talks. War was actually declared on August 2, 1990, or 11 Av 5750.

The AMIA bombing took place on July 18th 1994 or 10 Av 5754.

What does this all mean?

Overall, we hardly have a convincing set of 9 Av events. But why does any of this matter? What’s the big deal? So it’s off by a day or two – who cares?

Since I’ve started this project, I’ve gotten these and numerous related questions. So why am I making such a big deal about this?

Historical Accuracy
First, I think there is merit simply in getting history straight, especically that which is easily verifiable. Deut. 32:7 tells us to remember the days of the world. Lev. 19:11 prohibits lying and Ex. 23:7 commands to “stay far away” from falsehood. Some might argue that all history is didactic – the lessons of history are more important than the facts themselves. However, if a lesson is predicated on innacurate data, the lesson is lost when the truth is discovered.

Or as quoted to me in the name of Jacob Neusner, “You can’t make good theology from bad facts.”

Cheapening 9 Av and the Events
Again assuming that history is merely didactic and meant to teach lessons as opposed to facts we must also consider the unintended consequences. Presumeably, the reason why we would try to fit other events into 9 Av is to give more significance to 9 Av – it demonstrates the auspiciousness of 9 Av throughout Jewish History. However, the very need to add more significance to 9 Av implies that there isn’t enough significance on its own. 9 Av is somehow lacking, and we need to make it more meaningful. Furthermore, the events themselves become more meaningful because the happened on 9 Av – again implying that these events aren’t intrinsicly important, but need the added bonus of occuring on 9 Av. And what of the other tragedies that didn’t happen on 9 Av? Are they somehow less important?

This is not to say that we should not connect the tragedies of Jewish History to 9 Av. On the contrary, we are so far removed from the Hurban that we would need some tragedy in our own lives to begin to grasp what it’s like. Those in the European shtetl during the Crusades and Holocaust knew destruction. They experienced and internalized descruction. For them, remembering the Hurban is something real.

Distorting history for a derasha is a gimmick which cheapens both the day and the events.

Differences Between Hazal and Us
Although it might seem that in the modern era we’ve done nothing different than the rabbis of the Mishna, I think that there are some important distinctions to be made. The Mishna was written in the shadow of the Hurban, painfully aware of its consequences. The examples given are not random tragedies; they all relate to losing Eretz Yisrael. The Mishna was not written in a vacuum, but was speaking to the Jews of its time. I think the Gemara understood this in its analyisis. The Gemara starts by meticulously calculating the date of the Spies and ends not even asking the about the date Yerushalayim was destroyed. They could have had a tradtion, being close enough to the events, that they didn’t need to justify the dates. They were common knowledge. Or perhaps they realized that ultimately, the dates are not important.

The Forgotten Message of 9 Av
This religious revisionism is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a larger pattern in Judaism – the worshipping of symbols. We know that the 9 Av is a terrible day initially because of the hurban. But over time, 9 Av takes on a life of its own as a day of tragedy for the Jewish people. We get sidetracked from the meaning of the hurban and instead take a fatalistic approach to the day – that it is a day of tragedy. 9 Av is inherently infamous, and the hurban is relegated to just another event which happened.

Another example of this phenomenon is how we treat the halakhot of the three weeks / 9 days. According to the Gemara (bTan 29b – 30a) the only prohibitions during this time are against laundry and haircutting and these only apply for the week preceeding 9 Av. However, various customs have arisen including prohibiting eating meat and listening to music. These extra prohibitions presumably help us feel the loss of the Temple.

Assuming we follow the tradition that the temple was destroyed because of sinat hinam – baseless hatred – then how does not eating meat or listening to music help? Most people I’ve asked admitted that they would think less of someone who violated these customs of mourning. Ironically these customs which were created to help feel the hurban engender the feelings which destroyed it in the first place. The ultimate meaning of the Hurban gets lost in the symbols we’ve created.

Conclusion

In the Haftara we read the shabbat before 9 Av, Yeshayahu Ha-Navi chastizes Israel for essentially missing the point of their religion. Benei Yisrael were giving the sacrifices and performing all the r
ituals, but they were morally corrupt. Like we do today, Israel subsituded external rituals for internal commitment.

It’s easy to accept prohibitions and to have it look like we’re doing it for God. It’s much harder look within ourselves and try to change and improve ourselves – as individuals and as a community – to undo the hurban for which we are mourning.