Judaism: To Thine Own Self Be True! Baruch Pelta Baruch Pelta is a senior at Touro College South.

In the Winter 2010 issue of Conversations, Rabbi Jeremy Rosen describes his own fascinating background as a selfdescribed nonconformist. Nearing his conclusion, he writes of various issues he has with Hareidi Orthodoxy, as well as his optimistic hope for a rejuvenated Modern Orthodoxy. Still, he opines: ...the fact is that the Hareidi world for all its abuses, misuses, and hypocrisies does contain the fastest growing core of Torah-committed Jews, devoted to study to an extent never before seen. And I sometimes wonder why it is that now that I, so far to the left of virtually all their theological and social positions, still consider myself more loyal to that world than any other. And I hazard the suggestion that maybe the times require it. Perhaps the pressures of a secular, self-indulgent, material world are so strong and pervasive that the only way for the mass of Jews to survive religiously is through this inward looking self-protective enclavism. Maybe this is a time of Hora'at Shaah leMigdar Milta. But even so, this does not mean each individual has to follow this path. The individual must remain true to himself or herself. According to Rabbi Rosen, although all Jews should not be Hareidi, that insular ethos with its positive and sociologically implemented emphasis on the study of Torah may very well currently represent the best path for the masses to follow in order to counter the negative aspects of modernity; this is so despite many sociological and ideological bones of contention Rabbi Rosen has with the Hareidi world. I find this view to be compelling, but I still disagree with it. For all intents and purposes, the argument seems correct. Passionate and zealous religious fundamentalism in general is flourishing-and the Jewish world is no exception. I dispute the argument mainly on a theological basis. Historical revisionism regarding rabbis as well as their positions, pseudoscience, the attribution of paranormal powers to rabbis, and an ethically problematic approach toward the outside world are all important aspects that have received approval by various Gedolim. Because of the fact that the Hareidi community's raison d'tre is the ideal of being mevatel daas to these Gedolim, whatever the rabbis say is automatically accepted as legitimate, if not completely valid (the few exceptions to this rule are so few and far between as to be of almost no sociological consequence in their society). I am concerned for those who are raised in such an environment or begin exploring it out of curiosity, only to later discover beliefs that are based on false edifices. However, it could very well be that the success in inspiring a zealous passion for rabbinic scholarship overweighs my concern for the disaffected. I am concerned not as much by how many people may become dissuaded by false edifices as by the very reality that the edifices themselves are unsound. It must be remembered that the "Torah-committed Jews" Rabbi Rosen refers to are committed to a theology that requires belief that the irrational is rational. The modern Jew deserves a Judaism that is open to historiography and science and thus is truly in the spirit of searching for truths. Still, while I have made a case for not being Hareidi, I have not addressed Rabbi Rosen's main argument. Rabbi Rosen posits that despite the many issues with the Hareidi world, "perhaps the pressures of a secular, self-indulgent, material world are so strong and pervasive that the only way for the mass of Jews to survive religiously is through

this inward looking self-protective enclavism." I believe that such a view lacks the proper nuance. Various communities even in the Hareidi world itself interact in differing degrees with the secular world with respective successes. On one end of the spectrum are those who view any secular education whatsoever as treif, while on the other end there are those who receive fine college educations often during or immediately after their yeshiva studies and then go on to join the secular workforce. Considering this, it is apparent that American Judaism need not withdraw into Kiryas Yoel or New Square in order to survive and thrive. The question of interaction with the secular world and secular ideas is one of degree. Yet, Rabbi Rosen is certainly correct insofar as the various heterogeneous elements of the Hareidi world have instilled a powerful and passionate religious worldview in constituents. So, what can Modern Orthodoxy do in order to be similarly successful in this regard while staying true to its own ideals? I recall a conversation I once had with the son of a rabbi of a sizable Modern Orthodox synagogue who was attending a Hareidi yeshiva. In our conversation, he questioned the legitimacy of his father as an Orthodox rabbi. After all, his rosh yeshiva had a mesorah from a gadol hador; his father, on the other hand, was a student of the late Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who had deviated from the mesorah of his ancestors. I asked the fellow if he had ever heard of a general concept that Daas Torah is a modern notion or the concept that secular studies are to be pursued de jure as a corollary to rabbinic studies in modern times. Both ideas were completely foreign to him. I later had the opportunity to have an extended conversation with the father and discovered him to be well-read in scholarship pertaining to Orthodoxy. I am a ba'al teshuva (in the most colloquial sense of that term), whose experience with Orthodox communities has mostly been outside of the New York area. Most of the Orthodox people I have met, with whatever sociological camps (i.e. Modern or Hareidi) and age groups they may fall into, generally seem to see Modern Orthodoxy as nothing more than a religious society compromising its integrity by incorporating as many of Western civilization's popular mores and trends as possible while remaining nominally Orthodox. In general, the names of Rabbis Joseph Lookstein, Emmanuel Rackman, and Walter Wurzburger are unknown. Rather, it is the names of Rabbis Aharon Kotler, Yitzhak Hutner, and Yaakov Kamenetsky that command attention and admiration. I should note that I am not suggesting parity between all of the above mentioned figures in any matter, but rather I am positing that Orthodox society internationally is by and large unaware of the names to say nothing of the thought of important historical Modern Orthodox thinkers. Because of this, whenever a Modern Orthodox rabbi engages in an action or pens a thought which others may regard as controversial, it is judged by a very large population of Orthodox Jews from a distinctly Hareidi perspective. Without being aware of Modern Orthodox thought, I do not believe it is possible to live a proper Modern Orthodox life. This situation needs to be remedied through education. If a school or a congregational rabbi is unable to provide it, perhaps extra classes at a synagogue handled by an informed layperson would be tenable. Torah in Motion, an educational organization in Toronto, hosts international video conferences by Modern Orthodox rabbis and professors on Jewish history and thought on an ongoing basis with a particularly popular class given by Professor Marc Shapiro. Considering that the classes now cost money, it can be concluded there is definitely a thirst for understanding Judaism from a Modern Orthodox perspective. The potential role of laypeople in general has been grossly neglected. For example, as a general rule, I believe it is a duty for Orthodox Jewish professors to be engaged in exploring and explaining the dynamic between their

respective fields and Judaism. To understand Jewish thought in light of scholarship provides a more intellectually satisfying portrait of Judaism than that which Jewish apologists promulgate. That being said, we should not be elitists, but populists. It should be clear that openly compromising clear halakhic standards is not a communal option (and if it is, then that is another problem which needs to remedied through education), but the community should be willing to work with beginners on their level. The outstanding success of some Hareidi community kollels at adult education classes and havrutas for beginners testifies to the success of such a policy. In general, I think we should not be afraid to learn from Hareidi successes. A large amount of learned ba'alei teshuva and formerly apathetic laypeople were inspired and awed by charismatic Hareidi rabbis. I have also known quite a few Jewish youth who, dissuaded by rabbis in their communities, became indifferent to Judaism only to give it "one more shot" at a post-high school yeshiva and are now aspiring to either sit in kollel as long as possible or become Jewish educators. While I have made some specific suggestions for creating a Modern Orthodox future, I think that even as much as we may disagree with our Hareidi coreligionists, there might be some more lessons to be learned from how the educational efforts of their community. I have written this essay not as a paradigmatic Modern Orthodox rabbi or educator, but as a student with some thoughts and observations. I believe that while the Modern Orthodox suffer from a number of sociological issues, the ideology itself has a proper dedication to a sophisticated search for truth as opposed to superficial apologetics. It is admittedly harder in some ways to establish a proper balance between rabbinic studies and secular studies than to simply reject the latter as pernicious, but I posit that appropriately exploring that tension leads-in my humble opinion-to a more intellectually satisfying and thus more spiritual result.