An Introspective Look at the Challenges Facing a Modern Orthodox Jew

ברשות הרב מרא דאתרא, tonight's topic, an introspective look at Modern Orthodoxy. I was asked maybe to offer a working definition at the outset of what the term Modern Orthodoxy means. So you can define it in one of two ways. One can give the ideal ideological definition, and then there's also a sociological definition, and I guess the purpose of tonight's introspection is to see to what extent these two definitions are in sync with each other and to identify what disparities may exist. I think as an ideal ideological definition for Modern Orthodoxy, certainly it has to be founded, it has to rest upon a foundation of uncompromising dedication to Torah, to Ratzon Hashem. Specifically, maybe some of the individualizing characteristics, although I don't mean to intimate that Modern Orthodoxy can claim a monopoly on any one of these necessarily, but the cluster of core values which probably as a whole taken together help identify and individualize it is a work ethic, a recognition of the individuality of individuals, a recognition that for some the counsel appropriate is that which the Mishna says in Pirkei Avot of

יפה תלמוד תורה עם דרך ארץ שיגיעת שניהם משכחת עון,

a combination of Talmud Torah with a profession, while for others the advice of Rabbi Nehorai of

מניח אני כל אומניות שבעולם ואיני מלמד את בני אלא תורה,

that I leave aside, I forsake all professions in the world and the only thing I'm gonna teach my son is Torah, and that for other individuals that's the correct advice. A sense of recognizing that within Torah there exists individuality, and that individuality determines which is the correct path within Torah for one. Certainly another core value is the respect accorded to differing legitimate Torah views. Views again espoused and advocated by Yerei'im ushlemim, people clearly very firmly rooted in the Torah camp who may disagree on any or even all of these core values. Obviously not the core value of the uncompromising dedication to Torah, but the other ones, the individualizing characteristics. Most would certainly include within this list a solidarity with Eretz Yisrael and specifically support for Medinas Yisrael that with all the problems inherent in having a secular state and clearly with all the points of disagreement and agmas nefesh that result in the policies of a secular state, but nevertheless support for the Medinas Yisrael and recognizing as the Rav described in his essay Kol Dodi Dofek, recognizing Medinas Yisrael as a chesed of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. And generally speaking, a willingness to engage modernity, not to indiscriminately accept modernity, modern culture, mores and mindset, not to indiscriminately accept it, but a willingness to engage modernity and to filter it through a filter of Torah and be willing to accept those things within modernity which the Torah validates. So that's the ideal ideological definition and again, the purpose of the introspection which we're going to engage in is to try to see to what extent the facts on the ground, the reality conforms to this ideal definition and what challenges await the community. Now given that our sociological goal for the for the evening is introspection so we're not going to dwell on the accomplishments of Modern Orthodoxy again many of which relate to these core this cluster of core values nor are we even going to talk about some wonderful developments within the Modern Orthodox camp amongst them perhaps most notably the year or years of post-high school study in Eretz Yisrael all of which are laudatory and worthy of discussion but it won't leave enough time for our introspection. As is it should be clear that within the brief time that we've allotted for this obviously there's no attempt no presumption of being comprehensive. So as the Gemara would say it's tana vishayer. We'll try to identify some areas in which improvement is needed some issues which need to be addressed but by no means is is this overview intended to be comprehensive nor another programmatic comment nor do I mean to intimate at any point that any of the issues or problems which we'll try to identify that Modern Orthodoxy has a monopoly on these either. The same way I certainly was not suggesting that this cluster of core values that Modern Orthodoxy necessarily has any kind of monopoly over any of them I don't mean to suggest that in terms of the issues and the problems we're going to discuss and try to identify that Modern Orthodoxy has any more of a monopoly over those either. And the final final programmatic comment which will sort of I think help us segue into the into the heart of the issue is that I have to confess that I have a lot of unease in employing the term Modern Orthodoxy. To be perfectly honest it grates on me the term. And the reason for that is the term is very misleading because again to be legitimate and to be genuine it's not it's not a question of Orthodoxy being modernized it's rather a question of Orthodoxy confronting modernity and again in its ideal sense that's what the movement should stand for often does stand for but it's not a question of some kind of modernized Orthodoxy nor nor should it insinuate that there's any kind of dual allegiance to Orthodoxy and to modernity that I'm Orthodox and I'm modern. No a person has one one if a person is asked to identify himself so we we hope to be able to sincerely identify ourselves as Yonah did when when he was asked on the ship who he was so he says that he's Ivri anochi a Jew and Seloikim as I forget the exact wording of the pasuk Elokei Hashamayim or something ani yarei. And I fear Hakadosh Baruch Hu. That's who I am and that's my sole allegiance. So there is no dual allegiance to Orthodoxy and and modernity. No in general a Jew has a single allegiance and that's to the Ribbono Shel Olam to the רבונו של עולם תורה. Whatever else is validated by Torah so then as part of his allegiance to Torah so he he accepts that as well but whatever Torah doesn't validate so then there is no no dual allegiance. The Rav zichrono livracha used to make a similar comment he didn't he didn't like the slogans employed by Mizrachi despite his identification with the Mizrachi he didn't like slogans such as Da'at u-Medinah as such a religion and state Torah and state. And the reason was again that it sort of implied that there was some kind of dual allegiance that there was some kind of autonomous value of medinah or state and that's not the case. The Rav said whatever we think about the state we think so because we think that Torah validates it and it's only to that extent so it's not that anything can be put on par with Torah because Torah is the exclusive ultimate and an absolute value. So for that reason, the term modern Orthodoxy can be misunderstood, and it's very, we use it just because in discourse, since it's accepted, it's difficult to avoid using, but it's very important to distinguish the legitimate sense in which the term can be used as opposed to this, as opposed to the illegitimate one. Now, the Rambam writes in Hilchos Deios, and I'd like to read you just a few lines from the Rambam in perek vav of Hilchos Deios. The Rambam comments how human nature is such that we're influenced by our surroundings. We're influenced by the people with whom we associate, the society in which we live. And the Rambam says that consequently, a person has to connect with tzaddikim and he should try to live amongst chachamim and he should distance himself from reshaim so that he won't be influenced and that he won't learn from their actions. Then the Rambam writes היה במדינה שמנהגיה רעים ואין אנשיה הולכים בדרך ישרה. If he finds himself in a state, in a country, where the customs and the mores of the people are corrupt, are evil, so then a person should relocate and live amongst righteous people who conduct themselves properly. ואם היו כל המדינות, this is one of the most powerful and jarring lines in the whole Mishneh Torah. The Rambam writes

ואם היו כל המדינות שהוא יודען ושומע שמועתן נוהגים בדרך לא טובה.

If all the countries that a person knows of and whose reputation has reached him don't conduct themselves properly, then the Rambam adds two words, kemo zmaneinu, right? As the Rambam felt was the situation in the 12th century in his day.

או שאינו יכול ללכת למדינה שמנהגיה טובים מפני הגייסות או מפני החולי,

or for external circumstances he can't relocate to a proper environment, so then yeishev levado yechidi. He should isolate himself and he shouldn't really interact with the society around him. Now basically, what this Rambam tells us, what we need to extrapolate from this Rambam is that there's no such thing as having an absolutely determined or fixed relationship with the society. It can't be the case that one says, well my hashkafa is that this is the relationship or this is the degree of interaction which I'm going to have with the surrounding society. And since I'm modern Orthodox, so therefore that necessarily entails such and such a degree of interaction and openness to the society. Obviously, what the Rambam is telling us is the degree to which we can be involved with society, the degree to which we can be open to society, to its culture, depends directly on the society. And oftentimes, the Rambam says, we'll be pushed into a position, where seemingly we're acting in an extreme fashion, where we have to take draconian measures, but that's not because we're espousing or advocating any kind of extremism, but that's being dictated by the society in which we live. So the Rambam says that can be the case and the Rambam felt that in his day this was the case, that a person has to basically isolate himself and try to insulate himself from society. So is that extreme? Well, it depends. It's in one sense it is extreme, I guess vis-a-vis the society in which one finds oneself, so if one needs to adopt that measure of the Rambam, so then it is extreme. On the other hand, if one looks at things more internally, intrinsically, so the answer is no, that this may be the same person who living in a different society or maybe even living in the same country but in a different generation was much more integrated into the cultural life of the society around him, but because of the shifting ground of society, so he hasn't moved but society has drifted away from him, again, which sort of results in his being painted as an extreme. Whether or not we're careful to constantly update and monitor what our relationship can be with society around us, given, given again that there is a willingness to engage modernity on our terms, on the terms of תורה. That phrase is a phrase which my father זכרונו לברכה used to use. Given that there is a willingness again to engage modernity on our terms, i.e., on תורה's terms, but that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever represents the highbrow culture of contemporary society, that because one advocates such an openness, that that automatically is possible. It's going to depend upon what the culture of that society is. There's no question that what being Modern Orthodox meant and allowed for forty years ago is not the same as what it means and what it allows for today. And that the extent to which one can partake of the culture of American society, that that has been drastically limited. It has become constricted, because as society drifts further and further into amorality, into immorality, so there's just less and less common ground between the culture of the society and תורה values. Once upon a time, presumably it was, leaving aside assuming that at the time one's not supposed to be learning תורה and leaving aside whatever potential issues of ביטול תורה. Once upon a time, there probably wasn't anything objectionable about reading Time or Newsweek. Nowadays, so obviously there are many, many problematic things in these magazines. But too often we sort of have this reaction, well, but this represents, this represents, you know, this is not a, it's not one of the cheap daily papers. It's not one of those. So if I'm Modern Orthodox, doesn't that mean that obviously I'm going to be reading such things? So the answer is, well, that depends upon the culture's self-definition, and if the culture around us deteriorates and deteriorates, so as the רמב"ם says, so then that's going to elicit a different reaction from us. We haven't changed our principles in terms of again a willingness to engage, but the question is what's being offered as a willingness to engage? In a similar vein, the awareness of the reality of the society in which we live, another question which has to be posed is to what extent we're sufficiently concerned with the potential pernicious influences, specifically that our youth encounter on secular campuses. And the question is not so much are we aware of the potential pernicious influences, but are we sufficiently concerned about the influences? The רב in one of the חמש דרשות tells a very beautiful story. He recounts that in the 19th century, the גדולי ישראל in one of their meetings decided that in order to try to counter the czarist threat to the whole educational system of the חדרים, the czarist government was constantly threatening to shut them down. So they wanted to appoint a representative, that they should have a representative who'd be stationed in Petersburg, who should always be monitoring what's going on and should be in a position to try to intercede and to keep them up to date on what's happening. So the question was who then would fill this pivotal post? So the person whose name was suggested happened to be an intimate of the בית הלוי, of the בית הלוי. And someone the בית הלוי was known to think highly of, and many of the גדולים supported him. And the בית הלוי stood up and the בית הלוי opposed him. People asked And the moshal he gave is that the halacha says if you if you deposit something with a shomer that he should that he should watch over it for you, that he should guard it. And you tell him that that you're giving him some silver to to watch, and in reality, it's really gold. So the halacha is that if this person then neglects the their over- their oversight, they neglect the shmira, so they don't have to pay the full amount of the gold, they only have to pay for the amount of the silver. Why? Because they're allowed to say that

נטירותא דכספא קבלית עלי בר נטירותא דדהבא לא קבלית עלי.

I accepted upon myself to to watch and to safeguard silver. I didn't accept upon myself the greater responsibility of of watching over and safeguarding gold. But doesn't it involve the same thing? Either way, you have to take precautions to prevent theft, you have to take precautions against it being inadvertently misplaced. The precautions are the same regardless of what the object is. But clearly, the answer is that the more precious the object, so obviously the more one is going to apply oneself in carrying out that shmira. So the Beis HaLevi said, he said for me, he says bachurim are gold. And and you have to do the utmost to safeguard them, you have to do the utmost to maintain them. He says, my yedid, my my friend over here, he values bachurim. He certainly does. But for him, it's only silver. And therefore the shmira that he'll do will be a shmira of silver. It won't be a shmira of gold. And bachurim require a shmira of gold. To let's say to give an another moshal in more more prosaic, less halachic terms. Let's say you have you have a cup of milk. And the question is whether you're going to drink the milk, whether you're going to add it to your coffee. But it's it's been out it's been sitting outside of the refrigerator for a couple of hours. Okay, so it might be beginning to turn, it might be beginning to spoil. Okay, so probably if if you really want the cup of milk or you really don't like drinking your coffee black, so it's probably worth running the risk because the downside is not so great. Okay, maybe it's maybe it's beginning to spoil. If however you're you're told that maybe there's even potential for for food poisoning and and being sick for a day, so then you're going to be much more hesitant to run the risk of maybe it's still good. And if you're told that maybe someone injected poison into it? So then you're not going to run any risk whatsoever. You want you want absolute absolute certainty. You're not going to entertain, you're not going to assume any risk whatsoever. So the question is, when we send our our children off to secular campuses, so the question is of course, of course we all recognize that a shmira is necessary. And we all recognize that there are pernicious influences. But the question is do we worry about those influences realistically, not not with any sense of paranoia, realistically. Do we do we worry about these influences as being the most important thing in our children's life? That the most important thing in our children's life, never mind the education we want to give them, and never mind the professional training we want to give them, but the most important thing in our children's life is to preserve the sanctity of their neshama, is to preserve their commitment and to deepen their commitment to Torah. So the liquid, so is it is it something which is potentially mildly spoiled, is it something which is potentially full-blown food poisoning, or is it something which is which is which is actual poison? And the question is do we take the the dangers posed by the the challenges of secular society, do we take them seriously enough? One factor for why the answer perhaps is in the negative, that maybe we don't weigh these seriously enough, is that whether consciously or subconsciously, there is this fear of being an extremist. There's this very strong... Long seated fear and sometimes it's articulated, other times it's not articulated, but it's certainly there. It's between the lines when it's not in the lines themselves. There's a fear of being an extremist, of being cast as an extremist. And here this comes back to the point we were discussing before, besides why one should, the point is simply that the extremism, yeah, at times we're going to be if one wants to paint it that way, so be it. The point is that if the society around us becomes extreme, so then that means that we're the same moderate people that we've always tried to be. But as the Rambam describes in Hilchos De'os, if the society loses its moral compass and on college campuses in dormitories, it's a matter of discussion whether bathrooms should be co-ed or separate, so then I don't know whether a Jew committed to Torah is being extreme when he recognizes and opens his eyes to see what the dangers are for young impressionable teens to be in such a setting. Another question worth asking is our whole attitude towards materialism. We live in an affluent society and Baruch Hashem many of us have been blessed and enjoy such affluence. But the same way poverty Rachmana litzlan carries with it all kinds of challenges and nisyonos, the truth is that affluence carries with it many, many challenges and nisyonos as well. I'd like to read you just a few lines, I'm sure you're all familiar with them, but just to review together a few lines from the Mesillas Yesharim. Mesillas Yesharim writes as follows, and this is in the opening chapter of Mesillas Yesharim, he writes

והנה שמו הקדוש ברוך הוא לאדם במקום שרבים בו המרחיקים אותו ממנו יתברך והם הם התאוות החומריות.

Hakadosh Baruch Hu has placed us in a world where there are many things which can distance us from Him, which can lure us away from Him. And these things that I'm referring to, says the Mesillas Yesharim, are the physical desires, the desire for materialism that we have אשר אם ימשך אחריהם. If a person is drawn after them, if a person becomes materialistic, so then Rachmana litzlan הנה הוא מתרחק והולך מן הטוב האמיתי. We can't define Hakadosh Baruch Hu. Hakadosh Baruch Hu is inscrutable, but one thing we do know, one thing we do understand, Hakadosh Baruch Hu is spiritual. And kirvas Elokim to come close to the Ribbono Shel Olam means to be as spiritual as possible. Olam Haba is עין לא ראתה אלקים זולתך. We can't, even the Nevi'im didn't prophesy and give us descriptions of Olam Haba, so we can't even imagine what life in Olam Haba is. But again, one thing we know, everyone agrees it's a spiritual existence. Whether it's a spiritual existence in which we exist beguf veneshama with body and soul, but there's certainly no eating, there's no drinking, there's certainly none of the physical trappings and physical activities of life. Olam Haba is a spiritual existence because it's an existence where one is close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu who's purely spiritual. Says the Mesillas Yesharim, so obviously, to prepare ourselves for that, to try to come close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, a person has to be as unmaterialistic as possible. It doesn't mean a person is supposed to neglect his health, it doesn't mean a person is supposed to walk around not attired properly, but there's a clear line between that and between the type of materialism which affluence affords. And the question is whether or not we have things in balance. Do we have things in sync? The occasion on which one really glimpses the dimensions of this problem of materialism in our society, in our communities, are at simchos. The excessive gashmius that one encounters at simchas is simply overwhelming. There’s too much food, there’s too much money, there’s sometimes wherever you turn around there’s dollar signs all over the place staring you right in the face. Just excessive gashmius and you see it especially at simchas. And it’s antithetical, again it’s antithetical like the Mesillas Yesharim says. But even more than that, what you see at simchas also sometimes, not nearly as often baruch Hashem, but one does see it. This is something that exists, hopefully in very small proportions and very small measures. Sometimes maybe it even comes from a sincere motive, a sincere impulse that parents want to make their child’s simcha special. So they want somehow or other it should be special, it should be unique. But whatever the motivation, whatever the impetus is, sometimes you get a sense that there’s one-upmanship. And sometimes you see things which just seem the only explanation for them is it’s to go beyond anything else which has ever been done. When you walk into a dinner hall and you see a ten-piece band or more for a normal-sized hall, and you see not one singer and you see two singers, it’s excessive which is per se wrong. And again, the sense of making a simcha special not by the genuineness of the feeling, but to compromise that and to adulterate it by making it unique in terms of how excessive the gashmius is. Another area, and this I’m only going to mention very briefly so as not to overlap with the next talk, but certainly another area which has to be mentioned is chinuch. To what extent is the modern Orthodox community succeeding with its institutions of chinuch? To what extent are we reaching and touching our youth? When one visits in some of the Yeshiva high schools and interacts with some of the youth there, one encounters something very disturbing. And again, I’m not in a position to give you numbers, I’m not in a position to give percentages, but we’re talking about a problem that exists. There are significant numbers of our youth who we’re simply not reaching in our educational efforts. Ultimately there are two complementary approaches to Yahadus. For a person to be anchored in his or her Yahadus, there are two approaches. There’s an intellectual approach and there’s an experiential approach. The intellectual approach, the Rambam says the mitzvah asei is leida, the mitzvah asei is to know that Hakadosh Baruch Hu exists and to know all the yesodos ha’emunah, not just to believe them but to know them logically, scientifically, to know the basis for our belief. There’s a mitzvah asei leida. The Rav writes in one of his essays that he thinks that in addition to the simple cognitive intellectual sense of the verb leida, that the Rambam also has in mind that leida also means intimacy, to experience. והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו. So leida also has this sense again of experiencing, not just the cognitive intellectual knowledge, but experiential knowledge. And that’s another way that a person knows the truth of Yahadus is not just intellectually but experientially. The different views in the Midrash as to how old Avraham Avinu was when he discovered Hakadosh Baruch Hu probably represent these two approaches. According to one view Avraham Avinu was three. Probably what that represents, what that expresses is that it was an intuitive experiential discovery of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The other view says he was either forty or forty-five, meaning it was more of an intellectual odyssey and an intellectual discovery of Hakadosh Baruch Hu. The question is, do our... do our yeshivas, do they give, do they give our children, do they expose our children, so are they taught what the foundation for our belief is, what the foundation is for our certainty of the absolute truth of Torah? And B, are they in an environment, do we provide an environment in the yeshivas, in our batei kenessios where they can experience the beauty and the truth of Torah? Because if both of these are lacking, so then what happens is is that is that the youth feel that the strictures and the burdens of Torah are being imposed upon them, but the foundation for those mitzvos is lacking. The the understanding of why we believe this, the understanding of of how we know this is true, the experience of of the truth and the beauty of Yahadus. When those are missing and and it's just legislated, so then it it generates anger and it generates frustration and that exists. That exists and and it's something which needs needs to be addressed. Part of the way it can be addressed is is not only within the yeshivas, but part of it is is within within our shulen, within our batei kenessios as well. I think it it would be an interesting an interesting question to ask oneself. One Shabbos morning wherever each person ba'asher hu sham, wherever you happen to daven, ask yourself a question, if if someone were were to walk in off the street and and doesn't doesn't really know much about Yahadus and they walked in, walked in, would they be impressed by what's happening? Would they be impressed by the decorum, by the focus, by the seriousness of the people in shul or would they have some other impression? And and we have a responsibility, we have a responsibility, now again, obviously someone walking in off the street is not going to be able to appreciate everything, there's going to be so much he doesn't understand which is going to hinder his his ability to appreciate, but but is he going to notice that there's a that there's a focus or is he going to notice that there's talking? Is is he going to feel, is he going to feel a a certain hislahavus, a certain excitement about davening or is he going to observe some kind of sterile ceremonialism in in our shuls? Is is he going to hear the shliach tzibbur, is he going to hear the ba'al korei or is he going to hear the the chatter which sometimes drowns out the the shliach tzibbur and the ba'al korei? And that's one of the forums in which we allow ourselves, we allow our youth to experience the the beauty and truth of Torah is to come and to daven properly and to daven b'kavanah and and to have the kedushas beis haknesses maintained. Okay, I have I have a few other a few other issues which I had wanted to broach, but I think rather than rather than run through them too superficially, so maybe maybe I'll stop here. I would just like to reiterate in in concluding that in making a cheshbon hanefesh, so I think the Ramban in his hakdamah, in his introduction to to his perush al hatorah writes either about the Ibn Ezra or Rashi whom he routinely criticizes throughout his commentary, he always he he rarely quotes Rashi or the Ibn Ezra to to praise the peshat. It's usually to to criticize and and to move on, so he says that you'll find תוכחת מגולה ואהבה מסתרת. That what you'll find overtly, what you'll sense in my attitude is tochachas. You'll sense that there's rebuke, but underlying it is a sense of love. So to paraphrase the Ramban to make a cheshbon hanefesh is to say that something has great value and something has great accomplishments and something has great potential and that therefore it's worthwhile to make a cheshbon hanefesh to engage in introspection so that it can have even greater value so that it can have even greater accomplishments and achievements in the future.