Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate

Adam S. Ferziger BETWEEN OUTREACH AND “INREACH”: REDRAWING THE LINES OF THE AMERICAN ORTHODOX RABBINATE CONSTITUENCY DEFINITION AND CONTEMPORARY ORTHODOXY Whom do I lead? Whom do I represent? Constituency definition has been a central issue for Orthodox rabbis since the emergence of modern, heterogeneous Jewish life in Europe.1 If the premodern community rabbi was automatically the religio-legal authority and spiritual leader of all local Jews, the same could not be said for Ortho- dox rabbis of subsequent generations. In a society in which religious observance could no longer be legally enforced, only those who volun- teered to accept the rabbi’s command were necessarily under his juris- diction. That being said, different approaches developed within the Orthodox rabbinate regarding which Jewish populations should be targeted. While some limited their efforts to cultivating a “community of the faithful” that was committed to preserving traditional values, others felt the imperative to move beyond this “natural constituency.” They looked for ways, rather, to continue to function as religious leaders for all Jews.2 The following discussion focuses on constituency definition within the contemporary American Orthodox rabbinate. It describes signifi- cant changes that have taken place regarding this issue in the last two decades. These, in turn, reflect upon an overall transition that has taken place in American Orthodoxy. Among the new generation of American Orthodox rabbis that emerged in the early twentieth century, there was a strong feeling that Orthodoxy had to try to appeal to as many Jews as possible. At a time when few congregations existed that could boast of a critical mass of fully observant individuals, it was obvious that Orthodoxy would become obsolete if it only catered to the “pious.” The “broad constituency” approach evolved into part of the ethos of American Modern Orthodoxy’s flagship rabbinical training ground, the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University. Its Americanized, college-educated graduates were dispatched to com- munities throughout the country with the goal of creating Orthodox doi:10.1093/mj/kji017 © The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]. 238 Adam S. Ferziger congregations that would offer religious services to the entire Jewish population. With this attitude in mind, some even walked a denomi- national tightrope by accepting pulpits in synagogues with mixed seating.3 Particularly after World War II, however, a second stream in American Orthodoxy emerged.4 The survivors and remnants of the leadership of the Lithuanian yeshivas and Hasidic dynasties who arrived directed their efforts toward re-creating the institutions and lifestyles that had been destroyed. Fearful of the seductive power of the treife medina (unkosher state)—which to their minds had tainted the established Modern Orthodox—they sought to establish enclaves in which they could regain their former strength and vitality. As such, their yeshivas and kollels concentrated on producing Torah scholars, rather than multitalented pulpit rabbis. If some of their graduates later served in more heterogeneous Orthodox congregations, this was certainly not the primary goal of their mother institutions.5 The main objective, rather, was to create a cadre of rabbis and teachers who could service the needs of this recently imperiled “community of the faithful.”6 Indeed, the last decades of the twentieth century witnessed the emergence of an empowered American Orthodox population with a thriving congregational life throughout the country. Orthodox education has grown from year to year, on both the elementary and the high school level, as well as in post–high school yeshiva programs.7 Moreover, possessing greater confidence in their group’s survival, Orthodox Jews grew to expect to be accepted and integrated into gen- eral society without compromising their religious standards and life- style. Such demands were buttressed by their increased consumer power.8 Contemporary American Orthodoxy, of course, encompasses a wide spectrum of Jews. They range from the Hasidic enclavists of Williamsburg and New Square (Upstate New York) to Boca Raton (Florida) Jewry, the fastest growing Orthodox community in America. A popular custom among the members of the latter is splitting their week between rural “golf course estates” and “Shabbes houses” that sit within walking distance of the synagogue.9 Broadly speaking, the group known as “Modern Orthodox” has been characterized by its active participation in American life, both through involvement in various forms of culture and by emphasizing the innate value of secular education as well as, of late, high-level religious education for women. In addition, ideological support for a Religious Zionist perspective on the State of Israel is a touchstone of this sector. Those identified with “Right-Wing Orthodoxy” (also referred to as the yeshivish, “Torah,” or haredi world) are generally more critical of involvement with secular Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 239 culture, other than in those areas—such as earning a living and public advocacy—that are deemed crucial for personal and collective Jewish survival. While some members of this coalition actually campaign against the “evil” entity that occupies the Holy Land, most adopt a more neutral position. They may not perceive any religious signifi- cance to the State of Israel, but they do cooperate with its agencies and take great interest in its political, military, and social travails.10 The argument advanced in this article is that in regard to constituency definition, along with Orthodoxy’s growth and empowerment, the last decade has witnessed a redrawing of the lines that divide the American Modern Orthodox and Right-Wing Orthodox rabbinates. To an increasing extent, it is the graduates of yeshivish institutions that are being trained to strengthen the Jewish identity of the broader Jewish community. The Modern Orthodox institutions, in contrast, have to a great degree relinquished this role and concentrate on producing rabbis who can inspire their committed congregants. This understanding will be illustrated by examining rabbinical training institutions affiliated with each camp. While the particulars of a rabbi’s activities are a function of the needs of the specific community that he serves and his personal talents, it is within the various rabbinical seminaries, yeshivas, and training programs that his outlook and skills are initially molded. As such, an examination of what is being taught to the current crop of aspiring Orthodox rabbis is telling regarding the mother institutions and the priorities that they assign to various rabbinical pursuits. Furthermore, these findings will be ana- lyzed in regard to their implications for a broader understanding of the major trends in contemporary American Orthodoxy. The article will describe five programs that are particularly exemplary of the current pattern. In order to appreciate the innovative nature of some of the more recent directions, it is necessary to first highlight prior stages in the history of modern rabbinical training. RABBINICAL TRAINING: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Ismar Schorsch describes how the loss of judicial authority engen- dered the transformation of the nineteenth-century Central European rabbi from primarily “an expositor of Jewish civil and religious law” to a “teacher/preacher.”11 The transition in the nature of the profession required the rabbi to gain greater familiarity with non-Jewish lan- guages, knowledge, and culture. This was imperative, to enable him to communicate with his acculturated community members, as well as in order for him to acquire the minimum prestige necessary to gain their respect. 240 Adam S. Ferziger While the premodern rabbinate gained its judicial know-how by intensive study of the Talmud and codes in a traditional yeshiva, the new skills required by the modern rabbi demanded a fresh educa- tional format. Thus, the mid–nineteenth century saw the rise of a new framework for advanced Jewish education, the rabbinical seminary. Such institutions adopted a critical, scientific approach to the study of traditional Jewish knowledge and texts. In addition to, or instead of, Talmudic and halakhic studies, rabbinical candidates were required to study subjects such as biblical exegesis, Hebrew and Aramaic philol- ogy, Jewish history, folklore, and literature. This stemmed, among others, from a belief that a rabbi equipped with such knowledge and perspective would be more capable of gaining the respect of his modern congregants. The seminaries also demanded that their students receive a degree from a secular university.12 The yeshiva never disappeared from nineteenth-century Europe and even rose to great heights in Lithuanian, Polish, and Hungarian milieus.13 The seminary, however, became the standard institution for rabbinical training in Germany, as well as in Italy, France, and Holland, and even set down deep roots in Hungary.14 Indeed, the rise of American Jewry to a position of independence within the world community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was paralleled by the establishment of rabbinical seminaries among the three major denom- inations (Reform, Orthodox, and Conservative) that could train homegrown rabbis. The Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) of Yeshiva University,

Load more