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 significant 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 communities 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 general society without compromising their religious standards and lifestyle. 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 significance 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 engendered 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 educational 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, the leading American Orthodox rabbinical training institution, evolved a unique approach. This seminary, which began as a Lithuanian-style yeshiva, cultivated a synthetic model in which traditional Talmudic studies were combined with secular academics and supplementary professional rabbinical training.15 In general, one of the hallmarks of American rabbinical training has been the introduction of more systematic approaches to acquiring pastoral and professional skills. This resulted from the recognition, particularly from the mid–twentieth century, that the role of the American rabbi had expanded beyond that of “teacher/preacher.” Additional functions, such as social worker, grievance counselor, Hebrew school principal, and even synagogue CEO, had turned the congregational rabbi into a multifaceted religious leader and functionary.16 The American rabbi had to be equipped with a broad range of skills that would enable him to fulfill this wide variety of responsibilities.17 Moreover, as mentioned above, the members of mid-twentieth- century American synagogues were not of one ilk. Even Orthodox congregations were characterized by a wide variety of lifestyles and religious commitments.18 Thus, the ideal product of RIETS was a congregational rabbi who could relate simultaneously to a number of Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 241 different constituencies by offering them a diverse set of religious services. Despite the introduction of professional courses, Charles Liebman’s 1969 study of rabbinical training in America highlights the dissonance between what rabbinical students were being taught and what they were being expected to do once they were ordained. He argues that almost no efforts were made to connect textual learning with the more practical elements being taught to the trainees.19 The last two decades, however, have witnessed a more systematic effort to train rabbis who are equipped for the professional challenges that lie ahead. This can be seen in particular in the innovative rabbinical training programs that have emerged within right-wing Jewry. To a limited degree, a similar phenomenon can be identified among Modern Orthodox institutions. That being said, each camp has sought to nurture very different skills. The divergence in the educational concentrations of each group’s institutions is reflective of their general directions and concerns. As will be expanded upon below, the right-wing programs have become dedicated to creating rabbis who can service the needs of Jews with limited religious backgrounds who are likely candidates for assimilation. The curriculums of the Modern Orthodox programs, in contrast, seem to be aimed primarily at nurturing budding scholars who can inspire its highly educated and religiously knowledgeable core constituency.

RIGHT-WING ORTHODOXY AND THE TRAINING OF AN “OUTREACH RABBINATE”

Most of the traditionalist yeshivas in the United States are modeled after the Lithuanian centers of learning that flourished from the nineteenth century until the Holocaust. While many practicing rabbis spend their formative years in these institutions of higher learning, like their Lithuanian predecessors, the focus of most American yeshivas is not on training professional rabbis. They follow, rather, the ideal of Torah li-shmah (Torah study for its own sake) articulated by the creator of the prototype Lithuanian yeshiva, Rabbi Hayyim of Volozhin.20 The main goal is to educate young Jewish men toward the highest level of Talmudic erudition and religious piety. As such, rather than it being considered a sign of having achieved a particularly impressive measure of Talmudic mastery, the veteran student who begins to study the legal codes that he must know in order to receive rabbinic ordination and become a “licensed” rabbi is often looked down upon. This course of study signals imminent departure from the holy sanctum of the yeshiva, and his efforts are seen as aimed at attaining a 242 Adam S. Ferziger formal “professional” degree that will enable him to earn a living in the outside world. Consistent with this negative perception of those who abandon the way of Torah li-Shmah, up until the last two decades of the twentieth century, products of the traditionalist yeshivas made up a small minority among the American Orthodox pulpit rabbinate. Serving the needs of the greater American Jewish community meant being willing to compromise one’s own religious values. As Rabbi Emanuel Feldman, a graduate of the Ner Israel Yeshiva (Rabbinical College) in Baltimore and formerly a pulpit rabbi in Atlanta, Georgia, explained sympathet- ically in 1968: “The unfortunate tendency among some of the students must be understood for what it is: an extension of their total commitment to shlemut (perfection) and study and service of God which views apparent professionalism and careerism with a jaundiced eye. . . . [A]s he grows and matures he will come to the understanding that the so-called career rabbi is no less concerned with God and Torah than he.”21 As mentioned above, there are additional factors that led to the limited numbers of traditionalist yeshiva graduates who entered the pulpit rabbinate. First, for most of the twentieth century, American Right-Wing Orthodoxy dedicated itself toward survival. The generation of Orthodox Jews that arrived in America immediately preceding and after the Holocaust still viewed their new home as a place that endangered the survival of “Torah Jewry.” Therefore, their actions were inwardly focused, seeking preservation rather than expansion. Even after it was clear that these efforts had met with success, the insularity that they engendered remained deeply ingrained in the social ethos of Right-Wing Orthodoxy. While for some the insularity was purely a practical result of historical circumstances, for others it was also an ideological statement. Thus, some right-wing ideologues continue to promote the notion that since only “Torah-true” Orthodox Jews can be counted upon not to assimilate, all resources should be focused purely on strengthening this group.22 By the last two decades of the twentieth century, however, forces within the American yeshivish world that expressed different sentiments began to emerge. Right-Wing Orthodoxy achieved a level of self-confidence that engendered a rising sense that it was strong enough to extend help to those American Jews who had become alienated from their roots. Some of the impetus for this fresh approach may have come from a hope that the ba’alei teshuvah (newly religious) whom they would inspire would be attracted to their style of Judaism and would further strengthen their ranks. Indeed, the unparalleled expansion of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, the one stark exception to the generally insular Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 243 approach of the right-wing world in previous decades, most likely increasingly garnered the attention of more “conventional” groups.23 A growing number of leading Right-Wing Orthodox figures, however, began to feel that they simply had an obligation to try to stem the general trend of assimilation among American Jewry. Rabbi Moshe Sherer, the longtime president of American Agudath Israel, expressed this point in a 1978 appeal to yeshiva students to become practicing rabbis: “Many [yeshiva students] don’t want to go into public Jewish life because they want to spend more time studying Torah. But if we are really engaged in a struggle to survive, some- thing has to give. The alternative is that millions of neshamos [souls] that heard the Aseres ha-Dibros [Ten Commandments] on Har Sinai [Mount Sinai] will enter churches. People have to go into the rabbinate to save them.”24 By the turn of the twenty-first century, this appeal had been answered by many within the American haredi world. Some yeshivas have actually cultivated an educational posture aimed at creating rabbis who can focus on bringing Judaism to weakly identified individuals. Other yeshiva heads have generally stood firm in their demand for “Torah for Torah’s sake” to remain the guiding principle within the walls of the yeshiva. Yet recently they have shown greater openness to new supplementary initiatives expressly aimed at training rabbis who can help strengthen Jewish identity among the loosely affiliated. In the following pages three institutions are presented that express the dynamism and creativity that mark some of the more recent right-wing efforts to fight assimilation.

MAOR Program

In 1999, a graduate of the Ner Israel Rabbinical College of Baltimore by the name of Rabbi Shaya Milikowsky founded a rabbinical training program for students of right-wing yeshivas called the MAOR program.25 Unlike classical seminaries, MAOR does not offer a full-time rabbinical studies curriculum. Rather, students participate in intensive three-week sessions that meet over the course of two successive sum- mers. The reason for this concentrated study schedule is that MAOR seeks to train rabbis whose formal studies and ultimate ordination take place in one of the traditional right-wing yeshivas such as Ner Israel, Beth Medrash Gavohah in Lakewood, and its subsidiary in Philadelphia. The heads of these institutions have, in fact, given their blessings to this initiative, but only if it does not interfere with the main goal of Torah li-Shmah. This is accomplished by running the study sessions 244 Adam S. Ferziger during the traditional yeshiva three-week summer break that extends from the ninth of the Hebrew month of Av until the first day of Elul (and falls in July–August). The skills that are cultivated by the program reflect an acknowl- edgment that an effective American rabbi must be equipped with more than a sharp Talmudic mind and a willingness to leave the warm confines of the yeshiva. During the three-week summer sessions, the twenty enrollees meet for eight hours per day, five days per week. Their curriculum includes the following subjects: public speaking, social sciences such as history, psychology, sociology, and American popular culture, pedagogy, public relations, advertising, and fund-raising. In order to fully comprehend the role that the study of these subjects will play in shaping the future career of the rabbi, it is necessary to gain an appreciation for the approach to the communal rabbinate that stands at the foundation of MAOR. MAOR’s central aim is to nurture rabbis who can address a broad constituency. Their main skills should be ones that can be used to counter assimilation by making Judaism meaningful for all Jews. For some, this may ultimately lead to full observance, but MAOR emphasizes that any movement toward greater involvement and commitment is a success. As such, its graduates are not directed to filling available rabbinical posts in established Orthodox synagogues. The MAOR position is that a rabbi who is hired by an existing Orthodox community will never be successful at attracting large numbers of unaffiliated Jews toward greater Jewish involvement. The reason is that the main task of such a figure is to serve the needs of the veteran congregants who hired him and who expect to gain from his teaching and guidance. Even if such a rabbi is totally committed to boosting the Jewish identity of his unaffiliated neighbors, his hands are tied. He can never be what MAOR seeks to create—an “outreach rabbi.” At best he could be described as a dilet- tante, who on occasion steps beyond his natural constituency.26 MAOR trains its graduates to establish new synagogues in areas with large Jewish populations in which no Orthodox community exists. In order to create such an institution, pedagogical, homiletic, and intellectual abilities are insufficient. An enterprise of this nature must be led by an individual who has a keen awareness of what will appeal to highly acculturated American Jews. He needs to know how to use the tools of modern mass media to communicate his message. He has to have the ability, as well, to find the resources to fund such an endeavor. The existence of MAOR most surely stems from a confluence of factors. The massive growth in recent years in the numbers of full- time yeshiva students also means that more graduates are being produced who see the rabbinate as a profession. By broadening the Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 245 targeted constituency, the right-wing world has created more employ- ment opportunities for its alumni. Expanding the population being serviced may also offer greater opportunities for fund-raising for the mother institutions. Yet these practical considerations could not have been implemented without a change in attitude of the right-wing yeshiva world toward the professional rabbinate and its obligation to stem the tide of assimilation. MAOR demonstrates that the leading figures in these institutions feel a responsibility not only to strengthen the commitment of those who are already observant but also to serve the needs of the broader Jewish population.27

Rabbinical Ordination/Leadership Program, Aish Hatorah, Jerusalem

Based in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, Aish Hatorah is one of the leading institutions in the world for bringing alienated Jews closer to religious observance (kiruv).28 It is best known for its representatives who approach students and travelers who have come to the Wailing Wall and invite them to visit the adjacent yeshiva, as well as for its intensive “Discovery” seminars aimed at proving God’s existence and the divine authorship of the Torah. Aish Hatorah, however, does not limit its activities to those who visit Israel. In fact, communities have been established throughout the English-speaking world where the methods and beliefs studied at the mother institution are being utilized in order to attract as many Jews as possible to traditional religious observance. The institution was established in 1975 after its founder, Rabbi Noah Weinberg, broke away from the Ohr Somayach yeshiva.29 According to his followers, the split came about due to differences regarding the goals of the yeshiva. Ohr Somayach felt that success was determined by whether a newly observant student dedicated himself to a life of learning. Rabbi Weinberg, in contrast, hoped that once a student had adjusted to religious life, he would either become a kiruv worker or join the secular workforce. Through his interaction with other Jews, he would have the ability to help the weakly affiliated become observant. Aish Hatorah has developed an entire ideology and system of outreach. In order to make sure that its approach is properly implemented, its leaders foster an “Aish culture” among their students, who are viewed as the future of the institution. It is, indeed, this “Aish culture” that is the most distinctive characteristic of Aish Hatorah’s Rabbinical Ordination/Leadership Program (ROLP). Even the more traditional classes on subjects such as Talmud and Jewish legal codes focus on that which one needs to know in order to become an effective outreach rabbi. 246 Adam S. Ferziger

It takes a student one and a half to two years to complete ROLP. Graduation is contingent upon passing a Halakhah examination administered by two rabbis appointed by Aish Hatorah as well as a positive evaluation of the accomplishments of the student by the yeshiva administration. The curriculum is divided into three parts: traditional rabbinic learning, practical rabbinics, and vocational training. The traditional learning portion is dedicated to sharpening the study skills and increasing the halakhic knowledge of the students. In addition, a major focus is placed on the study of Bible. This emphasis is based on the premise that the ability to prepare a Bible class that highlights the Torah’s relevancy to modern life is crucial for recruiting Jews to the Aish world as well as for cultivating financial supporters. The practical rabbinics portion consists of students leading various programs offered by Aish Hatorah in Israel. This is, essentially, the same kind of work that they will be doing in America. The training section is the most extensive part of the program and amounts to 40 percent of the curriculum. There are classes dedicated to the daily responsibilities of being a rabbi. Courses are also offered in pedagogy, public speaking, counseling, writing, and dealing with contemporary issues. In addition, students participate in workshops that teach them how to establish Aish Hatorah communities of their own in America. Subjects such as demographics are taught in order to enable graduates to best determine what their target audience is for a city where a new Aish community is under way. In addition, the rabbis-in-training learn fund-raising skills. In the context of the development of the proper skills for leading a viable and successful Aish community, the ROLP students are also required to take classes in computers and business management. Finally, each newly ordained rabbi is given an “Aish bag” that consists of numerous lectures on the weekly Torah portions, ideas for activities, literature on an array of topics, and many other Aish-approved supplies to help him in the field. A particularly unique aspect of ROLP is the significant amount of time spent training the students to deal with questions that they will be asked when they are out in the field. The students practice simula- tion games in which they debate their position against rabbis who assume the roles of non-affiliated Jews, reform rabbis, potential donors, and so on. Although most of the ROLP students are Aish Hatorah products, recently individuals from some of the traditional haredi yeshivas have been accepted as well. The program’s goal is not to create rabbis who will go on to have congregational pulpits; rather, Aish Hatorah views ROLP as the most effective way to supply manpower for its centers in the Diaspora. Therefore, ROLP rabbis will either join preexisting Aish centers or travel to other cities to launch new programs.30 Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 247

The description of ROLP above certainly strengthens the impres- sion that this is not a classic rabbinical seminary or yeshiva. The focus on “recruitment,” on the “Aish approach” and the “Aish system,” and in particular on the development of debating and rhetorical skills is unique. Moreover, as already stated, while Aish Hatorah and similar institutions may begin by offering positive Jewish experiences to a broad spectrum of Jews, its main goal is to identify those who will become “Aish” Jews.31 In addition, even a cursory examination of the curriculum makes clear that Aish rabbis are unlikely to stand out as Torah scholars. In this way they differ dramatically from the MAOR graduates who only attended the program after a considerable number of years engrossed in a yeshiva environment. Despite these points, an exploration of transformations in the American Orthodox rabbinate highlights ROLP’s “cutting-edge” quality. On one level, both in Israel and in the United States, Aish Hatorah rabbis are connecting with the nonobservant community and providing attractive Jewish content that is gaining them increasing exposure. From a pedagogic perspective as well, the ROLP model is interesting in that it seems to be based on the thesis advanced by Charles Liebman cited above. That is, it seeks to fully integrate practical rabbinics into the study of traditional rabbinical texts. Most important for this study, Aish Hatorah’s rabbinical training program is an innovative Right-Wing Orthodox educational initiative, dedicated solely to the needs of the nonobservant and weakly affiliated Jewish population.

Rabbinical Seminary of America, Chofetz Chaim Yeshiva, Kew Gardens Hills, New York

Rabbinical Seminary of America, or Chofetz Chaim, was established in 1933 by Rabbi Dovid Leibowitz, a student of the famed Slobodka yeshiva and of Rabbi Meir Kagan’s (the “Chofetz Chaim”) yeshiva in Radin.32 The yeshiva is presently led by his son, Rabbi Henoch Leibowitz, and his younger partner, Rabbi David Harris.33 Chofetz Chaim is ostensibly a traditional yeshiva in that the educational focus is on Torah li-Shmah. Following the Slobodka model of a mussar (ethics) yeshiva, a great deal of emphasis is also placed on formal activities aimed to build proper religious and ethical character, with the students dedicating time each day to the study of ethical literature.34 Beyond its dedication to mussar study, Chofetz Chaim’s unique place among right-wing yeshivas is reflected in its greater openness to modern society and culture. The yeshiva has received U.S. federal accredi- tation that allows it to grant bachelor’s degrees in Jewish studies, and it runs cooperative master’s degree programs in education and 248 Adam S. Ferziger administration with secular universities.35 Its students also stand out in comparison to those at other right-wing yeshivas through their more modern attire. The most significant way through which Chofetz Chaim has distinguished itself, however, is in the area of public service. Students are encouraged to take time out during the week from their Torah studies, for example, in order to run Jewish culture hours in New York–area public schools, as well as to volunteer in the Queens Hatzolah emergency ambulance corps and the Queens Hevrah Kadisha (Jewish burial society). Indeed, though students from other right-wing institutions also participate in these types of programs, in the case of Chofetz Chaim, the students are expected by the leaders of the yeshiva to participate. Chofetz Chaim’s unique place within the right-wing American yeshiva world is not merely a reflection of its willingness to allow its students greater interaction with outside society. Its emphasis on formal character development is part of a process by which Chofetz Chaim sets out to nurture rabbis who embody the main goal of the yeshiva, dedication to the religious and educational leadership of their fellow Jews. In order to receive rabbinical ordination one must complete a long and rigorous course of study that usually lasts for twelve to fifteen years. The lengthiness of the program is partly due to the slow, plodding method of Talmudic study that Chofetz Chaim promulgates. Moreover, the extended period of residence within the confines of the yeshiva is aimed at cultivating a Chofetz Chaim rabbinical emissary, that is, a person willing to occupy the type of rabbinical positions that the yeshiva deems most important for the perpetuation of American Jewish life. Since the late 1970s, Chofetz Chaim has invested considerable effort in establishing schools and synagogues in locales where there is no Orthodox community or where the community has become severely weakened. Starting with the Chofetz Chaim center established in 1978 in Rochester, New York, successive models have been created in Milwaukee, Cherry Hill (New Jersey), Los Angeles, and most recently San Diego. The educational and religious institutions that have been built cater to both observant and less affiliated Jewish youth and adults. The rabbi and staff are Chofetz Chaim graduates who have essentially been sent to these communities. By going as a group, as opposed to an individual rabbi establishing a synagogue, they insure the existence of an infrastructure that will give the young rabbinical families a social and religious environment that is sustain- able over a long period of time. In addition, they bring together a core of highly motivated rabbis who, due to their long and intensive years of common training, share a basic ideological and religious mind-set. Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 249

The Chofetz Chaim rabbi is not sent to an outlying community as part of a career track that will eventually bring him back to an East Coast Orthodox congregation. Rather, he hopes to establish a perma- nent base for himself and, together with a group of other like-minded Chofetz Chaim alumni, to raise the level of religious consciousness of a locale whose Jewish population is highly prone to assimilation. Despite its heavy demands, rabbinical training at Chofetz Chaim has become increasingly popular. Until recently, anywhere between two and twelve new rabbis were ordained in a given year. In the last few years, however, the total yeshiva population has grown to over 300 full-time students.

MODERN ORTHODOXY AND THE “INREACH” RABBI

While Right-Wing Orthodoxy in America is creating rabbis who are capable of reaching out beyond its boundaries, the leading institutions of Modern Orthodoxy have focused their programs on servicing the highly specific intellectual and ideological needs of its natural constitu- ents, observant Jews. The continued expansion of the Jewish day school and high school movement and particularly the large number of graduates who dedicate at least one year to intensive post–high school Torah study have produced an unprecedented generation of knowledgeable Modern Orthodox Jews.36 For such individuals, a college diploma is a given, and a high percentage have professional and other advanced degrees. In order to cater to this burgeoning population, efforts have been directed toward producing scholar-rabbis, who can challenge the minds of their congregants no less than spiritually inspire them and comfort them in times of sorrow. In the following sections two Modern Orthodox rabbinical seminaries are presented. The first, RIETS, is the largest institution for the training of Orthodox rabbis in America. The second, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, is an institution founded in 1999 by a prominent RIETS alumnus who felt that it no longer espoused a coherent Modern Orthodox philosophy. A comparison of the two institutions highlights the ideological conflicts that have emerged within Modern Orthodoxy. This, in turn, will provide the underlying basis for the subsequent analysis as to why Modern Orthodox institutions have focused rabbinical education on “inreach,” rather than continuing to cultivate its role as a bridge to the broader Jewish community. Simultaneously, the point that is emphasized is that ideological tension aside, the education at both institutions is directed toward creating Orthodox rabbis whose primary—if not exclusive—constituency is Orthodox Jews. 250 Adam S. Ferziger

Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, Yeshiva University, New York

Over the last century over 2,400 rabbis have received Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary ordination.37 Today, there are over 318 students enrolled in the RIETS four-year program, although many will only complete one or two years before going to professional schools or joining the workforce. On average, sixty new rabbis are ordained each year, of which approximately ten enter the pulpit rabbinate.38 The institution offers the following statement of its educational philosophy: “Firmly set in the emphasis on Talmud, Codes and Halakhah, RIETS has developed programs to meet the communal and personal needs of our time and place—business ethics, bioethics and technology.”39 While the main disciplines of study are Talmud and halakhic codes, the subjects that are highlighted in the statement above offer insight into the current focus of the institution. Business ethics, bioethics, and technology are topics that may have importance for every modern Jew. Yet their prominent listing here reflects the particular needs of a contemporary Orthodox constituency. That is, when dealing with congregants who are already halakhically observant and Jewishly knowledgeable, expertise in these subjects offers the rabbi the opportunity to present a more sophisticated, culturally contoured side of Judaism. This enables him to better communicate with the many academically educated and highly accomplished Modern Orthodox members of his congregation. This same emphasis on cultivating skills that are directed toward highly educated, committed Jews living in the modern world is reflected in the RIETS rabbinical program course of study. During his four years at RIETS, a rabbinical candidate spends the majority of his day—generally from nine in the morning until three in the afternoon—studying Talmud. In preparation for the actual ordination exams, in the last two years more emphasis is placed on the codes of the Shulhan Arukh that deal with the dietary laws, mourning, family purity, Sabbath, and additional topics in practical and contemporary Halakhah. RIETS also has a series of academic co-requisites. Students must spend their afternoon hours in one of three study environments. They may return to the study hall for an additional four hours per day of Talmudic learning; they may work toward a master’s degree in Judaic studies, education, or social work; or they may attend classes in traditional Jewish thought. A notable reflection of the flexibility of the RIETS program is the option offered to a student to fulfill the bare minimum of supplementary rabbinic requirements and spend most of Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 251 his time focused purely on studying Talmud and codes. The very fact that this option has been offered for over a decade expresses the changes in the directions of Modern Orthodoxy over the last twenty years. For one, this acquiescence to a “Torah-only” approach seems to have come in response to the general “move to the Right” of a large sector of American Orthodoxy.40 One of the results of this rightward trend is that students who were once natural candidates for RIETS ordination are now more likely to consider studying at more traditional yeshivas like Ner Israel of Baltimore.41 Fearful of challenges to its predominant role in training Orthodox rabbis, RIETS has sought to accommodate those who might otherwise look elsewhere. Another implication of the “Torah-only” option is that the leaders of RIETS feel the need to produce a stronger and larger cadre of Talmud scholars. This new emphasis is directed at catering to the needs of the growing number of communities whose core populations are capable and desirous of hearing high-level Talmud and Halakhah lectures from their rabbi on a regular basis. Once again, it should be noted that as more products of right-wing yeshivas enter the Ortho- dox pulpit rabbinate, the opportunities for a community to find a rabbi who qualifies as a Torah scholar increase. As such, in order to remain the primary source for Modern/Centrist Orthodox pulpit rabbis, RIETS is focusing greater efforts on training “scholar-rabbis.”42 This intensive effort on the part of RIETS to nurture Talmud scholars who can service the highly educated Orthodox public is illustrated through a description of the evolution of its Kollel Elyon (advanced Torah-study institute). From its founding in 1982, a select group of newly ordained RIETS graduates was offered the equivalent of a generous postdoctoral fellowship in order to continue to dedicate themselves fully to high-level Talmud study. This advanced institute was meant to serve as the breeding ground for the next generation of roshei yeshiva (professors of Talmud) who would take up positions within RIETS. Indeed, the current RIETS faculty has a number of Kollel Elyon alumni among its staff.43 Additionally, it would appear that its purpose was, from the outset, to insure that the credentials of RIETS as an institution geared to churning out highly qualified rabbinical graduates would compare favorably with its more right-wing counterparts. As the former head of the program, Rabbi Aharon Kahn, declared, “The Kollel Elyon is the crown jewel of the institution. It gave the yeshiva [RIETS] the opportunity to train talmidei chachamim [Talmud scholars] that can hold their own in comparison to the superior element in any yeshiva.”44 In 1998, however, the study program and the goals of the Kollel Elyon were revamped. A change in benefactors who endowed the institute brought along with it the appointment of two new roshei kollel 252 Adam S. Ferziger

(institute heads), as well as new qualifications for receipt of a fellowship. The reconstituted Kollel Elyon, now divided into two divisions, currently supports eight rabbinical candidates and eight postgradu- ates. Its aim is to “combine intensive Torah learning and traditional rabbinic education with practical courses in disciplines such as written and oral communications, business ethics, leadership development, dispute resolution, and counseling.”45 In other words, though it continues to nurture advanced Torah scholars, the new Kollel Elyon participants are no longer being trained primarily to serve as roshei yeshiva. Instead, they are an elite group of talented men who are being directed to careers as scholar-rabbis. In announcing this new initiative, Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, the former president of Yeshiva University and Rosh Yeshiva of RIETS, articulated this exact goal. It was hoped, he proclaimed, that this program would respond to the needs of the community by “educating a corps of rabbis who will be recognized as authorities in Torah and Jewish law and who—as congregation leaders, teachers and decisors of Jewish law—will be able to communicate effectively.”46 In addition to its primary function as an institute of higher Torah learning, through its Division of Communal Services, RIETS sponsors a wide range of activities dedicated toward offering Jewish enrichment to the greater Jewish population. The main figures in running these events are RIETS students. They are encouraged by the seminary to participate not only for the immediate good that it may do but also because “such programs as youth seminars, Shabbatonim, and retreats [are] part of the process of molding an abiding sense of responsibility to the whole of the Jewish people.”47 Are these programs manifestations of a focus by RIETS, as within some of the right-wing examples above, on nurturing graduates who will be dedicated toward strengthening the Jewish identity of loosely affiliated American Jews? As many of these programs were begun over twenty years ago, one can argue that these are simply vestiges of a vanishing era in Modern Orthodoxy. Moreover, the emphasis by RIETS on its Orthodox constituency does not mean that it is opposed to addressing the needs of other sectors. By comparing its program to those of the Right-Wing Orthodoxy, however, it has become clear that over the last few decades servicing the broader Jewish community has been relegated to a low position within its list of priorities. The issue at hand is not whether RIETS would like to address the needs of a wider range of Jews but, rather, whether its program is truly oriented toward this direction. This can only be reflected in the actual training received by its students. In a symposium on the future of the rabbinate that was published in 1997, Rabbi Zevulun Charlop, the dean of RIETS, declared that his institution seeks to produce rabbis Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 253 who can serve the Orthodox community and feel obligated to all Jews. Yet he simultaneously opined that “we do not envisage rabbinic education at our yeshiva in the years ahead to be much different at its core from what it is now or has been.”48 Such a statement suggests that Modern Orthodoxy remains ideally committed to maintaining a con- nection to all Jews. As opposed to the case with Right-Wing Ortho- doxy, however, this has not been translated into practical rabbinical training. Assuming that Modern Orthodoxy continues to produce large numbers of individuals who are highly conversant in Talmudic learning, it is likely that the model of the “scholar-rabbi” who can dazzle the minds of the educated Orthodox will continue to be cultivated for years to come. That being said, this is not the only model that is being put forward. A new Orthodox rabbinical training program has emerged as an alternative to RIETS. While also responding to trends in Orthodoxy, the model that it seeks to develop is not necessarily an outstanding Talmudist but, rather, an individual whose skills are intended to address the more liberal elements within American Orthodoxy as well as other constituencies.

Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, New York

New York–based Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) was founded in 1999 and is led by the prominent rabbi and activist Avi Weiss.49 It is a liberal Orthodox response to the cultural insularity and the move to the Right that its leaders believe has characterized American Modern Orthodoxy in the last decades. Specifically, it reflects a sense among Rabbi Weiss and like-minded Orthodox Jews that RIETS has suc- cumbed to these forces and no longer represents a forthright philosophy of Modern Orthodoxy.50 YCT’s outlook is expressed in its official mission statement, which includes, among other points, “encouraging intellectual openness, questioning, and critical thinking as essential components of one’s full service to God. . . . [a]ffirming the shared covenantal bond between all Jews . . . actively pursuing the positive and respectful interaction of all Jewish movements. . . . [and r]ecogniz- ing the need to enhance and expand the role of women.”51 Like at RIETS, intensive study of Talmud and Halakhah are the predominant activities at YCT. Similarly, significant time is set aside to pursue a graduate academic degree. Study of the Bible, Jewish thought, Kabbalah, and history of Halakhah is also considered an integral part of the YCT curriculum. Moreover, particular emphasis is placed not only on traditional Talmudic learning but on the methodology of halakhic adjudication (psak), academic Talmud, and tools of 254 Adam S. Ferziger research and analysis. While it is hard to consider these curricular additions to be revolutionary, they imply an effort to broaden the scope of the rabbi’s expertise. Thus a more diversified graduate is produced who can present a wide range of types of Jewish knowledge, including the increasingly popular Jewish mysticism, to his audience. The highlighting of methodology and tools of research, as well as the inclusion of the history of Halakhah and academic Talmud, also suggests that there is greater willingness to integrate critical, scientific approaches to the study of Jewish texts than is acceptable within the confines of the RIETS division of Yeshiva University.52 Consistent with its more assertively modern tenor, YCT promotes its identification as a Religious Zionist institution in a more unequivocal manner than RIETS. It affirms “the religious and historical significance of the State of Israel for all Jews in Israel and the Diaspora.”53 In practice, while RIETS students are given the option to spend a year of study at Yeshiva University’s Gruss Institute in Jerusalem, YCT candidates are required to spend at least three months of study in Israel during both their second and third years in the program. YCT’s goal of creating a well-rounded Modern Orthodox rabbi is not limited to the intellectual sphere. A professional development program has been established that features, among others, a four-year pastoral counseling curriculum and leadership training workshops. The latter are led by staff members of the Harvard Leadership Insti- tute and focus on “applying the lessons of business leadership to the specific challenges of rabbinic leadership.”54 The pastoral counseling curriculum highlights topics that have come to the fore of Orthodox public awareness in the past decade: “substance abuse; marital and family problems; sexual function and dysfunction; homosexuality; domestic violence; loss, tragedy and bereavement; and response to catastrophe.”55 Beyond ideological declarations and some innovative course requirements, is the rabbinical product that YCT nurtures dramatically different from that of RIETS? More specifically in the context of the current discussion, does the education that it provides offer an Orthodox rabbinical model that is particularly geared toward addressing weakly affiliated Jews? Unquestionably, studying with and having regular contact with Rabbi Weiss is a special opportunity for those looking to develop an appreciation and love for all Jews. His outspoken and consistent commitment to serving the entire Jewish people is unique within the Orthodox landscape. Moreover, the general emphasis on the role that an “open Orthodox” rabbi can play within the entire Jewish collective orients students toward such a direction. Indeed, according to Rabbi Dov Linzer, rosh ha-yeshiva and head of academics at YCT, between Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 255

30 and 40 percent of the student body hope to serve in rabbinical positions that regularly address multiple constituencies. By comparison with the “outreach specialist” training of the new Right-Wing Orthodoxy initiatives discussed above, however, the subject matter and emphasis of YCT still appear aimed at grooming candidates for a core Modern Orthodox constituency.56 They may be more fluent in a variety of contemporary intellectual and cultural trends than the RIETS graduates. They may also gravitate more natu- rally than their RIETS counterparts toward positions that demand the ability to address diverse populations. Yet it is less likely that they will become Modern Orthodox versions of the “outreach specialist” that the right-wing programs seek to produce. This does not imply that YCT is less committed toward working with weakly affiliated Jews. But the less prominent place that training for this role occupies within the overall YCT curriculum indicates that this is not the institution’s main focus. Placing the emergence of YCT within overall trends of contemporary Orthodoxy, then, the example suggests that the pendulum within Modern Orthodoxy may have begun to move back toward a more broad-based constituency approach. Yet the distinctions made between the educational orientations of YCT and those of the right- wing institutions are ultimately of greater significance for appreciating the current direction of American Orthodoxy. The “outreach specialist” programs have emerged as an expression of strength. The vastly improved self-image of a triumphant Right-Wing Orthodoxy has engendered the creation of a new type of rabbi, one who feels that he can afford to concentrate on dealing with problems that stand outside the immediate concerns of his natural constituency. YCT, in contrast, came about because prominent Modern Orthodox leaders sensed a weakening in the ideological and spiritual fiber of their core constituency. Its main justification for existence is to serve as a corrective to what is seen as a Modern Orthodoxy gone astray. In this context, part of the attempt to reformulate its priorities is the need for greater involvement with the weakly affiliated Jewish population. But unlike the case in the right-wing model, this is not an expression of strength. It stems from a conviction, rather, that without this element American Modern Orthodoxy is lacking a crucial ideological mandate that was for many years at the root of its own self-identity. As such, Modern Orthodox rabbinical training is surely witnessing a period of transition and dynamism. But these developments are still primarily focused inward—how to continue to serve the needs of this educated “community of the faithful” and how to define the ideological boundaries of Orthodoxy itself. This stands in opposition to the orientation of Right-Wing Orthodoxy. There, as demonstrated above, 256 Adam S. Ferziger rabbinical training has been recast to produce individuals whose audience is not their natural constituency. They are being prepared, rather, to dedicate themselves almost exclusively to buttressing the Jewish identity of a broader cross section of Jewish life.

REDRAWING THE LINES WITHOUT ERASING THEM

Sociologist Chaim Waxman has recently suggested that distinctions between different camps within American Orthodoxy are, to an increasing degree, artificial. On the one hand, other than individual spokespeople and a limited intellectual elite, few Modern Orthodox Jews possess a deep-seated commitment to a positive ideology. For most, their communal identification and lifestyle reflect an uncon- scious effort to find a comfortable balance between religious observance and enjoying America’s material benefits. On the other hand, the yeshiva world has become more acculturated, economically secure, and accepting of societal norms, without “officially” compromising its negative perception of the American way. Even regarding Zionism, one could submit that it is only the small minority that choose to immigrate to Israel who—when deciding whether to send their children to the army—are forced to take a strong ideological stand.57 The above description of the transformation that has taken place in constituency definition within the different training institutions of the American Orthodox rabbinate certainly illustrates the adoption by each sector of approaches that were previously associated with the other. For Right-Wing Orthodoxy, the willingness to move beyond its natural constituency can be seen as an expression of strength and self- confidence. Ultimately, this exposure can also lead to a more intimate and intensive interaction with American culture itself. The compro- mises that ensue, once again, suggest greater common ground with the Modern Orthodox than was previously the case. Conversely, the inward orientation of the Modern Orthodox, with its focus on addressing the needs of a learned and increasingly committed “community of the faithful,” illustrates a prioritization that is similar to the orientation of the mid-twentieth-century right-wing community. These directions, indeed, imply a blurring of the lines between the two camps. While clearly the lines are being redrawn, however, there is certainly basis for claiming that the boundaries have yet to be erased. For one, even if the right-wing world has expanded its reach and language of discourse, it still remains centered around strongholds of traditional yeshivish and Hasidic life such as the Boro Park section of Brooklyn and the Lakewood, New Jersey, community. By extension, it has created similar types of enclaves in Toronto and Los Angeles.58 Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 257

Moreover, while black hats may be appearing at an increasing rate in well-known Modern Orthodox strongholds like Lawrence, Long Island, and the Pico-Robertson section of Los Angeles, an active and significant group of Orthodox Jews still exists that sees cross-cultural interaction and secular education as part of an ideal. These families may likely send their children to learn in a post–high school yeshiva in Israel. They will invest equal energy, however, into gaining acceptance for their children into the University of Pennsylvania, for example. There they will be exposed to a top academic education while attending any of the numerous Orthodox minyanim (prayer services) hosted by the Orthodox Community at Penn.59 In addition, not only Right-Wing Orthodox communities and educational institutions are expanding. The forthrightly Modern Orthodox Kehilath Jeshurun community of the Upper East Side of Manhattan and its coeducational Ramaz School are both bursting at the seams.60 So too is the newest rival for the cream of the crop of Modern Orthodox youth, SAR Academy High School in Riverdale.61 There, a postcollegiate beit midrash/kollel has been set up in which men and women are given generous stipends to study Talmud and Halakhah side by side five days per week.62 At this juncture, then, it seems premature to declare that Modern Orthodoxy is fading away as a distinctive educational ideal and lifestyle. Notwithstanding, the success of Right-Wing Orthodoxy has caused it to feel less confident in its message. Based on the data presented above, it is suggested that among the changes in Orthodoxy that are most telling are those regarding the relationship between its various segments and weakly affiliated Jews. The same thriving Mod- ern Orthodox schools that once were populated by a religiously diverse range of students are increasingly servicing an exclusively observant clientele. Undoubtedly, more graduates of these institutions will enter the rabbinate than was previously the case. Yet, as opposed to the Modern Orthodox rabbis of the past who felt the calling to strengthen the Jewish life of an outlying community, these young ide- alists will most likely be encouraged to engage Orthodox Jews who share a similar background to themselves. By contrast, their Right- Wing Orthodox counterparts will be inspired by their mentors and training to move beyond their natural constituency. The “outreach” approach becoming prevalent within the right- wing rabbinate demonstrates its growing sense of confidence or even triumphalism.63 The “inreach” orientation of the Modern Orthodox rabbinate, on the other hand, is an expression of weakness. On one level, the latter is set on showing its own congregants that it can produce scholars who can match those of the traditional yeshivas. In parallel, it feels a need to regroup and strengthen its own ideological and institutional identity. Therefore, it cannot afford to direct its 258 Adam S. Ferziger energies toward nurturing young rabbis who can address a broader constituency. In this light, the emergence of YCT is significant. Its leaders certainly consider service to the entire Jewish people to be an important endeavor. Yet the comparison above to the new initiatives in right- wing rabbinical training demonstrates that this is not the main thrust of its educational program. Its central mandate is “inreach”—to struggle for the soul of Modern Orthodoxy by articulating a clear and unequivocal liberal approach. In part due to the push from YCT, recent changes in Yeshiva Univer- sity suggest that elements within its leadership as well are seeking to reas- sert its Modern Orthodox credentials. The most significant example of this is the appointment in 2003 of Richard Joel as university president. Joel, who helped found a forthrightly Modern Orthodox synagogue in Silver Spring, Maryland, is the first nonrabbi to lead the institution. In fact, he rose to prominence within the Jewish world during his tenure as president of the nonsectarian national Hillel campus organization. Since his election, he has emphasized “Yeshiva University’s role as a ‘fountain- head’ of Modern Orthodoxy” through “engagement—in education and community—in both the Jewish and secular worlds” as well as belief in the “centrality of [the State of] Israel.”64 Joel has also appointed new members to Yeshiva University and RIETS faculties whose focus is on strengthening the practical pastoral and leadership skills of its graduates.65 It remains to be seen, however, whether his own credentials as a Modern Orthodox individual who has dedicated his career to strengthening the Jewish identity of all American Jews will be reflected in RIETS. Will adjustments in its educational outlook and curriculum be implemented that will redirect future graduates toward Modern Orthodoxy’s “traditionally” broad definition of its constituency? Paradoxically, under contemporary realities, such changes would actually draw Modern Orthodoxy and Right-Wing Orthodoxy closer to each other than they are at present. BAR-ILAN UNIVERSITY

NOTES

Research for this article was partially funded by the Rappaport Center for Assimilation Research, Bar-Ilan University. I would like to thank Prof. Chaim I. Waxman for commenting on an earlier draft of this paper. 1. Throughout this study the group that is the focus of the leader’s actions is referred to as a “constituency.” This term is not being utilized here to imply Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 259 the strict sense of people who have democratically elected a political leader. It refers, rather, to a wider formulation along the lines of a collective for whom a certain figure seeks to provide guidance or representation. See the variety of definitions in The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 3 (Oxford, 1998), p. 788; and International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 13 (New York, 1975), p. 475. 2. Adam S. Ferziger, “Constituency Definition: The Orthodox Dilemma,” in Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality II, ed. Jack Wertheimer (New York, 2005), pp. 535–567. 3. See, for example, Jeffrey S. Gurock, “Resisters and Accomodators: Varieties of Orthodox Rabbis in America, 1886–1983,” American Jewish Archives (November 1983), pp. 139–141. 4. Gurock (“Resisters and Accomodators,” pp. 116–146) has described the earlier roots of this stream. 5. One clear exception, of course, is Chabad Hasidism, which has dedicated itself to strengthening Jewish identity. Despite sharing common atti- tudes on certain issues with the right-wing world, its high-profile programming and messianic activism have caused many to shun the movement. See, for example, David Berger, The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference (London, 2001); and Sue Fishkoff, The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch (New York, 2003). 6. See, for example, Yoel Finkelman, “Haredi Isolation in Changing Environments: A Case Study in Yeshiva Immigration,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 22, No. 1 (February 2002), pp. 61–82; Gurock, “Resisters and Accomoda- tors,” pp. 150–156; and Charles S. Liebman, “Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life,” American Jewish Yearbook, Vol. 66 (1965), pp. 67–69. 7. Paul Ritterband, “Modern Times and Jewish Assimilation,” in The Americanization of the Jews, ed. Robert M. Seltzer and Norman J. Cohen (New York, 1995), p. 378; Shalom Z. Berger, “The Impact of One-Year Israel Study on American Day School Graduates,” Ten Da’at, Vol. 12 (1999), pp. 3–14. 8. See Jonathan D. Sarna, American Judaism (New Haven, 2004), p. 327. For a provocative portrayal of the renaissance of American Orthodoxy and its influence on current debates over the nature of American Jewish identity, see Samuel G. Freedman, Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry (New York, 2001). 9. Jane Musgrave, “Boca Raton’s Orthodox Revolution,” Boca Magazine (July 1, 2001), available at www.bocamag.com/index.php?src=news&prid=8& category=articles. 10. See Chaim I. Waxman, “American Orthodoxy: Confronting Cultural Challenges,” Edah Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2004), available at www.edah.org/ backend/JournalArticle/4_1_waxman.pdf, p. 3. 11. Ismar Schorsch, “Emancipation and the Crisis of Religious Authority,” in Revolution and Evolution—1848 in German–Jewish History, ed. W. E. Mosse (Tübingen, 1981), pp. 207–214. 12. For a general discussion of the emergence of the seminaries, see Simon Schwartzfuchs, A Concise History of the Rabbinate (Oxford, 1993), pp. 86–122. 13. For a vast collection of essays on the yeshiva in modern Europe, as well as Orthodox rabbinical seminaries, see Samuel K. Mirsky, ed., Mosdot Torah be-Eiropah be-Vinyanam u-ve-Hurbanam (New York, 1956). 260 Adam S. Ferziger

14. See, for example, Moshe Carmilly Weinberger, ed., The Rabbinical Seminary of Budapest (New York, 1986). 15. On the history of Yeshiva University and its Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) affiliate, see Jeffrey S. Gurock, The Men and Women of Yeshiva (New York, 1988); Gilbert Klapperman, The Story of Yeshiva University (London, 1969); and Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, Bernard Revel: Builder of American Orthodoxy (Philadelphia, 1972). 16. See Adam S. Ferziger, “The Lookstein Legacy: An American Orthodox Rabbinical Dynasty,” Jewish History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (spring 1999), pp. 127–149. 17. Daniel Elazar and Rena Geffen Monson, “The Evolving Roles of American Congregational Rabbis,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1982), pp. 73–89; and Menachem Friedman, “The Changing Role of the Community Rabbinate,” Jerusalem Quarterly, Vol. 25 (fall 1982), pp. 90–94. 18. Jeffrey S. Gurock, “The Winnowing of American Orthodoxy,” in Approaches to Modern Judaism II, ed. Marc Lee Raphael (Chico, CA, 1983), pp. 1–16; Jeffrey S. Gurock, “Twentieth Century American Orthodoxy’s Era of Non-observance (1900–1960),” Torah Umadda Journal, Vol. 9 (2000), pp. 87–107. 19. Charles S. Liebman, “The Training of American Rabbis,” American Jew- ish Year Book, Vol. 70 (New York, 1969), pp. 3–112. 20. On this approach, see Emanuel Etkes, “The Relationship between Talmudic Scholarship and the Institution of the Rabbinate in Nineteenth- Century Lithuanian Jewry,” in Scholars and Scholarship: The Interaction between Judaism and Other Cultures, ed. Leo Landman (New York, 1990), pp. 107–132; and Norman Lamm, Torah Lishmah (New York, 1989). 21. Emanuel Feldman, “Trends in the American Yeshivot,” Tradition (spring 1968), p. 59, cited in William Helmreich, The World of the Yeshiva (New York, 1982), p. 244. 22. This tension can be illustrated through the “Symposium on the Prior- ities for the Years Ahead” published in the Jewish Observer (Tammuz-Av, 5757/summer 1997). While twelve of the seventeen participants raised outreach as a major priority, others encouraged strengthening and serving the core constituency. 23. Even the way in which Chabad rabbis are trained differs dramatically from that of any other group. See Fishkoff, The Rebbe’s Army, pp. 60–64. 24. Moshe Sherer, interview by William Helmreich, December 14, 1978, in The World of the Yeshiva, p. 243. 25. The information gathered here is based on personal communications with people connected with the MAOR program, as well as with a student at the Ner Israel Rabbinical College in Baltimore. 26. Numerous discussions with pulpit rabbis of Modern Orthodox synagogues who would like to forge stronger connections with the broader community have confirmed their frustration at this predicament. 27. In an interview held with Rabbi Yaakov Shulman of the Beth Medrash Gadol in Lakewood, on September 11, 2003, he described a similar program that is instituted by staff of the Lakewood yeshiva itself. 28. Much of the information regarding the Rabbinical Ordination/Lead- ership Program (ROLP) presented here is based on an interview conducted with Rabbi Yaakov Blackman, former director of ROLP, that took place in Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 261

Jerusalem in the early afternoon (Israel time) of September 11, 2001. On Aish Hatorah and the approach of its founder, Rabbi Noah Weinberg, see Janet Aviad, Return to Judaism (Chicago, 1983), pp. 28–29, 38–41; and Aaron Joshua Tapper, “The ‘Cult’ of Aish Hatorah: Ba’alei Teshuva and the Newly Religious Movement Phenomenon,” Jewish Journal of Sociology, Vol. 44, Nos. 1–2 (2002), pp. 5–29. 29. On Ohr Somayach, see Aviad, Return to Judaism, pp. 23–28; for an “in- house” description of its history and activities, see The Ohr Somayach Story (Jerusalem, 1982). 30. Tapper (“The ‘Cult’ of Aish Hatorah,” pp. 10–11) notes this distinctive aspect of the Aish Hatorah ordination program. 31. See, for example, its Web site www.aish.com/wallcam, which enables the viewer to see the Western Wall twenty-four hours a day. 32. On the yeshiva in Slobodka, see, for example, Shaul Stampfer, Ha-Yeshivah ha-Lita’it be-Hithavutah (Jerusalem, 1995), pp. 221–251. On the “Chofetz Chaim” and his yeshiva in Radin, see, for example, Lester Eckman, Revered by All (New York, 1974). 33. On the history of the Chofetz Chaim Yeshiva in America, see Helmre- ich, The World of the Yeshiva, pp. 28–29. 34. On the mussar movement, see, for example, Emanuel Etkes, Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Mussar Movement (Philadelphia, 1993). On the mussar yeshivas, see Stampfer, Ha-Yashevah ha-Lita’it be-Hithavutah, pp. 221–313. 35. Ner Israel Rabbinical College of Baltimore also runs cooperative academic programs and allows its students to attain degrees at neighboring universities. 36. See Berger, “The Impact of One-Year Israel Study on American Day School Graduates.” 37. The information gathered here is based on official RIETS publications, details provided by the rabbinical placement office, and my personal experi- ence and familiarity with the institution; also see Avi Robinson, “Students Choose between RIETS and Chovevei Torah,” The Commentator, Vol. 67, No. 7 (December 31, 2002), available at www.yucommentator.com/media/paper652/ news/2002/12/31/Features/Students.Choose.Between.Riets.And.Chovevei.Torah- 655123.shtml. 38. These figures were communicated by RIETS officials. 39. RIETS, A Legacy of Learning as Preparation for a Promising Future (New York, n.d.), p. 1. 40. W. Helmreich (The World of the Yeshiva, pp. 233–234) discusses the pres- sure on RIETS to follow the Right-leaning trend of the yeshiva world. Indeed, Charles Liebman already documented this burgeoning trend in 1965 in his “Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life” (pp. 89–92). In addition, see, for example, Samuel C. Heilman, “Frum and Frummer,” Jerusalem Post Internet Edition (May 24, 2004), available at http:/ /pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/ index.html?ts = 1121797165; Haym Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruc- tion: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Tradition, Vol. 28, No. 4 (summer 1994), pp. 64–130; and Chaim I. Waxman, “The Haredization of American Orthodox Jewry,” Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (February 15, 1998). 262 Adam S. Ferziger

41. A more direct challenge is the decision by two prominent roshei yeshiva at RIETS, Rabbi Yehuda Parnes and Rabbi Abba Bronspigel, to leave the institution after over thirty years of association and help found Lander Col- lege for Men in Queens, N.Y. This Touro College affiliate promotes its ability to offer advanced Talmudic studies in a less heterogeneous environment than Yeshiva University. See www.touro.edu/landercollege. 42. On the term Centrist Orthodoxy, see, for example, Walter S. Wurtzburger, “Centrist Orthodoxy: Ideology or Atmosphere?” in Rabbinical Council of America— Jubilee Issue (Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 67–75. 43. Noah Streit, “Kollel Elyon Disbanded,” The Commentator, Vol. 62, No. 10 (March 26, 2001), available at www.yuweb.addr.com/archives/v62iA/news/ kollelelyon.html. 44. Streit, “Kollel Elyon Disbanded.” See note 43. 45. “Rabbi Mordechai Willig Appointed Rosh Kollel of Newly Established Bella and Harry Wexner Kollel Elyon,” Yeshiva University press release, September 2, 1998. 46. “Rabbi Mordechai Willig Appointed Rosh Kollel of Newly Established Bella and Harry Wexner Kollel Elyon.” 47. RIETS, A Legacy of Learning as Preparation for a Promising Future, p. 8. 48. Zevulun Charlop, “Rabbinic Education: Then, Now and Tomorrow,” Shma.Com (January 2003), available at www.shma.com/jan03/Charlop.htm. 49. The information gathered here is based on official Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) publications, as well as personal communications with leading teachers in the institution. See also Johanna Ginzberg, “‘Open’ Orthodox Yeshiva to Ordain First Class of Rabbis,” New Jersey Jewish News (June 2004), available at www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/cjmain.html; Lisa Sopher, “A Few Good Men: YCT and the New Rabbis of 2004,” The Blueprint (June 2004), available at www.nyblueprint.com/article.asp?aid=85; Daniel J. Waikin, “A Challenge to an Orthodox Bastion: New Rabbinical School Sees Itself as More Liberal,” New York Times (April 19, 2004), available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract. html?res = F40715FB3A5F0C7A8DDDAD0894DC404482&incamp = archive: search; and Nacha Cattan, “Upstart Rabbinical School Set to Fight for Pulpit Jobs,” Forward (June 13, 2003), available at http://www.yctorah.org/downloads/ press/Forward-UpstartRabbinicalSchool.pdf. For an official biography of Rabbi Weiss, see http:/ /amchacjc.org/people.cfm. 50. Rabbi Weiss himself is a RIETS graduate and served for many years as a lecturer in Jewish studies at Yeshiva University’s Stern College for Women. 51. YCT Rabbinical School, www.yctorah.org/who_we_are. 52. See YCT Rabbinical School, www.yctorah.org/academics_culture/ academics.php. 53. YCT Rabbinical School, www.yctorah.org/who_we_are. 54. YCT Rabbinical School, www.yctorah.org/professional_development/ classes_workshops.php. 55. YCT Rabbinical School, www.yctorah.org/professional_development/ mentored_internships.php. 56. In Dov Linzer and Avi Weiss’s “Creating an Open Orthodox Rabbinate,” the dean of YCT and the founder declare that their “curriculum is designed to produce rabbis . . . who can educate and spiritually nurture all Redrawing the Lines of the American Orthodox Rabbinate 263

Jews” (Shma.Com [January 2003], www.shma.com/jan03/Weiss.htm). This may, indeed, be the intention. At present, however, the subject matter and emphasis seem to be primarily geared toward a core Modern Orthodox constituency. 57. Waxman, “American Orthodoxy,” pp. 2–3. 58. See Etan Diamond, And I Will Dwell in Their Midst: Orthodox Jews in Sub- urbia (Chapel Hill, 2000). 59. See http:/ /dolphin.upenn.edu/~ocp/minyan.html. 60. There are presently over 900 family members in Kehilath Jeshurun and over 1,100 full-time students in Ramaz; see www.ckj.org/docs/mission- statement.pdf. 61. See Hilly Larson, “Flourishing in the Bronx,” The Jewish Week (August 1, 2003), available at www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid= 8274 62. Rabbi Naftali Hartcztak, principal of SAR Academy High School, interview by the author, September 17, 2003. 63. Jonathan Sarna (“The Future of American Orthodoxy,” Shma.Com [February 2001], www.shma.com/feb01/sarna.htm) points out that, when seen from a historical perspective, such a triumph should not be taken for granted. American Reform Judaism too once expressed a similarly triumphalist attitude. 64. See the report on a lecture delivered by Richard Joel in Teaneck, N.J., on June 9, 2004, at www.yu.edu/president/article.asp?id=100687. 65. See, for example, Ari Fridman, “Rabbi Kenny Brander to Join Yeshiva Leadership: Administration Announces Center for the Jewish Future,” The Commentator (March 29, 2005), available at http://www.yucommentator.com/media/ paper652/news/2004/10/26/News/Rabbi.Kenny.Brander.To.Join.Yeshiva.Leader ship-772211.shtml.