One Objective First

There is an old story about Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev who was challenged to show God's power in this world.  To do so he asked his servant to bring something the local ruler had declared as contraband.  After insisting on it the servant went out and eventually returned with the item.  After that he asked the servant to bring him some bread from a Jewish home, the caveat being that this occurred during Pesach.  Again the servant needed some pushing but eventually went out.  This time he came back empty handed.  Reb Levi Yitzchak triumphantly pointed out that a human rule with police and courts couldn't get people to follow his laws but God in Heaven could count on his nation to be obedient without anything to enforce His law.
Nowadays, of course, the story wouldn't have ended the same.  The servant would easily have found bread, nebich, and returned with it to his master.  We therefore have to look at this story and draw a different conclusion.
Before we can demand obedience to the Creator, we have to restore His position as our ruler.  Despite how obvious that seems, it's not a simple task at all.  Both within the frum community and without, God takes a back seat when it comes to our priorities.  We mumble about Him in our prayers, say Baruch HaShem instinctively and all that but when was the last time most of us were moved to talk privately with Him, or to mention Him without it being in some official context.  We struggle with "Gadol worship" and chassidish venerations of their Rebbe as a conduit between them and the Creator.  The extra level dulls our connection.
Outside the Torah observant world the situation is no better.  There God is an impotent, all-approving figure whose job is to reward us for our good deeds (and we'll subjectively decide on what those are) and refrain from judging us when we fail to meet His standard. 
Is this any surprise though?  In a famous story in the Midrash similar to the one above, one of our Chachamim tries the same thing with a Roman emperor, this time the challenge being for the emperor to ban all fires in the city.  At the end of the day the two stand on the roof of the palace, survey the city and see a single pillar of smoke in the distance.  Nowadays there would be dozens of such pillars and everyone would have an excuse as to why the law doesn't apply to them.  We live in a society when the cardinal rule for lawfulness is "It's only illegal if you don't get caught".  We are not so isolated as to be immune from this attitude.  Outside the frum world you can find lots of bread on Pesach.  Inside the ranks of the pious you can find crimes just as bad, just as easily.
If there is therefore to be a change within the Jewish nation, especially within Israel itself, we must ask ourselves what one simple change we can make to turn ourselves towards God and His expectations for us.  Bullying people into keeping Shabbos whether they want to or not, telling them how to use the mikveh or not, isn't doing it.  What would?
Perhaps all parts of the Jewish community need to be reminded that God is our King.  Stop, period, nothing more.  Until now we have failed to do that because of the implications that come with it.  If God is King, then how dare any of us tolerate disobedience, either within ourselves or from our brethren? 
I would suggest that the same way we see infractions of law from our fellow citizens wherever we live, citizens who nevertheless recognize the legitimacy of the government they live under and who, if forced, will therefore obey its laws, we approach ourselves in the same manner.
You can't force a person to keep kosher without his accepting that there is an Authority who demands it of him yet that is precisely what so often happens.  You can't expect a person to abandon secret sins if he is convinces that the all-seeing Eye in the Sky isn't watching him at certain times.
Before we worry about the little things, or frankly even the big ones, we have to work on re-establishing His authority.  Once all Jews recognize that, despite their level of observance or non-observance, there is a God in Heaven that we are all governed by then we can talk about bringing people around to a more proper form of behaviour.  Accept the government, then push the laws.

Reaching Up Or Bringing Down

In the ongoing debate over how orthodox Open Orthodoxy is there has been a lot of confusion when it comes to the definition of Orthodoxy itself.  Orthopraxy is easy; you just act frum without it affecting your thoughts, beliefs and moral positions.  Orthodoxy is trickier.  Why exactly do the Ultraorthodox and mainstream Modern Orthodox reject Open Orthodoxy's claim to membership in the group?
If it's a matter of core beliefs then one comes up short.  The official position of Open Orthodoxy, even if it's disputed by the contents of their writings, is that there is one God in Heaven, that He gave us the Torah and that we are bound by its rules, both the Written and Oral ones.  In all the accusations made against YCT no one has ever suggested that they permit chilul Shabbos, an abandonment of kashrus or permissibility in taharas misphachah.  They hold that Torah learning is a key Jewish value.  Yes, they have very secular liberal ideas about certain elements of the prayer service, such as removing certain berachos a modern woman might find offensive or stretching the bounds of egalitarianism past what is acceptable but even then they try to do so by claiming they are following their understanding of the mesorah.
Indeed, attending one of their services about the only thing out of place would be the women getting aliyos or leading psukei d'zimrah.  If you showed up during Mussaf you'd be hard pressed to know you weren't in another Modern Orthodox shul.  So why the repeated outrage from folks like Rav Gordimer over at Cross Currents?  How does one justify writing them out of Orthodoxy proper?
I would suggest that this be settled by a new definition for Orthodoxy.  Orthopraxy, as noted, is about behaviour.  Orthodoxy should be something different, a defining and united attitude.  And what is that?
Logic would dictate that there are two ways to draw closer to God, to create that elusive d'veikus that is considered an ultimate goal in Torah observance.  One is to raise oneself up towards Him, the other to bring Him down to us.  Herein lies the difference between real Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy.
For real Orthodoxy the ideal goal is to use worship of God and performance of His mitzvos to generate a closer connection.  I am supposed to improve, evolve (oh that word!) as a Jew and grow so that my connection with Him strengthens.  This, of necessity, requires change on my part.  It requires me to accept a locus of control of my life that is outside of me.  I must accept that my gut feelings, my natural moral instinct, may not be the ideal and that it must become subservient to the Torah's values as understood by Chazal and the subsequent authorities.
Open Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is about bringing God down towards Earth.  It postulates that one's inner feelings and moral sense along with that of the surrounding society are the ideal and that if Torah values contradict it then they have to change.  As opposed to an unchanging God and a malleable society we are presented with the opposite: society as director, God as follower.  It reminds one of Joan Osborne's What If God Was One Of Us.
Of course God isn`t one of us.  If He was, He wouldn`t be God and that`s possibly a good thing according to the secular liberal crowd.  After all, if He`s one of us then He can change.  All those inconvenient rules in the Torah and Talmud can be changed to reflect changing times and morals.  That is the essence of bringing God down.  It does create a d`veikus but it results in a malleable deity who is a reflection of the society that supposedly worships him.
Perhaps this is the criteria by which Open Orthodoxy is being judged and found wanting.  As we read this week`s parasha and next week`s as well we learn about our ancestors building the Mishkan.  Now a cursory reading would suggest that, in fact, the construction project was about drawing God down to Earth.  After all, we are told that the purpose was so that God could dwell amongst us.  This would seem to vindicate the Open Orthodox position that d`veikus is about God cleaving to us.
But reading deep we see that the opposite is true.  Rav Adin Steinsaltz, shlit"a, in his writings on these sections of the Torah notes that the plans for the Mishkan were not unlikely the plans that are used to make a highly complex piece of equipment like a satellite or space shuttle.  One small mistake in the programming code that runs the equipment, a single byte of misinformation, or possibly a tiny defect in one part of the structure and the whole thing fails to function.
The Mishkan was no different.  The details of its construction are mentioned over and over again to emphasize that it had to be made perfectly according to its details.  There was no element of "I think God would like this" involved and any deviation would have caused it to not become the dwelling place of the Shechinah.  The details of our observance of God's laws are dictated by God, not us.
Perhaps this is the reason that Open Orthodoxy continues to spin out of Orthodoxy's orbit.  Despite all the similarities there is a glaring difference between the fundamental d'veikus they seek and ours.

Balancing Observance With Real Kindness

One of the ongoing criticisms of Torah observance is the pre-occupation many in the Orthodox community have with bein adam l'makom commandments which they perform often at the expense of proper observance of bein adam l'chaveiro.  The former Failed Messiah blog was able to provide daily examples of Jews who were otherwise exemplary in their upkeep of their relationship with the Creator while failing miserably with their fellow human beings.
One of ways used to approach these folks was to remind them that bein adam l'chaveiro has superiority because in addition to its main element there is also a part that is bein adam l'makom.  After all, God commanded it so by fulfilling it we're getting a twofer.
Interestingly, those who see it that way might be causing more problems that they realize, as this article eloquently points out:

I have Tourette syndrome, a neurological disorder characterized by involuntary movements and noises called “tics.” My Tourette’s is relatively mild at this point, but I went through a turbulent adolescence when Tourette’s was the most defining thing about me. Between the constant movements and the loud, uncontrollable noises, it was incredibly disruptive.

I now work in the Jewish community as an inclusion advocate, as well as in youth engagement. So I have this cool opportunity to see the Jewish community both as someone with a disability and as one who is supporting congregations and communities in creating more inclusive spaces for all people.

Sometimes I hear people talking about how much of a “mitzvah” they are doing by opening their doors to people with special needs in their community. Maybe they allowed a child with autism in their youth group or religious school, or hosted an “inclusion” service.

But here is the thing: It is not a mitzvah to let me in the door. It’s not. Opening your door to those with disabilities is not enough. Because there is a critical difference between tolerance and full inclusion. If we are practicing full inclusion, our communities should be celebrating each person and what they bring to the community, not just what they demand of it.

Many times throughout my life, I have felt like I was the mitzvah project of the week, like the community didn’t really want me there, but knew including me was what they were supposed to do. I always felt like we were one step away from my face being on the community bulletin with a story reading something like “We did it! We included somebody with special needs! Be proud everyone. Be real proud.”  OK, maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration. But feeling like my presence was another’s mitzvah made me feel even more like an outsider.

One of the hardest things to do, it seems, is to balance performing a mitzvah which involves another persons with the need to do it with a kindness that conceals that motivation.  Imagine returning a lost object but making it absolutely clear to the owner that you're only doing it because the Torah says you have to.  Imagine visiting a lonely person in hospital and opening the visit with the line, "Henini muchan u'mezuman la'asos mitzvas bikkur cholim".  How do you think the other person is going to feel?  Have you really fulfilled the chaveiro portion of the mitzvah?
Interestingly, this is something that the non-observant Jewish movements also stumble on, as the article makes clear.  It is just as easy to turn a person into an object used to satisfy your need for observance if you are or aren't religious.
This is perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of Judaism, isn't it.  It's easy to sit and shteig a Talmud all day long.  Putting on tefillin, throwing a few coins in the pushka, no sweat at all.  But interacting with your fellow Jew without making it seem like you're doing your duty, not being a decent human concerned with his well-being?  That's a lot trickier.
For example, there's an essential decency in visiting the sick, for example but it does gain extra value when it's done with the kavannah that a mitzvah is being performed.  How does one balance the performance with the decency of human interaction so that the person does not become an object but a partner?

Bringing Chasidus To Modern Orthodoxy

Years ago I sat through a speech by a major figure in the Conservative movement on the topic of inspiring followers to more become more enthusiastic about his Judaism.  He bemoaned all the expected things like a lack of ethusiasm in the younger generation, the disconnect between the older folks and the movement's ideal, and so on.  Then he said something I didn't expect.  He explained that he was jealous of the UltraOrthodox, especially the Chasidim.  He loved how Chasidim swayed during prayers, how they davened at the top of their lungs, how everything Jewish they did was invested with seriousness and effort.  What did he want?  He wanted to see Conservative chasidim!  He wanted to see students at the JTS just as enthralled during prayers, just as invested in bringing Judaism into all corners of their lives, and so on.
Naturally that never had a chance of happening.  While it may have started as a reaction to the Reformers, Conservativism has been a ritual-heavy imitator of Reform for a couple of decades now.  You cannot have chasidic levels of enthusiasm in a religion where lack of enthusiasm in traditional Jewish beliefs and behaviours is a dominant feature.  Yes, some in the JTS might get really excited about homosexual marriage, social justice or other politically correct causes under the rubric of tikun olam but ultimately they're into those things because the secular liberal society around them is, not because of a deep yearning Jewish desire to be.
You can see that in the way their younger generation is bleeding out.  Those who don't care or are impatient with those few strictures the so-called Rabbinical Assembly hasn't done away with yet move over to Reform.  Those who are serious about learning and tradition move to Orthodoxy.  That leaves a group stuck with inertia behind.  Not terribly inspiring.
Modern Orthodoxy, to a large extent, is also suffering from that ennui, possibly to an even greater degree.  To  the left, the Reformatives have their conception of tikun olam if nothing else to energize them.  To the right there's the "everyone's against us" attitude of the Chareidim to bind them together and give them purpose.  What does Modern Orthodoxy have?  Is it any wonder that the same pattern is happening amongst Modern Orthodoxy's younger generation?  The perception that "real" learning and practice is the domain of Chareidism or that the only way to be a good person is to leave the rigid ritual-centered world of Orthodoxy behind takes many youth away leaving behind those who simply don't care about changing due to apathy.
Unlike Conservatism, however, Modern Orthodoxy seems to be developing an answer to this: Neo-chasidus.  First featured in a Jewish Action article a while ago, it seems to be continuing on as a movement within the community.  It's a group that has taken on some of the more stereotypical traipses of Chasidus - long peyos, untucked shirts with tzitzis hanging out, loud Carlebach style davening and a strong interest in the classics of the Chasidic movement.  It's described as a search for Jewish authenticity and an attempt to infuse the Modern Orthodox Jew's behaviour with the inner light of Torah.
A recent article in Times of Israel reflected further on this phenomenon and even made specific suggestions on how to improve Modern Orthodox to capitalize on its advantages.  Amongst them, the author mentions story telling, ritual emphasis and mussar.
Unfortunately I don't share the enthusiasm.  There are a few reasons for this that I'd like to share.
1) To paraphrase the old saying, if you're going to do chasidus right then be a chasid.  A lot of what comes out of neo-Chasidus is behavioural but real Chasidus is supposed to be much more than that.  Even if the original elements of the movement, the joy of connecting to the Infinite One, the dvekus and hisboddeus aspects and the mystical appreciation have mostly been replaced by strictures, behaviours, ritual and xenophobia, there is still a global attitude that the Chasid bears.  The sthreiml isn't just about his quest for Jewish authenticity, it is his Jewish authenticity.  He truly believes that Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, wore one at Sinai and that by putting on his he is connecting in the only legitimate way to God and Torah.  Neo-chasidus, on the other hand, seems to be obsessed with the superficial trappings and justifies that by invoked the term "Jewish authenticity".  But let's be clear: Chasidus is an innovation.  Yes, it's based on the vision of a great man, the Baal Shem Tov, and it works with materials from some of the most brilliant and pious minds in Jewish history like the Arizal, but it's an innovation.  Before Chasidus came along no one looked like or dressed like a Chasid.  They are no more authentically Jewish than the Litvish or the Yemenites and Moshe Rabeinu, a"h, dressed differently than all of them.  This means neo-Chasidus is looking for authenticity in the wrong place.
2) The material that makes us Chasidus is deep and meaningful.  The problem is that it is representative of only one approach to Torah which, while legitimate and important, is not the only important approach.  If Modern Orthodoxy wants to get its members learning deeply then it has to find inspiring material from all sections of Jewish literature but more importantly, it needs to create its own.  Again, it's great to read the Kedushas Levi but to truly appreciate it on the level it needs to be one must ascend to the level of a Chasid.  You don't dabble in such stuff, you invent yourself in it.  Why can Modern Orthodoxy not produce books that present the movement's vision of a Jew's connection to God in more than a dry, academic way?  Surely there are visionaries in Yeshiva U or various places in Israel that have the chops to produce such material.  Where is it?
3) The role of women would have to be clarified.  I recently read an article on sexual restrictions in some Chasidic groups and the impression I got was summed up in one line: outside of Lubavitch there are chasidim but no chasidos.  The leaders write for and speak to the men.  Control of the community is entirely in the hands of the men.  Women are needed to produce offspring and cholent and can be safely photoshopped out of existence otherwise.  This isn't just a coincidence but an integral feature of Chasidus today.  Is neo-Chasidus going to produce neo-Chasidos as well as neo-Chasidim and if so, is it really Chasidus or just an imitation?
Ultimately it seems to me that neo-Chasidus is about imitating some other movement's approach and appropriating some of its superficial features in order to increase adherents' interest in Judaism.  This brings us back to the Conservative failing - those who take their Chasidus seriously will eventually become bored with halfway measures.  Those who don't will abandon it when the novelty wears off and then we'll be back to the beginning of this discussion again.

Don't Rely On Mesorah

In the ongoing conflict between Open Orthodoxy and the rest of the Torah observant community, one word keeps popping up on the non-OO side of the debate: mesorah.
It's a loaded word, mesorah.  It means tradition and transmission all rolled into one but, like many other Jewish terms that have been hijacked by a group within our nation it's current use is a new one not reall envisioned by its creators. (Think tikun olam and how the Reformatives changed it)
Mesorah is, like Daas Torah, a magical concept owned by the Agudah and those to the right of it.  It's a magical word which means "they way we present Torah Judaism today is the way its always been since Har Sinai and anything that deviates from our standard is a lesser version." 
Why do we listen to our "Gedolim" even when they talk about subjects they have no expertise in?  Mesorah!  Why do we dress so rigidly?  Mesorah!  Why do we relegate women to second class status and erase their existence from public life?  Mesorah!  Why do we oppose women rabbis?  Mesorah!
The problem is that arguing against that position when it comes to some of Open Orthodoxy's egalitarian innovations really paints one into a corner.  The easy response to "Women rabbis are forbidden because of mesorah" is two words: Turkey and kitniyos.
Turkey is a response because technically speaking it shouldn't be kosher.  The Torah contains two lists of birds that are not kosher and the Gemara in Chullin derives from this that since the Torah always mentions the short list of two options it must mean that all other birds in the world are kosher.  It then goes on to fully describe the signs differentiating a kosher bird from a non-kosher one but concludes that since we are not expert in examining birds for these simanim we avoid eating any bird that we do not have a valid mesorah for its kashrus. 
The problem with turkey is that, on one hand, it has the simanim of a kosher bird. On the other hand the Chazal, Rishonim and early Acharonim never heard of it because it existed only in the Americas so there was no way to include it in the mesorah of kosher birds.  Despite this the vast majority of Jews have been eating turkey, probably because it looks like a giant chicken, since it was discovered.  This led to lots of teshuvos with the final decision being that turkey is kosher.
Why is this relevant?  Because one of the main reasons used to justify turkey's kashrus is that it got itself into the mesorah in a back handed way.  That is, most Jews ate it because it lacked the simanim necessary to forbid it outright and now that most Jews eat it, it has a mesorah of being kosher and until someone can provide proof of a non-kosher siman, it remains acceptable.
And that's something the OO's can use to their advantage.  Sure women rabbis aren't acceptable under the current mesorah but here's a great example as to how the mesorah changes based on popular behaviour.  The more women rabbis become accepted by the population of Torah observant Jews, the more the mesorah will grow to include them until eventually the mesorah will demand proof from the person who wants to disqualify them.
Then there's kitniyos.  Everyone Ashkenazi knows this one.  While our Sephardi brothers are enjoying a delightfully spiced rice and pea pillaf at the seder we Ashkenazi are chewing on our waterproof non-gebrokht matzah balls. (Did you know that matzahs are male?  Well apparently so)  Originally designed to forbid to Ashkenazim those foods that might accidentally come to resemble chometz foods, the numbers slowly grew from the original list as more and more foods came to be of concern.  But one food should concern us.  Peanuts is on the list.  What's the problem with that?  Well, like turkeys peanuts started off in the Americas.  The Rishonim who created the concept of kitniyos didn't know of their existence.  What's more, exactly who uses peanut flour for anything?  Yet there they are on the list, probably because they're a legume and other legumes are kitniyos but strictly speaking there's no way there's any mesorah about peanuts, just like there isn't with turkeys.
This leaves proponents of the mesorah with a difficult choice: either ban turkeys and allow peanuts on Pesach or admit that the mesorah does change over time and be left without a good argument against women rabbonim.
Which is a shame because there's plenty of other good reasons to maintain the status quo, just they require a lot more thinking and explaining.

Ethnicity vs Purpose

One of the things I find annoying when non-observant Jews write about their Judaism is their reduction of a national/religious entity into a superficial ethnic identity.  In the latter model any Jew, no matter how disconnected from Judaism, is a good member of the tribe simply for identifying as a Jew. 
Thus they care about Mark Zuckerberg and were genuinely upset when he married a non-Jewish woman or commented on how his favourite food was pork from pigs he slaughtered himself.  They watch the adventures of Howard Wolowitz on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory and see in him the typical modern Jewish American despite his proclivity for non-kosher food, prostitutes (in the early seasons) and a Polish Catholic wife (later seasons).  In short, they see Jews who have little to no connection to actual Judaism and begin and end their assessment of their Jewishness with their lack of refusal to deny that they're Jewish.
I therefore enjoyed the article Rav Avraham Gordimer wrote on Cross Currents recently and not just because this was his first article in a long time that didn't attack Open Orthodoxy.  I enjoyed it because he identifies something that makes Orthodoxy work in a way that non-Orthodox "streams" of Judaism don't and it isn't something superficial.
He begins by noting that demographically Orthodoxy is in a position of strength.  Although it is the smallest group in North America it is also the youngest, the fastest growing and the one with the highest retention rate.  When it comes to the largest communities like New York and surrounding areas the statistics are impressive when it comes to growth in shul attendance and rate of increase of Jewish school numbers.  He brings a mneumonic from a different article to explain this:

The “secret” of Orthodox retention and expansion can be summarized by a five-letter acronym: PRICE.
That is, they exhibit extraordinary Passion about Jewish norms and purpose. They perform numerous religious Rituals. They maintain high rates of Informal association (more spouses, friends, and neighbors who are Jewish). They engaged in Community — be it in synagogues, organizations, charities, or political-like activity. And they undertake Educational activities, be it learning groups for themselves or sending their children to day school, overnight camps or to Israel for a very influential gap year.
Similarly, non-Orthodox Jews who follow the same path exhibit extraordinary success in raising their children as committed and active Jews.
The Orthodox have shown that the price of intensive Jewish living has its rewards. The question is how many others will be willing to pay the PRICE to assure a rich Jewish life for themselves, their children, and their grandchildren.

But then he goes on to make the most important observation.

However, it is not commitment to Jewish identity, Jewish culture, or even Jewish preservation that drives people to invest well beyond their means and then some, and to strain themselves beyond imagination, for the sake of Torah education and the fulfillment of Mitzvos. It is rather an awareness of a holy obligation, as expressed in God’s Mandate, that propels Orthodox Jews to sacrifice everything for Torah and Mitzvos without second thought.

In other words, it isn't the actions but the purpose behind the actions that matters the most. 
Now one could easily point out that many members of the Orthodox community along with many institutions fail on this exact point.  Too often we emphasize ritual over understanding, rote over internal involvement.  As the steady flow of OTD's out of Orthodoxy (something this article doesn't talk about) proves, Torah observance without meaning behind it doesn't create committed Jews, it creates sheeple that, if they begin to think about the emptiness of their practice, pack their bags and leave.
So at the same time that Rav Gordimer has identified the secret of Orthodoxy's success he has also identified a serious limitation that we must constantly address and never take for granted that it's been permanently dealt with.  Our practice must be for a purpose to mean something.

The Classless Society

Up here in the Great White North there's a controversy that raises its head every so often, much to the amusement of the locals.  The issue is - ahem - topless women.
See, the first thing you have to know about Canada is that God has shown this country a great deal of favour.  If our news shows were to simply report truly bad news the news shows would be five minutes long at most, assuming that they weren't cancelled for lack of material.  Thus in order to keep our newscasters employed we invent all sorts of issues to get riled up about.  Keep it in perspective though.  We have Rob Ford.  Syria has suicide bombings and ISIS-run massacres. 
Secondly, by law Canadian women are allowed to walk around topless in public, just like men.  Every few years this becomes a national issue because (a) we have nothing better to get upset about and (b) because some people still get upset when it happens.
This came to national attention during our recent national election campaign when one of the candidates, the guy who is now prime minister, attended a Pride parade and took photographs with topless women.  The spin in the media was mostly positive - our future prime minister isn't stuck up and obsessed with dated gender roles or apparel.  He's a with-it guy who isn't shy about embracing modern mores.  The message was clear: if you have a problem with topless women you're out of date with your values.
In a way, I'm glad the woman in the picture in The National Post article I've linked to is a red head because it makes my first point that much easier to make.  Most people in Canada know that Justin is obsessed with climate change and enhancing Canada's role in arresting it.  Among the many problems with the change in our environment over the last few decades that cannot be debated is the depletion of the ozone layer.  The practical outcome of this phenomenon is an increased toxicity to the sun's ultraviolet rays.  In short, it's easier to get UV radiation exposure on a sunny day, especially in the summer which increases one's lifetime risk of skin cancer.  Redheads are especially at risk given their genetics and need to c over up more than brunettes and blondes.  So a redhead walking around topless on a sunny summer day?  Dumb.
Frankly, from a public health perspective we should be demanding than man wear shirts and hats for proper UV protection instead of fighting for the rights of women to increase their cancer risk in the name of equality.
But there's something more to this that needs to be said.  One of the problems with the Ultraorthodox obsession with tznius is that there is pushback from the rest of the Jewish community, Modern Orthodoxy included.  The idea that a woman should dress modestly has something of a bad odour about it, probably because the same people who spend the most time harping on it also demand separate seating on buses and special editions of Photoshop that automatically remove any females in the picture you just took.  Dressing appropriately becomes just another thing those "Chareidiban" are demanding from the rest of us.
We should not see proper dressing in that regard and in fact we should look at it with two other facets.  First, we should emphasize that proper dressing is not a women's issue, it's a Jewish issue in general for both genders.  Secondly, we should not view the matter as one of tznius but rather one of class.  In other words, instead of creating a whole kerfuffle around the length of one's skirt or sleeves because of a perception that God is tape measuring one and looking to get angry if He finds something the wrong size we should be instilling in ourselves a sense that we are meant to be a classy people.  Yes, legally a Canadian woman can walk around topless if she wants but a classy woman, or man for that matter, doesn't.  He or she dresses cleanly and properly to show that class.  Instead of browbeating folks why not point out the positive, reach upwards instead of attempting to drag up from the depths?
Proper dress, proper public and private comportment, all the things that go with them should be a matter of decency and fine behaviour through a sense of striving for excellence.  Maybe if tznius was presented in this fashion it would gain wider acceptance outside the Orthodox community as well.

On The Way Out Of Orthodoxy

As if world Jewry didn't have enough to worry about, apparently amidst the general turmoil in the Middle East, the ongoing low scale intifada, concerns about economic disparity and the worries about ties with the United States there is actually a real crisis occuring - the advent of Open Orthodoxy and the need to determine whether or not it's actually Orthodox.
For those late to the party, here is my biased summary.  Rabbi Avi Weiss, a YU grad and student of the Rav, zt"l, has started his own religious movement.  Calling it Open Orthodoxy he and his colleagues advocates for women clergy, more egalitarian rituals and consideration of acceptance of homosexual marriage in Jewish law.  His insistence on making these the identifying features of his movement while calling it Orthodox have raised the ire of the more traditional leaders of the Orthodox community, both the Agudah and the Rabbinical Council of America.  In recent weeks both groups have issues statements condemning Open Orthodoxy and labelling it as non-Orthodox.
Me?  I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Does Open Orthodoxy defy the traditional definitions of Torah observance and obedience?  Despite repeated claims by its leadership council to the contrary, the answer is clearly affirmative.  Their number one posek openly writes about his view that the Torah is not a Divine document and that the historical events and people detailed within it are all fictional.  That, in itself, takes Open Orthodoxy out of Orthodoxy in general.
But here's where it gets murkier.  Does Open Orthodoxy pose a threat to the Torah observant community?  I would venture that it doesn't since the population it's reaching out to is not one that fits into the more right wing Orthodox population.  The OO leadership isn't concealing its aims and beliefs.  Rabbi Asher Lopatin is open about his opinion that Jewish Israel should be replaced by a binational Jewish-Arab state.  Others write about changing the siddur and litury to bring it into line with secular liberal values.  Unless one is not paying attention when the chazzanit starts chanting the Kabbalas Shabbos service one is not likely to miss that there is something very different about this form of "Orthodoxy".
The concern is often raised that small town shuls looking for an Orthodox Rav might instead hire an OO rabbi.  I can, in response, point out that most small shuls might have an Orthodox set up but don't have an Orthodox laity.  Yes, giving women aliyos is beyond the pale of acceptable ritual behaviour in the Torah observance community but if most of the congregation drives home after Mussaf on Shabbos morning, is that really such a big deal?  And if the incoming Rabbi asks if her husband can also use the local mikveh that should be obvious enough what kind of clergy the place is getting.
Missing in all this is the underlying concern.  Social movements, as I've written before, always arise in response to a need.  OO is one such movement and given its slow growth in size one must ask: what are its adherents looking for that they're not getting from the traditionally Torah observant?
On the negative side it's probably a big of selfishness.  We live in a society where rights and entitlements define a person's needs.  "I want" and "I need" become equivalent and JFK's famous "Ask not what your country can do for you" becomes "I ask what my country can do for me and my country better not ask for anything in return".  The moves of OO to become more egalitarian serve the segment of the community that says "Unless you adjust Orthodoxy to my wants/needs, I'll leave and go fulfill them elsewhere". 
On the positive side, that same desire can be seen in a positive light.  A few generations ago Jewish life was much simpler.  It's not so longer ago, relatively speaking, that women weren't even given a primary education or taught to read on more than a basic level if at all.  Now women are educated as much as men and have shown what anyone paying attention could have expected: they are just as accomplished and capable as men.  This leads to women wanting greater participation in the ritual life of Torah observance.  It also begs the question: if a woman studies the same semicha curriculum as a man and passes the same exam as a man, how is it conceivably fair that he is granted a degree and title while she gets nothing?  This is, in my opinion, a valid question.
So where did Orthodoxy go wrong fo this to occur?
I would suggest the following: the four basic foundational areas of Torah observant Judaism are kashrus, Shabbos, taharas mishpacha and chesed.  One can live in a small town and be an observant Jew just fine without a shul but not without Shabbos, kosher food or a mikveh.  Chesed is a defining principle of Orthodoxy as well since imitatio Dei is an important value for us and we achieve this by acting kindly to others and spreading that kindness around.  Most importantly, all of these are home-based mitzvos where the family is the centre and responsible together for maintaining their proper observance.
But if you look at the Torah observant community today, where does the emphasis lie?  On ritual, ritual and more ritual.  As I noted in my acclaimed (at least by me) series, Ritual Ubber Alles, Orthodoxy today is completely defined by the superficial.  We have created a community system whose centre is the beis medrash/beis knesses, not the home.  The family is pushed to the side and the centre of authority, the parents in the traditional model, is replaced by the Rebbe, Rosh Yeshiva or "Gadol".
Observers have long understood the rush towards egalitarianism taken first by the Reformers and then the Conservatives.  Having dumped most personal observances from their list of "Thou shalts" all that's really left to them is what goes on in their synagogues and temples.  If that is pretty much their entirety of their religion then it's not shocking that women would want to play an equal part in what goes on there.  Orthodoxy, in contrast, used to emphasize that Jewish life is rich and multifaceted with shul and ritual only a small part of the whole which mean that women were valued and important contributors.  By drifting towards the Reformative position and empahsizing ritual over everything else we fell into the same trap. 
There is also the matter of authority.  Here's something that should not be a shock to anyone with knowledge of the subject: Rabbis today don't have any real authority.
No, really.  The position of Rav holding authority in a binding fashion ended when genuine semicha died 1600 years ago.  Yes we still grant the title to those who pass their exams and yes, since we respect and honour Torah knowledge, we defer to those who have demonstrated a superior mastery of it but at the root of it the system is voluntary.  All the titles are just that, titles without a direct connection to Sinai which is where real authority is derived from.
As a result we do submit to the authority of our rabbinic leaders but there is an element of consensus and agreement to be led amongst the masses that underlies this.  A person with the title Rav simply cannot show up in town and issue orders simply because he has the title.
And yet that's exactly what's happening.  Whether it's the Moetzes of the Agudah styling itself as the central legal authority of the Jewish people in North America or the ranks of the "Gedolim" in Israel issuing psaks even without be asked the shailos first, we are incresingly being ruled and without our ongoing consent.  How else to explain that I need to know what Rav Eliashiv's, zt"l, last psak was on an issue?  He wasn't my Rav and I never asked him a shailoh.  Yet his askanim insisted he paskened for the entire Jewish people.  Did I miss the election for Jewish Pope?
Perhaps understanding this also helps us understanding where Open Orthodoxy came from.  In a shul-dominated culture women are excluded and shoved to the periphery.  In an autocratic leadership system people who are educated and used to having a say in how their lives are run will feel resentment.  Both these factors have led to Open Orthodoxy and until the traditionally Torah observant leadership understands this and addresses these needs in a proper halachic fashion, OO's appeal will continue to grow.

More Flawed Definitions of Modern Orthodoxy

One of the side effects of Open Orthodoxy's slow but definite exit from Torah Judaism is its effect on the remainder of the Modern Orthodox community.  Modern Orthodoxy has been loathe to define itself in firm terms but Open Orthodoxy, by raising issues and producing defining statements on them, is forcing Modern Orthodoxy to begin seeing if it can develop is own terms of existence as a movement.
Into this fray comes a recent article that purports to provide twelve defining principles of Modern Orthodoxy.  While clearly well meant and heartfelt, it is my opinion that these definitions fall victim to the same flaws other attempts have made to define the movement.
To wit:

1. HalakhahWhile anchored in the Torah, Talmud, and rabbinic tradition, Halakhah is shaped by, and responds to historical and cultural circumstances.

I am reminded of the classic comedy scene in which a runner spends time preparing, stretching, getting mentally ready and when the starting gun is fired he trips over an untied shoelace and falls flat on his face.  The statement on what shapes halacha is such a stumble.  It is exactly how the Conservative movement justifies all its violations of Torah.  Women rabbis?  Get with the times.  Homosexual rabbis?  Get with the times.  Totally egalitarianism?  Get with the times.  This is a dangerous attitude, one that has removed YCT from the bounds of proper Orthodoxy. Perhaps instead one could state that halacha is eternal, founded on certain immovable principles and is shaped to each generation's needs by the greatest poskim who are able to balance the immutable mesorah of Sinai with circumstances that urgently require addressing.  As opposed to the Open Orthodoxy and the Reformatives who allow secular liberalism to guide their acceptance of Jewish law Modern Orthodoxy should view any issues through the lens of Torah with all other values coming second.  As opposed to the Chareidim, the community should embrace the pattern of guided change that has characterized halacha over the millenia instead of pretending that what we do today is exactly what our ancestors did as little as a few centuries ago.

2. EthicsHalakhah demands adherence to the highest moral standards. Proper behavior is dictated by traditional Jewish values and modern ethical norms.

This one starts out better but again betrays a liberal bias.  What are modern ethical norms?  Let's look at medical ethics, for a start.  Consider the example of abortion.  Modern ethical norm dictate that a woman has a right to choose the fate of her unborn foetus.  Never mind the partner who contributed half the DNA, the decision is hers and hers alone.  This conflicts strongly with halacha in which a person has no true autonomy over their body and where medical needs are dictated by Torah law.  Yes, halacha demands we practice the highest moral standards but the moral standards encourage by Torah often conflict with what's trendy in surrounding society and there can be no question which gets pushed aside in case of a conflict between the two.

3. Torah StudyTorah study is a primary Jewish value. Such study should almost always be pursued in conjunction with self-sustaining employment. Full-time Torah students are not automatically entitled to financial support by the Jewish community.

There is much to agree with but again, a few changes are necessary.  Torah study isn't a primary Jewish value, it is the primary Jewish value.  The ideal Jewish, as I will mention again below, is to be able to sit and learn all day long.  The material needs that come with living in this physical world make that lifestyle unattainable for the majority but that doesn't change its status as the true ideal.

4. WorkWork is an ennobling pursuit. Work should not be viewed as a necessary evil whose purpose is limited to earning a living.

This is another point of strong disagreement.  Does work have value?  Yes, as Chazal tell us that any Torah without accompanying labour goes bad.  The Gemara abounds with examples of our Chazal extolling working for a living.  And yes, it's not a necessary evil but one most ask what it is if not that.  Work in and of itself for the sake of work is also worthless.  We were not put in this world to labour for a pay cheque.  The answer is to remember that the Torah is full of laws regarding the worker and how to conduct himself in his occupation.  Work is an expression of the application of Torah values.  Work has worth inasmuch as the Torah Jew brings Torah laws to his occupation.  Therefore we can say that work is a chance to apply the laws that God gave us in a practical and material sense.  It is there that work has its true value and a strong rejoinder to those who see it as a necessary evil.

5. Secular Knowledge and CultureThe best of secular learning and culture has inherent value beyond any economic benefit.

The only knowledge and culture that has true and eternal value is Torah-based culture.  Shakespeare in isolation, da Vinci in isolation, Star Trek in isolation, have no real value.  Secular knowledge and culture can benefit Torah knowledge and culture but it is always a supplement, not an independent entity for us.

6. Science, Creation, EvolutionThe earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Evolution is the best scientific explanation for the development of life on earth. The account of creation in the Book of Genesis is religious, rather than scientific. Since the Torah is not a scientific work, scientific fact and theory neither conflict with nor confirm the Torah.

This is one of the things that bothers me.  I hate simplistic reactivity.  The Chareidim say we have to read Bereshis literally and believe that the world is 5776 years old.  This means, for the author, that a fundamental principle of Modern Orthodoxy is that we must believe it's not?  We must look beyond the simple argument and see the bigger conflict: the current official Chareidi position on understanding the first chapter of the Torah is that it must be read and understood literally.  We must believe that all true Jewish authorities over the centuries all the way back to Chazal held this to be an important ikkar emunah and if we find authorities who differ then we invoke the Eliashiv principle: They could say it, we can't. In other words, the current Chareidi position is to read the Torah through a len of dogma and ignore its true depth in order to maintain an ideological uniformity.  That's what Modern Orthodoxy should be fighting again.  It's not about how old the Earth really is, it's about how to read Torah and understand it.

7. TheodicyTheological justifications of evil — e.g., the Holocaust was God’s punishment for Jewish assimilation — are wrong and offensive.

When the Second Temple was destroyed (may it be speedily rebuilt) one in three Jews were killed and the entire land of Israel was laid waste.  Yet a few centuries later Chazal were able, in their wisdom, to explain the moral failings of our ancestors that led to this tragedy.  One day we will be able to understand why the Holocaust happened but right now it's too soon.  It may turn out that it was because of assimilation, Zionism, anti-Zionism, Chareidism etc.  We cannot say at this time but we know that the good and evil both come from Above.  ts just we are still too soon after the horrors of the Shoah to discuss it.

8. Zionism and IsraelBoth secular and religious Zionism are legitimate ideologies. The State of Israel is the fulfillment of religious and secular aspirations for an independent Jewish homeland in the Land of Israel.

I must be very clear on this point: Secular Zionism was a tool in the hands of the Creator to initiate the first flowering of our redemption.  Any Jewish ideology that lacks obedience to Torah and halacha at its core can be useful but not legitimate.  The legacy of Secular Zionism, a state in which the majority of the Jewish citizens are ignorant of the amazing nature of their heritage, is not a pretty one to behold.  The opposite ideology, Chareidism, begs us to ignore God's intervening hand in history and pretend that the greatest things to happen to our nation since the destruction of our Temple is a coincidence or worse, a maaseh haSatan.  It is therefore Religious Zionism that emerges as the proper ideology with which to appreciate the State of Israel, influence its citizens and encourage its progression to a Torah-run state that can properly receive Moshiach tzidkeinu, speedily in our days.

9. Non-JewsAll human beings are created equally in the image of God. The Jewish community must work in fellowship with its non-Jewish neighbors towards the betterment of society.

I think this point needs more emphasis.  With the triumph of the Chasidim in influence Chareidi society we are seeing more and more a focus on the difference between "us" and "them".  "They" are all savages, hate us and have no spiritual worth.  We can lie to "them", cheat "them" and steal from "them" with impunity.  This must be opposed.  The Modern Orthodox Jew sees all humans as a creation of God with intrinsic worth and our moral behaviour must be extended to them as much as to our own brethren.

10. Non-Orthodox JewsThere is one Jewish people. We share a common destiny and many religious values with non-Orthodox denominations and we must cooperate on issues of mutual interest.

This is once again a fundamental value position that I think is being mis-stated.  Yes, there is one Jewish people but there is also only one Torah and one set of rules for interpreting it.  One sine qua non of Judaism is that God appeared at Sinai and commanded His Torah to us.  That is the basis for the authority of halacha.  Ultimately we do what we do not because it's a good idea or sounds nice but because God said so.  Thus a Jew who visits someone in hospital because it's nice to do so is not demonstrating the same set of religious values as a Jew who wants to fulfill the mitzvah of bikkur cholim.  A rabbi who keeps a strictly kosher and shomer Shabbos home but who believes that humans wrote the Torah centuries after the events it depicts is deviating from the fundamentals of Torah Judaism.  He may act just like a Torah Jew but he isn't because the root reason for his performance is not the command of Sinai.  Yes, we must treat the non-Orthodox with respect and kindness and certainly cooperation with them in areas of communal need is critical.  What's more, we have an obligation to act with the highest Torah ethical standards in order to refute the contention that being observant interferes with one's ability to participate properly in modern society.  But we cannot share religious values unless those values are based on Sinai.

11. DressDress is a matter of individual taste, within the bounds of propriety determined by local custom.

Chazal tell us to know God in all ways that we think and act.  I have written before that one of the neatest things about Chareidism is their concept of a uniform since that means even when they dress they are performing a religious service.  Modern Orthodoxy has reacted to this by developing a sad trend towards emphasizing modern, non-Jewish dress and pushing the boundaries (crossing them sometimes to) of what is appropriately Jewish wear and what isn't.  We would do well to learn from the Chareidim that "the clothes make the man" and bring our dressing choices into the realm of obedience to and awareness of God.

12. WomenWomen are free to pursue careers of their choice. They may attain the highest levels of Torah scholarship and assume leadership roles within the Jewish community.

In one position statement the author shows what is concerning about the YCT way of adjusting halacha to accord with secular liberalism.  The first part of the statement, about pursuing careers of their choice, is fine as is the second.  One of the defining features of Modern Orthodoxy is that women study at the same levels as men as per the instructions of the authorities of the movement back the Rav, zt"l.  It is the final point that slips in and ruins the position.  The idea that women can assume leadership roles  within the Jewish community is terrible vague.  It could mean that women are allowed to lead female study groups or work as Yoatzot.  Alternatively it could mean giving them the title "Rabba" or "Maharet" and handing them their own congregations.  It is something that would have to be clarified and certainly the pre-existing bounds of halacha must be the basis for that clarification.

In summary the author has started a discussion and Modern Orthodoxy would certainly benefit from that but we must move beyond "We do this" and "We do that" to look at the underlying principles that motivate us.  If that happens then worthwhile advances will happen.

The Surrounding Perspective

One of the recurring themes I notice when I survey non-Orthodox Jewish blogs is how upset Heterodox Jews generally are with Orthodox Jewry's refusal to recognize their versions of Judaism as legitimate expressions of the religion.  One recent post (I forget where) even emphasized that Orthodox is itself a recent invention so it should have no pretensions to greater legitimacy than, say, Reform.
I think a big reason for this is the influence of surrounding society.  No sector of Judaism is immune to this.  In fact, I'd be willing to wager that almost all sectors of Judaism fall prey to this influence.  On the Heterodox side assimilationist tendencies and a desire to be religious "correct" mean allowing surrounding society's value to set the values of what they call Judaism.  On the Orthodox side there is an increasing tendency to set Judaism's values davka in opposition to prevailing secular ones even when some of those secular ones (honesty in business, for example) are quite commendable.
If that's the case, why doe Orthodoxy set itself apart from the other so-called streams of Judaism?
It seems that this is based on the response to secular society's influence as described above.
Consider that in North America we live in a Chrisian-majority society.  Now, how would one define Chrisianity?  Well to keep it simple, it's a religion composed of multiple groups all of whom sharing one belief in common, that God sent Yeshu haNotzri to save us from our sins and then died for us.  Other than that, when one looks at the spectrum of groups within Chrisianity one sees really very little in common other than that.
The Heterodox understanding of what Judaism is has been influenced by this.  When one looks at the various groups in Jewish society one might conclude that Judaism is also a religion composed of multiple groups all of whom sharing one belief in common, that God did not send Yeshu haNotzri to save us from our sins, etc.  How else to describe Reform's rejection of Jews for Jesus when many adherents to the latter are far more ritually observant than the vast majority of the former?  When one looks at Humanist Judaism in one corner and Satmar Judaism in the other, there is really nothing else that the two have in common Jewishly.  Like Chrisianisty, this is a minimalist position.
In contrast to this, the Orthodox position rejects the idea that Judaism is a religion like Chrisianity.  The Orthodox definition of Judaism demands a belief in God, acceptance of the divinity, antiquity and unity of the Torah and the revelation at Sinai.  Any set of beliefs that is missing one of those points is not authentic Judaism.  In contrast to the Heterodox position, this is a maximalist position.
This is perhaps why Open Orthodoxy, despite its continued claims of fealty to authentic tradition, has been perceived as crossing the red line into Heterodoxy.  One of its major decisors openly admits he doesn't believe that any of the history of the Torah is true.  Other leaders extol the desirability of halacha being altered to accept homosexual marriage even if they haven't found a way to do it yet.  Even its greatest rabbinic proponent, an internationally renowned posek in his own right, revealed an unseemly secular influence when he recently proclaimed that it was time to ordain women as rabbis because he wanted to accomplish it before he retired.
Keeping the concept of the surrounding perspective is important for the Torah observant community as well.  The rise of "Taliban Judaism" in Judaism with Burka Babes and segregated buses is linked to the appearance of, well, the Taliban on the world and religious scene as well as a reaction to the increased lewdness and promiscuity of secular society.  But just as the Open Orthodox are wrong to try and redefine Judaism along the lines of secular liberalism, we in the Torah observant community should avoid limiting Judaism to those chumros which oppose society's mores simple because we want to oppose society.  Torah is not a shield from arayos, it is a way of living that serves as an example to mankind and as a result it should lead, not follow even in opposition.

The Questions Not Asked

With the recent news that Rabbi Avi Weiss has finally pulled the trigger and pulled out of mainstream Orthodoxy there is much discussion across the Torah observant community with how to interact with this new "denomination".  Is it a form of Torah observance, as its adherents claim?  Is it simply right wing Conservatism with a mechitzah as its detractors point out?
Based on what I can see from my lonely perch out here in the Jewish hinterlands, I think the entire discussion is missing a very important point.  Rav Avraham Gordimer's critique of this recent move on Rabbi Weiss' part exemplifies it perfectly.  He points out Rabbi Weiss' various innovations which are certainly openly to criticism for their lack of halachic fealty, for example.  No argument here.  Rabbi Weiss has made a career out of being controversial, sometimes for excellent reasons (his support of Israel and Soviet Jewry back in the day) and sometimes for politically correct ones (his obsession with creating women rabbis and somehow normalizing homosexuality within Torah observance).  All along he has acted with the authority reserved for a major posek or Gadol haDor, positions for which he is unqualified but which he has arrogated to himself.  Yet he seems completely mystified by the hostile response genuine Torah-observant leaders have given him and seems to have concluded that their approach is "ossified".
He certainly makes his goals sound laudable.  He wants to be more inclusive, he wants a greater spectrum of observance and these are all great things but the problem occurs when people announce that their Torah observance must accomodate their personal preferences, not the other way around.  A lax approach, a "customizable" denomination might attract more people but it is not proper Torah observance.
But all of this focusing on women's ordination and legitimizing "alternative lifestyles" misses the important point and here it is: can I still eat in Rabbi Weiss' house?
Not that I'm in danger of getting invited, you understand but the question stands.  Recall that the three pillars of Jewish life are kashrus, taharas mishpacha and Shabbos observance.  They are not shul, tikun olam and Carlebach-style services.  By focusing critique on these areas we fall into the trap of redefining the priorities of Judaism and change it from a national-religious system in which the home is the centre and preserve of the faith to a synagogue-based ritual system in which Judaism is practised in certain parts of one's life while being irrelevant in the others.
In all the writings of the YCT crowd that I've seen there is no mention of redefining Shabbos observance.  The Rabbi Kanefskies of the world who are so troubles with the blessing of Shelo Asani Ishah don't recommended that husbands and wives do mikveh trips together or any abrogation of niddah requirements.  There is no call to certify non-Jewish wine or cheese like the Conservatives did. 
So can we eat in their homes?  And should that not matter?  After all, the reason Torah-observant Jews feel cut off from Reformatives is because of their rejection of the authority of the Oral law.  Off the top that means that any claims they make to have "authentic" Jewish practice in things like food and Shabbos can be swiftly rejected. 
With the Open Orthodox this will be much trickier.  If someone insists that they accept the truth of Matan Torah and the authority of Chazal along with the Shulchan Aruch then I might strongly disagree with some of their decisions but I still have to accept that many of their practices have an authentic legtimacy.  If they don't but still act Orthodox in many areas of their lives is it still as acceptable?
For all I know, Rabbi Dov Farber keeps a strictly kosher home.  On the other hand he rejects the truth of Matan Torah which means that he lives a Jewish lifestyle not out of any sense of a binding legal obligation from God Himself but because he thinks it's just what the right thing is for Jews to do.  Is his kosher home a real kosher home?
By focusing on public roles and community rituals we obscure these more important questions.  It is entirely possible that Open Orthodoxy is a new "stream" of Judaism, a right wing Conservatism with a mechitzah.  if that's the case then they join the other Reformative groups and sit outside true Torah-observance.  But if they are still genuinely Orthodox in some way, are they not worth the effort to keep them within the fold?

What Do We Care?

There's no escaping the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States legalizing homosexual marriage across their country.  The media and the internet are saturated with coverage.  Even Facebook has gotten into the act with people overlying their profile photos with rainbow flags.  The number of people in the West who support heterosexual-only marriage continues to shrink rapidly and the issue becomes more of a liability for politicians than anything else.   The question I wish to ask today is: what does it matter to us Jews?
On the surface of it, not much.  The average homosexual, like the average heterosexual, isn't a rampaging crusader but rather just wants to lead a normal, quiet life.  Attendance at gay marriages is still optional, not compulsory.  Let them do their thing and leave us alone to do ours.
However, the threat to Judaism in the West isn't from the average heterosexual.  In all other ethnic, religious and cultural communities there is a minority which can't stand the idea that their views are not the standard views across society.
The homosexual community is no different.  That the state permits gay marriage isn't enough for this group.  The idea that there are other communities out there that dispute the "enlightened" ruling of the court and continue to believe it's forbidden is intolerable to them.  These are the people who look specifically for religious bakers and sue them in human right's court when they are refused a wedding cake.  For these people the ruling will not simply be about getting married.  They are in a state of cultural war with traditional religion because traditional religion opposes their important values and they can't tolerate that.
Look at it a different way.  In more savage parts of the world culture wars are conducted at the business end of an automatic rifle.  ISIL uses its military might to enforce it's version of Islamic law on its conquered subjects.  You can be sure that prohibiting gay marriage is part of that cachet.  In the West we don't fight that way.  Instead of rifles we have lawyers and instead of tanks we have judges.  The culture war is fought in a more civilized, genteel fashion, but the end result is the same: the winning side seeks to impose its values on the losing side and goes apoplectic when it fails.
The reason we need to care is because of this militant minority.  There have already been cases where businesses being run by religious Chrisians have been targeted and legally attacked for refusing service to a gay couple seeking to get married.  On one hand you can sympathize with the gay couple.  After all, if you read a story in the paper about a Black man being denied entry into a restaurant because the management only wanted White customers you'd be justifiably outraged.  On that level this is no different.
On the other hand, consider that in the cases involving gay couples the businesses made efforts to assist the couple by recommended alternative companies that would offer the same product at the same or an even better price.  The response by the couples was uniform: We don't just want a cake.  We want you to bake that cake.  Why?  If I went into a store and got the strong impression my patronage was not wanted because I'm Jewish I would take my money and recommendations elsewhere. I wouldn't double-down and insist that this business serve me.  Why would I want them to benefit in any way?  These couples did the opposite - they chose to punish the religious individuals financially and legally.
Small time, sure, but what happens one day when a gay couple walks into the local Orthodox shul and demands to rent the social hall for their wedding?  What happens when a gay groom demands an aufruf?
Assaults on religious freedom have been protected by law until now because of the idea of freedom of conscience.  Read the media now and the liberal lobby is already re-framing that argument.  It's no longer about freedom of religion but about freedom from discrimination.  You wouldn't tolerate an institution that forbid interracial dating so you soon won't have to tolerate a shul or church that forbids homosexual marriage.  Imagine the day when someone looks at an Orthodox Jew applying for a job and says "We don't want people who don't support gay marriage working here".
Seen that way we as Torah-observant Jews might be a more precarious position than we think.

Feminine Orthopraxy

I wonder if this is what it was like in the early days of the Reform movement in Germany.  You know, a group of people get together and create a new sect, they proclaim their ideology and start to attract people and the establishment wonders how long it will be before this fringe community disappears.  Except that it doesn't.

Are we witnessing a new sect in Judaism arising in our midst now?  With the ongoing efforts of the Open Orthodox to pump out women rabbis and erase as much of the gender separation intrinsic to Judaism as they can without crossing certain red lines it's worth wondering if, ultimately they will become yet another "stream" in modern Jewish life, like the Reform, Conservatives, etc.

Some might wonder why I might describe them as a group separate from Orthodoxy?  It's important to note, for example, that they do not advocate changes in Shabbos, kashrus, or taharas mishpachah, the three pillars of Jewish religious life.  From their publicity photos we seen men and women dressed in appropriate head coverings and clothing.  This isn't about women in tank tops and bare headed men shouting "We're traditional!"  These are folks who keep the vast majority of the rules to the best of their ability except for one or two areas where they have decided that the lack of a definite prohibition in chumash has allowed them to innovate.

It's important to remember as well that during its heydey in the mid-20th century, the Conservative movement wasn't that far from modern Orthodoxy.  In many Conservative synagogues the only non-Orthodox feature was the mixed seating, and we would do well to remember that at that time many Orthodox synagogues were experimenting with partial mixed seating (family seating I believe it was called), further blurring the differentiation.  

The Conservative example is instructive in another way though.  Yes, in 1950 the only difference between a Conservative synagogue and the Orthodox shul down the street might have been the seating arrangement but fast forward 50 years and suddenly those two buildings were now irreconcilably different.  The Orthodox shul was still plugging along with the same old rituals and arrangements while the Conservative synagogue was fully egalitarian, pushing homosexual rights and emphasizing an ecofascist tikun olam over archaic rules such as not driving on Shabbos.  It seems odd to think that the trigger for the ongoing deviation from Jewish norms towards secular liberalism with token ritual acts was the mixed seating but it's hard to derive another conclusion.  Mixed seating, after all, represents the demand of the Jewish congregant to get something out of his service as a price of participation instead into of contributing to it altruistically and that has made all the difference.

The current effort by the Open Orthodox to make Judaism more egalitarianism, while certainly more limited that the open breaches advocated by Conservativism back in the day are no less significant and indicative of the same attitude. This generation may only be interested in ensuring women have equal learning and teaching opportunities with men but their daughters will surely wonder why the buck stops there and demand further change.

But where is the breaking point?  How do we differentiate this group from normative Orthodoxy and know that it's not part of the acceptable routine?  There are a couple of clues.

There is, for example, this quote from Rav Daniel Sperber:

“One of the major things halacha needs is compassion,” said Sperber, illuminating the question through the prooftexts brought by foremost halachic scholar Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. He used a section that stated that it is not halacha, rather a traditional practice that menstruating women (in medieval times) did not attend the synagogue — unless, the text continues, it causes them undue personal suffering, in which case they should attend.
“Smicha is an important event, but it’s sort of like a halfway house,” said Sperber. “You need to know the Shulhan Aruch [a codex of Jewish law] well, and then how to get over the Shulhan Aruch.”
Sperber charged the new rabbis with making sure people are not suffering, and to “push aside the next gatekeeper” and go into the next room filled with a halacha of compassionate love and peace.

Now Rav Sperber needs neither my complements nor my criticism.  He is a fine talmid chacham with a well-earner authoritative reputation. Having said that, a legal expert who is advocating a significant change in the law and resorts not to precedent, wording or textual analysis but rather to love and peace is one that doesn't have much of a case.  The phrase "get over the Shulchan Aruch" is also a red flag.  Yes, the greatest poskim in the world might have that kind of flexibility in their decision making, graduates of a basic smichah program, male or female simply do not.  

But perhaps the real money quote comes from this article in Haaretz:

“We must not be afraid of the title ‘rabbi.’ I’m impatient. I’m too old. If the Torah doesn’t move forward with the people, it will remain in the desert, and that will be a disaster."

That one line solidifies why what these programs and participants are doing, despite their sincerity and protests to the contrary, is not Orthodox.  Note that the first two statements start with the first person singular: I.  I want this.  Not 'this is important' or 'this is necessary' but rather it's all about me.  And what's the follow up sentence?  The Torah, if it does not accommodate her, becomes irrelevant.  This position isn't Orthodoxy, it's anti-Orthodoxy.  Someone who feels the Torah has to change to remain relevant and guiding is Orthoprax and needs to be called on it.

Given its obsession with egalitarianism the movement needs a new name: Feminine Orthopraxy, FO, sounds right to me.  What do ya'll think?

Which Bear Is Poking Which?

As those following the news know, Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, is coming up for a review before the Rabbanut, ostensibly because he's turning 75 but more likely because he's a non-Chareidi rabbi in a position of authority in a political system where the Chareidi leadership is looking for payback after its two year stint in the opposition in the government.
It also doesn't help his cause that he's a well-known maverick when it comes to innovation, the role of women in Judaism and views of Chrisianity.  As Rav Avraham Gordimer, Cross Current's new attack boy against Open Orthodoxy, points out, Rabbi Riskin has veered away from mainstream Modern Orthodoxy and into the territory of Open Orthodoxy.  He has expressed odd opinions about Chrisianity and its supposed saviour and recently ordained a woman for one of his shuls in all but name.  As Rav Gil Student noted recently, once upon a time Rabbi Riskin was an avante garde figure with great ideas but also a sense of need for guidance by the great halachic luminaries he grew up under.  Somewhere along the line he arrogated the position of great luminary for himself.  Whereas he once vetted his good ideas by his elders, he now seems himself as the elder and as a result he seems to feel that he now sets the boundaries.
What complicates matters is Rabbi Riskin as a person.  From multiple sources it is quite clear that he is a decent, loving Jewish leader.  He inspires his followers, seeks peace between Jew and Jew along with peace between Jew and Arab and tries to present a positive model of Torah observance.  It raises the old conundrum that Torah Judaism often has to struggle with.  I can eat in the home of a complete menuval as long as he keeps properly kosher but can't eat in the home of a practical saint who doesn't.  This is another reminder that while Judaism should be synonymous with ethical and decent behaviour, it often is not which leads to an awful choice - halachic observance or human decency.
This is relevant here because, while Rabbi Riskin may indeed be nearly off the derech in some ways from mainstream Modern Orthodoxy, he is being opposed by leaders in the Rabbanut who, while their ritual halachic performance might be impeccable, aren't half the mentch Riskin is.
So who's right?  On one hand Rabbi Riskin is poking the bear that is the Rabbanut.  Like it or not that institution is controlled lock, stock and bekishe by the Chareidi leadership and they demand Chareidi standards of their employee, especially their prominent ones.  The initiatives of Open Orthodoxy are not some of their favourite right now.  If he, as a notable employee of theirs is going to poke them they're going to hit back.
On the other hand Rabbi Riskin, due to his years of community work and outreach, his long history of teaching Torah in an accessible way to the masses and his genuine chen has many supporters.  What's more, he's not alone in not liking the direction that the Rabbanut is taking and this brings him many allies, including the rabbonim of Tzohar, for example.  The public backlash against a forced retirement might cause the Rabbanut a significant headache.
Does the Rabbanut care about such a thing?  One might almost believe that causing an outcry from the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy would be a badge of pride for them.  Forcing Rabbi Riskin to retire from his official position also wouldn't have the devastating effect they think it might.  He still has his Ohr Stone yeshiva, he still has his shul and all his followers and, of course, his book income.  He will remain influential and famous.  The notoriety from this incident won't hurt either.
But all this begs the question: the Rabbanut's official reason for the review is that Rabbi Riskin is 75 years old.  Hey, anyone remember the last time the great "Gedolim" who are all older than that had to show up for a review based on age?

Neo-Emptiness

There's no question that Modern Orthodoxy is looking for an over-arching theme to describe its raison d'etre.  The Yeshivish community has Torah Uber Alles, Chasidus has its singing, dancing and rioting mixed with Tzadik worship and the Dati Leumi have Zionism and its religious implications but Modern Orthodoxy?  It's just sort of there, isn't it.
It's not a small thing either.  Consider the Off the Derech phenomenon.  Within Ultraorthodoxy it's usually due to a strong rejection of the comprehensive worldview presented to the person.  In Modern Orthodoxy, however, people seem to leave through attrition.  They just lose interest in their practice and drop it quietly.
Then there's movement the other way.  One rarely hears of someone Ultraorthodox embracing Modern Orthodoxy with gusto but there are lots of baalei teshuvah within the UO community that come from the MO world, people who were looking for something more, something missing in their own background.
Jewish Action has a piece that is now widely circulating through the Jewish blogsphere on a trend that might be trying to change all that.  Called Neo-Chassidus, it's an embrace by MO's of some Chasidic behaviours and rituals like growing a more Jewish haircut (read: longer peyos), more active Torah learning and, most importantly, more intense prayer ritual behaviour.
On one hand this is very encouraging.  Modern Orthodoxy, for many, is a system of religious behaviours devoid of any larger, deeper meaning.  The idea of dveikus is limited, prayers are done by rote and outside of actively Jewish environments like a shul there is little that an MO does that is actively Jewish.  After all, they dress like everyone else, hold down jobs like everyone else, often take in popular entertainment (albeit limited (hopefully) to appropriate venues) like everyone else.  A trend towards increasing specifically Jewish behaviour in all facets of life is something that might develop a positive sense of Jewish identity and improve one's connection to the Ribono shel Olam.
On the other hand, there's something missing in the entire activity.  I can speak from personal experience, living in a small community where, amongst other things, the local Rav has decreed that all Kabbalas Shabbos services will be done in the Carlebach style complete with the extra singing and dancing.  What have I  noticed?  That there are lots of folks who otherwise don't come to shul who will go to those services and have a grand ol' time.  But then they get in their cars and drive off home so what impact did the "davening" really have?
As a kiruv professional I once heard speak said, it's not about the fun stuff, the programs and the signing, it's about getting the person to show up on a cold dark weekday morning for Shacharis that marks real acceptance of Judaism in one's life.  If everything is done just for fun then once the fun is over you lose the person but really, you never had them.
Having read the article, that's what this Neo-Chassidus strikes me as.  Real Chassidus, after all, isn't just about the singing and dancing but about an entire system of religious and spiritual belief that expresses itself constantly through one's dress, speaking and activities.  It isn't something you turn on when you go to daven and turn off afterwards when you return to the real world.  It's also something you persist with even when times are tough. 
But Neo-Chassidus seems to be cherry-picking from the best of what Chassidus has to offer without taking on the hard stuff.  Lots of fun at shul but no shreimls or long, dark outfits in the July heat, for example.  Not much Yiddish either, it seems.
Why is this?  I would suggest it's because in North America there is a strong cultural trend towards selfishness that has extended itself into religion.  We don't ask what we can do for God, we rather want to know what He's offering us now to keep us interested in Him.  This trend has certainly infected Judaism.  The Reformatives and Open Orthodox are more blatant in their expression of this selfishness but it permeates all to way to the far ends of UltraOrthodoxy and certainly through Modern Orthodoxy.  We see it in the UO community in those fanatics who listen to the "Gedolim" when they want to but ignore them when they don't.  We now are seeing it in MO with Neo-Chassidus. 
I'm looking for a better davening expreience.  I want something more interesting to learn.  I need more spirituality.  All these are laudible desires but when the "I" determines what a person does, not his sense of obligation to the community, not the call of duty from Sinai onwards but a desire for novelty and "authenticity" (hint to those who call Chassidus "authentic Judaism": Rambam and Ramban were't Chasidim) then there is something very wrong.
In the end I doubt Neo-Chassidus will spark a mass movement in MO the way real Chassidus did amongst the masses of the alte heim.  In fact, once it loses its novelty it'll become a fringe group in MO we read about in Mishpacha Magazine instead of Jewish Action.

Who Writes What Matters?

Rabbi Eliyahu Fink tends to lean left, sometimes far left, when it comes to Orthodoxy.  His latest piece on the concept of the modern Midrash is a strong example of this.  While it's a well-written piece and certainly addresses a need among some it also has a gaping hole in its centre.
The Midrash has always occupied a difficult place in our literature.  On one hand it's not Talmud.  There are almost no legal statements in the Midrash and on the rare occasion that they appear we are under no obligation to pasken by them.  They are almost all tales, fables, moral lessons and elucidations of verses in our holy Scriptures.  Some are practical, some are interpretive and some are simply bizarre.
However it is important to remember that all are the produce of Chazal.  They are not simply whimsical storeis written by folks with a passing knowledge in Tanach to kill a few hours on a dreary afternoon.  They continue deeper meanings that are available to those who study them properly.
This is where Rabbi Fink's piece goes wrong.  His calling the movie Noah a modern midrash, for example, is ridiculous.  Noah is not a midrash. It is a Hollywood blockbuster loosely based on the original story.  Unlike the real Midrash it is not meant to teach any moral lesson.  It does not hesitate to alter the original story, eliminating or introducing new characters where the writers felt like it.  Like The Ten Commandments it may be a breathtaking piece of film making but it is not an accurate representation of events as they were.
Therefore his next conclusion that we need to be writing modern midrashim also needs to be taken with a large grain of kosher salt.  As noted above, the midrashim were written by Chazal, men who had the entire Torah, Written and Oral, at their mental fingertips.  They were also the inheritors of centuries of tradition.  Is there anyone alive today who is even close to that level?
Ironically I could answer that anyone who might be would also never dare consider writing a new midrash.  Once they have achieved that level of knowledge they are well aware of the complexity of the original and how silly it would be to try and reproduce that with any authority.
Perhaps it's the egalitarian age that we live in that has gotten to Rabbi Fink.  Years ago I read an interview with the author of a piece of fiction called The Red Tent.  It is an account of the story of Dinah and what happened to her at the hands of the wicked Shechem.  Naturally it was all made up by the author.  The title of the book is one such invention.  In her mind she recoiled from the idea that menstruating women were seen as somehow unclean during the time of our Avos and created the "red tent" that such a woman would be banished to.  In typical liberal fashion the interviewer and interviewee proceeded to criticize our Avos for doing such things even though those things were all the fabrication of the author!  At the end the interviewer wrote that she thought that this book was the same thing as Midrash since it was a person taking a sparse story from the Torah and fleshing it out.
Kind of like having the personal support worker from the nursing home performing an emergency appendectomy in the local hospital because, well the surgeon works in health care and he works in health care so why can't he also operate?
We must remember that real life is not so egalitarian.  If modern LWMO's want to invent stories to fulfill their need to have the Bible reflect their views then let them but don't call it Midrash.  That's simply not honest.