The Implications of Chazal's "Godless Kiruv" Approach

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Godless Shrine, by Cliff Childs

The Implications of Chazal's "Godless Kiruv" Approach

A few years ago, while perusing Midrash Eichah, I came across a statement made by Chazal about how to get people to return to Torah - a statement which, were it not for the fact that Chazal said it, I would have been reluctant to even consider it as a possibility. 

The midrash is based on a phrase from a pasuk in Yirmiyahu, which I will present in context: 

And it shall be that when you tell all these things to this people, they will say to you, "Why has Hashem spoken all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity, what is our transgression that we have transgressed before Hashem our God?" 

And you shall say to them, "It is because your forefathers have abandoned Me" - the word of Hashem - "and they went after other gods and served them and bowed down to them, and they abandoned Me and they didn't keep My Torah" (Yirmiyahu 16:10-11).

The midrash (Eichah Rabbah: Pesichta 2) says:

R' Huna and R' Yirmiyah said in the name of R' Chiyya bar Abba: It is written, "they abandoned Me and they did not keep My Torah" - if only they had abandoned Me but kept My Torah, because they involved themselves in it, the illumination within it would have returned them to the good.

Rav Huna said: Learn Torah, even she'lo lishmah (not for its own sake), because from she'lo lishmah, one will come [to learn it] lishmah (for its own sake).

According to the midrash, the tragedy of Churban ha'Bayis (the destruction of the Temple) and galus (exile) only happened because Bnei Yisrael abandoned Hashem and didn't learn [1] His Torah, but if they only abandoned Hashem but continued to learn Torah, then the "light of Torah" would have ultimately brought them back. 

There are two major questions on this midrash: 

(1) What does it mean by "abandoning Hashem"? Is this talking about violating halacha? Is it talking about worshiping other gods? Is it talking about atheism?

(2) How does "the illumination of Torah" bring people back to the good? This question must be answered specifically with regards to people who have "abandoned Hashem." 

To answer the first question it would make sense to consult the meforshim on the phrase "they have abandoned Me" in the pasuk on which our midrash is based. Unfortunately, the answers they provide aren't so clear.

• The Targum Yonasan [2] strips the phrase of its anthropomorphic implications by rendering "abandoned Me" as "abandoned My worship." 
• The Metzudas David [3] explains it to mean "they didn't believe in Me in their hearts," which we can't take at face value because the pasuk right before it says that Bnei Yisrael will ask: "Why has Hashem spoken all this great evil against us? What is our iniquity, what is our transgression that we have transgressed before Hashem our God?" Clearly Bnei Yisrael at least professed belief in Hashem, and seems to have believed in Him on a conscious level. Does the Metzudas David mean that their emunah (conviction) in God was flawed or insufficient? If so, how? 
• According to the Malbim, [4] the phrase "abandoned Me" refers to the fact that prior generations forgot Torah, and therefore they didn't know Hashem. This reading poses its own difficulties when we consider what the midrash might mean when it contemplates the possibility of Bnei Yisrael abandoning Hashem but still learning Torah; this would seem to be worse than abandoning both of them, due to forgetting Torah. 

So the answer to our first question is ... unclear. We'll just have to work on the second question, and then extrapolate as much as we can about the first. 

The answer to the second question, I believe, can be found in a statement of the Rambam. [5] In Chapter 6 of Hilchos Teshuvah the Rambam gives his interpretation of the pesukim: "Good and upright is Hashem; therefore He guides sinners on the path. He leads the humble with justice and teaches His way to the humble" (Tehilim 25:7-8). He explains:

This means that Hashem has sent prophets to them, who teach them the ways of Hashem and help them to return in teshuvah. Moreover, He instilled within them the capacity to learn and to understand - for this tendency is present in every man, that the more he is drawn after the ways of chochmah (wisdom) and tzedek (righteousness), the more he desires them and pursues them. This is what the Sages meant by "ha'ba l'taher, mesayin oso" ("one who comes to be purified is assisted") - in other words, he will find himself assisted in the matter [by the aforementioned natural tendency].

I believe the answer to our second question is that if a person is learning Torah with the correct approach, then his internal draw towards chochmah and tzedek will increase his attachment to Torah-learning, and will ultimately "return him to the good." Probably not in every case, but enough for the midrash to be able to make its generalization. 

What leads me to believe that this interpretation is correct? Because I have witnessed it with my own eyes. I'm speaking both as a teacher and as a student of Torah. I've seen many cases involving my own students - or my fellow talmidim (students) in high school and in yeshiva - who were atheists, agnostics, or irreligious. At first they displayed emotional resistance to certain Jewish topics, but were nevertheless drawn to the chochmas ha'Torah (the wisdom of Torah). Over the course of several years of learning, their natural desire for chochmah and tzedek was awakened and strengthened, and they wanted more. Eventually, their learning led them to embrace Torah as a system, at which point, it can be said that they have "returned to the good." 

Can this happen on a national level, as it would seem from the context [6] of the pesukim? We might be inclined to say "no," but far be it for us to underestimate the transformative power of the chochmas ha'Torah - especially when presented by a good teacher. 

Now, you may be wondering why the title of this post is: "The Implications of Chazal's Godless Kiruv Approach." Other than clickbait reasons, my intent was to open up the discussion about how the principle in this midrash might be implemented in kiruv (Jewish outreach). 

Disclaimer: I have already written about my personal stance on kiruv. To sum it up: I'm generally not in favor of kiruv. At the same time, we live in an era where "kiruv" and "regular Torah education" overlap in many ways. It is far more common nowadays to encounter students from Orthodox Jewish homes in Orthodox Jewish Day Schools whose Jewish education is sorely lacking, and who - most likely due to the Internet - have numerous questions, doubts, and problems with Judaism which have not been adequately addressed by their teachers.

The standard approach that is often taken with these students is to try making them into "believers." There is a lot of emphasis placed on "curing" them of their atheism or agnosticism. In my personal and professional opinion, this approach is not fruitful, and often backfires.

Instead, I prefer the approach implicit in this midrash. The priority should be exposure to "the illumination of Torah" - namely, providing students with high quality exposure to the chochmah and tzedek of Torah. This doesn't mean that topics about Hashem should be avoided (God forbid!), but rather, that the emphasis should be on the involvement in the learning itself - not in "converting" students to belief in Hashem. The goal should be attachment to Torah learning. If that goal is achieved, then the rest will follow.

This course is fraught with dangers as well. One must be careful not to present an “Orthopraxy” version of Judaism, which downplays (or outright objects to) the role of belief in the practice of Torah. Similarly, one must not fall into the trap of “the bad Academic Approach,” which reduces Torah to a mere cultural repository of ancient beliefs, rather than a regimen designed to develop a truth-seeking mind.

I'm not saying that this is a simple solution. There are many complexities that need to be worked out on paper, and even more which need to be addressed in the classroom. Each and every student is different, and it isn't realistic to hope for a one-size-fits-all approach.

Nevertheless, I think that this midrash is expressing a powerful model of kiruv which should be considered in the present age of Torah education. Tzarich iyun (this requires further analysis).

[1] Last year a chavrusa of mine challenged my reading of the phrase "kept My Torah." He wanted to read "keeping Torah" in this midrash to mean "keeping halacha" rather than "learning Torah." I think such a reading is extremely forced. First of all, the midrash uses the phrase מתוך שהיו מתעסקים בה ("because they involved themselves in it"), and "עוסק בתורה" always refers to learning Torah - not keeping halacha. Secondly, our midrash is followed immediately by Rav Huna's statement, which is about learning Torah - not keeping halacha. Lastly, if you do a search for meforshim who cite our midrash in their commentary, you'll find that they understand it to be talking about learning Torah - not keeping halacha. See Metzudas David on Yirmiyahu 9:12 and Tehilim 119:104; Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuvah 697; Ha'amek Davar on Devarim 32:47; Derech Hashem 4:2.

[2] Targum Yonasan on Yirmiyahu 16:12

[3] Rav David Altschuler (Metzudas David), Commentary on Sefer Yirmiyahu 16:11

[4] Rav Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel (Malbim), Commentary on Sefer Yirmiyahu 16:11

[5] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer ha'Mada, Hilchos Teshuvah 6:4

[6] at least, if we take this midrash as an actual interpretation, and not just a drashah

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Assur Lach

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Dispel, by Chase Stone

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Assur Lach

What is kedushah?

"Kedushah" is a prominent theme within Judaism. Although this term is typically translated as "holiness,""sanctity," or "sacredness," I have never found such translations to be of much use. If anything, they tend to be a hindrance to understanding. They're vague, they're loaded with foreign connotations, and they fail to convey Judaism's unique take on what it means to be kadosh. 

According to Judaism, "kedushah" is based defined as "transcendence of physicality." Hashem is called "kadosh" because He transcends physicality in an absolute manner: He has no physical body, has no physical characteristics, and is not subject to any physical effects, changes, or occurrences whatsoever. Angels [1] are called "kedoshim" because although they affect the physical world, they, themselves, are not physical.

How can a human being become "kadosh"? After all, we have a physical body and physical drives in addition to our non-physical soul. The answer is: human beings can become kedoshim insofar as we transcend our own physicality by rising above the dictates of our animalistic instincts and psychological drives and living our lives based on, and in service of, our tzelem Elokim (non-physical intellect). 

All mitzvos are instruments of kedushah: they are all serve the Torah regimen's goal of developing man into a knowledge-seeking being, whether by perfecting the body/psyche, or the intellect, or both. We acknowledge the kedushah dimension of mitzvos every time we make a birkas ha'mitzvah (blessing over mitzvos) by saying: "asher kideshanu b'mitzvosav" ("Who made us kadosh through His mitzvos"). 

While all mitzvos partake of the general character of kedushah, there are other mitzvos whose specific character is kedushah as well. The Rambam divided all 613 mitzvos into 14 categories, as codified in the 14 books of his Mishneh Torah. His Sefer Kedushah includes two categories of mitzvos: issurei biah (prohibited sexual relations) and maachalos assuros (prohibited foods). These mitzvos are designed to instill kedushah on an individual and national level by targeting the two primary instinctual drives in man: the sexual and the appetitive.

This explanation of kedushah applies to the other groups of mitzvos and halachic institutions which are explicitly associated with kedushah. For example, the mikraei kodesh ("holidays") are time periods devoted to kedushah-development, in which we withdraw from our involvement in melachah (shaping the physical world in accordance with our design) and focusing on the development of our tzelem Elokim. The Beis ha'Mikdash is the national kedushah-center, run by the kohanim ha'kedoshim - those individuals governed additional strictures of kedushah whose job is to process all of the kodshim (consecrated sacrifices) funded by hekdesh (consecrated property). The institution of kiddushin (betrothal and marriage) is designed to instill the relationship between a man and his wife - and, by extension, their home and family - with kedushah. And so on.

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Mutar Lach 

In addition to the kedushah-development that is facilitated through the observance of halacha, Chazal also urge us to practice kedushah beyond what is required by halacha. Parashas Kedoshim begins with the statement of kedoshim tihiyu (you shall be kadosh): 

Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying: Speak to the entire assembly of the Children of Israel and say to them: "You shall be kedoshim, for I, Hashem, your God, am kadosh" (Vayikra 19:2).

The Ramban [2] explains kedoshim tihiyu as a commandment to strive for kedushah within the realm of the permissible:

The idea [of this mitzvah] is that the Torah warned against prohibited sexual relations and prohibited foods, but it permitted the cohabitation of a man with his wife and the [unlimited] consumption of meat and wine. Accordingly, the baal taavah (pleasure addict) can find room [within the parameters of the law] to be steeped in sexual indulgence with his wife or to be "one of the guzzlers of wine and gorgers of meat" (Mishlei 23:20), and to speak as he pleases about all vile things - for the prohibition of [such speech] is not [explicitly] mentioned in the Torah - and thus, he will be a naval bi'reshus ha'Torah (a degenerate within the parameters of the Torah's permission).  

Therefore, this pasuk [of kedoshim tihiyu] comes after [the Torah] detailed the categorical prohibitions, and commands in a general statement that we shall remove ourselves from excess within permissible acts. [For example,] one should be temperate in cohabiting [with his wife] ... utilizing [marital relations] only as needed for the fulfillment of the mitzvah regarding it; he should be kadosh with regard to wine by being temperate in [its consumption] ... similarly, he should guard his mouth and tongue from becoming polluted with excessive, gluttonous eating or with vile speech ... 

It is with regard to these matters and those like them that this general mitzvah [of kedoshim tihiyu] comes [to caution], after [the Torah] detailed all of the transgressions which are categorically prohibited.

Chazal summed up this application of kedoshim tihiyu in the injunction: "kadesh atzmecha b'mutar lach" ("sanctify yourself within what is permissible to you"). Just because the Torah grants freedom within a certain area doesn't mean that it's a free-for-all. Instead of acting like an animal, a person should exercise restraint and strive for moderation even with regard to what is permitted.  

One might ask: "If the Torah is against excessively indulgent behavior, then why didn't it prohibit all forms of such behavior so there would be no need for a separate mitzvah of kedoshim tihiyu?" The answer to this is two-fold. First of all, it is inherently impossible to legislate kedushah in this manner. No matter how far the Torah might have gone in prohibiting a specific type of indulgence, there would always remain a permissible realm, and a person could still be a naval bi'reshus ha'Torah in that area. In other words, as long as there is any amount of reshus (permission), then there is room to be a naval bi'reshus ha'Torah.

Secondly, the Torah recognizes that certain courses of development are most effective if the individual is allowed to tailor the Torah regimen to his own specifications, and to ramp it up at his own pace. For this reason, the Torah regulates the behavior of all Jews in a uniform manner up to a certain point, but beyond that, it is the responsibility of the individual to take on additional strictures and strive to fulfill the Torah's objectives in a personalized manner, beyond what is required by the strict letter of the law. (This is the basis of Rabbeinu Avraham ben ha'Rambam's distinction between the Derech ha'Ahm and the Derech ha'Yachid; see this post for an elaboration.)

According to the Ramban, this is why the Torah included a mitzvah of kedoshim tihiyu. Even though it is impossible and ineffective to legislate this type of kedushah on a particular level, the Torah can still urge us to implement this in a general way by broadly commanding us in kadesh atzmecha b'mutar lach.

Kadesh Atzmecha b'Assur Lach

I would like to coin a new phrase, which is an extension of the Ramban's explanation of kedoshim tihiyu and kadesh atzmecha b'mutar lach. That phrase is "kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach" ("sanctify yourself within what is prohibited to you"). I am not suggesting that this principle is an actual mitzvah or a halacha. I do, however, believe that it is an important part of the Torah's approach to kedushah, and an indispensable practical guideline in the observance of halacha.  

By "kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach" I mean that even when a person violates halacha, he or she should still practice kedushah to the extent possible. In other words, just because the transgressor knows he or she is going to violate halacha doesn't mean that he or she should just say, "To hell with it," and go on to act in a totally unrestrained manner. Instead, he or she should still exercise restraint and self-control within that violation of halacha - and, if feasible, should try to act in accordance with the objectives of the Torah, even though his or her actions are not in line with halacha itself.

Let's use a familiar, non-halachic analogy to illustrate this principle: dieting. Reuven is on a diet which requires him to observe precise dietary restrictions and to moderate his caloric intake. He's been sticking to his diet religiously for months. But one evening, he finds himself standing in front of a wedding smorgasbord featuring his arch-nemesis: UNLIMITED SUSHI. After battling with the urge to consume his favorite food, he admits defeat, and gorges himself on sushi ... and then he has some pasta ... and then some cookies ... and then ice cream ... all while telling himself, "Now that I've gone off my diet, I might as well let loose."

Although we may sympathize with Reuven's plight, we recognize the irrationality of his rationalization. He only lost the battle against sushi. Why should he concede additional territory to pasta, cookies, and ice cream as well? Just because he made one mistake doesn't mean that he should make three more mistakes! Instead, he should some sushi, and then return to his diet.

The same approach applies to halacha. Just as the person who stumbles in his diet should still exercise as much self-control as possible in line with the objectives and principles of his diet, so too, a person who stumbles in halacha should still exercise as much self-control as possible, in line with the objectives and principles of Torah. In doing so, he will at least be practicing kedushah even as he violates halacha. That is what I mean by kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach.

I will expand upon on this by focusing on three related (arguably identical) applications.

Application #1: The Baal Teshuvah

A baal teshuvah is someone who was once involved in a sin, but has engaged in teshuvah (repentance) and changed his or her ways for the good. Strictly speaking, "baal teshuvah" can refer to anyone who routinely engaged in any transgression or transgressions, and has subsequently done teshuvah. Colloquially, this term is reserved for people who "weren't religious" and became religious.

Halacha can be VERY daunting for a baal teshuvah who grew up non-observant. Most areas of halacha are so detailed that it is a challenge to even learn what to do and what not to do, let alone actually change one's lifestyle from non-halachic to halachic. This intimidation-factor can be a huge deterrent for potential baalei teshuvah, pressuring them to feel that they need to go from complete non-observance to being completely shomer Torah u'mitzvos (halachically observant). In many cases there exists a real danger that the would-be baal teshuvah will not even embark on the path of teshuvah because he or she feels the pressure to make an all-or-nothing lifestyle change in a very short amount of time.

This is where kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach comes in. Halacha really is all-or-nothing in terms of its  absolutely binding nature as a legal system, but that doesn't mean that the baal teshuvah should approach his return to halacha with such absolutism. It is often more realistic to take on halachic observance piecemeal, one step at a time, until one is fully shomer Torah u'mitzvos.

The first example of this that I witnessed happened in my own home. I was raised irreligious, but our family started becoming baalei teshuvah when I was around 13 years old. My dad was the first one to start keeping kosher in our family. However, he didn't go from zero observance to full observance of kashrus overnight. He began by giving up pork. Next, he stopped eating shellfish. Then he stopped eating milk with meat. After that he stopped eating milk after meat. Eventually, after around two years, we all took the plunge, kashered our kitchen, and kept a fully kosher home.

Now, a person could make the argument that what my dad did would be frowned upon by halacha. After all, almost everything that was cooked in our non-kosher kitchen was technically assur (prohibited), so it's not like he was actually "keeping kosher" until he fully made the switch.

Nevertheless, I believe that this step-by-step approach to doing teshuvah was a kiyum (fulfillment) of the principles of kedushah, even though it was an imperfect kiyum of the halachos of kedushah. It is assur to eating a piece of pork and it is also assur to eat a piece of chicken cooked in a pot that was used to cook pork - yet, my dad's act of resisting the urge to eat pork and forcing himself to eat chicken in order to uphold halacha was an act of kedushah, despite the fact that it involved a transgression.

I would argue that this is true for all of halacha, insofar as all mitzvos are vehicles of kedushah. Every step that a baal teshuvah takes towards halachic observance is a step taken with kedushah, even if it doesn't completely meet the standards of halacha at the present time.

I think that this is an important idea to emphasize with baalei teshuvah as they make their journey, since baalei teshuvah sometimes feel guilty about taking things slowly. Admittedly, it's a difficult balancing act: on the one hand, it must be made clear that halacha is an objective, uniform, Divinely mandated system, and that an aveirah (transgression) is still an aveirah; at the same time, it is psychologically beneficial and philosophically instructive to point out that the transgression of a baal teshuvah on the path towards observance is fundamentally different than the transgression of a non-baal teshuvah.

Application #2: The Teenager

Another demographic that kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach pertains to is teenagers. Teenagers and young adults from all across the shomer Torah u'mitzvos spectrum face a number of challenges throughout this difficult time in their lives. It is quite common for teens to go through lapses in various areas of their halachic observance.

As I - and I'm sure other Jewish Educators - can attest, these young men and women often feel "doomed" by their lapses or by their imperfect observance of halacha. They feel that if they're intentionally and habitually doing one aveirah, they might as well do more aveiros. For example, if they're texting on Shabbos, they might as well turn on lights on Shabbos; if they wear short sleeves, they might as well wear short skirts; if they eat non-kosher candy, they might as well eat at non-kosher restaurants; if they're violating "shomer negiah," they might as well do other things.

I think that the message we give baalei teshuvah should be given to these teenagers as well. Yes, halacha is absolutely binding. No, halacha does not grant you the permission to pick and choose. But if you feel that you can't give an area of halacha your 100%, then at least give it 80%, or 60%, or even 10%. So long as you are still exercising as much control as you can muster, that is still the derech of kedushah, and that is still something worth holding onto.

I witnessed a great example of this involving a teenager who happened to be a baal teshuvah. This incident took place during my second or third year of yeshiva, when I went back to visit my old high school. I sat in on a Q&A session with my Mishlei rebbi and a class of 10th graders. This kid told my rebbi that he was struggling with a certain area of halacha involving self-control. He said that it felt like the halacha was impossible for him to keep, and he wanted to know what to do about it. My rebbi asked him, "Can you control yourself sometimes or never?" The kid answered, "Sometimes." My rebbi then simply said, "Okay. So try to keep the halacha and only give in to your desires when you're in a situation where you can't control yourself," to which the kid replied, "Oh. I guess that makes sense!"

My first thought upon hearing this was, "Duh! Isn't that what the kid had already been doing in the first place? Wasn't he just trying to keep the halacha and then failing when the desire became overpowering? What did my rebbi's advice change in this kid's mind?" But then I realized what had happened. From the kid's question it was clear that he was ready to give up on trying to keep the halacha altogether. What my rebbi essentially did was to say, "Nobody's perfect, and it seems that you can't keep this halacha perfectly right now - but that doesn't mean that it's rational to just stop trying to keep it. Instead, approach the observance and the violation of this halacha with kedushah: try to observe the halacha, and only violate it when you can't control yourself."

Obviously, this must all be done delicately. The expression "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" definitely applies to the average teenager. The approach that my rebbi took worked in that case, but there are a number of ways in which it could have gone wrong. Educators must proceed with caution.

Application #3: The Uncontrollable Yetzer

The last application of kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach relates to a topic I've written about before. Years ago I wrote a blog post about Chazal's advice for someone who is overcome with an irresistible urge to violate halacha. Under certain circumstances, Chazal would instruct such a person to "go to a place where they don’t recognize him, put on black clothes and cover himself in black, and do what his heart desires, and not cause a chillul shem shamayim b'farhesya (public desecration of God's Name)." See what I wrote for a full analysis, which includes important details and qualifications. For our purposes, I'll quote an excerpt from that post which pertains to the topic at hand:

There are so many Jews who have an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to halachic observance. This is ridiculous. From a philosophical, halachic, and metaphysical standpoint, Torah is an "all or nothing" system. You can't pick and choose which halachos to keep. At the same time, realistically speaking, not every person is able to keep every halacha in every case. But the Torah has advice even for these people. The Torah doesn't just say, "To hell with you. Do whatever you want. See if I care."

This is highlighted very clearly in [Chazal's] teaching. [They are] essentially telling this person: "I understand. You can't control yourself in this case. Your own observance of this halacha will be compromised. But there is still the consideration of chillul shem shamayim, and you should at least retain that consideration as a priority."

Although Chazal identify chilul ha'Shem - not kedushah - as the governing principle, it is still a good illustration of the manner in which kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach should be applied.

Concluding Thoughts

I don't think what I've written about here contains anything new. It is simply a particular application of the principles discussed by the Ramban in his commentary on kedoshim tihiyu. Still, I think that by coining the phrase "kadesh atzmecha b'assur lach," this principle will become easier to think about, to discuss, and to apply in practice. 

[1] Ha! You probably thought that this footnote would define what "angels" are, didn't you? I'm afraid that question is beyond the scope of this blog post. 
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Vayikra 19:2

Reactions to Frum Garb on a Flier

This post started off as a "musings"/reaction post. Once I started writing it, I realized that I have never written a blog post about Tzfanya's criticism of religious garb. I might come back and write a full post on that nevuah in the future. For now, I'll just reference it in the context of my reaction, and leave the readers to draw their own conclusions. 

Reactions to Frum Garb on a Flier

This past weekend I came across a flier that someone had left on a table in my yeshiva. I will not mention the name of the organization associated with the flier because I don't want anyone to mistakenly view this blog post as a criticism of that organization.

According to the flier, objective of the organization in question is "helping teens and young adults overcome life’s everyday challenges one step at a time" and "to provide all of our members with the necessary tools and skills to empower them to live a healthy and productive lifestyle and become the leaders of tomorrow." 

Sounds good, right? I certainly think so. And from what I've heard, the organization does good work, and provides a variety of much needed services for those who have nowhere else to turn. 

But what bothered me was the picture on the flier: 

This picture shows a Jewish teenager from behind, divided vertically down the center. The right half of him is wearing a blue t-shirt, a backwards baseball cap, and a golden necklace. In the background is a dingy pool hall. The left half of him is wearing a black jacket, a white shirt, and a black velvet yarmulke. In the background is a throng of similarly dressed yeshivish bochrim, all shteiging away in a beis medrash. 

I found this image to be upsetting on multiple levels. My reaction can be summed up in three parts:

Reaction #1: How does this make the target audience feel?

I thought to myself: If I were a Jewish teen who happened to dress like the boy in the right half of the photo, what message would I feel is being communicated to me by the people who made this flier? Probably something along the lines of:

"Hey there, young man. Do you look like THIS? ::: points to image on the right side ::: Ah, you do? Well, WE think you're broken, troubled, and in dire need of help and salvation. It's clear from what you're wearing; there's no denying it. But have no fear! Come to US and WE'LL fix you right up! We'll have you looking like THIS ::: points to image on the left side ::: in no time!"

How would that message make me feel? Certainly not respected, or recognized for who I am. I'd feel like I was being pigeon-holed based on my appearances. I'd feel like I was being patronized by those who purport to have my best interests in mind. And if I were on the fence about attending the program, seeing this flier certainly wouldn't help push me in the right direction.

Reaction #2: Do they really expect this approach to work?

I really wonder what the people who designed the flier were thinking. Do they really believe that a kid who dresses like this will see the flier and say, "Gee whiz! This is just the thing I was looking for! Finally I've been given a chance to shed this t-shirt and chain, escape the pool hall, and become shtark!"

If that's really what they were thinking, then perhaps they ought to rethink whether they should remain in the "youth organization" business. There are people out there who have great intentions and genuinely care about youth, but are so out of touch with the kids they work with that they set themselves up for failure without even realizing it.

Reaction #3: What would Tzfanya say?

But there is a more insidious message implicit in this flier: that a person's superficial trappings are indicative of one's religiosity. Yes, I realize that this critique cuts to a more fundamental problem in contemporary frum society - one which is not specific to the organization being advertised by the flier. But I was just dumbstruck by how blatantly this fallacy embodied in the flier.

I was reminded of a pasuk in Sefer Tzfanya, which doesn't get nearly as much press as it should (probably because Sefer Tzfanya doesn't get as much press as it should). The Navi says:

Be silent before Hashem-Elokim, for the day of Hashem is near! For Hashem has prepared a slaughter; He has invited His guests. And it will happen on the day of Hashem's slaughter that I will deal with the officials and the king's sons and all who wear foreign garments. And I will deal with all those who leap over the threshold on that day, [and with] those who fill the houses of their masters with injustice and deceit (Tzfanya 1:7-9).

The Radak cites a number of different interpretations of the phrase "kol ha'lovshim malbush nochri" ("all those who wear foreign garments"), but his last explanation is the one that I thought about when I saw this flier. He writes:

There are those who explain that this refers to people who outwardly act like prushim (those who "set themselves apart") and chasidim (men of piety) and wear foreign clothing which differs from the rest of the people, so that [the rest of the nation] will recognize them by their clothing as prushim - but [in truth,] their way is evil.

The Alshich takes this approach and elaborates on the motives of these wearers of foreign garments:

There are hypocrites who act pious in the eyes of the people, but are actually wicked; they wear the garments of the pious - such as large, decorated talleisos, and the like - to indicate that they are pious [servants of] the Most High, but they are secretly wicked.

As I stared at this flier, I could picture Tzfanya shaking his head. I suspect that if he were alive today, he would be dismayed by the degree to which so many factions within the Orthodox Jewish world focus more on how people dress than how they live.

I'm not saying that the people who made this flier genuinely believe that a person's religiosity is to be measured by their choice of clothing, but the flier definitely promotes that idea. Sadly, this flier is just a drop in the ocean of other influences which maintain and strengthen a Jewish culture in which externals are more important than internals, while Torah and mitzvos sit neglected in the corner.

There is much more to say on the topics raised here. My goal in this post was to share the image in the flier, along with my initial thoughts, for whatever insight they have to offer.

My Personal Stance on Kiruv

Originally published in July 2013.

Artwork: Welcome to the Fold, by David Palumbo
(Hint: if your kiruv is perceived like this, then you're doing it wrong.)

My Personal Stance on Kiruv

My dad moved in nextdoor to a lively, comical, rambunctious 89-year-old man named Alan. Alan has lived in the neighborhood for over 40 years, but the two of them only met recently, and they really hit it off. My dad suggested that we all learn Mishlei together this past Shabbos afternoon, and we thought it was a great idea.

On our way over to Alan's apartment, we ran into someone from our shul. Let's call him "Max." The conversation went something like this:

Max: "So, where are you guys heading off to at this hour?"

Me: "We're going to go learn with this 89-year-old guy that my dad recently met."

Max: "Jewish?"

Me: "Yes."

Max: "Religious?"

Me: "No."

Max: :::eyes light up::: "Ah, so you you're going to do kiruv (outreach)! Bringing him on over to our side!" 

Me: :::brief pause::: "No ... we're just going to learn Torah." 

This isn't the first time I've heard a comment like this. In my second year of teaching, I mentioned to a colleague that I enjoy teaching irreligious kids more than I enjoy teaching religious kids. Had he asked me why, I would have answered that the irreligious kids tend to be more open-minded, which (in my experience) enhances the quality of the learning and makes it more enjoyable. But this person didn't ask me any question. Instead, he exclaimed, "Ah, so you're into kiruv! How nice!"

I wanted to respond to him by telling him my personal stance on the matter: I learn and I teach, but I don't do kiruv. But I held my tongue.

Kiruv is for some people, but not for others.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against kiruv per se. There are so many different motivations and approaches to doing kiruv that it would be virtually meaningless to be "pro-kiruv" or "anti-kiruv." I also don't have anything against the people who do kiruv, per se. There are many Jews who are engaged in beneficial kiruv-work who do a lot of good. My family, and many of my friends, would not be involved in Judaism were it not for people who have dedicated their lives to doing kiruv. At the same time, there are many Jews who do harm through kiruv, and would be better off minding their own business.

What irks me is the default assumption that any Torah-learning done with non-religious Jews must be a kiruv-driven agenda. Isn't learning with a fellow Jew - nay, a fellow human being - a valuable endeavor in and of itself? Is kiruv really the only thing that would justify doing this? Can't I just learn Torah with a non-religious person without missionizing?

Of course, if I responded in this manner, the other party would agree. But the immediacy of their reaction was telling, nonetheless. And the comment about "bringing them over to my side" was even more telling.

But I'd go further and argue that even within the framework of kiruv, it isn't always wise to go into learning with the goal of being mekarev someone (i.e. getting them to become religious). One of the things that made me so successful when I taught irreligious kids was the fact that I wasn't trying to "bring them over to my side." They could sense this, and it had a tremendously beneficial impact on our relationship.

This became especially clear to me during my first month of teaching when, in an email exchange with an irreligious student, he asked me point blank why I even bothered following up with his "apikorsus" (heretical) questions. Here is how I answered him:

I try, as hard as I can, to be entirely selfish. The reason why I am interested in discussing philosophy with you is not because I'm trying to "convert" you, to "save your soul," or to make you change your actions in any way. What you do with your life is up to you. The reasons why I want to have philosophical discussions with you are (a) because I enjoy it, (b) because you ask really good questions, and (c) because you challenge my ideas and force me to question my own beliefs and opinion. Like I said, my motives are purely selfish. So if I ever say, "I don't care about your soul," don't take any offense!

His response:

U R THE MANNNNN lol. i dnt think any rabbi would do that. especially say "I dnt care about ur soul." lol

I meant what I said in the email at the time, and the student knew it. From that moment on, the doors to his mind opened up, and our learning skyrocketed. And my learning continued with that student throughout his high school years and beyond.

The same thing happened with many other students. It's only natural for irreligious people to be somewhat suspicious when a religious person expresses an interest in learning with them or teaching them. Once they perceive that the religious person isn't out to "win them over," their tzelem Elokim becomes free to do what it was designed to do: to seek truth, and to enjoy it. And if the tzelem Elokim is nurtured in this manner, it will find its way, as the Rambam writes at the end of Hilchos Teshuvah 6:5:

Furthermore, He implanted within them the capacity to learn and to understand, for this tendency is within every human being, namely, that as long as he is drawn by the ways of chochmah and tzedek, he [continues to] desire them and pursue them. This is what the Sages meant by, “One who comes to be purified will be assisted” – meaning to say, he will find himself assisted in the matter.

I guess this really boils down to a deep conviction of mine which is strengthened with every year of teaching experience: I believe in the resilience of the tzelem Elokim. I have seen so many students whose tzelem Elokim has been dormant, suppressed, frustrated, asleep, beaten down, and otherwise impeded - and yet, once it gets a taste of real learning, it springs back to life. A parched tzelem Elokim will know when its thirst for knowledge is being quenched, and its natural response will be to crave more. When this happens, overt missionary efforts will usually bring more harm than good.

Bottom line: let the tzelem Elokim do its thing. Agenda-less learning (a.k.a. Torah lishmah) is inherently good, inherently enjoyable, and will often accomplish more kiruv than you'd expect.

I'm not one to do kiruv, but if I must, I prefer 100% organic kiruv (a.k.a. agenda-less learning)
over that artificially flavored stuff.