Call of the Shofar, Brainwashing, and Kiruv

     I just read "Confessions of a Shofar Staffer," written by Chabad member Shmuel Pollen, in which he discusses his experiences at the Call of the Shofar retreat. For those of us who believe that there is such a thing as deceptive kiruv, the similarities in Mr. Pollen's revelations are very similar to those experienced by people who look critically at Jewish outreach. If you were to switch the organizations from Call of the Shofar to any of the Big Kiruv organizations, you'll be able to see how Mr. Pollen may have experienced the very thing that many of us have been decrying for a while now. I am posting excerpts, but feel free to click the link in the first sentence to read the article in its entirety.

It suddenly occurred to me that this organization which seemed benign and elevating, was actually, a threat to our very souls.

How so?

Let me begin with the allegation that people who went to Shofar have been brainwashed. I dismissed this when I heard it. It seemed ridiculous to me. Then I thought to myself: If someone actually is brainwashed, how would he know? Wouldn't the brainwashing itself dictate to your brain that you're in line with reality? Wouldn't it convince you that what you believe now is even more real because you're "enlightened"? And wouldn't it dictate that anyone who says you're brainwashed just "doesn't understand?"

I came to the conclusion after some serious introspection that I actually was brainwashed, assuming the definition of brainwashing is being manipulated to believe something you otherwise would not have. It's possible for someone to brainwash another, while the brainwasher doesn't think that that's what he's doing. He may himself be brainwashed to believe that his work is holy. I believe that to be the case here.

     This is very interesting. Pollen's statement about brainwashing allows for the idea that those who are brainwashing others may be brainwashed himself, and doesn't even realize that is what he is doing. Yet, this is the very thing that kiruv workers scream that they are not doing. So I ask, is it possible that outreach workers do the same thing without even realizing it? If a Chabad member can suggest that Call of the Shofar people are doing it, it becomes impossible to argue that any outreach professional isn't engaging in the same brainwashing.

"That's a monumental change to our entire life's purpose -- in three days, mind you. How could we have given license to a man we know nothing about, to redefine our life's purpose?"

But isn't this what Chabad and other Jewish outreach groups attempt to do when they take students on weekend or week-long "retreats" and/or trips to far-off locales in order to "redefine [their] life's purpose?"

And now let's address the "experience". The great "feeling of closeness to G-d and to each other." This was the one I always continued to believe in. But when I started thinking about this differently, I started to wonder.

What did we actually feel there? Was it holiness? Was it G-d? Was it the soul?

      The above lines are very interesting. I've often wondered about those Israel experiences many of us have had. You know, those run by kiruv organizations that leave us with the same exact feeling of closeness to those around us and to what we are led to believe is "God." But let's face it. These experiences are contrived in order to convince us that we are feeling these things. Our feelings may be real, but are they based on reality? Or are they based on a mind-trip the leader of such an experience is taking us on?

According to the video Captive Minds that Rabbi She Hecht mentioned, it would appear otherwise. The suggestibility tactics used at Shofar are used at all kinds of vicious cults to create a euphoric experience.

Afterwards, the cult leader tells them that what you felt was G-d. That's what you got here: G-d. Only here. People who tell you to leave here? That's Satan trying to keep you from G-d.

    Wait a second. "Suggestibility tactics?" Being told that you are feeling God? The idea that anything holding a person back from observance is a manifestation of "the Satan?" This all sounds vaguely familiar.
     Upon further reading of the article, I saw that the leader of this Shofar program allegedly has Landmark Education credentials. I've known about Landmark for about twenty years, and I've known people who've gone through their programs and have appeared to become very changed after their experiences. I stand by those who deem Landmark a cult. But this post isn't about Landmark. To people involved in Landmark Education, it is not a cult. They may not see that there are cult tactics in use.
     Pollen laments:

That's a monumental change to our entire life's purpose -- in three days, mind you. How could we have given license to a man we know nothing about, to redefine our life's purpose?

And yet, doesn't this same thing happen in kiruv? How is this not the same? Mr. Pollen further states that:

We were sold a mind-game and told it's G-d, and now we believe this workshop is the best way to get close to Him (Sounds a bit like the definition of avoda zara, come to think of it).

     Again, I ask, isn't that what the different kiruv organizations do? They sell unsuspecting young people a bill of goods, in which they convince potential recruits that by doing what the kiruv professional (and his/her organization) says, they will be able to get close to God. What makes this any different from what Mr. Pollen has experienced? But then, Mr. Pollen says this, which convinces me that maybe he really doesn't see the parallels:

Every baal tshuva knows that happiness through freedom from rules leads only to misery. They found more happiness in living a Torah lifestyle made even more meaningful by its rules. 

How could we have allowed someone we barely know to make us forget this fundamental truth of why we're here in this world?Could it be we were in too much a state of suggestibility to notice what was wrong here? Doesn't that sound like brainwashing at a very deep level of your belief system?

     In this case, I think that it's easy to see that Mr. Pollen is upset to see so many of his brethren manipulated, yet, as he stated much earlier on, very often those doing the brainwashing may not realize they are brainwashing others, nor realize that they may be brainwashed themselves. He complains of this "brainwashing at a very deep level of your belief system." Perhaps it's a bit like recruiting non-orthodox students and challenging their beliefs with well-rehearsed arguments meant to awe and convince, and meant to leave them without a proper way to argue back.
     I don't expect that anyone in kiruv or in the orthodox world will agree with these comparisons. But they don't need to agree. But in this case, it sounds like many of us feel the same way: we don't want organizations attempting to use the very same techniques on our children or on us. We want the same respect that Mr. Pollen wants. We don't want to be unknowingly brainwashed by those who may not even know they're doing such things to us. Above all, the same legitimate feelings of having been spiritually violated that Mr. Pollen has experienced, are the same legitimate feelings that many of us who oppose deceptive kiruv have experienced.

Update: This post also appears as a link on The Cult News Network at http://www.cultnews.net/Scroll down to January 1, 2014 "Call of the Shofar, Brainwashing, and Kiruv."


 All quoted material from:
Pollen, Shmuel. Confessions of a 'Shofar' Staffer. ColLive. December 31, 2013.

The Kiruv Debate: A Response to "Haterz Gonna Hate"

     Kiruv professional Rachel Eden recently responded to one of my recent posts, continuing our kiruv debate. You can read her post "Haterz Gonna Hate" on her blog. I must admit that I'm disappointed with her title. I'm a firm believer that disagreeing with a person's point of view doesn't make someone a "hater." It takes courage to disagree respectfully, and even if we don't expect to accept the other's perspective for our own, I think that having a dialogue enables both parties to learn from each other. Labeling a party who disagrees with one's point of view (even though that party has maintained a respectful exchange) as "haterz" is dismissive and unproductive. That said, I'll start by pulling out some of Ms. Eden's responses from her post. Where she states in bold "she asks," Ms. Eden is referring to me. Notice that my full name is not used here. "I answer" refers to Ms. Eden.

She Asks:  I have no problem with people coming to orthodoxy by their own volition. The problem I have is when people are willfully misled by kiruv workers who teach that the all-encompassing cozy blanket is “just Judaism.” It is not “just Judaism.” It is specifically an Ashkenazi brand of orthodox Judaism.”"

I Answer: Rebecca makes an interesting point. The Torah – written and oral law was given thousands of years ago. In the early 19th century, the reform movement was created and as a reaction to that, in around 1850, the conservative movement began. Most non-orthodox practicing Jews are practicing a relatively new form of Judaism that doesn’t match up with the authentic tradition given over in 2448. That original version of Judaism is “just Judaism”. I am absolutely pointing Sephardi Jews towards experts in Sephardi customs and Sephardi groups. I have no intention of dictating customs. There is, however, a basic list of expectations Jews observe and then beyond that minimal set of laws- it’s up to the person how they want to practice. I always tell my students to be true to themselves (they should also be true to Judaism). Side-note: “Willfully misled”? Isn’t that an oxymoron?

     First of all, "willfully misled" means "deliberately misled." "Willfully misled" is definitely not an oxymoron.
     Secondly, it seems to me that the only Judaism that's probably mostly unchanged by chumras and reinterpretations, and that may be closest to what used to be practiced  is the Judaism practiced by the Middle Eastern Jews, thus making Aish Judaism not very "traditional." [Updated here to add this: I was reminded by an acquaintance a few moments ago that perhaps the most "traditional" Judaism would be that which was practiced by the Ethiopian Jews.] Would you let your child marry a person who keeps shabbos, taharat hamishpacha (family purity laws,) and kosher? What if they're actually Conservative but keep these things?

She Asks: If Ms. Eden’s children were to decide that they no longer believed that orthodox Judaism was the way to go, and instead, opted to live as Humanist Jews, would Ms. Eden be as accommodating to their needs as she expects non-orthodox parents should be to the needs of their BT children? Let’s assume that her children are simply following their own path in Judaism. Would she “commend [her] own parenting efforts because, after all, [she] taught them the importance of being Jewish which led to this self-discovery?

I Answer: Another nice point, Bec. The above image “Just Be You” is me being facetious. I’m not typically one of those facebook posters who paste a cliche into their status bar. If you are, no judgement- sometimes I even enjoy reading them.

I'm going to interject here. Ms. Eden says that "Just Be You" is facetious? So she doesn't want people to be themselves? I took her at her word and didn't ascribe any sarcasm that phrase, and I didn't assume she was just using that cliche facetiously. That suddenly clarifies a lot. She doesn't want you to "just be you" at all.

 If my children, God forbid, decided to live as “humanist Jews” that wouldn’t be self-expression.

Interjecting again. Note the "God forbid" here in use and the lack of capitalization for the proper noun--it's the name of a specific movement-- "Humanist Jews." Perhaps readers here feel that "God forbid their children should become orthodox." If we said that, we'd be labeled "haterz." Why the double standard?

Let me explain. I believe God created the Torah as a guide to living for all Jews in every generation. Just like when my husband and I married, we created an understood exchange of expectations (ex/ we come home every evening, know for the most part each other’s whereabouts, pool our money together, are faithful to one another, etc). My children also know I have expectations of them (speak respectfully, eat health food usually, clean up after playtime). God created expectations for our benefit – and our benefit alone. Hashem doesn’t need us to do this stuff- this stuff is how we keep spiritually healthy. After we do everything we need to do to keep spiritually healthy, we can start to consider self-discovery, creativity, more spiritual outlets.

The more we dissect this, the less healthy it sounds. You can do what you want, as long as you do what I want first. For someone who loves and welcomes all Jews, this seems very disrespectful to all Jews who are not orthodox. I hope that if Ms. Eden's children ever go off the derech (off the path of orthodox Judaism,) that she doesn't toss them to the curb like yesterday's trash. And I sincerely hope that she will respect their life choices and love them unconditionally.

But there’s a minimum standard as I said before. I’m happy to accommodate my children as long as they’re being healthy. If there are parents who think practicing a Torah-observant life is unhealthy, I’d like to hear why please.

This isn't about a Torah-observant life being healthy or unhealthy. It is about doing deceptive outreach to students under the guise of genuine friendship.
     In short, the answer to my question is no. Ms. Eden believes, as a kiruv professional, that a non-orthodox lifestyle is not a spiritually healthy lifestyle. This explains why, if her children left orthodoxy, their lifestyles would not be acceptable to her. This also justifies her outreach work. Does she tell her students that non-orthodox Judaism is spiritually unhealthy when she sits down with them for coffee for the first (or second, or third, or fifteenth) time? Does she tell this to their parents when they sign checks for donations to her organization? OR are these forms of Judaism only spiritually unhealthy for her own children?

 She Asks: Within the last post, I also posted claims made by another (anonymous) person in kiruv which seem to contradict your claims. ”AM” (“Anonymous Mekarev”) states that:

1. It is the firm position of Halachic Judaism that all Jews have a responsibility to influence others to the realization that there is a creator of the world and that there is a correct code of conduct for human beings in general and Jews (as His reps to the world) in particular.
2. We are to do this by any peaceful means including persuasion because we are held responsible for others’ actions and welfare to the amount that we can influence them for the better. We have a moral obligation to educate people about this code of conduct who – through no fault of their own – do not yet understand what is incumbent upon them being born as Jews.

I Answer: Firstly, I’m one of those annoying people that don’t enjoy reading anonymous posts. I just don’t see why a person gets to state an opinion and not stand behind it proudly. That said, I’ll oblige since Bec and I now go way back.

1. I never considered kiruv a responsibility though maybe that’s bad. I feel really fortunate to have investigated Judaism at a time in my life when I could create a home and family on the basis of my conclusions. I feel fortunate to be born into a religious with a built in infrastructure for how to live life to its fullest and grow every day. I feel so fortunate that it seems wrong not to share what I benefit so much from with others.

2. I don’t agree with Anonymous’ point here at all. “We are to do this by any peaceful means”? “We are held responsible for others’ actions”? No and no. There are boundaries. There are lines. There are no-nos. Anonymous needs to back up what s/he is accusing – a dangerous accusation- with some evidence and there’s not a shred of it. My husband and I would never manipulate anyone or pressure someone to be a frum Jew. Before our desire to educate people about Judaism is our obligation to be upright people. Anonymous sounds like a rabble rouser and I’m suspicious of this person’s credibility.

     Let's take the first sentence. Ms. Eden does not like anonymous posts. Yet she refuses to link to my blog or refer to me by my full name. She will not print my blog's title. She doesn't like anonymity, yet insists on keeping me anonymous. I am not anonymous. In fact, I have my name on my blog (as well as my bio with some of my other writing.) This lack of proper attribution is both hypocritical and academically dishonest.
     To address the issue of anonymous posters on my blog: I have had many people in kiruv contact me personally. Some I've even spoken with on the phone. However, many have expressed a sincere need to maintain anonymity due to their positions within their organizations, and for the privacy that they desire but often lack as public figures, or as people of influence within their respective communities. That said, these are ideas that we're discussing, not people. A valid opinion is a valid opinion. This differs from purposely hiding the identity of someone with whom you disagree because you don't want other people to access information being provided.
     While I'm not sure who the Anonymous Mekarev is, his words sound vaguely like they were influenced by Project Inspire, an Aish HaTorah affiliate. At the same time, they remind me of something I read in Aish HaTorah's "The Eye of A Needle: Aish HaTorah's Kiruv Primer." While AM and I don't see eye to eye on kiruv, he generally makes well-thought out points that seem to be based on familiar and accepted work in the kiruv field.

She Comments: While yes, there are key issues within the blog as a whole, it was my understanding that we were actually discussing specific points we were each making within the body of discussion.

I React: If there are specific points to address, I’m game. However, my guess is there are a couple underlying themes that once we identify we can cut right to the chase. For example, now that I’ve had so many interactions with your readership I now have the hunch that these anti-kiruv people are actually anti-orthodox.

     It's sad to see this in print because I've had this "argument" tossed at me too many times to count and I really thought that Ms. Eden was above this cheap shot. I've even written posts about these words. It seems to me that whenever there is disagreement between Jews, and the non-orthodox Jew has ideas that the other may disagree with, instead of putting up a valid argument, the discussion turns to "well, you must be anti-orthodox/anti-semitic/a self-hating Jew." I've seen this online, I've received private emails about it, I've seen this on online forums, and I've seen it in local politics. It's an interesting way of shutting down and dismissing points that may be valid but the other party would prefer not to address. While I don't personally know all of the people who comment on this blog, I can speak for some who are not anti-orthodox, but anti-deceptive proselytizing. I believe that it is your freedom to practice your religion, but don't push it on me or my children, especially when you're doing it deceptively.

She Comments: I’m also really curious to know about these “outrageous comments and points that are too ridiculous and off-the-wall to address.”

I React: One example is when you paralleled my work in Jewish outreach with rape. For starters.

I actually thought that my example was fabulous. Here it is again for reference.

Regardless of the outcome, the steps themselves are in place to form a relationship that otherwise would not exist. Whether the relationship is good or bad as an end result really isn't the issue at all. Here's an example: A woman is raped. As a result of that rape, she ends up pregnant. For her own personal reasons, she decides not to have an abortion. She decides to keep the baby and the child gives her joy throughout her life. The fact that she loves her child more than anything does not suddenly make rape acceptable. These are two separate issues. Part A--rape is wrong, no matter what the outcome. Part B--the woman has a child whom she loves. In the case of kiruv, Part A is also separated from Part B. The relationship is contrived with a specific goal in mind. If the relationship works out for both parties, that's wonderful, but it doesn't negate Part A.*

     It shouldn't need to be explained here that my point is and remains, that regardless of the outcome, the initial steps taken were wrong. Deception is wrong. But that's coming from me--someone who believes that a person's spirituality (or lack thereof) is personal, and who doesn't believe that orthodoxy (in whatever form) is the only way to express one's Judaism or spirituality, and who doesn't believe that missionary tactics are acceptable. I believe that we all have the right to practice our religion in a way that doesn't harm others. From what I've seen of kiruv, that which is practiced deceptively is both harmful and unethical.

 

All quoted material except that with an asterisk is from:
Eden, Rachel. "Haterz Gonna Hate." This Way To Eden. December 27, 2013.

Material with an asterisk is from:
*Ross, Rebecca M. The Kiruv Debate: A Response to "La Responsa." Jewish Outreach: What Your Rabbi Isn't Telling You. December 22, 2013.

            

Who *ARE* These People in Chabad.org's Fundraising Letter?

     I received this email in my inbox the other day. Chabad is known the world over as masters at fundraising, and I mean that as a huge compliment--and as a huge fact. Shluchim (missionaries) learn both on the "job" and in classes, as well as through in-house literature, how to effectively solicit donations for their programming. Fundraising can be done in a multitude of ways. In this case, I'm sharing an email, recently sent out to those on the Chabad.org list. While I do receive several of these per year, I wanted to share this particular one. I've taken the liberty of underlining certain lines in red and green.

   "...Chabad.org is often the deciding factor in the life of a troubled teenager, a lonely college student, or a "regular" family in some forlorn corner of the world with no Jewish community or friends."

     I'd like to know what the decision is that these people are trying to make. What are they deciding between? I'd also like to point out that Chabad emissaries don't only set up camp in "some forlorn corner of the world with no Jewish community." If you look around the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut tri-state area, you'll find many existing Jewish communities with Reform and Conservative populations into which Chabad emissaries have inserted themselves and set up Chabad centers. While they may say that they are not in competition with local synagogues, it is my opinion that this assertion is not entirely true. Through fundraising, they are able to greatly offset the cost of things like Hebrew School, holiday and shabbat services, and social programming, thus enabling them to offer little or no-cost (Chabad-centric, nicely packaged orthodox) Judaism to local Jews. The problem here is that this hugely subsidized programming serves to compete with the more liberal synagogues in existence, thus compromising temple membership for the more liberal factions. So, while they may not be directly in competition, the competition still exists. (This is not taking into account competing holiday programs, Purim parties, Hanukah celebrations, etc. that may occur at the same time.)

     I am also curious about the "troubled teenager" they are trying to reach and how exactly my money is going to help this person. How is he/she troubled? If there is preexisting knowledge that someone is indeed "troubled" then I would think that there are some ethical issues to be considered. Are parents being contacted? What is being done?  And what's the story with this "lonely college student?" Will money be given to the college's Student Union to help fund a new campus club? (This is a good time to remember specifically that missionaries, regardless of affiliation, regularly prey on people who may be more vulnerable and searching for belonging and meaning.) Is Chabad telling us that money that goes to the Chabad.org website will magically change people's lives? And tell us more about the ""regular" family." Why is "regular" in quotes in the email? Is that code for ... secular? And if they're secular, why exactly is this a problem?

     Let's also address the other line I underlined.

"We must continue to share and innovate until every last Jew has the opportunity to learn about his or her heritage."

The use of the word "must" conveys a sense of urgency in reaching "every last Jew" in order to give them this opportunity. Donors are paying Chabad.org to help them find every last Jew. I believe it was in Sue Fishkoff's book The Rebbe’s Army: Inside the World of Chabad-Lubavitch (Schocken Books, 2003) in which we learn that Chabad missionaries new to an area will often use the phone book as a guide to locating local Jewish families. I guess that's part of the effort to make sure that "every last Jew has the opportunity to learn about his or her heritage."Chabad is known for their mitzvah tanks, their street-corner kiruv, and their more aggressive outreach efforts in attempting to reach people. It's no surprise that this is Chabad's modus operandi. They're good at what they do and they have many hands willing to do the work, research, article writing, and website maintenance to make sure they can approach "every last Jew."
     As a quick note, I know that for many people reading, none of this is a surprise. Some of you may have even received the same email. The reason I periodically post letters from outreach organizations is because I find the language to be very interesting when looked at critically. Most of us barely skim fundraising letters. But when we read into them, they really just leave a lot of questions unanswered.

The Continuation of the Great Kiruv Debate

     The other day, I responded to kiruv professional Rachel Eden's rebuttal of my article about her blog post. As things were left, it was her turn.  For those just tuning in now, here's a brief summary. Ms. Eden's initial post outlined how she approaches and selects appropriate students who might be good targets for her work as a Jewish outreach professional. I criticized her techniques. She wrote defending her actions. I wrote a response, countering the points that she made in her refutation. Her latest response, "Playing Defense in a War that Need Not Exist," can be found on her blog. As always, I just want to mention that I'm not personally attacking Ms. Eden's character, just the ideas on this issue that she's putting out there.

     When I read Rachel's latest response, I have to admit, I was a bit turned off to our debate. Not because she said anything that I found odd or disturbing, but because what had started off as a point by point discourse in previous postings, was turned into a general attack of my blog and comments garnered, instead of actually addressing the valid and respectful points and questions I had made in my previous post. Rather than address my refutations of her points, she instead states "Rebecca makes a couple [of] outrageous comments and points that are too ridiculous and off-the-wall to address." I hope that Ms. Eden will share with the readers these "outrageous comments and points that are too ridiculous and off-the-wall to address" that she claims I made while refuting her points. How are they "outrageous" and "ridiculous" and "off the wall?" Why shut the dialogue down by dismissing the points I made? Furthermore, by straying from the initial points that I made (all based on Ms. Eden's previously posted statements,) Ms. Eden never actually defends her arguments, but instead attempts to change the subject. Whether this is done to confuse readers, or because she really has no legitimate defense of her claims, or for whatever reason, it is not a tactic unfamiliar with people dealing with kiruv professionals. I'm sure that I'm not the first person who has had dealings with kiruv workers, both online and in real life, who have danced around real questions and thrown out straw men in an effort to obfuscate the original issue being discussed. Part of this is the feeling on the part of the kiruv professionals that just because a person has questions, doesn't mean that they are questions that justify answers.
     As expected, Ms. Eden once again gives her readers no way of reading the original posts in which I criticize and discuss her points. There are no links (other than one posted by someone in her comments section,) no blog title, and no post titles so that her readers can even read what it is she is spending valuable time writing about. Her readers are never given the opportunity to see both sides of the debate--only the side that she is presenting. That reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
     In a select few instances, the matter of kiruv is actually discussed, and so I'll address those few moments here. Ms. Eden states:

YES, I do hope that students who’ve joined me for a cup of coffee at the Starbucks near campus will observe Shabbat more wholly, invest time into their relationship with God, identify more strongly as a Jew, be a more dignified and modest person, feel more connected to other Jews, honor their parents, opt to raise a Jewish family, celebrate Jewish holidays, the list goes on and on and on. I too hope to change for the better from these experiences and there’s no question in my mind that the list I just wrote above would enhance any Jew’s life. 

How does Ms. Eden expect these students to celebrate/observe these things? Is she alright with students attending synagogue and then heading out for dinner at the local Peruvian restaurant? Will she settle for students opting for egalitarian services in which a woman cantor and rabbi lead the services? Maybe the real question is whether Ms. Eden is teaching students from a Reform, Conservative, Humanist, Reconstructionist, or other liberal Jewish perspective? Or is she only teaching them from an Ashkenazi-based orthodox perspective? And if she's only teaching from an Ashkenazi-based orthodox perspective, how is she addressing the needs and differences in cultural practice of those of Sephardi heritage? Does she tell Jews of Middle Eastern ancestry that they have a distinct cultural flavor that differs drastically from those of European descent? Rachel Eden states that "the point of my presence [as an outreach worker on campus] is to create a Jewish student community and enhance their observance of Mitzvot." Ms. Eden, how is this not to be interpreted as grooming students for orthodoxy? Are you encouraging students to also seek other Jewish options (such as Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Humanist, and other liberal factions,) outside of orthodoxy?

Because I want Ms. Eden to respond to the points in my previous post, I am not going to cover each and every off-topic remark made in her latest post. Doing so takes away the legitimacy of the debate itself, and since this is in writing, it should be easy enough to refute the points made, and certainly easy enough to go back for reference. I do however, want to address this line: "But let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water." This is a stock phrase that is used by almost everyone in kiruv at one time or another. The thought process is that if a particular brand of orthodoxy didn't work out for you, compassionate kiruv workers understand. Their brand is the real thing. Their brand is really the most inspiring form of Judaism (not the other one you were unfortunately sold on that other time!) and they want to show it to you. "The Toyota didn't work out for you? That's because what you really need is a Mercedes. And I have a Mercedes, and because you're a close friend, I'm going to let you drive mine for a while. Trust me. Whatever you do, you don't want to ride a bike. My Mercedes is the way to go." The "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" thought process fails to take into account that people have legitimate reasons for not choosing whichever form of Judaism they've rejected. That approach fails to see people as human, and reduces them to social experiments at the hands of the kiruv professional.
     Ms. Eden writes:

But let’s get a few things straight:

1. I don’t care about the color of your yarmulke.
2. I don’t mind if you like classical music or jazz or Jewish.
3. I do think Jews shouldn’t eat pig or lobster but if you want to be a vegetarian-  go for it- I’ll happily accommodate you at dinner.
4. How you choose to express your creativity is totally up to you within the confines of the Torah (obviously).

Be YOU. And YES> Be Jewish. (sic)

This sounds great on paper. However, while Ms. Eden doesn't care about your yarmulke's color, she assumes that you'll be wearing one. She doesn't "mind" what type of music you like. Whether or not she'll try to influence you to not engage in mixed dancing, or discourage women from singing in front of men is another story. She'll accommodate your vegetarianism, provided you're requesting kosher food at her table. And she's happy for you to be creative "within the confines of the Torah (obviously.)" Whose interpretation of the Torah are we following here? Is this an orthodox interpretation? Or can students follow the Reform version? Will she be supportive of that version? Or the Conservative, or Reconstructionist, or Humanist interpretations? Or is it only a particular brand of Ashkenazi orthodoxy's version that Ms. Eden will support?
     Ms. Eden says "Be YOU. And YES>Be Jewish."(sic) And so I wonder, when orthodox Judaism doesn't sit well with Ms. Eden's students, does she refer them to the local non-orthodox synagogue? When her female students express a desire to become rabbis, does she try to discourage them with talk of how women have separate roles within Judaism, or does she tell them that they can be ordained in liberal Jewish schools, such as Hebrew Union College and the Jewish Theological Seminary? If she is not advising these other ways of "saving the baby," then she is effectively throwing out the Jewish babies as well, unless they follow her orthodox teachings.
     I do sincerely hope that Ms. Eden will address the points in my previous post, and answer the questions in both this and the last post. Discussing Jewish outreach is very interesting, but I wonder if Ms. Eden's own followers are curious as to why she is not addressing the points that are being made, and answering the questions, as well as why she is withholding information pertinent to having a balanced view of the discussion. Tennis is a great game to observe, but it's really not much fun to watch if you are only allowed to see one side of the court.

All quoted material from:
Eden, Rachel. "Playing Defense in a War that Need Not Exist." This Way to Eden. December 25, 2013.

The Kiruv Debate: A Response to "La Responsa"

     One of the amazing things about the internet is that it gives people the opportunity to connect with each other in ways that we never could before. It gives us the opportunity to look at ideas critically, write about those ideas, and, if we're lucky, receive a response.  My last post, Kiruv Professional Writes about Recruiting Jews on Campus, received a blog post in response. (You can read the original here, but I do want to request that if you do comment on Rachel Eden's post on her blog site, to please feel free to agree or disagree--but be respectful.) I will be referencing her article in pieces in order to respond fairly.
     Rachel begins by writing

Amazing what adrenaline can do. I was hoping for an early night. Just half an hour ago, I was lying in bed (half-asleep) and ready to turn in. I decided that I’d let the blog go for the evening or the week but, by-the-by, found an article in the blogosphere that took my article (this one) out of context to promote different and oppositional ideas so now…I’m awake.  I’d rather not draw anyone’s attention to this blog because I don’t agree with the writer at all but I would like to acknowledge the style of the writer’s (Rebecca’s) article. Rebecca didn’t attack me in any way or at least I don’t feel attacked by Rebecca personally but some of my writing was misinterpreted to fit with her agenda which I don’t love. Rebecca- we’re women- so let’s put it all out there. You’re my Jewish sister. Let’s get real. Really real. Therefore, friends, I give you: La Responsa.

I do sincerely hope that Rachel got a good night's sleep afterwards. For the record, I do try to be very respectful of those I criticize. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we're not each deserving of respectful dialogue. I want to thank Rachel for recognizing that I wasn't attacking her personally. She continues:

1. In my article “Blowing the Head Off Of Campus Outreach”, the goal for most kiruv professionals is to help a student feel more connected to Judaism, God, other Jews, and to develop (from that connection) a stronger commitment to Judaism. Most kiruv professionals that I’ve spoken to (and I talk to the most fanatic!) do not want carbon copies of themselves or even to force a student into an “orthodox lifestyle” (her words). A the goal for most kiruv professionals is to help a student feel more connected to Judaism, God, other Jews, and to develop (from that connection) a stronger commitment to Judaism. to reflect that connection is not the same thing as forcing someone into a little cookie-cutter mold called “orthodox”.  True story.

     I have to agree and disagree here. I do agree that "the goal for most kiruv professionals is to help a student feel more connected to Judaism, God, other Jews, and to develop (from that connection) a stronger commitment to Judaism." However, it's what those words mean that I find troubling. For a Jewish student connected to a non-orthodox yet Jewish lifestyle, "stronger commitment" means increasing levels of observance. Because the outreach worker happens to be orthodox by default, that person will be emphasizing "a stronger commitment to Judaism," but through orthodox practice. Because orthodox Judaism doesn't recognize the more liberal factions of Judaism to be valid expressions of Judaism, kiruv workers will not be encouraging students to practice Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, or Humanist Judaism. Ms. Eden suggests that encouraging students "to reflect that connection [a student's stronger commitment to Judaism] is not the same thing as forcing  someone into a little cookie-cutter mold called "orthodox."" However, she then appears to contradict herself in her second statement:

2. My “brazen” (her words) mention of students needing inner-strength to live a more Jewish life even when friends and, at times, family take exception…Where to start? We all (should) make choices at some point that don’t sit well or even threaten others. Whenever I go on a diet, I inevitably encounter people who are threatened by my new choices and I need to fortify myself to eat healthy and exercise in the face of such people. OK, not quite. It’s been a while since I’ve been on a real diet but the principle is there. It is  hard for certain types of people (usually the insecure types) to feel comfortable when someone else is making choices to live a healthier, happier life (I’m not just talking  about Jews). The idea is that those who truly love us will be happy we’re happy and support us. If not immediately, then eventually. Rebecca: Why fear change? Change can be good! In that vein, why fear questioning? The definition of “brainwash” is to adopt radically different beliefs by using systematic and often forcible pressure. The ability to question is a person’s only chance NOT to get brainwashed and I certainly hope you aren’t trying to brainwash your readers, Rebecca STRONG people QUESTION. WEAK people bury their heads in the sand.

     Let's go back. Ms. Eden said before she doesn't believe in forcing people into orthodox Judaism. Let's give the benefit of the doubt here, and get rid of the word "forcing." (To clarify, I don't believe that people are "forced," but are rather completely misled to believe that orthodox Judaism--the only type of Judaism being peddled by kiruv professionals--is the only valid expression of Judaism.) I see this second statement as contradicting her first statement. If students aren't being pushed or influenced towards orthodox Judaism, then the following should be unnecessary: "We all (should) make choices at some point that don’t sit well or even threaten others....It is  hard for certain types of people (usually the insecure types) to feel comfortable when someone else is making choices to live a healthier, happier life (I’m not just talking  about Jews)." What choices would these students be making that aren't sitting well with others? Is she talking about a move towards ... wait for it ... orthodox Judaism? Ms. Eden suggests that I "fear change." Again, what change would that be? If nobody is pushing orthodoxy, then there is no change. Except that's not true. As I've said before, I have no problem with people coming to orthodoxy by their own volition. The problem I have is when people are willfully misled by kiruv workers who teach that the all-encompassing cozy blanket is "just Judaism." It is not "just Judaism." It is specifically an Ashkenazi brand of orthodox Judaism.
     I do agree that it is very important to give people the ability to question. Of course, this goes both ways. In kiruv, outreach workers encourage their students to question their own non-orthodox lives in order to change their lives. In the real orthodox world, students who question orthodox doctrine, who question orthodoxy, who question their parents and their teachers, are often alienated from the community, rather than given the room to explore other expressions of Judaism, education, and personal satisfaction.
     Since we're talking about allowing people the option of questioning, this seems like a good time to point out this line from Ms. Eden's first paragraph: "I’d rather not draw anyone’s attention to this blog because I don’t agree with the writer at all." By not providing a link  to my blog (which is the writer's prerogative,) and by not providing even the title of the blog, nor the title of the post, Ms. Eden has robbed her own readers of their right to view and question a view that opposes her own. I don't fear questioning at all. The reason I started this blog was specifically for people who are looking for information and who are questioning. By providing information that is often left out by people in kiruv, it helps those who may not want to be steered towards orthodoxy to understand the underlying goal of outreach. This brings us to Ms. Eden's third point:

3. My step-to-step guide of how a kiruv professional develops a relationship with students does sound contrived and, in fact, is contrived. I’m not being facetious when I tell you that I’m not naturally sociable and don’t enjoy socializing, per se. The result of these steps is actually an organic relationship. Proof? My husband and I were “set up” on a blind date that led to a (short) series of dates before our engagement. The whole process was forced, contrived. However, my marriage is anything but contrived. It is very real. One can go through a premeditated series of steps and the outcome of the connection between those two people will depend on those two people- not the steps that got them there. My best friend is dating a guy who had a crush on her for two years and used the pretense of friendship to solidify a bond with her. Was he being dishonest? Honesty isn’t even in the equation. The honesty was his intention to connect and whether they’d end up together was up to their chemistry. Same with my relationships with students. Either we end up having a deep and long-lasting friendship or the chemistry isn’t right.

     The steps are contrived. Regardless of the outcome, the steps themselves are in place to form a relationship that otherwise would not exist. Whether the relationship is good or bad as an end result really isn't the issue at all. Here's an example: A woman is raped. As a result of that rape, she ends up pregnant. For her own personal reasons, she decides not to have an abortion. She decides to keep the baby and the child gives her joy throughout her life. The fact that she loves her child more than anything does not suddenly make rape acceptable. These are two separate issues. Part A--rape is wrong, no matter what the outcome. Part B--the woman has a child whom she loves. In the case of kiruv, Part A is also separated from Part B. The relationship is contrived with a specific goal in mind. If the relationship works out for both parties, that's wonderful, but it doesn't negate Part A.
Let's look at the fourth point.

4. Rebecca seems overly concerned with families who “try to figure out how to relate to their children and how to weather the growing pains of the baal teshuvah”. To me, a healthy and loving family views a member’s growing devotion to Judaism as a positive thing and accommodates the family member’s request for, say, kosher food. If my children ask me to serve them food that is more “kosher” than I’m accustomed to eating, I would be happy that they want to strive for a stronger commitment. I would commend my own parenting efforts because, after all, I taught them the importance of being Jewish which led to this self-discovery. I don’t want my kids to follow my path in Judaism. I want them to follow theirs. Abraham was happy to have Isaac and not another Abraham. Those two were different and had very different paths towards God. Both were good. Neither one should be judged. Abraham wasn’t preoccupied (I assume) with the fact that Isaac didn’t embrace the kindness of hospitality the way he did. Rather, he was proud that Isaac developed the trait of self-restraint and discipline.

     Let's look at this scenario through a different lens, but let's start with Rachel's statement, "I don’t want my kids to follow my path in Judaism. I want them to follow theirs." If Ms. Eden's children were to decide that they no longer believed that orthodox Judaism was the way to go, and instead, opted to live as Humanist Jews, would Ms. Eden be as accommodating to their needs as she expects non-orthodox parents should be to the needs of their BT children? Let's assume that her children are simply following their own path in Judaism. Would she "commend [her] own parenting efforts because, after all, [she] taught them the importance of being Jewish which led to this self-discovery?" If we are expected to understand that "Abraham and Isaac ... were different and had very different paths towards God" then we should understand that all Jews are different and have different pathways in life, making kiruv unnecessary. But that's not the case. A kiruv rabbi who has been commenting on this blog as anonymous but signs off as "AM" ("Anonymous Mekarev") states that:

1. It is the firm position of Halachic Judaism that all Jews have a responsibility to influence others to the realization that there is a creator of the world and that there is a correct code of conduct for human beings in general and Jews (as His reps to the world) in particular.

2. We are to do this by any peaceful means including persuasion because we are held responsible for others' actions and welfare to the amount that we can influence them for the better. We have a moral obligation to educate people about this code of conduct who - through no fault of their own - do not yet understand what is incumbent upon them being born as Jews. (AnonymousDecember 17, 2013 at 4:28 AM)

 These statements actually disprove the idea that the orthodox kiruv worker believes all Jews to have different pathways in life. Sure, maybe in the non-spiritual realm of their lives, but as far as their spiritual lives, outreach professionals believe that those pathways need to be paved with halachic Judaism as defined by orthodoxy. Based on this, it is my belief that while Ms. Eden thinks that non-orthodox parents should be happy to change their own lives to meet the new needs of their grown children, she would not necessarily be quite as happy to do this in the opposite situation.
     Ms. Eden ends her response with number five:

5. Finally, Rebecca’s (and her commenters’) plea for more transparency in campus outreach. I can only speak for myself and my husband when I say that our prayer for our students is a heightened awareness and connection with Judaism. We never made any other claim. Those students that I’m closest with (and are probably reading this) know I bust their chops about dating non-Jewish people because I love them and feel close enough to discuss my opinions openly with them. In return, they discuss their honest opinions with me. I’ve debated some extremely opinionated students in my day and one girl (who I feel very close to) has, indeed, left me changed. I believe she has made me a more open and less judgmental person. I hope I have made her more proud of her Judaism. How much more transparent can I get?
If you have an opinion – whether you agree with me or you don’t- I’d love to hear it.
Rebecca- whoever you are, wherever you are- I love you girl. Before you judge, how about listening with an open heart? You may be surprised there are no devil horns beneath my wig. 

     I will admit that I did chuckle at Rachel's last sentence. Many of my friends on Facebook probably saw my 2013 Halloween picture, in which I sported a pair of purple devil horns. I wear mine openly. Although I will admit that I gave up the wig years ago.
     Let me just take a quick moment to thank Rachel Eden, and my commenter AM, as well as any other kiruv professionals who have read and taken the time to respond to this blog--either as a whole, or in part. While we may not all agree on kiruv (my issue is deceptive kiruv,) I really hope that we can all continue to engage in a mutually respectful dialogue. I recognize that coming out to counter my posts may be daunting, but it shows that you are dedicated to your work. And even if I am not a fan of your work, I do admire your devotion to it. I've said in private conversations that we may disagree on this issue, but that doesn't mean that we disagree on all issues. As a rule, I attack the issue and I don't condone personal attacks. After all, we're not family. (That's a joke.) There are many people who comment on my blog who have suffered greatly because of deceptive practices, so understand that sensitivities often run high. For many, kiruv is a very emotional issue.
     I also want to thank those of you who have supported this blog by commenting, by reading, and by sharing these posts with your friends, family, and/or followers. I want to thank those of you who have reached out via email and Facebook to share your very personal stories with me. I am humbled by your willingness to open up to me, a total stranger. You folks are the reason I'm still writing about kiruv.
     I hope that by providing this side of the story, all of us--regardless of what side of the issue we support--can learn from each other.



Except for the material referenced within the body of the post written by anonymous poster AM, all quoted/indented text is from:
Eden, Rachel. "La Responsa." This Way to Eden. December 17, 2013.

Kiruv Professional Writes About Recruiting Jews on Campus

     On the blog "This Way To Eden-Documenting a Search for a Meaningful Life," Rachel Eden, a

 http://www.says-it.com/unclesam/index.php

woman devoted to kiruv (she's worked for Aish, taught Hebrew School, and worked in campus outreach,) writes about "demystifying kiruv."  In her own words, her "article refers to campus outreach as opposed to all other kinds, which by [her] estimation, is distinguished by its accelerated pace since young people tend to be more open to new ideas and [are] transient."
     In her post, she talks about what she and other outreach professionals look for in college students, and then goes on to write about how students are approached. At the end of the article, she makes a huge point about how few students actually end up orthodox, despite the huge amounts of time and money invested in the campus kiruv venture. She says that the ideal is that seven students per year commit to orthodoxy per campus venture, but believes the number to be lower. However, if seven is the number committing at the end of the year, I would want to know how many are sent on to yeshiva or other programs encouraging an orthodox lifestyle? I believe that students who are being groomed for a possible eventual move to orthodoxy may not necessarily commit to changing their lives while on campus, but are encouraged to go onto other organizations that will help them to get to that point.   
I'm pulling a few excerpts from the December 4, 2013 post because I think that they're very eye-opening. Again, remember that this is coming from someone who is a kiruv professional.

There are a few types of students educated outreach professionals tend to seek.... The idea is that if the assimilation rate is skyrocketing at the speed of lightening, who will your time and effort resonate with best?

1. Middos - good character traits. Nice, normal students. Is this person nice, punctual, helpful? These are questions my source tells me are critical to ask before investing serious time.
2. Intelligence. Torah’s philosophy is brilliant and true- and completely adverse to many ideas we have in the Western world. A student is required to question what s/he thought to be true about priorities and ideas. Such a person (obviously) must be a thinker but proceed with caution if the person takes too much pride in his/her intelligence (see #1)  or has an addiction  (not aspiring) to perfect grades.
3. Inner Strength. A student must have the emotional strength and wherewithal to stand up for what is right or walk away depending on the case. Change is very difficult but change in the face of possible peer or parental pressure requires nothing less than complete grit.1

In Ms. Eden's discussion of the three top traits that kiruv workers should look for when recruiting, she specifically looks for people with "inner strength" and brazenly mentions the difficulty in changing one's life in the face of peer or parental pressure. Of course, a potentially successful recruit would have to change one's life to become orthodox. Ms. Eden is also cautious of people who might be "addicted to perfect grades." She doesn't want people who are perfectionists. If I'm reading her correctly, this is because there is a fear that a potential recruit might take too much on too quickly, and this could cause a whole slew of problems for both the outreach worker and the student. The first quality that is considered important is the willingness to question. A person who is unwilling to question won't question their current lifestyle in order to possibly change it for a new and different lifestyle, in this case, orthodox Judaism.
Let's move on to the second part of  Ms. Eden's discussion about outreach:

Part two are the steps someone in outreach should take if they meet someone who fits the criteria and ..well…seems to like the rabbi/rebbetzin. In the scenario that follows, I’m the rabbi/rebbetzin and you’re the student:

Step 1: We meet. We connect. I ask you for another time to meet and connect.
Step 2: We do this consistently, talk about important philosophical ideas that most people don’t slow down long enough to consider, and we share our lives with one another through these conversations.
Step 3: I invite you over for Shabbat. You eat my food. You meet my family. I enjoy your company. We repeat this cycle often. Before or after Step 3, I throw in other invitations to social or educational programs that take place frequently (example: Maimonides)
Step 4: Our relationship is stronger now.  I invite you to a Shabbaton in a Torah-observant community. You have the opportunity to meet different types of religious  personalities and families to give you a more well-rounded perspective on what it means to live an orthodox life.
Step 5: I invite you to learn and tour in Israel on a short (10 day to 2 week) trip that’s an intense whirlwind of inspiration and gives new meaning to Judaism.
Step 6: We plan a longer trip for you to study in Israel and integrate Jewish ideology into your everyday life and future.

A nice tidy package, huh? Obviously this is an over-simplification but meant to be a generalized structure for creating an environment where positive relationships and a Jewish student community can flourish.2

     Ms. Eden gives us a nice step-by-step list of how kiruv works. A relationship is built gradually. Deep conversations are had. Invitations are issued. That part of the "cycle" is repeated "often." Sounds nice, kind of like a friendship. Except that in this scenario, the target person is befriended only because the outreach worker has determined him/her to be a good choice for a potential recruit, based on the first piece of quoted material. The potential recruit isn't being invited to talk about life's meaning over coffee because the kiruv professional wants to be a friend. The kiruv professional is feeling  him/her out, and if he/she is receptive, then the outreach agent will move to the next step. This way, outreach professionals can say "see? We never pressured anyone. They got involved of their own volition!"
     Following the steps outlined by Ms. Eden, we come to Step 3, in which she mentions that she might toss in invitations to join other programs (she mentions Maimonides--a program run by Meor,) in addition to an invitation to Shabbat at her house with her family. With all of these invitations and discussions going on, the kiruv professional has now gotten the potential recruit involved in a program that pushes a one-sided view of Judaism. But if questioned, this is all "just Jewish." Keep in mind that the college student away from home is now thinking of the rabbi and rebbetzin as friends who are looking out for him or her. The student now trusts these people, and believing them to be friends, or at the very least, people who care for him/her,  and is more likely to be convinced to get involved in any extracurricular programs that they run. The problem here is that this relationship is not based on honesty. The student is being honest and may be thrilled to have such deep conversations, but the student is not aware that the reason this relationship exists is for the sake of recruiting this student to orthodoxy.
     Steps 5 and 6 take the student to different venues to study Judaism. Jewish students are told about Birthright and may be encouraged to travel on a Birthright trip sponsored by the campus rabbi's organization. If the student shows an even greater interest, he/she will be further encouraged to attend a yeshiva abroad.
     I stated earlier that Ms. Eden said that maybe they get seven people to commit to orthodoxy a year per campus. (Again, keep in mind that a person may become orthodox at yeshiva in step 6, so he/she isn't necessarily orthodox from the campus rabbi.) That may not sound like a lot. But let's take one hundred campuses with seven recruits per year on average. That's still seven hundred new recruits. That's seven hundred kids who started off as non-orthodox Jews and rejected their upbringing. That's seven hundred families that will have been thrown into disarray, as parents try to figure out how to relate to their children and how to weather the growing pains of the baal teshuvah, who, at times will exhibit self-righteous behavior and disdain for their upbringing. 
     Comments from people on this blog can often be broken into two camps: people defending Jewish outreach and people against Jewish outreach. This is because those who defend kiruv feel that they are doing what their god wants, and people who are opposed find that notion to be ridiculous and offensive (and very similar to what non-Jewish missionaries do.) However, the one thing that the anti-deceptive kiruv camp wants is more transparency in outreach. You want to proselytize? That's great. Tell people from the very beginning why you are on campus. Tell them that you'd love for them to become orthodox and that's your sole purpose for being on campus. Explain to them that you, the outreach worker, are teaching strictly from an orthodox perspective and that you would like the students under your tutelage to ultimately become observant. Let's face it. Shouldn't people who claim to be brethren exercise at least the same respect that Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints exercise towards us? At least they tell us who they are and that they're hoping we'll accept Jesus. Why are our own brethren not even giving us the benefit of a straight story and instead, resorting to deception in order to further their own agenda?


1. Eden, Rachel. "Blowing the Head Off of Outreach." This Way To Eden, Documenting a Search for a Meaningful Life. 12/4/2013.
2. ibid.

Rebellion, Zumba, and A Funny Outreach Speech

     There's a lot to write about today on many subjects. So, we'll start at the beginning. So, here we go. Thank you to all who have read and contacted me about "Total Immersion," a short story I wrote that was published on JewishFiction.net. Thank you for your comments, both positive and negative. I've been writing fiction for over twenty years and only within the past few years have I actually pursued publication. If you checked out the story, stay a few minutes over there and look at Jewish Fiction's incredible editorial board. I'm thrilled that my story was selected for this issue. (They've also published work by Elie Wiesel. So I feel very honored.)

     I just had the pleasure of reading Pop Chasid's blog post "It's a Baal Teshuva's Job to Rebel Against the Orthodox World."I suggest going over there and reading it, but here are some juicy tidbits. Pop Chasid makes the point that once religious,  baal teshuvas (BTs, newly religious people) begin to "realize that a culture does not equal truth."1 He talks about how BTs "come to Judaism with a fresh perspective" and how it is their job as BTs "to turn every part of the world inside out, and that includes the orthdox one."2 (As a former BT, this actually explains why many former BTs who ultimately leave orthodoxy still retain ties to the community in hopes of changing it.)
     Pop Chasid is right--the job of the BT is to offer new views. What becomes problematic is when kiruv workers look to stifle those views and churn out carbon copies of themselves, instead of giving BTs permission to keep the things that make them unique. Permission, you ask? Yes. I've read complaints from BTs about feeling pressured to give up activities that they love because the rabbis who led them to orthodoxy come from communities who eschew these things. Currently, the new thing to ban is zumba.

In the document issued by the Rabbinical Court of the Ashkenazi Community in Beitar [Israel] and headlined "warning," women are explicitly forbidden from running or taking Zumba classes, deemed indecent because they involve moving parts of the body.

"Recently our city has seen the opening of classes employing the South American 'Zumba' method,” it reads. “After having established that both in form and manner, the activity is entirely at odds with both the ways of the Torah and the holiness of Israel, as are the songs associated to it, I hereby announce that the organization and participation in such classes is forbidden.3”

Click to enlarge. Hat tip:VDN

I'm still trying to understand how women dancing with women in an exercise studio and having a great time and a great workout in a non-judgmental atmosphere (yes, I've zumba'd in combat boots, un-coordination and all,) can cause rabbis to enact a ban. I know, I know. You're thinking "how does this impact on the US?" Well, "Brooklyn Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein said that the dance craze can lead Jewish women towards pole dancing and prostitution. He said: “Zumba will become pole, pole will become prostitution and you will lose all of your kids… The whole world is just falling apart.”4 Ironically, pole dancing and zumba are a great way to burn off all of those extra calories from heavy carb-laden foods like kugel and cholent. And what does this have to do with kiruv? An unfortunate by-product of bans and newly enacted religious strictures is that they tend to cause a shift towards the right in the religious community. There are those who support these bans because they believe in them. There are others who go along with them because they don't want to make waves. Community pressure keeps people from disagreeing loudly and publicly. After all, if you want to zumba/wear shorter skirts/not cover your hair with your community's accepted hair covering,  then you may have to suffer the consequences of having your children not accepted by the schools of your choice, losing out on good marriage prospects, etc. Even those who disagree with what their rabbis say are often silenced in order to maintain the status quo.
     The Lakewood Scoop (see picture) reported as far back as 2011 that the Gym Lakewood was getting rid of their Zumba class offering because of complaints. You can read the comments here. They're quite entertaining.

     For a bit of fun, I highly recommend watching "The Funniest Outreach Speech Ever," given by Hilly Gross back in 1986. He talks about Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald (of Lincoln Square Synagogue) and how he'd send people out to families for Shabbat meals right after services.

Let me tell you why I love this speech and why I generally have no problem with this. First of all, Lincoln Square Synagogue is Modern Orthodox synagogue. People who are interested in Judaism come in for the Beginner's Minyan. Rabbis are not out recruiting, and are not out telling people that this is the only option. I also like the humorous honesty that Hilly Gross uses to give his speech. He wants to speed through davening, make a quick kiddush when he gets home, eat, and go to sleep. And he talks about being irritated that these beginners want to do it all, drawn out, the way they do it "at Effy's house." I like his self-deprecating sense of humor, and how it's not used to denigrate other forms of Judaism. (Having sat through many lectures by kiruv rabbis, it's nice not to hear insults hurled, even with humor, at Reform and Conservative Jewish practice.) Above all, I love how non-judgmental he is, and how he talks about his own spirituality being lifted by that of the Beginners. Hilly Gross doesn't try to cover the fact that after a while, one's spirituality may wane, that one may not always be as inspired as he/she was in the beginning, and that sleep sometimes seems like a better option than singing zmiros (Shabbos songs) around the table. I remarked to a close friend of mine that in the world of Big Kiruv, the truth as put by Hilly Gross, would never be put out there as bluntly as in this speech. Nobody tells kids and young adults getting involved in these kiruv organizations that yes, there will be a time when the rosy kiruv glow wears off, and you're back to life as usual, just with a lot of Jewish responsibilities. And I don't recall ever being told that really, it's okay not to sing every single verse of "Shalom Aleichem" on Shabbos. Modern Orthodoxy, for people who want to be part of mainstream society and still have an orthodox connection to Judaism, is a wonderful way of maintaining that connection without becoming completely overwhelmed, and without being pressured to leave one's whole life behind. Why this lifestyle is not being offered by kiruv workers is something I don't understand. There's no reason to churn out copy after copy of Aish-type BTs who think they have to upend their entire lives, family dynamic, and social group in order to have Judaism in their lives. Judaism should not have to destroy a life to enhance it. Oh, and by the way, Modern Orthodoxy allows zumba.

Whether we like it or not, our job as baal teshuvas is to always rebel.  It is to turn every part of the world inside out, and that includes the orthodox one.  - See more at: http://popchassid.com/baal-teshuvas-rebel-orthodox/#sthash.1CyN3EWS.dpuf

we realize that a culture does not equal truth.

we realize that a culture does not equal truth.

04DecIt’s A Baal Teshuva’s Job To Rebel Against The Orthodox World

When a person, like a baal teshuva, decides to leave his culture and join another, the beginning of the process is one of rebellion against the culture he grew up in.  A big, healthy part of the process is realizing all the lies of the world he lived in before.  Realizing how empty it is and why he’s choosing to follow a different path.  Often, he’s rebelling against his own parents.  Rebelling against everything he learned.
The problem is that most baal teshuvas think that the rebellion ends there.  I felt like that for a while.  I know many others who still feel that way.  They think, “Okay, that world I left was bad, so now I need to fit into this new world as much as possible.”
But there is a problem: the orthodox world, unfortunately, is just as messed up as the “outside”.
Most of us don’t realize this at first because we connected through some outside force, like a Chabad house or a yeshiva in Jerusalem or something else.  And in that world, we lived in our own culture, sheltered from the universe we were about to enter.
But eventually we run into that truth.  We enter the culture and we find out that there are many rabbis that can’t be trusted.  We realize that not everyone is as idealistic as the people who brought us into the fold.  And that perhaps some of the people that brought us into the fold weren’t as great as we thought they were.
In sum: we realize that a culture does not equal truth.

- See more at: http://popchassid.com/baal-teshuvas-rebel-orthodox/#sthash.1CyN3EWS.dpuf

04DecIt’s A Baal Teshuva’s Job To Rebel Against The Orthodox World

When a person, like a baal teshuva, decides to leave his culture and join another, the beginning of the process is one of rebellion against the culture he grew up in.  A big, healthy part of the process is realizing all the lies of the world he lived in before.  Realizing how empty it is and why he’s choosing to follow a different path.  Often, he’s rebelling against his own parents.  Rebelling against everything he learned.
The problem is that most baal teshuvas think that the rebellion ends there.  I felt like that for a while.  I know many others who still feel that way.  They think, “Okay, that world I left was bad, so now I need to fit into this new world as much as possible.”
But there is a problem: the orthodox world, unfortunately, is just as messed up as the “outside”.
Most of us don’t realize this at first because we connected through some outside force, like a Chabad house or a yeshiva in Jerusalem or something else.  And in that world, we lived in our own culture, sheltered from the universe we were about to enter.
But eventually we run into that truth.  We enter the culture and we find out that there are many rabbis that can’t be trusted.  We realize that not everyone is as idealistic as the people who brought us into the fold.  And that perhaps some of the people that brought us into the fold weren’t as great as we thought they were.
In sum: we realize that a culture does not equal truth.

- See more at: http://popchassid.com/baal-teshuvas-rebel-orthodox/#sthash.1CyN3EWS.dpuf

1. Pop Chasid. It's a Baal Teshuva's Job to Rebel Against the Orthodox World, Pop Chasid, December 4, 2013.
2. ibid.
3. Sommer, Alison Kaplan. Haredi Rabbis Ban All-Female Zumba Classes. Haaretz. September 9, 2013.
4. Levin, Joe. 'Zumba makes you a whore’ says US Rabbi Zecharia Wallerstein. TOT. December 5, 2013.

Total Immersion: A Story About Mikvah

     As a professional writer, this blog is only one of my many projects. I'd like to take a moment to share with you a short story of mine that was just published on JewishFiction.net. I came up with this idea back in 1999 and it took me another ten years before I put it on paper. After many revisions and then the whole submission/rejection process, Dr. Nora Gold's website finally accepted my piece last year. JewishFiction.net has a very impressive editorial board, and they've published work by Elie Wiesel. I'm proud to be one of the many authors published by such an impressive online publication.
Please read "Total Immersion" http://www.jewishfiction.net/index.php/publisher/articleview/frmArticleID/317  at your leisure.
And thank you for taking the time to read, comment, and think about this blog. Wishing all of you a happy Chanukah, however you choose to celebrate.

Self-Hating Jews, Child Abuse, and New Recruits

     I rarely post more than once a week, but I think that it's important to share this article: "The Child-Rape Assembly Line; In Ritual Bathhouses of the Jewish Orthodoxy, Children Are Systematically Abused" by Christopher Ketcham. 
 As I've mentioned before both on this blog and in the public sphere, there are certain dangerous attitudes that exist within the ultra-orthodox community. One such attitude is that if a person criticizes orthodoxy or orthodox Jews, one is automatically labeled an "anti-Semite" or, if Jewish, a "self-hating Jew." People who have commented on this blog have called me a self-hating Jew for criticizing kiruv/Jewish outreach. I have read disparaging comments on other forums in which people have claimed that I hate orthodox Jews; and I have received email accusing me of all of the above. The reason I bring this up along with this article is not just to spread awareness of issues plaguing the ultra-orthodox community, but to point out that the ultra-orthodox community consistently paints themselves as victims when criticized. Rather than looking at themselves and their practices critically in order to make positive changes, they lash out at the person or people making the allegations.

     Seven years ago, Rabbi Rosenberg started blogging about sex abuse in his community and opened a New York City hotline to field sex abuse complaints.... Today, he is the lone whistleblower among the Satmar. For this he is reviled, slandered, hated, feared. He receives death threats on a regular basis. In Yiddish and Hebrew newspapers, advertisements taken out by the self-described “great rabbis and rabbinical judges of the city of New York” have denounced him as “a stumbling block for the House of Israel,” “a public rebuker and preacher of ethics” who “persists in his rebelliousness” and whose “voice has been heard among many Jewish families, especially young people in their innocence… drawn to listen to his poisonous and revolting speeches.” Leaflets distributed in Williamsburg and Borough Park, the centers of ultra-Orthodoxy in Brooklyn, display his bearded face over the body of a writhing snake. "Corrupt Informer," reads one of the leaflets, followed by the declaration that Rabbi Rosenberg’s “name should rot in hell forever. They should cut him off from all four corners of the earth.”
     ...Like the Catholic establishment, the rabbinate seeks to cover up the crimes, quiet the victims, protect the abusers, and deflect potential criticism of their institutional practices. Those who speak out are vilified, and the faithful learn to shut their mouths.

      ...As for Rabbi Rosenberg, when he voiced his concerns to the rabbinate in Israel, he was brought up on charges by the mishmeres hatznuis, the archconservative Orthodox “modesty squad,” which regulates, often through threats of violence, proper moral conduct and dress in the relations between men and women. The modesty squad is a sort of Jewish Taliban. According to Rabbi Rosenberg, the rapist he caught in the act was a member of the modesty squad, which charged him with the unconscionable offense of having previously been seen walking down a street in Jerusalem with a married woman. “But it’s OK to molest children,” he adds.

      ...The abuse and its cover-up are symptoms of wider political dysfunction—or, more precisely, symptoms of socially disastrous political control by religious elites (Ketcham.)

But there are two issues at play here. The first, which I discussed above--in short, the playing of the anti-Semitism/self-hating Jew card, is something that I've noticed across the spectrum of the readers of this blog, and certainly in the orthodox world in general. The second issue is how perpetrators of sex crimes against children are protected in the ultra orthodox community--a community which many ba'al teshuvas (newly religious people) ultimately join. Ketcham reports what's obvious to those who've left the orthodox community, but what those who are new to the community often don't realize:

Families saddled with an increasing number of children soon enter into a cycle of poverty. There is simultaneously an extreme separation of the sexes, which is unprecedented in the history of the Hasidim. There is limited general education, to the point that most men in the community are educated only to the third grade, and receive absolutely no sexual education. No secular newspapers are allowed, and internet access is forbidden. “The men in the community are undereducated by design,” Ben said. “You have a community that has been infantilized. They have been trained not to think. It’s a sort of totalitarian control.”

The rabbis, dominating an ignorant and largely poverty-stricken flock, determine the fate of every individual in the community. Nothing is done without the consent of the rabbinical establishment. A man wants to buy a new car—he goes to the rabbi for counsel. A man wants to marry—the rabbi tells him whether or not he should marry a particular bride. As for the women, they don’t get to ask the rabbi anything. Their place is beneath contempt (Ketcham.)

Of course there will be readers who say that this article is about the Satmar community, a community that doesn't try to make people religious, so therefore it shouldn't impact on those interested in becoming orthodox. But this is hardly restricted to the Satmar community. In repressive communities that rely on social pressure to make sure that women's skirts stay a certain length, the same social pressure is exerted to keep people from calling the police on abusers, and to keep people from testifying in court.
     So, how does any of this get resolved? Should people not criticize the ultra-orthodox community for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic? Should the ultra-orthodox community keep sweeping these heinous crimes against society's most vulnerable members under the rug? Maybe we should we educate people both inside and outside of these communities, so they are aware of what goes on and can protect themselves and others. Perhaps being honest with new recruits about what really goes on in some of these communities may take away the romanticized idealism that new recruits have towards ultra-orthodoxy, but isn't that a small price to pay in order to protect future children from such atrocities? I'd say it's worth the self-hating Jew label, without a doubt.

Ketcham, Christopher. "The Child-Rape Assembly Line
In Ritual Bathhouses of the Jewish Orthodoxy, Children Are Systematically Abused." Vice Media. 11/12/ 2012.

Women Assault Rabbis with Sights and Smells (And Other Interesting Tales from Lakewood)

     One of the reasons that this blog is called "Jewish Outreach: What Your Rabbi Isn't Telling You" is due to the inaccurate picture of ultra-orthodox life often painted by Jewish outreach/kiruv workers.  Once one leaves the idyllic realm of kiruv experiences, there is a very real world that exists on the other side of a few semesters or years at yeshiva or seminary that most people people don't know about, or even understand until moving into such a community. The following excerpts from screenshots were recently taken from the publication "The Voice of Lakewood," published for the orthodox community in Lakewood, New Jersey.
     In the first excerpt, notice that  a woman is complaining that young girls (second grade, to be exact,) in a summer camp setting (in someone's home) have exposed skin between their high socks and their skirts. Notice the level of concern of the writer.

Picture 1. Click to enlarge.

Picture 2. Click to enlarge.

     Notice the second picture in which women and girls are told to cut their hair or sheitels (wigs) to an "acceptable length." This advertisement is endorsed by Lakewood rabbonim (rabbis) and roshei yeshiva (heads of yeshivas.) 

     The third picture, a letter to the Voice of Lakewood, signed "Appalled in Lakewood," is from a father who is appalled that his daughter's teacher wears a wig that is longer than her shoulders. This is apparently in direct conflict with the family's values which stress that a married woman's wig must not go past her shoulders. Rather than complain to the community, perhaps he could have explained to his daughter that different people hold by different beliefs, even within the realm of orthodox Judaism. Kiruv is often  guilty of the same thing, teaching that orthodox Judaism, and Judaism in general, can only be practiced one way--the way of the kiruv worker.

Picture 3. Click to enlarge.

     Picture four provides further understanding of the status of women in the Lakewood orthodox community. Mothers of cheder (school-age) boys are urged by "a Lakewood Rebbi" "not [to] dress up excessively ... and definitely do not wear perfume" for parent-teacher conferences with the rebbi (a male teacher.) This "Lakewood Rebbi" then asks "why can't we trust the child's father to go alone and bring home a report? ...Perhaps the mothers could set up a phone meeting with the rebbi. He would be thrilled to do so instead of being assaulted by all types of sights and smells two evenings a year." It seems that "a Lakewood Rebbi" is trying very hard to be labeled a misogynist, proclaiming in print his disgust for women and belief that women really don't need to have any part in their male children's education.

Picture 4. Click to enlarge.

If you weren't already sure as to why the Lakewood orthodox community feels that women's modesty, or tznius, is important, the following letter to the Voice of Lakewood should clarify their perspective. You see, when one is first learning from his/her kiruv/outreach rabbi, one isn't told that the reason ultra-orthodox women are pressured to dress a certain way  is because of the belief that a woman's hemline directly affects whether or not Jews get hurt or die. (This isn't an isolated incident. Signage to this effect was found in Brooklyn, where women learned that they'd be "severely punished" for not following the laws of modesty. You can also read about how the ultra orthodox community consistently obscures the faces of females in their publications.) The author of this letter, who signs off as "Someone Who's Embarrassed of the Image of Lakewood," offers readers what should be understood as concern: "What are you doing to yourself and others? That person that got hurt or died--it might have been because of you." She further states that her husband "refuses to go to the grocery store because he feels like it's a junkyard looking at all that garbage that people are wearing." I'd like to think that perhaps this is just her husband's excuse to get his wife to go shopping so that he doesn't have to, but alas, the prevalent feeling is that the women must help protect their husbands from impure thoughts. To do so, they use community pressure to push their beliefs on others within the community--even those who might not be observing at the same level.

Picture 5. Click to enlarge.

Picture 6. Click to enlarge.

     The question is, why is  what goes on in Lakewood, New Jersey, relevant to this blog? After all, Lakewood isn't the be all and end all of campus (or other) kiruv practice. But that's just my point. Lakewood is an ultra-orthodox community. Like other ultra-orthodox communities, there are people in and from Lakewood who work or volunteer with kiruv organizations. These letters are in their community's magazine and are representative of issues that are grappled with by those in the community. These letters are indicative of the archaic lens through which community leaders view and control  women and their bodies in the name of Judaism. When whole communities buy into the belief that the length of a woman's skirt is responsible for "116 accidents this past week," it creates a danger for the rights of all people--those already in, and those first coming into, these communities. When kiruv professionals push their beliefs on people who have little or no experience with ultra-orthodox Judaism, they leave out the part about how they believe a too-short hemline or the exposed skin of an 8 year-old's leg has caused death and destruction to Jews; and how guilt, fear, intimidation, and community pressure will keep women behaving to whatever tznius (modesty) standard has been deemed socially acceptable. 

Update: For more on this topic, read "Shmiras Einayim --Try it, You'll Like it!"over at Kol B'Isha Erva.