If there’s one thing that I’m known for, in addition to reviewing books, it’s pushing for Modern Orthodox Jews to embrace the idea of kiruv/Jewish Outreach.
Kiruv should include outreach not only to Jews who grew up non-Orthodox but also to those who grew up haredi and are now off the derech to show the latter that Judaism is not zero/sum, and there are Jewish communities that might be a better fit than the ones they grew up in.
I'm glad that this issue was already identified a decade ago. Raising a Modern Orthodox family requires a high level of affluence (see Ben Lerner's Future of Jewish article: https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/many-jews-in-america-are-losing-the ), and young formerly Haredi men leave that world with little formal education and few if any marketable skills.
Modern Orthodoxy’s evenhanded focus on Torah uMaddah tends to blur the line between Kodesh and Chol often reducing Torah to just another form of wisdom in the world, naturally diminishing the drive to share it with the world, which already has so much wisdom of its own.
The Haredi world has the opposite problem in that it caricatures the “outside world” as completely void of value, but in so doing more readily generates urgency to share Torah with those who don’t have access to it.
I'm not so sure. I think that the Modern Orthodox approach of valuing chol is one that appears in chareidi kiruv more than those groups like to admit. How many articles are there on Aish.com or Chabad.org that attempt to synthesize Torah with at least some aspect of modernity? Of those articles, are we expected to think that all of them are insincere? I doubt it. So I don't think that there's any inherent contradiction in finding ways to synthesized kodesh with chol and engaging in kiruv. To the contrary, I think that once one acknowledges that Torah is everywhere they may be more inclined to share it.
Having said that, I DO think there's a structural problem in Chareidi kiruv in that there is no "exit ramp" for those who begin the journey that way but decide not to be Chareidi for various reasons. I happened to stumble from Ohr Somayach to YU, but I was relatively rare. Most will just drop off entirely if they decide they value modernity more than the Chareidi community does and that's a huge problem that I hope MO Kiruv can do something about.
Before questioning why Modern Orthodoxy insufficiently engages in Kiruv, I suggest you ask why so few Modern Orthodox Jews enter the Rabbinate and the world of Jewish education.
I'm not sure where the assumption is coming from that so few Modern Orthodox Jews enter rabbanus/education. RIETS ordains about 200 at every chag hasemicha with many of them going into different forms of klei kodesh.
Good question. I'm not sure. But the Modern Orthodox community is quite small in the grand scheme of things (I believe I once heard that it's at most ten percent of those who identify as Orthodox broadly). So it wouldn't shock me if the percentages are closer than one might think.
The message I seem to be hearing from modern orthodox voices, including your own, seems to have a marked departure from the chareidi kiruv organizations and institutions, and I would like to hear your thoughts about it.
Organizations like Aish or Arachim often speak about the "crisis" of large numbers of Jews that are "lost" or the like, and Chabad famously justifies their approach by the famous parable with the house on fire. The attitude seems to be that they are concerned for the souls (and this might even lead to behaviour that is morally questionable in the eyes of other communities). I don't mean to necessarily say this disparagingly, but it's about ruchniyus and the inherent obligation of every Jew in Torah and mitzvot.
In the modern orthodox world it's often about Jewish identity and heritage, or in your words "offering these experiences to those who would have otherwise had them". If you forgive the term, it's less of a missionary approach to convert others to an orthodox lifestyle, rather offering an opportunity to experience a rich heritage.
Advocates of the chareidi approach might speak about Judaism isn't pluralistic in this sense and considers orthodox halakha absolutely mandatory.
I was curious about your approach. Do you primarily approach kiruv as offering a cultural resource or as trying to have a spiritual impact, or maybe something in between?
It's an important question and I think the most correct answer is "yes." I approach kiruv as primarily offering a cultural resource but I see that in service of having a spiritual impact. Let's put it this way: All Jews have a chelek in Torah and a chiyuv in mitzvos. Not participating in that is as much an existential spiritual plight as it is a cultural lack. But I don't think the thrust of kiruv has to be a narrative of missionary-esque salvation. I'd much prefer focusing on the positive values and opportunities that Jewish life, learning, and practice can offer in conversation with one's life and interests. And I agree that that's a very different approach than that of (most) contemporary kiruv organizations and perhaps even most Jews outside of Modern Orthodoxy.
I'd be surprised if anyone in MO argued with your points here. Yes, we bring something unique to the table that would benefit non-affiliated Jews. I think the issue is more the point that R' Schachter relates to in the article you excerpted from - both inreach and outreach are important, the "ROI" to outreach seems to be very low (3% according to Pew) while the need for inreach is huge (33% attrition acc to Pew). So granted limited resources, both manpower and money, it would seem to be more of a priority to push people to inreach than to outreach. Its surely true that the impact of outreach goes beyond those who 'go all the way' and become orthodox, but that still needs to be weighed against the need for inreach.
I would add that at least in MO, my impression is that many schools and maybe even yeshivos have recast themselves as inreach programs as opposed to educational institutions, with their goal being keeping people frum rather than teaching them Torah.
Yes, this is definitely the nekudas hamachlokes here. I genuinely think there's a good case to be made for inreach, but I can't help but feel that our work is incomplete without also engaging in outreach. Even (perhaps especially, but that will take another article to unpack) if those we are reaching out to do not fully become Orthodox.
The OU recently published a study on why some leave observance .One looks forward to a study on what attracts adolescents to Torah and Mitzvos by the OU
Thank you for this very important article. I myself am Modern Orthodox and am trying to engage in creating a space for Jews to be aware of some of the attitudes of Modern Orthodoxy and the Geonic ways. I recently released an episode on heaven and hell with Rabbi Lebens. I hope to tackle many more issues people outside of the Modox world tend to either push aside or have poor understandings of. If you have any ideas of how to practically apply this, please share them.
I think this is a great endeavour and look forward to listening! Rabbi Lebens was an early influence on my religious trajectory (he did his post-doc at Rutgers when I was an undergraduate) and I consider him and role-model (though we certainly have a machlokes l'shem shamayim about the place of pragmatism in religious decision-making).
To answer the question, though, I think that the core is to get people to see that our positions not only exist in the ecosystem of ideas but also that they are at least as compelling as the alternatives on either extreme. Many people are simply unfamiliar with what even the Rambam says on particular issues, kal vachomer the positions of Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Lichtenstein, and especially contemporary thinkers like Rabbi Lebens, Rabbi Zarum, etc.
This is exactly right! I have been advocating profusely for podcasts which showcase these perspectives such as Judaism Demystified and Orthodox Conundrum. I think that Jewish papers should showcase it more as well
You can read my article about JSS R Besdin ZL his superb faculty and what made JSS so unique In this article and if you like looking in the archives of the YU Commentator in 2005 you will see the a more beefed up version.
YU once had a great program that attracted the crème de la creme of NCSY graduates called JSS run and staffed by R Moshe Besdin ZL where you learned “ it and not about it “.
NCSY has a branch called JSU that has clubs in public schools and very successful trips to Israel which interact with their Israel programs for students in yeshiva high schools.
At the end of the day, I mentioned NCSY as a one-off example. It's clear from these comments that there is significant room to say that NCSY is a kiruv organization and I'm happy to leave it at that :) As @Tzvi Goldstein mentioned above, a much more important question is why so few NCSY advisors go on to kiruv professions.
Great article, but I don't understand why you're portraying NCSY as focused on day school graduates here. While some of their programs are aimed at day school graduates, I think every region has at least some focus on public school/non-affiliated teens, beyond the JSU school programs. (I worked with Upstate for four years, where almost all of the teens who participated went to public school; the numbers would be different in the Tri-state areas.) I don't know numbers, but many, many MO college students serve as NCSY advisors for a year or two, sometimes three. The better question may be why more MO ppl don't go into kiruv as a career, rather than stopping after a few years volunteering.
I really don't know the metzius, so I'd be very happy to be proven wrong! The line about NCSY came from my personal experience as a public school student in NJ NCSY. I was one of the only ones, and certainly the only one who didn't yet identify as Orthodox at our regional conventions. My sense was always that I was welcome but never that the programs were meant for me. All of my friends went to Frisch, TABC, MTA, etc. I had to figure out my own way through Orthodox davening, bentching, etc and only swam instead of sunk because I came from such a traditional Conservative background. The only NCSY programs at the time that were explicitly meant for public school students were Yarchei Kallah and TJJ. JSU existed, but it was presented as distinct from NCSY and local JSU students were not invited to chapter events. I happened to be on the board of both my local JSU and NCSY Chapters, but I think that was unheard of elsewhere.
Apropos to nothing, I recently found out that Upstate NY NCSY no longer exists :(
I think NCSY in the tristate area is an anomaly in that regard; most regions are more focused on public school teens. Yarchei Kallah (~500 public school teens using their Christmas break for a weekend of learning) doesnt happen in a vacuum! And the overwhelming majority of advisors are MO volunteers; i think the question is what happens when these advisors age out. Why don't they continue in Kiruv as a profession?
Yes, Upstate was folded into New England, unfortunately.
I definitely think NCSY advisors not continuing professionally in kiruv is much more worthy of conversation than whether or not NCSY is a kiruv organization!
From what I heard back in the late 1990s was that there just weren't the jobs for kiruv professionals. That people would've liked to do something like NCSY, but Regional Director positions were hard to come by. For a male it usually meant getting semicha and that was quite a commitment especially when you may not be able to get into that field.
That region was a very strong region that sent many public school students to YU SCW and has many Talmidei Chachamim Bnei and Bnos Torah who started in that region as alumni
To do kiruv, you need to be passionate. Really passionate. Yiddishkeit needs to mean the world to you. I think Modern Orthodoxy has relative difficulty producing this attitude.
Rav Lichtenstein, Zt"l, noted that in a powerful article (I quoted it at the end of my Lehrhaus piece, linked above). It's definitely a problem in the MO community that needs fixing. But, at the same time, there are also many who lack passion in the yeshivish world. When the most passionate engage in kiruv, the least passionate are barely a blip on the radar.
In that case, I would argue that the need for modern orthodox kiruv in particular has a far more radical justification than the four points you listed.
It could be, but I do think there are pockets of chareidi kiruv with this approach as well. My sense is that it depends on both the organization and the individual mekarev.
Rashi made up Tefillin. The proof of this is the dispute between him and Rabbi Tam on the arrangement of the little scrolls in their compartments. But how can there be a dispute? Aren’t there detailed instructions? If not, and these Tefillin have been being made and donned for millennia, then how come a pre-Rashi set of Tefillin was not opened up to see the arrangement and settle the dispute?
Answer: There was no pre-Rashi Tefillin made and donned for mellennia to reference. Rashi just made them up.
with all due respect, the first four reasons that you gave for the need of Modox Kiruv over Chabad or aish are simply false. As far as Zionism is concerned, its seems like a damn good reason to start a new kiruv organization.
Kiruv should include outreach not only to Jews who grew up non-Orthodox but also to those who grew up haredi and are now off the derech to show the latter that Judaism is not zero/sum, and there are Jewish communities that might be a better fit than the ones they grew up in.
Absolutely! Kiruv is about bringing Jews closer to Torah, full stop.
Already exists.
https://jewinthecity.com/2014/06/project-makom-a-place-for-ex-haredim-within-orthodoxy/
I'm glad that this issue was already identified a decade ago. Raising a Modern Orthodox family requires a high level of affluence (see Ben Lerner's Future of Jewish article: https://www.futureofjewish.com/p/many-jews-in-america-are-losing-the ), and young formerly Haredi men leave that world with little formal education and few if any marketable skills.
I wonder if the problem is structural:
Modern Orthodoxy’s evenhanded focus on Torah uMaddah tends to blur the line between Kodesh and Chol often reducing Torah to just another form of wisdom in the world, naturally diminishing the drive to share it with the world, which already has so much wisdom of its own.
The Haredi world has the opposite problem in that it caricatures the “outside world” as completely void of value, but in so doing more readily generates urgency to share Torah with those who don’t have access to it.
What do you think?
I'm not so sure. I think that the Modern Orthodox approach of valuing chol is one that appears in chareidi kiruv more than those groups like to admit. How many articles are there on Aish.com or Chabad.org that attempt to synthesize Torah with at least some aspect of modernity? Of those articles, are we expected to think that all of them are insincere? I doubt it. So I don't think that there's any inherent contradiction in finding ways to synthesized kodesh with chol and engaging in kiruv. To the contrary, I think that once one acknowledges that Torah is everywhere they may be more inclined to share it.
Having said that, I DO think there's a structural problem in Chareidi kiruv in that there is no "exit ramp" for those who begin the journey that way but decide not to be Chareidi for various reasons. I happened to stumble from Ohr Somayach to YU, but I was relatively rare. Most will just drop off entirely if they decide they value modernity more than the Chareidi community does and that's a huge problem that I hope MO Kiruv can do something about.
Hard disagree, you are strawmanning modern orthodoxy. Think about it.
Before questioning why Modern Orthodoxy insufficiently engages in Kiruv, I suggest you ask why so few Modern Orthodox Jews enter the Rabbinate and the world of Jewish education.
I'm not sure where the assumption is coming from that so few Modern Orthodox Jews enter rabbanus/education. RIETS ordains about 200 at every chag hasemicha with many of them going into different forms of klei kodesh.
How does 200 musmakhim per hag hasemikha that takes place once every 5 years compare with the Hardali and yeshivish and hassidic sectors? 🤔
Why are we comparing applies with oranges? Those are much larger communities population-wise.
What are the percentages of each community who go into rabbanus and chinuch?
Good question. I'm not sure. But the Modern Orthodox community is quite small in the grand scheme of things (I believe I once heard that it's at most ten percent of those who identify as Orthodox broadly). So it wouldn't shock me if the percentages are closer than one might think.
The message I seem to be hearing from modern orthodox voices, including your own, seems to have a marked departure from the chareidi kiruv organizations and institutions, and I would like to hear your thoughts about it.
Organizations like Aish or Arachim often speak about the "crisis" of large numbers of Jews that are "lost" or the like, and Chabad famously justifies their approach by the famous parable with the house on fire. The attitude seems to be that they are concerned for the souls (and this might even lead to behaviour that is morally questionable in the eyes of other communities). I don't mean to necessarily say this disparagingly, but it's about ruchniyus and the inherent obligation of every Jew in Torah and mitzvot.
In the modern orthodox world it's often about Jewish identity and heritage, or in your words "offering these experiences to those who would have otherwise had them". If you forgive the term, it's less of a missionary approach to convert others to an orthodox lifestyle, rather offering an opportunity to experience a rich heritage.
Advocates of the chareidi approach might speak about Judaism isn't pluralistic in this sense and considers orthodox halakha absolutely mandatory.
I was curious about your approach. Do you primarily approach kiruv as offering a cultural resource or as trying to have a spiritual impact, or maybe something in between?
It's an important question and I think the most correct answer is "yes." I approach kiruv as primarily offering a cultural resource but I see that in service of having a spiritual impact. Let's put it this way: All Jews have a chelek in Torah and a chiyuv in mitzvos. Not participating in that is as much an existential spiritual plight as it is a cultural lack. But I don't think the thrust of kiruv has to be a narrative of missionary-esque salvation. I'd much prefer focusing on the positive values and opportunities that Jewish life, learning, and practice can offer in conversation with one's life and interests. And I agree that that's a very different approach than that of (most) contemporary kiruv organizations and perhaps even most Jews outside of Modern Orthodoxy.
I'd be surprised if anyone in MO argued with your points here. Yes, we bring something unique to the table that would benefit non-affiliated Jews. I think the issue is more the point that R' Schachter relates to in the article you excerpted from - both inreach and outreach are important, the "ROI" to outreach seems to be very low (3% according to Pew) while the need for inreach is huge (33% attrition acc to Pew). So granted limited resources, both manpower and money, it would seem to be more of a priority to push people to inreach than to outreach. Its surely true that the impact of outreach goes beyond those who 'go all the way' and become orthodox, but that still needs to be weighed against the need for inreach.
I would add that at least in MO, my impression is that many schools and maybe even yeshivos have recast themselves as inreach programs as opposed to educational institutions, with their goal being keeping people frum rather than teaching them Torah.
Yes, this is definitely the nekudas hamachlokes here. I genuinely think there's a good case to be made for inreach, but I can't help but feel that our work is incomplete without also engaging in outreach. Even (perhaps especially, but that will take another article to unpack) if those we are reaching out to do not fully become Orthodox.
The OU recently published a study on why some leave observance .One looks forward to a study on what attracts adolescents to Torah and Mitzvos by the OU
Thank you for this very important article. I myself am Modern Orthodox and am trying to engage in creating a space for Jews to be aware of some of the attitudes of Modern Orthodoxy and the Geonic ways. I recently released an episode on heaven and hell with Rabbi Lebens. I hope to tackle many more issues people outside of the Modox world tend to either push aside or have poor understandings of. If you have any ideas of how to practically apply this, please share them.
https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2711447&post_id=159871845&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=42u2xj&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoyNDY2Mjc0MTUsInBvc3RfaWQiOjE1OTg3MTg0NSwiaWF0IjoxNzQzMzM0MzEwLCJleHAiOjE3NDU5MjYzMTAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yNzExNDQ3Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.ftclX70aUIvN3k7nStC3pl3RKh3nnWTO18XRa6G-RkU
I think this is a great endeavour and look forward to listening! Rabbi Lebens was an early influence on my religious trajectory (he did his post-doc at Rutgers when I was an undergraduate) and I consider him and role-model (though we certainly have a machlokes l'shem shamayim about the place of pragmatism in religious decision-making).
To answer the question, though, I think that the core is to get people to see that our positions not only exist in the ecosystem of ideas but also that they are at least as compelling as the alternatives on either extreme. Many people are simply unfamiliar with what even the Rambam says on particular issues, kal vachomer the positions of Rav Soloveitchik, Rav Lichtenstein, and especially contemporary thinkers like Rabbi Lebens, Rabbi Zarum, etc.
This is exactly right! I have been advocating profusely for podcasts which showcase these perspectives such as Judaism Demystified and Orthodox Conundrum. I think that Jewish papers should showcase it more as well
https://www.amazon.com/My-Yeshiva-College-Years-Memories/dp/1933143126
You can read my article about JSS R Besdin ZL his superb faculty and what made JSS so unique In this article and if you like looking in the archives of the YU Commentator in 2005 you will see the a more beefed up version.
YU once had a great program that attracted the crème de la creme of NCSY graduates called JSS run and staffed by R Moshe Besdin ZL where you learned “ it and not about it “.
NCSY has a branch called JSU that has clubs in public schools and very successful trips to Israel which interact with their Israel programs for students in yeshiva high schools.
Yes, JSU definitely deserves mention here. Though, importantly, my sense is that they try to keep it distinct from NCSY proper.
There’s differences in programming but the summer programs definitely interact in Israel
At the end of the day, I mentioned NCSY as a one-off example. It's clear from these comments that there is significant room to say that NCSY is a kiruv organization and I'm happy to leave it at that :) As @Tzvi Goldstein mentioned above, a much more important question is why so few NCSY advisors go on to kiruv professions.
Great article, but I don't understand why you're portraying NCSY as focused on day school graduates here. While some of their programs are aimed at day school graduates, I think every region has at least some focus on public school/non-affiliated teens, beyond the JSU school programs. (I worked with Upstate for four years, where almost all of the teens who participated went to public school; the numbers would be different in the Tri-state areas.) I don't know numbers, but many, many MO college students serve as NCSY advisors for a year or two, sometimes three. The better question may be why more MO ppl don't go into kiruv as a career, rather than stopping after a few years volunteering.
I really don't know the metzius, so I'd be very happy to be proven wrong! The line about NCSY came from my personal experience as a public school student in NJ NCSY. I was one of the only ones, and certainly the only one who didn't yet identify as Orthodox at our regional conventions. My sense was always that I was welcome but never that the programs were meant for me. All of my friends went to Frisch, TABC, MTA, etc. I had to figure out my own way through Orthodox davening, bentching, etc and only swam instead of sunk because I came from such a traditional Conservative background. The only NCSY programs at the time that were explicitly meant for public school students were Yarchei Kallah and TJJ. JSU existed, but it was presented as distinct from NCSY and local JSU students were not invited to chapter events. I happened to be on the board of both my local JSU and NCSY Chapters, but I think that was unheard of elsewhere.
Apropos to nothing, I recently found out that Upstate NY NCSY no longer exists :(
I think NCSY in the tristate area is an anomaly in that regard; most regions are more focused on public school teens. Yarchei Kallah (~500 public school teens using their Christmas break for a weekend of learning) doesnt happen in a vacuum! And the overwhelming majority of advisors are MO volunteers; i think the question is what happens when these advisors age out. Why don't they continue in Kiruv as a profession?
Yes, Upstate was folded into New England, unfortunately.
I definitely think NCSY advisors not continuing professionally in kiruv is much more worthy of conversation than whether or not NCSY is a kiruv organization!
From what I heard back in the late 1990s was that there just weren't the jobs for kiruv professionals. That people would've liked to do something like NCSY, but Regional Director positions were hard to come by. For a male it usually meant getting semicha and that was quite a commitment especially when you may not be able to get into that field.
When you are using the term “Upstate New York” are you referring to the Catskills or Albany Syracuse and Rochester?
The chapters in the region at the time were Albany, Rochester, Syracuse and Buffalo. We tried to restart Mt Kisco but were not very successful.
That region was a very strong region that sent many public school students to YU SCW and has many Talmidei Chachamim Bnei and Bnos Torah who started in that region as alumni
Very true. Har Sinai pride!
To do kiruv, you need to be passionate. Really passionate. Yiddishkeit needs to mean the world to you. I think Modern Orthodoxy has relative difficulty producing this attitude.
Rav Lichtenstein, Zt"l, noted that in a powerful article (I quoted it at the end of my Lehrhaus piece, linked above). It's definitely a problem in the MO community that needs fixing. But, at the same time, there are also many who lack passion in the yeshivish world. When the most passionate engage in kiruv, the least passionate are barely a blip on the radar.
In that case, I would argue that the need for modern orthodox kiruv in particular has a far more radical justification than the four points you listed.
It could be, but I do think there are pockets of chareidi kiruv with this approach as well. My sense is that it depends on both the organization and the individual mekarev.
Part 2, responding to several comments: https://rabbistevengotlib.substack.com/p/continuing-the-kiruv-conversation
Rashi made up Tefillin. The proof of this is the dispute between him and Rabbi Tam on the arrangement of the little scrolls in their compartments. But how can there be a dispute? Aren’t there detailed instructions? If not, and these Tefillin have been being made and donned for millennia, then how come a pre-Rashi set of Tefillin was not opened up to see the arrangement and settle the dispute?
Answer: There was no pre-Rashi Tefillin made and donned for mellennia to reference. Rashi just made them up.
with all due respect, the first four reasons that you gave for the need of Modox Kiruv over Chabad or aish are simply false. As far as Zionism is concerned, its seems like a damn good reason to start a new kiruv organization.
Rashi made up Tefellin. Proof is that dispute on their proper assembly with rabbi Tam.