Israeli College Takes Back Presidency From Prof Who Once Taught At Israel's Version Of JTS

Fundamentalists pressure Modern Orthodox. Modern Orthodox cave in.

Note:

Haredi National Religious = Haredi Dati Leumi = Hardal.

National Religious = Religious Zionist = Modern Orthodox.

Religious college slammed for capitulating to rabbinic pressure
Lifshitz College goes back on decision to appoint Prof. Shmuel Glick as president after national-haredi rabbis threaten not to send their students to study there. The reason: Glick used to teach at institute affiliated with conservative stream
Kobi Nahshoni • Ynet

A decision by the heads of the Lifshitz College of Education in Jerusalem, a prominent religious institute for teachers' training, to call off the appointment of a new president following pressure from the national-haredi stream, is stirring the Zionist religious world.

Last week the institution's board went back on its decision to appoint Prof. Shmuel Glick as the school's new head, after rabbis affiliated with the ultra-Orthodox stream that supports religious Zionism, threatened to stop sending their students to the college if the appointment goes through.

According to the rabbis, Glick had in the past taught at the Schechter Institute for Jewish Studies, which is affiliated with the Masorti (conservative) Movement in Israel.

Sources involved in the affair told Ynet at the time that the rabbis' decision to come out against Glick was in fact motivated by long-standing power struggles at the college. Glick's associates said he is a strictly Orthodox man and is known as such at the Schechter Institute as well.

Aggressive behavior  
On Tuesday this week, Glick resigned all his posts at the Lifshitz College. In a harsh letter to the school's board, he wrote: "It will be written in the pages of history of the Lifshitz College that the lies and manipulations of the emissaries of the national haredi rabbis who sit among you have defeated the rabbis of religious Zionism."

In the letter, copies of which have also been sent to Education Minister Gideon Saar and other relevant officials, Glick claimed that interested parties had spread the rumor that he is affiliated with the conservative stream, although this was "complete nonsense."

Meanwhile, a prominent graduate of the college, MK Uri Orbach (Habayit Hayehudi) informed the institution Tuesday that in light of the decision to cancel Glick's appointment as president he is returning the diploma he received upon graduation.
 
In a letter to the members of the schools general assembly Orbach wrote that the decision was made after "caving in to a campaign of pressure and threats," and not because the board was persuaded that Glick was not to right person to head the college.

"As a graduate of Lifshitz College and representative of religious Zionism, I am pained and ashamed that a religious academic institution folded to pressure rather than standing up to this aggressive behavior."

Comments

[Michael Makovi]

Pathetic. Why do people judge people based on where they teach? If an Orthodox rabbi teaches at a university, does that mean he is a secular humanist?

Rabbi Dr. Jose Faur, Rabbi Dr. Saul Lieberman, and Rabbi Dr. David Weiss Halivni all taught at JTS. Does that make them Conservative? Of course not. Now, perhaps if they *learned* at JTS, there'd be a question to ask; usually one identifies with the teachings of the place where he learns, and most people who learn at JTS end up Conservative. But teaching? Just because one teaches somewhere, doesn't mean he identifies with the platform there. And even learning at JTS doesn't prove one is Conservative; it is simply likely, but it is not yet proven.

Moreover...

Not everything the Conservatives say is wrong. Just this past Shabbat, I was at the home of Rabbi Mordechai Machlis, a famous Orthodox rabbi. One of the guests there was Rabbi Jeff Lipschultz, a Conservative pulpit rabbi. Rabbi Machlis greeted him *extremely* warmly, and personaly invited Rabbi Lipschultz to give a devar Torah. Now, I'm sure that Rabbi Lipschultz, as a Conservative rabbi, holds by many things that Rabbi Machlis (Orthodox) holds are non-Torah. But nevertheless, Rabbi Machlis trusted Rabbi Lipschultz to only talk about things that Rabbi Machlis would approve of as Orthodox. Similarly, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai disagreed on mamzerut, but they trusted each other to tell each other when one person didn't meet the other's standard.

So if someone hires a Conservative rabbi to teach at his Orthodox institution, he can tell him to only teach things that the Orthodox will approve of. Either the Conservative rabbi will decline the offer as violating his conscience, or he will accept the offer, and will only teach those particular things that he knows the Orthodox will approve of.

[PulpitRabbi]

If Saul Lieberman's Orthodox credentials were questioned based on his affiliation with JTS -- and R. Shalom Carmy nicely and respectfully showed (in a Tradition essay reviewing Lieberman's biography, which tried to portray him as solidly Orthodox) what was troubling about his affiliation -- surely Glick, who, without insulting him in the least, is unlikely to approach the greatness of Lieberman, can see his appointment put in question.

What is more troubling is that the National Religious camp saw no reason to question his appointment, according to the above report.

OTOH, Glick doesn't covet any position that could be as troubling as a personally Orthodox genius chairing a leading Liberal Jewish institution's Talmud and Halakha departments.

So, while I am not sure rescinding Glick's appointment is right, I am puzzled by this being a Chareidi - National Religious divide. Just shows that these things are waaay too politicized in Israel, and that [self]critical thinking isn't necessarily fashionable.

[Michael Makovi]

The Hardalim have themselves abandoned Rav Kook's view of limudei hol in favor of the Hatam Sofer's. I'm not sure why the Hardalim don't all move to Benei Brak and Meah Shearim, and let the authentic students of Rav Kook have peace.

[Joe Wolfson]

I know Prof. Glick personally and I am gutted by this.

Rarely, if ever, have I met a more sincere and genuine pursuer of academic rigour and avodat Hashem.

He might not be the Gaon that E.E. Urbach was, but he's in exactly the same mould.

When he was in Cambridge for a few months where I was studying at the time, he was a tremendous asset to the Orthodox community, giving shiurim,making up minyanim, donating sefarim etc.

The view of his detractors, that serious Torah is only for the fully orthodox is about as retrograde as can be imagined. Avraham and Moshe never addressed themselves only to those in kollel.

Moreover he is a mensch

[Michael Makovi]

In the same mold as Professor Urbach?! Joe Wolfson, thanks! - now I have another name to put on my list of names to watch, whose books to buy. Thanks!

[Michael Makovi]

Speaking of this: I am extremely upset when people impugn Halivni as if he isn't Orthodox/traditional/observant.

In one popular article on the historical roots on Orthodoxy, Conservative, and Reform - an article that, from my limited reading of Reform history, seems largely correct - the author cites Halivni as denying the truth of the Written Law, and the author says that therefore, Halivni surely denies the Oral Law as well. Of course, this is blatantly false; Halivni says that drash (Oral Law) and p'shat (Written Law) contradict because the drash of the Oral Law is true and the p'shat of the Written Law is the p'shat of a corrupted and false text, a text (viz. the Torah) that was lost in the Babylonian exile, even as the Oral Law was retained.

So this author misrepresented Halivni's views, in order to write him out of Orthodoxy. Now, I honestly believe that - contra Halivni - the Torah that we have today IS the Sinaitic one, but I cannot prove this, and perhaps Halivni is correct that we received the Torah at Sinai and subsequently lost it beyond recovery during the Babylonian Exile. I don't agree with Halivni here, but I cannot disprove him. And certainly, there's nothing heretical (from an Orthodox perspective) in what Halivni says. So if Halivni is right or wrong, so be it; he's *not* a heretic in any case. And I'm speaking from an Orthodox perspective.

I was therefore extremely gratified when one of my rabbis - in a Hardal (Haredi-Leumi) yeshiva, in fact - said of Halivni approvingly, "They don't make rabbis like him anymore." Similarly, another of my rabbis, in the same Hardal yeshiva, was extremely adamant that Rabbi Saul Lieberman was Orthodox; he was adamant that despite having taught in JTS, that he was still Orthodox nevertheless.

I was recently in America for Pesah, and one of the people I ate with, in the Orthodox community in Kemp Mill, MD, this fellow said that he learned under Rabbi Halivni in Columbia, and he said that it was like learning in yeshiva. Rabbi Halivni would say, "Your homework is to learn the daf and all the rishonim thereon," and that after class, they'd have a ma'ariv minyan in the classroom.

[Clear]

What about an Orthodox professor who once taught at a SECULAR school?

[SJ]

Maybe orthdox jews should get kicked out of instructor positions at secular institutions.

[justayid]

"Your homework is to learn the daf and all the rishonim thereon," and that after class, they'd have a ma'ariv minyan in the classroom"

While I appreciate and enjoyed your posts, I must quibble, that the above does not prove Halivny was NOT conservative. At my conservative shul we have a daily evening minyan, and when it takes place on a night when adult education is in session, it is expected that folks will daven (though they arent forced to, of course, and not all do) Similarly when I took an intro to gemorrah for us uneducated lay conservative adults, our homework was to read the assigned section of gemorrah. Presumably with a more learned student body, ANY conservative rabbi or teacher would expect more in the way of homework.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I think Halivni has always considered himself Orthodox, and davened at JTS's mechitza minyan (yes, there was, and maybe still is, such a thing).

[justayid]

Im not saying Halivny was not O. I just wanted to challenge the assumption that C learning is usually unaccompanied by either davening or homework.

Again, in my gemorrah class, the rabbi even divided us up into pairs to discuss things, to make it more Yeshiva like I guess. That didnt work out all that well, as we didnt really have the knowledge base for it, and we were perhaps to heterogeneous in the knowledge base we did have (in particular I had a partner with NO background, while I had studied traditional texts before)

[Yochanan Lavie]

justayid: point well taken.

[nobody]

"the author cites Halivni as denying the truth of the Written Law,"

Michael rights: "Halivni says that drash (Oral Law) and p'shat (Written Law) contradict because the drash of the Oral Law is true and the p'shat of the Written Law is the p'shat of a corrupted and false text, a text (viz. the Torah) that was lost in the Babylonian exile, "

Um. So he does deny the truth of the Written Law? He considers it "corrupted" and "false" ?

[nobody]

Hmm. That should have said "Michael writes" ....

[justayid]

nobody - I read that, as DWH saying that the analysis of the documentary hypothesis applies to the text WE HAVE of the written law. The original text of the written law was Torah MiSinai in the literal sense, and was completely true. The Oral torah is not corrupt, and so all halachah is true, and we need not worry about the issues with the text of the written torah in halachik decisions, even ones based on d'oraytah (sp?). The text we have may STILL be true, in the broad sense that most C and R jews hold it to be, but its not literally true down to every word and letter. That creates problems for the pshat meaning (and would create problems for the drash meaning, if the drash meaning were not found in the oral law) but does not necessarily create problems for allegorical and mystical meanings.

Im not sure Ive got him right, but I find his approach interesting, as it makes it possible to begin to reconcile a belief in the documentary hypotheis with a literal belief in the truth of the first lines of Pirke Avot.

[LESKid]

Forgive me but Rabbi Halivni was and still is a member of the Rabbinical Assmebly, the rabbinic group of Conservative Judaism. I am a member of the group and just checked the directory and noted his name and address in the membership ranks.

This is not a slam on him, just stating the facts. Also, Rabbi Halivni was a graduate of the rabbinical as well as graduate school at JTS.

[The Monsey Tzadik]

Sometime the haredis are more tolerant than the Modern Orthodox, take for example Joel Fleishman, he is trustee of The Mesora Artscroll Foundation (appears in the first page of many books), the JTS, and he teaches in Duke , a Quaker institute

[Neo-Conservaguy]

Given the history of pathetic squabbling over terms such as "Orthodox" and "Conservative" - as if there was a single, narrow definition that would be accepted even by those that claim those titles - one can understand well the sad joke about Moshiach making the rounds among various Jewish groups and being rejected on the basis of his head covering not matching each groups'.

Do you know why Rabbi Dr. Saul Lieberman was at JTS? As he stated, because they let him teach there. The implications about the situation in other institutions was particularly damning coming from such a luminary of the Jewish people. The situation at Lifshitz College shows the situation has only gotten worse, not better.

[Clue]

Rav Gedaliah Felder, of Toronto, and Rav Hirschprung, of Montreal, both turned down lucrative positions teaching at JTS because they thought it was wrong to teach there.

[JTS GRAD]

I learned with Professor Glick at Machon Schechter and it was one of the highlights of my learning there. The man is a dedicated teacher and an observant Jew of impecable credentials. These people are shooting themselves in the foot by taking away his position.

As for the senseless squabble as whether the GRASH and Rabbi Halivni were Conservative or "Orthodox", I think the fact that both rabbis belonged to (and held positions of leadership in) the Rabbinical Assembly pretty much settles the question. Furthermore, if this political driven monstrosity that invalidates conversions and upholds (with rioting or bullying) other ridiculous policies based on pietistic nonsense is "Orthodoxy", I doubt that Rabbi Lieberman would have subscribed to it. I know that Rabbi Halivni does not.

[itchiemayer]

Heck, with "smicha" candidates at YCT going to mixed "minyanim" (shira chadasha), I highly doubt that conservative Rabbinical students are going to mechitza minyanim. In other words, while I am pleasantly surprised that they did have a mechitza minyan at one time, I highly doubt they do today.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

Heck, with "smicha" candidates at YCT going to mixed "minyanim" (shira chadasha),

There is nothing "mixed" at Shira Chadasha or similar minyanim - you are writing from ignorance. Based upon some of your more thoughtful writing, I expect more from you. At such minyanim - and I don't know why you would put that word in quotations - there is separate seating (usually by mechitsa), only men count for the minyan, and only men lead primary services. What these services do provide is the oppurtunity for women to read from TaNaKh in various forms (lein Torah, leading psalms, etc.) and to be called to the Torah for an honor (exactly as described in the Talmud, BTW).

I highly doubt that conservative Rabbinical students are going to mechitza minyanim. In other words, while I am pleasantly surprised that they did have a mechitza minyan at one time, I highly doubt they do today.

Again, your ignorance is showing. While I'm told the attendance is down at the "mechitsa minyan" at JTS, that minyan was strong for over 100 years, my frummie friend.

[Michael Makovi]

justayid: point well taken; the Conservatives learn Gemara and daven as well. My apologies.

----------

Nobody: You said, "Um. So he does deny the truth of the Written Law? He considers it "corrupted" and "false"?"

My answer: Yes, indeed, Halivni considers the Written Law to be corrupted and false. He says we DID receive the Torah at Sinai, but that we lost it in the Babylonian Exile. The Oral Law, however, he says we never lost.

----------

LESKid and JTS GRAD: You both note that Rabbis Halivni and Lieberman belonged to JTS and the RA, and were therefore Conservative. JTS GRAD adds that given the current controversy with giyur, Rabbis Halivni and Lieberman would almost surely not be Orthodox.

My answer: I think it depends on how we define "Conservative" and "Orthodox". For me, "Orthodox" means that one believes in a Sinaitic Oral Law and the Divine binding nature of halakhah. According to this, the rabbis of Edah, JOFA, Kolech, YCT, etc. are no less Orthodox than the Satmar and Neturei Karta. Orthodoxy is a broad ideology, and not an institution. According to my definition of Orthodoxy, Rabbis Halivni and Lieberman would be Orthodox. We might note that one of the most outspoken opponents of the current giyur situation is Rabbi Marc Angel, an Orthodox rabbi. Being Orthodox, i.e. believing the Oral Law is Sinaitic and Divinely authoritative, does not mean being allied with the Haredim.

However, if one defines "Orthodox" as being Haredi, then not only are Rabbis Halivni and Lieberman not Orthodox, but neither are Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg, anyone at all in YCT, half of the people in YU, etc. Heck, it would turn out that all of the Orthodox Chief Rabbis of Britain were not actually Orthodox, and neither were many of the Israeli Chief Rabbis (Rabbis Kook, Benzion Uziel, Herzog, Goren, Unterman, etc.).

One certainly has a prerogative to define the word "Orthodox" as he desires. I just want to clarify that according to my own definition, Rabbis Halivni and Lieberman were certainly Orthodox. But one may disagree with my definition, of course.

[LESKid]

Michael,

Rabbi Halivni is certainly a traditional, believing, God fearing Jew. Perhaps this just shows that a name is just that and that people should be judged based on how they represent myself.

I personally consider myself intellectually Reform (meaning Judaism and observing is my choice)while traditional in my own beliefs. I daven at an Orthodox Shul not for theological reasons but beacuse I prefer a small, intimate, informal place. Am I Reform because of my beliefs? Orthodox because I daven in an Orthodox Shul? Conservative because I am a JTS Rabbinical School grad (I do not work as a rabbi so I am not a professional Jew)? Personally, I just prefer the label Jewish. Every movement in Judaism has something we can learn from. Perhaps this is what Rabbi Halivni and this professor in Israel can teach us.

[Michael Makovi]

LESKid,

If the Jewish world could reach the state you are requesting, I'd be thrilled.

Personally, what I'd also like to have is a Sephardi-style non-denominationalism, in which Torah and Jewish tradition are formally acknowledged by all, but in which each individual may him- or herself be completely nonobservant. Additionally, in such a system, the traditionally observant ("Orthodox") rabbis would fully cater to the needs, hopes, desires, and expectations of the non-observant as much as possible, using the most inclusive and lenient standards available. On the other hand, there'd be no institutionalization of anything save traditional ("Orthodox") Judaism.

See http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/07/importing-reformism-into-israel.html

[Mosheh Abdadd]

Since HARDAL is aligned with chareidism on all matters except Zionism, I am not surprised about their hostility to anyone who could have any positive views about conservative Judaism or even just a neutral accurate report about Conservatism. I have given up arguing with their outlook. The bottom line is that chareidim are absolutists in their determination to deny Conservative Judaism any legitimacy at all. It makes sense. They are narrow minded, they have contempt with all those who don’t agree with them, and they are into power grabs, especially when they can discredit other groups. Thus they even treat Sefardi chareidim poorly. Another good demonstration cult-like control in chareidism is their attack on Nosson Kaminetzky’s Making of a Gadol. His crime was letting folks know that Gadolim don’t start out perfect and their attainments reflect their self development. This is unacceptable because chareidism is based on a premise akin to immaculate conception, (l’havdil 111 havdolohs, according the chazon ish’s shiurim).

The nominal dividing line between orthodoxy and Conservative Jews is Torah min Hashomayim. They don’t want to deal with halachic praxis, because then your position is no longer absolutely correct. I recall that the Rav, JB Soleveichik once said of a certain conservative rabbi that his gittin were not just good, but that he was an outstanding arbiter of these matters. As I recall there was some insinuation that his gittin were more trustworthy than those of a number of orthodox rabbis. But this was a judgement based on the basis of lomdus, ethics, and adherence to halachah. I suspect that the Rav would have praised Sol Lieberman and Halivni Weiss when it came to gittin.

But hareidim will not fall into an empirical argument about halachic praxis. Since chareidim no longer have any interest or standing in the conservative world, the goal is now moving on the MOs and sending them the message e will whip you into shape on anything we choose to set as the criterion, because we can. Even as I write this I know it seems harsh, but how else do we account for egregious violations of halachah by chareidim to humiliate MOs and establish chareidi dominion.

Ergo, lets violate halachah and annul 3,000 conversions. So don’t even think you can get respect by being halachic because we are the final arbiters. An even dandier insult which shows their contempt for both halachah and for non-chareid datim was their success in turning Yonah Metzger into Chief Rabbi. The message has to be we are going to stick you with a putz as a chief Rabbi and you will swallow it. This has the added bonus of trashing MO pride in the connection between Rav Kook and the Rabanut. Or we will not throw up a fuss when a group of rabbis in Brookly issue a heter meiah rabbonim to override cherem rabbeinu Gershon, even though the wife can prove that five of the rabbis each deposited $30,000 from the husband on the same day and the court can not produce the document with the 100 signatures, or even remember who the 100 rabbis. You see these guys should be left alone because they believe in torah min hashomayim. Now if we talk about halachic adherence,

So going back to Lifshitz College, it is not surprising that chareidim would interfere.. They are indifferent to the success of MO institutions. But they are interested in being the final arbiters of halacha. They do not want a man who might be able to report favorable experiences of any sort with conservative Jews. Especially not a man who could influence a future generation of teachers who can then undermine MO deference to chareidism. CHARDAL has just shown that they are thugs like other chareidim with a tiny difference. They won’t reject someone for Zionist reasons..

My only questions are, is just how did they succeed in exerting their pressure, how large is the hardal faction inside Lifshitz, and why were the MOs unable to win the fight? Do any of you have answers?