At this point, it appears that the Conservative movement lacks the kind of leadership that will strengthen its strongest congregants and will instead, empower its most vocal political members. The result will be that the Conservatove movement will grope further towards Reform and many Conservative congregants will continue to revolt and seek Orthodox shuls to support with our feet and our dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/nyregion/11seminary.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

To be fair, in this article, Eisen states that while it’s his personal opinion that gays should be ordained, the decision should be the outcome of the existing process.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060412-120509-5306r

Note that he’s taking Gilman’s lead and not even pretending it has anything to do with halacha:

“Professor Arnold M. Eisen, incoming chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary of Conservative Judaism in America, said his views aren’t based on Jewish law but by ‘knowing gay and lesbian people, friends, students, coworkers.’”

Also of interest is UPI’s (or is it Ha’aretz’s?) characterization of outgoing chancellor Schorsch:

“Ha’aretz reports Eisen replaces the anti-gay Rabbi Ismar Schorsch, who retires this July.”

Anti-gay! I’m certain Rabbi Schorsch would object (as well he should).

But it remains to be seen if the radical forces that are very real in the movement carry the day or will he be the kind of leader that keeps the top from blowing off the boiling kettle.

Conservatives could have chosen many men far worse than this man. Time will tell if he is better than not a disaster.

Not only he had a shiur-he had ashiur before RYBS came to YU. One of the reasons for the relatively close relationship between the Rav and Dr. Belkin was that Dr. Belkin encouraged his better students to go to the Ravs shiur and leave his shiur when the Rav came to YU. There were at least a few Rabbonim who had that YU background -first Dr. Belkins shiur than the Ravs. Sadly, given the time elapsed most are in the Yeshiva shel maala already.
I find it most interesting why that fact is not known-is it that Dr. Belkins successors at YU were not Roshei Yeshiva and neither wanted to emphasize the point. Note for a President who for better or worse is responsible for most of Present YU-except for Yeshiva College-founded by Dr. Revel-and was President for almost 35 years-there is nothing major named after him at YU.

I’m not saying Conservative Judasim helps. But it certainly doesn’t hurt as much as you’d think.

As to YU, well, you didn’t have my biology professors, to take one example, both well learned in Torah, reasearching scientists, with PhDs in biology and semicha. Neither thought it worthwhile to mention Intelligent Design, which doesn’t belong in science classes. And if you get your facts about any school from a student newspaper…”shards of YU”??? You speak as if it is an institution long dead with no ideals to live up to. You are, happily, quite incorrect.

“Finally, as to Conservatism: Let’s be honest. Conservativism doesn’t “prevent” ba’alei teshuva. Jews who are Conservative would probably have an equal or, more likely, lesser degree of Yahadus if the movement did not exist.”

I’m not sure you’re right on this point. I can’t say for certain and I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule but many in kiruv will tell you that it’s easier to get an unnaffiliated Jews to look at Judaism than a Conservative Jew who thinks he already knows what it’s all about. This isn’t true for all.

There are certainly some who will point to their Conservative upbringing and credit it for keeping their interest alive until they could move further but I have met many who became bt’s having never spent a day in hebrew school etc. My point is that there’s no evidence that a conservative background is a necessary prerequisite for a person to become observant later in life.

“Toby you’re judging YU by your standards, not theirs. When you refer to “ohr” and “choshech,” you’re assuming that YU sees secular studies as something negative, which it does not.”

I do NOT see secular studies as something negative — I believe in Torah Im Derech Eretz and have enjoyed the benefits of an advanced secular education myself. Nor do I imagine that YU (or the Y part of YU) sees secular studies as something negative — they trumpet their slogan of Torah U’Maddah, after all.

The war between the Y and the U has to do with hashkafos, philosophy, values and outlook. In theory their secular studies are supposed to be informed by and judged according to the values of Torah (which is the theory of TIDE I subscribe to). In practice Torah U’Maddah means the students receive a thoroughly confusing and intellectually incoherent education. In the morning they learn in a pretty straight yeshiva. In the afternoon most of their professors are the same politically and religiously leftist and secular professors to be found on any other college campus. The art professor shows nude slides, the biology professor mocks the very idea of “intelligent design,” etc etc etc.

And what goes on in the graduate schools — well, they are an utter embarrassment to any institution with the word “yeshiva” in its name.

“By speaking of the Yeshiva “fighting” against the University, you’re assuming that they are two separate institutions, which they are not.”

No, they are not separate — they are bound together like a family — like fraternal twins — like Yakov and Esav!

” ‘Fatally’ is a pretty strong word to use for something alive and well.”

Alive — in the sense that it exists. Well? Read the Commentator and you be the judge of that. The Bais Medrash turns out wonderful students, talmidei chachamim of the highest caliber. YU as a whole turns out — a hodgepodge of people, many of whom are profoundly secular in their attitudes and mindset while remaining outwardly observant to a minimal level. Within YU there is a struggle going on every day. This is also true within the Modern Orthodox communities that have largely been created by YU grads.

It is “fatally” flawed in the sense that there is no longer a possibility of creating out of the shards of YU the original synthesis ideal.

“And, of course, it was Bruriah who first thought of loving the sinner.”
Yes, that is true. But “hate the sin, love the sinner” is not unique to Judaism.

“Finally, as to Conservatism: Let’s be honest. Conservatism doesn’t “prevent” ba’alei teshuva. Jews who are Conservative would probably have an equal or, more likely, lesser degree of Yahadus if the movement did not exist.”

Most likely if the C movement did not exist the majority of its members would belong to Orthodox shuls, as is the case in South Africa — where there is no C movement. Most South African Jews are not very observant but they do belong to Orthodox shuls and when it comes to a bris, a bar mitzva, a wedding, a funeral, a Yom Tov — the shul they go to and the rabbi who officiates are Orthodox. They send their kids to Orthodox Sunday schools — where what little the kids are taught is at least taught by Torah-true teachers. There is a low rate of intermarriage and a very high rate of teshuva in South Africa. Ohr Somayach, for example, has had phenomenal success there.

When the South Africans come to America they usually join Conservative congregations and begin a precipitous slide towards non-observance and non-affiliation.

You said, “There is really no danger to any Orthodox institution that does not accept government funds. The New Jersey Boy Scout case pretty much settled that.”

That is today’s reality, not necessarily tomorrow’s.

You also said, “What is different today is that we are more AWARE of things that don’t conform to our value system. But they’ve always been there.”

By what non-financial measure is today’s American family life better than it was in the late 1950’s?

Toby, you’re judging YU by your standards, not their’s. When you refer to “ohr” and “choshech,” you’re assuming that YU sees secular studies as something negative, which it does not. By speaking of the Yeshiva “fighting” against the University, you’re assuming that they are two separate institutions, which they are not. For the most part, the two coexist quite nicely together. “Fatally” is a pretty strong word to use for something alive and well. (Of course, we can all wish that YU’s professors were more conservative. But that’s the world.)

And, of course, it was Bruriah who first thought of loving the sinner.

Finally, as to Conservatism: Let’s be honest. Conservativism doesn’t “prevent” ba’alei teshuva. Jews who are Conservative would probably have an equal or, more likely, lesser degree of Yahadus if the movement did not exist.

In principle there is nothing preventing the same kinds of strings to be attached to tax credits, although in practice there is probably much less likelihood of the kind of intrusive supervision that we receive here by our choosing to accept government grants.

‘How do we insulate ourselves from the general society’s slide into decadence?’

I’m not so sure society is in such a decline. I am old enough to remember racially segregated schools and swimming pools, and neighborhoods where Jews could not live. Teen pregnancy rates peaked in the 1950s and have been declining (somewhat unevenly) ever since. There were a few years back in the 1910s when syphillis was one of the top ten causes of DEATH in the United States. A hundred years ago, robber baron capitalists could exploit workers, bribe government officials, pollute the environment, and even scam their investors with impunity. I could go on and on. What is different today is that we are more AWARE of things that don’t conform to our value system. But they’ve always been there.

‘How long will it be before laws or court decisions protecting immoral behavior, backed by financial and other penalties for noncompliance, threaten all Orthodox Jewish communities and institutions in America?’

There is really no danger to any Orthodox institution that does not accept government funds. The New Jersey Boy Scout case pretty much settled that. As I’ve said, though, if you take government funds, you follow whatever rules the government requires. It is certainly possible for the government to give money away with few or no strings attached — this happens in parts of Europe, even in such a staunchly secular country as France. But that is not the tradition in the United States –taxpayers jealously guard their hard earned money and don’t want it misspent.

I realize that a concern for factual accuracy is accorded a relatively low priority in the game of interdenominational bashing that has become so normative and unattractive on this site. But can you point to any studies on the religious behavior and marriage choices of Solomon Schecter graduates that support this ostensibly “certain” point?

How about actually finding out what Eisen stands for? How about actually reading some of his work, plenty of which is available in one form or another on the web? He happens to be among the most impressive scholars and theorists of modern Judaism out there. His 2000 book “The Jew Within” is not at the heart of his scholarly work, in my view; read “Rethinking Modern Judaism” instead, or even better, read “Taking Hold of Torah,” a personal meditation on the meaning of Judaism that I (and many of my students) find inspiring.

Btw, the more interesting comparison is not to Richard Joel but to David Ellenson, the still-relatively-new head of HUC, who is also a very serious mensch, also a very serious observant Jew, and also a very serious scholar of modern Judaism. With all due respect to President Joel, he is two of these but not the third.

The other issue raised above is troubling. How long will it be before laws or court decisions protecting immoral behavior, backed by financial and other penalties for noncompliance, threaten all Orthodox Jewish communities and institutions in America? How do we insulate ourselves from the general society’s slide into decadence? Can we as a small minority do anything to repeal those laws or to reverse those decisions or that slide? This is not a problem for our “right wing” only.

Or at least, historically not so for the chancellor of JTS. Not being a Rabbi, it’s quite possible that Eisen will not participate in the Halachic decision making side of the JTS.

If he believes that Conservative Jews tend to ignore the Halachic decisions anyway, he might not even this that is very important. He might focus on giving young Rabbis the skills that will make them more likely to be listened to instead.

there is no evidence that they are not compliant with this

Comment by Jewish Observer — April 9, 2006 @ 3:26 pm ”

At one time-minyan attendance was taken in the YU dorms_I do not believe that to be the case today-someone correct me if I’m wrong. Don’t know how one can make minyan attendance compulsary0when one receives Government money for building. Some 1st Amendment lawyer contradict me. One sees many religious institutions advertising admit wo regards to race..etc. Thus they probably couldn’t enforce such restrictions either. Practically less of a problem-how many people will spend 6 months studying migu if not committed to halacha?

I don’t think R’ Menken mocks them as much as they deserve, considering what havoc they have wreaked with Yiddishkeit in America — they and the Reform movement. Also considering what an incredible chillul Hashem the Conform movements perpetrate every time they stick their noses into American politics — i.e., every day.

However in this particular instance his mockery was misplaced because, as the example of YU shows, it doesn’t make any difference whether the head of a theological seminary is a rabbi or not. IRC the founder of Yeshiva Torah VeDaas, R’ Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz, insisted on being called “Mr.”

#7 Yakov Menken wrote: “Not to belabor the point, but RIETS is “an affiliate of Yeshiva University,” and is not YU. ”

That is the factor that makes YU a strange hybrid, “ohr vechosech mishtamshim be’irbuvya” “a mishmash of light and darkness” to translate idiomatically. As a yeshiva, YU is fatally compromised by its university aspect. Yes, yes, I know that the Yeshiva fights manfully and with a great deal of success against the University — but the institution as a whole is hopelessly schizophrenic. (Full disclosure: my father was a musmach of REITS and had a great deal of affection and respect for his rebbeim there — as well as feelings of intense frustration and disappointment with YU)

#11 mycroft wrote:
“Rabbi Menken—thus you are the best reason not to bash Conservative Judaism. Most “baalei tshuva” come from that background—very few from a totally secular background.”

It is difficult to determine the background of “most” baalei teshuva, but the C movement has probably prevented a hundred people from becoming BTs for every one it led towards teshuva. Having had intimate experience with a “community” school in Tennessee that was de facto Conservative (and experience with dozens if not hundreds of BTs over the years), I can tell you that many such schools fill the kids’ heads with so much cynicism and heresy that it’s an uphill battle to get their heads straight afterwards. (For example, teaching the kids that Sinai was an allegory, or that Rivka and Yakov were conniving, dishonest people etc)

Certainly anyone who sends his children to a Solomon Schechter school instead of an Orthodox school virtually guarantees that his kids will be secular Jews, with a better than fifty-fifty chance of marrying out.

#12 Steve Brizel wrote: “R’ Dr. Lamm’s article on condemning the sin, but not the sinner is still a very important position and shows how distant Judaism is from the other faith communities on this issue.”

I’m not sure who he has in mind when he mentions “other faith communities.” It was the Christian churches (Catholic and Protestant) that formulated that phrase “hate the sin, not the sinner.” — it certainly did not originate with R’ Dr Lamm — although it IS a fair statement of the way Torah Jews generally view this issue as well.

If by “other faith communities” he means C and R versions of Judaism, well, they of course love both the sin and the sinner. The R movement considers belief in the Torah to be a sin — the sin of bigotry. The C movement is still polling its members, they will decide in December whether homosexuality is a sin.

#13 Charles Hall wrote: “The real reason is that the institution takes government money. And if you take government money, you have to follow government rules….We should remember these things as we aggressively seek government funding for our day schools.” He is absolutely correct, and for that reason I am very wary of any voucher system and would prefer to see tuition tax credits for yeshiva parents.

#18 Nachum wrote: “There are a few schools in the US who accept no government money, loans for students, and so on, but they are small liberal arts colleges who appeal to a right-wing base to get funds. (Hillsdale College in Michigan is the most notable.)”

I have long had a wish and a fantasy that all the Orthodox students who flock to the Ivies would instead go to Hillsdale — where they would get a far superior education to what the Ivies offer.

Ditto for President Joel. He knows his strengths, is open to dealing with students and how to avoid controversies,
Joel can’t even have chalomot of being able to argue with Roshei Yeshiva

as opposed to R D Lamm-knows enough and has his own hashkafa to have such chalomot

Does the article you cite say that Eisen was happy that Rabis are becoming less-relevant and that he is hopeful that the trend might continue? Or does it say merely that he observed the trend?