Me: And it is quite clear that the heterdox movements have a long, long history of de facto censorship, althought they are far too fashionable to call it that.
Larry: I’d be interested in examples of this.
For starters, a complete neglect to teach traditional sources or even acknowledge their existence in my many years of Reform Hebrew school. Even God was not mentioned.

As for the reactions to Dr. Wertheimers article, I think he should be commended for the intellectual courage, (something some of us in the frum world could use) to clearly lay out from his point fo view the failings in the movement he has invested his life in.

Finally a note to Lawrence M Reisman, (and I don’t want to start a Chabad conversation-you can email me privately if you wish rabbi@ocjewish.com) there is no borienu crowd (we do have meshcistim but that’s it). your statement is a simply not true.

Dovid Eliezrie

Is that because we are Ashkenazic controlled-I am Ashkenazic. In Israel Sefardi model exists for the Sefardim.

40-50 years ago, it could have been just as much a critique of Orthodox Judaism, at least as practiced outside of certain enclaves, as well.

MYCROFT: The Sefardi classical model disproves it-they have schuls that both observant and nonobservant go to. The non observant are not told that that what they do is proper they are just welcomed.

The classic Sefardi model does not work in America. Among the Balkan Sephardim, the shuls populated by nonobservant have very few observant Jews. To a great extent, the few observant Balkan sephardim prefer to attend Ashkenazi synaogues that affirm the obaservant lifestyle. Furthermore, it is a common complaint among Sephardim that when a boy goes away to yeshiva, he never returns to the community. I think that says alot.

With regard to the Syrians, every mainline synagogues with a large nonobservant attendance has separate minyanim for the more observant. Furthermore, in the last 30 years, synagogues catering to the observant have sprung up and flourished. While the community is still united on many issues, a fissure is developing between the nonobservant and the observant, proving my point.

And with regard to the Syrians, the comment “The non observant are not told that that what they do is proper” may not be correct in any case. For 60 years, Rabbi Abraham Hecht’s standard sermon theme has been “This is a great community, and no one can tell us how to behave.” That message has come through quite clearly to the nonobservant attendees, as any day school teacher in the community can tell you.

The Sefardi classical model disproves it-they have schuls that both observant and nonobservant go to. The non observant are not told that that what they do is proper they are just welcomed. BTW-Chabad- which I have many theological differences with-clearly has mastered how to welcome the non observant.
A hqlf century ago-schuls were much moire welcoming-even the maligned community day schools had kids who were from all backgrounds. Many of thiose who came from less traditional backgrounds have frum grandchildren today. We should be more open in our approach-that does not mean compromising on halacha. OPen in our marketing.

As a general rule, one can’t service both the observant and the nonobservant in the same institution. Both groups are looking for the affirmation of their life choices. If you cater to the nonobservant when they come, (which isn’t very often and never was), you are telling the observant that there is nothing wrong with the nonobservant lifestyle. Immediate question: Why be observant then? If you cater to the observant, the nonobservant feel harrangued and preached to, which they don’t like.

A very good portrayal of the problem is Paul Wilke’s “And They Shall be my People” the portrait of a Conservative rabbi who did try to make his congregation more observant, and found himself in danger of getting fired as a result. I recommend it to anyone who thinks lowering the bar solves anything.

At least that’s what they must be saying up in Morningside Heights in the inner sanctum of the Conservative movement, in the wake of his latest Commentary salvo,

I think this is what psychologists call projection. In my experience I hear calls for censorship far more commonly among the Orthodox than from any heterodox movemement.

Sadly in general those who were not observant and went to Orthodox synagogues 50 years ago-are not going to any synagogue today Orthodox and Conservative, I include their children in the list-they aren’t going anywhere. They in gneral have not flocked to Conservative synagogues-they also have in general lsot memebers in the last generation.
In genral thy are lost to Yahadus. How much of that is due to the constant raising of the bar-see eg if one doesn’t go to a day school today one is not welcome in Orthodoxy-is an open question.

But before we gloat over the impending demise of Conservative Judaism, let us be wary. In the past 50 years, the suburban Orthodox synagogue, catering to the nonobservant, has largely disappeared. We have the Conservative movement to thank for that. If Conservative Judaism goes, and its members flock to our shuls, they will expect to be serviced on their terms. And believe me, there are those who affiliate as Orthodox who will be more than happy to do so. If you look at “official” Orthodoxy anywhere Conservative Judaism does not exist, you will find that Orthodoxy takes its place. Look at the British Commonwealth, France, or Italy. Years ago in Great Britain, the head of the Board of Deputies of British Jews was asked what the biggest dangers to Jewry were; he replied “Gatesheadism and Americanism.” You know what he meant. When a mainline Australian rabbi was quoted as saying that Chabad was a bigger danger to him than reform, he wasn’t talking about meshichisten or the boreinu crowd.

–Not clear to me why EK finds JW observation offensive. It’s true of any situation–which congregation to join, which movement to affiliate with (whether intra-denominational or inter-denominational)…there are a whole host of socioeconomic and socioreligous factors at play, with ideology being just one of them (and often far from the most important). This is undoubtedly the case as well for many who send/have sent their kids to Orthodox high schools (particularly from Schechter elementary school families) where there is either no other Jewish high school alternative available, or there is a fledgling C option that is iffy, from a numbers and qualitative perspective.

–Community is a very, very important aspect of this discussion. Whether it’s 50%, 60%, 70% or higher can be debated, but anyone who has seen this phenomenon occur over the past few decades knows that it is an essential ingredient of any conversation about this topic—-ideology can be a factor but is hardly the prime one in general, IMHO.

–As others have stated, JW is condemning the Conservative Judaism for not developing a viable institutional structure 1) throughout the age cohorts, 2) for the “best and brightest”. But none of this is especially new, and JW has been saying this for a long time (see his A PEOPLE DIVDED, for example). Ismar Schorsch was also very vocal about CJ’s failure in stemming the flow to Orthodoxy–I was in a discussion where he knew the failure to address this institutionally–of providing SOME option to these folks–was all too evident in too many communities.

–I wish, as does EK, that there were some “scientific” studies that documented these trends—would love to see a study of some of the cognitive dissonance involved here. But the truth is that no such studies yet exist—we’re dealing with a very rarified population here. That said, JW has conducted or been involved with many quantitative and qualitative studies of the Conservative world, is a historian of American Jewry, has for a long time been involved in the study of synagogues and congregational life across the American Jewish spectrum. He doesn’t just sit in an ivory tower—he knows a lot of people and has visited many communities over the years. In sum, he is an excellent position to say what he has heard anecdotally over the years….

–If anything, I think JW doesn’t go far enough in explaining what has happened with Conservative defections to Orthodoxy. One component he does describe—the “best and the brightest”, which as mentioned earlier he has done for some time. This trend, I would say, has been going on for at least 20-30 years. In my opinion, there is a second developing trend of somewhat more recent vintage. While in the first component the beneficiaries (in my opinion) tend to be Modern Orthodox institutions, for the second component I would say it’s more the broader Orthodox world and even Chabad. The defectors here tend to be middle aged (or older) Jews who are simply growing more conservative, politically and socially speaking. Many in this “defecting” group are not necessarily punctilious in their observance of Jewish rituals, but are drawn to the sociopolitical conservatism of these Orthodox institutions as a refuge against the liberal social and political ethos that is now encroaching upon an increasing number of Conservative establishments.

–Here one also needs to make a distinction between the wider “BT” community whose exposure to a Jewish lifestyle is new, where I would share EK’s contention that ideology plays a much more central role (and where Modern Orthodoxy is but one of many places within Orthodoxy to benefit from this cohort), and the “best and the brightest” Conservative defectors, where the reasons have much more to do with communal/social factors (and who are more likely that BTs in general to gravitate towards Modern Orthodox/Open Orthodox environments).

–Finally, in my opinion, it is a tragedy for the Jewish world that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find both religious environments (whether Orthodox or non-Orthodox) that are accepting of a variety of different social and political worldviews. Those who are involved in both the Conservative and Orthodox worlds feel these tensions and often have to make difficult choices—often the desire for living a Jewish lifestyle among other Jews wins out, but there is also a political price to pay.

With that second part of my comment, I mean to be criticising Jack Wertheimer, not you. He would like to characterize social factors as the main factor causing people to shift from the Conservative movement to Orthodoxy, and he believes that this is something separate from ideology. In other words, he does not think that this is a manifestation of anything compelling about traditional belief in Torah and Mesorah. This understandably annoys you because it reduces the teshuva of the well-educated Conservative dropouts he is describing to their wish to join better country club. Your response is to question the “anecdotal evidence” by which he makes this claim.

My objection to his statement is that the chilulk on which he bases his anecdotal observations is flawed to begin with. Failing to create a Torah community with all of its resources–social, educational, material, economic is an ideological flaw–part of a krum hashkafa, if you will. It is a failure to create a religious public. This is a central belief and core value for Torah Jews. Dinner table conversations must include Torah. My best friend should also be my chavrusa. Shabbos is the at the center of our social lives because our lives revolve around Torah. This is not an artifact of contemporary North American Jewish life. It is at the heart of Torah life.

Al derekh moshol, it is as if I own a restaurant, and some of my most devoted customers are abandoning his restuarant for another one the next block over. So I says, “Alas, my most loyal patrons have gone to a new restuarant. But my anecdotal sense is that it’s only because their food tastes better, their service is superior, and their environment is more enjoyable. But it is NOT because I am a worse chef, or a worse restauranteur!”

The pride and jow of the Conservative movement (and I would agree that this is one of the best things they have going for themselves) is Camp Ramah. The whole reason camp Ramah is wonderful is that it is a Torah Community. The problem is that it lasts only 4-8 weeks a year, and that it’s only for kids.

Sometimes those on the outside see more clearly.

There are two distinct issues at play here: 1) My critique of what Dr. Wertheimer wrote and 2) the reality of the issue he was addressing. Permit me to address the second one first.

I am in agreement with most of comments both in regard to theory and practice, and, of course, for all us, our beliefs about these matters are only anecdotal. Thus, I agree with Michoel that the initial impetus for many looking into Orthodoxy is the social factor in the various senses in which that can manifest, e.g., need for serious religious community, need for close-knit, caring community, need to meet Jewish singles, etc. I also agree with him that long years of sacrifice and commitment evince real belief rather than social needs.

I also agree, based on personal experiences in kiruv and otherwise, with Nachum Klafter, Ilana and another commenter (after I peeled away the sarcasm encasing her comment)that, of course, the vast majority of ba’alei t’shuva come to Orthodoxy due to a combination of warmth, community, inspiring encounters and examplars along with being convinced intellectually/sensing the cogency and correctness of Orthodox belief. This is the ABC of kiruv.

But again, I hope that for the vast majority of ba’alei t’shuva, it is indeed a combination thereof and not purely social(with the initial impetus having perhaps been entirely non-intellectual, as above)and, based on my experiences, I believe this is the case. But this is decidedly not what Wertheimer was saying.

I thank Ori (whose comments I so enjoy for their perspicacity and sincerity and the good job he so often does, from the “left,” of helping some of the more deluded commenters get real)for noting that the fact that ex-Conservatives seek out the Orthodox for their community is a high compliment. I agree; I just don’t think (although perhaps I’m wrong — more on that soon) that’s what Dr. Wertheimer intended.

Interestingly, in criticizing me, Nachum amd Seth spoke of the “serious flaw” in beliefs and “powerful indictment” of approach inherent in Conservatism’s failure to create community. Heaven forfend for me to engage in such triumphalist hetero-bashing . . . (and Heaven knows what the comments would have been had I done so — see comments on Rabbi Adlerstein’s latest piece for a taste).

Now to my critique of Dr. Wertheimer, which many misread. My basic point was a combination of the following:

a) It struck me as strange for him to be citing anecdotal evidence that he doesn’t seem to be in a position to have. Sure, as Nachum notes, lots of people on Orthodox blogs can each submit their personal experiences which, taken together, constitute anecdotal evidence. And it’s fine for commenters here, such as Lawrence Kaplan and Hersh, to weigh in with their own tidbits of such “evidence” (the term itself is actually something of an oxymoron). And, in fact, at the ned of the day, Dr. Wertheimer may actually be right! More on which soon. But how does one individual, sitting in JTS, come by anecdotal evidence about a large community not his own, and data of sufficient volume to be at all meaningful? It just seems suspect. So, could he be right that for many it’s not about ideology as in the case of at-risk Ortho teens? Sure. But how would he know?;

b) He provided no details about this “evidence”; where, when, who, how many? It is so vague that it seemed very out-of-character for a scholar of his caliber to include in an article of this sort. So why do so?;

c) Reread my words. I didn’t state my critique of his statement as a given. I specifically allowed for the possibility that he’s right and indeed he may still be. I merely asked for him to base such assertions on firmer ground;

d) It is true that I speculated that he intended to “bachhandedly convey” something negative about Orthodox ideology, which I agree was not explicit in his words, although I tempered that in the next paragraph by saying he “seemed” to do so. Perhaps I should have more charitably given him the benefit of the doubt. (Whether halacha calls for that another matter).

All I’ll say is this: given 1) the demonstrable animus of Conservative leaders over decades regarding ba’alei t’shuva specifically — which is what I referred to as a “deeply paternalistic canard”, and which description I stand by, and given 2) their decades-long condescending dismissal of Orthodox ideology as benighted nonsense — as in the JTS chancellor referring to our beliefs as based on “willful ignorance” (copy of the letter on his stationary –to one of our commenters! — available upon request), Dr. Wertheimer’s impobable resort to the most amorphous anecdotal evidence to downplay attachment to Orthodox ideology on the part of newly Orthodox “pushes some buttons,” shall we say.

Perhaps Dr. Wertheimer, who, as I noted, has been more intellectually honest all along, din’t intend that, and if so,I apologize forthrightly to him.

Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Mr. “Rejewvenator,” that one way to reconcile my experiences with ba’alei t’shuva’s ideological commitment and those of, say, Dr. Wertheimer, Lawrence Kaplan and Hersh, is that we’re discussing tweo different groups. They’re speaking of Conservatives switching to Orthodox shuls and I had in mind actual ba’alei t’shuva, who have made a life change as a result of or followed by outreach yeshiva/seminars, etc.

Another differentiating factor may be that mine are New York-area experiences, and those of the commenters are from elsewhere, where, I suspect, more of the switching shuls but not ideology may take place for reasons beyond this discussion.

Oh, and, finally, to the commenter who instructed me to stop gloating: OK, I undertake not to gloat going forward, although I can’t “stop,” since I don’t believe I was doing so until now. I think some commenters don’t realize just how big that chip on their shoulder has grown to be.

That’s a myth. He wrote on shabbos (at least eventually; he lived a long life and perhaps did indeed keep shabbos carefully for decades). See the article on him in the “Tradition Renewed” where this is mentioned.

I say this for the sake of accuracy, is all.

That said, Heinrich Graetz did indeed, apparently, keep shabbos meticulously (and why not? He wasn’t kofer Torah min ha-shamayim, while Mordecai Kaplan was). There’s a story that has him leining the haftarah while on a visit to England, inserting textual emendations of his own, but tying his handkerchief around his neck afterwards, so that he wouldn’t carry outside.

I guess an Orthodox rabbi can come right out and say that, but chas v’shalom if a Conservative Jew should say something that could maybe, possibly, imply something like that.