Edah, the ultra-Modern Orthodox fringe group whose coterie consists substantially of people who are conservadox or otherwise not Orthodox, is outstanding in both its capacity to attract publicity and its capacity to raise funds. Bashing the rest of Orthodoxy does sell in our media and with some of the super-rich. Still, this fringe organization reached a new low in probity with the issuance of fraudulent data attributed to Jack Ukeles that 75% of Orthodox households are “Modern” and that even in Brooklyn, this is true of a majority of Orthodox households. I guess that holding its latest conference in Temple Emanuel inspired Edah to be fair, tolerant and honest.

I will deal with Ukeles’ research in my next Jewish Week article and I also will deal with the collateral contribution by Sam Heilman. Ukeles and Heilman are bedecked with honor and credentials but their work is fraudulent in the extreme. If we accept Ukeles’ nonsense, Yeshiva University scarcely exists and certainly not Yitzchak Elchanon. Nor is there anything else that can be labeled as Centrist Orthodox, including dozens of day schools and perhaps the entire Jewish community in places like Teaneck. It is beyond credulity that this kind of stuff can be published and perhaps taken seriously by some.

What has happened here and also in virtually everything that has Edah’s fingerprint is the substitution of ideology for scholarship and for integrity.

Two visits by pairs of wonderful young rabbis highlight an issue in Torah education that I believe requires attention. Both meetings were set up by senior rabbis whom I respect greatly and both were efforts to secure support for their projects. One project is a creative and I think fruitful effort in special education, while the other is a more tangential approach to assist people with severe disabilities who wish to study Torah. The first project is extremely expensive at $20,000 per year per student; the other is far less costly.

I was greatly impressed by the earnestness of those responsible for these projects and by what they have accomplished. As things turned out and as I had anticipated, there is no ready way for me to help them, although I will continue to try.

But here is the problem: Special ed is terribly expensive. Even if we assume, as I am willing to do, that the investment pays off, in view of the obvious fact that communal resources are limited, is it right to spend substantial charitable funds on these children, while so many dayschoolers are shortchanged? The fact is that there are immigrant and kiruv schools that spend significantly below $5,000 per student on a dual curriculum program and certainly the students would benefit if more funding were available. More generally, nearly every yeshiva in this country is underfunded – in terms of the salaries paid, maintenance, special attention to children and counseling and everything else. Why should we be so solicitous of special ed children at a time when we are neglecting tens of thousands of other children?

The question actually has two answers: one is that special ed resonates with us as chesed and not as chinuch and as a community we are increasingly doing what other Jews do, namely prefering chesed in our charity allocations over education. A collateral factor is that we have come to accept the notion that ordinary Torah education is a consumer product to be paid for by the parents who are the consumers.

My posting on the Slifkin matter has generated thoughtful comments that raise significant questions. I would like to elaborate on what I wrote previously and also indicate that a somewhat extended discussion of my views on book banning was included in the January 2003 issue of the RJJ Newsletter. It is available on my website established by wonderful son - www.mschick.blogspot.com. With respect to the current matter:

1. Orthodox Jews are obligated to be obedient to Torah authority. This obligation obviously pertains to situations where there is disagreement with what Torah authorities are mandating. As a guide, we have the poignant incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Rebi Yehoshua that is recounted in Rosh Hashanah, Mishnah 2:9. If I were instructed by Torah authorities – specifically persons who have condemned Slifkin’s writings – to withdraw what I have written on the subject, I would do so without hesitation. I would obey because obedience is an essential condition of our religious commitment.

2. Obedience does not necessarily negate our ability to express an opinion. I believe that we have a significant zone of freedom, a belief that should be evident from what I have written over a great number of years. Our thought processes are not reduced to sycophantic expressions. Our status as Orthodox Jews does not carry with it an obliteration of thought. There are limits, of course, one obvious one being that we are not free to challenge halacha. Another limit is the obedience referred to in point 1.

3. Even when obedience is required, there may be occasions when it is acceptable to maintain one’s previous position, the proviso being that whether in word or deed, maintenance of a previous position does not beget action that is contrary to the obligation of obedience. There is, in other words, a certain latency to some views that are being abandoned. I know of no formula that can guide us in these matters. It may be useful to reflect on the follow-up to the Rabban Gamliel and Rebi Yehoshua story that is presented in Berachos 27b.

I have not read any of Rabbi Nosson Slifkin’s books but if I had, I doubt that I would be competent to judge the validity of his science or, for that matter, his hashkafah. I have looked at the overly long defenses of his work that he has posted. Whatever one thinks of his writings, the ban issued against his work is inappropriate and wrongful. Much the same can be said about several other celebrated recent condemnations of books, specifically including Rabbi Nosson Kaminetsky’s controversial works. There should be a more balanced and appropriate way of expressing disagreement with writers who are certainly shomere torah v’mitzvos without resorting to cherems and the like. In the present period, bans are counterproductive and not merely because they are likely to generate interest in the works that are being banned. More importantly, they turn off people whom we want to attract and others whom we want to keep. It is no secret that the kiruv movement is not what it used to be, primarily for reasons that arise from the openness of contemporary life and yet it is obvious that resorting to cherems and bans do not help the cause. It is also obvious that the outflow away from Orthodoxy is greater than the numbers whom we are attracting via kiruv. The condemnation of Rabbi Slifkin’s work and other works by Orthodox Jews has the collateral effect of turning people away from our religion.

We may not be able to do all that we want on the kiruv rechokim front, but we can do a better job in not being m’rachek karovim.

Could it be that after too many years of sending out the message that basic Torah education at the elementary and high school levels is not a community responsibility or tzedakah priority, Torah leaders are coming to realize that yeshivas and day schools, as well as their faculty, are suffering and a new message advocating support for our most vital institutions needs to be sent out?

This is an issue that I have trumpeted for far longer than I care to recollect here. The exercise has been akin to knocking one’s head into a stone wall. I am frustrated and I am angry because I know who is being hurt, including the many for whom no yeshiva or day school chinuch is available.

But now at the Agudah convention, both the Novominsker Rebbe and Professor Aaron Twerski picked up the theme, with the latter following up with an impassioned article in the latest Jewish Observer. He asks that “yeshivas be put at the top of our agenda” and that “the next Agudath Israel convention be dedicated to the problems of our yeshivas.” It’s startling, even scary, that the Torah world needs to be told that yeshivas – and Professor Twerski makes it clear that he is referring to basic chinuch – need to be put at the top of our agenda.

We should be thankful for this progress, yet we are a long way off from reversing a dangerous trend which inadvertently has promoted the wrongful view that yeshivas are a consumer product and therefore the responsibility of parents who are the consumer. So long as Torah leaders send out an endless stream of communications promoting chesed and other causes which they disregard basic Torah chinuch – just look at the mail we get or the weekly Yated – it is unlikely that there will be much improvement. Right now, many yeshivas and day schools are in trouble and contributions continue to decline.

While I appreciate the many comments I received to my posting on the Conservative movement, there isn’t sufficient time or perhaps even purpose for me to respond further.

My latest Jewish Week column (December 24) discusses the mounting troubles faced by the Conservative movement. I noted that Solomon Schechter schools, many of which are experiencing a declining enrollment and some have closed, are Jewishly superior to nearly all transdenominational Community day schools and that their decline and the more general decline of Conservatism does not bode well for Israel or kiruv activities. I also suggested that Conservatives needed to have a more unified and more vigorously led movement. A Rosh Yeshiva called to say that the column was “a hot potato,” with people wondering why I felt it necessary to give advice to Jews who aren’t observant. Perhaps I shouldn’t be giving such advice. Perhaps it would be better if the Conservatives would move further away from our heritage and ultimately walk away entirely from Jewish life, taking the path already taken by at least half of American Jews.

My friend, Rabbi Avrohom Cohen, editor of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society which I publish as president of the Rabbi Jacob Joseph School, has said to me often about our fellow Orthodox, “G-D gave us a beautiful religion and look what we are doing to it.” His words have come back to me as I have received sharp responses to my current Jewish Week article criticizing Jewish Action, the Orthodox Union’s magazine, for publishing a defense of Baruch Goldstein’s murderous rampage a decade ago in Hebron. Have we sunk so low as to justify murder? Goldstein’s defenders help drive Jews away from a religious life.

What saddens me most is that too few of those who speak or write on our behalf are prepared to challenge the mood of hatred and paranoia.

Except for one point, I do not care to enter the thicket arising from the Rubashkin slaughter house situation, the reason being that I am not qualified to discuss halachic matters. The exception is the question of whether we need to respond to every criticism of slaughter house procedures by invoking the twin spectres of anti-Semitism and anti-schechita. All human activity is clearly subject to error and it already appears from the reaction of the Orthodox Union and the Rubashkins that certain of the procedures used in Iowa are not necessary to protect the integrity of schechita. Put otherwise, mistakes – and they may have been serious – were made.

Is there a point when the flood of letters we receive from Roshei Yeshiva and notable Rabbis seeking our support for needy families, mainly in Israel, becomes a serious communal problem? We need to face this issue because the sums involved are large – in the aggregate, certainly many millions of dollars each year – and because the practice has been spreading without any sense of accountability.

Putting aside for a moment the accountability issue, there is much that is wrong with the situation we are in, ranging from the wrongful sale and purchase of mailing lists to the messages that accompany the solicitations, increasingly on the outside envelope and in bold print. Doubtlessly this is meant for those of us who are too illiterate or too uncaring to read and rely on the text of the solicitation letter. We are told in these messages and with reckless regard for the truth, that “Your contribution will save a life” or, “A child is waiting to hear from you” or some other bit of fiction.

Like much else in contemporary life, there is a constant need to up the volume, to increase the stridency of the message. In a recent 4-page, multi-colored communication sent out in the name of a prominent Rabbi, we are told, “A needy Jew came to our shores seeking help….He left empty handed….Are we free from responsibility for the tragedy now unfolding?”

As for accountability, there is little or none, not in determining the reliability of the cause for which the solicitation is being made and not in determining what happens with the funds that are contributed. Shouldn’t we at least know what cut is being taken by the fellows who send out the solicitations? As has been often noted, quite strangely many of the letters seem to be written by the same person. Should we not know who the people are who pick up the envelopes that are mailed to the Roshei Yeshivas?

In his much admired new book commemorating 350 years of Jewish life in America, Jonathan Sarna displays a 1879 poster announcing the “Great Revival” of the “Jewish National Holiday of Chanucka.” In the accompanying text, the holiday is referred to as Hanukkah, a usage that is not true either to how we say the word or the poster that is being referred to. Is there any longer a justification for this pseudo-scholarly affectation that is embraced by too many Jews who should know better. After all, no one – not even our tiny and incestuous little community of sterile American Judaic scholars – refers to the next holiday on the calendar as Khristmas.