Originally published 5/7/11, 9:58 pm.
This Forward article on the new egalitarian yeshiva in New York City, Hadar, caught my attention for many reasons. It was even actually the first time that I had even heard of the place. There was one thing about the article that bothered me although I couldn't clearly put my finger on it -- and this had nothing to do with my general issues when I read of such new innovations.
Of course, I have my own personal response to the institution and admit that I am naturally wary of such views of Judaism. To me, though, my personal response when I first encounter variant positions within Judaism is not a priority. My first question is whether, notwithstanding my personal view or even halachic opinion, this is a position that could be defended within the parameters of Torah or not. Is Hadar part of the world of eilu v'eilu or is it outside the pale? The article does not clearly answer that question although many of the faculty member's connection with Conservative Judaism does leave me somewhat questioning. On that level, the issue is not the specific conclusion reached but how the conclusion was reached. The difference between Conservative Judaism and Orthodox Judaism is only secondarily in their variant conclusions but primarily in the a prioris that are applied within the system. That Hadar wishes to find some standard for connecting Torah with modernity is not the issue for me. The question is whether they wish to do so applying Orthodox parameters of the halachic system or whether they wish to apply Conservative or other non-Orthodox parameters. I even was not necessarily taken aback from this discussion in the context of sexuality for I remember once even reading an attempt to legitimize pre-marital relations by someone trying to apply Orthodox parameters. (I must admit found the article lacking.) The question for me was how Hadar was approaching the issue.
Yet this question in itself was not what bothered me about this article. That type of question is the natural result of such an article. This is the issue and then this is my response to the issue as a reader. There was something though about the article that intrinsically bothered me -- something about what it presented as the issue that missed the boat...and then it dawned on me. The article did touch upon the issue of niddah in passing, specifically in the context of some seminars at the institution, but it did not raise the issue of niddah in the primary context. What is practice in regard to niddah of these individuals, connected to Hadar, who are living together outside of marriage? That's the real question that needs to be asked within the context of this whole discussion within a Jewish context. It dawned on me that this article was written from the perspective of the change in North American mores. It was written in the context of the change in sexual attitudes from the 1950's to today. It was not written in the context of how Torah connects to modernity. I am not stating that pre-marital relations are okay or that I agree with Hadar's policy even if these individuals are observing the laws of niddah. What I am saying, though, is that if this is supposed to be an adventure in connecting Torah to modernity, the issue should be framed as such and not within the general context of the change in sexuality in the past half century. To be honest, this may have been a problem with the writer of this article and reflect this individual's lack of understanding of the Jewish issues. It may not reflect what is going on in Hadar. My point, though, is that in regard to the question of how Torah relates to modernity, it must be framed within this context and not within the general world perception relating to how old time religions relate to the changing mores of the world.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
No comments:
Post a Comment