2009 Conference - Authenticity and Authority

The Center for Modern Torah Leadership is pleased to announce that registration for our 3rd annual conference, "Authenticity and Authority", to be held in Boston on August 17-18, 2009, is now open.    

The conference will be held at the Florence Chefetz Hillel House at Boston University, 213 Bay State Road, Boston, Massachusetts.  Food and housing will be provided, and stipends up to $200 are available for transportation, if required.  The registration fee is $100.  The first twenty-five participants will receive the transportation stipends, so please register as soon as possible to hold your place.

To register, please utilize our online account here.

If you have any questions about registering or other practical concerns, call Anne at 781-784-5391 or email at anne.sendor@verizon.net.   To discuss content of the conference or the Center generally, please email Rabbi Klapper atrryehdkl@aol.com.   We look forward to learning from and with you!

 

B'virkat haTorah, 

Aryeh Klapper, Dean

Anne Sendor, Program Coordinator

 

Exploring Authenticity:

A CMTL Conference for Rabbis and Torah Educators

A central value of modernity is authenticity, defined here as “the right and obligation to both live and be perceived in accordance with one’s true self”. 

One defining ideological characteristic of Modern Orthodoxy at its best is a drive to find genuine and substantive Torah worth in the central values of modernity.  A second is the willingness to acknowledge the inevitable influence of modernity on our Torah ideas and to reflect on how best to control, manage, and channel that influence.  It follows that Modern Orthodoxy needs to seriously engage with the value of authenticity.                   

This conference seeks to catalyze that engagement with reference to the goals and techniques of Torah pedagogy.  Specifically, we will discuss how and whether the value of authenticity does and should

  • affect the self-understanding and self-presentation of rabbis and teachers,
  • shape presentations to students and congregants of heroes and role models, and
  • frame their professional relationships with students and congregants. 

 

A more detailed discussion of these issues and their connection to the theme of authenticity can be found below.  Every conversation will be grounded in the texts and content of our Masoret while bringing a wide variety of perspectives and texts to bear on these questions, including but not limited to those of mussar, chassidut, panHalakhism, psychology, classical philosophy, and educational theory.     

The conference is being designed collaboratively, and Rabbi Klapper thanks the many colleagues and friends who listened to and challenged earlier proposed frameworks, in particular Anne Sendor, David Jaffe, Shani Bechhofer, Howard Jachter, Scot Berman, Ilan Haber, Menachem Schrader, Jacob Meskin, and Yisroel Kaminetsky. 

1.  Self-understanding

תלמוד בבלי מסכת חגיגה דף טו עמוד ב

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן:

מאי דכתיב (מלאכי ב )"כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צב-אות הוא"?

אם דומה הרב למלאך ה' צב-אות - יבקשו תורה מפיהו; ואם לאו - אל יבקשו תורה מפיהו.

Being a כלי קדש means living almost constantly as a public representative of Torah.  This means that we need to be able to speak with authority in the Torah’s name, to gracefully receive and sometimes demand כבוד (as must any ambassador), and see ourselves as role models.  Rabbi Yochanan argues that students should only agree to learn from teachers who resemble angels; it follows that we must see ourselves as angelic, or else think that our students and congregants should ignore our Torah. 

And yet – we are also supposed to be ענוים, and every time we advocate for the Torah life, we should be reminded of our own failure to measure up to that ideal.  In a deeply personal sense, we need to follow the Berditchever’s advice to be conscious of both “"בשבילי נברא העולם and"אנכי עפר ואפר" and keep them in balance; or for student’s of the Rav, to see both the majesty and the humility in our individual life journeys. 

But neshamot are dynamic rather than statics, and thus even those of us who begin our careers in perfect balance can fall to one side or the other over time.  Excessive awareness of our inadequacies is professionally paralyzing and psychologically debilitating; and on the other hand, spiritual smugness is alienating and often a progressive pathology.

How do we train ourselves to walk this narrow bridge?   How can we tell when our proper insistence on כבוד התורה shades into being רודף אחר הכבוד, or when our rejection of כיבודים is really a rejection of responsibility?  To what degree are these issues dependent on the expectations and needs of our communities?

Underlying this question is the extent to which we identify our selves with our roles, and this is often a developmental issue.  For example: When people who don’t know us relate to us as laity, are we relieved or disturbed?  For at least many of us, the answer to that question evolves over time in the direction of discomfort, and we should reflect on what that means about our sense of self.

 

  1. Self-Presentation

רמב"ם הלכות דעות פרק ב הלכה ג

ויש דעות שאסור לו לאדם לנהוג בהן בבינונית אלא יתרחק מן הקצה האחד עד הקצה האחר, והוא גובה לב, שאין דרך הטובה שיהיה אדם עניו בלבד אלא שיהיה שפל רוח ותהיה רוחו נמוכה למאד, ולפיכך נאמר במשה רבינו ענו מאד ולא נאמר ענו בלבד, ולפיכך צוו חכמים מאד מאד הוי שפל רוח, ועוד אמרו שכל המגביה לבו כפר בעיקר שנאמר ורם לבבך ושכחת את ה' אלקיך, ועוד אמרו בשמתא מאן דאית ביה גסות הרוח ואפילו מקצתה, וכן הכעס מדה רעה היא עד למאד וראוי לאדם שיתרחק ממנה עד הקצה האחר, וילמד עצמו שלא יכעוס ואפילו על דבר שראוי לכעוס עליו, ואם רצה להטיל אימה על בניו ובני ביתו או על הציבור אם היה פרנס ורצה לכעוס עליהן כדי שיחזרו למוטב יראה עצמו בפניהם שהוא כועס כדי לייסרם ותהיה דעתו מיושבת בינו לבין עצמו כאדם שהוא מדמה כועס בשעת כעסו והוא אינו כועס, אמרו חכמים הראשונים כל הכועס כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים, ואמרו שכל הכועס אם חכם הוא חכמתו מסתלקת ממנו ואם נביא הוא נבואתו מסתלקת ממנו, ובעלי כעס אין חייהם חיים, לפיכך צוו להתרחק מן הכעס עד שינהיג עצמו שלא ירגיש אפילו לדברים המכעיסים וזו היא הדרך הטובה, ודרך הצדיקים הן עלובין ואינן עולבין שומעים חרפתם ואינם משיבין עושין מאהבה ושמחים ביסורים, ועליהם הכתוב אומר ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו.

Should Torah educators always strive to be perceived as who they truly are, or should they rather strive to create the perception that will best enable them to accomplish their sacred tasks? 

Rambam Hilkhot Deot 2:3 seems to explicitly adopt the latter approach,  ruling that teachers and communal leaders must at times act as if they were angry, but never act out of anger; in other words, for pedagogic purposes they must convey a false impression of their inner emotional life to the public.  This is but one reflection of his general belief that scholars must behave in ways that properly instruct the unlearned, even if those behaviors are meaningless according to the scholars’ true opinions. 

On a different axis, Erica Brown has written of how kiruv staff radically improve their interpersonal relations when “on”, so as to inspire their charges to see Torah as a system for character improvement.  Each of these practices is a clear violation of authenticity.  But what is our alternative?  Should only those who genuinely see their true selves as models that others should emulate be allowed to teach and serve?  Would this not lead to a clergy and faculty of rampant egomaniacs? 

Nor is it always the case that peak pedagogic efficacy entails presenting oneself as better than one actually is.  Sometimes it might involve misleadingly creating the impression that one shares temptations or weaknesses, so as to create a relationship; thus the standard mussar opening that “I’m talking to myself as much or more than you”.  Or it might involve acting and speaking as if one believes strongly in an ideological element that actually leaves one cold: for example, marching in a Salute to Israel Parade for a Religious Zionist School, when one actually does not see the medinah as religiously significant.  Or, to take a likely more charged example, it might mean hiding one’s understanding of one’s sexual orientation.  Should we reject these tactics, and tell teachers that only those who areתוכם כברם need apply?  Should we refuse to work in any situation that requires such dissimulations?      

3.  Presentation of Heroes and Role Models

בראשית פרק יח

ויאמר יקוק אל אברהם למה זה צחקה שרה לאמר האף אמנם אלד ואני זקנתי:

The question of whether/when to value the true presentation above the useful applies to others as well as ourselves.  Under authenticity,Avraham, Esther, Rav Ashi, Rambam, Sarah Schnirer, and the Rav all have the prima facie right to be remembered, and to be presented to students and congregants, as they actually were.  Furthermore, if we remake our heroes to match our ideals, we deprive them of their capacity to challenge our ideals, to instruct as well as inspire.

But sometimes facts can obscure more than they reveal, and truth can alienate unnecessarily.  Thus it is very likely that Avraham and Sarah dressed nothing like a contemporary Orthodox Jew of whatever stripe; but if our children are more likely to be inspired by his values if they envision him wearing a kippah srugah, with Sarah beside him in her floorlength denim skirt, perhaps we should paint him for them that way.

But changing fashions are relatively trivial – more serious questions are posed by changing or simply differing values.  Should our students know which great achronim were dazzled by Shabtai Zvi, even though that calls their judgment into deep question?  Should they know that gadol X told racist jokes back when those were in style, even if that makes it near-impossible for a contemporary American to take their ethical intuition seriously, or that gadol Y assumed that anyone who read novels, or wore a brown jacket, lacked all yir’at shamayim, when they read novels and wear brown jackets?

An underlying question here is whether we can effectively present students with heroes and role models who in very important ways we don’t wish them to emulate.  But we should try to think in terms of principles rather than utility

 4.  Relationships with Students and Congregants

ספר העיקרים מאמר שלישי פרק כט

ודרך הבנת זה הענין הוא, כי כמו שנמצא בדברים הטבעיים דברים הרבה ימצאו על צד היותר טוב ולא על צד ההכרח, כמו כפילת החושים וזולתם שהיה אפשר המצא והתקיים הבעלי חיים בזולת ההכפל ההוא, ואולם נמצאו בבעלי חיים על צד היותר טוב, כן השם יתברך להיותו חפץ להביא את האדם אל השלמות האנושי וראה כמה מונעים יש לו שהם מטרידים מהשגת השלמות ההוא, חתר דרך בשישיגהו, וזה בשהרבה לו דרכים ואופנים אינם הכרחיים כלם להשגת השלמות ואמנם נמצאו על צד היותר טוב, כדי שיושג השלמות האנושי או חלק ממנו על יד כל אחד מהם, כדי שלא ימלט שום אחד מישראל בפרט או מן האנשים בכלל שלא ישיג השלמות ההוא אם ישתדל להשיגו באחת מן הדרכים ההם.

וזהו מה שאמרו רבותינו ז"ל בסוף מכות רבי חנניא בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, הנה בארו שלכך נצטוו ישראל רוב המצות כדי לצדקם ולזכותם. והוא מבואר שאם היו כלם הכרחיים לקנית השלמות לא היה זה זכות אלא חובה, ולזה הוא שאמר רבי יוחנן לא ניחא ליה למריהו דאמרת עליהו הכי אלא למי שלא קיים אפילו חק אחד מן התורה.

A central, perhaps the central, goal of teaching Torah is to change not just the behavior but the soul of the listener.  Teaching Torah therefore is automatically an activity fraught with totalitarian possibilities.

That is a deliberately provocative opening, and needs to be qualified.  We generally assume that the Ribono shel Olam wants our freely given service, and thus see little or no positive value in coercing people to perform mitzvot (the question of coercing people not to perform aveirot is more controversial).  “Brainwashing” is a term of genuine opprobrium in almost all yeshivot.

What is not clear is how to define the boundary between brainwashing and effective persuasion, defined here as the boundary between replacing and developing the self.  When are we removing hearts of stone and replacing them with hearts of flesh, and when bringing the stones to life? This becomes a more troublesome issue the more central a teacher/rabbi’s personality is to his/her effectiveness.

Perhaps two critical variables are

a)  the extent to which one respects one’s audience באשר הוא שם

b)  the extent to which one genuinely acknowledges multiple and significantly divergent lekhatchilah religious personalities.

Let’s play this out with specific reference to issues of

a)  developmental stages.  Rambam encourages us to envision מתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה as a pedagogic principle, so that we start every student off by feeding them candy when they learn, in the hope that eventually the experience of Torah will be sweeter than candy to them – but is anything lost if a student learns לשמה from the outset?  As a thought experiment, consider how a student who has felt religious passion but never physical passion might understand Shir HaShirim.

b)  intraOrthodox pluralism.  We celebrate the Ribono shel Olam’s capacity to create diversity out of uniformity – כשם שפרצופיהן שונות זו מזו, כך דעותיהם – but perhaps this celebration has no practical place within a specific synagogue or school or classroom.  Genuinely celebrating diversity is a particular challenge to charismatic teaching, as it is hard to role model diversity.  We also need to consider whether we wish to empower students/congregants to critically evaluate rather than presumptively emulate their mentors.