Volume 67, Issue 7

From the Editor's Desk: Zack Streit

While riding the train to Great Neck for the Gush Shabbaton two weeks ago, I remember wondering how the forthcoming Shabbos would compare to those that I spent at Sha’alvim a few years back.  As I suspected, the two ended up having a lot in common.  The distinct bond forged by yeshiva students engrossed in the collective pursuit of Torah all within the same four walls for an extended period of time was fascinatingly reincarnated, if only for a Shabbos; the davening seemed to embody a certain ethereal quality that I’ve found to be so elusive post-yeshiva; and, finally, the resounding nigunim momentarily transported me back to those carefree, learning-filled days in Israel, when life was much simpler (As a matter of personal pride, I must interject that the singing at Sha’alvim was unquestionably superior.).

With all these parallels though, there was also one major difference: the divrei torah.  No, it’s not that Sha’alvim lacked first-rate lecturers; they most certainly didn’t.  But, they did not have a renowned figure the likes of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, the Rosh Yeshiva of Har Etzion, whom I had the pleasure of hearing in Great Neck for the first, second and third time. 

To describe his sermons as lucid, uninhibited, and erudite would only be to demean them; Rav Lichtenstein is far and away one of the most brilliant original thinkers I have ever encountered.  What’s more, it was reinvigorating to finally hear someone willing to promulgate what it is we stand for and why.  For the first time in my life – and I’m sad to say this includes my time at Yeshiva – I was privy to a vision of Torah Umadda that was powerful and compelling.  Unlike so many other things, the speech left me feeling as though there was hope for the creed I had chosen to adhere to.  But it did have one major drawback.

Most of Rav Lichtenstein’s presentation dealt with the importance of living a life steeped in Torah and yet balanced with a formidable secular education.  And most of the lecture is exactly what all of us needed to hear.  However, to the dismay of some audience members, myself included, parts of the lecture seemed to repeatedly rubberstamp a charedi or fundamentalist ethos as something respectable and perhaps even desirable.  Although a Yeshiva student later questioned Rav Lichtenstein on his seemingly out-of-line stance toward the charedi way of life – which is ostensibly at odds with our own – the RIETS Rosh Yeshiva duly deflected the question.

Is there really something wrong with espousing such an approach?  Are the potential ramifications really that treacherous?  The nutshell answers are: yes and yes.  The longer answer requires more scrutiny.  For that, lets turn closer to home. 

Although many students would rather blithely ignore what happened in our own Beis Medrash prior to President-elect Richard Joel’s instatement, the fact is that we can’t.  For those in the dark, an emergency tehilim rally sanctioned by a number of our leading Roshei Yeshiva following mincha was held in the Main Beis Medrash on Wednesday, December 5.  Allegedly the tehilim was said to pray for the future of Yeshiva’s soul.  In reality, the attending Roshei Yeshiva and students were begging god to forestall Joel’s appointment.  Over 100 students attended this mincha.

That’s right, some of our most illustrious leaders decided that the appointment of a president, whose honorifics did not include rabbi, was a tragedy on par with a draught, the homicide bombings in Israel, or even a national tragedy (read: 9/11).  So, instead of attacking a problem that was a fraction of the magnitude they made it out to be pro-actively by picketing outside Rabbi Lamm’s office, spearheading a letter writing campaign, or threatening to resign their posts, they decided to exploit their positions in the religious ivory towers and wage a pathetic, passive aggressive protest that used god perversely.  And what’s more, they had to drag their talmidim – our peers – down into the mud with them, when they knew full well that their disciples would probably not ponder the injurious import of their actions.

Following the rally, a Yeshiva insider I’ve grown close to over the years said something absolutely heartbreaking to me.

“Zack,” he said, “you know what?  This is the first time I have ever felt disgraced to be a YU musmach.” 

Sadly, my feelings were not very different.  I too was utterly disgusted with what was going on in my University.  And I too was embarrassed to be an enrolled student that day. 

Make no mistake about it: What these few Roshei Yeshiva did was an abomination.  As far as I’m concerned, the fact that every Rosh Yeshiva who opposed the tehilim debacle was not outside the Beis Medrash forbidding all students to partake in this appalling abuse of power leaves them just as accountable.  Forgetting, for a moment, that these men comprise our most esteemed leaders – those that we turn to for direction and motivation –  what I want to know is how could any self-respecting, sane frum Jews use god and tehilim so perniciously?  And how could others stand idly either while this was unfolding or in its wake?

When I asked this very question to a Rosh Yeshiva who claimed to have opposed the rally, he responded by saying that he had denounced the rally to the students in his shiur.  He also noted that some of his compatriots had done the same.  Well you know what, that’s not good enough.  It’s not sufficient to condemn such a deplorable rally behind closed doors or exclusively to a shiur, not only do cluttered, contradictory messages abound as a result, but such spineless tactics leads to divisiveness and antagonism in the University at large. If the Roshei Yeshiva are incapable of formulating a united stance on such rudimentary issues as where and when to say tehilim – not to mention a host of other blistering issues like the proliferation of cheaters and kippah-less students on campus – then I wonder if they should really be our role models.

The nature of this whole event also sheds some light on why I vehemently believe that a fundamentalist ethos can have no place in Torah Umadda.  Although Rav Lichtenstein may have had the more commendable aspects of charedi-ism in mind during his speech, how does he propose to weed out the more destructive elements of fundamentalism, like an across-the-board passive reliance on god, the exploitation of religion and clerical power – particularly through invoking g-d perversely – and the development of a theocratic reign?  In my mind, it’s almost impossible. 

If the Roshei Yeshiva wanted to protest against a non-rabbi being appointed president of Yeshiva, they had every right to.  But to abuse their clerical positions by trying to transform something into a religious tragedy when it is clearly nothing of the sort is fundamentalist and, contrary to what Rav Lichtenstein proclaimed, should be anathema to everything we believe in.   

Like it or not, Yeshiva is going to change with Richard Joel as president.  With this transformation, the Roshei Yeshiva have a chance to reestablish themselves not only as paradigms of virtue but also as communal leaders capable of devising policies both in-house and for the world at large that reflect their true stature.  Lets hope they don’t squander the opportunity.¨

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.