Volume 67, Issue 8

Letters to the Editor

Maintaining the “Yeshiva” in Yeshiva University

A Shameful Editorial

Weigh your Words Carefully

Leftist Zionist: Hero or Heretic?

Parking Gripes Immature

The Brill Letters Continue: An Open Letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs

Maintaining the “Yeshiva” in Yeshiva University

To the Editors:

It’s time that someone comes to defend the Roshei Yeshiva’s decision to hold a tehillim rally.  

Although I am highly unqualified to write such an article, I disagree with many of the recent 

statements that have been published in the Commentator.  First off, all of you who think that 

this was a political decision don’t know what you are talking about.  I am a talmid of one of the 

Roshei Yeshiva who did not support the appointment of Richard Joel.  He did not do so for 

political reasons, nor did the Rav warn about the splitting up of the Presidency and Rosh 

HaYeshiva 30 years ago for political reasons.

A lot of people misunderstand what role "Yeshiva" plays in Yeshiva University.  It does not just 

refer to the morning seder that we learn before going off to our secular classes.  Talmud Torah 

is the foundation, the essence, of everything we, the orthodox community, and YU, stand for.  

It is in this atmosphere that we take on the integration of maddah in our daily lives, to deepen 

our connection to Hashem.  If anyone doesn’t believe that Torah is the essence of our lives, 

and isn’t interested in learning more about their connection not only to Judaism but also to 

Hashem, then maybe this is not the place for him.  This is how YU was formed and this is how 

it must remain.  Even if we go on to work 10 hours a day and learn 2, all those hours should be 

spent striving to get closer to Hashem, but those two hours were spent learning the words of 

Hashem.  

The Roshei Yeshiva want this atmosphere of a Yeshiva to remain.  They have also been around 

a long time, and have seen how YU is changing, both because of internal influences, such as those 

in charge who don’t agree with the ideals of a Yeshiva, and external influences, such as perhaps 

having to change the semicha curriculum due to other Yeshivot.  It makes the most sense that to 

retain the Yeshiva’s identity, they appoint a talmid chacham who exemplifies maddah to be the 

president, not only since he will serve as a symbol for the Yeshiva, but because he will be the one 

who guides us in our halakhic decisions.  Decisions, such as whether we should have homosexual 

dorms, whether we retain professors like Professor Brill, who exemplifies Torah and madda, and 

whether we should have classes that teach kefirah, require the utmost precision in the minute 

details of Halacha and ethics.  These are not and should not be political decisions. 

I’m not saying that Richard Joel cannot fulfill these objectives- I don’t know.  I do know him and 

his family, and they are all wonderful people.  But the Roshei Yeshiva felt that this was a 

dangerous risk that could threaten the Yeshiva’s identity, a risk that should not be taken.  

That is why they held a tehillim rally.  Not to pray against the appointment of Richard Joel, 

but to pray for the future of our Yeshiva.   Tehillim is not only for a physical Sha’at Hadechak; 

it is for all occasions, whether they be joyous or sorrowful times, and certainly when it involves a 

possible shift in the spirit of what our Yeshiva and modern orthodoxy stand for.  

On a last note, my Navi teacher, Rabbi Angel, warns us about condemning mefarshim on how 

they explain a text, reminding us that they knew much more than we do.  I think this point is 

applicable here as well.  Rabbis, even gedolei hador, can be wrong, but we must be very careful 

and watch out for how we condemn them for decisions they make, especially when we decide to 

call their decisions "an abomination," as one prestigious editor wrote.  We should always be 

dan lekaf zechut, especially for talmedei chachamim, as the Gemara in Berachot states.  I 

welcome President Joel to his new position, and wish him the best, with the help of Hashem, 

in retaining and strengthening the identity of Yeshiva University, as a place of Torah U’Maddah 

that continues to strengthen the orthodox community. 

Sincerely,

Jonathan Atkin  

MYP (SSSB) 2004

A Shameful Editorial

To the Editors:

Though I disagreed with numerous points made in Zack Streit’s editorial, such as his criticism of 

the Roshei Yeshiva’s actions and his belligerent stance on the charedi community, I would like 

to comment on what I felt was the most insolent and inexcusable part of the article: its tone. 

Whether or not his point was valid, which is certainly questionable, his attempted character 

assassination of the Roshei Yeshiva was disgusting and disturbing. How can someone who has 

spent time learning Torah on a serious level be so flippant in his remarks and dare to utter such 

reckless and disrespectful statements?

The Roshei Yeshiva in Yeshiva University are world-class talmidei chachamim and experts in 

every area of religious, Jewish life, as well as men of virtue and sensitivity. They make, literally, 

life-and-death halachic decisions regularly and counsel many people on a number of different 

personal issues. For you, as a non-talmid chacham, to critique the legitimacy of (some of) their 

decision as to when it is appropriate to say Tehillim is at best weak. However, when you do so 

by accusing them of “invoking G-d perversely,” of abusing their authority, and calling their actions 

an “abomination,” you shame the entire student body that you claim to represent, as well as the 

alumni and every other person who has encountered the Roshei Yeshiva and understands their 

greatness as both talmidei chachamim and people.

Zack Streit’s editorial was a disgrace and an outrage. I believe that he owes not only the Roshei 

Yeshiva an apology, but all of us one as well for shaming our Torah leaders.

Sincerely,

David Sher

YC 04

    
Weigh your Words Carefully

To the Editors:

I was greatly dismayed in reading Zack Streit’s column about the Roshei Yeshiva’s decision to 

hold a Tehillim rally in response to the imminent appointment of Mr. Joel as President.  While 

Streit raises some important questions about the decision to hold the rally, his attitude towards 

the Roshei Yeshiva is lacking in the basic respect owed to Talmidei Chachamim. Over the 

course of his column, Streit carelessly refers to the Roshei Yeshiva’s actions as “an abomination,” 

“spineless,” and “pernicious,” at one point even implying that they are insane.  Generally, 

disagreement does not justify name-calling; all the more so in the case of our esteemed Roshei 

Yeshiva.   By recklessly insulting the Roshei Yeshiva, Streit himself employs an element of the 

fundamentalism he so greatly despises.

Sincerely,

Elie Mischel

RIETS ‘06

    
Leftist Zionist: Hero or Heretic?

To the Editors:

I was extremely disturbed by David Druce’s article (“A Leftist Zionist Speaks”) in the last issue. 

I was not particularly enamored by the article as a whole, but one specific line really angered me. 

He wrote the following: “Israel is not a right-wing state. It would not exist without the efforts of 

socialist pioneers and the Labor Party. What role G-d has played in Israel is debatable, but the role 

of the IDF and the Kibbutz movement isn’t.” This is blatant kefirus. It is tantamount to suggesting 

that the role that G-d played in the story of Channuka is debatable. It is truly a disgrace that 

something like this could be printed in a religious paper. Druce singles himself out as “a religious 

Jew with left-wing views on Israeli politics.”  I think a better description would be “a confused Jew 

with left-wing politics.”

Sincerely, 

Daniel Gottesman

YC 2005

The author responds:

When I say G-d, I meant the idea of a religious state, as in the phrase ‘God and Country’, not G-d as a being. I don’t claim to know to know what the divine role was or is in Israel, and leave that to my intellectual and moral superiors. I only wanted to say that the concept is open to debate, because scientifically, it is an ideology, not a physical fact or historical event.

Parking Gripes Immature

To the Editors:
After reading your article about the parking situation at YC, I was disgusted with the small mindedness of the current student body. Andrew Lebowitz is right: having a car in the city IS a luxury. New York has one of the best public transportation systems in the world - use it. There is no need for the university to have to foot the bill to make parking available to students. My two brothers and I all had cars up at YC during our time in the heights. Sure, we got our share of parking tickets, but hey that’s the price of having a car. College is supposed to get you ready for real life -  do you think that when you go out into the world you automatically get a house/apartment and a parking place? No, you make sacrifices and adjustments. If you want the privilege of having a car in the city, the responsibility that goes with it is yours too. Let YU concentrate on educating you. I am very proud to say that I went to YU. I am proud to show YU’s ranking among universities. Go Macs!

Sincerely,
Joey Selesny
YC ’95

The Brill Letters Continue: An Open Letter to the Vice President for Academic Affairs

Dear Dr. Lowengrub:

We urge that Yeshiva University reconsider the matter of withholding tenure from Dr. Alan Brill. Dr. Alan Brill’s distinguished work, both within and outside the university, is evident. We see pique at work. It is said that Jerusalem was destroyed for the sins of oppression and hatred of fellow men.

We are the parents of David K. Polsky, B.A., Summa Cum Laude. David, a student at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanon Theological Seminary, did research work for Dr. Alan Brill during the summer of 2002. Irving Polsky, while employed by Dr. Jacob Feld, Ph.D., Consulting Engineer, was the structural designer of YU’s Administration Building [Furst Hall]. The structure incorporated the first use in New York City of concrete prestressed double tee beams over its lecture room.

Sincerely,
Irving Polsky and Carole H. Polsky¨

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