To Go or Not to Go, That Is the Question

Some post-rally musings on yet another open-shut hashkafa decision?

With the Washington D.C. Rally [thankfully] behind us, the organizers can declare it a smashing success, the opponents can announce it a bust, Chuck Schumer can get back to opposing Israel, the Achdus Brigade can get back to trashing chareidim, and the participants can get back to davening to Hashem for the yeshua. The question of frum participation has been thoroughly hashed out and then some; we come not to offer any opinion on the topic. There are, however, several takeaways from the discussion that may have broader application, which we think to be worthy of some reflection.

1. If you cannot explain – clearly – what the concerns are about a particular initiative, you are not really entitled to an opinion as to whether or not they have been outweighed by other factors. 

This does not seem like a complicated concept, yet it appears to evade a good number of people in the rally discussion and many others. Your average outburst about the clueless banning rabbis contains much indignant rhetoric over how important the rally was, but tends to be light on cost benefit analysis. Try this at home: ask your brother-in-law or neighbor or co-worker who was all a-dither over the opposition to explain what the concerns were about attendance. In my experience the answers generally range from blank stares to something akin to the moronic voice informing R’ Berel Wein that “the Rabbis were against it cuz there was some sort of not frum guy speaking or something. I really don’t know what their problem was”. Strangely, actually knowing what the concerns are does not seem to be a prerequisite to announcing that the necessity overrides the problems. 

If you’re the especially humble sort, you might conclude that there may exist ideologies and sensitivities that have not occurred to you over your noodle soup. But then you’d have to recognize that there’s no real way you can evaluate whether or not the importance of the rally overrides those concerns that you do not comprehend. 

2. The single largest area of disconnect between da’as baalei batim and those who formulate their opinions by the ruach of Torah and yiras shamayim

There’s probably a number of decent contenders for this title, but here’s one that’s as good as any: historically speaking, the ideology and application of “al tischaber l’rasha” – i.e. the visible collaboration as Jews, to represent Jews, together with those who stand for a “Judaism” contrary to ratzon Hashem¹ – has proven to be something that has left ba’alei batim doubting the sanity of the einei ha’eidah. Lay leaders – when they acknowledge the hischabrus issue at all – tend to see it as an annoying technicality that has to circumnavigated in order to “get stuff done”, whereas Torah leaders have taken it as a guiding principle by which to formulate policy. The chachmei haTorahs’ incredible fealty to this one ideal at the expense of so much has consistently left well-meaning askanim pulling out their hair, and can sometimes be shocking to reflect back on even decades or centuries later. When we recall how Rav Hirsch alienated and eventually broke ties with half the precariously small frum community of Frankfurt over this one issue alone, we have to ask ourselves if maybe there’s something more to it than we had assumed. When we read Rav Reuvein Grozovsky’s Baiyos Hazman with its disproportionate focus on this ideal, or R’ Chaim Ozer’s yira’as hahora’a over what can or cannot be done – where and when and by whom – within the confines of this principle, when we read Rav Shach’s pained letters or Rav Shamshon Raphael’s impassioned essays or R’ Elchonon’s almost jarring quotes from the Chafetz Chaim² on the topic, we simply have to come to terms with the fact that if we don’t feel something we may be missing something.³   

The pattern stands throughout history and its never ending stream of crises that need intervention: the people on the ground tend to see hishtadlus as something we’re doing as a favor for Hashem to make sure things turn out right whatever the means; chachmei hadoros see it as a fulfillment of our human obligation to stand up for kvod Shamayim in this world. These two paradigms come to a head when the nature of a hishtadlus initiative itself runs counter to kvod shamayim. 

The bewildered frustration is not surprising, nor is it particularly new. When, some years back, the leader of Persian Jewry ‘banned’ participation in a community event of inappropriate atmosphere, despite its necessity for culling favor with the government, the ba’alei batim of that day also derided him as reactionary and out of touch. Maybe we’re ready for a Purim Story remake starring your WhatsApp group as Shaul and Nutti… 

This is not to say there’s no room for debate over parameters and nuance in application. There quite obviously is, and always has been, no different than every other halachic and hashkafic principle. But a practical analysis begins with an appreciation of the concept itself and its central placement within our ideology. When the armchair pundits – historical and contemporary – simply cannot fathom what could be wrong with marching together as Jews with those whose definition of Judaism contradicts kvod Shamayim, they are not offering a perspective within the discussion. They are simply missing the boat. See above, item (1). 

3.  The definitive point of divergence between bnei haYeshivos and Modern Orthodoxy

In the context of American hashkafic history, hischabrus l’rasha is not some marginal idea that was dug up in order to avoid having to sit on a three-hour bus ride to Washington. It’s a foundational ideology.

In March of 1956 R’ Aharon Kotler was joined by 10 other gedolei Roshei Yeshiva⁴ in banning participation with the New York Board of Rabbis and Synagogue Council of America. In doing so they decisively cut themselves off from the non-religious Jewish world. At the same time, they also parted ways with what was then the religious Jewish establishment, led by Rav Soloveitchik of Boston, which as a matter of policy did participate in associations with the heterodox movements. That pronouncement would come to be seen as a seminal moment in the development of the Yeshiva community as the distinct entity we take for granted today, very much conceived in the ideal of holding the line on hischabrus l’rasha.⁵ 

This hashkafic background of the Washington event was beautifully captured by the Orthodox Union’s post-rally press release, which confirmed that the itinerary was guided by the [Reform Rabbi Alexander] Schindler Doctrine for interdenominational collaboration. The statement went on to declare achdus and “unity of purpose” both with those who didn’t feel comfortable at the rally on Tuesday as well as with those who didn’t feel comfortable davening to Hashem on Monday. 

The demand that the Yeshiva community’s gedolim ignore the hischabrus issue when deciding whether to join in with this essentially expects them to gratuitously concede three generations of identity and precedent. Frankly, when we reflect on the relative successes of the two schools – as measured by the creation of communities that define themselves by Torah and Yiddishkeit – this is a mighty strange expectation to have.        

4. What’s wrong with chilukei dei’os and shikul hada’s?

Amongst those who do recognize the sensitivity of the issue, there emerged a spectrum of opinions with regard to the D.C. rally.⁶ Some considered it a clear case of hischabrus and thus assur. Others felt the rally could be seen as a purely American political event and not representative of Yiddishkeit at all; hischabrus would therefore not apply. Some felt that the needs of the moment were strong enough to constitute a hora’as sha’ah.⁷ Some – perhaps – saw an analogy to a Washington rally in 1973 where Yeshivos did participate;⁸ others saw did not buy into that comparison. Still others felt that within certain parameters this rally could be palatable, but beyond them they crossed a line, thus resulting in eleventh hour retractions when the itinerary was made known. 

This is known in the parlance as a difference of opinion. It should come as no surprise, and is nothing new. Legitimate chilukei dei’os over when hiscahbrus must be the deciding factor versus where and how it can be mitigated have existed throughout all of the doros. The only odd thing here is that a disagreement amongst manhigim over how to apply a hashkafic and halachic principle is somehow perceived as a “fiasco”⁹ or leaves us “hashkaficaly orphaned”.

Equally ridiculous is the demand to show which sif in Shulchan Aruch describes this rally and rules one way or the other. As is true in so many areas of hadracha, (and as R’ Chaim Ozer specifically states about issues of hischabrus in particular), the question is given over to the hashara of manhigim to evaluate k’fi hamakom uk’fi hazman. This is called shikul hada’as. It’s the way leaders have led forever.   

Perhaps some of the confusion comes from unrealistic expectations for a down-to-the-brass-tacks centralized platform. We have plenty of Rabbanim and gedolim to guide those who want guidance (those who prefer to bash will bash in any event). Maybe the best way to achieve clarity is to find a serious rebbe, not attempt to wade through the doublespeak and caged terms of some diplomatic missive whose only objective is to upset as few people as possible (and which therefore – inevitably –  ends up upsetting just about everybody). It’s revealing that when HaRav Aharon Feldman issued a statement that actually articulated some clear views and informative background on the topic, he did so on his own stationary, not in the name of the communal organization he guides. 

Asei lecha Rav. The good news is that we still have Gedolim. The bad news is you have to go and seek them out. And the worst news of all is that being mekabel hadracha may sometimes entail being mevatel da’as.

Author’s note: The above is not intended as a hasbara piece, and certainly not as a psak of any kind. Source citations and elaborations have intentionally been left out. If you have never heard of the incidents or sentiments mentioned, never mind. This article was not written for you. But please forgive those who have for taking little note of your opinion on this topic.  

1.  As it may (or may not – see below) apply here: participating in a mass gathering to take a public unified stand as Jews, organized by various federations and organizations that claim to represent Yiddishkeit but whose idea of Yiddishkeit is something other than fealty to Torah and mitzvos. Al tischaber obviously doesn’t mean we don’t feel for the plight of fellow Jews whoever they are; it does mean certain initiatives have to be weighed against the chillul Hashem factor. Those for whom kvod shamayim is a non-issue obviously cannot process this idea, and no doubt find it offensive. But not every hashkafa question is decided by the mood swings of contemporary sensibilities. 

2. Those quotes alone should be educational to those who think that the legacy of the author of Ahavas Chessed is somehow to express “unity” with those who reject Torah u’mitzvos.

3. I would suppose that the primacy of the issue has to do with it being a matter of defining the identity of the am hanivchur and keeping from blurring the lines. As such, it is not simply another technical issur to be accounted for, but rather a meta-issue of self-definition. We find a similar dichotomy in Hilchos Kiddush Hashem: none but the three aveiros chamuros are deemed ‘yaharog v’al ya’avor’ due to their intrinsic importance as mitzvos. But when definitional identity is at stake we give up our lives al araksa d’misana.

(This is simply my impressions of the topic, please learn the sugya yourself and draw your own conclusions. Either way, the paramount importance assigned to the issue by gedolei hadoros should tell us something about where it stands.)

4. The other signatories were Rav Moshe Feintein, R’ Yaakov Kamenetzki, R’ Avraham Kalmanovitch, R’ Mendel Zacks, R’ Avraham Yaffen, R’ Gedalia Schor, R’ Mottel Katz, R’ Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman, R’ Yitzchak Hutner, and R’ Dovid Lifshitz, zichronam l’bracha.

5. 30 years later, when a group of Modern Orthodox RCA rabbis sat down to facilitate open dialogue with a new generation of Yeshiva leaders (R’ Elya Svei, the Novaminsker Rebbe, and R’ Avraham Pam, zichronam l’bracha), the Board of Rabbis hischabrus issue dominated the four hours of discussion which eventually went nowhere.

6. Achar bakashas mechila, Rav Herschel Schachter’s opinion is immaterial for our purposes. As a follower of the Modern Orthodox school he never in the first place ascribed to this principle the importance that the Yeshiva world did and does, so his ignoring of it in this instance is meaningless to our deliberations. Nor is Rabbi Wein’s view any more relevant. As per his statement, his rebbeim did not see things this way. All fine and well, but our rebbeim did, so the question is how to navigate the current circumstance with the paradigm of our received value system.

7. It’s hard to imagine that any serious person really felt that frum participation constituted technical halachic “pikuach nefesh” in the sense that we would have driven there on Shabbos; we assume that the term was used more to stress the level of urgency in that it related in a general sense to inyanei nefashos.

8. To tell the truth, I have not heard this argument from any serious madrich, but the analogy does get thrown around in the coffee room, so I included it here as a possible position. In reality, the comparison seems fatally flawed for at least three reasons: 1. Nobody (at least that I’ve heard pontificating on it) seems to know anything about the background, organizers, and itinerary of that event, or requites set by Yeshivos before attending, so to decide policy based on a half-baked contextless story seems shaky at best. 2. In 1973, Eretz Yisroel was actively being shellacked, with a real imminent threat of a full-fledged holocaust. 3. In 1973 there was an immediate, definable, and achievable goal to the rally: to shake Nixon from Vietnam induced complacency to actually begin sending help.

Perhaps those gedolim who sent the Yeshivos then would have also sent them now, who’s to tell. But if so, it would have been based on an independent shikul hada’as of the current circumstances. So today’s leaders had to make the assessment, not rely blindly on comparisons that simply don’t show much.

9. What was indeed a fiasco and should not be whitewashed was the failure of the communication infrastructure. That meltdown merely reinforces the need for serious people to have a serious approach to get educated and formulate opinions on such things. You may need some other source of hadracha than the press releases of an unwieldly umbrella organization or – Heaven help us – social media.