 |
| Zev Farber, clearly labeled an Apikores by YCT |
Zev Farber is an Apikores, a heretic. This unambiguous statement
by YCT Talmud Chair, Rabbi Y’soscher Katz, is a welcome clarification of YCT’s acceptable parameters of Jewish theology. Zev Farber is an Apikores because of his characterization of our biblical patriarchs as fictional – never having existed.)
I for one was very gratified to hear one of YCT’s top faculty members say this. It similar to an earlier statement made by YCT President, Rabbi Asher Lopatin. How to deal with heretics in our midst is where I might differ with YCT. But at least the theology itself is clear.
For me at least, that makes YCT’s theology - Orthodox. If one believes in that theology and is observant, they are Orthodox. However, I still have major issues with some of the
things YCT does, has said, or supported. (For reasons that are beyond the scope of this post.)
I believe that Rabbi Katz is a Yorei Shomayim - a God fearing Jew. This is what I got from an
interview with him by Rabbi Dovid Lichtenstein on his radio show ‘Headlines’.
And yet, he says things which are problematic. That he
does so L’Shma (which I believe to be the case) does not mean that his approach
is OK. The fact is much of what he says and advocates is not accepted at all by
mainstream Orthodoxy.
But it helps to understand what his rationale is for doing
things the way he does. There is one word for it. Kiruv. That’s right. The sole
purpose of YCT is Kiruv. Reaching out to a segment of Jewry that would
otherwise reject observance.
These are bright, educated Jews that have little to no religious
background but may be drawn to the beauty of an observant lifestyle. And yet
they have been heavily influenced by the culture, morals, and ethics of our
time. Which in many cases contradicts some of the things written in the Torah (and
its interpretation by rabbis throughout the generations).
These Jews cannot reconcile their values with those of the
Torah. For them issues like egalitarianism or gay rights are seen as positive values
and the Torah’s condemnation of them is seen as archaic, unethical, unfair, and immoral. They might also value modern scholarship of
the bible that rejects the belief in a ‘Single
Author’ in favor of multiple authors at different times. Rabbi Katz maintains
that if we do not validate their feelings in some way, they will be lost. Since
90% of Jewry is not observant, we need to make some changes in the way we reach
out to them. It’s hard to argue with that.
Where I part company with him is in how we do that. Using
shock value to get their attention may work. Like when he said in a Facebook
post that a conversation about the events at Sinai by the ‘4 sons’ in the Hagadah never
happened. That he clarified it by saying that the conversation never happened; that
the 4 sons are mythical; but that the events actually did - can still lead to a
misunderstanding that implies the events themselves never happened.
Another example which is dwelt upon in that interview is in
how he says we should approach gay rights. First he qualifies his approach by
considering it appropriate to speak with two faces. One to the outside world. And
one to ourselves .
When speaking to those of us that are believers and practitioners
of Halacha, we are clear about the forbidden nature of homosexual relations. It
is in the Torah and there is no question about that. But when speaking in
public to non Jews or secular Jews, we put a positive spin on it by approving of
things like gay marriage. What we should be saying, he says, is that opposition to gay rights is a denial
of human rights.
This, he continues, is not contradictory to the Torah because it is
not advocating or approving forbidden homosexual acts. All it does is approve formalizing in secular ways the companionship between members of the
same sex.
In other words we are just looking at the reality of our
world today and expressing a way to treat gay people humanely. Rabbi Katz adds
that of course we would never speak that way to religious Jews. Nor would he
perform a gay marriage himself. He was once asked to do that by a gay couple.
He told them he would not do it because it there is no such thing as a gay marriage
in Halacha.
The problem with an attitude like this is that it is
extremely misleading. A prominent rabbi telling the secular world that Judaism supports
gay marriage implies that we accept all facets of it – including the forbidden
act itself. That he might explain it as supporting only formally legalizing companionship and
not endorsing the actual homosexual act is not what people hear.
We cannot reach out to Jews by leaving the false impression that modern ethics and morals trump what the Torah clearly says. It is dishonest. One must tell the truth about what the Torah says. We can’t be two faced. We can’t fudge it. Observance based on a lie is not observance at all. It would be like keeping Kosher for health reasons. If you don’t eat a cheeseburger because you don’t think it’s healthy, you have not observed Kashrus.
Telling one group of people what they want to hear while
telling another group of people what they want to hear is doublespeak and not
an ethical way to reach out to people.
Still, I lament the fact that the left wing of Orthodoxy has
gone to lengths that have caused it to be rejected as legitimate by virtually
all of mainstream Orthodoxy in America. We do need to do what Rabbi Katz says and reach
out to this type of Jew. But you can’t do that by rejecting traditional values that
have been accepted for centuries, just because they don’t fit the times. Nor should
it be done by fudging the truth about Halacha.
How sad it is that YCT Musmachim cannot be accepted. YCT
does an excellent job in actually training their students how to minister to their
congregations. I understand that their practical rabbinics courses are superb! Something
that all Semicha programs would do well to emulate.
But YCT has crossed too many lines.
I only wish Rabbi Lopatin would have done what I thought he
would when he accepted his position as YCT president. To pull back on the reins
of its leftward move; and even pull it back a bit the right. But he has done
the opposite – which makes its acceptability by mainstream Orthodoxy less
likely than ever.
