Rabbi Moshe Hauer

Klal Perspectives, Communal Leadership Infrastructure

To read this issue’s questions, CLICK HERE.

It would be impossible to overstate the value of Shalom in personal and communal life.  The sentiment that “if there is no peace, there is nothing” has been echoed by countless families ensconced in luxurious mansions but beset by domestic strife.  And it is a feeling repeatedly expressed by communal leaders and members working hard to accomplish things in their communities but finding that in-fighting and lack of communal cooperation limits their capacity and distracts them from the real work at hand.  As the Rambam advised his son:

Do not sully yourself with machlokes (strife) that destroys the body, the soul and property, leaving nothing.  I have seen the bright blackened, leaders diminished, families broken, princes demoted from their positions, large cities weakened, groups disbanded, pious people lost, the trustworthy erased [and] honored people shamed and disgraced – all as a result of strife. Prophets prophesized, wise men shared their wisdom and philosophers explored and elaborated on the evils of strife, and they all could not truly capture the extent of it. Thus, I urge you to despise it and distance yourself from it and from all those who consider themselves its friends and supporters. 

Kisvei HaRambam, Mussar l’bno Rav Avraham

A community can and must work to create a culture of Shalom.  Though tensions and rivalries will certainly exist between communal organizations and between groups on different points of the spectrum of Jewish religious life, these tensions need not be allowed to explode.  Instead, the organizations and the community should adopt a posture that ranges from working together cooperatively to “live-and-let-live”.  The most basic foundation of this culture of Shalom is the very practical realization that each of us does better when we are not distracted by fighting and when we are able to help each other.

The culture of Shalom does not require the abandonment of ambition or of principle, nor does it call for slavish adherence to the status quo.  It can encourage the generation of new initiatives and organizations, and live the dictum of our Sages that competition amongst scholars increases wisdom (Bava Basra 21a).  It should not constrain vigorous debates and arguments about matters of fundamental principle.  But it must do all these in a communal culture where the leadership has a tangible commitment to manage the inevitable conflicts with sensitivity and maturity. They can accomplish this by avoiding where at all possible attacking or alienating others, limiting the disputes to principle and preventing them from devolving into personal and insurmountable rifts.[1]

Thus, for example, it is well established that principle limits Orthodox participation with other streams in religious matters, including joint membership on communal Boards of Rabbis.  This is a necessary division given the absolute and significant differences over fundamentals of the Jewish faith, such as belief in the divine, eternal and binding nature of Torah. It nevertheless remains possible and appropriate for leaders and members of these various streams to build and maintain friendships and working relationships that build understanding, retain a sense of community between Jews of all streams and facilitate working together on issues of common concern.

There may be situations where a movement is actually beyond the pale (Jews for J, for example), and should not be included in the community at all.  Even less dramatic deviations may be seen as actively undermining the strength or fundamental direction of the community and could call for a more dramatic and stark response.  In this regard an important distinction is to be made, as explained by the Rambam in Hilchos Mamrim (3:1-3), between developing and established movements.  One may wish to oppose and stand firm against the development of a movement that is diverting people away from the path of Torah, while being more helpful to an existing constituency that is already established on a different path.  For example, including the founders of a new “partnership minyan” is not in the same category as working with the leadership of an existing, non-Orthodox community school.  Drawing these precise lines requires great wisdom and nuance and is beyond the scope of what can be presented here.

To summarize: to create a culture of Shalom, we must think carefully before defining another group as ”outside” the community.  Where possible and appropriate (as discussed above), we must reach across the aisle to members of the other group and to work together on issues of common concern.  We must teach members of our communities – by how we speak about others and interact with them – how important it is that we not isolate our communities from the rest of Klal Yisrael. And we must not speak of the “other” as a threat, or strategize about how to work against or around them.

2.     Genuinely recognize the contributions of others to the general good.

People mistakenly believe that peace in the world means that everyone will share common viewpoints and think the same way. Thus, when they see scholars disagreeing about an issue, it appears to be the exact opposite of peace.  True peace, however, comes precisely through the proliferation of divergent views. When all of the various angles and sides of an issue are exposed, and we are able to clarify how each one has its place, that is true peace. The Hebrew word ‘Shalom’ means both ‘peace’ and ‘completeness.’ We will only attain complete knowledge when we are able to accommodate all views – even those that appear contradictory – as partial perceptions of the whole truth. Like an interlocking puzzle, together, they present a complete picture. 

Rav AY Kook, Olas R’iyah

Beyond a simple commitment to avoid the damage caused by in-fighting, we must construct a positive vision of communal peace that recognizes both that one size does not fit all, and that no single segment of the community can address all of the community’s varied needs.  As a practical example, an Orthodox community preoccupied with building institutions of religious life and education such as schools and shuls may welcome the commitment of a local Federation to build agencies to provide much-needed social services.  A school that wishes to provide a more intensive educational or religious environment that tends to be exclusive may recognize the need to be supportive of others interested in providing an acceptable though less demanding alternative to the broader population.  This feeling should be expressed by leadership finding ways to show interest in, and be involved and supportive of, the complementary venture.[2]

Of course, this posture requires a sense of confidence and security, to the point that one is not fearful that any assistance to, or recognition of, the other would confuse or dilute one’s own message.  This is eminently possible, as a strong and consistent internal message is not likely to be forgotten or confused by the extension of a hand to another. Often, in fact, the opposite is the case.  When we reject others entirely without regard for their positive contributions, it confuses our constituents greatly.  This idea was expressed most clearly by the late Telzer Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch:

In general, I already expressed my view that we lost a great deal by refraining from recognizing correct issues just because the irreligious and their supporters in the Mizrachi agreed to them… In my opinion, the reason our views do not resonate in the hearts of the broader community is not our firm stance against their incorrect views; rather it is because of our negative position regarding their correct views, such as learning Tanach, speaking Hebrew and Eretz Yisrael.  The community cannot understand our concerns.  Indeed, they will understand us when we emphasize our positive attitude towards the true elements of their positions and reject only that which is false.

I must say that this attitude of ours is not a new product of our life in America. We acted this way in Lithuania, as well, despite the fact that then, as now, we were totally zealous concerning anything that, God forbid, is not in accordance with the spirit of Torah, and never retreated because of persecution, denouncement and sometimes even suffering, sorrow and much damage to our holy Yeshiva.

Letter of Rav E.M. Bloch, Sefer Mitzvas HaShalom, 1^st Ed., p. 607

 3.     Lead with humility; be humble and open about your challenges, both communally and individually.

When King Shaul failed to properly prosecute the war against Amalek, he lost the kingdom.  King David, on the other hand, did not lose his kingdom over the sin of Batsheva.  This is because Shaul first denied he had sinned, then when forced to acknowledge it he shifted blame to the people, and finally, when that excuse failed, he asked Shmuel to nevertheless continue to publicly accord him the honor he had previously enjoyed.  David, on the other hand, accepted responsibility for his actions immediately and unconditionally.  Thus, David’s humility, candor and accountability for his failings was what qualified him for leadership of the people.

Based on Sefer HaIkkarim, 4:26

 ‘Leadership’ is not the best term to use in the context of community; a far better term is ‘communal service.’ In the words of Rabban Gamliel, “Do you think I am giving you power?  I am giving you servitude” (Horiyos 10a). This is not just an exercise in good character; it is also the fundamental strategy of effective leadership.  The path of wisdom recognizes that humbly serving and responding to the people builds strength far more than it conveys weakness.

Specifically, it is very difficult to trust someone who is not honest and open about their challenges.  The people are smart, and they know that all is not perfect.  They usually look to leadership not to maintain the status quo but to help the community address its challenges.  Leadership builds trust by acknowledging, for example, the parent’s concern for their child’s safety or for how he will support his family – not by dismissing such concerns.  One who is not willing to acknowledge challenges or past mistakes, and seems more focused on presenting the most perfect public face, will not be the most trusted leader.

4.     Force rarely works.

And it came to pass, when Yeravam the son of Nevat and all the congregation of Israel came, and spoke unto Rechavam, saying:  ‘Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore make lighter the grievous service of your father and ease the heavy yoke which he put upon us, and we will serve you.’  … And King Rechavam took counsel with the older men that had stood before Shlomo his father while he yet lived… And they spoke to him, saying: ‘If you will be a servant unto this people this day, and will serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever.’  But he forsook the counsel of the older men and took counsel with the young men that had grown up with him….  And they spoke to him, saying: `Tell them: … Whereas my father did burden you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke….’ So Yeravam and all the people came to Rechavam … and the King answered the people roughly, and forsook the counsel of the older men that they had given him, and spoke to them following the counsel of the young men….  Thus, Israel rebelled against the house of David, unto this day. 

Melachim I, Chapter 12

It has been proven time and again that decrees handed down from communal leadership – rabbinic or lay – are ineffective, even in communities that appear most subservient to rabbinic authority. Leadership that has previously built trust can inspire, assist and guide the community, and can participate in creating the vehicles and structures for change. It is rare, however, that fundamental change can be legislated.  As seen from the tragic story of Rechavam, even those who are in a position to impose change would be advised to use that power carefully, lest they forfeit the kingdom by a show of excessive force.

Those who wish to help guide the community to a better place must dedicate themselves first and foremost to working as communal servants, being there to provide for both individual and communal needs.  Over time, this builds ‘leadership capital’ that will foster greater influence.  While it goes without saying that those who have not built such trust will be unable to impose change, it must be noted that even known, loved and trusted figures can quickly squander their leadership capital when they try to force a specific agenda on a disinterested community.  And it is most unwise to attempt to force change on another group from the outside; we can rather work with them to see how we can help them encourage what they can see themselves as necessary change.  Carrots are more effective than sticks.

Of course, in many situations, leadership must hold their ground, and not lead by referendum.  They must recognize nevertheless that any show of force comes with a price and that, for the long-term health of the community, it is incumbent upon them to address the resentment that is likely to result.

Thus, effective leaders are keenly and humbly aware of their limitations.  Instead of seeing themselves as rulers who tell the community exactly how high to jump, they function as guides to help the community make the right choices.  In that framework, they are keenly aware of their limitations, of the community’s interests and inclinations and of the level of trust they have gained within the community. And within these parameters they carefully help the community move itself forward.

5.     Change is a gradual process and is not initiated by broad consensus; Build initiatives rather than demolish what exists.

Patience is critical in accomplishing lasting change.  Given the difficulty and inadvisability of legislating change, we must work instead to change attitudes.  Especially in large communities, this is not an instantaneous event, but a very gradual process.  As dire as a situation may appear, we must resist the urge to fix it immediately.  In promoting change, the more time allowed for the process to unfold gradually, the better the ultimate result.

Similarly, change is usually not accomplished by consensus.  Many important ideas die on “Haskama Row,” waiting for a local Vaad or for a national Moetzes to line up behind them.  Indeed, precisely because of the broad constituency represented by a Vaad or even by a single gadol, such bodies or individuals are necessarily conservative, restrained from spearheading efforts at sweeping change that part of their broad constituency may be unprepared to embrace.  If, on the other hand, a responsible individual initiates a modest project after confirming with others greater than he that his plan is will not be destructive, his small success can ultimately generate wider interest and duplication.  If the model is worthy, “build it and they will come.”

An excellent example of such an approach is the plethora of projects and organizations developed in Israel over the past decade to assist Charedim wishing to enter the workforce.  Due to the nature of the community, and the strongly held opinions on various sides, the recognized gedolim felt they could not openly and actively endorse such a model of change, as too many of their constituents were not ready to embrace it.  So instead of proposing sweeping change, they not only allowed but in many cases encouraged capable individuals to create programs that would be there to address the needs of those who sought them.  They knew that as the programs began to succeed in helping those who had completed their productive years in the Bais HaMedrash transition to successful careers, these successes would breed more success and slowly – perhaps painfully slowly – the community would embrace the necessary changes.

Interestingly, this is a classic example of what some would consider a failure of leadership.  After all, the issue of Charedi poverty is large and urgent, and – in the view of some – true leaders would confront the situation more immediately, openly and directly.  On the other hand, it may be the case instead that true leaders understand their limitations and know that an attempt at sweeping and quick change would result in upheaval and opposition that could threaten the entire effort.  Thus, they choose to encourage more gradual and organic change – a model that requires infinitely more patience but one that is more likely to produce effective results.

This model of change does not use a sledgehammer; it uses quiet and determined creativity.  If I may again quote Harav Kook in a letter he wrote to a rabbinic colleague in the leadership of Mizrachi:

It has come to my attention that in a speech you gave … you spoke very negatively about the holy institution Shaarei Torah and you disparaged its Torah scholars and its students. I literally trembled when I heard this, and if not for the fact that I heard it from someone who is completely trustworthy, I would never have believed such a thing about someone as great as yourself.

My friend, this is not the way – to tear down with your hands our holy institutions, our treasure houses of life. It is possible [as you have suggested] that our times require us to create schools that teach secular subjects, so that our generation will be drawn to attend them, provided of course that they are imbued with the spirit of the Torah.  However, how terrible it would be if because of this we would attack our existing institutions – our living and enduring holy treasure houses. I, myself, have on more than one occasion assessed the students of Shaarei Torah and I will testify that [it will help us] establish a generation of G-d fearing Torah scholars, filled with a love of Torah and fear of Heaven….  And this is specifically because this holy institution has followed the paths laid by the Torah giants of previous generations. … Only through the ancient Beit HaMedrash and those who study there can Torah and light come to Bnei Yisrael. …

Please strengthen yourself in the following idea – that we must only build up and never tear down, to add and never to take away.   (Letters, #570)

To summarize: Effective leadership is built on a commitment to Shalom that does not preclude disagreement or demand uniformity, but that places significant value on communal unity.  Beyond the avoidance of outright hostility, leaders are best advised to recognize and appreciate the partnership and roles of others in the bigger picture.  This posture of humility should be extended not only to other branches of the community, but also to those one is charged to lead, as imposed, authoritarian leadership rarely succeeds in the long term.  In this framework, change is undertaken as a process rather than as an event, as a result of gradually building communal confidence and influencing attitudes.  Rather than breaking down existing structures, we can bring about change by introducing modest but replicable models of change.

The results of this approach are not exciting.  But they are consistent and healthy, and can be accomplished with a pervasive spirit of Shalom.  And while the notions expressed may appear naively idealistic given the unfortunate fractious nature in our communities, in another sense, they present the most realistic path for leadership to accomplish real change.

Afterword: Dreaming of Shalom Ba’Aretz

At this time, all of us who share a concern for the Jewish future are focused on the incredibly intense tensions that have developed in Israel, both within the Orthodox community as well as between the Orthodox and the broader community, creating a state of divisiveness unprecedented in recent memory.  While this journal as a rule deals with issues on the American scene, it is hard to refrain from adding a few final thoughts, considering how the approaches described above could impact those tensions.  So with appropriate apologies for daring to wade into the challenges of the Israeli community, here are a few naïve observations and suggestions:

• Imagine Charedim, instead of complaining about the cuts in government funding, taking time to recognize the incredible amount of funding they have received, and expressing appreciation internally and externally for the opportunities provided for them by the secular state.
• Imagine Charedim taking a trip to a military cemetery to pray at the graves of those who fell in battle to protect them.[3]
• Imagine secular Israelis expressing appreciation internally and externally for the contributions of the religious community to the character of Israeli life by virtue of their volunteerism, their spirit of idealism and their commitment to the history and destiny of our people.
• Imagine secular Israelis helping others recognize that whatever government subsidies Charedim have received pale in comparison to their own investment and self-sacrifice in raising their large families as an expression of their profound commitment to the future of the Jewish People.
• Imagine personalities within the Charedi leadership openly acknowledging some of the social and economic challenges currently facing their community, and working to bridge the understandable divide with a secular society that cannot readily appreciate how their Torah study constitutes “sharing the burden.”
• Imagine non-Charedi leaders who feel empowered by their electoral success to impose change or burdens on others choosing instead to put aside that power to impose and to instead explore what they can do to help others foster change.

It would seem clear that steps like these would build harmony and understanding within our People, while strengthening the leadership on all sides.

Imagine….

Dr. Irving Lebovics

Klal Perspectives, Communal Leadership Infrastructure

To read this issue’s questions, CLICK HERE.

 

A Realistic, Aspirational Communal Structure

So how should our Kehilla look? Do the influences that preclude the re-introduction of a tightly controlled communal structure dictate that no structural enhancements should be attempted, at all? I suggest that there are substantive and significant improvements that ought to be introduced, which may potentially become accepted. The caveat to any such efforts, however, is to recognize that because our community is deeply affected by the unprecedented, autonomous culture in which we live, the predicate of any communal structure must be its appeal to the community, rather than its expectation of obedience.

We must create a situation in which people will voluntarily choose to belong, finding the community structure compelling and worthy of their allegiance. It is vital that leadership come across as welcoming and inclusive rather than demanding and exclusive. The approach of simply announcing edicts and takonos from above is not only unenforceable (and widely ignored), it severely compromises the respect and deference to leadership that could otherwise be generated. Imposing leadership will not work today. The trick will be to get everyone to want to join rather than to have to.

None of this precludes the study of and adherence to “mussar,” nor does it imply that there should be no admonition to correct the wrong. It does not negate such laudatory efforts as seeking to curb wedding expenses or to monitor internet use. We simply require a form of mussar that can speak to our generation in a language that we understand.

It is also important to note that a koach harabbonim and a koach hatzibur still do exist, even in our autonomous world. Leaders can have influence and the tzibur can and does change; therefore, we should feel obligated to determine how to make those positive changes happen even in our unique times. Each Rav, each organization and each individual should feel a sense of achrayus (responsibility) for Klal Yisroel, each playing their unique role in this process. 

Practical Suggestions

So let’s get specific. The suggestions below are by no means comprehensive, but are intended to represent a first step in the right direction.

Professionalize Our Mosdos: The current unstructured networks of both local and national communal organizations are here to stay, but their current lack of accountability can surely be changed. The koach harabbonim and the koach hatzibur are currently under-utilized as obvious vehicles for accountability and efficiency. For example, an entity that has inadequate rabbinic involvement and oversight should not enjoy the support and association of rabbonim.

The lay community also carries enough influence to improve accountability of communal institutions – but once again, collective efforts and intent is required. For example, philanthropists and communal supporters should refrain from supporting and associating with entities that fail to operate transparently and in full compliance with applicable laws. In fact, an effort in this regard is already in place. A new initiative supported by many gedolai Torah and askonim is underway called ”Vehiyisem Nekiyim,” which intends to formalize appropriate operational guidelines for our communal organizations. Vehiyisem Nekiyim will seek voluntary compliance with a Code of internal controls for shuls , yeshivos , and other community organizations. The goal, of course, is to introduce a set of organizational standards for fiscal responsibility, and transparent governance. The Code includes many “best management practices,” such as maintaining proper books and records, operating under the guidance of an active finance committee, double signing of checks, not remitting payment of expenditures with cash, adhering to proper payroll procedures and having a semi-annual review of all finances conducted by an outside accountant. This initiative will provide the community with an opportunity to influence the manner by which communal mosdos operate, but it will only be effective to the extent that they are willing to expect compliance.

Eliminate Unnecessary Duplication: In the 1980’s the Jewish community was involved in addressing the needs of a large number of Iranian Jews trying to escape a new, fundamentalist Islamic regime. After a meeting at the State Department on this issue, Rabbi Moshe Sherer, z”l, of Agudas Yisroel, observed that the meeting was attended by fifteen representatives – one each from Catholic, Protestant and Lutheran organizations – and twelve representatives from twelve independent Jewish organizations. The community simply cannot afford this type of unnecessary duplication of communal resources.

Organizational efficiency also mandates appreciating when and when not to become independently involved in a given issue. For example, there are no ideological differences within Orthodox Jewry on the issue of School Choice so there should be no need for every Orthodox organization, Chasidus and ethnic group to have their own competing School Choice initiatives.. On the other hand, the lead organization, whose mission it may be to deal with government, should certainly involve all other interested Orthodox Jewish constituencies in their deliberations and public activities. Again, the koach harabbonim and koach hatzibur can help in this area.

Include Lay Contributors of Time and Expertise in Communal Decisions: In Fiddler on the Roof, Tevye famously opined; “If I were a rich man…They would ask me to advise them… and it won’t make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong. When you are rich they think you really know.”

Unfortunately for Reb Tevye, it does make a difference. Wealthy people deserve a place of honor and their views should be solicited. After all, their tremendous chesed underwrites a good deal of our Jewish life. However, philanthropists are not the only ones who should hold positions of lay influence. Many people commit great amounts of time and expertise on behalf of the tzibur, and these contributions must be recognized as also being vital. The involvement of these community members in making decisions is not only appropriate, it is also the wiser approach to elevating the effectiveness of our mosdos. Our community enjoys members with a vast array of skill sets and knowledge bases. It would be foolish and wasteful to preclude the utilization of these potential contributions simply because they do not belong to those who have deep pockets. Their voices are simply critical if we “want to get it right.” For example, membership on a Yeshiva Board might be reserved for large contributors to the Yeshiva. When a financial problem hits, such a Board might decide to raise tuition without considering sufficiently how this will affect the majority of the parents. A more inclusive Board might be more sensitive to the impact of a tuition raise on the average parent, and may look for better solutions to the problem, such as revamping the institutional organization, restructuring some of the finances to save money, or encourage parental involvement.

Be Cognizant of Your Role. As mentioned above, a significant obstacle to an effective communal infrastructure is the recent trend of individuals to over-step the bounds of their appropriate roles, such as when baalai batim assume the function of rabbonim, or rabbonim play the role of a knowledgeable businessman. Too often, those in power assume that their leadership role implies that they are appropriate to every function. Too often, individuals claim expertise in areas in which they have limited background or training.

As a dentist, I am often asked halachic questions relating to the treatment that I am rendering. Despite having learned the relevant halachos in great detail, my standard response is, “I have an arrangement with the Rabbonim. They don’t write prescriptions and I don’t pasken shailos.” Similarly, communal board members should not dictate chinuch issues in a yeshiva; indeed, there is something amiss when a shul is referred to as Mr. So and So’s shul instead of Rabbi So and So’s Shul. An organization’s lay board members and its professional staff have distinct roles. The Board has to step back and allow the staff to do its work and the staff has to accept the oversight of the Board.

Here is another example: The Rabbinic Council of California (RCC) is a rabbinic organization that provides kashrus certification, Bais Din services for monetary disputes, geirus, eruv certification and various programs for the local rabbonim. The RCC also has a lay board, which is responsible for assuring the financial viability of the organization and advising the rabbonim on secular legal issues that apply to their work, among other activities. While the lay board may assist in drafting the standard arbitration agreement for the Bais Din, it would clearly be inappropriate for any board member to be involved with the Dayanim on a specific Din Torah. Again, the only way to achieve this will be when the Rabbonim and the tzibur demand it.

Recognize that there are No More Secrets. Every day, there is a news story about some well-known or iconic individual who was found to have committed some indiscretion that has come to light through a revealed e-mail or other document made public, destroying their reputation and career. In the last number of months, a revered football coach and a Catholic Cardinal have seen their lives ruined by such disclosures. A prominent Rosh Yeshiva once asked me to speak to an Orthodox film producer about a documentary he had made. The film had excerpts from a drasha given by a well-known Rav that the Rosh Yeshiva felt were used out of context. The Rav, who had given that drasha to a women’s group in Brooklyn on Tisha B’av, never dreamed that his words would be part of a TV documentary in a way that he would have never intended. The saying,” the walls have ears” has never been truer.

Another Rosh Yeshiva told me of a question he had been asked about a hashkofo issue as he was leaving the Bais Medrash, and that by the time he reached the door, hundreds of people had, electronically, gotten word of his answer! Rabbonim and askonim must be aware that anything they say, do, or write, whether public or private, is exposed, often in a short period of time. As Chazal have taught us, “motsa sefasecha tishmor” means “guard what passes your lips” as well as “fulfill what passes your lips” (i.e., commitments).

One final point: Our Rabbonim and askonim should hold themselves to the highest possible standard of behavior. It would be valuable to reread some Torah sources that relate to leadership in the Jewish community. The Raisher Rav, in his sefer, Hadrash Veha’iyun, discusses the characteristics of a “Nasi.” Commenting on the posuk in Parshas Shlach with the words, “kol nasi bahem,” Rav Levin, zt”l, posits that a leader in Klal Yisroel must be “kol nasi,” a “whole leader” – not a partial one. He must be a leader from head to toe, constantly dedicated to his service. His actions must be impeccable, both in public and in private, as even private indiscretion will affect his outlook on his responsibility. The Alter MiNavardok wrote a chapter in his sefer, Madraigas Ha’adam called Mezakeh Harabbim, which should be required reading for every askan. In it, Rav Horowitz, zt”l, lays out the prerequisite character traits of one who does Klal work. He, too, emphasizes the need for dedication to the task, adding that one must be pure in his avodas hatzibur l’shaim Shomayim, without an eye for personal gain or aggrandizement.

I add these words of our Gedolai Torah because they serve as a yardstick for those who seek positions of leadership in our Kehillos, and more importantly, so that the rest of us will know how to determine whom to follow.

Zev Dunner

Klal Perspectives, Communal Leadership Infrastructure

To read this issue’s questions, CLICK HERE.

Contemporary Challenges in National and Local Orthodox Leadership

THE VAAD ARBA ARATZOS, which was introduced in the 16^th Century and remained active for approximately 200 years, is often proffered as the archetypal communal structure of recent history and looked to for guidance. During its tenure, the Vaad Arba Arotzos acted as the central authority over Jewish residents of Greater Poland, which then also encompassed sections of Russia and Lithuania. It was authorized to act as final arbiter of internal matters of Halacha, and determined the manner by which the Jewish community interacted with the government and with the gentile population. It defined jurisdiction for each city’s sphere of influence and served as the final arbiter of differences that arose among batei din of different cities.

Unfortunately, apart from marveling at its longevity and influence, there is little to be learned from the Vaad Arba Arotzos, since it was premised upon a reality that simply cannot be replicated today – an enforceable monopoly of power. The Vaad Arba Arotzos could enforce its mandate through the imposition of fines, excommunications and the mandate accorded to it by the State. It was primarily through its State-granted power, however, that it enjoyed the hegemony necessary to create and maintain discipline and order in the kehillos within its defined borders.

The Unique Nature of American Orthodoxy

In stark contrast, not only does American Orthodoxy lack national leadership with any power to dictate positions to local communities and their respective rabbinic bodies, the leadership of local communities themselves enjoys minimal enforceable powers over their members. In the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave,” rabbinic and communal leadership operates within a framework that can only be described as anarchy.

For example, a litigant who is dissatisfied with a Bais Din can simply march off to look for another, and if that fails, he can simply create a Bais Din of his own. Even within a single neighborhood, different community segments may consult different authorities. In light of the wide range of kehillos – Litvish, baalebatish, Edot Hamizrach, Modern-Orthodox, Chassidish and others – many of which have multiple internal strands as well, a psak to suit one’s needs is a phone call away. One is left with astounding oddities on even the most fundamental halachic issues, such as the difficulty in ascertaining a standard spelling in Loshon Kodesh for the word “Lakewood,” thereby raising serious difficulties in the sphere of gittin.

While a select few communities, such as Baltimore and Washington Heights, have achieved relatively greater cohesion, it is primarily a reflection of these communities’ relatively homogenous populations, and the absence of any significant and distinct sub-group with critical mass. It is more than likely that this unity would be compromised in a flash should a new, sufficiently large group of Orthodox Jews with a truly distinct orientation emerge in their midst.

In addition to the effects of disparate sub-groups within a single town, community infrastructure in America is compromised by the community’s tolerance of self-selected individuals or small groups simply deciding to hang out their shingles and assume leadership responsibility in critical areas of communal function, such as kashrus, education, chessed shel emes (caring for the body of a deceased) and general chessed services. It is only in the event of serious infractions that such individuals are held accountable, and even then, the only recourse is for community members to abandon that individual’s enterprise in favor of another individual’s competing mosad (institution).

This practice has led to a profusion of hashgochos (kashrus certifications), chessed organizations and yeshivos in every established Jewish population center, with little attention paid to collective efficiency. Moreover, the ubiquitous lack of transparency typically makes it impossible for the average member of the community to perceive the significant variations in the quality and reliability of the various alternatives.

In light of the absence of a true communal mandate and any semblance of enforcement power, what role, if any, is there for national organizations and what can they possibly hope to achieve?

One obstacle to overcome is that significant investment in national enterprises is inhibited by the risk that one or more competing organizations will enter the scene with similar goals and mission statements, but with some competitive advantage. Perhaps they will have greater vision, excitement or creativity, or they will be closer in touch with new trends and needs within the community. In fact, this cycle has occurred repeatedly. For example, the initially exclusive role of the OU was intruded upon by the National Council of Young Israel, which in turn lost ground to the Charedi shuls and shteiblach in the years following the Second World War. Even in their heydays, neither the OU nor National Council of Young Israel truly represented more than a fraction of American Orthodox Jewry, and neither had the ability to enforce their positions and policies on individual communities, other than by revoking the membership of a shul, which was not much of a threat.

In fact, when the yeshiva world first emerged as a fledgling force in the forties, a conscious decision was made to shift the center of the community from the synagogue to the yeshiva, shifting influence from local rabbis to a group of leading Roshei Yeshiva, in the form of Agudath Israel’s Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah. Even this leadership forum, however, never gained meaningful traction outside the yeshiva world, or even within the Chassidic world, which in turn never had a central, over-arching, authority beyond each respective Chassidic court.

No doubt, there have been many individual instances of cooperation across organizational entities. For example, when the possibility arose that the New York Federation would provide funding for Orthodox schools, a letter was signed by the majority of Litvishe Roshei Yeshiva, as well as many prominent Chassidishe Rebbes, collectively requesting that Torah Umesorah act as a clearing house for potential funding. Practically, this request reflected their hope of insulating the individual organizations from any restrictive conditions the Federation might seek to impose. Not only was such cooperation rare, but even in this instance there were many notable absences in the ranks of signatories.

The Need for National Communal Representation

It might be suggested that multiple national organizations instead of just one has the effect of increasing communal influence, which tends to be enhanced by numbers. In reality, however, bulk is even more powerful than numbers if expressed in a unified, rather than fragmented, approach. The recent challenge to metzitza bepeh (MbP in journalistic parlance) is such an example. In addition to the specific concern of relevance to all Charedim, there is a fairly broad consensus throughout Orthodoxy that such government intrusion into halachic standards is problematic. While poskim differ on whether MbP is halachically mandated, all segments agree that it is unacceptable to have Orthodox religious practices dictated by local, state or national government, particularly when these bodies are lobbied and influenced by those who do not hold dear our interests and values.

An effective response to such challenges requires a complex and sophisticated strategy that cannot possibly be implemented through individual shtieblach, shuls, batei din, kashrus organizations or educational institutions. In such instances, our community requires organizations with depth of sophistication and experience that are fully qualified to represent the best interests of the entire community, whether on a regional or national level. Not only does such collective representation generate greater deference on the part of the government or other outside entity, but when an institution is charged with playing such a role, it will be more empowered to develop the degree of sophistication, knowledge and connections necessary to fulfill its mission.

We cannot necessarily anticipate the challenges of this sort that may confront the frum community in the years and decades ahead. But neither can we take for granted our current freedoms regarding shechita, shmiras (observance of) Shabbos and education of our children, or the wide host of entitlements to which we have become accustomed in the United States. Representative bodies must be maintained to advocate for our communal needs and interests, and must be well staffed and prepared for any possible eventualities that we can merely hope and pray will never arrive.

Local Needs Should be Addressed Differently than National Concerns

The litany of obstacles to the establishment of a serious and controlled communal structure might sound like a jeremiad, encouraging the conclusion that the community is doomed and will forever be mired in ineffectiveness. In fact, however, there is a fundamental distinction between the community’s national and local needs for collectivism and uniformity.

As a confirmed Thatcherite, I believe that a little bit of anarchy at a local level is not all bad, and that competition born in the absence of structure can motivate the creation of a better mousetrap. For example, in the sphere of dinei Torah, competing batei din and multiple pesakim (rulings) may cause confusion and inconsistency, but a Bais Din with a monopoly is an alternative that carries its own risks. Examples are vulnerability to ossification resulting in indifferent and inconsistent service (as found in many of the municipal batei din in Eretz Yisroel) or a profound abuse of power (as witnessed in a scandal currently rocking a major European kehilla).

Similarly, the service provided in other communal functions is often enhanced when there is more than a single provider. Competition compels increased dedication to quality and attentiveness. Frequently, there are complaints of communal inefficiency resulting from institutional redundancy. In fact, the pressure of competition may actually trigger increased efficiency, as well as heightened quality, even when considering the expenses of both organizations. In most communal instances, two is better than one, and frequently three is even better than two, though cooperation in areas of mutual interest may occasionally be beneficial.

It generally takes a leap of faith for a community to open a second school or shul. In most instances, however, communal resources prove to be available, and the economics are actually not a zero-sum game. The history of American communities evidences that multiple institutions tend to survive and thrive, so long as they are both well run, and have clear goals and mission statements.

There are many examples of a second day school opening a decade or two after the founding of the first, usually in response to new communal needs and characteristics. Inevitably the new enterprise is met with much moaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth and, more prosaically, with claims that the new institution will force the demise of the original. A five year review, however, evidences that most often, after an initial slump, the original school returns to its historical enrollment and the new school houses a student body more than sufficient to justify its existence. Rather than the new institution causing a communal strain, it most often expands the student base and broadens the community, in general. The town thus becomes more attractive due to its more varied infrastructure, attracting new families and general community growth. If communal members are mature and responsible, the passage of time will result in the burying of the initial hatchets, and the pursuit of the many common agendas that they most certainly share.

The Distinction of National Needs

While this view may be compelling for individual cities and communities, is it equally applicable to national organizations? National organizations are vital to serve the representative functions discussed above, but they also should be responsible for assessing the state of the national Orthodox community as a whole. Such national institutions are expected to maintain a bird’s eye view and to utilize experience gleaned in one sphere to improve another.

The structure of each national organization also needs clear definition. Should it serve in a consulting capacity or as an umbrella organization? Should it have offices in a single, central location, or also open branch offices, whether for fundraising or programmatic purposes? Can a national entity be effective with a hybrid local/national outlook?

There is also a reverse question: How can local communities monitor whether a national organization begins to stagnate? In fact, how does an organization monitor itself in this regard? National institutions take much longer to fade and die. Moreover, their very size imposes greater barriers to entry by possible competitors, making it more challenging for younger, nimbler competitors to set up shop when the old guard is simply not “getting it done.” How can the community avoid the burden of large national organizations staggering on for decades past their “sell-by” dates, smothering local talent and using much of the oxygen that could be best utilized starting new initiatives? Moreover, how can the community prevent large organizations from snuffing out start-ups that would be more effective at addressing core issues?

It is critical that the community demand that any communal institution evidence a periodic assessment of its goals, and of its strategy and effectiveness in meeting those goals. And as important as periodic review is for local entities, all the more so is such discipline critical for larger, national entities, which not only assume greater responsibility and draw enormous communal resources, they also are more likely to preclude others from assuming their roles, even when an alternative body would be more efficient and effective.

For example, the Orthodox Union was intended to be a national umbrella of Orthodox synagogues, which was particularly important in an era when the Orthodox synagogue was struggling for identity and legitimacy. Moreover, the OU was intended to play the leading role in ensuring that American Jewry had access to basic halachic functions, such as kashrus. Finally, the OU assumed the mantle of representing American Orthodoxy, particularly for those communal members who identified as religious Zionists and as Centrist (and one time called Modern) Orthodox. Aside from the widely respected, and cash generating, kashrus division, how well is the OU doing in fulfilling its mission? If the OU quietly went out of business, would it need to be replaced? Must NCSY be seen as natural appendage of a national enterprise, or would it be equally if not more effective and efficient as a separate entity? How much of the OU’s current functions include servicing the Orthodox synagogue, and is such a function even necessary any longer?

Another example: Torah Umesorah was conceived to help found an Orthodox day school in every American city with more than 5,000 Jews, and to assist local communities with staffing and maintaining their schools. Astoundingly, this goal was achieved by 1970. Did that mean that Torah Umesorah should have then been terminated, or was there still work to be done in maintenance, training, staffing and curriculum development (all of which were part of the original mission statement) as well as creating schools in new, emerging communities? Did the newer communities in America of Russian, Israeli and Bucharian Jews enjoy Torah Umesorah’s same enthusiastic zeal and commitment for the creation of day schools, as was enjoyed by the non-observant communities in the 1950’s and 1960’s? And have the emergence of organizations addressing Jewish education needs for the broader community more in tune with their weltanschauung, such as RAVSAK and PEJE, eliminated or at least curtailed the broader communal scope of Torah Umesorah? Should Torah Umesorah now focus exclusively on single gender schools, thereby ceding its role as a true national enterprise? Where do Torah Umesorah divisions such as SEED, Hemshech and Counterforce fit into Torah Umesorah’s mandate and goals, and are they really natural stable-mates with, for example, the School-Visitation or Publications departments?

Agudath Israel was born in Poland a century ago to represent the interests of Orthodoxy to the government in a united fashion. In order to retain influence regardless of who was in power at the time, Agudath Israel needed to be perceived as apolitical regarding any government policy not directly affecting specifically Jewish issues. It galvanized sufficient support to hold seats in the Senate and Sejm and had the backing of much of the Chassidic and Misnagdic segments of the Orthodox world. Its American incarnation was launched in the 1930’s by Rabbi Eliezer Silver, and enjoyed its real expansion after the war. Over the years, Agudath Israel of America has increasingly involved itself in areas of programming, including camps, shuls, Daf Yomi, siyum mishnayos, archives, a publication, and a choir. Nevertheless, the primary goal has been to represent “Chareidi” Orthodoxy to the rest of the Jewish, and non-Jewish, American community. This role includes lobbying legislators and filing legal briefs throughout the United States, as well as seeking the procurement and provision of social services to various sectors of the community, such as job training and placement, school bussing and housing for seniors. Agudath Israel also maintains field offices in many of the non-New York centers of Chareidi activity. This magnificent sprawl of departments and activities operates under the direction of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, which meets several times a year to focus on the issues of the day.

Is Agudath Israel of America still fulfilling its initial mission? What is its current mandate and how well is it performing? Who is studying these questions? Is its leadership structure designed to serve the full range of its natural constituents, and to meet the community-wide needs that are most urgent? Is the role and composition of the Moetzes well-suited to Agudah’s current organizational structure to promote effective processes in meeting today’s complex and rapidly-evolving challenges? Is there a conflict between the Agudah’s role as a public “defender of the faith,” giving voice to Torah values however unpopular, and their role of maintaining agreeable relationships with government officials, especially when it involves ensuring state or city funding for the many social programs listed above?

To summarize, if all three of these organizations were to declare “mission accomplished” and close, how quickly would they be replaced and what would the replacements look like?

The Critical, yet Challenging, Role of the Gedolim

Ultimately, the gedolim to whom each institution turns is responsible for assessing the organization’s priorities and to wind down those organization that have overstayed their usefulness and to refocus those that have strayed from their missions. Unfortunately, it is difficult for the gedolim to disentangle themselves from the deep, often decades-long personal relationships they have formed with the personnel and lay leadership of these organizations. In essence, involvement of gedolim in the continual operations of an institution can create a negius (attachment), possibly requiring other gedolim to play the role of periodic evaluator.

Moreover, with the growth in the size and needs of the Orthodox Community, it is simply no longer humanly possible for the gedolim to expend the time necessary to address the broad scope of community needs, and certainly not to study the details of all the issues at hand. Additionally, gedolim often have no choice but to rely on second- and even third-hand reports, which are all subject to the inevitably biased filtering of the intermediaries. Questions presented to gedolim by those within an organization do not always reflect the best and broadest view of the reality and the best interests of the greater community.

In the past, the gedolim have deliberately addressed these concerns by introducing sub-bodies of younger Roshei Yeshiva to examine the battlefield and report back to them for consultation. For example, in the mid 1970’s, the Rabbinical Advisory Board of Torah Umesorah comprised such giants as Rav Moishe Feinstein, Rav Yakov Kamenetzky, Rav Yitzchok Ruderman, Rav Yitzchok Hutner, Rav Shneur Kotler, Rav Boruch Sorotzkin, and Rav Mordechai Gifter, zichronam livracha. Nevertheless, this esteemed group of senior gedolim invited the then-much-younger Rav Elya Svei and Rav Yaakov Weinberg, z”l, to conduct monthly meetings with the staff of TU to hear directly about the challenges they faced and to actively focus them on the priorities designated by the Rabbinical Advisory Board. This arrangement provided a more pro-active role for the gedolim in directing the affairs of Torah Umesorah, instead of responding to those issues brought before them. It also allowed the gedolim greater access to the workings of the organization, both nationally and locally, and provided those in the trenches unmediated access to the daas Torah they sought.

The reintroduction of a comparable arrangement, in which a broader constituency of rabbinic leaders is designated by the gedolim to play a similar role, is likely to occur only upon the urging of the broader community. It behooves both lay and professional activists within the frum community to make such requests of the gedolim, presenting the case that such expanded designations will enhance, rather than stymie, the effectiveness of, and appreciation for, their Torah guidance. 

Summary

In summary, there is a subtle balance in play between an overarching, singular presence and numerous smaller entities – the precise interplay being dictated by the realities of the day. So long as it is relatively fluid and provides room for change, a perhaps uneasy yet necessary balance will be found that will naturally adjust with changes in circumstances.

The pivotal role of the gedolim cannot be overstated, but at the same time, one must be aware of the impossible demands on their time and the immeasurable responsibilities they are asked to bear.

Most importantly, there is always room for activists with talent, enterprise and the willingness to take achrayus (responsibility) and accept nesiyus ol (the burdens of others). All of those involved in serving the community must ask how recently we have done a full cheshbon hanefesh (self evaluation) and where we find ourselves relative to our original ideals. Are we still as energized and idealistic as we were five/ten/twenty years ago?

Those who are not actively involved with the klal should be looking at themselves in the mirror and asking why it is that they get to take without giving back. The opportunities are huge and, if one is prepared to sleep a little less, one can do a lot more. With a little bit of mazel, anyone can become a partner to greatness; with real dedication, though, one can join the pantheon of all-time heroes.

Rabbi Ron Yitzchok Eisenman

Klal Perspectives, Communal Leadership Infrastructure

To read this issue’s questions, CLICK HERE.

The Shul Rav and the Local Community

IN MANY ERAS AND IN MANY locations, the shul Rav played a prominent, if not the lead role in addressing community-wide issues. It is worthy to reassess whether the contemporary shul Rav should be expected to play that role. Since my experience with nation-wide issues and national organizations has been limited, I limit my observations to the role of the shul rabbi within the local community. Comments such as these, of course, are based upon my experiences which are necessarily limited in scope. I imagine that many rabbis and communities experience very different concerns.

The Reduced Role of the Local Rav in Communal Organizations

Growing up, I envisioned the local Rav as being totally immersed in every aspect of the community. In addition to wearing the varied hats that come with being a shul Rav, he also wore the principal’s hat, the hat of kashrus administrator, and the hat of leader of the local chessed organization.

While there may be certain communities where these multiple roles are still played by a single individual, it is certainly not the case in most communities.

We live in the age of specialization. Even in fields like law and medicine, we turn to specialists to address our needs. For example, we no longer turn to merely a single internist and surgeon, but rather seek out doctors with narrow specialties – one who treats only liver problems and another the pancreas. This trend toward specificity and specialization has spread to the Jewish community, as well. The local school principal is typically an expert in the field of Jewish education, while other community professionals are trained specifically in fund raising, social services or job placement. Consequently, the local rabbi often plays at best a secondary role in setting policies for the local educational and chessed institutions.

In addition to the advent of specialization within local community leadership, another factor that limits the role of the rabbi is his increasingly consuming responsibility to care for his congregants. Though the rabbinate has always been a demanding job, in my experience, it has become more intense over the last decade. Today, rabbis are more likely to be inundated with his congregants’ deep and agonizing personal issues, precluding him from being as actively involved in the activities of local organizations. Perhaps this is due to the complexity of contemporary life, perhaps because formerly not-discussed issues are no longer taboo. Perhaps part of this demand relates to the increase of recent-returnees to Orthodoxy. In any event, the rabbi often simply does not have the luxury of devoting as much time as he would wish to the affairs of communal organizations.

Alas, there is a third reason for the rabbi’s reduced role in communal institutions; that is, some local institutions do not perceive themselves as being communal institutions. Often, an organization (most typically an educational organization), is opened by former Yeshiva graduates at their own initiative and without prior broad-based community discussion. These founders often view their personal Rosh Yeshiva as their spiritual mentor and advisor, and thus see little reason to seek the input of the local rabbi. Indeed, the increased influence played by Roshei Yeshiva has often severely reduced (and occasionally eliminated) the need for the local rabbis’ involvement in communal affairs.

Finally, the former era of rabbinic organizations that included non-Orthodox rabbis may have created a culture of rabbinic distrust for broad-based communal efforts and coalitions. 

Consequences of the Rav’s Reduced Role

The reduced role of the shul Rav in local organizations is not necessarily a negative development. Indeed, in some ways the independence may benefit both sides, since it allows each party to express views freely, and criticize the other in (hopefully) positive ways. On the other hand, this diminishment of local rabbinic influence is sadly symptomatic of the further breakdown of the old-fashioned kehilla.

It is not the reduction of local rabbinic influence that is most troubling, but the trend toward organizations becoming individual monarchies rather than community establishments. Increasingly, a school or chessed organization will “belong” to a particular professional or askan. Dynasties are created, and a sense of proprietorship evolves.

But, this too is not all negative. I recall when a neighbor of mine decided to transfer his son from the local day school to the local cheider type school. He related that one of the day school’s lay board members criticized his decision by declaring, “Now that you are sending your son to Rabbi Ploni’s yeshiva, you will never again have any input in your son’s chinuch.” The fellow responded on the spot, “That may be true. However, now at least you won’t have any more say in my son’s chinuch.” Indeed, the involvement of unqualified lay leaders, whose sole credentials for involvement in Torah and chessed is their philanthropy, has caused a knee jerk reaction to reject ‘non-daas Torah’ input in decisions of certain organizations.

Since the rabbi is not the Rosh Yeshiva or ‘gadol’ of the institutional proprietor, he is often more closely associated with the lay leadership, or seen as an independent rather than a “daas Torah”, and is often excluded, as well.

Ultimately, I am not convinced that the reduction of the shul Rav’s influence is actually detrimental to the Jewish community. For the most part, those involved in Torah and chessed have rabbinic mentorship as their personal Torah guides. Moreover, Roshei Yeshiva are themselves increasingly better equipped to assess issues of this nature since they themselves, are not only talmedei chachomim, but frequently askanim, as well.

The greatest consequence of the reduction in demands on the local Rav is not a deprivation from the Rav’s perspective (who is typically overwhelmed with congregational issues and is more than happy to be relieved of communal responsibilities) but rather the loss of multiple perspectives that exist when an institution is a true, communal institution. When every yeshiva, organization and institution is a private fiefdom, there is little room for constructive criticism or creative contributions. The shul rabbi, by virtue of his being a non-aligned individual, could serve as a sounding board for new ideas and a critic of the insular and sometimes clannish oligarchic leadership of the independent organization. The reintroduction of this role, however, would require a minor (though likely resisted) change to organizational structures.

A Proposal

Although perhaps sounding somewhat regressive, true progress would be achieved through the re-introduction of boards of directors in community organizations that include both the leadership of the particular organization and local shul rabbis. By including such rabbinic representation in the governing body of the school and/or chessed organization, each organization would enjoy the benefit of a more unified and broadly respected community organization, as well as an ally and often invaluable assistant in the important and constant battle of fund-raising. The demand for the rabbi to play this role should not come from the rabbi, but rather from the organization. Rabbis, of course, will need to learn to use this newfound role judiciously, since it will inevitably be withdrawn if he uses his pulpit as a bully pulpit, rather than for fundraising appeals.

It is the rabbi’s duty to avoid being viewed as seeking to wrest control or authority over the existing communal organization; however, by establishing a more inclusive board or moetzes of community leaders, whose task will be to discuss and ultimately decide on the mission as well as the best path to fulfill that mission, we can help create a more unified and effective Jewish community.

And on the more esoteric level, inclusion of the shul rabbi in local organizational boards will advance that elusive, but much desired, feeling of achdus to which we all subscribe.

David Mandel

Klal Perspectives, Communal Leadership Infrastructure

To read this issue’s questions, CLICK HERE.

This expansion, however, represented a rapid departure from the traditional delivery of social services within the Orthodox community. Driven opportunistically by substantial government support, these organizations generally adopted the organizational framework of the modern not-for-profit entity, with its own leadership structure. Today, the majority of our community’s needs are served through these independently run non-profits outside of any traditional community framework. This entire system for delivery of social services, though it now plays a vital and central role in community life, has taken on a life of its own.

We are left with a sense that many needs are being met effectively by honorable people but without any overall leadership and coordination. Do we really need all of these many organizations that are now vying for limited private, as well as government, resources? Does the current mix of organizations, with the varied funding they receive, reflect the values of a responsible Torah community? Where is there overlap and where are there gaps and unmet needs? The uncertainty about this system is due to many factors, but the emergence of the independent non-profit organization as perhaps THE leading force in community affairs is a development that must be analyzed.

In this essay, I propose to review the consequences of this development, to explore how economic forces operate within the non-profit sector and how this impacts our community, and to suggest how embracing the “chochma” (wisdom) within the contemporary non-profit model can empower our communities, nationally as well as locally, to identify and meet their needs effectively and efficiently.

For-Profits vs. Non-Profits

Two-hundred and forty years ago, economist Adam Smith posited that the commercial marketplace is regulated by an “Invisible Hand” of self-interest and competition: providers of goods and services have an incentive to best meet the needs of the marketplace, as consumers will reward providers that best meet their needs by purchasing their goods and services. Thus, a company offering an inferior or outdated product will discover objectively that its performance does not justify the ongoing investment and will either improve the product or withdraw from the market.

Smith’s writings have served as the foundation for capitalism and democracy ever since but, unfortunately, his Invisible Hand left the third pillar of society – the non-profit sector – largely untouched. Since the support of non-profit organizations is not based on direct self-interest and does not operate in a traditional “marketplace,” this sector does not enjoy the economic forces that reward value and deter waste; instead, it is driven by the ability of individual organizations to reach and persuade potential donors of the subjective value of their work. Without a true “marketplace,” there is little means for donors to compare providers or causes, and so donors tend to make their decisions based on what seems right at the time considering the information they have available.

To illustrate, the principal measure of publicly held companies is return on shareholder investments. If the company stock rises, shareholders tend to be satisfied, the stock value remains strong and the company can thrive. In the not-for-profit sector, however, there is no such measure of achievement. Success must often be measured in vague theorems that are difficult to quantify, such as customer (client) satisfaction, anecdotal information, emotional appeal and personal experiences. Even when organizations have clearly-defined goals and objectives, the worthiness of the goals themselves is hardly measurable. And to complicate matters, what was worthy a decade ago may present very differently today, even though what changed and how it changed may remain unclear.

As a result, while a business that is in the red will eventually exhaust its credit lines, be unable to pay its bills and ultimately fail in the marketplace, a not-for-profit that is not pulling its weight will often continue as usual as long as it still has a good name and can prevail upon its donors to support it. Only under great duress will it shutter its doors, or perhaps merge with a like-minded agency. This tenacity is especially pronounced where Founders Syndrome exists: the agency head who is the original founder is unwilling to change direction or cede oversight or authority to others more capable of fresh strategic thinking.

Theoretically, donors should seek the same accountability from the organizations they support that stockholders expect from the company’s directors. And in fact, professional non-profits take accountability very seriously, publishing annual reports that demonstrate how contributions are managed and how well the organization is succeeding at its mission. The fact that the “business” of a particular agency is responding to one of the emotionally charged communal needs, such as mental illness, poverty, addictions, child abuse, or homelessness, does not negate the need for a professional approach to management, operations, accountability and efficiency.

In fact, in the absence of market pressures compelling the non-profit to maximize its quality and efficiency, even greater skill and professionalism is needed from its Board and management to ensure that it does not stray from its mission or its standards.

There is another important distinction between for-profit and non-profit companies. While multiple retail stores, for example, result in competition and variety to the advantage of consumers, the reverse tends to be true in the not-for-profit world. Too many agencies competing for limited dollars from government, foundations, and individual donors often leads to a lower quality of service. In many cases, one regional agency consolidating skills and funds would be far more effective than several local agencies with insufficient resources.

Unfortunately, desperate parents seeking services for their addicted children, for their chronically depressed adult daughter or for their destitute neighbor will accept any help offered, even when the organization and its employees are of marginal reliability. They are being shortchanged, often without their knowledge, for many people have no reliable way to gauge the quality of these services. The simple fact is that complex social problems require competent professional assessment and treatment. It is no place for bargain-basement operation. 

What Can Be Done?

Boards of Directors have a responsibility to inspire new young leaders and to prepare them to assume the mantle of leadership. At the same time, young board members must appreciate the learning opportunity and the wisdom of their more experienced colleagues.

Rating systems for not-for-profits should be introduced such as those that exist in the private sector – for example, Moody’s rating of financial health, and New York City’s newly enacted restaurant rating system.

Not-for-profits operate with various levels of transparency. Though Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was not directed to the not-for-profit community, there are many organizations that voluntarily adhere to such principles – but not enough.

It is the responsibility of each agency’s Board of Directors to ensure that their mission, strategic plan, and client services are aligned and that their performance is meeting appropriate standards. Surprisingly, this is not always so. Organizations sometimes stray from their original purposes, losing focus, falling behind the times or taking on extra responsibilities that strain their effectiveness and financial stability. The fiduciary responsibility of the Board compels it to make difficult choices; it must act when fiscal prudence must outweigh righteous zealousness, or when accomplished staff members are not meeting current expectations.

Responsibility, however, also rests within the community. There is an urgent need to change the climate of public attitude toward non-profit service organizations, educating the community about the vital role they currently play – and potentially can play – in providing for the community’s urgent needs and solving its pressing problems.

Especially, our community must give greater weight and respect to the not-for-profit professions. This isn’t just charity work. It requires well-trained professionals who understand how to define – and periodically redefine – an organization’s mission and to maximize its effectiveness and efficiency in serving that mission. There is a wealth of wisdom in the non-profit world about how to succeed within the framework of the contemporary non-profit organization, but far too few members of our community look to this wisdom as a key to achieving our communities’ goals.

There is a need for an educational initiative to raise awareness in our community about the professional path to confronting and meeting the challenges we face as a community. Ultimately, this will include developing a well-compensated career ladder worthy of attracting the kind of people capable of making the greatest difference.

This initiative is critical for two reasons:

1) It will enable those already involved on a professional level to feel that their work is valued, a significant factor when dealing with the day to day frustrations in this difficult field.

2) It will provide a sufficient pool of highly skilled talent to continue this klal work. How many Jewish mothers raise their children to enter the not-for-profit world? How many high school seniors dream of becoming the Albert Einstein of social services?

The fact is that providing these essential services – as an administrator, nurse, social worker, psychologist or any other mental health professional – is as fulfilling as it is painstaking. There is enormous satisfaction in helping people in a meaningful way – often making all the difference in dire life situations. It is hands-on work, and many young people would roll up their sleeves and pitch in if these fields were more accessible and attractive to them.

Numerous possibilities exist to pursue such an initiative:

Schools should look seriously at how they teach certain values, and how those teachings could be implemented on a practical level. It’s true that we begin teaching even the youngest children about tzedakah with classroom pushkas, Tehillim-a-thons, Bowl-a-thons and many other incentives (until they are old enough to participate in Purim collections). But if mechanchim want their students to develop a true, deep understanding of tzedakah, if they want them to feel its genuine value, they should make it a point to acquaint them with the many tzedakah organizations and what they do. Take some time (for example, every Rosh Chodesh) to show the children where the money they raise goes and how it makes a difference in people’s lives. Invite speakers from these organizations on a regular basis to make this topic come alive. Take them on field trips to places where people are helped (such as Tomche Shabbos, Bikur Cholim). Let them experience where their tzedakah dollar goes. Let them see it, touch it, feel it and when they are grown they will give their maaser money with love and sensitivity. Perhaps they will even be motivated to take on a greater role in the chessed these organizations do.

I am troubled by a great disparity in some communities between girls’ experience of gemilas chassadim and that of boys. Girls are required to participate in chessed activities, while boys are often let off the hook. In many of our yeshivos, gemilas chassadim is taught as a concept, but not lived by the bochurim. They have little or no opportunity to put it in practice, and this is a lamentable situation. Certainly, the study of Torah is a priority, but is it truly complete if they are not encouraged to take responsibility for the welfare of others? This value must be developed all through their lives, not simply thrust upon them once they are baalei batim with sufficient incomes to be the targets of fundraisers.

And finally, high schools should invest more in leadership training, including formal mentoring programs. If a student has been taught to properly value tzedakah and gemilas chassadim, if he has developed a strong sense that he is needed by the klal and should do his utmost to serve others, he will be willing to consider making that his life’s work. If our high schools afford their students the opportunity to develop the needed skills and encourage participation in social service, we will develop an even greater caring, competent community, ready to take on our communal challenges.

Whether or not they enter the field as professionals, our youth will be the lay leaders, the market makers in the not-for-profit sector. Young dynamic leaders must be taught that serving on a community-based organization’s Board of Directors is much more than a status symbol. By necessity we operate in a more difficult social, financial and regulatory environment, and they must be prepared to shoulder that responsibility.

Our community has built an extraordinary system of support for the physical, emotional and mental health of the many in need. Lay leaders and donors have devoted time, energy, passion and enormous financial support. Tomorrow’s leaders and funders have unprecedented opportunities to cooperate in the making of a better world. Progress can be achieved by the commitment of our best and brightest to careful realistic planning, not accepting marginal self-preservation or patchwork solutions. The needs are great, and we must encourage those with talent, compassion, and a true sense of klalto participate in this growing endeavor.

Introduction

From Conversations: Readers Respond to A Review of Kiruv

When Klal Perspectives was launched in Fall 2011, our primary objective was to present a range of thoughtful perspectives on one important topic in each issue. Our broader goal, however, was to stimulate higher-level conversations about these topics that would lead toward implementation of well-developed solutions for the pressing challenges facing our communities. And, as mentioned in our Mission Statement, we intended to seek and publish “input from the broader community… in order to broaden the discussion and enlist as many talents as possible in developing strategies for the future.”

More than any of our previous four issues, the Fall 2012 Review of Kiruv inspired many to follow up on this invitation, offering to submit full-length essays as well as more pointed Letters to the Editor to further this important conversation about the relative effectiveness of current or potential kiruv initiatives. We are pleased to present here a dedicated follow-up issue of Klal Perspectives entitled Conversations: Readers Respond to a Review of Kiruv.

This is not a regular issue of Klal Perspectives, but a collection of reader responses. The difference is significant, in that our approach to a regular issue is far more rigorous in seeking out the most important ideas and contributors, providing extensive feedback to first drafts and offering ongoing support in the development of the final article. For this special issue, we welcomed unsolicited contributions, made no specific demands on the writers, and present their offerings here essentially in the form in which they were submitted.

It is our hope that this process of developing and sharing ideas leads to significant enhancement of kiruv efforts within our community’s ongoing commitment to promote Torah values, l’hagdil Torah ul’haadirah.

Rabbi Ari Koretzky

From Conversations: Readers Respond to A Review of Kiruv

A City of Hope in the State of Kiruv

 

The latest issue of Klal Perspectives elicited from me a broad range of emotions. Most notable was the instinctive defensiveness I felt, an impulsive need to defend my chosen profession and life’s mission. Was my emotional reaction unfounded, or was it rooted in a reflexive understanding that much of the articles’ analyses did not line up with what I observe unfolding in the kiruv world I occupy daily?

The issue also called to mind the variety of objections toward kiruv that, while not enumerated there, commonly are expressed in other contexts.

Misgivings towards the kiruv movement – at least as it currently stands – come in many flavors: financial (questioning the fiscal prudence of the endeavor, in light of other needs); intellectual (questioning the approaches often employed); pragmatic (questioning whether it is actually working); and sometimes even philosophical (questioning the validity of the endeavor as a whole).

I find it especially interesting that certain types of objections tend to emerge, almost exclusively, from different segments of the Orthodox community. In this article, I will evaluate the various protestations along these lines, recognizing of course that crossover does exist, and, as with any process of categorization, oversimplification is an invariable byproduct.

Broadly speaking, I have identified three sub-populations: the “Modern Orthodox” community, the “Yeshivish” community, and then, in a different vein, those in or related to the kiruv establishment who have expressed reservations about its current trajectory.

Is There a City of Hope in the State of Kiruv?

This third sub-group – established kiruv veterans and “insiders” – is most familiar to me, and their objections – many of which were outlined in Klal Perspectives Fall 2012 – are most germane to the field’s development. I will begin with their critiques, which focus largely on the methodology and effectiveness of the current kiruv movement.

While I appreciate the great impact these more critical contributors have made on the Jewish world, it is telling to me that few of those submissions came from people actually engaged in the daily kiruv enterprise, at least on a “front lines” level. As they noted, the landscape has changed dramatically from the days of backpackers wandering into a class near the Kotel. While the essential kiruv ingredients of personal warmth and Torah wisdom have not changed, the demographics and methods necessarily have, and the kiruv world is still learning to respond to these seismic shifts.[2]

As such, without an intimate understanding of how people “on the ground” in fact currently are thinking about and responding to these challenges, the objections amount to straw-man arguments that underestimate the perceptivity and creativity of those engaged in the process.

Since my familiarity lies in the realm of college outreach, I will restrict my analysis to the ways in which this field is developing. First, categorically, while we have a long, long way to go, I would argue that college kiruv is beginning to prove very fruitful. Readers should appreciate that, prior to six or seven years ago, there were almost no non-Chabad kiruv professionals on campus, beyond Rabbi Avrohom Jacobowitz in Michigan, the JAM (Zarrett) outfit in California and a lonely handful of others. We should not underestimate the game-changing power of the Maimonides program,[3] which has provided an entrée to nearly every campus mekarev in America, plus had ripple effects on Chabad and Hillel.[4] The casual observer also might be unaware of the impact Rabbi Menachem Deutsch has had over the past three years in standardizing and crystalizing goals, and in directing funding towards projects that most effectively promote them.

Under the Wolfson/Horn mandate, mekarvim – at least I can speak for myself and my own staff – have a very clear sense of mission, methods of measurement and means of evaluation. We track data meticulously, record pre-determined metrics and evaluate success in a professional manner. We maintain a stratified and balanced sense of purpose, recognizing that our primary goal is to develop students towards concrete mitzvah observance, but also embracing the myriad steps along the way; residual impact is not lionized, but is appreciated still. A handful of students each year will make their way to yeshiva/seminary, a handful more will begin observing Shabbos and other miztvos, and hundreds beyond that will experience meaningful Jewish connections and gain valuable knowledge. These numbers grow each year, and as the cadre of professionals humbly self-reflect and share insights, we sharpen our sense of how best to touch the students we so deeply love.

Momentum is building constantly. We are beginning to attend frequent frum weddings of students who participated in programs seven or eight years ago. “Maimonides” is not quite a household name yet, but it’s moving in that direction, as the network of program graduates grows into the thousands. Many other programs feed off of and into this flagship, and recent growth has necessitated moving to large, new facilities at ours and other campuses.

Still, as Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky (Getting Back to Basics, Klal Perspectives Fall 2012) notes, the baal teshuva yeshivas are not yet full. He should appreciate, though, that the de-emphasis on outreach in many community kollels, coupled with changing financial realities that discourage baalei teshuva from spending time in yeshiva, have deprived many beginner’s yeshivas of their traditional student base. This indicates not that the pool is shrinking, but that it is shifting, and such changes occur slowly over time.

We are finding locally that, as better building blocks are set in place, the number of students seriously contemplating yeshiva attendance is in fact growing steadily. This does not signify that every receiving institution will grow in the future, as some have adapted less effectively to changing student needs while others have emerged as more viable outlets. Of course other metrics of success exist as well – specifically Shabbos observance among those unable to attend a yeshiva or seminary at any given time.

I invite any of the more skeptical authors to join us for an evening on campus, to observe programming, speak with students, even peruse our “records.” And most of all, I invite them to engage in an actual dialogue with those of us standing outside college dining halls, teaching classes, schlepping pizzas, leaving our families to jet across the world on trips, and holding students’ hands through very personal and challenging transformations.

I believe such a dialogue would demonstrate that the real questions are not whether or not kiruv is still viable in the 21^st century – it is – or whether our approaches are beginning to hit the mark – they are. Those are the “straw man” concerns that in my view are already well understood, often discussed and, from my very limited vantage point, are being amply addressed.

Instead, the real questions involve the essence of our work: How do we better retain college alumni and better transition students between organizations? How can we leverage our burgeoning national network to capture new students, or utilize existing mechanisms like Taglit-Birthright to do the same? How can we more effectively “package” Yiddishkeit in a philosophical/political climate so antithetical to concepts of absolute truth, traditional morality and suppression of the self in service of a greater good? How should we handle increasingly complicated yichus (personal status) questions that cross our desks? How can we better collaborate, where possible, with other campus groups, and, in particular, involve as allies Modern Orthodox student-peers on secular campuses? And finally, how do we move towards greater financial self-sufficiency and develop the skills that will allow today’s front line mekarvim to become tomorrow’s organizational architects and leaders?

These are the real challenges, and they are challenges worth discussing. Wise, experienced thinkers like Rabbi Buchwald and Dr. Schick could contribute greatly, if they would participate first briefly in day-to-day, nitty-gritty campus operations. I believe that they and others would indeed find a city of hope in the state of kiruv.

Ye Modern Orthodox: Where Art Thou?

Moving to the second group of frequent detractors, it appears to me that many Modern Orthodox Jews are simply uncomfortable with the enterprise of kiruv. I often find it ironic when I encounter more whispered suspicion about my kiruv efforts from Orthodox students than from their secular brethren.

Anyone familiar with the current periodicals and blogs of the Modern Orthodox landscape recognizes that, broadly speaking, the Modern Orthodox approach embraces complexity as a hallmark of sophistication, focusing more on nuance than on the general ideas it informs. An emphasis on rationalism and its attendant skeptical posture generates an almost reflexive disdain of certitude. Yet certitude generates conviction, a natural precondition for sharing one’s world view.

Likewise, an intellectual approach that defies reduction to succinct talking points will prove much more difficult to impart than a clear-cut philosophy firmly asserting basic truths.

Consider the following demonstration: Ask two individuals whether or not G-d is involved in the world, and whether we as human beings can engage in an ongoing relationship with Him. A traditional “right-wing” yeshiva product likely would answer: “Yes, He is interested in our affairs and governs all aspects of our lives. One absolutely can have a relationship with Him.” His Modern Orthodox counterpart more likely would respond: “It depends what you mean by ‘involved.’ There are various degrees of possible hashgacha (providence), and these may or may not depend on one’s spiritual standing. Currently a maximalist, perhaps Chassidic-influenced perspective is in vogue, but this is not necessarily the traditional view. In short, it’s complicated…”

“It’s complicated” might be true, but it rarely inspires.[5] It also can obscure larger truths – in this case, for example, that according to all traditional Jewish approaches, a person can and must develop a relationship with the Almighty through the mitzvos He has ordained, which is what the questioner likely wanted to know anyhow. In the name of nuance, the forest can fall casualty to the trees.

Ironically, those among the Modern Orthodox who dismiss kiruv as a bastardization of Jewish wisdom are in fact ignoring the vast nuance in the process itself. I have heard myself quietly portrayed in precisely such a dismissive and simplified manner – eager to present a neat, sanitized Jewish product, glossing over complexities or inconsistencies to achieve an end-result. Yet as a “kiruv professional,” when I avoid nuance, I do so consciously, intending to communicate a larger truth to a student who is unprepared for a fuller treatment so early in his or her development.

Certainly, we teach the story of Yehuda and Tamar one way to 3^rd graders, and (hopefully) very differently to a student in bais medrash. And while nuance has its place, so does its concealment. Truth, as such, operates not in a vacuum but in the context of the individual receiving the message. While intelligent, non-observant adults can obviously handle more sophisticated presentations than can children, the “art” of kiruv does mandate making routine judgment calls on just how and how much to present at any given moment.

That Modern Orthodoxy institutionally supports one major kiruv cause – NCSY – demonstrates this inherent acknowledgement. Most people can appreciate that children and teenagers require a more emotionally-based and intellectually straightforward approach – and even then there are detractors. Torah education must be tailored to the needs of its students, and this applies equally across all demographics.

As perhaps an even more fundamental objection, however, aside from doubting the intellectual integrity of kiruv efforts, many within the Modern Orthodox community in fact feel morally unjustified imparting their beliefs to others. Yet accusations that those in kiruv “brainwash” and “push their agenda” on students so dramatically misrepresents the facts on the ground; every experienced mekarev that I know – and I know many – respects the deep humanity of his students, encourages balanced, measured and emotionally healthy growth, and promotes honest dialogue about any topic that emerges. In my view, accusations to the contrary amount to a cover for some peoples’ discomfort with any form of Jewish directional encouragement.

Sadly, due at least in part to these hesitations, many in the Modern Orthodox community, who in the finest Hirschian tradition could most credibly wage intellectual battle on behalf of Torah ideology, refrain from doing so. Instead, they critique kiruv in a manner that belies either their own insecurities of belief, or their unfounded concern that imparting these beliefs to others would compromise their intellectual integrity or inappropriately influence others.

Is the “Right” Right?

The challenges from the “Yeshivish” community tend to be more pragmatic than the philosophical considerations of the Modern Orthodox.

The most commonly raised objection from this sub-community is a financial one. As a group suffering from an overwhelming cost of living, coupled with an even more overwhelming list of tzedaka concerns – yeshivas, kollelim, chessed organizations, “off the derech” (OTD) programs, and so much more – they will concede that kiruv is important, but question whether it is more important than these causes. Can we justify the exorbitant cost of “creating” just a single baal teshuva?

In my view, this objection fails on three counts. Conservatively speaking, I will estimate the cost of “producing” (as crass as that sounds) a baal teshuva to be $100,000.[6] The average day school education – that which is intended to solidify a young person’s fidelity to Judaism – certainly costs at least this much, and often much more.[7]^,[8] Most observers addressing the “tuition crisis” argue that Jewish education must be perceived as a communal responsibility no different than feeding the poor, and that parents alone should not shoulder the burden.[9] Should our community feel less obliged to provide a basic Torah education to non-observant Jewish students, who certainly have not received such training at home?

Next, those portraying kiruv as a mammoth “$100 million enterprise” neglect the fact that a large majority of this money comes from two or three exceptional donors.[10] At the highest levels of charitable giving, there is actually very little broad-based support in the frum community for kiruv, much to the frustration of its fundraisers. I know of many observant donors who contribute more generously to AIPAC and a host of other secular Jewish causes than they do to all of the kiruv organizations in their area, combined. Also, at risk of impugning my own yeshivish credentials, I will ask: Do we really need another “Turnpike yeshiva,” catering to a subset of a subset of a subset of students? And yet kiruv receives too much money?!?

The final rejoinder is the most fundamental, albeit more emotional in nature. Today, we are rightly concerned with the “OTD” phenomenon. Read any Orthodox publication and you will discover first-hand accounts of mothers spending tear-drenched, sleepless nights engaged in prayer, pleading for their young shaifeleh to return to the ways of his mesorah. Yet how often do we think of Hashem’s “pain” (k’viyochol – so to speak), when in fact 80-90% of His children are “off the derech”?

Does the mother suffering through this terrible pain think once about the cost of funding her son’s return? When a building is burning, you don’t sit down for a budget meeting. At the risk of invoking hyperbole, Klal Yisrael globally is in fact burning.[11] We may be blessed with a well-appointed, fire-safe chamber – though we all understand that it isn’t quite as fire-proof as we once would have hoped – but does this negate our responsibility towards those outside its confines?

I am not delusional enough to believe we can “save” all people; in fact, anyone involved in “front lines” kiruv recognizes the inevitability of failure far more than those reading the colorized “transformation stories” that are passed around magazines and Shabbos tables. There certainly are those working in kiruv, whom I respect, with more sweeping and “Messianic” aspirations than I personally hold; I believe we must focus on creating generationally-lasting transformation within individuals, while hoping for meaningful, residual impact in the process. Still, summoning the image of that tortured mother: for those that we can reach, is the price tag really even relevant?[12]

In this respect, I am astounded when people describe kiruv as a “luxury.” Such a claim strikes me as both offensive and misguided.

Offensive, because secular Jews are not an “other”; they are no less “us” than any card-carrying member of our local shul, yeshiva or social group! Every Jew is a “ben or bas l’Makom” (“child of G-d”) as much as our own children and those of our neighbors.

And misguided, because an infusion of passionate, talented ba’alei teshuva can enhance – and dramatically has enhanced – our own communities. Think of the great teachers, speakers, community activists, and baalei tzedaka who are baalei teshuva. These scores of newcomers breathe enthusiasm and creativity – and yes, like all subgroups, a unique set of challenges – into today’s Jewish world.

This recognition also undercuts a related contention from many on the right: that with so many problems of our own – parnassa, shidduchim, at-risk youth, abuse – we should “get our own house in order” before looking to help those still outside. After all, if we have talented young men and women in our ranks capable of “reaching out,” might they not also be capable of “reaching in,” where we need them more?

I would never dismiss the significance of the internal ills plaguing our community, but such a mentality promotes a false dichotomy. All of these causes are important, and all can and should be addressed. In fact, focusing outward may even generate the unintended consequence of rehabilitating our inward problems. I volunteer weekly teaching at a local girls’ high school that accepts many “struggling” girls, because I have observed how much they can gain from a “kiruv mindset” – intellectually open, personally warm and accessible. It is precisely my experience outside the community that affords me the fresh perspective and approach that these young women appreciate. Meanwhile, from the community members’ perspective, as my colleague Rabbi Meir Goldberg pointed out in a recent Mishpacha Magazine column,[13] involvement in reaching out can force one to deepen one’s own understanding and reinvigorate one’s own sense of purpose.

Still others are afraid to expose our “dirty laundry” to those beyond the tight, communal walls. Yet while our community admittedly is flawed, this need not preclude us from highlighting its myriad virtues. In time, a developing baal teshuva can and should be introduced to our shortcomings. When you invite guests into your home, however, you first bring them to the clean and orderly rooms. If they move in, they will soon enough observe – and come to accept – that not every room is always so tidy.

A final objection originating from “yeshivish” corners is that kiruv exposes its participants to negative influences – both impropriety and heresy. “The broom that sweeps gets dirty,” so they say. (To which one mentor of mine once replied, “then Avrohom Avinu must have been quite the dirty broom.”) Quips notwithstanding, involvement in kiruv undoubtedly carries certain occupational hazards. Yet, I would argue, so does every profession. The difference, of course, is that those working in kiruv are governed by strictures to which few other professionals are subject.

Unlike the average office worker, those on campus (at least in Meor, the organization by which I am employed) enter a contractual obligation to study Torah daily, and to implement male-female boundaries well beyond the basic halachos (laws) of yichud (seclusion). And while they may interface more routinely with unorthodox ideas, they are also less vulnerable to the destabilizing consequences of intellectual challenges that greet many today on the Internet or in contemporary public discourse.

But most uniquely, these rabbis and rebbetzins function as publicly declared ambassadors for Jewish ideals, which generates a strong degree of self-consciousness and inhibition not present in standard professional circumstances.[14] No system is fool-proof, of course, and mekarvim can stumble as can any others, but on balance the “exposure” objection can be laid to rest.

Bringing the Ideas – and Us – Together

Kiruv is both a concept and a cause. Its concept remains a pristine ideal whose implementation is constrained only by the limitations of those promulgating the cause. These individuals – among whose ranks I am proud to count myself – naturally suffer from all the insecurities and imperfections normal to the human condition. Still, in the final analysis, our work reflects a deeply sincere, and deeply competent, effort at bringing home our brothers and sisters. I pray that all segments of the observant community will learn to support, if not fully embrace, these efforts. At the very least, I hope we can engage in a more informed dialogue that considers the gravity of the problem, but also respects the existing attempts at its resolution. Meaningful support, coupled with enlightened conversation, can spawn continuously greater achievement. A city of hope, indeed, in the state of kiruv.

Rabbi Eric Coopersmith

From Conversations: Readers Respond to A Review of Kiruv

Knowing We Can Win

 

In the Fall 2012 edition of Klal Perspectives, I sensed a certain defeatist attitude in the questions contributors were asked to address: “Has kiruv in America run its course…?”

Lately, I’ve been encountering a growing sentiment directed against those in kiruv: “Let’s face it. You had a nice idealistic dream of ending assimilation and changing the world. But the demographics prove that it’s now over.”

In my view, this premise is fundamentally flawed. It displays a misreading of the reality taking place in the kiruv world specifically and of global sociological trends in general.

True, we have great challenges ahead. But the fact is that campus kiruv is thriving, trips to Israel are at an all-time high, the Internet is saturated with Torah study opportunities, kiruv outlets continue to sprout up in a variety of new locations and thousands of frum people are reaching out to friends and colleagues.

And yet the naysayers not only claim that the kiruv movement cannot get the job done, they lead people to wonder if perhaps kiruv is harming the frum community by “draining away vital resources.”

Adaraba! Kiruv represents the best opportunity for infusing financial and human resources into the frum community. Tens of thousands of baalei teshuva have joined shuls, send their kids to local schools and are devoting their resources and energy to improving the frum infrastructure.

Consider one example: Mr. M. is the founder and president of a large mutual fund. He and his wife got involved in Yiddishkeit through an Aish rabbi and became Torah observant. Today, he is president of the local yeshiva high school, leading their efforts to professionalize and upgrade their operation, while she is a founder and leading force in a preeminent organization empowering Jewish women to strengthen Yiddishkeit in their homes.

Yet the premise persists: The kiruv movement is a disappointment, and it no longer makes sense for the frum community to allocate funding and manpower to kiruv.

Even more troubling, this attitude has seeped into the ranks of those devoted to the cause of kiruv.

It is time to dispel this misperception. Here are four levels of “how we know we can win.”

Level 1: It’s All a Miracle.

Rav E.E. Dessler (Michtav M’Eliyahu) presents a formula for striking the balance between hishtaldus and bitachon: The greater one’s bitachon – i.e. the more one lives with the reality of Hashem as the sole source of success – the less hishtadlus is correspondingly required. (Of course, living with this reality is a challenge.)

Rav Dessler demonstrates this idea from the Gemara (Taanis 25a), where Rebbe Chanina Ben Dosa’s daughter mistakenly lit the Shabbos candles with vinegar instead of oil. Due to her total trust in Hashem – the belief that He alone controls events – the vinegar burned as “naturally” as does oil.

This is the first level of “Why We Can Win.” If we realize that everything Hashem does is b’derech neis (a miracle), there is no reason we can’t conquer the monumental task of bringing back millions of Hashem’s children. Because not only does Hashem have all the power at His disposal, but given His tremendous love for us, He totally wants us to succeed.

Consider: Is there anything you wouldn’t do for your own children? As Rav Noach, zt”l, used to say: If G-d forbid your son was drowning, and someone came along and said, “I’ll save him – just give me your rope,” would anyone hesitate to help to save their own child?!

When it comes to winning the kiruv battle, what is holding back the belief that it’s possible? Do we suspect, chas v’shalom, that Hashem doesn’t have enough money and tools at His disposal? If we are living with the reality of Hashem’s unfathomable power, and his limitless love for the Jewish people, then we can surely succeed – even if “facts on the ground” may make it appear impossible.

The Jewish people have never been constrained by sociological norms. The very idea of a kiruv movement is itself a sociological anomaly. Forty years ago, people mocked Rav Noach, zt”l, as a meshuganeh for thinking it’s possible to attract secular Jews to a life of Torah and mitzvos. Fortunately, Rav Noach had the bitachon to know that Hashem has all the ropes we need.

Level 2: We Have All the Raw Materials.

We are moving through the levels, from “least practical” to “most practical.”

Even without relying on miracles, the facts on the ground indicate that winning this battle is at least a long shot, within the realm of practical reality. That’s because we already have the basic raw materials to get the job done. Just as concrete, steel and heavy equipment are needed to build a skyscraper, the kiruv movement has three primary assets to rely on.

Our first asset is our product – the Torah itself, a spectacular kli chemda that explains all of life’s most complex and rewarding challenges in the greatest depth and accuracy. As Toras Chaim, it contains the instructions for making a marriage work, raising well-adjusted children, actualizing one’s potential, being a moral person and building a healthy society. Torah is the ultimate repository of wisdom, to which no other “wisdom” can possibly compare.

Our second asset is our human resources – the Jewish people. Every single Jew is the ultimate idealist, yearning to do the will of Hashem (tzmay’im la’asos ratzon konam). In the great social movements throughout history, Jews have consistently stepped forward as the innovators and activists, striving to fulfill the Jewish mission of a perfected world (tikkun olam).

Finally, of course, we have Hashem on our side. Banim atem lashem Elokaichem – we are children of the Almighty. He is our loving Father, Who wants nothing more than to bestow His blessings and to bring every Jew home.

So while this battle may be a long shot, we have all the materials needed to get the job done. We just need the right architects and engineers to devise a blueprint for putting it all together.

Level 3: There is Precedent for a Successful Mass Movement.

According to our mesorah, the purpose of all human history is to create an opportunity for the Jewish people to achieve their purpose: returning to the Land of Israel, bringing Moshiach, and becoming an ohr lagoyim – leading the entire world to an awareness of Hashem.

This means that every historical trend and transformation – whether the invention of the printing press, the industrial revolution, or the Internet – is Hashem’s way of providing us with the tools, the wherewithal, and even the likelihood of creating a social movement that will transform the world into a place where Hashem is known.

A movement is a critical mass of people who undertake to use whatever resources they have to achieve a common goal (as opposed to an organization, which is a group of “professionals” that provide top-down “services”). A movement is a grass-roots groundswell that feeds on itself and attracts the masses in a wave of popularity.

Creating a mass movement is the only way that victory is possible. Rav Noach zt”l, understood that if you are serious about changing 12 million Jews dispersed around the planet, the only strategy that has a chance of success is a movement, simply because it is completely unfeasible to train and fund the tens of thousands of rabbis and rebbetzins needed to reach that many people.

Today, creating a mass kiruv movement is quite plausible. Over the past few centuries, the world has changed in five fundamental ways, which makes it more likely than ever in human history for a social movement to succeed.¹

1. Urbanization. People used to be primarily farmers, living far apart from one another, completely preoccupied with milking their cows and tilling their land. With the popularity of cities, large numbers of people began coming into daily contact. A successful movement needs large numbers; urbanization creates such a potential.

2. Universal education. When people are ignorant, they are unaware of the options for improving their lot in life. When people are educated, awareness of options increases their expectations for a better life, and gives the masses more self-confidence to exert their desires and aspirations – despite the challenging “facts on the ground.”

3. Economic and political liberalism. In the feudal system, people were essentially slaves of a feudal lord, with neither the time nor freedom to improve the world. Worse were the oppressive monarchies and dictatorships. Today, this hierarchy has given way to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, where people can get together and strategize how to change the world. These changes dramatically leveled the playing field, and gave the common man the rights and abilities to advocate for social change without fear of reprisal from those in power that would make it too costly or dangerous to undertake.

4. Financial resources. Movements need money. People today are no longer overwhelmed with eking out an existence. Along with having more money to invest, they also have more time on their hands, to conceive and implement a transformational movement.

5. Social media. In the past few years, we’ve witnessed the advent of social media – the ultimate game changer that has turned the world into a global village, where you can speak to all of humanity at one time. Yet surely G-d did not create social media for the Arab spring or to popularize Justin Beiber. Rather it is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s historic prophecy: At the end of days, the Jewish people will be an ohr lagoyim, with all the nations coming to Yerushalayim to learn the word of Hashem.

For the vast majority of the Jewish people’s 3,300-year history, it was impossible to conceive of the tiny nation Israel teaching the entire world, and doing so simultaneously. We were scorned, mocked and persecuted – with the nations of the world trying to influence us, often by force, to change our values.

For millennia, the belief in our destiny to change the world was rooted in our belief that since the Torah promised it, we knew it would be true, despite the fact that practically speaking, it seemed impossible.

Today, however, through the Internet and social media, the Almighty is providing all the resources we need, and has put all the social elements in place for a mass movement – making it plausible to win this ultimate battle.

Furthermore, today we have the theories for how to implement such a plan. Social scientists have accurately defined, quantified and analyzed the key elements that create an effective social movement.

Malcolm Gladwell’s best-selling book, The Tipping Point, identified the key elements underlying social change. It starts with a core of influential people involved – what he calls a combination of “connectors, mavens and salesmen.” Then there’s the “stickiness factor” – how memorable, unique, practical and personal the idea is, and whether it can easily be packaged. Finally, there is the “power of context” – the environment must be properly suitable and sustainable to enable the message to be heard more clearly than in previous generations.

The formula for creating a movement is no longer a guessing game. If we replicate the formula, we can succeed.

Level 4: We are Already Succeeding.

In February 2013, the Project Inspire Convention drew a sold-out crowd of 1,100 participants. It was an unprecedented display of achdus (unity), learning, growth, and focus on ahavas Hashem and ahavas Yisrael. Whether yeshivahleit from Lakewood and Baltimore, or rabbanim from Flatbush and the Five Towns, or Chassidishe ladies from Williamsburg and Monsey – everywhere, people were eagerly discussing strategies for kiruv.

There has been a tremendous response to the “call to action” – over 7,000 people have attended a Project Inspire Kiruv Training Seminar, learning common kiruv techniques. Many hundreds have signed up for one-on-one learning with a non-frum partner. Other volunteers are running programs and implementing their own creative ideas.

Within the Aish orbit alone, other mass initiatives are reaching myriads of secular Jews: JWRP (Jewish Women’s Renaissance Project) is bringing women to Israel for chizuk missions, Hasbara Fellowships is training thousands of college students to fight against anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Aish’s new center across from the Western Wall is attracting thousands of secular Israelis, and Aish.com – with 400,000 unique email subscribers – is bringing Torah to the masses.

In terms of creating a movement, we can now see a light at the end of the tunnel.

This by no means diminishes the fine work of kiruv professionals who are reaching a segment of Jews in their city. Certainly every Jew we touch, every mitzvah performed, has its eternal reward. And we must take pleasure in our accomplishments.

But in terms of really winning this war, a top-down organizational model is doomed to failure. Gedolim including HaRav Aryeh Leib Shteinman, HaRav Matisyahu Solomon, and the Novominsker Rebbe have termed assimilation “a devastating spiritual holocaust” (shoah ruchanit norah).² If we don’t think in those terms, we’re not even going to have the goal of saving every Jew. We won’t be davening for it, or strategizing for it, or living as if our lives – and the lives of our assimilated brethren – so desperately depend on it.

Every human being is created b’tzelem Elokim (in G-d’s image), and has infinite potential to change the world. And yet, if we don’t believe we can succeed, then we’re telling the Almighty: “Don’t bring the blessing through me.” Only if we desire to be the kli (tool), to accept the responsibility of bishvili nivra ha’olam (“the world was created for me” – See Sanhedrin 4:5), will the Almighty assist us with His infinite power.

Getting the Job Done

There is no doubt this is an eis ratzon (propitious time) and that Hashem is moving the world for us, activating social structures and the frum community in a l’maaleh min hateva (supernatural) way.

Yes, there are grave demographic challenges. And it is important to assess things from a purely demographic perspective – in terms of pointing where we need to direct our efforts. But we must not predict the outcome based on sociology alone.

Many years ago, Rav Shach, zt”l, came to Aish HaTorah to be the sandek at the bris of Rav Noach’s youngest son, Yehudah (now the COO of Aish Jerusalem). Rav Shach was very moved by the atmosphere at Aish, and gave a devar Torah with the message that: If one man can kill 6 million Jews, then one man can save 6 million Jews.

That is our rallying cry moving forward. The key to victory – a mass movement – has already been defined and distilled. We have all the raw materials. We have the precedents to guide and inspire us. We just have to learn these lessons, apply them to Torah, and get the job done.

The entire purpose of existence is to be mekarev the Jewish people and humanity to Hashem. Of course, it is no guarantee that we will personally merit to succeed, because that depends upon the exercise of our free will. But even if we fail completely, just making the effort alone is worth everything.

The Jewish people will come back. It is our destiny. The only question is: What role will we each play in bringing that to fruition?

Rabbi Yitzchok Lowenbraun

From Conversations: Readers Respond to A Review of Kiruv

Are We Ready for the Challenge?

 

Kiruv professionals today are more sophisticated, better-trained and more polished than ever before. They need to be because they face more challenges than ever before. In the old days, back in my time, one could literally catch people “off the wall.” In the early ‘70s, thousands of Jewish seekers would journey to the Kotel, and people like Meir Tzvi Schuster and Jeff Seidel would round them up and deliver them to homes for Shabbos meals or to one of the various baai teshuvah yeshivos.

Kiruv has followed a similar path to the Texas Oil Boom and the Gusher Age. Back then, one just had to dig below the surface and oil came seeping to the top. Today, they need electronic noses called sniffers, or they use seismology to create shock waves that are reflected back to the surface in order to locate the oil. Then, it is necessary to dig an average of a mile below ground or five miles or more off the Gulf Coast in order to get the same amount of oil. By comparison, today’s young Jews do not live in our neighborhoods, do not belong to synagogues or Jewish organizations, do not read Jewish books or publications and do not identify as part of the Jewish community.

In addition, whereas in the old days, one could assume some basic knowledge on the part of most Jews, today, there is no such luck. Many in the past knew basic Hebrew, some prayers and were familiar with Shabbos and Yom Tov observances and customs. Recently, I had a Shabbos guest – a twenty-seven year old who had just returned from a three-week trip to Israel followed by a four-week summer learning program in the United States. I asked him if he ever heard of a shofar. One could see the puzzled look on his face. Shofar? What is a shofar? Then I asked him if he knew who Abraham was. He could not recall. Finally, I asked him if he knew the song, “Am Yisroel Chai.” To my surprise, he had not heard of that either. This, of course, is merely anecdotal, but it is indicative of the lack of familiarity with basics that were common knowledge in the past.

In this age of Liberal Arts Education, students are being taught that no one book is greater than any other, no one person is nobler than any other and “American Exceptionalism” is arrogant, if not racist. With that, try to explain that we are the Chosen People.

Accordingly, we need to readjust the starting point of what we teach. Although conceptually, we have a sophisticated audience who can deal with big ideas, they may know nothing of the essentials and fundamentals of our Jewish heritage and practices.

Finally, whereas in the past, we could have assumed that those identifying themselves as Jewish had a very good chance of being halachically Jewish, that no longer is a safe assumption.

So, we have to dig deeper and start really from the very beginning. We have to begin with “Why Be Jewish,” how Jews are different and what being Jewish means.  New programs and training are needed to meet this new reality.

Yet, with all these obstacles, we, in the Kiruv Movement, are enjoying much success. With heroic efforts, many succeed in changing lives and building communities. However, I would like to propose how we can improve on our past successes.

I would compare our current efforts to guerilla warfare. We are winning many battles, but not necessarily the war. In order to win a war, we must have trained soldiers and the tools of war – munitions, intelligence gathering, a propaganda machine, communication, leadership, and a clear strategic goal. Throughout today’s kiruv world, we have all the necessary components. What we lack is the coordination of all our efforts that is necessary to win the war for the future of the Jewish people in North America.

The Kiruv Movement has some of the most creative, courageous, and dedicated people in the entire frum community. We have only tapped the surface of what we can do. We need to harness our energies, coordinate our activities, and take full advantage of the tools of technology and communication to maximize our efforts.

Masters of Change

The only thing I know for certain about tomorrow is that it will be different from today. Growing up in the turbulent ‘60s, the kind of change we looked forward to as kids was what the new model cars would look like, since they changed every year. But, our world basically was a stable place.

We are now caught up in a “tsunami” of change. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a list of cataclysmic natural disasters, “Sandy” being the most recent, the “Arab Spring,” the collapse of “Too Big to Fail” financial institutions and the moral decay of our society have undermined the assumptions and beliefs that were the common denominators in our society. It is not enough to be flexible, we need to be the masters of change.

In order to position ourselves to embrace change, we must understand our “target audience” better. Who are the people most likely to be responsive to our efforts? Up to this point, we have defined our target audiences primarily by age – high school, college, young singles, professionals, etc, or by other generic factors. But every one of these groups is behaving differently today than they did even five or ten years ago. And who knows what they will be like ten years in the future.

I believe our movement must develop a clear identity across all ages that is designed to attract those people who are seeking or will respond to spirituality and a meaningful life style. Today, we are simply presenting ourselves as fellow Jews (who are obviously Orthodox and) who want to share the wonders of traditional Judaism. This has been authentic and powerful and it continues to be so, but its power is dwindling rapidly, as so many have observed.

In this age of E-everything, people crave personal, genuine experiences. Audiences are looking for interaction and useful information, not merely a clever headline or promotional gimmick. My friend, Marco Greenberg, President of Thunder 11 — a boutique marketing and communications firm — tells me that in the non-Jewish corporate world there is a saying that “Everyone needs a rabbi.” We are perceived as having wisdom and authenticity.

The rage in the marketing world right now is “Stick Marketing.” Stick Marketing helps you tell your story in way that captures the imagination and helps create long–term relationships. We need to create an identity that sticks, an identity of wisdom and authenticity.

Ideally, we should pick specific areas by which we can become identified or with which we can be effectively branded. For example, we can seek to become identified as relationship experts. In this age of loneliness, where we have hundreds if not thousands of social media friends but not one true relationship, where the divorce rate is well over 60%, we can be The Rabbi that people are looking for.

Reaching Today’s Jews

Secular Jews are no longer found in any of the traditional places, certainly not in my neighborhood or in other frum enclaves. We cannot find them, so we need them to find us. People live on the Internet. They shop there, their social life is there, they check the news and the weather, get directions, and seek all their needs on the Internet.

We need to be sought out on the Internet. It is there that we need to have a presence and an identity.

It is imperative that our teaching tools are engaging, entertaining, and sophisticated. The technology has to be cutting-edge in order to win the attention and make an impact. A few examples of exciting new educational tools are: Rabbi Dan Roth of Torah Live, Rabbi Aryeh Lightstone of Aleph-Beta Academy, and Project Sinai.

Some Additional Points about Kiruv

Research and Measures of Success

Over the past thirty years, the world of kiruv has grown from a disjointed constellation of grass-roots operations to an international enterprise spanning five continents. However, our approach to outreach remains antiquated in that it is largely based on hunches and intuition. Methods of social science research can be utilized to (1) inform operational definitions of kiruv outcomes, (2) examine predictors of outreach success, (3) systematically test hypotheses, and (4) perhaps most importantly – design and evaluate new methods of education.

šSecond Stage

Jewish literacy is the key to successful integration into the Torah community. We have a responsibility to give the tools necessary for a lifetime of independent textual learning. Many of our students may spend a few years, at best, in a yeshiva, but most are not so privileged. Can we stand by and watch as our student’s children easily surpass them by the time they reach fifth grade? The hallmark of a Torah Jew is continuity in learning as well as observance. We have to empower the newly observant to achieve these goals.

Programs such as Professional’s Beis Medrash created by Rabbis Dani and Gabi Brett of London and Johannesburg and Fundamentals of Talmud created by Rabbi Ayson Englander are remarkable programs that teach the fundamentals of how to learn a blatt gemara. These programs have achieved extraordinary success in allowing neophytes to learn how to make a laining on a blatt gemara in a relatively short amount of time.

Our attachment to and achriyus for the people that we introduce to Yiddishkeit is a life-long commitment on our part. Yet, we have to allow our students to grow beyond what we have to offer them and encourage them to seek opportunities of further growth. Our work is not finished until we successfully hand them off to someone else who is able and willing to serve as their mentor and aid them in their further search for spiritual growth.

Redefining “Baal Teshuva”

In an ideal world, we would cease and desist from using labels that relegate the “baal teshuva” to a secondary status. It never ceases to amaze me that no one ever graduates from the status of a baal teshuva. At the funeral of my neighbor who was frum for seventy-five years, they still mentioned that she was baalas teshuva. Someone could be learning in kollel for ten or fifteen years, and their children are rejected from schools in Eretz Yisroel because they are children of baalei teshuva.

We, in the frum community, enjoy living in our comfort zone. We daven, learn every day, keep Shabbos, are mehadrin in our kashrus. We fall into a pattern and routine. Then, along comes a “baal teshuva” who makes us feel uncomfortable. Their enthusiasm, their striving for spirituality and extraordinary growth in learning and keeping mitzvos challenges our complacency and the status quo.

HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l, changed my way of thinking forever in a few short words. He once asked me what I do, and I answered that I work with baalei teshuva. His rejoinder, I felt, shot me between the eyes. His response was uncharacteristically stern. He said, “Mir zennen alla baalei t’shuva, oib nisht, darf men zein! – We are all baalei teshuva, and if not, we should be!”

There is a difference between “doing” teshuva and “being” a baal teshuva. We need to do teshuva every day. On Yom Kippur, we go through a long list of “al chaits.” Being a baal teshuva, as the Rambam says in Hilchos Teshuva, is a life changing event. As the Rambam says, “You change your name, meaning, I am another person and not the one who did these actions.”

I believe that what Rav Shlomo Zalman was saying was that being a baal teshuva means being a person on a path of spiritual growth. Does the quest of spiritual growth end when one because part of the “frum” community? Unfortunately, the answer to this is “yes” more often than “no.” We should all be baal teshuva, in the sense that we need to be on a lifelong path of spiritual growth. Shouldn’t those who have always been frum also be on a lifelong path of spiritual growth?

I would like to encourage us to start changing the nomenclature, shifting away from BT’s and FFB’s as primary distinctions. The connotation of “FFB” is someone who is superior and who has arrived already or whose life work is finished. We are all “works in progress.”

I would believe that it is not the number of times that Rav Elyashiv, zt”l, and Reb Moshe Feinstein, zt”l, learned Shas that made them gedolei hador. It was the life-long quest and dedication to spiritual growth through Torah that set them apart. It was these qualities, I believe, to which Rav Shlomo Zalman was alluding.

šServing the Frum Community

This leads me to my final point. It is well recognized that there is a crisis of spirit in the frum community. Since the Second World War, we have witnessed the rebirth of Torah Judaism, which was nothing short of miraculous. There are, perhaps, more Jews learning Torah today than we have seen since the churban habayis (destruction of the Temple). The estimates are well over 500,000 Orthodox Jews in North America and growing, bli ayin harah.

There is a phenomenon, however, that is called “being culturally frum,” i.e., maintaining a frum lifestyle but with a profound lack of inspiration or understanding of why they are doing mitzvos. There is now a large segment of adults as well as teen-agers within our community who fall squarely into this category (aside from those we think of as “at risk”).

We in the kiruv movement are uniquely suited to provide what is needed today within the frum community. We have cultivated and perfected the vernacular of how to make a connection to Torah that inspires and edifies. If we can connect those who do not believe in HaKodesh Boruch Hu, who do not believe in the divinity of Torah, and who have no tradition, then surely, we can connect those who have all the above.

Thus, we in the kiruv movement are positioned to rise to the challenge of this mission of our generation—to provide what is needed for our frum community, namely, inspiration and connection to HaKodesh Boruch Hu. We have the know-how.

Klal Yisroel needs us. Are we ready for the challenge?

Ari Werth

From Conversations: Readers Respond to A Review of Kiruv

Kiruv Revolution: A 21^st Century Approach to Outreach

 

Are 21^st century trends outpacing kiruv strategies?

The Kiruv Movement that began over forty years ago has enabled tens of thousands of Jews to become observant, and has helped hundreds of thousands get closer to Judaism in other ways.  A consensus exists, however, that kiruv’s full potential has yet to be realized. The debate is about how. It’s an urgent question because US Jews are increasingly becoming unaffiliated spiritually and even communally. This Crisis of Connection needs creative solutions.

How can kiruv break through the glass ceiling?  Given the scale of the mission and limited resources, it will take more than incremental program improvements.

We need a kiruv revolution, with bold, national initiatives for reaching out, teaching and working together.

Jewish Idea Lab is generating strategies and taking action to make this happen.  Three national program models are presented in this article.  They are designed to benefit all kiruv organizations, and many of the principles can be adapted to local efforts.    Several key questions will be addressed:

• What level of resources should be devoted to kiruv?
• How do the changing values of the current generation impact the current kiruv model?  How can we make initial learning more relevant to them?
• How can we use limited resources to conduct outreach on a mass level?
• How can we reverse a rising tide of negative perceptions about Torah life?

Challenge of Relevancy

Problem:  Shifting Attitudes

The common pedagogical approach in kiruv begins with providing proofs of G-d and Torah. This approach is less and less effective, according to many reports from the frontline.  Attitudes have shifted.  Students are not intrigued by a search for “truth.”  This is why core shiurim that were once very effective are having less and less success motivating participants into action.

Behavior Change Model. What drives an unaffiliated Jew to take an action towards Torah, and ultimately to become observant?  The “old model” of behavior theory held that information-based attitudinal change was the primary precursor to behavior change.  That assumption is reflected in the prevailing kiruv educational methodology which focuses on proofs of Torah and G-d as the critical first step to further action.  However, according to the Behavioural Dynamics Institute in London, many studies have shown that attitudinal change is not the most effective way to change behavior.[2]  We see this in the field. Logic and facts are less and less persuasive to students at the initial stage of Torah learning.

In place of attitudinal change, experts devised new models that focus on the circumstances for directing behavior, i.e. identifying the strongest motivations driving a person or demographic group.[3] Actual product attributes, therefore, are less determinative of outcome than previously assumed.  We see this assumption clearly applied in automobile ads that often evoke emotion and aspirational values instead of details about the engine, etc.

Universal Need.  That brings us to the question:  What’s the most universal motivation today among people of all backgrounds?  Personal growth. Each person has a motivated need that falls into this category.  How can I deal with all of life’s problems?  How will I marry the right person? How can I control my anger?  How can I be happy?  How can I excel at work?

The nature of secular living today is causing more emotional distress than ever before.  Americans are more stressed today than three decades ago, the first-ever historical analysis of stress over time has found.  Self-reported stress levels have increased 10-30% in the last three decades.

Demand.  Various data[4]  show the strong demand for self-help products and services:

• Self-improvement was a $10 billion industry in the US in 2012, expected to grow 6% per year.
• Self improvement books accounted for an estimated $549 million and self-improvement audiobooks were 17% of all audiobook sales ($445 million).
• The top ten motivational speakers, plus the operations of Franklin Covey Co., had estimated sales of $350 million.
• Approximately 14,000 life coaches provided an estimated $707 million in services.
• The nation’s leading self-development seminar attracted 1.2 million participants since it started.  Frum Jews continue to sign-up.
• The Secret, a personal growth book and DVD, was a national sensation and generated a $300 million in sales by its peak in 2009.
• The Purpose Driven Life, a personal growth book based on Christian biblical verses, was a NY Times bestseller garnering $32 million in sales.

Millennials

Changing Values.  Kiruv’s primary demographic is the Millennial generation, those born between 1982-2000.   They are also known as Generation Y, but some experts say the most fitting label is the Me Generation.  Their values make them less likely to connect to proofs of Torah and traditional learning[5]:

• Millennials are more focused on “money, fame, and image” goals and less concerned about  “self-acceptance, affiliation, and community” goals than Generation X (born 1962-1981) and Baby Boomers (born 1946-1961) were at the same ages.
• Freshman students who said being wealthy was very important to them increased from 45% for Baby Boomers to 70% for Gen X and 75% for Millennials.
• The importance of “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” plummeted from 73% for Boomers to 45% for Millennials.

Stress.  Research also confirms that Millennials are in need of personal growth solutions.  They are more stressed than any other current living generation, according to a new survey conducted by the American Psychological Association and Harris Interactive.

• A healthy stress level is 3.6 out of 10.  Millennials reported a stress level of 5.4. (in comparison, the national stress level declined to 4.9.)
• Millennials reported that work (76 percent), money (73 percent) and relationships (59 percent) stressed them out most.

Solution:  Personal Growth System

Invert the Model.  Given various societal trends, it is clear that the kiruv pedagogical model needs fresh innovation for early-stage learning.  The most common current approach focuses on proofs, and then offers some middos development learning at the intermediate level.  Instead, Torah-based personal growth should be taught first to establish personal relevancy for learning  (in addition, teaching thematically will be more effective for more people today than reading inside the text).

Torah is designed to be personal growth-oriented. Rav Noach Weinberg, zt”l, was a pioneer in the Toras Chaim (instructions for living) approach.  The Five Levels of Pleasure and 48 Ways were successful classes, but much more is needed to reach today’s generation.  A complete personal growth system is needed that can facilitate measurable transformation.

Frontline Seminar.  The game-changer that appears to be called for is creating a Jewish personal development seminar for frontline kiruv.  Nothing like that currently exists.  An online personal growth documentary and eBook would supplement the seminar, and also help market the seminar across media platforms.

The seminar experience would be most effective as an interactive, intensive, transformative experience during a three-day shabbaton.  A team of highly trained, dynamic seminar leaders would travel to Jewish communities around the nation to lead the seminar. Cutting edge teaching techniques will be integrated with meta-analysis of Torah-based personal growth sources, from the ancient to contemporary.  The curriculum would be thematically organized and not text-based.

Judaism would be reframed as relevant, empowering, and meaningful. Participants will connect to Jewish Core Values, such as Respect, Gratitude, Forgiveness, Generosity, Kindness, Interpersonal Peace, Responsibility, Service, Modesty, Family Life, Learning, Joy, Love.  The ultimate goal is to help the participant achieve transformational personal growth based on core Jewish values.   Another goal is to help the participant connect to his or her neshama and make better choices using that spiritual understanding.

Once the participant recognizes the personal growth benefits of Judaism, more traditional learning would be offered, perhaps through referral to existing kiruv organizations.  Advanced seminars on specific topics can also be offered.

According to the indicators, personal growth-oriented Torah is the most promising path for success.  A huge demand and need for this also exists within the frum world, and this frontline kiruv seminar model can be adapted for frum participants.  Indeed, the future trend may be the transformation of kiruv centers into personal growth centers offering various seminars for Jews of all backgrounds.

Challenge of Scale

Problem:  Limited Resources

Did you ever wonder how much would it really cost to be mekarev every American Jew?  Using traditional kiruv, my rough guestimate would be  that about $4.5 billion would be needed annually for staff and programs (and that does not even include the cholent budget).  This illustrates the real point:  traditional kiruv has inherent limits to its reach.

The kiruv army needs reinforcements but can’t afford human ones.

We need what is known in the military as a force multiplier, Defined as “a capability that… significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of successful mission accomplishment.”[6]

Hashem has given us a way to reach many more Jews than ever before: digital technology.  Its full power for Torah is waiting to be harnessed.

Many options exist for learning online, yet there is something missing.  Two things, actually.

The kiruv digital relationship can be enhanced. Aish.com, Chabad’s websites, and several other websites attract sizable audiences.  However, not one kiruv organization is integrating all platforms in the optimal way: smartphone and tablet apps, website, iTunes, YouTube, ebooks, social media, and online keyword ads.

Solution:  Virtual Torah World

A virtual Torah world website and app are needed to maximize the digital relationship with the kiruv audience.  The supersite would be able to meet a full range of observant needs.   The purpose would be to:

• Supplement in-person learning by providing 24/6 access to online learning by the person’s rebbe and others.  Digital learning is not meant to substitute for in-person learning unless the person has no in-person access.
• Attract new participants who were unlikely to visit the kiruv center.
• Maintain relationship with existing participants through weekly parsha videos/audios, etc.
• Provide an online alternative to compete with secular entertainment.
• Generate new revenue by providing new opportunities for sponsorships and ads, and provide Torah learning to as many people as possible (and at no extra cost)

The website hub would feature: Channels, Cross-Platforming, Classes, Community, and Commerce.

Channels.  An online multimedia Torah network would be a key component of the digital relationship. The network would feature original and aggregated content on multiple channels.  The channels would be based on topic (such as Jewish History or Israel), lifestyle interest (such as Kosher Cooking or Jewish Music) or affinity group (such as Kids or Women).   The entire digital experience would be customizable according to interest area and/or age group.

In Israel, the Hidabroot TV Channel is a very popular and effective tool for kiruv.  The similar type of channel could be created in English and put online and possibly on satellite TV in the US.

Production Fund.  Jewish Americans are still waiting for their imagination to be captured by amazing and inspiring online content.  The online video and audio programs from observant sources are good, but not great.  In comparison, other religions are producing multimedia content wither higher production values and even more creativity.  I understand they have a bigger audience and more funding sources, but I believe we can do much more even with current resources.  A non-profit production fund is needed to spark a wave of quality online video programs and documentaries for Jewish audiences.

Cross-Platforming.  An OmniMedia Strategy involves stretching video/audio channel content across as many digital and broadcast platforms as possible.  YouTube and iTunes are the most important online content distribution platforms. Two pilot projects confirmed their ability to reach learning audiences.

YouTube Channel.  YouTube is the number one online video platform for the world, yet most kiruv organizations are not utilizing it as a teaching or community-building platform.  A keyword search for Torah-related videos will yield many inappropriate results from sources to be avoided.  In August 2010, I created the YouTube Torah Channel (www.youtube.com/TorahChannel) to solve this problem for less than observant Jewish viewers who were online anyway.  I chose the best Torah videos from other content creators –with over 1,000 videos currently on the site – and placed them into 65 topical playlists. In addition, we produced 70 videos of rabbis presenting brief ideas.

The impact was beyond expectations.  An estimated 1.5 million minutes of original and third party content were accessed since launch. The original videos, including one that went viral, attracted over 350,000 views.  By the typical YouTube metrics – a cute cat video easily gets 1 million views – it doesn’t sound like a lot.  But use kiruv metrics.  Imagine filling eight Yankee stadiums several times with audiences for shiurim. That’s what was accomplished – and at almost no cost.  In fact, more people viewed TorahChannel than visited any kiruv center in the world. Obviously, in-person kiruv is preferable, but many Jews cannot or will not come in person. This is a new starting point.

iTunes Podcasting.  iTunes is the number one way people get audio content in the world.  Despite its popularity, iTunes Podcasting remains a vastly underutilized learning platform in the kiruv world.  Only a handful of kiruv rabbis have podcast channels.

I experimented with integrating iTunes with a real kiruv center.  As chairman of the Aish Center advisory board in Manhattan, I offered to make it the first kiruv branch to have an iTunes podcast channel.

After the podcast was launched, something happened that caused the mekarvim to embrace digital kiruv as a tool.  Rather quickly, the shiurim podcasts attracted many more listeners than anyone expected.  By way of comparison, approximately 120 people per month attended shiurim.  Last month, those very same shiurim were downloaded 3,000 times on iTunes – a 25 fold increase in audience reach. Since the launch 18 months ago, shiurim were downloaded 25,000 times, a significant metric for a local kiruv podcast without any marketing.  A huge iTunes audience was waiting to be engaged.

Classes.  A sizable audience exists for online video learning.  For example, Rabbi Avraham Goldhar’s Crash Course videos about Judaism have attracted 185,000 views over two years.  Current Torah learning websites generally don’t offer a customized system of progressive customizable learning, like a Torah version of the highly popular KahnAcademy.org.  Rabbi David Forhman (Aleph Beta Academy) and others are developing this type of learning system.  An excellent way to motivate unaffiliated Jewish students is to get certified to issue college credits through online courses about Judaism and other subjects, as is done by NaalehCollege.com.

Community. In addition to the site’s own social media platforms, social connection could be achieved by facilitating real world group activity and learning.  A growing Jewish social network already exists –Shabbat.com – and would be an ideal partner.  Over 35,000 members have been invited to 285,000 meals on the site.  Now the site is expanding into filtered shidduchim and professional networking.

Challenge of Perception

Problem:  Image Erosion

Torah Judaism is increasingly viewed unfairly in negative ways. In marketing, this is called a branding problem. There is a major disconnect that exists between reality and perception, likely due to several factors:

• Continued Growth of Political Correctness
• News Coverage of Jews Accused of Crime
• Growth of the Anti-Torah Movement
• Increased Cultural Divergence Regarding Values & Conduct
• Over-Focus on Victimization  (Holocaust, anti-Semitism)
• Misconceptions

Solution: National Marketing Initiative

The image problem can be corrected considerably with an unprecedented response: a national Joy of Judaism branding campaign and marketing fund.

Rebranding Judaism may sound odd, but it is a necessary strategy for reaching more Jews.    Other religions and atheist groups are increasingly using creative, high profile ad campaigns to enhance their image and recruit.  We are not seeking converts, as they do, but we are seeking to attract lost Jewish souls.  Some notable examples:

• The Mormon Church hired two major national ad agencies to evaluate public perception. Focus groups and surveys showed the public had a largely negative view of Mormons.  A multimillion-dollar television, billboard, and Internet “branding” campaign was deployed in 21 media markets during 2010-11. The I’m a Mormon campaign profiled Mormons who defy stereotyping, including a surfing champion, a fashion designer, and a Haitian-American female mayor.
• Atheist groups are placing attention-getting ads on billboards (including in Times Square), buses, subways and national TV. [7] A new website and multimedia ad campaign was just launched targeting children called Kids without God. The tagline is “I’m Getting a Little Old for Imaginary Friends.”
• The leading messianic Jewish group spent $1.4 million for ads in NYC subways, buses, newspapers, magazines, and radio.
• This month, a Muslim group released a TV commercial portraying a Muslim man as an everyday American.  Another Muslim group just launched a US campaign to rebrand the word “jihad” to mean “personal struggle.”  Ads are already on buses and trains in Chicago and other cities.  Social media is being used to promote the website.
• The Church of Scientology spent millions this month to air a 60-second slick ad during the Super Bowl.  The video also aired 16 times an hour on a Times Square digital billboard visible to 500,000 people a day.

The Joy of Judaism campaign would use sophisticated, intriguing conceptual themes across the spectrum of platforms: print advertising, social media, online keyword ads, outdoor ads and press coverage. To reach more unaffiliated Jews than ever before, ads will be placed in places, publications and websites that they frequent.  Many secular Jews are still not being reached at all, as outreach typically stays within Jewish cultural boundaries, such as Hillel and AEPi on campus.  Many secular Jews operate outside such marketing boundaries.

Possible Themes.  The many “Jewels of Judaism” must be revealed in a new way to inspire less than observant Jews – as well as to reinvigorate our own communities.  The video and print ads would reflect Core Jewish Values in a compelling way:  Family life. Spiritual connection. Love. Shabbos. Learning. Personal growth. Ethics. Life Purpose. Mysticism.  The Holidays. Jewish Diversity.

The ads would show the most moving, inspiring, and even funny scenes of observant Jewish life. Some ideas:  different types of Jews davening next to each other at the Kotel.  A family around the Shabbos table.  Hatzolah volunteer saving a life. Men dancing in a circle at a chasuna.  A father and son lighting menorahs. A Purim party.

Judaism would be reframed as a personal “hero” instead of a global “victim.”  Torah saves spiritual lives.  It transforms a life of chaos and searching into a life of meaning and fulfillment.  We would show how soulful connection and an understanding of the spiritual reality instill true confidence, as well as freedom from worry, fear and isolation.

Perhaps we need a Jewish Communications Agency. A national media director would oversee national marketing, advertising and public relations.  Experts from those fields would be asked to serve on creative task forces.  A rapid response team would quickly deal with biased news coverage of the observant world.  A social media specialist would handle unfair attacks online, including unfairly negative search engine results. Misconceptions about observant Judaism would be debunked on a special website.

 

Kiruv Revolution

The Kiruv Revolution is not just theory. It has already begun.  At the recent Association of Jewish Outreach Programs (AJOP) annual conference, I issued a call to action during my presentation.  AJOP and a number of leading mekarvim are helping with the first step for kiruv revolution – building consensus for concepts and creating inter-organizational cooperation.  By working together, a world of opportunity becomes possible.