A Guest Post by E. Fink
Original post: Finkorswim.com
Over Yom Tov I read some great books and articles. I hope to share some of them with you over the next couple of weeks.
Perhaps the most compelling book I read was hot off the presses: Strictly Kosher Reading by Yoel Finkelman. Briefly, the purpose of the book is to present an academic study of the fiction and non-fiction reading that is published within the charedi community. Analyzing books for children, adults, women, religions and secular audiences gives the scholar access to the framework of charedi Judaism.
The book posits that charedi Judaism is a conscious effort to recreate a Utopian version of Eastern European orthodox Judaism. The book disputes that this society ever truly existed in the way it is imagined and recreated today and calls this version of history unhistorical and a myth. But the point of the book is not to prove or disprove whether or not this is a myth or fact. Rather, the book tries to prove that there a Herculean effort to establish that myth/fact as the reality in 21st century America.
The book only analyzes the charedi community and uses a specific (and very accurate) definition of the charedi community. It is a non-chasidic, “yeshivish” community that does not completely shun the outside world. Charedi communities are not absolutely insular. They teach secular subjects, many obtain secular jobs, English is the primary language, yet there is a conscious effort to reject much of secular culture. Whether it is culture, science, diversity or other contemporary values in secular society, these are all rejected.
This creates a very interesting phenomena.
The charedi community is situated inside the secular, “outside” world but ultimately rejects much of it. This balance is what creates much of the tension in the book and in the charedi world. Ideas are only acceptable if they are found in Torah, secular recreation is frowned upon, yet, and this is the key, ideas not found in Torah have crept into charedi Judaism, secular recreation (fiction books, sports, movies etc) have found their way into the charedi community.
Strictly Kosher Reading analyzes this phenomena and does so excellently.
I read a lot as a teenager and read a lot of the books that Finkelman uses in his analysis. At times, I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with his findings. Particularly with regard to books that claim to teach the “Torah approach to X (parenting, depression, divorce, whatever)” but really are just regurgitated ideas from popular science, psychology, pop-parenting, etc.) that are repackaged with Torah lingo and jargon is this most egregious. Further, trying to codify any specific parenting, family, psychology advice as Torah advice is at best disingenuous because of the myriad sources that disagree, contradict or talk above one another. Also, it is clear that many of these sources are products of their times and the vicissitudes of the environments in which they were written.
I recommend Strictly Kosher Reading for any curious reader.
I do have two criticisms of the book. One in style and one is substance.
The style critique is that the book seems to jump around a lot. There are times where I was reading and wondering how what I was reading was related to the paragraph I had just completed. Things seem disjointed at times and there is no clear order to the book. Also, similarly, the author is constantly telling the reader “what he is going to do” and when he is going to do it. It was a bit distracting. I do not revoke my recommendation based on this I just wish it were easier to read.
The substance critique is a bit more serious.
Throughout the book various rabbis, gedolim and Roshei Yeshiva are mentioned. Mostly because there are books written about them and they provide more data to support the book’s arguments. Three specific gedolim are mentioned and I feel strongly that mentioning them in the context of this book is disingenuous.
The three are: R’ Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, R’ Shimon Schwab and R’ Yaakov Weinberg. I admit, I have a bias towards these three great men. They are three of my personal heroes.
Finkelman tries to prove that the American yeshiva is a facsimile of an Eastern European yeshiva that never really existed. One of his “proofs” is a famous idea from R’ Shraga Feivel who is credited with inventing the modern day charedi yeshiva / day school. In his view, R’ Shraga Feivel was saying that the goal of the American yeshiva is to follow the model of the Eastern European yeshiva. The thing is that R’ Shraga Feivel’s model was specifically a drastic departure from the prior Eastern European model. The same quote Finkelman uses to prove his point is actually a disproof! R’ Shraga Feivel’s theory of education is quoted as follows:
“Reb Shraga Feivel sel-consciously set out to create a new type of bochur in the melting pot of America, one who would… draw from all that was best of the many strands of European Jewish life. America… would produce a new Jew combining within himself the best elements of Europe: the Lithuanian intellectual acuity, the bren (warmth) of Chasidus, the organizational abilities of German Jewry, and the appreciation of hiddur mitzvah (beautification of the mitzvah) of the Hungarians. Above all, the American Jew would be characterized by his temimus (sincerity), a trait that was much more a part of American culture than of Europe.”
My grandfather was a talmid muvhak of R’ Shraga Feivel and is mentioned several times in the book. He is also credited with facilitating the book’s publication in the acknowledgments. I probably heard this idea from my grandfather several dozen times. This was R’ Shraga Feivel. It was his essence and the essence of the yeshiva system he envisioned for America.
The entire point R’ Shraga Feivel was making was that America is different and requires a more well rounded yeshiva student. He is quoted in the same Artscroll book as saying that yeshivas in America needed to produce “soldiers” and not “generals”. This in itself was a huge modification to the yeshiva system as it was in Eastern Europe where the goal was to produce Torah giants and not be as concerned with the general public.
Therefore, I find it disingenuous to use R’ Shraga Feivel’s words to make the point that American yeshivos recreated the Eastern European version when he was in fact saying and doing the very opposite.
The book uses a famous quote from R’ Shimon Schwab to support the idea that charedi Judaism specifically creates a sanitized version of history that supports the charedi view of history. His words:
What ethical purpose is served by preserving a realistic historic picture? Nothing but the satisfaction of curiosity. We should tell ourselves and our children the good memories of the good people, their unshakable faith, their staunch defense of tradition, their life of truth, their impeccable honesty, their boundless charity and their great reverence for Torah and Torah sages. What is gained by pointing out their inadequacies and their contradictions? We want to be inspired by their example and learn from their experience…
On the surface this quote plays right into Finkelman’s thesis. I believe that R’ Schwab meant something slightly different. He meant that the focus of studying history for frum Jews is not for historical accuracy. It is for inspiration. It is not a science. It is literature. Meanwhile he clearly acknowledges that the charedi view of the past is skewed. But he says that’s okay as long as one realizes the difference between inspirational myth and history. I don’t believe R’ Schwab meant that we should purposefully ignore or rewrite history. Rather that if the goal is to inspire (and usually it is in charedi schools) then it should not be taught as history or claim accuracy, rather it is inspiration.
R’ Yaakov Weinberg is quoted in the book as well. The context is not important at all. What is important is that if anyone with gadol credentials would agree with Yoel Finkelman it would be R’ Yaakov Weinberg. His learning was classically rationalist in many respects, his yeshiva approved of college and secular education and his students are more acculturated than the students of almost any other yeshiva to the right of Yeshiva University. He was maligned for his “left wing” views and fought for moderation in the charedi community. It seems silly to toss R’ Weinberg’s name into a conversation about charedi censorship and rewriting of history and casting him as part of the process. He certainly did more to slow that process down than any other ostensibly charedi gadol.
My father is a talmid muvhak of R’ Weinberg. I met R’ Weinberg several times myself. I grew up hearing his insights and opinions on a daily basis. That he could be lumped in with the most narrow version of charedi Judaism is absurd by all accounts.
Similarly, I think R’ Shraga Feivel and R’ Schwab would more likely be allies of Yoel Finkelman on many matters in this book. If he felt it was necessary to include them in his study and place them on the side of the fence that is criticized in Strictly Kosher Reading I wish there would have at least a footnote at the mention of the names of these three gedolim indicating their general stance as being more sympathetic to the author’s than the current charedi establishment.
There is much more wonderful, insightful, fascinating and constructive material in the book. I strongly recommend it for anyone who wants an academic lens into charedi culture. Whether you know nothing about the charedi community, are in the charedi world now, were in the charedi world at one time, or plan on being in the charedi world sometime in the future, Strictly Kosher Reading is a great read.
Click any of the links in the post to purchase from Amazon: Strictly Kosher Reading. (Softcover version here: Strictly Kosher Reading)
Or find what others are saying on 4torah.com
I agree that the American yeshivas right after the war were in fact accurate and authentic places of learning that had the real spirit of learning and keeping Torah. But at the same time i saw the insidious frum books that were being published in the Orthodox world whose authors could not have had and IQ above room temperature. and no one in the yeshiva world protested . All people that were serious about Torah could do was to sit and learn and ignore the distortions of history. I feel that a lot of this was a tradition from Europe. European roshei yeshivot in general did not want to express an opinion in subjects the were not expert in. But this ostrich approach allowed the orthodox world that was centered on yeshiva to decay into mental and moral corruption.
I am curious about this. Can someone tell me an example of this whitewashing of history, which I believe in?
Well, for starters you can order the book.
But here is one egregious example:
A few years back, Lakewood Yeshiva sent a book to its mailing list about the Netziv. It was written by family members. In the book it said things like “the Netziv read the newspaper on Shabbos”. Eventually they figured out that this was offensive to they mailing list and they issued a recall on the book.
You can read more about it here: http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU2_Schachter.pdf
If that’s the worst example, I’m not impressed.
It is pretty clear in halacha that reading a newspaper on shabbos is a bit questionable. So the netziv did it. I don’t think anybody was doubting the veracity of the story. But why should we publicize that the neztiv was doing something not as good as we might want to strive to?
Besides, whether the netziv read newspapers is not really central to any of my beliefs about “the way it was.” Mostly, because “the way it was” is not central to any of my beliefs.
It’s not the worst example, it is one (egregious) example.
Whitewashing history is exactly what happened in this instance. They pretending something that happened did not happen. And how said it was central to your beliefs?
Like I said, buy the book.
I don’t buy books. But I’m requesting it from my library through an interlibrary loan.
I was kind of expecting an example of a large idea, but I guess I’ll read the book.
Ok, I have it on order from the library. Then I’ll come back and rant. Unless it happens to be accurate. Then I’ll come back and rant.
So either way you get a rant.
“On the surface this quote plays right into Finkelman’s thesis. I believe that R’ Schwab meant something slightly different. He meant that the focus of studying history for frum Jews is not for historical accuracy. It is for inspiration.”
You can only sustain this interpretation by taking that paragraph out of context. If you read the entire thing, I’d like to see if you still interpret him as you do. I mean, what part of “That means we have to do without a real history book. We can do without.” is unclear?
http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/essays/ravschwab.html
As for an example requested above, Finkelman supplies a very good one, quoting a book which claims that in Mir there was one Jew who was mechallel shabbos, while nearly everyone else was either connected with the yeshiva, or worked half a day and learned the other half. In fact in Mir there was an active Bund group, an active secular Yiddish circle, Zionists, etc. It wasn’t a mini-Lakewood with mud streets – it was a microcosm of the intellectual ferment and varying amounts of religiousity in interwar Lithuania. So that would be an example of misrepresenting history as it was in favor of history as some would have liked it to be.
S. – Why was the intellectual ferment so much greater in interwar Lita than in contemporary Lakewood? I understand that Lakewood is essentially a self-selecting enclave, but why should it, and other frum communities like it, be immune from the intellectual currents that were engulfing the orthodox/traditional world in pre-war Eastern Europe? I understand that our age is not enraptured by ‘isms’ in the way that previous generations were, that modernity has lost much of its novelty value, that our multicultural society engenders respect for sub-cultures and that the post-war urge to rebuild conquered all the intellectul doubts that post-war America (or wherever) could throw at it, but does this last forever? Will it be ideas that affect the change or basic economic pressures?
All the intellectual ferment stuff is a very interesting topic in its own right, but has nothing to do with the stuff discussed here. The topic was presenting a sanitized version of history that doesn’t correctly portray things as they were. Thus, when Mir was described as having been, in reality, basically the Lakewood of today (according to its idealized image) that is false, because Mir was – in reality – just like pretty much the entirety of the actual, historical interwar Lithuania.
But to address your topic, there is more intellectual ferment in Lakewood than meets the eye. But that people who want to be hipsters – let’s pretend that parallels Bundists – don’t choose to live in Lakewood is no surprise.
Nothing will last forever, that hardly needs stating.
Thanks. So any prognostications as to what gives, why and when?
I wouldn’t want to make any predictions (nor could I) but it seems to me that ideas and economics are pretty powerful. We shouldn’t forget that what we would consider poor doesn’t compare to the privation poor people used to deal with. I can’t imagine that hundreds of families – or more – would put up with such grinding poverty, by our standards, that they’d even be willing to endure summers with no air conditioning. And it’s hard to see how that is not going to be in the future without changes. As for ideas, bearing in mind that I never lived in Lakewood or a place like it, there is only one word which is necessary to mention: internet. Think of how revolutionary one simple fact is; last week Vos Is Neias posted that post-Chareidi article by Slifkin. Like I said, I never did live in Lakewood. But 15 years ago most people in the yeshiva world would have never had a realistic opportunity of reading an article like that – anywhere – let alone a change to have a freewheeling conversation about it. Throwing babies at the problem won’t make the economics or the ideas go away.