|
Saturday afternoon at the Stanton Street shul, Professor Daniel Boyarin drew a rather large crowd of men and women who came to hear his third-meal talk on the study of complimentary Jewish and Christian midrashic texts. Boyarin, whose Carnal Israel was a milestone in accessing authentic rabbinic attitudes on sexuality (they like it), is perhaps the most exciting and popular scholar of the first few centuries in the first millennium, especially when it comes to the relationship between the two newest religious forces on the planet at the time, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.
Sixty years old, bearded with a tiny, gold earring, Boyarin’s manner is sweet and calm. He was in town from Berkeley, CA to commemorate the passing of his father a year ago. His brother, Jonathan, a professor of Modern Jewish Studies at Kansas University, is a member of the Stanton Street shul, along with his wife. The two brothers invited the community to join them in commemorating their father in study and Kiddush (that’s schnapps and serious repast to you and me), the most anticipated part of which was Daniel’s talk.
It was fabulous. The short of it was that Professor Boyarin had discovered two parallel midrashim, one in the Talmudic tractate Avoda Zara, the other in the writing of a 4th Century Christian heretic. The Jewish version speaks of the redeemer’s arriving only after all the souls in God’s treasure trove of souls have had a chance to lead a corporeal life. The Christian version says about the same thing, except it identifies Adam’s body as the container into which God had blown all the souls of mankind.
Some 25 Lower East Siders sat riveted during the half hour talk which marked the beginning of communal study events for this up and coming shul. Next on the cerebral menu is Rabbi Saul Berman who will spend a Shabbat with the Stanton folks in two weeks.
Incidentally, earlier in the day, the Stanton Street shul celebrated another rare event on the Lower East Side, a ladies’ Torah reading, conducted separately from the men’s, which included aliyot (blessings over the Torah) for women. To paraphrase the title of one of Daniel Boyarin’s books: Radical Jews!
The Stanton Street Shul, 180 Stanton Street, 212.533.4122, stantonstreetshul.com
62 Comments:
I realize you guys have some sort of interesting in promoting that hippie shul endlessly, but any shul that hosts a man who describes Orthodox Judaism as "Rabbinic Judaism' is obviously half as kosher as pork.
Now if only your conservadox shul could actually get a minyan on as regular a basis as it keeps pushing the hype
The term Orthodox was first applied to traditional Judaism by the Reform Jews of 1830's Frankfurt, to brand them as the stale and unyielding element in the nation. If you wish to wear that as a badge of honor, you're welcome. Rabbinic Judaism is an accepted term both by academia and in discourse among religious Jewish scholars of the yeshiva world. It refers to the post-Temple Jewish culture, which was transformed from the sectarian politics of Judea before the Roman siege to something new, forged and inspired by Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai. Why that should be an offensive term to you I know not.
Name calling is not a very civilized way of communicating, but I'm sure being called a hippie shul is not nearly as bad as you might think.
As to my choices in promoting local shuls -- I've been tireless in posting the programs of many local shuls, as I would of local churches and mosques, should they send me their material. And I will gladly post personal notes on various services from all our neighbors.
Incidentally, the minyan at Stanton is now quite reliable, considering its distance from the concentrations of religious Jews on the LES. In a reality with so many shuls canceling their morning services on Shul Row, you should admire rather than cast stones at a bunch of Jews who wish to pray together.
Why you call my personal notes on my place of worship a hype is beyond me.
Name calling is just evidence that the remnant of Orthodox Jews still left on G-Street feel threatened by the Stanton Street Shul. Perhaps the lack of black hats undermines the legitimacy of the place?
FYI, Boyarin never claims he is Orthodox. While not a practicing rabbi, he holds ordination from JTS.
I'm not calling Stanton Street names, I'm calling it what it is. It was full of that kind of crowd under Rabbi Singer, but at least there was an Orthodox leadership at the top. Now it's quite obviously Conservadox at best, especially with a Conservative Rabbi speaking there.
"Rabbinic Judaism" falsely implies a discontinuity within Judaism, it's commonly used by Christians and others engaging in revisionist history and revisionist theology.
Maintaining the tradition of the Torah is indeed a badge of honor, call it what you will.
Meanwhile calling Stanton Street a "Hot New Shul" is a laughable bit of hype.
I'd like to also introduce you to the Hot New Moishe's Bakery and the Hot New MTJ and the Hot New Brooklyn Bridge.
If you're going to hype your shul, at least try and practice some integrity while doing it.
Why don't you join Stanton Street for a Shabbos and see for yourself what all the hype is about?
In my three years of running the Grand Street News I've, indeed, run articles about the hot Moishe's bakery and, certainly, about the hot MTJ (check out The Making of Bi-Lingual Excellence).
I am dedicated to the promotion of all the positive things in our neighborhood. In the coming GSN we're writing in glowing terms about the kiruv program at the Byalistoker synagogue.
As to the concrete argument re Rabbinic Judaism, I would make the following point:
If you examine the attitudes of the pharasites about the competing sect of the sadducees (that's Prushim and Tzdokim to you and me) as they're reflected especially in tractate Yuma; and if you examine the attitude of the same scholarly class regarding the uneducated Jews in Judea, it is clear in both cases that the pharasites are only concerned with getting by alongside the other Jews, but definitely do not trust their food, their religious practice. They definitely won't marry their daughters. And they don't spend much effort on helping them see the light.
After the year 70 everything changes and the same scholars become ecumenical in their broad acceptance of all the Jews into the tent. The old concerns die away and a new nationalism is born, under the leadership of the rabbis.
Boyarin's argument, which is one of the more exciting ideas I've read, suggests that the change has had as much to do with the rising of a Christian monotheistic competition as it has had to do with the "long night of galus" notion that undelined Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai's choices.
Boyarin's argument about the resurrection and not from the Torah point in perek chelek, which he associates with Paul, is amazingly elegant. The man is a brilliant scholar. If Rabbi Meir could learn Torah from a Yid riding a horse on Shabbos, we can learn Torah from Boyarin. Indeed, there were many balck hats in the crowd Shabbos, who drank in his teachings.
It was a great talk, I'm sorry you missed it(menachem). everyone who was there enjoyed and learnt something. As for your venom for Mr. Yanover, it seems displaced.The shul has undergone a rebirth. It is new again. Many new people are discovering it for the first time, and are connecting with our new rabbi and programming.
By the way i don't know of any hippie's that attend but they are welcome.
A person who teaches Torah with sincerity, should be commended not criticized, especially by someone who was not present.
FYI menachem we invite you to join us weekday mornings at 6:45 am for shachrit...you can be our 13th.
In other words old spoiled wine in new barrels.
Join a shul that serves as a forum for conservative Rabbis and attacks on Torah traditions? No thanks.
The correct analogy is not learning torah from a Jew who is mechalel Shabbos but from an apikores. Thus Elisha Ben Avuyah is the correct analogy. The issue of learning Torah from an apikores is a complicated one. The permissibility of attending a shul that hosts an apikores, is rather straightforward.
Just say no.
Menachem,
The Jew riding the horse teaching Torah to Rabbi Meir IS Elisha Ben Abuyah, so I think Yori's reference was dead-on.
The other commenters are correct-if you had been there you would have heard not a single attack on Torah tradition, not a single reference to Conservative Judaism, nothing but pure Talmud Torah. You say that "the permissibility of attending a shul that hosts an apikores is is rather straightforward"-perhaps you'd like to quote for us a) your source for that statement, and b) your qualifications for determining who is an apikores and who is not?
An apikorus denotes a evel of learning rthat few can achieve.I wish I could rise to that level of learning.
Menachem,
Can you give a real definition of "Conservadox"? Last i checked there is no "Conservadox Union", nor a "United Synagogue of Conservadox Judaism"-the term is usually used to refer to mixed-seating synagogues with an Orthodox trained rabbi (usually YU)-a situation that existed in many places throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. That's certainly not true of Stanton Street (mechitza and a YCT rabbi). Alternately, conservadox connotes a member of a Conservative synagogue who is shomer shabbat, kashrut, etc., (which most of their peers in Conservative synagogues are not) but attends a Conservative synagouge. So which of those are you referring to?
Conservadox is the term sometimes used to describe Jews whose beliefs and practices place them on the religious continuum somewhere between Conservative Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism. The term "Traditional" (not to be confused with the more generic term "traditional") is sometimes applied to roughly the same sector of the community. While there is no Conservadox denomination, the inter-movement Union for Traditional Judaism (UTJ) serves as an umbrella organization, although not all people who identify as Conservadox or Traditional are affiliated with the UTJ.
Wikipedia
Thanks Yori. Now someone want to explain how that has anything to do with Stanton Street?
"Thanks Yori. Now someone want to explain how that has anything to do with Stanton Street?"
Earlier in the comments, Menachem referred to the Stanton Street Shul as Conservadox. Yuri and the anonymous comment immediately prior explained what the term "conservadox" means.
As for the venom directed towards the shul by Menachem and others, it is hard to understand. Why does anyone care? No one is being forced to attend nor, from what I can tell, does the shul tell anyone else what they should do. If people like it and get something out of it, they will go, and if they don't, they won't. I can't imagine that anyone who would stay away from a shul because Menachem calls it Conservadox would consider attending it in the first place. I suppose Menachem might manage to attract some people who are looking for something conservadox to the Stanton Street shul, but they would likely end up being disappointed.
One last comment - someone said that Daniel Boyarin was ordained at JTS. I never knew he had smicha from anywhere and I don't think he tries to pass himself off as a Rabbi, orthodox, conservadox or otherwise (maybe its noted on his official bio or on a book blurb). I have met him a few times and presents himself as an academic and nothing more.
Menachem -
I normally do not post comments on blogs, but I am truly sad and embarrassed by your comments.
Part of what makes Stanton Street Shul beautiful and unique is the effort to make everyone welcome, and how we can all learn from one another - regardles of one's background or practices.
The lack of respect and lack of tolerance you show for a shul, a Rabbi and a community is insulting.
In spite of your comments, you should feel welcome to visit the shul, be it during the week or on Shabbat. I hope you can appreciate the beauty of watching Jews from different backgounds join together for the purpose of kiddush and avod Hashem
I was at the shalashuddis with Daniel Boyarin, and Yuri Yanover left out two minor things. First, Daniel Boyarin was not the only speaker. He was followed by someone from Chabad (I won't assume that his long beard makes him a Rabbi) who walks about an hour and half from Crown Heights every shabbos to speak at the shul. Second, the Lubavitcher had no problem participating in the discussion following Professor Boyarin. In fact, he dropped most of his planned discussion on the parsha to develop some of Boyarin's ideas a bit further. Specifically, he said that the Lubavitcher Rebbe used to make explicit reference to Adam Ha'rishon as the otsar for all of the created souls, indirectly disputing the novelty of this idea as having Christian origins (Boyarin noted, though, that the Christian heretic was criticized for his peers specifically for using Jewish aggadita as his sources). In discussing this concept, the Rebbe often focused on the specific question of where the soul of the Messiah fit in - was it in Adam or separate and if the former, where In Adam's guf? Was the soul of the Messiah at the head or the heart? Of course, in contrast to the Messiah, our generation's souls merited to be no higher than Adam's heel, as compared to the souls of prior generations that were in loftier places.
My, my if only Stanton could regularly summon the amount of people who show up to promote and rabidly defend it whenever it is criticized.
Let me reiterate
Stanton hosted a Conservative Rabbi to lecture on Torah. This is not permitted.
You're free to go on about the great spiritual benefits of his talks, you could do the same for a Buddhist Priest too, as is not uncommon among liberal congregations. That changes nothing except that such a synagogue is blatantly non-Orthodox.
I doubt very much that the Chabad speaker was aware that he was following a Conservative Rabbi as a speaker.
Now as for learning from Elisha Ben Avuyah, Hashem explicitly said that he would not accept Torah from Rav Meir because of that. That was only rescinded because in Rav Meir's defense he was wise enough to know what to discard. That's not a realistic defense for anyone today.
Call yourselves Conservadox, or the Phish Shul, or Reconversationalists or anything you like, but it's one more piece of evidence that Stanton post-Rabbi Singer is a non-Orthodox Shul and no Orthodox person may set foot inside it.
rabbi romm of bialystoker shul attended the installation of rabbi pollak in August. Apparently it's Orthodox enough for him.
Sorry to disappoint you, fella, but you can scream non-Orthodox until you're blue in the face and the shul will remain Shomer Shabbat l'halacha u'lema'aseh, kosher, masbir panim u'machnis orchim.
It's interesting to point out that while just about every person who conversed with you has been pleasant, friendly, and responded to your points, one by one, you did not have enough decency to actually respond to those. The rest of us converse in order to learn, you do so in order to win.
The last couple of points you were making seriously expose some of your shortcomings in understanding terminology and methodology. You didn't dare write more at length, so I must go by what I have.
You write: "Hashem explicitly said that he would not accept Torah from Rav Meir."
First, since the man was a Tanah, you should know that tanaim, as well as Eretz Israel amoraim are called Rebbi and not Rav.
Your point about Hashem saying things explicitly -- you should know that in discussion among scholarly people, a citation is proper, to enable others to look up your claim.
Still, you may know more than the myself, and so I ask you to support your note with a cite. All I have is the famous discourse on Acher and RM in Chagigah 15a,b and a dispute between the talmidim of Rebbi Yehuda and the late Rebbi Meir in Nazir 49b - 50a.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote (can't recall the source, sorry) a list of she'lo lishma reasons for learning Torah. At the top of the list is learning for intellectual curiosity. At the bottom is learning in order to fins anti-Semitic arguments. I consider your writing somewhere near that bottom point -- and I am honored to learn Torah from you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Menachem said...
"Call yourselves Conservadox, or the Phish Shul, or Reconversationalists or anything you like, but it's one more piece of evidence that Stanton post-Rabbi Singer is a non-Orthodox Shul and no Orthodox person may set foot inside it."
I think it is pretty clear, Menachem, that this is your main gripe. Rabbi Singer was unable to close the shul and sell the building. So long as the shul is around, in your twisted view, Rabbi Singer's efforts look misguided. But if you can blacken the shul's reputation, or better yet, have it close, then perhaps you can believe Rabbi Singer was right all along.
Menachem - you are not doing him any favors. Rabbi Singer's memory is far better served by focusing on the good that he did than by your fighting a Court battle ended long ago. You may think you are proving him right, but all you are doing is reminding people of what happened.
And I don't mean to unfairly pick on your writing, Menachem, but I have read all the comments here. The people defending the shul are hardly rabid. Their responses are generally polite and well reasoned. The only comments that could possibly be construed as "rabid" are yours. Moreover, all the labels you ascribe to the shul - the Phish Shul, conservadox, Reconversationalists -as evidence that the shul is non-orthodox are labels that you have invented for the shul, not labels the shul has adopted for itself. Perhaps you think the labels are clever or reveal your wit, but a label you make-up is hardly evidence of anything.
To Anonymous 1: Did Rabbi Romm do this knowing the shul would be hosting a Conservative Rabbi? Would he have done so had he known that would happen?
Using Rabbi Romm's attendance at a community event to give your shul a hechser is a no go.
Oh please, Menachem. From your perspective, Stanton Street lost its hechsher long before Professor Boyarin spoke there. If what you have said about it is true, then he wouldn't have shown up before this lecture either.
You can ask Rabbi Romm yourself. My guess is that he has more important things to worry about than trying to discredit a shul.
To Yossi: It's very nice that Stanton Street is still currently Shomer Shabbos and keeping Kosher. There is however more to an Orthodox Shul than that. There are Conservative shuls that would qualify too.
I am not learning Torah with you, I am pointing out that your shul's practices are in violation of Halacha. I'd ask who your current day Posek is that you depend on to have lectures from a Conservative Rabbi delivered in your shul, but we both know that side from perhaps Rabbi Weiss, you'll have no answer.
To Anonymous Sheni:
My objections to Stanton don't involve Rabbi Singer, except to point out that it appears to have ceased being an Orthodox Shul after he left.
Menachem-Yossi is our rabbi, I think you were responding to Yori.
Why do people keep saying Daniel Boyarin is a Conservative Rabbi? He does not claim to be a Rabbi (conservative or otherwise) and his official biography doesn't claim he is Rabbi either. He has two graduate degrees from JTS but as, far as his bigraphy is concerned, neither are ordination or smicha: http://neareastern.berkeley.edu/boyarin/bibliography.html
That same biography also notes that Boyarin was a Visiting Professor of Rabbinic Literature at Yeshiva Universityin 1985 and 1988 and a Senior Lecturer Talmud at Bar-Ilan Universityfor about seven years starting in 1983. As far as I know, both Universities consider themselves Orthodox and the positions would appear to involve teaching Torah, although Menachem will no doubt disagree.
This is all, of course, besides the point, but if people want to posture on a blog, they should at least take a few minutes to verify facts as best they can.
I apologize for the broken link above. The correct link to Professor Boyarin's bio is http://neareastern.berkeley.edu/boyarin/bibliography.html
Menachem,
You are right, Stanton Street is infested with Conservative Jews. I know first hand that there are two Conservative "rabbis" who are members. The lady rabbi would wear her tallis in the women's section and come to morning minyan wearing tallis and tefillin. We should stone them.
Two points to Reb Menachem:
1) If you look at the JTS catalogue from the 1970s, Boyarin is listed as being ordained. He does not list this in his official biography. But note his MHL from JTS. This was the master's degree awarded from the Rabbinical School. Only Rabbincial School students received such a degree. Some other academics, like Chazan of NYU and Yerushalmi of Columbia are also JTS musmachim but do not list this in their professional credentials.
2) Hate to break to you buddy but Rabbi black hated Romm of the Bialystocker is a Ben Conservative Rabbi. His father had a prominent pulpit out on LI for many years. His uncle, his father's brother, is also a Conservative Rabbi and is a member of the Staff of the Conservative Yeshiva in Jerusalem.
A reference to Daniel Boyarin as a rabbi:
Vancouver School Of Theology Lecture
Who Are The Jews In The Fourth Gospel. Rabbi Daniel Boyarin, U of California at Berkeley. VST Epiphany Chapel from 7:30pm to 9:30pm. Refreshments. E-mail CI@vst.edu. To register e-mail Call 604-822-9815.
OK, as long as we understand the agenda:
Anyone who is not 100% Orthodox (define however you wish, make sure the hat is the right shade of black and you're wearing 5 pairs of tzitzis to make sure you've fulfilled every possible opinion) should not be welcomed as a member of an Orthodox synagouge. Anyone who is the CHILD of a Conservative rabbi must be disqualified as being "really" Orthodox despite his respected status as a scholar and graduate of Yeshiva University. A woman Conservative rabbi is not allowed to do something that is essentially permitted according to Jewish law (albeit not encouraged). Did she lead the davening? Count in the minyan? Set foot out of the women's section?
In case anyone would like the recipe for making Orthodoxy irrelevant in the 21st century, follow the above.
I honestly cannot phathom how you can call this Temple an Orthodox Shul. Reb Moshe wrote in his Igros Moshe (Orech Chayim, Chelek Gimmel, Simmun Cuf Aleph) that it is forbidden to give a Conservative Rabbi an aliyah for their brachas are "nothing (eno klum)." Certainly he would not agree to a man conservative "rabbi" let alone a female one! Stop pretending to be something you are not!
Who's talking about calling anyone to the Torah? The female rabbi was never given an aliyah, and Dr. Boyarin gave a shiur...it's nice that you actually gave a source for your comment, but unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
By the way, people will take you more seriously when you learn how to spell. It's "fathom."
Spelling? That's the best argument back to me. You need to study a bit.
Read the first paragraph and answer the question.
So you are saying you have never given your male or female "rabbi" an aliyah? I'm not talking about that anti-zionist Daniel Boyarin either.
By the way, the teshuvah you quoted specifically says that in a case where there would be a machloket or a loss of a donation to the shul, it is permitted to give a Conservative Rabbi a different kibud besides an aliya (i.e. hagba, gelila, peticha). Rav Moshe specifically objected to his brachot, not his presence in the shul. We're talking about a shiur here, not leading the davening.
I have it on good authority that at your "Temple" that you had a Conservative "rabbi" read the haftorah and daven musaf. Are you denying that this has never taken place?
No woman has had an aliya to the Torah in Stanton Street, to my knowledge, except in the separate women's Torah reading, within the guidelines set out by Rabbis Weiss, Riskin, and Henkin and explained by our rabbi. The woman in question, by the way, does not currently attend Stanton Street, as she has assumed a position in a synagogue and moved away.
The only other person that I assume you are referring to is a rabbinical student at JTS. He's had aliyot and davened, but it's not clear that the issur would apply in that case. Additionally, there are many synagogues in which retired Conservative rabbis, who have not renounced Conservative Judaism in any way, are given those honors as well. If you'd like to question the Orthodoxy of those synagogues as well, have fun.
So you give an aliyah to anapikorus in training? You should be ashamed of yourself. You are not Orthodox. You should join the United Synagogue and pass out some pink talesim.
So when he graduates and becomes a "rabbi" are you going to stop giving him an aliyah or are you going to come up with another excuse?
Well, I'm not the rabbi so I don't have to make that decision. But someone who never serves a day in his life as a rabbi doesn't seem to me to be what Rav Moshe is referring to-he's referring to people who actively engage in promoting kefira and chilul mitzvot.
Would you call him Harav X for an aliyah?
He doesn't get called that way now. What happens after his ordination is up to the rabbi.
So you are saying that this apikorus in training has never and will never perform any rabbinic function? Come on, no way someone spends that many years going to the Jewish Theological Cemetary not to perform one unkosher wedding or a phony converstion?
What I fail to understand is the need of some Stanton Street shul members to apologize and defend their respectable institution before a couple of hate mongers, and not the extremely learned hate mongers at that. If their attack has been for the sake of heaven then theirs it's a fairly dark heaven.
Don't forget to come to shachris everybody, 6:45 AM.
That's speculation. People have a chazaka as kosher Jews. There is no reason to assume anything until it happens.
The Conservative and certainly Reform "rabbis" are suspect by the mere posession of their diplomas.
I am with Yori. This comments section is an embarrassment for the shul, Trolls like Menachem and others have managed to divert the topic from a discussion about an interesting lecture to defending the shul's practices to people who don't deserve a response.
The shul has a Rabbi who is qualified to make decisions about its practices. If anyone has questions about the practices, even questions raised by a blog troll, they should check with the Rabbi (follow link here ) . Taking the bait cast by someone who wants merely to criticize and embarrass is a waste of time.
The shul has a lot of things to offer, but arguments should not be one of those.
The Bialystoker Shul has amongst it's ranks the #9 worst slumlord in NYC. In August of 2005 he had 3975 outstanding violations. That's right, 3975 violations. So what does the Bialystoker Shul do about this Chilul? They make him a member of the Board of Trustees.
http://nycworstlandlords.com/nycwl/docs/finalreport_20050727.pdf
"The shul has a Rabbi who is qualified to make decisions about its practices."
Can anyone trust a "smicha" from Avi Weiss? How can this conservadox "rabbi" claim to be a posek?
I believe this thread has run its course. No one is going to change anyone's mind. The critics will continue not to support stanton, and it's members(stanton) and suporters will.
A G-d fearing Jew should not pray at Stanton Street. Both its Conservadox "rabbi" and its members are suspect. Stay away!
The hippies at Stanton Street have gone silent. I guess, in their heart of hearts they know they are not Orthodox and cannot defend themselves. At Torah true Jew would stay away from that place with its Conservadox "Rabbi" and its tallis wearing femenists in the ladies section.
OK, Menachem, you got the last word. All the grownups - don't start this again, please.
Menachem and other jerks,
This is America, if you do not like us, pray somewhere else. We are fellow Jews and picking on us is not the way to build Klal Yisrael.
"Merry Chrismtas"
This is how your "rabbi" signed his article in the Grand Street News. Didn't he learn anything in that hippie "rabbinical" school of his while he was strumming his guitar? Does this am haaretz not know that he is wishing everyone a happy commeroration of the birth false massihach (and I ain't talking about the Lubavitcher Rebbe)?
Would you prefer that he wish them a Sad Christmas?
Good Shaboos to all the Jews of Stanton Street!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home