Following on Shayna Goldberg’s suggestion [
blogs.timesofisrael.com] about expanding the discussion to unhealthy teaching approaches, I think it is also worth expanding the discussion to institutions that adopt or deify certain ideological stances or overly venerate certain departed rabbis and their Torah to the point where they violate several of the red flags that Rav Elli Fischer mentions in his blog post. [
adderabbi.blogspot.co.il]
In this case, the seductive, charismatic effect is a result of the sway of the sacred ideology or of the charisma of the rabbi who has been placed on a pedestal (whether or not he believed he should be), but the questions that need to be asked about this approach are often similar:
(1) Does the teacher (or, institution, in this case) seek to persuade the student to see value in what the teacher/institution values, or to persuade the student to see value only in what the teacher/institution values?
(2) Has the student begun to imitate the teacher’s (or, in this case, the institution’s or subculture’s) idiosyncratic practices and mannerisms?
(3) Is the student able to restate the teacher’s (or, the great rabbi’s) views in his own words and defend them without falling back on “but my teacher said�
(4) How does the teacher (responsible for espousing this ideology or the fealty to this great rabbi) respond to a student who questions, challenges, or rejects his/her assertions?
(5) How has the student’s relationship with his/her parents changed since s/he first came under the teacher’s (or, institution’s) influence? While it is important to note that many institutions do not cross these lines in transmitting their ideology or veneration of certain rabbis, I think that some do, so I would submit that this issue also needs to be raised in a respectful and caring manner.
I would also like to add to Rabbi Fischer and Rabbi Schrader’s comment on R. Amital’s defense against charisma. From my own days at Yeshivat Shaalvim in the late 1980s, I would add a few other defenses.
(1) A Diverse Staff: In Rav Meir’s Shaalvim having a staff with a diverse set of views (from YU to Kollel Chazon Ish to Mercaz Ha-Rav to Kol Torah and to the Rosh Yeshivah’s own Hirschian roots) and backgrounds reinforced the impression that there is more than one legitimate voice, no matter how compelling a particular rebbe might be.
(2) Veneration of Non-Torah Figures: Furthermore, the Rosh Yeshiva’s clear and constant veneration of his father, Dr. Falk Schlessinger, who ran Shaarei Tzedek for many years, and the Rosh Yeshiva’s pride in his son, the doctor, implied that no matter how charismatic and crucial talmidei chakhamim might be, there are other legitimate ways to serve God. This implicitly undercut the ramims’ importance and omniscient status.
(3) Respect for Parents (who may be less frum): Thirdly, Rav Meir also emphasized in one sichah that when we returned home we should not “be frum at our parents’ expense†– if we wanted to buy a more expensive etrog, we should use our own money, not demand our parents’ foot the bill. In so doing, he implicitly taught us to respect our parents’ choices and way of life, while at the same time leaving us with the option of choosing another path (if, and only if, we were willing to pay for it). His own respect for his father, also taught us that respecting our own God-fearing parents was not open to debate, even if they were not roshei yeshivah or as frum as we might choose to be in the future.
(4) Genuine Humility and Partnership: Coupled with these messages was Rav Meir’s quite genuine and constant challenge to his students to questions his assertions and conclusions. This, of course, also undercuts the dangers of charisma when it is genuine and the student feels an equal (though junior) partner in the quest for understanding. Indeed, the sense of genuine humility that this brings with it also serves to empower the student and dethrone the rabbi.
(5) Treating Torah Giants as Human Beings: Curiously, I would also add that Rav Meir, great raconteur that he is, also presented contemporary talmidei chakhamim whom he knew as human beings in many stories, thus presenting a true picture of them (their fears, foibles, and idiosyncrasies) that both brought them alive and undercut the tendency to hagiography, while still allowing for healthy veneration. Instead of Gedolim stories, he told stories that gently exposed the humanity of other Torah personalities, affectionately showing how their unique characters played out in their Torah-driven lives. To me these explicit and largely implicit messages created a culture that allowed for personal growth (albeit within certain Orthodox boundaries) without the overbearing sense of one monolithic ideology or great rabbi demanding fealty and divorcing us from our homes or selves.
I would like to discuss whether such a model is the norm or the exception in many versions of Orthodoxy today? If it is not, what are the short and long-term and advantages and disadvantages of this model and its opposite? Are we even aware, when it is dispensed with?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2016 09:11AM by mlb.
