Religion & Beliefs
“Baal Teshuvah” Is an Inherently Offensive Term
By David Kelsey / March 29, 2009
Big Kiruv (outreach efforts to make non-Orthodox Jews Orthodox) is dominated by ultra-Orthodox and haredi organizations. These groups do not merely make a pitch for traditional Jewish living. Rather, they demand that Jews from a liberal and secular background accept their status as second-class citizens, all but synonymous with "children of impure menstrual blood."
The newly ultra-Orthodox Jew does note merely become frum (Orthodox), but becomes a "baal teshuvah," or "master of repentance."
What is it that the baal teshuvah must repent for? He must repent his prior existance (and his present one to boot). The baal teshuvah must look with contempt and regret at his past, his Western culture, his education, and even his very origin. This is often expressed when a "baal teshuvah" references his pre-frum days in rueful terms, like, "Before I was frum…."
If a non-Jewish organization taught our youth the same level of self-hatred about who they are and where they come from, every Jewish organization would be rightly be in hysterics, each out to prove how much more offended and outraged it is than the next Jewish organization.
But because Orthodoxy promises a higher birthrate and retention rate, there is virtually no public condemnation from the major Jewish organizations about the self-hatred Big Kiruv is promoting.
Big Kiruv claims to be giving its newly ultra-Orthodox adherents the joy of traditional Jewish living; however, the cost of entry is not only loss of self, but contempt of self. Having experienced this movement first hand as a young person, I can tell you that this isn’t always such a joyous experience for everyone, to say the least.
We can’t expect newly ultra-Orthodox Jews to sucessfully frame how they are perceived by the majority ultra-Orthodox community when they are already considered untrustworthy second-class citizens. And we can’t expect the mainstream Jewish organizational world to lift a finger to stop the spread of these fundamentalist movements. But there is something we can do on a personal level.
When an Orthodox person uses the term baal teshuvah to describe a sibling, friend, or anyone at all who became frum, we can become enraged, and shout, "[So and so] doesn’t owe you an apology for not growing up Orthodox, and neither do I!"
The Orthodox person will be taken aback at this outburst, and demand an explanation. Have the conversation, but make sure a tolerable level of agitation and disgust is discernible to those around you. This is best done in the vicinity of other secular and liberal Jews, for they are the ones who we seek to educate, not the ultra-Orthodox.
The ultra-Orthodox have nothing to learn from the likes of us.
POST A COMMENT
Based on the remarks of a baal teshuva friend I chatted with on Shabbat:
We shouldn’t refer to Orthodox Judaism as "Orthodox", because it implies there’s such a thing as legitimate non-Orthodox Judaism. Instead, we should refer to Orthodox Judaism as just plain "observant Judaism". Orthodox Judaism is "Judaism". and non-Orthodox Judaism is simply a collection of errant individuals.
My friend’s point was that quite aside from Mr. Kelsey’s bizarre assertion that the term "baal teshuva" is inherently offensive, the observant/Orthodox community should not be afraid to insist that Torah observance befits every Jew. We don’t have to be ashamed to admit that the sine qua non of being Jewish is observing the Torah.
Now, this doesn’t mean looking down on non-observant Jews, any more than we must look down on abused wives or abused children. But just as the ordinary and healthy position of a woman and a child is to be not-abused, the ordinary and healthy state of a Jew is to be Torah observant. We don’t look down on non-observant Jews, just as we don’t look down on handicapped individuals, but just as we recognize that handicaps are unhealthy and abnormal (and thus, we try to cure them), we recognize that non-Torah-observance is a disorder.
DF: To sit here and say one can been fooled into wearing a sheitl for more
than a few months or deceieved into davening three times a day or
believing that the Torah makes sense when it really does not–strains
credulity.
Jeff: Oh, that’s just ridiculous. The Christian fundies behave this way all the time.
****
Resp. No, this is not fair-minded Jeff. The born again x-tian simply says that he believes in the x-tian deity, takes a mock mikveh dip and that’s about it. As every Jew knows and witness the mess in Israel regarding the conversion crisis–the path for the BT or the ger is very different and it involves a lot of time and effort. To be a BT involves a lot of commitment so that the least one can say–especially if you disagree with the choice, is that the move involves some real sincerity and effort and conscious eyes-wide-open choice.
This kind of experience taking many years and equal in some ways to a university degree is the very opposite of what can happen in the Christian world where people go to an auditorium one night–listen to some preacher and end up being Baptized. Clearly there are many Christians of good faith and intelligence and I am not here to demean any Christian. I am merely contrasting the common experience of BT’s vs. some in the born-again x-tian world.
It is often true that the newly religious feel shame over their past, improperly so. The question is whether that is something that is impressed upon them by the kiruv rabbis, or something they feel on their own. It may often be the latter, as they feel they "wasted time" beforehand by not being religious.
I think the comment about the "butterfly effect", though, has it exactly right. As the song, "God Bless the Broken Road" puts it, it’s that very path that brought us to where we are today. Some of that newfound religious enthusiasm exists only b/c they lived differently and found it unsatisfying. Contrary to another post, there are plenty of people who grow up "religious," and leave much or all of it behind. Maybe if the newly religious hadn’t discovered religion for themselves, but had someone else’s views thrust upon them, they would have left and not be religious today. You never know, so just be happy that you have had the ability to follow your own conscience, b/c that’s something that would not have been possible in the "golden days" of Judaism (pretty much everything until the last 40 years or so).
bemakom baalei teshuvah omdim tzaddikim lo yekholim la’amod
in a place where pentient stand -tzaddkim can’t stand
Aside from the traditional view that this means that those who have gone off the path and return are more meritorious than those who have never strayed -
an old Eastern European joke responded to this statemnet by saying that the reason one couldn’t stand in a the place of baalei teshuvah was because "es shtink fun zay", the smell of self-righteusness that many baalei teshuvah emit is often exremely off putting
rebmoshe
To sit here and say one can been fooled into wearing a sheitl for more
than a few months or deceieved into davening three times a day or
believing that the Torah makes sense when it really does not–strains
credulity.
Oh, that’s just ridiculous. The Christian fundies behave this way all the time.
I did not accuse David K of opposing the group Jews for Judaism. My remarks centered on the generality of opposing kiruv and the opposing the concept of Jews organizing to encourage other Jews to have greater observance, have more Jewish pride and live stronger Jewish lives–that is to say, in effect Jews acting for Judaism.
My argument was also to challenge David K into admitting there is hypocrisy in the Left’s stand of opposing BOTH Jews for Jesus and Jews for Judaism–that is, Jewish inreach.
David K is unnerved concerning the topic of repentence and will not qualify his remarks. All Jews, by the dictates of Judaism, are required to repent for our transgressions. It seems that this concept has David K all tied up in knots. Yes, to take active steps to study Torah, to perform various mitzvot, to daven daily, to ask for repentence–can give a Jew MORE than one that does not and this concept is disturbing to him. As I keep insisting, it should not. No one can know of his or her "reward" for doing a mitzvah and we are told that doing the mitzvah is its own reward. Again, this kind of stand is one that DEFEATS his argument against kiruv as deceptive in the first place. It demonstrates that there is great honesty and integrity in Judaism.
What is the downside of Jews being more attentive to acting by the dictates of our faith, speaking carefully, dressing and behaving modestly, giving to charity, etc? Not once has David K admitted the UPSIDE of Jews becoming more Jewish.
When have I attacked the group "Jews for Judaism," Barbara? Oh, right, I haven’t, you are just reaching for anything.
Very dishonest. Very Kiruvy. Ich.
Jews for Judaism is just a group that confronts missionaries and converts out. I have to say that opposition to it has to sit in one of two places… either you are a Christian (perhaps a Jew for Jesus?) who feels it is stopping Jews from becoming ‘realized Jews’ or you are just anti-Jewish. Jews for Judaism fights fire with fire.
You have demonstrated only malice in your stand against Jews for Judaism, David. Who is in your face, David? You have gone public with hot-headed accusations against kiruv in an attempt to tarnish the reputations of good people.
It is simply impossible to fool people into active participation of Jewish life–although it is very possible to indocrinate people into believing that Judaism requires no effort, no mitzvot–it is an easy sell, it is called liberal Judaism or earlier— Christianity. To sit here and say one can been fooled into wearing a sheitl for more than a few months or deceieved into davening three times a day or believing that the Torah makes sense when it really does not–strains credulity. Sure, it is possible to venture into Orthodoxy–only to quickly find it lacking in something and to go back to secular living. Over the long haul, kiruv must have a solid product and it is aproduct all of our ancestors happily "purchased" so we could be here today. Were all our ancestors "tricked" David?
The basic reality stands. Jews are leaving Judaism and kivuv involves pushing people back in the fold. This is really no different than anything else–only the stakes are much higher. Pushing people to eat better and exercise requires affirmative action to get people to reverse their course of action. Similarly, to work, to be effective, kiruv requires a whole lot of affirmative techniques to shake people into a new path. Most people like a more attractive waistline and if they don’t–they revert. Many people will prefer to know what Judaism is all about and yet kiruv can fail since it does require effort and sacrifice. What’s it to you? You can be fat and happy and you can be a happy disaffected Jew. What if others want to explore a different path and change their lives? What’s it to you?
As for tricks, I have little doubt that when you met or when you will meet your wife she will dress nicely and speak nicely, giggle at your jokes and help usher you to the chuppah–or wherever you will go. Is she a trickster? Has she deceived you? Just curious.
The effect they have discovered works with the Torah and no other book but this proves nothing per se.
Actually, it can be done with any book. It’s a statistical phenomenon; mathematician Brendan McKay has demonstrated this: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html
Barry Simon, Math and Physics professor at Cal Tech and frum Jew, argues against them (and against using them as a kiruv tool) as well: http://www.wopr.com/biblecodes/TheCase.htm
There’s also Stan Tennen, a freelance engineer who’s been studying the Hebrew letters for decades, and believes he’s discovered meaningful geometric patterns in them. His work is difficult to understand, and I’ve never been sure if he’s brilliant or unbalanced (or both), but it’s the most unusual body of work I’ve ever come across. He feels there is more than merely a statistical phenomenon in evidence, but not a prophetic one: http://meru.org/Codes/biblcode.html
There is no refuting the true believer, nor apparently. stopping the strange insertion of Obama policies into a discussion that is irrelevant to such content.
But the list of misdeeds by major Kiruv organizations is large. They will be brought to the attention of the Jewish community, and either the organizations that don’t practice deceptive recruitment techniques with corresponding fundamentalist approaches will be given the front seat by those who seek engagement (and not indoctrination), or Kiruv will face increased resentment and resistance.
The days of playing the same trick over and over without being called out are over.
If it continues, prepare your people for when they ask a young person at the Kotel "What times is it?" to receive the answer, "Time for you to get out of my face."
A zissen Pesach, Mr. Friendman.
That is right, David K–there is a record–you gave me the link. You showed me a perfectly fine Rabbi who had understandbale love and respect for a great leader in our Jewish community. And what do you respond–you heckle "Rabbi Dave"–everything thing is a big joke for you isn’t it?
To repeat, describing kiruv efforts as "Big Kiruv", "Big Aish" is very deceptive since it suggests some kind of conspiracy. Again, Big government works by STEALING wealth honestly earned by others–trillions of dollars of stolen wealth. Kiruv works by the voluntary contributions of people who want Jewish outreach to other Jews. How is this "Big?" It is honest–unlike lying to people and funding worthless programs with taxpayer money that would not exist in a free market.
Not liking Aish Ha Torah is your right–as a author and as a Jew–you might give an honest reason.
As for the Bible Codes–I have long lobbied against their use by groups such as Aish–they were not the creation of Aish and I have met and spoken with the people who have discovered the Codes. They clearly honestly believe their research. Harold Gans literally gave up his career to investigate and study codes. The researchers in Israel sincerely believe their findings. I believe presenting Codes is a bad approach–even if the Codes are true. The effect they have discovered works with the Torah and no other book but this proves nothing per se. I suppose this kind of study is very, very specialized–I am pleased it is being done but I place no faith in it as proof of anything. What is your point? Many people are sold on Obama for very frivolous reasons–the fact that Jews might be motivated by an esoteric bit of testimony does not defeat the fact that there is excellent testimony as well.
After all, a catchy jingle can sell more product than the true merits of the product. Companies use celebrity endorsements and all kinds of angles. So? Surveys demonstrate that newcomers like the Codes so they have a small place in the Aish presentation. Everyone discounts different specific bits of evidence.
Judaism needs to be sold today in a competitive environment and Jews are wrongly leaving by the force of secularism–not convinced of the truth of the atheism, rather, uninformed of the truth of Judaism. Ignorance must be combatted.
Reject your heritage, David if you must and the loss is yours. But stop trying to shame good people from believing that Judaism is without merit for their lives. That kind of active attack on Torah is contemptible.
Friedman wrote,
The entire budgets of all kivuv groups is not in the trillions or the billions.
The population being targeted is not in the hundreds of millions. It is in the single millions, and even less than that, as the young are disproportionately trageted. So your financial comparison is rediculous.
From one of David K’s links, David Kelsey writes about a Rabbi who was sincerely moved by Rav Noah Weinberg
Yeah, that’s what all those posts were about. That’s right, Friedman. A man who as moved by Rabbi Weinberg. My gosh…why did I write all those critical posts about a man who was moved by Rabbi Weinberg?
Fundamental to the slur against kiruv is the argument that it is some
how DECEPTIVE. This is a very easy thing to prove or disprove.
It has been proven over and over in numerous situations. Want to start with the Aish’s Bible Codes? Here’s a hint: prophecy in Judaism works BEFORE the event takes place, not as a big ol’ crossword puzzle after the fact.
Yes, David K–I have looked over your links to kivuv groups and it is clear you hate the concept. The explanation is simply not there–it is to be assumed by the like minded. Sorry, I am not among the like-minded. I am for the free exchange of ideas. I believe that it is a desirable thing for a Jew to become more committed, more involved, more obserbant, more in tune with our tradition and our laws. For you, it obviously means very little. The battle lines are drawn most fundamentally on those terms–if you are cheering for more and more Jews to break with Judaism–you will join the heretics. If you care for the Jewish people, you will happily support kiruv.
Fundamental to the slur against kiruv is the argument that it is some how DECEPTIVE. This is a very easy thing to prove or disprove. If a BT was being deceived, this person would not sustain the effort necessary to be a frum Jew. Jews vote with their feet and the fact of the matter is that the Orthodox community is growing rapidly. Therefore, to be a BT requires TESTING the integrity of Judaism. If the BT phenomeon is real and lasts over time, it can be said convincingly that there is both no deception and there is real value for people. Suckers are all over the place–over time, they find out they were deceived. To say that BT’s are suckers and decieved ignores their real life experience.
Next, to critique Aish HaTorah as "Big Aish" is quite a joke–"Big Kiruv"–c’mon, David K. Are you serious? Obama has the power of trillions of dollars he is throwing around–yes, indeed, he is big and powerful. The entire budgets of all kivuv groups is not in the trillions or the billions. As everyone familiar with Chabad, Aish and Ohr Sameach knows, these are all shoe-string operations working hard to move souls in a profound way with a clean, honest message.
I really applaud Mike who has chimed in on this topic. He has take E. Berkovits, (for example) to heart and he knows quality when he sees it. From one of David K’s links, David Kelsey writes about a Rabbi who was sincerely moved by Rav Noah Weinberg (Aish’s founding Rabbi of blessed memory). What is the scandal here–that people are moved by Reb Noah–is there also some kind of scandal? Is all of Orthodoxy one big frum porn show? Is there a coherent critique or not?
The real deception here is that people come forward to allege a targeted complaint and then the facts reveal that the complaint is just general rage. For anyone moved by the numerous attck pieces against really solid groups and individual Rabbis–please consider that the source of these hit pieces is not very good and Jewcy needs to re-think its entire editorial policy so that it is bit less anti-Jewish.
If a BT is also someone in the frum community who sinned and repented, then this is itself proof that calling a newly ultra-Orthodox Jew a "BT" suggests he sinned merely by living the lifestyle he grew up in.
So…exactly!
Barbara’s comment is not off-base–it simply misses the way in which the term is commonly used. However, she makes a good point which leads to another defeat for David K’s stand–if BT can also be a reference to a frum Jew who has left Orthodoxy but later returned–this is another clear indication that the meat of the meaning of the term is one of return and not one of repentence.
Repentence has significance and meaning for all Jews. Orthodox Jews repent no less or no more than other Jews and I have not met a frum Jew who believes otherwise. This is a clear stand in Judaism. Being higher on the ladder means nothing if you started higher and there is room for every Jew to repent.
First of all, a Jew raised outside of Orthodoxy who becomes Orthodox is not technically a BT because they were not in it to begin with. To be a BT you have to have been raised observant, left, and returned. However, I admit this term is misused.
One of the largest outreach organizations is the National Jewish Outreach program.
http://www.njop.org/
For a laugh.
http://www.njop.org/html/hgvideo.html
Get a sense of humour, Kelsey.
Are you here to condemn all BT’s?
No.
Is there really anything offensive in the concepts of change, renewal, return that is "inherently offensive?"
Keep your platitudes as vague as possible, Friedman.Way to go. And clearly, all change is good. As a loyal Obama supporter, I’m sure you agree with that. Very consistent of you.
And by the way, when someone becomes haredi, they aren’t "returning" to anything. Oh, right. They are "returning" because their souls were at Sinai, where they all wore black hats in July.
Nonsense.
Why is kiruv bad?
Depends on which form of Kiruv. Not all are bad. NJOP is a nice organization. But many rely on deceptive tactics, historical revionism, estranging secular/liberal/non-Jewish family and friends, preach socio-economic devolvement, and even rejection of scientific method when incovenient per The Gedoylim. Depends on the organization.
For a partial list of greivances I have against Aish, go here. For Ohr Somayach, go here. For NCSY, go here.
So your words stand as an attack against BT’s–you don’t want to answer any questions, you want to demagogue the meaning of words and you want to change the topic constantly–now you want to attack Wikipedia.
Let’s stick to the question. Are you here to condemn all BT’s? Is there really anything offensive in the concepts of change, renewal, return that is "inherently offensive?" Why is kiruv bad? What is wrong with Jewish outreach? Is it bad for Jews to strive to gain more, study more, explore our tradition more and be more observant? Is this whole beef just more blind rage at Orthodox Jews–is this what it all boils down to?
Friedman, are you serious? Did you just bring Wikipedia as a proof of anything? For your information, I have fought numerous attempts of Orthodox control of many pages on Wikipedia. DO NOT bring Wikipedia as a proof of anything frum, or frankly, anything else.
Ohr Somayach is among the very worst of the offenders. They are EXACTLY the type of organization I am talking about.
Mike and David K–all the tedious chat back and forth about the meaning of the term BT must end and Mike is correct. A BT is someone who returns to Judaism–in the popular parlance in another context "born again."
Read about it in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_teshuva
Now, David K–I asked you a series of pointed questions and you replied to none. Instead, you accused me of saying that you believe that the rank and file BT was becoming Satmar when I specifically said no such thing. I said:
…this misses the entire point of the BT phenomenom and that is that
many BT’s are in mainline Orthodoxy, Aish, Chabad, etc. and not living
in Satmar communities or in Mea Shearim. Nothing that you have said
indicates that you are making distinctions.
To repeat, you are missing the entire point of the BT phenomenom–it is a broad movement which goes way beyond what is happening in Satmar or in Mea Shearim. It is all over Orthodoxy, it is the reason d’etre of Chabad, of Aish Ha Torh, of Ohr Sameach and if you read through the wiki entry–it is even a part of Conservative Reform Judaism. *Therefore* I challenge you once again, to begin to make distinctions and back down from your blanket indictment of BT’ s and to answer my questions posed earlier since you are the one making the indictment. Are you making a blanket indictment of BT’s or not?
As for as repentence and how supposedly obnoxious the phrase is–it is interestring that those who want to formulate this criticism (which is completely misplaced) concerning BT’s are precisely the same ones who cheer for our collective repentence of Americans for the supposed crimes of American policy before the dawn of our new American messiah, Mr.. Obama. It is Mr. Obama who has just returned from a trip overseas repenting for America’s sins of the past, bowing to Muslim leaders. I find that this cannot be a mere coincidence. The BT phenomenom is pretty old stuff–so why a protest against it now? One very good theory I am pleased to put forward is that America is being asked, in a very ugly and offensive way, to REPENT for crimes we have never committed to make Mr. Obama’s agenda look good. America must repent for burning more than our fair share of fossil fuels, America must repent for having an active and moral foreign policy, America must repentfor its support of the state of Israel, America must repent for having such a large share of material prosperity. etc. Sorry, I am not repenting for any of these things. But repentence is in the air nonetheless.
Jews for Judaism is not repentence–it is return.
mikewinddale,
Again, the issue is the word, "repentance," in the name, signalling the newly usually ultra-Orthodox person did something wrong by growing up non-ultra-Orthodox.
Friedman, I never suggested that the rank and file BT was becoming Satmar, so once again, you are not making sense.
Please define "mainline" Orthodoxy. I do have issues with the ultra-Orthodox kiruv orgs demands, but not sure if we would agree on what "mainline" Orthodoxy means.
One could just as well argue that it is inherently offensive (according to the Haredim) to refer to someone as "not Haredi". So, Mr. Kelsey, you are a Haredi; if I refer to you as non-Haredi, it is insulting and inherently offensive.
David K–you can see very clearly I was quoting another person and not you.
You have not fulfilled the burden of your accusation that a BT is an inherently offensive term. One could far more easily argue that being pro-Israel is offensive in the eyes of some Heredim–do you want to make that case since it is much more easy to document?
No, I can see you don’t and this is because you are not here to pick a fight with the Heredim–you are here to denounce BT’s. Please be blunt, David. Do I have it wrong? This is why you prattle on and on about Big Kiruv–and "Big Kiruv" in this context is Chabad, Aish, Ohr Sameyach and mainliine Orthodoxy–right? The entire point of your posting is not to reach out to Haredim and try to tell them that sometimes their use of the phrase BT connotes a slight to the newly observant. Nope. You are hear to try to intimidate young Jews who want to become more observant to not take that path–isn’t that right? You want to make sure they understand that they will never be accepted as one of the group and that the be a BT is "second-class" and loaded with supposed"self-hatred" (that is to be understood as hatred of one’s secular liberal past). Indeed, as I have made comment, you are emboldening leftist Jews to not only hate the Heredim but to disparage the BT’s.
But this misses the entire point of the BT phenomenom and that is that many BT’s are in mainline Orthodoxy, Aish, Chabad, etc. and not living in Satmar communities or in Mea Shearim. Nothing that you have said indicates that you are making distinctions and is because you are making a blanket condemnation and it is one that is rightly seen as raw prejudice and irrational.
I welcome your response.
I agree that Haredim often treat BTs as second-class citizens. But AGAIN, this has NOTHING to do with the term "BT", and EVERYTHING to do with the Haredi perspective on BTs.
If we translate it as "turning" or"returning", you’re right – but, if we translate it as
"repentance" (which is what the Hareidim do), there’s a connotation of inferiority. In that case, I have to agree with Kelsey; it’s inherently offensive. It colors the way Hareidim approach the newly observant, and, because they’re vulnerable and largely dependant upon the Hareidim to define their new circumstances for them, I’d argue that it affects their self-esteem.
Friedman,
Don’t quote others in my name. Must I explain why, Mr. Friedman? Must I explain why that isn’t acceptable?
Jeff Eyges, I agree that Haredim often treat BTs as second-class citizens. But AGAIN, this has NOTHING to do with the term "BT", and EVERYTHING to do with the Haredi perspective on BTs.
If the KKK treats blacks as animals, does this mean there is anything wrong with blacks or the term "black"? Of course not; the problem is with the KKK! Likewise, if certain Haredim disrespect and scorn BTs, there is nothing wrong with BTs or the term "BT", and there is everything wrong with those particular Haredim.
…the vast majority of orthodox were raised in a community not of
their own choosing, with as much choice as a child raised by a
different tribe. (see john wayne in the searchers).
if one were actually kidnapped and raised among the sioux one would
hope to have learned something of use as a person or as a philosophy to
relate to the life that they might come back to if rescued…
So the hatred is plain as day, David K’s blog entry is not against one policy approach by a few Haredim–nope–it is a blanket statement about all BT’s, all kivuv, all of Chabad, Aish, Ohr Sameyach, etc.
So, concerning a Jew who is born into an Orthodox family and although by the percentages this rarely happens, that person becomes a secular Reform Jew–that is a great result and a natural form of liberation. It is ,to paraphrase the person ahead of me– as if he has been "rescued."
But concerning the Jew who chooses to find tradition and cash in on his inheritance and actually value Jewish living and so he leaves his Reform home for an Orthodox one–that Jew by liberal Jews, is to be scorned and dealt with as if he is a traitor. This is sick and frightening.
The liberal standard of live and let live is phoney–it is live as *they* live as liberals or be damned. As Chris Plante is fond of saying: ‘if it wasn’t for double standards, the Left would have no standards at all."
tinok she’ nishbah, an infant that has been taken hostage as a result of war, would be the most appropriate term for most "ba’al teshuva’s", for they were raised against their will in their previous lifestyles. it is actually a term one can use to have a different perspective on orthodox- for the vast majority of orthodox were raised in a community not of their own choosing, with as much choice as a child raised by a different tribe. (see john wayne in the searchers).
if one were actually kidnapped and raised among the sioux one would hope to have learned something of use as a person or as a philosophy to relate to the life that they might come back to if rescued by john wayne.
Regarding Modern Orthodoxy and whether or not this is a destructive splintering or not — the fact is ALL of this splintering (whether it be Haredi, Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative) is mostly bad for Judaism and bad for the Jewish people.
David’s contempt for the term "BT" appears to be disguised as contempt for Chabad, Aish, and mainline Orthodoxy–isn’t this right, David? I don’t want to get it wrong. Your stand here David is clear and it is a pattern repeated on other folders in Jewcy. For all the BT’s that are here and there (a significant and still growing phenomenom)–it is NEVER about how some small sect of Jews want to characterize others and only about how such a Jew describes himself. You are not making a limited critique about a few Heredi Jews and a supposed insult to BT’s–you are attacking a significant group of newly frum Jews and this attack goes far beyond what could be a legitimate issue.
Allow me one more appeal to Laura and her issue with sneering. I will hold further thoughts until Laura has a chance to respond to what I have already said.
then why are BT’s treated like second-class citizens in the frum world?
Yes, teshuvah can be translated as "turning" – but that isn’t how the Haredim understand it.
Actually, teshuva is "return". So one could say that it is simply to return to one’s roots, to one’s tradition, to one’s history.
And even if you insist that teshuva is "repentance", you cannot claim this is something contemptuous. A person has to do teshuva even for a sin b’shogeg (accidentally); would you say we must have contempt for this person?
I’m sorry, but there’s nothing derogatory about the term itself; it’s all in the connotation given to it by Haredim, not in its technical denotation.
mikewindale,
The meaning of the term "baal teshuvah" means "master of repentance." This alone suggests that the person did something morally deficient wrong merely by growing up and living as non-Orthodox Jews. This is an inherently contemptuous term, and it is no surprise that the haredim are fond of using it for newly ultra-Orthodox Jews.
David Kelsey, you say, "I stand by it, and invite you and others to cease and desist using this
contemptuous term in polite liberal and secular company, or face proper
communal censure. We owe the ultra-Orthodox no apology for growing up
different than them."
I still fail to understand this. Imagine I call a black person "black"; obviously, this is neutral, because the person is black (or brown, or…argh). Now, if I am personally racist, and a person’s being black offends me, that is a problem with me, not the term. Similarly, if I find couches to be repulsive, then perhaps the most disgusting term I know of is "couch", but this is due, not to the term itself, but only due to my own prejudices. Similarly here; "BT" simply means, "someone who has become Orthodox". The question is, do you respect someone who used to be non-Orthodox, or do you denigrate and scorn him? But this is a question of the other’s personal prejudices, not the term itself.
So I wholeheartedly agree with most of your characterizations of Haredism. Had you written an article about how the Haredi conception of "BT" and of the connotations of the term "BT", then I wouldn’t have objected to anything. But you’re arguing about the denotation of "BT" being negative, and here I must object.
David Friedman makes an interesting point, that everyone is allowed to certain preferences. The issue, however, will be in the reason. For example, if I refuse to date a certain black person because I don’t like rap music and soul food and basketball (to be heavily stereotypical), then there is nothing racist about this; I simply don’t share her cultural preferences. But if I reject her for being black qua black, this is racist. Similarly, if the Haredim reject BT leaders because they aren’t familiar enough with the community from their formative years, and reject BT spouses because they’re just too different and cannot have marital happiness (just as any incompatible individuals cannot have such maritial happiness), this is proper discrimination. But to reject a BT qua BT, as if there is some intrinsic ontological stain, irrespective of behavior, learning, and commitment, this is wrongly discriminatory. And my impression is that many Haredi engage in this immoral form of discrimination.
????? ??????
And both radicalized post-war.
Everything Jewish and everyone Jewish was radicalized post-war. I’m not sure if this proves or disproves your point.
Modern Orthodoxy is different than Orthodoxy and it is a tragic splintering.
Haredism is the true splinter. Not Modern Orthodoxy. There was no "yeshiva movement" two hundred years ago. The Chassidic movement is a contemporary movement as well.
And both radicalized post-war.
I have had the experience (a long time ago in my dating days)of liberal
women rejecting me because I daven or rejecting me because I am a
political conservative.
But not because you were born from impure menstrual blood, correct? Cause birth status is not really the same as personal preference, is it?
Further, I know FFB men who go out of their way to scout for BT wives
And I have heard of Brahmin men who prefer dating women from the lower castes. But at the end of the day, these communities have a hiearchy, despite exceptions.
I have had the experience (a long time ago in my dating days)of liberal
women rejecting me because I daven or rejecting me because I am a
political conservative.
I suspect it may have been related to the relaxed and non-judgmental way you gently promote your political views.
Some of MO is made up of disaffected Conservative Jewry looking for
something more authentic and offended by the liberal trends in the
Conservative movement
You have no understanding of the base of the Modern Orthodox community if you think that is who comprises the bulk of it.
But your complaint goes into a broadbrush territory of real bias and I invite you once again to retract it.
I stand by it, and invite you and others to cease and desist using this contemptuous term in polite liberal and secular company, or face proper communal censure. We owe the ultra-Orthodox no apology for growing up different than them.
The very fact that people speak of who they are and where they come from is simply no evidence that there is bias and discrimination. If someone who is FFB wants someone else who is FFB as a marriage partner this is a statement of taste and preference and not one of discrimination. This is why in liberal circles, Jews oftentimes describe who they are as Jews and state their preferences. It is merely a preference, David. I have had the experience (a long time ago in my dating days)of liberal women rejecting me because I daven or rejecting me because I am a political conservative. I surely recall personal ads in the Jewish papers where liberal women were very specific about the men who might apply and they were quick to reject up front many men–are you here to condemn them as strongly?
Further, I know FFB men who go out of their way to scout for BT wives–although they would not turn down as inappropriate someone more like themselves.
Modern Orthodoxy is different than Orthodoxy and it is a tragic splintering. Some of MO is made up of disaffected Conservative Jewry looking for something more authentic and offended by the liberal trends in the Conservative movement–this is why it is growing while Conservative Jewry is struggling.
David, I invite you again to back down from the headline of this posting–as Mike said to you point blank–BT is a neutral term and you have unfairly given it a negative spin. Now as for some bad elements in some parts of the Haredi community–yes I have observed things which I believe are negative. There are people who are willing to split hairs so finely that one family will not consider another’s home kosher if they lack one stringency–there are issues and problems. True. But your complaint goes into a broadbrush territory of real bias and I invite you once again to retract it.
David N. Friedman wrote,
Modern Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy
Maybe according to your Very Big Godol of a rabbi, but for the rest of us, it is indeed a serious swath of Orthodoxy.
But this fetish over the use of the term is merely one that a Jew
might use for oneself
No. Jews from liberal and secular Jews are absolutely considered BAAL TESHUVAHS whether they want to be or not.
–so that there is no distinguishing A BT from a
FFB Jew in almost all Orthodox contexts.
Except for the things that matter, like: marriage opportunities,
marriage opportunities for one’s children, positions of leadership, nepotism (unbelievably rampant in ultra-Orthodox circles).
No distinguishing? Oh, please. In what? Lulav waving? Shkoyach.
Mike, David K is pleased to condemn all of Orthodoxy and has alleged that BT is an offensive expression on its face–not in a limited context.
Modern Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy, therefore, he states: The term "baal teshuvah" is used less frequently by the Modern Orthodox
community, and is used less as a way of assessing a person in his/her
entirety. A Jew who becomes Orthodox in these circles is not as
singularly defined as a BT…
But this fetish over the use of the term is merely one that a Jew might use for oneself–so that there is no distinguishing A BT from a FFB Jew in almost all Orthodox contexts. To say that a BT is "assessed in his entirety"is quite a bizarre accusation and the burden is on the accuser for proof of the phenomenom. As for expressions of contempt against other Jews–it is fair and good to decry all of it and one might begin with those who make accusations of "loss of self" and "self-hatred."
Concerning Laura’s concerns over "self-congratulatory sneering at others" and "treating their fellow Jews like garbage"–I invite her to join me in challenging those who put secular and liberal Jews above others–even if that conflicts with her politics. This is the message from David Kelsey. Now, the open question remains whether or not by an objective standard, one Jewish choice can be said to be better than another. Is it "off putting" to acknowledge such a reality of varying choices? Sure. But this is no different than making any other choice since all choices of any merit at all infer a better or higher choice.
Where it hardly matters–people are prone to sneer at will. I put my newspaper with the regular garbage so it can be put with the rest of the trash–people sneer at me because they believe (wrongly) my choice is inferior. People sneer at those who choose Palin over Obama. People sneer if you choose to deny man-made global warming. Much more profoundly, people sneer if you believe God is Creator and not material evolutionary forces.
When a Jew chooses to become Orthodox, that is, to reject the modern heterodox versions of Judaism and therby take on more mitzvot, more Jewish learning–more effort–it is a good thing, a good choice. If we can all agree–then, we can join forces in denouncing all sneering.
Your response?
…when there seems to be this condescending tone WRT other branches of Judaism. I have no problem if Jews want to become Orthodox. Great, you found what works for you. But as you can see from the posts ex: "when a Jew decides to get more involved with Judaism…" as if all Jews who are Conservative, Reform & Reconstructionist aren’t really very involved with Judaism. Which I guess would be news to all those Rabbis and Cantors and Temple presidents and laypeople whose lives revolve around their Temples & synagogues. It is really very off-putting to many people. If the goal is making us want to explore Orthodoxy, it makes no sense. That sort of self-congratulatory sneering at others makes those of us feel bad for Jews who might never eat shrimp but feel justified (because strict adherence to ancient legalistic codes apparently is more important than being a mensch) in treating their fellow Jews like garbage. I don’t get the morals of that, and I’ll admit that whenever I am exposed to this behavior, I thank God for my Reform upbringing and the values that it taught me.
Shalom!
The term "baal teshuvah" is used less frequently by the Modern Orthodox community, and is used less as a way of assessing a person in his/her entirety. A Jew who becomes Orthodox in these circles is not as singularly defined as a BT, and many of the entry issue problems into ultra-Orthodoxy are less problematic when entering the Modern Orthodox communities even outside of status, and the ones that remain are significantly less debilitating.
A lot can be assessed about a community both by the frequency and the intensity of the use of term "baal teshuvah" for decribing communal members. The level of contempt by non-Kiruv members of these communities is more indicative than that of the "Kiruv professionals" of their outreach organizations, as it is their job it is to prattle on, dishonestly misappropriating Rabbi Dessler’s explanation of Jacob’s ladder, pretending that they and everyone in their ultra-Orthodox kehilla believes the "baal teshuvah" is "on a higher level" than they are.
(1)
I never said David Kelsey was incorrect regarding his characterization of the Haredi BT experience as a phenomenon. Surely there are indeed rabbis who (wrongly) believe one must disown his past (as Kelsey has depicted for us), or else my own rabbi would not have had to disabuse students of this notion.
My point was, however, that the problem is not with the term "baal teshuva" (as Kelsey suggested), but rather, the issue is a philosophical and pedagogical one, of particular sectors’ conceptions of BTing.
In other words: the term "baal teshuva" is a neutral one. Whether one has a correct or incorrect notion of BTing (Haredi: incorrect, my rabbi: correct), this does not affect the term itself.
So every issue Kelsey has with the Haredi conception BTing, I’d agree with him. My argument was not that the Haredim are wrong; surely they are, and I have no argument with Kelsey on this. In fact, my entire point is that the Haredim are wrong, as per Kelsey. But their error is a pedagogical one, not a terminological one, contra Kelsey.
(2)
Friedman, whether Kelsey has only an issue with Haredism (as his literal words suggest), or rather a psychological issue with all Orthodoxy and observance per se (as you suggest), I do not know, and I will not enter this separate debate, until I hear Kelsey’s own words on this.
David Kelsey is thus proven incorrect with his horrific condemnation of kiruv. Yes, it is some joke to indicate that his comments have bearing on kiruv from one organization vs. another–nope–it is as plain as day he is here to condemn all kiruv efforts–period.
Mike has taken the time to explain as one Jew among many thousands who have become BT’s to deny the accusations put forward by this author. Thanks for making the effort, Mike and you have discussed the issue well and formed a believable denial to the accusation that a BT must disown his past.
It is surely no small irony that liberal Judaism spends a great deal of time and trouble inventing rather ridiculous ways to distinguish themselves from one another–and Jewcy applauds the effort. But if a Jew votes to go towards tradition instead of towards a secular lifestyle–look at the reaction!! Is David Kelsey serious? He says, while at the same time alleging some kind of close mindedness on the behalf of the Orthodox Jew:
When an Orthodox person uses the term baal teshuvah to describe a sibling, friend, or anyone at all who became frum, we can become enraged, and shout, "[So and so] doesn’t owe you an apology for not growing up Orthodox, and neither do I!"
The Orthodox person will be taken aback at this outburst, and demand an
explanation. Have the conversation, but make sure a tolerable level of
agitation and disgust is discernible to those around you.
Yes, David Kelsey is agitated and disgusted. Why? Because Mike has made a choice David does not agree with and that choice is to be a more observant Jew. Can’t Mike make his own choice? This is an obscenity and it is real Jew-hatred. When a Jew decides to become more involved with his Judaism–it needs to be our instinct, our reflex, to say: "great"–good for him. It is a charade to say that a BT must apologize for not growing up frum. The FFB knows full well that the road for a BT is much harder and more laudable.
mikewinddale, I specifically stated that this was about the ultra-Orthodox BT experience. The institution you referenced is a religious-Zionist institution. So this is hardly a contradiction, even anecdotally.
I’d consider myself a baal teshuva, but this doesn’t need imply any contempt or shame. I’ll still speak of how great Maryland blue crab tastes (and the wonderful family experience of cracking them open with mallets…"Maww, get out the newspapers and crab mallets! Where’s the Old Bay?"), I’m still as interested in computers and science as I ever was, I still received my Maximum PC and Scientific American magazines, and I still speak of all the Judaism my mother taught me growing up. My newfound observance need not imply any disdain for my past.
When I became observant in high school, I was advised to transfer to a yeshiva high school. Instead, I continued in my public school, through graduation. In retrospect, I realize now how valuable those extra years of yeshiva education could have been. All the same, I met so many wonderful teachers of mine in high school, with whom I still have contact in fact, that I suspect I’d choose to remain in my public high school, even if I could do it all over again.
There’s the butterfly effect; I realize that many things I did once, are things I’d no longer do today, but do I really want to undo them? Everything I did once, has somehow made me who I am today, and who knows, perhaps undoing my past would be to my detriment. I’d rather nostalgically remember my past and look towards directing my deeds choicefully in the future, rather than second-guessing my choices in the past.
My rabbi at BT yeshiva (viz. Machon Meir) has stressed to us how important it is to not forget your past. Rav Kook, in Orot haTeshuva, notes that at first, teshuva is like shock therapy (my rabbi replaces this with chemotherapy); even as the sins are cleansed, the vital forces are atrophied as well. In an effort quell the yetzer hara (evil inclination), the yetzer hatov (good inclination) is hurt as well. Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Berkovits teaches similarly that really, the yetzer hara is nought but man’s primal vital forces; thus, "the greater the man, the greater his yetzer hara". Thus, teaches Rav Kook, the real goal of teshuva is take all all of your good and retain it, while redirecting your vital energy from the yetzer hara to the yetzer hatov. I.e., don’t kill your vital forces, but simply refocus them in a new direction. My rabbi says, if you knew how to play a musical instrument, keep playing!
The problem isn’t with the term "baal teshuva". Rather, the problem is with teaching baalei teshuva (plural) that their pasts must be despised and rejected, that they must despise and condemn themselves.
????? ??????
I take greater offense at the adverts for dating where the participants use the letters FFB than I do at the Baal Tshuvah label. I don’t care who is FFB (Frum From Birth) and I don’t think it was or should ever be important to any Jew whether someone is born to Frumischkeit, led by personal belief to be a Baal Tshuvah, or FFBLF20BT (FFB left for 20 years and then BT). Where are we going with all this?
Unlike Jeff I would say that we are not becoming Calvinists. Calvinist theories of predestination and the election of God’s elite would be preferable to Jewish Orthodoxy’s elitist FFB pedigress. My stomach turns.
It was either Reb Zalman or Shlomo Carlebach who, decades ago, told leaders of the Orthodox community, "The term ‘baal teshuvah’ is a misnomer. It isn’t those who left who need to repent, but ourselves. We must have done something terrible to have caused so many to leave." Naturally, they didn’t want to hear it.
Repenting for one’s prior existence – essentially, for having been born. When did we become Calvinists?
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!