Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah

Ysoscher Katz
Hello,

You've put a link to Ysoscher Katz in the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah article, but there currently is no article on Rabbi Katz so the link currently doesn't go anywhere. Were you planning to start an article on Ysoscher Katz? Otherwise, the link will be deleted soon. --Shirahadasha 04:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is going from a stub to a screed. A single paragraph should be cited from the blog that is critical of YCT. The prior interfaith should also be a paragraph not a page.

Feel free to summarize/pair as you feel appropriate. --Shirahadasha 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

RCA status
The RCA apparently postponed its decision on whether or not to admit YCT graduates as members, previously scheduled for June, without public comment. If anyone comes across published information with a status update, it would be appreciated. Here's a pro-YCT blog discussing the issue. Don't believe it meets WP:RS so not putting in the article, but perhaps its claims can be verified in a published source. --Shirahadasha 06:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of YCT
Hello, removed some unsourced criticism added by User:ClosedOrthodoxy. Added a "Criticism of Orthodox Status" stub section. Editors are welcome to identify major criticisms of YCT's claim to status as an Orthodox institution etc. in this section. Please supply sources. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

None of closed Orthodoxy's posts under criticism deal specificially with YCT. If he does not produce quotes specifically about YCt, then they should be deleted within the day. --Jayrav 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add documented criticism of YCT. But random lists of rabbis on various topics is not about YCT.--Jayrav 17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If a person will look with open eyes at what YCT has done and then will look with an open mind at the sources I have cited from the genuine sages of Modern Orthodoxy, one will see clearly that YCT and Open Orthodoxy have very little to do with Modern Orthodoxy...


 * I moved the long post prefaced with the sentence above to Talk:Yeshivat Chovevei Torah\YCT and Open Orthodoxy versus Modern Orthodoxy comment by ClosedOrthodoxy. The comment ends with the statement below. Antonrojo 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Shirachadasha, I demand that my statement about YCT's questionable Orthodox bona-fides remain. If what I have put above has not proven that questionableness to you, I must conclude that your biases affect your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ClosedOrthodoxy (talk • contribs)


 * ClosedOrthodoxy, see WP:CIVIL. I suggest that you not demand that specific content remain in the article since it is a collaborative project without owners. Antonrojo 20:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've readded the long comments below. A subpage was not appropriate in this case. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If a person will look with open eyes at what YCT has done and then will look with an open mind at the sources I have cited from the genuine sages of Modern Orthodoxy, one will see clearly that YCT and Open Orthodoxy have very little to do with Modern Orthodoxy. YCT and Open orthodoxy are merely the figleafs for a right-wing form of Conservative Judaism too cowardly to name itself correctly. In fact, I fervently request that the term "self-identified" be added to the description "Modern Orthodox" and I further request that the phrase "YCT maintains" be added to the phrase that places YCT at the left of YU/RIETS.

Let's look at the record:

FACT: Chovevei Torah Seminary Co-Sponsored the Lishmah Conference, despite the fact that Lishmah Promotes Torah-study With A Staff Of Orthodox And Non-Orthodox Clergy PROOF: https://www.lishmah.org https://www.lishmah.org/partners.cgi

Q. What’s not Modern Orthodox about that? A. Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik, of blessed memory, the greatest of the Modern Orthodox sages in the last 100 years, allowed membership in pluralistic “umbrella” groups like the Synagogue Council of America [“SCA”] because they were focused on Jewish societal well-being. As Rabbi Walter S. Wurzburger wrote, “Although ideally he [Rabbi Soloveitchik] would have preferred that these umbrella groups would not have come into existence, his ideological concerns were subordinated to his overriding concern for the welfare of the Jewish people and the security of the State of Israel. He therefore did not object to the participation of Orthodox organizations in the Synagogue Council of America, as long as its functions were limited to representing the total Jewish community to governmental agencies or non-Jewish denominations.” [from Tradition 29:1 (Fall 1994)]

The “umbrella” groups that had theological and spiritual goals were declared off-limits by Rabbi Soloveitchik. Rabbi Soloveitchik stated, “When we are faced with a problem for Jews and Jewish interests toward the world without, regarding the defense of Jewish rights in the non-Jewish world, then all groups and movements must be united. In this area there may not be any division, because any friction in the Jewish camp may be disastrous for the entire people. With regards to our problem within (the Jewish community), however, our spiritual-religious interests, such as Jewish education, synagogues, councils of rabbis, where unity is expressed through spiritual-ideological collectivism as a Torah community, it is my opinion, that Orthodoxy cannot and should not unite with such groups which deny the fundamentals of our Weltanschauung.” (The article, in English translation, appears at yuweb.addr.com/archives/v62i9/features/Rabbi.html.)

FACT: Chovevei Torah is involved in theological dialogues with the non-Orthodox and with non-Jews FACT: Chovevei Torah Teaches Torah To Cardinals PROOF:YCT Spring 2006 newsletter The Interseminary Dialogue Group “The conference room was packed with future rabbis, ministers, educators, and priests poring over a passage by the Chasidic master Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev…This scene is replicated approximately once a month, when the Interseminary Dialogue Group meets. The group, convened by the Louis Finkelstein Institute of the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS), includes students from eight Jewish and Christian seminaries in the New York area: YCT, JTS [the Conservative seminary], St. Joseph’s Seminary, St. Vladimir’s Seminary, General Theological Seminary, Hebrew Union College [the Reform seminary], Union Theological Seminary, and the Academy for Jewish Religion. YCT has participated in this group since the yeshiva’s inception. Each year, the group picks a general topic of conversation. The schools take turns leading text studies focusing on a subtopic of the current year’s theme, allowing each seminary to share what its faith tradition says on the given topic. The text study is followed by smaller conversations in which participants share their reactions to the texts based on their religious perspectives…The Interseminary Dialogue Group allows all of us to learn about other faith traditions …[Almoni], a fourth-year student at YCT, recently participated in the Interseminary Dialogue…[H]e said. “It was so interesting to learn about how different religious groups deal with the same issue…”

PROOF: http://yctchevre.blogspot.com/ 27 March 2006/Cardinals and Bishops Visit Today, as part of a World Jewish Congress led-delegation, around 30 bishops and two cardinals came to our school. The events began with an opening speech by Israel Singer, followed by a speech by Rabbi Avi Weiss, then one by our rosh hayeshiva, Rabbi Dov Linzer, after which, we broke up into small groups and did some text studying of Berakhos 26b, where there is a discussion of the establishing of prayer. After about 45 minutes of that, there were, again, a couple little speeches, then Cardinal Lustiger spoke for a little bit, followed by a question and answer sequence, which was ended by lunch. Lunch, however, rather than ending the event, allowed for mingling among the students and bishops to talk. One point that was emphasized was that, although Vatican II has been around for forty years, it has only been in the last twenty that Catholic-Jewish relations have really been progressing.

Q. What’s not Modern Orthodox about that? A.
 * 1) 1] Violation of Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik’s opposition to inter-faith dialogue on faith-issues (versus societal well-being issues)
 * 2) 2] Violation of prohibition to teach Torah to non-Jews (not unique to the “Modern” brand of Orthodoxy!)
 * 3) 3] Violation of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s guidelines on Orthodox-non-Orthodox interaction (see above)

SOURCES

A. Rabbi Yosef Dov HaLevi Soloveitchik’s position on inter-faith dialogue, as elucidated in his essay, “Confrontation,” posted at http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchik/ and originally published in Tradition 6:2:

"In light of this analysis, it would be reasonable to state that in any confrontation [between the Jewish community and the majority culture,] we must insist upon four basic conditions in order to safeguard our individuality and freedom of action...Second, the logos, the word, in which the multifarious religious experience is expressed does not lend itself to standardization or universalization. The word of faith reflects the intimate, the private, the paradoxically inexpressible cravings of the individual for and his linking up with his Maker. It reflects the numinous character and the strangeness of the act of faith of a particular community which is totally incomprehensible to the man of a different faith community. Hence, it is important that the religious or theological logos should not be employed as the medium of communication between two faith communities whose modes of expression are as unique as their apocalyptic experiences. The confrontation should occur not at a theological but at a mundane human level. There, all of us speak the universal language of modern man."

And one of the greatest living sages of Modern Orthodoxy, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, writes: "I refer, of course, to the Rav’s [i.e., Rabbi Soloveitchik] adamant stand against Jewish-Christian theological dialogue...[T]he policy he enunciated--assent to dialogue about moral or social issues but rejection of discussions of faith and dogma--has stood the Orthodox community in good stead." from his article in Tradition 30:4 (Summer 1996)

B. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein [Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:132 & Yoreh Deah 3:89-90] wrote the following about teaching Torah to non-Jews: It is explicit in the Gemara in Chagigah 13/A that it is forbidden to teach Torah to non-Jews. The prohibition only applies when the intention is to teach the non-Jew, not if it happens as an unintended result of teaching Jews (e.g., a non-Jewish guest at a Seder). The prohibition includes Talmud--although there is a way to argue that it does not apply to the Bible C. Dialogue with Christians about their religion is a violation of the Rambam in Hilchos Avoda Zara 2:2-3 as well as 2 responsa from Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Yoreh Deah 2:53 & 111). [In those responsa, Rabbi Feinstein only permits the exploration of idolatrous religions (e.g., Christianity) to sages who need to answer a legal question. On the other hand, he does allow one to teach ancient myths to students if it's taught in a disparaging way, e.g., "here's a foolish notion they had..."] The verse relevant to this prohibition (Leviticus 19:4) is interpreted by Rashi (Shabbat 149/a, c.v. El MiDa’at’chem) as an interdiction against ANY partaking of man-made culture, but the Magen Avrohom (Orach Chaim 307, #23) states that in common practice, it is limited to the culture of idolatry.

FACT: The “Stammaim” Concept of David Weiss HaLivni Is Part Of The Chovevei Torah Talmud Curriculum FACT: Chovevei Torah is sending a student to ITJ for “Mechina” (preparation studies)

PROOF: Curriculum: http://drewkaplans.blogspot.com/2006/01/experiencing-some-frustration-with.html

Preparation Studies: http://purimhero.blogspot.com/ 7/2/06 “I do need to learn how to use the $2 vans to Teaneck though that he was telling me about. Why's that you ask? Well... YCT, my Rabbinical School for next year, has decided to outsource me for the first of my two years of mechina (preparatory years prior to starting Rabbinic program). Basically, they wanted me, but didn't really have the infrastructure in place for me to gain the foundations in language and text that I would need. Therefore, they are going to be sending me to Teaneck to learn at ITJ (Institute for Traditional Judaism) the flagship institution, so to speak, of the UTJ (Union for Traditional Judaism) as part of the Metivta program. Chovevei is still going to cover all the tuition costs and provide me with the stipend. The largest impact for me will be the commute. Of course, UTJ itself is already an interesting, if not controversial, movement/organization. It traces its history back to a break off from JTS during the 1970's after they started ordaining women Rabbis, or as Drew would call them, Rabbatis. This just compounds the seeming controversy of my path to Rabbinic ordination. Even if YCT is sometimes said to be on the fringe of Orthodoxy, ITJ is perhaps even more liberal.”

Q. What’s not (Modern) Orthodox about that? A. Dr. David Weiss HaLivni is the founding dean [Reish] and honorary board chairman of ITJ: http://www.utj.org/about.html http://www.utj.org/FAQ/index.html#q2

Dr. HaLivni writes unacceptable and/or heretical notions about the Pentateuch and the Talmud; any place which he founded is unfit for an Orthodox rabbinical student until and unless they reject his positions.

What did Dr. HaLivni write, and how do we know it’s beyond the pale?

Part One: What did he write?

Re: Pentateuch: “How can it be that the text that resides at the very core of Judaism, the Pentateuch itself, is susceptible to textual criticism that reveals it [sic] to be both internally uneven and apparently inconsistent with observed Jewish law?... We must therefore begin with the premise that the literal surface of the canonical Pentateuch is marred [sic] by contradictions, lacunae, and various other maculations whose provenance appears [sic] more human than divine… In Peshat and Derash, I introduced a theological position that I entitled "Chate'u Yisrael" - translated literally: "Israel sinned." This idea allows the modern religious Jew, appraised of critical responses to the scriptures, to understand how an actual revelation of God's will at Sinai is compatible with a Torah that shows signs [sic] of having been compiled from several textual strands… Chate'u Yisrael, as a theological account, explains that in the period of neglect and syncretism the Torah of Moses became blemished and maculated… Historical and literary analysis supports [sic] the modern critical claim that the Torah was assembled from the elements of preexisting tradition. Scrutiny [sic] of the historical record, as well as close reading [sic] of traditional exegesis, will help us to understand that the Torah embraced by Israel upon the nation's return from exile was the result of a project of reconstructive compilation. Ezra and his entourage of scribes and leaders brought together a text composed of the most authoritative and sacred writings extant in the Israelite tradition of their day. They presented this work to the people and pronounced it to be the record of Sinaitic revelation. Chate'u Yisrael, as a theological position, allows us to say that the components brought together in this compilation of the Pentateuch, under the prophetic supervision of Ezra, were the remains of an authentic revelation to Moses in the wilderness - a legacy that had become blemished after centuries of Israelite neglect and idolatry in the pre-exilic age.” [from his Revelation Restored, posted at http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0411/n2_v47/21042662/p1/article.jhtml?term=bible]

Re: Talmud

“If the completion, the elaboration, and the additions were done by the Stammaim, several generations after the Amoraim, it is likely that sometimes they did not know [sic] what the Amoraim said and did not [sic] understand their words correctly, and the additions are not always [sic] according to the approach and the spirit of the Amoraim, and therefore their interpretations can [sic] be challenged.”

[From his Mekorot Umesorot, Vol. 3, Introduction, pp. 12-13]

Part Two: Why is this unacceptable?

Re: Pentateuch

It’s a fundamental tenet of Judaism [Ikkar Emunah #8] that the text of the Pentateuch we have is the text given to Moshe Rabbenu (except for the two exceptions found in Sofrim 6:4 and Kiddushin 30/a). Rabbi Marc Shapiro has a litany of sources that seem to contradict this Ikkar Emunah. One can legitimately ask if all of those sources represent legitimate views—and even if they’re all legitimate, one can legitimately ask if they all represent the Sheetah HaNiskabeless (the generally accepted view). What is worth noting that, even if one accepts every single one of Rabbi Shapiro’s sources, Dr. HaLivni’s heretical statements go far beyond anything that Rabbi Shapiro and his sources would ever assert. There’s a world of difference between textual issues regarding letters and words and the extreme position that Dr. HaLivni offers.

Re: Talmud

Emunas Chachamim, the belief that the Torah is transmitted correctly by the sages, is a basic Torah concept: see Avos 6:6. As Rabbi Hershel Schachter states, “[Maimonides] writes that not only do we believe that at one time (Ma’amad Har Sinai) G-d revealed Himself to us, and gave us His Torah, but also that the Torah as we observe it today is Min HaShomayim. There are individuals who consider themselves Orthodox who believe that at one time the Jewish people did have a Divine Torah, but the Amoraim misunderstood the Tannaim, the Rishonim misunderstood the Talmud, and the Achronim misunderstood the Rishonim. “But don’t get me wrong,” they would say[, “]I feel that the laws of the Shulchan Aruch are all binding, even though I think everything is in error.” This is [not a correct position]…We believe that throughout all the generations there was an invisible Divine assistance given to the [G-d fearing qualified] rabbis to develop the halacha in a correct fashion….G-d will see to it that the rabbonim will not distort His Torah. And in an instance where the rabbis of a later generation determined that a specific position taken in an earlier generation was actually due to an error in judgment, they attributed that to HaKadosh Baruch Hu also…Emunas Chachomim is the foundation of [Judaism].” [culled from his articles posted at torahweb.org]

FACT: The ideologues of Open Orthodoxy, Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Saul Berman, reject rabbinic authority outside of issues of technical Jewish Law (i.e., they largely or completely reject Da’as Torah) PROOF: http://www.hadassah.org/news/content/per_hadassah/archive/2000/Feb/orthodox.htm “As Rabbi Avraham Weiss of the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale wrote in Judaism magazine: "’The larger world has moved both religiously and politically to the right; ...da'at Torah makes the right more attractive, it's absolutist and comfortable....’"

In his “The Closing of Edah,” Rabbi Saul Berman writes, “Modern Orthodoxy resists rabbinic authority's spread into arenas of public policy beyond the parameters of halacha. Those who govern Jewish communities in Torah's light must leave to the governed as much as possible their own, autonomous decision making.” This is similar to what Rabbi Berman wrote elsewhere: ”[One of] the core elements of a Modern Orthodox approach [is that in] non-halakhic matters or public-policy issues, persuasive reasoning is the proper ground for decision making in a participatory process including both rabbinic and lay leadership.” [“The Ideology of Modern Orthodoxy,” by Rabbi Berman, in Sh’ma, February 2001 posted at http://www.shma.com/feb01/berman.htm]

Q. What’s not Modern Orthodox about that? A. Rabbi Soloveitchik did not limit rabbinic authority to technical halacha and neither does Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein.

SOURCES

Rabbi Berman has, in some measure, confused religious public-policy issues with mundane political issues. That is to say, Rabbi Soloveitchik did indeed limit, to some extent, rabbinic authority in political issues. However, Rabbi Soloveitchik maintained that rabbinic authority was in full-force in religious issues—apparently, whether those religious issues involved technical halacha or public-policy. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein has written, “True, he did not, in the long run, hold aloft the banner of the ideology [ ] which maintains that every political question has an essentially halakhic character, and is thus susceptible to the obligatory and exclusive decisions of the gedolei Torah. At first he inclined to this view, and even asserted it with enthusiasm…After [the Holocaust], he abandoned this view, and in the course of decades he accepted and even sharpened the distinction between matters involving mizvot (divrei mitzvah), which are to be decided by halakhic decision-makers, and other matters (divrei reshut), in which significant weight is attached to the opinions and authority of other leaders, or to private judgment. Nevertheless, although he rejected the decisive reach of rabbinic authority in political matters, he was insistent that such matters be determined from a perspective of refined spirituality and in consonance with Torah values.” (from his “Leaves of Faith,” vol. 1, pp. 227-228).

Relatedly, Rabbi Lichtenstein has also written, “In the absence of an imprimatur from any Shofet ShebeYamecha [contemporary authority] whatsoever, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to justify adoption of norms and values in defiance of a wall-to-wall phalanx of gedolei Israel. Such action would simply be regarded as error…[T]he ordinary person must base himself upon a Shofet ShebeYamecha…[And] no such course [of action, in defiance of the gedolei Israel,] could be championed in the public sphere.” [from his article “Engaging Modernity,” in “Legitimization of Modernity,” p.14] Clearly, Rabbi Lichtenstein refers to matters of public-policy and not just matters of technical halacha. Indeed, in a different passage in that article (pp.21-22), Rabbi Lichtenstein explicitly rejects Rabbi Berman’s limitation of rabbinic authority to technical halacha and Rabbi Weiss’ relegation of Da’as Torah to the Orthodox right-wing:

“I freely concede that, at times, acknowledged leaders of the Torah world issue pronouncements which anyone with even a trace of modern sensibility finds difficult to fathom, let alone accept…Nevertheless, beyond reservations, I find the alternate view, that gedolei Torah are professional experts whose authority and wisdom can ordinarily be regarded as confined to the area of their technical proficiency, simply inconceivable. Our abiding historical faith in the efficacy of Torah as a pervasive ennobling, informing, and enriching force dictates adoption of the concept of da’at Torah in some form or measure.”

FACT: The ideologues of Open Orthodoxy, Rabbi Avi Weiss and Rabbi Saul Berman, advocate expanding the role of women in Torah-study, synagogue leadership, and ritual participation.

PROOFS: The Chovevei Torah website says that Chovevei Torah—a school founded by Rabbi Avi Weiss—is “deeply committed” to several concepts, among them, [r]ecognizing the need to enhance and expand the role of women in talmud Torah, the halakhic process, religious life and communal leadership within the bounds of halakha.” [see http://yctorah.org/who_we_are/]

Rabbi Berman writes that the contemporary Edah organization that he founded “was founded as a think tank to promote the vision of a Modern Orthodoxy [ ] dedicated to expanding opportunities for women in Torah, tefillah and community leadership.” [see his “The Closing of Edah”]

Q. What’s not Modern Orthodox about that? A. It really depends on how far they take it. Rabbi Soloveitchik did indeed incontestably promote Talmud study for women. However, he was opposed to women serving as synagogue presidents and as members of the Board of Trustees. [See “Kuntres B’Inyanei P’sak Halacha,” by Rabbi Hershel Schachter, published in “Beis Yitzchok” #38 (5766).] And he was incontestably opposed to women’s Tefillah groups—such as exists in Rabbi Weiss’ synagogue and such as was founded at Lincoln Square Synagogue when Rabbi Berman was their rabbi. Rabbi Soloveitchik’s opposition is cited by some of his distinguished students in a responsum published in HaDarom #54 in 5745. His nephew and student, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, says the same in his article in Tradition 33:1. His grandson and student, Rabbi Mayer Twersky, says the same in his article in Tradition 32:3 (posted with his subsequent letters at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rtwe_wtg.html) [and cf. Jewish Action, Summer 1997, posted at http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rtwe_JA_women.html, and his Letter to the Editor in Jewish Action, Winter 1997].

[Both Rabbi Meiselman and Rabbi Twersky explain that Rabbi Soloveitchik did not use the term “Ossur” (forbidden) in expressing his opposition to women’s Tefillah groups because the term “Ossur” is for impermissible departures from technical halacha and the women’s Tefillah groups are impermissible departures from Torah values. (See p.21 in Rabbi Meiselman’s article and p.13 in Rabbi Twersky’s article.)]

Rabbi A. Frimer and Rabbi D. Frimer conducted numerous interviews, and found that Rabbi Soloveitchik objected to women’s Tefillah groups, did not support them, viewed them as wrong, held they should not be encouraged, recommended they not be instituted, and saw them as contra-hashkafic. (In note 247, they add a fascinating historical tidbit: Rabbi Soloveitchik could not even consider signing the aforementioned responsum because his declining health prevented him from reviewing it.)

In notes 236 and 253, they describe two B’di’eved (ex post facto, less-than-optimal) situations (one at Brandeis) where the Rabbi issued guidelines for women’s Tefillah groups—despite not being in favor of them. (The Brandeis group openly refused to heed the Rabbi’s specifically-stated opposition and the other group simply could not be disbanded.)

The Rabbis Frimer describe the one women’s Tefillah group that Rabbi Soloveitchik ever supported—albeit for a limited time. It was established at the Rabbi’s own Maimonides school in Brookline, MA. Rabbi Soloveitchik’s support was short-lived and subsequently withdrawn.

[From “Women's Prayer Services - Theory And Practice, 1,” published in Tradition 32:2 (Winter 1998) and posted at http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer1.htm#start, http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer2.htm#start, http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer3.htm#start.]

Cross-Currents article
Hello. ClosedOrthodoxy, I did a quick internet search and found a source, a quote from an article in Cross-Currents, which makes one of the key claims you've been trying to make -- that YCT's activities with the Catholic Cardinals involved things that were inconsistent with Rav Soloveitchik's limits on appropriate conduct with nonjewish Clergy. The difference is that it's a quote from an article -- someone else's opinion about YCT. The fact that someone else is saying this in a published source makes it suitable material for Wikipedia, while saying the same thing oneself isn't suitable for Wikipedia. It's also specifically about YCT -- it doesn't take general statements by rabbanim and apply them oneself to specific situations that weren't before them, which is also considered original research and not OK. Supplying quotes from articles that are specifically about YCT makes all the difference. We're not trying to prevent you from adding content to the article, we're only asking you to channel what you are trying to add into a format that Wikipedia policies can accept. All you have to do is search the internet or Jewish newspapers and find someone else who is saying what you are trying to say, quote or summarize them, and cite the source. It's that simple. Criticisms are out there, it was fairly easy for me to find one, and if you have additional criticisms to make you can probably find someone out there who's already made it. This really is about Wikipedia policies, not about bias. --Shirahadasha 06:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Haredi Criticism
Please identify specific Yated or other articles identifying criticism by specific Haredi leaders. The paragraph on Haredi criticism as it stands isn't verifiable. Also, removed general statement that regarding some Biblical stories nonliterally is "anathema" to "Orthodox" Judaism. Wikipedia can't report such a general statement as absolute fact, it can't say for example that the Rambam (who in Guide for the Perplexed also said that some Biblical stories aren't to be taken literally) isn't Orthodox. Some people believe this and some don't, and per WP:NPOV Wikipedia can only describe what specific individuals say. Best --Shirahadasha 04:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again calling for sources for the Haredi Criticism section. --Shirahadasha 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This section in it's current form should be verifiable. Since criticism and opinions are attributed, though lacking cites, this should be NPOV. The other POV issue I noted was that some criticism did not refer to YCT specifically and now all the criticism does. As such, I plan to remove the NPOV tag. Antonrojo 17:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. A link to an on-line posting of the Yated article "Yeshivat Chovevei Torah: Is it Orthodox? An Expose on a Threat to Halachic Judaism" has been added to the references section. Critics of YCT are welcome to summarize the criticism this source articulates. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Modern Orthodoxy under attack
Editors of this article may be interested in the comments here: RK (talk)
 * Talk:Modern_Orthodox_Judaism

Criticisms
The criticisms section makes it sound as if the only orthodox groups that take issue with YCT are chareidi. This is of course patently untrue. Numerous "centrist" modern orthodox rabbis and groups have taken a stance against Avi Weiss and his talmidim. See for example note 7 in the article on Young Israel. See also The Jewish Week for information on the RCA's stance (this in a highly positive article). See the aformentioned article for Rabbi Michael Broyd's (whom nobody, but nobody, would even consider calling chareidi) criticism. There are plenty of others, but these are the first that come to mind. As the section stands now, it greatly misrepresents the issue and makes YCT sound far more accepted in the MO world than it actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverWorker (talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gender discrimination
I added the following, but it was deleted. If anyone thinks it is not accurate, relevant, or well sourced, would you please discuss that here:
 * Gender Disparity

Like large American Universities until the 1960's, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah is strictly segregated and does not admit female students under any conditions[17] [18][19]. Founder Avi Weiss has stated that if women were ordained, they would be able to do only 95% of what male rabbis can do. [20] Weiss did not specify what the 5% they could not do is, but under classic Jewish law women may not serve as civil or ritual judges (Shulcan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 6:4, primary source in reference).[21]

Additionally, YCT graduates are required to take positions only in synagogues that practice gender segregation during services and force women to sit behind a physical barrier or "mechitza".[22] However, this rule is not enforced practically, and a (male) graduate of YCT currently serves as the rabbi of a desegregated synagogue.[23][24]


 * Gender Disparity in Marriage Teachings

Disparate gender treatment extends to the school's teachings regarding marriage. Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Dean Dov Linzer has written extensively on the subject of marriage ceremonies and teaches that both the marriage and divorce ceremony can only be performed by the man.[25] He insists that marriage be performed by the groom symbolically "buying" the woman--which some have likened to treating women as chattel. [26][27] Linzer encourages the bride to also give the husband a ring in exchange for her receiving the marriage contract which stipulates the husband's agreement to provide her with food and clothing and have sex with her and to pay her a sum if he chooses to divorce her. [28] Dean Linzer also recommends the "halachic prenup" which has as its core the assumption that divorce may only legally be performed by the husband.[29]


 * Gender Disparity in Communal and Personal Life Teachings

YCT Dean Linzer argues that women are not allowed to practice as scribes for religious articles.[30] Linzer also endorses the view that women are required to dress according to certain "modesty dress codes". [31] Popabar (talk) 03:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are a few problems I see, from the first paragraph:
 * 1) Does the source refer to "large American Universities until the 1960's", or is that your comparison?
 * 2) Does the source say YCT is "strictly segregated", or is that your analysis?
 * 3) You are speculating that the Shulchan Aruch specifies the 5% that Rabbi Weiss is referring to.
 * Please read our policy, WP:No original research, which explains that Wikipedia editors cannot speculate about matters that are not explicit in the sources. It also says that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources (WP:PSTS), and that putting together two sourced statements to imply a third, unsourced statement is not permitted on Wikipedia (WP:SYNTH). I hope that by common understanding of Wikipedia's basic policies, we can have a more productive discussion of your proposed additions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, 1. We can cut the "like large American Universities" if you really must--it isn't the main point. Would it be better if it was two sentences? 2. I don't know what you're driving at; not having any women is strict segregation. If you really must though, we can change that to just describe that they don't allow women. 3. I specifically note that I don't know what he is referring to, and add for context what the Shulchan Aruch says. If that is not ok, then we can cut that part too. Popabar (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:No original research restrains us from adding context that sources don't provide. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine. How about the rest? Popabar (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The statement that a YCT graduate can work only in a shul with a mechitza is unsourced, and the source used to support the following sentence (that one rabbi violates this rule) doesn't say that.
 * This is really tiresome. Please familiarize yourself with the basic rules of Wikipedia, including WP:Verifiability. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Please, don't be condescending to me. Not everyone who edits has read and understands all the rules, and your initial reaction was to threaten to block me without warning, so we can certainly have this out. The statement that a YCT grad can only work in a shul with a mechitza is sourced to wikipedi, several lines down--if it was good enough for the other sections of wikipedia which say it, I figured it was good enough here. But if you think not, then fine. The source that a graduate is violating that rule is impeccable. I have the shul website with his bio, and a newspaper story which describes the shul's character. Popabar (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And all the sources from Linzer's own work fall under the rule for Self published material about one's self. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Popabar (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection
I have fully protected this article because of abuse by autoconfirmed users. I've also removed a lot of unreferenced, badly referenced and downright misleadingly referenced material. This is a time when we remember the deaths of R. Akiva's talmidim who did not show respect for one another. Anyone who thinks this kind of trolling is funny or appropriate needs to spend some time on cheshbon nefesh. --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think what you means to say, is that you protected it because it was personal for you. There was no vandalism going on; there were a couple of mistake about rules which are not obvious to newcomers, and we were having a productive conversation about it, and I was going to go find new sources for any that are deemed objectionable. Hagaah atzmicha, you know that what I am posting is accurate and not misleading; you know they wouldn't even deny it, they just wouldn't want it on the internet; you know I'll be able to find appropriate sources if I look hard enough. So does now your wikipedia moderating follow wikipedia rules or your own boich or your sfirah sinas chinam rules?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popabar (talk • contribs) 12:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)  Popabar (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal to me. I'd never heard of this establishment before you decided to "troll Wikipedia", adding that it was " awesome!" and "a fun game!" and that YCT could "use a taste of their own medicine" because "they are so high and mighty" and "they are way way way closer to the Taliban than they are to normal American society." --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And now you are lying. Anyone who knows says the type of frum stuff you said above, and is on the internet as much as you obviously are, has well heard of this institution. And the fact that I have an axe to grind on them does not disqualify my info; there is no motive test for editing wikipedia. 140.247.241.163 (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Believe me or don't believe me. I really don't care. I'm not "disqualify"ing "info" nor am I "disqualify"ing any people, although I was tempted. But deliberately misusing sources to present a slant on a topic is vandalism. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You think I'm deliberately misusing sources? Which source do you think is misused? And perhaps my original version was somewhat slanted, but that was fixed up to be neutral. And I'm happy to edit it according to your rules, which I admittedly haven't spent as much time studying as you have, and was involved in a productive conversation about it with the goal towards making it acceptable, when you abruptly fully locked the page. You know the info I am presenting is accurate, and you know there is a good way to source it, and I wasn't edit warring about it--I was talking about it on the talk page. So yes, you are disqualifying information and people. The only vandals here are you and EvanH. (yes, I undid EvanH's edit because his objection was that Linzer is not relevant when Linzer is the Dean of the school and the sources on him were from his blog where he writes about what he taught that week, which is a legitimate source under the rules for "self published sources as sources on themselves".)140.247.169.114 (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

And Mr. Dweller, since I can't source to wikipedia for the mechitza quote, in your righteous zeal you might want to remove that quote from 5 lines down on this page since that is where I got it from. Popabar (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Dweller, you are taking popabar's comparison of YCT to Taliban entirely out of context. She is talking about YCT's segregational policies, regarding which she fully admits to holding an even more extreme religious view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daasyochid (talk • contribs) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can we get an indef block on all disruptive users per this monstrosity? Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 01:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good research Evan. Aren't you the one who was deleting entire sections a day ago because you hadn't bothered to notice that the person being talked about is the Dean of the school in question. I'm proud that at least now you're reading the talk pages of where you're deleting sections from. If one of us is a vandal, it is you. Popabar (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627205247/http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c52_a16167/Editorial__Opinion/Gary_Rosenblatt.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c52_a16167/Editorial__Opinion/Gary_Rosenblatt.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627205247/http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c52_a16167/Editorial__Opinion/Gary_Rosenblatt.html to http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c52_a16167/Editorial__Opinion/Gary_Rosenblatt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

More gender issues
I understand that YCT has been in the news from time to time regarding certain views on the role of women in Judaism, but is this really the place to be legislating that greater issue? At the very least, how is the last paragraph of the 'role of women' section relevant to the article? Also, lesser point but is it really necessary to give 'gender' its own section?Jbrzow (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Modern Orthodox Controversy
Describing YCT as Modox is misleading to readers. It is not accepted as such by any consensus in the Orthodox community. The article addresses this well, but the introduction of the article is misleading. Since this introduction shows up on Google, DuckDuckGo, etc, it's important that that be addressed at the beginning to prevent confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.36.16 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)