Addressing One of the Hidden Costs of Religious Life among Teenagers

As people of faith, we invest tremendous energy, effort and resources into educating and raising our children to also choose a religious lifestyle. We invest our time, passion and an incredible amount of money so that our children will hopefully see the power, beauty and meaning in living a life connected to God, devoted to the Torah, and enmeshed within the Jewish people.

And, while religious life brings great benefits, it also has costs, both hidden and explicit. The known costs often involve sacrifice – giving up on things that you want in order to lead a life of greater meaning. This might mean not pursuing a certain career; losing out on relationships. It can even be as simple as losing employment opportunities precluded by a Torah lifestyle.

Dr. Yaniv Efrati of Orot

Yet, leading a fully observant Torah lifestyle has hidden costs that we may not be aware of and therefore fail to address. Sometimes, we also really don't want to know about them as well.
Last night, during a staff symposium at Orot, I heard a very short "TED"-Style talk last night given by Dr. Yaniv Efrati, a lecturer on psychology at Orot Israel College. Dr. Efrati has been studying sexual disorders among Orthodox youth and the particular phenomenon of hypersexual activity disorder. I don't really understand the exact nature of the disorder, but basically it implies an excessive focus on sexuality to the point that it begins to interfere with everyday life.
Here's a definition that I found:

Sexual addiction or hypersexuality is defined as a dysfunctional preoccupation with sexual fantasy, often in combination with the obsessive pursuit of casual or non-intimate sex; pornography; compulsive masturbation; romantic intensity and objectified partner sex for a period of at least six months.

We're not talking about a couple of YouTube videos, but instead about teenagers focused on sex to the point that they fail to function. This could include a fixation with pornography that's readily available on the Internet, or staying up so late watching illicit videos that a person can't function the next day.
It probably won't surprise anyone to learn that after conducting a study of over 1,500 secular and religious Israeli teenagers, Dr. Efrati found a statistically significantly elevated rate of self-reported hypersexual behavior among Orthodox teens, predominantly males.

At least it didn't surprise me.

After all, kids raised in Torah environments are taught, incessantly, about the spiritual dangers of inappropriate sexuality. And they should be. While Torah Judaism lauds the notion of healthy sexuality, the Torah completely rejects and absolutely prohibits almost any and all forms of sexual activity or pleasure outside the realm of marriage. Think of all the sexual behaviors Orthodoxy precludes: הסתכלות (gazing), נגיעה (any form of physical contact), שיחה בטלה (flirting), to say nothing of any explicit sexual behavior. It's all out.

I particularly remember studying a specific passage in Masechet Sanhedrin:

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר פליגי בה ר' יעקב בר אידי ור' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר אשת איש היתה וחד אמר פנויה היתה בשלמא למאן דאמר אשת איש היתה שפיר אלא למ"ד פנויה היתה מאי כולי האי רב פפא אמר משום פגם משפחה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות (גמרא בבלי סנהדרין ע"ה עמוד א')

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man once conceived a passion for a certain woman,  and his heart was consumed by his burning desire [his life being endangered thereby]. When the doctors were consulted, they said, 'His only cure is that she shall submit.' Thereupon the Sages said: 'Let him die rather than that she should yield.' Then [said the doctors]; 'let her stand nude before him;' [they answered] 'sooner let him die'. 'Then', said the doctors, 'let her converse with him from behind a fence'. 'Let him die,' the Sages replied 'rather than she should converse with him from behind a fence.' (Sanhedrin 75a)

I clearly remember studying this piece of Gemara with Rabbi Cooper in high school. The message was pretty clear: anything sexual is totally out, and if you succumb you're a sinner.

Now take that same young man (or woman), and place him in almost any public place in the world today. The mall. The park. A computer connected to the Internet.

Like it or not, sexuality pervades modern society in every publication, television show, magazine, newspaper, many radio programs – it's basically everywhere. It's literally unavoidable. Now tell a teen who has been taught and accepts the Torah's prohibition against illicit sexuality (you know, the good kids…the best kids) who is surrounded by sexuality, that thoughts about sexuality and submission to temptation, even in the simplest form represent the commission of a terrible sin. What do we expect to happen to that child?

Here's what Dr. Efrati found: Orthodox teens reported not only elevated levels of hypersexual behavior, but also greater levels of stress, anxiety and depression than their secular peers. And, he found a direct, statistical correlation between the hypersexual behavior and these negative feelings, which directly led to a diminished sense of well-being among Orthodox youth.
Again, not that surprising: If you think that you're a sinner you're going to feel guilty about it. Some percentage of that population will tend towards anxiety and depression about their inability to suppress their sexual urges and their submission to sinful behavior.

What's the answer? The Gemara had a very clear solution: Marry off your kids early. Very, very early – at the ages of twelve or thirteen respectively.

כדתניא אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה רבי אליעזר אומר זה המשיא את בתו לזקן ר"ע אומר זה המשהא בתו בוגרת (סנהדרין ע"ו עמוד א')

As it has been taught: Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be a whore; R. Eliezer said: This refers to marrying one's [young] daughter to an old man. R. Akiba said: This refers to the delay in marrying off a daughter who is already a bogereth. (above the age of twelve and a half). (Sanhedrin 76a)

The Sages' solution offers us little solace. Aside from being illegal in most countries, we simply don't marry off our children at these young ages anymore. Teens today confront adolescence and the heightened sexual feelings that come with maturity without any permissible sexual outlet. That's just the way it is.

And for some of them, it's affecting their personal and psychological well-being.

This isn't, by any means, to suggest that an Orthodox lifestyle is harmful or negative. Far from it. But we must begin to acknowledge the struggle and challenge that Orthodox life presents for our children, so that we can openly and honestly begin to formulate a strategy to help those kids suffering from their struggle lead better, happier Orthodox lives.

Kol Isha and Modern Orthodoxy

In a previous post I wondered how the Modern Orthodox community seems to ignore the accepted halachic psak regarding the issue of kol isha. I received some thoughtful comments, including one from Noam Stadlan who wrote:

Many in the thinking MO community agree with the rationale, underlying assumptions, and thinking set forth by Rav Bigman, and certainly do not agree with Chareidi views of society and the place for women. Why should they adopt the Chareidi psak? If you think that Rav Bigman's view should not be followed, then in order to make a case that will fall on accepting ears you have to address the issues. For the thinking MO, it is the quality of the argument, not who said it (within reason) or how many said it, that matters. So if you oppose the action, you have to make an argument based on sources and logic, not a list of poskim.

Noam's comments concretized exactly why Modern Orthodox practice regarding kol isha bothers me so much. Since when has the Shulchan Aruch been appropriated by the Chareidi community? Suddenly, every rav and posek who doesn't conform to our values is now Chareidi? Even Seridei Eish, who allowed mixed groups to sing for kiruv purposes would never have permitted a public performance like "The Voice". Does that now mean that he was clearly Chareidi as well?
The comment suggests that the normative halachah of Kol Isha follows Modern Orthodox practice, and that some kind of Chareidi chumrah has crept into modern day Jewish life. Reading the sources (and I did); that is simply not the case, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. It's one thing for Rabbi Bigman to publish his position, which is of course his right. But at least he himself must acknowledge that his opinion contradicts normative halachic psak. It's quite another to suggest that someone who disagrees with him is "Chareidi" (i.e. radical), which can and should be easily dismissed. Noam wrote,

"For the thinking MO, it is the quality of the argument, not who said it (within reason) or how many said it, that matters."

Really? That's how halachah works? Every psak must be argued and debated and explained to the satisfaction of every individual? This entire line of thinking is precisely what bothers me (and to my understand, many, many others) about so-called "Modern Orthodoxy". It articulates the view that if a behavior or value that's explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and later poskim - and it is explicit and cannot be denied - doesn't match with my view, I can choose to ignore that view and attach myself to the da'at yachid I do like and do agree with, labeling anything more radical than myself as "Chareidi". Is there no notion of submission in Modern Orthodox thinking? Is everything subject to the litmus test of the individual?
That's not the way I learned that Halachah works. Rabbi Bigman is a moreh hora'ah, and can issue whatever psak he chooses. But Halachah isn't a poo-poo platter of choices for us to choose from, grabbing the ruling that we like and disregarding those that offend our tastes. Doing so flies in the face of the concept of Mesorah and an allegiance to the tradition that we believe can and must be transmitted through the generations. While the thinking you articulated certainly does match post-modern values which reject absolutes and demand that we only adhere to practices that match our personal, individual attitudes, that's not how Jewish law works.
If you want to follow Rav Bigman, then follow Rav Bigman. But don't just do it for kol isha. Do you know anything else about the piskei halachah that he issues? Do you follow his chumrot as well as his kulot, or does he too need to justify his thinking to you? (Clearly he does).
I'm not suggesting that I'm perfect. Far from it. I doubt that the Shulchan Aruch smiles on the fact that I watch "Top Chef" (not a good example, I know). But instead of suggesting that I'm really correct, and that anyone who thinks watching "Top Chef" is out of touch, and even worse - Chareidi - I'm mature enough to recognize that I probably shouldn't watch it, and this an issue that I struggle with.
A recent comment on Hirhurim about keeping two days of Yom Tov illustrated this point precisely. Joseph Kaplan wrote,

I was once told by R. Adler that there are Teaneck residents who daven in other shuls but are affiliate members of Rinat just so they can consider R. Adler their moreh deasra and follow his psak on observing only 1 day. We’re full members so it was slam dunk that all four of my kids observed 1 day during their year in Israel. And my sense is from speaking to friends that more and more MO observe only 1 day in Israel, some of whom observed 2 days not so long ago.

At least in Teaneck they some feel the need to affiliate with Rabbi Adler's shul in order to follow his psak. But according to Noam's way of thinking, who needs to affiliate? What difference does it make if he's your rabbi? After all, it's the arguments that count, which is precisely why "more and more MO observe only 1 day in Israel." They like the psak, so why not follow it?

This brings me to another comment regarding kol isha related to the Rav. Another commenter wrote that the Rav attended the opera. Sorry, that's not a psak to me, and the fact that individual rabbis allowed (or allow) individual people to attend the opera also doesn't convince me.
There's a concept in Jewish law of individuality, and not everything every rabbi tells an individual immediately becomes normative Jewish law. It's well-known that the Rav's wife did not cover her hair. Does that mean that the Rav also didn't believe in kisui rosh? Quote me a shiur, a written article, anything - where the Rav issued a psak allowing men to attend to opera. He was a very, very smart man, and knew his audience and the time in which he lived. He knew when he was speaking publicly, and when he was speaking privately, and the two are not the same.
I myself have issue piskei halachah for individuals that I would never write in public. Halachah is quite flexible in this manner. Yet, when every individual has a me-too attitude, and tells himself, "If he could do it, why can't I," the very foundation of halachah finds itself in peril of collapse.
Truth be told, this is where I fear a significant chunk of Modern Orthodoxy is headed. Without fealty to mesorah; when we can choose what appeals to us and reject authority when rulings do not - the very concept of shemirat hamitzvot finds itself on very shaky ground indeed.

My problem with a religious girl singing on The Voice isn't the fact that her rav allowed it. I know for a fact that he doesn't permit public singing. My problem is the fact that she never even asked the question in the first place. And that, as you wrote, is the very essence of Modern Orthodoxy.

Kol Isha and a Rabbinic Conundrum

In my class on Halachah this week at Orot, we studied the halachot of Kol B'isha Erva (the prohibition against hearing women sing) in the context of the recent appearance of a religious girl on the Israeli reality show "The Voice" (or, as they say here, "de voyce"). It's not an understatement to say that this episode has been a rather significant issue here in the religious community in Israel.
From my perspective, it's clear that the producers chose her in the competition not only for her voice, but specifically because she's religious. The issue comes up during her first tryout, and the words that they use to describe her singing ("pure", "modest") are clearly influenced by this issue. They even ask her to sing piyyut, which she gladly does.
Her appearance obviously raised the challenging question of how to respond when a member of the religious community does something that contradicts the values of Jewish law. (And her singing publicly clearly does violate halachah according to the vast, vast majority of poskim, despite arguments to the contrary. This episode reminds me of when the Maimonides grad who participated in a modeling reality show.)
How should her school - a religious Ulpana react? Educational institutions are not charged with policing the actions of their students, nor should they be. But when a student publicly acts in a manner that clearly contradicts the values of the school, she becomes a de-facto spokesperson and representative of that school. Other parents rightly or wrongly begin to wonder: "Really, that's how students at that school act? Maybe it's not the best place for my daughter." (We might not like it, but that is how things work). In this case, the school struggled mightily with this tension, and in the end the student agreed to leave school for two weeks voluntarily, allowing the school to express its displeasure with her performing without officially punishing her.
What about her rabbi? How should he conduct himself throughout the episode?

In my prep for the class, I came across a fascinating article describing what happened when the film crew came to the girl's yishuv to film hoping to conduct a joint interview with the rav of the Yishuv, Rav Zvi Arnon.
Rav Arnon refused to speak on camera, even after the camera crew literally ambushed him at shul during minchah. He explained his refusal by saying that no matter what he said, he would be portrayed as a villain, specifically because he represents a viewpoint that's against the underlying values of the entire television show.
Fascinatingly, the members of his community (a religious community), rather than supporting him, were angry with him for failing to support the budding television star.

The article raises fascinating and important rabbinic issues, including:
1. Dealing with a media hostile to religious values
2. Dealing with ba'alei batim who don't support a halachic viewpoint
3. Representing a Torah point of view unpopular in a modern Orthodox community
4. Interactions between religious and non-religious Jews: In her tryout, three different mentors vied for her to choose them, one of whom clearly had religious tendencies. She chose Aviv Gefen, apparently the most secular of the three. Is that something we should try to discourage? The clip I shared above is her visit with him to the shul in Nir Galim, as they talk about religion and faith. Can you create a Kiddush Hashem in the context of a larger violation of Jewish law?
5. Finally, why don't Modern Orthodox Jews, by and large, adhere to or seem to care about the halachot of kol isha?

Personally, I believe that Rav Arnon made absolutely the right choice. He found himself in a lose-lose situation, over which he'd have no control. But it cannot be easy to be the representative of an unpopular Torah value without even the support of the members of your own community.

Defining Success in Modern Orthodoxy: Thoughts on Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel

After I recently wrote about the upcoming thirtieth yahrtzeit of my father, a number of people commented on just how young he was when he died, leaving my mother to raise seven children between the ages of sixteen and two. Looking back, I continue to marvel at what she accomplished. Somehow, she raised each of us to follow in the values of Torah and Shemirat Hamitzvot. Each one of her children is an active, dedicated member of his or her Orthodox community, no small feat for a family that suffered such a devastating blow at such an early stage.

One interesting aspect of my family is the spectrum of Orthodoxy that we represent. From my brother in Florida and me (both of whom attended Yeshiva University) on the "modern" side of the spectrum, to my sisters who attended Stern College and married "yeshivish" (please excuse the generalizations) to another brother who first studied in yeshiva after high school but then went on to university and medical school, to my brother who learned for years in kollel and never attended college and sister whose husband studied in kollel in Lakewood for years. I'm not sure to what degree my mother guided each of our choices, but she honored them. My sister always wanted Beis Ya'akov Yerushalayim. My mother understood what that meant and supported her. When a brother transferred from Sha'alvim to Rav Zvi Kushelevsky's yeshiva, my mother stood behind him. In hindsight, she didn't seem to care where on the Orthodox spectrum we fell. But she did - and still does care deeply that we maintain our allegiance to Torah and mitzvot.

He was clearly proud of his upbringing.
Are his students?

It is in this context that I contemplate the recent passing of the late Mir Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Nosson Zvi Finkel. By now it's well known that Rav Finkel grew up in Chicago and attended what would later become the Ida Crown Jewish Academy. That revelation brought me to wonder: When a modern Orthodox institution educates a child who then goes on to accept some most tenets of its ideology, but reject others, is that a success? Or, better yet, to what degree is that a success? If you find the question provocative, ask it the other way around: If a graduate of a right-wing yeshiva grew up to become a major Modern Orthodox leader and thinker (perhaps like this giant), would that institution proudly promote the accomplishments of its graduate? Or would it instead say (as was quoted in Ha'aretz) about Rav Finkel that while,

"He grew up on baseball, American kosher hotdogs, apple pie and everything else that represents the American Jewish scene. He transcended all - in order to develop into a personality that develops other personalities."

In other words, he had to overcome his upbringing in order to become the Rosh Yeshiva that he became. Yesterday, my wife and kids watched a video report on Israel National News about the funeral, which included commentary from a number of people including Rabbi Avrohom Goldstein, the Co-head of the Diaspora Yeshiva in Jerusalem, who said a number of times in his two minute narrative that Rav Finkel achieved greatness despite the fact that he, "Grew up from nothing and built himself into a giant." 

No, he didn't grow up from nothing. He grew up in a family that cherished Torah enough to send him to an Orthodox Jewish Torah school, an act we might now take for granted but certainly was not widely popular in the late fifties and early sixties when Rav Finkel attended high school. It was a major, significant expense that many families simply could not justify. But his parents paid that price, and reaped the benefits of merit and nachas in the accomplishments their son would achieve not despite his Torah education, but because of it.

I am sure that the Ida Crown Jewish Academy is, and should be proud that its graduate grew to become a major figure in the Orthodox world. As well it should be. Modern Orthodoxy need not be about creating replicas of ourselves. It must - and I think does correctly - realize that different students will find their unique relationship to Torah Judaism, and that Orthodoxy's message resonates in each of us differently. Were we to consider right-wing graduates as "failures" who we didn't properly educate (or more appropriately, "indoctrinate") to "our" values, I would consider the failure not in the child, but in the educational vision. Kids aren't stamps. They aren't clones. They must be given the leeway to find their own path in Torah, allowing them to thrive in the manner most appropriate to them.

My mother (and others as well), recognizing my passion for Religious Zionism, likes to needle me by asking, "What will you do if one of your children chooses Chareidi Judaism?" In essence she's asking, "How would you feel if your child rejected your way of life?" The question used to bother me more than it does now. I have grown to answer (truthfully, I think), "I would love and respect that child. If they want to be Chareidi, great! But," I always add, "I would make it quite clear: If you want be Chareidi, I will honor and respect your choice. But I'm not going to pay for it or support it." 

Rav Finkel didn't come from "nothing." He didn't "transcend" his American Torah education. That education encouraged him to strive to be the great Torah scholar he became. It gave him the foundation of values and skills which guided him for the rest of his life. It probably gave him the communication skills so critical to grow the Mir into the colossus it has become.

His life represents not a failure of Modern Orthodoxy, but yet another example of its great success.