text:
A good friend of mine, Michael Schweitzer, has just published an article in the Nishma Introspection journal out of Toronto. At the moment, he's having problems accessing his website to put a copy of the article on line so I've graciously agreed to post it here. We look forward to your comments as much of what he concludes is central to Navonim philosophy. Also, take a moment to browse the Nishma website and peruse its many interesting and intelligent articles.
R' Dr. Michael J. Schweitzer
For some, Modern Orthodoxy is a movement with a problem. It lacks a definitive identity which has caused many of its facets to suffer. Many of its schools are populated with Torah teachers that do not reflect its specific values because the movement does not seem to produce a sufficient body of educators for its institutions. Its adherents are dwindling in numbers as its children and young adults migrate to the left and, even more so, to the right. Its influence in the general Jewish community and in the general Orthodox community is waning; its voice is not heard. The intent of this article is to approach the subject of Modern Orthodoxy and its difficulties from a point of view different than that found in the mainstream literature. I will examine the various definitions of Modern Orthodoxy, summarize what distinguishes it from Chareidi Orthodoxy, note the concerns with its viability and suggest solutions to help the movement continue forward until such time as Hashem sees fit to reveal his Moshiach and return us to our homeland in Israel.
It is with great caution and trepidation that I express my views in this article for I am not an expert or even well-read, and am not fit to even be in the presence of many of the great rabbonim of the Torah world whose opinion on this subject is far more authoritative than mine. The Mishnah in Avos tells us that a wise man does not speak in the presence of those who are greater than he in wisdom[1] but it also notes that "where there are no men, strive to be a man"[2]. It is with this intent, with the help of Hashem that I try to add my voice to the discussion in the hopes of adding something constructive to it.
Please note that this article will specifically limit its discussion to the situation regarding Modern Orthodoxy in North America. The status of the movement in Israel and its relationship with Religious Zionism (Mizrachi), although connected and of significance within this discussion, will not be fully explored due to the extended complexity of the issue.
In order to address any questions about Modern Orthodoxy, it is important to first define it. The main problem with that undertaking is the variety of levels of belief and observance found within the movement. Chaim Waxman maintains that the Modern Orthodox can be roughly divided into two groups: "behaviourally modern" and "ideologically modern."[3] The former are those who lead their lives as they wish when it comes to work, family, and social interaction. They do this "by ignoring those aspects of halachah which they find most cumbersome or onerous and/or by a process of compartmentalization in which they apply Jewish law to some but not to other aspects of their lives." The latter, a much smaller group, tries to reconcile strict adherence to halachah with the standards of Western culture.[4]
The approach of the behavioural group poses some great difficulties in assessing the movement as a whole. The nigh-irresistible pressures placed on the Jew choosing to lead such a lifestyle can lead to compromises that might not be sound from a halachic point of view. One author has called this an approach which is "half pagan, half halachic".[5] Chaim Waxman notes that "the behaviourally Modern Orthodox…are not deeply concerned with philosophical ideas about either modernity or religious Zionism. By and large, they define themselves as Modern Orthodox in the sense that they are not meticulously observant."
There are still statements found within Modern Orthodox literature that attempt to give some sense of value to the behavioural group. For example, R' Avi Weiss notes regarding halachah that "while bordered by a system that is external to humankind – the G-d-given law, Torah miSinai, to which Jews are subservient – it also includes laws derived by the Rabbis, concerning which there may be more than one view. It therefore follows that halachah is a living structure that operates within absolute guidelines, yet one which is broad enough to allow significant latitude for the posek to take into account the individual and his or her circumstances."[6] In truth, this definition does not actually apply to the behavioural group which isn't particularly interested in the flexibility of halachah, especially when faced with situations where no interest in observing it actually exists. What this statement, though, does still present is a value in the personal drives and desires of the individual. If Halacha is flexible, the result is that it can be seen as possibly giving value to one's personal interests. The oft-quoted remark that "if there is a Halachic will, there is a Halachic way" offers the behavioural Orthodox the defence that the only reason that their desired action is not yet permitted is because the rabbis haven't figured out the solution, yet – with fault being placed on the rabbis for not embracing this new perspective and the necessary work to define the theoretical Halachic allowance.
The result is that, far from standing for something, this defines the group in the negative. It is not unusual to hear Modern Orthodox Jews, specifically of the behavioural group, define their level of observance as "Of course I won't do that. I'm not Reform, you know!" When confronted with practices that contravene halachah, the standard answer given is "I'm not like that. I'm not chareidi!" This lack of positive ideology excludes them from discussions regarding the essential religious and philosophical nature of Modern Orthodoxy.
Helmreich and Shinnar define the ideological group as "a movement that seeks to harmonize the secular and the religious in ways that are compatible with both."[7] They posit that what defines Modern Orthodoxy as a movement is that it tries to respond to the challenge of living in the modern world within the guidelines set by Torah. How is this to be done? They contend that Modern Orthodoxy's approach is "a belief that one can and should be a full member of modern society, accepting the risk to remaining observant, because the benefits outweigh those risks. What it means is that a Jew can study the writings of Christian philosophy, learn any scientific therapy he or she wants to, attend a concert at which women sing (accepting the view of some halachic authorities that this is permitted), interact with non-Jews on multiple levels, and do pretty much what others do in their own societies, even while leading a fully observant life." To fully understand the depth and challenge inherent in this statement, it is necessary, though, to consider the roots of the movement.
THE ROOTS OF MODERN ORTHODOXY
In order to better analyze Modern Orthodoxy, it is important to briefly review its historical development. The movement can trace its existence to two schools of thought that developed in Germany approximately 100-150 years ago. The current forms of Modern Orthodoxy developed from these two schools, the Frankfurt School and the Berlin School.
The Frankfurt School was created by R' Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, zt"l (5568-5648) around the year 5611 (1851 AD) when he became the head rav of the Israelite Religious Society, a group of Orthodox Jews opposed to the spread of Reform Judaism in Germany. He organized the local teaching institutions as well as writing copious materials to support his view of Torah and refute Reform's heretical opinions.
The main theme of his writings was Torah Im Derech Eretz, Torah with secular knowledge. As opposed to classical Chareidi teaching which disdained any learning of non-religious (i.e. non-Torah) subjects and minimized the importance of gainful employment in order to better focus on the intense study of Torah, the Torah Im Derech Eretz approach developed by R' Hirsch proposed that working for a living, the learning of secular subjects and the embracing of certain aspects of general culture, could be used to develop one's understanding of Torah and enhance one's Orthodox lifestyle. However, R' Hirsch's approach was still to affirm the primacy of Torah over the study of secular subjects and working for a living. Secular knowledge was important for a better understanding of Torah concepts and working served the function of allowing people to be able to afford the costs of education and living a Jewish lifestyle but they were seen as fully subservient to the role of Torah in the Jew's life, never to be allowed to challenge the centrality of the Holy Writ or influence its practical observance.[8] Furthermore, R' Hirsch was selective in choosing his sources. He strongly felt that all things in the world were the creation of G-d and therefore had a promise of eventual benefit in them.[9] Secular knowledge, behaviour and appreciation of the natural world was useless, though, unless it inspired religiously; but if it did, it was obligatory to use it to enhance one's practice and understanding of Torah. Of importance to note is that, even and especially when analyzing Torah subjects, he and his followers generally ignored non-traditional scholars and the scholarly techniques in use at German universities of the day.[10]
Although Rav Hirsch was not the first Jewish authority to propose the concept of Torah Im Derech Eretz (the concept is specifically mentioned in Avos 2:2 and again in a different fashion in 3:20), he was the first to create a formal structure for it that would allow for a response to the challenges of modernity and Reform. In other words, R' Hirsch developed Torah Im Derech Eretz into a philosophy that would encompass a Jew's entire worldview, allowing him to move comfortably as a Torah-observant Jew throughout the surrounding society without giving up his level of observance.
While Rav Hirsch's Frankfurt School of thought did produce Jews who were strictly observant and able to move within secular society without compromising on their Torah beliefs, it failed to produce, in any significant number, Gedolim like the Litvish yeshivah world with its exclusive focus on Torah study. On the other hand, Rav Hirsch's approach conferred a tremendous advantage to its students in their day-to-day lives. Many Litvish scholars who came in contact with the secular world were often overwhelmed by it and were unable to respond to its challenges[11] while those schooled in Torah Im Derech Eretz were able to overcome the challenges.
The Berlin School was founded by R' Azriel Hildesheimer (5580-5659). R' Hildesheimer was extensively educated not only in Torah subjects but in classical secular studies as well. His Berlin Rabbinical Seminary was unique in that it demanded that its students have a high level of achievement in secular studies to be admitted to its program. They were also expected to continue with a concurrent university program during their time in the Seminary. His goal was to create a centre for Jewish intelligentsia, not merely a school for producing rabbis.
Given this objective, it should not be surprising to hear that the Berlin school's approach towards secular knowledge was even more welcoming than the Frankfort's school's approach. In contrast to R' Hirsch's limitation on the interaction with secular studies when there was a deep contrast with Torah-observant sources, the Berlin school approached Torah with the scholarly approach commonly used in non-Jewish universities of the time. R' Hildesheimer's successor, R' David Tzi Hoffman and one of his prominent lecturers, Samuel Grünberg, encouraged an approach that would produce students who would be able to confront the intellectual attacks on Judaism that were coming from the schools of Biblical Criticism and the Reform movement. Indeed, the Reform Movement saw the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary as a tremendous threat specifically because its students could refute its heretical assertions on scholarly grounds.
The major disadvantage of this approach was that the study of Judaism by the Berlin school became more scholarly and scientific, and less passionate. R' Hirsch's critical response to the approach seems particularly apt: "Has the 'Science of Judaism' interested our contemporary generations in drinking deeply, and on their own, from the wellsprings of Judaism in order to enlighten their minds, warm their hearts, and gain sufficient energy and courage for vital, active, personal involvement in the pulsating life of our present day?"[12]
Another difference between the Frankfurt and Berlin schools was the level of interaction between the students of each school and the surrounding Jewish community. R' Hirsch's school avoided any attempts at cooperation with those elements of the community that did not adhere to Orthodoxy, even in matters important to the Jewish population in general. In contrast, the Berlin school initially chose to allow a degree of cooperation with non-religious scholars, albeit not in sacred matters. Because of their emphasis on an academic, scholarly technique in Torah study, it was logical that they should hold discussions with other people who shared a similar approach. However, this eventually expanded so that after a generation, the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary was conversing with the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, both non-Torah-observant institutions. This is something that R' Hirsch's school would never have done. It is even questionable whether or not the Berlin school's founder, R' Hildesheimer, would have approved of such a high level of interaction.[13]
Modern Orthodoxy, to a large extent, in its current form seems to owe more to the Berlin school than the Frankfurt school, even though many people who identify themselves as Modern Orthodox often point to R' Hirsch as the first rav of their movement. Clearly the current emphasis within the Modern Orthodox movement of Torah U'Maddah is a direct successor to R' Hildesheimer's philosophy and less an inheritor of R' Hirsch's Torah Im Derech Eretz which helped to found the Agudat Yisrael organization and to this day sees itself as a part of it. In actuality, the Frankfurt school, to a certain extent, eventually connected with the Charedi world which yields some of the problems in attempting to understand Modern Orthodoxy.
THEY'RE MODERN TOO
Given the above realization, the very name of the movement presents a problem. Modern Orthodoxy is, as defined above, a philosophy that halachic living can and should be reconciled with the demands of the modern world. However, if one looks at the Chareidi world, one can find a great deal of appreciation of modernity within it. Whether it is engaging in professions such as medicine and accounting, or accessing current technology such as the Internet, Chareidi Jews are as much a part of the surrounding world as Modern Orthodox Jews. Even the ultimate stereotype of the Chareidi rejection of the outside world, the Neturei Karta, have a website! Thus, the concept of reconciling halachah and modern society is not a problem unique to the Modern Orthodox, nor are they the only Torah-observant group trying to solve the dilemma such juxtaposition causes. This is actually the legacy of the Frankfurt school which effectively integrated into the Charedi world. (A discussion of how the Charedi world, in turn, may have affected Rabbi Hirsch's original concept and the Frankfurt school over time, while of interest, is beyond the parameters of this article.)
In terms of education, as such, many Chareidi Jews are also quite knowledgeable about various secular fields. One can find Chareidi physicians and surgeons, scientists, mathematicians and physicists. Rav Adin Steinsaltz is renowned not just for his encyclopaedic knowledge of Torah but also for his expertise in physics, history and philosophy. Rav Yonasan Rosenblem, a personal acquaintance and the director of Am Echad, a Chareidi media resource centre in Israel, is knowledgeable about numerous classic and contemporary literary works and has extensive legal training as well. Rav Dovid Gottleib of Ohr Someach in Jerusalem has a Ph.D. in philosophy and is a recognized expert in the field. To therefore state that a difference between Modern Orthodoxy and Chareidi Orthodoxy is simply the level of interaction with the secular world, would be a fallacy. Beyond an analysis of the distinction between the Berlin School and the Frankfurt School, what is demanded is a more thorough investigation into the essence of this distinction.
CONTRASTS WITH THE ULTRA-ORTHODOX
Historically, Judaism has been a religion/nationality in which personal behaviours and observance link the individual to the surrounding community. As a result, the religious leadership of the Jewish nation and sense of community have always been important. "All Jews are responsible for each other" goes the popular saying from the Talmud. Classical Judaism demands a loyalty to Torah and the community that upholds it, with those demands very thoroughly defined. The downside of this concept is that when the individual's needs are not addressed by the community, this can lead to a tension between the collective and that individual.
In addressing this tension, the Chareidi community has chosen to emphasize the collective over the individual. As a rule, Chareidim are very much subordinate to their communities, affording tremendous power to their rabbinical leaders and enforcing standards on all their members, hence the strong role the Gadol plays in their circles. It is not a mere coincidence that members of a particular Chasidic clan will all wear identical suits and speak in similar ways, or that students of a particular yeshivah will all hold the same opinions as their Rosh Yeshivah. Within the current chareidi community there is a great consensus on what chumros are considered mandatory and what standards people should uphold if they wish to join the group. Much of this is due to a sense of central authority, be it through the various Councils of Sages in Israel or the Agudas Yisrael in the United States and Israel.
On the other hand, within the Modern Orthodox world there is no real functioning central authority. There is Yeshiva University which is the leading centre of Modern Orthodox learning, but unlike Ponevezh or Gur, there are few leaders within that institution who either have the authority or the inclination to issue decrees on the entire Modern Orthodox world and expect that people will follow their instructions obediently.[14]
Instead of conformity, ideological Modern Orthodoxy has chosen to emphasize the individual through the exercise of personal autonomy. Rather than accept the group-think mentality that dominates the Chareidi world, Modern Orthodox Jews demand their independence in thought and action. A rabbi in a Modern Orthodox community is expected to pasken with far more authority than a Chareidi one who might more commonly seek out the opinion of his Gedolei HaDor and defer to that. The tremendous advantage of this approach is that the local rabbi often understands the unique composition and needs of his community and can therefore handle halachic inquiries with a greater sense of relevancy to the questioner.
However, there is a significant negative to this emphasis of the individual over the collective. A Modern Orthodox Jew often keeps those minhagim he or she relates to or can rationalize, dresses as he or she wants to, and interacts with modern society to the degree that he or she thinks best. The result makes it quite problematic to actually describe what a Modern Orthodox Jew is. When a person describes himself as Chareidi, many assumptions in terms of level of observance, standards of kashrus, etc. are automatically defined. This is not the case when a person describes himself as Modern Orthodox. One Modern Orthodox Jew's definition of kosher may be far too lenient for another Modern Orthodox Jew to rely on. Spending Shabbos together may be difficult. Due to the conflict between the concept of personal autonomy and the need to conform to the greater collective, even important philosophical beliefs may be completely different until the only thing the two individuals have in common is their not belonging either to the secular or very religious segments of the Jewish people.
This lack of uniformity and passion is also robbing Modern Orthodoxy of much of its next generation. Most people are familiar with the concept of students spending a year in Israel following the completion of their high school studies and before beginning university. What is becoming more noticeable is the number of Modern Orthodox youth who return from the year (assuming they don't succumb to the temptation to stay "a little longer") looking for a more intense and passionate way to practice their Judaism while eschewing their Modern Orthodox background and its traditions to which they feel little connection. This happens for the most obvious of reasons. At that stage in their lives, children are becoming young adults and their sense of identity is still in flux. They naturally seek out groups to belong to and ideologies to adopt so they can feel that they are part of a greater whole. A Modern Orthodox setting will give them choices. A Chareidi setting will provide opinions, make their choices for them and give them a uniform so they can become part of a group.
SO MUCH TO LEARN, SO LITTLE TIME
Our Sages tell us that the Torah is as endless as the waters of the ocean. No one person can learn all that is incumbent upon him and yet we are not allowed to desist from the effort.[15] If one compares the Chareidi and the Modern Orthodox approach to learning, a few differences immediately present themselves as well.
a) Importance of ongoing Torah study – The concept of Torah Lishmah and ongoing intensive Torah study defines Chareidi learning circles. It is not uncommon to walk into a Litvish yeshivah and see two masmidim arguing over whose ox gored whose first and is therefore responsible for the damages even though neither person has probably ever seen an ox or would recognize one if it attacked him in the street. In addition, within the Chareidi world only Torah-based information is generally permitted in a discussion. One may wish to argue over an event that occurred in the history of the Babylonian Jewish community but bringing in archaeological or non-Orthodox sources to bolster one's proof would generally be avoided. The words of Chazal are supreme and not to be contradicted. In the Modern Orthodox world, by contrast, the importance of Torah scholarship has a less exclusive prominence and as a result, a certain amount of external knowledge is generally encouraged. As a result, when an average[16] chareidi and certain types of Modern Orthodox Jews debate a position, the chareidi is far more likely to justify his position in purely Jewish terms because of his total reliance on his learning, while the Modern Orthodox Jew may bring in "outside" references to bolster his position. Additionally, in Chareidi yeshivos and learning groups, it is generally the rav who teaches the shiur or leads the discussion and has the final word in disputes. In Modern Orthodox circles, it is not unusual to find Ph.D's or other "qualified" individuals teaching shiurim to others and in topics that, strictly speaking, aren't Torah study such as Biblical criticism or archaeological discoveries. This is not to disparage the level of knowledge the individual may have but it does diminish the leading role of the Rav found in more traditional groups, reducing him to the level of one expert among many while giving the outside subjects the same perceived value as true limud Torah.
b) Approach to halachah – amongst the chareidim, there is a controversial concept of daas Torah, loosely defined as "the views of their rabbinic leaders must be followed without question even in non-halachic areas."[17] Daas Torah nowadays seems to function as a trump card in halachic matters, ending the discussion with a decision even though the "losing" side might have definite opinions to back it up.[18] Within Modern Orthodoxy, there is a much more scientific approach to halachah where variant positions are judged based on the evidence that supports them within Jewish legal literature. "Halachah is a rational discipline operating in the empirical world, open to argument and counter-argument and the development of consensus."[19] This approach often leads to a more intelligent approach to the subject in question but yields far less definitive answers as, almost by definition, any approach which has support in the literature retains its legitimacy.
c) Passion - When a chareidi Jew prays or learns, he sways back and forth. He may be reading t'hillim, or he may be slogging through a particularly dry sugya in gemara, but he does it with a tune and with emphasis. There is a love and liveliness to his practice. In the Modern Orthodox world, things are much more emotionally sterile. As noted above, the Modern Orthodox community can be divided into the behavioural and ideological. The behaviourally Modern Orthodox community does not seek too much depth in Torah and generally looks for its excitement out in the secular world. They may enjoy their Purim parties but an inspirational drasha doesn't terribly excite them. On the other hand, the ideological Modern Orthodox approach Torah and halachah from a very intellectual point of view. As a result, halachic dispute and discussion contain all the excitement of a debate on the physics of quantum mechanics. For those intelligent enough to understand the varying positions it can be enthralling and involving but only a very few can function at this level. Furthermore, the emphasis on empiricism precludes strong emotional attachment to one's view and eliminates true passion from the debate. As a result, "the ability of Modern Orthodoxy to attract a large following and become a movement is inherently inhibited by the fact that it is highly rational and intellectual. This alone would limit its attraction since it has built-in tensions and frequently requires consciously living with inconsistency."[20]
It is for these two reasons that it can be argued that Modern Orthodoxy falls short in its dispute with the Chareidi world. First, in not emphasizing and grounding itself firmly and positively in Torah and halachah in the broadest sense, and, second, in not offering a sense of unity in approach, is there any wonder that it is losing ground in influence throughout the Jewish world?
WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO?
Some articles on Modern Orthodoxy do attempt to expound some positions the movement maintains from a positive perspective. Rav Avi Weiss' well-known article "Open Orthodoxy! A Modern Orthodox Rabbi's Creed" he lists several items, including the use of secular knowledge to better understand Torah, a feeling of community with non-religious Jewish groups, a support of the State of Israel and the equality of women in Jewish ritual observance. Other writers go further, adding such matters such as participating in civil society, valuing secular knowledge for its own sake and making the helping of the non-Jewish disadvantaged a priority.[21] The following questions must be asked: Is this a proper expression of what Modern Orthodoxy stands for? what core beliefs lead them to these conclusions? Why do they believe what they do?
Rav David Hartmann, speaking in Toronto in the fall of 1991 on the subject of interactions and dialogue between different religious groups, made a simple but memorable point: "A single question cannot have two contradictory answers which are both correct." For example, if Muhammed, y"sh is indeed the last prophet and Hashem, going by the name Allah, did instruct him in the principles of the new "true" religion, Islam, Judaism and Christianity are false faiths and it is wrong to observe them. If Muhammed made the whole story up, then Islam is based on a falsehood despite having a billion adherents. It is intellectually dishonest to justify both Judaism and Islam by the pathetic phrase "Well, that may be what you believe and I guess we'll just have to disagree while respecting each other's opinion."
Rav S. R. Hirsch, zt"l, phrased this idea similarly. PROBLEM WITH QUOTE – CHECK IT OVER "Let us not deceive ourselves. The whole question is simply this. Is the statement And G-d spoke to Moses saying with which all the laws of the Jewish Bible commence, true or not true? Do we truly believe that G-d, the Omnipotent and Holy, spoke thus to Moses? Do we speak the truth when in front of our brethren we lay our hand on the scroll containing these words and say that G-d has given us this Torah, the Torah of truth and with it of eternal life, is planted in our midst? Is this is to be no mere lip service, no mere rhetorical flourish, then we must keep and carry out this Torah without omission and without carping, in all circumstances and at all times. This word of G-d must be our eternal rule superior to all human judgement, the rule to which all our actions must at all times conform; and instead of complaining that it is no longer suitable to the times, our only complaint must be that times are no longer suitable to it. And if, again, in carrying out this word of G-d we choose to follow the teachings and instructions that have come down to us from the Rabbis, we can and must do only if and because we recognize in them the same divine origin as the written word of G-d."[22]
This approach can therefore be used to determine which beliefs are authoritatively Jewish or not. Either Matan Torah happened as described in the book of Sh'mos and as elucidated by our Sages, or it didn't. Either the Torah Shel Ba'al Peh is an authentic and inseparable part of our law given by Hashem to Moshe Rabeinu a"h or it isn't. Either the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries are the most current authoritative source of Jewish law and practice or they aren't. The answers to these questions and many more decide whether a person is faithful to Toras Moshe or not. What are the answers given by the Modern Orthodox community and why do they choose them?
Additionally, one must examine the influence of the surrounding culture on a Modern Orthodoxy which is not insulated from its effects. One factor affecting Modern Orthodox perceptions is that of the dominant Christian culture around us with its emphasis on public worship and relative lack of rituals for observance in the home. Another corrupting factor has been Secular Liberalism's presumption that inequality between two groups (for example, men and women) must render one superior and one inferior, hence propagating unfairness. Finally there is the philosophy of the feminist movement in which any task traditionally thought of as "women's work" has been denigrated and disregarded. Thus the emphasis on communal worship, the perception of inequality and the diminishment of the importance of the role of the women in maintaining the home have seeped into Modern Orthodox thought. The same writers who insist that Modern Orthodoxy is all about giving women equal rights to participate in shul and have their own Megillah readings come Purim give minimal mention to the challenge of the source and heredity of these values. If they have emerged from our interaction with the secular world, the first issue that must be addressed is how this interaction is to be understood within the Torah perspective.
Having stated all this, we return to the question of why Modern Orthodox Jews believe what they do. An example should suffice: A Chareidi family will not own a television for halachic reasons. Their Gedolim have forbidden the device because of the perceived spiritual damages it can cause. They will therefore avoid television and everything to do with it as a positive expression of their beliefs. In contrast, the answer for a Modern Orthodox person owning a television might be "I don't think G-d has a problem with it." That is the true problem with this group; even the ideological adherents often do not perform activities with the positive intent of worshiping God. They argue that a practice is permitted but the ideal is not considered. A corresponding Modern Orthodox answer to the question of the acceptability of modern media in the home should be: "I think the positives of television outweigh the negatives and possessing one helps enhance my Judaism. God wants me to enhance my Judaism so I own a 45" plasma just to be machmir" but how often does one hear that stated?
At the root of Orthodoxy, a Jew does not perform activities because they're "nice" or "the right thing to do". The guiding point of every action should be that these actions are a Jew's fulfillment of ratzon Hashem, God's Will. It's one thing to echo secular concerns and say that this is what defines Modern Orthodoxy. Without first declaring, though, that the fundamental assumption behind adopting these concerns is a desire to fulfill ratzon Hashem, these activities lack legitimacy from a Jewish standpoint and cannot define Orthodoxy.
There is a common failing amongst struggling groups. They continue to implement ideas and plans that, until now, have failed miserably in the hope that they will soon become successful. As Modern Orthodoxy has faced its difficulties over the last few decades, there has been a tendency to emphasize the "Modern" as a way to redeem the movement. Thus the Edah organization used "The Courage to be Modern and Orthodox" as its slogan, as if there was some important Jewish expectation that one must be modern to be a good Jew and that this is courageous in some sense. This approach has never shown much success. Modern Orthodoxy has done a poor job over the last few decades when it comes to producing Torah scholars, defining the image of a Jew in the public arena and the greater Jewish community, interesting people through outreach and attracting other Orthodox Jews while holding on to their own young.
The response from many Modern Orthodox authorities has therefore been to increase the "Modern" yet further. We are now told women's prayer groups, mixed learning and social events and an appreciation of secular knowledge will strengthen the movement and lead it back to greatness although these very attempts have had the opposite result until now. As a reaction to the increasing power of the Chareidi community in defining what a Torah-observant Jew should look and act like, Modern Orthodoxy has come to emphasize matters that are only remotely connected with Torah, like showing concern for world affairs and engaging the general community in feel-good endeavours. The final result is that while the mother might express her modernity at an all-women's prayer service, her children will do it at the movies.
It might be posited that much of what Modern Orthodoxy posits as its defining characteristics are, in fact, qualities of Secular Liberalism that have snuck into the mindset of Jews who have become immersed in Western culture and have blurred the line between halachic positions and politically correct ones. This must be recognized and countered by accurate understanding of Torah sources and a desire for the Jew to seek out a true manner of service of Hashem not based on self-interest or "what I think is right."
G. IS IT EVEN PERMITTED TO BE MODERN?
At the root of this matter is the question of legitimacy. Simply put, is the concept of Modern Orthodoxy, with its combining of the sacred word of Hashem and human sources of knowledge, one that is consistent with Torah and halachah?
There are those in the Chareidi world who would answer that question in the negative. Certainly their viewpoint has its sources. For example, Moshe Rabeinu tells us that the Torah is "your life and the length of your days."[23] Further, at the beginning of his career as leader, Yehoshua is told by Hashem that "this book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth but you should contemplate it day and night in order that you observe it to do according to all that is written in it, for then you will be successful in your way and you will act wisely."[24] As a final example, we have the words of the mishnah in Avos: "Turn it over and turn it over for everything is in it, and in it shall you gaze."[25] From these sources, it would seem that a life dedicated exclusively to the study of Torah would be the standard by which an observant Jew would have to live his life.
However, even a superficial knowledge of Jewish history is enough to indicate that this interpretation is not correct. Throughout the Talmud we are told of what work our Sages of blessed memory engaged in. Indeed, the concept of paying a rabbi to teach Torah only came about, according to some opinions, when that teaching began taking up so much time that the rabbis in question could no longer find time to both practise a trade and teach. As is well known, both the Rambam and Ramban were physicians while Yitzchak Abarbanel was a minister of finance in medieval Spain. If exclusive Torah learning is a requirement, how did these giants of our people justify their career choices?
Furthermore, the technology that permeates modern society affects all of us. Unless we wish to return to an existence that excludes such basic utilities as running water, electricity and toilet paper, or we wish to be parasites living off the hard work of the secular world around us without participating in it, we must engage in some level of secular education in order to better our own circumstances and through that, our ability to observe and learn Torah. Therefore, Modern Orthodoxy must declare that, al pi haTorah, it is not just desirable but necessary for an observant Jew to engage in secular education – even if only in order to learn a profession or trade - something the Talmud had already recommended 1500 years ago. But again, can this define Modern Orthodoxy? Are there not elements within the Charedi world, perhaps connected to the Frankfurt School, which would maintain the same position?
The movement must do something more than announce that going to university or working for a living are permitted. Right at the beginning of the story of Creation we are told that Adam HaRishon was commanded to "have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."[26] Yishiahu 45:18 states: "He is God, the One who fashioned the Earth and its Maker; He established it' He did not create it to be empty; He fashioned it to be inhabited." Building a civil society with all its physical and cultural appurtenances is, therefore, not against the Torah or even only a simple utilitarian necessity. It is a positive Torah value for Jews to become educated and cultured so that they can, al pi haTorah contribute to the world around them and help bring God's morality to it. This must be the guiding motivation of Modern Orthodox. It must not be a religious position of exclusion but rather an expression of the highest aims of Torah and Judaism. It is not merely permitted to be modern. In many ways, it is obligatory!
H. PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS
In order to become a viable alternative to Chareidi Judaism, Modern Orthodoxy must undergo profound changes. While deciding the specifics of this is beyond the scope of this article, it can be proposed here that Modern Orthodoxy's intellectual group should lead the way in this endeavour. If the movement is to change from its current status as a loose association of "not Chareidi, not non-observant" members, any definitions decided on should be done so from the rigorous standpoint of halachah as interpreted through traditional yet scholarly methods. It might be noted that the behaviourally Orthodox group may be slighted by this approach. It is important, however, that the Modern Orthodox movement move beyond vague definitions and into more concrete territory even though it will compromise some of the autonomy which has defined it until now.
In this regard, the leading luminaries and religious authorities of the Modern Orthodox world must work together to develop such meaningful definitions for the movement. Any characteristics that are negative ("we're not ultra-Orthodox") or emphasize an attachment to secular liberal priorities ("we're all about helping the world through Tikun Olam") cannot be fundamental parts of this definition. As mentioned at the end of the previous section, Modern Orthodoxy must define itself as an approach to Torah and the understanding of the Will of God for us in this World.
This must be an authoritative description. It must include uncompromising loyalty to Torah and mitzvos with the emphasis on developing a system of halachic observance based on rational analysis of the traditional sources. The first and only fealty of the Modern Orthodox Jew must be to Hashem and His expectations for us. "Turn the Torah over again and again, for everything is contained within it." [27] Any definition so vague as to not exclude anyone who currently considers himself/herself Modern Orthodox, no matter how limited his/her practice of halachah would be meaningless; only in the authority granted to these definitions will there be the capability of encouraging behavioural and philosophical change amongst those on both sides of the movement. Like the Chareidi world, it will be important to define what is "right" and "wrong" within the scope of Jewish practice based more on centrally derived values than on reactions to the non-religious and ultra-Orthodox communities.
The next step would be to begin a centralized coordination of all those institutions in North America that claim to be Modern Orthodox in ideology to ensure that a common message, based on these standards is being transmitted to their memberships about the movement and its expectations of members. Again, these expectations would have to be decided by the leading figures of the movement. It would necessitate bringing a Chareidi concept, that of the Gadol, or authoritative halachic leader, into the Modern Orthodox world albeit with amendments reflecting the distinctive nature of Modern Orthodoxy. On the surface, this may be seen as an assault on one of the most precious features in the current dogma of Modern Orthodoxy -- the aforementioned personal autonomy over the values of the greater community -- but it is the extreme statement of this value that is exactly one of the main features that keeps Modern Orthodoxy from advancing as a movement and realizing any potential. Does this mean a total restriction on autonomy? Not necessarily. What it does mean is that there will be the articulation of the parameters that maintains the necessary vision of the movement. An old Jewish curse goes "May you have many leaders". With Modern Orthodox gedolim defining the movement and setting down standards, the form of the movement would become far more cohesive.
There must also be a philosophical shift within the world of Modern Orthodoxy. Charedi Judaism keeps its adherents loyal and dedicated through its use of emotion. Oftentimes, Modern Orthodoxy attempts to bring forth this emotion through its nationalistic fervour specifically in its commitment to Israel. This is not enough, especially outside of the Land. The passion for Torah must be paramount.
Within the Charedi world, there is a concept of kavod haTorah which animates its members. Charedi Jews are, often, not as strong in terms of honestly approaching halachah from an impassioned position of scrutiny. This does not hinder them because of the strength of the emotions they feel for their system of Judaism, their leaders, their perception of Torah and Hashem.
If Modern Orthodoxy wishes to evolve into a strong, relevant movement, then this passion must be brought into it. For the intellectual group within the Modern Orthodox world, Judaism has become, in a sense, the equivalent of scientific study. Rare, gifted individuals can be excited by new dimensions in quantum physics. The masses would just yawn at such a thing. It is the same within the Torah world. While the intellectual group within Modern Orthodoxy is certainly no less knowledgeable (some might say even more so) of the intricacies of Torah than their chareidi counterparts, the average Modern Orthodox Jew is not given anything to feel excited over. What's more, the egalitarian structure that most Modern Orthodox institutions adopt takes away from the concept of kavod haTorah that encourages this missing passion. Rabbonim within the movement must regain the sense of being leaders through the respect inherent in their positions. The rav shouldn't just be an employee. He is a teacher in the subject most important to the soul of a Jew. A hierarchy, as distasteful as that might be to the autonomous standard currently in place, is necessary to restore that respect and the passion that would come with it.
Another philosophical shift must occur in the perception of what is considered "Torah-true" behaviour. Through diligent public relations work and subtle propaganda, the Chareidi community has positioned itself as the authentic version of Judaism. Anything which fails to meet its minimum standard or deviates from it is automatically considered "less Jewish". Along with this has come the attitude that s when there are two competing opinions in an area of halachah, the more stringent one is automatically the more legitimate one. This must be challenged by the Modern Orthodox community. In pure halachah, it is the opinion that one feels is most in consonance with what Hashem wishes that is the most correct opinion for that person, not whichever is stricter. This must be emphasized in Modern Orthodox education.
Following this, two final initiatives must be considered. One is the establishment of a common curriculum in all Modern Orthodox educational institutions demanding excellence in both secular and Torah based studies. The movement must produce students capable of navigating themselves competently through general society while educating them to understand the depth and excitement of true Torah study. Modern Orthodoxy must not be apologetic about embracing this approach which will lead to its students fulfilling the words of the Shulchan Aruch (O.Ch 156): "After a session of Torah study, go to work. This is because all Torah which is not combined with a job will eventually come to nothing and will lead to sin. One should not make his work the chief focus of his life but rather secondary to his Torah and in this manner both will flourish."[28]
The additional advantage of this initiative will be to produce Modern Orthodox educators so that the movement's current institutions can reduce their reliance on teachers of Judaism that are not always reflective of the studies or the students they teach. Modern Orthodox teachers, rigorously trained in both secular and Jewish subjects and approaching their students with enthusiasm, will have a self-perpetuating effect on the movement that is incalculable.
Also, just as the Agudas Yisroel distributes books and materials emphasizing their points of views and insights through major publishers such as Artscroll and Feldheim, Modern Orthodoxy must retain a publisher and begin spreading books and materials relevant to its philosophy. Why is it that the current Orthodox Union siddur is published by Artscroll and not by a Modern Orthodox publisher? When searching the shelves of the local Jewish book stores, one can justifiably ask: where are the biographies of the Rav and other luminaries from the Modern Orthodox world? The importance of this aspect of the movement cannot be over-emphasized.
In the end, Modern Orthodoxy must not only be about statements of position and practice. It must also be about belief. We should define our practises according to halachah and, after proper introspection, drop those changes that have entered the movement because of a desire to be more like Secular Liberalism even though we may have fooled ourselves into thinking that we are fulfilling our halachic commitments by doing them. We should develop the passion for our style of Jewishness that the Chareidim have for theirs that will enhance our faith in Hashem and His Torah. "A person, who believes with his whole heart in God's help, will always be happy and be able to endure everything."[29] We should teach our children that Orthodoxy isn't just the default lifestyle they were born into but a growing, active framework around which to develop and grow. And we should reach out to our non-religious brethren and show them that a Modern Orthodox lifestyle is a viable, superior form of Jewish life that can only benefit them and give them true spiritual satisfaction.
The author wishes to express hakaras hatov to Rav Ben Hecht for his assistance and editing work on this article.
R' Dr. Michael Schweitzer is a Family Physician in Hamilton, Ontario and is an associate clinical professor in the Department of Family Medicine at McMaster University. He is also the author of three really good fantasy novels: The Curse of Garnel Ironheart, The Ashes of Alladag and We, the Living which you should go out and buy right away.
[1] Avos 5:7
[3] Waxman, C.I. "Dilemmas of Modern Orthodoxy: Sociological and Philosophical" p.1
[4] Leibman, C.S. "Modern Orthodoxy in Israel" p.1
[5] Liebamn, C.S. "Orthodoxy in American Jewish Life", p. 91
[6] Weiss, A "Open Orthodoxy! A Modern Orthodox Rabbi's Creed" p. 1
[7] Helmreich, W.B. and Shinnar, R. "Modern Orthodoxy in America: Possibilities for a Movement Under Seige" Jerusalem Letters 383 (1-Jun-1998)
[8] "In my humble opinion the first principle for understanding the words of our Sages is that they were experts in the law of G-d. They received, transmitted and taught His Torah, commandments, laws and statutes but they were not necessarily experts in science, mathematics, astronomy or medicine – except when it was relevant to knowing and observing the commandments of the Torah. We do not find that secular knowledge was transmitted at Mt. Sinai. The greatest of our Sages know the wisdom and the science according to what was accepted as true by the leading secular scientists of the day." Shapiro, Marc B. "Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy" The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization CHECK NUMBERING
[8] Grayel, S. "A History of the Jews" Meridian equals of these scholars but did not transcend the secular knowledge of their day." (Letter on Agada, p 9-10) CHECK QUOTE
[9] For example, he was well known to admire the Alps as an example of the grandeur of G-d's creation. He also favoured the use of choirs during prayers because of the enhancement to the beauty of the service that they offered.
[10] Shapiro, Marc B. "Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy" The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization
[11] Hence the Haskalah was tremendously successful in damaging the religious population of Eastern Europe while in Germany, R. Hirsch's approach kept the Reform Movement from wreaking similar harm.
[12] "Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch" vii 39-40 (New York, 1992)
[13] See 11.
[14] Don't you just hate people who put lots of endnotes into an essay which means you have to flick the pages back and forth to keep up with whatever they're trying to tell you? Yeah, me too.
[15] Cf. Avos 2:16
[16] And that description is important because, of course, there are many scholars and fools on both sides of the fence
[17] Weiss, A "Open Orthodoxy! A Modern Orthodox Rabbi's Creed" p. 3
[18] For example, the recent controversy over whether Metzitzah B'Peh, the sucking of the blood from the wound caused by ritual circumcision, must be done by the mohel putting his mouth directly on the infant's organ. Within the response literature, based on the relevant discussion in B. Shabbos, there are positions both demanding it and being lenient by allowing a pipe to interpose between the mouth and the organ. After a number of newborns circumcised by a particular mohel in the New York area developed neonatal herpes, Rav Moshe D. Tendler attempted to rein in the practice for health reasons. The controversy made its way to the highest chareidi circles in Israel where the final daas Torah pronouncement was made banning any form of metzitah b'peh other than the traditional direct one and declaring this to be the only acceptable form.
[19] Sacks, J. "Traditional Alternatives: Orthodoxy and the Future of the Jewish People" p.136
[20] Waxman, C.I. "Dilemmas of Modern Orthodoxy: Sociological and Philosophical" p.6
[21] Lockshin, M. "A Modern Orthodox Manifesto" Canadian Jewish News March 1, 2007
[22] Hirsch, R.S.R. "Judaism Eternal" Vol II, P. 26
[23] Devarim 30:20
[24] Yehoshua 1:8
[25] Avos 5:28
[26] Bereishis 1:28
[28] Translation from Eidensohn, D. "Daas Torah" Emunah Press, Jerusalem 2005
[29] Orchos Tzadikim, 9th Gate – The Gate of Happiness
Posted by Mighty Garnel Ironheart at 17:31
Labels: Torah Navonim
Nishma said...
It seems in North America that there are essentially two distinct 'societies' [as opposed to philosophies] that consider themselves "Modern Orthodx"
1) Those who are fully committed to Halacha and are also serous about secular education and integrating themselves into society w/o compromising their ideals. They belove in Torah and Modernism I call them "Centrists" based upon R. Dr. Norman Lamm's model
2) Those who affiliate with Orthodoxy but are not careful about their observance. E.G. They eat Kosher but do not wash their hands for hamotzi. They usually go to shul on Shabbos but rarely go on Weekdays [unless they have a yahrtzeit]. They have been terned "O-LIght" by some of my cyber colleagues.
The first group "Centrist" is passionate about Torah Judaism, and they are intensely into being real people in a real world. They really desire to compromise nothing and to hve the best of both worlds.
The second group "O-Light" is loosely loyal to Torah values but lack the commitment to follow-through. They make compromises out of a sense of convenience.
Not all Modern Orthodox fit neatly into either category, but it is a useful distinction.
Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...
Well, Schweitzer does make that distinction early on in the article. I guess I've defined them as "Orthodox" (thinking and practising) and "Orthoprax" - just plain practising.
A post on an earlier piece notes that in Israel there is a similar divide in the Dati Leumi community between those who are Dati first and those who are Leumi first.
A middle ground is needed to unite both those groups and bring their fringes together.
SJ said...
>> Indeed, the Reform Movement saw the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary as a tremendous threat specifically because its students could refute its heretical assertions on scholarly grounds.
Dude, the orthodox seriously has to chill with the h word, it really does make you guys look like archaic people. The writer may want to replace heretical with fallacious and it would sound better.
>> both non-Torah-observant institutions.
Even if they follow the morality of the Torah if nothing else?
>> And we should reach out to our non-religious brethren and show them that a Modern Orthodox lifestyle is a viable, superior form of Jewish life that can only benefit them and give them true spiritual satisfaction.
Until you tell them that guys and girls should be separate as much as possible. lol
I enjoy the discussion, it's one I've thought a lot about. I guess it's nice to see other people thinking a lot about these matters too.
Although theoretically we can make distinctions between ideological MO's and pragmatic MO's the pull still seems to come from the same source. Attempts to ease the often painful difficulty of being halachic in a modern life. The more modern the more painful. Does the philosophical speculation really do anything? Put another way, the chazon ish said, "Jews have many problems- 613 to be precise"
moshedavid said...
I hate to sound cynical, but here goes: After having grown up in the "Modern Orthodox" movement, after having taught at Ida Crown Jewish Academy, a modern orthodox high school, that I myself attended, after having taught American boys at Shalavim for 12 years, along with teaching at many other post high school yeshivot in Eretz Yisroel, I think "Modern Orthodoxy" can be summed up as follows: It is a "movement" of a few Rabbis who sit around and theorize what "modern orthodox" is and isnt, a large group of balabatim and their families, who could care less what the Rabbi says and thinks, and are mostly interested in more or less keeping Shabbos, keeping kosher, and enjoying the GEntile world of entertainment and pleasure, without feeling guilty. Throw in a number of women who havent the faintest concept of what dveikus to Hashem means, what yiras shomayim is all about, what it means to be an "am kadosh", but whose greatest concern is somehow reconciling Judaism with Feminism(with help from people like R. Avi WEiss, and of course always claiming that Rabbi Solovoveitchik ZT"L agrees with everything they do).
It seems to me that if you are going to have cable TV and see all the latest films, at least admit, that this is not really the derech to kedusha, but what can I do, I like it?" "Modern Orthodox" jews will claim that it is a "mitzvah" to have cable, because the most important yesod of all is not to "cut yourself off from the world".
In my opinion, most of the problems in the Chareidi world, are because they dont always practice what they preach. The problems in the MO world are because they DO practice what they preach.
Moshe Averick
evanstonjew said...
I disagree with this post for 2 reasons. The first is that it starts out as an unbiased sociological empirical study of Orthodoxy but is in fact a strongly ideologically biased argument in favor of charedi life. People who are less than charedi frum are treated as Orthodoxally inferior from the start. An unbiased study would not presume to know which way is the better way of life.
Second it assumes that what the author calls behaviorally modern lack the ability or interest to engage in serious theological discussions. The group is depicted as consisting of party animals and feminists that reluctantly are somewhat Orthoprax. IMHO no group has a monopoly on seriouness or integrity. The most important thing that can be done to strengthen this group is not to treat them condescendingly as lacking the seriousness of those who are more meticuoulsly observant.
How does the author know exactly what percentage frum is optimal...99% ,90% 80%? It can't be the more the merrier or we should all move to Bnei Brak ?
When you distill out what he is saying the author of this article is doing little more than parading his predjudices about Modern Orthodoxy. No wonder he reaches the suggestions that he does which are basically "You should be more charedi".
someone definitely has too much time on their hands.
The Orthodox (Modern & Charedi) world is out of control. The "behaviorally Orthodox" aka Charedim care more about bugs in lettuce than any of the ben adam l'havero mitzvot.
goyisherebbe said...
I agree that being "Modern Orthodox" is problematical, and in some ways at some times I see myself as more "modern" and at other times or in other ways more "chareidi". As for the problem of lack of passion in learning, davening and community life, the solution is to make aliya to an integrated Torah community in Israel. Live a Modern Orthodox life, hopefully without much if any television, with a lot more beit midrash, in a yishuv or other vibrant MO community such as the one that Rabbi Rosner is building in Ramat Beit Shemesh. You and your children will learn better when even the secular subjects are in Hebrew and connected to the Tanach and E"Y. Start quality schools which express the philosophy you believe in. Start a college which provides a liberal education using Torah as core and beit midrash tools such as chevrusa for learning non-Torah subjects incisively. It's never been done yet and it is sorely needed. Go for it. It can only be done fully in E"Y. Schools for your kids will cost a lot less and you will get a lot more. For a modern Orthodox Jew, aliya is a no-brainer.
Great article- I shall link it one of these days.
You have no contact bar- wondering if you would like to do a blogroll link exchange?
frumsatire@gmail.com if you would
It is important to note the author's error (one that is commonly made) in identifying Hirsch as the European "founder" of Modern Orthdoxy. It would be more correct to identify Hirsch's "foe" Seligmann Dov Bamberger, who championed what was then called "Communal Orthdoxy." Bamberger's Orthdoxy was one that valued "Jewish Peoplehood" (as we put it nowaday) over political movements. As such, he opposed Hirsch's Austritt Gemeinde that formally seceded from the Reform community. Hirsch's legacy is not in modern Orthdoxy, but the Breuers commumnity - a relatively isolated group that is far from "Modern."
Once again the Chareidim bamboozle. Dressing like a medieval Polish nobleman and making up nonsensical chumras does not make one more religious ot holy.
Many Chareidim with the tacit approval of their leaders and "G'dolim" flagrantly violate the Torah. They cheat. They lie. They place stumbling blocks before the blind. They oppress converts, widows and orphans. Their level of Sinat Yisrael is breath taking.
I don't care if they stay in the Beit Medrash full time, put on two pairs of t'filin and memorize every Tosofos in the Gemara, They Are Not Torah Observant Jews.
They are no better than any other Jew!!
RSM said...
Did this article omit R' Solavetchik and YU ?? I don't think an article written today about Modern Orthodoxy, certainly in the North America (as opposed to Israeli) context cannot be taken seriously without having a significant discussion about R' Solovetchik and YU.
I stringly disagree with the author's description of charedi as lively and emotional and sees modern as emotionally sterile. That may be the case in the behaviorly orthodox but not the ideological group.
The "practical suggestions" are not workable simply because you are trying to enforce the already chassidisized charedi mindset (group-think, blindly follow the rebbi) which was NEVER part of the litvish mindset on an orthodoxy which stems not from "the berlin" school" but from the "beis brisk". american modern orthodoxy (ideological ones) follow the rav's litvish mesorah and cannot tolerate the chassidish big brother mentality.
chareidilite said...
In this regard, the leading luminaries and religious authorities of the Modern Orthodox world must work together to develop such meaningful definitions for the movement....This must be an authoritative description.
You mean we need MO Gedolim to tell us who we are? That we must all subscribe to the same narrow set of acceptable beliefs and behaviors? Sounds very chareidi to me.
How are you going to get a bunch of individuals who reject the cookie cutter approach to agree on what the proper cookie cutter is for MO? (Even our MO Gedolim are unique individuals with unique views.)
Very nice. It sounds to me that you are aiming to acheive the goal of the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT"L, to find a positive definition in everything and to imbue every aspect of your life (even the mundane) with Hashem Echad.
Now They're Inventing Rules They Won't Follow
And Now They're Not Lying
Is Bad Evidence Worse than No Evidence
Never Leaving on Time
Need a Road Map to get to Annapolis?
Not Improving With Age
Were You Wondering If They Cared?
Taking Care of Our Bodies Is a Torah Obligation
Between the Dati Leumi World and Modern Orthodoxy
A Bad Way To Represent Your People
On Science and Halachah
Delegitimizing Modern Orthodoxy
No Shock Here
But Will It Accomplish Anything?
The First Guest Post
Sounds Modern Orthodox, but is it Jewish?
Getting Priorities Straight


On top of cost being the biggest obstacle for couples who want to start on IVF, it is the emotional stress that may come along with it that may sometimes hinder couples from taking that giant step.
Having spoken to many mums who have been there done that, and also Fertility Counsellor, Tanja Faessler-Moro from Virtus Fertility Centre, I have jotted down some ways to help gear couples up for the ride. At least that's what I am doing for my own quest.
While it sounds easy, let me admit it isn't. Hence ensuring we prep ourselves adequately will help cushion hard knocks, if there are any.
IVF is often the ultimate hope for many couples to have kids of their own.
By this stage, the couple would have tried most ways to conceive, be it natural, via oral medication, stimulated cycles, IUI etc. You name it, they've tried it. This means the couple probably went through countless cycles of building up hope and then sliding down when the menses appear after the two-weeks-wait. It is a heart sinking moment. Some get immune to it, some sinks further into self blame and even guilt.
It can be very draining, not only emotionally but also on the relationship between husband and wife.
Some couples make the mistake of taking IVF as a guarantee to having a child. It is NOT. If you do not do you homework on understanding what IVF entails, you may be in for a shock as the process is definitely more arduous than all fertility treatments that I can think of.
It is also about setting the right expectations. Know what's coming, and prepare for the outcome, no matter good or bad.
In our culture, IVF is almost a taboo topic. We hardly talk about it.
Not only is it hard to find blogs in Singapore that shares about one's IVF story, we don't even talk to family and friends about our struggles.
Perhaps it is the fear of being judged, or in some cases, it is the fear of causing worry to the people around us.
Having a strong and grounded relationship between husband and wife is essential in the journey. On the other hand, the couple will each need someone to talk to when things get a little rough. So, pick at least one person you can share things with, or just to have a listening ear close by. It can be anyone. A friend, family or even a colleague.
More importantly, the husband needs one too. Men tend to bottle up their feelings. While they stand by and support their wife throughout the IVF journey, there will be times they need to release pent up tension as well.
Because the men are distant from the clinical portion of the IVF journey, and because they don't get the horrid hormonal effects from the injections, they then become the pillar for the wife. Put it simply, other than the part of providing the sperm sample, the role of husbands is to be the one the wife can lean on when things get a little rough.
Small things matter. Just being there when she has her mood eruptions. Surprise her with a date. Take her out to meet friends.
Especially so for couples trying for their first child, they will be more and more isolated along the journey for various reasons. Get some quality back into your lives. Don't make the mistake of letting IVF rule daily life.
If all else fails, be grateful.
From years of trying, to having J and to experience loss, I have learnt to appreciate what I have today.
To be able to even continue to try month after month, in itself is a blessing. To be alive today, is definitely something to be thankful for.
So, during the process, go to bed each day with a grateful heart. Trust me, you will feel better, and wake up fresher to face new challenges the next day.
Every one is different. The emotional journey can be vastly different too. But positivity helps moving on for the couple easier.
If you are thinking of starting on IVF soon, I hope my sharing helps in one way or another. Always remember, do not give up. Have faith and good luck!
This post was written based on an interview I had with Ms Tanja Faessler-Moro from Virtus Fertility Centre.


text:
The Evidence -- Witnesses
A woman has come forward saying that Gary Ridgway, picked her up on the street nearly 20 years ago and violently attacked her.
1985, in Portland, a 15-year-old girl gave a sketch of a man she said tried to rape and kill her. Investigators see similarities compared to a 1982, photo of Ridgway. "There was not a suspect determined, and it has some similarities to some of the Green River cases, said Sally Gilpin, Oregon State Patrol.
The victim taken from a section of Portland where prostitutes worked, was taken to the woods and choked.
Ridgway's second wife, Marcia, described strange behavior and unusual sex practices to detectives.
Ridgway was very familiar with many of the dumpsites where these Green River bodies were found. She told police he kept visqueen, rolls of protective plastic covering that comes in rolls, in the bed of his truck. Visqueen was covering one victim's near North Bend, and near the remains of another in Tukwila.
Marcia also claimed that once he came up from behind and choked her.
She and Ridgway had sex numerous times on the banks of the Green River, the same location where 5 Green River victims were found.
Before the couple divorced in 1981, before women began disappearing, He would often be gone during the evenings for long periods of time, returning dirty or wet, claiming his car broke down.
Ridgway's ex-girlfriends or ex-wives took detectives to places where Ridgway took them. He would tie them up to stakes when they had sex outdoors.
Detectives also say Ridgway used to hunt and fish along Star Lake, where another cluster of Green River bodies was discovered.
Christmas Eve, 1981, Ridgway's girlfriend of claimed he blurted out at a restaurant, he had almost killed someone -- he picked up a woman and couldn't believe he almost killed her.
November, 1982, the only living victim, Rebecca Guay, then 19, now 39, slipped away from Ridgway after he choked her, trying to kill her. She is willing to testify against Ridgway.
April 30, 1983, Marie Malvar's boyfriend and pimp, Robert Woods, was watching as Malyar, waiting for a trick, stood at a bus stop near South 216th & Pacific Highway South. He watched as she got into a pickup truck. "It had a primer spot up by the tailgate, up by the back wheel, from what I remember," Woods said. "The way he sped up on her was what caught my eye more than anything." Johns always drove away slow, he said. He pulled up to the truck and saw Marie. He could see they were arguing. "All I seen was a lot of hand movements. Yea, a lot of hand movements. I don't know if she was talking fast, if she was hysterical or what." Woods lost the trail at an intersection.
3 days later, he told Maria's father, Jose Malvar, his daughter was gone. Malvar insisted they look for that pickup truck. After half a day they found it. "And when we went into the cul-de-sac I pointed the truck out," Woods said. The truck was parked in front of Gary Ridgway's home. Jose Malvar and Woods called Des Moines police on May 4, 1983 but Ridgway, denied knowing anything about Marie's disappearance. Woods couldn't say for sure it was Ridgway he had seen. "They said they couldn't do nothing about it," Woods said.
Jose Malvar said, "I was angry, very angry because... what happened to my daughter?" Woods and Jose Malvar wish police had done more 18 years ago, when they led police to Ridgway.
It was Jose Malvar's tip that led detectives to take a saliva sample from Ridgway in 1987.
The tip without evidence wasn't enough to make an arrest, said Sgt. John Urquhart, spokesman for the King County Sheriff's Office.
Green River Killer Discussion List
To Subscribe send a blank email to:
The Green River Killer The Evidence

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Ezen az oldalon az i. sz. 182-ben fennálló államok vezetőinek névsora olvasható földrészek, majd országok szerinti bontásban.

Európa
 Boszporoszi Királyság
 Király: II. Szauromatész (174/175–210/211)

 Római Birodalom
 Császár: Commodus (180–192)
 Consul: Marcus Petronius Sura Mamertinus
 Consul: Quintus Tineius Rufus
 Consul suffectus: Aurelianus
 Consul suffectus: Lucius Attidius Cornelianus
Britannia provincia
Legatus: Caerellius Priscus (kb. 177–182)
Legatus: Ulpius Marcellus (kb. 182–185)

Ázsia
Armenia
Király:  II. Vologaészész (kb. 180–kb. 190)

Elümaisz
Király: Vologaészész (kb. 180-kb. 190)

Harakéné
Király: II. Attambélosz (kb. 180–kb. 195)

 Hsziungnuk
 Sanjü: Csiangcsu (179-188)

 Ibériai Királyság
 Király: II. Paraszmenész (135–185)

 India
 Anuradhapura
Király: Kanitha Tissza (165–193)
Szátaváhana Birodalom
 Király: III. Szrí Jadzsna Szátakarni (170–199)

 Japán
 Császár: Szeimu (131–191)

 Kína (Han-dinasztia)
 Császár: Han Ling-ti (168–189)

 Korea
 Pekcse
 Király: Cshogo (166–214)
 Kogurjo
 Király: Kogukcshon  (179–197)
 Silla
 Király: Adalla (154-184)
Kumgvan Kaja
 Király: Szuro (42–199?)

 Kusán Birodalom
 Király: Huviska (140–183)

 Oszroéné
Király: VIII. Abgar (167–212)

 Pártus Birodalom
 Nagykirály: IV. Vologaészész (147-191)

 Római Birodalom
Asia provincia
 Proconsul: Titus Flavius Sulpicianus (180–192)

Afrika
 Római Birodalom
Aegyptus provincia
 Praefectus: Decimus Veturius Macrinus (181–183)

Kusita Királyság
Kusita uralkodók listája

Fordítás

 182
182

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


I got this soup idea from one my friend Jess made for me. It's so simple and delicious. We arrived for dinner one night and she had just thrown everything into a pot. By the time we were ready to sit down it was ready to be pureed and we had a bright, fresh soup course (she's so good with the courses! I never do that). The squeeze of lemon really makes a difference.We changed the pasta from bowties to tortellini to make it hearty enough for dinner. It would be very easy to make this even heartier (add chopped chicken) or vegan (go back to the bowties).
As with almost every recipe I make, start by sauteing the onion in a few tablespoons of olive oil in the bottom of a medium soup pot. When the onion has just started to brown, add the garlic and continue until it just starts to brown.
Pour in half of the stock to stop the browning, then add the potatoes and and cauliflower. Add stock just to cover everything.
Stir in the bay, thyme, nutmeg, salt & pepper, and parm rind and bring to a low simmer. Let it bubble for about half an hour, stirring occassionally.
After about ten minutes I start the water for the tortellini (just cook it according to the package). It would be nice if you could cook pasta in soup, but I've never had good results with that. If the tortellini is done before the soup, be sure to toss it with a little butter so it doesn't stick together.
After the 30 minutes the potatoes and cauliflower should be falling apart. Fish out the bay leaf and the parm rind. Puree it with an immersion blender or let it cool just a bit so you can blend it in batches in food processor.
Stir in the grated parm, lemon juice, and the cooked tortellini. Done!


Homefans is raising £100,000 investment on Crowdcube. Capital At Risk.
The company, Homefans is a travel start up that provides experiences beyond 90 minutes for international football fans. Since inception just 10 months ago, the team have achieved revenue of £40k and built a community of more than 240 travelers.
Football travel for the top 5 EU leagues is worth £1.3bn annually.
Information The company had £137,400 of its SEIS allowance remaining at the start of this raise. This will be allocated to investors on a first come first served basis. Any investments made after that limit has been exceeded will not be SEIS eligible but will potentially be eligible for EIS. The potential tax relief of any investment will be confirmed by email to investors, after they have submitted their applications to invest, and will depend on an investor's individual circumstances.
We are Homefans, a travel startup providing football experiences beyond the 90 minutes.
We believe we are filling the gap for millennial fans who are increasingly looking for travel experiences but cannot find them anywhere in the market. We step in by designing authentic and accessible trips to help fans tick off their football bucket list.
Last year, 284 million millennials were on a trip and approximately 75% of millennials would rather buy an experience than a product. Our research suggests that traditional travel operators insist on either offering a basic standard product, the match breaks; or an expensive one, the corporate hospitality. We've positioned Homefans between both of these services, to offer millennials what they want.
In a football travel market worth £1.3 billion for the Top 5 European Leagues.
At Homefans, we want to show that there is indeed a better way of experiencing football, by offering experiences that are accessible: Travelers go to pub nights, meet local fans or even play a 5-a-side at the club's training pitch. It's all about creating unforgettable memories whilst being part of a community of like-minded fans.
To see the rest of the Homefans pitch, join now.
Join to read more information about the Homefans team, documents, and what other investors are saying about the pitch.


This decorative Planter Wagon is made of thermally modified wood that is stronger and more durable than regular plain wood. Display your products in one of these full-sized heavy duty wooden store displays and attract more consumers while they are window shopping. This portable Planters Wagon can also be used as an above-ground garden. Add an optional Filter/Overflow Kit to make your garden suspended over a fifteen-gallon reservoir of water. This wagon display is able to hold up to 800 lbs. All metal parts are powder coated black for extra durability and equipped with movable 30" wheels. Take a chance on increasing your sales today and order your western style planters wagon today!
Inside Box: Length 72" - Width 30"


Vistara's A320 takes to the skies.
After more than a year since its conception, India's newest airline Vistara—a joint venture between Singapore Airlines and Indian conglomerate Tata Sons—has taken to the skies, having just flown its inaugural flight from Delhi to Mumbai on January 9. Deriving its name from a Sanskrit word meaning "limitless expanse," Vistara is the third full-service airline in the country following Air India and Jet Airways. The newcomer begins its operations with two A320 aircrafts, which offer three cabin classes—Business, India's first-ever Premium Economy, and Economy—servicing routes from its headquarters in New Delhi to Mumbai and Ahmedabad, and it plans to expand its fleet to 20 by 2017. Vistara also boasts comfortable, spacious seating; locally sourced, healthy inflight meals; a flexible loyalty program; and, through its partnership with Amadeus, a leader in travel technology, efficient check-in and boarding processes.
For more information, visit Air Vistara.
These changes are expected to take place between next April and the second half of 2020.


text:
Home AEC Daniels Real Estate Starts Construction of 31-Story 8th and Columbia in Seattle
Daniels Real Estate Starts Construction of 31-Story 8th and Columbia in Seattle
Rendering by LMN Architects
Seattle, WA. – September 4, 2019 – Daniels Real Estate announced today that it has started construction on its condominium tower at 800 Columbia Street in Seattle's historic First Hill neighborhood, between 8th and 9th Avenues.
At 31-stories with 271 condominium homes, 800 Columbia will be a sophisticated tower designed by the award-winning firm LMN Architects featuring distinguished exterior and interior finishes. Red Propeller has been retained to market and sell the residences which will range from 404 to 1,538 sq. ft and include studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes from the mid $400,000 to $1.5 million. There will also be four penthouses between 1,809 – 2,254 sq. ft. that have not yet been priced.
"800 Columbia is a quintessential Seattle address in arguably Seattle's most historic residential neighborhood within walking distance to downtown," said Kevin Daniels. "We have taken our time to bring together a talented team of professionals who know Seattle's heritage and unique qualities which will be layered into the design of the building."
Part of the project's commitment to honoring its First Hill context is a signature, two-story tiered open space designed to enhance the 8th Avenue Tree Walk which includes iconic urban trees and species not found in most downtown neighborhoods.
"We believe that great architectural design combined with real place making provides for a more vibrant community, added Daniels. "First Hill is one of our legacy neighborhoods and we want to enhance and reflect its keepsake charm."
Construction is anticipated to be completed by Winter of 2021. Marketing and Sales will commence in the Spring of 2020. More specifics about the condominium tower, including details on the sales process, will be unveiled at that time.
Daniels Real Estate
LMN Architects


text:
Presenzano (Campanian: ) is a comune (municipality) in the Province of Caserta in the Italian region Campania, located about  north of Naples and about  northwest of Caserta.

Presenzano borders the following municipalities: Conca della Campania, Marzano Appio, Mignano Monte Lungo, Pratella, Sesto Campano, Tora e Piccilli, Vairano Patenora.

Notable people
Adriana Giramonti - chef

References

Cities and towns in Campania


text:
This page provides guidance on how to submit a petition, what matters can be considered by the Council and how your petition will be dealt with.
EPetitions Open Consultations
Can I raise a petition?
The City and District Council welcomes petitions from those who live, work or study in the area.
Who is the petition organiser?
Each petition should be accompanied by contact details for the petition organiser. If an individual is not identified, we will contact signatories to agree who should act as petition organiser.
Can I sign a petition?
Anyone who lives, works or studies within the St Albans City and District can sign a petition.
What topics can be the subject of my petition?
Your petition must relate to matters for which the District Council has powers or duties, or which may affect residents and those working or studying in the District.
Your petition could cover one of the following:
Council Housing, Sheltered Housing, Housing Advice and Homelessness
Environmental Health, Food Safety and Pest Control
Culture and Community Development, Sport and Recreation
Refuse Collection and Recycling
Local Planning and Building Control including the Local Development Framework and the conservation of buildings and areas
Council Tax Collection including for Hertfordshire County Council, the Fire and Police Authorities and Parish Councils
Business Rates Collection
Hertfordshire County Council are responsible for other services not listed above.
If the petition is about something over which the Council has no direct control we will consider making representations on behalf of the community to the relevant body. The Council works with a number of local partners through the St Albans and District Local Strategic Partnership and where possible will work with our partners to respond to your petition.
What must my petition include?
Your petition must include:
A clear and concise statement covering the subject of the petition. It should state what action the petitioners wish the Council to take.
The name, address and signature of any person supporting the petition.
Your petition should be accompanied by contact details for the petition organiser. If this is not identified, we will contact signatories to agree who should act as petition organiser.
Your petition must also contain a minimum of 30 signatures.
The Council will not take action on a petition which we consider to be vexatious, abusive or otherwise inappropriate.
How do I submit my petition?
You can submit your petition either in paper form or electronically as an e-petition.
Paper petitions should be addressed to:
Democratic Services Manager
District Council Offices
St Peter's Street
Herts AL1 3JE
An acknowledgement will be sent to the petition organiser within 10 working days of receipt. We will let the organiser know what we plan to do with the petition. The petition (but not the petition organiser's details) will be published on our website.
How will the Council respond to my petition?
Your petition must contain a minimum of 30 signatures.
Petitions with 500 or more signatures
If your petition contains 500 or more signatures, it will be debated by the next Full Council, unless it is a petition asking for a senior council officer to give evidence at a public meeting (see Officer Evidence below). The petition organiser will:
Have five minutes to present the petition at the Full Council meeting.
The petition will then be discussed by Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes
Petitions with 30 to 500 signatures
If your petition contains fewer than 500 signatures, but more than 30, it will be debated by the next Full Council. The petition organiser will:
Have three minutes to present the petition
There will be no debate following the presentation of the petition
Officer Evidence
Your petition may ask for a senior council officer to give evidence at a public meeting. If your petition contains 500 or more signatures the relevant officer will give evidence at one of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees.
A list of the senior staff that can be called to give evidence can be found at St Albans City and District Council - Council Departments.
What can I do if I feel my petition has not been dealt with properly?
If you feel we have not dealt with your petition properly the petition organiser can request that one of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Committees reviews the steps taken in response to your petition.
It will be helpful if you can provide a short explanation of the reasons why you do not consider the Council's response to be adequate.
The Committee will consider your request and use its powers to investigate the matter. Once your appeal has been considered the petition organiser will be informed of the results within 5 working days. The results of the review will also be published on our website.
When might these procedures not apply?
Other procedures will apply if your petition relates to a planning or licensing application, is a statutory petition or relates to a matter where there is already an existing right of appeal.
Further information is available on request from the Democratic Services democraticservices@stalbans.gov.uk
Council and electionsToggle submenu
Voting and electionsToggle submenu
Electoral register and voting
Elections and results
Polling stations, districts and boundaries
Working for electoral services
About the Council and District
Performance, vision, policies, strategies and plans
Decision making, the constitution, overview and scrutiny
Meetings, agendas, minutes and webcasts
Councillors, mayoralty and town twinning
Transparency and data information
Accounts, budgeting and spending


The group of students who performed above average on the required Mastering homework had a significantly higher final exam score than the students who performed at or below average.
The group of students who earned more points on optional Adaptive Follow-Up assignments had a significantly higher final exam average than the students who earned fewer points.
The group of students who scored 51–100% on the optional Chemistry Primer had a higher final exam average than students who scored 0–50% on the Chemistry Primer.
On an end-of-semester survey, responding students reported that doing the Dynamic Study Modules before class helped them better understand lecture and that Learning Catalytics was a fun way to learn.
Instructor Jo Nell Aarons Gillings teaches Introduction to Chemistry, Chemistry for Health Science, and General Chemistry I and II. She is in her second year of teaching at Miami Dade College (MDC). Prior to that, she taught as an adjunct and spent several years teaching in the public school system in Florida.
To prepare for an exam, you will need to study three to four hours for every hour of lecture, totaling about nine hours each week.
Each chapter in chemistry builds on the knowledge of the previous chapters, so it's important to understand and retain the content and not get behind in the beginning.
The course is not a "listen and learn" type of course. Most of the learning will happen later, while reviewing notes, reading the textbook, and most importantly, while solving problems.
You will need to utilize mathematical skills.
The textbook is a very important tool. Stay ahead of the material (in the worst case, stay on top of it), and lectures will make more sense to you this way.
Learning chemistry is a collaborative effort, so interact with your instructor and classmates as often as possible.
During a lecture, if you have a question, please bring it up (there are no dumb questions; I guarantee there will be several other people with the same question who are too afraid to ask). However, please be respectful and raise your hand, rather than blurting out the question.
Work together in small groups outside of class. This will help you tremendously.
During my office hours, I am willing to work with you one-on-one, so please feel free to come with any questions you have. It will be more beneficial to you if are prepared and come with questions rather than expect me to explain everything to you. If my office hours do not work for you, email me for an appointment.
If you have done all the problems at the end of the chapter in your book and feel the need for more practice, come see me, and I will be glad to provide you with extra worksheets.
Read the chapter and review the PowerPoint presentation before coming to class.
Ask questions during the lecture if you don't understand.
Practice problems after each section.
To provide resources for practice and learning, Aarons Gillings piloted Mastering™ Chemistry (MC) in her Summer 2017 session and began using it as part of the course in Fall 2017.
Exams: Students were given four paper-and-pencil exams, each with a mix of multiple-choice questions and problems. If it benefitted the student, the final exam score could replace the lowest exam grade.
Final exam: A paper-and-pencil cumulative final exam was administered in class. The exam was comprised of 30% multiple-choice questions and 70% problems.
Dynamic Study Modules (DSMs) were assigned as required pre-lecture homework. With the DSMs, students answer questions until they feel confident with the answers; if they don't understand the concept, they get an immediate explanation. There were approximately two DSM assignments per chapter, and the goal was for students to understand what they needed to focus on and to work on the concepts until they understood them. For Fall 2017, DSMs were optional, but Aarons Gillings realized how helpful they were to students and decided to require them in Spring 2018.
Chapter homework was required and included chapter problems and tutorials with hints. There was approximately one post-lecture assignment per chapter. Students were able to use hints with no deductions, and the assignments were not timed. Five attempts were available, but students lost 5% for each wrong answer.
Adaptive Follow-Up assignments (AFUs) followed the chapter homework and were optional. If students earned 95% or higher on the chapter assignment, they tested out of AFUs. All students who tested out of or completed the AFUs within 24 hours of the chapter homework received extra credit.
Learning Catalytics (LC) questions were used for in-class activities one day per week. This became a weekly activity after Aarons Gillings tried LC to overwhelmingly positive student response. Students completed LC questions both individually and with classmates, and LC questions were answered using a cell phone, tablet, or laptop. Students could not make up the LC questions if they were absent from class. Responses were recorded in Mastering, and Aarons Gillings was able to address any misconceptions at that point in time.
Chemistry Primer is a tutorial series designed to help students remediate if they struggle with the math and chemistry skills needed to succeed in their first college chemistry course. The primer was required for students to complete in Gen Chem I, but available and recommended for remediation in Gen Chem II as well.
Three Gen Chem II sections were taught by Aarons Gillings in Spring 2018 with a total of 68 students, and three were taught in Fall 2017 with a total of 71. Because of weather-related issues in Fall 2017 that caused the cancellation of classes and one missed exam, the Spring 2018 results are the only ones reported in this study. The Spring 2018 results were combined since the sections were taught in an identical manner. Students who did not take the final exam were removed from the analysis, which included five students.
Students were placed into two groups based on the average MC score of 83%; the average score included both required Mastering assignments (chapter homework and DSMs). Students who scored at or above the average had a significantly (p<.05) higher final exam average compared to the group of students who earned below average on MC homework (figure 1).
AFU assignments were optional. The same analysis was done looking at participation on AFU assignments. The average number of extra credit points earned for AFUs was six. Students who earned more AFU points than average had a significantly higher final exam average (74%) than the group of students who earned at or below average AFU points (62% final exam average). Since AFUs were optional, these results may be impacted by other factors that are difficult to measure, such as student motivation and study skills.
Aarons Gillings required the Chemistry Primer in Gen Chem I. She estimates that approximately 80% of the students in her Spring 2018 Gen Chem II course had her Gen Chem I course in Fall 2017 and would have completed the Primer. However, for Gen Chem II, it was optional and available for students to use, and a majority of students worked on the primer earning a score higher than 50% (table 1). While eight students had a score of zero on the Primer, this may be an indication that they felt they did not need any further remediation, since three of those students earned over 80% on the final exam.
What I liked about Mastering was the relevance it had toward the material we experienced on the exams and in class.
At the end of the Spring 2018 semester, a survey was administered, and 28% of students (19 of 68) participated. While a majority did not participate, Aarons Gillings reports she has received positive feedback from students about Mastering. In particular, students state they love the Dynamic Study Modules and have requested using Learning Catalytics in class more often to do activities. A majority of those responding answered strongly agree or agree to the statements about Mastering in table 2.
Doing the Mastering assignments helped me understand what I know and what I need to study.
Working on Learning Catalytics questions in class was a fun way to learn.
I would recommend Mastering to another student as a good resource for the course.
Doing the Dynamic Study Modules before class helped me understand more during lecture.
If you plan to assign only one type of homework, start with the Dynamic Study Modules. She has found that students loved them, and she believes they should be required because they help students understand what they don't know and provide information about the concept as they are working through the questions.
Try Learning Catalytics during a class session and get feedback from students. Once Aarons Gillings started using it, she found students asked her to use LC more frequently.
Aarons Gillings finds that students often struggle with Gen Chem II. She adopted Mastering Chemistry in 2017 to use for homework and to provide diverse resources that would help students with their learning. She has used different resources from MC as both for-credit assignments and optional remediation. Student feedback about the experience using Mastering has been positive, and course results from Spring 2018 show that, in general, students who did better on the MC homework and used the optional resources did better on the final exam.