37 Responses to “Should Our Kiruv Focus Be All Jews or Just the Best and Brightest?”

1. Michael
   September 1st, 2009 @ 3:25 am

   ALL Jews need to be brought closer to Hashem.

   Why should the haughty judgement of frummer-than-thou Jews matter more than the wishes of our caring Father? Embarrassment at some new BT’s faux pas is profoundly misplaced. He’s trying and growing and we bear his inappropriate behaviour like a parent tolerates a child – with patient correction and love.

   I am surprised at the very suggestion. Is it worse in America to have a poorly mannered BT than to leave him with no attachment to Torah?

2. JDMDad
   September 1st, 2009 @ 7:23 am

   “Should Our Kiruv Focus Be All Jews or Just the Best and Brightest?” The first problem right there would be who determines who is “the Best” and “The Brightest.” Doesn’t seem that it is for us to decide. So even if you subscribe to that belief, shouldn’t you cover your bases and work on all Jews? You never know when you’ll hit on that diamond in the rough.

3. Bas Yisroel
   September 1st, 2009 @ 7:39 am

   Sometimes being bright can make it harder to become and stay frum. Happened to my best friend.
   This is the attitude of some yeshivos nowadays, we only want the best and the brightest. But Hashem wants and loves every one of us! We should make hishtadlus and do kiruv for everyone and daven to Hakadosh Boruch Hu that our efforts should be successful. Who are we to judge who will stay frum or not?

4. Bob Miller
   September 1st, 2009 @ 8:39 am

   If we see some one in trouble, we try to help out as best we can at the time. We don’t do some type of intellectual triage to determine who is smart or noble enough merit our help. Helping Jews in spiritual trouble is no different.

   If the argument is “there is only so much kiruv manpower and energy to go around, so why not target it at the best prospects?”, that, to,o is flawed:
   1. “Best” is hard to define operationally.
   2. Screening wastes time and energy, too.
   3. If the problem is scarce resources, a solution is to add resources (for example, to expand the number of Jews involved on some level in kiruv efforts)
   4. All Jews have an immortal soul, despite surface differences among us.

   In any event the object is to maximize Torah study, understanding, and observance, not to improve the public image of this or that group.

5. Bob Miller
   September 1st, 2009 @ 8:41 am

   s/b “to merit our help” above

   s/b “that, too, is flawed”

   I apologize if my typos have dragged down the image of BT’s

6. Administrator
   September 1st, 2009 @ 9:09 am

   Note: the above post was edited to focus on the goals of Kiruv versus the resources and chance of success.

7. Neil Harris
   September 1st, 2009 @ 10:21 am

   I’d answer by saying ALL JEWS. Prior to losing 6 million Jews in World War Two, in some Jewish communities there were two types of yeshivas:
   1. Those that focused on only attracting the brightest talmidim to train
   2. Those that were designed to attract the baalei ba’tim and average students

   Both are important.
   Had the main focus of kiruv been the “Best and Brightest” I would never have become frum.

   It is a commonly overlooked fact that it is Hashem who directs the efforts of the “kiruv professional” and attracting as many people as possible is what is important. Kabbalos HaTorah excluded no one.

8. Albany Jew
   September 1st, 2009 @ 10:34 am

   The politically correct answer would of course be all Jews, and I agree with this answer. I have noticed something, though, while sitting at many Shabbos tables in different cities of wonderful people making unbelieveable efforts to bring Jews back home. Some tables are filled with professional, highly educated, well adjusted (on the surface anyway)potential BTs, while others will be filled with people who need to find themselves in many ways (and some who also might actually need the meal.) So there is obviously some sort of vetting process going on. I have no conclusion here, just an observation.

9. Ron Coleman
   September 1st, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

   This question can’t seriously be discussed unless the person who supposedly said this, or a sincere proxy, is willing to advocate that point of view. Because as stated it is preposeterous, offensive and sacrilegious.

   There is no possible rationale for suggesting that less accomplished, less well adjusted or less talented Jews are less entitled to be exposed to Yiddishkeit and given every opportunity to gain the benefit of the Torah as Hashem intended. But there may be something else in there — something along the lines of what AJ said above, or something different — that should be wrestled with, perhaps along the lines of what sort of resources are best devoted to what sort of kiruv, and what sort of “tracks” there should be for BT’s in terms of education and integration.

10. Abe
    September 1st, 2009 @ 3:09 pm

    There is no possible rationale for suggesting that less accomplished, less well adjusted or less talented Jews are less entitled to be exposed to Yiddishkeit

    Yes there is — the rationale that an unstable or immature person may choose to pursue a frum lifestyle for several reasons (e.g., to be accepted, to hide psychological problems, to be part of what they perceive as a utopian society) that could lead to tremendous failures down the road, once the person realizes their errors in judgment. Possible outcomes include depression, soured family relationships, divorce (sadly, often after children are involved), and an open hostility towards frum people and frum establishments.

    Everyone involved in kiruv knows that the Torah can be a sam chaim, but they forget that it can also be a sam maves. Where is the accountability?

11. Bob Miller
    September 1st, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

    If the type of person discussed by Abe remains oblivious of Torah, that also involves serious risks. Someone who wants to attract a person to Torah who appears to be this type will need expert guidance to weigh the tradeoffs properly before plunging in.

12. David Schallheim
    September 1st, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

    When I was working in a baal teshuvah yeshivah this question weighed very heavily on my heart.

    In fact, every yeshivah has a selection process. If a student is considered a “mazik,’ i.e., someone who will interfere with the other student’s ability to learn and grow spiritually, he will be asked to move on. In a regular yeshivah this also relates heavily to the damage a student may cause to the yeshivah’s reputation, which is the oxygen of most yeshivos.

    In a baal teshuvah yeshivah the principle is the same, but the application differs greatly. Behavior that would be completely unacceptable in a regular yeshivah is of course considered par for the course, such as kefirah, chillul Shabbos, etc. What is considered a mazik is someone who will turn off other students, such as an aggressive or abusive personality, lack of personal hygiene, or psychological instability.

    What makes less sense is that most baal teshuvah yeshivos want to maintain a reputation of leadership development or academic excellence and will actively seek to recruit the appropriate candidates and refuse admission to those with less aptitude. Sometimes they’ll accept someone less qualified into the introductory stages but seek to send him elsewhere after he’s committed to becoming religious.

    There’s also a common philosophy of focusing outreach on the rich and famous, with the reasoning that this will provide impetus and support for reaching out to the rest of the Jewish people. I believe this is morally incorrect, and when we asked Rav Elyashiv shlit’a this question in 1986 he told us that such an approach is wrong.

13. Nathan
    September 1st, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

    I agree that more resources should be allocated to Kiruv Rechokim, much more.

    But the operative word is SHOULD.

    Until the cause of Kiruv Rechokim receives a massive increase in resources [which will probably not happen soon because of the terrible economy], the question is how to best allocate scarce resources.

    In the ideal world, we could mekarev ALL JEWS. But we do NOT live in the ideal world!

    Do we really need to dedicate scarce kiruv resources to people like this:

    {1} About 15 years ago, a gair who was known to have psychological problems was shot to death when he attempted to attack a police officer with a hammer.

    {2] The Rubashkin Meat Factory disaster was caused by an insane Baal Teshuvah who lived with the Rubashkin family for five years, before he decided to turn against the Rubashkin family and all Orthodox Jews.

    {3} One Kiruv Rechokim activist explained to me that he refuses to work with people who are not emotionally normal, because in his opinion, crazy people do not stay with Judaism.

    Given the choice between mekareving a 23 year old man who scored in the top 1% of the SAT and graduated from MIT or Princeton, who could learn all of Shas within a few years, or mekareving a 23 year old man who could not get into any college and could not master one chapter of Mishnah if his life depended on it, would any sane person choose to mekarev the latter, if it were only possible to mekarev one of them?

    Given the choice between mekareving a 23 year old woman whose beauty is 10+ on a scale of 1 to 10, who could easily get married and start a Torah observant family, and mekareving a 23 year old woman who is so ugly that no man wants to date her, and she could not get married if her life depended on it, would any sane person choose to mekarev the latter, if it were only possible to mekarev one of them?

    In both cases, not only do the former choices have greater chances of succeeding as Orthodox Jews, but they also carry the additional benefit of improving the reputation of Baalei Teshuvah [assuming that this is possible].

14. Gary
    September 1st, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

    From practical and philosophical vantage points, I am troubled by this entire post.

15. Moshe
    September 1st, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

    I am troubled by “nathan”‘s post No. 12. If someone could not get into college, does that diminish their worth as a Yid if they want to become observant? Should it? Should they then just give up and marry a shiksa and be done with yiddishkeit?

    Same with a woman: if a woman is not attractive, does that make her have any less of a neshama given by Hahsem? Should she marry some goy and be done with Judaism?
    I thought that the goal (or at least A goal) of becoming observant is to do as many mitzvahs as possible, thus improving oneself. I guess to some persons, that’s not good enough???

16. Nathan
    September 1st, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

    Moshe (message 15) you are putting words in my mouth that I never said.

    I never said that someone should marry a non-Jew because he could not get into college or because she is not attractive.

    I said that given scarce kiruv resources (a situation which is not likely to improve in the near future) it would be more logical to focus those resources on those individuals who have the greatest chance of succeeding as Orthodox Jews, not on individuals who have the least chance of succeeding.

    Also, given the choice, it would be wiser to focus scarce kiruv resources on people who seem likely to contribute much to the overall community or cause the least problems, and not spend those scarce resources on people who seem likely to contribute little to the overall Jewish community or cause the most problems.

17. DK
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 10:37 am

    The idea that Kiruv would even draw the best and brightest to ultra-Orthodoxy is itself a self-indulgent fantasy.

18. Bob Miller
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 11:44 am

    A secular world view is a self-indulgent fantasy.

19. FKM
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 11:54 am

    My armchair philosopher solution is to use a pyramid strategy:
    The best and brightest kiruv professionals should focus on the best and brightest baalei Teshuvah. This will hopefully lead to the development of quality educational resources and devices to be made available to the general public. It should allow the average or less than average Joe frum yid on the street to access advanced tools which he can use to to compensate for his mediocrity and influence the average Joe secular Jew.
    (Hey, that’s what I(–Joe frum yid–)am trying to do!)

    P.S. I don’t think this thread should be sidetracked by the mentally unstable issue (personified by DK above) And it goes without saying that every Jewish neshama is worth investing in. The question is finding a solution that meets all our agreed upon goals and I think mine does.

20. Bob Miller
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

    FKM, you have a great theme for Elul, “find our areas of mediocrity and compensate to enable spiritual growth”.

21. I'mJewish
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 2:16 pm

    If the focus is on judging women by their outward beauty and choosing to focus on the 10′s and not the 1′s, how does kiruv differ from sorority rush?

22. I'mJewish
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

    What does scoring in the top 1% of SAT’s and graduating from MIT or Princeton have to do with being ethical and “emotionally normal”, Nathan?

    (Apologies to Ron, of course. Just caught him in my alumni magazine — the not-Princeton one.)

23. Nathan
    September 2nd, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

    Dear I’m Jewish,

    I did not say that scoring in the top 1% of SATs or graduating from MIT has anything to do with being ethical or and emotionally normal.

24. DK
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 2:11 am

    Hey FKM — thanks for ad hominem. It’s nice to know that isn’t just reserved for scholars like Rabbi Natan Slifkin.

25. Bob Miller
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 8:53 am

    DK’s comments insult many scholars.

26. Albany Jew
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 10:59 am

    DK’s comments insinuate that this blog’s target audience is the opposite of the best and the brightest. Thanks DK, I’m going to find Larry and Moe now, Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk!

27. Ron Coleman
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

    Oh for goodness sake, don’t rise to DK’s bait! Maybe he’s right, you dummies! ;-)

    I am troubled by the fact that horror stories involving mentally ill people, or otherwise seriously maladjusted people, could in any way be considered by participants here (besides the maladjusted ones…) as responsive to this question.

    No one would argue, or should, that people with mental health or serious social problems should be, programmatically, a target group for kiruv. But citing these examples as why it is a “bad idea” — not to do kiruv with them, mind you, but to bring them into our small and vulnerable world — is no more useful than trying to argue that, indeed, BT’s are by and large “the best and the brightest.” Neither characterization is accurate and neither use of anecdotal evidence informs us about how to make choices.

    I’m sticking by my answer (of course!).

28. I'mJewish
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

    “Given the choice between mekareving a 23 year old man who scored in the top 1% of the SAT and graduated from MIT or Princeton, who could learn all of Shas within a few years, or mekareving a 23 year old man who could not get into any college and could not master one chapter of Mishnah if his life depended on it, would any sane person choose to mekarev the latter, if it were only possible to mekarev one of them?”

    You’re right. Someone who goes to MIT or Princeton is clearly more worthy than someone who is just an average guy of average intellect. Hashem judges by the IQ point or the SAT score. Thanks for the clarification, Nathan. Amazing.

29. Ron Coleman
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 4:43 pm

    It really is an offensive, and very un-Jewish, sentiment there.

30. Bob Miller
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

    The beginning of this strange discussion was the caption speaking of “our kiruv focus”. We don’t all need to have the same kiruv focus. Jews interested in doing the right thing will try to understand what they’re good at and use their educational/persuasive talents accordingly. The predominant focus, if there is one, will then be the one that best fits the people involved, and will not be something imposed on them by edict or consensus decision.

31. Mark Frankel
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

    I also take issue with Nathan’s statements about certain women and men who are less intellectually gifted.

    I think Kiruv is bringing anybody closer to Hashem whether they become observant or not. I also think we BTs (and FFBs), who are already observant also need to be the continued subjects of efforts to come closer to Hashem.

    I believe the Kiruv professionals and Yeshivas are primarily focused on making people observant because they have limited resources and their supporters are looking for this type of success.

32. Steve Brizel
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 8:30 pm

    I would agree that all Jews can be brought to closer to Avodas HaShem by realizing that we need more than one approach that reaches the hearts and minds of different people. I strongly disagree that we should write off those Jews who are not “the best and the brightest”.

33. Nathan
    September 3rd, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

    Steve Brizel, I never said that we should write off those Jews who are not “the best and the brightest”.

    I also believe that my messages in this discussion have been consistently misread and misinterpreted.

34. Bob Miller
    September 4th, 2009 @ 7:45 am

    If the message doesn’t get through, the sender has to remove its ambiguity.

35. Beth
    October 14th, 2009 @ 2:22 pm

    Perhaps the very reason that the “best and brightest” are more successful is that they are given more support, attention and acclaim. It’s more glamorous and entertaining to spend time with the Harvard grad or ex-movie star. But like in a classroom, the nice, average, and quieter people who seem to be coping get less help and find it harder to become successful.

    Does a parent love the quieter, less capable child less? Does HKB”H love any of his children less?

36. Mordechai Y. Scher
    October 14th, 2009 @ 3:22 pm

    I just read Nathan’s comment, and all I see is that he used extremes to try and illustrate how brutal the allocation of resources issue can be. I understand why others got caught up in his extreme examples (maybe an unfortunate choice, in fact); but when we reduce the argument what we have is his perspective that allocation of resources, or triage of a sort, is the issue. That is what needs examination. The Torah certainly knows of such dilemnas, and Hazal examine them in other contexts.

    So far, I think Mark Frankel is the only one who has addressed that by basically rejecting the need to allocate resources.

    BTW, Mark, I think your last line is telling.

37. Bob Miller
    October 15th, 2009 @ 9:58 am

    In this case, defining, characterizing, and quantifying the resources themselves is a challenge. We have to know what’s available to allocate, including “amateurs” as well as “professionals”. How knowable is that?

Leave a Reply