Dr. James Kugel: Kosher Enough for YU?

He's a prominent Jewish studies professor at Harvard University and Bar-Ilan University, who has authored award-winning scholarship on the Bible, and draws hundreds of students to his classes. And a recent lecture at Stern College which drew roughly 140 YU students proved he was pretty popular at Yeshiva University as well. Kugel's visit raises an interesting set of questions: should someone with his beliefs on Biblical authorship be allowed to speak at Yeshiva University? Should YU be featuring guest speakers who have publicly identified with principles that may be antithetical to Orthodox or Orthoprax Judaism?

On Thursday, December 11, 2008, gathered at Yagoda Commons at Stern College to hear Dr. James Kugel. He spoke about the development of early Biblical interpretation as seen through several Midrashim in Genesis, as a large crowd of YU undergraduates hungry for knowledge and Shabbas food (the refreshments included three varieties of kugel) listened-on. The event, coordinated and sponsored by the student group TEIQU, spanned over an hour. As the lecture came to an end, Dr. Kugel took students' questions on topics ranging from discrepancies in particular Midrashim to whether he was a follower of Julius Wellhausen.

The latter question refers to a 19th century German scholar who pioneered modern Biblical criticism, and points to Dr. Kugel's most recent book, How to Read The Bible, a voluminous digest of the major modern critical interpretations of the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible. Among many other issues, the book presents the documentary hypothesis, a source-critical theory which maintains that the Five Books of Moses is a composite texts authored by several individuals over the course of the late First to early Second Temple periods. Unlike most works of modern Judaic scholarship, this book has had a more pronounced impact on the Orthodox community, partly because Kugel seems to have written it for a larger lay audience and it was reviewed by the New York Times. What is perhaps most controversial about the work is not its heretical subject matter, but rather the epilogue, in which Dr. Kugel briefly presents how he reconciles the various theories of Biblical criticism with Jewish faith and practice.

Since the publication of How to Read the Bible, objections to Dr. Kugel have surfaced in the American Orthodox community. Dr. Kugel joked with the crowd on Thursday night that he would never pray in Teaneck again. Behind the humorous comment lies a real issue in the community, highlighted by a statement from YU alumnus and prominent blogger Rabbi Gil Student: "I believe that Jewish Studies in Yeshiva University should be taught [or lectured] by people full of not only knowledge but also Yiras Shamayim… Studying Jewish Studies is in many ways a fulfillment of the mitzvah to learn Torah and should be treated as the religious experience that we expect it to be." When asked about the importance of diversity of discourse, Rabbi Student said, "Our religious outlook certainly includes the existence of multiple, valid views under the rubric of Eilu Va-Eilu. However, they must still be within the framework of Orthodox beliefs and not attempt to undermine Divrei Elokim Chayim."

Dr. Kugel is not the first visiting speaker of recent years to be marked by a certain degree of controversy. In the fall semester of 2007, Ari Goldman-professor at Columbia, New York Times journalist, and prominent author-was invited to speak at Wilf campus over Shabbat. Some students were outraged by the invite, mainly because of comments in Goldman's book about Upper West Side "tefillin dates" and writing in pencil on Shabbat, and a few even displayed their indignation by scribbling "u'viarta harah mikirbecha" on the Shabbat flyers posted around campus. It has even been alleged that a REITS Rosh Yeshiva demanded that if Mr. Goldman were to come, he must apologize to the YU public for being michalel Shabbat b'farhesyah. While Mr. Goldman was never formally uninvited, he declined his invitation when he heard of the ensuing controversy.

Dr. Kugel was not greeted with the same embroilment marked by Mr. Goldman's near-visit to YU, but rather by a large contingency of studious, intrigued undergrads, and his lecture, for the most part, was met with little discontent around campus. To be sure, the issues revolving around Goldman and Kugel are not the same, but the visit of both individuals touches on a larger question relevant to Yeshiva University in particular and the Orthodox community in general: namely, to what degree should our campus and our community be fostering diversified discourse of important intellectual and social issues, some of which may be controversial or even heretical in nature?

Dr. Kugel said that "on question likes this, people should sometimes be thinking about modern biblical scholarship…it is an issue out there that is gathering force, and I would encourage people who are so inclined to think about it." He added, "I consider myself an Orthodox Jew and YU is an institution of thinking Jews…so no; there's no reason not to let me speak."

Despite the fact that the subject matter of the lecture was rather innocuous, several in Yeshiva University disagree with Dr. Kugel's statement. Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, REITS Rosh Yeshiva, voiced disapproval of the event: "Based upon what [Dr. Kugel] has written, he is not Orthodox even if he may be Orthoprax because his stated beliefs are clearly in contradiction with Chazal regarding matters of basic Jewish theology…for YU to invite a speaker who purports to be Orthodox runs the danger of sending the wrong message about what we believe." In this vein, Rabbi Wieder would be concerned less by the potentially heretical topic of a lecture then by the individual delivering it: "I would be more comfortable with someone from JTS where the speaker is clearly not speaking from an Orthodox vantage point."

The apparently contentious nature of the Kugel lecture was perhaps emphasized by the handful of YU staff and faculty who declined to comment on the event. Although contacted several times, R. Reiss, Dean of REITS, was unwilling to speak about the lecture, explaining that he prefers being interviewed about topics that are based on "ideas and concepts" rather than about specific people, despite the fact that the interview was not necessarily geared towards Kugel specifically as opposed to "ideas and concepts." Two well-known faculty members at YU, one of which was initially supportive while the other disapproved of the event, ultimately asked The Commentator not to publish their respective comments. Another professor at Beren campus, who allegedly spoke positively about the program in front of his class on no less than two occasions, requested that he not be cited in this article. Several other deans at Wilf and Beren were contacted as well, but many either claimed that the topic of discussion was beyond their jurisdiction, or pleaded ignorance regarding the lecture.

Other faculty members at Wilf and Beren expressed greater support of the TEIQU program. The event had the enthusiastic backing of Stern Jewish studies professor Dr. Mordechai Cohen, who remarked: "While Professor Kugel's views on biblical authorship are not those of traditional Orthodoxy, Yeshiva University's educational ideals demand that we not limit ourselves to learning only from those who share our precise hashkafa. Moreover, Professor Kugel is a deeply committed Jew, and his profound ideas on early biblical interpretation are of great value to the YU community." Dr. Shawn Zelig Aster, Assistant Professor of Bible at YC, pointed out another important element of the event: "I think that we sometimes lose out by silencing…views…that appear heretical…Effectively, by trying to silence [these views], we glamorize them. Instead, we ought to turn criticism on critics: by critically studying academic biblical criticism, one is in a better position to note its weaknesses."

Dr. Vic Schwartz, Dean of Students, also viewed the event in a more positive light. Even though he was reluctant to address the appropriateness of the speaker directly, he commented in broader terms about the importance of discussion and discourse on YU's campuses, even when the ideas may seem foreign or heretical to some within the community. "It goes without saying that there is a range of opinions within Centrist Orthodoxy," said Dr. Schwartz. "It keeps things interesting and vital when a topic is open for debate." Dr. Schwartz conceded that we need to be sensitive to the event's opponents, but he also stated that it is not entirely clear who should decide what the boundaries are between appropriate and impermissible topics of discussion on campus. "I like to keep the broadest range of possibility open," concluded Dr. Schwartz.

The positives and negatives of the event notwithstanding, the sheer number of students that attended the lecture was certainly noteworthy, as students leaned against walls and sat upon windowsills in order to hear Dr. Kugel's presentation. While it is impossible to know for certain, it is hard to imagine that number of undergraduates attending a James Kugel speech in years prior to the publication of How to Read the Bible-the event may be indicative of the student body's greater interest in programming of this nature. That is where TEIQU comes in, as Simcha Gross, YC '10, cofounder of the organization, explained, "TEIQU was founded with the mission of developing opportunities for increased intellectual discourse … in the realm of Jewish academics, faith, and community at YU…I believe that a significant element of the student body… is looking for heightened intellectual discourse on matters of import …I think that can give color to a sometimes dull YU tapestry, and helps to diversify a sometimes monolithic intellectual climate on campus."

Soon after the Ari Goldman debacle, Mr. Goldman submitted an op-ed to The Commentator in which he lamented the difference between the YU of 2007 and the YU he graduated from in the 1970's. Goldman wrote that the negative reaction to his invite "[ultimately] denied students an opportunity to hear a fresh perspective…," concluding, "It suggested that the Yeshiva today is not as tolerant as the Yeshiva of my era." For TEIQU and the undergraduates who attended James Kugel's speech last Thursday, it seems that for at least one night YU resembled more like Mr. Goldman's Yeshiva of the 1970's than that of Fall 2007. As Gilah Kletenik, SCW '09, cofounder of TEIQU, remarked: "Kugel's lecture and the conversations surrounding it raise relevant and necessary questions and conversations that we ought to be conducting on campus… its not about arriving at a consensus or even about answering all of our questions; its about asking the right questions and Kugel's lecture certainly spurred us all to think, talk and most importantly, to ask."