A review of the Footsteps website would seem to indicate that the focus of the organization's activities is on vocational training and the advancement of secular education. In this regard, it would seem to be basically servicing individuals in regard to this particular lack, a result of the Charedi educational perspective which downplays secular studies. In itself, this would not seem to be a problem to me; in fact, I could even describe this type of training as a mitzvah. The problem is, however, that, given the lifestyle and community from which these individuals emerged, this type of study was presented to the potential Footsteps clientele as forbidden within the rules of Torah. As such, these individuals generally would perceive themselves as being in violation of Torah through this type of study. This very study is thus connected to the rejection of Torah, at least prima facie in the eyes of these individuals. The natural predilection, for these individuals, is thus to further tie their desire for secular studies with the rejection of Torah. The possible result is that a tie between this interest in secular studies and other drives that are clearly contrary to Torah is formed. The first question thus is whether Footsteps attempts to challenge this connection and misperception and to try and inform these individuals that they can observe Torah while pursuing greater secular knowledge, or not?

At the root of the issue may be the reality of machloket within Halacha and, more on point, the divergent approaches to this reality of disagreement within the Orthodox world. Let us take this example of studying at university. There are those within Orthodoxy who, at one end of the spectrum, see this as a mitzvah, that it is proper and correct for one to go to university and study secular studies. At the other end of the spectrum, though, there are those who view attendance at university and the studying of secular studies as an aveira, a sin. The question is not simply how those who adopt one view should look at those who adopt the extreme opposite view but, also, how one should respond to unrest within the community of adherents of one specific view. Suppose there is a person, born within the Chassidic world, who not only wishes to go to university but believes that university attendance is proper and correct. In this regard, this person may actually share the same perceptions as a Modern Orthodox individual. Yet, while a Modern Orthodox individual would perceive his/her view as within the pale of Orthodoxy -- and even has Torah arguments that would support attendance at university -- this individual born into the Chassidic world may have been taught that studying secular subjects is clearly against Torah, without even any perception that there is a divergence of opinion on the matter. The one born into the Chassidic world, as such, could even view going to university in the same way as he/she would view eating pork. Of course, from our perspective, they are different, and, as such, wishing to go to university, while an act that would reflect a departure from the Chassidic world, does not necessarily need to be equated with the rejection of Torah in general. The problem is, though, that this individual from the Charedi world may not even recognize this. Based upon his/her background, he/she may view Modern Orthodox individuals as deviants from the real or honest presentation of traditional Judaism in the same manner as they would view Reform Jews. The result is that while this person may really have attitudes and perceptions that are similar to a Modern Orthodox individual, in his/her mind, they are perceived to be attitudes and perceptions that are contrary to Torah in general. As such, this individual may view his/her new outlooks as contrary to Torah itself while really they are not. They may challenge the Chassidic perspective but not the Modern Orthodox one -- in fact, these views may be the very basis for why someone is Modern Orthodox rather than Charedi. So how is the Modern Orthodox person to respond to this phenomenon whereby the very principles that have led this person to be Modern Orthodox are motivating individuals, who were never presented with the option of Modern Orthodoxy as a path within Torah, to forsake Torah in general?

There is a vast difference between the Modern Orthodox individual who, from his/her perspective believes that, for example, by going to university, he/she is still following Torah and another individual who believes that through the very same act he/she is rejecting Torah. The result is a difference in mindset which cannot be ignored. The former still does consider Torah in his/her decisions and still views abiding by Halacha as fundamental. The latter, in distinction, has become someone solely motivated by personal desire and, for whatever reason, has still made a choice that rejects obedience to the standard of Torah. While Avot 2:5 directs us to be sympathetic to the dilemma that this person faces and not to be judgmental, the reality is still that this person has rejected Torah, albeit motivated by emotions and reasons that could have been alleviated by the presentation of another derech, way, within Torah, namely Modern Orthodoxy. The fact that this person has chosen to leave the realm of Torah -- even though this realm was not presented in its complete entirely -- must still be recognized and considered.

Such cases, however, may actually indicate that there is another manifestation of this problem that, in certain ways, may be more problematic from a Torah perspective. The fact that some choose to leave the Charedi world because they feel frustrated within this world may indicate that there are others that are similarly frustrated yet, due to an allegiance to Torah, continue to live within this world and with this frustration. Aside from the time bomb that, thus, continues to thereby exist, we may wonder whether this is truly a proper manifestation of Torah. In the interest of the Torah ideal, it might be proper to actually offer the opportunity for individuals from the Charedi world to know about the option of Modern Orthodoxy and be welcomed into this lifestyle. One may question, though, whether this is really a proper Torah concern. Should contentment in one's Torah lifestyle be a value or consideration? Lawrence Kaplan, The Hazon Ish: Haredi Critic of Traditional  Orthodoxy, The Uses of Tradition, presents a disagreement between the Chazon Ish and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein on whether the observance of Torah is in line with human nature or not. According to the Chazon Ish, the very purpose of Torah is to challenge human nature, its observance is thus to be consistently challenging and invasive to our personalities. Rav Moshe, though, maintained that Torah observance ultimately correlates with human nature and, as such, while there may, at times and in specific situations, be a conflict between Torah and self, the Torah lifestyle is ultimately and eventually to be a pleasant one that brings contentment to an individual. Terms such as mesirat nefesh, that one must sacrifice even his/her being, in the service of God, and events such as Akeidat Yitzchak, the Binding of Yitzchak, clearly would seem to support and reflect the view of the Chazon Ish. Verses such as Mishlei 3:17, which states that all the paths of Torah are pleasant, though, would seem to clearly support the view of Rav Moshe. The fact may be that both sides of this debate would seem to have some voice within Torah. On one hand, we are to recognize that the Will of God is above our own personal wills and that we must be willing to sacrifice our very beings in the service of the Almighty. On the other hand, though, our personalities are also the creations of God and, as such, it can be contended that our beings, emotions and thoughts were also created to reflect this service. The result of such a perspective, especially within the view of Rav Moshe, is that there should be a unity of self and Torah. While those who depart the Charedi world may be doing so because they have followed their will at the expense of service to God and we can be critical of such a choice, we can still empathize with the conflict that they felt and feel sadness that a Torah option of a lifestyle that connects self and Halacha was not presented to them. We, though, could be more upset with the potential reality of the many people -- who continue to abide by a Chassidic lifestyle although personally unhappy in it -- who could find fulfillment within Torah if they adopted a Modern Orthodox lifestyle and met a goal of unity of self and Torah.

A further issue is how does one properly is to make a decision about which path within Torah to follow. Do we simply choose the path within Torah that we like? Are there directives on the derech within Torah that one must follow? The concept of minhag avoteinu, a family or communal custom, would seem to inform us that we must follow the directions of the specific Torah world in which we are brought up. Many Chassidic communities are insistent upon this point, consistently directing individuals that they must follow, almost in the extreme, familial and communal standards. This perspective, though, is challenged by the fact that in matters of actual psak, when behaviour is specifically mandated as an expression of one halachic opinion in disagreement with others, the force of imposing custom is somewhat limited. There are reasons that a newer halachic viewpoint may override a previously held halachic viewpoint. A practical problem would still be, as stated above, that segments of the Charedi world may not perceive this newer halachic viewpoint as a halachic viewpoint and thus not even present the options to the individual as options. Nonetheless, is the choice of which halachic viewpoint to follow still simply a matter of personal choice? And is that problematic?

Clearly in making any type of halachic choice, some objective standards have to enter into the decision making process -- even in regard to the question of to whom one should ask halachic questions. Ideally, one should not only choose a certain view within Torah because it is the view that one likes but one should also believe that this view is also actually the correct understanding of Torah. Eilu v'Eilu, while promoting tolerance for divergent opinions within Torah, still demands of those maintaining the individual opinions within Torah that they believe their opinion is the objectively correct opinion. One should have arguments as to why they believe their view within Torah is the correct one in contradistinction to another view which another person also believes to be the correct one. Yet, at some point, it does come down to the self and the fact that one ultimately adopts a certain derech within Torah because one has an affinity for this viewpoint. The difficulty with this recognition within the Chassidic world is not solely that they don't recognize this divergent viewpoint such as Modern Orthodoxy as an acceptable path within Torah but they also do not feel that it is proper for the individual brought up with certain Chassidic practices to forego their minhagim and the derech in which they were born even to accept another view accepted within Torah.

In contrast to this attitude, though, may be the statement of Mishlei 24:6, chanoch l'na'ar al pi darcho, educate your child according to his/her way. This verse would seem to indicate that each child must be responded to as an individual and that the process of Torah education must uniquely consider the individual personality of each student regardless, I would add, of the attitude of the general populace. If this is true, it may be that supporting a movement out of the Chassidic world by one who should have not had been instructed in that manner would be a positive action. The value expressed within Mishlei would seem to support the concept that self is to be a factor in one's expression of Torah.

The reality of Torah is that the introduction of a directive from God into one's life creates a tension between one's personal will and the imposed Will of God. Clearly observance of Torah demands on the individual to bend his/her will in the face of the Will of the Creator. However, as there are shivim panim l'Torah, seventy faces to Torah, a myriad of differing expressions of the Will of God, we find an opening -- and even a demand -- for the expression of the personal will within the boundaries of Torah -- and we can understand this as Divinely intentional. God gave us, and thus would seem to want, personal expression within commitment to the Will of God.

This is the dilemma that I face in relationship to an organization such as Footsteps. Since, in the mind of many of the individuals that turn to this organization they perceive themselves as forsaking the Will of God, I must find a problem with their behaviour -- especially if there is a clear violation of Halacha that would be deemed as such by all adherents to Orthodoxy. Perhaps many within Footsteps did start the road away from his/her Chassidic world because of the desire for greater secular education but, by considering this to be a violation of Torah, it is quite possible that the result was the rejection of other aspects of Torah as well. I may be upset that this problem emerged because these individuals were not taught the shivim panim l'Torah but in the end the result may still be a complete forsaking of Torah. This is something I cannot support and if an organization such as Footsteps assists in all manners of leaving the Charedi world including behaviour that is clearly non-halachic, I must have problems with such an organization.

Yet, the above presented mechanics that led to this person's movement away from the Charedi world cannot also be ignored. I am sure there are cases of those who leave the Charedi world due to an outright rejection of Orthodoxy in general. The fact may still be that many of these individuals only left Torah because of a misrepresentation of Torah and, if that were corrected, they would return to a Torah they can accept such as Modern Orthodoxy. To reject an organization such as Footsteps which may give the Modern Orthodox world access to such individuals and open the doors for the teaching of this view of Torah may be foolish. It may be that an organization such as Footsteps, in order to attract and service those leaving the Charedi world has to open itself up to any issue that such individuals would face even those clearly in violation of Torah. But it may still offer an opportunity to teach such individuals a different view of Torah which may be worthwhile, in the interests of Torah and in the interests of these individuals. Perhaps they have their own conflicts about Torah as they have been taught it, and in their rejection of their view of Torah they also feel the lack of what they felt was positive within Torah. There is thus a reason to reach out to organizations such as Footsteps and offer, within their guidelines, some representation of a different type of Orthodoxy that may be an answer for many of those who approach them.

I don't have an answer to that practical question. It depends, firstly, on whether those who founded Footsteps and govern it are themselves open to the reality of different forms of Orthodoxy that could be an answer for many leaving the Charedi world, if there is a point of connection at all. If such a connection could be found, the goal then would still not be to turn an organization such as Footsteps into a Modern Orthodox agency. This would not work and the open specter of any type of Orthodoxy may defeat Footsteps very intentions and even defeat the purpose of offering Modern Orthodoxy as an option to those primarily just motivated to leave the Charedi world. The recognition of the dilemma and challenge that these individuals faced in rejecting their homes must always be the first concern. The goal cannot be to simply mikarev them, bring them closer, to Modern Orthodoxy. The presentation of Modern Orthodoxy, though, may be something that they would embrace. If Footsteps would be open to a role of Modern Orthodoxy in its endeavours, it would then be incumbent on Modern Orthodoxy to determine a proper method for making and maintaining this connection.