Sugihara: How The Mir Yeshiva Was Saved

Today is Yom HaShoa, and therefore an appropriate day to post an excerpt from Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff's fantastic book, From Washington Ave to Washington St, that tells the story of how the Mir Yeshiva was saved, and especially of the life-saving work of Sempo Sugihara. The excerpt below is taken from pages 24-29.

~~~

Mir was part of Poland when the German forces crossed the frontier on September 1, 1939. The Soviet armies attacked Poland’s eastern border on September 17. Within a few weeks the German and Russian forces met and their mutual partition of Poland became a reality. Almost all the major Polish yeshivot were located in eastern Poland, which was now occupied by the Soviets. Atheism and enmity toward religion were basic to the Marxist and Communist doctrines. Numerous roshei yeshiva and yeshiva students had personally experienced this harsh reality under the Communists during the post-World War I period. Many had chosen to flee to independent Poland to avoid Soviet persecution. These yeshivot were now once again under Soviet control. As detrimental as this new reality was, the situation in the German-occupied zone was infinitely worse. There the yeshivot were under Nazi dominion. The immediate reaction to these events was that the yeshivot must flee and relocate in more secure locations. Nevertheless, there was no area available that was not under Communist or Nazi domination. On October 10, 1939 the Soviets reached an agreement with the neutral Republic of Lithuania to transfer to it control over the city of Vilna. This focal center for Jewish life and its environs now passed from Polish to Lithuanian sovereignty.

These tidings precipitated excitement and anticipation among the roshei yeshiva and their students. Hurried decisions were made to depart for Vilna. Among the first to leave were the students of the Kletsk Yeshiva headed by Rabbi Aaron Kotler (October 14) and the Mir Yeshiva led by Rabbi Eliezer Yehudah Finkel (October 15). Soon hundreds more joined the mass exodus to Vilna. By the time the new border between Lithuania and Soviet-occupied Poland was formally established, there were some fifteen thousand Polish refugees, including approximately twenty-four hundred yeshiva people in the greater Vilna area. The primary responsibility for maintaining and guiding the yeshivot fell upon Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzenski. A member of the Vilna ecclesiastical court (beit din), Rabbi Grodzenski was widely considered the leading scholar-respondent-statesman of the Lithuanian Torah world. He divided the various yeshivot among the Vilna synagogues and insisted that each school retain its unique atmosphere and method of study. Despite constantly ebbing strength, the Vilna rabbi appealed to his devotees throughout the Jewish world for material sustenance for the refugees. Rabbi Grodzenski was to pass away on August 9, 1940.

While the yeshivot and the refugees were attempting to adjust to the new reality, the situation abruptly changed once again. On June 15, 1940, Russian troops entered Lithuania, and in Soviet terminology its “liberation” began. On August 3, 1940, Lithuania was officially annexed by the Soviet Union as a constitutent Soviet republic. The refugee yeshiva people once again faced the dilemma of how to leave Lithuania and escape from Communist control. The point at issue was now where to move. The gateways to the Land of Israel and the American continent were closed to the would-be escapees. Nathan Gutwirth and Leo Sternheim, two Dutch yeshiva students, applied to Jan Zwartendijk, the honorary Dutch consul in Kovno, for permission to enter one of the Dutch overseas colonies. They could not return to their homes in Holland, since it was conquered by the Germans in May 1940. Zwartendjik was anxious to help and proposed they go to Curacao, an island in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela. Since he was only an honorary consul, Zwartendijk turned to L.P. Decker, the Dutch ambassador to the three Baltic States, who resided in Riga (Latvia). The ambassador informed the honorary consul that Gutwirth and Sternheim did not require a visa to enter Curacao, but rather the approval of the island’s governor. Fully aware of the life-saving implications, Decker authorized Zwartendijk to write in the passports that no visa to Curacao was necessary. The actual text read: “The Dutch consulate hereby certifies that no visa is necessary for the entry of foreigners to Surinam, Curacao, and other Dutch possessions in America.”

Soon many refugees turned to the consul for a similar stamp in their passports. It was a race against the clock since the new Soviet authorities ordered the consulate to cease operations by the end of August 1940. During the almost six weeks in which Zwartendijk was able to function (July 23 to August 31), he issued around thirteen hundred such Curacao visas.

It was now necessary to select an exit route and attain the appropriate transit visas. The only possible means of reaching Curacao in the summer of 1940 had to be via the Far East since nearly all of Western Europe was occupied by the Nazis. The path of escape would be to travel across the Soviet Union and through Japan. Japanese transit visas would now have to be acquired on the basis of the Curacao destination. To obtain these Japanese visas, they approached Sempo Sugihara, the Japanese consul in Kovno. This unique humanitarian was intensely agonized by the plight of the Jewish refugees. He began issuing Japanese transport visas to all who requested them, whether or not they possessed the Curacao visas. Even after receiving an urgent cable from the Japanese Foreign Ministry to discontinue granting these visas, Sugihara continued to distribute them. He charged each applicant only two litas (approximately 33 cents) per visa. Sugihara continued issuing transit visas even from the railway car in which he departed from Lithuania on August 31, 1940.

Once the Dutch passport addendums and the Japanese transport visas were obtained, the major remaining impediment was securing Soviet exit permits. This now became a perplexing quandary for the refugees. Any attempt to leave the Soviet Union could be interpreted by the authorities as a treacherous act. The special Soviet immigration offices were opened in the facitlies of the NKVD. Some decided to continue the process and succeeded in attaining the Soviet exit permits. Among the latter was practically the entire student body of the Mir Yeshiva. The next hurdle now became securing the necessary funds for this route of escape. The tickets had to be paid for in dollars at the considerably inflated tourist rate of 170 dollars per person. Penniless refugees were now required to put together these dollars despite the fact that it was illegal to possess foreign currency in the Soviet Union. With the support of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Commitee, the Vaad Hatzalah (Emergency Committee for War-Torn Yeshivot), and relatives in the United States, the money was raised and tickets were purchased.

The initial group of refugees who succeeded in acquiring all the necessary documents left Lithuania in September 1940. They traveled by train from Minsk to Moscow. From Moscow they journeyed on the Trans-Siberian railroad to the Soviet Pacific port of Vladivostok. From there they sailed to the Japanese port of Tsuruga. Most of the Polish refugees departed from Lithuania during the months of January and February 1941.

Once in Japan, the refugees were aided by representatives of the local Jewish communities. The evacuees were settled in Kobe, Japan’s second largest port. The local Kobe comunity included about fifty Jewish families, divided almost evenly between Sephardim and Russian Ashkenazim. The local Jewish community and even the Japanese people extended a warm welcome to the more than forty-six hundred refugees who now swelled the ranks of the heretofore small tranquil Jewish community. However, the new arrivals only possessed the Japanese transit visas, which were normally valid for just seven to fifteen days. Some were able to reach their final destination in the Western Hemisphere or Australia before the outbreak of the Pacific War. However, most of the Polish refugees had no visas to other countries. Their resettlement now became the prime dilemma for the greater Kobe Jewish community. While methods were devised to extend the visas, the Nazi pressure on their Japanese allies to spread the Nazi doctrines intensified. The refugees now lived with a constant fear of denial of their visa extension, which intensified their already existing sense of insecurity.

At a meeting of rescue activists in Kobe on February 19, 1941, the consensus was that the International Settlement of the nearby port of Shanghai should be utilized as the temporary transit station instead of Japan. Shanghai was not only geographically close, but it was also a location to which Jewish refugees could still gain entry. The International Settlement of the city was governed by a municipal council comprised of the delegates of the foreign powers that then possessed extraterritorial rights in Shanghai. Approximately eleven hundred Polish refugees were transferred to Shanghai in the fall of 1941 after their prolonged Japanese residence. Among the evacuees were more than four hundred rabbis, yeshiva students, and family members. Among these, the main component was the Mir Yeshiva, which soon found a home in the Beth Aharon Synagogue on Museum Road. This synagogue had been built in the 1920s as a second house of worship for the Sephardic community. It was not fully utilized until the moment that the Mir Yeshiva established its activities in Shanghai. for close to five years, this synagogues was to resound with the voice of Torah study. While the conflagrations of war and destruction raged throughout the world, the Mirrer students intensified their studies and spiritual advancement The tribulations of the outside were downplayed and the inside of the Shanghai synagogue was permeated with the spirit of Lithuanian Torah learning and piety.

The Steipler's Letter on Intimacy

A little while back I mentioned that Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff had cited the Steipler's letter on sex in one of his lectures. As I had never heard of the letter before, I was very curious and wanted to find it. I looked for Rabbi Nathan Drazin's Marriage Made in Heaven only to discover that there was no English translation of the letter in that book. I then realized I had to find the Hebrew version, namely, Zivug Min Ha-Shamayim, and not only that, but the newest edition. Gottesman didn't have it, which was saddening, but then, upon searching WorldCat, we realized that only five libraries worldwide have got this book! Of these five, only one had the second edition (published in 1989.) Thus, it is with a sense of great happiness that I hold Harvard University's copy of Zivug Min Ha-Shamayim in my hands.


To offer context and a preface, the Steipler wrote this letter with the request that it not be published. He desired it only to be circulated so that those who needed to know of it would. However, Rabbi Drazin took it upon himself to quote particular excerpts/ paragraphs from the letter in order to clarify matters to those who were honestly searching. You see, the Jewish tradition seems to allow for different understandings of intimacy, ranging from a more ascetic approach to one that permits and states that one ought to find pleasure in this. A basic introduction to some of these points of view and our common understanding nowadays is provided by my article, "The Jewish Perspective on Sexuality."

The updated version of Zivug Min Ha-Shamayim contains a SH'UT section, namely Shailos u'Teshuvos (Questions and Answers.) It is in this section that someone cites the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch and inquires as to how Rabbi Drazin can claim one ought to take pleasure in intimacy to the extent he does when the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch reads: בשעת הזווג יש לו להרהר בדברי תורה ובשאר דבר שבקדושה... ואף כשהוא אצלה לא יכוין להנאתו אלא כאדם שהוא פורע חובו שהוא חייב בעונתה, ולקיים מצות בוראו שיהיו לו בנים עוסקים בתורה ומקיימים מצות בישראל (Hilchos Tznius, Kaf-Gimmel, Beis through Tes). In answer to this question Rabbi Drazin cited from a "michtav aroch m'Gaon chasid echad." This, R' Rakeffet explains, is the Steipler's letter. While the excerpts are on page 110 of the book predominantly, I thought it best to scan the question as well, so below please find pages 109-111.

The Steipler's Letter on Intimacy

On the offchance that someone is unable to access Adobe Reader I also scanned the main part of the letter (page 110) in JPG form. However, I would greatly prefer it if you read the entire PDF as that's the way to achieve the best understanding.


The reason I have cited this letter and made it available is for the pursuit of holiness. Many people whom I have spoken to are very confused by the presentation of sexuality in Judaism and I think it is imperative for them to know that the Steipler used very clear language to explain that pleasure in this act is a pure and holy thing. Not only that, but that in our time it is not appropriate to act as ascetes in this matter. It is my desire that this letter only be used to promote holiness and understanding.

Marriage Made In Heaven by Nathan Drazin

I took Marriage Made in Heaven by Nathan Drazin (aka the book Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff cited) out of the library and read it. Alas, Gottesman only has the English version as opposed to the one containing the Steipler's letter. No matter; I shall find a different way to get ahold of that. But as for the book itself- it's very beautiful. I am surprised that a book printed in 1958 is so much clearer in its language, tone, and advice than the literature made available today for the Orthodox Jewish soon-to-be-married contingent. Drazin's thesis is that the sexual relationship cannot be over-stressed when it comes to marriage. He writes:

I began to wonder. What was happening here? Why had these people been so much in love with one another before and how did their love turn into hatred so quickly after the wedding? What did they learn of one another after marriage that they had not known before? Some of these couples had known each other for a year or more before marriage. They knew each other's life histories and backgrounds as well as one could know these things. It then occurred to me that there was one element in marriage, absent prior to wedlock, that may have played havoc with them. Of course, I was thinking of intimate sexual relations.

Is this idea correct? Would this suggestion be immediately conceded by people in trouble? I soon had an opportunity to learn the truth. Of the many married people who came to me for help, I remember one couple especially for their numerous arguments and complaints. I listened to them most patiently and sympathetically. I could easily sense that the many little things about which they argued so intensely were not their real problem. To test out my preconceived idea, I said to the in a tone of assumed confidence, 'Friends, you are both mistaken. Your trouble is not the things you argue about. Your problem, I am certain, is sexual maladjustment.' Did they believe me? No! They could see no connection whatsoever between the complaints they had and their marital relationship. My words, moreover, had set off a very hostile reaction. They expressed their disgust with me in my presence. 'We thought we came to a rabbi, a holy man,' they said, 'and here you speak to us about such an unholy and filthy thing as sex!'

Is sex unholy or filthy? Of course I knew that only in the minds of seriously maladjusted or perverted people could it conceivably be so. But how could I show these people their error? How, indeed, could I be of real help to them?

[...]

Today, when I see a marriage heading for the rocks, I do not blame the husband nor do I blame the wife. The real culprit, I believe, is ignorance. Such people are, alas, ignorant of how to solve their marital problems.

-pages 15-16

I admire the author's courage in tackling this issue on such frank, clear and non-judgmental terms. He brings up every conceivable circumstance and offers his point of view on it. While you might not always agree, his intentions are very pure. He even explains at the end of the work:

The author also expects to be criticized, perhaps criticized severely, by some of his own colleagues in the rabbinical profession. He is aware that his oral discourses on marriage and sex have not received universal approval and commendation from those colleagues. The point of view of these religious critics is perhaps best stated as follows: It is all right for a rabbi to discuss and to advocate the observance of the Jewish family laws of purity. These are divine Biblical commandments, and anyone who endeavors to get people to observe them is surely to be commended. However, the rabbi's task is to end at that. It is not the duty of a rabbi, nor is it in good taste for him, to become a marriage counselor and to discuss the intimate relations of men and women or publicly to present the Jewish point of view in regard to birth control. My answer to these learned and well-meaning colleagues is that they seemingly live in a different age and that unfortunately they are completely unaware of the great misery, misfortune and wretchedness that prevails in so many homes and families in their own congregations. If they knew even a small part of the terrible misery so many men and women endure, or knew the ravaging scars they bear on their hearts, these rabbis would of course not speak this way. They would remember the teaching of our ancient sages included in our daily morning service: 'These are the things of which a man enjoys the fruits in this world, while the stock remains for him for the world to come: namely...deeds of loving kindness...and making peace between man and his fellow.' Surely this volume comes to fulfill the high ideals of 'deeds of loving kindness' and of 'making peace between man and his fellow.' In fact, it tends in a certain way to do more: to set up such ideal, harmonious relations between husband and wife as will obviate the necessity of ever 'making peace' between them.

-pages 141-142

As an aside, I was amused by how perfectly this idea fits with one advanced in (the totally secular) To Let by John Galsworthy:

"Jon, I want to explain to you if I can--and it's very hard--how it is
that an unhappy marriage such as this can so easily come about. You
will of course say: 'If she didn't really love him how could she ever
have married him?' You would be quite right if it were not for one or
two rather terrible considerations. From this initial mistake of hers
all the subsequent trouble, sorrow, and tragedy have come, and so I
must make it clear to you if I can. You see, Jon, in those days and
even to this day--indeed, I don't see, for all the talk of
enlightenment, how it can well be otherwise--most girls are married
ignorant of the sexual side of life. Even if they know what it means
they have not EXPERIENCED it. That's the crux. It is this actual lack
of experience, whatever verbal knowledge they have, which makes all the
difference and all the trouble. In a vast number of marriages--and your
mother's was one--girls are not and CANNOT be certain whether they love
the man they marry or not; they do not know until after that act of
union which makes the reality of marriage. Now, in many, perhaps in
most doubtful cases, this act cements and strengthens the attachment,
but in other cases, and your mother's was one, it is a revelation of
mistake, a destruction of such attraction as there was. There is
nothing more tragic in a woman's life than such a revelation, growing
daily, nightly clearer. Coarse-grained and unthinking people are apt to
laugh at such a mistake, and say 'what a fuss about nothing!' Narrow
and self-righteous people, only capable of judging the lives of others
by their own, are apt to condemn those who make this tragic error, to
condemn them for life to the dungeons they have made for themselves.
You know the expression: 'She has made her bed, she must lie on it!' It
is a hard-mouthed saying, quite unworthy of a gentleman or lady in the
best sense of those words; and I can use no stronger condemnation. I
have not been what is called a moral man, but I wish to use no words to
you, my dear, which will make you think lightly of ties or contracts
into which you enter. Heaven forbid! But with the experience of a life
behind me I do say that those who condemn the victims of these tragic
mistakes, condemn them and hold out no hands to help them, are inhuman
or rather they would be if they had the understanding to know what they
are doing. But they haven't! Let them go! They are as much anathema to
me as I, no doubt, am to them. I have had to say all this, because I am
going to put you into a position to judge your mother, and you are very
young, without experience of what life is. To go on with the story.
After three years of effort to subdue her shrinking--I was going to say
her loathing and it's not too strong a word, for shrinking soon becomes
loathing under such circumstances--three years of what to a sensitive,
beauty-loving nature like your mother's, Jon, was torment, she met a
young man who fell in love with her. He was the architect of this very
house that we live in now, he was building it for her and Fleur's
father to live in, a new prison to hold her, in place of the one she
inhabited with him in London. Perhaps that fact played some part in
what came of it. But in any case she, too, fell in love with him. I
know it's not necessary to explain to you that one does not precisely
choose with whom one will fall in love. It comes. Very well! It came. I
can imagine--though she never said much to me about it--the struggle
that then took place in her, because, Jon, she was brought up strictly
and was not light in her ideas--not at all. However, this was an
overwhelming feeling, and it came to pass that they loved in deed as
well as in thought. Then came a fearful tragedy. I must tell you of it
because if I don't you will never understand the real situation that
you have now to face. The man whom she had married--Soames Forsyte, the
father of Fleur--one night, at the height of her passion for this young
man, forcibly reasserted his rights over her. The next day she met her
lover and told him of it. Whether he committed suicide or whether he
was accidentally run over in his distraction, we never knew; but so it
was. Think of your mother as she was that evening when she heard of his
death. I happened to see her. Your grand-father sent me to help her if
I could. I only just saw her, before the door was shut against me by
her husband. But I have never forgotten her face, I can see it now. I
was not in love with her then, nor for twelve years after, but I have
never forgotten.

Of course, I don't think Drazin would agree with the statement that one does not know if one loves until after the sexual act but it is certain he would understand Irene's unhappiness in the marriage and its cause. It is somewhat sad that his book, penned more than fifty years ago, is more instructive, honest and clear (even if his case studies and personal experiences might be questioned) than books my engaged friends more frequently read, which are generally comprised of a lot of fluff. Then again, I can't imagine the book published for the observant Jew today that would include the following scene in such a non-judgmental way:

The time set for their marriage was coming closer and closer. The young lady, looking forward to marriage with eager anticipation, felt that she should show her love to the young man, and on certain occasions when they were alone, got close to him, sat on his lap and kissed him. This display of affection brought on a sudden feeling of loathing and disgust in the young man who would then shove her away and tell her not to do it. Then the man brought up the question of whether or not they should be married at all. It was a rather peculiar situation and I began to inquire into his sex history. I learned that he had had sexual relations before he was engaged, although rather infrequently. He would experience loathing at contact with the prostitute and feel dirty. He would go home and take a bath or a shower. The feeling of loathing would persist for several days thereafter, until gradually it would wear off, but for weeks he would not go close to a woman. Then when the sexual urge again overcame him, the experience would repeat itself. On the average, this would occur every two months.

This information led me to deduce that, because of his experiences with loose women, this man had learned to associate the feeling of loathing and filth and bad odors with the sex act itself and with womankind in general. This reaction was carried over to his own fine clean young bride when she got intimately close to him. I felt the young man did require some talking to and correct information about sexual relations. [Etc]

-pages 111-112

Now, what book published today do you know of that could deal with a situation like that so respectfully and clearly, the rabbi simply desiring to ensure that the couple could get married and wishing to help them as opposed to giving them a mussar talk about shomer negiah and suchlike? Note that Drazin, with perfect honestly, speaks of the woman and calls her a "fine clean young bride." Now, it's not made clear whether this particular couple was observant or not, but if you look at the preface of the book Drazin states that in writing the book he has in mind "principally his co-religionists" although he is "not unaware of the fact that the book may be of interest and value to all people, irrespective of creed and colour" (10). What's lovely about Drazin is that the focus of the book is to help his fellow Jews, irrespective of the level of their religiosity, and to make sexuality helpful to them as a tool toward a happy marriage. Would that the honesty he so purely employs was still commonly practiced!

The Steipler's Letter on Sex

I had never heard of this before and found it fascinating. Ah, the gems to be found in Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff's lectures! Continuing in the Monday, August 31, 2009 lecture Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff makes the following statement:

It seems that in Bnei Brak in the ‘60s, a group of yeshiva people or people from the Chazon Ish Kollel got together and instituted that they want to be like Maimonides and they want to be very machmir and they want to have a negative attitude and they just want to indulge in sex because they have to for procreation. They don’t want to take the concept of sex into consideration and some of the wives went and complained to the Gadol Hador at that time, the Steipler Rav, the famous R’ Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky. And the Steipler wrote a four-page letter which he didn’t want published but circulated. Every Rosh Yeshiva gave it to a chatan at his wedding and in the four-page letter he tells these yeshiva boys off. He says to them, you think you’re tzaddikim; in reality you’re terrible sinners. You treat your wives like legal prostitutes. That’s the word that he uses. And the women cry; this is not the way to treat a woman. And he goes into rashei prakim simple, sexual knowledge, how to treat a woman. Very famous letter.

The letter was published anonymously years later by Rabbi Nachum Drazin, Rabbi Nathan Drazin, rabbi in Baltimore, the most famous rabbi in Baltimore, a YU musmach out of the ‘20s, a talmid of the Meitscheter Illui and Rabbi Revel. And Rabbi Drazin, among the sefarim he wrote, he wrote a sefer, ‘Marriage Made in Heaven.’ In English the book was not a best-seller because by the 1960s every kid going to yeshiva in America knew the facts of life. He didn’t need anyone to tell him. If he just read The New York Times already, he knew the facts of life. The Hebrew translation of the book, ‘Zivug Min HaShamayim’ became a tremendous best-seller. And here there was a great need for it. And the Roshei Yeshiva explained about the Steipler that b’zman hazeh where everyone knows about sex, we cannot and should not take a negative attitude.

And therefore there’s no question, when we go into the rabbinate, when we go into chinuch, and this is so important, because the spiritual leader shapes attitudes; you can affect children for life by the attitude you can convey to them and it’s important b’zman hazeh to be positive and this is the Steipler. You don’t have to quote Rakeffet and say, ‘What do you expect out of a rotten, vicious, malicious, hideous, heinous, ruthless, depraved, degenerate, surreptitious, malevolent YU graduate?” This is the Steipler Rav speaking! And you have the source in Rabbi Drazin’s book beginning on page 110. It’s right there before your eyes.

I don't own the book but if anyone does and wants to scan the letter, I think it would make for fascinating reading.

UPDATE (10/27/09): I found the book and scanned the letter. You can read it here.

In Which Prayer Is Not A Play-Group

Let me first state that if you identify as a Jewish religious feminist, you will not like this quote. It may even be best if you choose not to read this post. Let me also add that, at least according to the web, the prayer service the Maharat was participating in at the time was not her typical one but rather one she had joined in an attempt to understand others. If this truly does help people and aids them with their spirituality, kol hakavod! It is a wonderful innovation and people should do whatever helps them, within the bounds of halakha, to connect with God. What is more, on issues like this, R' Rakeffet-Rothkoff always invites discussion and dialogue. One person spoke up and stated that this is similar to Hasidic ecstasy and R' Rakeffet responded by saying the person is totally free to disagree with him.

But if this is merely 'phony baloney,' as my grandfather would have said, then this quote is right on.

This is from Rabbi Dr. Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff's Monday, August 31, 2009 lecture. You can listen from 13:38 onwards to hear the quote:

So now let me read to you from the Maharat and you’ll understand why I’m shaking. And this is sourced August 20, 2009. And this is Sara Horowitz speaking, posted by Maharat Sara Horowitz. And they take it seriously. Maharat; it’s a title, I, I, to me it’s an overkill. I wouldn’t have used such a title. But okay. And she discusses how she went to some prayer group which they met and they’re experimenting with prayer and they’re doing a yoga mincha.

“To my surprise, I found that embodying literally the words of the mincha prayer to be an extremely uplifting experience.We threw our hands up into the air in joy as we recited the word “ashrei.’ Then we went into a sitting pose at the word “yoshvei.” Then we dropped our hands down, in a cave like manner, to create a home as we said the word “Vaytecha.”

Gentlemen, I will only tell you the following: If I could turn back the clock and I was showing this document in the most ______ (I don’t know the term) Yiddish to one of my Rabbeim named R’ Yerucham Gorelick, there would have been a hole in the ceiling. The walls of YU would have been shaking as if an atom bomb had been dropped. [R’ Rakeffet clops for emphasis.] And I want to tell you your humble servant doesn’t feel much differently. Rakeffet, Religious Zionist, doctorate, six books in publication, etc, etc, oh my gosh. If this is a Maharat and this is what we’re talking about and this is what becomes of Ashrei Yoshvei Ve’techa Od Yehallelucha Selah, Ribbono Shel Olam, we have fallen down the cliff. So that’s one comment.

That depiction made me laugh. And when he said prayer is not a play-group, ah! That brought back fond memories of Rabbi Kenneth Auman's class.