Book Review: The Book of Separation by Tova Mirvis

Tova Mirvis' memoir, The Book of Separation, is a beautifully written account of her break with Modern Orthodoxy (and religion as a whole). It's unique in the genre in that she left Modern Orthodoxy as opposed to Hasidim or the Haredi community; also, she left when she was turning forty, and the process of leaving involved the death of her marriage. That experience is unlike that of many college students or other young adults who slowly drift and then defect from the movement.

Mirvis struggles with guilt, shame, critical voices in her head, the role of men vs. the role of women and many other uniquely modern problems throughout the course of the work. She's at her strongest when she is describing the impact of leaving and the very real ramifications for herself and for those around her. There's a recurrent theme based on a story she was once told that people may leave religion, and partake of the pleasures of the world, but they will never be able to fully enjoy them. The mind remains caught within the religious strictures even when the body rebels. Mirvis also movingly describes the variegation within her own family- her brother became Haredi, she left Orthodoxy, and her sister was single at the age of thirty-seven. Each of these individuals had their own unique experience with religion and the attendant judgment, shame and the potential lack of understanding or acceptance from others due to their choices.

Mirvis is at her weakest when describing the death of her marriage, something which she consistently attributes to having gotten married too young and to the restrictions of religion. It seems obvious there was more to it than that; most likely Mirvis could not write about it in detail (either due to worry about defamation or because her children will read this book one day). In her narrative, Mirvis takes minimal responsibility, instead casting herself as someone brave, finally gathering the courage to live her truth; this reader sees her as someone who had a midlife crisis and decided to paint it in pretty colors.  The depiction of her husband is also flawed; he is a one-note character who only shows up as a foil to her supposed bravery. He wants to remain Orthodox, sticking with the status quo, where she wants to engage in free fall because she needs to do the things that scare her. Additionally damning is the fact that Mirvis was interacting with the man she would marry after her divorce at the same time that she was in couples therapy; granted, all of the interactions between them were innocent. Yet it's clear, in a scene where that man makes her feel confident and offers her courage, helping her overcome a long-held fear, that he is fulfilling her emotionally in a way her husband can't. It reads like an emotional affair even if nothing physical happened.

The scene which I found the most raw and impactful has to do with the relationship between art & religion. The Orthodox Forum asked Mirvis, along with other artists and creatives, to talk about the tension or correlation between religion and culture. Mirvis at first gave canned answers trying to claim that creativity wasn't stifled by religion, but then told the truth. In her words:

I sat down at my desk. The words rushed out of me. There was a conflict, a terrible one. To write required freedom, but I didn't think you could create freely with the admonitions of Orthodoxy looking over your shoulder. Did you have to show your rabbi any potentially controversial scene and ask whether it was permissible- here, too, were you subject to inspection What did it mean to write knowing you'd be viewed suspiciously by your community if you pushed past the comfort zone? What about stories that didn't conform the official public version of Orthodoxy- what about stories that wanted to challenge or subvert? Even though what I'd written didn't overtly cross any line- there was no attack against Orthodox doctrine, no open disavowal of the rules- I knew that I had become willing to walk closer to the edge. (194) 

Chaim Potok said something much the same when he talked about cultural fusion. It's something that I think all creatives struggle with- how to be part of the religion that binds you while interacting with a world you find spellbinding. The give and take, the push and pull, the tension that can choke you...how do you navigate it?

Absent in Mirvis' memoir was anything relating to Tanakh. She is a novelist, and so one might hope that she would have been exposed to the ultimate storybook- the Tanakh, with all its twists, turns, complicated characters and complex realities. But in her book, her focus is entirely upon halakha and Talmud. The halakha binds and restricts her, curtailing her every movement. She chafes against it, a bird caught in a cage she is partially complicit in building...and so at last, she must break free. The Talmud fascinates her, and she enjoys it as an intellectual pursuit, but it doesn't provide meaning to her. I have to wonder whether the Tanakh was taught to her with the same passion that halakha was. My guess is no. I wonder whether a Tanakh-infused Judaism, one where the stories were not moralistic (as so many of the ones she references in her memoir were), but rather real, would have made any difference. The one scene where Mirvis talks about Tanakh is when her teacher is engaging in apologetics for David & Batsheva. Mirvis catches on to the seeming hypocrisy; she would not be permitted to give this sort of excuse, so why does David get away with it? This is precisely why Rabbi Carmy and Rabbi Helfgot have written about the need to teach authentic Tanakh, one which does not (or at least does not only) excuse characters but also engages with them, flawed as they are.

Much in Mirvis' memoir speaks to me as someone who loves words, loves books, loves to write and is still a participant in this religion. Like Mirvis, I often find the halakha constricting, and like Mirvis, I dislike the focus upon nitty-gritty details. But unlike Mirvis, the stories capture my attention and move me. When I find myself frustrated by snow white cloths and drops of blood, I remember Saul and Samuel and Abraham; it's their world, and the meaning they wrung from it, that appeals to me. My world is made of stories and I believe the stories in our book are some of the most potent and meaningful. They differ from myths and other Near Eastern origin stories in important ways; they educate humanity and teach humans the importance of nobility over power. The way I see religion emphasizes God and the individuals with whom He communed above the law, especially the law wielded as a weapon. At the center of The Book of Separation is the fact that Mirvis' Judaism had no God, or at least no God with whom she could really speak. Her religion was run by men and comprised of everlasting details, inspections, things she could and could not do. There's a piece of me that wishes- that wonders- whether things would have been different if she had been raised to speak to God, and to find power in the stories of her heritage, power that would have superseded her frustration with the law's grip. In a different world, Mirvis would use her incredible talent to write authentically about the tension of being a creative caught within a religious world. However, she would recognize God cheering her on, eager for her to navigate that territory, and so she would not worry about His supposed emissaries holding her back.

Book Review: 6 Diaries

Six Diaries is a book that tells the tale of six girls' personal journey in the area of modesty. Ten teenagers were chosen "from all four grades of high school, from different groups of friends and levels of frumkeit" (Goldin 14) to engage in a year-long activity that would include keeping a tznius journal and coming to monthly group meetings to discuss one's progress or lack thereof in this area. Aliza Goldin organized the group in an effort to engage with her students and learn about their perceptions, points of view and ideas when it came to this topic.

Let me make it clear that I do not doubt Mrs. Goldin's sincerity or the fact that she had nothing but the purest intentions in creating this program. The students whose diaries are published within the book also shine through in terms of their genuine, thoughtful and honest exploration and desire to truly grow and serve God. I admire the sincerity of both the teacher and her students and am also impressed that Mrs. Goldin refrained from forcing the girls to participate in any way. Indeed, midyear she allowed students in the group the chance to drop out, and four did so, which is why only six diaries are published.

Nevertheless, I find this book to be an appalling piece of confusing propoganda mislabeled as inspiration. There are ideas and points of view expressed by the participants in this program that are never corrected by the teacher. This may either be a flaw in the book (perhaps she did correct them but this is not documented in the text) or prove that the teacher herself agrees with the points of view expressed, which would be worse. While the teacher meant to help her students grow in their service of God, I believe that in fact many of them regressed. Mrs. Goldin allowed them to harness the natural ability humans have to be judgmental and turn their judgments against fellow classmates, parents and others who do not meet the correct tznius standards. This is aside from the fact that her exposition of the topic of tznius does not appear (at least within the book) to be based in halakha so much as a personal viewpoint. Her comments are often unintentionally patronizing and restrictive.

Early into the book, Mrs. Goldin demonstrates that she has never met an intelligent female. She breezily asserts, "Ask any girl what she finds the hardest roadblock in her avodas Hashem, and if she's honest, she will tell you: tznius" (Goldin 22). As my friend joked, "Aw, damn, and here I was going to say the Documentary Hypothesis!" Mrs. Goldin's assertion is deplorable. It undermines the very real philosophical challenges and difficulties many people face and suggests that the only true problem women have when it comes to serving God is their focus upon external clothing. This is a dismissive and patronizing approach that betrays an utter lack of understanding.

Mrs. Goldin compounds this when she declares:

The Vilna Gaon says that what Torah is to a man, tznius is to a woman. The girls were unimpressed. I wasn't worried, and continued developing this thought. This means, I told them, that if Torah is the fuel that feeds the man's neshamah, then tznius is the fuel that feeds the woman's neshamah.

If Torah is for every single male, then tznius is for every single female.

If the yetzer hara does everything in its power to stop a man from learning (in fact, the Chofetz Chaim used to say that the satan would be happy for a man to daven and say Tehillim all day, as long as he's not learning), then the yetzer hara will launch a similar attack to make sure the girl doesn't put the correct emphasis on tznius.

There was a collective blink.

This means that if a girl does chesed, if she davens, if she respects and honors her parents, and even loves to learn Torah, to a certain extent, the satan is pacified.

"Are you saying anything we do is worthless unless we're working on tznius?!"
"Are you saying all the things we work on mean nothing?!"
"Are you saying all Hashem wants is our knees and elbows?!"

No, no, and no. I was just saying, the satan is somewhat pacified, because he got to keep the main thing. (Goldin 22-23)

So this woman is under the impression that for women, keeping the laws and tenets of tznius is more important than praying to God, respecting and honoring one's parents or learning Torah. It is the 'main thing' in contrast to these other commandments. I find that fascinating, seeing as honoring one's father and mother is one of the Ten Commandments which we received at Sinai, whereas these rules about collarbones and elbows never appear anywhere in the Five Books of Moses. But let's leave that aside and focus on sources. I would like to see where the Vilna Gaon and the Chofetz Chaim make these statements and the context thereof. If anyone has the source for me, I would appreciate it.

Now let's demonstrate the detrimental effect this woman's point of view and attitude has upon the way her students view others.

In a diary post written by Shevi, the student explains:

I was just thinking...I saw pictures on the computer of a girl I know, and she was totally not dressed okay- the pictures were really inappropriate. I was good friends with her last year, and we are still friendly this year, but when I saw those pictures it made me look at her differently, and kind of...distance myself a little bit. I feel really badly about it, cuz she is really sweet, but she keeps putting these types of pictures up. She totally sees nothing wrong with it, and it makes me wonder. I can't help staying away. (Goldin 110)

So Shevi's understanding is that due to the fact that this girl is putting up pictures of herself in clothing that does not meet the standards Mrs. Goldin has been teaching her about, she should separate herself from this person. This is aside from the fact that she is implicitly judging the girl and deciding the girl is less worthy due to the clothing she wears.

These comments are not made by only one diarist. Point in fact, here's another documented entry by a different girl:

She was coming over to spend the day at my house, studying. I was wearing my usual type outfit, whatever it was that day, and she came in wearing one of those V-neck Hanes tee-shirts, which are SO not okay to wear alone on anyone. It came so low that I had to look away- it was embarrassing. I was so, so...surprised, I guess. I mean, it was upsetting to me in general that she thought it was okay to wear something like that around me, and also...I just couldn't understand. I was so taken aback that I couldn't comment. (Goldin 175)

Rather than teaching the students to see past others' clothing in an effort to respect, love and cherish the true person underneath the external trimmings, Mrs. Goldin manages to create a hyper-sensitivity and awareness of the members of her group not (only) to their own modes of dress, but to everyone else's.

Lest you think the teacher corrected this student and informed her that her own supposed progress in a particular area doesn't mean she mustn't remain friends with others who don't accord with her point of view, I offer the following passage:

We can also harness the power of a group. If peer pressure is a huge force for the negative, it is equally as strong for the positive, and working on something together with a group of like-minded people is an enormously effective technique.

Make it easier for yourself: Don't buy the clothes! Don't keep them in your closet! Don't shop in certain stores! Don't hang out with those kids! Tznius is difficult enough without the things that we are constantly doing to sabotage ourselves. (Goldin 167)

Don't hang out with those kids?!

Let me understand this correctly. Because a group of teenagers chooses to buy tight-fitting clothes, or short jean skirts, or wears pants or t-shirts (because the lack of tznius the teacher is referring to throughout this book has nothing to do with children who are walking around just as strippers, just children who are wearing contemporary American styles), one shouldn't hang out with them? Drop the friendship rather than respect another person despite the fact that they wear tight-fitting-shirts and you don't?

That's certainly not a message I would want my daughter to assimilate.

But it gets better. You see, the children in this book are being turned into fundamentalists. This to the point that one of them decides to literally cut up her clothes. Not donate them to the Salvation Army or otherwise give them to someone who could profit by them. Nope. Rather, this passage is related, again without comment or critique:

K, so there's something I've been realizing. After each time we meet I get all inspired and have all these ideas fo what I wanna do, but then I just forget about it the next day. So this time I really wanna do something about it. So now it's time to say good-bye to my really short jean skirt. I'm thinking about cutting it up, because if I don't I'm still gonna wear it.

Okay, I'm really gonna cut it. Uch, I keep changing my mind and now I don't want to.

K now I'm really gonna cut it. I'll let you know how it goes.

AHHH!!! I just went on a rampage and cut three skirts! I think I'm getting a little carried away. It kinda feels like giving a korban- I know that sounds weird, but I actually mean it. (Goldin 70)

I admire the sincerity of this girl's desire to serve God. She gave up something that was precious to her for God. I appreciate that. But I also feel like this is a colossal waste of money, something which recurs in the book when other girls throw out their clothes and their parents are not pleased by the fact that hundreds of dollars they spent on their children's clothing is going to waste.

Despite the fact that Mrs. Goldin avers that being tzanua does not mean changing your personality, that message is clearly not understood by the students she is teaching. Rather, one of the girls looks up to a peer who does something I find very disturbing:

I went home with a friend last night, and I sat on a bus that had girls and boys on it. Anyways, there was this kid in my class who I started to talk to after I sat down, and when we pulled up to the stop that the boys got on she suddenly stopped. She never picked up our conversation, and then a few minutes after we pulled off, she sent me a text apologizing, saying how she really tries hard not to call attention to herself. So every single day she plugs in her iPod, and just becomes the silent one for the rest of the trip.

She's been doing this every day for a year. It's unbelievable. (Goldin 170)

This is something to be admired? The girl is under the impression that having a simple conversation with a friend is 'calling attention to oneself' which somehow became categorized as a type of sin. A different girl is under the same misimpression:

So I know this kid who's a really great girl, so kind-hearted and caring, and she also dresses very tznius. But to me, I forget all of that when I hear her talk and laugh. When she talks, she talks in this really loud voice, and speaks over whoever happens to be speaking at the time. In a way, I think she needs everyone to hear her, see her, notice her- she just seems to be so attention-grabbing. The way she acts seems to contradict the way she dresses. Tznius to me is a package deal- you really have to have it all. Tznius is a mentality and an awareness- a constant awareness of how you dress, talk, stand, think, and feel. In my mind, that means someone who is completely self-aware. That's the goal, anyway. (Goldin 129)

Why is this student under the impression that to be loud, enthusiastic, energetic or effervescent is sinful? If this girl is speaking over others, that is simply rude and should be corrected. But it doesn't make her actively immodest. There is no such law.

Then there's the wonderful power of the guilt-trip that wends its way throughout the book:

K so basically after tonight's meeting I literally feel like garbage. I can not begin to tell you how uncomfortable I was hearing about how against halachah I dress...I am.

And I KNOW I'm not half as bad as a lot of kids I know.

So why do I feel like the world's worst Jew?

It just feels really frustrating to be trying so hard and then to hear the things we talked about, and realize that it doesn't really matter because I'm doomed anyway: chukas hagoyim, arayos, knees, collarbone, elbow, tightness- like, seriously already!

One second you're telling us that wherever we are is fine, as long as we're headed in the right direction- and the next it's like oh, and by the way you're all transgressing like 3000 issurim d'Oraysa. Like, oh gee, thanks. Totally not making me feel bad at all. NOT! (Goldin 71)

I hate guilt trips and I hate teaching God's law in such a way that people are made to feel that they are bad. I'm sure the teacher didn't intend her message to come across this way, but it is sad nonetheless that it did.

There's a great part in the journals where the teacher basically suggests that keeping the laws of tznius is more important than mitzvot that are interpersonal (bein adam l'chaveiro):

Then I addressed something I read in one of the journals: Why is tznius such a big deal- it only affects you. Isn't it worse to speak badly about someone- now, that really affects someone else? The fact is, though, that when you start seeing tznius as something bigger than the clothes you choose to wear; when you see it as protecting the kedushah which is an integral part of klal Yisrael, then you realize that your decision whether or not to be tznius at any given time is not a small, personal decision. It's huge. It's cosmic. It's global. We spoke about this thought from all angles, for a while. (Goldin 42)

This is where I completely disagree with the teacher. If there's a choice, I would rather my students learned to be moral, loving, accepting people who care about others and desire to expend time and energy to be kind to them. I care more about the respect they have for one another and their desire to see the good in one another than I do about their clothes. I believe this is an attitude shared by God. God desires the heart, as the prophets say- not mere sacrifices. Similarly, God desires our moral commitment to our fellows (as evidenced by Dor Haflaga, etc) rather than an obsessive focus upon externals.

If people are interested in reading a book that honestly deals with the topic of modesty, I would recommend purchasing Understanding Tzniut by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin. He is fair, clear and brings sources for his viewpoint as opposed to spouting ideas without providing proof. But I'd as soon give Six Diaries to my daughter as hand her a cupful of poison. The lessons taught by this book don't accord with the intentions of the teacher. She believes they do because her girls suddenly made commitments to wear tights every day, cover their elbows in the sweltering summer heat, or ensure they never bare their toes. But at what price, I ask you? At what price to the relationships they had forged with their parents or friends? To their mental attitudes toward others? What have they truly learned...and is it good that they learned it? I think not.

But that's all right. You see, the fact that I think this way clearly demonstrates that the Satan has been pacified by me. I might love God and believe in Him with all my heart, but having opinions like these clearly demonstrate that my tznius isn't up to par. So let the weeping commence. The Satan's got me.