An Analysis of Rabbi Berman's article
The following is a guest post from Steve Brizel. It is lengthy analysis of Rabbi Berman’s article with respect to the Modern Orthodox organization Edah. While I tend to agree with the general thrust of this analysis, these are Steve’s words and not mine. It should be read in that context. I would also add that even though I disagree with Rabbi Berman on many issues I have nothing but the highest regard for him as a sincere and honorable man with strongly held beliefs who acts on them.... It is with this in mind, that I now present Steve’s critique.
Guest Post
As a matter of introduction, this article should be compared with an article authored by R Berman in the February 2001 issue of Shma. There is a great deal of similarity between the two articles. In fact, one can posit that the February 2001 article was written around the time of Edah's Second International Conference on or before February 19, 2001 while the Jewish Press article marked the closing of Edah and the absorption of some of Edah's functions and personnel, including R Berman, by Yeshivat Chovevei Torah.Yet, there is much similarity between both articles that is apparent upon a careful reading. That being the case, I think that one can pose a series of comments, critiques and observations with respect to this article that should lead to discussion, but not rancor within our communities.
1) Rabbi Berman views Rabbis Yaakov Ettlinger, Samson Raphael Hirsch, Seligman Baer Bamberger and Azriel Hildesheimer Zicronam Livracha in one hashkafic or ideological camp. Yet, despite many similarities, R Hirsch advocated separation from the secular and Reform driven German Jewish communities, as opposed to Rabbis Bamberger and Hildesheimer. That view can be fairly stated to be the ideological basis of the contemporary Charedi world. Rabbi Ettlinger's view of the nonobservant Jew as a Tinok shenisba was viewed with favor by none less than the Chazon Ish. One can also posit numerous differences among these Gdolim as to Torah study and many other issues.
2) It is true that some Talmidie Chachamim studied medicine, science,literature and history because they wished to "know God." Yet, many Talmidie Chachamim who never studied these sciences were fascinated by the interplay of Halacha and science.The Chazon Ish , R Moshe Feinstein and R Shlomoh Zalman Auerbach, Zicronam Livracha are three examples among many in this regard. One cannot claim that one approach is necessarily superior or capable of producing Torah observant and ethical Jews.
3) More fundamentally, R Berman conflates the role of secular knowledge per se. One sees no appreciation of the fact that medicine, science, literature of history, while helpful and informative, simply are not a Cheftza Shel Torah. Simply stated, there is no requirement to engage in any halachic act of any consequence when a secular book is dropped or burned for any reason whatsoever. Although R Berman recognizes that popular culture today is not the culture of the 1950s, one sees an overly sanguine view of the same and no recognition of the ideological and cultural dangers of the typical American college campus.
4) Neither in the Shma or Jewish Press articles do we see any discussion of either Kiruv or Chizuk as epitomized by such important institutions and group such as NCSY, NJOP or the many Charedi Kiruv groups. Instead, the Shma article stated that we should maximize cooperation with heterodox movements. In the Shma article, R Berman defined outreach as aiding non affiliated Jews to become the best possible Jews that they can be at that point in time with respect for the autonomy of the other and without demeaning the possible choice of affiliation with non Orthodox movements.It is not a strained interpretation of this point to argue that R Berman viewed pluralism as more important than kiruv or chizuk. More critically, the notion of granting any spiritual legitimacy to a heterodox movement is essentially saying "I'm Jewish, you are Jewish and our hashkafic and halachic differences are irrelevant." One can certainly question the intellectual honesty and almost inherent low level of Modern Orthodox communal self-esteem in such an approach, especially as the differences between the heterodox movements are steadily evolving towards a loose ideology of contemporary liberalism, very low maintenance educational and membership requirements and a few Hebrew phrases or rituals that impose no sense of obligation but rather are "feel good" in nature. One can ask what is the halachic or hashkafic basis or Mesorah for such a radical point of view and why R Berman essentially repudiated the importance of kiruv and chizuk. .
5) Chumros are not a contemporary invention. The Talmud has many area of halacha where chumros are part and parcel of many halachos on a Torah and rabbinic level. The notion of safek doraissa lchumra and the tendency to pasken lchumra in many other areas is one instance of many where the Talmud and all subsequent decisors of halacha must rule lchumra, in the absence of an exigent circumstance. We also know that there are many Chumros that affect Halacha Lmaaseh that are of Talmudic antiquity. A short list would be eating a kzayis, blowing all shofar sounds and the seven clean days. The Talmud has many other chumros that Chazal imposed in many areas of halacha because the uneducated could not differentiate between the permitted and prohibited. Similarly, the notion of fulfilling all possible opinions has many Talmudic antecedents as well. Talmud Torah requires a Jew and especially a Talmid Chacham to master and sweat the details-the ins and outs, the machmir, meikill, lchatchilah, shas hadhachak, patur, chayav, tame and tahor-which are the lifeblood of halacha prior to being able to expound on the Jewish view on any subject. ( For more on this subject, see Nefesh HaChaim , Shaar Daled and Emunah UBitachon). The notion that psak must focus on "spiritual transformation" is in my opinion a concept that is almost antinomian and which begs for content and meaning. One can legitimately ask whether it includes allowing a kohen to marry a convert or another application of situational ethics , ecumenical dialogue on interfaith issues and celebrating a Chag HaSemicha with representatives and heads of heterodox institutions.
5) R Berman in both articles views Talmidie Chachamim as highly trained functionaries whose responsibility is to teach Torah and render Halachic descisions. In other words, R Berman views Emunas Chachamim as limited to these roles. However, this truncated role and the elevation of "autonomous decision making" cannot be reconciled with the view that Talmidie Chachamin and Gdolim, in particular, have the right and duty to express their view on all issues affecting the spiritual and physical welfare of Klal Yisrael . More critically, one can legitimately ask- what would be R Berman's outer limits of autonomy?
6) R Berman's views on the leadership of Modern Orthodoxy's flagship institutions, ( i.e.YU, the RCA and OU) struck me as remarkable. In the first instance, YU has never been lead by Charedi or Charedi sympathetic leadership.In fact, the prospect of that event ever happening is nonexistent. Some of the executives of the OU may have been Charedi yeshiva graduates, but they always viewed the OU's goals as paramount. The RCA has never been lead by a Charedi oriented executive vice president or president.YU, RIETS, the RCA and OU have always expressed the classical Religious Zionist positions.
7) Like it or not, the RCA , the OU and RIETS were influenced for many years by the positions of the Rav ZTL on a wide variety of issues, both in writing and orally. The issues that easily come to mind are ecumenical interfaith relations, mixed seating and the limits of cooperation with heterodox movements. The simple facts are that the Rav ZTL viewed ecumenicalism as dangerous, opposed mixed seating and allowed for inter-denominational activity only by lay groups subject to a veto by either the RCA and the OU , as opposed to meetings and groups with Orthodox and heterodox clergy. In my opinion, it is obvious that the Rav ZTL was well aware of the views of the German Gdolim that R Berman mentioned and viewed both absolute separatism of the Hirschian variety and complete interdenominational cooperative activity as equally inappropriate. One wonders why R Berman champions the point of view of the German Gdolim on this issue.
8) R Berman champions the view of the Merii as a lodestar of Jewish-non Jewish relations. The Meiri's point of view may in fact be correct. Yet, one wonders whether we should be so facile and apply this view automatically to those who were responsible for 9-11, suicide bombers and those who are vocal supporters of disinvestment from Israel .
9) In a review of Dr. Samuel Heilman's recently published "Sliding to the Right", I offered a detail critique of the Edah Journal. I invite the more curious reader to read the past issues. In my opinion, the Journal went beyond simply "pushing the envelope" of halacha and hashkafa. With all due respect, articles that advocated a permissive stance on playing sports on Shabbos , gave fawning attention to the views of heterodox movements' leaders and their views and viewed the singles crisis as an attempt by rabbis to regain control over educated women are excellent examples of passing off the heterodox and non-halachic as Modern Orthodox. Too many articles displayed a yawning and almost hostile view to accepted Psak as the province of Charedim. Finally, the discussion on women's prayer groups seemingly ignored the views of the Rav ZTL on this issue. Its chat rooms contained far more discussions on dealing with Modern Orthodox children who had "flipped out" as if this was cult like behavior, as opposed to any concern about Modern Orthodox adolescents who were dropping their level of observance.
10) The Edah Conferences struck me as dealing with power issues, as opposed to people issues. By the time of the founding of Edah in 2000, it can be fairly said that family issues were far more powerful and compelling issues than feminism, such as the many issues buffeting the frum family. Yet, Edah faithfully always had sessions on feminism, etc and featured speakers whose topics had little, if anything, to do with the quality of Modern Orthodox life. One cannot discuss the demise of Edah without recalling that it was initially supported and funded by many prominent Modern Orthodox lay leaders. However, Edah never seemed to gain traction beyond the precincts of the Upper West Side, the Upper East Side, and some sympathizers in Riverdale and elsewhere. Perhaps, the failure of Edah to gain any traction on a national level because its vision was irrelevant to the issues faced by the average Modern Orthodox Jew caused it to never become a threat to the flagship organizations of Modern Orthodoxy. In short, it can be fairly stated that Edah focused on the issues of a small sector of Modern Orthodoxy in the early to mid 1970s almost three decades later,when these issues ceased to have much in the way of any significance. The jury remains out whether Edah's former leaders will be able to partner with such organizations as Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Meimad and similar groups and what effect, they will have on the Modern Orthodox world in the long run as Marbitzei Torah, Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim.
11) One issue that R Berman seemingly ignored is that the Modern Orthodox community and leadership could have produced user friendly basic texts such as Siddur, Chumash, Tanach, Machzorim. Mishnayos and Talmud. Instead, it supported the publication of these works by a decidedly non Modern Orthodox publisher-ArtScroll, which included almost nothing from the Rav ZTL on many issues. Despite claims of revisionism of the legacy of the Rav ZTL, we see a steady production of hashkafic works by the Toras HaRav Foundation and sefarim by many of the Rav ZTL's Talmidim Muvhakim on many areas of halacha.
12)RIETS Kollelim produce a wide variety of sefarim and articles on many areas of halacha. The Chavrei Kollel serve as heads of community kollelim and as scholars in residence around the USA. . We also see many of RIETS's Roshei Yeshiva and their talmidim either teaching at Kollel Yom Rishon or Midreshet Yom Rishon and in RIETS, MBP, the revived JSS and Stern College for Women. We also see a Beit Medrash for women at Stern as well for those women who wish to study Talmud. The notion that RIETS Roshei Yeshiva are uneasy about discussing a halachic issue with a female audience cannot be sustained by the above evidence on the ground.
The RCA and the OU continue to have important roles within the Modern Orthodox community . Perhaps, instead of jettisoning the legacy of the Rav ZTL on many issues and the main institutions of Modern Orthodoxy, the supporters of Edah should support the important work of the still very vibrant institutions of Modern Orthodox life
I trust that the foregoing will lead to a meaningful discussion and not rancor with respect to these issues.
One more point-Edah would have developed instant credibility and posed a real threat to the OU, RCA and YU/RIETS if R D Norman Lamm, Shlita, had been attracted by their message to become its primary North American spokesman/fundraiser. R D Lamm is a superb fundraiser, speaker, and thinker whose abilities turned YU away from near bankruptcy and expanded RIETS and the Kollelim way beyond their capacities as they existed in the 1970s when he assumed the Presidency of YU. Although one could criticize some of his views and policies ( such as letting JSS decline and almost closing MTA and Revel as well as some of his public statements vis a vis the Charedi world and his not so close relationships with some of the RY-noticeably RHS), he was not enticed by Edah, YCT , their public figures or mega donors. In fact, when a YCT mega donor publicly bashed RHS and YCT offered a private apology, R D Lamm refused it as inadequate. IMO, that took a lot of guts. FWIW, neither R Berman nor R A Weiss are in R D Lamm's league as Talmidie Chachamim, intellectuals or fund raisers. YCT may fill some out of town pulpilts and Hillel houses-Yet IMO, its products and hashkafa have a long way to go before they can be compared with RIETS.
