That was quick! Never underestimate the power of my readers. Or... I guess it was just too easy
Yes, the identity of the individual in my last post is none other than Dr. Louis Finkelstein, long term Chancellor of JTS during its most formative years. It is remarkably similar to that of Bernard Revel, founding president of Yeshiva college, precursor of Yeshiva University: Both from Lithuania, both having achieved PhDs, both heading rabbinical seminaries (JTS and REITS) and both strongly shaping their character and destiny.
The thing about Dr. Finkelstein is that he definitely seems to have wanted to keep JTS Halachic. There were strong influences in its formative years to steer JTS away from being a Halachic movement. Louis Finkelstein would have none of that. He championed the views of Dr. Louis Ginzberg, who was the proponent of Halacha against all the non Halachic views of other founders. And he fought mightily to keep it that way.
Yet, Dr. Finkelstein accepted his position at JTS long after Solomon Schechter’s innovation of critical scholarship. It makes you wonder, however, how he could have given any legitimacy to biblical criticism which was the death knell to any hope JTS had achieving acceptance within Orthodoxy. How one can be the caliber of Torah scholar that a Louis Finkelstein and Louis Ginzberg were and at the same time not believe in Torah MiSinai is one of the most perplexing things about these gentlemen.
In light of the fact that JTS accepted biblical criticism, it is astounding that there was ever any serious consideration of JTS and Yeshiva University merging. Though it was eventually rejected, the fact that it was even considered makes me wonder about whether critical scholarship was always considered as heretical as it is today, although I don’t know how it’s possible to say that. Torah MiSinai is fundemental.
It also makes me wonder why the likes of Louis Finkelstein and Louis Ginzburg ever accepted it… or whether they personally rejected it and just tolerated it in an attempt to further along their real agenda of producing a prototype American rabbi that they saw as critical to "saving" Judaism from the forces of Reform. If that’s true, was it the right thing to do? Not in the sense of Halchaic Psak which goes against any such endeavor, but on a purely ideological level? In other words, can it be said that svara of mitoch shelo lishma Bah Lishma was used by them as justification?
It is so interesting to me that people with the kind of backgrounds, the level of intelligence, the obvious love of learning and love of Judaism as these gentleman had… chose to be involved with JTS. Was it out of conviction? Or out of parnassa? Both?
How did they deal with the strident rejection of Conservative Judaism by Orthodoxy? Can we say about them that even though they erred, they meant well? Were they L’Shem Shamayim? Does it even matter? Or should they be judged harshly? As Talmidei Chachamim should they have rejected the movement as other Talmidei Chachamim had?
Did their good intentions put them in good stead in heaven? Or was it the “devil’s” work? And doesn’t matter since the Conservative Movement help lead to the destruction of Torah observance by most of American Jewry. These are all unanswered questions to me.
Professor Saul Lieberman joined the faculty relatively late. He too was a big Talmid Chacham and I’m fairly certain he did not personally believe in critical scholarship himself. But did lending his prestige to JTS give it more credence leading even more Jews astray? Or did his presence there help to guide some of the better and more sincere students to a more observant lifestyle?
The Conservative movement has always been an enigma to me. I never know what to think about it. I know …and have often said that… it is an apostate movement. But is it a movement that had good intentions that just went awry? Or was it a movement that should have never been started? Of course we now have 20/20 hindsight so the answer seems fairly easy: No. But they didn’t know that back in the early years of a movement designed to “conserve” Judaism. Can We Be Dan L’Kaf Zechus to those early pioneers?
