 |
| Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm - a 20th century modern Orthodox leader |
I have long been a proponent of Modern Orthodoxy. I will never forget the pride I felt when in 1962 I joined my alma mater, HTC, as a junior in its Yeshiva High School. HTC was the flagship Yeshiva of Modern Orthodoxy in the Midwest back then.
The sixties were the peak years for the Conservative Movement. Their synagogues were proliferating like wildfire. Meanwhile many Orthodox Shuls in the Midwest were changing. They were rebuilding in newer neighborhoods and in the suburbs. Many of the lay leaders of those Shuls wanted to eliminate the Mechitza. Believing it was the American way to have mixed pews in houses of worship. However, they still wanted to remain Orthodox and sought Orthodox rabbis to lead them and turned to HTC graduates. Young rabbis seeking pulpits in those days had little else to choose from if they wanted a career in the rabbinate.
So they sought guidance from their pre-eminent, highly respected Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Chaim David Regensberg, ZTL. a European trained Talmid Chacham. Surprisingly, he told them to take the position despite the inherent problems. He argued that if they didn’t, those shuls would become Conservative and their members and children will be lost to Judaism. He further argued that in the meantime they would keep the Shul Orthodox in every other way and be able to influence its members to send their children to Orthodox days schools.
Fast forward to today and many would say he was right. Many of those parents did send their children to day schools. Never to return as members having been taught not to Daven a shul without a Mechitza.
Rav Regensberg was severely criticized by the rest of Orthodox rabbinic leadership. They bitterly fought the Traditional Movement. Rabbis that took those Shuls were ostracized
A few years later Rav Ahron Soloveichik was hired as Rosh HaYeshiva of HTC. He told me personally that when he sought advice from recognized Gedolei HaDor of the time about whether he should take the position at HTC, they all urged him to take it for for precisely that reason: To fight the Traditional Movement. He took the job and he fought mightily against the movement. Some would say that it cost him his health.
The Traditional movement is pretty much dead now. Most of
those shuls have installed a Mechitza.
It was probably more of a death by attrition more than it was from the efforts of the opposition. As members
got older and moved away or died, they were not replaced by their children who had either chosen
Orthodox Shuls or in some case abandoned observance altogether.
Although Rav Regensberg was right about influencing many parents to send their children to day schools, the movement itself was wrong. There is no better proof of that than becoming extinct. The question remains however, should an Orthodox Shul be built with compromises for purposes of keeping members in the fold - as long as base Halacha is not violated?
If the answer is yes, then Traditional Shuls were a good idea. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Shulchan Aruch that requires a s Shul to have a Mechitza. It is all based on what the custom was in the days of the Beis HaMikdash. A strong tradition that is followed for centuries to this day,
But the answer is no. One does not break long held tradition to accommodate current cultural influences. An individual desire for self expression - even if it has spiritual roots cannot override that.
Back to Edah. Among
other things, Steven Bayme said the following:
Edah demonstrated the existence of a strong grassroots Modern Orthodox constituency dissatisfied with the Orthodox status quo and particularly its steady drift rightward since 1970 or thereabouts. That constituency remains waiting to be energized. A recent Nishma poll found, for example, that about a third of self-defined Modern Orthodox Jews favored greater roles for women in Orthodoxy, including clergy. Edah conferences gave voice to calls for directional shifts within Modern Orthodox ideological thinking and within key Orthodox institutions.
This was exactly the rationale for Traditional Judaism. The spirit of the times then was of a melting pot philosophy: If we are culturally more like everybody else, it will be easier to remain observant.
Today the spirit of our time is no longer about fitting in. It is about self fulfilment. It is about the feeling of self fulfillment that one will get by advancing the cause they believe in. To that extent they will advocate for any loopholes they can to achieve those goals Jewishly.
The problem with that is that if enough loopholes are found and applied you can easily end up with a version of Judaism that is unrecognizable. And can easily cross the line into violations of Halacha. At some point a movement will deviate so strongly from the norm it becomes at risk of abandoning Halacha altogether.
Don't think so? Consider this.
The Conservative Movement is the model for exactly that outcome. They were founded in order to conserve Judaism. They considered themselves to be fully Halachic and did not deviate from what they believed in earnest was the strict letter of Halacha. They even had Poskim that were Talmidei Chachamim. At their founding, their belief system was the same as that of Orthodoxy. Today, their beliefs are considered heretical and many of their own leaders suggest that they abandon their description a Halachic movement since most of them no longer follow Halacha anyway.
So what is Modern Orthodoxy then, if it can’t embrace the kind modernity that Steven Bayme says it should?
For me the answer is simple. It has never changed. But because of far left ideologues like Mr. Bayme who advocates going so far afield from it Orthodox tradition and values, I find it necessary do differentiate myself as a Centrist. Which breify is defined as the following.
Like the Charedi world, a Centrist fully embraces Halacha and tradition. Our theology is identical. Our attitude about the primary importance of Torah study is the same as is our commitment to Halachic observance. There is no daylight between us that way, The difference is in how we relate to the secular world. Whether in education or in the culture.
Unlike Charedim, a Centrist places high value in secular knowledge. We see value in all knowledge and value in pursuing it. We do not see it only for its utilitarian value to be pursued only for livlihood purposes.
We also participate in the culture where it does not conflict with Halacha. We do not necessarily see it as a waste of time (although it could be if over indulged in) - or worse influencing us in negative ways - the way Charedim do.
At the end of the day, our lifestyles are not that different. We look the same, Daven in the same shuls and might even send our children to the same day schools. But we do not vilify modernity. We embrace what is good and reject what is bad.
