Home The Future of Orthodoxy, Part 1: The New Prophets (1959) / The Future of Orthodoxy, Part 1: The New Prophets (1959) / Exchange with Alan McCornick about Noah Feldman's "Orthodox Paradox" (2007)

Correspondence

August 2007

Exchange with Alan McCornick about Noah Feldman's "Orthodox Paradox" (2007)

General Jewish Thought Combating Assimilation
Background Information

This exchange concerns Rabbi Lamm’s response in The Forward to Noah Feldman’s essay “Orthodox Paradox,” published in The New York Times. In his article, Rabbi Lamm defends Modern Orthodoxy against Feldman’s critiques and affirms the halachic and moral obligation to save non-Jewish lives on Shabbat.

Background Information

1. Alan McCornick to R. Lamm

1. Alan McCornick to R. Lamm (Aug. 6, 2007)

1. Alan McCornick to R. Lamm (Aug. 6, 2007)

View The Text

This content is currently available in its original PDF format. As we expand the library, we plan to add a text version as well.

Next Letter

RELATED CONTENT

Article

A Response to Noah Feldman (2007)

Dear Prof. Feldman, My first – and last – impression after reading your extremely well-written New York Times Magazine essay (more properly – a manifesto) is one of sympathy for your predicament, respect for your honesty, and profound sadness at the community’s misfortune when one of our best and most well-known yeshiva day school graduates sees nothing wrong with “marrying out.” Worse: You wittingly or unwittingly exposed your coreligionists to opprobrium in arguably the world’s most public forum – even as you express admiration for the Jewish tradition, especially for Modern Orthodoxy.
Modern Orthodoxy Combating Assimilation

Interview

An Interview with Rabbi Dr. Lamm (2010)

What is the difference, in your opinion, between Modern Orthodoxy and Centrist Orthodoxy? There is absolutely no difference. I think I may have been the first one to insist upon the term “Modern Orthodoxy.” In reaction to this, the Charedim expressed malcontent, asking me not to use this term, but I responded to them that if they kept on espousing positions which were completely at variance with what I believed, and never thought of contacting us in advance, I would have to do this. The term “Orthodox,” of course, is one I never liked in the first place, since it means “right-thinking,” and that is a goyish term in many ways. It also gives the impression of having every single thought regulated and so does not account for the fact that there are shades of meaning in Judaism. There are many varieties in the practical, halachic way of thinking, as well as in hashkafah, even as tradition demands certain basics in both areas (as I refer to in my 1986 article “Some Comments on Centrist Orthodoxy” [Tradition 22:3]). In fact, once, in one of the newspapers the OU published many years ago, my brother R. Maurice Lamm and I had a debate on this topic. He wanted to use the term “Tradition” and I wanted to retain the label “Orthodoxy,” with the proviso that I did not like the name at all because it gives you the impression of being caught in a very rigid system. Halachah is not rigid – there is a machlokes on almost every issue except the existence of God. “Orthodoxy” is not really us – it was a term given to us by others. Nothing in the Torah speaks about Orthodoxy. But, for lack of a better mode of identification, we are stuck with it. In any event, later on I began thinking that the label “Modern” was a bit presumptuous, implying “I am modern and you are not.” So we tried the title “Centrist Orthodoxy,” and I quickly saw that it was totally misunderstood. “Centrist” does not mean that you have Conservative and Reform Judaism on one side and “Real Judaism” on the other and w…
General Jewish Thought Combating Assimilation

Correspondence

Exchange about Noah Feldman's "Orthodox Paradox" (2007)

Dear Rabbi Lamm, The silver lining of clouds like those blown in by Feldman is that it provides an excuse for people to talk to each other who otherwise might not have one! I appreciated the conversation Friday morning, and of course even more appreciate the response to Feldman. I've decided at the moment not to blog further about it. By Wednesday last week, people were clamoring "enough already!" Unless there is a spike of interest based on the revelations of Thursday-Friday and the OU's call for Feldman's dismissal from the Times, it might be better to just move in.On the other hand, if you notice any criticism of that one line, please let me know, and I will somehow find some time while at Mammoth to write what I had planned, which would work something like this: "I cannot speak for Rabbi Lamm, but based on personal conversation in the past, what I am pretty confident he meant is..." That way, you can still use the original formulation for those who need it, while I can get a different nuance out there for the frum consumer. So if you see the need for it, just yell.Kol tuv,[redacted]
Antisemitism Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim Combating Assimilation