Home Home / A Rejoinder (1988)

Article

June 1988

A Rejoinder (1988)

Torah Umadda Jewish Unity Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim
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.

RELATED CONTENT

Article

An Open Reply to Professor Aaron Twerski (1988)

Dear Professor Twerski: In the April 1988 issue of The Jewish Observer you take me to task for a lecture I gave on March 2, reported in The New York Times the following day. While I would have preferred the courtesy of your checking the report with me, I do appreciate the respectful and relatively moderate tone of your polemic. And I am grateful to the editors of JO for the opportunity to set the record straight and correct the erroneous inferences and unfortunate misinterpretations, many of which are reflected in your “open letter” to me. First, a word about nomenclature. The words “ultra-Orthodox” and “fundamentalist” were not and are not part of my vocabulary. Indeed, in the lecture I explicitly rejected the use of such pejorative epithets. I referred to “the Right” (which I consider a relative term) and Charedim. Moreover, the only mention I made of Hasidism was to bemoan the absence of adequate Hasidic enthusiasm in my own “Centrist” community. Second, I fail to understand why you brought up the matter of mechitzah other than to question whether my views are at variance with those of my own rebbe, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik שליט״א. If so, may I inform you that some thirty years ago I wrote what was probably the longest and most widely disseminated defense of mechitzah and critique of Conservatism. I spoke about it across the country and risked my own rabbinic position on its account. My views have not changed. Third, regarding the attitude to secular culture, your response is disappointing. It is insulting to ascribe to me the view that those who do not subscribe to Torah U’Madda are “know-nothings and country bumpkins.” Has ve-halilah! Most of my rebbeim, whom I adored and revered, lacked secular education and yet were paragons of wisdom. Would you accuse the advocates of Torah im Derech Eretz of such contempt for East European Jewry which opposed them? Your assertion that because “right-wing” Jewry is “setting the agenda in so many areas” it somehow prove…
Torah Umadda Jewish Unity Orthodoxy & Other Denominations

Article

Open Letter to Dr. Norman Lamm (1988)

On Tuesday, March 22, Dr. Norman Lamm, the president of Yeshiva University, spoke in Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue Synagogue. His remarks were widely disseminated. In fact, the New York Times devoted considerable coverage to the event. The title of his address was “Centrist Orthodoxy: Agenda and Vision, Successes and Failures.” The Times report began: “Ultra-Orthodox Jews, including Hasidim, have set the religious agenda for too long in both the United States and Israel, the president of Yeshiva University said Tuesday, calling on moderate Orthodox elements to reassert themselves.... Dr. Lamm said the ultra-Orthodox has been ‘powered by triumphalism,’ which he defined as an attitude of, ‘We are winning, therefore we are right.’” This was not his first time to have attacked the Orthodox right and not the first time that he has sought to rally “centrists” to action. Due to the public nature of his statement, his words should not pass without comment. As a step toward dispelling some of the wrong impressions that were created by his statement, The Jewish Observer presents Professor Aaron Twerski’s open letter to Dr. Norman Lamm. Dear Dr. Lamm, עמו״ש: The remarks that follow are not intended to serve as a rebuttal to you. Nor do they constitute a retreat. As a card-carrying member of the “triumphalist” Orthodox right, and a Hasid to boot, I am confident enough to state without equivocation that our agenda for action will remain very much in place. But I am genuinely confused as to the substantive nature of the “centrist” view of things, as you espoused them. You did make a point of saying that you spoke as president of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, putting your words into a religious framework. All the more reason that your statement is worthy of scrutiny – and all the more do I find it disturbing. Your remarks “were not an attack, but an attempt at self-definition.” The definition followed: “Unlike the right wing... the centrist group is open to secular cultu…
Torah Umadda Jewish Unity Orthodoxy & Other Denominations

Correspondence

Letter Sent to the Editor about The Jewish Observer Critique of R. Lamm's Torah Umadda (1995)

In this letter, I would like to bring to light a particularly disturbing passage in a back issue of the Jewish Observer. More importantly, I would like to relate to you a conversation that I had with Reb Ely Svei about two weeks ago regarding this topic. In the March 1992 issue, an article appeared entitled “Torah U’Madda – the Book and its Ideology: a Critique” by Rabbi Yonasan Rosenblum. In this review, Rabbi Rosenblum presents a strong criticism of the book and the views presented therein. I would like to quote a specific passage from the article: “So great is the value of Madda for Dr. Lamm that the distinction between it and Torah finally blurs altogether: ‘So long as we continue to learn Scripture and Oral Law, to acquire new knowledge and to refrain from forgetting what we know, then the study of the sciences and humanities is, in effect, the study of Gemora and thus a fulfillment of the study of Torah’ (p. 165). ‘This conclusion leads him to entertain seriously such questions as: Should one recite birkhat hatorah on entering the chemistry lab? May one study calculus all day and thereby fulfill his obligation of Talmud Torah?’ (pp. 163–64).”
Torah Umadda Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim