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

View Text View Original

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 Elya 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).”

This assertion was the most damaging in the entire article, and after reading this passage of the review I found myself shaking my head at the excesses purportedly being espoused by Dr. Lamm in his book. I then decided to look up the passage upon which Rabbi Rosenblum based his criticism, namely pages 163–4 of Dr. Lamm’s book, quoted below:

“Now, if Madda is to be accepted as included in Talmud Torah, we are presented with some immediate questions, namely: should one recite a birkhat hatorah (the blessing mandated for the formal study of Torah) upon studying organic chemistry? Or, equally absurd, may one study calculus all day and thereby be halakhically exempt from all other Talmud Torah that day?”

It is clearly impossible to read the above quotation and maintain that Dr. Lamm “entertain[s] seriously” the recitation of Birkhat Hatorah under these circumstances. There is absolutely no way to twist the phrase “equally absurd” into having such a meaning. In other words, Rabbi Rosenblum has engaged in a deliberate distortion in order to expose as ridiculous a view which he and most others in the Aguda community consider anathema to their own.

It must be reemphasized that this distortion could not be considered an “honest mistake.” The deception had to be deliberate. I found myself wondering: could I trust any other damaging assertions regarding opinions or ideologies at variance with “Da’as Torah” in future issues of the Jewish Observer?

In representing an ideological debate, a metaphor that is often used is “the battleground of ideas.” If the ongoing controversy concerning Torah U’Madda between the “Centrist/Modern Orthodox” and the “Aguda” communities can indeed be characterized in this way, then Rabbi Rosenblum has here engaged in the editorial equivalent of terrorism.

As I contrasted the assertion by Rabbi Rosenblum and the actual quotation by Dr. Lamm, two questions came to mind, dealing with issues of halakha and Da’as Torah in such a circumstance. First, is it permissible to deliberately distort an opinion in order to expose the absurdity of an errant ideology? Secondly, if such a distortion is indeed permissible under such circumstances, on a tactical level, is publishing such a distortion a wise policy for a publication such as the Jewish Observer?

Two weeks ago, I had the distinct pleasure of hosting Reb Elya Svei for Shabbos at our house (in honor of a Shabbos Sheva Brachose for his son). Being privileged to have an opportunity for private conversation, I showed him this quote from Rabbi Rosenblum which has bothered me so much these past years as well as the above passage in Torah U’Madda. I then asked R. Elya the first question above (“Is it mutar to distort a krum shita in order to make it look ridiculous?”). His verbatim answer was, “No: it’s shaker, it’s shaker”, while pointing to Rabbi Rosenblum’s words in the JO. I then told him “With the reshus of the Rosh Yeshiva, I will send a letter to Rabbi Wolpin, not as a letter to the editor, that this is the Rosh Yeshiva’s opinion”, and he nodded his head assent.

Please recognize that there is often a tendency towards misinterpretation/hyperbole when recounting conversations with Gedolim. You are welcome to discuss my conversation with him personally to verify that indeed I am reporting it correctly.

Please note that I am not a proponent of the Torah U’Madda view; I find Rabbi Lamm’s central arguments unconvincing.

If it is not too much trouble, I would appreciate if you could reply to this letter personally.

Truly,

A Rejoinder (1988)

Dear Dr. Lamm, I am delighted that you have taken the time to respond to my open letter to you. It was written to elicit a response and a clarification of your views. However, your letter leaves me with gnawing and troubling concerns. I hope that you will not misinterpret the sharpness of my comments as a personal attack. Indeed, only by honestly confronting the issues can we come to grips with the rather serious repercussions that followed upon The New York Times article reporting your Fifth Avenue speech. By now it is clear that in my open letter to you I faithfully ascribed to you the views that you truly embrace. It is also clear that from beginning to end, The New York Times article was a misrepresentation of the truth. In fact, it would be accurate to describe it as a caricature of the views that you so dearly hold. You have made it clear that you are deeply offended by both the terminology and the false image that the Times created — yet you sat idly by and did nothing to set the record straight. You criticize me for not checking the news report with you, to determine what you really said. Chaval! Why did you not check the news report with yourself? You spoke to an audience of four hundred. But for the world and posterity, your words will be those that were reported by the Times. It is to those words that you and I had to respond. The Times attributed to you terms such as “ultra-Orthodox” and “fundamentalist” as references to the “Right.” It further intimated that the “Right” was not open to secular culture. This image of the Orthodox Right as fundamentalist Bible-belt know-nothings is one that the Times generally has portrayed. Your own view is diametrically opposed. You have made it clear that you are deeply offended by both the terminology and the false images that the Times created — yet you sat idly by and did nothing to set the record straight. You say the Times reported the “valid groupings and spiritual dignity” remarks out of context. In order to un…

Torah Umadda Jewish Unity Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim

Letter to R. Yaakov Jacobs about the Emerging Moderate Tone in The Jewish Observer (1969)

Dear Rabbi Jacobs: As one who has in the past expressed to you some rather harsh criticism of the Jewish Observer, I think it only fair for me to let you know how pleased I am with the change that has taken place in your magazine in the recent past. The improvement was especially noticeable in the last several issues and in the current one most of all. It is a sign of maturity that you were able to overcome the shrill, combative tone and the excessive polemics that once characterized the Jewish Observer.

Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim

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

Dear [redacted], Rabbi Lamm was very appreciative of your taking the trouble to contact us. He remains puzzled, however, by the unwillingness of individuals to correct distortions. A contemptuous falsehood perpetrated in public, he holds, should be rectified in public. It would be "more realistic and more efficient" (his words) if a letter were attempted to the Jewish Observer, even in the knowledge that it would most likely never see the light of day. I find myself in agreement with both his logic and his judgment. Speaking for myself, I wonder why individuals in a position of leadership cannot undertake to improve the moral climate in which they flourish. The most charitable explanation I can think of is a sense of insecurity so keen that it overwhelms the impulse to decency and truth. It is a baleful commentary on contemporary Orthodoxy that those high up in its presumed authority structure are so intimidated by the hot blood of their admirers. Perhaps it is felt that slandering and misrepresenting does no harm. Our people are no doubt accustomed to abuse, and should have developed thick skins by now. In any event I doubt that sermons on bein adam la-havero will do much to alter the situation. It seems to me that the men of invective and abuse, and those who fail to restrain them, have not taken into consideration the chillul haShem that is caused by their actions and delictions. For better or for worse, the relation of most (all?) people to Torah and to the Ribbono shel Olam is connected to their experience of talmidei hakhamim. Rabbi [redacted], in a JO article someone just brought to my attention, extols Daas Torah because it represents a source of guidance that transcends the cynical, self-interested marketplace of "politics as usual." He is more right than he imagines. For without the example of spiritual Gedolim, neither our faith in the truth of Halakha, nor our belief that each and every one of us can exercise free will and respond authentically to the d…

Torah Umadda Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim Principles of Leadership