Dear Editor, In the last issue of Commentator, Mr. Earl Klein decries the attempts of the administration to emulate the European Yeshivoth in the development of Yeshiva University, rather than comparing it with American universities. He bemoans the fact that while Yeshiva is “a far improvement” over the European Yeshivoth, it “still differs from the American college or university.” It is understood that such notions are directly contradictory to the ideals of this institution as set down by its founder and by its present President. And when such remarks are printed in the official organ of the student body, they warrant immediate refutation. The public must know that Mr. Klein’s views are not necessarily shared by the student body of Yeshiva. Mr. Klein’s proposed system of extra-curricular activities, including varsity shows, would necessitate the elimination of that little but sorely needed “extra time” put into the Talmud studies at night and other free time. Mr. Klein evidently disregards lamdanus as a prerequisite to ordination as a rabbi. I vigorously oppose Mr. Klein’s ideas because I sense the imminent danger in his attempts to reduce the status of Yeshiva to that of an advanced “Talmud Torah,” with the Yeshiva department becoming a neglected second to the College. This plea for the extirpation of the Yeshiva spirit and the institution – in its stead, the institution of the spirit of the typical American college – is both harmful and contrary to the basic precepts of Torah-true Judaism in general, and the guiding spirit of this institution in particular. It attacks the foundation of Yeshiva University because it upsets the equilibrium necessary to effect the synthesis upon which is built the spiritual structure of Yeshiva. One in the position of Mr. Klein should know that the leaders of a religion and nation cannot be built by a heterogeneous mixture of Latin, basketball, and varsity shows, with a dash, here and there, of the teachings of the basic doctrine…

“Is there anything you can recommend for me to read on Judaism?” This question, in many and varied forms, comes to us with greater and greater frequency these days. People are looking for books, magazines, and articles on Jewish traditions, Orthodox ideology, the “how-to” of Jewish observances, and a host of other allied subjects. The new interest in religion, rightly downgraded by the cognoscenti as a mere social phenomenon, has nevertheless encouraged a serious concern with religion on the part of many intelligent Jews. They want to know what it is all about. Where do we refer them? What do we recommend to them? There is the parent of the Day School child, anxious to discover the broader background, on an adult level, of what his child is now learning and bringing home to him. Where shall we direct him? Can we use the written word to bestir the indifferent, and to counter the arguments of the non-Orthodox? More often than not, we are at a loss, and our answer is mostly an embarrassed silence. Not that there is a dearth of books in the Jewish field – there are anthologies and books on Jewish humor, assorted apologia on Jews in sports and the army and science, the story of modern Israel and American Jewish history. But there is unfortunately very little that pretends to deal with serious issues and that is both acceptable in content and attractive in presentation and format. There is, of course, a small number of works on Judaism as such. Some of the material by the non-Orthodox is of patently poor quality. Some of it is only average. A good part of what they produce is first-rate, written well, cogently presented, and handsomely produced. We Orthodox have not had much luck in this area. While we have issued some excellent material – and this will be discussed shortly – we have by and large made a poor showing. Where the writing is passable, the author often adopts the posture of an elementary school teacher, assuming that his readers – some of them with higher uni…

From the very beginning of Jewish history Judaism has, for better or for worse, experienced some interaction with its surrounding culture. A great part of the Bible is a warning, both explicit and implicit, against assimilating the cultic pagan practices. However, with the rise of Greek philosophy and the prominence given to reason and a more sophisticated culture, some Jews began to expose themselves to the non-Jewish modes of thought and fall under their influence. Gradually, individual thinkers, such as Philo in Alexandria, and later, as in the “Golden Age” in Spain, whole schools concerned themselves with the direct confrontation of traditional Judaism and Western thought. With the Emancipation, this confrontation was no longer con-fined to a few individuals or even schools. The interaction between Judaism and the culture of the host people was now of major import to the Jewish community as a whole. The variety of responses to this massive challenge of Western civilization is represented by the spectrum of Jewish allegiances extant even today. They range from a complete abandonment of Judaism and Jewish loyalties to an utter and complete rejection of Western philosophical and scientific ideas. In-between there exists a graduated fragmentation, a land of Maxwellian distribution of interpretations. The purpose of this essay is to present two versions of one particular type of response to the challenge of modernity, one that is more than a mere arithmetic decision on the proportion of Jewishness to be admitted in the make-up of the “modern Jew.” The modern Orthodox Jew in America represents the product of such a response resulting from the confrontation between authentic halakhic Judaism and Western thought He is a novel kind of Jew, a historical experiment in the reaction to the great dialogue. His survival and success may very well have the most fateful consequences for Jewry and Judaism throughout the world. What is the peculiar nature of this new type of Jew? …

Carmi Y. Horowitz, Menachem M. Kasdan, Editors; Simon Posner, Associate Editor; Authur B. Levenglick, Copy Editor; Michael Joshua, Nosan Mikroy, Staff; Student Organization of Yeshiva: Gary Feder, President; George Finkelstein, Vice‑President; Eugene Kwalwasser, Secretary‑Treasurer; Norman Lamm. At Yeshiva College the student is confronted with both limudei kodesh and limudei chol. Rabbi Norman Lamm, Associate Rabbi of The Jewish Center and visiting assistant professor of Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva University, examines the views of Rav S. R. Hirsch and Rav A. I. Kook on the encounter between Torah and Hochma, Kodesh and Hol. RAV HIRSCH AND RAV KOOK: TWO VIEWS ON LIMUDEI KODESH AND LIMUDEI CHOL – From the very beginning of Jewish history Judaism has, for better or for worse, experienced some interaction with its surrounding culture. A great part of the Bible is a warning, both explicit and implicit, against assimilating the cultic pagan practices. However, with the rise of Greek philosophy and the prominence given to reason and a more sophisticated culture, some Jews began to expose themselves to the non‑Jewish modes of thought and fall under their influence. Gradually, individual thinkers, such as Philo in Alexandria, and later, as in the "Golden Age" in Spain, whole schools concerned themselves with the direct confrontation of traditional Judaism and Western thought. With the Emancipation, this confrontation was no longer confined to a few individuals or even schools. The interaction between Judaism and the culture of the host people was now of major import to the Jewish community as a whole. The variety of responses to this massive challenge of Western civilization is represented by the spectrum of Jewish allegiances extant even today. They range from a complete abandonment of Judaism and Jewish loyalties to an utter and complete rejection of Western philosophical and scientific ideas. In‑between there exists a graduated fragmentation – a kind of Maxwellian di…

This is an exciting period for a thinking Orthodox Jew. It is a dangerous time too – when faith threatens to be swept away in the wildly whirling intellectual currents of the times. But the danger enhances the excitement and highlights the opportunities. Rarely before have we been faced with such an array of challenging, stimulating, and provoking ideas. And yet, rarely before have we reacted to such stimuli so passively, so defensively, so apprehensively, so uncreatively. What does the Torah have to say about the great issues that confront modern man and the modern Jew? Unfortunately, I do not know. My training has left me largely unprepared for them. I have even had to overcome powerful inhibitions in order to reach the stage where I am not suspicious of the very question. Assuming that by the "battle of ideas” we mean something that transcends the petty concerns of institutional rivalry, all I can say is that – to borrow a phrase from the Zohar—the Voice of Torah today is koi heli dibbur, it is inchoate: a voice without words, a general cry not yet reduced to clear speech. In an age which stresses the importance of communication, we have not yet developed clear guide-lines, not yet formulated convincing approaches, not yet spoken lucidly, to the cardinal issues of our century. I have faith that there are clear views and answers within Torah; but we have largely failed to express the koi Torah in dibbur, to articulate the vision of Torah, to spell out the im-plications of our tradition. Too often we have even refused to acknowledge the existence or the validity of the questions. I am therefore dispirited and vexed by our apparent unwilling-ness to engage in the Battle of Ideas, but optimistic as to the ultimate out-come if we finally do begin searching out the judgment of Torah and com-municating it effectively.THE RANGE of intellectual prob-lems that today confronts a think-ing Jew—especially a young one—is quite impressive. What is the meaning of chosenness in …

The encounter between Judaism and environing cultures has a long and honorable history. Our interest here is specifically the clash between those who insist upon the exclusive study of Torah – the “Torah Only" camp, who disqualify any intellectual discipline other than talmud Torah – and those who argue that, alongside it, one must engage as well in worldly or secular studies. The latter, who advocate some form of accommodation between the study of Torah and the involvement in worldly wisdom, are generally known as the Torah im Derekh Eretz or Torah uMadda school. Most specifically, we will focus on one argument and rebuttal in the ongoing debate.

It’s puzzling that Hirsch and his thought weren’t accorded full study at Yeshiva until now, since YU is, in many ways, a fulfillment of Hirsch’s vision. Hirsch was one of the true giants of Jewry. He tried to formulate a Jewish humanism, a “synthesis” under the slogan of “Torah im Derekh Eretz.” I have never been pleased by either formulation, "Torah im Derekh Eretz” or "Torah u Mada." "Torah im Derekh Eretz” seems to be too broad. The Talmud uses this phrase to refer to anything from business to manners to conjugal relations. It does not specifically describe the world of culture. "Mada,” particularly in modern Hebrew, refers to the natural sciences, and is too narrow. Culture is far greater than science alone. "Hokhma” is a better term. According to the medrash, "yesh hokhma bagoyim. " You can find it among the nations. Professor I. Twersky has shown that the Rambam refers to hokhma. even where the Gemara only used Torah. For example, in Makkot, the Gemara says that a father is patur for killing his son if he did it to educate him in Torah or a trade, since he was doing a mitzva. The Rambam adds hokhma. He considers it a mitzva to teach one’s child hokhma. We see that Torah is not synonymous with hokhma, and hokhma is not synonymous with umanul, trade. It is not the same as accounting, insurance, or computers. Both Hirsch and YU agree that Torah and Hokhma have a common divine origin. They represent the word of God and the world of God respectively. Both are created by divinity, and worthy of study and research. They both reach back to the goal of coming close to HaKadosh Barukh Hu. Of course, Torah is preeminent. Where Do We Go From Here? Whereas Torah is essentially fixed, culture (science, art, technology, philosophy) is constantly changing. The problematica for Hirschians in 1984 is not the same as for Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch in 1894. Strangely, Orthodox Jews today seem to be recoiling from the effort to live with the outside world. This is true in both E…

Carl Becker, the great American historian, once said: “It is important, every so often, to look at the things that go without saying to be sure that they are still going.” I would add the need for intellectual vigilance to this reminder for practical caution by paraphrasing his aphorism: “It is important, every so often, to look at what we are saying about the things that go without saying to make sure we know what we are talking about.” In reflecting on some of the foundations of our Weltanschaung, I do not presume to be imparting new information. The task I have set for myself is to summarize and clarify, rather than to innovate. Dr. Johnson once said that it is important not only to instruct people but also to remind them. I shall take his sage advice for this discourse. We seem to be suffering from a terminological identity crisis. We now call ourselves “Centrist Orthodoxy.” There was a time, not too long ago, when we referred to ourselves as “Modern Orthodox.” Others tell us that we should call ourselves simply “Orthodox,” without any qualifiers, and leave it to the other Orthodox groups to conjure up adjectives for themselves. I agree with the last view in principle, but shall defer to the advocates of “Centrist Orthodoxy” for two reasons: First, it is a waste of intellectual effort and precious time to argue about titles when there are so many truly significant issues that clamor for our attention. In no way should the choice of one adjective over the other be invested with any substantive significance or assumed to be a “signal” of ideological position. This article is based upon an address at the Conference of the Educators Council of America at the Homowack Lodge, Spring Glen, N.Y., October 26, 1985. TRADITION, 22(3), Fall 1986 © 1986 Rabbinical Council of America 1 TRADITION: A Journal of Orthodox Thought We are what we are, and we should neither brag nor be apologetic about it. These days, we do more of the latter than the former, and I find that repreh…

A wave of extremism is sweeping the world. America and the American Jewish community – to say nothing of the Israeli community – have not remained unaffected by it. Indeed, the pressures of a resurgent extremism affect every facet of our lives – political, social, religious, educational. In this dangerous climate we must ourselves become radicals and reassert our Centrist position with all force and vigor. What Yeshiva University has taught – the joining of Torah learning and Western culture under the rubric of Torah u’Madda; openness to the environing culture; ahavat haTorah plus ahavat Yisrael; the appreciation of tolerance and the abhorrence of bigotry; a critical but loving commitment to the State of Israel – all this is a deliberate philosophy of life, not a compromise foisted upon us. In the language of halakhah, this approach is le-khatḥilah and not be-diʿavad. As a le-khatḥilah we must project ourselves as the standard bearer of moderation in Jewish life. We must stand not only for Torah u’Madda – a broader and more comprehensive vision of Torah as expressed in a particular curricular philosophy – but also for sanity and for moderation; for the conviction that Maimonides’ “middle way” applies not only to personal dispositions and character traits, but also to communal conduct and public policy; for an appreciation that life is filled with ambiguities and complexities and resists black-and-white simplism.We of the Centrist community are often chided that our policy of Centrism and our philosophy of moderation contain implicit hidden dangers. This is true; the study of worldly culture can sometimes lead questioning young people astray. An openness to non-observant Jewish neighbors, or to non-Jews, implies that they are as human as we are, and that can sometimes have a negative effect on our attempt to maintain our traditions. Agreed. But all life is dangerous, and unless one is determined to raise one’s child in a hermetically sealed Skinner box, safe from ge…

Centrist Orthodoxy is an essay in self-definition and self-evaluation. Self-definition requires that we first say what we are and then compare and contrast ourselves with others. Because I assume that those to whom these words are addressed know, more or less, the content of our ideas, ideals, and first principles, I shall proceed to a clarification of who and what we are, primarily against the backdrop of other religious orientations in Jewish life today. These comments should not by any means be taken as polemical. Moreover, it is my hope that even those unacquainted with the nature of Centrist Orthodoxy in North America as this century draws to a close will learn something about us from this study in contrasts. First, a preliminary remark about nomenclature. The names that attach to Jewish religious movements in America are, in most cases, accidents of history and are singularly unrevealing and unenlightening. They bear little or no resemblance to the movements they purport to represent. “Reform,” for instance, is a misnomer – the denomination does not aspire to recapture an earlier period of Judaism, cleansed of unworthy accretions, which is what the term “reform” should imply. “Liberal” would be more accurate. “Conservative” also appears inappropriate for a movement that has made major and irreversible changes in the very tradition it aims to “conserve.” The terminological chaos becomes especially pronounced when dealing with Orthodoxy and its subdivisions. I have never liked the name “Orthodox.” It is inadequate – our tradition emphasizes behavior more than creed, so “orthoprax” would be more accurate. Moreover, “Orthodox” suggests “right thinking,” which implies parochialism and rigidity. I prefer the term “Torah Judaism,” even though it is redundant, for what is Judaism if not Torah? “Ultra-Orthodox,” commonly used in media to refer to the more intense or separatist segment of Orthodoxy, is particularly offensive, suggesting that such people are beyond the…