Local Orthodox leaders have reacted with disbelief and criticism to comments by the president of Yeshiva University that “moderates” need to be more vocal within the Orthodox community. Speaking last week at the Fifth Avenue Synagogue in New York City on “Centrist Orthodoxy,” Rabbi Norman Lamm was quoted in The New York Times as stating that moderates need to be more vocal because “ultra” Orthodox Jews have determined the religious agenda in the United States and Israel for too long. The views expressed by Dr. Lamm “sound uncharacteristic,” according to Rabbi Lev Dan Rauch of Congregation Ahavat Torah in Parsippany, who describes himself as a centrist. “It would give one the impression he is against Orthodoxy,” he says. Since the statements made by Dr. Lamm are, in his opinion, very much out of character, Rabbi Rauch says that his initial reaction is not to take them too seriously. He supports speaking up for Orthodoxy, since he feels that “the Orthodox community comes under attack from the outside and other camps.” Although he states that “it is important for all factions within Orthodoxy to assert themselves,” Rabbi Rauch says that “we don’t need any further split within Orthodoxy.” Rabbi Moshe A. Kasinetz of the Suburban Torah Center in Livingston says he is “a bit shocked” by Dr. Lamm’s speech and scarcely believes he truly meant what he said. He does not agree that the ultra-Orthodox have set the religious agenda or that Halakhah is able to function independently of secular life. Resenting the labels “ultra” and “centrist” in reference to Orthodoxy, Rabbi Kasinetz suggests that the entire Orthodox community instead be referred to as “Torah observant.” He argues that Dr. Lamm “does a lot of damage by the way he separates Orthodoxy,” grouping people together for reasons that are unclear. Rabbi Alvin Marcus of Congregation Ahawas Achim B’nai Jacob and David in West Orange says Dr. Lamm’s “rhetoric” is “counterproductive” to Orthodoxy. Instead of voicing such vie…

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…

It is over 200 years since Moses Mendelssohn brought to the fore of German Jewry the issue of Judaism’s stance towards the surrounding culture, and of the proper relationship between Torah learning and secular studies. And when Napoleon’s armies spread the French Enlightenment 30 years later, the confrontation between Torah and secular ideals reached Eastern Europe as well.But the nature of the struggle between Jewish life and modernity has changed over the years. The intellectual challenge to Torah today is, if anything, less than it was sixty years ago. It is doubtful that any current Rosh Yeshiva would feel the need to prove that Torah is deeper than Kant, as one well-known mashgiach did in post-World War I Lithuania. Nor is there any modern-day parallel to the intellectual attraction that socialism j and Zionism once exercised on yeshiva students.Though hedonism and materialism seem more powerful lures today than great ideas, modern, post-technological society poses its own unique set of challenges. The isolation in which Jewish communities once flourished is but a historical memory. It is inconceivable today to imagine large numbers of Jews unable to speak the language of their host country, as was true in Eastern Europe a centuiy ago. The openness of American democracy, the pervasive nature of the modern media, and the fact that most of us are consumers of advanced technology, make it harder than ever to erect barriers to the out- side world. With the world a far smaller, more integrated place than ever, knowledge of the surrounding society often seems more necessary than in previous generations.Budding yeshiva students, kollel fellows, and Torah-directed laymen must all deal with a secular world, its resources of information and its value system. Through the years, Gedolet Yisroel have prescribed different ap- proaches to this challenge. Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, הי”ד, for example, addresses the question in a letter, published in Koveitz Maamarim, wherein he…

I. Of Over-Confidence and Setbacks: Every unusual, seemingly inexplicable occurrence that befalls Klal Yisroel, Chazal say, must have some sort of initial cause, with a lesson to teach us. Thus, the violation of Dena by Shechem (see Bereishis, Chap. 24), so contrary to the values and conduct of Yaakov Avinu’s family, must have come from some earlier weakness. Indeed, the Midrash points out that the misfortune befell Yaakov because he had transgressed the principle: אל תתהלל ליום מרוד—“Do not be sure of yourself in regard to the morrow” (Mishlei 27:1). When Yaakov had arranged the terms for his tending Lavan’s sheep, he set up a number of safeguards to protect Lavan’s property from embezzlement, adding, “My integrity will answer for me on the morrow” (Bereishis 30:33). According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Rav Shimon, G-d responded: “You are so assured of your integrity on the morrow. On the morrow your daughter will be violated.” This may seem difficult. After all, as long as Yaakov was in Lavan’s employ, his devotion and integrity were so exemplary that Yaakov emerged as the paradigm of Emes, to be eternally identified with this attribute. Yet Yaakov was still faulted. His self-assurance somehow implied a relaxing of his guard against a lack of adherence to principle. As a result, his family ultimately suffered a major breach in its integrity. Like Passengers Aboard a Sinking Ship vorably on our Torah institutions. Unfortunately, we cannot proudly declare: “My integrity will answer for me” on this morrow. Reading the Report of the Nunn Commission on the misappropriation of government funds by certain educational institutions, we cannot shrug off the smear against us by saying, “It was that institution... their actions.” The Chillul Hashem must be borne by all of us, for the status of all Torah students has fallen. This affects us all. As Targum Yonasan ben Uziel says in regard to the command, “Do not steal”: “Do not be friends or partners with thieves, lest your children …

I. Modernity: to be embraced or avoided? One might well question why, from a Torah perspective, there must be a clash between modernity and eternity. After all, Torah’s truths address all circumstances in all times, in whichever golus we Jews find ourselves – be it Babylon, Spain, Poland, or America. Before Moshe Rabbeinu’s petira (passing), the Torah tells us, “G-d showed him the entire land, from Gilad to Dan, all of Naftoli, and the lands of Ephraim and Menashe, and all the lands of Yehuda,” all the way to Yam Ha'acharon – the last sea. To which Rashi says, “Not the ‘last sea,’ but ‘Yom Ha’acharon – the final day’ – all the events that will befall Jewry until the Resurrection of the Dead.” Moshe Rabbeinu saw Klal Yisroel in all its shades and colorations until the coming of Moshiach. That is, Moshe Rabbeinu's generous gaze, his blessings to Klal Yisroel – all of these endow Klal Yisroel with an eternity that transcends limitations of modernity. Toras HaAvos, the sacred legacy of our avos, the blessings of Moshe – all of these have validity until the end of days. By the same token, the norms of Torah are timeless, and are applicable to every situation imposed upon us by the temporal world. Its principles provide a derech hachaim for all of life's social variations: for the primitive towns of medieval Europe and for the affluent communities of modern America. One may therefore call into question the very premise of this discussion. Must there really be a clash between modernity and eternity? And yet, we assume it is a given – we feel it in our bones, we observe it in the atmosphere of our carefully guarded lives: modernism is not consonant with the sacred spirit of our ancestors. We must indeed recognize that if we do see a clash between modernity and Jewish eternity, it is because modernity today wears non-Jewish garb. “The Jews moved amongst the nations and learned from their actions.” The mere fact that Jews live amongst non-Jews in the world’s great urban cen…

The theme of Jewish solidarity (or unity) invariably evokes from the listener an industrial size yawn leading to a religious experience, namely, the recitation of the blessing, בא"י המפיל חבלי שינה על עיני ותנומה על עפעפי. So, I to rise before you with a large degree of trepidation. The subject of Jewish unity is much more relevant now than it was before the onset of the recent Intifada #2, with all its attendant dangers. I am confident that world and American Jewry will not, indeed never, abandon Israel; that we are in the right; that our cause is just; that הנה לא ינוס ולא יישן שומר ישראל. What worries me more is the internal dissension within Israel and in the Diaspora —not differences of opinion or life-style, but the intolerance, the bitterness, the incivility, and the שנאת חינם-all at a time when unity is so vital to our future.Jewish solidarity, according to the Talmud, has one of two sources.כשניתנה תורה לישראל היה קולו הולך מסוף העולם ועד סופו, וכל מלכי עכו"ם אחזתן רעדה בהיכליהן...נתקבצו כולם אצל בלעם הרשע ואמרו לו: מה קול ההמון אשר שמענו, שמא מבול בא לעולם! א״ל (שוטים שבעולם!) כבר נשבע הקב״ה שאינו מביא מבול לעולם שנאי ה׳ למבול ישב וישב ה׳ מלך לעולם, א״ל: מבול של מים אינו מביא, אבל מבול של אש מביא! ...א״ל: כבר נשבע שאינו משחית כל בשר, ומה קול ההמון הזה ששמענו! א״ל: חמדה טובה יש לו בבית גנזיו תתקע״ד דורות קודם שנברא העולם, וביקש ליתנה לבניו, שנא׳: ה׳ עוז לעמו יתן הי יברך את עמו בשלום. (זבחים קט״ז).The Gentile kings expected the Jews to be disunited. When they heard the theophany at Sinai and saw the sudden expressions of Jewish unity, they thought it was a new Noahide flood that would engulf the world, and they trembled in fear. Balaam reassured them: this time the unity is not because of an external cause, but internal: מתן תורה.Hence, there are two separate causes of unity amongst Jews: threats from without, and inspiration from within.So what unites us today in both Israel and the Diaspora? Both things: the threats from without and the opportunities for …