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…

Critics of the name “Centrist Orthodoxy” assume that it indicates that we locate ourselves mid-point between Orthodoxy and assimilationism and claim that territory as our religious home. That, of course, is nonsense – such an implication would effectively be tantamount to abandoning Torah Judaism in favor of some compromise of basic principles. Only slightly less absurd is the idea that Centrist Orthodoxy is the “center” between Satmar and the few intellectuals who presumably constitute the Orthodox Left. It is no compliment to our intelligence to imagine that in the name of Centrism we advocate walking about the religious terrain with a yardstick, calipers, and a pocket calculator, measuring the exact distance between Neturei Karta and “Humanistic Judaism” in order to locate the exact middle or “center.” We are not, and do not aspire to be, ideological geographers or spiritual surveyors who search out the exact point between right and wrong, religious and non-religious, mitzvah and aveirah, and settle upon that center as our religious goal. Centrism may be wrong-headed, but it is not that spiritually simple-minded or religiously asinine. Whatever one may think of the term “Centrist Orthodoxy” and its merits relative to “Modern Orthodoxy” or “Dati Orthodoxy” (a designation that has much to commend it) or no name at all, what it says is something vastly different from the infantile inference I have described. I begin with these prologomena about our identification not because I attribute any significance to it per se, but because the name does indeed indicate a definite point of view, and that is the question of moderation which I take to be so fundamental a characteristic of our hashkafah that we can rightly refer to it as “moderationism.” Of course, one of the difficulties with this self-definition is that the crown is claimed by many pretenders. Most religious movements in our contemporary Jewish community consider themselves moderate and can point to rival posi…

Maimonides' theory of character, as formulated in his Commentary on the Mishnah (the section on Avot, more popularly known as "The Eight Chapters") and later in his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, posits the famous rule of the mean as the key to character. The Middle Way is identified by him as the derekh Hashem, the "way of the Lord," and thus the way man must follow in forming his own character. Maimonides allows for only two exceptions, in which it is mandatory to go to one of the extremes. In each of the cases, Maimonides declares the Middle Way to be inoperative; here, in these two instances, one must necessarily go to the extreme. Thus, in the case of pride, Maimonides posits three points on the character bar: pride on one end, humility or lowliness (shiflut) on the other, and a mid-point he calls anavah. This last is the compromise between arrogant self-importance and self-debasing humility. Yet, while ordinarily the Middle Way calls for just such a moderate balance of traits, that does not hold true for this case of one's self-image, and also not for temper where too one must go to the other extreme. Maimonides offers two proof texts for his assertion of this exception. The first is the character of Moses in the enigmatic accusation against Moses by his brother and sister, Aaron and Miriam. We are not privy to the details of the siblings' complaint, but what is underscored is the remarkable reaction of Moses: he does not say a word, despite all temptation. Thus, Moses earns the Torah's encomium, והאיש משה ענו מארד מכל האדם אשר על פני האדמה, Moses was very anav, more so than any man the face of the earth. Since the Torah qualifies the anav sobriquet with the intensifier "very," that means that this mid-point must be extremely anav, which means: humble or lowly. And later, in Avot (chapter 4), we read: רבי לויטם איש יבנה אומר מאוד מארד הרה שפל רוח שתקרת אנוש רימה—r. Levitas of Yavneh said: Be very lowly of spirit, for the hope of man is naught but the worm. N…

The meaning of טוב (tov, good) in the early chapters of Genesis – where at the end of every segment of the Creation we read, “And God saw כי טוב (ki tov), that it was good” – is tantalizingly obscure. What does goodness, a term usually associated with moral acts or psychological, even hedonic, satisfaction, have to do with the natural order? If, as some maintain (Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed 2:30, 3:13), tov here denotes the production of an item whose existence conforms to its purpose, or the successful execution of the divine will, then why, on the final day of the Six Days of Creation – with the emergence of man (Gen. 1:31) – does God declare that the creation is טוב מאוד (tov me'od), very good? Is it at all relevant to speak of greater and lesser success in the implementation of the divine decision to create?The question becomes more acute when we turn to the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Paradise). Before the creation of Eve, we read that Adam's condition was not good: lo tov heyot ha-adam levado, "it is not good that man should be alone" (2:18). If tov is a moral or psychological quality, the verse is understandable; but then the ki tov repeated in the creation narrative in chapter 1 presents apparently insurmountable difficulties. And if the tov of the first chapter refers to the full execution of the divine will, then the phrase lo tov heyot ha-adam levado is problematical, although not insuperably so.The question becomes more acute, however, when we turn to the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil," etz ha-daat tov ve'ra. Man is warned not to eat of this tree, for "on the day that you eat thereof you will surely die" (2:17). After the creation of Eve, the serpent ensnares her and persuades her to violate the divine command. But the serpent persists, and informs Eve that "for God knows that on the day you eat thereof your eyes will be opened and you will be like the powerful ones who knowWhile one can dismiss the question by asserting t…

These words on tolerance are totally non-political, and yet it is a sign of the charged atmosphere and the high degree of nervous tension that prevails in both Israel and America, that the very topic is immediately interpreted as a partisan statement – which, of course, it is not. The theme as such is germane both to the Israeli and to the American scenes. And if it was occasioned by the most intolerant act in recent Jewish history, namely, the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the unfortunate reactions to that macabre event, it applies as well to much of the discourse that characterizes what passes for the internal dialogues in both our communities. As a result of the assassination, I appointed a group of scholars and educators, mostly from Yeshiva University faculties but from elsewhere as well, to constitute a Commission on Judaism and Human Values, to study and report on the sources in Judaism on the themes of tolerance, democracy, and the ethics of dissent. I asked that there be no apologetics. The presumption is that our sacred literature speaks in more than one voice, and that while all views be recorded, special attention be paid to those which speak most directly and relevantly to our situation. That commission has been assiduously at work, and its final report will, I expect, prove to be a major contribution to elucidating an authentic Jewish view that can help us resolve our dangerous dilemmas. The present treatment of the subject does not at all pretend to be exhaustive; it is not systematic, and is but a preliminary effort to sketch some ideas on the attitudes to tolerance in the various sources of Judaism.The British historian Toynbee maintained that Judaism, as the advocate of monotheism, was intolerant; its single-minded rejection of idolatry left it with little patience for other forms of worship. Was he right?Yes, partially. For at the outset it should be made clear that tolerance is not an absolute. There are things and ideas tha…

We are honoured to publish the full text of The Rabbi Isaac Bernstein Memorial Lecture which was delivered on 19 October 1998 at the Finchley Synagogue, London by Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm. Rabbi Lamm, President of Yeshiva University and its affiliated Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS) since 1976, is the author of ten volumes, including Torah Umadda: The encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Wisdom in the Jewish Tradition (London: Jason Aronson, 1990). His two most recent books are The Shema: Spirituality and Law in Judaism (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1998) and The Religious Thought of Hasidism: Text and Commentary (Hoboken: Ktav, 1999). The founding editor of Tradition, he has edited some thirty volumes on Jewish themes and has been an ardent advocate of Modern Orthodoxy in the USA and throughout the world.This is a bitter-sweet occasion for me. It is bitter because it confirms for me psychologically what I already know rationally, namely, that Isaac Bernstein is no longer with us. And it is sweet because the memories are sweet and inspiring.Rabbi Bernstein was my successor at The Jewish Center in New York City. We became not only colleagues but firm friends. I was enchanted by his sparkling sense of humour, in awe of his range of knowledge and interests - from Torah, of course, to mathematics and opera - and I simply adored the man's dazzling personality. Because of this combination of talents - scholar, orator, wit, darshan -1 invited him to teach at our Stern College for Women, where he won a string of loyal students who speak of him with a reverence that survives to this day.One of his great strengths was his interpretation of the parashat hashavua, the biblical portion of the week. In deference to him, I shall present my theme as he would have done it - homiletically - by discoursing on this week's parashah, Noach, and that of last Shabbat, Bereshit.NoachThe great floods covered the face…

התהליך שבו מגיעים לקביעת אופיו ודרך חייו של מאן דהוא הוא חשוב יותר מאשר תוצאותיו. זוהי האיכות הדינאמית של שקילה ומדידה הגיונית והערכה ואחרי כן -מתוך מצב החירות - ההכרעה והבחירה. הפעולה האנושית הנכבדה ביותר של עיצוב וגיבוש עצמי של האופי האישי זהו הדבר אשר כאילו מיפה את כחה של פעילות זו להיקרא בשם "דרך הי" מפני שבמעשה זה אנו עושים הידמות לה׳ שברא את העולם מתוך רצונו החופשי שלו ומפני שעל ידי כך אנו מפעילים את השכל האנושי שבו בירך אותנו בורא העולם. באופן זה אנו בעצמנו מכוונים את יעודנו בעולם הזה" אני פותח את דברי בשתי הערות מנוגדות זו לזו: אחת של הצטדקות ואחת של אנטי־הצטדקות. הערת ההצטדקות נוגעת להרגשת אי נוחיות שיש בשימוש בהגדרה של "אורתודוקסיה מרכזית". זוהי הגדרה שאני מעדיף אותה בעיקר בגלל סיבה אחת שאותה אסביר להלן. מבקרי□ של המונח "אורתודוקסיה מרכזית" מניחים ש״מרכזיות" מצביעה על כך שאנו מציבים את עצמנו באיזו נקודת מרכז שבין אורתודוקסיה והתבוללות ואנו טוענים, כי התחום הזה הוא בבחינת ביתנו הדתי. אולם, אלה הם דברי הבל: הצבה מסוג זה יהא משמעה זניחת היהדות האורתודוקסית לטובת איזו התפשרות על עקרונות יסוד. אבסורדית היא ההשקפה שהאורתודוקסיה המרכזית היא איזו נקודת אמצע בין סאטמר ובין כמה אינטלקטואלי□ המהווים כאילו את האורתודוקסיה השמאלית. אין בכך שום הכרת ערך באינטלגנציה שלנו אם מדמים, כי בהגדרת "מרכזיות" אנו ממליצים על צעידה בשטח הדתי כשבידינו מכשירי מדידה ומחשב כיס כדי לקבוע ממש את המרחק המדוייק שבין נטורי קרתא ובין ה״יהדות ההומניסטית" על מנת שנוכל להתייצב בעצמנו בדיוק בתווך או ב״מרכז". אין אנו, ואין אנו שואפים להיות איזה גיאוגרפים אידיאולוגיים או אנשי סטאטיסטיקה רוחניים המחפשים את הנקודה המדוייקת בין הנכון והבלתי נכון, דתי ובלתי דתי, מצווה או עבירה - ואז אנו מתייצבים במרכז זה כאילו זוהי מגמתנו הדתית. אני סבור שהמרכזיות שלנו אינה פשטנית או נועזת מדי מבחינה דתית. מה בדבר הכותרת שאנו דוגלים בה, "אורתודוקסיה מודרנית״? - אני איני מרגיש לגמרי בנוח עם כותרת זו מפני שיש כאן איזה צירוף של שתי מילים שאינן עולות בקנה אחד; האחת היא חוצפנית מדי והשניה - בלתי מדוייקת: מיהו זה ואיזהו האומר ש״מודרני" הוא סימן היכר מובהק של מכובדות? וכן - ש״אורתודוקסי" משמע עוורון אידיאולוגי וחשיבה מצומצמ…