What is the place and significance of progress in Traditional Judaism? This problem assumes additional importance in our own generation, when the rush of events, the increased momentum of life and the rapid growth of new and more complex sciences and philosophies leave the Traditional Jew in a maze of perplexity, striving to reconcile his faith with the newer systems of thought and lacking clearly defined criteria for the successful adaptation of Traditional Judaism to the contemporary intellectual environment. The very nature of the problem posed is difficult to treat. We cannot deny the existence of a progressive motion in Judaism without denying history, logic and science. At the same time, we cannot postulate unlimited change of any part of Judaism; to do so would be to reduce “Judaism" to a meaningless catch-word, and to strip Torah and Halacha of their very essence."Progress" in Judaism cannot be investigated as an isolated phenomenon. 'The examination of this problem must he based upon an understanding of the very form in which the dynamics of Halacha Judaism are manifested, both within Halacha itself and in the relation of Halacha to other systems, ideas, and concepts. This relationship is the substance of Jewish Philosophy. The preliminary phenomenon, the form of the dynamics of Judaism, is “conflict." To study these phenomena, their interrelationship and their application to the approach of the Traditionalist to modern life is the purpose of this essay.One of the most important aspects of Judaism[1], and one which can be said to set it apart from most other religions, is its constant engagement in conflicts of various sorts. Judaism is not a system at rest; it is a system in motion. The thinking, observing Jew cannot be intellectually or religiously static, because his very religion is based upon the resolution of a conflict, invites conflicts with other systems of thought, and predicates the path to ultimate Halachic perfection upon conflict. We are so a…

“Tradition” is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and maligned words in our contemporary vocabulary. It has been misconstrued by some as the very antithesis of “progress” and as a synonym for the tyranny that a rigid past blindly imposes upon the present. For others the word evokes different associations. Tradition becomes for them the object of sentimental adoration, the kind of nostalgic affection which renders it ineffective and inconsequential, like the love for an old and naive grandmother — possessing great charm, but exercising little power or influence. What then do we mean by “tradition,” and why have we decided to publish a journal by that name in an age when man has broken the shackles of gravity and is on the verge of the conquest of the heavens themselves, an age which seems to have broken completely with the past which nurtured it?By “tradition” we mean neither a slavish adherence to old formulas, nor a romantic veneration of “the good old days” which strips the past of all meaningfulness for the present. In our conception of “tradition” we do not concentrate exclusively on the past at all. The word itself comes from the Latin tradere which means to hand down, to transmit, to bequeath. Similarly, its Hebrew equivalent masorah derives from the root מסר which means “to give over.” The focus of Tradition is, then, the future and not the past. “Tradition” is thus a commitment by the past to the future, the promise of roots, the precondition of a healthy continuity of that which is worthy of being preserved, the affirmation that the human predicament in general, and the Jewish situation in particular, are not frighteningly new, but that they grow out of a soil which we can know and analyze and use to great benefit.What, exactly, does this “tradition” consist of, this “tradition” we want to “give over” to our readers, to our future? It is the cumulative historical experience and wisdom of the people of Israel and the totality of its divinely revealed ins…

Every action, the physicists tell us, has a reaction. This rule holds true for man and society as well as nature. Thus, there was a time when parents sheltered their children much more than was necessary or advisable. The reaction in our times is – to expose them prematurely to the rigors and risks of adult life. And we rationalize our deeds with pious expressions, such as: "I have confidence in my children." Of course, over-sheltering growing children is both unnecessary and harmful. But ought we not also refrain from over-confidence, which results in pushing children unprepared into the maelstrom of adult life in our complex society? Are we not wronging them with our misplaced and excessive faith in them?What brings on this thought is the recent news concerning a speech by the dean of one of the nation's foremost women’s colleges concerning the moral character of the student body. Whatever rhe propriety or exactitude of the dean's speech, this much is certain: the lack of morality that prevails on the nation’s campuses is shocking to anyone of sensitivity.Let us be frank about the temptations open to a young High School graduate suddenly thrust into a new environment away from home. Unless parents have investigated the kind of general standards that prevail on the campus, sending a youngster to an out-of-town college canRABBI’S STUDIESUnless Jewish parents have made sure that there exists in that school a group of conscientious religious Jewish students and proper facilities for observance, and hence the proper society. for the young Jew or Jewess, they may be guilty of undoing years of Jewish upbringing and education.There are those who justify this policy by pleading the necessity for exposing young people to "real life." Forgetting the question of what "real life” really means, it should be remembered that there is nothing magical or mystical about the age of eighteen, when most young people enter college. Maturity does not _ .erupt fuILhl0wnwi1h_a__H1gh_Sch0…

Every action, the physicists tell us, has a reaction. This rule holds true for man and society as well as nature. Thus, there was a time when parents sheltered their children much more than was necessary or advisable. The reaction in our times is – to expose them prematurely to the rigors and risks of adult life. And we rationalize our deeds with pious expressions, such as: “I have confidence in my children.” Of course, over-sheltering growing children is both unnecessary and harmful. But ought we not also refrain from over-confidence, which results in pushing children unprepared into the maelstrom of adult life in our complex society? Are we not wronging them with our misplaced and excessive faith in them? What brings on this thought is the recent news concerning a speech by the dean of one of the nation’s foremost women’s colleges concerning the moral character of the student body. Whatever the propriety or exactitude of the dean’s speech, this much is certain – the lack of morality that prevails on the nation’s campuses is shocking to anyone of sensitivity. Let us be frank about the temptations open to a young high school graduate suddenly thrust into a new environment away from home. Unless parents have investigated the kind of general standards that prevail on the campus, sending a youngster to an out-of-town college can become a criminal act of over-confidence. Unless Jewish parents have made sure that there exists in that school a group of conscientious religious Jewish students and proper facilities for observance, and hence the proper society for the young Jew or Jewess, they may be guilty of undoing years of Jewish upbringing and education. There are those who justify this policy by pleading the necessity for exposing young people to “real life.” Forgetting the question of what “real life” really means, it should be remembered that there is nothing magical or mystical about the age of eighteen, when most young people enter college. Maturity does not erup…

I am beginning to see, as a result of my experience with individuals in the community and on college campuses, that the young people Rabbi Israel has talked about do not have time to worry about the problem of their Jewishness, that is, Jewishness is not their problem. Here I agree, that the problem of the survival of Judaism – the crisis – lies with the Establishment. What does the Establishment have to offer these young people who have come home, trained and culturally conditioned by Yale? How can we get them to identify with the Jewish community? The problem will be easier to grapple with if we realize, first of all, that we are dealing with three different types of individuals, not just one. First, there are the young people who come into the community wishing to identify themselves with the community. They quickly affiliate and participate. Second, there is the larger group which I would call the neutral group, that is those who are neither here nor there. These people can be influenced. The third group, a smaller one, moves out of the community and does not wish to be spoken with.I think that it is important for the Establishment to take a good look at the needs of the first two groups. There is a new client in the Jewish community and this client no longer is the person who needs social-welfare assistance. For the client is actually the community itself. We must pay attention to this fact. When I talk about this “we,” I am talking about all of us who are involved in institutions within the community. We must begin to look at the service or the substance of what we have to offer. I think that there are areas that can be developed through the modification of existing institutions or the creation of new ones that will be at- tractive to this young group returning home from college. We must keep in mind that the colleges of today have given them some kind of underpinning — a set of values to which they would like to respond. If we are to reach them we have to be…

The French Catholic thinker, Jacques Maritan, has coined a new word which deserves wide currency: chronolatry, the worship of what is latest in time, the idolatry of “modernity.” That such chronolatry is an unspoken presupposition of our culture is self-evident. And it is an irritating phenomenon at best, and a dangerous one at worst. I beg the indulgence of the reader for sharing with him my allergy to the word "modern." I find infuriating the smug and complacent am ha-aretz who says: "How can you be Orthodox when you so modern? How can you refrain from smoking or driving on Shabbat, or eating non-kosher good, or fasting on Yom Kippur, in this 20th century." I am similarly annoyed when I hear people saying, "He is re-ligious-ligious but modern," in almost exactly the same tone as one would say, "He is slightly insane but sincere" as if modernity can save the benighted religious soul from the damnation to which the unsophisticated are foredomed. I even confess that I am uncomfortable with the title "Modern Orthodox". There is an arrogance about this assertion of modernity which should give offence to any in- telligent and sensitive man. There is no better term that I have By Rabbi Norman Lamm found, but I shudder when pronounce the words. Campus Shul: The Technion Israel Institute of Technology, has a new campus synagogue. It was dedicated recently at a festive ceremony at Technion City. youth-orientated or secularistic or "with it". Beyond time Judaism maintains that truth does not depend on time. The Maharal of Prague observed that the festival of Shavuot, unlike all the others, is not appointed by the Torah to a special date on the calendar. It is only in-rest of us are benighted, we are behind the times. Most religious folk labour under the heavy burden of an inferiority feeling because they are not sufficiently modern. This should not be taken to imply that all that is modern is bad, and that as observant Jews we are against modernity. That would be as absurd …

The baalei teshuvah (returnees to Judaism) phenomenon is one of the most encouraging and puzzling of our times. Emerging almost ex nihilo at a place and time characterized by a rampant and triumphalist secularism, it has buoyed the spirits of the observant Jewish community which had begun to think of itself as vestigial, marginal, and without cogency or influence in the outside world. It has thrown a monkey-wrench into the tables, statistics, projections, and extrapolations of the sociologists and the futurists. It has disconcerted the assimilationists who, armed with dogmatic faithlessness and strident hopelessness, cheerfully prognosticated the end of Orthodox Judaism and the triumph of assimilation. But this success story has not been without its problems. It has suffered from friend and foe alike, and it is by no means clear whether or not the movement has peaked. Part of its problem has been the extravagance with which it has been hailed; it has had too good a press. Thus, it has been greeted as the sure sign of the inner revitalization of Torah Judaism when that is not at all that certain; it may well be only the Jewish form of a world-wide swing to the right, as expressed in Islam, in Christianity, and in politics. As such it may say more about the disillusionment with modernity and liberalism that about the attractiveness of Judaism and the Torah community. Nor is it helpful to exaggerate the numbers of baalei teshuvah and the significance of the statistics. We are still very much in trouble. The number of Jews coming into the fold as baalei teshuvah is far outweighed by the number assimilating and intermarrying. Good recruitment gives little ground for victory dances when it is surpassed by the rate of attrition. Moreover, the baalei teshuva phenomenon has been appropriated by partisan religious groups who, for political reasons, covet the prestige of being the founders of the movement. A short time ago, a slick right-wing anti-Zionist magazine ran an issu…

The Aug. 21 editorial urging that Jewish educators “promote such communal concerns as pluralism” may not be well founded and, indeed, may be counterproductive if pursued. The word “pluralism” no longer refers – as it once did – to respecting another’s right to worship as he or she sees fit and to treating that person’s beliefs and religious leaders with dignity and respect. If that were the meaning of the word today, I would heartily agree with the advice. Unfortunately, pluralism has developed into a code word that means acceptance of all the principal Jewish religious movements as expressive of “legitimate” Judaism. When used in this manner, it is simply not possible for an Orthodox Jew to teach or accept pluralism. When one holds fast to the divine origin and binding nature of the written and oral law – as do all Orthodox Jews – one cannot ascribe Judaic “legitimacy” to any religious movement which rejects or deviates from the law. For example, in the context of a contemporary problem, since Orthodox Jews believe that divinely ordained law requires that the identity of a child as a born Jew be derived from the mother, they may not treat as Judaically “legitimate” a view which holds that identity may derive from the father. According to Rabbi Norman Lamm, president of Yeshiva University, the “criterion [for legitimacy] is the Jewish lex – the halacha.” In his words, which would be repeated with conviction by every Orthodox Jew, “I cannot, in the name of unity, assent to a legitimation of what every fiber in my being tells me is in violation of the most sacred precepts of the Torah.” Pluralism in the contemporary sense is simply out of bounds in the yeshiva and Orthodox day school world and in Orthodox adult education programs as well. Matters of legitimacy and pluralism need not deflect us from pursuing the goal of Jewish unity, however. Lamm has written and spoken about the clear and unequivocal “functional validity” and “spiritual dignity” of the non-Orthodox …

I begin from a very simple, holistic premise. Jewish identity is a constellation of values that are linked and integrated with each other, that defy attempts at subdivision or isolation, and that are expressed in both attitude and behavior. It is based on a vision of personal responsibility to God and His creatures, to an on-going commitment to study and to moral self-improvement, and to an interrelationship of all Jews in an over-arching community. The point is not original. It is but a restatement of the well-known proposition by Shimon the Righteous in Pirkei Avot regarding the props upon which the world stands. I believe that to wrest one set of values from the others, as if each did not require the reinforcement and sustenance that the others provide, is an enterprise doomed to failure It is akin to the surgical separation of the organs of a body; it is meaningful only if performed on a corpse, for otherwise, it will kill a living organism, It is this premise that informs my view of all the issues being confronted in this volume. Consider, as an example, the relationship between Israel and American Jewry. I take no great risk in stating unequivocally that Israel remains a central issue for every concerned Jew, affiliated or not. However, as the direct threat to Israel's physical survival has apparently receded, and as we move away from her founding generation, the difficulties and contradictions of her domestic social and political condition emerge. Israelis cannot agree about the role of religion in their lives, the legal definitions of personal status, and the implementation of a human rights policy — let alone diplomatic negotiations and peace initiatives. Why be surprised at the lack of unanimity among her American supporters? Under these conditions, short of direct military attack, the cogency of traditional appeals for resources and political support begin to fade seriously. Now, this reflects a more important phenomenon, the not-very-gradual decrease in…

I am neither a sociologist nor a demographer, and so cannot adequately evaluate the new and profoundly saddening survey. I will leave it to those who deal with such matters to offer their criticism. But whether or not the figures are correct or incorrect, the general trend of the past years makes the conclusion inevitable: the majority of the Jewish people in this country are abandoning their faith and their folk in alarming numbers. I regard it as tragic that a great and vigorous community has come to such a crisis, with so many Jews forsaking their historic people, a people who have contributed so much to the world, and renouncing their religion which is the fountain of all Western religions and civilization, which has been the bedrock of morality, and which has contributed so much to humanity at large.I am ashamed of the difference between Jews and non-Jews in their professed belief in God. and in the agonizing numbers of those who have opted to join other religious communities. In the past, if an individual apostate announced his intention to convert,his family would go into formal mourning—rending their garments and ,‘sitting shivah”—exactly as one does for a close relative who has died. What shall we do. and how shall we express our grief at the shemad of nearly one and one half million American Jews who have abandoned Judaism in favor of a variety of other faiths? Nothing less than establishing a new day of grief in the Jewish calendar—another Tisha Be av—will do for this mss disaffection. I take no pleasure in offering this “I told you so." I have been involved in the Jewish community for over 50 years, both as pulpit rabbi and as educational administrator— and have never ceased to warn my fellow Jews that their neglect of the Jewish education of their children, both formal (in the school) and informal (in the home) will inevitable lead to a new Holocaust. Now ignorance of the classics of Judaism— the Bible and the Talmud, Jewish history and the Land of Isr…