Berkowitz makes the same mistake that the Conservative always did – the insistence upon institutional self-definition as if that alone created a legitimacy for a movement. But I see no need for an ideological pushing of the elbows in order to make room for institutional "space." We do not and should not consider ourselves a separate "movement" in the sense that we are different from classical Orthodoxy. We are Orthodox – but with a new-old interpretation. As such, we have no need to rue the fact that "our" people consult "their" Gedolim. The institutional and even ideological differentia must not be mistaken for rigid lines – even though the Right may look upon us with contempt and condemn us to irrelevancy.2 - Berkowitz is inconsistent. In one point he asserts that we have no differences in Halakhah, and in another he resents the fact that nowadays the "Modern Orthodox" do not allow mixed dancing at their weddings...3 - Additionally, Berkowitz mistakes goals and reality, the ought and is. The aspiration of "Modern Orthodoxy" is not to insinuate the trappings of modernity into the Jewish framework, but, identically with the Right, to create a "kehillah kedoshah" in the fuller sense, one in which Talmud Torah takes priority.4 - Where we do differ is in these respects:a) Torah Umada. He is correct in his criticism that we have compartmentalized the two, and that we must make an effort at synthesis which will be meaningful. However, even as we are we are still miles ahead of the Right for whom the entire enterprise of secular study is a bediavad, and legitimized only because of "parnossah."b) Of critical importance is the element of tolerance. We believe that in order for a Jewish community to prosper in a democratic society there must be mutual tolerance and an absence of bigotry. They do not.c) Flowing from this is the question of authority and authoritarianism. As opposed to the movements of the Left, we do believe in authority: that is our whole commitment to Hal…

Part of our collective self-criticism: A few days ago, here in Jerusalem, I heard the story of two or three of our young equivalents of Centrist Orthodoxy – the kippah serugah generation – who were driving and saw a hasid asking for a hitch. They picked him up and began a conversation. He was dressed in typical Hasidic garb, and they were in their shorts and knitted kippot. They asked him why he wears that particular outfit, and he replied, quite directly, “Because our teacher Moses dressed this way.” They were stunned, shocked, until one of them said, “Do you really think that Moses dressed this way?” He replied, “Well, maybe not – but he certainly didn’t dress the way you are dressed...”

Modern Orthodoxy, as represented by Yeshiva University, the Orthodox Union, the Rabbinical Council of America, and similar organizations, is a significant factor in American and world Jewry. It is, in many ways, the ideological glue that holds the diverse groups of American Jewry together. As the bearers of the world view that encompasses both Torah and Madda, complete loyalty to Halakha and intimate acquaintance with the best of contemporary science and humanities, Modern Orthodoxy is always under sustained pressure from both sides, Right and Left. It is under demographic and consequently political pressure by an increasingly triumphalist Haredism, from the Right, and assimilationist and non-halakhic movements from the Left. This pressure has a paradoxical effect on Modern Orthodoxy: on the one hand, we are gripped with apprehension as we see some of our children veer off to the Right and some to the Left, with consequent fearfulness about our future. On the other hand, it has inspired us to greater activity and has resulted in increased creativity of a number of organizations and institutions in Israel, and thus offers grounds for greater self-confidence.Often, such groups are frustrated by financial needs that, objectively, are not overwhelming but burdensome to the leaders of the groups and severely limit their influence. If they were helped in a discreet and timely manner, they could contribute mightily to the strengthening of Modern Orthodoxy in the United States.What is true of the situation in America, is doubly true of the State of Israel. There, the problems are much more acute and complex. But the potential for successful achievements is far greater.It is therefore imperative that resources be available for focused assistance (not ongoing budgetary support) to those entities that, with a limited influx of funds, would be able to contribute to the enhancement of Modern Orthodoxy everywhere. Yeshiva University/RIETS now have an opportunity to take a leader…

Long ago in the early history of the human race, the eating habits of mankind were radically different from and much less complicated than they are now. Prior to the Great Flood in Noah's days, man was a vegetarian. It was forbidden to take a life, whether man or animal. Such a state of affairs, prohibiting the spilling of innocent blood, would seem to be the morally acceptable one. Nevertheless, Scripture records that God permitted man to adopt a new way, one that involved a reorientation towards the animal world. We shall here try to understand some of the Rabbinic thoughts on just why this change occurred, and how some of the principles involved can be appreciated.