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…

When Rabbi Sturn and your Chairman asked me about what I wanted to speak, my first impulse was to say “about five minutes.” When this suggestion was rejected, however, I decided to choose the topic of “The Crisis in Contemporary Hebrew Literature.” The reason for my choice should be obvious. Here is a topic which has come to the fore as recently as this past Chanukah – a topic which has broad significance for all of us and which encompasses all the major cultural and social movements and all the political nuances which are shaping up in the great drama of Israel today. For literature is more than art. Art can, at the most, after all is said and done, only reflect the undertones of the civilization which produces it. Literature, however, is more than a mirror, more than merely an instrument which passively tells us what has occurred or what is occurring; literature can be and should be a dynamic force in the life of a people. It must direct, mold, create and shape the main current of the life of the society from which it springs. And the function of literature is even more pronounced when it is considered in the setting of a people whose lives have been renewed and reinvigorated by great national events and when this people stands at the threshold of a new era in history and does not know where to turn. It is confused, bewildered and perplexed. Its future social life, political orientation, religious form and cultural character are one big question mark. This, my friends, is Israel today. A nation on the verge of a great historical epoch, knowing that destiny has knocked on its door but not knowing where destiny wants or should want it to go. Such a situation is fertile ground for a man of letters with ideas and ideals. A literary movement sparked with zest and vigor can either lift Israel up to its former historical stature or can level it off until it is no more than a dull, near-Eastern replica of the disgustingly average inhabitant of this planet of ours. But be…

יפה תורה עם דרך ארץ שיגיעת שניהם משכחת עון. דרך ארץ means worldly ways, mundane matters, prosaic aspects of everyday life. Certain of these acts are not covered by specific mitzvoth. Eating your breakfast cereal after the המוציא and before ברכת הזמון is a normal act undirected by specific halachoth. The tanna tells us that all these mundane matters too shall be impregnated with the meaningfulness of Torah. If you eat because you are hungry or because you want your daily fill of vitamins

“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? …

SRH: J. Humanism – ישראל מענטש תורה עם ד"א. – Torah primary; but original identity human: crit: Maim, Mendellsohn; autochtonous – but if identity: not conflict, but so biology – Synth: pleasant... congruous; Orth not blind. K: Not ת' עם ד"א but ת' וד"א – (strawberries – woman with child). – come to grips each other. – metaphys frame – קו"ח → "enlightened". – centripital + centrifugal. – synth: not lock in T; but needs חידוש. – קו"ח = matter/form; יסוד קה"ק/ – no חול מוחלט – "not-yet holy". – no הבדלה? – של"ה...

Norman Lamm ’’RELIGION AND MORALITY," delivered on March 30, 1965 as first in a series of lectures on "The Philosophy of Synthesis" in honor of the Tenth Anniversary of Stem College for Women, Yeshiva University: The term "synthesis," which forms the major theme of this Tenth Anniversary series of lectures, is most characteristic of all that Yeshiva stands for: its ideology and its outlook upon the world. The term itself is perhaps not the most felicitous or propitious, I remember the endless debates during my years at Yeshiva as to whether or not "synthesis" is a "good" word. After we finished many of these discussions concerning nomenclature, we began to ponder the content of the concept Many of us never succeeded in obtaining an accurate Socratic definition of the term; but I think that all of us at least were able to intuit its true significance. Hence the term whatever our semantic scruples, ultimately will do "Synthesis" is more than a mere educational device by which we combine or juggle two sets of curriculum - one religious and one secular. The term also comprehends I a metaphysic, a vision of the fate and the function of the Jew in the modern world. This vision seeks to describe how the Jew can fit into the world without being absorbed by it; how he can retain his identity, his full religious and spiritual individuality, and at the same time contribute greatness and holiness to enhance and advance the general community of mankind. Furthermore, ’synthesis” is not a self-contained fact, a desideratum Which may be pursued and successfully accomplished. It does not mean that if you have gone through four years of Yeshiva or Stem that you have achieved ”synthesis.” ”Synthesis,” in the sense we shall be using the term, is a method, the manner in which you approach problems, how you orient yourself towards your Jewishness. ”Synthesis” is a way, not an accomplished and Isolated fact; a process, not an event.This evening I propose to discuss not ״synthesis” as it …

YU not only institution, also idea and symbol. Synthesis. The modern Orthodox Jew as expression of this educational philosophy. Not a comfortable proposition. Synthesis, living in two worlds at same time, always has concommigant tension. Therefore, never complete success. Tension revealed in famous story of early Rosh Yeshivah, who walking through the then new halls of Yeshiva College one morning greeted other faculty members who passed by: Good morning. Dr. Churgin, Dr. Revel, Dr. Mirsky, Dr. Belkin... then said to an student nearby: "Vos iz dos, a Yeshiva oder a hospital?"Origins: Medieval Spain Yeshiva of Rabbi Reines. Idea of Rav Kook on the sacred and profane having mutual roots in theholy of holies , and function of holy to sanctify profane, and all profane as the not — yet — holy. S.R. Hirsch — as follows, shortly.YU began as high school ( 1886) worked up to thirteen schools plus four high schools (in addition to the present one on tha Pacific Coast); more than 6,660 students, 1200 faculty.But more than double curriculum. Three great ninteenth century interpretations of a principle of Judaism are incorporated in Yeshiva. The principle is from Perek: the study of Torah is beautiful with derekh eretz.S.R. Hirsch — the educational — cultural interpretation.R. Hayyin of Volozhin — the intellectual - metaphysical interpretation.The Hasidic interpretation, which is the practical-existential.S.R.H. — Incorporated in student studying in Yeshiva and at same time, Yeshiva College, Stern College, the high schools.Hayyim of Volozhin — incorporated in Riets, and Kollel.Hasidic, with emphasis on out-going, practical effects of education, in schools such as TIM, TIW, Medical School, Social Work.Emphasize J.S.P. personal stories about Jeff Tillman and his questions about tfillin in afternoon.Thus too: CSD — educational servicing of synagoggues such as educational servicing NCSY youth groups, place rabbis.Has transformed American Judaism. Imagine American Jewry without YU.No…

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 …