Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews in the United States – Second article of a series on Responsa of Orthodox Judaism by Rabbi Dr. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. Question: American Jewish organizations tend to become more and more centralized, and in some instances, even integrated. What is the position of Orthodox Judaism toward this tendency? Is cooperation between Orthodox and non-Orthodox congregations, and between musmachim of yeshivot and other spiritual leaders, possible or not? Especially, we should like to know why Orthodoxy fights the Conservative movement, notwithstanding that the spokesmen of Conservative Judaism claim to recognize the authority of the halakhah. Responsum: The question of cooperation between the various groups is a very complex one. It is currently one of the most burning issues on the agenda of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA). I should like to review briefly here the proposal which I presented at the last conference of the RCA this past summer in Detroit. The proposal is based upon a halakhic–aggadic concept. First, unity in Israel is a basic principle in Judaism. We have formulated this principle in one sentence: “You are One, Your name is One, and who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on the earth?” The principle of unity expresses itself in two ways. First, the unity of Jews as members of a spiritual community, as a congregation which was established through the conclusion of a covenant at Mt. Sinai: “And you shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The unity of Knesset Yisrael as a community is based upon the uniqueness of the Torah way of life, as practiced by us through Torah existence. What ties the Yemenite water carrier in Tel Aviv to the Jews of Boston? A uniform Orach Chayim, the Shema Yisrael, Shabbat, the Kol Nidrei night, the Seder night, kashrut, tefillin, the trait of kindness, the hope and waiting for redemption. The Hebrew word edah (congregation) is the same as ed (witness), edut (tes…

הויכוח החריף שנתעורר בחוגים אורתודוכסיים באמריקה לרגל הצעת הרב דוד הולנדר, נשיא הסתדרות הרבנים, באספת אותו הארגון באטלנטיק סיטי, להסתלק מ"מועצת בתי הכנסיות" ו"חבר הרבנים דניו-יורק", עוד לא שכך. חברי ההסתדרות ידונו בבעיה חמורה זו באספתם השנתית בוואשינגטון בעתיד הקרוב. מובטחני שלא יעלימו עין מכל השאלות החשובות העומדות על הפרק והדורשות פתרון, מהתוצאות המעשיות של פילוג בכל רחבי יהדות אמריקה, ומכל הזרמים במחשבת היהדות לשעבר המחייבים או השוללים את השיתוף הפעולה עם מוסדות בלתי אורתודוכסיים.

Norman Lamm, the author, is associate rabbi of the Jewish Center in New York City, instructor in Jewish philosophy at Yeshiva University’s Teachers Institute, and Editor of Tradition. The last issue contained his article on “Separate Pews in the Synagogue: A Social and Psychological Approach.”RECENT ADDITIONS TO THE KETUBAH: A Halakhic Critique: The “amendment to the Ketubah” announced some five years ago by the Conservative movement has been hailed by its leaders as “something which may very well place the Rabbinical Assembly not only on the map of the world, but also on the map of history.”¹ That the world has not been shaken by this action is already evident from the more recent pronouncements from Conservative sources indicating that their project is not meeting with the desired success, and that even many Conservative rabbis have decided not to make use of the “amended Ketubah.”² As for history, no one can accurately predict what the judgment of the future will be on the merits of this endeavor. But certainly history will record that its introduction generated sufficient controversy to rock to its foundations a Jewish community already sadly distinguished by its divisiveness and disunity. To this day most Jews remain confused, uninformed, and unenlightened by the polemics, for that is the only possible result when issues of religious moment are presented with immodest exaggeration and met with immoderate emotion, all in the public press.The Orthodox opposition to this innovation is based mainly on two factors: The competence of the proposed Beth Din (religious court), and the halakhic validity of the amendment itself. The first matter is serious indeed. How can Orthodox Jews—or, for that matter, any intellectually honest person—be expected to recognize the authority of an ecclesiastical court which denies (or, at the very least, seriously questions) the origin and hence the authenticity of the very Halakhah in whose name it presumes to speak and whose tenets i…

In recent years a number of American Jewish writers have returned to an ancient Jewish vocation: prophesying. Having seemingly exhausted all studies of the past and the present, they have turned to the future and the prediction of what it holds for the American Jewish community. With a certain glee, these prognosticators – including sociologists, historians, professors, and novelists (all non-traditional) – have prophesied the demise of Orthodox Judaism. Orthodoxy, they tell us, does not stand a chance. Its following will dwindle down to a few insignificant die-hards who will themselves sooner or later be assimilated by some form of “modernistic” Judaism. Torah and Tradition, they report, have no place in the future. One ought not be dismayed by such reports from non-Orthodox circles. Without a commitment to Torah one cannot, after all, truly know its inner vitality and its uncanny capacity for attracting the hearts of Jews and surviving in all environments. What is disturbing is the underlying pessimism one sometimes detects in some – by no means all – observant and loyal Jews. Are we indeed a vanishing race? Is Israel doomed to remain an alman, deprived of the company of Torah? The question is one of great importance. First, it affects a principal tenet of our faith: the eternal loyalty of Israel to God. Second, there is the question of morale. No one wants to be identified with a lost cause. Third, the answer to that question will determine the policy of Orthodox Jews vis-à-vis the general Jewish community. Our answer to the question is a resounding “No.” Orthodox Judaism is here to stay, and it can and will survive even in the free and democratic atmosphere of modern America. We say not only Ha-shem melekh (the Lord reigns) and Ha-shem malakh (the Lord reigned) but Ha-shem yimlokh (the Lord will reign). It is our sacred duty to believe, and act upon the basis of the belief, that the Torah which survived the persecutions of Hadrian, the interdictions of Antioch…

I thank the editor of Chavrusa for affording me the opportunity of offering several alternate ideas on the subject raised by my brother in the previous issue. First, there is nothing world-shaking about the problem of whether the name of authentic Judaism in our contemporary, confused age be called "Orthodox,” "Traditional" or anything else. There is nothing particularly sacrosanct about the name "Orthodox" or any other such appellation. Ideally, our attitude should be that no adjective is the best adjective. We are Jews, and our faith and practice is Judaism, unqualified, uncompromised, undiluted. Once we agree to an adjective of any kind before the name Judaism, we have willy-nilly implied our assent to the co-validity of other "Interpretations" of Judaism. The acceptance of an adjective means that there are many kinds of Judaism and that ours is only one special kind, perhaps the kind with most chumrot. This is a concession we must grant the dissenters, as Wouk calls them. They will give us and forgive us anything and eveiything as long as we grant them a hehksher of equal validity based on the spurious and overworked thesis that there "are many roads to the same goal.” And this is the one concession which, if we grant it, we have lost our very souls, no matter what else we have won.And yet, this too, is no solution. Our numerical weakness, our antagonists' claims to historical authenticity as the legitimate heirs of the past and the nebulous, confused ideas which go into the making of the current consensus, all conspire to make the term "Judaism” as such, fairly meaningless. It, therefore, behooves us to specify who and what we i are. The very fact that we are adjectively J־ different in name can, by means of public education, be used to drive home that,/ we repudiate the "equal validity" thesis and claim exclusive legitimacy as the Jewish faith, authoritarian as that may sound in this age of religious euphoria. If we reject an adjective we may find ourselves b…

Dear Jerry: Thank you for your letter and expeditious reply. I deeply appreciate your efficiency in making the proper preparations as I had requested. Enclosed you will find a biographical summary giving you the pertinent data. I hope you will be discriminating in choosing only the appropriate information. I do not know if it is wise to announce the title of my talk, but if you and your committee desire one you may use the following: ”Fashioning a Future for Orthodoxy."It is quite all right to take care of all monetary matters when I get to Detroit.I have been requested by Mr. Baruch Litvin and some of the local rabbis to spend some time with them on Monday morning. I have therefore revised my schedule as follows:Sunday, May 15 – American Flight 337Leaving LaGuardia at 3:15 P.M.Arriving Detroit 4:10 P.M. (your time)Monday, May 16 – American Flight 338Leaving Detroit at 3:10 P.M.Arriving LaGuardia at 5:55 P.M. (D.S.T.)I want to close with my very best regards to your mother and wife. I look forward to seeing you all the weekend of May 15.Sincerely,Rabbi Norman Lamm

Dear Norman, I am returning the proofs of my communication and I wish to thank you for including the proof of your reply. I feel it incumbent upon me however, for the sake of truth, logic and halachic veracity, to inform you that the reply you give in no way answers my objections to your article. At the outset it would be advisable to bear in mind that the intent of your article was to prove that the Conservative amendment is invalid because of its ‘asmachta’ nature. In order to accomplish that noble purpose it must be shown that no halachic authority would or could consider this amendment other than an ‘asmachta’. If there can be found one authority who would not consider this an ‘asmachta’ you have failed in your purpose. Therefore, the fact that “you believe” that Mekhirah 11:17 should be interpreted in a certain manner is no proof that it must so be interpreted. Unless and until you can prove that no other explanation is possible you have failed in your appointed task, for I can with the full sanction of halacha state, as I did, that the Rambam maintains that an agreement to pay an indemnity sum is binding if it is made under a wedding canopy. You may disagree but you have not disproven my contention. You have not shown that the Conservative amendment, except according to your understanding of Mekhirah 11:17, is an ‘asmachta’. For the same reason your reply to my third point is also not an acceptable answer. Whether or not you personally concede that a ‘kinyan’ and a retroactive clause are sufficient to neutralize the ‘asmachta’-nature of a contract is immaterial and inconsequential. If there is any halachic basis for such concessions then you cannot with impunity invalidate the Conservative Ketubah. In truth, however, I addressed myself mainly to your very lucid statement that even with these concessions it would remain an ‘asmachta’, and you must admit that the reverse is the only logical conclusion.

Dear Rabbi Lamm: On behalf of the Synagogue Council of America we wish to thank you for the extraordinary contribution you made to the success of our first Annual Synagogue Statesman Award Dinner Sunday night at the Walforf-Astoria. The distinguished audience that was present was deeply impressed by your moving invocation and remarks. We thought you might be interested in the enclosed report on the dinner which appeared in the December 5, New York Times. We will shortly send you several of the photographs taken of you during the dinner.Again, with warmest thanks and deepest appreciation, we are,Cordially yours,Rabbi Marc H. TanenbaumExecutive DirectorRabbi Max D. DavidsonPresidentP.S. ...

My Dear Rabbi Rabinowitz: Your manuscript on the problem of American Orthodox relations to the State of Israel finally arrived yesterday and I read it with great care. Needless to say it is extremely well done and clearly points to a major problem in the whole ideological structure of American Orthodoxy. This problem has bothered me considerably, especially after my visit to Israel when I returned from India six months ago. I myself feel caught up In the ambivalence that seems to characterize the whole posture of traditional Judaism in the United States. It is something that cannot be lightly dismissed. I think it requires very deep thought and profound analysis, and I suspect that the underlying motives are of a highly consequential nature. As a matter of fact, I am beginning to doubt whether there will be any "great debate" on this theme in our ranks. I fear that the problem is too deeply psychological in a collective sense to become the basis for a doctrinal dialogue which involves at least two clearly defined points of view.Space does not permit me to elaborate on my preliminary thinking on this subject. I wish we had spent more time together when you were here on your last visit. However, I would like to offer this suggestion: the dilemma, to my mind, is caused in no small way by the modesty of the original Zionist aspirations. Zionism dreamt of a State and now we have it – how after this fullfillment, are we still to entertain Zionism as a worthy goal?I believe that if all of Zionism had been geared to the messianic visions of a Kalischer or Reines, visions which transcended the political and social and were informed by a mystic and eschatological impulse, then Zionism would still be a dynamic reality for committed Jews today. This, of course, is in addition to the sense of frustration and disappointment which American Orthodoxy suffers when contemplating the secularism am of the Non-Orthodox elements in Israel and the refusal of so much of the right wing to …

א. בהתאם לנטייה המודרנית, אני מסתייג מ"אידיאולוגיה" ומ"שיטה" בעלת צורה שלמה וסיסטמטית. אני מזניח את הרעיון שהיהדות היא שיטה פילוסופית עקבית. בתור דרך חיים שניתנה לנו מסיני, יש לה הוראות וערכים מרחיקי לכת, ואפשר למצוא בה – על ידי ניתוח דק – כמה וכמה יסודות מחשבתיים לרבות פילוסופיים, אולם אין לנסות להתאימה למיטת סדום אידיאולוגית. מגמתי היא להכיר את העיקרים של היהדות התורנית כפי שאני מבינם, למיינם ולבררם. ב. לדעתי, ההלכה הפורמלית היא החומר היסודי להשקפת היהדות על האדם – השקפת עולם מצומצמת למסגרת אנתרופוצנטרית, וכל הוראה בתורת האדם צריכה לנבוע מן ההלכה. באשר למשנה תיאוסופית כוללת יותר, ההלכה מציבה גבולות – אף שאינה קובעת הוראה פסוקה, היא שוללת תפיסות שגויות מתוך סובייקטיביות או מדרש בלבד. ג. המעשה הדתי, כפי שהוא מוגבל על ידי ההלכה, משמש מסגרת ומכוון לחוויה הדתית. המעשה הוא המפתח לעולם הרוחני וכרטיס הכניסה לקרבת אלקים – ועם זאת, הוא גם המסגרת המובילה את האדם בדרך ישרה ומגינה עליו מן האנטינומיה. המינימום: תגובה לצו אלקי. המקסימום: גשר אל האינסוף – כדברי ריה"ל: "אין האדם מגיע אל הענין האלקי אלא בדבר האלקי". ד. ההלכה מושרשת במציאות – "לא בשמים היא" – ויש לה מנגנונים פנימיים להסתגלות, הדורשים אומץ קדוש. אולם אם ה"מציאות" היא הזיה סובייקטיבית, יש להגן על ההלכה מפני פגיעה. מכל מקום, הסמכות לקבוע היא בידי גדולי התורה בלבד. ה. השלב הראשון הוא "תורה עם דרך ארץ" (הרש"ר הירש), אך שיטתו אינה מייצרת דיאלוג פנימי בין קודש לחול. לעומת זאת, הראי"ה קוק ראה בקודש והחול שני ממדים של מציאות אחת – אין הבדלה נצחית ביניהם, אלא תהליך של קידוש החול. התורה לא רק "עם" דרך ארץ – אלא פועלת "על" דרך ארץ. חינוכו של קוק אינו רק חינוך אלא חזון קוסמי. ו. יש להשתחרר מן המיתולוגיה הרעיונית – גאולה, אתחלתא דגאולה, גלות – ולהכיר בכך שהעובדות ההיסטוריות והערכים הדתיים אינם משתנים על ידי פלפולים סמנטיים. מדינת ישראל אינה הגאולה השלמה – אך היא תופעה היסטורית חשובה. אם יבוא משיח ויתברר שהיא אתחלתא דגאולה – מה טוב; ואם לא – לאו. בכל מקרה, היא מדינתנו. ז. היחס אל הזרמים הלא־אורתודוקסיים: 1. אי אפשר לראות בתנועות הכופרות בתורה מן השמים יהדות דתית – העיקר הוא נאמנות להלכה. ההתבוללות אורבת מאחורי המילים היפות של קונ…