W(h)ither Modern Orthodoxy?- Does Modern Orthodoxy still speak to us?

During the approximately two years during which I went through a crisis of faith, I spent a lot of time reading, as well as having conversations with many rabbis, academics and friends, in the hope of finding my way back to faith. Perhaps the most important piece of advice that I received was to go through the aspects of Judaism with which I was struggling, and figure out which, in fact, were essential to Jewish belief. Ultimately, I came to recognize that there was a much wider range of theological options available that could fit within a world of belief.

There was a time when Modern Orthodoxy was less doctrinaire. A perusal through the index of the issues of Tradition from the ‘60s and 70s shows that both in terms of content and writers, Modern Orthodoxy of that time had more theological room than does the Modern Orthodoxy of today. I will leave it to sociologists to evaluate the reasons for the change. Instead, I will talk about a way that we might go back to those more open days.

I begin with a discussion of a theory put forth by Thomas Kuhn about paradigm shifts in science. For those who are unaware of the theory, the following is a summation of the theory from an article by Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman of Bar Ilan University:

A mature science, according to Kuhn’s hypothesis, is one in which there exists a dominant paradigm—a conceptual framework that informs the scientist of what to expect as he engages in his or her scientific inquiry. It delineates the parameters of what can and cannot be considered acceptable solutions to a problem. Only that which conforms to the paradigm is deemed true. The training of scientists consists of inculcating them with the tenets of the paradigm, the rules of the game, before they embark on their own research. To engage in “normal science” is to endeavor to tie up loose ends and adjust the paradigm to reality. Paradigms introduce a sociological factor into science. To practice science is to engage the mysteries of the natural order not in unmediated fashion, but through the lens of the paradigm, itself a human construct. This dogmatic aspect determines who is considered “in” in the scientific community, and who is “out.”
Inevitably, results will begin to arise that are inconsistent with the reigning paradigm. At first these will be dismissed and faults will be found either with the method employed or with the assumptions upon which they rest. As these bothersome findings persist and accumulate, however, a creative scientist will come forward to challenge the axioms of the paradigm and propose a new one that encompasses the “problematic” results as well in a systematic fashion. Because the old paradigm is but a human construct, it is subject to human foibles: its articulators will typically dig in their heels, and the new paradigm will gain traction only as the masters of the old one pass from the scene. New paradigms do gain influence, but only slowly

Essentially, once a theory is accepted by the scientific community, it becomes a type of dogma which can not be challenged. Those who offer such challenges are ignored and/or rejected. Only when the challenges become strong enough, does the theory change. Although we are talking about religion and not science, the comparison is instructive. Jewish theology changes with the times. Throughout our history, challenges from within Judaism or from other religions have caused Jewish theology to pivot, as it were. While traditionalists at first fought back, eventually the pressure became great enough that change occurred. Even then, the change happened slowly, and usually, almost imperceptibly.

We live in a time when belief in Jewish dogma is very challenging. In various ways, scholarly or not, there have been those who have talked of these challenges and offered new ideas. As in Kuhn’s theory, these attempts have been rebuffed. Traditionalists have dug in their heels and insisted that certain beliefs are essential and not up for debate. Still, the attempts to spell out a theological approach that works for modern sensibilities, speak to some of the angst that is felt by many in our community.

So where do we go from here? Ideally religious thinkers from Yeshiva University, the institution that for many represents Modern Orthodoxy, would step into the void and try to address some of these concerns in a theologically sophisticated manner. Sadly, this has not been the case. Many of the roshei yeshiva are firmly in the traditionalist camp, and consider certain beliefs and concepts to be inviolable. Those roshei yeshiva and professors who are more open to modern sensibilities, have, to some degree, both in recorded lectures and in writing, addressed some of these issues, but there is yet to be an attempt at spelling out a full theology from those within the walls of YU. To some degree, some of the rabbis and students from Yeshivat Chovevei HaTorah have tried to bring about a paradigm shift, but in ignoring the idea contained in Kuhn’s warning that change occurs slowly in science,a truth that applies to the world of Orthodoxy as well, these attempts have failed to gain significant traction. I would hope that the leadership of YCT would think about why a community that hungers for a sophisticated more modern approach, has not taken to their approach. In America, new attempts are coming from the likes of Michael Fishbane, while the Modern Orthodox world fails to produce works along the lines of Rav Shagar’s works, which show how Orthodoxy might deal with the challenges of Post-Modernism.

Who, if anyone, will step into this void? If Modern-Orthodoxy is to stay relevant, a work will have to be produced that shows a level of theological sophistication, while, at the same time speaks to the layman. A new paradigm is needed for those, like myself, who passionately belief in the world of Torah and Mitzvohs, while at the same time recognize the challenges of the times in which we live.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

The Uncomfortable Split

I am not sure whether the Volvo commercial with Jean-ClaudeVan Damme performing a truly “epic” split led to more sales of trucks. What I do know is that in addition to going viral, the commercial got me thinking, and for me, the split has become a metaphor.

It is either a sign of my nuanced views and/or an indication of my poor writing skills that as I have worked to try to create a middle ground between the worlds of Right-wing Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy, it has been assumed by some that I am a musmach of YCT, a believer in the need for the ordination of women, a supporter of partnership minyanim, a puppet to the “right-wing” roshei yeshiva of YU, a charedi and beholden to Rabbis Gil Student or Ysoscher Katz. In fact, I am none of the above. I am however, a believer in serious learning opportunities for women, making women as comfortable as possible in shul within the limits of halacha, that moderation is not a dirty word, that halacha has rules, and that Rabbis Katz and Student, are acting l'sheim shamayim and have contributed to the world of Torah. Although I am more comfortable within the world of YU, and lean towards halachic conservativism, I am sympathetic to some of the motivations behind psak that has come from musmachim of and teachers at YCT. I have been spiritually and intellectually nurtured by many of the Roshei Yeshiva at YU, even as I do not fully identify with most of them hashkafically.

I suppose that it is fitting that I write these words on Yom Yerushalayim, living in a community where most shuls said tachanun this morning. More and more, I find myself most sympathetic to Israeli institutions where serious Torah scholarship, combines with moderation and a willingness to make slow but steady progress in advancing thoughtful progressive change. Yeshivat Har Etzion's Roshei Yeshiva and rabbeim serve as models of what I aspire to in Torah. At Gush, as the yeshiva is known, there is a commitment to openness to the challenging questions on Torah and halacha, within a clear spirit of yirat shamayim. Beit Hillel acts to promote women's learning and leadership positions, tolerance and a values based approach to psak and the klal.

I find myself wondering what it is about Israel that allows for these institutions to achieve a balance that American institutions struggle to achieve. Looking for the chance to, once again teach Torah, I wonder if there is an institution which would be comfortable with my views. Being that aliyah is most likely at least a few years off, I remain stuck in this uncomfortable split, hoping that the supports on which I am precariously balanced, don't move further apart.

The Farber Affair (part II) What would Rambam Do?

This is the second in a series on the “Farber Affair”. To read the first post, including my reasons for writing this series, click here.

When Rambam wrote the Moreh Nevuchim, he knew that he was heading into potentially dangerous waters. In attempting to reconcile the Torah with Aristotelian philosophy, he recognized that his conclusions would not, indeed could not, be understood by everyone, and that some people would see his views as dangerous, or even heresy. Therefore, in his introduction to the Guide, he wrote that there would be seeming contradictions within the text, and that it was up to the reader to resolve them on his own. Notwithstanding the fact that in some segments of the Jewish world, he was vilified, he was successful enough that ultimately, his views remained hidden enough as to make him a virtual Rorschach test for Jewish scholars. From Rav Soloveitchik to Satmar, from Strauss to Rav Schneerson, from Shapiro to Schweid, they are all certain that they know the “real” Rambam.

I do not know Zev Farber personally, so my analysis will focus on his actions and words, and not his motivation. I will refrain from analyzing him, and focus on the article that started it all, and to a lesser degree, to his followup responses.

To begin, I will state clearly that I do not blame Farber for struggling with how to create a balance between the worlds of of Torah, religion and belief on the one hand, and scholarship, intellectual honesty and autonomy on the other. The questions with which he struggled are real questions and can not simply be dismissed. I have great respect for anyone who attempts to deal with these issues in a serious and thoughtful way.

That said, I have several questions:

1. Why was there a need to publicize the conclusion that he reached? In other words, even when he concluded that the Torah does not contain any objective history, and was somehow revealed in some other way to some other prophet or leader, why share that view publicly? Surely he knew that such a departure from even the most open traditional views would ruffle feathers.
2. Even if Farber hoped that by sharing his belief, that he might help others who were struggling, why do it in such a public direct manner? There are others who have attempted to deal with the same conflicts who have come up with answers that are seen as controversial. Still, by sharing their views in more scholarly forums, they remain relatively unknown outside of those circles, and have thus, not been the subject of any articles, critiques or attacks in the non-scholarly Jewish world.
3. Finally, if Farber felt the need to share these views openly and publicly had value-perhaps with the assumption that many needed help reconciling these two worlds- why use a tone that suggests that he is among the few who are brave enough to want the real answer? Even if there was value in sharing his views in a view that it would be readable to the non-scholar, taking such a tone virtually assured that he would ruffle feathers. Even when he subsequently backtracked somewhat, there were still comments he made suggesting that his initial take reflected his real views. Calling one's philosophical opponents “dinosaurs” does nothing to lead to calm and thoughtful discussion. While I can certainly imagine how painful the attacks against him must have felt, to some degree, they were self-inflicted.

I began this post with the Rambam, as I think he suggests a better way. For anyone who attempts to reconcile somewhat conflicting worlds, much foresight is needed. The intended audience, potential reaction (to both the author and his institution), manner of speaking, and chance of being understood and accepted by the intended audience, are among the lessons that such an author would be wise to consider.

Although I strongly disagree with the conclusions that Farber reached, as well as the manner in which he shared his views, I admire his willingness to deal with questions which are troubling to many within the Jewish world. It is my hope that future attempts will learn from Farber's mistakes, as well as from the reaction to him, to emulate the Rambam in proceeding with extreme sensitivity and care.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

The Farber Affair (part 1)- When Silence is Golden

It has been almost a year since Zev Farber published his online manifesto about Torah MiSinai. The reverberations from that essay continue to be felt and show no sign of quieting down. Although Farber was not the first one to raise questions about the challenges of reconciling TMS and current biblical scholarship, nor was he the first to suggest a less than traditional solution, for various reasons that need not concern us here, his essay was widely disseminated, and thus, read, critiqued and attacked. I have been giving a lot of thought to effect that the essay had, on Farber, Orthodoxy in general, Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy specifically, as well as to the other individuals who entered the fray. It is my contention that each player made a mistake in how they dealt with the article, including Farber himself. Over a serious of essays, I will discuss the errors that were made, and make suggestions on how they might have been avoided. To be sure, I do not do so in an attempt to play Monday-morning-quarterback. I do so in the hope that in the future all involved, or those who might become involved, whether in this specific issue or other similar ones, will learn from the mistakes, and learn how to proceed in a more successful manner. 

For no particular reason, I will begin with the oddest player in the controversy that followed the publication of Farber's essay; the American Charedi-lite position (I apologize for the title, but it seems to be the most accurate descriptor). By this phrase, I refer to Avi Shafran, Yaakov Menken and others who either wrote responses or published them on their websites. I say oddest player, as there are many good reasons why those from this world might have avoided entering the fray in the first place. Additionally, in many ways, for those who care to examine this episode carefully, the Charedi-lite world had the most to gain by remaining silent, and their participation harmed their position considerably. Few of their readers were aware of the major issues in modern biblical criticism, or I suspect, biblical criticism in general. By attacking Farber's essay, they brought his questions to their audience.

This might not have been such a bad thing had they had any reasonable responses to his essay. That might have included a way of reconciling the two somewhat contradictory worlds of Torah and biblical scholarship, or even showing why the questions were wrong. Of course they did neither of the two, while leaving the impression that they did so because they were unable to do so. To make matters worse, they gave the impression that questioning and struggling are not really legitimate, and thus, gave fodder to their opponents who suggest that they do not have the intellectual tools to deal with the challenges of modernity. Even worse, those within their ranks who think deeply, were given a reminder that their questions and struggles are illegitimate, something which our great tradition would certainly reject.

On my recent trip to Israel, I had the opportunity to visit various seforim stores, libraries and batei midrash. One of the things I saw astounded me. While the world of Gush Etzion, Bar-Ilan and their ilk are writing and publishing creative works on Tanach and Jewish thought, the charedi world, for the most part remains silent. I got the distinct impression that for those in the former group chiddush and creativity are not only allowed, but even encouraged, whereas for the latter, it is forbidden to say anything that has not been said. This is unfortunate for a number of reasons.

First, and most important, such an attitude is an insult to God and his Torah. If all that can be said has already been said, what does that say to the modern Jew who is seeking to understand what his tradition has to say to him in the 21^st Century? If our Torah, is, as we believe, a Toras Chaim, it certainly should continue to speak to us today. Indeed, our chachamim have always been willing to deal creatively with new challeneges, whether from without or from within the Jewish world. Second of all, there are questions that Chazal obviously could not have dealt with, as discoveries in linguistics, archeology and other areas had not yet been discovered in their time. If we follow the charedi approach of only relying on earlier rabbis who were greater than ourselves, than are we not admitting that we have nothing to say on this and other pressing issues? I say this while recognizing the dangers and difficulties involved in plowing ahead without much assistance from those great thinkers who came before us, but in truth, what other choice do we have? Furthermore, although those like Rav Saadyah Gaon and Rambam did not, indeed could not, have answered our current questions, they did suggest the methodology which might be used. The fact that the charedi-lite world did not do so leads one to wonder whether this was due to a lack of knowledge or the fear to engage in this challenging endeavor.

All of this suggests that the best course for those from the charedi-lite world, silence would have been the preferred approach. That they did not do so, leaves me wondering what their real goal really is.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

If we must "fight', let us do so as brothers

Meanwhile, over on the Times of Israel, I discuss the current philosophical battle between the right wing Modern Orthodox world and the Open Orthodox world, followed by an invitation to Rabbis Gil Student and Ysoscher Katz to engage in a public dialogue, and a follow-up invitation.

Post by Pesach Sommer.