In addition to Cardinal Dulles, among the participants were Joseph Bottum, our esteemed Editor, James Buckley of Loyola, Baltimore, Shalom Carmy of Yeshiva University, John Erickson of St. Vladimir Seminary, Douglas Farrow of McGill, Eric Gregory of Princeton, Paul Griffiths of University of Illinois Chicago, Thomas Guarino of Seton Hall (his book, Foundations of Systematic Theology was the occasion of Reno’s essay), David Hart, who will be at Providence College this year, George Lindbeck, retired after a century or so at Yale, Bruce Marshall of Southern Methodist, Edward Oakes of Mundelein Seminary, Chicago, Michael Root of Lutheran Southern Seminary, Jerry Walls of Asbury Seminary, and Steve Webb of Wabash College. A very distinguished group, you might well say.

There is this oddity about the Dulles Colloquium. When we started it was a very ecumenical group of theologians, but we have had a hard time keeping it that way. Along the way, a number of participants have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church (Griffiths, Reno, Marshall, Farrow, and, of course, Neuhaus. Not to mention Dulles, who entered many years ago, and Robert Louis Wilken of the University of Virginia, who couldn’t make this meeting.) Hart and Erickson are both converts to Orthodoxy. The colloquium is not intended as a convert-making enterprise, and we regularly seed it with new participants to maintain its ecumenical character.

IMO, R A Weiss has once again demonstrated that his strong suit is activism, as opposed to setting forth either halachic or hashkafic analyis of an issue. We once again see a case where RA Weiss knew about RYBS’s POV ( as he himself admitted vis a vis women’s prayer groups) and went ahead against this view.

Another student-authored article asserted that women can lead Hallel on Rosh Chodesh because Hallel on that day is just a minhag. That article ignored numerous issues such as kavod hatzibbur, why a minyan is required according to some Rishonim, why we say a bracha, etc. Why a “yeshiva” allows articles on subjects of such gravity to be authored by students is a mystery. These articles are sufficient proof that YCT has left itself open to the legitimate critique that it is a Beis Charoshes LRabbanim-(to use R Chaim Ozer ZTL’s comment about a far greater predecessor-the Hildesheimer seminary)a factory for rabbis as opposed to a yeshiva. One can only wonder why the RCA would consider YCT’s “musmachim” as members.

Jordan

Probably because of give-away lines like this:

“I did not feel theologically threatened”
“Fear. People seem to be scared stiff of what will happen to Jews or Judaism if they talk to people.”

People are upset that the visit violates the spirit of the law (if not its letter) and the spirit of appropriate policy recommendations for interaction with our historic oppressers. There’s nothing in these comments that indicates that folks on the other side are afraid that Bishops of a declining church will convert Jews or that they are afraid of their theology. In Yonah’s comment, he imposed his preconceptions and didn’t relate to the actual objections raised in this thread.

While you’re both being true to your school, try (just as you ask others to try) to understand the other side of this issue and the halachic and historical reasons for it. Your openness to hearing other points of view should extend to the larger Orthodox world outside your own circle.

I think you’re safe

1) People are criticizing what has been done without:

a. Focussing on the vision behind why the Bishops (most of them were not Cardinals, for the record) were brought to the US and to see Jewish life in action, in places including both Chovevei and the YU Talmud Program for Women.

b. Focussing on the vision of Chovevei and if this visit was in line with what the institution stands for. Right on, Jordan Hirsch for pointing that out in different words.

c. Actually having been there. Those of us who were there had a range of experiences, to be sure, so I will only speak for myself. I found the encounter to be quite meaningful in terms of my own growth. Learning with people from diverse backgrounds raises questions that help me hone my own skills and understandings of the text and concepts being studied. I did not feel theologically threatened in any way, and in fact felt sharpened by the experience. I have no interest in converting to christianity, and I assure you all, that learning a piece of Gemara Brachos did not give away any of the secrets these people didn’t know already.

2) People are assuming a whole range of things about what goes on within the walls of Chovevei without having been there to see. I wonder how many have tried to visit to see for themselves what they are very quick to criticize. What I see every day is a group of guys who learn Torah very seriously, who love other Jews and who are committed to bringing Jews and Torah closer. Dangerous? Only if you’re affraid of bringing the Geulah closer by actually educating people about Judaism rather than by ignoring them (in the case of non-Jews) or trying to make them do things that they don’t want to do (in the case of Jews).

3) I return to part of the last sentence: Fear. People seem to be scared stiff of what will happen to Jews or Judaism if they talk to people. I would argue that what has kept our religion and people alive for two thousand years has not been a total fear of the other, but a willingness to hear the other out in order to allow us to hone our own understanding of ourselves and our traditions. I for one refuse to live in an intellectual ghetto surrounded by the walls of “what if?”.

In any event, Shabbat Shalom to everyone.

-Yonah

I went to a lecture by R’ Weiss at Hillel of UMCP a couple years back, and went in hoping that “here’s the man who’s going to revitalize Modern Orthodoxy!” What I got was a tremendous disappointment. I’m hardly very yeshivish (anymore?), but I felt like he was taking Orthodoxy down the wrong path. Social justice issues, interfaith dialogue - it reeked of the Conservative movement’s slow slide into the oblivion of non-Halachism. Notably, I don’t have a problem with social justice per se - but when it takes on equal importance to halacha, don’t be surprised when SJ supplant halacha in a few generations. Heck, I don’t even have a BIG issue with interfaith dialogue - but this goes way beyond the pale.

R’ Adlerstein might have a chip on his shoulder regarding YCT, but I certainly agree with him in a general sense. This isn’t going to end well for the Jewish people.

Rather, my hunch is that it’s about P-o-l-i-t-i-c-s as well as M-o-n-e-y.

Given Rav Herschel Shachter’s vocal opposition to the visit of the cardinals
last year at YU, this was an opportunity for Chovivei to show their supporters that
they don’t share Rav Shachter’s “intolerant” “machmir” “yeshivish” “non-modern”
view on this matter.

Watch for this to show up in their mailings.

Just A Guess

The link to this responsa presents a misleading excerpt. The question the Rambam is answering is omitted. The question is whether one may teach anything other than 7 mitzvot b’nei noach.

“Bear in mind also that this contradicts halakhah as brought in the Yad,”

That’s the impression left by the biased excerpt, but incorrect. The Rambam begins the teshuva by confirming the issur and stating that a nonJ=ew who learns torah is chayav mita beydei shomayim. Different authorities interpret the prohibition on teaching torah differently, e.g. some include torah she’biktav and some don’t. It is not clear in Yad if the Rambam includes torah she’biktav. The Rambam merely states in the responsa that teaching Christians the text of torah she’biktav and mitzvot is permissible.

The teshuva doesn’t contradict the Rambam in Yad and doesn’t cover what was taught at this event.

This characterization is sufficiently vague as to be misleading. Here’s a link to the teshuva (there are some some related comments in the discussion there):

http://tinyurl.com/p5qkw

I did, in another thread on another blog. Here is an excerpt: http://www.chiefrabbi.org/dd/sources/source37.html

Bear in mind also that this contradicts halakhah as brought in the Yad, which simple illustrates that Law Codes do not address every nuance of every issue, which is why you can’t just say “The Gemara says X” or “the Shulhan Arukh says X.”

I should have been a bit clearer. Obviously a Smicha student is well beyond his infancy in terms of his Torah education. But in terms of years put in with respect to a lifetime of learning Torah, a man in his twenties is hardly comparable to a man in his sixties. Getting Smicha is but the begining of an advanced learning proccess. R. Moshe though quite prolific by his twenties, was never the less in his infancy compared to what he knew in his sixties. A Smicha student in his twenties discussin Torah with a Catholic Cardinal in his sixties is rarely an even match.

As for the the theological deabting issue. In concede that there was likely none at this event. But if there are future events, (which seem likely consdering the highly positive spin by both the Cardinals and Rabbi Weiss) then such intimate one on one Chavrusa discussion can easily fall into one of debating theology.

It would be more useful if the responsible parties explained themselves before (not after) staging an act like this. Better yet, if they were humble enough to consult with Gedolim of their choosing before moving ahead.