For the record, I respect Rabbi Lamm, whether or not I agree with all of his ideas; I certainly do not see how anyone can read any disrespect at all into my previous comment.

If you compare my comment to that of your illustrious schul-mate on the recent Hirhurim thread, who also wondered about this point of Rabbi Lamm’s essay, you will see little difference between the thrust of both comments. I also doubt that Rabbi Lamm, or any one of his stature, would take offense at a mere suggestion that discussion should start from the basics, which was why I parenthetically made reference to two sources.

Whether or not Rabbi Lamm chooses to clarify his remarks in an appropriate forum is admittedly not my concern, but there are members from all segments of the community who might legitimately wonder about that aspect of his essay, as was apparent on the Hirhurim thread, despite the fact that Rabbi Lamm had the difficult task of addressing a highly-sensitive matter in a public forum.

My comments were in the spirit of the Ruach Chaim on Avos, which Rabbi Lamm has embraced in one of his public lectures, regarding the capacity to engage in vigorous question and answers on Torah matters:

“…it is forbidden for a student to accept the words of his teacher, if he has difficulties…a person must not show anyone favor, but rather love the truth”.

agree. you don’t have to come on to such an immature response to find issue with JR’s swipe.

(http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1186557463718&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Sir, - After writing an excellent critique of both The New York Times in publishing, and Noah Feldman in authoring the article “Orthodox paradox” (”Feldman’s bad faith,” August 10), Jonathan Rosenblum veers off to conclude his piece with an appreciation of Feldman’s “valuable service” in attacking modern Orthodoxy.

He first sets up a straw man by suggesting that modern Orthodoxy places “equal emphasis… on the curriculum of the dominant secular society and Torah learning,” then knocks him down by claiming that, under such circumstances, Torah will necessarily lose out - witness Noah Feldman.

Rosenblum is dead wrong! The modern Orthodox Jew is not a bifurcated human being composed of half-secular and half-holy parts. Indeed, that seems to be Feldman’s thesis, the only difference being that he wants to adjust the borders between the two parts so as to include intermarriage within the secular part, thus making it acceptable.

On the contrary, the modern Orthodox Jew is a whole, undivided, non-conflicted being. While he is prepared to integrate the best of the modern world, he does so through the prism of the Torah. He adheres to the same Shulhan Aruch as the haredi Jew; he studies the same Torah and Talmud. The same Rambam and numerous other commentaries are studied in the beit midrash of the modern Orthodox yeshiva.

In short, the cacophony of debate and discussion emblematic of a traditional yeshiva remains the same in a modern Orthodox yeshiva.

As to the alleged paucity of “distinguished Torah scholars” in the modern Orthodox world, I invite Rosenblum to visit Yeshiva University in New York and Israel and audit the Torah lessons given by the Torah scholars who are the yeshiva heads. Each of them is a college graduate, many with advanced academic degrees, including PhDs.

JULIUS BERMAN, Chairman
Rabbi Isaac Elchanan
Theological Seminary of
Yeshiva University
New York and Jerusalem

“Feldman doesn’t subscribe to MO philosophy, either, of course, but what should ring alarm bells is that he was able to convince himself that he does.”

Really? We have to worry about every lone yahoo who falsely claims the mantle of this or that “ism”? I think not. But if you think so, then you and Rosenblum have your work cut out for you in your own glass house.

j

Dr. Gewirtz, thank you for clarifying your intent. I see now that I misunderstood you; the dangers in MO hashkafa you refer to have nothing to do with the issue under discussion. But my obtuseness should not cloud Jonathan’s point. The question remains: The theory may be ideal and even pragmatic, as you say, but is the message getting accros to everyone the way it should? [I apologize for the quotation marks. I'm still new at this, and I am frequently guilty of not following proper literary standards. I did include a qualifier in parentheses. BTW, I share your belief that Torah can deal quite well with science, contemporary philosophy, etc. But my take on how that translates into the educational sphere differs from yours. I would love to exchange views with you on this issue, but I guess this is not the proper forum.]

Mr. Kaplan, let me ask you a rhetorical question. Are the numerous MO blogs that discuss issue similar to the one raised by Jonathan being judgmental of MO, or are they pointing out a problem? So why accuse Jonathan of judging MO as a whole rather than pointing out its weak links? The only difference is that in this case it’s an “outsider” pointing them out. [And even if Jonathan did define MO by its weak links, there still would be no need for him to judge the Chareidi community the same way, because many of the commenters on this blog do an admirable job fulfilling that function.]

Steve, I and no one else who frequents this blog would ever accuse you of advocating R’ Aharon’s position on college, or of calling MO a failure. If you read Jonathan’s article carefully, he doesn’t imply that either. And he doesn’t call for throwing out the baby either. Frankly, I’m surprised that someone as introspective as you did not make the distinction between a criticism of MO practice (with which you agree, at least to a certain extent) and an “attack” on MO theory as a whole.

Boruch, you can debate the merits of a Chareidi writer discussing this topic in the Yated, but not the merits of posting his article on this blog. This is, after all, a discussion forum that boasts contributors from across the hashkafic spectrum, including many to whom these issues matter. Where better to discuss these issues than here?

Nachum, “mea culpa”. Indeed I never read “Torah u’Madda”, and I got the quote from Artscroll’s biography of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch. It is true that secondhand quotes lack the context of the original, and can be (and often are) made to say whatever the one citing them wants them to say (ellipses, especially, should raise a red flag). But my understanding of that quote was reinforced by R’ Lamm’s comments in the Forward article; I could find no other way to explain them. But rather than relying on secondhand sources, I will take your advice and get the book. In the meantime, though, I echo Mr. Reisman’s request to post the entire quote.

Menachem, your analogy holds true only if you can demonstrate that the members of Neturei Karta were raised in “regular Chareidi” homes and attended “regular Chareidi” yeshivos and turned out the way they did. Is that the case? I don’t think so. In any case, Neturei Karta are their own people; they don’t subscribe to any philosophy but their own. Feldman doesn’t subscribe to MO philosophy, either, of course, but what should ring alarm bells is that he was able to convince himself that he does. And Jonathon’s post obviously doesn’t constitute “self-criticism”, but as I pointed out, many of the comments regarding Chareidim on this blog are hardly intended to be constructive either, if you know what (and who) I mean.

Moshe, your comment that a Chareidi who fails to become a Talmid Chacham will simply become a drain on society is exactly the type of generalization that many commenters here accused Jonathan of making. I don’t live in Israel so I can’t comment on the situation there, but here in America that statement is patently false. Maybe I misunderstood you. If so, please clarify.

“Whereas, to my sorrow, if a Charedi fails to become a talmid chacham, he will simply become a drain on society, and contibute nothing whatsoever.”

I’ve read lots of outlandish claims in this site but this has got to be the winner by a long shot. Many of my fellow students and yeshivah mates didn’t develop into great talmidei chachamim and are extremely high functioning members of society contributing as much as anyone else I know. Among them are doctors, lawyers, accountants, small business owners of every kind etc…The point is so obvious it hardly needs to be said.

I do not know of a solution to promoting unity on blogs, other than learning from experience, and seeing what works and what does not; at least for me, that’s an ongoing process.

As far as JR’s article, perhaps it could have been improved by candidly discussing Charedi ideology’s strengths and weaknesses in the very same article, especially since the critique was coming from an outsider to Modern Orthodoxy. That way, it would have not been perceived as solely focusing on Modern Orthodox ideology’s weak points, and might not have prompted defensive reactions.

Now the real 54: First, you might be asking R. Lamm to violate an important edict of chazal: the modern day equivalent of “discuss maaseh berashit in pubic and, to boot, with those not properly prepared.” You are tossing around ideas and words in an area where angels fear to tread/blog. Second, when you ask someone of R. Lamm’s stature to discuss a topic, you do not give him even a partial, paltry list of your suggested Mareh Mekomot, he gives them to you.

I would add that if somone goes to a modern orthodx school and fails to be a talmid chacahm, he will still generally contribute to society generally and frum society specifically. Whereas, to my sorrow, if a Charedi fails to become a talmid chacham, he will simply become a drain on society, and contibute nothing whatsoever. If we stipulate that each system produces the same average of failures and successes - for stipulate we must, in the absence of proof - how can any one deny the modern system is better?

See PDF linked below.

On page 66, R. Schiller concedes that R. Lamm “could have found a clearer phrase to express his point” regarding ” different perspectives” and the primacy of Torah, but on page 67, points to an omitted sentence, which he says give a different understanding of R. Lamm, and explains why R. Lamm chose his wording.

On Page 77, there was a subsequent defense written regarding R. Lamm’s intentions about the primacy of Torah, and a rejoinder, as mentioned by Dr. Kaplan. I guess one should read the original Torah Umaddah to draw one’s own conclusion if one is interested in this issue(I would link the Jewish Observer’s review, as well, if it was available online).

http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU6_Schiller.pdf

“…so he is entirely justified in holding up Feldman as an example, an extreme one to be sure, of the inherent dangers of misinterpretation.”

Then one would be equally justified in holding up Neturei Karta as an example of the inherent dangers of extremism in RW philosophy. Of course that’s not true. NK is a lunatic fringe and it would be unfair, at best, to use them to critique Chareidi ideology.

“Was I not assured in this very forum (see Toby Katz’s “Nothing nice to say about Chareidim”) that Modern Orthodoxy engages in constant self-criticism and “cheshbon hanefesh” on its blogs?”

Ill placed pot shots by a Chareidi PR man on a blog of mainly Chareidi authors hardly qualify as either “self-criticism” or “cheshbon hanefesh”.

I agree to that difference, but my point was that the Haredi-Centrist debate should be an open, and a very rational one. To that end, one can not solely use an aberration in action to criticize elements of Modern Orthodox philosophy, but when it comes to Charedi issues and problems, only criticize a few individuals, but not to critically(but respectfully), analyze the philosophy, policies, and decisions of Haredi communal structure and leadership(see next paragraph), even as one defers as a matter of practice to the leadership of one’s community.

The best model for a Charedi-Modern Orthodox discussion, would be Rav Shimon Schwab’s “These and Those”, which allows a respectful, but vigorous back and forth regarding the actual philosophies(”Torah Only vs. TIDE”); this same approach should be used for other matters of practical policy. I have also in the past quoted Jonathan Rosenblum’s Summer 2004 Jewish Action article, as a very rational and fair presentation, even as it made the case for the Israeli Charedi Kollel system(eg, “no one educational model can possibly satisfy the needs of all the children in a large community, and the attempt to force one model upon all can only result in many being lost altogether to the religious world”).

One possible roadblock in having rational Centrist-Haredi discussions, is the asymmetry because of kavod haTorah issues. It is acceptable in the Haredi media to have a rational critique of Rabbi Lamm’s philosophy, but not a “These and Those” type discussion regarding a critical analysis of whether the Israeli banning process, and/or lack of vocational choices turns Haredim off, the same way elements of Centrist philosophy, theoretically, can lead to intermarriage or to other negative results. Apparently, some equate a critical discussion of a policy, with disrespect and undermining Gedolim’s authority, and that concern prevents the Haredi media from engaging in an even-handed Centrist-Haredi discussion which dispassionately analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of both sides for the purpose of learning from each other.

I am glad you mentioned the bowdlerization, however. People on this blog should know that as much as they may be angry with this post, the original was much worse due to the addition of only a few extra words.

Then again, with moderation policies here, they may never know.

I was troubled by this point in Rabbi Lamm’s otherwise excellent article, and believe that he should clarify the issue. The starting point for discussion, which is an entirely different subject than this post, should be the fundamentals of Mesorah and Halachic development(eg, the Rambam’s preface to Perush Hamishnayos, Doros Harishonim, and/or other authoritative sources), and then an application of the general principles to this specific, sensitive, halacha.