Presence

I believe that our lack of response stems more from indifference than solemn submission. The fact that RA opened his remarks with the assumption that everyone gathered was in absolute agreement with Slifkin (against "The Gedolim") speaks volumes about the attitude of American (even quasi-Yeshivish) orthodoxy.

As to your criticisms of his attitude - what was he supposed to say? Dissent is not controversial - it's redundant.

I had a similar reaction to the pre-mincha lecture.
1) He asserted that Judaism is immune to an individual decisor's or court's unhalachic rulings (l'chumra or l'kula), but contrasted that with the Islamic system as it exists today, where the Saudi/Wahabi branch packs courts around the world with its type of judges. If there were an ultraconservative faction of Orthodox Judaism with petrodollar-level resources, things would be no different. And, it doesn't even take petrodollars, as you, and R'Adlerstein pointed out: R'Adlerstein's caveat about Orthodoxy having veered to the right since he started giving this talk undermines his argument.
2) With the case of driving to the hospital, R'Adlerstein tried to make the point that while Islam did not have the capacity to weigh competing forces in its legal system, but that this was the essence of halachic jurisprudence. He implied that in a halachic setting, we would weigh pikuach nefesh against tznius, and that pikuach nefesh would win. But how does he know that there is no such weighing going on in Islam? Perhaps they consider tznius/fitna issues to be "yehareg v'al yaavor" and they thus override pikuach nefesh? How would he categorize the stream within Judaism that would call women's military service (arguably a gezeirah on top of a gezeirah) "yehareg v'al yaavor"? If in fact the Islam court in question did weigh the factors, what is left here but an appeal to the audience's sense of moral outrage?
3) To take up that thread, the entire lecture was based on the premise that one can objectively compare the two religions, and decide from a neutral starting point which one is "better", "more civilized" and "more enlightened". Whether it is wise or appropriate to proceed with that premise has been the subject of much debate throughout Jewish history. Some authorities would argue that the correctness of halacha should be apparent to the careful observer, but others would argue that one cannot and should not try to provide an outside justification for Jewish law.

I only attended the pre-mincha talk, but his justification for respecting the banning faction (in the interests of Orthodox unity) stands in direct contrast to his view of halacha as self-correcting.

The comparisons between Islam and Judaism were also unhelpful. Other than simply identifying it as such, there's no valid way of testing whether halacha actually reflects "the perfect balance" between juridical inflexibility and chaos.

So yes, a disappointing visit. Alas.

Bologna indeed!

The point on R. Adlerstein's sympathies for the Haredi position are not som clear in my mind. I believe that it is part of a mechanism to both be correct, while being magnanimus. He so much as said that was his stratagy when he gave the example of the Rav going against the opinion of the Pnai Yehoshua (without the details, even if you are correct, if you are "calling out" somebody bigger than you, do it nicely....). My sense is that he was seething over what happened, and was trying in some way to see a "silver lining" in the situation. Whether I agree with being so "nice" about it in the face of what see as the facts (as below), it is a tough call and I'm not in his shoes.

As a "pro-Slifkin" guy myself, I was puzzled as to why some would have us feel that we need to make an apology (including perhaps R. Adlerstein as some have said) for not only simply being "pro-Slifkin", but for any ideal, as right as it may be, that does not get pre-approval from people that others would call gedolim.

It seems pretty clear to me that any potential gadol that would try to ruin a guy's life (that being ruin Slifkin's life), stifle a totally normative hashkafa that has been around for centuries if not millenia (that being the theoretic possibility of a world here being over ~6K years old) is simply NOT a gadol. By definition.

I guess this issue, as was explained in the name of R. Weinreb, seems fairly straightforward and almost not even worthy of comment. And then to have some rabble flex their muscles over this issue, it is simply C-R-A-Z-Y.

Something needs to be done. There is a not-insignificant minority that is trying to redefine that Judiasm "really" is. They cannot be allowed to carry on like they are currently doing with impunity.

Thanks for a very thoughtful thread.

While R. Adlerstein was adamant that his feeling was that the ban was unfounded on rational, logical and historical levels, he felt that falling into line with the approach outlined by the rabbis in Israel that issued the ban was a more important value than speaking out against the ban.

This is a very serious issue and probably the most worthy of discussion... where does this line get drawn?

I am honored that you devoted so much time and space to my presentations on Shabbos. You did a good job capturing much unaided by anything but memory. With so much said, you can’t be faulted for not having done it perfectly. Alas, some of the errors might spell the difference as to whether you should walk away with a bleak feeling about the future of Orthodoxy or not. I will try to set the record straight – at least about some of the points that I intended to be heard differently

1) I did not say that the third group included anyone who had an education. I said it included those whose education or professional interest caused them to value certain assumptions of the mainstream of the intellectual communities in which they operate.
2) My reason for almost dropping out of kiruv and teaching was not a conflict between rational thought and a system of authority. My reason is that the Yiddishkeit I have always represented did assume the importance of Torah leaderhip, and if that leadership would turn its back on rational thought, than I had no business describing it in my terms. I don’t believe for a second that there is any conflict between rational thought and Torah authority per se.
3) I did not ask people to understand the ban from the perspective of Charedim. I asked people to understand that even those who could not accept the ban must remember that those who signed it are significant in their Torah accomplishment and not fools. Therefore, even if we must disagree (and it certainly sounded like everyone in that large gathering, including the large percentage of the group who had spent time in or still identified with the Charedi world, did disagree with the ban), we would be wise to see what we can learn from it. We may think , based on what our own rabbeim have taught us, that the solutions are unacceptable, but that does not mean that they have not pointed out serious problems.
4) I did not say that the values represented by the banners are more important than speaking out against the ban. I was quite explicit that many, many were and continue to be against the ban, but that the nature of kanaim is such that they can completely destroy one’s credibility in the community. Lots of people whose sympathies were with Natan had to consider whether they should speak the truth at the risk of them ceasing to be effective with large parts of their own communities. They decided that they would share their views with people who pushed them for explanations, but they did not have to become martyrs. I made my public statement because a) it was unfair to Natan for him to be able to point at no one who would come to his side b) I live in California which has been, till recently, relatively free of kanaim c) my sole daughter is already married, so I am less vulnerable.
5) The folks who first started the ruckus (and I will admit to getting this information second and third hand) did gain traction in Monsey and Lakewood. They did not go straight to Israel.
6) I have no idea what R Yaakov Kamenetsky held about conflicts between Chazal and science, but I did not impute any position to him at all.
7) I made no appeal for unity. I appealed that people not in their frustration dismiss the notion of Emunas Chachomim c’v, but to recognize gadlus even when one is entitled to follow different voices. I appealed that they understand the reasons behind the ban, and ask themselves whether they are fully measuring up to the challenges.
8) I myself raised the issue of the apparent similarity between some disturbing developments in parts of the Charedi world (though by no means all of it) and the extremist views of the Saudi high religious court. I did not assert that it could not happen anywhere in Judaism. It is happening. What I asserted – and completely believe – is that it cannot and will not happen all over, and even where it does happen it is a matter of time before things return to normal. I have faith on the ability of a text- and protocol- based legal system to eventually self-correct. I see no such restraints built in to the Islamic world today. The moderate Muslims I know do not optimistically expect sizeable numbers of people to rise up and take their religion back, or even to moderate the march of the fanatics by their counterexample.
9) Most importantly, I cannot fathom why anyone should think that the picture of contemporary Orthodoxy is bleak. If you are happy being Charedi, you have no problem. If you self-define as centrist, the issues in this matter should put you to sleep. They are just not controversial in the Centrist orbit. No one worries about them because the mekoros for Centrist attitudes towards science and reason are well known and established. The fact that some gedolim have taken different positions, doesn’t disturb people, because Centrists follow the lead of different leaders. It seems more likely that you must regard yourself as one of those in the Third Way – those caught in between the older two groups. People in that group did take the hardest hit. But my presentation should have been comforting, not disconcerting, because it pointed (as did the large group of people who came Friday night) to how the rolls of this group are swelling with adherents.
10) I made no promise to be controversial, and don’t regret it. I said in advance that I would try to explain both sides, and I believe I did. I have no regrets for trying to help people retain a sense of huge respect for those who are far more accomplished in learning than they.

Here are some things that I took away from his talks and some of my own related thoughts:

I found it fascinating to learn that much of the Slifkin, Making of a Gadol and associated contemporary issues boil down to an old vendetta against the Kamenetzky family. It just goes to show how harmful machlokes can be and have ripple effects so many years later. We have people today who are passionately taking stands on these issues, which are being spun with fundamental Hashkafic overtones. Add this to the fact that some people never even read the book?! And this is all a smokescreen for “broigess” (petty argument)? I find that utterly tragic. [This obviously puts the Agudah and the Moetzes in a real ideologic pickle, given their historical reverence to Rav Yaakov zt”l and Rav Shmuel’s presence in the group today. That’s why they pay Rabbi Avi Shafran the big bucks :-)]

We live in a talk-radio generation which has more recently manifested itself on the blogosphere and in Chareidi circles in Kol Korehs. In this realm, everyone feels compelled to have an opinion about everything and moreso a moral imperative to share it with others. And once someone slaps “Daas Torah” on it, all rational discussion must come to a halt. The talk radio generation has spurned a generation of ditto-heads, where everything must be black and white and no room for shades of gray and nuance. One must buy the entire package and cannot be selective in his/her opinions. This phenomenon has unfortunately become mainstream in the religious world and it’s either “my way of the highway”. There is pressure for people to align with one or the other camp in order to protect their social, financial, ideological, shidduch, and physical welfare. Implicit or explicit threats against people in the form of “we will make things miserable for you…” is of course coercive. One wonders whether this middah of Kanaus has not been influenced by mobster movies and other recent fundamentalist faiths. I want to just sometimes scream to these people “it’s OK if you ‘pass’ and not take a stand on this! We’ll still respect and listen to you”.

Now for Slifkin. I have always contended that it really doesn’t bother me or have an effect on me or my daily life, one way or another. So what if the world could be over 5768 calendar years! I highly doubt that any of the teens at risk or those who have gone off of the derech of observance because of possibilities like this. (What may have contributed to this phenomenon is when Rabbeim who themselves have never seriously studied Chumash and Chazal squelch intellectual inquiry and fall back on their own understanding of Maaseh Bereishis, which is framed by the way that the Rabbeim themselves learned it in 3rd Grade .) What has affected me has been the way that this and other things has been handled (notwithstanding the above theory with the Kaminetzkys) by the Chareidi leadership—as manipulated by the handlers. If this has facilitated any cynicism in Emunas Chachamim, what else could be expected?

Secondly, no one in Lakewood, Mir, Ponovezh, Brisk, majors in Maaseh Bereishis or the interface between Chazal and scientific discovery. That will certainly not raise your standing to the “best guy” in those respective yeshivos. Last time I checked their catalogs, I did not see any courses offered. These guys learn Kodshim, Nezikin, Rambam and Reb Chaims. And that’s great! I venture to say that the same may have been the case in European yeshivos. But, there have been Rishonim and Acharonim who did study and write on these areas. It strikes me as strange that now all of a sudden everyone is an expert on Rav Hirsh, what he meant and what he didn’t mean/write.

It is my hope that there is some intellectually honest, civil discourse somewhere in our future. Somewhere there should be a paradigm shift from "kanaim pogim bo" to "eilu v'eilu". But, I suspect that many will say "yeh, right".

A few points:

1) The banners did not point out serious problems - they first called for a ban, and then retroactively created brand-new standards contravened by the books.

2) "Lots of people whose sympathies were with Natan had to consider whether they should speak the truth at the risk of them ceasing to be effective with large parts of their own communities.". There is no way of reading this analysis without becoming depressed. Essentially Rabbi Adlerstein is proposing that our ostensible leaders lead by following. That is unacceptable, and that should be obvious, not subtle.

3) I envy Rabbi Adlerstein's faith in a self-correcting halachic system. Of course, his assertion does not make it so, and more significantly, he ignores the fact that the absence of any centralized halachic authority exactly mirrors the situation in Islam, making it quite likely that we will follow their lead.

4) The continued cheerfulness on the part of chareidim does not disprove the contention that the outlook for Orthodoxy is bleak - it reinforces it. All of the much-exaggerated concerns over the slippery slope of allegorization pale in comparison to the concerns over the slippery slope presented by an ideology gleefully jettisoning its commitment to truth. And if the most vibrant demography in Orthodoxy eschews its commitment to truth in favour of following the beaters, then Torah life is in significant peril.

R. Adlerstein: thanks for commenting; I apologize for misquoting you, and for causing you to have to correct me. I also apologizing for attributing to you statements about what R. Yaakov Kaminetsky taught; I heard that from another rabbi present at the oneg. The promise of "controvesry" as well did not come from you, I apologize for implying that it did.

Even after your clarifications, I am still left disconcerted. Despite the growing ranks of the third column that you mention, what kind of hope is there for a future for this group, if there are no leaders willing to stand up and defend its positions? I don't want to send my children to school and have to deprogram them nights and weekends just because of what a few rabbis in Israel feel is correct.

I think we are at a unique position in history; thanks to science, we have a better understanding of the origins of the universe, and can better appreciate the true purpose and focus of the Torah, without getting bogged down in tedious reconciliation.

Dr. E: "I have always contended that it really doesn’t bother me or have an effect on me or my daily life, one way or another. So what if the world could be over 5768 calendar years!"

I agree; it doesn't really bother me what other people believe so long as it doesn't hurt other people. I also believe the Charedi leadership has a right to self-determination. I would like to see more of a response from those that feel otherwise.

"I made my public statement because a) it was unfair to Natan for him to be able to point at no one who would come to his side b) I live in California which has been, till recently, relatively free of kanaim c) my sole daughter is already married, so I am less vulnerable."

This paragraph, particularly the last line saddened me. While not to be critical of R' Adlerstein, it is sad that in our Orthodox society we have to worry that expressing our opinions on important issues will cause our children to have a hard time getting married. The suppression of the exchange of ideas is a disturbing feature of contemporary Orthodoxy.

"I would like to see more of a response from those that feel otherwise."

How could one possibly resist such an invitation? Of course Chareidi leadership have a right to self-determination. However, as we have recently been informed, with great power comes great responsibility, and Chareidi rabbanim have a responsibility to ensure that their power is not hijacked by kannoim.

Greg –

Thanks for the corrections. I do think that you (and some others) are so crushed by this affair that you may be forgetting a most important piece of the puzzle. It is a factor that could blunt your pessimism about the Jewish future. Simply put, it is the stake HKB”H Himself has in the continuity of the Torah. Part of our covenant is that , kevayachol, He wants Torah to succeed at least as much as we do. He will therefore insure that Torah does not become hopelessly compromised, neither by our misuse of it, not through any external factor.

For those who have had to wrestle with a variety of challenges to our emunah, the ever-present interest of HKBH in keeping Torah afloat is a constant refrain in what we tell ourselves when attacked. Hashem’s role in controlling history from behind the scenes plays a role in dealing with a host of issues, ranging from the integrity of the texts we base halacha on (hamayvin, yavin) to the quality of guidance we get from our teachers. One way of looking at it might be to say that the famous explanation of the Ramban about eidim zomemim, while addressed only to dayanim on a court, may very well a fortiori apply to those who direct the course of the ship of Torah state.

Truth be told, this ethic was behind my Shabbos afternoon address as well. I would never have tried those arguments at the Oxford Debating Society. All of them could be challenged. I figured, however, that I was speaking to maaminim bnei maaminim – people who intuited that there has to be a difference between Islamists and frum yidden, even in the most extreme form. Of course I can’t prove that they are different. For those who know in their bones that they have to be different, I hope that the arguments I presented may provide a way for reason to back up the a priori assumption.

Is there room for optimism? Of course there is. HKBH will not abandon His Torah. If we are correct about the message we see in many centuries of Torah literature, we can be sure that it is not a message that will be lost to the future.

"He wants Torah to succeed at least as much as we do. He will therefore insure that Torah does not become hopelessly compromised, neither by our misuse of it, not through any external factor... HKBH will not abandon His Torah."

R' Alderstein, while I thank you for posting here and don't mean to be overly cynical, I think there need to be more proactive solutions to these problems. I can't help but think of the old joke of the Jew in the flood who keeps turning away rescue attempts because he is insistent that God will save him. Only in this case, Slifkin (and Science in general perhaps) may very well have been that rescue attempt that some have sadly pushed away.

What happened was that two overzealous YU guys read Slifkin's work and started shopping it around in an effort to get it banned.

TWO OVERZEALOUS ***Y.U.*** GUYS?!

rahhmana litzlan. H' yerahheim.

If that's what's going on at the supposed center of Modern Orthodoxy, it looks like we're all doomed.