By Rabbi Francis Nataf
 |
| Rabbis Eichenstein and Lopatin what once was - could once again be |
The following article by Rabbi Francis Nataf appeared in the
Times of Israel. It makes eminent sense to me. Despite my strong criticism of
the movement, I never wanted them to be ousted from Orthodoxy. To the contrary, I
practically begged them to stay. Unfortunately they have done nothing to allay
my concerns – concerns which many of us in the ‘center’ have expressed many
times. If they make these corrections they will be welcomed back with very open
arms. At least as far as I am concerned.
And I think many others who share my concerns. His words follow.
While I have decided
to maintain the public nature of this letter, I am pleased to report that it
has already elicited a positive response by at least one of the main leaders to
whom it is addressed. My hope is that its publication will help and not hurt
the maintenance of unity in the Orthodox camp.
While I have decided to maintain the public nature of this
letter, I am pleased to report that it has already elicited a positive response
by at least one of the main leaders to whom it is addressed. My hope is that
its publication will help and not hurt the maintenance of unity in the Orthodox
camp.
In a recent essay, I wrote about what I admire in Open
Orthodoxy (I have since learned that is a label that some of its leaders would
prefer to no longer use). No matter what happens in the future, I will continue
to admire these points and many others.
It is precisely because of my admiration for — and
sometimes even identification with — Open Orthodoxy that I write this
letter. I think you should already know that when the critique is coming from
people like Rabbi Shmuel Goldin and Prof. David Berger, it may be time to
listen. Besides long being identified with the liberal wing of Modern
Orthodoxy, both men have been known for their thoughtfulness, intellect and
sensitivity. At the risk of redundancy, I will add my name to those who feel it
is time for Open Orthodoxy to take stock of where it is, not just as a favor to
us, but — more importantly — as a favor to itself.
Much of what passes for critique these days is just
self-serving harangue and rabble-rousing. No doubt, Open Orthodoxy is tired of
having to deal with so much of that since its inception. And it could be that
after getting so much unfair criticism, it has become immune to all
criticism, even when it is in place. Yet our tradition tells us quite clearly
that the wise man loves critique. Difficult though it may be, I call upon you
to realize that there are some very important questions now being raised by
those who think of themselves as your friends.
Indeed, accepting the critique of others is what kept many
of Judaism’s most important movements within the pale, to the benefit of those
offering the critique, as well as those accepting it. It is what kept the
followers of Rambam from reducing all of Judaism to a metaphor for Greek
philosophy. It is also what kept the early Kabbalists from turning into
polytheists, substituting the sefirot for God Himself. More recently,
it is what kept Hassidut from antinomianism and its turning away from the
centrality of Torah study and observance. I need not point out that movements
that rebuffed legitimate critique fared less well.
Rabbi Goldin raised the issue of method, Prof Berger of
substance. To address the first, there are many — even within Open
Orthodoxy — who have misgivings about the confrontational style adopted by
several of its most prominent exponents. Personally speaking, I believe that
much more is accomplished by those that seek a broader consensus for moderate
change than those working for radical change within more narrow confines.
But
more immediately relevant is that if Open Orthodoxy cannot control its
firebrands from burning bridges to the mainstream, it should not be surprised
to wake up to a situation where these bridges no longer exist. In such a
situation, it will have defined itself out of Orthodoxy on sociological
grounds, if not necessarily on substantive ones.
Unfortunately, however, there are true substantive issues
that threaten to pull us apart as well. Prof. Berger focuses on the authorship
of the Torah and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah’s inability — or lack of desire
— to provide clear red lines on what is probably (along with the nature of
Halacha) Orthodox Judaism’s most important issue.
To be fair, YCT President
Rabbi Asher Lopatin endorsed the traditional understanding of revelation at
Sinai. But, by the same token, he has — so far — refrained from
placing any alternative as outside of Orthodoxy’s boundaries. This is not the
place to go into the intricacies of this issue, which I and others have
discussed in other forums. Suffice it to say that while Judaism’s red lines are
intentionally fuzzy, there is no question that they exist. And one of the major
items defining Orthodoxy as a movement has been its willingness to
unapologetically proclaim and defend those boundaries.
There are other issues, but my point is not to create a laundry list of complaints. It is to simply say that it is time to listen.
I appreciate the desire to hold on to people on the
religious and intellectual left. There has always been a tacit understanding
that an individual need not follow every belief or law to have a place within
the Orthodox community. Hence, all sectors of Orthodoxy would do well to continue
to make room for those Jews who disagree with us and to do everything we can to
make them feel welcome.
But there are limits. One of them is that the leadership, both in the yeshivot and in the synagogues, has always supported a series of public red lines that define the community’s contours. It is really not about defining others, it is about defining ourselves.
But there are limits. One of them is that the leadership, both in the yeshivot and in the synagogues, has always supported a series of public red lines that define the community’s contours. It is really not about defining others, it is about defining ourselves.
The point is that for Open Orthodoxy to be Orthodox, it
cannot be open to everything. And though it may hurt some people by saying so,
it will ultimately hurt many more if it does not.
