Open Orthodoxy: An Amicable Divorce?
Are the “Open Orthodox” finally going to leave Orthodoxy behind? Several months ago, Rabbi Avi Weiss and a few of his students publicly announced their departure from the RCA, given that organization’s refusal to certify Chovevei Torah alumni as rabbis. Recent articles and statements, though, suggest that Open Orthodoxy might explicitly leave Orthodoxy itself — to the great benefit of truth and transparency.
It is worth analyzing the article of Rabbi Chaim Landau in the Baltimore Jewish Times, both in order to correct multiple false premises and endorse his conclusion.
He describes Agudath Israel as having “combined forces” with the RCA in order to “denounce, reject, and neutralize the existence of a growing Modern Orthodox trend that accepts women clergy in synagogue leadership roles.” The problem, of course, is that the Moetzes failed to so much as mention the issue of women in its declaration about Open Orthodoxy. On the contrary, as Rav Aharon Feldman put it so eloquently, “If someone is walking down the street without clothing, you don’t ask him, ‘Why aren’t you wearing tzitzis?'” The Agudah spoke of Open Orthodoxy’s departures from basic Jewish tenets, while Rabbi Landau is confusing symptoms with the underlying illness.
He similarly asserts that “the attack is aimed primarily at Rabbi Avi Weiss,” yet this, too, misses the point entirely. It seems to be a common tendency among advocates of Open Orthodoxy to claim that criticisms of their ideology are nothing more than scurrilous personal attacks. This canard does not grow fresher with age. The fact that one individual founded all of its institutions does not mean that Open Orthodoxy simply refers, as Rabbi Landau claims, “to Rabbi Weiss’ philosophy of inclusivity.” It is a movement, and its ideology — far more varied and complex than simply “inclusivity” — is shared by many other individuals.
Yet, as I said, after these multiple faulty assumptions Rabbi Landau arrives at precisely the correct conclusion: that the Open Orthodox should “completely dissociate with the right-wing Agudath Yisrael and Yeshiva University groups whose philosophy… is out of sync with the Modern Orthodoxy of Rabbis Weiss, Riskin and others… Allow a clear line to exist between themselves and the more right-wing, red-lines-in-the-ground Orthodox groups.”
Yes, yes, and yes again. Open Orthodoxy should indeed completely dissociate with the Agudah, the RCA, the Roshei Yeshiva of Yeshiva University, the Conference of European Rabbis, the Chief Rabbis of the UK and Israel, and all the other institutions and organs representing the values of Torah observance. Let it state for the record that like the Union for Traditional Judaism (formerly the Union for Traditional Conservative Judaism), “Open Orthodoxy” represents the traditional wing of liberal Judaism, rather than the liberal wing of traditional Torah Judaism.
This is not just a political dispute, something with (at best) transient significance. To the contrary, this is about the nature of Judaism itself, and the Jewish identity of future generations.
Less than 200 years ago, the Torah-observant community was labeled “Orthodox” for failing to endorse the vision of the then-new Reform movement. Reform leaders both derided Orthodoxy as rejectionist and predicted its quick demise.
Orthodoxy is flourishing today, not despite its rejection of those “modern innovations,” but because of it. Orthodoxy is indeed, as Rabbi Landau so accurately said, about “red-lines-in-the-ground.” It is the Reform movement, divorced from Torah and unable to clearly articulate what beliefs and practices it mandates, that is collapsing. One who does not take a position stands for nothing at all.
In truth, the Torah-observant community never “rejected” Reform; the opposite is true. The Written and Oral Torah make affirmative statements of Jewish belief and prescribe a code of Jewish conduct; Reform rejected all of these.
The same is true today. The RCA “rejects” the desire of some to change the rules of Orthodoxy. The Agudah “rejects” a new movement that calls itself a type of Orthodoxy, yet rejects basic tenets of Judaism.
One of the leading lights of Open Orthodoxy, Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, has effectively announced his departure, responding to the Agudah statement on Facebook by saying that “they put Open Orthodox rabbis together with other Jewish movements. It is an honor to be united with the full Jewish people. Some of my best friends & colleagues are Reform, Conservative, Renewal, Reconstructionist etc.” Yes — for Yanklowitz and his YCT chevrah, their colleagues are those on the non-Torah side of the bright red line.
Those who would call the Agudah or RCA divisive have it backwards for two reasons: this is not at all about Jewish unity, and it is “Open Orthodoxy” that has divided itself from Torah. Every Jew is a Jew, but it hardly follows that every philosophy espoused by Jews qualifies as Judaism. This is about the red lines Rabbi Landau mentioned — and about how Jewish survival depends upon staying within them. If the adherents of “Open Orthodoxy” have charted their course away from the moorings of Torah, that is both tragic and entirely within their rights. But integrity demands they cast off the “Orthodox” moniker as they sail to oblivion.
Thank you for an enjoyable, persuasive article. It is interesting to see what part of the Jewish world is reading this, reflected by your commenters. Stay strong.
Very well written article! It reminds me of the mistake that people sometimes make of saying that religious family members who refuse to attend an intermarriage cause a split in the family when really it’s the person who chooses to intermarry who is turning his back on his family (the family of Jewish people).
i don’t see anywhere in the sources you have brought , that the OO movement or its leadership is dropping the mantle of MO. [this is anyways not a haredi or aguda fight—they only stick up for something MO community is doing when it allies with its own opinions–ie the RCA or YU is kosher insofar that its opinions align with the machshava of their own leadership, as is occuring here]. OO sees themselves as the only valid heir to the title of MO ; they would call current YU/RCA as the step-sibling of aguda.
it would be ironic if the haredi community /leadership gets to decide the true meaning, and heir apparent, of a branch of judaism that they don’t hold from in the first place…
but i think in the end the RCA will clean up this mess, and the OU will have to decide whether to go along, or to split asunder…
Ok, but we get the kids, the money, and the house.
As stated “It is the Reform movement, divorced from Torah and unable to clearly articulate what beliefs and practices it mandates, that is collapsing. ” If so, seems like it was a big mistake to compare OO to reformed. Compared to reform, OO seems to articulate a jewish belief to the modern world. Which then brings the next thought, is Agudah against articulating a jewish belief to the modern world? It comes out that Agudah’s belief is “just say no to modern”?
Take bible criticism as an example, in 2 seconds from now a search on google provides everyone reading this blog with access to a plethora of information from the top bible critics and archeological anti jewish proofs like has never been available in any time before us. And this topic is one of the examples Agudah uses to condemn OO, for actually attempting to provide jews with reasons to stay religious who are exposed to this readily available bible critic stuff.
So who exactly is clearly articulating our beliefs when such information is being provided? Is Agudah’s answer “no”, “no to modern” going to continue to work? The “no internet” approach obviously didn’t work for anyone reading this blog. So who is really losing their ability to articulate?
I’m not sure I get your point. The Agudah has pointed out that it is not their job to bend and “articulate” to capture the hearts and minds of the masses, it’s their job to keep authentic Judaism, authentic. Other articles have pointed out that the demise of orthodox has been predicted before, because of their lack of ability to adapt to modern times and “inability to articulate”. And yet that never happens, rather it’s always the offshoots that continue to digress and after several generations they are no longer recognizable.
I do not understand how anyone can not see the Agudah and charedim as the most authentic form of Judaism and therefore the most authentic guardians of our religion.
You can spend your time online reading bible criticism. You can read countless books that attempt to bridge the rift between science and religion. A YCT graduate I know spends 5+ hours a day on Yahoo answers, answering theological questions for the masses. Those that spend their time doing this obviously feel that they are using their time wisely and growing as a Jew. Is that really the case? Is this authentic Judaism? Or is it bitul torah wrapped in a better wrapping?
The Agudah and every yeshiva bochur who has spent a zman in yeshiva, shteiging over a gemorah non stop for full days knows the answer. They know what it takes to become talmedi chachumim. There are no shortcuts.
We certainly can not allow those that embrace shortcuts to stand on equal ground with those that are willing to do what it takes to become the best.
The Charedim are always going to be the gold standard that set the standard that the rest of us have to live up to. If someone doesn’t see that, then he is not looking for emes but rather shortcuts.
That is an incredible over generalization and it is also simply not true. The agudah laid out honest points nowhere does it commend the question, it condemns the fact they simply deny answers already currently provided by chazal. Its not posed as a question.
Examples: Sara Horowitz – if her question is Chazal testify to avraham’s greatness, but i dont think he is so great , in fact he is a murderer. That is not a question, that is a denial . That goes against principles of faith and labels you a Kofer .
The questions of their faith usually hinge upon the fact that the oral torah is not true. You can ask in judaism , but if your question is not addressed as I am struggling believing so and so , but rather you satrt with a given that chazal are biased you are not asking questions, you are making a statement. The agudah rightfully points out that is simply no longer a person who can be called a religious and have left the fold.
This has nothing to do with modernity and its trite to call it that.
there are very few , if any , aguda personnel who could, using archeology or bible studies as an example, be both knowledgable in what ”they ” say , and have a cogent, not-laughable approach in apologia. certainly no one on the Moetzes , i doubt if anyone on the dais at all…. how many haimish people going forward [or backward for that matter ] that will have expertise in the hard sciences and in those jewish studies on an academic level? i wouldn’t imagine too many … while shtika k’hoda’ah damei , Lincoln’s Rule applies in matters of chillul hashem [better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt]…
Ho hum another YCT/OO article with nothing really said. Rabbi Menken – you quoted Rabbi Feldman’s article. Let me quote to you another piece.
“Even though the Moetzes’s sphere is mostly in shuls that would not even consider taking a YCT alumnus, our statements could potentially affect the opinions of all board members. It could also push the RCA to make stronger statements than they have until now. The RCA recently released a statement against Open Orthodoxy’s ordination of women. That is totally missing the point. The problem of Open Orthodoxy does not come down to whether women should or should not be Rabbanim; it is the fact that they deny the most basic fundamentals of belief in Torah.”
When the best the RCA can come up with is a weak, missing the point statement – and one that was so close to being defeated, what does that say about the RCA and how they truly feel about YCT/OO. If MO/YU really want to stop YCT/OO then those groups + RCA need to say exactly what the Moetzes did. Until such time, their position must be viewed as non-opposed to YCT/OO and quite frankly complicit/
I agree with you that Rabbi Landau’s viewpoint trivializes the issue and misses the point that the agudah was making. However, your post contains a number of assumptions and unproven assertions. First, there may not be much difference between the traditional wing of liberal Judaism and the liberal wing of traditional Judaism, something you probably agree with. However, the existence of bright lines is an assumption and where to draw those lines that may exist with precision requires more careful study. If based on the Agudah’s statement, you want to draw a line based on hashkafic outlook, the goings on in Israel is an important part of the equation. Rabbi Feldman’s expansive list of those beyond the boundary includes biblical, talmud and halakhic scholars across the academic and liberal DL (yeshiva) landscape; the vast majority of those individuals and those they influence live in Israel. I doubt it would make sense to classify differently in Israel and the U.S.
Second, your characterization of Rabbi Yanklowitz’s facebook page is unwarranted. Having Reform and Reconstructionist friends, as he writes, does not mean he does not have Orthodox or even Chareidi friends as well. He engages with Jews across the board; you need not agree, but that hardly defines his religious affiliation.
Divorce may well occur. But don’t assume the divide will occur where you draw it. I find it more than coincidental that you included YU RY as opposed to the institution. Given the narrow RCA vote and where Rabbi Mirvis stands on various issues, it might be a tad early to define sides. For what it is worth, a divide line that includes the UTJ and its much larger and growing masorati arm in Israel, based on observance (or even partial observance) is also possible as is one that separates parts of the RCA and Tzohar, But like Rabbi Yanklowitz, I do not see the utility in defining boundaries among a people that numbers around 20 million worldwide.
A more productive approach, along the lines that I believe Rabbi Adlerstein had suggested, would be for recognized scholars to cogently articulate the challenges and suggest responses that are hashkafically acceptable. The growth of electronic media and the explosion of interest in Jewish culture/history will increasingly grow the presence of challenges in the marketplace of ideas. Cogent responses are more critical than bans.
Your modus operandi is rather transparent and predictable. On just about every single article discussing OO, you immediately comment by nitpicking the article to death. The reality is that all your feeble defenses notwithstanding, the overall point stands that OO has effectively divorced itself from Torah Judaism by artfully realigning halachah to its wishes instead of the reverse. Parsing points and nitpicking insignificant details may make you feel better, but will do nothing to save the patient.
If divorce will occur as you admit, it makes little difference exactly where the divide will be. It’s a tragedy regardless and there’s no reason to argue about this.
Bottom line is that you not only predictable in your defenses of OO, but your chosen method does your cause more harm than good. By focusing on the minutiae and ignoring the significant points, you’re demonstrating the truth of the arguments against OO better than Rabbi’s Gordimer, Feldman and Menken combined.
David F, thank you for provably missing the point. when you write “OO has effectively divorced itself from Torah Judaism by artfully realigning halachah to its wishes” you are back to an argument no one is making. The reason for excluding the OO is their hashkafa (or lack thereof) not their halakhic changes. That has been the point of all of the posts on Cross-Currents commenting on the Agudah’s statement. And btw you have no clue about what I believe when you write “your cause.” Pray tell, what do you imagine it to be?
Trust me, what “you believe” is anything but the point so I’ll ignore the invitation to share my thoughts on that with you.
What OO has done to hashkafa and halachah is beyond debate. What is also beyond debate is that if they continue down their current path they too, sadly will be beyond the pale, your desperate defenses of them notwithstanding. Nitpicking at every article will do nothing to hide the fact that they’ve chosen a path that is against normative Orthodoxy both in haskafa and halachah and will only serve to obscure the truth from those who don’t wish to see OO for the tragedy that it is.
It is a tragedy precisely because there are many sincere and well meaning individuals who affiliate with them and if they moderated their tone and position somewhat they could accomplish far more than they ever dreamed and make a very positive contribution to the Jewish people. Unfortunately, they’ve allowed themselves to be hijacked by a vision clouded by feminist and liberal viewpoints and standards that simply can’t be squared with Torah. Nothing anyone says or quotes from Rav Soloveitchik in their defense will change that reality.
facts are suppose to be your friends; please cite some. List the halakhic changes the OO have made. Compare your list to where OO practice follows normative orthodox practice. we will then see if it is beyond debate! remember i said halakhic not hashkafic. also remember you said “has done;” so no slippery “slippery slopes” argument.
“Halakhic” changes are the only things that qualify as facts? As Rav Aharon Feldman said, “if someone is walking down the street without clothing, you don’t ask him, ‘Why aren’t you wearing tzitzis?'” Given their rejection of our Mesorah with regards to the most basic of Hashkafos, whether or not an individual halachic change (such as, for example, ordination of women) can somehow be justified is irrelevant to the world of Torah Judaism.
I think R’ Menken’s point is better than the one im about to make, but let’s not forget they have made many halachic innovations as well. From re-imagining conversion laws and being the only ones to stand for a problematic bais din for divorce, they have stepped into a very dangerous arena with regards to Halacha.
Then you can add areas which tread on both halacha and haskafa such as:
being a strong backer of tefillin for women
Advocating for JOFA’s changes to the marriage process
adding a new hechsher (shmuly’s humane treatment of animal hechsher. which clearly can be a michshol to many jews who lack the difference between kosher treatment of animals and actual kashrus).
These are all area that are either in the Shulchan Aruch or Mishna berurah , or at the very least create potential halachic problems. All are innovations and all are strongly advocated by OO.
You miss my point. David F. first mentioned only halakha not hashkafa issues to which I responded reminding him of the hashkafic basis of the moetzet’s ruling as rabbi Feldman articulated. I do not deny that OO’s hashkafic outlook does not conform to dominant orthodox belief. David F. then wrote halakhic and hashkafic. I asked him to list (and compare) areas of halakhic compliance and divergence, to which you replied. The only halakhic issue that you note is ordination, an issue more relevant in Israel where the same title is used, which has a debatable halakhic base. (Documents from the time of the JTS debate over women rabbis, including prof. Lieberman opposing position, focus the halakhic issue with dayanut not a heter horaah.)
In my opinion, you didn’t understand his initial comment. When David F wrote that OO is “artfully realigning halachah to its wishes,” he did not fail to mention Hashkafah — on the contrary, OO “wishes” are precisely their Hashkafah. They are changing Halacha to match their distorted Hashkafah, and at that point, whether or not you can drum up some justification for each of their changes is no longer relevant.
Halacha is not simply a set of boundaries, a corral within which one may canter about in any direction. We are supposed to be changing our wishes to follow HaShem, not “realigning” His Laws to our own interests. Thus their Hashkafos are of critical import — because whether or not OO “follows normative orthodox practice” 95% or even 99% of the time, whatever changes they make are not coming from a good place. To reiterate, “whether or not an individual halachic change can somehow be justified is irrelevant to the world of Torah Judaism” — because they start by denying Torah.
i wish you a good shabbos; but wishing is not synonymous with hashkafah. nice try, perry mason.
Please don’t be silly. “Wishing” and “wishes” are two different words, and it’s not difficult to see why you replaced one with the other. Not synonymous? Fine. State it thusly: “wishes” are things they want to bring about which reflect their worldview — aka their Hashkafah. But those not obsessed with semantics already understood that. Either way, it’s all about their Hashkafah.
I’m afraid you missed my point, as well. I will not be drawn into an argument over the details which are irrelevant. The overall point remains and you refuse to acknowledge it – OO is doing everything it can to render itself outside the mainstream of Torah Judaism. This is true for Halachah and hashkafah in whichever order you’d like. Nitpicking on exactly which areas of more problematic will help no one and only distracts from the main focus which is that OO needs to get with the program or be left in the cold. Very simple.
Mazal Tov. Cross – Currents has accomplished its goal. Article after article by Rabbi Gordimer and several others alerting the orthodox community to the dangers posed by Open Orthodoxy has born fruit. I have no doubt that Cross-Current’s withering campaign influenced the RCA. i assume Rabbi Gordimer initiated the resolution which was not endorsed by the Resolutions Committee nor the officers of the RCA. That the Agudah followed with an even more strident denunciation is the icing on the cake. I detect glee that soon Open Orthodoxy will be expelled from the camp of the faithful, what a victory!
It seems that there are indeed members of the faculty of Yshiva Choivevai Torah whose ideas are more common in Universities than in Yeshivos. It is also true that there may be students who come from acculturated and non orthodox backgrounds and bring the zeitgeist with them. How that will play out in the next generation only time will tell. There are two possible scenarios. The one that Rabbi Menken and others predict that they will detach from claims of being orthodox. Another possibility is that the criticism will cause them to endeavor to show that they are part of the orthodox community and strengthen their loyalty to orthodoxy,as they understand it. The Chassidim, in the long run,may have become more mainstream davka because the Misnagdim accused them of being schismatic. Only time will tell.
I would note that I personally have written precisely two recent articles on Open Orthodoxy — this one, and “The Symptoms are Not the Problem,” which countered distortions of the Agudah’s statement and which anticipated several of Rav Aharon Feldman’s remarks. If I recall correctly, I similarly wrote one such article last year correcting distortions of the Novominsker Rebbe’s statement about Open Orthodoxy at that time. It seems clear that Rav Gordimer was not the “initiator” nor primary author of the RCA resolution on women in rabbinic positions – Rav Gordimer has focused, rather, upon the hashkafic issues with OO. That seemed to be the focus of the Agudah Moetzes, rather than that of the RCA.
If Rav Gordimer helped inform the Moetzes, that is to his credit, but it is similarly apparent from Rav Feldman’s comments that he is quite familiar with statements by OO leaders that — to the best of my recollection — Rav Gordimer never mentioned.
On the contrary, we have published any numbers of articles after the Agudah, RCA, and CER made their decisions, demonstrating that Rav Gordimer’s articles were accurate and reflected a common perspective throughout the Orthodox world. That was a question we were quite literally forced to answer, were we not? We were placed on notice. Cross-Currents was told that it must have evidence that Rav Gordimer, far from being insulting or libelous, is expressing an extremely common opinion from leaders within the Orthodox world.
Chassidim did indeed “become more mainstream,” by abandoning some of the excesses that were at least attributed to them at one point. If OO were to abandon those “university” positions you mention — perspectives on the authorship of Torah and the validity of our Mesorah which the Rambam himself would clearly have rejected as open kefirah — would that not be a great benefit? We hope that every Jew turns to the path of Torah, and away from ideologies that distort and upend it.
I cannot tell if you are sarcastic or misinformed. Rabbi Gordimer explained that Rabbi Gil Student initiated the RCA resolution. Denouncing fellow Jews is not “icing on the cake.” Quite the contrary, it is cause for great sorrow. Far from being expelled from the camp of the faithful, influential members of the RCA continue to teach at YCT. Expelling Jews from the “camp of the faithful” is a loss not a victory. Bringing Jews into the camp of the faithful is the victory.
I apologize if you were being sarcastic and it was too subtle for me. If you are sincere, I question why you delight in Rabbis and their students being called out as heretics. Agudah did what they had to do to protect the community. They have the sagacity to know that they have done the right thing. However, we do not delight in such matters. They are cause for heartfelt sorrow and should bring the community to repentance.
Yasher koach as usual to Rabbi Oberstein for providing some sanity amidst all of the usual and predictable sturm un drang.
Yes, as with the growth of Hasidut and mahy other recent examples it is quite often it is the Jewish folk (and not only the so-called and self-appointed rabbinic elite) who can play an important role, sometimes even decisively. This, of course, is what is so threatening to those who insist on an extreme and narrowly based hierarchical decision-making process.
How can a person claiming some knowledge of Jewish history compare the Ba’al Shem Tov to Open “Orthodoxy”?
Certainly the reaction against the rise of Chassidism was at least as strong as the reaction against the OO.
Many communities banned Chassidic works, put leaders of the movement in cherem , some even burned their books. The anti Chassidic movement was not led by small fry the Gra was behind some of the strongest anti Chassidic proclamations. Hasidism was popular as an anti clerical movement that gave solace to the masses. In substance isn’t that OO is.
“Solace?” By that token, both Chassidism and Reform were efforts to revitalize and advance Judaism, so why was one acceptable but not the other?
Superficial comparisons are unhelpful. Chassidism was about emphasizing different elements of our tradition to help non-scholars to recognize their incredible worth and value as part of the Jewish people. Chassidism encourages greater levels of devout practice and attachment to G-d. Reform was and is about authenticating deviations from tradition, calling new beliefs and practices “Judaism.”
Condemnation of Chassidism was partly a feeling that Jewish learning was possibly being devalued — see the Nefesh HaChaim, esp. Sha’ar 4 — and, in part, helped Chassidism correct that which was “beyond the pale” (as the Tzemach Tzedek reportedly agreed). Chassidism is “normative” today precisely because it turned back from deviation. As you probably know, a certain school of thought in modern-day Lubavitch was rightly condemned as heretical, as well, both from within and without, and there too it seems traditional voices are winning out [no, let’s not restart that discussion here]. The Gedolim of today are saying nothing new, only responding to a new deviation from eternal standards. It is a very tragic situation that some feel a need for “solace” (in an era of unmatched prosperity and opportunity for frum Jews) that involves casting off core Jewish beliefs. We should hope this is corrected soon — and not by accepting deviation as the new normal.
Excellent point-like it or not, the advocates of OO have walked with their feet, hearts and minds out away from normative MO . We can only hope like R Meir in his pursuit of Acher ( his former rebbe) that they will recognize the damage they have wrought by accentuating modernity and accepting all cultural and intellectual trends as consistent with and the raison de etre of MO.
1.Acher was not “his former rebbe.” R. Meir continued to learn from Acher after he became an apostate. 2. Can you put OO and Acher in a single sentance?
Based on the proclamation by the Moetzes it would seem, sadly, that you can.