Last month, noted legal scholar Noah Feldman set off a firestorm of controversy with his screed against Modern Orthodox Judaism in the New York Times Magazine. The story has by now been hashed and rehashed in other newspapers, on blogs, in heated conversations: Feldman discovers, to his dismay, that he and his non-Jewish girlfriend were excluded from his yeshiva high school reunion photograph in the alumni newsletter; the yeshiva failed to publish congratulations on the occasion of Feldman’s marriage to a Korean-American, and its bulletin also ignored the birth of his two children. These omissions are, in Feldman’s view, symptomatic of a broader set of failings in contemporary Modern Orthodoxy, which Feldman suggests (rather absurdly, it should be said) are also at the root of the crimes of assassin Yigal Amir and mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, both of whom, like Feldman, are alumni of Modern Orthodox academies.
And yet, in the ensuing imbroglio, one detail from the story has been largely overlooked: Early in the article, Feldman links his story with that of Baruch Spinoza. With that small, seemingly offhand remark, Feldman actually revealed himself to be part of a wider cultural phenomenon — one with much greater reverberations than the internecine squabbles of a religious denomination. We are experiencing, I fear, the death of genuine dissent.
There was a time when heretics were strong and brave men and women who nobly accepted the arrows and wounds of their Orthodox tormenters, even wearing them as a badge of anguished honor. When Jews began in the 18th century to break in significant numbers with Orthodoxy, they advocated a variety of new paths, ranging from developing secular Jewish identities and more liberal denominations of the faith, to cultural assimilation, even conversion to Christianity. The one thing these dissidents shared was the absence of any claim, or apparent desire, to be honored by the very religious institutions and authorities they had willfully defied. These rebels understood that it would both cheapen the importance of their dissent from the tradition, and at the same time undermine the integrity of that tradition’s norms, were their break to carry no agonizing consequences.
But in today’s America, whose proud heritage of rugged individualism has curdled into mushy narcissism, there seems little appetite for bearing the consequences of one’s choices, certainly not when those consequences include wounds. Today’s deviants from Orthodoxy insist proudly upon their freedom to dissent, and in the same breath deny the bearers of the values they have betrayed the freedom to condemn them with exclusion. Worse, they complain about the personal hurt their banishment from the religious institutions, whose most cherished values they have chosen to flout, has caused them. In addition to Feldman, one is reminded of, say, journalist Andrew Sullivan’s sad mewing about the Catholic Church’s rejection of his choice to live, and advocate for, an openly gay life. Closer to home, there are also the good folks at a new rabbinical school in Manhattan that proudly promotes its “open” alternative to mainstream Modern Orthodoxy, choosing at its benefit dinners publicly to vilify the latter’s flagship institution, Yeshiva University, only to then complain bitterly that the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America refuses to recognize the credentials of its graduates.
There is, to be sure, enormous pain involved in making the difficult break from religious life, as even I would attest. Ordained as an Orthodox rabbi, I have over the years made a series of gradual moves away from that segment of the Jewish community whose integrity, learning and traditions I still most respect. After I agreed to officiate at High Holiday services at a synagogue with mixed seating, my revered rebbe — a great Lithuanian Talmudic Sage from whom I received my ordination — stopped speaking to me. I felt the loss very deeply, but never did it occur to me to fault him for having distanced me.
Then again, I had the benefit of studying at the feet of one of the 20th century’s greatest apikorsim, the Yiddish writer and poet Chaim Grade. Steeped in Talmudic learning, a veteran of the austere Novardok Yeshiva in Bialystok and then a star personal disciple of one of the greatest rabbinical scholars of the past generation, Rabbi Isaiah Karelitz (known as the “Hazon Ish”), Grade made the incredibly bold step of leaving the yeshiva world and becoming a secular Yiddish romantic poet in Vilna. As a student at Harvard Graduate School, where Grade was a frequent lecturer, I vividly recall his recounting the manifold indignations he suffered as a consequence.
And yet, Grade’s literary oeuvre is a loving monument to the very yeshiva world that he abandoned and which responded with such ferocity. Among his most powerful poems are his loving elegy to the Hazon Ish, and his amazing ballad, “Mussernikes,” which brilliantly and affectionately depicts the dark and austere world of the students in the most demanding of the Lithuanian yeshivas. Grade loved to tell the story of how his rebbe took leave of him when Grade departed the yeshiva world: “Chaim! You will go to Vilna and become a celebrated poet, a free man; beautiful women will be falling all over you; you will be wined and dined in Europe’s finest restaurants; the world will be yours. But remember what I decree upon you: May you never be able to enjoy any of it.” Grade shared this tale not with any sense of anger or hurt; but rather with a twisted smile that betrayed his ceaseless love for the rebbe who wished him such misery.
Of course, any serious discussion of heresy must include Spinoza, the man who, as scholars today have come increasingly to acknowledge, founded the radical European enlightenment that eventually led to the Hebrew haskalah (and, in turn, the many non-Orthodox tributaries spawned by that modernizing movement). Upon hearing of his banishment, Spinoza responded, as have all persecuted heretics and dissenters of days gone by: with an almost heroic, silent altruism. In his subsequent years, he wrote a great deal, including a significant body of personal correspondence published posthumously. Not once in that rich collection of letters does Spinoza refer to the terrible experience of having been so cruelly and completely cut off from his community; never does he bemoan the pain he surely experienced as a result of not being allowed ever again to communicate with any members of his family. Spinoza understood all too well the heteronymous nature of religious values, just as he insisted on his autonomous right to reject those values and the authorities who vigilantly maintain them. He certainly didn’t expect anyone in Amsterdam’s Shearith Israel Synagogue to sponsor a Kiddush to celebrate the publication of the “Theological-Political Treatise.”
All of which is what makes Feldman’s association of himself with the great philosopher so misguided — as if there were little difference between developing the world’s most daringly determinist and immanentist philosophy, a system that preserves the idea of God while robbing the Lord of Israel of every one of His transcendent attributes and powers, on the one hand, and a yeshiva bokher falling for a nice Korean girl, on the other. Not that one is morally inferior to the other, as Spinoza himself would have insisted. But Spinoza’s anguished break with Judaism was the result of weighty struggle with ideas, whereas Feldman’s is — by his own account — a fight for personal acceptance.
Indeed, this is the very problem: Today’s “non-conformists” exhibit an insatiable need for personal approval by the communities they have betrayed — the surest sign that they have not engaged in any serious intellectual or theological struggle with the tradition. Their “breaks” are motivated not by the search for transcendent truth, but one for practical comfort in their lifestyle. All of which is their prerogative. But today’s “heretics” insist that their acts be viewed as “dissent,” as the kind of bold stand that contributes to some greater good. But, because these “heresies” stem from the desires of individual hearts (or loins), there is little of universal importance to learn from them. Their posturing is then not simply selfish hypocrisy; it is spinelessness. And the dissenting heart demands the support of a strong spine.
Allan Nadler, formerly of Montreal’s Congregation Shaar Hashomayim, is director of Jewish Studies at Drew University. He is a regular Forward contributor.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Why a Rabbi Should Not Marry Outside the Faith
Tapping Into Growing Lure of Hidden Jewish Heritage
Montreal's First Jewish Mayor Michael Applebaum Hit With Corruption Charges
Getting In Face of Ultra-Orthodox on Need for Real World Education
Barbra Streisand Is Butt of Anti-Semitic Joke
You've successfully signed up!
What Nadler decries as "mushy narcissism" is actually the introduction into Judaism and other religious traditions of the American concept of free speech. American citizenship cannot be revoked for any but the most egregious acts of treason. Even the most vigorous dissent and physical protest does not result in "de-Americanizing." It is understandable, then, that dissenters from one or another branch of Judaism feel and believe, in the American spirit, that shunning and exclusion belong to other times, other places. Nadler's nostalgic defense of those other times and places is out of step with the here and now.
A great shame this brilliantly penetrating piece was not published in the New York Times. The Foward is fortunate to have it, of course; but its bold and refreshing insights really do deserve a much wider audience. Not that I, as a Charedi woman, admire "apikorsim" like Nadler, but his wisdom and intellectual integrity are admirable. Kol ha-Kavod !
It appears not only to be Feldman who is "spineless" in this day and age. If the Orthodox school were as bold as Nadler would have Feldman be, should it not state plainly that "no intermarried need attend reunions or send alumni news" and the like, rather than quietly "diappearing" them from community or PR materials? Perhaps Nadler might recognize that in this day and age, both the institution and the exile share similar desires for acceptance by communities whose core values they reject. (Or perhaps it points back to one of Feldman's points, about the lecturer who apologized only for his *public admission* to gentiles that Jews consider their lives less worthy of saving). Nadler's is a provocative and worthwhile rejoinder, but I think he might wield his criticism more evenhandedly.
E.L. Nadler was more gentle than he had to be to Feldman, who has caused a lot of anguish and desecration of Judaism. His article was a model of balance, as he spoke of his own experience of leaving the Orthodox fold with no apologies, and at the same time no recriminations. Nadler used to be the rabbi of my shul many years ago, so I am biased towards him since he blessed us with the best, and most erudite, sermons I have ever heard from any spiritual leader of any denomination. If you want a real tough response, read Norman Lamm's piece on the Forward webpag re: Feldman's completely distorted presentation of that complex halakhic issue.
Just because something is halachicly permissible does not make it justified or acceptable. To me a it is very sad that the idea of even t'shuva loses its spiritual foundation in the minds of some who see only the letter of the law. More than just return to our roots, it is also a turning to a more moral ground. Anyone who thinks that morality equates strict adherance to a particular body of law is fooled. The morality comes from an understanding of the basis of the law and a proper application. As much as I find Norman Lamm's response offensive, I agree that the halachic process is just that, a process - including change, moderation, and even a little universalism. Professor Feldman is a brave soul. I may not like intermarriage, but it's not going to change when the response is vitriol and hatefullness to "outsiders." We need to be inclusive. We need to be menschs.
Well said. Feldman is to be faulted for his personal betrayal of Judaism caused by his intermarriage--he can't hide behind "love" for his non-Jewish wife. His children aren't Jewish and, with our demographics in the US, this is intolerable. But Feldman admits that no one refuses to speak to him or to shake his hand. To my mind, just as bad as his intermarriage is the fact that he is a malshin, for whom we pray daily that there be no hope. The lies and innuendos he spread in the NY Times and his support for the anti-eruv forces as attorney for Tenafly (N.J.) are even more telling. My first reaction to his article was, "Why is he writing this--what is the point he is trying to make? He is not stupid--he must know that no Jewish Day School is going to print an announcement of his intermarriage, etc." I leave to the professional psychologists the analysis of his weird behavior. Let us leave him with our prayers for malshinim.
I too am a former yeshiva bochur. It is time acknowledge the truth, boys and girls. Intelligent guys like you know this as well as I do. Strip aside our sentimentality to our backgrounds, and let's all admit the truth that we know out loud: there is no God; the Bible clearly does not say what the Rabbis say it does; the Rabbis of all generations get freaked out when you question their authority; the Jews are not protected by God; the Bible if full of slavery and genocide; niddah is a barbaric hold-over from the dark past; circumcision is mutilation; Shabbat is a Babylonian day of ill-luck, not a day of rest; the Lubavitcher Rebbe has in fact died; King David was no choir boy, etc. We all know this, guys and gals, let's finally admit it.
Chaim Ovitz wins the prize for most irrelevant and even more ignorant comment. Besides its pointlessness, his questions to Rabbi Nadler: do you know of any descendants of Spinoza ? Are they Jewish ? is a real howler. As any reasonably literate person knows, Spinoza never married and had no children.....so his descendants are, ummmmm, NON-EXISTANT !!!!!
Let he who is not strictly Frum complain endlessly about all the other Jews who are not. Until then, a community which picks and chooses which mitzvoth can be bent or ignored and which cannot is simply exercising its own narrowly defined intolerance. After all, Feldman's nonconformism is not materially different from the machers who eat in treif resturants or selectively commit any of the other abrogations. But we are left to surmise that his sin is not only to intermarry but to point it out and wave it over his head. That, I'm afraid is probably what the strong reaction against him is about. Or maybe all the hechshers in everyone's house are 100% up to snuff.
Nadler's article tells it like it is. Feldman is a fool. I am also intermarried, but did not expect that my husband would get up and read from the Torah at our son's Bar Mitzvah! We make choices and have to live with them. By marrying outside the faith, I will never immerse in the Mikvah. I cannot hold my rabbi responsible. He did not marry a gentile, I did. I may not agree with everything the orthodox practice, but I'm respectful of them. Without them, who would teach us?
For those who aren't old enough to remember: Photoshop first shipped in 1990, and was already a sophisticated tool by 1997. That aside, it's true that people close to the situation have said that others were cropped out -- not erased -- along with Feldman and his wife, because of space constraints. The shanda is that Feldman chose to trash Orthodoxy in the Times, and also that the Times decided to print such dreck. Nadler's piece is brilliant, and much appreciated.
Prof. Allan Nadler, I have two questions to ask you, do you happen to know any decendents of Baruch Spinoza today? Any of them Jewish?
Hershl, what you don't seem to understand is that Judaism is not a democracy. It is a religion which is not based on free elections, but divine election and divine will. And that is the whole point of Nadler's critique. Feldman is free to make any life choice he want, because he lives in a democracy. But he cannot reasonably have the same expectation of a religion, i.e. based on a belief in its divine, immutable truth. On the othe side of he coin, ever hear of church-state separation ? Your comments are totally irrelevant to the substance of Nadler's argument, which was right on point.
Another self hating Jewish article. Why can't you accept the fact that some Jewish organiaztions have heir principals in tact.
To SandersNY: "Visible" is right; the only Jews "visible" will be those wearing costumes.
Noah's parents are wonderful people. They did nothing to deserve this pain.
I don't want to accepted by the haredim or the modern orthodox. They are to me, anachronisms from a time before science. What I do want is equal treament by the state of Israel and the various Jewish Institutions like the Federations and the various defense organizations. That is, for example, I'm not about to be dictated to what kind of meals I can and cannot eat at one of their functions. There are a great number of secular Jews who have won Nobel Prizes and been leaders in medicine, science and secular literature. Those are the people I identify with-not the cult leaders and cult members who debate whether flushing a toilet on shabbat is work and who act like they are in the 16th century and treat women like they are in the first century.
Who's going to defend Feldman now???!!! The Jewish Week (no disrespect to the Forward) broke the story that Feldman was NOT CROPPED OUT B/C OF HIS GIRLFRIEND... rather he was just one of a number of people who the photographer could not squeeze into the shot! To quote Jonathan Mark: "Noah Feldman, who ignited a firestorm of criticism last week with his pointed attack on Modern Orthodoxy in The New York Times Magazine, admitted this week that he learned before publication of his article that he in fact was not intentionally cropped out of his reunion photograph." Whatever residual respect I may have had for Feldman has now evaporated. The bastard KNEW that his ACCUSATION WAS FALSE and he and the New York Times published the piece unchanged! Prof. Nadler is 100% Correct -- Feldman and his ilk are TOTALLY SPINELESS AND DISHONEST.
This article approaches the essence of the issue. Feldman wanted to leave Orthodoxy which is fine, but he doesn't want Orthodoxy to leave him. His leaving of the community is more related to personal ambition, vanity, and a desire to be a part of a different social group than that of the Modern Orthodox. It has little to do with any true philosophical wranglings with the tradition or with ideas.
What a nasty opinion piece and personal attack.
Isn't that a huge step forwards, that "heretics" are less content to break away and rage at an establishment, but rather have genuine hopes for re-establishing a different mainstream? Isn't that a testament to some great progress, the trust and confidence that it's possible to bring the whole community along to accept our realizations and to understand them with us? "because these “heresies” stem from the desires of individual hearts (or loins), there is little of universal importance to learn from them." Are not the desires of individual hearts where lessons of universal import are revealed?
Dear a librarian, Are you Jewish? Because if you are you are really bordering on apikorsut and your comments are totally anaceeptable...I am very happy that you have opinions but they should at least make the tiniest bit of sense.
I'm not even Jewish and I loved this piece. My question is this: suppose you belong to a community and you intellectually drift away from it. Is it legitimate to prod it to catch up with you; or should you just let go? By the way, according to Will Durant, Spinoza's predicament was partly a result of the Jewish community not wanting to antagonize the Dutch and their religious beliefs. Had Spinoza made a big fuss about it, he would have placed the community itself in danger. This is not the situation in America today.
Feldman - and millions of assimilated Jews like him - want to reshape Judaism in their own distorted image and still be accepted for it. Ain't gonna happen. He and his Council of Foreign Relations cohorts will fade to black. Thirty years from now, the visible majority of Jews will be traditional, yeshivish, and chassidic. Feldman is a vanishing screed. Bye, bye Feldman.
Allan Nadler has written a well thought out, nuanced piece which deserves wide circulation. I, too, am a former yeshiva bokhur and haredi. Orthodoxy is about observance of mitzvot. That is the essence of the religion. You either accept that and the rule of the rabbonim or you don't play that game. I have a much deeper relationship with HaShem than I ever had in my former life. I am not a member of any shul. I learn and have been led deeper in my daily life into a Torah that is infinitely more personal and meaningful than what I experienced in the yeshiva. The frum community and my former rebbes live their lives. I live mine. I hope that they are happy and fulfilled in all that they do. I wish them no harm. I also don't support them in what I regard as misguided beliefs and distortions of Torah. I am not out to get anyone to be or think like me. Hopefully, Feldman will find a way to go beyond his personalization of his experience and enjoy his life as a Jew and a human being. A yashar koyekh to Allan Nadler for saying it like it is.
This is a brilliant article, far and away above any on the subject. Only thing, perhaps we should consider, the world has evolved, in a positive direction and for good reason, in that people today express their differences in a way that includes not only intellectual disputes but the human interactions that spring from those differences. We owe much to Andrew Sullivan for his candor when discussing the theoretical and theological problems of Roman Catholicism for sharing the feelings suffered by gays when they are rejected. In this way, he brings life to the issue. I did not note narcissism in Feldman's article. He was using a personal experience to underscore a dynamic that, let's face it, many of us find disturbing in the Orthodox community. We can argue about tznius laws all we want, the problem that separates Jews is exactly what Feldman expressed. The Orthodox can explain it away all they want, by saying everyone was polite to Noah Feldman; they're kidding only themselves.
The comment by Mr. Raphael that Nadler's piece was a "nasty personal attack" is completely bewildering to me. Quite the contrary; Nadler goes out of his way to avoid judging Feldman personally and takes this high road by using his complaints as a springboard for a general consideration of the state of dissent in our days. Far from nasty, it seemed to me to be quite gentle....except for the snide aside about the shul in Amsterdam not making a Kiddush for Spinoza, which was unnecessary. Funny, but it diminished from Nadler's very interesting observations.
I have read a couple of books by Chaim Grade and I must say that to my mind he was one of the best Yiddish writers I know. IB Singer whom I also like is like a minor figure compared to Grade. It's a pity that he didn't got wider recognition in the literary world.
As has been pointed out in other places, we're dealing with a picture from 1996!! that Dr. Feldman is discussing now. I don't even know that they had Photoshop back then!! What happened, as the photographer said, is that there simply wasn't enough room in the photoshoot for everyone, so Dr. Feldman and girlfriend were amongst others who were left out. As well, in the article, Dr. Feldman points out at first that she's Korean-American, implying that the school is racist, and only then telling us she isn't Jewish. And also, "t'shuva" literally means to return, which it is, returning to our roots. So how about this- the school will do t'shuva and apologize, and Dr. Feldman will do t'shuva as well- either change himself to be a better Jew and hopefully his wife will *want*, not be forced, to convert, or else he'll have to divorce her. There is no law forbidding airbrushing, but there is definitely a law against intermarriage.
Rabbi Nadler writes this fascinating provocative piece about dissent and you dumb shmucks are still arguing about the stupid photograph in the stupid alumni newsletter of some stupid yeshiva in Brookline ! And what is this nonsense about everybody doing "teshuva" ? For what ? Feldman can't do teshuva for marrying his wife, not if he stays married to her; the Talmud calls that "ha-tovel ve-sheretz be-yadoy" (dipping in the mikvah with an unclean insect in your hand). And, as I think Nadler compellingly argues, the Maimonides School has absolutely nothing to apologize to Feldman for; certainly they don't need to do any teshuva. And, Jacob, stop repeating yourself; it was boring enough the first time around.
The message can't be that it was better in the good old days, when heretics were burned at the stake. If anything, Feldman is dishonest, because he claims that his suffering originates from somewhere outside himself, even as he denies the community the legitimacy by which it could claim he is persona non grata. This, I think, must be the message: that we are tortured by the Jews we fail to be.
"There is no law forbidding airbrushing, but there is definitely a law against intermarriage." Not in America there isn't.
Mr Nadler's column reminds me of why I reject membership in the Jewish community. He thinks it's perfectly acceptable behavior to coldly reject someone who doesn't toe the party line and marry within the faith, and anyone who is so rejected should take it like a man. This is the kind of medieval tribalism that leads to sectarian wars. Just today, my 21 year old daughter, whose mother is a nominal Christian and who herself is agnostic, asked me why I continue to call myself Jewish when I am an atheist, have few Jewish friends and despise all religions. I think she has a point, and I may take her up on her suggestion. Steve Beck
This case is not analogous to a Catholics intermarrying with a Protestant. Allan Nadler's analysis isolates "religion" as the significant variable in all this. I disagree. And here's why: Firstly, "The Jews" are not a religion we are a nation, and most Jews in America are secular. We are a mostly "white" nation, however. Secondly, I have a general problem in analyzing this is that I have no info on whether Noah Feldman's wife ever joined the Jewish nation by accepting the national religion. So I will call this a case of a "white" Jewish national marrying a "yellow" Korean lady of unknown Jewish national status and religion. Now let us try to isolate the variable: Everybody knows there would have been almost no fuss if he had married a a "white" Jewish-born lady who practised Atheism, or even Buddhism. Same national-origin and race, different religion. And there would have been almost no fuss if he had married a a "white" foreign-born lady who had converted and kept kosher. Same race and religion, different natonal origin. But on the other hand, there would have been an outcry if he had married a black Ethiopian Falasha who practised Judaism. Same nation and religion, different race. These hypothetical examples isolate the variable then in the actual case at hand. It is race. Regardless of the unknown variables. So what? Let's just be brutally honest about it, that's what!
What is so galling to me about the actions of the editors of the yeshiva newsletter in question is that they went so far as to airbrush someone out of existence. It's a shanda. It should not have been done. They should do t'shuva for such actions and if they want to have a policy forbiding such images of intermarriage, then let it them make it known. It's there game. They should be humiliated for making such a rule and then hiding it from people.
If this controversy brings the work of Chaim Grade to the attention of the public, it has been worthwhile. Grade, even in translation, is an extraordinary writer ; one neglected for too long.
If this controversy brings the work of Chaim Grade to the attention of the public, it has been worthwhile. Grade, even in translation, is an extraordinary writer ; one neglected for too long.