Dear Prof. Feldman,
My first — and last — impression after reading your extremely well-written New York Times Magazine essay (more properly — a manifesto) is one of sympathy for your predicament, respect for your honesty and profound sadness at the community’s misfortune when one of our best and most well-known yeshiva day school graduates sees nothing wrong with “marrying out.” Worse: You wittingly or unwittingly exposed your coreligionists to opprobrium in arguably the world’s most public forum — even as you express admiration for the Jewish tradition, especially for Modern Orthodoxy.
True, we no longer “sit shivah” for a relative who married out. But all of us experience poignant anguish when a brilliant and once fully committed son of our people, who earnestly believes he is not rejecting his upbringing, effectively does just that in justifying his transgression and holding us up to ridicule.
And why so? Because you violated a major principle of Judaism and yet object when we, your fellow Jews, express our heartache in one of the only ways open to us.
Quite simply, my dear Prof. Feldman, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, but that just can’t be done.
Frankly, your resentment at the removal of your name and photo from the alumni list of your high school and other such petty discourtesies does not elicit much sympathy from me. Tantrums do not move me. I am moved by your resolve to continue your relationship to Judaism. And I value your suggestion that we reexamine our attitude to the social ostracism we have practiced heretofore. We certainly will not accept the violation of the law with equanimity, but we ought to rethink how we can express our displeasure in a manner that will not close the doors to teshuva — if indeed the couple wishes to take advantage of it.
Apparently, you take the matter of intermarriage lightly — something on the line of eating non-glatt-kosher meat. If so, you are sorely mistaken. True, one can make a case that out-marriage is, technically, not a more serious violation than work on Shabbat or eating on Yom Kippur. But you well know that in our times the ultimate sign of pending assimilation is intermarriage. You resent the small discourtesies you experienced, yet you ignore the massive insult to your alma mater, and to the Modern Orthodox community that nourished you all these years, by violating a fundamental law — and then punish them in public.
Prof. Feldman, I do not understand you. I am truly nonplussed. Once or twice in your article you imply that Judaism should tolerate a forbidden marriage because it is “one of my most important life decisions.” I cannot believe that you really want to exempt the “most important of life’s choices” from the purview and judgment of religion. For Heaven’s sake, do you prefer that religion — any religion — deal with any thing but that which is important in life? Is this the Judaism you want? One that will make you feel warm and fuzzy and cuddly, one that will make grandiloquent pronouncements and issue pretty pieties — anything but what is really an “important life decision”?
That is not the kind of religion for which our ancestors — yours and mine — were willing to suffer abuse unto martyrdom.
Let me now address several other (but not all of the) important items in your essay.
You imply that Modern Orthodoxy is somehow responsible for Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir. That is a blatant example of guilt by association, and truly a low blow that is unworthy of you. If Modern Orthodoxy is responsible for Goldstein and Amir, then Harvard is responsible for the Unabomber; Yale must answer for some of the most implacable kooks in this country — both right- and left-wingers, and by the same token Maimonides School is responsible for the tergiversation of one of its most distinguished graduates.
Now, for the facts: You do not quote any source for your assertion that when Baruch Goldstein murdered Arabs at prayer in Hebron on Purim day, he did so because he considered the Palestinians as Amalekites.
I beg to differ. His act was not one commanded by his religion, but by his Kahanist politics. How do I know? Because several years before the Hebron massacre, I received a document in which Palestinians of that area were effusive in their praise for the two brothers Goldstein, both physicians, who treated them with the same professionalism and compassion that they did their fellow Jews.
So your premise is faulty, and your conclusion is wrong.
Next item: You refer in anger to the Talmudic view on whether a Jewish doctor may violate the Sabbath laws in order to save the life of a non-Jew. You are critical of the Sages of the Talmud who permitted such violations of laws of the Sabbath because of concern for maintaining peaceful relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. You suggest that, on the one hand, it is an “instance of laudable universalism,” but, on the other, it is “an example of outrageously particularist religious thinking.”
Surely you, as a distinguished academic lawyer, must have come across instances in which a precedent that was once valid has, in the course of time, proved morally objectionable, as a result of which it was amended, so that the law remains “on the books” as a juridical foundation, while it becomes effectively inoperative through legal analysis and moral argument. Why, then, can you not be as generous to Jewish law, and appreciate that certain biblical laws are unenforceable in practical terms, because all legal systems — including Jewish law — do not simply dump their axiomatic bases but develop them. Why not admire scholars of Jewish law who use various legal technicalities to preserve the text of the original law in its essence, and yet make sure that appropriate changes would be made in accordance with new moral sensitivities? Plato — as well as Maimonides — taught us that every law must leave some who are thereby disadvantaged, that it is in the nature of law to serve the community even when individuals are injured. We then must seek ways to ameliorate the situation as best we can. This is a legitimate way for the Talmudic and post-Talmudic rabbis to protect the sacred Shabbat laws, and by appropriate halachic legislation enable us to live without violating our moral conscience.
Let me clarify my stand, as an Orthodox rabbi, on the issue you raised: It is strictly forbidden by the Halacha to deny a non-Jew whatever is necessary to save his or her life. There must be no discrimination whatsoever. Every human being is created in the Image of God and has a right to life and health. “The Lord is good to all and His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145).
Because the issue is subtle and highly sensitive, do you not think that it would have been more responsible of you either not to mention an issue which for centuries has inflamed antisemitic vindictiveness and exacerbated irritation for those Jews ignorant of the method and subtleties of the law, especially since such subtleties are beyond the reader not trained in legal theory? But if you are compelled to write about it, would it have been a violation of some professional code to give precedence and preference to the universalist bias of the halachic tradition?
But you took the easy way out, and thereby succeeded in holding up the Torah, the Talmud, the rabbis and especially Modern Orthodox Judaism to public ridicule, making the whole Talmudic enterprise look bigoted and racist.
Bravo! You made a trenchant point and, by the way, you succeeded in supplying via the New York Times article enough anti-Jewish material to last a good few years — as antisemites have been spewing this sanctimonious poison for centuries. Did not this possibility occur to you when you were writing your article? Why the sudden collapse of your obvious sophistication? “Sages,” the Talmud declared, “be exceedingly careful with your words.”
You apparently were equally unaware of the damage your words have caused to innocent bystanders. Example: Daniel _____, a recent graduate of Yeshiva University, wrote this letter to me that broke my heart:
Like most Yeshiva University graduates, I interact on a daily basis with gentiles for most of my day. My Orthodox Jewish identity has never become an issue or conflict. However, following last week’s New York Times article by Noah Feldman… I have frequently been getting questions like, ‘Is it true that according to your law you wouldn’t save my life on the Sabbath’ or, ‘Do you really believe that Jewish life is more important than gentile life?’ How does a young Modern Orthodox professional answer these questions in a respectful and diplomatic way so as not to demonize others and at the same time be true to his faith?
My dear Noah Feldman, it is your duty to answer him, because you are the cause of his discomfiture and perhaps his possible inability to find employment — and so for the thousands who have no access to the pages of The New York Times and who will have to live under the cloud of calumny you have unwittingly visited upon them. Of course, I don’t think you will, but should you be moved by Daniel’s predicament, call me and I will gladly give you his full name and address. You owe it to him.
If my words sound harsh, it is because I have followed your career with naches and hope for the future of our Jewish people and Modern Orthodoxy, so I write like a spurned lover. I sympathize with your dilemmas. I can appreciate the pain suffered by one subject to the social sanctions prescribed by Jewish tradition, and I can understand the feelings of one who, under the pressure of desire or love, feels compelled to ignore the biblical prohibitions. The flesh, after all, is weak. But that is no excuse for embarrassing a whole community to which you always belonged and to which you maintain you still owe a degree of fidelity (and I believe you).
In your essay, your closing words are, “My best friend just laughed.”
As for me — I cried.
I still dream that you will reconsider your remarks and your self-imposed alienation.
But whether you do or do not do that, remember: Judaism and the Jewish people will survive without you or me. But neither you nor I will survive spiritually without Judaism and the Jewish people.
Norman Lamm
Rabbi Norman Lamm is the chancellor and former president of Yeshiva University. He is the rosh yeshiva of its affiliated Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary.
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.
Cleveland Kidnapping, Elizabeth Smart and Us
Tracing the Jewish Origins of the Holy Ghost
Ethical Kosher Seal Stalls Amid Orthodox Opposition
Rama Burshtein Offers Rare Glimpse of Orthodox World
Baby Boomers’ Rocky Road to Jewish Love
You've successfully signed up!
Rabbi Lamm, G-d bless you for saying what could not have been easy. Unfortunately, Prof Feldman's very public words are knives in the hearts of many Jews who did nothing to deserve the repercussions of what we are being forced to receive. Prof Feldman wanted affirmation of his blatent disregard of one very public halacha, and he did not receive it. Those not following rules should not expect to be treated the same as those who do.
Dear Rabbi Norman Lamm, Rosenblatt in Jewish Week understood Feldman's anguish far more than you did. All during his education at Maimonides School in Brookline, Feldman's teachers told him there was no contradiction between Orthodox Jewish values and American values. They lied in a way that teachers at a comparable Roman Catholic prep school would not have. The reason lies in the Zionist orientation of Maimonides School and of Rabbi Soloveitchik, who founded it. Boston Zionists are some of the most exteme in asserting the equivalence of American values and Zionist values. It ain't true. And not all American values are Jewish values or even Catholic values. The Brothers and Nuns at a Catholic prep school would have been honest, but Boston Jewish leaders are afraid that honesty would make it possible for the larger public to open a discussion whether American and Israeli interests are identical. I have to assume R' Lamm is just being purposefully obtuse about the issue of treating non-Jews on Sabbath, for Feldman's point was crystal clear. If he had wanted to bring scorn on Jewish people, there are far nastier issues in Jewish law. Feldman was pointing out that the Rabbis found reasoning to permit such treatment. Similarly today, modern Orthodox leaders could find logic to avoid such total rejection of Feldman and his family. And Feldman is completely right. I have studied Geniza texts. In the twelveth and thirteenth century in Egypt, people like Feldman were not excluded from the Jewish community. But those were Jews, who were Arabs and not Eastern Europeans, and that fact is a problem because the essentialist and primordialist myths of modern Jews are crafted to support the idea that a single unchanging Jewish people has existed for three thousand years so that today's Jews can believe that they committed ethnic cleansing and stole Palestine from the native population with perfect justice. Guess what. This perverted train of thought turns Judaism into a fossil and justifies all the nasty things Toynbee ever said about Jews. Best, Joachim Martillo
Dear Norman Lamm, No, it is your duty to answer him. You have not provided sufficient answers for your followers all these years. Feldman is just the tip of the iceberg. Your kum-ba-ya answer that “Every human being is created in the Image of God and has a right to life and health. “The Lord is good to all and His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145).” Is an anemic evasion of the halakhic facts on the ground able to override the many Rabbinic authorizes like the Mishneh Berurah, and Rabbi Moshe Sternbach who agree with the restrictions on treating gentiles on the Sabbath. Have you banned the Mishneh Berurah in your school? Do your students learn your apologetics or from the Mishneh Berurah? The fact is that the teachers and rabbis that your school produces do entertain the second-class status on gentiles. Even if Modern Orthodox doctors do not follow this ruling, or even consider it, the over ethos of the Roshei Yeshiva, the pulpit rabbi, and the Modern Orthodox community is one of insiders and outsiders, even on basic ethical questions. You and the community cannot give evasions anymore to the press or point to virtuous doctors; while in the classrooms and community another ethos prevails. Your recent graduate should indeed feel bothered. I still dream that you would provide the answers. Now, may be an appropriate time for the community to wake up and confront its difficult laws and texts. These texts shape the community even if not placed into practice. Yours, A deeply pained YU graduate.
Wow, poor "recent graduate of Yeshiva University" who does not know how to talk to his fellow workers like a mensch! Is it a bad thing when we are forced to examine our cherished prejudices? This kind of response makes it clear that Noah Feldman's article was a really important lifting of the veil. It's time. Especially if we are so keen on "dialogue." We are not as clean-handed as we fancy ourselves, and it is really important to take a good, long look. Lastly, with humanitarian mass murderers like that, I'm sure we could use a lot more beinonis . I heard that Hitler was really wonderful to his Jewish dry cleaner.
Quite an excellent article, the dispeptic quotes above notwithstanding. I mean, come on. Life is a series of contradictions that we work to reconcile. There's no need to feel evil. I see where R' Lamm is going with his point about Dr. Goldstein, but it should be pointed out that he was just as much a Kahanist when he treated Arabs well as when he killed them. So perhaps just as it wasn't his Orthodoxy, it was something far different there as well.
Dear Rabbi Lamm, Kol Hakavod. I always love reading what you write and the way in which you articulate idea that many of us are thinking. It is clear that this was not an easy letter to write. But write it you must. And read it we must. I should also add that your letter is measured and nuanced. It would be quicker to condemn Professor Feldman in a vitriolic diatribe. That is also the easy way out. However, our world does not do that. We understand the pain of making difficult, life-altering decisions and the suffering of a human struggling between his guf (body) and neshama (soul). At the same time, as you so eloquently stated, we cannot sit idly by when yet another Jew - like so many before him - rejects our faith and our people. And not just him; his children and his children’s children until, perhaps, one of them intermarries after a healthy quest and thirst for Torah truth and halachic conversion. All of us - Modern Orthodox or not; public leaders or otherwise - need to be introspective about this crisis. For that public “slap in the face” we are, ironically, grateful to Professor Feldman. For the undeserved and inaccurate calumny he brought with it, we loudly object. YU Musmach
I believe R' Lamm's point wrt Goldstein's treatment of Palestinians is that he could not have been acting on the understanding that Palestinians are Amalek. If the audience here cannot follow such a simple legal point, then I believe R Lamm is certainly correct that the nuances of legal justifications for Shabbat violations should be expected to be lost on the average reader of the NYTimes.
I believe R' Lamm's point wrt Goldstein's treatment of Palestinians is that he could not have been acting on the understanding that Palestinians are Amalek. If the audience here cannot follow such a simple legal point, then I believe R Lamm is certainly correct that the nuances of legal justifications for Shabbat violations should be expected to be lost on the average reader of the NYTimes.
Rabbi Lamm (if you do receive this)and others here, You all fail to see the point. You argue over halachas and hashkafas as if there aren't insurmountable obstacles to rational understanding of Judaism. Of course there are. Sometime in adolescence a Jew realizes that there are inherent difficulties in practicing Judaism. That's when the adolescent begins struggling whether to practice cognitive dissonance or gradually leave the religion. Feldman merely brings adolescent musings to the masses. And he does so in a hilariously self-serving, disingenuous melange of mush. If you commentators and Rabbis could stop being blinded by Feldman's resume (which is full of some laughable landmarks, like enlisting himself in drafting the Iraqi Constitution), and concentrate on the pathetic paucity of his ideas, you could speak to him in the proper manner. Not as if you are speaking to a "Prince" of his people (per Shmuely Boteach) but as if you were speaking to an adolescent. You demean yourself otherwise. A degree in Semitic Languages, doctorate in Islamic thought and a degree in Law. That is so impressive?! Publishing three books of well-written drivel? That's impressive?
Professor Lamm, Among other things, your hateful homophobia over the years disqualifies you from the moral high ground. The racist mentally of those who think that it is ok to not treat a non-Jew on Shabbat unless it is a life-threatening condition, even if as you claim it is not correctly halachic, pervades Jewish culture - not just the orthodox. As a Jew with a French last name, I have seen and felt this nasty "secret" up close and personal.
When topics like this appear in public forums, the heartbreak clearly flows both ways, and I feel for Daniel no less than I feel for those in my camp. My own pain concerns my silence when I was a student at YU, soon before Dr. Lamm became Rosh Yeshiva. I sat in 10th grade shiur, my heart bursting (but my mouth silent), as my Rebbe went on and on about the ills our society suffered by a particular minority group, as he repeated the "shv"-word (and not with affection)over and over. He complained how public assistance supports the 4 or 5 children that the Shv-women bear to different men (this was before the new age of able-bodied b'nei Torah supporting large families on public assistance). Like you, Dr. Lamm, I lose precious myocardial cells---every time I STILL hear a Modern Orthodox person use that ugly epithet(some secular Jews use it too, I painfully admit). Dr. Lamm---I await your apology for this evil that some of your Rabbeim fostered.
Dear Rabbi Lamm; Before my son married, his wife wanted to convert and knew what she would face, since two aunts had converted. Whatever she was prepared for in terms of being discouraged was not sufficient to have her accept to verbal abuse and anger she faced from two orthodox rabbis on two continents, so conversion did not happen. When my son tried to have the children converted after they were born, orthodox rabbis refused to participate or to allow their mikvah to be used. With the help of an understanding and compassionate Reform Rabbi, the children were converted and are being raised as Jews. Wheree I live, the only kosher meat available is from Rubashkin. Given their torture of animals and the lying and cover up done by their supervising rabbis, I could not in good conscience eat that meat. It is the hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitude of Orthodoxy that has caused my to turn away from my own upbringing. I pray that you will bring some sanity to what has become an upside-down Jewish world.
Rabbi Lamm, With all due respect, I look at Professor Feldman's article and your nephew's book "A Foreskin's Lament" to reflect a clear challenge for all of us who consider ourselves "Modern Orthodox." These are individuals who have gone through our system, Maimonidies or MTA and have come away with a love/hate relationship with Judaism, and a feeling that it is not relevant in today's day and age. It is a clear repudiation of all that Y.U., an institution near and dear to your heart, embodies. Your nephew chose not to give his son a bris, Professor Feldman decided to marry a non-Jew, neither live a Torah lifestyle, but both seem to want it, but have rejected it. We need to look at our entire educational system and reexamine how we are transmitting our beliefs to the next generation. We clearly have a lot of work to do.
I'm a born Catholic and woe, a Jewish boy fell in love with me. Far from "pressure of...desire" or the "flesh", ours was a bicoastal relationship based on mutual respect, common values, similar passions, and, yes, love. It is so condescending and insulting both to your own community and to the non-Jews you write off to simplify any interfaith relationship to the "flesh." I was lucky enough to find a Reconstructionist Jewish community where I felt welcomed and valued, and I converted - the most profound, meaningful, emotional event of my life. My husband was a non-practicing Reform Jew who would tell you he has found a whole new -and much stronger - connection to Judaism thanks to his relationship with me. There are two sides to every story, and for every relationship that you see as scorning the community, there are probably several that make it stronger. No one ever focuses on our stories, preferring instead to lament "marrying out" and blame it for the general disconnect many Jews feel from outdated laws and superficial assumptions about their relationships. I'd encourage those Jews to visit a Reconstructionist synagogue. And be proud of the courage to choose whom you love.
Dear Rabbi Lamm, Certain aspects of your letter have helped me to better understand how it is that Noah Feldman could be so totally confused as to what Jewish living is all about. If your letter is any guide, clearly Feldman was getting some very mixed messages from his Modern Orthodox schooling. What I refer to is your closing line, that you are so emotionally hurt be Feldman's essay because until now you have been following his career with nachas. Why the nachas? Because he's racked up so many degrees and honors? Because of his prestige? Because he writes for the New York Times? Because he appears on TV? Before Feldman had ever come to embarrass his people and our Torah with his pathetic, whining screed, he had already married out of the faith and used his considerable constitutional skills to try and block Orthodox Jews from having an Eruv in Tenafly. Are we so dazzled by fame, prestige, and success? I wonder whether Feldman si so confused because he got some very confusing messages about what ot is that we admire as Jews. Perhaps if he would have been told more clearly that, more than anything else, we honor Torah learning, faith, mitzvoth, and a life of humility, then Feldman wouldn't have come away so clueless as to why Modern Orthodoxy has rejected him.
R’ Norman Lamm thinks that Prof. Feldman was wrong to “imply that Modern Orthodoxy is somehow responsible for Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir,” because it’s a “blatant example of guilt by association.” He states further that, “If Modern Orthodoxy is responsible for Goldstein and Amir, then Harvard is responsible for the Unabomber.” But Modern Orthodoxy represents a belief system, and one that claims to be all encompassing at that. Harvard is a school, not a belief system. It is completely reasonable to expect a greater relation between one’s beliefs and one’s acts, and than it is to expect a relation between one’s school and one’s acts. Further, R’ Norman Lamm states that Baruch Goldstein acted not out of religious beliefs, but because of “his Kahanist politics.” But Rabbi Meir Kahane founded his movement based on Orthodox principles, although admittedly in their more extreme form. Unless R’ Lamm can demonstrate that there are a lot of pork eating Kahanists running around, his attempt to imply that Modern Orthodoxy and Kahanist politics are unrelated is nonsensical. No reasonable person could deny that if Baruch Goldstein were a secular doctor in Tel Aviv, he would not have perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. No reasonable person could conclude that had the Unabomber gone to Stamford rather than Harvard, he would not have sent out mail bombs. Thus, R’ Lamm’s statement that “If Modern Orthodoxy is responsible for Goldstein and Amir, then Harvard is responsible for the Unabomber,” is unreasonable.
mazal tov prof. feldman , on the birth of another self hating jew. my god we lacked people like you within our nation.... i would think you were an extinct breed... but you showed us that no!!!!! you still exist and in the name of self justification u will destroy anything and i mean anything,just to justify that shiksa that lays beside you....thank you for putting another nail in the coffin of your father,grandfather, and greatgrandfather heratige all in the name of making your decadence seem moral and righteous..... you are repugnant to klal yisrael.... may god have mercy on your soul.
Antisemitism, as a negative force exercising a shaping influence on our decisions, can be the only reason why Noah Feldman, or anyone else who can see the contradictions between science and Judaism, would keep quiet rather than denounce his coreligionists.
Rabbi Lamm's error is giving too much respect to Noah's article. So, his school's alumni magazine ignores him. His friends have not ostracized him, he is not forced to live in isolation; his school's alumni magazine doesn't include him. This is a cause for outrage? Now I went to a Yeshiva high school in Brooklyn that discouraged us from going to YU because it was seen as too left wing! But some of the rabbis there were the most loving, caring, thoughtful people I have ever met, and some were rigid and not so nice. What else is new? I am no longer orthodox. But I am very very proud of a tradition which has placed ethical and moral behavior as a cental way to practice our beliefs in our daily life. I am a doctor. No Jewish doctor I have ever known, Orthodox or otherwise has ever differentiated between Jew and Gentile regarding their treatment, on Shabbos or on weekdays. Differentiation based on insurance coverage, now that's another issue, one worthy of discussion.
Fascinating exchange--and very healthy for Judaism that this angry debate has come to light. I have not followed all this business. But it is does strike me in the two articles here mentioned, that there is no mention of conversion. There is a Yiddish saying "A ger is heyliker fun a yid" and I wonder if this is the real debate that should be opened up. Also, the issue of Orthodoxy in Israel not recognizing non-Orthodox conversions. And--with a world frankly in a mess--is it not time that all denominations of Judaism should not reconsider proselytizing in a reasoned and mild way for conversion of non-Jews to this civilized and profound faith? Even Reform, with all their mission theory have never, to my knowledge actualized this. Finally, I wonder whether the Jew/non Jew distinction is not outmoded--translated it basically means Jew/Christian; this is a hangover from the dominance of East-European Ashkenazic pre-eminence in Halakhah and secular Jewish "heretic" groupings whether nationalist or socialist, or both. There are many Jewish Buddhists now and it has always struck me that noone dobted that Allan Ginsberg z''l was a Jew after his embrace of Buddhism--but if he had converted to Catholicism and been baptised in the 1960's--can you imagine the ruckus. And very lastly, this touches upon the treatment and popular perceptions of Muslims in the Balkans and Europe--who now, it seems are being targeted with very similar accusations as were levelled agains the Jews in the Continent and the UK. And they are being beaten up and picked on by poor whites in England. And to bring things down to the ground--who cares about our academic tiffs apart from the clique of tenured and hoping to be tenured professors--perhaps more exposure in the press should be give to hate as generated by poverty on the streets--Karl Marx, to by mind is a more radical Jew than Spinoza--though he is sure out of fashion these days--he wrote beautifully too!
Fascinating exchange--and very healthy for Judaism and Jews that this angry debate has come to light. I have not followed all this business. But it is does strike me in the two articles here mentioned, that there is no mention of conversion. There is a Yiddish saying "A ger is heyliker fun a yid" and I wonder if this is the real debate that should be opened up; in particular the non recognition of Orthodoxy of non-Orthodox conversions. Is it not time that all denominations of Judaism should not devote considerable energy and finances in, if not proseletyzing, educating non-Jews--especially the less privileged--to expose them to this culture. I wonder whether the Jew/non Jew distinction is not outmoded--translated it basically means Jew/Christian; this is a hangover from the dominance of East-European Ashkenazic cultural groupings in Halakhah leadership and their "secular" offspring whether nationalist or socialist, or both. There are many Jewish Buddhists now and it has always struck me that noone dobted that Allan Ginsberg z''l was a Jew after his embrace of Buddhism--but if he had converted to Catholicism and been baptised in the 1960's--this would have been much more pertubing. And lastly, this touches upon the treatment and popular perceptions of Muslims in the Balkans and Europe--who now, it seems are being targeted with very similar accusations as have been levelled against Jews (and dissident Christian groupings, historically--and today, in anti-gay rhetoric--"the Hollywood Velvet Mafia" etc.). In the poorer parts of England, the smashing of Muslim shop windows is not uncommon--naturally the hatred accrues on both sides and there are reprisals. But, I wonder, to bring things down to the ground--who cares about our academic tiffs apart from the clique of tenured and hoping to be tenured professors? Perhaps, rather than one media-worthy scoop, there should be more coverage on these pages and discussion of what really fosters our intra-species hatred--and maybe another Jewish heretic aside from Spinoza--pace Nadler, may be mentioned here--though he is wildly out of fashion--Karl Marx!
I think the important thing that we have established from this exchange regarding the nature of Modern Orthodoxy today did not come from Professor Feldman's rather hackneyed recitation of the typical grievances of any bright day school kid. Rather, Rabbi Lamm's response was far more revealing. Rabbi Lamm speaks in defense of a community, a people, a "tradition," rather than a faith, a religion, an ideology, or even God. This is simply circle-the-wagons, racial solidarity, what-happens-here-stays-here-kill-the-traitor paranoia at its best. Feldman wants to talk about ideas - Lamm can only respond with blood ties. And he is even willing to employ Jesus ("the flesh is weak") to do so. Bravo, Rabbi Lamm. You have destroyed the village in order to save it.
I think that everyone is upset at the Feldman article is because he showed that the Emperor has no clothes. Feldman held a mirror up to modern orthodoxy and they did not like what they saw. It was an ugly bigoted parochial image. The Modern Orthodox thought so highly of themselves and thought that others did too. Sholom Auslander, Feldman and now probably others will change that image.
alot of your response is reasonable and well said. but you seem to say that the reason why we allow the saving of the lives of gentiles even on shabbas is based on some moral reason and the fact that all lives are important. however we dont change halacha because we think that our morals contradict halacha mishoom avaih isnt about equating all lives or any of the other reasons we have for violating shabbos to save a gentiles life. we must adapt our morals to the torahs NOT vice versa
Norm Depalma- At least Noah Feldman writes his own books, Norman Lamm's are all ghost written and he does not give the people credit.
When topics like this appear in public forums, the heartbreak clearly flows both ways, and I feel for Daniel no less than I feel for those in my camp. My own pain concerns my silence when I was a student at YU, soon before Dr. Lamm became Rosh Yeshiva. I sat in 10th grade shiur, my heart bursting (but my mouth silent), as my Rebbe went on and on about the ills our society suffered by a particular minority group, as he repeated the "shv"-word (and not with affection)over and over. He complained how public assistance supports the 4 or 5 children that the Shv-women bear to different men (this was before the new age of able-bodied b'nei Torah supporting large families on public assistance). Like you, Dr. Lamm, I lose precious myocardial cells---every time I STILL hear a Modern Orthodox person use that ugly epithet(some secular Jews use it too, I painfully admit). Dr. Lamm---I await your apology for this evil that some of your Rabbeim fostered.
He is no Einstein and he is no Feinstein. He's no Ilui. You know how I know this? I judge him by the contents of his writings. He's a bright kid. There are thousands with similar backgrounds who are brighter.
Poor R. Lamm. He writes an eloquent and sensitive defense of Modern Orthodoxy. In return, he is blamed for the Torah's condemnation of homosexuality, Rubashkin's "torture" of animals, treating the Mishnah Berurah with contempt, Orthodoxy's reluctance to convert for the sake of marriage, he nephew's son's 'orlah', marriage involving sex ('passions of the flesh') (!), and Heaven knows what else. My dear R. Lamm, I think I saw you on Fox News the other day. You were standing under the bridge in St. Paul and shaking it . . . I am sure you must be at fault for that as well. And we all scratch our heads and wonder why nobody decent wants to be involved in Jewish leadership.
a librarian no racism about it. they don't treat jews unless it is a life threatening condition either.
I think R' Lamm has a point. Actually, come to think of it, he's got several, and they're darned near unanswerable. Feldman is (obviously) free to marry anyone he chooses, but his alma mater is equally free to disapprove of his choice. Moreover, as a Jew who often feels discomfort with some aspects of Judaism, I'd just as soon that Feldman keep his bortschka-ing in the family (the one he married out of). The whole article was a shonda, and, I suspect, was intentionally so.
Wow, poor "recent graduate of Yeshiva University" who does not know how to talk to his fellow workers like a mensch! Is it a bad thing when we are forced to examine our cherished prejudices? This kind of response makes it clear that Noah Feldman's article was a really important lifting of the veil. It's time. Especially if we are so keen on "dialogue." We are not as clean-handed as we fancy ourselves, and it is really important to take a good, long look. Lastly, with humanitarian mass murderers like that, I'm sure we could use a lot more beinonis . I heard that Hitler was really wonderful to his Jewish dry cleaner.
Thank you, Rabbi Lamm. It is difficult enough to be a Jew in a Gentile society without our own people throwing us under a bus.
alot of your response is reasonable and well said. but you seem to say that the reason why we allow the saving of the lives of gentiles even on shabbas is based on some moral reason and the fact that all lives are important. however we dont change halacha because we think that our morals contradict halacha mishoom avaih isnt about equating all lives or any of the other reasons we have for violating shabbos to save a gentiles life. we must adapt our morals to the torahs NOT vice versa
Rabbi Lamm, G-d bless you for saying what could not have been easy. Unfortunately, Prof Feldman's very public words are knives in the hearts of many Jews who did nothing to deserve the repercussions of what we are being forced to receive. Prof Feldman wanted affirmation of his blatent disregard of one very public halacha, and he did not receive it. Those not following rules should not expect to be treated the same as those who do.
To lenewyorkais: All of your questions have answers, if you are sincere in seeking them. I highly recommending searching the articles at www.chabad.org, or use their "ask the rabbi" feature to get answers if you don't see a topic already addressed (unlikely!). Good luck and keep learning.
There's an elephant in the room that neither Professor Feldman or Rabbi Lamm say is there. But I think at least Dr. Lamm can see it. This elephant is the source of Feldman's profound alienation between Tradition and Modernity, and Dr. Lamm's helplessness to engage that alienation. That elephant is the Haredi world, and American Modern Orthodoxy's uneasy accommodation to it. Any sign of leniency or even dialogue on the part of Modern Orthodoxy, whether on intermarriage, conversion, or even saving the life of a non-Jew on Shabbat, is being watched by Haredi observers who are much less sympathetic to the modern world than the great Rav Soloveitchik was. Most saliently, we have come to depend on the Haredi world to legitimize our own position in Galut. This generation's Modern Orthodoxy is near the end of a sociological crisis of legitimacy. We lost. We represent Orthodoxy connected to the modern world in the American context. But Modern Orthodoxy's ability to act has withered since communal decisions, on most topics, have begun to be inherited from the Haredi world, and not generated within our own institutions. Haredi "gedolim" are both judging Modern Orthodoxy's yiddishkeit from afar, and also writing the halacha for it. This is not an original idea, Samuel Heilman at CUNY has written about it. In the context of Feldman's article, which is simply a rock thrown through our window, Dr. Lamm cannot engage. He can only board up the hole and call it the work of a vandal. Modern Orthodoxy's freedom to engage in dialogue on most issues is absent in our weakened state. When ultimate legitimacy is increasingly being sought via inheritance from the Haredi world, we simply do not make our own decisions any longer. So since we are passengers, why engage in a dialogue which may only serve to discredit Modern Orthodoxy even further in the eyes of an already questioning Haredi world? In Feldman's particular circumstances, which I have a hard time finding sympathy for, he's jumped off the ship, and this was his choice. But we are not blameless. Modern Orthodoxy is too afraid to throw him a life-vest, lest the haredi Captains see the crew helping a mutineer. We are both wrong.
Dear R' Lamm: Although, I'm not from the modern orthodox camp, and I believe it is that philosophy that actually leads to a Noah Feldman, nevertheless, I want to thank you for your cogent and insightful article in defense of Torah and halacha. I believe, further that you injected the proper emotion as well and that perhaps "ka'mayim ha'panim el panim, kein lev ha'adam el ha'adam." I know as a Lubavitcher it is incumbent upon us to do whatever we can to be "mekarev" even such a Jew like Noah Feldman out of pure love and nothing else. It doesn't hurt that perhaps it would also bode well for the Jewish community (as you aptly point out) and its well-being, which is of utmost importance. I do have to remark, however, that an individual such as Noah Feldman woulf perhaps deservedly merit the dubious and infamous distinction of being a "mosser" and even worse, possibly bringing harm on the Jewish community. Has he lost his "chelek" in "Olam Ha'Ba" I don't know. But someone has the obligation to inform him of this and "kuli hai v'ulay" it may have its effect and bring him to Teshuva. I hope your article will engender just such a reaction and your "zechut" will be "l'ein ketz". I wish you well, Rabbi Joseph Korf
Noah Feldman's inflammatory article unleashed two weeks of debate within and about modern orthodoxy. Not only was the article poorl argued--lumping tefillin with Oped Dei accoutrements and pulling in Yigdal Amir and Baruch Goldstein as representative examples of the movement, the social slight that justified the article--his being cropped from a class photo because he had a non-Jewish fiance--was a fabrication. As Feldman admitted in the Jewish Week, he knew two weeks in advance of the article's publication that many photos were taken at his reunion, none of which captured all the students. The one that appeared didn't have Feldman and his wife to be, but it also excluded fourteen other people as well. One would expect a Harvard Law professor to be more careful with the facts and less loose with prejudicial innuendo that is patently false.
One needn't look beyond, "Every human being is created in the Image of God and has a right to life and health" to find fault in Mr. Lamm's article. Anyone with even a passing interest in Jewish/Goyish relations is well aware I'm sure of the niagra of Halakhic citations that contradict this and the total absence of any that support it. That Judaism is a religion of ethics not to be addressed honestly or openly (in mixed company) is a statement on the worful state of the institution. If any other religion held such a low opinion of Jews (as Judaism does of Gentiles), we would be lodging protests demanding that sweeping reformations be enacted. These tu quoque arguments and absurd denials have gone too long. Either Orthodox prejudice is justified or it should be shelved alongside the offensive convictions of the non-Jewish religions. There can be no ambiguity.
Dear Norman Lamm, You are, and have always been, a witty speaker, able to deflect serious issues through homiletics. For example, your comparing Baruch Goldstein to the unibomber is a false analogy and only serves to prove Feldman’s point. The majority of Harvard does not share the opinions of the unibomber. He was a lone person with crazy ideas. But Goldstein’s ideas are supported by a plurality of YU. It is unfortunate Noah Feldman used Baruch Goldstein as his example, rather than the rhetoric heard daily in the community by YU rabbis in favor of right wing positions. The Yeshiva U and Modern Orthodoxy that you created is filled with extreme statements against gentiles and arabs, and the need for hard line action. You want to distance yourself from Barukh Goldstein by saying that he is only a follower of Kahanist politics, yet look at the politics of your followers. While most in modern orthodoxy do not act on Kahanist politcs, the kahanist politics in theory is alive and well at YU, more than that, there has been created a Soloveitchik-Kahanist synthesis where being concerned in a halakhic way for the fate of the people of Israel means taking a hard line. Anyone with a quick search of the student newspaper, The Commentator will find lots of references to talks by YU Roshei Yeshiva who talk a Soloveitchik-Kahanist talk. They may not call for action but the rhetoric is there. I will not cite the myriad examples of statements by these immoral teachers that you appointed and supported. But you cannot distance yourself from them as not part of Modern Orthodoxy. To take one example, when your brother Maurice Lamm was raising money in the name of modern Orthodoxy for the Jewish underground (mahteret) that did support violence, are you saying he was not Orthodox? Or not guilty because he was not the one who actually made the bombs? You spoke to YU twice a year about tolerance, peace and pluralism without stopping the daily rhetoric or even the fundraising for violence and extremism. Feldman would have been better served to take one of these YU cases as an example. After the Goldstein incident, Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman acted with leadership and was vigilant about any Bar Ilan instructor using such rhetoric. He called instructors to his office to make sure they stopped. You did not show any leadership except in a vacuous biannual speech contradicted by the actual Modern Orthodoxy on campus. We looked up to you as a grandfather who was going to create a successful Torah uMadda world, but you disappointed us. The disappointment is greater because of our expectations. We can dream that Feldman may correct his ways. Unfortunately teshuvah may be closed to you Chancellor Lamm since you cannot go back to same situation again and do it right this time. As President Emeritus, you no longer have the power to undo the immoral world you created. Yours, A deeply pained YU graduate.
Rabbi Norman Lamm wrote: "Let me clarify my stand, as an Orthodox rabbi, on the issue you raised: It is strictly forbidden by the Halacha to deny a non-Jew whatever is necessary to save his or her life. There must be no discrimination whatsoever. Every human being is created in the Image of God and has a right to life and health. “The Lord is good to all and His tender mercies are over all His works” (Psalm 145)." He then went on: "Because the issue is subtle and highly sensitive, do you not think that it would have been more responsible of you either not to mention an issue which for centuries has inflamed antisemitic vindictiveness and exacerbated irritation for those Jews ignorant of the method and subtleties of the law, especially since such subtleties are beyond the reader not trained in legal theory? But if you are compelled to write about it, would it have been a violation of some professional code to give precedence and preference to the universalist bias of the halachic tradition?" Even I, Rabbi, an agnostic Jew am aware that in Jewish religious law the life of any person Jew or Gentile takes precedence over ritual observance. Yes, even on the Sabbath a Jew is required to save the life of a Gentile. I wouldn't know how to argue the point halachically but I have always known this to be the case. Shame on Noah for not bringing it up in his article.
I would like, first, to express profound horror at Tatiana's words directed to Beth. Beth, thanks for sharing your articulate insights. The Jewish community is fortunate to have you. I'm sure (I hope)the vast majority wish you and your husband a long life together. Second, Rabbi Lamm's condescending use of "dear," twice, and his reference to love/marriage as "...flesh" was so juvenile it was not worthy of an article in the Forward. Third, the author's use of "anguish" was just ridiculous. Professor, if you would save "anguish" for the members of your own family, you might add some credibility to the few important points you made about Judaism. Fourth, it's a shanda---and a deep disappointment to many of us out here in mainstream-Jewry-land--that some, if not many, of our most vociferous leaders lack a sense of boundaries. It is not their/our business who Noah Feldman marries. A man's personal decision is exactly that: personal. If the rabbis would get that through their heads, the Jewish community might actually survive. I can only shutter at the horrible impression Feldman's wife is getting of us, out here, discussing this. Noah Feldman is a credit to the Jewish people--not just because of his academic degrees. He did not leave the fold, far from it. Whomever he brings into our community should be welcomed with heartfelt warmth and allowed to be whoever she is, Jewish or not. With all our sechl, we can handle this!!!!!!
To lenewyorkais: All of your questions have answers, if you are sincere in seeking them. I highly recommending searching the articles at www.chabad.org, or use their "ask the rabbi" feature to get answers if you don't see a topic already addressed (unlikely!). Good luck and keep learning.
A thousand kudos to Rabbi Joseph Korf for illustrating how one can disagree- but with a sense of proportion. Rabbi Lamm, a great scholar who spent much of his life supporting Torah deserves nothing less.
To lenewyorkais: I'm sorry you have not been satisfied with the Chabad rabbis you have learned with. However, if you're looking for a Chabad rabbi who has an open mind to Biblical criticism & other anti-Torah viewpoints, you will certainly be disappointed -- it's not realistic. But if you are looking for wisdom, insight, and truth and are open to new ideas yourself, you will find answers to your questions. A vessel that is already full (of other ideas) has no room to be filled with anything else. Are you really questioning, or are you simply challenging in order to be provocative? Questions are what Judaism is all about - but the point is to look for answers in Torah - they are there.
Why bring up Goldstein andAmir. Their actions ostracized and excommunicated them from the Jewish community similar to what Noah has done. Noah's bringing them up just shows you how irrational his logic is.
I think you have all missed the point. What is the difference between hellenization in the times of the Maccabees and globalization in our era. Does Judaism impact on global society or does global society negatively influence Judaism. Are moral standards the ones stated in the Torah or are they Sodom and Gemorrah poll driven? The biggest paradox is the darwinian theory of self preservation. The only way to preserve as a nation is to adhere to Torah concepts. The universalism and diversity that Noah Feldman espouses which is secular humanism is the reincarnation of hellenism. I am surprised that Noah Feldman is a constitutional scholar since he has fallen off the slippery slope and does not appreciate the concept of a siyug or muktzah to protect from falling off the cliff. Is there no wonder why Iragi government has been futile with Noah being the author of their constitution
to chabad "reader" above: I have studied more chassidus than u will ever imagine. but u know why I stopped? cause no one could ever introduce me to a chabad rabbi who had studied anything BUT chabad, and could intelligently discuss other philosophies. these wise rabbis dismissed science, archeology, ancient Near East studies, Higher Biblical Criticism, comparative religion, without EVER having studied a WORD of any of them. Ergo, chabad is dogmatic fundamentalism, not true philosophy or even religion. Buddy, give me an hour---I'll turn u into an apikoris too. --lenewyorkais@hotmail.com
My comments are directed at Beth. It's an outrage for you to make disrepectful comments about Orthodox Judiasm. You are completely ignorant about the history of the Jewish people. Resconstructionist Judiasm is basically a Gentile version of Judiasm. The reason that many Rabbis oppose conversion for marriage is because of there superficiality. There are thousands of cases where a convert to Judiasm will revert to their religion of birth when they divorce their Jewish spouses. What will happen if you end up divorcing your Jewish husband? There's a high probablity that you will go back to being a Catholic. I'm offended that you would insult Jewish laws that are thousands of years old. It's not about "choosing who you love" it's about the perservation of the Jewish people, something that you know nothing about.
Dear Rabbi Lamm, A few points that perhaps bear additional scrutiny. You state:"Surely you, as a distinguished academic lawyer, must have come across instances in which a precedent that was once valid has, in the course of time, proved morally objectionable, as a result of which it was amended, so that the law remains “on the books” as a juridical foundation, while it becomes effectively inoperative through legal analysis and moral argument". Oh, really? Not that this argument is "wrong" - but how can an Orthodox rabbi make it? Orthodoxy stands and falls, after all, with the claim that the Torah - including the Mishna/Gemara - is the Word of G-d and embodies His revealed will forever. How can it become "morally objectionable" over time??? This argument is only valid, it seems to me, outside of the parameters of Orthodoxy (not that that invalidates it, obviously). However, the thought/belief system of Orthodoxy is precisely what is at issue here. Equally problematic is your lauding of the practice of making "morally objectionable" laws "effectively inoperative". The Jewish legal system, of course, is not merely a system of do's and don'ts - it is also (perhaps primarily) a system of moral TEACHINGS - so that when it is kept "on the books", even if rendered "inoperative", it has the effect of perpetuating the given teaching in the minds of its' followers - hence the attitudes of many (not all) Hareidim towards Non-Hews. Finally, Rabbi Lamm also attacks Feldman for "spilling the beans" to the "goyim" - and this is perhaps the most problematic of all. If Judaism can't proudly and honestly defend its' teachings to all in the full light of day - it's in big trouble, is it not?
“I'm offended that you would insult Jewish laws that are thousands of years old.” I am insulted that you would insult a person like Beth. Law, btw, isn’t sacred because it is thousands of years old. It is sacred to Orthodox Jews because it comes from God. Jeremy, you ought to do a little more studying before bashing a great scholar. The phrase that Rabbi Lamm uses is not necessarily his own- Psalms 105: "He commanded to a thousand generations", Chronicles I 16:15 : "the word which He commanded for a thousand generations", Yom Kippur service, 'These I Remember': "the two thousand year old law". Perhaps, Rabbi Lamm uses the expression to point out the capriciousnes of Feldman's attitude. Many have struggled with such (and other) issues for thousands of years, but have remained faithful even if they couldn't reconcile all of their paradoxes. Feldman is willing to drop observance as if he were the first one to struggle with such things. God does not change, and neither does his Torah. The thousands year old tradition is testimony to that.
I think the important thing that we have established from this exchange regarding the nature of Modern Orthodoxy today did not come from Professor Feldman's rather hackneyed recitation of the typical grievances of any bright day school kid. Rather, Rabbi Lamm's response was far more revealing. Rabbi Lamm speaks in defense of a community, a people, a "tradition," rather than a faith, a religion, an ideology, or even God. This is simply circle-the-wagons, racial solidarity, what-happens-here-stays-here-kill-the-traitor paranoia at its best. Feldman wants to talk about ideas - Lamm can only respond with blood ties. And he is even willing to employ Jesus ("the flesh is weak") to do so. Bravo, Rabbi Lamm. You have destroyed the village in order to save it.
I am a graduate of Yeshiva University and am appalled By Rabbi Dr. Lamm's response to Prof. Noah Feldman. Not to his concern about what the anti-Semites will do (they will do what they will do whatever we say)but by his approval of the cherem declared by the Maimonedian Yeshiva. I thought we had overcome rejecting Jews who differ with us like Baruch Spinoza. I was obviously wrong. Rabbi Dr. Moshe Reiss
Rabbi Lamm, as usual, writes a brilliant and heart-felt essay [DVARIM HAYOTSIM MIN HALEV]. I agree with the bulk of his article, but there is one point he makes that may be incorrect . In the paragaph beginning with "Surely you", he seems to be saying that Biblical principles, even moral principles which should be eternal, might with the passage of time no longer be applicable in a modern world but still remain on the books--as would be found in Gentile law . Orthodox Judaism teaches HITKATNUT HADOROT, that the earliest generation were more perfect and more moral than later generations--IM HAYMA K'BNAI ADAM, ANU K'CHAMORIM--that we are as "jackasses" compared to our earlier leaders. The earliest source is more authoritative than the later source ; we cannot assume that when a moral pronouncement is made by an earlier source, that a later BET DIN can negate it. If we speak of such moral issues as superiority of our nation, or morality in dealing with others, we cannot assume [as Reform Judaism would teach] that there is an evolutionary developement whereby we become more sensitive and more compassionate to non-Jews. But it is still unwise to bellow such ideas which would be antagonistic to non-Jews in publc.
Rabbi Dr. Reiss, Maimonides did no such thing. Read the Jewish Week article. And even if they did, nu? "Harvard is a school, not a belief system." Someone's being naive. "there are a lot of pork eating Kahanists running around" Sadly, yes.
R. Lamm, It appears to me that your treatise is a linear response to a rather more discontinuous (complex, nuanced) problem. Noah Feldman's article addresses a difficulty which faces the community. Much like Durkheim's analysis of suicide, the question is not if there is a problem, but how it is manifest and what are it's causes/implications. My sources are only anecdotal (as are Feldman's) but the contemporary orthodox community, those who go from to Mimo to Gush to Harvard, produce a significant number of queer and out-relationships, not to mention general geist of alienation. Like Durkheim before him, Feldman comes from a strong Jewish background, but chose, through the forces that acted upon him, that his particular life-decisions were appropriate for him. This is not an unusual narrative. By rejoining, in essence, that there is no problem not only undermines, but ignores this pretty stark disparity--one of deep connection to faith and normative practice, but one of dislocation from the community qua people. I too disagree with Feldman's premise. If I were to out-marry it would be specifically in order to create space between me and the community. I recognize, however, that everyone has his or her own mechanism(s) to address these questions, but wishing it away is merely impractical.
He wanted out of the community and therefore, any reason to justify it is acceptable to him. Moreover, in going "out," he found what was for him a more exciting, well paying, and interesting life. The point being that it is not theology or faith or belief, but as he says indirectly, a lack of satisifaction with the Modern Orthodox "social group." The real issue is not the Modern Orthodox but rather, the better opportunities he found elsewhere and out of the community. As Lamm says, he would like to have his cake and eat it too. If he goes out, he has to suffer the consequences which are, in his case miniscule compared to the rewards which he found in the big world.
Dear Dr. Lamm, I thank you for your thoughtful words but I must confess that while I completely disagree with N. Feldman, I also continue to be confunded by your words and the theological underpinnings of your movement. I attended YU and the one feeling that I could never shake was that it's awfully tough to really know what will give our dear yeshivah more nachas: our success in the secular world, or our success in the Jewish world. By lauding Feldman - a traitor to Judaism of the first degree - for all his accomplishments and writing, "it is because I have followed your career with naches and hope for the future of our Jewish people and Modern Orthodoxy" - you continue to perpetuate the ambiguity of your position. Why did ever derive nachas from NF? He married out many years ago and in doing so should have been declared a Maimonides/MO failure. You however, still derived much nachas from him because the Torah is not equal to the Mada. I, and so many other former YU students learned this lesson well. Thankfully, in my case, it drove me to rededicate myself to Torah. In Feldmans case, unfortunately it led him to dedicate his life to the Mada. Dr. Lamm - please recognize why your approach is such a risky one. Respectfully, A former YU student
let's see Modern Orthodox answer these fundamental issues: where was God in the Holocaust; why r women contaminated when they menstruate; what's with all the mutilation, animal sacrifice, genocide, and slavery, in the Bible; why do some shul-goers have poor business ethics; what's up with sheytals; what's with light switches desecrating the Sabbath; what's with dairy and meat spoons, etc. etc. we cannot know God's ways, u say? so why bother studying Him all day and night in yeshivas? we do know this: he does not care a twit about our separate spoons, so neither should we.
I could say many things about this column, but just let me say that I suggest Rabbi Norman Lamm read the article "Intermarriage rethink thanks to Noah Feldman" by Rabbi Levi Brackman on YNET.
Rabbi Dr Lamm I suggest that you offer to debate Professor Feldman both at Harvard and Cardozo Law School. The can be several topics to debate: Namely Religion in a modern multicultural society.( Does multicuturalism add or detract from religious belief. Another topic Creationism, intrlligent design versuus darwinism and survival of the fittest. I am sure that Professor Feldman will accept the offer because he is apublicity whore that is why he wrote the article in the first place.
A very dignified response to a shockingly undignified and ignorant outburst.
Let's get some things straight. 1) Feldman's article caused damage presently. However, the next news cycle will push the story out of our consciousness. It's long out of everyone else's consciousness already. 2) Unfortunately, due to the nature of the internet, the article and its deceptions will continue to cause harm. Articles and an article's inaccuracies live on. 3) We have a duty to mitigate this harm: a)We must discredit the article itself. We need a retraction and apology from NYT. Knowingly publishing an article predicated on an deceptive claim is at the least a breach of ethics. b) We must discredit the writer of this article. Feldman must not be allowed the platform of the NYT to spew more bull. We cannot allow another Thomas Friedman to arise. Another 'taxicab journalist', whose reportage consists of interviews with cab drivers and credulous talks with Saudi Royals. Another 'personality' whose simplistic reductions of intractable problems seduces and sways the ignorant masses. For don't be fooled. Feldman's backup life plan (if denied a path to a Supreme Court role) is to become a Friedman or, Lehavdil, a Dershowitz. He wants attention and influence. And by the way, speaking of his deceptions. Now that you all realize that he is a cunning deceiver (see his interviews when he never explicitly contends that the photo was altered on purpose), do you still give him the benefit the doubt? Do you now not doubt his outlandish (and pointless) claim that he knows the better part of the bible by heart? How bout other unverifiable claims--at least claims that noone would call him on? His resume claims of fluency in Arabic and French for example? And what about his Iraq ordeal? What really happened there? What do you all think of his character now? Cuz that's been the whole point of this contretemps from day 1. Not the content of his article--which was obviously laughable--but the content of his character. And similarly the content of the NYT, that venerable institution which publishes thousands of well-constructed sentences each day, at least half of which are accurate! The paper which has recovered from the Blair and Miller fiascos by starting over--with all new ethical and legal breaches!! The Times must be put in its place. A boycott by a few thousand religious subscribers is pointless and ineffective. They must be attacked by WSJ and the Post et al and perhaps they must be sued as well. Yes, I know the legal basis for a suit is not simple. That is another discussion. But it is an action that may be necessary. For the Times will, in the end, only respond to serious monetary threats. And if their credibility is sufficiently damaged, perhaps it will lose enough non-orthodox subscriber base and advertisement to make a dent. As for the state of Modern Orthodoxy, let's try to change the parameters of discussion. Stop being so sure of everything--approach difficult topics with humility. Sometimes, there is no obvious answers. either you believe or you don't. And either you take the good with the bad or you don't.
What a crazy age we live in! Jews are in the vanguard to demean, dis, deconstruct,and destroy the Jewish state of Israel and their own religious faith all in the name of the false god of universalism. What have we come to? Has Hitler won after all?
Lost in all of this discussion is a simple statistical fact that has catastrophic implications for the Jewish people in America. The odds that the grandchildren of Noah Feldman (and intermarried couples in general) will identify themselves as Jewish is less than 10%. Demographers predict an American Jewish population of under 3 million by 2030, a loss of critical mass that will devastate the American Jewish community. Our people is disintegrating in real time due to intermarriage. Either we hold the line now, or we will lose the entire battle.
I just think Judaism and the concept of Jewish peoplehood have out-lived their historic usefulness, especially for us Jews. And what is 'historic usefulness' and how does it apply to Jews centuries ago, now and the future?
Tatiana said: "My comments are directed at Beth. It's an outrage for you to make disrepectful comments about Orthodox Judiasm. You are completely ignorant about the history of the Jewish people. Resconstructionist Judiasm is basically a Gentile version of Judiasm." As a non observant Jew who comes from a family background which was “always” Jewish (there were no non Orthodox religious Jews in Poland before the Second World War) I didn’t feel that Beth made disrespectful comments about Orthodox Judaism. Your comments on the other hand were obscenely disrespectful towards her. You should apologize. “The reason that many Rabbis oppose conversion for marriage is because of there superficiality.” This is untrue, Tatiana. There are many reasons why some Rabbis oppose conversion for marriage and your view is only one of them. Other reasons would include the more valid view that one person marries another person and not a religion or a people. Still, many spouses who become introduced to Judaism through their partners end up embracing it on their own. A good Rabbi should be able to discern the difference. Are you a Rabbi, Tatiana? “There are thousands of cases where a convert to Judiasm will revert to their religion of birth when they divorce their Jewish spouses.” There may be millions but this has nothing to do with Beth. You know nothing about her and you shouldn’t speak to her as if you do. “What will happen if you end up divorcing your Jewish husband?” What will happen if your husband ends up divorcing you? Do you know, does anyone know what they would do in such a case? “There's a high probablity that you will go back to being a Catholic.” Again, this is nonsense. You know nothing about Beth. Maybe she’ll end up marrying an Orthodox Jew, though hopefully not anyone related to you. Or maybe she will marry another reconstructionist Jew. People often marry the type of person they had married before. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, do you. Besides, do you know if she has any children? Are they raising them Jewish? You need to ask some questions and listen to the answers before you shoot off you mouth, Tatiana. “I'm offended that you would insult Jewish laws that are thousands of years old.” I am insulted that you would insult a person like Beth. Law, btw, isn’t sacred because it is thousands of years old. It is sacred to Orthodox Jews because it comes from God. If a law were sacred for its longevity then there are thousands of evil laws that are older than Judaism and which are best left unobserved. “It's not about "choosing who you love" it's about the perservation of the Jewish people, something that you know nothing about.” Her views, I think, will do more to preserve the Jewish people then yours will, Tatiana. Your views have been driving Jews away from Judaism for hundreds of years. Judaism is the property of all Jews and not just of one or another sect be it Orthodox or Reform of Reconstructionist. Too many Orthodox Jews dream of a purely orthodox Jewish community. But such communities have only existed if they were forcefully ghettoized. Even then as the case of Spinoza and others it has never been able to hold on to all its members. The best chances for Judaism to survive is to recognize that there is no one valid path to its survival and that a Jew who one day was a Reconstructionist may be attracted to Orthodoxy or and Orthodox Jew may opt for a Conservative community. If these options are not available then Jews will merely drift away from the community all together. In the end the orthodox only option will lead to what you fear most: the dissolution of the Jewish people.
Did anyone notice that this article appeared on July 22,the Sunday before Tisha B'av. Noah Feldman is our current day Kamtzah- bar Kamtzah story. It is ironic that he was not dis-invited from the re-union or made to feel uncomfortable with his presence at the affair. His anger is at not being included in alumni newsletters. This in itself adds more fuel to this comical affair. Noah Feldman correctly equates censorship with censureship. Yet he writes in the New York Times which only prints what it sees fit to print and acts as its own censor. (It allowed Noah to print the boldface lie that the picture was cropped, Where is LIttle green footballs when you need him.) Noah Feldman has been blinded by his own belief in himself and that his life choices trump the greater communities choices and ideals. Furthermore he gives greater weight and authority to his mentors in Islamic studies than to the principles conveyed by his rabbis at Maimonides. It also is interesting that he chose the tyopic of Amalek. One of the commentaries is that Amalek stands for Am Lack a nation or people of sarcasm and cynicism. That Bnai Yisroel was on a high spiritual level and Amalek was eager to introduce cynicism and sarcasm to religious belief to de-moralize the Jews. Noah Feldman has unfortunately joined the camp of Amalek by succumbing to the trappings of modern day cynicism and sarcasm and abandoning the Torah teachings. Again Rabbi Lamm I implore you to seek debate with this modern day erev rav and put him in his rightful place
Norman Lamm makes me proud to be a Jew.
Tatiana, I know a woman who converted after she married a Jewish man divorced him and stayed Jewish. Ever hear of Martha Nussbaum the American philosopher? She too was a convert who stayed Jewish after she divorced her husband. You need to get out of your cocoon, Tatiana, and get to know real people.
to Zionist and Seymour: we r talking religion and philsophy, and u dolts compare me to Hitler. all u frummies and rabbis do that---if a Jew does not tote the party line, accuse him of doing Hitler's work. Get real, man
lenewyoykis Classical Reform Judaism is a failure they tried to remove people hood from judaism. In the columbus patform of 1937 Reform Judaism reinstated it.The jewish religion is a peolpe (nation) as well as a religion. just because Feldman abandoned his religous observance does not mean we shouls all follow suit. Feldman is a religous failure since he intermarried he should be honest and say he is no longer part of the Orthodox community
lenewyorkais your comments areshow that you are a classical selfhateing jew. Maimonidies School did not have to accept mr feldman's marriage. Orthodox Judaism does nor bend to todys trends. Judaism is based on halcha when it is disregared it becomes anrarchy. Reform judaism and renewal have disregarged halacha and they promote anarchy. Reform Judaism never tells us how many of its members leave completely and become unaffilated! judaism is based on halacha betwwen hashem and man and between man and his fellow man. who are you to say that traditional judaism is outdated. Orthodox judaism is the most vibrant. Forget Feldman and look at the BT that embrace Orthodox Judaism!
Lenoyorkaris you have a severe misunderstanding of the laws of niddah and general judaism. the laws of niddah are spiritual and they enhance marriage.it is not contamination. More non orthodox are using the mikvah of family purity. One of the drawbacks odf female rebbis has been the acceptance of Gay and lesbian rabbis which has destroyed the traditional wing of Conservative Judaism and is causing defections to Orthodox jJudaism! This was predicted by once Conservative Cabbis who left to form the Union of Traditional Judaism Judaism is governed by Halcha not by anarchy as you want. How are you different than Douglas Rushkoff who deconsrtucts Judaism in "Nothing Sacred"? Noah feldman is a sanctimonious jerk who detests Orthodox Judaism by representing the town of Tenefly against the ERUV! I am tired of all you universalist who want to destroy the essentials of Judaism. your rejection of traditional judaism is infitile and based on a few people get real!
Dear Rabbi Lamm: Thank you for your thoughtful response to Feldman's public peeve. As a BT of 25 years, nurtured by support from both "Modern" Orthodoxy and the Yeshivish community in Lakewood, NJ, I know of the depth of knowledge and analysis available to Jews willing to delve into their heritage on all levels - national, legal, historical, philosophical and spiritual. It allowed me to raise my children within the bounds of Orthodoxy and watch them also attain university degrees and become professionals. As a college educated professional myself, I have always been confronted by both Jewish and Gentile ignorance when such public issues have been raised. My education has given me ample and authentic, holistic Jewish responses that most can accept with respect - even if they themselves would not choose to adopt such positions. One has to be true to one's people, nation and religion/G-d/Torah, however defined. I refuse to accept other people's definition of what is allegedly racist, unpatriotic, "old fashioned" or less than modern for the sole sake of assimilation. Authenticity, rather than, apologetics. The Rav was right when he spoke in 1964, speaking about the ultimately incommunicable ideas in interfaith realms in his article Confrontation. We have Law, tradition, people and a nation that bespeak our resilience to popular and uniformed criticism.
What anti-semitic crap from Lewenyorkais! You are advocating a Juden-free world just like Hilter. If you are a Jew, which I doubt, you feel such inferiority to the Gentiles that you want to become one even though you will never be one, no matter how hard you try! Jews aren't going anywhere and our community will be continue unabated, even though our existance is threatened by intermarriage, anti-semitism and self-hating Jews. Do all of us a favor and kill yourself just like your hero did!
Dear Zionist, I have nothing against Jews----I just think Judaism and the concept of Jewish peoplehood have out-lived their historic usefulness, especially for us Jews.
Without question brilliant.
Who says the Jewish "people" is worth preserving? Our religion, while perhaps valuable in its time, is entirely outmoded for the 21st century (women get contaminated when they menstruate), our costumes ridiculous (sheytals and untrimmed beards), our cuisine usually tasteless, and nobody is impressed by our ethics. If we dare try to modernize (e.g., women rabbis), our "people" nearly stone us. Now that the world is finally ready to accept us as human beings, let's quietly join in,and I am sure, except fot apocalyptic Christians, no one will miss us.
With regard to lenewyorkais, please don't think that "our religion" is exemplified by "their" outmoded ideas, costumes and cuisine. No, htat is not Judaism, no matter how "they" try to pass it off. Our sages were ahead of their time, and the message of Sinai was to stay ahead, not behind the wisdom of the day. What a terrible example the ultra-Orthodox have given our young Jews! They will be the end of us!
Dear Rabbi Lamm, You are wrong in your assertion that Baruch Goldstein murdered Arabs because of his "Kahanist politics." The incident occured after the murders of Mordechai and Shlomo Lapid, who had died in Goldstein's arms. You're just as guilty as Feldman as you besmirch the memory of Rabbi Meir Kahane HY"D, while trying to defend your own school of thought.
" I suspect that for all the intellectual rigor Feldman encountered, what was missing was the warmth of yidishkeit and the true meaning of ahavas yisroel" Well said. The little that Feldman does mention of his Yeshiva experience does indicate lack of warmth. He does mention the intellectual thrills along with the convenient utilitarian preparation for law school. He also claims having felt kinship to the Puritans. But nowhere does he mention the kind of experience you succintly promote.
Eskimo astutely notes the avalanche of criticism and off-based non-sequitors hurled at Rabbi Lamm. But this is nothing new, Rabbi Lamm is a favorite target. As he is someone who gets bashed from the left and the right, it's reasonable to conclude that the good chancellor stands confidently on (or darn near) the golden mean. What arises from much of the criticism is an extremist attitude that allows for no ambiguities and that everything must be reduced to a simple black or white. YUGrad wants everything to be 'confronted' even if 'not placed into practice.' Similarly, Eve calls for 'lifting of the veil' and 'dialogue'- presumably for everything. She brings up Hitler thus implying anybody with the slightest prejudice or even ulterior motivation is just a hairsbreadth away from a brown shirt and hackenkreuz. Many of the other commenters also betray such an attitude.
Ner Yisroel/Ramaznik have gone on a nit finding expedition with his fine toothed comb has found quite a doozy- Rabbi Lamm quoted Jesus! Horror of horrors! Never mind, that the expression has become an idiom widely used in secular contexts. Never mind that similar motifs dot the Jewish liturgical landscape. Do you not recall "You [God] know [Man's] inclanation, for they are flesh and blood" from Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana? Your other comment also suffer from tunnel vision. Rabbi Lamm is responding in a secular newspaper to an article published in a secular paper. Don't expect the Rosh Yeshiva to sound like he's giving a mussar shmooze. Have some sense of proportion!
Feldman has singularly attacked modern orthodoxy. The question is why? Ostensibly, it is the "orthodox paradox" -- the view that one can be a full citizen in both worlds (religious and modern) without compromising on either. But when Feldman attempts to be fully modern (a universalist who married out) he is no longer welcome in the religious camp. This intellectual attack serves as the springboard from which Feldman draws strange connections that fault MO for backward attitudes toward non- Jews (his doctor section) and fostering general intolerance (Goldstein). But is this all a red herring? Is Feldman really saying that he is still a Jew, and despite his choices (harmful to the community as they are), he is refusing to relinquish this identity? The question for those who stand a committed Jews is where have we gone wrong -- a question that Feldman's school and his parents must live with. Because something did go wrong! I suspect that for all the intellectual rigor Feldman encountered, what was missing was the warmth of yidishkeit and the true meaning of ahavas yisroel. Perhaps Shmuley Boteach and his colleagues at Chabad (and those within the more orthodox world generally) have much to teach the modern orthodox about these values.
Hello, Wake up!!!! Judaism is all about differences in roles. Women are not men and jews are not other nations. Each creation has it's own specific role. We do not change Judaism to make it more comfortable for us. The Tora was there thousands of years before you were born. and it will be there for thousands of years after you die. Empires with all kinds of ideologies rose and fell and the Torah held it out and is still here to guide us today. eitz-chaim hi lamachazikim ba- IT(tora) IS THE TREE OF life for those who cling to it. just like a leaf will die as soon as it is die as soon as it is disconnected from the tree -it's source of life. the tora is eternal and you are not(hint, hint). A true believer will take tora with the whole package. (after all, it is very logical that some people have a more important role than others.)
I am out here in the hinterland. I see Feldman as an elite American and Jew. Graduate of elite institutions, employed by an elite institution (making an elite salary, too); a high achiever, well-regarded among other American social and political elites, Jews and non-Jews. Feldman just seems to be unable, now that he is grown up, to relate to his elite high school, more complicated than relations to the usual elite insitution (e.g., Harvard and Yale, from which Feldman also graduated) because his elite high school encompasses not only a political/social milieu and identity but also a religious milieu and identity. Feldman should just go to his high school "class agent" and talk about getting his achievements put into the "alumni review." It already appears that the photo-cropping claim was a red herring. I just do not think that Feldman's personal inability to relate to (and his personal dilemma about relating to) his high school illustrates or even raises defects in the vibrancy of American Judaism or modern orthodoxy, and certainly Feldman's perosnal quandry does not taint the energetic and active Judaism, orthodox, ultra, conservative, reform, inclusive, we have out here in the American hinterland, beyond the Hudson and Charles rivers.
I support Rabbi Lamm's position in its entirety. As a practical suggestion I would suggest Professor Feldman consider joinimg the Conservative branch of Judiasm which treats Halacha with utmost respect and scholarship as it seeks to interpret its requirements in the light of the world we live in today. Each of us who wants to maintain his or her ties to Judiasm can do so happily and comfortably by maintaing all, or less of the rituals- but above all is an individual who values Tradition and is proud to be a Jew.
to zody---sure thing, blame the womenfolk. after all, if u hear a woman sing, or see her hair, chas v-sholem, u will get a woody and be led astray. reminds me of the origins of niddah back in caveman days: women r scary, blood is scarier, so a woman who is bleeding from her mysterious place no less, u better keep away COMPLETELY
To Zody: You can pontificate all you like, but Rabbinic Judaism is ossified beyond repair. What's wrong with a woman rabbi, anyway? What's wrong with trimming one's beard? What's so great about an able-bodied man supporting a large family on the public dole while he learns? As far as BT's go: well, sure, many people join cults of all sorts to escape their earthly problems.
Leneyorakis You are wrong both reform and conservative judaism is based partialy on rabbinic judaism. By the way I am not a supporter of the kollel system. One must support his own family. Rabbinic judaism is vibrant it is you who are ossified. the problem with women rabbis is that it has led to anarchy in heterodox judsism. By the way the non orthodox judaism is loosing more jews then orthodox Judaism
Lenoanti-semite: You sound like Hitler, which is obviously a compliment for you. Go ahead and marry a Gentile and have Gentile children. Be a slave and worship your Gentile masters, none of us care. Leave us alone and go comment Neo-Nazis websites where your views are welcomed. I doubt you're a real Jew, either way you're an idiot scumbag!
Dear Rabi Lamm, You have given no answers. All you have said is expected from a person with a narrow and incorrect vision and understanding of Jewry. Did the jews suffer for 20 centuries for nothing? Do we still insist on the same out of place concepts to justify the existence of some Rabis? On the contrary. If we want to survive we have to discuss all issues. Your article only proves that your kind of Rabis should be excluded from all efforts to modernise the sacred religion´s outlook of the world. Much more modernity is expected from a Chancelor and former president of the Yeshiva University. Allow me to stress to you that you are out of place , times and context. Thank you Prof. Feldman M.N. Manasseh
So perfectly articulated. Rabbi Lamm is gift for this and later generations.
Thanks Elisheva Levi You are one of the few commentors on this issue who have not been blinded by personal agendas to point out the truth: Feldman does not now nor may have ever cared. His screed was not an anguished cri de couer; it was a cri de CAREER--- an effort to publish, to burnish his credentials, to bolster his resume...That is all. I would love to hear more A Feldman at Oxford stories-- you can email me at normdepalma406@aol.com.
To Beth and Robin Margolis - Your posts are a breath of fresh air to the many exasperatingly hostile comments posted. Until I read your posts I questioned why men and women of other religious backgrounds would even want to choose to raise their children as Jews. Thank you.
Dear Dr. Lamm, You presented a truly well written and erudite response. However, it was published in the Forward, not the New York Times, so it is a little like preaching to the choir. The readers of the Forward are not the ones who need to read your response. Perhaps you could send it to the Times (but will they publish it? Doubtful). Equally valid is the fact that you did not justify Noah's school for not bragging about his accomplishments. Does Harvard Law brag about its graduates who have committed crimes and gone to jail? Does the Wharton School of Economics publish the pictures of it's graduates who have bankrupted pension funds by illegal trading? Does the catholic church hold it's priests who were convicted of pedophelia as the bar by which one should judge the religion? I think not. No institution or person brags about people who do not uphold the very tenets, spoken or implied, that are part of their very existence, and one of the reasons they are held in such high esteem. You were right. Noah wants to have his cake and eat it too. His childish hissy fit about not being recognized by his alma mater is just that, a childish tantrum, and should not not have been dignified by being published by the New York Times. I wonder if they would have published an equally damaging essay written by a Moslem. I doubt it. They are very careful not to offend Muslims. Why not the same sensitivity towards the Jews? Because we ourselves do not have it. Nobody hates the Jews like the Jews. That said, I laud your response and the tenderness with which you treat Noah Feldman. I am a firm believer that we should not slam doors shut in the faces of those who intermarry. That is not our place in life. As you said, who knows if or when they might want to return to the fold, with or without their spouses.If only Noah treated "his people" with equal sensitivity, we would not be writing this. I would hate to be on his personal enemy list. He shows no kindness or sensitivity towards people who have slighted him.
If the YU graduate didn't know how to answer his colleagues it's because he was never taught the negation of kavana for treating non Jews on Shabat. The reason he wan't taught is because that negation is not in fashon. As a child I saw religious relatives eat at my mother's table. But little by little they ate less until they stopped accepting invitations and my mother stopped inviting. Her kitchen didn't change, but my relatives followed increasingly more severe koshrut strictures. An old lady in Israel, born in Mea Shirim, left the neighborhood in her late teens to found a kibbutz. She keeps in touch with her brother, the rabbi who stayed in the old neighbor. She is angry at a world that insists they should have nothing to do with each other because of their orientations toward religion. I would not go so far as to blame modern orthodoxy for Goldstein and Amir. But it should be noted that Rabin was called a rodef, one who pursues you to kill you. That was Amir's reason for murdering him. Rabin's widow made a point of snubbing Likud leaders for using to rabbis' rodef rulings for their own political purposes. The Israeli rabbis did some very fancy back pedeling when their preaching produced actions. For a long time rabbis enjoyed the luxury of rulings that increased strictures of ritual observance and often at the expense of Jews less religious then they and their following. Rabbi Lamm would sound more credable if he cited the rabbinical ruling that says a Jewish doctor can care for a patient on Shabat regardless of the patient's religion or the kavana or the doctor.
Dear Friends: As the Coordinator of the Half-Jewish Network, an international organization for adult children and grandchildren of intermarriage, I read with both interest and dismay the comments on Rabbi Norman Lamm's views about Professor Noah Feldman's intermarriage, and Feldman's critique of modern Orthodoxy. I would respectfully submit that Rabbi Lamm, whose vast erudition is well-known, and many of the very sincere Torah-observant commenters on Rabbi Lamm's essay, are missing a primary point in this controversy. Professor Feldman is intermarried and wishes to remain a part of the Jewish people. He spoke in his essay of taking his two children to synagogue. But with the exception of Beth, a Reconstructionist convert to Judaism, and perhaps two other commenters, nowhere did I see any Jewish hands held out to encourage Professor Feldman to remain Jewish, to introduce his wife -- a distinguished professor in her own right -- to a possible conversion to Judaism, or to encourage Professor Feldman to continue taking his children to shul. Professsor Feldman's aspirations to remain a Jew were mostly addressed in terms of hostility and rejection. Speaking as the Coordinator of the Half-Jewish Network, I would urge patience and kindness on the part of the observant Jewish community towards members of interfaith families. There are Orthodox Jewish organizations that are attempting to do outreach to members of interfaith families. This includes some Chabad-Lubavitch shlicim (emissaries). For a good example of how Orthodoxy might outreach people like Professor Feldman and his family, without compromising Orthodox principles, but also without engaging in rejecting behavior, I would recommend the discussion in Sue Fishkoff's book "The Rebbe's Army" about the Chabad outreach in the heavily-intermarried Jewish community of Alaska. There is sound historical and halachic precedent for Orthodox outeach to interfaith families -- some Talmudic rabbis were descendants of converts, and Talmudic-era rabbis oversaw many conversions to Judaism. I know about the importance of kiruv/outreach from profound personal experience -- my mother was an Orthodox Jew who ran away from a profoundly dysfunctional family and an Orthodox Judaism that was presented to her as deeply constricting. She married my Episcopalian father, and I was raised in his faith. My mother undoubtedly believed that she was permanently cast out of the Jewish people. The outcome was that I now live as a Jew, but my three brothers are Christians. I would respectfully urge Rabbi Lamm and the other Torah observant commenters to consider adopting outreach-oriented policies towards interfaith families. In the Boston area, a vigorous outreach program has resulted in 60% of all children of intermarriage being raised as Jews. Thank you for listening. Cordially, Robin Margolis Half-Jewish Network
Old maimonides Alumnus said, Dear All, One must look at this from a psychological perspective. Here was a boy who had succeeded in all of his academic endeavors, except for one. He was rejected by the "Harvard" of the Israeli Yeshivas to which he applied after high school. From someone with an ego as big as his, this was a major catastrophe. Out of this rejection, grew a hatred for all that was orthodox and maybe even Jewish. He now has become a reincarnation of the likes of Pablo Christiani. Most of his comments were infantile about Judaism. It showed that since he graduated high school, his understanding of Judaism not only did not advance, but deteriorated. His animus towards Judaism can be clearly demonstrated by his representing the anti- eruv claims in Tenafly pro bono. Something which doesn't hurt anyone and is opposed by anti-semites and self- hating Jews. To complain about having to eat undressed greens or calling putting on tefilin masochistic is infantile at best. But even though he normally is highly intelligent, his article was generated by hatred. And as the talmud states "Hatred twists the straight "(thinking)". "sinah mekalkeles es hashurah". I would normally have sympathy for such an individual, but his act of treachery will go down in history as one of the dastardly acts against the Jewish people. I guess we have our new Noah Chomsky. Yours an old maimonides alumnus
Bravo Rabbi Lamm for telling Noah Feldman like it is. Other responses to him have been far too polite for my liking. But in one area I think you err - of course Noah Feldman feels no shame at shaming Judaism or anyone in it or causing generations to come of more anti-Semitism. This was a desired result and not an unintentional product of an angry ramble as you imply in your article. He is premeditated and conniving - and therefore I, for one, don't want him back. He has been disgusted with himself as a Jew ever since he attended Oxford with a friend of mine who saw him on a weekly basis spurning his Judaism. Our best response to Feldman is to make him realize his smallness - as you do in your final remark. Feldman must be told for once in his life that he is an utter fool. Thank you.
I find it ironic Jew racists in the media and elsewhere advocate the polluting of other races by fornicating with them like dogs then whine about "marrying out"... By all means keep the 112 genetic diseases Jews have created by in breeding among yourselves..along with the rest of your filthy and Godless pratices
I only wish that the N.Y.Times would have published this response.This isn't reaching the very people who need to read it.
I havent read Feldmans article, but have been drawn to its conten by Rabbi Kermeir of Fifth Avenue Synagouge and Rabbi Lamms response. I am moved by rabbi Lamms exposition and logic. It really makes us crie and be grateful. Let's have a Healthy and peaceful New Year, and with Yom Kippur around the corner a time for Teshuva and reflection. David Fishman
Dr. Lamm: I am a Jew who also married out of faith. I have been told that our souls are incompatible. If that is true it is because the soul of my dear wife is more perfected than that of my own. I sympathize with your fears that the gentile community should not become enflamed against us. As a student of history, I understand the reasons why. However, I do not live in the shetl and am not afraid of the armed Polish peasantry. Therefore I may remove my figurative shtriemel and speak freely witout such anachronisitc fears. Because after all, Dr. Lamm I do not believe that we intermarried Jews should skulk in the dark alleys shame-facedly with head hanging low for our treasonous act of loving a fellow human being that is not of the Jewish faith. Though my wife is a beautiful person who has enrisdhed my life and soul, she is and will always be viewed as a "goy" by many of my sanctimonious fellow Jews. I have heard Talmudic homilies as to why intermarriage is verboten. It draws upon the prohibition in Devarim. However Devarim also teaches to kill a disobedient son. I wonder how often this has happened in the last 3000 years. The point here is that there is much in the Oral Law that suggests human analysis (prone as it is to the prejudices of the flawed human being) as opposed to divine revelation. Don;t forget that not all Jews have accepted the Oral Law as divinely inspired such as the Saducees and Karaites. My point is not to engage in religious debate as to whether the tzit-tzit should have a blue thread or not (as required by Devarim). I am sure many a lifetime has been spent on analyzing that most important issue to the betterment of mankind. Rather I am concerned with sanctimonious Jews who have put me and my wife on the "back of the bus." And then wish to have us silently sit there. My aim is not to hold Judaism (or those professing to be its spokespepople) up to ridicule but neither do I wish Judaism to hold me up to ridicule. That an Israeli soldier the son of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother who died in a battle cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetery I say to you Dr. Lamm: SHONDER!! As my "goy" wife is now facing death due to cancer I no longer wish to be silent. I no longer wish to hear about all the Jewish martyrs who gladly accepted death rather than eat traif. I want to hear you Dr. Lamm speak to the pain suffered by Jews like me. I want Jews like you to ask for repentence for your years of silence. Ask for Teshuva Dr. Lamm. You do not speak for all of us. Ask for Teshuva Dr. Lamm because you think yourself to be a more loyal Jew then me. Lo during these 30 odd years I have observed many of my fellow Jews whom I love. The vast majority of whom are wonderful, accepting, and prasieworthy. There is a coterie however who have the unique ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in their mind at the same time and function without a sense of contradiction or inner tension. Such people at once profess to be righteous Jews and claim all lives are equal in the eyes of G-d. Yet in private refer to wonderful people like my wife as a "goy" whose soul is incompatible to my own. Dr. Lamm, I am a straightforward man and likely do not possess your formidable intellect and ability to discuss the "subtleties" of Jewish law. Your entire article illustrates the implicit point I make here. You do not seek public discussion. Rather you seek Jews like me to "protest" or throw our "tantrums" in dark rooms away from "goyim" eyes where we can be battered by three thousand years of Rabbinical precedent. But Just as Catholics may publicly speak and Presbyterians may express their dissent publicly so too may I, a Jew, do the same. If you are offended. Well -- Get over it. MORDECAI For 30 years I have remained silent. Lo these many years of marriage to a "goy" I have suffered the slings and arrows of the askance look and
My response is in answer to some of the comments made. We Jews are not a a paradigm of virtue. Some of us attempt to approach the ideals taught to us by our learned teachers. We should not publically shame another because they rejected our understanding of how to practice our principles. If modern man's understanding of science, the physical and perhaps the metaphical world, and the manipulation of his environment, has surpassed the great sages of one to two millenia ago- certainly some Jewish laws may be more appropriate for today. A midget standing on the shoulders of a giant may see further. With all the negative comments made by some Jews against other Jewish beliefs and particular practices, we are known by our deeds. Quit the bickering and the anomosity. Show the "other," if he wishes to listen, and lovingly demonstrate that you have a "better" way. Otherwise "genuck ist genuck."
First, a short comment. Both papers (Feldman's and Lamm's) touch upon core, essential issues. By definition, if there are truly essential issues, no answer will be a 'satisfying' answer: their essence is to remain issues. Therefore, in my eyes, the very reason that causes YU graduate and some others to moan the lack of definite answers that Lamm should provide with is what distinguishes modern orthodoxy - as, in my feeble understanding, I see it - from other streams in the Jewish world. There is no shortage of delicate problems in halakhah. Thank G-d, Feldman did not raise the issue of mamzerim (a serious issue here in Israel). I assume that he did not because goyim are not concerned and his point was about Jews (or modern orthodox Jews) vs non-Jews, especially goyim in the eyes of Jews. (Goyim surely will appreciate his beau geste. A real gentleman.) A personal comment. I remember many years ago I was taught halakhoth dealing with non-Jews, including the ones mentioned by Feldman. My rabbi talked about Pikuah nefesh and guerim. I asked: 'guer ? guer toshav or guer tsedeq, the rav means ?'. He was only talking about the guer tsedeq. I was troubled and made no attempt to hide my trouble (thank G-d). What about the 'guer toshav' ? The goyim ? Is there a difference ? What is it ? Then he went over our texts once again - the same conclusion. And he added: 'The question you are asking yourself - I won't answer it.' I could see that he was not at ease either. But I am grateful that later he added: 'Remember that a sage who does not have seichel is not a mensch' (actually the original midrashic statement is even sharper, but I would not have understood it then.) I somewhat understood that this was his own way of leaving the door open, of distinguishing between taught halakhah and what you actually do. There are problems, maybe the deepest ones, that you can solve only when you - and no one else - face them in your life. Even if - or precisely because - you want to do the right thing. For those problems, you don't have time to run to your rabbi to ask for the answer; or if you do, you're not a mensch. (Or maybe, fine, ask a rabbi, but still, the decision to act or not to act is entirely yours.) I did not quite understand this at the time. Now -- twenty years later -- the trouble has not calmed down, the basic and deep questions are the same ; but I am still a Jew, practicing Mitsvoth, still a 'modern orthodox' (though this is not the way it is called here in Israel. But I do not identify myself as a Dati Leumi either). To the perplex - I would not repeat nowadays what my rav did. I would say the Rashei Peraqim: "Good men should not obey law too well." (Emerson) I know this is beyond the formulation of my rav and my teachers, but it does not necessarily lie beyond their thought. Note that this is not meant of every man -- only good men. Good men are those who are already deeply engaged in the study and practice of the law. Good men are people the community they live in can rely on. Accordingly, by breaching a basic commitment to the Orthodox Community that raised him, Feldman may not qualify as a 'good man'. Thus Lamm has one good reason (but not all of them) to protest again his paper in the world's most public forum. But the basic issues remain.
Peretz Scheinerman wrote; "in the name of self justification u will destroy anything and i mean anything,just to justify that shiksa that lays beside you....thank you for putting another nail in the coffin of your father,grandfather, and greatgrandfather heratige all in the name of making your decadence seem moral and righteous..... you are repugnant to klal yisrael.... may god have mercy on your soul." It is the exact sentiment that Mr. Scheinerman is expressing that alienates us from our Young Israel, Boro Park upbringing. He alienates me from what is beautiful and worth keeping just as much as from the ugliness of his intolerance. As a member of his personal family and part of the YU culture over the last half century - My grandfather taught Chemistry at YU as well as talmudic classes for 50 years, I assert that your opinion pre-assumes that your path is the only right way. If you keep on insulting others that are different then you are no different than the fanatics of all faiths that reject debate and pluralism, that are antisemitic. In that rejection, you have ostracized not the rest of us, but yourself, therby causing obsoletion and ultimately extinction. Judaism will live on in us. Please remeber that the single most threat to Judaism is not war or antisemitism, but self hatred by people like you that cause assimilation due to access denial. I am someone who also married outside my faith for love and strength. Flesh, decadence is not a reason to get married in this day and age. Your thinking is shallow and shows the closed mindedness so apparent in modern orthodoxy which is not modern at all. In fact you use that word to justify your fanatical behavior and attitudes. The fact that you say I am repugnant is not only an insult to me and good people around the world, it is an insult to Hashem, who loves me always. Which one of us is closer to HIM, I wonder.
I do not understand the problem. Mr. Feldman fell in love with an Asain woman. Ok. He strongly states that he loves his people, his religion, and his practice. However, due to the fact that he fell in love with a non-Jew he is a traitor to his own people. What I do not understand is the inherit hypocrisy in the intermarriage debate. The rabbi uses Psalms to justify his position. However Pslams clearly says that we are ALL not only Jews ALL created in his image. But there is an underlying theme that God created us all equal but you can only marry Jews. Can someone please help me understand this paradox. God made and loves all people. But certain people cannot be together? Why? Why can't you marry who you fall in love with and practice Judaism? Again I reiterate, how can god love and make all people, but certain Jews despise the fact that Jews marry non-Jews? Are the non-Jews not made by the same God with the same love? Help me understand the difference.
I am a convert to Judaism. I joined a Conservative Shul. By orthodox standards I'd probably be standing outside the gate still, but my conversion was sincere. The missing element from both Lamm and Feldman's essay was the matter of the heart. If a marriage continues the tradition of Judaism; the example of the book of Ruth -- then the woman, Korean, African, Catholic background, whatever, should be welcome into the fold as someone who is willing to enter the tradition. If the convert keeps Kosher while the person born a Jew eats traef and is a scoundrel, which is the better Jew? The Raid by the INS on the main source of Glatt Kosher beef is far more damaging to the reality of modern Jewish life and Israel than anything this former Yeshiva student wrote.
Most informative.
I'm a Scot, proud to have been born in a country that never in its history spilled Jewish blood.
All the years I lived in NYC, London, and Glasgow, I never realised the utter loathing and contempt that Orthodox Jews have for us gentiles. I thought of them as people, and I thought they looked on us the same way. Seems I was wrong.
Most informative.
I'm a Scot, proud to have been born in a country that never in its history spilled Jewish blood.
All the years I lived in NYC, London, and Glasgow, I never realised the utter loathing and contempt that Orthodox Jews have for us gentiles. I thought of them as people, and I thought they looked on us the same way. Seems I was wrong.