charn

The fact that the President of a “Yeshiva” can get up and refer to Bnei Torah as “cavemen” because they do not go to college, and the fact that anti-Torah activities do take place there means that the institute as a whole must be opposed. Because it is a business – as opposed to other Yeshivas who have a business element which does not set policy for the Yeshiva but merely the administrative offices – you can have people like Lamm, or Rackman, or even worse spouting all kinds of drivel in the name of Torah. And you can have an Avi Weiss and others like him teaching under its auspices.

First, please understand that the battle against YU by the Yeshiva world is not, nor was it, a simple issue of Halachic or Hashkafic disagreement which can be dismissed as routine if accompanied with the obligatory respect for the opposing view, as per ailu v’alu etc. Not so. Rather, YU was viewed as a deviant, dangerous, and anti-Torah entity that doesnt deserve the respect of a legitimate Torah position, even a mistaken one. Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, and Rav Schneur ZTL after him, would under no circumstances even walk into YU. Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZTL also, when he came to America in the ’30s, was invited to speak in YU, and he refused to even walk in to the place.

Rav Soloveichik, although a very great Gaon in Torah, lost the status in the Torah world that a Gaon of such caliber would normally merit, due to his Hashkofos that were deemed anti-Torah. Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL once commented about Rav Soloveitchik, “He is respnsible for the majority of Tumah in America.” Also from the same Rav Aharon, “He destroyed an entire generation of Jews.” He was often referred to, even by Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshiva, with the derogatory “J.B.”. Rav Soloveichik’s funeral was almost totally ignored by the Yeshiva world, as was the Azkara. He was treated as tragic “could have been”, who unfortunately wasn’t.

Of course, this is all very offensive to the students of YU, and I undertsand that. But if we’re going to understand what the issues are, then, we need to be honest and put the positions on the table, whether we like them or not. And here are the issues: The difference between the inadequacies at YU versus the inadequacies in Yeshivos is that YU made their inadequacies into philosophical positions thereby not merely doing wrong, but changing the definition of wrong. To do wrong is a violation of the Torah, and yes, many types of Jews do that. But to make wrong into right is to change the Torah, either explicitly or implicitly. YU has done. That amounts to a new, deviant movement within Judaism, and that is thep roblem with YU. The good, the bad, the gray areas – are all considerred part and parcel of the official YU position.

Please understand, YU is a business, not a Yeshiva, and it is run by the Board of Directors, not the Roshei Yeshiva (except to the extent that leaders – the board – can be pressured by its constituency – the Roshei Yeshiva and students). Thats fine, except when business decisions are understood to be philosophical positions you you have big problems. And although many Boards of many institutions wield influence, please note that YU has and never had any Rosh Yeshiva who was the official leader and policy maker for the institution. The Board has always been the official “Rosh”. Even Rav Soloveichik was merely an employee, and, although he was called Rosh Yeshiva (and even went raising money like a Rosh Yeshiva), his power was still that of an employee, much less than a real Rosh Yeshiva should have.

Nowhere else will you find the “President” of a Bais HaMedrash constantly representing (and creating) the Torah positions of the institution without reviewing every single word of his speeches with the official Rosh Yeshiva. In YU, Dr. Lamm, though he was merely President, and not Rosh Yeshiva, had full right to get up and speak to the world about the official policies and positions of YU, even though the Roshei Yeshiva may not have agreed with him. Nowhere does a lay leadser become a setter of policy for a Yeshiva. Add to that the wrongheaded Hashkofos being taught even by some of the Roshei Yeshiva there, and you have a formula for disaster.

Example: Originally, RIETS did not even allow English studies. The Rabbonim in charge would not allow it. They were instituted when a group of students went on strike demanding the school toss its standards of right and wrong and teach secular studies. The rabbis were against, the Board was for. And so were secular studies introduced into RIETS.

Now, as Dr. Lamm pointed out in his farewell speech, MO (and YU) consider secualr studies in and unto themselves, intrinsically valuable, not merely as a utilitarian tool for Parnasa or Kiruv etc. But the fact that all knowledge “comes from G-d” gives all knowledge “value” that demands we spend time pursuing it, instead of spending that time on Torah and Mitzvos. This goes beyond the idea that secular studies can – and should – be used as a tool to attain and support Torah and Mitzvos. ANd it underscores the difference between the secular studies taught in the Yeshiva high schools versus that of YU. YU has made a value out of secular studies in itself. “Torah umadah” is a totally non-Jewish concept, assimilated into the official philosophy of YU, at least as espoused by their President. To teach secular studies as a concession or an unfortunatel necessity, which in the Yeshivos it clearly is, is not changing the values of the Torah. But to espouse that taking peopel out of the Bais HaMedrash for second Seder and to earn a degree in Law is a step up, is an unacceptable attack on Hashem and His Torah (and no, it is not nearly the same as Rav SR Hirsch, which has been discussed nin several places on these boards).

The Netziv of Volozhen closed his entire Yehsiva rather than institute secular studies, and the reason he gave is, there needs to be a “Havdolah” – seperation – between Kodesh and Chol. We sometimes need Chol, but we dare not blur the edge between it and Kodesh. YU has not only blured the edge between them, but has actually claimed that Chol is in the catagory of Kodesh. That is its biggest problem. Nothing has intrinsic value except Torah. Everything else is Hevel Hevolim. But this is only part of the assimilation into non-Jewish culture and values that YU represents.

The unacceptable socializing that goes on between the YU boys and Stern girls, the partying, the inter-collegiate and spectator sports, the bales of Apikorsus to be found in their library, ideas espoused even in the Limudei Kodesh courses that are against the Torah, never mind secular courses where clear anti-Torah ideas and ideals are taught by teachers who have all but carte blanche to say whatever they want, the teaching of Gemorah to girls, and worse yet, the excuse given for it, that “If we teach them medicine and law, they can learn Gemora too”, the Zionism, the allowance of gay clubs (money is no excuse; if they were Neo-Nazi clubs, they would not be tolerated – the issue is the lack of understanding that gay clubs are just as repulsive to G-d).

YU’s goal is to create a “synthesis” between secular learning and torah learning. That synthesis would be bad enough in and of itself – there must be a seperation, not a synthesis between the two – but what has happened is not merely a synthesis between the Torah and secular studies, but a synthesis between a Torah and a secular lifestyle, between Torah values and secular ones. And its often hard to tell which is which.

The Board of Directors didnt even want Rav Soloveichik to be the Rosh Yeshiva. When Rav Lazer Silver wrote a letter importuning them to accept him as rosh, they responded with a scathing answer refusing to do so. Only when the students themselves got invovled and protested on his behalf did the Board reluctantly give in. Harris L. Selig, an administrator and fund raiser for YU, wrote (“Standardizing the Hebrew Schools of America”): “Practically every great college and university was founded originally as a religious seminary. Harvard as a Congregationalist, and Brown as a Baptist seminary. Our Yeshiva College, too, sprongs from what was originally a Rabbinical seminary, and is it too much to expect that in time, it too, like other great American institutions, will be one of the foremost colleges in this country….” That YU should become another totalyl secular college, like Yale or Harvard, that was his vision of success for YU.

Rav Soloveichik’s position in all of this is less clear. What is clear is that he definitely bleieved that secualr studies are not only OK, but an advantage for a Ben Torah. Rabbi Moshe Zvi Brodsky, son-in-law of Rav Nochum Pertrovich ZTL of Mir, once approached Rav Soloveichik with comments on a Yohrtzeit Shiur he just attended. Rav Soloveichik liked the comments. He asked Rabbi Brodsky, “Did you go to college”? “No,” Brodsky said. “Tsk. That’s a pity,” answered Rav Soloveichik. He espoused Zionism, stating that even if Jews have to die in order to have a Jewish (religious) State, their deaths are “worthwhile”. He declared that the reason the gedolim do not agree with him about secular studies is because they “lack the courage” to admit their mistake, even though they know they are wrong (!). For anyone familiar with the courageousness of peopel like Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL and his peers, such statements merely cause the listener to raise an eyebrow, shrug his shoulders and wonder.

There are people in YU – and Stern – that have no idea what among their education and environment is Jewish, what is secular, what is Torah, what is not. And the asnwer will depend on who you ask. There is a girl on these boards, a Russian immigrant, who wrote how after she graduated from a BY school in Brooklyn she decided to go to colelge at Stern because “at least its Jewish”. What she found, she says, is the same non-Jewishness as the secualr colleges, but under the guise of a “Jewish place”. It is so confusing to her, she says, because now she has no idea what in Stern in “Jewish” and what is “secular”. That is exactly the type of misrepresentation that YU and Stern cause, which is due to the Taaruvos – synthesis – of Kodesh and Chol, where there is supposed to be a Havdalah bain Kodesh L’chol. Of course it is possible for a person to be in YU and be a Ben Torah. And of course it is possible for a Rebbi in YU to have proper Hashkofos (its only a job), but the risk is great. And what YU stands for, and what it has come to represent to the masses, is something that our Gedolim wanted to make sure nobody accepts as legitimate.

Nobody is questioning the fact that there are people who would be willing to be MO or not religious at all. The issue is, What is MO and is it the preferable mode of Judaism? The fact that it is, to some, the only version, or the maximum, that they are willing to accept does not address the issue at hand. If Modern Orthodoxy would be a Kiruv stage for people who aren’t yet ready for real Torah life, that would be fine. The problem is that they consider themselves not a b’dieved, but a l’chatchilah – a full fledged legitimate lifestyle. They often even make claims of being superior to Torah Judaism. That is the problem – compromises sometimes have to be made for individuals who are on their way up. But to take those compromises and make believe they are not compromises at all, thereby fooling people who WOULD be able to go higher that they need not, or worse, that they are already the highest, is a terrible crime. While it is true that on an individual, private, level, we are allowed to even proactively cause someone to sin if by doing so we will have prevented him form committing a greater sin, nevertheless, we may never, ever institutionalize those sins, making a b’dieved into a l’chatchilah, making the exception into the rule.

The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is not what their Jews do, but what their Judaism says. Jews are imperfect – we know that and accept it – but Judaism is perfect, and unchangeable. We do not make over G-d in our own image.

Across the board, traditional Orthodoxy has requested, importuned, begged, and pleaded with Modern Orthodoxy to change and join us. And to a great extent, MO has moved to the right, Boruch Hashem. And our hand is still outstretched. Any assistance that can be offered, is available. No Modern Orthodox Jew need think that if he wants to become traditionally Orthodox he shall not be accepted. We recognize MO as our brothers in Mitzvos, who have been straying in certain ways, but nevertheless are our brothers. Although Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L compared them to Reform (Mishnas Rabi Aharon Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav), he did not mean that they are considered Mechalelei Shabbos or eaters of Nevelah. He meant only that the justification for the modernizations that MO instituted and those that Reform instituted were based on the same mistaken pretense — that Judaism needs the changes. He did not say that the level of changes are anything comparable.

Here is an example of a plea to Modern Orthodoxy from Rav Shimon Schwab ZT”L, Rav of the Torah Im Derech Eretz Congregation Adas Jeshurun in Washington Heights:

“And now we address ourselves to our chaveirim bedeah, our achim bemitzvos of the Orthodox Rabbinate of America. Ad masai? How long do you want to remain a branch, without becoming part of the tree? . . . We say to our achim b’mitzvos, “have Rachmonus with yourselves, and lemaan Hashem, part company with those who have given obscene semichah to to’evah clergymen” . . . Have rachmonus with yourselves, and break off your professional relationship with those who, for instance, consider Yishu HaNotzri merely a failed moshiach . . .We implore you . . . to part company with those gravediggers of Torah. I know it is a painful subject but it is unavoidable . . . We call on you to join us, the true Modern Orthodoxy [Rav Schwab is referring to previous statements of his that MO is today outdated and “anything but modern”], which is a generation of sincere mevakshei Hashem”. (Selected Essays, pp. 90-91)

This does not sound like rejection, but a plea for MO to join us, hand in hand. The mistakes of MO are not the issue. That is for Hashem to judge and deal with, however He sees fit. Punishment for misdeeds is not our business. Unity is. And MO has been – and still is! – implored, “lmaan hashem” to join us in the traditional Orthodoxy ways. The issue is not the past. It is the present and the future.

ovktd: Check the quotes I provided earlier on this thread from “Five Addresses” by Rav Soloveitchik. I provided page numbers.