‘With a heavy heart we will soon say Kaddish on the Reform and Conservative movements,” Rabbi Norman Lamm, the distinguished chancellor of Yeshiva University, recently proclaimed in an interview with The Jerusalem Post. “The future of American Jewry is in the hands of Haredim and the Modern Orthodox.”
Lamm’s triumphalistic prediction has, unsurprisingly, elicited strong and angry responses from Conservative and Reform leaders who consider their movements youthful and vibrant. For a historian, though, the prediction cannot help but call to mind earlier attempts to divine American Judaism’s future.
When Lamm was young, those who followed trends in Jewish life expected to say Kaddish for Orthodox Judaism. A careful study in 1952 found that “only twenty-three percent of the children of the Orthodox intend to remain Orthodox; a full half plan to turn Conservative.” The future of American Jewry back then seemed solidly in the hands of Conservative Jews.
Years earlier, in the late 19th century, Reform Judaism expected to say Kaddish for other kinds of Jews. The great architect of American Reform Judaism, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, titled his prayer book “Minhag Amerika” — the liturgical custom of American Jews — and given the number of synagogues that moved into the Reform camp in his day, his vision did not seem farfetched. Many in the mid-1870s believed, as he did, that the future of American Judaism lay in the hands of the Reformers.
Before then, of course, those with crystal balls expected to say Kaddish for Judaism as a whole in America. One of the nation’s wisest leaders, its then attorney general, William Wirt, predicted in 1818 that within 150 years, Jews would be indistinguishable from the rest of mankind. Former president John Adams likewise looked to the future and thought that Jews would “possibly in time become liberal Unitarian Christians.”
All these predictions made sense in their day. All assumed that the future would extend forward in a straight line from the present. All offered their followers the comforting reassurance that triumph lay just beyond the horizon.
And all proved utterly and wildly wrong.
Lamm’s prediction is unlikely to break this depressing streak of failures. Admittedly, Conservative Judaism today faces significant financial, demographic and ideological challenges, but Reform Judaism faced greater challenges 75 years ago, when it was by far the smallest and most divided of our three religious movements. Yet it successfully reinvented itself, winning over to its ranks many Jews whose parents might never have considered Reform Judaism an option. Conservative Judaism, with its new and more youthful leadership, could stage a similar comeback. Orthodox Judaism, ironically, serves as the poster child for what a beleaguered religious movement can accomplish. Its revival over the past 50 years is one of the great stories of postwar Judaism.
At the same time, and notwithstanding the abundant evidence that Lamm might muster on Orthodoxy’s behalf — its prodigious birthrate, its expansive day school movement, the success of Yeshiva University, the remarkable spread of Chabad and more — Lamm’s triumphalism flies in the face of a history that has humbled so many would-be prophets, and glosses over American Orthodoxy’s all-too-real challenges.
Five challenges are especially worth noting:
First, Orthodox Judaism in America has had trouble retaining its members. According to demographer Sergio DellaPergola of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, it loses more of its members over time than any other Jewish religious movement — understandably so, since it is harder to be Orthodox than to be any other kind of Jew. Since Orthodoxy represents, even by the most generous estimate, only 13% of those who define themselves as Jewish in America, that represents a significant demographic problem.
Second, Orthodoxy in America is suffering from a severe leadership crisis. The greatest of its 20th-century leaders — Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Rabbi Aharon Kotler, Rabbi Moses Feinstein, the Lubavitcher Rebbe and others — have all passed from the scene. Their successors, who do not carry the mantle of the great pre-war European yeshivas, have not achieved the same breadth of acceptance. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, who is Soloveitchik’s son-in-law and now the rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel, has bemoaned “the current dearth of first-rank gedolim,” or giants, in America. Historically, religious movements that cannot count on indigenous leadership to direct them have not fared well in America — at least not for long.
Third, American Orthodoxy is experiencing a significant brain drain. It sends its best and its brightest to Israel for long periods of yeshiva study, and unsurprisingly, many of them never return. One can think of multiple examples of remarkable Orthodox men and women who might have had a profound effect on Jewish religious life in America but preferred to cast their lot with the Jewish state. Can a movement that sends its most illustrious sons and daughters to Israel truly expect to triumph here in the United States?
Fourth, American Orthodoxy remains deeply divided over the issue of how to confront modernity. This is not a new problem; tensions between “accommodators” and “resisters” in Orthodox life date back to the 19th century. But now, in the absence of broadly respected leaders, the fault lines between Modern and right-wing Orthodox Jews have deepened. The question is whether Orthodoxy can survive as a very broad “big tent” movement or whether, like Conservative Judaism of an earlier era and like so many non-Jewish religious groups that have faced similar challenges, it will ultimately polarize. Big tents have a bad tendency to collapse and split apart, especially in the absence of a strong center. The fact that Orthodox Judaism does not have any strong institutional ties binding together all its factions makes the danger of schism all the greater.
Finally, American Orthodoxy is facing its worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The crushing losses experienced by some of its most generous philanthropists, the billions of dollars in endowment lost in the Madoff scandal and the projected collapse of numerous day schools suggest that Orthodoxy’s best days may be behind it.
In the world of religion, smugness and self-assurance are usually risky. As Reform Judaism, Conservative Judaism and Mainline Protestant denominations have discovered, success in the present provides no guarantees for the future. If anything, saying Kaddish for other religious movements has often been the first sign of a movement’s own impending decline.
Jonathan D. Sarna is the Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University and the author of “American Judaism: A History” (Yale University Press, 2004).
Quite often I hear predictions that are based in ignorance of both the past and present. This is not limited to Jews.
I am amazed at the breadth of ignorance Americans exhibit when offered the opportunity to prognosticate on our future. If you have no idea where you came from you have no way to divine which directions are most logical for you to take that will not force you off a cliff at some point.
After 20 centuries of painful and at times murderous exile Jews should have created a history that is concise, elegant and easily relayed to our progeny. This has not yet happened. The anecdotes young Jews are told tend to be far too topical and regional. We have a very long history with many exciting and perilous twists and turns which should be able to capture and entice the imagination of our youth.
If Judaism fades away it will be because we do not explain why we are so important to the future of humanity. Without Jews this planet would not be very civilized. Europe would still be struggling out of its dark ages and Islam would have descended into the abyss it is teetering on at this moment.
If Rabbi Lamm is correct that “The future of American Jewry is in the hands of Haredim and the Modern Orthodox," then, for the first time in Jewish history, the Jewish people are no longer eternal.
The very nature of predictions is that they never really come true. So, indeed, no one can possibly know what will be the outcome of American Jewish life. Prof. Sarna establishes as self-evident that the discussion of the future American Jewish community should be focused on the three religious movements. He establishes as self-evident that Jewish religious life is the definition of the Jewish experience. It is not so.
The name of Prof. Sarna's book always had me puzzled. Why is it entitled "American Judaism: A History"? Judaism is the name of our religion. It is the same Judaism as in any other country. I've never heard of "Russian Judaism" or "South African Judaism". His book is about the history of the Jews in America. It is about a people, not about a religion.
Judaism is the religion of the Jewish people. Judaism will survive as long as there is a peoplehood that continues to maintain its own distinctive identity. That, of course, is the real issue at hand. Are the Jews a distinctive peoplehood identity in America, or are they members of the American peoplehood who believe in Judaism? If the former is the case, then the Jews in America are a continuity of the historic Jewish experience - one of the peoples of the world - whether or not they belong to this or any movement. If the latter is the case, then the other Jews of the world may eventually be seen as foreigners. Then we'll have a reason for saying Kaddish.
In addition to the reasons Sarna states about problems facing the Orthodox community, three events in 2008 seem to show that Orthodox Judaism has gotten too big for its own good. The Agriprocessors scandal shows the folly of corporate control over what was once a boutique industry, and that perhaps kashrut should not be a multi-national, multi-billion dollar industry. I for one doubt this is what the Talmud had in mind. The attack on the Mombai Chabad house is a reminder of just why most Jews live where they do: the threat of anti-Jewish violence is just too high, even in some democracies like India. While Chabad believes it fulfills a messianic mission in sending shulchim to the four corners of the earth, perhaps for safety and PR reasons this policy ought be reconsidered. Maybe Eastern-European Orthodox Judaism just isn't meant to be found worldwide. Finally, the Madoff scandal exposed to the general public just how interconnected Orthodox institutions were with the whims of the stock market, more proof that Orthodoxy's remarkable expansion over the past 50 years sowed the seeds for its own demise.
There is much to agree with in this piece, but much to disagree with as well. 1) There was no element of triuphalism or smugness in Rabbi Lamm's comments. Rabbi Lamm genuinely bemoans the present demographic trends in Conservative and Reform Judaism, because he has supported interdenominational cooperation in the past. (Interestingly, Marvin Schick, a prominent Haredi lay leader, has similarly lamented the demise of Conservative day schools) 2) While DellaPergola's statement regarding the high numbers of "dropouts" from Orthodoxy is undoubtedly true, the trend is almost certainly overwhelmed by the high birthrate within Orthodoxy. 3) Regarding the lack of indigenous leadership in Orthodoxy, on the Haredi front, the huge Yeshiva in Lakewood NJ (6000 students and growing) is literally designed from the bottom up as a "gedolim" incubator. Many people in their 30' and 40's, well known within the community of Lakewood itself, are even now recognized as potential leaders. Leadership in the Haredi community requires not only ability but age. In a decade or two, they will be ready to assume their mantles. 4) While the danger of schism is always present, there are opposite trends as well. For example, while the "move to the right" among the Modern Orthodox has been much lamented, the trend also lends stability to the "big tent".
I am very disappointed in Prof. Sarna's article for a number of reasons, two of which stand out in my mind:
1. Anyone who knows anything about R' Lamm- and Prof. Sarna is surely one such person- knows that there was not a hint of "triumphalism" in what he said. Indeed, the very words he said are the exact opposite of triumphal. The willingness of so many people to ignore this in favor of attacking R' Lamm shows, to me, that he hit a very sensitive point.
2. Instead of actually responding to R' Lamm's points, Prof. Sarna instead decides to engage in a little triumphalism (I'm sorry, but as I consider it, I can see no other word for it) of his own. That is, instead of writing a full article trying to show how non-Orthodox Judaism is not, in fact, dying, he devotes almost all of his space to problems within Orthodoxy. I think R' Lamm would be the last person to deny that Orthodoxy is without issues- but that is not the point here. Again, the attacks make me wonder if they don't prove that R' Lamm has a good point indeed.
Sorry, Nachum-- Norman Lamm's comment was triumphalist to the point of being snide. The line about the "heavy heart" was a bit over-the-top, and as transparently insincere as anything that has ever proceeded from the mouth of a rabbi. "Heavy heart," indeed! Like any Orthdox leader, Lamm would be thrilled to write the obit of non-Orthodox Judaism.
There is so much wrong with Rabbi Lamm's statement that it's hard to know where to start, but I'll give it a shot. In the fifth paragraph of this article in Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/131776 , the statement is made that the number of American Jews has decreased by "nearly half" since 1972. I looked into this number carefully and found the following: a) the source is very reputable and b) the number is less -- the number of Americans has decreased by "only" about 31% in that time!
We hear endless discussion about the one-third of Jews lost in the Holocaust but Rabbi Lamm seems to be totally unaware that American Jewry has lost almost the same proportion in a period of about thirty years. And, what's much more important is how this has happened. It hasn't happened because, God forbid, Jews have been physically annihilated in America, or because we have faced such discrimination that it has remained "schver tsu sein a Yid". Quite the opposite: these Jews have walked away because they have been free to walk away! No branch of Judaism has found a way to keep these very large numbers of Jews wanting to be Jewish. Perversely, we might even say that the main danger to contemporary American Jewry is the absence of anti-semitism!
So even if Rabbi Lamm were correct that Orthodoxy is the growing and vibrantly successful branch of American Judaism, it would be a hollow victory because it would mean that Orthodoxy is more and more successful but for less and less Jews!
And, finally, in fact Orthodoxy is no such leader. The 2000 -- 2001 NJPS contains the following data: as of that study, there were 297,000 Orthodox Jews in the U.S. over the age of 18. We all hear about how well the Orthodox attract the non-Orthodox to their fold, but in fact the study showed that while 57,000 of those Orthodox were baalei teshuva, fully 347,000 other American Jews were born Orthodox but had left the movement. The Orthodox had lost more members than they had as of that study!
The study also includes the following statement: "Anecdotal evidence of large numbers of baalei teshuva notwithstanding, relatively few Orthodox Jews claim to have been raised non-Orthodox."
One last point: Professor Sarna says that the Orthodox lose more people than any other movement becasue it is harder to be Orthodox. I disagree. It is not harder to be Orthodox; it is less attractive when compared with the opportunities that being a secular American offers. And no, I am not triumphant about this, because I am a committed Reform Jew and view the overall problem of the failure of American Jewry to retain its members as a tragedy. I just don't think the Orthodox are helping much to find a solution.
The tension between Judaism and modernity that divided orthodoxy, far from being a detriment, is the best evidence of orthodoxy's continuing vitality. Although the liberal Judaisms are numerically superior, their attempt to resolve the tension once and for all in favor of 'pure' modernity is the best evidence of their weakness rather than their success. Their ability to attract large numbers of Jews has more to do with the inability of most American Jews to function with minimum competence in an halachic environment. Educational failure is the key to the success of certain movements. There is no level playing field and in fact, the more educated are young Jews the less likely they are to stay within their movements, except as professionals.
Although demographic criteria do not favor orthodoxy today or at any time in the 20th century, demographic criteria have never been the standard of Judaism. The argument to numbers and growth is a Christian and Islamic argument and one that does not befit a thoughtful commentator on Judaism.
Rabbi Lamm expressed his concern over the future of the Reform and Conservative Movements. In reaction, Prof Sarna has expressed concern over the future of Orthodoxy. It should be added that most Jews in America don't belong to any organized Jewish life. Sadly, everyone has simply given up on them. They are not even a topic for debate.
It is good that at least the topic of Jewish communal survival is discussed. Generally, American Jews feel that Jewish troubles are elsewhere, and they remain very uncritical of themselves. Yet, there are troubles in American Jewry, and very serious ones. The whole essence of Jewish identity has dramatically changed, becoming a mere second fiddle to an overwhelming American identity. It is impossible to prophesize about the final outcome of this shift in identity, and it would seem unreasonable to change this new reality. Most American Jews are proud that they have been Americanized, so it would be fruitless to point out to them that this process is the source of their crisis.
Reid Heller says, "The argument to numbers and growth is a Christian and Islamic argument and one that does not befit a thoughtful commentator on Judaism." Well, Reid, the thing that started this whole discussion was Rabbi Lamm's statement, "With a heavy heart we will soon say Kaddish on the Reform and Conservative movements...The future of American Jewry is in the hands of Haredim and the Modern Orthodox.” Do you think that Rabbi Lamm was not referring to numbers in that statement or do you think that Rabbi Lamm is not "a thoughtful commentator on Judaism"?
Further, I have heard the Orthodox say on many occasions that before the advent of Reform, all of Judaism was what we call Orthodox today. Well, then, Liberal Judaism must have come from Orthodoxy; it couldn't have come from anything else because there wasn't anything else! Then Reid's statement, "Educational failure is the key to the success of certain movements" must apply to Orthodoxy, for it was the failure of Orthodoxy to succeed in combating the forces of assimilation that led to Liberal Judiasm.
I am not happy about Orthodoxy's failures, but claiming that Orthodoxy is somehow successful in the face of our current situation is the worst kind of denial of reality and so seems to me to be very un-Jewish.
A few things not mentioned in the article (or previous posts): 1) Although Orthodoxy may lose more members than the other movements (although Orthodoxy is not really a movement, but that's beyond the scope of this comment), its retention rate has steadily increased. The expectations of retention within Orthodoxy are in fact higher than they've ever been (thus books like "Off the Derech" showing concern about those who leave Orthodox, which curiously did not exist when Orthodoxy retained fewer members); if you combine the higher albeit not ideal retention rate with the markedly higher birthrate over both the Reform and Conservative movements and the Orthodoxy of a generation ago, along with the Baal Teshuva movement which does not show signs of abating, then there is no reason to suspect anything but continued growth in the Orthodox population (the rate of growth of course is up for debate), which is not the case in the Reform or Conservative movement; 2) Prof. Sarna's analysis of the revival of Reform and Conservative omits one critical historical fact that no longer exists today - at the turn of the century, after WWII, etc., there was a steady stream of Jewish immigrants to the U.S. - that well has dried up - only small pockets left in Russia and Eastern Europe, South America etc., and some of them go to Israel - so there are no more streams of new immigrants to inject new life into dying movements; 3) Prof. Sarna also did not mention the intermarriage factor - the recent Boston study notwithstanding, there is overwhelming evidence that the children of intermarried, which are found primarily in the Reform and Conservative movements, affiliate as Jewish adults at a markedly lower rate (notwithstanding what particular individuals might do, I'm talking about the statistics as a whole) - that does not work in favor of Reform or Conservative; 4) although Prof. Sarna may decry the lack of "gedolim' within today's Orthodoxy, it is equally true for Reform and Conservative - i.e. there are no Heschels or Finkelsteins in today's Conservative movement and no Rabbi Stephen Wise among the Reform - in general, many of the problems that beset today's Orthodoxy also beset Reform and Conservative within the guises of those movements; 5) although Prof. Sarna is right that we cannot know what will happen in the future, there is nothing now to suggest a bright future for Reform or Conservative, and some of the specific historical factors that led to the revival of those movements in the past do not exist.
The Forward has done a service by publishing Professor Sarna's essay. It seems that Rabbi Lamm, through the use of less than delicate language, has allowed the messenger to overwhelm the message. But his message is important and deserves careful attention from members of Reform and Conservative movements (of which I am one). These movements face existential demographic challenges (assuming population trends continue) and a crisis over their inability to excite and make Judaim a priority for their members. With all it failings, Orthodox judaism is a place where young people are motivated and committed in ther Jewish identification and practice. One reason is that Orthodox Judaism is participatory and democratic -- not dependent on a Rabbi to guide the service or a Cantor to lead the singing. In practice, it is Judaism from the bottom up rather than the top down.
What we need is a sustained discussion of these issues. We also need to respect the idea of religious pluralism -- something Rabbi Lamm has been devoted to over the years notwithstanding his poor choice of wording in his interview. Finally, we ought to take seriously the idea of peoplehood, as advanced by Rabbi Avi Weiss, to secure a Jewish future that is strong, vibrant and finds commonality while respecting differences.
I agree with Professor Sarnas appraisal that you cannot make such predictions. The outcome does not depend only on the initiatives and or responses of any of the sects.
I believe that new developments depend in a combination of the above plus the size of these communities and corresponding ability to live on its own without need of partners. Finally all other external influences bestowed them by the outside world. Let me explain.
When the several orthodox communities are small and desperate for survival, they will join as did the talmidim of the Vilna Gaon and the followers of the Talmidei Baal Shem in the Holy Land years ago. They formed a very strong bond and each compromised some of their ideals in order to make a strong and better core. It worked very well for a long time. Contrast this and look at the situation years later when the community grew by bounds, how they splintered and then sub-splintered. You will remember one of these units, the “Eda Hachreidis of Yerushalayim”. For years it had very strong core for keeping flock together. One of its strong areas was its central kashrut organization. You will remember that after many years one sect within the organization, felt strong and secure enough, it withdrew and established its own separate sechitah. I do not know whether there was a major outcry from within the sect about the breach but it remains fact that they are no longer tied together as an organization with a single purpose.
Look at what has happened here in the Hassidic worlds of America. We have grown by bounds and we see each dynasty interested most in its own hegemony. There is no longer a need to support each other, we can all subsist, each on our own. We have become empire builders. Whatever will increase the fortunes, influence and numbers of our own personal sect we will support with all might and right and all else with a little lip service and an occasional bone. It is fun and the in-thing to do. Can all this change? From within, probably no, forced from the outside, maybe yes. What is force from the outside?
To build religious schools, shuls and religious and social infrastructure costs a lot of money. To rear BA”H large families costs lot of money. Until that money will keep coming in, all will be fine and no changes will be needed. Until the good benefactors can afford and have the warm loving-kindness feelings to keep supporting our infrastructures we will have no concerns. We have no guarantee of either. We just pray that they should not break down. Och in Vey if they do.
Allow me to address the 3rd of Professor Sarnas 5 challenges for the orthodox, “The Brain Drain from America to Israel” Perhaps by some miracle, this Brain Drain might all be able to join together and establish a central Torah authority so superior and strong that the exiles of America and other lands will be forced to accept their leadership, determination and authority as was the case before the Torah authority traveled from the land of Israel to Babylonia after the destruction of the Temples. In turn Bavel provided direction, Torah law and interpretation to all Jewish communities abroad. When fortunes turned and Bavel was on the decline, The Bavel Torah authorities directed the local communities to go to their own community Batei Dinim which by now gained their own great Torah personages and local Torah edifices. Perhaps this great ingathering of Torah scholars and leaders to Israel in our time, will be able to reestablish direction and influence to all of us, in Israel and in Galuth. “Ki miTzion tetze Torah”.
We are Jews. All branches of observance have their own unique set of problems and strengths. I thank all of the Chabads, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist temples that make themselves available. I found my Jewishness through them. Phillip
To "David" and "David Mollen": You are assuming that your reactions are true without evidence and without knowing facts. The simple fact is that R' Lamm has said a number of times that the dangers of assimilation are far worse than the existence of Conservative and Reform Judaism. Of course he doesn't see them as ideal- no Orthodox Jew does- but he is painfully aware of the problems of the Jewish world and the alternatives to non-Orthodox movements. Just because you get the feeling that he is snide and ignorant does not mean he is.
Rabbi Tony, somebody already had the same idea, and beat you to it by about 2,000 years. His name was Rabbi Jesus. His new and improved version did away with all the stuff you want to get rid of, too. I think your target audience may already be taken.
Although I love numbers as a means to convey facts, they do not tell the whole story here. What is more a fact is that Reform and Conservative have allowed themselves to self-destruct via their constant attempts at self-definition. Now, particularly within the Reform movement, there are more and more members who will not be halachicly recognized as Jewish by other branches.
At the same time, there is a vibrant Baal Teshuva movement. Also, throughout the United States, new Orthodox communities are springing up. For example, in Waterbury CT there was a kollel (yeshiva for married men)established several years ago. Now housing is sprouting as young Orthodox families seek out this NY Metro area community that (still) has affordable housing. This happened in the past in Passaic NJ, now known as the "BT Capital of America".
Today, there are more Jews learning in Yeshivas (from day school thru advanced learning) then there ever has been. Orthodox Judiasm has an appeal to many because it is truthful, based upon our entire Mesora (history), as opposed to being conjured up as an alternative.
Are there many who leave Orthodoxy? Yes, but perhaps there always were, the figures just weren't being tracked.
Leah, love your (truthful) comment about Rabbi J!
Professor Sarna's thesis is flawed, to say the least. First of all, Rashi, quoting the Medrash, tells us that 80% of the Jews did not leave Egypt but perished in the Plague of Darkness. However, 3,000,000 Jews alone, excluding future generations who also were bound by the Giving of the Torah, witnessed Divine Revelation and the Giving of the Torah.
That being said as a necessary introduction, Torah observant Judaism, whether one classifies it as Charedi or Modern Orthodox, or anywhere in between, has never been dependent on numbers or on charismatic leaders, but rather on a minority of followers who are committed to a portable Mesorah and who have welcomed BTs and Gerei HaTzedek throughout the ages and have allowed various philosophical trends ranging from political quietism and activism ( think of R Akiva and R Yochanan Ben Zakkai), Maimonidean philosophy,Kabbalism, Musar, Chasidism and Misnagdism as well as many subtrends to develope to each age's religious challenges. I agree with Arnie Lustiger and Charnie Feldman but would advise Professor Sarna to take a look at night seder in RIETS if he thinks that Modern Orthodoxy is in danger.
Rabbi Lamm had a good point and a truthful and painful one to share.
The above is a very interesting give and take. At least we are talking about it and not hiding from our collective Jewish problem of assimilation and the disaffected Jew.
First of all - the Orthodox are offering the most Jews for "opting out" as the Orthodox -- are the serious "Torah" observers of its commandments. Also "orthodox" today is a very, very broad umbrella.
Secondly, the conservative and certainly the reform are so far afield of "Torah observance" under any interpretation - to the point that there are many gentiles parading as Jews when in fact they are not, period.
Thirdly, it is not "nussach America" or any other nussach that will keep Judaism vibrant but the soul of Judaism which is Torah and Mitzvah observance.
In conclusion - the very heavy lifting --i.e. daily life observance and its rituals -- are being mostly performed by those closely related to the orthodox. The liberal i.e. --read less observant streams of Judaism are going nowhere very quickly.
Case in point. Shavuos just was observed by whom? How many went to Shul? Who - what -when and where was it observed. Of course by the mostly observant - read orthodox Jews while the SKIRBALL etc type of off the beaten path of Shavuos observance had lots of hype and a minimal amount of impact, (OK here I'm assuming) but it certainly made nice copy for newspapers but NO real lasting effect on anyone.
As a fifth generation middle aged American Jew, this is my opinion living in a New England town for more than twenty five years.
So, it’s not with glee that this was written. It’s the fact of the matter. Torah observance works --even in America.
Yes America is not different. Its challenges are more compelling but it’s not impossible to be an observant Jew. We have our work cut out for us big-time.
C and R Judaism certainly have much to learn from O. In fact, many of the most committed Jews from these denominations move to O as BTs. Yet it does no service to side step the challenges facing O -- which I need not review but are familiar to anyone who follows these issues. In particular, the movement that is known as MO is under great pressure. On the right, many "yeshivish" types reject the entire enterprise of Torah u'Madah. To the extent that the rabbis at YU come from the more frum world -- the character of YU may change fundamentally. At the same time, the new CT Yeshiva is offering an alternative to YU, and it tends to attract a large number of Ivy grads to its programs. Given these pressures on the middle, it is very possible that we will see a new movement emerge that attempts to create a tent uniting right wing conservative and left wing orthodox -- one that is halachik but perhaps akin to what a MO movement in the 1970s and 1980s was like. This movement would likely attract many intellectuals and professionals who are out of place in the business dominated world of orthodoxy today.
Jeff-I think that your obituary for MO is premature and factually incorrect. Most of the Roshei Yeshivah and Maggidei Shiur at RIETS have gone through the YU/RIETS/Kollel system after a year or so in Israeli yeshivos. Many started in MO and mixed gender elementary and high schools. A few learned in more Charedi yeshivos but were attracted to the high caliber learning in RIETS, especially the Kolellim. They are not in any way a "Trojan horse" as you intimate without a shred of evidence. Like it or not, YU/RIETS' real competition for the returning talmidim from Israeli yeshivos are such venues as Lander College, Ohr HaChaim, and Ner Yisrael.
Steve --The reality is that those willing to teach and serve as rabbis in the MO world generally come from the right end of the spectrum. You can see this in many YI shuls today. You also see this in the rebbes and hebrew teachers who teach in MO day schools. These are men (and women) who deserve much credit for placing Jewish continuity over financial rewards. The typical children of the rank and file MO community are not interested in teaching. They want to make money and go into business (or law, dentistry, medicine) not chinuch. The result is that a more right wing view is being taught that takes issue with the notion that modernity and orthodox can be balanced. Perhaps this is an accurate criticism of MO as evidenced by the troubling essay written in the NYT by Professor Noah Feldman who, moving away from MO, challenged its central precepts. The Aguda and Right communities (who speak of Torah u'Parnasa) cetrainly do not hold by the thesis of Torah u'Madah. So I think it is fair to say that MO has its challengers on both the Right and Left.
First, the word Jew, was called us by G-D. Jews, are holy children of the Most High, and yes they are eternal. These are the holy children that are brought forth by the breath of the Almighty.
It is written,,,Job 33...The Spirit of G-D made me, (flesh) but the breath of the Almighty gives me life. (eternal life)
It is written in Psalms 2....I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thous art My Son; this day have I brought you forth. or beggotten you, or birth you.
G-D has Declared it, it is a Decree to be done by all of us. David, put sin out, read Ps. 101 and G-D in .
It is written in Psalm 51...Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts:(heart and mind) and in the hidden part( the Temple our true foundation) thou shalt make me to know wisdom. ...
It is written....Psalm 118 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. Dave and others seen the hidden part, the true foundation, when he turned from sin.
We all need Unity, we all need to have only One G-D. Mankind want control of G-D and think for G-D. Let G-D speak in the silence of our hearts and minds that burn with the desire to give our freewill to serve only Him, alone.
Let us not have it said of us this generation....As it is written in Isaiah 1...For you shall be ashamed of the oaks in which you delightedd; and you shall blush for the gardens that you have chosen. Let us all come together in Unity with our Shadi, for it is written...Psalm 91....He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty. Let us cry out to our Ahvee as it is written....Psalm 89...He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my G-D, the Rock my Savior. G-D our Rock our Capstone to the temple that he is building, through out all our generations.
I have heard it many times..."Why did some cry and some did not when they returned out of exile?" Some repented and some did not. Those that repented and turned, had the desire of G-D on their inward parts and stood on the true foundation the Rock the hidden part, were Truth let them know Wisdom.
Didn't you ever think about Ps. 51 and Jeremiah 31? In Ps. 51 G-D is asking us to have his desire put on our inward parts, and in Jeremiah 31...He telling Israel, they will have it done! and thet will Be His People! The tone is diffrent, think about, talk to G-D anout it.
Is G-D saying---"Set Me As A Seal Upon Your Heart"? A seal were used to inscribed the owner;s name. When we are brought forth by the breath of the Almighty we are now in the family of G-D. Born now form above as well as below. It is written Job 33..
Also the seal show and identify, authenticate and protects the contents of documents (the inward parts ) and the vessel (us).
The Documents---we become, we are now the two sided tablets that were broken by all of us right back to Moses.
We are made....full...not half...now below and above in Unity with our G-D in the mirror image. For it iw written....Psalm 57 I cry out to G-D Most High, to G-D, who fulfills His purpose for me.
Our purpose ....to be given the breath of the Almighty, and do the will of our Eternal G-D in all we do. What is done above, is done below. It is written ...Deuteronomy 33 The eternal G-D is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. Psalm 23 he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for His name's sake. We are sealed with His Holy Name.
Let us be the generation that turns, and come together in UNITY with our G-D. Let us come together not to teach, but to pray to repent, and to inter in the hidden part, let us be the generation with the law written on our inward parts. Let us wipe away the tears of many generations that did not turn, let us once again show the world, the holy children of G-D and glory belongs to G-D alone. The land we want is above and their will be a new earth below, when we turn. Let us bring in the glory again, we were given free will, let us offer our free will to do the will of our G-D of Mercy. For it is written..Psalm 59 My G-D of mercy shall come to meet me; G-D shall let me see my desire on my enemies. Our ememies are any of our sins that keep us from building the temple and putting down our stone, upon the foundation of G-D, the hidden part. Remember it is written Ps. 118...and it is marvelous in our eyes.
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.