A Cracked Wall?

By: Jonathan Seidel

Doxology Infractions

This past century has hardened its position on orthodox dogma. Not only amongst the preeminent poskim that of Hafetz Chaim and R Feinstin but the leading modern orthodox scholars of Parnes, Bleich and Sacks. Each of these thinkers demonstrated a denominational isolation from the more liberal units. Orthodox scholars have stonewalled any inclusivity. Dogma is the centre of thought. Three examples will suffice 

The first exemplifies this dogmatic attitude. Louis Jacobs was a revered rabbi and scholar who was embroiled in a terrible scandal known as the Jacobs Affair in the 60s. After Jacob’s growth in fame simultaneously delved into scholarship. In his We Have Reason to Believe he argued for a less than literal divine revelation. His acceptance of biblical criticism went unnoticed but when he was to be appointed principal of Jew’s College, chief Rabbis Brodie opposed the appointment. Though Brodie initially appointed him to the pulpit half a decade earlier, this time was different. The London Beit Din backed Brodie’s decision. Then when Jacob’s wished to return to his pulpit post a few years later Brodie again refused Jacobs. This in turn led to Jacobs and his supporters to open a new synagogue in 1964. Yet the end of the ostracism did not end there. Sacks years later forbade Jacobs from receiving an Aliyah at his grandson-in-law’s ufruf.

The rationale behind the scandal was his unorthodox beliefs. Jacobs opinion was out there. He termed it liberal supernaturalism. He couldn’t accept the literal version and made his position known. Had he kept it to himself, there would not have need such an issue but he spoke up and wrote extensively on the subject. His whole life was trying to thuebridge the gap. His thought more radical than Leibowitz and more isolated. Whatever the mainstream belief was this was not theologically nor polemically viable in the eyes of the elite.  

The second scandal has been the emergence of the website theTorah.com. It was an educational site to combine Torah and biblical scholarship. Zev Farber one of its founders quickly posted a series of the torah and its diachronic similarities. Farber was continuously attacked by major rabbinic leaders and across various websites. His YCT open orthodox affiliation just made things worse. They dismissed his ideas as outright heresy. The irony of it all is just after the Faber’s scandal Lefkowitz published his social orthodoxy which had a much different response. There was much more respect and empathy. It may have to do with the lay status or the struggle but revered orthodox leaders praised Lefkowitz for his article. Rabbis Lookstein and Spero among them. Social orthodoxy is less scholarly heavy but reaches the same conclusion as Jacobs and Farber. 

Ever since Jacob’s progress has been made. Farber’s issue is more the YCT movement. In the past ten years things have changed. Attitudes have evolved and become more tolerant and even accepting of these views. There has been inching of inclusion but hid their opinions. Even as far back as the symposium for the condition of Jewish belief found some discrepancies amongst the orthodox scholars. Berkovits and Fox marked their inability to concave of the literal ideal. Lamm noted the problem literary criticism not as a crucial problem and Rackman who went so far as to say that it may have been written by different people at different times. Orthodox scholars such as Cherlow, Bigman, Sassoon, Kula and Weider all support a nuanced theological model that respects revelational allegorisation. There is a readily available belief in the metaphorical aspect if its headed by the rabbis. Harris noted even for the exodus if a non-literal approach is accepted divine revelation is still intact. 

There is still a gap between those social or post-denominational Jews and Orthodox Jews. It remains to see how this will develop through the modern sector of America. In Israel it seems more frequent and readily accepted. Yet, Israeli rabbis have been more innovative from the philosophical and halakhic advancements. The acceptance amongst orthodox scholars is still minimal but in contrast to the strict lenses of the twentieth century scholars, the recent surge in academic scholarship has prompted a new vision of religiosity that permits a more expansive view. In time this may become normative but only time will tell.