Traditionally Academic

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

JTS scholars and Jewish philosophers: bridging tradition and academia 

The conservative movement receives a lot of flack for its untraditional perspective. They are seen by the orthodox as contorting the halakha. At times even worse than their secular brethren since abandoning the law is purer than distorting it. Even if this were true, this is a part of the more recent changes. In the postwar era, most of the JTS students were observant or better yet halakhic. What is to be noticed rather is the attitude and approach to Torah that YU did not. 

JTS and YU were neck and neck during the Cyrus era (Schechter's successor). Vying for student interest. Conservative Judaism was rising and Orthodoxy was lagging behind. It wasn’t till the 60s that orthodoxy really began to grow despite false hopes of implosion. The Rav and R Rackman were arm and arm despite their difference on philosophy and direction. It was only with the the Rav’s prestige and his students’ success that modern orthodoxy received a second wind. The likes of R Lamm, R Wurzburger, R Riskin, R Rosenzwieg, R Schachter and his two sons in law R Twersky and R Lichtenstein that gave new blood to the model. R Lamm and R Lichtenstein both heading articles to promote centrist orthodoxy. The modern tone wasn’t enough but a definite term between ultra and conservative (and now open). The Rav pleasantly and passionately paved the way for a strong halakhic forum forward. YU not only had the Rav but it also had the successors to carry the reigns. R Lichtenstein leaving left a burden for others to carry on but held to its religious paradigm. 

JTS was also struggling with an identity crisis but not till a little later on. JTS in some regard was a little more open on the selection. Different scholars proposed different models. There was a little more diversity from the likes of Mordecai Kaplan who had been teaching since the 20s and Heschel who was brought on in the mid 40s. R Ginzberg’s halakhic analysis concerning grape juice was rejected by orthodox rabbis (with the exception of R Frank) and amongst orthodoxy it wasn’t legitimate till the 50s. There was growing beef with different ideologies but the faculty were orthodox. Until the counterculture of the sixties really broke through at the end of Finkelstein’s tenure, the student body was traditional. The conservative movement had its firm advocates in the likes R Gordis and R Cohen though the latter wrote an academic book rather than a clarion call for change. Yet despite this splurge by certain faulty members including R Kaplan, the talmudic area remained pure. The students remained orthodox. JTS may have had some bad eggs from the orthodox perspective but it didn’t mean the school nor the student body accepted them only that they permitted their diversity.

R Wurzburger harshly critiqued both Gordis and Cohen. Arguing that their model was off. Using his philosophical and religious background he inquired of a special type of change that understood the halakhic process. Allowing the law to evolve rather than forcing it to change. This was a few faculty members not the entire school nor the higher ups. He had a bone to pick with certain scholars not the entirety of the institution. Many of the figures contested or ignored. Kaplan preceded Lieberman and he was alright with it. R Lieberman was there for a reason, R Heschel was there for a reason and R Faur was there for a reason. It wasn’t necessarily because of the great rabbinic training. The fact that some held a countering opinion did not matter to other staff members. Maybe it was great to have diversity of thought or maybe it didn’t matter. Nevertheless, R Kaplan’s ideas did impact the school. They never fired him despite the antagonism and animosity experienced within the school. Maybe because he was of their earliest graduating class alongside (R Hertz former chief rabbi of England) or out of respect for his allegiance. 

Like others in the Seminary, R Kaplan was raised an Orthodox Jew ordained by R Reines and headed an orthodox synagogue for a number of years. Yet he diverted with his own vision for the future. He did make the first bat mitzvah which is even practiced today by Haredim (just don’t tell them). Those unhappy with him were the orthodox talmudic/halakhic leaders of Prof. Marx, R Ginzberg and R Lieberman. Even R Finkelstein issued a complaint against him but defended him against the herem polemic. This in Finkelstein’s tenure demonstrated a pluralistic approach. Kaplan may have been problematic, burdensome and even a flat out heretic but his place in the Seminary was parcel of the larger community. He has some good ideas and fascinating insights even if they are heterodox. Finkelstein turned JTS into a social hub for Jewish thought. The Eternal Light television series brought in Potok and Weisel to speak about literature and about history. Exploring Judaism in a multitude of angles. He opened Camp Rama for religious education and combined JTS with Columbia university for a stronger collegiate effort for aspiring students.  

JTS doesn’t have the stellar rabbinical record YU does. Though there are many conservative rabbis that are not of note to the orthodox world. There has also been a shift in orthodox graduates becoming school teachers rather than pulpit rabbis which was different in the mid century. Even so, there is a significant difference in rabbinic reverence not because JTS didn’t care but because they pointed their focus elsewhere. Lieberman decided to work at JTS because of its library because he could then devote his time to his work and finish his massive Tosefta KiPeshuta (a really amazing work uploaded on Sefaria). Though despite Lieberman’s outstanding talmudism and halakhic genius as attested by the Rav, the Rebbe, Sriedei Aish and Hazel Ish, he also wrote about hellenism in rabbinic world. He noted that oral didn’t need to be pure memorisation, maybe they had notes carved or alluded to rather than an encoded system. This certainty was not of the talmudic scholars of YU or at least today aren’t. The former president of YU R Belkin wrote a book on Philo. It wasn’t an orthodox or consverative thing but Lieberman was the rector and he was devoting his time to academia while the Rav was ordaining Roshei Yeshiva. This is not a jab at Lieberman but rather attesting to his role. 

JTS was a place of scholarship. Louis Finkelstein only broadened the array of such action. Schechter was fully orthodox and yet he still brought Kaplan aboard knowing his tendencies. His successor Adler who kept to the same ideals kept Kaplan on the payroll and Finkelstein defended him. Schechter had his ideological Catholic Israel side but he also was a publisher of scholarship. His entire goal seemed to be a home of scholarship racking up the biggest Jewish library in the world. The college morphed into an educational rather than leadership role. Schechter himself was occupied with Geniza fragments. He wrote some other works on rabbinic thought as well. Ginzberg wrote responsa but is most notable for his series of Jewish legends and folklore. Finkelstein published works on the Pharisees and R Akiva. Heschel brought in divine pathos, Kadushin value-concepts and Muffs on anthropomorphisms. Halivni initiated his source-critical approach and Faur his semitics and semiotics. JTS explored and expressed various perspectives of scholarship.  

JTS scholars wrote extensively on rabbinic literature from an academic perspective. In no way does this devalue the text instead providing an alterable perspective. The motto of JTS until its major shifts in the post-Finkelstein era, was halakha as the core. This was touted by Schechter all the way to Halivni. Lieberman passed in 72 and it with the female ordination in 83, the traditionalists left. JTS was a place of religious aptitude. It was brave and courageous. The works of Heschel and Kadushin are profound. While Lieberman wrote his works in the Seminary others came to JTS due to their scholarship. Jewish thought was what mattered. The masterful scholarship of JTS ought not to be ignored. To be beholden to impressive work in academia. To perceive the Jewish world from historical and literary angles. Able to do so under the banner of a Jewish institution. The Jewish scholar and student would corralled by Jewish knowledge. Able to study and evolve. Able to deepen their understanding of Judaism in a religious format. The academic profile was a point to implore more engagement in the religious world. More interest in Jewish thinking. 

Schechter believed that scholarship would bolster Jewish life. The Seminary remained traditional despite the encroachment of the conservative sect. The demand for more JTS rabbinic leaders was not seen nor aspired to as the ultimate goal. Instead the enrichment of Judaic studies formally evolved. The works of Halivni’s source-critical approach has inspired countless academics. Heschel’s prophetic Judaism had its own impact on his students. The goal was to inspire curious Jews. The Seminary did what it promised. So what if JTS graduates didn’t become rabbis if they became enlightened Jews that was sufficient. If they gained much from their interaction and committed themselves to the religious code what better. Intellectuals could gain a thing or two. Jews could study in JTS instead of Berlin. The next Soloveitchik, Leibowitz and Heschel would be JTS graduates. Scholarship was inspiring an intellectual orientation into religious life. The works of Cohen, Rosenzweig and Buber were highly philosophical but less mainstream religious. Frankel’s model may have been out there but he didn’t orient a systemic creation. His was a rereading of the ancient text. It was return with a new motto. 

Biblical criticism has been a troublesome subject for Orthodox Jews. Most observant reject the higher aspects but can accept the lower aspects. Open to philological characterisation but not redefinition of Torah. A talmudic shuir that would look awfully different from a traditional setting. Lieberman despite his traditionalism took a more scientific approach. Using linguistics and diachronic notes to fulfil the quota. To figure the accurate answer. Reading the text poetically but recognising its breath of wisdom. The sole orientation accordingly was not just typical translation but also structural manifestations. To understand the sugya is to use all the available skills possible to comprehend in its totality. This approach may have some diachronic elements but it does not seek to reinvent the case of text but rather endeavour to vitalise the talmudic orientation. The literary criticism employed is not a modern adaptation but a retooled metric of earlier commentators. The talmudic wizardry of Lieberman, Zlotnick and Dimitrovsky applied a thorough analysis of source material. 

Beyond the great talmudic scholars, Schechter and Kadushin provided rabbinic philosophies while Finkelstein and Goldin provided homiletic evaluations of the text. Scholarship invested its interests into broadening the knowledge of the Jew. Approaching the classical text in a variety of ways. It wasn’t only the normative litvuk way of learning but other models as well. Unlike mystics who drew inspiration, the scholars reinvested time to recount new ideas. The goal was to elucidate the textual information. What is the text saying what is the rabbinic voice arguing. Applying literary criticism has some affinity to Tosafot but it is its own deviation. Its own perspective that mirrors the text’s authenticity. The goal wasn’t to undermine but to underscore its brilliance. To demonstrate alternative views using these critical tools which can be best defined according to the style of the time. Dialectics are used in the Gemara, Tosafot, briskers and literary critics. The method whether thematic or philological finds a new model to ascertain and comprehend. A move of scholarship that deepens Jewish understanding of tradition. 

For JTS, halakha was the central piece but was surrounded by scholarship. Scholarship that took on a variety of possibilities. YU had only a handful of Jewish courses while JTS supplied the vast array of possibilities. JTS was the Madda to YU’s Torah. Though that madda specifically resorting to a commentarial explanation. JTS had its conservative lining but its robust scholarship remains influential and greatly inspirational.