Response to the Bookjed book review of Torah and Western Thought: Intellectual Portraits of Orthodoxy and Modernity:
In Bookjed Digest #153 (http://listserv.biu.ac.il/cgi-bin/wa?A2=LOOKSTEIN;345a355c.1608p ), R. Pesach Sommer published a review of the volume recently edited by Stuart Halpern, Meir Soloveichik and Shlomo Zukier, containing ten portraits of outstanding Torah personalities who lived during the twentieth century and “bridged the worlds of Torah and the West (each) in a unique way.†In his introduction to the book, R. M. Soloveichik writes that the intention of commissioning these essays, when taken as a whole, is (p. xii):
<<
…to inspire Orthodox Jews and all intellectually engaged individuals of faith to learn from their lives and to have the courage to bridge these worlds as well.
>>
Among the inspiring lessons that are contained in these essays are: a) (pp. 17-8) the apparent dispute between conflicting opinions is required to bring us to a higher appreciation of the essential unity of these disparate ideas and approaches to reality; b) (p. 53) how considerations of Chillul HaShem per force must be given overriding consideration in matters of public and even state policy; c) (p. 97) the American Declaration of Independence derives its idea of equality from the concept of Kavod HaBriyot; d) (p. 122) the importance of reading TaNaCh within an ethical context, even avoiding “overly literal interpretations deaf to the ethical tone of the text;†e) (p. 176) imbuing Judaism with a sense of mission to the nations of the world; f) (pp. 197-8) “Deveikut†devoid of self-deception and escapism; g) (p. 238) utilizing philosophical and historical categories to conceptualize and analyze Talmud Torah; h) (p. 271) the cognitive gesture is conducive to sensitivity, subjectivity and spontaneity (in the spiritual realm); and (p. 289) assuring that a sensitivity to the human condition should constructively affect one’s approach to Pesak Halacha.
R. Sommer, however, chooses in his review to fundamentally ignore R. M. Soloveichik’s intellectual and spiritual challenge of how one might learn from these exemplars of bridging the religious and secular domains, and even suggests that there is no common denominator that these individuals shared. By his own admission, R. Sommer only “briefly (reviews) this book†and then comments at length about his strong antipathy towards the enterprise of bridging worlds, that according to him, may have once informed American Modern Orthodoxy, but “has mostly disappeared.†He even refers disparagingly to this collection of individuals as almost all having passed away, suggesting that when a great individual dies, his ideas become dated and are therefore no longer viable or relevant, a position that would appear to be refuted in general by our veneration of past Tora sages, and specifically by the passage in Yevamot 97a to the effect that one continues to at least figuratively “live†as long as his teachings are being cited by those who have come after him.
R. Sommer’s characterization of present-day, twenty-first century American Modern Orthodoxy includes only: a) valuing secular studies; b) Zionism; and c) “other general traits,†(the latter being left mysteriously unspecified), which is certainly a point of view, but one with which this book pointedly takes issue. He asserts that the virtuosity displayed by R. J.B. Soloveitchik’s universally acknowledged mastery of “Torah scholarship, punctilious Halachik observance and serious and profound involvement with the best ideas of Western thought†has become “unreasonable†for contemporary Jews to aspire to achieving anything comparable. He even attempts to justify his essential dismissal of the examples demonstrated by these ten individuals by first attributing to R. Lichtenstein the position that if we are forced to choose between them, then Torah should trump secular thought (perhaps alluded to on p. 313 but generally countermanded throughout the rest of Shalom Carmy’s and Shlomo Zuckier’s essay about R. Lichtenstein), and then contending that under R. Lamm’s leadership, Yeshiva University students have pursued Torah U’Parnassah more than Torah U’Madda already for quite some time.
It seems to me that the lessons that one can derive from the essays portraying these ten great religious leaders and innovators transcend what one may or may not believe about the current state of Modern Orthodoxy. And as far as one of R. Sommer’s contentions that we should today concentrate on the production of Bnai and Benot Torah, I would argue that one cannot become such a well-rounded Torah personality, even at this moment in time, without not only being conversant in Torah, but also well-versed in knowledge of the wider world as exemplified by these ten individuals teachings and personal examples.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2016 03:47AM by mlb.
