A REPLY Charles S. Liebman \ JACOB NEUSNER's ARTICLE

leI and the Ancient Near East, THE ORTHODOX LEFT: A REPLY

's Worship, Vol. 1-2, Oxford,

1926, Vol. 3-4, 1940. story of Ancient Israel, New 883).

ents, Stuttgart, Vol. 1-2, 1957. I Charles S. Liebman 126; Einleitung in die Psalmen \ JACOB NEUSNER's ARTICLE "The New Orthodox Left" in the last issue ;ottingen, 1952. of this journal is a response to an article of mine in the 1965 American entateuch, Stuttgart, 1943. Jewish Year Book. He raises a number of questions which merit discus auf Religionsgeschichlicher sion, and thereby affords me the opportunity to clarify some points in my earlier article. Obviously an author is flattered when his work is taken seriously. My chagrin at some of what Professor Neusner says ought not to conceal my appreciation for his careful consideration of my work.

my heresies 'la-yisraelit, Tel Aviv, 1960 l:'''ROFiSSOR NEUSNER BEGINS by quoting a New York Times report of my speech to the Rabbinical Council of America. He applauds my com ments, but finds them to be an echo of Conservative Judaism's "here sies." I am quoted as saying that Orthodox leaders have failed "to interpret Jewish law as it applies to contemporary problems.... They have failed to cope with such problems as the relationship of the Jew and non-Jew, the role of women in Jewish life, and recognition of the radical criticism of religion raised by modern thought." Although Pro fessor Neusner is not responsible for this, the press release of his article highlighted my "heresy." I want to make it clear that whatever the "heresies" of which I am guilty, this statement is not one of them. As I wrote to the Reconstructionist, which had editorialized about my state ( ment: ... my own position proceeds from what I fear you might consider to be a rather narrow sectarianism. My interest is with that segment ot the leU/ish community which does accept the notion of the "halakhic author ity" and which feels itself bound by the halakhic prescriptions emanating

Dr. Charles S. Liebman is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva Uni versity, on leave this year as a Visiting Scholar in the Department of Religion at Columbia University.

47 The Orthodox Left: A Reply / C,

jrom halakhic authorities. It is this community which I believe has been poorly served by its own leaders, who have jailed to develop a systematic What I'm trying to say is th philosophy, theology, and halakhah which extends to broader areas oj have little to do with institutio contemporary experience. which cuts across all institution: Orthodoxy's problem is not that it has very little to say to the non-Ortho experiences in the twentieth ( dox Jew or non·Jew today, but that it has not sufficiently developed a sys must confront the world as Je1 tem oj thought and law which speaks to the questions oj contemporary ing: what are the dictates of T, man, and it thus has limited its message to the Orthodox Jew as well. This doxy, Conservative and Refom is a problem which Orthodox leaders jace in every generation and must Rather, they have asked: "H always resolve anew. values, and how do we adapt tl But it is a far cry from suggesting that the law must be "adjusted:' The in middle-class America?" This law must be {{reatly expanded and authority reasserted. My concern is jor the other hand, the Orthodox ; Orthodoxy to put its own house in order. I care less at this point what is why they, in their own way, the non·Orthodox think. I am interested in strengthel same question that I do. My ~ the orthodox lelt for me, the ultimate authority PROFESSOR NEUSNER IDENTIFIES me with what he calls "counter-reactionary from the "masters of Torah"-th, elements in American Orthodoxy . . . pleading for an aggiornamento the corpus of Jewish law and : within Orthodoxy . . . a strengthening of ties between Orthodoxy and that tradition. This is undoubt€ other Jewish religious groups through the Synagogue Council of America Religious commitment of any :k and other comprehensive agencies." To set the recoI'd straight, this is tarianism in the United States. not quite my position. Neither, I must add, do I ascribe this position thought that Jewish life can exi to "The New Orthodox Left." I have elaborated upon what I think the must develop a whole network sectarian mentality. We must 1: new Orthodox left represents in an article in the last issue of Judaism entitled "Left and Right in American Orthodoxy." sectarian vis-a-vis those of our fE I don't want to belabor the issue here. I would simply make this point, road of cultural integration. I speaking now only for myself. I am not particularly anxious for any cuts across the institutional bou: strengthening of ties between Orthodoxy and other religious groups if Reform. And I am familiar enOl our referent is religious institutions. I think Orthodox institutional life be confident that it includes him is shot through with equivocation. But I don't see where Conservative basic impetus for this new sect and Reform institutions are much better, and the Synagogue Council ish community. of America may possibly represent the lowest common denominator. I This raises another point that certainly don't believe that Orthodoxy will serve itself or the Jewish Jewish passion today resides pr: 20mmunity by strengthening institutional ties with the non-Orthodox. not believe and did not mean t I fear this will only serve to compound its vices. On the other hand, passionate, much less that they l:: I don't advocate Orthodox groups leaving the Synagogue Council either. Of course, one man's passion is ; I just don't think the whole issue is intrinsically very important. (Sym Neusner and I disagree over w· bolically, of course, it has great significance for the Orthodox.) Pro theless, however one wishes to it fessor Neusner is confusing my position with that of "modern Ortho are non-Orthodox Jews whose co doxy." I try to clarify that distinction in the Judaism article referred I offer my apology to those who to above. they felt I was casting blanket l' Orthodox Jews.

48 The Orthodox Left: A Reply / ellerr/e. Llebmern

~munity which I believe has been ~zve failed to develop a systematic What I'm trying to say is that the issues which I think are important .ich extends to broader areas of have little to do with institutional relationships. I think the crucial issue which cuts across all institutional lines is how we Jews are to confront our .ery little to say to. the non·Ortho· experiences in the twentieth century. This means, first of all, that we IS not sufficiently developed a sys must confront the world as Jews. To me, this is synonymous with ask ~o the questions of contemporary ing: what are the dictates of Torah today? By and large, modern Ortho to the Orthodox Jew as well. This doxy, Conservative and Reform Judaism have not asked this question. lce in every generation and must Rather, they have asked: "How do we square the Torah with our values, and how do we adapt the Torah so that we may live comfortably the law must be "adjusted:' The in middle-class America?" This, I submit is not a legitimate question. On Tity reasserted. My concern is for the other hand, the Orthodox right has not asked questions at all. This rer. I care less at this point what is why they, in their own way, have become irrelevant. I am interested in strengthening my ties with anyone who asks the same question that I do. My Orthodoxy is relevant in the sense that, the orthodox left for me, the ultimate authority for resolving the question must come from the "masters of Torah"-those who, at the minimum, have mastered -hat he calls "counter-reactionary the corpus of Jewish law and Rabbinic thought and are committed to pleading for an aggiornamento that tradition. This is undoubtedly a kind of sectarianism. I don't mind. of ties between Orthodoxy and Religious commitment of any kind is rapidly becoming a form of sec 3 Synagogue Council of America tarianism in the United States. Let's stop begUiling ourselves with the ) set the record straight, this is thought that Jewish life can exist without being sectarian. I think we add, do I ascribe this position must develop a whole network of sectarian institutions and nurture a _aborated upon what I think the sectarian mentality. We must be sectarian vis-a-vis American life, and .cle in the last issue of Judaism sectarian vis-a-vis those of our fellow Jews who would lead us along the trthodoxy." road' of cultural integration. But I do believe that my sectarianism I would simply make this point, cuts across the institutional boundaries of Orthodoxy, Conservative and Jot particularly anxious for any Reform. And I am familiar enough with Professor Neusner's writings to "y and other religious groups if be confident that it includes him as well. However, I also think that tbe think Orthodox institutional life basic impetus for this new sectarianism lies within the Orthodox Jew I don't see where Conservative ish community. er, and the Synagogue Council This raises another point that merits clarification. I do believe that 10west common denominator. I Jewish passion today resides primarily among the Orthodox, but I do will serve itself or the Jewish not believe and did not mean to imply that no Conservative Jews are ial ties with the non-Orthodox. passionate, much less that they are not dedicated and loyal to Judaism. :l its vices. On the other hand, Of course, one man's passion is another man's hot-water bottle. Perhaps Jg the Synagogue Council either. Neusner and I disagree over what the word "passion" means. Never :rinsically very important. (Sym theless, however one wishes to interpret it, I certainly believe that there licance for the Orthodox.) Pro are non-Orthodox Jews whose commitment to Judaism exceeds my own. ID with that of "modem Ortho I offer my apology to those who were pained by my statements because I in the Judaism article referred they felt I was casting blanket aspersions on the dedication of all non Orthodox Jews.

49 The Orthodox Left: A Reply / C

early orthodoxy ents' Orthodox credentials arc some time ago in which he n PROFESSOR NEUSNER MAKES REFERENCE to another article of mine in Tra the Orthodox commitment of dition, "Orthodoxy in Nineteenth Century America," which reviewed article did not appear in prin Moshe Davis' Emergence of Conservative Judaism. This article was the "not pretend to know the fac1 subject of a reply by Abraham Karp in the summer 1965 number of this but he thinks I am wrong all journal. I do not intend to reply to Rabbi Karp because the issue is logical necessity" for my sayi! somewhat peripheral to the present discussion, but I do not accept Neus cusation. (I must add that sine ner's statement that "Karp's rejoinder straightened out the facts." I have become good friends. But thi had the pleasure of meeting Rabbi Karp and have benefitted from many of having to refute a friend of his articles. But I think Karp is wrong about the historical school, friend! ) and that he missed the point of my Tradition article. But even if Karp was right, I don't understand Neusner's reasoning. I argued that Davis There are other points in t was wrong from Davis' own logic and evidence. My sources were, with One point, of particular intere: two exceptions, Davis' sources. Now Karp brings external evidence tive Judaism is not only a legiti to show I am wrong and Davis is right. Neusner, however, reasons that legitimate, authentic and wor! since Karp is right and I am wrong there must be some ideological reason Orthodoxy is heretical . . . pI why I thought Davis was wrong. What manner of argumentation is this? . . . and presents a quite Wfl Does it imply that I was wrong because I was unaware of Karp's spirit of Judaism." I found evidence? No, because Neusner insists on crediting me with scholarly us hear no more charges agail omniscience, so he can accuse me of intellectual dishonesty. He says Conservative Judaism. Mter a that all along I knew Davis and Karp were right, but that I had to prove hold views any less definitive they were wrong so I could identify myself with the "historical school," ask Professor Neusner one que while denying its spokesmen the appellation of Conservative Jews. In theological scholar of note, b. that case, I could answer in turn that Davis and Karp insist on deny ated, who believes that Orthoe ing Morais' Orthodoxy because they would then be forced to admit spirit and letter of Jewish thee that their movement has betrayed its presumed founders. This kind of accusations he makes? After ~ psychologizing could go on endlessly. It is simply no way to argue. quite different from the view Furthermore, my own position is not nearly as sympathetic to the "his the tradition. torical school" as Neusner states. I certainly do not find "in their ideas But this is peripheral to t everything right and nothing wrong." In my Tradition article I specifi servutive Jews have acted as cally raised the question of whether the Jewish unity which was sought they do. It c;;~ems clear to r at the Cleveland conference of 1855 was strategically correct for the that his colleagues share his co~ Orthodox. My introduction to the same article should make clear how F,nally, a very minor point. far I am from the historical school's affirmation of western culture. for thE Orthodox. His authorit) .. Neusner also finds this kind of ideological-theological ratiocination dent condition for this leaders: in my eHorts to question the nature of the Orthodox commitment of fessor Saul Lieberman's knowl the East European immigrants. Here, he does not even bother to adduce chik's. But that misses the poi .evidenceagainst me, other than his own grandparents. I mean no of charismatic leader of ConseI'V' fense to Neusner's grandparents. But as long as we are becoming anec Conservative Jew I have queri dotal I might relate an incident told me by Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg. that Neusner thinks a "Profess; Rabbi Hertzberg is, of course, a Conservative Rabbi and his grandpar leader. The Orthodox still res:

50 The Orthodox Left: A Reply / Charles LIebman

early orthodoxy ents' Orthodox credentials are impeccable. Hertzberg wrote an article some time ago in which he made many of the same points I do about another article of mine in Tra the Orthodox commitment of the early immigrants. The fact that his ury America," which reviewed article did not appear in print does not alter the point. Neusner does .e Judaism. This article was the "not pretend to know the facts of Eastern European Jewish religiosity" he summer 1965 number of this but he thinks I am wrong and does pretend to understand the "ideo abbi Karp because the issue is logical necessity" for my saying what I did. This is a pretty strong ac :ssion, but I do not accept Neus cusation. (I must add that since he wrote the article Neusner and I have -aightened out the facts." I have become good friends. But this places me in the most awkward position and have benefitted from many of having to refute a friend's arguments written before he was my ong about the historical school, friend! ) rdition article. But even if Karp There are other points in the article to which I am not responding. reasoning. I argued that Davis One point, of particular interest, concerns the argument that "Conserva vidence. My sources were, with tive Judaism is not only a legitimate heir to Jewish tradition, but the only Karp brings external evidence legitimate, authentic and worthy consequence of the Jewish past.... Neusner, however, reasons that Orthodoxy is heretical . . . preserves theological convictions which err must be some ideological reason . . . and presents a quite wrong interpretation of both the letter and manner of argumentation is this? spirit of Judaism." I found this statement shocking. But please, let ause I was unaware of Karp's us hear no more charges against Orthodoxy for its belligerence toward on crediting me with scholarly Conservative Judaism. After all, one could hardly expect Orthodoxy to intellectual dishonesty. He says hold views any less definitive about non-Orthodoxy. I would, however, 3re right, but that I had to prove ..self with the "historical school," ask Professor Neusner one question. Can he name a single halakhic and Jation of Conservative Jews. In theological scholar of note, be he Conservative, Reform, or non-affili Davis and Karp insist on deny- ated, who believes that Orthodoxy is heretical, or "incongruent with the would then be forced to admit spirit and letter of Jewish theology" or who agrees to any of the other Iresumed founders. This kind of accusations he makes? After all, what Neusner is saying is something It is simply no way to argue. quite different from the view that Orthodoxy reflects only one line of early as sympathetic to the "his the tradition. -tainly do not find "in their ideas But this is peripheral to the main argument as to whether Con In my Tradition article I specifi servative Jews have acted as though they believe what Neusner saY5 e Jewish unity which was sought 1 they do. It <;~ems clear to me that, if Neusner is correct in s:1ying was strategically correct for the that his colleagues share his convictions, they have not acted upon them. Ie article should make clear how F,nally, a very minor point. Rabbi Soloveitchik is a charismatic leader affirmation of western culture. for the Orthodox. His authority in Talmud is a necessary but not a suffi ~ological-theological ratiocination cient condition for this leadership. I would not pretend to weigh Pro of the Orthodox commitment of fessor Saul Lieberman's knowledge of Talmud against Rabbi Soloveit Ie does not even bother to adduce chik's. But that misses the point. Professor Lieberman Simply is not a wn grandparents. I mean no of charismatic leader of Conservative Judaism, in the opinion of every _s long as we are becoming anec Conservative Jew I have queried. What I find interesting, however, is me by Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg. that Neusner thinks a "Professor" could be a Conservative charismatic ~rvative Rabbi and his grandpar- leader. The Orthodox still reserve that role for "Rabbis."

51 KASHRlJT IN THE MO Of course, I do not disagree with all of Professor Neusner's com ments. Some of them are quite well-taken, and for this I am indebted to him. But I regard it as healthy that we should engage in full and frank discussion about the things on which we do disagree. This is exactly what I have attempted to do in what I have written here.

ProlelBor Newner Responds:

Professor Liebman's statement greatly illuminates matters. I cannot agree however that Conservative Judaism has not asked what the dic tates of the Torah are today. Quite to the contrary, it was with precisely this question that our movement began in the nineteenth century. We T HE TORAH, in parashat she: expect that our "masters of Torah" will have mastered not only the those animals which may be I corpus of Jewish law, but also the lessons and truths emerging in the The reason for the prohibition: latest generation. "You shall be holy for I am b As to the review of Moshe Davis' Emergence of Conservative Judaism, in Deuteronomy 14:21-"You Liebman there wrote, "It would be a chilul haShem to leave unchal your God." The midrash (T lenged the assertion that Conservatism today has its origins in the well the principle. "The Holy One, springs of traditional Jewish thought." It was this sentence that led mission (to eat) abominable : me to think Liebman's review reflected ideological or theological issues, is eternal (l'hayyim), He sah: and not only factual ones. His failure, moreover, to comment on Rabbi souls abominable. This you ml Karp's article suggested the same. But no imputation of intellectual should God care if Israel eats , dishonesty was intended, nor offered. not commanded except to refl Since everyone, including the immigrants themselves, always thought The Torah makes two furth. that most of the Eastern European Jews were Orthodox, I was led to of permitted foods. The blood ~peculate on why Liebman found it necessary to deny it. As I reread his teronomy 12:16) and a kid n discussion, I still find no effort to amass facts. Hence I looked for the (Exodus 23:19; 34:26; Deutere source of his evaluation in his theological attitude. The sanctity (kedushah) iII I cannot name any theological scholar within Conservative or Reform ritual nature, and in no way Cal or Reconstructionist Judaism who believes that Orthodoxy today is con normal social contacts with g gruent with classical Jewish theology. That is why we are not Ortho might involve the Hebrew in . dox. As to halakhic matters, I suggest he poll the members of the During the period of the Se Rabbinical Assembly Law Committee, whose judgment would carry people was faced with the weight. I must confess, however, that it is the monotonous assertion by Hellenistic society, kashrut ca Orthodox rabbis that we are "deviants," "heretics," and the like which means of preventing social in suggested the appropriateness of such strong words. Apart from Pro per se became a basic element fessor Liebman, is there anyone in Orthodoxy who thinks that "Ortho a crucial element in enforcin doxy reflects only one line of the tradition," if indeed he thinks so? e the gentiles and eat not with I summary of this aspect of the d

Gilbert Kollin is Rabbi of Congrega