Spring10B-1.qxd:Layout 1 2/12/10 1:34 PM Page 18

ReviewEssay By Aharon Lichtenstein

Hands Across the Ocean: A Review of Aharon Feldman’s THE EYE OF THE STORM

The Eye of the Storm: A Calm View more–I, a spindly nine- of Raging Issues year-old immigrant of lim- By Rabbi Aharon Feldman ited social skills and of Yad Yosef Publications dubious acculturation; he, , 2009 a bit older, firmly en- 244 pages trenched in both a home of Lithuanian rabbinic stock Few contemporary roshei yeshivah and in his native American have been endowed with the capacity milieu. We were both eager, to write a volume such as The Eye of and bright; he, beyond that, to me, a “Credo and Credence,” impressive for the Storm; and of the coterie that could, tower of strength. He befriended me the candid quest for the certitude of many, if not most, are probably disin- and invited me frequently to his home. faith; “Rabbinic Authority (Da’as clined to venture the undertaking. We I still fondly recall the chilling warmth Torah),” a blend of wise spiritual and are therefore somewhat beholden to of joint sledding in Druid Hill Park on pragmatic counsel, but shorn of exces- Rabbi Aharon Feldman–a talmid Sunday afternoons. As my family sive normative demands; and the chacham of repute and the head of moved to Chicago after a year, the widely circulated “Letter to a Homo- Yeshivat Ner of , an il- friendship gradually dissipated. There sexual Ba’al Teshuvah,” a balanced lustrious Torah center that has con- was virtually no further contact of epistolary response which exudes sen- tributed much to further the cause of note–not even when, some years later, sitivity without conceding ideological serious learning and implementation of we both found our tents simultane- or halachic ground. To these may be Torah in North America–for having ously pitched under the aegis of mori added, from this volume, the chapters mustered the ability and the determi- verabbi, Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, zt”l, at on “Gedolim Books” and “The Chazon nation to cope with the issues herein Chaim Berlin. But the memory and the Ish,” which for those unfamiliar with discussed. Moreover, he has articulated appreciation linger. the genre can provide a measure of per- his positions with vigor tinged with Beyond luxuriating in reminis- spective; and which, as regards the lat- passion, fusing personal conviction cence, I mention this point because it ter, brings us face to face with that with public policy, with an eye to giv- helped mold my anticipation in reading towering magisterial exemplar of iron- ing vent to the force of his personality the book and reviewing it. In sum, de- clad discipline, the fusion of intellect and attitudes. spite the fondness, the memory and the and will. In addition, the chapter on If I may intrude a personal vein, current reality did not fully match. “The Steinsaltz English Talmud,” pres- Rabbi Feldman’s persona arouses in me Over the years I had encountered some ents a fair and judicious account of a latent but very warm memories. We of Rabbi Feldman’s writings, and had tool that has progressively serviced were classmates during 1942-1943 in read them with interest. Apart from fresh adherents. the shiur of Rabbi Yaakov Bobrovsky, The Juggler and the King, which had And yet, further reading induced a zt”l, at Talmudical Academy of Balti- served as a link to the Vilna Gaon’s more troubled response; and, in time, machshavah, several of these earlier its roots became increasingly clear. This Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein is rosh yeshivah writings have been reprinted in the volume and many of its components of Yeshivat Har Etzion in Israel. volume under review. These include: were written with considerable gusto;

18 I JEWISH ACTION Spring 5770/2010 Spring10B-1.qxd:Layout 1 2/12/10 1:34 PM Page 19

indeed, with no small modicum of cific. The targets of the critique are and result? Is the reclamation of Eretz anger–hopefully, not of the sort excori- first and foremost, Zionism, feminism Yisrael, accompanied by gradual ated by Chazal and banished from the and, to a lesser extent, aspects of progress towards rov yoshvehah Rambam’s moral universe, but, despite Chabad, with sectarian denominations alehah, Jewishly neutral? Can we the subtitle, “A Calm View of Raging Is- such as the Reform and Conservative blandly overlook the infant country’s sues,” anger nonetheless. movements omitted, deemed as un- commitment to kelitah, arguably the As regards both tone and substance, worthy of serious discussion. For our most monumental initiative of post- this quality appears to have been, in purposes, I shall focus on the first two Biblical chesed, as if only atheists and part, consciously selected to character- as the most prominent. Christians valued caritas? ize the volume and to define its The brunt of the attack is borne by And at the other end of the spec-

This volume and many of its components were written with considerable gusto; indeed, with no small modicum of anger.

prospective audience. In a brief prelim- Zionism, and, understandably so, inas- trum, we encounter “efforts to bring inary introduction, entitled, “Why Read much as, on the one hand, it is de- the Jewish People back to the values of this Book?”, we are informed that it was scribed as “the most successful of all the Torah” (p. 3). But is this to be moti- not intended for those who do not modern movements” (p. 2), and yet, on vated and energized solely by the dan- share the author’s definition of Ju- the other hand, it is perceived as ger that engenders love? Aren’t we, daism, “nor for those who are not con- wholly devoid of Jewish significance Rabbi Feldman and myself as well as fused by any of the issues with which it or commitment. Hence, the reality of our fellow religionists, charged with deals” (p. 2). Rather, it was intended to its status as nevertheless “enjoying the the duty of tikkun olam in the spirit of enlighten the confused and to extend unstinting support of the vast majority Malchut Shamayim, rather than as a purgative solace to the misled: to minis- of religious Jewry” (p. 3) seems enig- Marxist Utopia, simply and purely be- ter, in Macbeth’s memorable phrase, “to matic. This anomaly is both befuddling a mind diseased,” ideologically. The op- and threatening, as it raises the specter timal mode for realizing this aim was of mass apostasy and the prospect of apparently perceived as the castigation resultant retribution, variously de- of opponents, and occasional shrillness; scribed in Tanach. Hence, we are told hence, the predominant polemical that in order to ward off potential thrust of The Eye of the Storm. calamity, it was essential to reject the Emulating Rabbi Yosef Chaim Son- Zionist ethos in toto. “It is out of love nenfeld, Rabbi Feldman asserts: “I, too, for the Jewish People that I found it humbly submit that the criticisms in necessary to expose the vacuity of this book are directed towards those Zionist ideology” (p. 3). parts of the Jewish people which are And yet, I remain befuddled. Let not Jewish” (p. 4). In the interest of me state flatly and clearly, that, on this both accuracy and fairness, it should be front as on several others, I share added that the sequel reads, “My love Rabbi Feldman’s vision and his priori- for the Jewish people remains undi- ties. Fundamentally, we grew up with minished.” However, when we note similar values and have both retained that the source and precedent cited and intensified our commitment to had not merely sought to justify criti- Torah values and their place within cism but to be stirred to hatred; that personal and communal life. Still–or “the parts which are not Jewish” did perhaps, therefore–I ask: At one end not allude to unhalachically converted of the spectrum, is it indeed desirable– pseudo-Jews but to presumed ideolog- or even possible–to engage in a foray ical aberrants; and when we realize of utter denial of Jewish worth to that these include a very significant what the Zionist enterprise, albeit re- segment of the Israeli yishuv, as well as garded as a monolithic behemoth, its Diaspora supporters–many of us hath wrought? Must we, may we, be so will, understandably, be shaken. radically judgmental as we deplore Perhaps I ought to be more spe- certain lapses in religious motivation

Spring 5770/2010 JEWISH ACTION I 19 Spring10B-1.qxd:Layout 1 2/12/10 1:35 PM Page 20

cause that is the Will of the Ribbono cluded will need to be objective, and he tendency. In confronting issues of Shel Olam? takes on the cudgels accordingly. pesak, Rabbi Feldman repeatedly as- Finally, a note regarding both tone As we might have anticipated, the signs greater gravity to recent sum- and substance, I presume that I am not sharp discussion proceeds apace–pas- mary decisors, be they even of the only reader who would have pre- sionately expressed and cogently writ- relatively lesser stature, than to pri- ferred a more balanced and judicious ten, with the message that, whatever mary Rishonim, whose specific opin- critique to the rancor that, at times, may govern competitive sports, here a ions on a certain matter may have been fills pages with total denigration of Zi- gender handicap is out of the ques- sidetracked. This tendency is, admit- onism. Something to the effect that Zi- tion–clear and implicit. Regrettably, tedly, not without foundation, and onism and the State it had established however, the critique itself while gen- Rabbi Feldman can justly point to the had contributed much to the character erally on the mark and impressive, does formulary halachah kebatrai as its Tal- of Jewish life, but that much of its vi- not always meet the relevant standards. mudic source. However, the principle sion and reality remains woefully defi- Surprisingly, some flaws are particu- does not stand alone and can be over- cient, so that Torah Jewry needs to larly problematic in the context of ha- ridden by other germane factors, per- strive creatively, and, if necessary, to lachic discourse in two respects–that sonal stature included. The Mishnah fight vigorously, in order to restore our of general theory and that of detailed in Eduyot (1:5) implies as much when full commitment to our national her- application. As regards the former, for it explains that rejected minority opin- itage. Some recognition of Religious instance, we are told that, “It is a fun- ions are retained as part of the corpus Zionist claims regarding Divine assis- damental principle–although often un- of Torah, precisely in order to sustain tance would be far too much to expect, known or ignored–in determining the prospect of reversal by a later qual- and for this purpose, not crucial. What Jewish law that halachah is deter- ified beit din. The dustbin of history is I have suggested, substantively and not mined by the cumulative decisions of not always so voracious. just tactically, would still be quite generations of commentaries and de- A somewhat analogous tendency meaningful, however. I believe that cisors. Thus, an opinion of the Ris- may be occasionally perceived at the this formulation approaches the views honim, when codified by the major plane of minutiae. With respect to of the Ponevehzher Rav, as I knew later authorities, is inviolable” (p. 4). women’s tefillin, we are told first “that him. I also recall that when a rosh Dominant? Certainly. But flatly and the classic authorities agree unani- yeshivah from a prominent anti-Zion- categorically definitive? A question to mously that women are forbidden to ist Torah family was taken to tour be asked. I vividly recall hearing the wear tefillin” (p. 96). Shortly thereafter, Yamit, he remarked, with intuitive ad- summary of mori verabbi, Rabbi we read of “the nearly unanimous [my miration–and perhaps with flashes of Aharon Soloveitchik, zt”l, of this issue’s italics] array of the classical poskim memories of Eastern Europe–“Zay vos parallel controversy between the Ba’al cited above who prohibited women Yidden haben da oyfgeboyt!” (“Just see Hama’oer and the Rabad, as to whether wearing tefillin” (p. 96); but then again what Jews have accomplished here!”) Rishonim could disagree with Geonim: read “of unanimity among halachic au- And I hope that an analogous response “If one has broad shoulders, he can thorities to forbid it” (p. 99). Strictly could continue to fill a capacious contravene Rishonim. The Sha’agas speaking, of course, if we use Rishonim Torah heart today. Aryeh disagreed with Rishonim in as a yardstick, neither statement is ac- The second primary object of Rabbi many places.” Of course, the preroga- curate. A practice which was regarded Feldman’s ire is more social than politi- tive of challenge, if it exists, is not fully as open to acceptance by the Rashba, cal; but it, too, is suffused with ideologi- or routinely available to all, and is re- the Ritva, the Meiri and less prominent cal and normative concerns. The area in served for subsequent halachic leader- Rishonim–all of whom asserted, mini- question is feminism–or, more specifi- ship. In practice, it is therefore of mally, that while the Yerushalmi cites cally, Jewish feminism (for some rea- miniscule application: and in this re- conflicting views as to whether author- son, consistently capitalized). The spect its intrusion into the controversy itative chachamim had protested centerpiece of the discourse is “Ha- in which Rabbi Feldman’s adversaries against Michal’s (the daughter of Shaul lachic Feminism or Feminist Ha- have here become embroiled is of mini- Hamelech) wearing tefillin, the Bavli, lachah?”, nominally a review of Jewish mal moment (although the situation whose views ordinarily prevail, as- Legal Writings by Women, but substan- may differ when Rishonim were them- sumed unequivocally that they had tively a vehement tongue-lashing of the selves divided on an issue). The argu- not–can hardly be peremptorily dis- movement, its leaders and spokes- ment per se, however, is important, and missed for lack of support. As to the women, their pronouncements in gen- entails a measure of questionable statement that the Vilna Gaon held, eral and their halachic excursions in overkill. Can any halachist familiar contrarily, that the Bavli could be particular. We are told repeatedly that with the historical tergiversations of aligned with the Yerushalmi (p. 96), I any participation of the writers in the bein hashmashot, pregnant with practi- believe the Vilna Gaon’s remark can be discourse is intellectually and reli- cal relevance, accept this apodictic readily interpreted as conjecture rather giously presumptuous. However, his generalization at face value? An overall than fact. Or again, inasmuch as the designated readership notwithstanding, directive, assuredly. But sweepingly practice was nowhere proscribed by Rabbi Feldman evidently recognizes comprehensive, hardly. the Rambam or the Mechaber in that the standards of judgment to be in- This point is linked to a related Shulchan Aruch–and, on some read-

20 I JEWISH ACTION Spring 5770/2010 Spring10B-1.qxd:Layout 1 2/12/10 1:39 PM Page 21

ings, was even permitted by the Ba’alei ditional prevalent practice should be have wished this collection a bit HaTosafot–it cannot be said to have sustained. But let the basis of that posi- broader, a bit deeper and permeated been rejected, either unanimously, or tion be clearly understood, and let us with a mellower mood, so that Rabbi nearly unanimously. Are not the giants beware of passion infringing upon pre- Feldman’s talents could serve and en- here cited “classical authorities?” cision. Assuredly, we can emulate the rich a wider circle. However, this factor Moreover, in the very same para- model cited in the Gemara (Ketubot in no way vitiates its value for those for graph in which the Maharam is cited as 83a-84b), and common in legal prac- whom it was written, who will as- a source for extending the scope of the tice, of accepting juridic conclusion, suredly not regret having read it. term guf naki (a clean or pure body) to but for different reasons. Finally, if I may, I close as I opened– include pure thought devoid of sala- Other sections stir lesser levels of on a personal note. Dear Reb Aharon: cious content, the author of the Orchot passion in most readers, although That pair of juvenile prattling sledders Chaim, a fourteenth-century Provencal some–for instance, the essay on “The is now well past seventy-five. Each has, compendium, clearly indicates that he, Slifkin Affair: Issues and Perspec- besiyata diShmaya, in successive con- at any rate, thought the extension has tives”–may touch some raw nerves as texts, respectively, learned much Torah no bearing upon women, who, in his well. These are, however, marginal ele- and has been blessed with the ability opinion, are apparently not defiled by ments, enriching to some and irksome and the circumstances to enable reach- sexual ruminations. And indeed, he to others, but hardly a basis for evaluat- ing out and personally transmitting to quotes the Rashbag as holding, without ing a book or its author. These are best others that which we have been en- qualification, that a woman may wear judged by the significance of purpose dowed. It stands to reason and is, pre- tefillin and recite their berachah. I pre- and the quality of execution. With an sumably, mandated by joint mission, sume that Rabbi Feldman felt that eye to both, this volume serves its in- that our worlds meet and attain mutual these points could and should be out- tended audience well. It deals with de- fruition. As we both painfully know, weighed by other factors. For my part, I varim haomdim berumo shel olam, the however, this occurs all too rarely. would submit that given the complex- unum necessarium of the Torah life and Must the walls that separate our ity–rather than the supposed simplic- its hashkafic foundations; and it deals communities and our institutions soar ity–of the issue, we can readily and with it in language and categories his quite so high, the interposing moat emphatically agree with Rabbi Feld- particular audience will appreciate. plunge quite so deep? Shall we never man’s judgment, to the effect that tra- Given my own inclination, I would sled again? 

Why did the Chofetz Chaim & R' Chaim s"xc Ozer Grodzinsky start Ezras Torah?

TO SAVE TALMIDEI CHOCHOMIM FROM THE PAIN AND SHAME OF POVERTY In an ideal world, those who devote their Housing, Emergency Medical Funds, bring us the Rabbonim, Dayanim and lives to Torah would be recognized as the Wedding Orphan Assistance, Yom Tov Leaders of tomorrow! spiritual heroes that they are. Support Ezras Grants and Special Need's Grants and Torah's Tzedakah Programs and make that Loans. STAND UP FOR TORAH! ideal a reality. Make a life of Torah devotion and Help Ezras Torah's committed In Eretz Yisrael today, Ezras Torah provides commitment an everlasting edifice that will scholars and families stand strong!

I would like to help Ezras Torah! Please contact me regarding establishing an Ezras Torah Fund for a: Yes!Enclosed is my tax-deductible Ì Endownment Fund Ì Emg. Medical Fund Ì Free Loan Fund contribution for: Name Ì$18 Ì$36 Ì$100 Ì$250 Address Ì$360 Ì$500 Ì$1,000 ÌOther $ City State Zip Method of payment: Phone Ì Ì Ì Ì Ì Check Visa M/C A/E DISC. Make payments to: EZRAS TORAH ESTABLISHED EZRAS TORAH 1915 Acc. # 235 East Broadway, Exp. Date: THE HUMAN SIDE JA New York, NY 10002, 212-227-8960 OF TORAH PHILANTHROPY

Spring 5770/2010 JEWISH ACTION I 21