A lot has appeared in the secular Jewish media recently about the upcoming Limmud conference in England. These conferences — part college seminar part ’60s-era Woodstockian throwback part singles mixer — have been taking place in various countries for many years with Jews of any movement or none at all invited to peddle their sundry versions of Judaic teaching whether containing any truth or none at all.
These get-togethers are the nachas the crowning achievement of today’s secular and heterodox Jewry. There’s something poignant tragically so about the media accounts that fairly swoon over Limmud because one gets the distinct sense that it is not the invaluable teachings imparted in sessions like “Kaddish for Deceased Pets” or “How to Pray Without G-d” that is so important to non-Orthodox Jewry. It is instead that this is a subliminal proclamation however feeble for all to hear: Who says contemporary non-Orthodox Jews comprise Jewish history’s most abysmally ignorant and apathetic generation? Just look at [the few days that a tiny percentage of today’s Jews spend at] Limmud!
But even 50 Limmuds can’t whitewash Leon Wieseltier’s politically incorrect but true characterization of American Jewry in the Jewish Review of Books: “Owing to the magnitude of their illiteracy American Jews have broken new ground in Jewish incompetence. Translation is an ancient Jewish activity of course.… But no Jewry has ever been as pathetically dependent upon translation as American Jewry.” And Wieseltier isn’t remotely Orthodox so his words are guaranteed 100 percent triumphalism-free and not easily dismissed. But I digress.
The reason this year’s conference in the UK has attracted so much attention is newly appointed Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis’s decision to attend which breaks with his predecessor’s policy and has drawn criticism from other Orthodox rabbis. This in turn has raised once again the question of why Orthodox teachers generally don’t attend pan-denominational events like these.
Most often those who question Orthodox nonparticipation couch their words in terms of the lost chance to expose other Jews to a Torah-true viewpoint. This recalls the episode ten years ago when Rabbi Yosef Reinman co-authored One People Two Worlds with Reform clergyman Ammiel Hirsch. Its publication was to be followed by a joint national book tour but at the behest of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Rabbi Reinman bowed out after two appearances. Hirsch completed the tour on his own and upon his return penned an op-ed that waxed mournful over the missed opportunity to meet “thousands of Jews … precisely the people Rabbi Reinman wanted to reach — mostly non-Orthodox Jews eager to learn more about Torah and the Orthodox world.”
I will not attempt here a comprehensive treatment of the issue of participation in such programs which requires close consultation with gedolei Torah and may well require different responses in varying circumstances. But a few observations are in order.
The first fundamental one is that whether even great numbers of nonobservant Jews can be reached isn’t the preeminent consideration that trumps all others and forecloses the discussion. The central question one must answer in every life situation is “What does G-d want from me now?” and the possible opportunity to draw another Jew close to Torah is only one factor to consider in formulating one’s answer.
One of the lessons to take away from this Chanukah is the Talmudic dictum that kavsah ein zakuk lah meaning that one is not responsible for what happens to the lights of the menorah after he kindles them; so long as he did so properly he has fulfilled his mitzvah even if they are extinguished very soon after the lighting.
But in a homiletic vein one might say that what’s being expressed here is Rav Yisroel Salanter’s epigram that “far unz iz tzu tohn nisht oyf tzutohn.” The play on words of the original Yiddish is lost in translation but the gist of the thought is that “it is for us to do not to accomplish.” Hashem asks of us to heed His Torah and act accordingly not to bring about any particular result which is in any event in His control not ours.
In the context of kiruv rechokim this means that Hashem will decide whether and how much of Klal Yisrael will ultimately return from the edge of the spiritual abyss. Their predicament however dire and deeply painful for us doesn’t give us license to do things that violate the very Will of Hashem.
But why might interdenominational participation indeed run afoul of His Will? For that let’s return to Hirsch’s op-ed where he addresses the Orthodox:
The Jewish world needs you to bring your love of Torah discipline commitment knowledge and passion to the Jewish world.…The enemy is not Reform Judaism. The enemy is apathy assimilation and ignorance. We should see ourselves as allies in our common struggle to sustain and ensure Jewish continuity.
In an op-ed in the same paper just weeks later Rabbi Reinman responded perceptively to Hirsch. Regarding the latter’s plea to the Orthodox he wrote:
You see? There are strings attached to these wonderful opportunities. So Reform laypeople want to hear and learn from Orthodox rabbis? Fine but only if those Orthodox rabbis acknowledge Reform rabbis as allies. It is like a parent using the children as pawns in a marital struggle. If the Orthodox rabbi stands on the stage side by side with a Reform rabbi then he can speak to the people. Otherwise no visitation.
He notes further that the secular Jewish media ignored his explanations for why as a private citizen rather than as a member of the rabbinate he had rabbinic sanction to dialogue with Hirsch. Instead he wrote they portrayed the book “as a breakthrough a breach in the Orthodox wall of rejection.… They just looked at the cover and to my horror painted me as the Rosa Parks of interdenominational dialogue.”
For all that the heterodox clergy protest their legitimacy and right to create their own Judaisms many of them and their laities even more so have a niggling underlying sense that Orthodoxy is far more authentic — and thus crave any sign of Orthodox legitimization of their beliefs and practices. A typical recent example is the heterodox reaction to Israeli religious affairs minister Naftali Bennett’s meetings with their leaders. A JTA report notes that although
Bennett ... has some red lines when it comes to religious reform in Israel ... nevertheless the president of the Union for Reform Judaism Rabbi Rick Jacobs is hailing Bennett — with whom he has met several times — as a breath of fresh air compared to his haredi Orthodox predecessors. “There’s a new openness and a new willingness to dialogue. For the minister of religious affairs to have an honest and frankly open-ended dialogue with the leaders of the Reform and Conservative movements that’s already ‘Shehechiyanu.’ ”
Ironically then it is the heterodox hunger for Orthodox conferral of Jewish legitimacy on their bogus enterprises that itself is one element in rabbinic refusal to appear in venues like Limmud. We take truth very seriously and ziyuf haTorah falsification of the Torah’s teachings even where conveying them accurately will ostensibly result in other Jews remaining far from Torah is a grave matter indeed. And it’s difficult to think of a greater ziyuf haTorah than being party to a Jew coming to believe that Jewish heterodoxy is in fact Judaism.
But there’s another important point that emerges from Rabbi Reinman’s essay that’s relevant to this discussion. He related what happened at one of the two joint appearances he made with Hirsch at Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y:
The moderator asked me “If someone has a choice between watching [a very popular television show] and learning Talmud with a Reform rabbi what would you advise him to do?” Things had been going so well and now this bomb. I tried to wiggle out but the moderator pinned me down. What could I do? So I took a deep breath and said “He should watch [the show].” There was an audible gasp from the audience. I was mortified.
Afterwards Richard Curtis [the Reform Jewish literary agent who originally suggested writing the book] told me “Don’t worry. People will respect your intellectual honesty. And besides many people will go home wondering ‘What is so bad about learning Talmud with a Reform rabbi? Why would he say something like that?’ ”
We ought not underestimate the power of example in sticking to principles and refusing to share a stage or even a conference lineup with falsifiers of Torah. The very passion for those principles can be instrumental in bringing Jews closer to Torah. —