Avoiding the Issues: Defending Open Orthodoxy

>>Follow Matzav On Whatsapp!<<

chovevei-torahBy I. Schwartz

In response to countless departures from normative Orthodoxy on the part of the new “Open Orthodox” movement, rabbis from across the Orthodox spectrum have come forth with articles and statements. Yated Ne’eman editor Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz initiated much of the challenge to Open Orthodoxy’s bona fides and its radical approach to Judaism in the name of Orthodoxy; Rabbi Lipschutz’s most recent and bold writings on the subject appear below. Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel of America issued some really on-the-mark critiques of the statements of Open Orthodox leaders that utterly contradict the facts on the ground of Open Orthodoxy’s radical deviations from Torah practice (Be Honest: Open Orthodoxy Is Not Orthodoxy and Open “Orthodoxy”?), Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer published a criticism of recent startling proposals by prominent Open Orthodox rabbis that would change geirus and divorce practices (Non-Orthodox Orthodoxy: Playing With Fire) and an article documenting widening breaches toward further feminization of tefillah by prominent Open Orthodox rabbis (The Open Orthodox Race to the Edge and Beyond: When Will It Stop?), and a large group of RCA-aligned rabbis issued a public statement decrying the divisive reforms initiated by Open Orthodoxy and rebuffing Open Orthodoxy’s leaders’ attempts to label the rest of Orthodoxy as the ones being divisive (Orthodox Rabbis Stand on Principle).

Reacting to these challenges by a wide array of rabbonim – challenges which enumerate in great detail the breaches in Torah practice and failure of commitment to Mesorah on the part of the Open Orthodox movement – Open Orthodox leaders have resorted to damage control, issuing a new set of articles to defend themselves. These new articles, which consist entirely of fluffy platitudes (and gross misrepresentations of the writings of gedolim – please look up the Netziv quoted below and see what he really says), totally avoid addressing the countless, hair-raising deviations that have been committed and continue to be embraced by Open Orthodoxy.

Let’s take a look:

“Open and Modern Orthodoxy is true to the Torah because we believe that only by hearing different opinions, and respecting them, can the Jewish people continue our Torah mission to learn the infinite and divine word of God and begin to wrestle with its meaning. We believe that since the written and Oral Torah was given by God, it is, as David Hartman described it, a living covenant which demands our constant interpretation and efforts to come closer to its truth.

“Because human beings are limited, we can never be so haughty as to think we understand the “true” meaning of the written or oral traditions. Rather, according to the great Lithuanian Rosh Yeshiva, the Netziv, we work on learning what has been passed down to us, and opening ourselves up to new interpretations of our ancient law, interpretations that develop from an openness to the world around us. Of course not every novel interpretation is valid: It must be tested in the crucible of the Beit Midrash – and now online as well! – and after perhaps years or decades of argumentation and discussion, the world of Torah discovers whether a new approach is indeed what God commanded us at Sinai.

“Open Orthodoxy believes in the sanctity of our tradition, the full commitment to Jewish law as passed down through the ages, and full commitment to the beliefs and customs of our people. Yet we understand that with the Word of God, no human and not even a single generation can claim that they know exactly the will of God. Only through honest and real openness to the world of knowledge and the world we live in, can the Torah process lead to the Torah understanding that God needs us to strive for.

“Open Orthodoxy is Abraham taking the language of Malkitzedek, the Gentile king of Shalem (ancient Jerusalem?) and incorporating it not only into his own prayers to God, but ultimately into the daily prayer of every single Jew for thousands of years. Open Orthodoxy is Isaac and Rebecca moving from isolation to Beer Sheva in order to be part of the city and impact it. Open Orthodoxy is Jacob finding his way in a foreign land, and it is Rachel and Leah, converts as all the Patriarchs and Matriarchs were, saying that they will join with Jacob to build a diverse people, twelve sons and one daughter with different approaches, different philosophies, which would ultimately create the diverse Jewish people we have today.” (An Orthodoxy That Is Open To The World – And Our Critics – Rabbi Asher Lopatin)

“Pursuing the path of God involves being open to advice and to constructive criticism. How else could we engage in the critical processes of introspection and self-improvement? But no less important than listening to friends who advise and criticize, is refusing to be distracted by the static of public attack. The public attackers are also sincere, and genuine in their words. But what they are asking is that we forsake God, and instead serve them.” (Be Strong and of Good Courage, Chevra -Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky)

Another damage-control piece, just written by a musmach of Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT) who is now enrolled at Jewish Theological Seminary for a graduate degree in Talmud, defended the notion that one need not accept the Ikarei Ha-Emunah, including the truth of the Torah and the existence of prophecy. This article, which will not be quoted or cited here due to heretical content, is the only one that addresses (in a very problematic way!) the substance of the critiques of Open Orthodoxy. The articles of Rabbis Lopatin and Kanefsky are devoid of substance and completely sidestep and fail to in any way to address the major breaches of Open Orthodoxy that are the source of its criticism.

Please read Rabbi Lipschutz’ articles below. Please carefully go through his detailed response to the letter of Rabbi Lopatin, YCT president, and feel free to read the entirety of Rabbi Lopatin’s and Rabbi Kanefsky’s defensive articles, for you will see that nowhere does Rabbi Lopatin, or Rabbi Kanefsky, or any Open Orthodox leader for that matter, own up to the facts and address the grievous deviations from Orthodoxy documented in Rabbi Lipschutz’ and the other rabbis’ articles – deviations such as Open Orthodoxy’s ordaining of women rabbis, its feminizing of nusach ha-tefillah, its having women lead parts of davening, it shaving women serving as makri for shofar and as ba’al korei for Megillah (all with men in attendance), its quest to reform geirus and divorce procedures, its defense of a YCT graduate who has denied Torah Mi-Sinai and its retention of this person as a member of the boards of its institutions and as the coordinator of its vaad for geirus, its participation in interfaith and interdenominational projects that poskim forbid, its active lobbying for the recognition of to’eivah marriage, its defense of to’eivah lifestyles, and so forth.

Let us not be fooled by Open Orthodoxy’s empty platitudes and intentional evasion of the issues. Open Orthodoxy, as the reader can himself see in the referenced damage-control articles of its leaders, claims to embrace the Mesorah while in actuality it continues to breach the Mesorah in new and unimaginable ways. Like Eisav, Open Orthodox rabbis make a claim of self-kashrus, while at the same time their deeds are very non-kosher.

Let us call a spade a spade and make sure that Orthodoxy means acceptance of Torah authority and Mesorah – something that Open Orthodoxy, with all of its evasiveness and flowery verbiage of commitment to Torah, cannot accept and continues to reject by its on-the-ground actions and statements that contradict its flowery, defense-posture platitudes.

Uncompromising Orthodoxy

By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

The most noteworthy aspect of Rabbi Asher Lopatin’s official installation as president of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT), was a rabbinic roundtable titled “Training Real Rabbis for a New Generation.” The roundtable featured the leadership of Hebrew Union College, Jewish Theological Seminary, and Hebrew College, plus a female Reform rabbi from the Wexner Foundation, along with Rabbi Lopatin.

To promote their agenda and spit in the face of Orthodox conduct and practice, they held a roundtable with clergy who don’t follow halacha. Though that is their prerogative, it does cause us to question why the group that proudly veers from Orthodoxy insists on being called Orthodox.

Essentially, for all their talk about openness and progressiveness, they crave the legitimacy conferred by Orthodoxy. They cavort with the open-minded intelligentsia, yet refuse to give up the branding of the denomination of Judaism that is thriving and is destined to survive.

Initially, when Lopatin was chosen to serve as YCT’s president, we were optimistic that under his leadership, YCT would chart a corrective course. Perhaps we erred. He might put a nicer face on the school’s agenda, but it remains the same and, if anything, is now more dangerous.

Though such programming is typical of YCT and its Open Orthodox movement, to begin his presidency chatting about rabbis – religious leaders, by definition – with four heretics who deny the divinity of Torah says a lot about what can be expected from him or the institution.

Whose Orthodoxy does he see himself addressing?

Certainly not the Orthodoxy of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky and the eleven roshei yeshiva who left no wiggle room in their 1956 landmark p’sak forbidding cooperation with non-Orthodox movements. Does he see himself as heir to the Orthodoxy of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik, who forbade joining with non-Orthodox movements for theological debate? Apparently not.

So which Orthodoxy is YCT so eager to be part of? Perhaps it is that they merely wish to tap into what’s right and good about Orthodoxy – its dynamism, appeal and future – but not the halachos that define it.

Responding to published concerns about the message delivered by the non-Orthodox roundtable, Lopatin told JTA, “We can’t be afraid of criticism; we have to do the right thing. Everyone’s going to criticize us anyway for everything… What does Open Orthodoxy mean? It’s first of all feeling confident enough that you’re open to entertaining questions and challenges, you’re not afraid of them.”

Obviously, by offering feel-good platitudes, Rabbi Lopatin displays that he has no substantive defense for what he did. Yet, JTA reports that “The question of how Chovevei treats non-Orthodox Jews is far more important to Lopatin than how Chovevei is treated by the Orthodox. Though Lopatin wants Chovevei connected to the Orthodox world, including haredi Jews, he says it cannot come at the cost of compromise to the yeshiva’s ideology of ‘open Orthodoxy.'”

He will do nothing to compromise the fuzzy ideals of Open Orthodoxy, yet he has no problem compromising the precepts of the Torah, mesorah and halacha. He and his school have no problem associating themselves with staff, leaders, students and alumni who have staked out positions that are diametrically opposed to Orthodox thought and tradition.

Lopatin tells the New York Jewish Week, “I do think that in any school of higher learning, men and women should be learning from each other. So we are starting an evening seder on Monday nights where we are going to partner with maharats [women rabbis]. I do think it’s a loss for men and women to be segregated. If the maharat program is successful, and it does change the dynamic, then we’ll have to look to find more ways to be studying together.”

Rabbi Lopatin’s recent defense of Rabbi Zev Farber, an Open Orthodox rabbinic leader who denies Torah Min HaShomayim, and his statements to Tablet Magazine this past summer that he would love to have YCT join with non-Orthodox seminaries into one campus, are disappointing. Even though Rabbi Lopatin stated, “I want to make sure Chovevei Torah is an integral part of the Orthodox world,” his other comments and actions indicate quite the contrary.

In the Yated, we have showcased the history of YCT and Open Orthodoxy’s extensive and growing list of deviations from Torah Judaism, such as granting semichah to women, conducting services led by women in Open Orthodox shuls, accepting and promoting lifestyles that the Torah refers to as to’eivah, conducting interfaith programs banned by all poskim, retaining people who openly deny Torah Min HaShomayim as rabbinic leaders, and changing parts of davening to conform with a pluralistic liberal agenda.

In the past, we have written that YCT and those who adhere to its philosophy should not be considered Orthodox and should not be afforded its benefits. Every public step the group takes strengthens our position. Though the Young Israel movement blocks YCT graduates from assuming pulpits in its member synagogues and the RCA doesn’t grant them membership in its rabbinic organization, YCT and Open Orthodoxy are still perceived as Orthodox and treated as such.

The question remains: After so much deviation from Torah, halacha and mesorah, why does YCT and the Open Orthodox movement insist on referring to themselves as Orthodox? Their deviations are reminiscent of the Conservative movement at its founding, when its leaders proclaimed a progressive fidelity to halacha. Addressing this phenomenon – their desperate need to be considered Orthodox – we suggest two possible factors.

Firstly, YCT’s rabbis have, in general, been careful to obtain some type of halachic sanction for their actions or ensure that their actions are halachically sound. For example, Rabbi Farber relies on the halachic rulings of Rabbi Avi Weiss’ book, Women at Prayer, to justify feminist davening rituals, and Yeshivat Maharat, the YCT affiliate that gives women semichah, relies on Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber, who calls himself an Orthodox posek yet serves as the chancellor of the non-Orthodox Canadian Rabbinical School. Rabbi Farber, with his Yodin Yodin semichah from YCT, has likewise issued halachic rulings to somewhat sanction to’eivah activities and tamper with davening to serve feminist goals. Despite the fact that Open Orthodoxy’s “poskim” are radical, fringe rabbis, who do not have any halachic gravitas in the Orthodox world, Open Orthodoxy feels justified in its actions due to the blessings and heteirim of its rabbis.

Other objectionable actions of Open Orthodoxy, such as its interfaith programs and pulpit exchanges and rabbinic interactions with non-Orthodox clergy, are defended by them as non-halachic and therefore permissible.

What is so obviously missing in all they do is a sense of mesorah – that there are actions and attitudes that violate the spirit of Torah and are contrary to the way ehrliche Yidden have conducted themselves throughout the centuries. One of the very many examples is the concept of mechitzah, which is so basic to the way we daven and lead our lives and which is based on the structure of the Bais Hamikdosh, where men and women were separated.

The application of mechitzah as a halachic concept is based on mesorah, and although it does not appear in the Torah, it is as an absolute requirement for tefillah. There is a mesorah for how we daven, how we think, and how we act. The attitudinal aspects of Torah life are wholly based on mesorah, not on anyone’s whim or fancy. Mesorah doesn’t bend to conform to any zeitgeist or prevailing social theory.

Open Orthodoxy has gone down the road of Judaism without mesorah. So long as there is no technical halachic violation (according to left-wing fringe “poskim” or an unaccepted daas yochid from years past), YCT’s rabbis give the go-ahead.

In Lopatin’s thinking, apparently, holding strong against deviation of a Divine script is a sign of weakness. He writes, “Think about it: Why should the huge Hareidi community fear a few women – on the women’s side of the Kotel wearing a tallit and singing and dancing once a month for an hour? Do they really think that all women will start wearing tallitot and tefillin and will start coming to the Kotel all the time and daven all the time? Do they see a revolution on the part of Hareidi women about to take off?”

The reason our sensibilities are offended when a radical fringe group engages in non-traditional behavior is not because we feel threatened that their example is about to overwhelm Orthodox practice. We take offense to defiling the holiest place in the world and using the Kosel as a backdrop for a ridiculous show. The posuk says, “Sheker soneisi vo’asaeivahI hate and despise lies and deceitful, fictitious conduct.” Distortion of our religion is something that rankles us and shakes us to our core.

They claim to be following the ways of Avrohom and Sarah, who passionately and confidently opened their tent to all, as opposed to “preservationist” chareidim who fear the non-Orthodox and their influences. Their claim that they mingle with the so-called other branches of Judaism in order to be mekareiv them, is spurious. Is that a reason to invite their clergy to address YCT students? Is it even permitted according to halacha?

Lopatin mocks chareidim, writing that there “is not true pluralism in the Hareidi world; the families don’t necessarily want to learn about Kant or feminism from their [non-religious] guests, but they do want to connect with them, and it is an encouraging first step towards the openness of Abraham and Sarah’s tent.”

If Kant’s apikorsus is of no value and meaning to us, we are lacking in the eyes of the Open Orthodox. If we don’t invite Conservative and Reform clergy to preach in our shuls and yeshivos, we are lacking in self-confidence. Lopatin advocates having Conservative, Reform and Renewal rabbis as mentors, as if we have what to learn from them. Obviously, he and the YCT crowd are unfamiliar with the halachos that forbid learning from apikorsim.

He lectures us, writing, “It is the responsibility of those in the outreach community and the pluralistic Orthodox community, who are comfortable counting Conservative, Reform or Renewal rabbis as mentors and teachers, to find a way to show other Orthodox Jews that pluralism is only going to strengthen an already strong Orthodoxy, not destroy it.”

This is a recurring theme for him. He writes, “There is no need to apologize for the Hareidi or Centrist or even Modern Orthodox community. We just need to speak from a loving and caring place. I am a pluralist: We need to learn from all Jews, and connect and relate to all Jews – Reform, Conservative, Renewal; I believe it is critical for Judaism that we engage with the greater society as well…”

At the same time, with twisted logic, he dreams of impacting “our Orthodox brothers and sisters in Lakewood, Brooklyn and Monsey…”

They aren’t content with their small group. They seek to expand it and to transform our communities as well. We must ensure that that doesn’t happen.

For the past 13 years, we have been hearing about the radical reforms of YCT and its affiliates, yet our world has been complacent. With few notable exceptions, we haven’t done much to address the growing deviant group in a concrete way. We have failed to treat this dangerous Open Orthodox movement the way we should – as non-Orthodox.

It is time for our community to formally declare – and really mean it – that Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodoxy and that anyone involved with Open Orthodox institutions risks being ousted from leadership positions in the Orthodox community.

No longer can we look the other way and allow the deviationists to hijack the Orthodox mantle for further distortion and compromise of Judaism in the name of Orthodoxy. The privilege of calling oneself Orthodox must be reserved for those who seek, rather than undermine and reject, Torah norms, both in halacha and hashkafah. Reformers under any guise shouldn’t be granted that.

Some people ask: Why should we care?

Firstly, kol Yisroel areivim zeh bozeh. We have an obligation to offer tochachah and seek to return these people to where they belong, bevais Hashem.

Secondly, while we stand idly by, they are drawing adherents and gaining control of shuls, schools and organizations.

Today, we might say that they have little influence on what goes on in the frum world, but if things continue on the current trajectory, pretty soon it will be difficult to relegate them to a dark left corner. We have to take a strong stand and we have to take it now. That is the way we have responded to deviant movements throughout our history in order to preserve Torah Judaism. Unfortunately, that is the way we need to respond today.

In Parshas Lech Lecha, we learn about the chessed of Avrohom Avinu, his tolerance and acceptance of all people, and his wide-open tent. Many of the modern-day maskilim claim to be following in the footsteps of our first forefather, embracing people who are different than them, liberal and open-minded to the extreme. Any such comparison is a false manipulation of Avrohom Avinu’s middah.

The Avrohom Avinu who we revere, study and seek to emulate was not just some nice, gentle soul who espoused love and peace. The av of chessed was the same person who took a hammer to his father’s idols and alienated himself from his family and friends in his pursuit of truth.

The posuk at the end of Parshas Noach states simply, “Haran died in the lifetime of Terach, his father, in the land of his birth, in Ur Kasdim” (Bereishis 1:27-28). The Medrash (Bereishis Rabbah 38) relates that Nimrod threw Avrohom Avinu into a furnace and taunted him to pray to his G-d to save him. Haran watched the spectacle, unsure of whom to support. Unable to choose a side, he arrived at a compromise. He said that he would take a wait-and-see-position. “Im Avrohom menatzeiach, ani mishelo, im Nimrod menatzeiach, ani mishelo.” He would support the victor, quickly joining forces with whoever would triumph.

The Medrash relates that when Avrohom emerged from the furnace unscathed, Haran joined his team. Nimrod promptly threw him into the fire and he was burned to death.

The Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel (Bereishis 11:28) states that Haran was killed not by the heat of the furnace, but by a bolt of fire that came down from heaven.

Apparently, Haran incurred Hashem’s wrath because he refused to take a position on ikrei emunah. The mindset of “Im Avrohom menatzeiach, ani mishelo, im Nimrod menatzeiach, ani mishelo” was offensive. Haran lacked principles and ironclad beliefs. He embraced the right and the left, wanting to be adored by all. He wanted to be everywhere and he ended up nowhere.

The mesorah community is attached enough to the past to firmly believe in the future. We are a nation living with a three-dimensional vision: Hashem melech, Hashem moloch, and Hashem yimloch l’olam vo’ed. So while we toil for tomorrow, giving the best of our time, money and resources to chinuch in the fervent hope that our children will follow the path that stretches back to Sinai, it is with confidence and an assurance that lo yomush haTorah mipicha umipi zaracha.

Recently, the largest funeral in Israel’s history was held for Rav Ovadiah Yosef, the nosi of Shas and towering figure of the Sefardic community in Eretz Yisroel and across the world. Chareidim, dati-leumi and chilonim, who had gathered across the country to beseech Heaven for the life of the beloved chacham, streamed to Yerushalayim from all corners of the country to bid him farewell. They connected with him, they loved him, and they felt his love for them.

YCT claims that they are selling an innovation, a rabbinate that engages the people and “teaches talmidim how to navigate the world with mentschlichkeit and a commitment to tradition and halacha,” in the words of Rabbi Lopatin.

Chacham Ovadiah, like other gedolim, roshei yeshiva and rabbonim, embodied a commitment to halacha. Brilliantly fluent in the responsa of the last thousand years, he was largely responsible for bringing a generation of Sefardic Jewry back to living halachic lives in accordance with the Shulchan Aruch. A tremendous masmid, fidelity to Torah was the hallmark of his life. Yet, the centerpiece of his leadership was his willingness to go out and speak to people, delivering shiurim and words of chizuk to Jews anywhere.

During Elul, he would travel across the country giving chizuk to wayward Jews, sharing stories and mesholim, speaking on the level necessary to inspire his listeners. In a hesped for his wife, it was recalled how she would stay up until after midnight on those Elul nights, knowing that her husband wouldn’t eat supper until his work was done. She would wait up for him to return home so that she could have the honor of serving him that late-night meal.

During the month leading up to the deadline for school registration, he would go from home to home, persuading parents to register their children in religious schools. Sometimes he was successful, sometimes not, but never for lack of trying, never for lack of hard work and concern for every Jew.

The secular Israeli media have experienced great difficulty understanding how the Sefardi chareidi rabbi merited the largest funeral in the state’s history. They are trying to explain why Ilan came from Kiryat Malachi, Erez came from Dimona, and Dudu traveled from Eilat, not to get close to the aron or even hear hespeidim, but simply to show their respect and enduring love for the chacham they viewed as their Maran.

Somewhere between eight hundred thousand and a million people, on a moment’s notice, dropped what they were doing and headed for Porat Yosef. The Jewish soul has a feel for authenticity, for mesorah, for Torah itself. It is what sets our leaders apart. It is what made Chacham Ovadiah not just a halachic or political leader, but a beloved father figure.

His rabbinic record, like that of so many rabbonim, provides an example for the YCT crowd to study. The enduring image of the chacham is of him sitting in his study, learning and writing, learning and writing, and learning and writing – a picture of genuine chavivus haTorah. Yet, despite his many outreach efforts and his binding love of Jews, he remained fiercely loyal to the precepts of the Shulchan Aruch and minhogim of Yahadus Seforad.

Not only him, but every one of our leaders whom YCT mocks.

Rav Aharon Kotler, the firebrand torchbearer of uncompromising Torah, founded Chinuch Atzmai to save a generation of Israelis and inspired Israeli bnei Torah under the P’eylim banner to fan out across the country and sign up children for Torah schools. He would say that the time of rishum, enrollment, is the yom hadin for thousands of children. He never rested from his mission of reaching out to all types of Jews and bringing them into the tent of Torah.

That legacy was continued by Rav Elozor Menachem Man Shach, another Torah giant who brooked no compromise when it came to fidelity to Torah and mesorah. Under his leadership, the P’eylim were reconstituted under the Lev L’Achim banner. He selected Rav Eliezer Sorotzkin to head the organization and provided direction and inspiration to its yungeleit and bochurim, who dedicate time to bring Torah to tens of thousands of Jews. Their dedication and tirelessness caused a revolution of teshuvah. Today, Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman is their primary rabbinic guide.

The banner of Lev L’Achim was initially carried in this country by many leading roshei yeshiva, primary among them Rav Elya Svei, a talmid of Rav Aharon in so many ways, including his uncompromising, fierce dedication to halacha.

The torch of Lev L’Achim is proudly carried today by virtually every Israeli rosh yeshiva and proudly and prominently supported by bnei Torah around the world.

Yet, none of what Lev L’Achim has been able to accomplish comes at the expense of violating even an iota of halacha.

The YCT people condemn us for being selfishly insular and say we don’t care about the people they refer to as serious, Jewishly-engaged Jews who seek meaningful and inspiring lives. They claim that they engage with the non-Orthodox in order to share Orthodoxy with them. They ignore the contributions of “insular” organizations such as Lev L’Achim, Shuvu, Arachim, Ohr Somayach, Aish Hatorah, Oorah, Gateways, Acheinu, Chabad and the numerous frum people engaged in kiruv activities around the globe. They ignore the contributions of the day school movement, founded and led by old-fashioned insularists. They make no mention of the kollelim spreading Torah and kedushah, bringing people tachas kanfei haShechinah without compromising any of our ideals.

Rashi in Parshas Noach (7:7) states that Noach was “miktanei emunah,” meaning that he lacked in his belief. “Ma’amin v’eino ma’amin sheyavo haMabul.” He wasn’t entirely sure if the Flood that Hashem promised to bring to destroy the sinners of the world would materialize. He didn’t enter the teivah until the floodwaters forced him in.

Noach, we know, dedicated 120 years of his life to building the teivah. How can it be said that he didn’t really believe it would come?

In a hesped on the Steipler Gaon, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik explained that Noach believed in Hashem’s word and didn’t doubt it. However, Noach made cheshbonos and reasoned that ultimately Hashem would have mercy on his creations and not bring the flood. Therefore he didn’t enter the teivah when he was told to. For this reason, he is called a “kotton b’emunah,” because we are required to follow the word of Hashem and not make cheshbonos.

We are to follow halacha and the precepts of Chazal and the rabbinic leaders of each generation. If the halacha is to engage in a certain action, then that is the way we should conduct ourselves. One who calculates why he should act differently to achieve a greater good or rationalizes that the will of Hashem is different in this instance is “miktanei emunah.”

As we learn the parshiyos of Bereishis and study the lives of the avos, let us heed the admonitions of Chazal and follow in their ways of Torah, avodah and gemillus chassodim without tempering them with deviant philosophies. Likewise, when we hear of neighbors, friends and others in trouble, let us seek to practice the chessed of Avrohom without cheshbonos. Let us daven for them and help them in every way possible.

Let us all ensure that we remain loyal to Torah, halacha and mesorah in the spirit of Avrohom Avinu and his progeny throughout the generations until this very day.

Rabbi Lopatin’s response:

Dear Editor,

As the new president of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, I want to thank the Yated for bringing to the frum community important issues that need to be discussed and taken seriously. Torah MiSinai, yearning for Moshiach, yiras Shomayim and commitment to halacha as transmitted to us by the masters of the mesoret are all fundamentals of Yiddishkeit which our yeshiva not only believes in be’emunah shleimah, but also teaches to our students and works hard to promote in the Jewish community.

We find our home in the Orthodox world of gedolim and simple Jews who have kept Yiddishkeit alive and growing over the millennia. People of any persuasion and any denomination can consider us whatever they want, and I respect their right to form their own attitudes and understandings of who we are. I personally try to leave judging up to Hakadosh Boruch Hu, but perhaps even people who are harsh on us – as the Yated sometimes is – hopefully mean only to help us come closer to Hashem’s Torah and to give us healthy mussar. In any case, our yeshiva and all the Open and Modern Orthodox Jews we represent are committed – with humility and yiras Hashem – to remaining an active and vocal part of the Orthodox movement no matter who tries to push us out. Chassidim always respected the Gaon MiVilna even though he put them in cheirem. We also respect gedolim and rabbonim who may make declarations regarding who we are. We know that our talmidim need to learn the Torah of Rav Elyashiv zt”l and Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l and all the living and past gedolim. We look to the Torah-true mesoret of p’sak for determining how to live our lives and how to grow as bnei Torah.

I realize that many of the innovative ideas and practices of Open and Modern Orthodoxy might make people uneasy. In the past, chassidus made the Gaon MiVilna extremely uneasy, as I mentioned above, and the kiruv movement, the Zionist movement, even the movement to formally educate women all have made people uneasy. All these movements appeared to many of our gedolim to be a break from the past. Yet, as they stayed loyal to the world of Torah and mitzvot and proved to Anshei Shlomeinu they were arguably a true embodiment of our mesorah, even if many still disputed the validity of their ideas and practices, they were accepted as part of the Orthodox world.

While the ideas and practices of Open and Modern Orthodoxy are already integral to many in the Orthodox world, I hope they become accepted by the entire breadth of the Orthodox world over time. In the meantime, we welcome vigorous debate – as the Netziv says, “pilpul” – and the rough and tumble of kinas sofrim to challenge us and make us think as well about how we are part of the mesoret we cherish and cling to with passion.

I welcome more articles about Yeshivat Chovevei Torah and hope more and more people can be brought into the conversation. Push us hard! We are ready with Torah, we are ready to listen and always “hafoch bah vahafoch bah” to reexamine every action we take and every idea we promulgate. Together, the world of those who love Torah – Chovevei Torah – will, with Hashem’s help, be a kiddush Hashem and a model of ehrlichkeit and mentchlichkeit to Jews everywhere who are thirsting for Toras Emes. That’s what we are here to do. That’s YCT.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

President, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah

Rabbi Lipschutz Responds to Him:

Rabbi Lopatin preaches a nice game, but the movement he heads fails to practice the path he writes of.

He says, “We look to the Torah-true mesoret of p’sak for determining how to live our lives and how to grow as bnei Torah.” However, the fact is that the movement consistently rejects this “mesoret of p’sak,” as it sanctions and promotes that which halacha forbids, such as toeivah relationships, tampering with and feminizing the halachic seder hatefillah, learning from heretics and granting them legitimacy, ordaining women as rabbis, etc.

He writes, “Torah MiSinai, yearning for Moshiach, yiras Shomayim and commitment to halacha as transmitted to us by the masters of the mesoret are all fundamentals of Yiddishkeit which our yeshiva not only believes in be’emunah shleimah, but also teaches to our students and works hard to promote in the Jewish community.”

If this is so, why does this movement’s star Yodin Yodin YCT musmach/posek/board member and head of its Vaad Ha-Giyur, Rabbi Zev Farber, publicly write that he does not believe that Avrohom and Sarah existed, that he does not believe that G-d ever communicated with man, and that he does not believe that the Torah was actually given to Moshe? And how is it that the movement continues to retain him in his many influential positions?

Why does their rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Dov Linzer, repeatedly write about the harshness of G-d’s decrees that man tempered through its own interpretation and “hearing the softer voices” that allowed us to not accept the Torah as G-d gave it?

Why does Rabbi Linzer compare contemporary Orthodox leaders to the meraglim and suggest that we should bend the Torah in order to conform to prevailing liberal humanist ideas?

How does YCT’s embrace of “rabbis” who defy Torah and the toeivah marriage agenda fit with the platitudes contained in Rabbi Lopatin’s letter?

Rabbi Lopatin, you yourself lobbied with a female Reform rabbi to help pass recognition of toeivah unions in Illinois. Many of your movement’s rabbis are pushing that same agenda. If you and your movement’s members who engage in this conduct have no respect for a posuk in the Torah, which leaves no wiggle room, and lobby the government as an Orthodox rabbi for something that the Torah unequivocally condemns as an abomination, how can you claim fidelity to Torah MiSinai and commitment to halacha? How can you claim to be following the mesorah? Which mesorah? Whose mesorah are you following?

The movement’s rabbis have denied publically and vocally other ikrei emunah, and some of them are pushing for radical changes in gittin which all gedolim and poskim have deemed invalid. How is that consistent with what you write here?

By your standards, how are Reform and Conservative different from Open Orthodoxy? They also claim fidelity to G-d and Torah and mesorah, albeit with a very different approach. Like Open Orthodoxy, they have openly allowed for rejection of ikrei emunah and halachic authority.

You write, “We know that our talmidim need to learn the Torah of Rav Elyashiv zt”l and Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l and all the living and past gedolim. We look to the Torah-true mesoret of p’sak for determining how to live our lives and how to grow as bnei Torah.”

What you don’t write is that at the same time as you learn their holy words, you study the works and teachings of apikorsim. Your school mocks the life-missions of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Yosef, and the halachic positions that they took throughout their lives, which are in direct contradiction to all of the interesting halachic rationales that emanate from Open Orthodoxy. It is easy to say that you learn the Torah of Rav Elyashiv and look to the mesorah of his p’sokim and then not follow it. We can only judge by actions, and they are clearly wrong.

Were those rabbis alive, they would condemn your school and reject its deviations from halacha and mesorah. They would not recognize its semichah or geirus. You cleave to a philosophy that finds merit in discredited movements and their teachings. It is disingenuous for you to claim to be following the paths of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Yosef when nothing could be further from the truth.

You write about yiras Shomayim, yet the first and most elementary step in yiras Shomayim is to realize that Torah and halacha are not things that can be shaped to fit with contemporary mores. Yiras Shomayim also includes fearing talmidei chachomim and not having the audacity to implement halachic innovations without the approval of widely accepted, acknowledged poskim who are links in the chain of Torah and mesorah.

“[Looking] to the Torah-true mesoret of p’sak for determining how to live our lives and how to grow as bnei Torah” does not mean making up your own interpretations of halacha and changing halachic norms that have been observed for centuries.

You yourself wrote previously, “It is the responsibility of those in the outreach community and the pluralistic Orthodox community, who are comfortable counting Conservative, Reform or Renewal rabbis as mentors and teachers, to find a way to show other Orthodox Jews that pluralism is only going to strengthen an already strong Orthodoxy, not destroy it.”

Wrong again. Our duty is to follow Jewish law as codified in the Shulchan Aruch and by the great accepted poskim throughout the generations. Observant Jews have always lived their lives that way and always will.

One who reads your letter here without reading my article which you are responding to could imagine you as a modern-day Baal Shem Tov reaching out to the masses in an innovative historic manner, facing the scorn of sad Litvaks. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I suspect that you know that.

You mock us, writing previously that there “is not true pluralism in the Hareidi world; the families [who invite in irreligious people for Shabbos meals] don’t necessarily want to learn about Kant or feminism from their [non-religious] guests, but they do want to connect with them, and it is an encouraging first step towards the openness of Abraham and Sarah’s tent.”

Do you think the Baal Shem Tov, or any Chassidic leaders since the founding of that movement until this very day, would agree with that statement, or with having women lead services, or with studying Gemara with maharat candidates, or with maharats officiating in any capacity?

On a personal level, Rabbi Lopatin, you may be a nice man, but you are seriously misguided. We reach out our hand in friendship and welcome you back to the fold.

{Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. I take issue with only one of Rabbi Lipschutz’s assumptions. He states that Chovevai Tzion wants to be identified with Orthodoxy because that will give them the mantle of legitimacy. I don’t believe that they care for recognition by Orthodox or anyone else, they do what they want regardless. I was recently in their building (through no desire of my own) and there was a newsletter posted proudly on their wall with an article of how the Israeli Rabbinate doesn’t accept the Geirus comments of a ‘foremost Orthodox Rabbi’ (Avi Weiss). He is foremost only in his own mind, he is not Orthodox and certainly not a Rabbi). Yet they tout him as if he has significance. No, they aren’t looking for acceptance from us.

    By calling themselves Orthodox, however, they can drag down the unsuspecting bystanders who don’t have enough background to differentiate between true Yorai Shomaim and the silliness they espouse. This is another terrible episode in our history where the heretics aren’t happy to wallow in their own filth but want everyone down there with them. They personify “Yod’im Ribonom U’mechaven Limrod Bo”. Recognizing their Master and intentionally rebelling against Him.

    May Hashem help them to do teshuva while they still can.

  2. i agree if they are making any inroads into schools shuls and organizations we need to come out now and make a statement that any association with these institutions puts one mee’chutz lamachaneinu how can we get the ball rolling

  3. “This article, which will not be quoted or cited here due to heretical content, is the only one that addresses (in a very problematic way!) the substance of the critiques of Open Orthodoxy.”

    How can it be evaluated if it’s not quoted ? Who is avoiding issues?

    One way to discuss this further is to quote the Rambam:

    ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????–??????? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ?????, ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???: ???? ????? ?? ??? ????, ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??????; ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ????, ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????.

    Rabbi Yitzchak Berkovits asks,

    ” There’s a general sheilah altogether. What’s wrong with entertaining a possibility? What are we so afraid of? If it’s so true, if we’ve got the emes why are we so insecure? According to the Rambam you’re supposed to stay away from reading questionable materials… There’s a heter if you need it l’hislameid, you have to go and counter those who believe in it, but otherwise you’re not supposed to read it. Doesn’t that sound like insecurity, like we’re afraid? ”

    Ayin shom R. Berkovits’s approach, which can be found on the Shivisi website(“The Six Constant Mitzvos: Mitzvah #6 Lo Sasuru” ). I would be interested in Rabbi Avroham Birnbaum or another Yated writer discussing this as well.

    I would say that the answer is implicit in the Rambam quoted above ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? , implying that some can understand it. This is why he wrote the Moreh Nevuchim.

    Alternatively, emunah peshutah is more experiential, and avoids the need to discuss kefirah.

    The seemingly paradox, is when criticizing kefirah in a public forum. It’s not emunah peshutah, but it’s also criticizing others intellectually, without the back and forth. It’s not the standard kiruv approach either.

    One might argue that one can talk on multiple levels to different people, ?????? ????, as the Ramban would put it. However, one can question how well this approach works online.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here