In his commentary article in The Jewish Link (“Can Modern Orthodoxy Be Modern and Orthodox?” January 23, 2025), Michael Levin wonders about the future of Modern Orthodoxy. He claims there is a gap between Modern Orthodoxy’s lay constituency and its leadership, not unlike the gap that exists between the Conservative Movement’s leadership and constituency. Lamenting this phenomenon, Mr. Levin states, “This may well be the unfortunate path down which Modern Orthodoxy stumbles, an increasing gap between a dedicated leadership and an unmotivated laity. That’s because Modern Orthodoxy has the impossible burden of blending an increasingly bizarre secular worldview with traditional Torah values. It’s holy versus hefker, and something’s got to give.”
The most unfortunate thing I can say about Modern Orthodoxy, if this is Mr. Levin’s view of it, is that it has failed to educate him about what it is. However, I do not think that is the case. Rather, I think Mr. Levin has chosen to find the worst examples of lax and often halacha-violating behavior on the part of people who call themselves Orthodox and dub that Modern Orthodoxy. This is a grossly unfair portrayal of what ideological and observant Modern Orthodoxy is supposed to be.
First, there is no such thing as any stream of Orthodoxy that does not accept the primacy of Halacha. Therefore, it is impossible for Modern Orthodoxy to have the “impossible burden of blending an increasingly bizarre secular worldview with traditional Torah values.” Whatever may be bizarre about present day “values” would be anathema to Modern Orthodoxy to no less a degree than to any other expression of Orthodox Judaism. Modern Orthodoxy would not be any more receptive, let us say, to the mores of the sexual revolution than any other sector of the Orthodox camp. Tzniut is tzniut and peritzut is peritzut. What Modern Orthodoxy espouses is joining the best values of modernity with an unwavering commitment to Torah and mitzvot.
Second, Mr. Levin defines modernity as “a bizarre secular worldview,” which is an inaccurate description of the values of modernity. The features of modernity accepted by a Torah-true society are those which emphasize human equality and freedom along with personal autonomy realized through self-expression. Both of these are rooted in the Torah Shebichtav’s concept of tzelem Elokim and its rabbinic expression found in Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5, “…Therefore, Adam was created alone, to teach you that anyone who destroys one soul (this reading is according to the oldest Mishna manuscripts, Kaufmann and Munich, and Rambam’s versions of the Mishna), the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world. And anyone who sustains one soul, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world. And [Adam was created alone] for the sake of peace among people, so that one person may not say to another, ‘My father is greater than your father’…. This also teaches the greatness of the Holy Blessed One, because when a person stamps several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the First Human and not one of them is similar to another. Therefore, each and every person is obligated to say, ‘The world was created for me….’”
Beyond this, Modern Orthodoxy takes very seriously the Vilna Gaon’s view that anyone lacking familiarity with secular knowledge loses 100 measures of Torah learning. The Gaon’s view is cited by Rabbi Barukh Schick of Shklov, a talmid muvhak of the Gaon, in his introduction to the Hebrew translation of Euclid. This is why the refinement that comes with engagement with the best of the arts and sciences is part of Modern Orthodoxy’s Torah U’mada or Torah im Derech Eretz ideology.
The implications of accepting these aspects of modernity as part of one’s Orthodox identity do not make a Modern Orthodox Jew’s life easy. In order to maintain personal autonomy within a halachic framework, one must be able to access the sources of halacha so that personal decisions about halachic observance can be made. This means being able to understand the Hebrew and Aramaic sources that make up the primary texts of the Jewish tradition. This does not obviate the role of the posek when more extensive knowledge is necessary to respond to particularly complex situations. Rather, it allows Modern Orthodox individuals to shape their halachically observant life in a manner consonant with their beliefs and circumstances. To say that this is hefker or that there is only one right halachic way denies the multifacetedness of halachic opinion, which I doubt anyone with familiarity with the halachic system would deny exists.
Regarding the possibility of of choosing from multiple halachic options, Rabbi Norman Lamm, z”l wrote in an article about the ethics of machloket, “…if Torah is accepted, but there is a debate as to how it should be understood and how it should be effected, such as the dispute between the Hasidim and the Mitnagdim, that is a debate for the sake of Heaven (machloket l’shem Shamayim) and there both opinions endure, and we may choose a different answer for different circumstances. Or, the dispute between those who insist that Jewish education should consist of ‘Torah only,’ against those who follow some version of the Torah im Derech Eretz school, insisting upon the combination of Torah with general culture — this too is a machloket l’shem Shamayim and of this too we may say ‘such shall endure.’ Therefore, there are places and there are times when we may opt for one answer, and places and times when another solution commends itself. Although immediately, for now, we may accept only one view, the other nevertheless remains a viable and living option, ready for adoption when the times permit.” Indeed, as rav of the Jewish Center, Rabbi Lamm often offered a sho’el (inquirer) multiple halachic options for that person’s observance, all of which were within the spectrum of acceptable halacha.
One final and important word about the machloket l’shem Shamayim between Modern Orthodoxy and what I believe is the American equivalent of a Haredi Leumi lifestyle. Modernity’s emphasis on democratization, as noted above, leads to an approach that values equality between human beings and human freedom, which, as the Mishna in Sanhedrin points out, are Jewish values. For that equality to exist, an ethical starting point must also exist. Modern Orthodoxy’s halachic methodology sees ethical values as the force that generates Halacha. This is what Modern Orthodox thinkers call meta-halacha and where Modern Orthodoxy parts ways with the methodology of Halacha in Haredi Leumi circles, in which normative halacha, as stated in the Shulchan Aruch, is what generates Jewish values.
Neither position is anathema to Orthodox Jewish life, but these methodologies, while occasionally overlapping, frequently reach different conclusions. If I were to put this in the language of a Talmudic nafka mina (difference between one thing and another), I would say that maximizing women’s positions within halachic boundaries is probably the best example of the differences between a Modern Orthodox and Haredi Leumi approach to psak. When an ethic that prioritizes equality based on the Jewish value of tzelem Elokim generates halacha, a halachic imperative emerges. In the case of women, the halachic imperative would be equalizing women’s opportunities to become learned enough to be posekot, yoatzot halacha and marbitzot Torah at the highest levels of Talmudic instruction. The Modern Orthodox community finds support for this in the thinking and writings of Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein, who received approval for this position from his father-in-law, the Rav. Both men based their views on Talmudic texts and their interpretation of Maimonides’ views on women’s Torah study.
For the Haredi Leumi camp, the dignity given each human being created b’tzelem Elokim takes seriously “male and female God created them” and, accordingly, assigns more highly differentiated and traditional roles to men and women. Halacha as a gendered system, a point that Modern Orthodoxy would not deny, is more strictly adhered to in Haredi Leumi circles, leading to women’s seminary curricula that do not include study of foundational rabbinic texts like Mishna and Talmud. Rather, emphasis is placed more on halacha l’ma’aseh related to the obligations women must observe to be properly practicing Jewish women. Rather than Mishna and Gemara, Tanach and Jewish thought round out the curriculum of the best Haredi Leumi seminaries. Haredi Leumi circles base their halachic stance regarding what is appropriate talmud Torah for women on very much the same Talmudic sources as Rav Lichtenstein does, as well as on the Haredi gedolim’s interpretation of Maimonides’ psakim regarding women and Torah study.
I believe these examples indicate how different Orthodox cultures can read the same texts and come to different conclusions depending on the degree of their embrace or rejection of modernity. When there is mutual respect, these differences constitute a machloket l’shem Shamayim.
What I believe is clear is that Michael Levin has overlooked the sophistication of Modern Orthodoxy and caricatured modernity as a “bizarre secular worldview,” which is only so in the minds of people who do not understand what the values of modernity are. His characterization of Modern Orthodoxy’s laity as unmotivated is unfair and demeaning to the pious, learned and observant men and women who define themselves as Modern Orthodox. This form of expression contributes solely to machloket that is not for the sake of Heaven and divisiveness within the committed Orthodox community.
Submitted respectfully and with ברכה,
