91Èȱ¬

Modern Orthodoxy

Introduction

Judaism responded in different ways to the Enlightenment and the development of scientific studies towards the end of the 18th century.

Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, Jews had often been forcibly separated from their Christian neighbours. With the onset of the Enlightenment Jewish people were made full citizens. This exposed Jewish people to new scientific ideas as the ghetto walls came down all over Europe.

Modern Orthodoxy’s Response to Modernity

In response to the Jewish emancipation of the late 18th to early 19th century, the Enlightenment and modernity, some Jewish groups decided to abandon certain customs and principles of Jewish law, often doing away with practices that they could not easily explain to their fellow non-Jewish citizens; whilst others decided to ignore secular studies in their entirety and only study Torah.

Modern Orthodoxy was borne out of this context, believing that it was possible for Jews to maintain Jewish law, ritual observance and customs whilst exposing themselves to secular knowledge, science and modern ideas. This was to bridge Orthodox Judaism and modernity.

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch: Torah with Worldly Knowledge

Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) was a Frankfurt rabbi and Jewish philosopher who articulated the fundamental position of Modern Orthodoxy in the 19th century.

In historic terms, he founded the orthodox (Torah observant and non-Reformed Jewish) community within the city of Frankfurt.

His neo-orthodox philosophy was largely in response to the growing Reform Movement in Germany and an Orthodox Jewish position on the Enlightenment. The movement that he established was based on the belief that it was possible to partake in secular studies, in particular the sciences, without compromising on Jewish law.

He believed that the Torah could be found through worldly and secular studies. This philosophy is known in Hebrew as Torah im Derekh Eretz (Torah with the ways of the world).

Minhag Anglia

The ideas of neo-orthodoxy spread in Western Europe and later the United States.

Neo-orthodoxy enabled the preservation of Jewish laws and customs within communities that at the same time were keen to embrace modernity, secular society and the modern world.

Neo-orthodoxy enabled the orthodox movement to adapt and survive in Western Europe. In the United Kingdom and France, orthodoxy has remained the denomination of the majority of synagogue-goers to this day.

The Jewish community within the United Kingdom has remained largely orthodox but with a modern outlook.

In doing so it developed a new set of customs that gave the community a distinctly British feel and differentiated it from the Dutch, German, Polish and Lithuanian communities. In the words of a later Chief Rabbi, it allowed the community to integrate without assimilating.

The synagogues, clergy and prayer book (Siddur) became distinctly English, at times trying to minimise differences between the community and the established Church to such an extent that it mimicked some Anglican customs.

This included the wearing of Geneva bands and dog collars by rabbis; the use of the term Reverend in reference to some members of the clergy; and even the shape, size and colour of the Authorised Daily Prayer Book looked similar to that of the Book of Common Prayer. Elected presidents and other honorary officers of the community wore suits and top hats. The French orthodox community went through similar stylistic changes that involved wearing Napoleonic uniforms.

However, unlike in Liberal and some Reform communities, prayers largely remained in Hebrew. The prayer book was given a new English translation.

The changes were only in outward appearance. The neo-orthodoxy of England was pragmatic rather than radical, introducing minor changes to prayers (omissions from their prayer book rather than alterations) in order to protect the image of the community.

Even in England, Jewish emancipation was not achieved until 1858 and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge only allowed full access to Jews in 1871.

The office of Chief Rabbi was developed as a counterpart to the Archbishopric of Canterbury and endorsed by Parliament. Whilst there had been Chief Rabbis of cities and towns in the past, the 19th century saw the development of the office of the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire. Famously, Queen Victoria was said to have intervened in the election of the first Chief Rabbi, Nathan Adler.

A pragmatic orthodoxy ensued that engaged with the modern world, science, and society but also ensured the continuity of the authority of Jewish law.

The United Synagogue had developed a modernist outlook by the end of the 19th Century. This led to certain traditionalists forming their own Federation of Synagogues and later the Haredi (strictly Orthodox or ultra Orthodox) Jews would form the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations.

Most members of the orthodox communities in Britain still adhere to the philosophy of maintaining Jewish laws and customs, whilst engaging with the modern world in a pragmatic fashion.

World views

Zionism

Neo-orthodoxy was split on the issue of Zionism in the late 19th century.

Some maintained that political Zionism was not compatible with Jewish law (halakhah) on the basis that Jews had to wait for the coming of a Messiah in order to return to Israel en masse (a sizeable community was already living in cities such as Jerusalem and Tiberias).

Some neo-orthodox rabbis believed that the future of Judaism would never be in doubt following the emancipation of Jews across Europe in the late 18th and 19th century. Others, led by Rav Kook differed. He created a religious Zionism movement.

For centuries Jews had prayed for a return of the Jewish diaspora to the land of Israel. Kook believed that a return to Zion by Jewish people would bring on a Messianic era. Also, religious Zionists believed that they could give Judaism a place within the Zionist movement. In many ways they succeeded in ensuring that there was a place for Judaism within the State of Israel alongside the socialist and secularist ideologies of other Zionist pioneers.

Ultimately, many non-Zionist neo-orthodox leaders changed their view in the light of the Holocaust (Shoah). With the systematic murder of six million European Jews by the Nazis, many saw the need for a Jewish homeland and a place of refuge for Jews fleeing from persecution.

Soloveitchik, Modern Orthodoxy and Torah Umadah

Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik developed Hirsch's concept of Torah im Derekh Eretz and espoused Torah Umadah (Torah and Science).

Solveitchik differed from Hirsch. He saw Torah and Science as distinct disciplines with the ideal being a synthesis of the two.

Soloveitchik's own background was a synthesis between Torah learning and secular studies at the highest level. He was brought up in Eastern European Lithuanian Judaism with its strong emphasis on the study of the Talmud and the Musar doctrine. (The Musar doctrine was developed by Orthodox Lithuanian rabbis in the 19th century and emphasised moral teachings based on Jewish ethics).

Soloveitchik received a secular education and went to study philosophy at Friedrich-Wilhelm University, Berlin where he received a PhD in the early 1930s.

He also ordained more than 2000 rabbis during his tenure as head of RIETS (Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary), a rabbinic school for modern orthodox rabbis at Yeshiva University, New York. Through both his students and his collected works, his influence on Modern Orthodoxy is without parallel.

His belief system encouraged open engagement with science, a synthesis between Torah learning and scientific knowledge; the possibility of working on a communal level with non-orthodox Jews; and a religious basis for supporting Zionism and the state of Israel.

Soloveitchik and his supporters branded their form of orthodoxy as Centrist or Modern Orthodoxy. The current Chancellor of Yeshiva University, Professor Norman Lamm, describes the movement's worldview as being "education, moderation, and the centrality of the people of Israel".

The Modern Orthodox movement continues to respond to new issues. Recent developments in Jewish law concerning ethics in medicine and science have contributed to the general response to new advances in these disciplines.

Open orthodoxy and centrist orthodoxy

Centrist orthodoxy has maintained that it is in the centre between the Haredi orthodox worldview and other Jewish denominations that are not orthodox.

The Modern Orthodox in Britain is still the largest denominational grouping within the Jewish Community. However, there have been challenges from both the right and the left over the last 30-40 years. There is evidence that there has been a "haredi-isation" of modern orthodox communities (a move towards more traditional forms of ultra orthodox or strictly orthodox forms of Judaism).

Increasingly, modern orthodox communities are not able to recruit modern orthodox rabbis, often appointing Haredi rabbis instead. This situation has not been helped with the closure of Jews' College’s rabbinic school, the only modern orthodox one of its kind in Britain. A new modern orthodox rabbinic ordination programme commenced in 2006 but it will be sometime before home-grown modern orthodox rabbis will become available.

In the meantime, British orthodox rabbis either receive ordination in Israeli Yeshivot (Talmud institutions based in Israel) or from Haredi Yeshivot (ultra orthodox institutions for the study of Talmud and Torah study). In the latter, students are not encouraged to engage in advanced secular studies.

Modern Orthodoxy in Britain was always seen as a pragmatic regime rather than a theological position. Challenged by more assertive closed forms of Judaism, it has suffered along with other forms of liberal religions within Europe.

In the United States, the move towards more traditional Judaism has resulted in a more conservative regime at Yeshiva University.

In the meantime, Orthodox Jews on the left have begun to develop new institutions that aim to be outward looking whilst maintaining a discourse between modernity and Jewish law.

This process has resulted in the development of open orthodoxy whereby adherents to halakhah (Jewish law) re-engage both with secular studies, Jews of all denominations and global issues. This movement has its own rabbinic school in New York, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Some within this movement have experimented with orthodox egalitarianism where gender equality solutions are found through halakhah. This has led to women taking on more leadership roles. Others in this movement are increasingly re-engaging with social justice issues from a halakhic point of view.