The Jewish world, small as it is, is now divided between those who adhere to Jewish tradition by honoring the covenantal relationship with Hashem the Creator of the world and the Giver of our Torah, and those who have unilaterally rescinded this covenant yet claim to be a branch of Judaism, albeit an alternative form.
The Torah sages of our generation, with a great acumen and an accurate evaluation of the historical role and future destiny of the Reform movement, have forbidden theological dialogue with their representatives — lest in doing so we legitimize them as an alternative to Torah-true Judaism.
The chaos surrounding the violation of this tenet by an Orthodox rav who co-authored a text recording his theological debates with a leader of the Reform serves but to affirm the wisdom of our Torah mentors.
Despite the promise by the publishers that they would be “sensitive” to the requests of the Orthodox co-author, “chief among them was not referring to either author as ‘rabbi’ on the jacket or title page of the book because the haredi community does not refer to members of the Reform clergy as ‘rabbi’ ” (quote from the Nov 1 issue of the Jewish Week, attributed to Altie Karper, editorial director at Schocken Publishing) — the jacket and the title page do exactly that.
Why did the Orthodox rav agree to violate the decree of all the great roshei yeshiva and enter into this dialogue, giving Reform a platform to spew its blasphemy and disdain for Torah observant Jews?
The Orthodox co-author claims that he received all the necessary rabbinic approvals to co-author this book and then join the Reform clergyman for a 17-city lecture tour promoting the sale of the book. Indeed, names of highly respected rabbonim appear on the book jacket urging use of this book “as a basic text ” or praising the book as “intelligent, warm and human.” Others associated with traditional yeshivas and respected for their efforts in kiruv gave their approval.
Why? Why did they decide to oppose the century-long ban on dialogue with the Reform, reaffirmed in our generation by our great teachers? Was it the virus of egalitarianism, the lure of pluralism, that befuddled their minds to have them truly believe that this dialogue is “different” and will lead to “kiruv” or the mass return of our estranged brethren of the Reform to Torah observance?
Fortunately, the Lakewood yeshiva leadership sensed the danger — although belatedly — and ordered the Orthodox co-author to cease and desist in his plans for a 17-city lecture tour. But the enigma remains. Why the initial approval? Why the slow realization of the monumental damage that will result from granting to the Reform legitimacy?
The following notes direct attention, chapter and verse, to several of the book’s assertions by the Orthodox rav, initials Y.R., and his Reform co-author, initials A.H.
I. Title page, “A.H., Reform Rabbi” It is a sick joke to assign the title “rabbi” to a Reform clergyman. Thirty percent or more of the Reform clergy are non-theist, i.e., do not profess belief in any G-d. “Rabbi” means teacher of G-d’s Torah laws and customs. It is not a title for a humanistic social director, and surely not to be assigned to an openly gay clergyman or a lesbian woman who may claim to be Jewish by patrilineal descent.
II. A.H. states (page 3), “We both carry the burden of some thousand years of Jewish experience.” Nonsense! Reform cast off this burden in favor of autonomy and denial of Jewish history and destiny. Y.R., the Orthodox rav, untrained in debate strategy, lets A.H. make points without effective rebuttal.
III. A.H. cites Aggadic sources (page 7) that he interprets to be in accord with Reform blasphemy that there are no absolutes in Judaism but that society determines the normative and it is approved by G-d. Untutored in the study of Talmud and the halachic process, and totally ignorant of the specialized language of Aggadic inclusions in the Talmud, A.H. confuses metaphor, simile, and moralistic phrases with Talmudic dicta.
IV. A.H. professes belief in a G-d but denies that G-d spoke to mankind. A mute G-d is no G-d. King David in his Psalms characterized idolatry as a belief in divinities that have “eyes but see not, ears but hear not, and mouths that do not speak [Psalms 115:5]. However, on page 34 A.H. attributes to himself the ability to “intuit” what G-d wants of the Jewish people. Pure gibberish!
V. Y.R. allows (page 40) A.H. to wiggle out of the charge that Reform abrogates not only the commandments of Judaism but also its ethical and moral code by accepting the gay/lesbian lifestyle and performing same sex marriages. A.H. “intuits” that “some are born with this proclivity” which implies that G-d made them that way and therefore should be accepted with compassion. Y.R. is not astute enough to reject this evasion by affirming that there is no reputable scientific evidence for such “proclivity.” It is nurture not nature that led them into their deviant lifestyle.
VI. Y.R. gives A.H. a platform (pages 127-129) to denounce the Exodus as fictional and Purim as a fable. Jews without any educational experience in studying Judaism, exposed to this “big lie” propaganda, may well consider this an alternate view in Judaism since it is espoused by a “rabbi” whose opinions are respected by his Orthodox co-author.
VII. A.H., without shame, makes the preposterous claim (pages 89, 152 and 217) that Reform prevents assimilation. Where are the grandchildren of the founders of the Reform Temple Emanuel? Any Jews among them? Why no increase in the American Jewish population in the last 50 years? Low birth rate is not the reason — assimilation by Reform families is the sad answer.
VIII. A.H. questions (page 174), “Does that mean that everyone else (not Orthodox) is not a faithful witness [to Torah truths]? Why did not the Orthodox rav Y.R. respond with a resounding YES?
Throughout the book, A.H. lauds the virtues of pluralism in Judaism. Indeed, thousands of Orthodox Jews and millions of dollars are assigned to kiruv work because we do not want to let the hemorrhaging of our life-blood to continue. We cannot afford to lose the 75% non-Orthodox to inevitable assimilation.
Yet the Reform rejected ritual divorce (the Get) knowing full well that the children of a second marriage will be mamzerim (bastards) unable to ever marry with an Orthodox mate. Their decision resulted in a breach that can never be healed. It made Jews into two species, in the biological definition of species, due to their inability to intermarry. Where is their Ahavat Yisrael? Where is their commitment to pluralism in Judaism?
Sadly we are two people, not one. It is our fervent hope that we will become one, once again, when Reform gives up its religion of autonomy and returns to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.