Search Results

This chapter discusses the circumstances of Kraków Orthodoxy at the beginning of the twentieth century that constitute the background of the emergence of the Bais Yaakov movement. While Kraków is the birthplace of the Bais Yaakov movement, it was actually conceived, as it were, in Vienna, where Sarah Schenirer had fled with a flood of refugees after the outbreak of the First World War brought the Russian army into Galicia. The canonical story of the founding of the movement insists that the inspiration did not and could not have come to her in Kraków, where Orthodox rabbis did not address their female congregants from the pulpit and where Jewish girls' education was treated with utter neglect. Sarah Schenirer's founding of a girls' school system was thus a pioneering venture into unexplored territory, in which the initiative of a single woman solved a problem that no one else around her recognized, cared about, or could resolve. There is one detail in her memoir, however, that complicates this picture. Extrapolating from her brother's words, it was not the case that no one in Kraków had so far considered using religious education to combat the defection of Jewish girls. Rather, this strategy, however obvious and even laudable it might be, was impracticable given the political realities of Orthodox life.

This chapter highlights the life of Rabbi Moshe Shimon Sivitz, analyses the main issues discussed in his sermons, and offers a number of observations regarding the continuity and change in the content of his sermons. This discussion sheds additional light on the problems and concerns of Orthodox rabbis who emigrated to America at the turn of the century. Several factors motivated rabbis to leave eastern Europe for America. Economic difficulties, decreases in population of the Orthodox communities, and the consequent lack of opportunity for rabbis to advance to high rabbinical positions in Europe were key. As early as the mid-nineteenth century it was difficult to find a more substantial job in the rabbinate on either continent. Many Orthodox rabbis who went west during the mass migration were connected to the ethics-based musar movement in some way. The main themes and ideology of the musar movement greatly influenced Rabbi Sivitz, even though they are not widely expressed in his sermons.

This chapter explores the view that Jews and non-Jews are distinguished by some inborn, metaphysical quality that is widespread in contemporary Judaism in Orthodox circles. It illustrates the debate that is expressed by two prominent Israeli Orthodox rabbis and examines the roots of the debate in the medieval controversy over the nature of Jews and Judaism as found in the writings of Judah Halevi and Moses Maimonides. It also cites the voice of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner in the world of contemporary Orthodox Zionism in Israel. The chapter discusses the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that received the Torah and became the chosen people. It mentions Rabbi Aviner's insistence that the Torah is appropriate to the inner nature of the Jewish people.

This chapter proposes some solutions to the fundamental transformation of Judaism. The most important principle is that no messianist should be treated as an Orthodox rabbi or functionary in good standing. No messianist should serve as a communal or synagogue rabbi, or appointed as Jewish Studies principal or teacher in an Orthodox yeshiva. In addition, messianist institutions, no matter how many ‘good things’ they do, must be excluded from the Orthodox community. If the messianic faith of Judaism is to survive intact, these guidelines must be followed even in difficult cases. The chapter then turns to more detailed issues of Jewish ritual law. The messianist belief in itself, with its abolition of Judaism's criteria for identifying the Messiah, is seen by some as heresy.

This chapter provides some tentative explanations for Chabad messianism. One of these explanations is the ideal of unity and the avoidance of communal strife. Every practising Jew has heard countless sermons about the imperative to love one's neighbour, particularly one's Jewish neighbour. While rhetoric about this value cuts across all Orthodox—and Jewish—lines, it is especially compelling for Modern Orthodox Jews who maintain cordial, even formal relations with other denominations and pride themselves on embracing an ideal of tolerance. No Orthodox Jew believes that everyone committed to the Jewish community has the right to serve as an Orthodox rabbi because of the value of unity. The appeal to this principle is relevant only after one has concluded that Lubavitch messianism is essentially within the boundaries of Orthodoxy. Since this is precisely what is at issue, the argument begs the question. The chapter then considers the explanations concerning orthopraxy, the balkanization of Orthodoxy, and Orthodox interdependence.

This chapter discusses David Ellenson and Daniel Gordis’ study, Pledges of Jewish Allegiance: Conversion, Law, and Policymaking in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Orthodox Responsa. The book analyses the attitudes of 19th- and 20th-century European, American, and Israeli Orthodox rabbis toward conversion to Judaism, as these are reflected in the responsa literature. The authors argue that rabbis’ personalities and worldviews are the most important factors accounting for the difference between liberal and conservative halakhic decisions. The book shows that halakhic arbiters (poskim) can arrive at disparate decisions even in cases in which they espouse the same public policy. In cases involving intermarriage, for example, one rabbi may rule against a potential convert to discourage conversion for the sake of marrying a Jew, whereas another may rule in favour, reasoning that the convert’s Jewish commitment may be enhanced by having a Jewish spouse.