Deconstructing Haredi - Rabbi Svei and his Culture of Hatred

The raging forces of theological elitism appear never to have occasion for lull from their pyrotechnic displays of intransigence. We have only to observe the remarks of Rabbi Elya Svei, rosh yeshiva of the Yeshiva of Philadelphia, at the annual convention of Agudath Israel before some 3,500 delegates for confirmation that Jewish religious supremacists remain strident in their efforts to unleash communal discord and its attendant tumult. Rabbi Svei, a member of Agudath Israel's Moetzes Gedolai HaTorah (Council of Torah Sages), took his time at the convention podium to unabashedly deprecate Yeshiva University President Rabbi Norman Lamm by characterizing him as a "soneh Hashem," or "hater of the Lord." This appalling burst of incendiary invective has ignited a conflagration that threatens to consume the fragile shelter of Orthodox unity. Traditional battle lines have been redrawn in preparation for a return to legitimacy jihads that pit vanquishing rabbinic ayatollahs against infidels with the audacity to spout the value of moderation. The landscape of Orthodoxy bears the mar of a foreboding disquietude.

Rabbi Svei issued his condemnation in the context of his displeasure with two statements Rabbi Lamm made over the course of the previous year. Rabbi Svei deplored references in Rabbi Lamm's Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary Centennial Address that explicated that institution's educational approach. The speech, made before assembled musmakhim and subsequently published for distribution, reiterated the avowed mission of RIETS to complement its primary commitment to Torah lishmah with "service to the Jewish community." Rabbi Svei took exception to Rabbi Lamm's failure to explicitly acknowledge contributions the "yeshiva" community has made to Orthodoxy during the RIETS address. This criticism appears to be particularly contrived in light of the nature of the function at which Rabbi Lamm delivered his oration, an event devoted not to provision of a candid reckoning of the relative contributions to Orthodoxy made by its warring factions but to recognition of the educational objectives and historical legacy of RIETS. Of course, a perusal of Agudath Israel convention transcripts reveals no account of Yeshiva University contributions to the Orthodox community. It would seem to us quite preposterous if this less than striking omission were to serve as the impetus for a volley of vitriol against Agudath Israel by the leadership of Yeshiva University as we understand that Agudah conventions are not conducted with the objective of extolling "modern" Orthodoxy for its accomplishments . Apparently this distinction is lost on Rabbi Svei.

Rabbi Svei's onslaught was also inspired by his objection to Rabbi Lamm's stated support for the Neeman Commission's efforts to forge understanding among the Jewish denominations in Israel with relevance to issues of theological jurisdiction. Apparently support of this dialogue, the objective of which is to foster Jewish communal coalescence, represents to Rabbi Svei an unacceptable capitulation. This is indeed surprising since the Neeman Commission does not purport to have the authority nor the intention to modify halakha, but on the contrary wishes to propose pragmatic solutions to denominational conflicts that are amenable to all Jewish groups. To be adopted, proposals require the support of a consenus of the groups represented and thus would of necessity require Orthodox approval. Support of the Neeman Commission then cannot reasonably be construed as an elaborate scheme to subvert the values of traditional Judaism but rather must be viewed as nothing short of a communal imperative employed in the pursuit of the laudable end of engendering conciliatory discussion among the ranks of our splintered people. While Rabbi Svei may not share an appreciation for the value of this objective, it is nigh impossible to conceive of those who do as advancing initiatives that display animosity toward God.

The Rabbinical Council of America exhorted the Agudah to "retract or disassociate itself from Rabbi Svei's degrading and extremist remarks" so as to avoid suffering a severing of ties with that organization. The Agudah declined. Rabbi Avi Shafran, an Agudah spokesman, explained in a published interview that it was not his organization's policy to retract statements made by its rabbis. He further indicated that Rabbi Svei probably meant what he said "and considered the matter serious enough to embarrass Rabbi Lamm in public." That Rabbi Svei's remarks are vested with what he considers sincerity, I question not. The rectitude of a perpetrator's intention in the performance of an iniquitous act, however, has always mattered more to Immanuel Kant than to practitioners of traditional Judaism.

Shockingly, tragically, Rabbi Svei's repugnant outburst has served as the harbinger for a wave of similar hateful expression among adherents to the "yeshiva" approach to Orthodoxy. The Yated Neeman, the only English language publication to which many rightist Orthodox individuals will permit themselves access, has for the last month been peppered with inflammatory editorials and "open letters" that suggest that positions advocated by Rabbi Lamm and much of mainstream Orthodox Judaism contravene essential tenets of Jewish faith. Haredi rabbis at a number of prominent American yeshivas have provided justificatory arguments for attempts to delegitimize views that differ in any way from their own and employed Rabbi Svei's remarks as a springboard for the attacks they direct at "modern" Orthodoxy. It is difficult to conceive of a more elaborate effort to stratify the Jewish community than has been undertaken by these men. The logical fallacies and theological distortions to which their assaults appeal are apparent enough to a discerning, thinking observer. To those among the "yeshiva" community who entrust their leadership to provide them with the way they must think, however, this renewed assault exacerbates their resentment of "modern" Orthodoxy and serves as a legitimation of a continued offensive against that group. What some rightist Orthodox leaders fail to realize is that they inject their lethal venom not into an adversary, but the communal body of which they are a part.

One of the dangers of the Talmudic photocopy culture that generated the present strife resides in the quality of the products it manufactures. The leader plays the role of template in the duplication cycle. Any deficiencies of which this man is possessed become heritable traits expressed in his followers, those fashioned in the womb of his leadership persona. Imitatio dei gives way to imitatio rebbe. The wealth of our tradition, possessed of its healthy breadth, is abnegated in order that a single man might exercise his, at times, misguided and exclusionary leadership. The proportions of this hazard assume alarming dimensions as flaws are conveyed to all of his faithful disciples without the mitigating influence of periodic recessiveness. Unfortunately, there exists no institutional mechanism for rectifying this malady. The hegemony of the shtetl master reigns supreme over these individuals. They prefer to exchange socialization in a broader intellectual venue for the freedom from the difficulties of thought afforded them by the narcotic simple "truth." This dangerous controlled substance is administered by an Orwellian thought police who will brook no opposition. It must be acknowledged that responsible leadership can yield the magnification of virtuous qualities with which the haredi lord may be endowed. When such conveyances transpire, despite concerns with the foundational premises of the dissemination structure, they must be viewed as contributions to communal betterment. Of course, the inverse, the animosity-mongering diatribes that occasionally issue forth from this sector with the inevitable results of disrupting the fragile equilibrium of communal accord and producing gratuitous contention, must be recognized as disastrous and inexcusable.

If Rabbi Svei's acrimonious exclamation had somehow been fashioned in isolation, if it could be said to be nothing more than an aberration divorced from a substantive foundation of rancorous detestation, we might with reason dismiss it as the demagoguic excess of a Talmudic lord seeking to impart his partisan will upon submissive, cognition averse vassals. We would regard the remark as a display of the abominable vileness of which man is capable. We would, however, also likely maintain confidence in the possibility of the reversal of the destructive repercussions that the hateful words spawned. Sadly, Rabbi Svei's proclamation denies us that opportunity for optimism. It disrupts the fantasy that tranquil harmony among Orthodox Jews is attainable, perhaps imminently, to forcefully remind us that the more pugnacious amongst us may foment discord to advance nefarious ends and foster upheaval whenever it suits their hateful interests. It charges that Agudath Israel has suffered an abject moral failure that renders it a defective interlocutor in the pursuit of credible Orthodox reconciliation. It insists that we recognize that there is an entrenched institutional apparatus under the aegis of rightist Orthodoxy that seeks to inculcate animosity in its adherents toward centrist Orthodoxy. It declares too decidedly that all is not well in the state of Orthodox Judaism.