Volume 67, Issue 7

Towards One People in One World
by Benzion N. Chinn

One People, Two Worlds
By Ammiel Hirsch and Yosef Reinman
Schocken Books, 2002
Hardcover; $26.00; 352 Pages

If you are expecting One People, Two Worlds to consist of a deep philosophical dialectic, prepare to be disappointed. As both of its authors acknowledge, neither of them have said anything that has not been said many times before; readers will most likely be familiar with at least half of the book’s contents from beforehand. What makes this book special, however, is the manner in which this information is put together: a compilation of dueling e-mails between an Orthodox and a Reform rabbi sent over a period of about eighteen months. The book offers readers a ringside ticket to a no-holds-barred rumble through the myriad issues that divide the Jewish people – including pluralism, Zionism, women, the divinity of the Bible and the authority of Halacha, among other things – in search of some common ground between the Orthodox and the Reform. The two combatants in this struggle, Yosef Reinman and Ammiel Hirsch, have an incredible knack for hitting hard without being simply rhetorical or nasty. These people show some real class, and that, if nothing else, makes this book worthwhile reading.

One People, Two Worlds is useful at several levels. I believe that the Orthodox could use some exposure to such voices as Hirsch, and that the Reform needs to hear out such people as Reinman.  Also, each of these people could offer a provocative voice to their own respective communities.  Hirsch repeatedly says that he admires Orthodoxy and believes that it is crucial for the continued existence of Judaism, and, unlike most of his colleagues in the Reform movement, he does not condone same-sex marriages and refuses to perform inter-faith marriage ceremonies. Reinman, in a way, is the bigger anomaly, though.  Reinman seems to believe that the outside world in general and the Reform movement in particular are not completely corrupt, that they actually have some intrinsic value.  But Reinman does not simply pay lip service to this concept.  In fact, Reinman took an extraordinary risk by agreeing to co-write this book – and has paid a heavy price for doing so.

The basic crux of the debate runs something like this.  Reinman seeks to demonstrate that he, with his beard and “peyos,” is, in his own way, as tolerant and worldly as his Yuppie-looking counterpart.  Hirsch, on the other hand, tries to show that he, in his own way, fully respects and observes Jewish tradition, and employs various rabbinic sources to support the Reform world-view. For instance, Hirsch makes a big deal about comments made by Ibn Ezra that, in his view, suggests that certain verses in the Torah were written centuries after the Jews entered Canaan.  Hirsch claims that this shows that it is perfectly in keeping with Jewish tradition to ascribe parts of the Torah to other authors besides Moses.  Hirsch also cites an episode from the Talmud (Baba Metzia 59b) where the rabbis resolve a halachic dispute among between themselves and Rabbi Eliezer in their favor, despite a heavenly voice asserting the veracity of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion. This implies, from Hirsch’s point of view, that rabbis have the authority to make their own laws based on the needs of the day.

Reinman counters by arguing that Hirsch is taking these passages out of context, and that the rabbis that Hirsch quotes would be turning in their graves if they knew how much he was distorting their views.  Reinman accuses Hirsch of lacking any real commitment to objective truth.  Hirsch, from Reinman’s point of view, wants to have his God, his Bible, his Land of Israel, and to eat them too. He wants to have it on his own terms, without making any real commitments to these things. In contrast to Hirsch and the Reform movement, the Orthodox movement of Reinman believes in a personal God who dictated the Bible to Moses and gave the Jewish people the land of Israel as an eternal inheritance. Reinman also continuously challenges Hirsch to justify his belief that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people in light of the fact that he does not believe that God literally gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people.

Hirsch responds to Reinman by arguing that Reinman is being simplistic and writing canards. What the Orthodox trumps as a belief in absolute truth is simply a thin cover for fundamentalism and dogmatism. To support this claim, Hirsch points to the fact that the Orthodox rabbinate denies women a role in religious life, and that much of the Haredi rabbinate in Israel is unapologetically anti-Zionistic and anti-democratic. To make matters worse, that same rabbinate is hypocritical enough to accept millions of Shekels from the same Israeli government, which they, according to Hirsch, denounce and seek to overthrow. They also accept millions of dollars in private donations from Jews who are not religious, despite the fact that they despise secular Jews and barely even consider them Jewish.

Reinman defends orthodoxy by arguing that Hirsch is himself engaging in smear tactics.  In truth, he says, Orthodoxy is hardly close-minded and is very open to different ideas. Women in Orthodox circles, he says, are better educated and better treated then their secular counterparts. Unlike the Reform, Orthodox Jewry has never flagged in its support for the land of Israel. With the exception of a few extremists, the Orthodox, with some reservations, fully supports the Israeli government and fully take part in the democratic system. As for Hirsch’s charge concerning their abandonment of their fellow Jews, Reinman argues that if the Orthodox movement has really written off most of Jewry, then they would not be putting the millions that they do into outreach programs.

Reinman and Orthodox Judaism lose this debate. Reinman, in my opinion, may do a more convincing job of defending his positions and outlook, offering a concrete religious system and world-view, and it may be true that Hirsch does not offer a coherent alternative system. Still, this does not save Reinman.  Reinman and his claims of Orthodox tolerance are undermined not by Hirsch, talented writer that he is, but by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah (MGT), or Council of Torah Sages, of Agudath Israel of America, when it forced Reinman to refrain from embarking on a book tour with Hirsch and blacklisted the book. The Council declared:

“A distressing development has occurred in our community – the publication of a book that presents a debate between, on the on hand, a faithful Jew and talmid chochom and, on the other, a Reform leader whose premises reflect his denial of the very bases of our faith. The entire gestalt of the book and its promotion, including the strong public emphasis on the warm personal interaction between the two authors and joint promotional appearances before large audiences, represents a blurring of boundaries between darkness and light, and an undermining of the Jewish religious tradition. That tradition, handed down to us from Sinai, is distorted in the pages of the book through the word of one who falsifies Torah. What is more, the general impression left by the book promotes the unacceptable notion that there is some parity between two legitimate approaches to Judaism, as if to say: ‘Here, dear reader, are two ways of seeing the world. Feel free to choose as you wish.’  Such is a debasement of the essence of the Jewish faith.”

The MGT are in effect are telling Reinman that he is wrong and that Hirsch is right – Orthodox Jews really are just a bunch of reactionaries who have no desire to face up to the outside world. Even worse, the MGT perceives this display of intolerance as a badge of pride. I do not mean to suggest that there are not any legitimate concerns that can be raised regarding the propriety of engaging in public discussions with the Reform movement.  In this situation, however, the actions of the MGT support every attack that Hirsch made against Orthodoxy in the book.  The MGT, not Reinman, are the ones legitimizing the Reform movement.  Hirsch, if he wants to, can now legitimately argue, “All people who do not believe that Reform Jews are evil have now been disowned by the Orthodox. Since they have no other place to go, the only choice that they have now is to join us; we still can accept them for whatever they are.”

I have no intention of running off to a Reform temple anytime soon, but the MGT’s actions should force Orthodoxy into some serious soul-searching. How serious are we when we say that we can offer a solution to the problems of the Jewish nation? Rabbi Reinman paints a glowing picture of Orthodoxy; do we have the guts to live up to his calling? The Jewish people cannot survive as one people living in two worlds. We must be one people living in one world, even if we disagree on various issues.

Long live the Jewish dialogue!¨

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.