Monday 23 July 2007

The Value of Orthodox Paradox

Originally published 7/23/07, 10:56 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
Noah Feldman's New York Times article entitled "Orthodox Paradox" raises many important issues on the nature of Modern Orthodoxy, specifically, and, in fact, Orthodoxy generally. We invite you to view this article and to comment below. (If the New York Times link is no longer active, try this.)

The reality is that Torah is all about the reality of conflicting values. The decisions that we must continuously make are generally not between the force of evil and the force of good, but rather reflect the conflict of opposing values, in the moment when we can only choose one. Indeed, Torah recognizes value in the universal and particular. However, they are often in conflict. Therein lies our need to decide.
Since the Torah describes the value of both, in choosing one, which indeed is still demanded, we also paradoxically recognize the loss in the non-application of the value that was not chosen. Does this create the reality of paradox? Indeed it does. Does it create a reality of complexity and reasons for choosing against the decision of Halacha? Indeed it does.
There is a reason why certain realms of Orthodoxy attempt to ignore the reality of this complexity, the very complexity of Torah. Noah Feldman words show the problem when Torah is seen in all its complexity. People, even those as intelligent as Mr. Feldman, do not understand the whole message, the very structure of this complex paradox. Many choose not to teach this complexity. Their answer is, to effectively distort Torah into a simple model that perhaps ensures its continuity at least on some level. Yet what is lost, though, is Torah itself, for the very essence of the genius of the Divine wisdom of Torah is this complexity -- and so the struggle to continue the teaching of the truth, even given its difficult nature, continues.
The problem is not the complexity of Torah but how to deal with this complexity. That is what yields an apparent paradox which, in turn, must be explained. For example, it seems to me that it is in total keeping with Torah that Mr. Feldman was greeted warmly on the personal individual basis even as his school refused to publish announcements of his family. There is a difference between how one is to treat the individual and how the structure of authority is to treat the violation of Halalcha. I can great the one who drives to shul on Shabbat warmly and in a most welcoming fashion, recognizing that this may be this person's only connection with Jewish life and so in some way even encouraging this person to be there in shul on shabbat. I, though, in presenting the authority of Halacha must equally, publicly, declare that halachically it is forbidden to drive and better for someone to stay home than attend a shul through driving.
It this paradoxical? Yes. Is it still viable? Yes. Is this clearly Torah? Yes. Does it demand complex analysis to show how both co-exist? Yes. This is ultimately what this article really indicates for us -- to meet the challenge of the complexity of Torah.
In doing so, it is also important to recognize the power of Halacha as law, as a force that demands compliance through the power of the Commander. Mr Feldman discusses the role of intermarriage as defining the borders of the religious community. There is some truth in that especially as we move into the generic Jewish community. But it is the statement of intermarriage halachically that, I would say, guided his school's position and this must also be seen. Too often we give so many taamei hamitzvot, reasons for commandments, that we lose sight of the reality of the basic mitzvah, its nature as law/command. Sometimes we must see law as law and accept the definitions set by this standard.
These thoughts are in specific reference to certain aspects of Mr. Feldman's article and do not stand alone. Read the article. Let me know what you think both about the article and my comments on the article. It is time we confronted the paradox, the reality of its existence and this essential value within Torah -- to live within this complex realm of life and meet God's demands of us in this true vision of life.

4 comments:

Rabbi Richard Wolpoe said...

"The True Test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time."

-F. Scott Fitzgerald
-RRW

Mighty Garnel Ironheart said...

Feldman also misses an important point. To his credit, most chareidim miss this point as well and it was alluded to in the post. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I can tolerate people driving to shul on Shabbos (okay, I really can't but it's illegal to stone them in this stupid country) but I don't have to accept their behaviour as a variant form of Judaism. I can tolerate the guy down the street who doesn't keep kosher but I don't have to accept his food in my house. Feldman seems to have missed this point. The problem and challenge of Modern Orthodoxy is that is pushes tolerance so that its adherents can function in the outside world but it is not good at teaching the difference between that and acceptance. Thus: his friends warmly welcoming him to the reunion is tolerance. Acceptance would have been putting him and his fiancee into the photo. The people there understood the difference. He doesn't.

Nishma said...

I have been viewing other comments on Mr. Feldman's article in various other places over the net. What hits me is that people really miss a major point about the essence of the issue. Too often we talk about the conflict of Torah and modernity with cases such as this seen as demonstrating the challenge and difficulty. That is really not the issue. What is behind the Rav's philosophy of Torah is the dialectic and that is more than the issue of modernity and Orthodoxy. The Rav understood that all of Torah is about the conflict of the dialectic and the reality that we live in a world of conflicting values. All MO does is present the truth of reality and the full view of the spectrum of values that are part of this world and part of Torah. Others try and support the Halacha by describing a simplistic vision of life with a uni-dimensional perspective of Torah's outlook. MO recognizes that life is complex and that to gain a certain value requires one to direct it and control it so that it works within the overall vision of Torah.

Anonymous said...

re: Garnel Ironheart above:
The dichotomy is old and simple:
HATE the SIN and LOVE the SINNER
LOVE the Jew whoe goes to shul on Shabbas and hate the action of driving as his means of transportation. Honor his positive intention; yet realize that mode tramples Halachic norms. Take away the anti-normative behavior and you have B'ruria's ideal of removing the Hata'aim and not the Hot'im.

To paraphrase the idealabove:
Tolerate AND accept the person;
But reject the person's sinful actions.

Kesiva vachasima Tova
RRW