On the Turn to the Right in Modern Orthodoxy, and Some Possibilities For Its Solution

Michael Makovi

Michael Makovi is a baal teshuva of some five years, learned for three years in yeshivat Machon Meir in
Jerusalem, and has been learning since this past Elul in Yeshivat Hesder Petah Tiqwa.

Much thought has been given, and much ink spilled, over the turn to the right in Modern Orthodoxy.
Professor Haym Soloveitchik's famous “Rupture and Reconstruction” is invariably the starting point for any
meaningful discussion on the topic, but there is another important factor I believe, and this is something I have
been thinking about much recently.
Namely, this factor involves how ridiculous it is, I believe, that Modern Orthodoxy implicitly grants
hegemony to the Haredim. That is: if we assume that the Haredim authentically represent prewar Eastern
European Ashkenazi Judaism (a doubtful assumption which Professor Menachem Friedman explicitly says is
false (as we shall see further), but let us for a moment assume the assumption is true), and if we establish Eastern
European Ashkenazi Judaism as our baseline default model for Orthodoxy, then the transitive property of
mathematics naturally results in Haredi Judaism being our standard for Orthodoxy.
Thus, if we formally grant hegemony to Brisk/Volozhin and the like, then of course the average Modern
Orthodox youth will don a black hat. For what does he see? He sees foremost recognition being given to Eastern
Europe, and yet he sees the Modern Orthodox adapt and modify this Eastern European Judaism to modernity
(despite that Eastern European Judaism's rejection of Mendelssohn and Torah im Derekh Eretz, even if that
rejection is at times a polite and respectful and deferential oqimta, viz. “hora'at sha'ah”). By contrast, he sees
Haredim keeping (or at least claiming to be be keeping) this Eastern European Judaism unadulterated and
unmodified. Think about those Conservative youth who attend Camp Ramah, learn true Conservative theology,
and so become Modern Orthodox; likewise, those Modern Orthodox youth who take Modern Orthodoxy's claims
to their logical conclusions will of course become Haredi.
Obviously, some Modern Orthodox youth are more discerning, and are able to engage in historical
contextualization, and can separate the wheat from the chaff. But most are not so capable, and so they must
either be kept so profoundly and terrifically ignorant that they don't even realize Modern Orthodoxy's apparent
internal contradictions (these apparent contradictions being solved with proper historical contextualization),
blithely going about their lives in astounding Jewish ignorance; or they become Haredi. That is to say, there are
three options, depending on the learnedness of the given Modern Orthodoxy youth in question: the most
profoundly and abysmally ignorant will remain Modern Orthodox (or become Reform or Conservative) because
he is so ignorant that he cannot even discern the superficial apparent contradictions of Modern Orthodoxy; the
most sufficiently learned will remain Modern Orthodox because he can see past the superficial apparent
contradictions by engaging in historical contextualization and borer; the middle Modern Orthodoxy youth, the
average, is learned enough to perceive the apparent superficial contradictions (unlike the ignorant Modern
Orthodox), but not learned enough to overcome them (unlike the learned Modern Orthodox).
I see a two realistic solutions in sight. The first is to more rigorously educate Modern Orthodox youth in
history, to teach them, for example, the works and thought of Professors Haym Soloveitchik and Menachem
Friedman and Michael Silber, etc., to teach them on purely historical grounds why Haredism is inauthentic. That
is, if the average MO youth cannot engage in historical contextualization on his own, then we must catalyze this
process and teach them explicitly and deliberately to rigorously so contextualize. For example, we earlier noted
that Professor Friedman would dispute the authenticity of the Haredim on purely historical grounds. In his own
words, “In my opinion the Eastern European, Ashkenazi character of haredi Jewry remains questionable to this
day” (“Life Tradition and Book Tradition”). The mere title of Professor Michael Silber's essay “The Emergence
of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition” says enough. According to Professor Marc Shapiro's review
essay (“The Uses of Tradition”),
In his discussion of the origins of what is popularly known as ultra-Orthodoxy, Silber
conclusively shows that in many ways this community, although claiming to be the guardian of
tradition, actually presents an entirely new outlook. ... Silber describes how the ultra-Orthodox
were led to their stringent interpretations and rulings as a means of holding the community
together against the onslaught of modernity (the exact opposite approach of the German Neo-
Orthodox).
Professor Shapiro there also discusses
… Menachem Friedman's “The Lost Kiddush Cup,” in which R. Karelitz also plays a great role.
Friedman's concern is with the larger measurements for religious requirements which, through
R. Karelitz' influence, have become standard for the haredi community. What is most significant
about this point is that the acceptance of these new measurements required a rejection of many
years of family tradition [emphasis added]; a step made easier following the destruction of the
Holocaust [cf. “Rupture and Reconstruction” - M. M.]. This illustrates once again how
Orthodoxy, rather than being merely the faithful guardian of the past, can also be quite
revolutionary and dynamic.
In short, by teaching Modern Orthodox youth the history and sociology of Haredism, we can teach them to
engage in the historical contextualization which will preclude their Haredizing, by teaching them to engage in
borer and choosing only that which is true and edifying in Eastern European Ashkenazi Judaism, without the
present cognitive dissonance that he feels today over the fact that he is not accepting this form of Judaism whole
and unaltered.
More importantly, I sincerely believe we ought to shift the entire locus of Modern Orthodoxy. Why on
earth, pray tell, are we granting hegemony to Eastern Europe in the first place? Let us instead learn of the
thought (halakhic and philosophical), practice, and customs of those who have been engaged with modernity
since time immemorial. I speak, of course, of the Judeo-Spanish Sephardim. Given that the Sephardim are the
direct descendants – both genetically and culturally – of the Jews of Spain, it should be clear why their example
would be so instructive for us. According to Professor Daniel Elazar (“Can Sephardic Judaism be
Reconstructed?”),
One of the greatest, if not the greatest, contribution of Sephardic Jewry was its approach to the
theory and practice of Judaism, … to offer a balanced theory and practice, not given to excess,
seriously Jewish, yet worldly and cosmopolitan. Classic Sephardic Judaism was designed by
men who lived in the larger world and were active in its affairs, most of whom wanted a Judaism
no less rigorous than their Ashkenazi brethren in its essentials, but flexible in its interpretations
and applications. … The basic element of the Sephardic religious outlook embodied in the
halakhic decision-making of its religious leadership w[a]s that halakhah should facilitate Jewish
living in the world in which Jews found themselves, not seek to separate the Jewish people from
the external world per se. … Their Judaism would play an isolating function only where
critically necessary and not prevent Jews from playing their role in what had been in Spain prior
to 1391 a multi-religious society.
Similarly, as Professor Elazar notes elsewhere (“The Special Character of Sephardi Tolerance”),
Sephardim are noted for and pride themselves on being less fanatic than Ashkenazim in virtually
all matters, especially religion. ... Sephardim are often bewildered by the Ashkenazic pursuit of
humrot (new and more difficult halakhic refinements), because they have traditionally sought to
balance the requirements of observance with those of living in order to achieve a form of
religious expression that takes into consideration the whole human being, to encourage and
cultivate the range of human attributes. It is difficult for Sephardim to understand the isolationist
trend that is dominant among so many Orthodox Ashkenazim, who see the salvation of Judaism
only in separating it from those who do not meet current religious standards, which seem to be
always moving to the right. Sephardim see no hope or virtue in isolation; to them, the result is a
warping of Jews and a distortion of Judaism. Sephardim always have sought to balance their
lives both as Jews and as a part of a larger human society. Isolation is not and was not a
Sephardic goal -- that would have been a violation of their sense of proportion and balance.
Rather, they seek to accept involvement with the larger world and its challenges. Historically, in
the world in which most Sephardim lived, there was little occupation and segregation between
Jews and non-Jews and often little residential segregation. Living and working together
prevented the development of an isolationist spirit.
Furthermore, according to Professor Elazar (“Can Sephardic Judaism be Reconstructed?”),
[A]s modernization engulfed them, the Jewish religious leadership in Central and Eastern
Europe became either more radical or more conservative in their approach to tradition, either
seeing antinomian radical reform or refusing to continence any new departures, even in
interpretation. The religious leadership of the Sephardic world, on the other hand, particularly in
 North Africa and the Balkans, developed a whole pattern of halakhic interpretation that moved
far in the direction to reconciling halakhah with modern technology and life down through the
nineteenth century.
Similarly, Rabbi Marc Angel, discussing Rabbi Israel Moshe Hazan (1808-1863) of Izmir (Turkey) and
Jerusalem, says (Voices in Exile, p. 157),
He [viz. Rabbi Hazan] complained that European Jews tended to polarize, either assimilating
readily into non-Jewish culture or fiercely isolating themselves against its influence. He
represented the classical Sephardic model – maintaining traditional religious autonomy while at
the same time being open to the best teachings of the non-Jewish world.
In fact, there are two distinct groups of Sephardim to be considered. The first are the Western Sephardim,
of Italy, England, Holland, Bordeux (France), Trieste (Austria), etc. The Western Sephardim, being located in
maritime locations, were favorably situated in places that either escaped the Dark Ages or quickly recovered as
early as the 16th century, long before the German haskalah. Rabbi Marc Angel (Voices in Exile, p. 151),
discussing the contrasting effects of the haskala on Ashkenazim and Sephardim says,
The Sephardim of Western Europe, though, already felt relatively comfortable in their non-
Jewish milieu. They had a tradition of adaptability. They spoke the languages of the lands in
which they lived; some had risen to prominence in various fields of endeavor. Their synagogues
were prestigious; their services were elegant and dignified. Western Sephardim maintained their
institutions according to their ancient traditions and were not inclined to “modernize.” Haskalah
issues were not central to their concerns.
Similarly, according to Professor David Sorkin (“Enlightenment and Emancipation”, pp. 104f.)
In contrast to the northern [German and Hungarian] settlements [in Western and Central Europe]
founded by [Ashkenazi] Court Jews, what Lois Dubin has called the “port” Jews of London,
Amsterdam, Bordeaux, Trieste, and slightly later, Odessa underwent a very different experience.
Rather than agrarian societies adjusting to commerce, here were either societies in which
powerful groups had wholeheartedly adopted commerce (England, Holland) or else cities built
on commerce (Bordeaux, Trieste, Odessa). The tensions characteristic of the northern
settlements did not plague them. Those communities founded by Sephardim fleeing the Iberian
Peninsula were never constituted as autonomous communities subject to a developed body of
Jewry laws. In consequence there was little or no need for a reforming ideology in the society as
a whole or among the Jews themselves. Rather than haskalah, many of the elements of haskalah
(e.g. knowledge of vernacular languages and secular studies, study of Hebrew and the Bible)
became part of the fabric of everyday life, a fact encouraged by the flexible Sephardi or Italian
traditions that prevailed within the community.
The Ottoman Sephardim, while they - being located in the relatively backward Ottoman Empire, unlike
the Western Sephardim of Renaissance regions - lacked opportunity for practical application of their Spanish
weltanschauung, they nevertheless retained the ethos of Spain, and thus we find that at soon as they re-
encountered modernity, they came right back into their own, as if they had never left Spain. Rabbi Haim David
Halevy (1924-1998), a traditional Judeo-Spanish Sephardi rabbi with no formal secular learning, was asked
whether it is permitted to study secular knowledge on Shabbat, in preparation for an exam during the coming
week. The question was really only regarding the technical prohibition of preparing for the weekday on Shabbat
(hakhana). But in regards to this difficulty, Rabbi Halevy went far beyond the technical hilkhot shabbat, and he
ruled (Asei Lekha Rav 4:31, but the following quote is from Rabbi Marc Angel's summary in his Rabbi Haim
David Halevy, p. 118),
The forbidden variety of preparation was when one derived no benefit on Shabbat itself (e.g.
setting a table for a meal on Saturday night). In the instance of studying [for a secular exam],
however, the knowledge gained on Shabbat was beneficial.
This is frankly astounding; according to Rabbi Halevi, studying for an exam on Shabbat is permitted because the
secular knowledge gained is intrinsically beneficial, in and of itself, at that very moment during Shabbat
regardless of any incidental utilitarian benefit during the coming week.
Rabbi Halevi was clearly indebted to his teacher, Rabbi Benzion Uziel (1880-1953), also a traditional
Judeo-Spanish Sephardi rabbi with no formal secular learning. According to Rabbi Marc Angel (“The Grand
Religious View of Rabbi Benzion Uziel”, pp. 40, 42),
Our Torah teaches us to live life in its fullness. It teaches us how to apply the highest moral and
ethical standards to all human situations. Judaism is not a cult, but a world religion with a world
message. [Rabbi Uziel said,] “Our holiness will not be complete if we separate ourselves from
human life, from human phenomena, pleasures and charms, but (only if we are) nourished by all
the new developments in the world, by all the wondrous discoveries, by all the philosophical and
scientific ideas which flourish and multiply in our world. We are enriched and nourished by
sharing in the knowledge of the world; at the same time, though, this knowledge does not
change our essence, which is composed of holiness and appreciation of God's exaltedness.” The
national charter of the Jewish people is [to quote Rabbi Uziel] “to live, to work, to build and to
be built, to improve our world and our life, to raise ourselves and to raise others to the highest
summit of human perfection and accomplishment. (This is accomplished by following) the path
of peace and love, and being sanctified with the holiness of God in thought and deed.”
(Hegyonei Uziel, vol. 2, pp. 121-125. See also, Mikhmanei Uziel, p.460.) … The Torah tradition
teaches Jews to be engaged in the development of society (yishuvo shel olam) in the broadest
sense of the term. This entails not only populating and settling the world, but studying the ways
of nature (science) in order to advance human civilization. … (Hegyonei Uziel, vol. 2, p. 98.)
And to quote Rabbi Uziel himself (Hegyonei Uziel (Jerusalem, 5714), vol. 2, p. 127; quoted in Angel, Loving
Truth and Peace, p. 50; and Zohar, “Loving Truth and Peace”, pp. 3f.; cf. Angel, Voices in Exile, pp. 203f. for a
lengthy paraphrase),
 Each country and each nation which respects itself does not and cannot be satisfied with its
narrow boundaries and limited domains; rather, they desire to bring in all that is good and
beautiful, that is helpful and glorious, to their national [cultural] treasure. And they wish to give
the maximum flow of their own blessings to the [cultural] treasury of humanity as a whole, and
to establish a link of love and friendship among all nations, for the enrichment of the human
storehouse of intellectual and ethical ideas and for the uncovering of the secrets of nature.
Happy is the country and happy is the nation that can give itself an accounting of what it has
taken in from others; and more importantly, of what it has given of its own to the repository of
all humanity. Woe unto that country and that nation that encloses itself in its own four cubits
and limits itself to its own narrow boundaries, lacking anything of its own to contribute [to
humanity] and lacking the tools to receive [cultural contributions] from others.
Similarly beautiful sentiments are found from the aforementioned Rabbi Israel Moshe Hazan (1808-1863)
(Angel, Voices in Exile, pp. 183f.):
Rabbi Hazan maintained that Jews should study secular knowledge, taking what was valuable
from Greek (and other) wisdom. Other nations did have truths and had discovered important
knowledge about nature; Jews were obliged to study these truths. The Bible taught that God
gave the earth to all human beings, not only to Jews. Therefore, all humans had the potential of
advancing human knowledge and understanding (Shearith ha-Nahalah (Alexandria 1862), pp.
11-14, 24).
Rabbi Marc Angel, in chapter 12 of Voices of Exile (“Religious Responses to Modernity”) discusses the
various rabbinic responses to modern education and secular learning amongst the Judeo-Spanish Sephardim. As
he notes (p. 182), the general trend was towards the acceptance of such subjects. As he explains (p. 181),
The Sephardic world was blessed with religious traditionalists who recognized the challenge
posed by modernism but were not afraid to confront it directly. Instead of retreating into the
safety and security of old patterns, these spiritual leaders strove to inculcate traditional piety
while being open to and appreciative of what modernism had to offer.
But these rabbis were not radicals; they were rather quite pious and traditional. Rabbi Angel notes several times
(ibid. pp. 183, 185, 185, specifically regarding Rabbis Israel Moshe Hazan, Eliyahu Hazan, and Abraham
Ashkenazy respectively) that these rabbis believed secular learning should take place under religious auspices
and teachers, and one rabbi (Yitzhak Bengualid) even said that such learning should take place in different
classrooms than religious educations (p. 183). These were traditional old-school rabbis, albeit guided by a
traditional Sephardi openness and flexibility. They were no less traditionally religious and halakhically-oriented
than Eastern European Ashkenazim, but their Judaism was of a different sort that must be judged on its own
terms (cf. Angel, “Thoughts About Early American Jewry”, p. 18). As Henry Toledano summarizes the matter in
his review of Voices in Exile (p. 76),
 And although these [educational] reforms met with strong opposition on the part of some
traditionalists, ultimately the reformers prevailed primarily because they themselves were
prominent religious traditionalists.
In fact, Rabbi Bengualid's opinion that secular learning is permitted provided merely that the facilities for
religious and secular learning be separate, would apparently be a mahmir opinion, a humra! According to
(Rabbi?) Joseph Mosseri, (“Torah - Ancient Relic or Living Law: A Sephardic Rabbinical Approach”, 18:05-
22:07),
Firstly, secular studies. You hear nowadays people screaming, “Oh, we can only learn
Torah; you can't have secular education in school. We have to shield, you know, our children
from the bad ways of the world.” This obviously was not the way of the hakhamim.
Secular studies for Jewish students in the modern era is viewed upon as extremely
important by our hakhamim. In ...[not intelligible]...hakhamim of the past 150 years who
throughout the Sephardic world who not only approved of secular education, but expressed their
interest in it and its importance, and some of them even to the point of stating that it is an
obligation to teach our students history, math, business ethics, and the such.
And we have, in Yerushalayim, Rabbi Haim Asimon(?) Abulafia, Rabbi Haim David
Haza, Rabbi Yaakov Shaul(?) ibn Yashar(?), Rabbi Raphael Meir Penivir(?), [Rabbi] Shlomo
Shaul ha-Gagid(?), [and Rabbi] Moshe Malka. In Libya and in Alexandria we had Rabbi Yisrael
[Moshe] Hazan. In Turkey and Izmir we had Rabbi Abraham Palache. In Tunis we had Abraham
Hajad and Abraham Avukara(?). In Gibraltar, Hamitzhak(?) ibn Abualid(?) [perhaps Yitzhak
Bengualid?] and Yosef Alwas(?). In Hebron, Rabbi Haim Yosef Franco. In Rome and Corfu and
Alexandria, Rabbi Yisrael Moshe Hazan. In Crete, Abraham Djaygon(?). In Morocco, Yitzhak
Nahon(?), Shmuel Nahon(?), Shmuel Abulafia. In Berdel(?), Avdel(?) ha-Somekh(?), Rabbi
Yosef Haim. In Serbia, Efraim Alkalay. In Damascus, Yitzhak Abulafia and Shlomo Sukari(?).
In Beirut, Yaakov Bukari. In Helad(?), Hakham Avraham Schweiker(?).
We had hakhamim in all our cities, in all our countries, of all times, that were pro-
secular education. In fact, I think about these rabbis that I mentioned, I mentioned Rabbi Yosef
Haim. We all know him very popularly as the Ben Ish Hai. We think Ben Ish Hai, we think, “Oh,
this great mequbal”, we think “Humrot”, we think, you know, “How could anybody like that be
pro-secular education?”. The question was presented to him, "Hakham, can we teach math and
Arabic and commercial correspondence?”. His answer was “Most definitely; it's obligatory; you
must teach it. If you want the students to get ahead in today's world and to understand their
surroundings, they must learn it. It's a mitzvah to teach it, but [plaintive tone of voice] please
don't teach it to them in the kenis where you're also teaching them Jewish studies.”
In fact, by other Sephardic hakhamim, this was considered very mahmir, too stringent.
Rabbi Yisrael Moshe Hazan, said, “No, this was the way of the Torah: you must teach it in the
 kenis! And not only study it in the kenis, but even if goyim hear that there is such a Jewish
school, let the goy come and let the goy study with the Jewish people in the kenis as well!”
This is the importance of secular education to our hakhamim. Let's note the other aspect
of it, the response of the hakhamim of Eastern Europe. In 1891, the decision of the heads of the
Russian yeshiva of Volozhin was to close down the institution rather than to agree to the
inclusion of secular topics in the curriculum.* Not only that, but in 1853, the rabbis of
Jerusalem's Ashkenazic community decreed a herem and a nidui on anybody who would send
their children to the newly founded modern schools. Very different scope. Very different way of
looking at things. Once you close everybody off to secular education, you're closing off
everything else that has to do with living in today's world.
We find that – contrary to a Modern Orthodox ethos - both the centrist and hardline Hungarian rabbis
(Rabbis Moshe Schick and Hillel Lichtenstein respectively) were vociferously opposed to Rabbi Esriel
Hildesheimer's proposal of a new modern rabbinical seminary. According to Professor Michael Silber (“The
Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy”, pp. 36f.),
[I]t was clear that even an Orthodox institution would flourish at the expense of the traditional
yeshivas, especially that of Pressberg, and that in time it would be the [German Neo-Orthodox
style] seminary that was going to determine the cultural profile of the Hungarian Orthodox
rabbinate. ... While conceding that the study of secular subjects could perhaps be permitted post
factum, after one had mastered the Torah, [Rabbi Moses] Schick indignantly denied that a priori
one could “make this an obligation for us and for generations to come. ... One does not say to a
man, 'Go and sin!'” (Moses Shick to Esriel Hildesheimer, 20 Av 1864.)
By contrast, we find that the Jews of Rhodes and Sarajevo (both Judeo-Spanish communities of the Ottoman
Empire) founded new seminaries - with secular university-type learning even! - without any controversy
whatsoever! According to Hakham Solomon Gaon (“Sarajevo As I Knew It”, pp. 34-36),
Dr. [Mauice] Levy[, the Chief Rabbi of Bosnia] was the first university-trained rabbi in
Sarajevo. He studied in Vienna and obtained his rabbinic training in Vienna and Sarajevo. …
[T]he Benevolencia, the benevolent society of the community, sent him to the university in
Vienna, and there he finished his studies in philosophy as well as his rabbinic studies. … The
Benevolencia was a society that gave grants to poor students who were talented, enabling them
to undertake university studies not only in Yugoslavia, but also in famous universities
abroad. ...When the Association of Jewish Communities of Yugoslavia decided that the time had
come to train young men for the ministry in different parts of Yugoslavia, they resolved that a
* The story of the closing of the Volozhin yeshiva is of course much more complex (cf. Rabbi Dr. Jacob J.
Schacter, “Haskalah, Secular Studies, and the Close of the Yeshiva of Volozhin in 1892”), but Mosseri's point
is not affected; the fact remains that Ashkenazi rabbis were generally quite opposed to secular learning, and a
plethora of cases could be adduced. Cf. Levi, “The Opinions of the Torah Leaders of the Past Generations”.
 special seminary was to be established in Sarajevo. They pointed out that Sarajevo was chosen
because it had a true religious atmosphere. … Dr. [Isaac] Alcalay made a proclamation that the
young Jews of Yugoslavia should come to this seminary in order to become useful Jewish
citizens who would raise the standard of Jewish education and of Jewish life in the land. Many
of us who had intended to go to the universities to study for different professions decided that
we should answer the call of Dr. Alcalay. We realized that there was a need for a new generation
of teachers and rabbis. Most of the rabbis of the time spoke the Serbo-Croatian language very
badly and their outlook was narrow. We believed that the time had come when we should try and
help our communities. … To those of us who were its first students, the seminary provided an
opportunity to learn Jewish history, Hebrew, and Torah subjects in general. The secular studies,
however, were not neglected. We were taught philosophy, general history, the language of the
country. Special emphasis was placed on psychology, since our teachers believed that without
knowledge of psychology we could not be true leaders of the communities we were to serve, nor
could we be competent teachers.
According to Rabbi Marc Angel (The Jews of Rhodes, p. 84; cf. Angel, Voices in Exile, p. 188),
In order to bolster Italian influence among the Sephardim of Rhodes and the Mediterranean
region, the Italian government sought to establish a rabbinical seminary under its auspices. On
December 11, 1928, Mario Lago, the governor of Rhodes, decreed the establishment of the
Collegio Rabbinico. The Rabbinical College attracted not only students from Rhodes but also
from Turkey, Palestine, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Egypt and even Ethiopia. … The school in Rhodes
quickly acquired an international reputation, much to the satisfaction of the Italian authorities.
… Rabbinical students were expected to have a mastery of the Bible and its commentaries,
Hebrew language and grammar, Talmud, Codes of Jewish law, Jewish history, Hebrew literature,
and religious philosophy. … Beyond the requirements in Jewish studies, students were also
required to study secular subjects under Italian professors. The Rabbinical College was
accredited by the Italian government and had to meet all of the academic requirements of state
schools.
And of course, given Rabbi S. R. Hirsch's influences and mode of thought, he could be considered a
Judeo-Spanish Sephardi for our purposes. According to Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, speaking about Rabbi Hirsch's
Neo-Orthodoxy (Judaism: A Historical Presentation, p. 295),
In reality it is not a new Orthodoxy, but a revival of the Judaism of the Arabic-Spanish period
which presented a blending of the old with the new, and of the strictest adherence to traditional
beliefs and observances with a full participation in the science and culture of the age.
Whether one stands or sits while donning tefillin or whether one eats qitniot is all utterly irrelevant; we are
concerned with weltanschauung, not minhag, and in the former (but not the latter), Rabbi Hirsch was clearly a
Sephardi. In quite the reverse, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef would seem to have the minhagim of a Sephardi and the
weltanschauung of a Haredi Ashkenazi. Do not misunderstand my proposal; I am not advocating adopting
Sephardi minhagim. Rather, I am simply and merely advocating that Modern Orthodoxy adopt the Sephardi
ethos and learning, even if it retains Ashkenazi minhagim. This would, again, be rather like Rabbi Hirsch.
One more word deserves to be said. One special advantage of the Judeo-Spanish approach to modernity,
I believe, is that it was so natural and organic, so unselfconscious. As noted previously, neither Rabbi Benzion
Uziel nor his student Rabbi Haim David Halevi had any formal secular learning. Additionally, when Rabbi
Halevi justified women's learning Talmud and the Oral Law, he did not outright reject Rabbi Eliezer's declaration
that such learning is tiflut as being sexist and outdated. When members of a religious kibbutz had “complained
that in light of the change of women's status” (Angel, Rabbi Haim David Halevi, p. 119) this prohibition must
rejected, Rabbi Halevi indignantly “criticized the kibbutz leaders for suggesting that halakhot may be eliminated
on the basis of social change” (ibid.). Rabbi Halevi's own responsum permitting women to learn the Oral Law
“had nothing to do with the current changes in the social status of women” (ibid.). Now, one may not necessarily
agree with Rabbi Halevi; I myself may personally incline more towards the stance evinced by the kibbutzniks.
But the fact remains that, as Rabbi Marc Angel has said to me in private conversation, “Rabbi Halevi was not
Modern Orthodox; he was simply a traditional old-school rabbi with his head on straight.” The advantage of this
is obvious. With the Eastern and Central European forms of Ashkenazism, one must consciously modernize, and
engage in borer, before anything suitable is obtained for the modern world. Rabbi Hirsch did precisely this, and
took the previous old form of Ashkenazism and Sephardized it. However, such an effort is obviously difficult,
hazardous, and controversial. In fact, Rabbi Hirsch has often been accused of being more of a bourgeoisie
German than a traditional Jew (cf. Levine, “Enduring and Transitory Elements”). While these allegations have
been answered (cf. Danziger, “Clarification”), and while I (and apparently Epstein, op. cit.) personally believe
that Rav Hirsch was little more than an Germanized Sephardi (akin to an English or Dutch Sephardi, only
German here), nevertheless, these accusations have taken their toll. It is difficult for many to place their full
confidence in Rabbi Hirsch, because they have the fear that even the good things he says may actually be due
more to his German-ness than his Jewishness. I believe that the average Modern Orthodox youth's cognitive
dissonance is much the same; he is not sure whether the modern aspects of his Modern Orthodoxy are a worthy
and fitting additions and modifications to his Eastern European Ashkenazi Judaism, or whether they are an alien
implant against which his Judaism militates. There is dissonance, quite simply, because one is afraid that perhaps
his modernity is opposed by his Judaism; perhaps a pure unadulterated Judaism “learned from itself” would
reject any modernity. The pure Sephardi approach is a boon and a G-dsend, because, as noted Rabbis Uziel and
Halevi were not “Modern Orthodox”. Therefore, we can accept their approach, confident that it is a purely and
authentically Jewish one. Now, this is not to say that we will not our own modifications and additions to this
Sephardi Judaism. Obviously we will change it to suite our own needs and predilections. But the point is that our
starting point will be something already very close to Modern Orthodoxy, and yet completely traditional and
old-fashioned. It will be old-fashioned and yet already organically and naturally and unselfconsciously adapted
to modernity. Whereas Ashkenazism must be extensively modified before it is ready to meet the challenge of
modernity, giving rise to dissonance regarding the authenticity of this approach, Sephardi Judaism, by contrast,
is already almost completely ready for modernity “out of the box”. The advantage is obvious.
To combat the shift to the right in Modern Orthodoxy, I believe that we must do more than simply
educate Modern Orthodox youth about the illegitimacy of Haredism on purely historical grounds. Now, even this
is extremely vital, for this would catalyze the essential and indispensable ability to engage in historical
contextualization. However, I believe more than only this is necessary; I sincerely believe we ought to shift the
entire locus of Modern Orthodoxy to a more Sephardi form of Judaism. The Sephardi form of Judaism was
already highly “Modern Orthodox” in its very essence and essential nature. Let us take this form of Judaism as
our starting point, and adapt it according to our needs, including the incorporation of whatever special insights
Ashkenazi Judaism may have. We today begin with Ashkenazi Judaism, a form of Judaism devoted to Talmudic
casuistry to the detriment of Jewish philosophy and utterly devoid of any learning in general culture (Rabbi
Hirsch, Nineteen Letters and Sorkin, “Enlightenment and Emancipation” p. 91), and then we try to bend this
form of Judaism over backwards, modernizing it, thereby alienating those Modern Orthodox youth who lack the
capability to engage in historical contextualization, those youth who do not understand what we are doing. They
have cognitive dissonance, because they sincerely wish to be true to Judaism, and yet all they see is us granting
hegemony to Eastern Europe and then desecrating much of what is most cherished in that form of Judaism. They
lack the ability to discern just what exactly we are doing. So let us instead take Sephardi Judaism as our default,
thereby putting an end to the cognitive dissonance, for we will be granting hegemony to that Judaism and then
be following it almost unaltered. This form of Judaism goes back to approximately the 8th or 9th century C.E.,
has been involved in secular learning and culture (in the case of the Western European Sephardim, and at least,
had an inchoate and inexpressible appreciation for such, as in the Ottoman Sephardim) nearly the entire time
since then, and of all Jewish communities of the world, had the strongest ties to the Babylonian yeshivot that are
responsible for our Talmud. Such a form of Judaism has impeccable credentials as being “traditional” and
“Torah-true”, and yet it also already contains ready and prepared everything needed for a Modern Orthodox
Judaism, thereby precluding any need for significant modification of its essentials, and thereby preventing any
cognitive dissonance in sincere but confused Modern Orthodox youth. No wonder that Rav Hirsch saw fit to
merely resurrect and Germanize this form of Judaism.
Let us more closely analyze why this entire proposal of mine is, I believe, the solution to Modern
Orthodoxy's present and ongoing weakness and failure to avoid ceding and surrendering to Haredism. According
to Professor Elazar (“Can Sephardic Judaism be Reconstructed?”),
The [aforementioned] strenghths [sic] of the Sephardic way [viz. its tolerance and flexibility] are
also its weaknesses, while the [aforementioned] weaknesses of the Ashkenazi way [viz. its
intolerance, inflexibility, and dogmatic schmismatic denominationalism and closemindedness,
previously discussed by Elazar] are also its strengths. If the strength of the Sephardic way is in
its willingness to try to cope with the world around it through interfacing rather than isolation
and its reaching out to all Jews without breaking away from tradition, those strengths also lead
 to its weaknesses in the tendency of Sephardim not to take firm stands in defense of the
maintenance of tradition, to almost blow with the wind, as it were, rather than be willing to
make the necessary sacrifices in a world often hostile to tradition. By the same token, the
weakness of the Ashkenazi tradition makes them very strong, even fanatically strong, in
defending, adhering to, and trying to advance their position, whatever it might be. Hence, they
are better prepared to fight the fight against the breakdowns of modernism than the Sephardim,
one way or another, while the Sephardim find it hard to stand up to those breakdowns and to the
proposed responses to them developed by the Ashkenazim. The tendency of the Sephardim has
been to simply give in when confronted with such iron-willed assertion of what is right. It
should be noted that this is true with regard to both the religious and the Zionist socialist
establishments in Israel where the majority of the Sephardim found themselves after the break-
up of the traditional Sephardic world.
Similarly, (Rabbi? Dr.?) Isaac Chavel writes (“On Rupture and Reconstruction - A Response”, pp. 132, 134)
The “return to the books” [i.e. elite textualism] in the tradition of the Gra has at least a vision of
how “the books” are to influence observance. But, by its very nature, the mimetic [i.e.
traditional, unselfconscious behavioral] religiosity has no ideology nor accompanying polemic.
The integrity of mimetic religiosity, its only polemic when it is attacked as inadequate, lies in the
very quality of the social religious life it leads. This quality either speaks for itself and carries
the day, or it fails. One might wish to say (as is fashionable these days) that it is focused on the
bottom line, but my point is that the “bottom” line is the only line. Therefore, once it is
challenged and forced into debate to hold its own, it is almost doomed from the outset.
Similarly, it has no conscious directed program to produce the educators of the next generation.
They are expected to emerge, naturally, from the very fabric and nature of a complete mimetic
society. But the existence of the complete mimetic society presupposes a certain stability, and
that crucial stability has been steadily undermined since the Enlightenment. ... The failure of
mimetic religiosity lies in the fact that it remains just that, purely mimetic, that it does not
produce excellence with programmatic purpose, to continue for another day in a new place. It
produces excellence, but excellence for its own sake. The failure of Modern Orthodoxy to claim
and hold a non-haredi vision of its own, lies in the fact that it did not succeed in the positive
work of borer, of articulating what exactly is worthwhile in humanistic Western civilization on
its own terms, and what of that culture can contribute to our life of the commandments and the
service of God.
According to Elazar and Chavel, the problem is the same, even as they are discussing two distinct communities.
Namely, a lack of staunch principled adherence and advocacy for one's own way is to blame for the ascendancy
and hegemony of the Haredim. In like wise, Dr. Chaim I. Waxman writes (“The Haredization of American
Orthodox Jewry”),
 The majority of those who considered themselves modern Orthodox are, apparently,
modern Orthodox behaviorally but not philosophically. They do not define themselves as
modern because of an ideological commitment to worldly knowledge or any of the other values
of modernity. As the empirical evidence indicates, it is through their very selectivity in
observance that most modern Orthodox manifest their modernity. However, for them that
selectivity is almost solely a matter of personal choice. They usually do not seek to legitimate
their behavior ideologically or halakhically, nor do they feel a need to legitimate it. So although
they feel free to choose, they do not challenge the authority of the sectarian scholarly elite, and
since they are not a challenge to that authority, they are tolerated by that elite and can still feel
themselves part of the Orthodox community.
As a result, the sectarians have a virtual monopoly on authority. Indeed, it may be
argued that the deviance of Reform and Conservative as defined by Orthodoxy is not so much
that they do not behaviorally conform to the norms as prescribed by Orthodoxy, but that they
reject the authority of the Orthodox. Orthodoxy can tolerate deviance which is so recognized by
the actor. What it cannot tolerate is the legitimation of what it considers to be deviance through
the rejection of the authority of the rabbi.
For the behavioral modern Orthodox, this arrangement works well. They tolerate it
because they can be identified with Orthodoxy and feel righteous even when they do not live up
to their religious obligations. For the philosophical modern Orthodox, matters are much more
complex. First of all, even if they do not challenge the halakhic authority of the sectarian elite,
there are those specific areas in which they overtly challenge them philosophically. The modern
Orthodox are therefore vilified and shunned by the sectarian community.
Waxman takes matters a bit further: it is the behaviorally-modern that lack the principled backbone and thus
cede to the Haredim, whereas the philosophically-modern are quite secure in their opposition. Our problem
would be that too many Modern Orthodox youth are behaviorally-modern rather than philosophically-modern.
Waxman proposes as a solution that
If the modern Orthodox are to play any kind of a constructive role, that is, a role in maintaining
the basic unity of Jews and Judaism, they may have to seriously consider an overt challenge to
and, perhaps, even separation from haredi Orthodoxy. That is not a step to be taken lightly. The
step itself as well as the critical needs of the hour require its careful consideration and
deliberation.
My proposal would be similar to Dr. Waxman's, but more concrete and specific. We must first educate Modern
Orthodox youth about the history and sociology of the Haredim, showing that they (as Professor Friedman
remarks) do not even accurately represent authentic prewar Eastern European Ashkenazi Judaism. But further, I
believe we must entirely relocate our locus from Ashkenazism to Sephardism. We must redefine for ourselves
which of these two communities is the iqar and which is the tofeil. In this way, we will be two entire steps away
from the Haredim: there will be us (following Spanish Judaism), one step away from us there will be prewar
Ashkenazi Judaism, and yet one more step away from us will be postwar Haredi Judaism (which again, is not to
be confused with prewar Ashkenazi Judaism). Hopefully, this distance of two steps will serve to provide a
sufficient safeguard against Haredization.
It took the total and complete effort of the Hungarian rabbis merely to stave off Reform in Hungary and
hold Orthodoxy's ground, and even that form of Reform was a very moderate and relatively conservative Neolog
type! By contrast, the German variety of Reform was far more radical and antithetical to Orthodox Judaism; as
Dayan Grunfeld advises in his introduction to his edition of Rabbi Hirsch's Horeb, see Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz's
“The New Paths I/II/III” for a laundry list of “whither do they lead?”, these radical Reformers and their
programs in Germany. In fact, according to Rabbi Hirsch (“Religion Allied to Progress”, part V), the Reformers
even succeeded in having all study of the Tanakh and Talmud completely banned in Frankfurt-am-Main between
1818 and 1838! And yet, despite facing a form of Reform immeasurably more hostile, dangerous, and radical
than the Hungarian form, Rabbi Hirsch, using the Spanish form of Judaism, was able to do far more than merely
hold the line as the Hungarian Orthodox did; he was able to take one small Orthodox kehilla in the midst of a
radical-Reform-dominated country, a country in which Orthodoxy had been almost totally wiped out, and despite
all this, create a vibrant Orthodox community which was steadily going from strength-to-strength until it was
destroyed by Hitler. It is clear which is the stronger and more potent and virile form of Judaism.
In Rabbi Hirsch's polemic against the Breslau Theological Seminary (the representation of Positive-
Historical, the predecessor of Conservative Judaism), Rabbi Hirsch said (“A Provisional Statement of Accounts”,
p. 278, but see “Works Cited”),
Ever since we have begun to make our modest contribution to the Jewish cause by speech, pen
and deed, it was and is our wholehearted endeavor to present and advocate the most intimate
union between Judaism - total, unadulterated Judaism - and the spirit of all true science and
knowledge ... we maintain that our whole future, with all ideological and social problems the
solution of which is eagerly awaited by mankind belongs to Judaism, full, unabridged
Judaism ... because we can view the welfare and future of Judaism only in the framework of the
most intimate union with the spirit of true science and knowledge of every age, we are the most
outspoken foes of all false science and knowledge, foes of every attempt, in the guise of science,
to lay the ax to the roots of our Jewish sanctuary.
This “total, unadulterated Judaism” of Rabbi Hirsch's, which he adopted from Spanish Judaism (Epstein, op. cit.)
is precisely what is needed to save – Judaism! Rabbi Joseph Breuer says (“The Relevancy of the Torah im
Derech Eretz Ideal”, p. 17),
A personal footnote: on the day before he passed away, my father [viz. Rabbi Solomon Breuer,
Rabbi Hirsch's son-in-law] s.z.l told me: “I am firmly convinced that the way shown by Rav
Hirsch s.z.l. will be Mekarev haGeulah”. A sacred testament.
Postscript: Here is not the place to give a list of sources for further learning on the Judeo-Spanish Sephardi
approach. Suffice it to say, almost anything by Rabbi Marc Angel is valuable and eminently accessible, and his
works contain bibliographies and direction for further learning. Rabbi Angel is the head of the Institute for
Jewish Ideas and Ideals, and he can be contacted according to the information at
http://www.jewishideas.org/about. Additionally, his institute publishes a journal, Conversations
(http://www.jewishideas.org/conversations). A free subscription to Conversations is given to all students who
create a free account with the institute; simply go to the User Account page
(https://www.jewishideas.org/user/register), create a free account and indicate “Yes” to “Are you a student?”.

Works Cited
Angel, Marc. “The Grand Religious View of Rabbi Benzion Uziel”, Tradition 30:1, Fall 1995.
Angel, Marc. The Jews of Rhodes: The History of a Sephardic Community. Sepher-Hermon Press, Inc. and The
Union of Sephardic Congregations: New York, 1998.
Angel, Marc. Loving Truth and Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel, New Jersey:
Jason Aronson, 1999.
Angel, Marc with Hayyim Angel. Rabbi Haim David Halevy: Gentle Scholar and Courageous Thinker. Urim
Publications: Jerusalem, New York, 2006.
Angel, Marc. “Thoughts on Early American Jewry”, Tradition 16:2, Fall 1976.
Angel, Marc. Voices in Exile: A Study in Sephardic Intellectual History. Ktav Publishing House, Inc.: Hoboken,
New Jersey, in association with Sephardic House: New York, New York, 1991.
Breuer, Joseph. “The Relevancy of the Torah im Derech Eretz Ideal” in Time to Build, New York: Published for
the Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society by Philipp Feldheim, Inc.
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/relevancy_tide.pdf.
Chavel, Isaac. “On Rupture and Reconstruction - A Response”, The Torah u-Madda Journal, vol. 7,
http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU7_Chavel.pdf.
Danziger, Shelomo Eliezer. “Clarification of R. Hirsch's Concepts – A Rejoinder”, Tradition 6:2, Spring-Summer
1964. http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Clarification%20of%20RSRH_danziger.pdf.
Elazar, Daniel J. “Can Sephardic Judaism be Reconstructed?” in The Daniel Elazar On-Line Library at the
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles3/sephardic.htm.
Elazar, Daniel J. “The Special Character of Sephardi Tolerance” in The Daniel Elazar On-Line Library at the
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/sephtol.htm.
Epstein, Isidore. Judaism: A Historical Presentation. Penguin Books, nearly uncountable number of
republications.
Friedman, Menachem. “The Changing Role of the Community Rabbinate”, in The Jerusalem Quarterly, no. 25,
Fall 1982, pp. 79-99. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Friedman, Menachem. "Halachic Rabbinic Authority in the Modern Open Society", in J. Wertheimer (ed.),
 Jewish Religious Leadership -- Image and Reality, NY: JTS Press, 2004, Vol. II, pp. 757-770.
http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Friedman, Menachem. "Haredim Confront the Modern City", in Peter Y. Medding (ed.), Studies in
Contemporary Jewry, II, 1986, Institute of Contemporary Jewry - The Hebrew University of Jerusalem /
Indiana University Press – Bloomington, pp. 74-96. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Friedman, Menachem. "Life Tradition and Book Tradition in the Development of Ultra Orthodox Judaism", in
Harvey E Goldberg, (ed.), Judaism from Within and from Without: Anthropological Studies (State
University of New York Press: Albany, 1987), pp. 235-55. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Friedman, Menachem. "The 'Family-Community' Model in Haredi Society", Peter Meding (ed.), Coping with
Life and Death, Jewish Families in the Twentieth Century, Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Oxford
University Press, Oxford N.Y. 1998 pp. 166-177.
Friedman, Menachem. “The Changing Role of the Community Rabbinate”, in The Jerusalem Quarterly, no. 25,
Fall 1982, pp. 79-99. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Friedman, Menachem. “The Market Model and Religious Radicalism,” in Laurence J. Silbersten (ed.), Jewish
Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective: Religion, Ideology, and the Crisis of Modernity, New-
York University Press, 1993, pp. 192-215. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Friedman, Menachem. "The Lost Kiddush Cup: Changes in Ashkenazic Haredi Culture - A Tradition in Crisis,"
in J. Wertheimer (ed.) The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, The Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, Distributed by Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, & London,
1993, pp. 175-187. http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/so/mfriedman.html.
Gaon, Solomon. “Sarajevo As I Knew It”, Tradition 30:1, Fall 1995.
Hertz, Joseph Hermann. “The New Paths: Whither Do They Lead? I/II/III”, in Hertz, Affirmations of Judaism,
London: Oxford University Press, 1927, pp. 149-185. (This edition of Affirmations of Judaism must not
be confused with the 1975 Soncino Press edition. That book, despite having the same title and author, is
a completely different book. One wants the red 1927 Oxford edition, not the blue 1975 Soncino edition.)
A more accessible summary of the most heinous acts by the Reformers as listed in Hertz's “The New
Paths” is found in my own “Jeff Eyges” (under the pseudonym “mikewinddale”),
http://www.jewcy.com/post/i_was_wrong_about_ultraorthodox#comment-33577.
Hirsch, Samson Raphael, “Religion Allied to Progress”, in The Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael
Hirsch, vol. 6 (“Jewish Communal Life / Independent Orthodox”), New York and Jerusalem: Published
for the Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society by Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1990, 1997.
(“Religion Allied to Progress” in Judaism Eternal (trans. Isidore Grunfeld. London: Soncino Press) is
abridged, and is missing the section on the Reformers' use of government coercion against the Orthodox
and their violations of freedom of conscience and religion, including their succeeding in having study of
the Tanakh and Talmud banned.)
Hirsch, Samson Raphael, “A Provisional Statement of Accounts”, in The Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson
Raphael Hirsch vol. 5 (“Origin of the Oral Law”), New York and Jerusalem: Published for the Rabbi
Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society by Philipp Feldheim, Inc., 1990, 1997. However,
according to Breuer, Time to Build, p. 14 (according to whose text quoted in the present essay), this
passage is rather from vol. 6, pp. 392f. Additionally, Breuer's text differs from that found in our editions
of Collected Writings. Apparently, Breuer is giving his own free English translation of the original
German Gesammelte Schriften, and his citation is to that German edition. I am only guessing, however,
as I do not know German (the Gesammelte Schriften is however available for free online from Google
Books and from Archive.org), and so I cannot check the German against the English to determine
Breuer's precise source In any case, the text quoted in the essay is according to Breuer, which differs
very slightly from what is found in the Feldheim English edition of Collected Writings.
Levi, Yehuda (Leo), “The Opinions of the Torah Leaders of the Past Generations”, chapter 5 (pp. 275ff.) of
Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues, trans. Raphael N. Levi, Philipp Feldheim
Inc.:Jerusalem/New York, 5762, 2002.
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/levi_torah_leaders_secular.pdf.
Levine, Howard I. “Enduring and Transitory Elements in the Philosophy of Samson Raphael Hirsch”, Tradition
5:2, Spring 1963.
Mosseri, Joseph. “Torah - Ancient Relic or Living Law: A Sephardic Rabbinical” (oral lecture), Merkaz
Moreshet Yisrael, http://www.merkaz.com/lectures.htm.
Schacter, Jacob J. “Haskalah, Secular Studies, and the Close of the Yeshiva of Volozhin in 1892”, The Torah u-
Madda Journal, vol. 2, pp. 76-133. http://www.yutorah.org/_shiurim/TU2_Schachter.pdf.
Silber, Michael. “The Emergence of Ultra-Orthodoxy: The Invention of a Tradition”, in The Uses of Tradition:
Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, ed. Jack Wertheimer, The Jewish Theological Seminary of
America, 1992. (I thank my friend Baruch Pelta for assisting me with access to this essay.)
Shapiro, Marc. “The Uses of Tradition: Jewish Continuity in the Modern Era, Jack Wertheimer, ed. (Jewish
Theological Seminary of America, 1992) 510 pp. Halacha in Straits: Obstacles to Orthodoxy at its
Inception by Jacob Katz, Hebrew (Magnes Press, 1992), 287 pp.” (book review). Tradition 28:2, Winter
1994. (The same issue as contains Toledano, “Voices in Exile”, op cit.)
Soloveitchik, Haym. “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy”. Tradition
28:4, Summer 1994. www.lookstein.org/links/orthodoxy.htm.
Sorkin, David. “Enlightenment and Emancipation: German Jewry's Formative Age in Comparative Perspective”,
in Comparing Jewish Societies, ed. Todd M. Endelman. 1997: University of Michigan, pp. 89-112.
http://books.google.com/books?id=A1SNlQf9CN4C&pg=PA89.
Toledano, Henry. “Voices in Exile: A Study in Sephardic Intellectual History, by Marc Angel (Ktav Publishing
House, 1991) 237 pp.” (book review), Tradition 28:2, Winter 1994. (The same issue as contains Shapiro,
“The Uses of Tradition”, op. cit.)
Waxman, Chaim I. “The Haredization of American Orthodox Jewry”, in Jerusalem Letters (The Jerusalem
Center for Public Affairs) No. 376, 19 Shevat 5758 / 15 February 1998, http://www.jcpa.org/cjc/jl-376-
waxman.htm.
Zohar, Zvi. “Loving Truth and Peace: The Grand Religious Worldview of Rabbi Benzion Uziel By Rabbi Marc
D. Angel” (book review), The Edah Journal 1:2, Sivan 5761/2001.
http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/1_2_zohar.pdf.