Anti-Anti Communism and Anti-Anti ‘Partnership Minyan”

by David Wolkenfeld

During the 1950s and 1960s there were American liberals who adopted (or who were labeled) “anti anti Communists.” These figures, although not supporters of Communism, recognized that McCarthyism was a greater threat to American democracy than armed Communist insurrection. With all necessary caveats and havdalot,  some of the  published articles criticizing partnership minyanim, has pushed me towards adopting an “anti anti” partnership minyan position.

 

I have never attended a partnership minyan and I don’t think I will change that policy anytime soon. Ultimately, although shuls can and must change to accommodate women’s religious needs, Orthodoxy cannot be competitive on the plane of equal women’s prayer leadership and we would be better served as a community shifting the discussion to arenas where we can compete and win (such as opening the doors of the beit midrash to women as teachers and students of Torah at every level and in every subject and in every venue). I furthermore think that it is still too soon to know if Rav Henkin shlita was correct in his prediction that a community that instituted women’s aliyot would not “remain Orthodox in practice.” I am not prepared to take that risk.

 

And yet, I have come to feel that the stridency and forcefulness of the opposition to partnership minyanim is now more of a threat to Orthodoxy than those handfuls of independent minyannim ever could be. We are facing substantial threats to the continued vitality of American Modern Orthodoxy. Day school tuitions are pushing the middle class outside the community. Too many of the graduates of our day-schools and yeshivot complete their formal Jewish educations uninspired and without any positive example of how Torah and mitzvot can be relevant to their real lives. Our busy bourgeois lifestyle fills our days with tasks, but leaves them devoid of opportunities for introspection and transcendence. And our brothers and sisters in the State of Israel remain under threat of missile attack and war in an ever more unpredictable and unstable region.

 

To respond to these threats we need an “all hands on decks” approach. We cannot afford to discover new issurim where none had been found before. At the very least, a silence motivated by a “mutav she’yehiyu shogegim” stance, would make it more likely that those who find it necessary to avail themselves of a partnership minyan, still consider themselves Orthodox, still send their children to Orthodox schools, and still make their “weekday shul” one that is Orthodox. There is so much Torah scholarship and intelligence to be found among the critics of partnership minyannim. Think of what they could discover if they used their gifts and training towards formulating solutions to our community’s many problems rather than critique solutions they consider misdirected.

42 Responses to Anti-Anti Communism and Anti-Anti ‘Partnership Minyan”

  1. puzzled says:

    Who are we competing with? If it is heterodoxy, why emulate a failed model?

  2. Roberta Kwall says:

    As someone who has dealt with the issue of partnership minyanim from a law-culture perspective (in a law review article ironically published by Cardozo Law Review), I commend Rabbi Wolkenfeld for the sentiments he expressed in this post. A credible argument can been made that the strong resistance to partnership minyanim is steeped far more in culture than law. Those who are anti-partnership minyanim will not acknowledge the powerful cultural forces that have shaped the tradition on this matter. Some will not even cite scholarship that takes issue with the traditional position on this subject. Instead, they frame the issue as one of unalterable mandate. The fear, I believe, stems from the dismantling of the tradition. But one must wonder why it is that issues perceived as feminist are considered so threatening? Tova Hartman, the founder of Shirah Hadashah, raised this point effectively in her book Feminism Encounters Traditional Judaism. When I teach Women & Jewish Law to my mostly non-Jewish law students, they find this issue a fascinating study. But I see it as mostly a sad commentary on how effectively we cling to law as a justification for that which is cultural. Partnership minyanim are not and should not be for everyone who self-identifies as Orthodox. But the underlying question as to why it generates the controversy it does seems to be one that Orthodoxy is not willing or able to address at this point in time. Is traditional Judaism really so fragile that it cannot tolerate variability on this score?

    • > Partnership minyanim are not and should not be for everyone who self-identifies as Orthodox

      This is exactly the point I’m trying to make. “Self-identifies” is a very Western concept. I want to be something, I announce I am that something and therefore I am. Are there prerequisites? Who cares? I want it therefore those prerequisites can be pushed out of my way.
      Orthodoxy is not something one is by “self-identification”. There are objective standards and recognized authorities who disseminate them. One cannot simply say “Well I wanna be Orthodox” and then be Orthodox. We are not Reform where becoming a Reform Jew means joining the local “Temple” and little more.

      • Michael Stein says:

        I don’t agree that self-identification is a Western concept in the sense used here. Nor am I saying that anyone of any belief system whatsoever who asserts they are Orthodox or Jewish or anything is defacto right in such assertion. In this case, however, I think the individuals and issues at stake are clearly within a reasonable range to justify inclusion, rather than exclusion. Others clearly disagree with me, but I think it’s a mistake to so quickly write out of the picture a group of sincerely observant Jews who are, in the big scheme of things, radically more similar to the vast majority of Modern Orthodox, than are adherents of many other groups of indisputably Orthodox character.

        Furthermore, the standards of Orthodoxy are not nearly as objective as you suggest they are, and the leaders who purport to make those decisions are leaders only in the eyes of some of the Orthodox community, and not for all. Orthodoxy is highly diverse in its allegiances and leadership. In particular, it’s not at all clear what gedolim, if any, modern orthodoxy should and does defer to.

      • Michael says:

        Really? And what, pray tell, was Chassidus? Hardly the manifestation of “Western” concepts.

  3. A Thinking Talmid who cares about the Jewish People says:

    There also is so much Torah scholarship and intelligence among the advocates of partnership minyan. Think of what they could discover and contribute if they used their gifts towards strengthening halachic observance.

    • Yaakov C says:

      One road to increased observance is through expanding the opportunities for inclusion and participation represented by partnership minyanim. Not everyone will – or even should – travel that path, but those who do often feel energized and will often redouble their commitments beyond tefillah.

      • A Thinking Talmid who cares about the Jewish People says:

        It does not appear to me that those who advocate for partnership minyanim claim it is solely for the purpose of kiruv.

        Even if it was solely for kiruv, I am not sure it can be justified according to the Shulchan Aruch, but at least claiming it is for kiruv changes the conversation a little.

  4. > although shuls can and must change to accommodate women’s religious needs

    See, this is the underlying problem. Judaism is not an individualistic religion. We are a nationality and every individual must play his role to optimize the function of the nation as a whole. That doesn’t mean becoming mindless worker drones lacking personal identity but it does mean, to paraphrase JFK (who was plagiarizing someone else), ask not what your shul can do for you. Ask what you can do for your shul.
    To say the shul can and must change to accomodate women’s religious needs or anyone’s religious needs for that matter implies that Judaism and Torah are here to serve us which is precisely backwards. A person who says that he’s not getting anything out of Judaism unless it changes to suit him or make him feel more included invokes the pasuk “Lo dave reik mikem” and its attendant interpretation – if you find something empty in Judaism it’s because of the real emptiness in you.
    Perhaps the underlying goal in Orthodoxy should be to demand less of our religio-nationality and start demanding more of ourselves.

    • Anonymous says:

      If you find something lacking in Judaism it’s really only an emptiness inside you? Please read the essay by the Meshech Hochma at the end of VaYikra on the verse, “Lo ma’astim…” He clearly articulates the profound flaws that our legal system struggles with, and he blames alienation from
      Torah on Torah’s inadequacy. Quite a remarkable essay. Furthermore, was Avraham’s willingness to challenge God reflective if his own emptiness? Were the Jews who argued for Pesach Sheni empty? Were bnot Tzelafad empty? It is outrageous to suggest that Judaism is at all times and in all places so perfect that challenging the status quo is fundamentally illegitimate.

      • Had the Bnos Tzelophchad been with the Morethodox they’d not have bothered with Moshe Rabeinu, a”h. They’d have found someone in the camp to say “Well, it’s seems okay to me” and announced “We follow him!”
        Your own source supports my point. Alienation from Torah does create a sense of inadequacy with the Torah, chas v’shalom, but then that means you have to deal with your own alienation.

    • Michael Stein says:

      “If you find something empty in Judaism it’s because of the real emptiness in you.” An outrageous assertion, Garnel. Being willing to challenge the status quo based on one’s internally derived sense of justice is a time-honored Jewish trait. Avraham. The Jews who wanted Pesach Sheni. Bnot Tzlafhad. Were they all empty. Further, please see the Meshech Hochma’s comments at the end of VaYikra, on the verse “Lo Ma’astim….” He attributes alienation from Torah to the inability of Torah to function properly in a post-Temple reality. Quite a remarkable essay. To be sure, not all desires of all individuals justify changing the status quo — to the contrary, only a small number of such desires would rise to that level. But articulating those desires is perfectly legitimate, and finding ways to accommodate them halachically is also perfectly legitimate. The various complex issues related to women’s status are clearly an outgrowth of a concern for justice and Tzelem Elokim, so even if you feel change is not called for, the motivation for seeking change is not some sort of trivial whim, based on some person or small group’s idiosyncratic desires.

      • > An outrageous assertion, Garnel.

        Really. Go tell Chazal. I’m just quoting them. All your examples prove the opposite of your point. Avraham Avinu, a”h, challenged God on S’dom and when he was told what he was looking for wasn’t present he accepted the din. Had the Jews of Pesach Sheni been told “Yep, too bad you lost your opportunity” would they have gone and done Pesach Sheni anyway because their sense of “justice” demanded it?
        You want to articulate desires? Fine. You have a fine sense of justice? Wonderful. But when the halachic answer from the biggest authorities is “No” you also have to accept that maybe your personal sense is flawed.

  5. Mr. Cohen says:

    When large numbers of women attend synagogue, it is very likely that large numbers of young children will also attend.

    When large numbers of young children attend synagogue, it is very likely that synagogue decorum will be completely destroyed.

    Combining the previous two statements, we may conclude that when large numbers of women attend synagogue, it is likely that synagogue decorum will be completely destroyed.

    FULL DISCLOSURE: Synagogue decorum [or more accurately, the lack of it] has been one of my biggest pet peeves for more than 20 years.

    A few months ago, I made a similar comment in a similar discussion, but somehow the moderator of this web site never approved my comment.

    • Michael Stein says:

      My experience in many Orthodox shuls is that the men talking amongst themselves is by far the most significant problem in decorum, and noisy kids a radically more minor issue.

    • Josh says:

      I echo Michael Stein’s comment (in my Shabbos minyan, the women’s section is silent; all of the chatter comes from the men’s side). Plus, the reason why women with children can now attend shul is because of the prevalence of eruvin. I assume you also oppose eruvin because, according to your line of reasoning, eruvin destroy synagogue decorum.

  6. Dan Ab says:

    “Orthodoxy cannot be competitive on the plane of equal women’s prayer leadership and we would be better served as a community shifting the discussion to arenas where we can compete and win”

    I’d go one step further and say that Modern Orthodoxy is now defined by separating men & women and forbidding women from taking certain roles in the community. Part of the success of Orthodoxy has been through putting up clear walls between itself and the other denominations. Over time those walls have shifted, but the only wall that clearly remains regards the role of women. This is why the fights over Partnership Minyanmin, Maharatot, etc are so bitter. They are fights over whether Orthodoxy wants to keep a clear separation from the majority of non-Orthodox Jews or if they want to realize they are part of a larger continuum of Jewish belief and practice. By saying there are more important things than policing restrictions on women, you’re saying it’s not important to keep Orthodoxy clearly separate.

    As a non-Orthodox person, I think that Orthodox separatism has been good for it during the last half century, but is more and more going to cause it more harm than benefit.

  7. Michael Stein says:

    I applaud Rabbi Wolkenfeld for his comments. If Modern Orthodoxy can make room in the broader Orthodox tent for Neturei Karta, for messianic Chabadniks, and for all sorts of Orthodox who reject central tenets of what Modern Orthodoxy stands for, surely it can make room for the relatively tiny segment of Modern Orthdoox who will find partnership minyanim meaningful. Participants on partnership minyanim don’t want to stop seeing themselves as Orthodox, and they should not be pushed out. It is my personal view that partnership minyanim may persist, but will only appeal to a small segment of Orthodoxy, much like women’s tefilah groups. These venues give liberal minded Modern Orthodox Jews a way to stay in the Orthodox camp, as many other Modern Orthodox shuls and institutions turn sharply to the right. Modern Orthodoxy should not run scared, and seek to purge all variation…..

  8. Josh says:

    The difference between MO accepting NK and Chabad, on the one hand, and MO accepting partnership minyanim, on the other, is that it is always easier for Orthodox Jews to accept Jews to their right than those to their left. Kind of the way that the YU roshei yeshiva think that they represent the left-most wing of legitimate Orthodox thought and practice . . . .

  9. Mr. Cohen says:

    Is it Permissible for a Woman to Wear Tefillin?
    by Rabbi Eli Mansour

    http://www.dailyhalacha.com/displayRead.asp?readID=2641&txtSearch=Tefillin women

  10. anonymous says:

    I couldn’t even get past the first paragraph. Do you really want to pick up the mantle of the anti-anti-communists? You want to model your position on the camp who decided that they could be morally neutral between a murderous ideology and regime that murdered millions and enslaved millions more and the United States?

    I entirely disagree with your position on the substantive question here, but never in my life would I consider comparing you to the anti-anti-communists who presented apologetics for mass murder and oppression.

    I find your self-comparison shocking . . .

    • Rabbi David Wolkenfeld says:

      Shalom,
      Clearly, the historical analogy is not precise. I was trying to get at a dynamic of not being in favor of something but feeling that its opposition is more harmful. One of my friends told me, in response to this blog-post, that he was “anti-anti marijuana.” He doesn’t smoke, thinks it’s a bad idea, but thinks the public war on marijuana is misguided and harmful etc. I’m happy to adopt a more felicitous formulation. Please suggest one!

      For the record. I don’t believe that American Communists ever were a threat to America – there was never a serious domestic threat of armed insurrection. And, anti-communism – certainly in the 1950s and 1960s caused real trouble here. It was a potent ingredient in opposition to the Civil Rights movement, the FBI’s persecution of Martin Luther King Jr. etc.

      And, while Mao and Stalin have a record for mass-murder that will hopefully never be surpassed, anti-Communism was an irreplaceable ingredient in some of the most repressive and genocidal regimes in 20th century history (in El Salvador, Guatemala, Zaire, South Africa, East Timor, etc.). Anti-Comunism, as a fear or as an ideology, was also an indispensable component of the rise of Fascism in Europe.

      Best wishes,
      David

      • anonymous says:

        Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames, Fuchs, and many other soviet spies did very real and lasting harm to the United States and helped prop up that murderous and barbaric regime.

        Venona is filled with concrete evidence of their crimes.

        Hiss attended Yalta and helped plunge Eastern Europe into oppression. The Rosenbergs helped the Soviets get nuclear weapons. (possibly pushing forward their time-table by as much as a year).

        I find it amazingly shocking that you would defame the likes of Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Daniel Patrick Moynaham in the manner that you did. American opposition to Communism at home and abroad is something that this country should be proud of. We helped liberate millions of people from a barbaric murderous ideology. Your attempt to claim that both sides did wrong and that therefore there is some moral equivalence between communism and opposing communism is the absolute worst type of apologetic for evil. Communism is evil (in all cases, in all forms, in all places) and American anti-communists like the men I listed above were good men who fought against evil.

        Sadly, if anyone wanted proof that “Open Orthodoxy” is just a cover for left wing radicals to smuggle their political ideology into Judaism it is present right here.

      • Rabbi David Wolkenfeld says:

        Shalom,
        I don’t think my comment to you, or certainly my original post, had any of the implications you impugn in this latest comment. I am in general agreement with your moral assessment about the various Communist regimes of the 20th century. I also share your admiration for the American men who lead our country during the Cold War and engaged in vigorous opposition to Communism (in addition to the list you provide, I would add Harry Truman,Scoop Jackson, Rav Avi Weiss, and the leadership of the AFL-CIO).

        Your comment may be taken as proof that those engaged in the polemics against YCT are engaged in sensationalist attacks, far removed from any evidence, and dependent on reading the words of others with a extreme lack of generosity of spirit and with a prior agenda of interpreting them in as negative a light as is possible.

        With best wishes,
        David

      • Brooklyn Refugee Sheygitz says:

        Considering the fact that Pete Seeger donated all of his royalties for “Turn, Turn, Turn” to the anti-zionist and anti-Israel BDS movement I would think that not only did american communists do REAL harm, but they also cause SPECIFIC real harm to the Jewish people. Pete Seeger’s communist female co-singer in the Weavers, Ronnie Gilbert is still active with Women in Black, BDS and other neo-Marxist groups that cause REAL damage to the Jewish people.
        and if you think that Orthodox feminism will stop at partnership minyanim, talmud study and perhaps tefillin and tzitzit the see here for more http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4486123,00.html
        that’s why I am modern orthodox, liberal, libertarian anti-feminist and anti-marxist. To save the Jewish people from catastrophe
        it’s not just kumbayah and a nice kumzitz song…

    • LeonFan says:

      As Leon Wieseltier said, “The thing I learned from the Trillings about political criticism…was how to be against Stalin and against McCarthy at the same time…when I realized what that meant in the late 40 and 50s, how much courage it took and also how much discipline of mind it took to simply insist upon containing within one’s head both those positions and not allowing the one to, in any way, destroy the other…I was enormously moved by that lesson…and one of the corollaries of that is, as an intellectual, how not to live in a gang”.

      • Rabbi David Wolkenfeld says:

        Yes. This is what I was getting at. Thank you for sharing. Orthodox Jews should be intellectuals and not live in a gang!

      • anonymous says:

        It seems that Rabbi Wolkenfeld misunderstands the meaning of this quote. Lionel Trilling was not an anti-anti-communist.

        The quote seems to mean that it took courage to remain an anti-communist without engaging in misbehavior. It does not seem to mean that given the misbehavior that some one should become some sort of anti-anti-communist. It means that one should remain steadfast in their critique of the horrors and evils of communism without accusing people who aren’t actually communists. Becoming an anti-anti-communist and attacking the large majority of anti-communists simply gave support and credibility to brutal murderers.

        Trilling certainly didn’t mean to throw up ones hands in frustration and say “well both sides are bad . . .” (which is for all the world what R Wolkenfeld’s response above reads like. I am willing to concede that he may not have meant what he wrote, but it is what he wrote.).

        I once again would never consider comparing Open-Orthodoxy to communism (or anything even remotely close or related to that) . . . but in the strange world of R Wolkenfeld’s comparison, Trilling would counsel us not to accuse people of being Open-Orthodox when they are not in fact Open-Orthodox. I think that is very wise and sage advice. But Trilling would also counsel us to remain unrelenting in our criticism of those people who are actually open Orthodox. (once again I do not endorse this comparison in any way, and in fact think R Wolkenfeld owes the Open-Orthodox crowd an apology).)

        As for sensationalists attacks, it was R Wolkenfeld who compared himself to someone who was blind to the moral evils of communism . . . I continue to deny that comparison.

      • Rabbi David Wolkenfeld says:

        I apologize for being unclear. The problem with McCarthy, wasn’t ONLY that he accused innocent people. The problem was ALSO that he accurately identified those who had been Communists, but who posed no threat to the United States thereby creating a climate of fear and stifled expression that was more dangerous than domestic Communists or ex-Communists. One doesn’t have to be blind to the horrors of 20th century Communism to also see how anti-Communism paved the way for the Fascist ascendancy in Europe in the 1930s and the death-squads of Central America in the 1980s.

        But, I’m willing to drop this entire analogy if it is not helpful. I do not think Partnership Minyanim are a helpful step forward for Modern Orthodoxy and, in circumstances where I felt it was appropriate and helpful, I have advocated against them. See here

        But, I worry, that the attempt to condemn them will cause more harm than good, excluding many Jews who wish to remain a part of our community.

  11. Rabbi Wolkenfeld, while I think it’s obvious you were borrowing “anti anti” in the most benign way possible your comparison of communism to anti-communism is still problematic. If you have any doubt of how much damage communism did to Western society then ask yourself: who is insulted more, someone you call a Nazi or someone you call a Commie?

  12. You’ve missed my point. I’m not making light of the insults but trying to point out a subtle cultural norm. It is now well known that the Western movie and TV industry was full of communist sympathizers following the morning, many of them sadly were Jews. Through popular entertainment which sets the tone for popular culture Nazis were commonly portrayed as villians but Communists not as much. Even when the Russians were the villians it was because they were Russian, not because of their Communism. As a result a movement which was just as evil as Nazism does not elicit the same gut response when invoked.

  13. Mr. Cohen says:

    A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex.

    Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car.

    It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

    • Dan Ab says:

      Mr. Cohen, If you want to base your worldview on a single survey of 4500 couples between 1992 and 1994, you should also be aware that the same survey also asked about religion. Jews were the only group where both the husbands and wives reported significantly less sexual satisfaction than the larger group. Since this is so important to you, I assume you’ll now change religions?

      The actual results of this study are also being over-inflated. The population-wide difference between egalitarian vs non-egalitarian housework is a sexual frequency of 3 vs 5 times per month with large error bars. It might be statistically significant, but that isn’t a statistic on which one should base marital decisions.

      Back to the actual topic here, like I commented earlier, Orthodoxy seems to have centered much of its existence on maintaining separate roles for men and women. Anything that threatens that separation is attacked so forcefully because it is an attack on the fundamental principles of the entire movement.

  14. Brooklyn Refugee Sheygitz says:

    “One doesn’t have to be blind to the horrors of 20th century Communism to also see how anti-Communism paved the way for the Fascist ascendancy in Europe in the 1930s and the death-squads of Central America in the 1980s”

    That is simply not true

  15. Brooklyn Refugee Sheygitz says:

    In 1952, Eliezer Livneh, a Mapai leader (he was an MK and minister; later on in his career he was know to be against the nucelar armament of Israel; and yet later on joined the greater land of Israel movement along with tabenkin and many other mapai stalwarts) said:” even after the last official registered communist disappears from the face of the earth, the spritual bequest of communism will continue to poison our grandchildren and great grandchildren after us; and who is to know if there won’t be a resurrection of such even in a claoked manner in future generations”

    Sadly enough we see even American society devolving into a society largely based on a “liberal/progressive” value system which emphasizes that any sort of “particularism”, “nationalism”,and “drawing distinctions between people” is abhorrent.
    There is no doubt that the roots of this lay in marxist thought and communist ideology.
    Unfortunately this has made its way into the American orthodox Jewish community as well – not just reform, reconstructionist and even the shrinking conservative movement. I have no doubt that in the very near future we will see – on the very pages of morethodoxy – outright attacks on zionism, Jewish particularness, the xenophobia of intermarriage and much more.

    Frankly, as you claim to be a talmid of Rav Shear Yashuv HaCohen I find youe approach to the supposed “harmlessness” of communism to be shocking. Maybe next time you are here in E”Y have him take you to some third and fourthe generation PKP, maki, and rakach stalwarts in Haifa and you can see how much damage they cause the Jewish people.

  16. anonymous says:

    An American communist assassinated an American President. It doesn’t really get much more dangerous than that. It is incredibly myopic to claim that American Communists were harmless so long as there wasn’t an imminent violent revolution. We are talking about people who (among other things) gave nuclear weapons to an evil empire, had a hand in allowing Eastern Europe to fall into slavery at Yalta, and murdered an American president. The notion that people involved in those incidents weren’t a very serious threat to America and the world is sheer fantasy. I have no doubt that some people either purposefully or accidentally went overboard in combating that very real threat, but it was a very real threat indeed.

    The notion that anti-communism led the way to Fascism is Europe is an overly simplistic reading of history. Communism and Facism share remarkable similarities. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100203076/so-total-is-the-lefts-cultural-ascendancy-that-we-dare-not-mention-the-socialist-roots-of-fascism/

    It is not a mere coincidence that the Soviets and the Nazis started out as allies. In fact the Facist leaders all began as communists and then veered off into heresy. We should note that Soviet Communism was also heretical in that it did not arise in a developed industrial country and was led by an avante guard rather than the people. In that sense both Soviet Communism and Facism are really heretical offshoots from the evil communist tree.

    Mussolini wrote for and edited socialist newspapers (including Avanti) and magazines and quoted Marx.

    I for one will gladly align with the real anti-communists who fought to preserve our way of life. it seems to me that the people who benefit the most from muddying the waters and pretending that everyone was equally dangerous are those who wish to uproot our way of life. I do think there is a metaphor or Open-Orthodox somewhere in there.

  17. Gititte says:

    Hi, I work for Kolech and I would like to know if I could publish this on our website this weekend- with credit to you and a link to this blog of course. Thank you! Gittitte

    • Rabbi David Wolkenfeld says:

      Shalom,
      I’m happy for you to publish this with a link. Please note, however, that this blog-post was published BEFORE the recent release of articles and teshuvot concerning Partnerhsip Minyanim and should not be understood as a reaction to them. I am waiting for my hard-copy of Tradition to arrive in the mail to read through the articles carefully before offering an opinion.

      Best wishes,
      David

  18. Brooklyn Refugee Sheygitz says:

    and as we were saying on the anti-marxist front…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us/a-conflict-of-faith-devoted-to-jewish-observance-but-at-odds-with-israel.html?_r=0

    Morethedoxy – espeically R. Avi Weiss (sr.) – needs to make a loud and clear statement that it’s support for feminism, gender equality, tzedek chevrati and other liberal values will NOT be at the expense of traditional particularist values and at the expense the Jewish people – the majority of whom reside in the State of Israel.
    If this doesn’t happen – and we see more and more Shmuly Yanklewitz’s jumping on every PC liberal fad or bandwagon in the name of “social justice” – then sadly, if only as a survival tactic, we will have to side with Rav Herschel Schachter on these issues – even if his position is extreme.
    I heard Rav Aron Soloveitchik’s views on these issues, and I’m sure that when push comes to shove he would have denounced the orthodox rabbis and intellectuals who take money from various anti-israel entities and then attack zionism.
    Will Rabbi Lopatin speak up about this at YCT or remain quiet?
    Will other rabbis?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: