Is Open Orthodoxy really heretical? As painful as it is for me to say so, I’m afraid that Rabbi Yaakov Perlow’s remarks at yesterday’s Agudah convention along those lines may be correct. It is painful because a friend now heads Yeshiva Chovevei Torah (YCT) that espouses Open Orthodoxy. And there is much to admire about their practical approach to educating people for the rabbinate.
Let me first make clear that in no way do I consider YCT head, Rabbi Asher Lopatin to be a heretic. But his movement allows heresy into its midst. One of its premiere graduates, Rabbi Zev Farber seems to buy into biblical criticism and has thereby bought into the idea that it is very likely that none of what is recorded in the Bible prior to the Book of Samuel – actually happened.
This is Apikurus (heresy). No different than that of the Conservative Movement. To say that our forefathers never existed, that the Exodus as recorded never happened nor was there any direct revelation at Sinai is a violation the Maimonidean 13 Principles of Faith.
Not that I am all that thrilled with the heavy influence feminism has on Open Orthodoxy. Nor am I a fan of interdenominational cooperation that they promote – which violates even Rav Soloveitchk’s lenient rulings.
But as bad as those things are, I never considered that they were anything but Orthodox since they do not in any way promote violation of Halacha. But that is not enough in light of what Rabbi Farber has said. When a movement tolerates Apikurus, it can no longer call itself Orthodox – even if that is part of their name.
If not for the heresy I don’t think that Orthodoxy would have had such a problem with the Conservative movement, especially those on the Conservative religious right. Many Conservative rabbis are observant… and they promote Halacha as binding. They even regret some of the lenient rulings made in the past – like allowing driving on Shabbos. So I’m not sure there would have been such a break with them. Much like there wasn’t with the Traditional Movement who also crossed some serious lines. We might have accepted the Conservative Movement as being no worse than the Traditional Movement – as long as they didn’t allow Apikursus to invade their theology. But they did. And that was a major break that Traditional Judaism did not make.
Open Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has done what the Conservative Movement has done, by their inclusion of a rabbi who espouses it. So that even though they do not violate the sins of the Traditional Movement (No Mechitza and microphones on Shabbos) they have done much worse by tolerating heresy within their midst no different than the Conservative Movement.
So yes, it pains me to say it, but unless they completely reject Rabbi Farber, they must be placed outside the camp. I know this will make many of my friends on my left angry with me. But this is Emes the way I see it.
Judaism is not only about doing the Mitzvos… although that is obviously a big part of it. It is also a belief system. Doing all of the Mitzvos while being an Atheist for example does not make you Orthodox no matter how careful you are about doing them. Ritual actions like keeping Kosher would be meaningless without the belief that there is a God that required them of you.
By the same token if there was no Sinai, the Mitzvos recorded in the Torah are just someone’s fantasy – right along with the story of how they were given. Saying that the Torah narrative may not be literal but divinely inspired is similar nonsense in my view. Why make up stories? Just list the rituals. Why tell fantastic stories about crossing the Red Sea and other miracles that defy nature? What purpose does it serve other than to make skeptics out of us?!