These factors do not lessen our obligation to be obedient. They should be taken into account by those who are ready to lead us via the route of prohibitions. It wasn’t always this way, certainly not in this country in the post-Holocaust years of decisive Orthodox development. The great rosh yeshiva of Lakewood came here in 1941 and he passed away twenty-one years later. He was the unquestioned leader of the Torah world, a man of towering intellect and achievement, of great humility and determination. He was a strong, fearless and passionate leader in a period when we were blessed in this country with Torah leaders of unchallenged eminence. In the yeshiva world alone we had Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yitzchak Hutner, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, Rav Yaakov Ruderman and other Torah leaders of true stature.
In this formative period of American Orthodoxy, we were led by teaching and by example, by outstanding rabbis inspiring us by how they lived their lives and by teaching us that abiding by Torah standards is life-giving. We did not have a string of prohibitions – although there was certainly much that was deserving of prohibition – nor were we treated to a parade of heated statements signed by yeshiva deans and rabbis.
There were, to be sure, issues that by today’s standards could have generated bans. There were books whose contents were questionable and there were practices that were questionable. This was the period when modernity was bursting out all over with its toxic impact on the general society and on too many Jews; when popular culture began its long and continuing descent into putridness. My recollection may be faulty, yet I cannot think of a single statement emanating from the yeshiva world condemning television, although Torah leaders without exception clearly disapproved of it.
They saved their main fire, as it were, for great issues, as when under the firm guidance of the great rosh yeshiva they issued their historic prohibition against membership in rabbinical and congregational organizations together with the Conservative and the Reform. Although some Modern Orthodox did not immediately follow the ban, within the yeshiva world there was total acceptance and ultimately the teaching that was conveyed to us had full effect, for the Synagogue Council is no more.
Another historic example arose in 1953 when the entire haredi or fervently Orthodox world – a small fraction in numbers compared to today – united in a great demonstration outside of the Israeli Consulate in New York to protest against the draft of young women into the Israeli army. This was an epic event, the one pristine illustration in my lifetime of na-aseh v’nishmah.
There were significant issues – for example, coeducation in our high schools – where our Torah leaders discouraged practices they regarded as antithetical to Torah standards, yet they did so without resorting to public statements denouncing such practices. They recognized that there were many parents striving to grow in Yiddishkeit whose children were attending coeducational high schools and that it would be far more effective to lead by teaching. The fruit of this example is evident in many of our homes and many of our schools.
The present period presents a contrast. If a book offends, it and its author must be denounced, at times in language that is shockingly unrestrained. It apparently is not sufficient to say that the author is in error, that what he has written is inappropriate. In the current issue of how to draw blood during a bris, it is not sufficient to say that our tradition is metzitza b’peh and this is the strongly preferred procedure. Rather, an alternative method that has been used in thousands of brisim among the very Orthodox – one reliable estimate is half of all brisim in the yeshiva world – must be attacked in the harshest language, this despite the preference by some eminent Torah authorities for the alternate method and despite legitimate medical questions about drawing blood directly with the mouth.
