Dilemmas of modern orthodoxy: sociological and philosophical

Judaism, Wntr, 1993 by Chaim I. Waxman

The whole topic of the State of Israel received the highest score on the traditionalism-modernism scale and, indeed, it turns out that, in this instance, YU undergraduates are considerably more modern than was Hildesheimer. For example, a specific area in which the respondents manifested a rather high level of modernism was in the manner in which they relate to the State of Israel. On this issue, traditionalists were defined as those for whom Israel has religious significance solely as Erez Yisrael, the Holy Land. The State of Israel, qua state, is a modern, essentially secular, political entity, and its only significance to the traditionalist as conceived herein lies in the fact that so many Jews live there. The modernist, on the other hand, ascribes religious significance to the State specifically as a political entity, and the modernist perceives the State of Israel as an inherent part of Messianic redemption. The vast majority of students reject -- 72.8 percent strongly and 15 percent mildly -- the traditionalist notion that the State of Israel has significance only because so many Jews live there. They view the State of Israel as having religious significance, and most (86.3%) agree either strongly or mildly that it is "part of Messianic redemption." By contrast, although Hildesheimer had a love of Zion which "sprang from deep religious roots, ... his commitments to Erez Yisrael should be regarded primarily as religious-philanthropic, not secular-nationalistic."(25) The Zionism of YU undergraduates, apparently, is not quite either of those. It is a moderate version of religious-nationalistic.

With respect to religious education for women, almost 80 percent believe that women may study Talmud, and 70.1 percent believe that "|w~omen should have the same opportunity to learn as men, both qualitatively and quantitatively." It should be noted that there was no significant difference in the responses of female and male students to this question.

Finally, it should be mentioned, although this subject was not part of the survey, that Yeshiva University is closer to Hildesheimer than to Hirsch in that it has a school of higher Jewish studies, and many students in the theological seminary take courses in that school, as well.

Despite all this, there are a number of reasons why Hirsch, rather than Hildesheimer, should be portrayed as the model for Modern Orthodoxy. Of primary significance, of course, was Hirsch's overtly favorable approach to modern culture. In addition, although Hildesheimer did establish a modern rabbinical seminary which included a number of outstanding faculty members, such as David Zvi Hoffmann, he did not establish a community or a following as did Hirsch. His contributions, therefore, were more amorphous. One cannot point to a specific, organized community or even institution that views itself as the direct transmitter of Hildesheimer's teachings, in the way that one can point to specific Hirschian communities.

There are, undoubtedly, several factors, both individual and sociological, which account for this critical difference between the two. On the individual level, Hirsch had a strong presence; he was a master in the professional presentation of self. As Mordechai Breuer suggests, "Hirsch was the ideologue of Modern Orthodoxy -- he was a great speaker and a sharp writer."(26) He was also a thinker, a philosopher, in contrast to Hildesheimer, who was a posek, a decisor of halakhah, and a pragmatic man of action.(27)