HAS MODERN ORTHODOXY LOST THE PLOT?
by Rabbi David Lapin http://rabbilapin.com/
Orthodoxy by definition cannot be modern; only Torah can.
I feel sad that I write about Kiddush Hashem not from a place of joy but from a place of worry. For the idea of Kiddush Hashem runs the risk of being bastardized by a new trend amidst orthodoxy itself to reduce Torah to a set of ever evolving social ideas rather than preserving it as the Divine blueprint of reality that it really is.
Kiddush Hashem
In Torah, modernity is about repackaging the way we present ideas, not redefining ideas into something they were never meant to be. Many think the ideas of Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem are ideas defined by the social norms and whims of contemporary society and open to an evolving definition. Some go further and treat nearly all halachik ideas as archaic principles in states of constant evolution. I am not speaking of the reform or even the conservative movements. I am speaking of streams even within orthodoxy.
The idea of Kiddush Hashem is the very purpose of our existence. In everything we do we are here to amplify the majesty of Hashem’s glory and to make it real for humanity. If we allow intellectual contortionists to distort the idea of Kiddush Hashem into something it isn’t, then our nation is in grave danger of losing its way.
An influential Modern Orthodox rabbi attempted such an act of contortion in a blog he posted this week [http://www.jewishjournal.com/….] about the Clinton-Mezvinsky intermarriage. He suggested that amidst the Chillul Hashem of this public intermarriage, there are strains of Kiddush Hashem that should be salvaged and savored. “What the world saw is that a fully attired – proud? – Jew could get right to the top of American society… that there were Sheva Brachot, a chupa, a k’tuba and that tallis and kipa, for the world to see, doesn’t that put the wedding in the category of Kiddush Hashem as well?”
No it does not. But my concern here is not with Mezvinsky and his intermarriage to Chelsea Clinton. My concern is about something much more serious for the Jewish people. I am concerned that certain segments within modern orthodoxy are redefining halachik ideas in ways that more threaten the authenticity of our Torah than the reform or conservative movements ever did. Orthodox communities, even its lay members, never regarded the views of those movements as in any way authoritative. The conservative and reform movements rejected core tenets of Torah and were considered by the orthodox to be external to any authentic expression of Torah thought and halachik interpretation. However these segments of modern orthodoxy led by rabbis trained and ordained in orthodox schools, as attractive as they are in their intellectual and social openness, pose a serious threat to the authenticity of Halacha. This latest distortion of the idea of Kiddush Hashem, is one of the most powerful examples of the slippery slope we have already begun to slide down.
Relativism and objectivism in the definition of Kiddush Hashem
It is true that Kiddush Hashem entails a level of social relativity. But this is only in the degree of its seriousness, not in the definition of what constitutes it. If, for example, an act of Chillul Hashem is carried out by a person of great stature or in front of large crowds of people, that notches the severity of the Chillul Hashem up somewhat. The same applies to Kiddush Hashem. If Mezvinsky performed a Kiddush Hashem, then its public nature would have enhanced its importance. However, if his action is a Chillul Hashem, then its public nature intensifies the severity of its tragedy, for a tragedy it is. Performing a Chillul Hashem with a “tallis – a wool tallis!” in front of “American royalty…for the world to see” doesn’t turn it into a Kiddush Hashem, it makes it a much worse Chillul Hashem.
What is a Chillul Hashem and did Mezvinsky commit a Chillul Hashem by marrying a non-Jewish woman? There are several categories of Chillul Hashem, all objectively classified and clearly defined by the Rambam (Chapter 5 of Hilchos Yesodei Hatorah)and others. It ranges from public acts of murder, adultery and idolatry performed to undermine the Torah, through to “anyone who flagrantly transgresses any mitzvah of the Torah, with no one forcing him to do so, has committed an act of Chillul Hashem.” This is stated in so many words in the Torah itself: “And you shall keep my mitzvos and observe them, I am Hashem, and you will not perform a Chillul Hashem. In this way I will be sanctified (Kiddush Hashem) among the people of Israel.” (Vayikra 22:32-33). I am sanctified when you observe my mitzvos, it is a Chillul Hashem when you do not. Simple.
Everyone knows, Jew and gentile alike, that it is against the Torah to intermarry. Yet Mr. Mezvinsky did it flagrantly, publicly and “with pride.” The fact that non-Jews also know of this prohibition adds to the seriousness of the action. This was Chillul Hashem in one of the most serious ways. The Gemarah suggests that if one is utterly incapable of refraining from doing wrong, one should wear plain clothes, go to a place where one is anonymous, and do it the darkness, in shame and secrecy. Nowhere is there a suggestion that doing an aveirah publicly, with a tallis and a kippah, ameliorates it. On the contrary it makes it much worse.
Torah Authenticity
We have become so desensitized to right and wrong as defined by our Torah, that we now easily substitute its superlative standards of divine nobility with the cheap moral standards of the media. Political incorrectness has become to many a more serious transgression than Chillul Hashem. Even intermarriage has become “normal;” it is the disapproving comment about it that is criticized more than the act itself. Kiddush Hashem has become a tool for Jewish public relations instead of it being a very clearly and objectively defined tenet of the Torah. Any action of a Jew that the public applauds is considered Kiddush Hashem, any that the public disapproves of is thought of as Chillul Hashem.
Let’s not forget that the most basic Chillul Hashem is doing any aveirah, and the most basic Kiddush Hashem is doing any mitzvah or refraining from doing an aveirah, even when no one is looking. Once we are doing mitzvos, then the public image of the way we do them, the style with which we do them, and the reactions of others to them, become relevant. Public opinion is a gauge of style and sanity, but never one of morality. Positive public opinion is no substitute for the moral compass provided to us by halachah.
Torah modernity
Modern orthodoxy started as a valiant attempt to contemporize the application of Torah, not to adulterate the philosophy of the Torah and its core principles. Torah must be modern. It should lead the way in every modern debate and its adherents should be admired by every modern person who encounters them. But it is never necessary, or permissible, to adulterate the Torah to gain the admiration of others and then to falsely label that admiration as Kiddush Hashem. When humans admire what G-d laments, it is no Kiddush Hashem; and G-d laments intermarriage; G-d laments the performance of any aveirah by any Jew.
Labels do not change essence. A label with a hechsher on a pig does not render the pig kosher, it renders the hechsher false. Calling the flaunting of a publicly committed aveirah a Kiddush Hashem doesn’t make it one. When an individual attempts to align Torah norms to the norms of a warped society it does not make the Torah modern, it makes the individual corrupt. Modern Torah is an unadulterated Torah whose principles of philosophy and halachah are unchanged since Sinai. But it is a Torah that is expounded in a language that is intelligible to modern people, relevant and cool.
From here.