Is Open Orthodoxy a Separate Denomination? Will It Become One?

Once a loose term for those at the most liberal edge of American Orthodoxy, “Open Orthodoxy” has increasingly taken on the trappings of a movement, particularly since its leaders began training and ordaining female clergy. Zev Eleff seeks to draw lessons from two developments in the history of 20th-century American Judaism: the schism of Conservative Judaism from Orthodoxy, and the non-schism of Modern Orthodoxy from the rest of Orthodoxy:

In the post-World War II era, Conservative Judaism routinely looked to its Committee for Jewish Law and Standards [formed by rabbis of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in 1929] to justify and prescribe [what had become acceptable] Sabbath behavior (riding in automobiles), oblige a widely accepted solution to the agunah crisis [the problem of the “chained” wife unable to obtain a divorce from her husband], and defend [certain controversial] dietary practices (e.g., eating swordfish). Accordingly, it was the institutionalization of a particular brand of halakhah that finally separated the Conservative movement from its Orthodox [counterpart]. . . .

[In the 1960s], Norman Lamm, [a founding figure of Modern Orthodoxy], recognized a great value in religious labels and encouraged his colleagues and congregants to assume an unabashedly “Modern Orthodox” identity. What propelled him, [however], was not a need to establish a certain kind of Orthodox Judaism. Rather, Lamm wished to offer a suitable agenda for the thousands of university-trained Orthodox Jews in the suburbs and in high-end urban neighborhoods who could no longer relate to the Judaism of their parents or their older rabbis. . . . Yet Lamm made it clear that his intention was not to isolate this younger and more “modern” cohort from other Orthodox Jews. . . .

The best way to describe Rabbi Lamm’s creation is as a “sub-movement” within Orthodox Judaism. There were, of course, important distinctions between Modern Orthodox Judaism and the Orthodox right. . . . Still, the common ground was large enough for Modern Orthodox exponents to maintain strong bonds and coexist with the Orthodox right within the larger traditionalist camp. In large measure, unity was maintained because of Modern Orthodoxy’s reluctance to found a firm halakhic body unto itself.

As for Open Orthodoxy, writes Eleff, it has moved from the latter model toward the former, but only time will tell if a complete schism is in the offing.

Read more at Torah Musings

More about: American Jewry, Conservative Judaism, Jewish Theological Seminary, Modern Orthodoxy, Norman Lamm, Open Orthodoxy, Religion & Holidays

An American Withdrawal from Iraq Would Hand Another Victory to Iran

Since October 7, the powerful network of Iran-backed militias in Iraq have carried out 120 attacks on U.S. forces stationed in the country. In the previous year, there were dozens of such attacks. The recent escalation has led some in the U.S. to press for the withdrawal of these forces, whose stated purpose in the country is to stamp out the remnants of Islamic State and to prevent the group’s resurgence. William Roberts explains why doing so would be a mistake:

American withdrawal from Iraq would cement Iran’s influence and jeopardize our substantial investment into the stabilization of Iraq and the wider region, threatening U.S. national security. Critics of the U.S. military presence argue that [it] risks a regional escalation in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. However, in the long term, the U.S. military has provided critical assistance to Iraq’s security forces while preventing the escalation of other regional conflicts, such as clashes between Turkey and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq and Syria.

Ultimately, the only path forward to preserve a democratic, pluralistic, and sovereign Iraq is through engagement with the international community, especially the United States. Resisting Iran’s takeover will require the U.S. to draw international attention to the democratic backsliding in the country and to be present and engage continuously with Iraqi civil society in military and non-military matters. Surrendering Iraq to Iran’s agents would not only squander our substantial investment in Iraq’s stability; it would greatly increase Iran’s capability to threaten American interests in the Levant through its influence in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

Read more at Providence

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy