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.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.