By Jack Warren
In the last edition of the YU Observer, editor-in-chief Shira Kramer wrote an editorial responding to halachically based attacks on articles in the paper. I’d like to respond with two remarks.
First, the editorial’s ambiguity undermines its purpose. While intended to address criticisms of the YU Observer by clarifying its stance on journalism and halacha, the editorial fails to explicate the nature of the original critiques, leaving the reader perplexed as to the specific arguments the piece is attempting to counter.
Additionally, the editorial doesn’t clarify the YU Observer’s relationship with halacha. First, it claims the YU Observer “is not a halachic paper,” yet it later emphasizes the paper’s rigorous consideration of lashon hara leto’elet (a contingency allowing for negative speech for a constructive purpose), ostensibly demonstrating the YU Observer’s halachic adherence. The editorial also states that the YU Observer’s “About” page “does discuss the Torah values … of ‘integrity, justice, and truth.’” This leaves the impression that while the YU Observer does not bind itself to the minutiae of halacha, they are at least committed to broad Torah values. In reality, however, the “About” page makes no mention of Torah or Judaism. The YU Observer’s commitment to integrity, justice and truth is not an outgrowth of its Torah values, but rather a fortunate happenstance. In this way, the YU Observer is just as Jewish as The Harvard Crimson.
The editorial also states that the relationship between journalism and Jewish values is “not black and white, but deeply textured.” It is true that the relationship between journalism and halacha is complex and nuanced. However, this is only after one has made halacha their modus operandi. Before that, it is, in fact, an absolute dichotomy: either you follow halacha, or you do not.
My second point concerns the editorial’s subtext — the ideas between the lines. Rather than a critique of the editorial’s exact words, I would like to address a broader frustration that was prompted by the piece. To be clear, I would not assert that the position I am critiquing is necessarily Kramer’s own; rather, I would like to address an ideological implication that her framing suggests.
The subtext of the editorial suggests that halacha and Jewish values — in particular those of Yeshiva University and Torah Umadda (Torah and Science) — function as two distinct yet intersecting ideals. When they coincide, the correct action is clear, but when there is a conflict, a calculation must be made. In other words, it maintains that there is a Jewish or YU ethic that is both independent of halachic observance and capable of overriding it: that one can embody the values of Yeshiva University while disregarding halachic observance at the same time.
I intend to make clear that the proposition extracted from this subtext — that Yeshiva University believes in the compromise of halachic observance in the name of broader Jewish values or Madda — is utterly baseless. To my knowledge, no figurehead of this institution has ever made such a claim. In fact, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein have stated the opposite.
In the Rav’s seminal work, Halakhic Man, he posits that Jewish values do not exist beyond the halacha; rather, a Jew’s Weltanschauung should be built entirely from the halacha. Consequently, for the Rav it is a logical impossibility for halachic observance to be compromised for the sake of broader Jewish values, as those values themselves are shaped by the halacha.
In Rav Lichtenstein’s essay “Does Judaism Recognize an Ethic Independent of Halacha?”, he writes regarding the integration of Judaism and natural morality: “I assume that, at most, we can only speak of a complement to Halakhah, not of an alternative. Any ethic so independent of Halakhah as to obviate or override it clearly lies beyond our pale.” That is, Rav Lichtenstein doesn’t believe any value system can compete with halachic observance.
These sources establish that Yeshiva University’s values are not independent of halacha, but built on top of it. It follows, then, that while individuals of all backgrounds may perceive an identification with Yeshiva University’s values, Yeshiva University does not and cannot identify with those who believe halacha is negotiable. In this respect, while anyone can say “I am YU,” reciprocity is not guaranteed.
Editor’s Note: This Letter to the Editor was written in response to an editorial in the April edition of the YU Observer titled “Where Journalism Meets Torah Values.”