Censorship in the Modern Orthodox World

A little studied but all-too-real phenomenon

Disclaimer- When we talk about “Modern Orthodoxy”, it is almost always in reference to the liberal, secularist version, for example, that of Ohr Torah Stone, Tzohar, or Rationalist Judaism. There are some very Torahdike Dati or so-called Modern Orthodox individuals and communities that our criticism doesn’t apply to, and which אדרבה, serve as a shining example for all of us. This is a distinction we generally try to make very clear.

Conventional thinking is that chareidim are insular and closed off to new ideas, whereas the Modern Orthodox are far more intellectually open. This goes hand in hand with the notion that chareidim engage in censorship, while the Modern Orthodox allow the reading and dissemination of any literature (which for the liberal strains of Modern Orthodoxy, can extend even to pornography). Secularist polemicist Marc Shapiro has extensively documented the phenomenon of censorship in the chareidi world, in many articles and his book "Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History". This includes the banning of the books of anti-religious demagogue Natan Slifkin, the omission of female images from popular frum publications¹ (this really gets them hot under the collar) , and the whitewashing of many aspects of our history, historical figures, opinions, and literature that are at odds with contemporary chareidi values. With all this scholarship about and criticism of chareidi censorship, you would think these Modern Orthodox heroes are veritable crusaders of freedom, rebelling against the evil empire, speaking truth to power (and who is more powerful than the Hareidi Censorship Commitee?) You will soon see that this interpretation is very, very far from the reality.

The truth is that all societies engage in censorship to some degree or other regarding that which they are really concerned about. What is censorship other than suppression of information? And this includes any such suppression, whether for legitimate or illegitimate reasons. Therefore, the entire idea of military secrets and national security is censorship, albeit for valid reasons. When the State of Israel tried to conceal its nuclear program, when it hunted down and and imprisoned Mordechai Vanunu, that was censorship, for a valid reason. When it tried to hide the massacre of Deir Yassin, or the disappearance of Yemenite children, that was censorship- I will let you decide if that was for a valid reason or not. Modern liberal society engages in extensive, pervasive censorship of anything deemed “racist”, “sexist”, or “homophobia”, for example, you will never find the New York Times discussing black crime rates, unless they can find some way to pin it on white supremacy. All of this is perfectly understandable. When you have something that you value highly, your natural impulse is to protect it. The concept of “free speech” is pretty much an illusion. Free flow of information is actually on a very low rung of the human value totem pole.

This dynamic explains chareidi “censorship” very well. A proper Torah society has particular ideas of good and evil, sacred and sacrilegious, tznius and pritzus, emunah and kefira. These are values that they consider as important to protect as any national security, and therefore, they attempt to eliminate immoral or atheistic influences in their lives, and particularly in the lives of impressionable children. One of the defining properties of chareidism (indeed, the Torah itself) is separation from the sacrilegious, promiscuous, heretical secular society. Most of the criticism of chareidi “censorship” carries the implication that these Torah ideals are worthless, that the proper approach is complete openness to secular society and values, that heresy is either innocuous or even a good thing for the sake of “open-mindedness” (ר”ל), and that therefore there is no legitimate reason to protect the community with suppression of information. 

Open-mindedness or apathy and indifference?

On the flipside, the reason why many portions of Modern Orthodoxy engage in relatively less censorship is obvious, and has nothing to do with intellectual honesty or love for historical truth. The fact is that many of them (specifically the left-leaning ones as I mentioned in the disclamer) simply don't care. For them, there are very few sacred values anymore. The TVs prominently displayed in the center of their homes blasts the promiscuous secular media to themselves and their children 24/6 (and unfortunately in many cases, 24/7). They have no boundaries of tznius, many send their children to coed schools, something their “rabbis” try to propose absurd halachic justifications for. Their publications are full of prominently placed images of extremely immodestly dressed women, a reflection of the way their wives and daughters dress. They have no internet filtration. They are open to any and all ideas about the Torah, including Biblical Criticism, denial of the Torah sheBaal Peh, and widespread public legitimization of homosexuality. In general, their values are substantially identical to modern western liberalism, with the addition of these faith-based cultural ceremonies that they don't consider binding or even particularly important. Therefore, the fact that secularist Modern Orthodoxy engages in little censorship is not to its credit, is not due to its honesty vis a vis chareidim, is not due to its love of history, but is rather a reflection of the fact that religion matters very little to the lives of its practitioners, and there is basically nothing they consider problematic or offensive enough to suppress. 

However, despite their nearly complete indifference to religious matters, secularist Modern Orthodoxy has placed itself in the peculiar position of nevertheless claiming the mantle of Judaism. The main reason these people need to claim that mantle, under false pretenses, is to give themselves a moral mandate to the Land of Israel over the close to a million people that they kicked out and whose land they took (which according to the Torah, if they actually held of it, would have been totally justified) and who never really went away. There are also probably some sentimental feelings that force them to retain a degree of cultural Judaism and doesn’t allow them to completely discard everything, similar to the Reform movement. This explains the otherwise perplexing attempts of some secularist Modern Orthodox individuals or institutions to “demonstrate” that their approach is as faithful to the Torah or moreso than chareidi Judaism, a suggestion that is otherwise as laughable as maintaining that a plastic manequin is more authentic than a live human being.

One thing that makes these people very angry is when somebody else reveals the duplicity, deception, or sheer absurdity of their movement. When somebody shows clearly how they do not represent Judaism. This is something they cannot endure even one bit. They are willing to tolerate insults and accusations of heresy (which they actually view as a badge of honor), but cannot stand substantive refutations of their position, or insightful questions about their status as a Jewish movement, which they will attempt to silence by all means.

Thus, when Rabbi Avraham Gordimer embarked on a multi-year campaign demonstrating how Open Orthodoxy deviates from Torah Judaism in many areas, the spokesperson of Open Orthodoxy threatened to sue him for misrepresentation.

From: Ysoscher
To: talkback
CC: Sharon Flatto, Rabbi Asher Lopatin, Rabbi Dov Linzer, Steven Lieberman
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 2:57 PM
Subject: AG

Dear editor,

On the advice of my legal counsel I wanted to put you on notice that I will pursue every legal venue available if you continue to publish Avrohom Gordimer’s libelous and unfounded accusations against me.

In his recent essay he accused me of wanting to “completely revamp” the suddur when I explicitly said in the referenced essay that I’m merely suggesting to use art work to compliment and enhance our prayer experience.

I also know that he is peddling a new essay in which he again distorts my words and accuses me of blasphemy. (I say that we should “debate” the parameters of our theology, while he claims that I “suggest” we change it.)

It’s about time I stand up for my reputation and kavod of my family. I will pursue any legal venue against your website and those of you who are behind it. That’s what I owe my wife, kids, family, students and community.

Shabbat shalom and Shana tova,
Ysoscher Katz

Rabbi Ysoscher Katz
Chair, Department of Talmud,
Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School; Director of the Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies; Educational Director of Judaic Studies, Luria Academy, Brooklyn, NY.; Rabbi, Prospect Heights Shul.

From: Rabbi Asher Lopatin
To: Rabbi Ysoscher Katz
CC: talkback, Sharon Flatto, Rabbi Dov Linzer, Steven Lieberman
Date: Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: AG

We at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah stand behind Rav Ysoscher Katz whom we respect and admire deeply. Any attack on him is an attack on all of us.

Rabbi Asher Lopatin

Of course, Rabbi Gordimer easily brushed off that vain threat like a fly on piece of cheddar at a Sunday picnic:

Dear Reb Ysoscher,

While only a few of the Cross-Currents writers have discussed Open Orthodoxy, we all share a Jewish tradition of open debate, argument, and even refutation. We previously believed that you do as well, and thus your communication to us comes as a disappointment.

The Talmud does not hesitate to say tiyuvta d’Rava tiyuvta — the opinion of Rava is conclusively disproven. Even a sage at the level of Rava suffered the rejection of his ideas after critical examination; that is how it is supposed to be. Those who express an opinion in Jewish thought (and, indeed, in the secular world as well) enjoy no protection from being told — correctly or otherwise — that they are wrong.

None of us believe personal attacks are appropriate. Despite your assertion that you were attacked personally, in none of your chosen examples were you even quoted by name. It is the ideology of Open Orthodoxy and YCT, as expressed in your articles and those of your colleagues, that we, among many others, have criticized.

In regard to your claim that AG distorted your intent about revising the siddur, here is what you wrote: “Tefilot have a very short shelf life. After a while they become outdated, losing their power to inspire… Revamping the entire liturgy is a rather ambitious project which could eventually happen but for now one needs to start small, doing it incrementally and let it expand with time.” Readers may decide if Rabbi Gordimer was faithful to your words’ intent, or not.

Given that the Chairman of your Board of Directors is a well-qualified attorney (to whom you cc’d your letter), it is certain that you were already informed that a libel suit would require proof of deliberate slander, and that you would not find that on our website. Thus your letter seems intended simply to protect your opinions and articles from criticism.

But in that, your letter is contradicted by your opinion as expressed elsewhere. We are unsure how to square your message to us with a Facebook post that you published within 48 hours after you sent the letter. There you wrote — commendably so — that you favor open debate and hope that Rabbi Gordimer in particular continues to write. But if you honestly appreciate the discussion, why would you send this letter? It seems inconsistent to us.

We also fear that this unusual behavior is not particularly new. Members of the YCT administration and their supporters have previously asked important acquaintances of Cross-Currents contributors to use their influence in order to mute criticism of the YCT claim to Orthodox legitimacy. This happened while those same individuals were writing publicly that they cherished the public debate! You, Reb Ysoscher, are merely the first to put both antipodal sides in writing.

This is what overrode any initial reluctance to publish your letter. Any individual, especially feeling beleaguered, can react rashly and irrationally. But when the President of YCT stood behind your words and your threat, and after a history of trying to silence Cross-Currents writers, this appears to be a pattern important enough to share with the public.

What we observe is an “Open Orthodoxy” trying to avoid a pushback that it certainly could and should have expected. It is attempting to make its changes a fait accompli within the greater world of Orthodoxy before meeting compelling rejection from within both Modern Orthodoxy and the charedi community. Open Orthodoxy is trying to obstruct open debate of its philosophy and goals, and is even trying to hide that it is doing so.

Open Orthodoxy has not merely misled the public about being Orthodox — it has dissembled about being open, as well.

That seems compellingly germane to the ongoing discussion of the Open Orthodox agenda.

Yours Sincerely,

The Editors and Writers of Cross-Currents

Needless to say, this entire exchange completely belies the claim that secularist Modern Orthodoxy is somehow more open in principle or intellectually honest than its traditionalist opponents. When they feel threatened, they will do whatever it takes to silence their critics.

Something similar happened a week and a half ago when I was banned from Rationalist Judaism. I left the comment

Apparently, as we see from the example of yourself, using your real name is no guarantee of being held accountable!

You can get away with spewing nonsense all day long, like "Relationship with Hashem is just fluffy spirituality" or "Torah doesn't practically protect because there are attacks on shuls" or "Tosafos thought centipedes had asymmetric legs because Aristotle though men have more teeth", and none of your cronies hold you accountable!

to which Natan responded

Ok. That's it. I don't care if you insult me, but I've had enough of you distorting what I say, and not even putting your name to it. Banned.

(See my apology). Of course, anybody who clicks the links can judge for themselves and see that what I mentioned are not distortions at all. Now, he has every right to ban me from his site if he doesn’t like me, and this wouldn’t be censorship. But the problem is, he said explicitly that this was not the reason, but rather, it is an obvious attempt to cover up criticism of his movement. Despite all the secularist’s blather about openness or intellectual honesty, there is no place for any of that the second somebody brings in substantive arguments (see also the comments here, where I was banned previously, almost a year ago). Insults they can take, real criticism they can’t.

A shame.

A real shame.

Tsk, tsk.

Bonus Tanach questions

1. Which phrase from Tehillim appears more than five times elsewhere in Tanach?

2. Which phrase appears once in Iyov and twice in Mishlei?

1. Before you ask me, no, I don’t agree with a blanket policy of omitting women’s images from publications. But here’s the justification of those that do: If you allow female images, you will have to start discriminating among them, deciding which are not tznius enough or too provocative. You will have to do lots and lots of specific censorship, which lots and lots of people will complain about and cry “discrimination”. Advertisers will continually test and push the limits. And anti-frum publications and people like the Forward and Marc Shapiro will have a field day writing about the terrible discrimination and censorship in the hareidi magazines, just like they do now.