Truth And Consequences
Rabbi Shalom Carmy
I
The premise of Noah Feldman’s article is that being an alumnus obligates your school to be supportive of everything you do. Based on this logic Democratic conventions from 1968 on should have featured celebrations of Ronald Reagan’s political achievements, a prominent Democrat for 20 years who had made good. Likewise Republicans should now be honoring Hillary Clinton, a dedicated Goldwater Girl until she switched orientations in college. These personalities have even greater right to recognition than Feldman due to their records as thoughtful and enthusiastic advocates of their early loyalties.
Feldman incredibly insists that he has, after all, tried to live up to school ideals in his own fashion, presumably meaning that the school cultivated the intellectual sharpness that has made him an acute and resourceful lawyer. By that token, Reagan and every other bright person owe something to their first training. They would not, in return, expect those whose way they renounce to happily publicize a failure to inculcate principles considered, rightly or wrongly, more essential than professional success and personal renown.
There is a danger in bringing out the premise of Feldman’s article. His outlook is not his alone. Freudians speak of “His Majesty the Baby” who expects the world to revolve around his whims and offer him unconditional approval. Many contemporary liberals exemplify “His Majesty the Adolescent,” offended when the grown-ups have the temerity to disagree with his views and choices. They may resonate to the mantra that a school must, above all, affirm the choices of its graduates. In particular, while they may concede that a person who has rejected his earlier political convictions cannot expect the endorsement of those he now opposes, they maintain that this does not apply to religion, which is supposed to be warm and fuzzy and intellectually vacuous. Down the line parents of prospective students, who have not fully considered what a yeshiva education entails, whose religious commitments are lukewarm and who respect the best yeshiva day schools as Jewish prep schools, may think twice if they realize that the social advantages through life of having gone to the “right” school may not be assured.
We should not minimize the real sadness, like a little death, of a person who, through accident of parental decision or his own half-formed commitments, identifies for many years with a way of life or with a group of people, and then must distance himself from them for the rest of his life: “where strangers would have shut the many doors, that many friends had opened long ago.” John Henry Newman’s life was intimately intertwined with that of Oxford for a quarter of a century, like the ivy he describes in an unforgettable passage in his Apologia. Yet his wish to dwell there all his days was denied. Abandoning the attractions of Oxford for the indignities of the Roman Catholic priesthood, its gates were shut to him, and when he penned his autobiography 25 years later, the spires of Oxford were visible to him only from afar. The tragedy and the grandeur of Newman’s life is that our decisions carry a cost. Such are the sacrifices we make in the pursuit of truth.
II
In settling his scores with his alma mater, Feldman ascribes to his high school rebbi the claim that a doctor who treats a Gentile on Shabbat violates the day unless his explicit intention is to do so only in order to avoid animus. Though this sounds like nonsense, I am informed that a high school teacher actually said it.
The insinuation that religious Jewish doctors cannot be entrusted with the care of non-Jewish patients was, as we all know, part of the arsenal of 19th century European anti-Semitism. It was not meant in earnest: as an Orthodox deputy once remarked, during a debate on the licensing of physicians in the Austrian Parliament, several of the most outspoken leaders of the anti-Semitic party used Jewish doctors.
An honest understanding of the Halakha about saving a Gentile on Shabbat is grounded in the fact that not all mitsvot can be violated to save life. Idolatry, sexual offenses and murder may not be allowed even to save life, however this flies in the face of our utilitarian mentality. Shabbat has much in common with the so-called “big three.” [Note R. Shimon’s view in Yerushalmi that a bystander may intervene to prevent Shabbat violation even at the cost of the transgressor’s life.] For Jews Shabbat may be violated to save life, but only on the basis of a special limmud (inference)—“desecrate one Shabbat so that he may observe many Shabbatot.” Where this principle does not apply, Shabbat is inviolable.
Where people understand that religion may on occasion make life and death demands, the law that Shabbat is so important that it is overridden only for those who are members of the community that observes it is difficult but not scandalous. In our culture this understanding is lacking; thus the failure to treat Jews and Gentiles identically will be interpreted as indifference to the fate of the non-Jew, and will be perceived as tantamount to connivance in his death. It will provoke hatred, and understandably so. In this case, the theoretical gulf separating secularists from halakhists is not universalism vs. particularism but the recognition that Shabbat is, in principle, worth the sacrifice. It is common to stress that Judaism, compared, let us say, with Hinduism, affirms the value of human life and eschews such sacrifices. That the value of human life is overridden only in exceptional circumstances is a significant element in generalizing about Jewish ethics. But an almost absolute principle is not the same as an absolute one. [See on this my “Flowing Upstream: Reflections on Reading Gandhi at Yeshiva” in Torah uMadda Journal 10.]
In any event Feldman presumably knows very well that his high school teacher’s remark is not representative of grown-up halakhic thought, and he knows even better that it is not a guide to the practice of Orthodox Jewish doctors. Nonetheless, in his desire to satisfy himself against those who failed to properly esteem his choices and flatter his vanity, he has resorted to one of the most potent weapons of 19th-20th century anti-Semitism. He has made it easier for individuals or groups in medical schools to sideline or bar Orthodox Jews, in the name of high-sounding universalistic moral ideals, from positions in the medical profession. Whether he intends these consequences or not, and whether or not he envisions, in his wise shrewdness and genteel outrage, further punitive consequences to his classmates and their children, he has employed his power and prestige to those ends. He, and we, must live with the consequences of his decision.
Not only Feldman’s actions have consequences. There are rabbis and teachers, who sometimes feel that they must show their cleverness at any cost. At times it seems that the less they have to contribute, the more they wish to stand out. Like precocious children impressing the adults, they vie for the attention of their students with forced displays of cleverness and provocation. The point is to come up with something that nobody else would think of saying and to say something shocking and memorable. Surely the teacher whom Feldman quotes succeeded eminently in this game of pedagogical one-upmanship. He, and we, will have to live with the consequences of his judgment.
Menachem Mendel » Blog Archive » Not So Quickly…:
[…] NY Times, so I am going to respond to one of his responders. Jeff Woolf at My Obiter Dicta brings a response by R. Shalom Carmy regarding one of Feldman’s comments, that of violating the Shabbat in […]
29 July 2007, 5:32 pmSago Boulevard :: Responding to Noah Feldman :: July :: 2007:
[…] of Feldman’s rhetorical sleight of hand, Gil Student’s post, Rabbi Carmy’s article in Kol Hamevaser, and Gary Rosenblatt’s editorial in the Jewish […]
30 July 2007, 12:13 pmJoseph Kaplan:
R. Carmy writes: “religion may on occasion make life and death demands” and “but the recognition that Shabbat is, in principle, worth the sacrifice.”
The problem that I see in this argument is that the sacrifice is not being made by the person who is bound by the religion’s demands. We all understand that a Jew must give his/her life for the Big 3. But that is very different from saying that a non-Jew must give his/her life for Shabbat when a Jew does not. I, for one, have difficulty with that argument.
30 July 2007, 1:30 pmDavid:
“Where people understand that religion may on occasion make life and death demands, the law that Shabbat is so important that it is overridden only for those who are members of the community that observes it is difficult but not scandalous.”
Religion cannot legitimately make life and death demands of persons other than its adherents. It is beyond “scandalous” to adhere to a rule that demands that someone else pay with his life for your beliefs. The group most noted for that sort of belief right now is Islamic fundamentalists. How awful that we, as Jews, should in any way partake of such a thing. A human life is a human life, and, regardless of what sort of makhlokes one can dig up in the Talmud, nobody should die to ensure someone else a day of perfect rest.
30 July 2007, 3:42 pmNachum:
David, you’re making up all sorts of definitions to suit your point. No one is dying “to ensure someone else a day of perfect rest,” they are dying (theoretically, since no one actually dies) because of Shabbat, which is more than just “rest.” Ditto for your claim about “other people keeping the law.” The Jew is, the (non-existent victim) is not. Again, this goes to Joseph’s point as well.
30 July 2007, 4:29 pmMichael Klein:
We are not asking a non-Jew to die for our beliefs, but rather the question is if we have permission to violate Shabbos to save the life of a non-Jew. In the overwhelming number of cases, the non-Jew will not be dying because of anything we did, and we will have no intention of preventing anyone from saving the non-Jew.
My own position is, and it is freely open to criticism, is that I would not hesitate to violate an issur d’rabanan or a shvus to save the life of a goy (and that include amira l’akum). As for a melacha d’oraisa, I would hesitate, as the gemara says explicitly that digging a goy out from under a fallen pile of stones is assur on Shabbos. As I understand it, if by not intervening one will cause animosity, then the melacha becomes mutar as a melacha sh’eina tzricha l’gufa, which we poskin is only assur midrabanan.
I pray to Hashem that I never be put in a situation where a goy is put in danger in front of me on Shabbos and halacha would not allow me to intervene, as this would be a very difficult nisayon for me, and I’m not at all sure I could pass it.
30 July 2007, 11:09 pmtzvee:
Not fair to Feldman and not necessary IMHO to exaggerate his whining. He does alright on his own. He doesn’t ask for accolades, just recognition. There is a big difference. Nor is it needed to call him a baby or an adolescent. Egotism is a recognized adult trait and one we respect in our culture. No. There is no fair comparison here of Feldman to John Henry Newman. You’ve caused JHN to turn over in his grave at the slight. And not cricket impugning the poor shmo with the label of antisemitism because he rehearsed a teacher’s legitimate Talmudic monologue. Oh my, methinks you have poured it on too thickly. It makes for a weak counter to overstate matters so. Let the ragamuffin self-implode. We reserve a special place in American cultural hell for those who violate the uniform code of politeness towards the religion of the other. Let him roast.
30 July 2007, 11:59 pmYudelLine:
Shalom, Carmy: A Confrontation
31 July 2007, 5:19 amBen Bayit:
Feldman equates the Rabin killing and the Baruch Godlstein incident with the anti-semitic cannard of Jewish doctors not treating gentiles. They are bascially just updated versions of the same type of anti-semitism. How ironic is it that Rabbi Carmy himself - as well as his teachers - also did not hesitate to use these incidents in order to take swipes and potshots as certain elements of national religious orthodoxy.
31 July 2007, 8:39 amWhat’s good for the goose is good for the gander and the cat will always get out of the bag, I say.
Perhaps they need to study the last paragraph of the above essay until they are sore of it.
Meir Shinnar:
The issue of saving non Jewish lives on shabbat has two different aspects the practical and theoretical. While, on the practical level, the halachic decision of most poskim is to allow, the theoretical issue is quite different. I am surprised that Rav Carmy didn’t cite the position of his teacher, rav soloveichik zt”l, (who was also the leader of noah feldman’s school), as documented by Gerald Blidstein, that the traditional position does (and should) cause us moral discomfort. The theoretical decision should be based on the view that the traditional view was based on living in a society of immoral idolators - and does not apply to today’s gentiles.
31 July 2007, 9:26 amReb Yudel:
First, welcome back Hamevaser! As one of those responsible for the mid-’80s Hamevaser editorial turn toward “Jewish thought and ideas,” I’m delighted to see the resurrection of an old friend: Baruch mechayeh metim! With the nomination this month of my former Hamevaer editor Shalom Stone to the federal court of appeals, this is indeed a propitious time for Hamevaser.
And how appropriate to inaugurate a renewed Hamevasaer with this essay from Rav Carmy.
However, it seems that many of those in the blogosphere have missed the etzem of his subtle argument, which I explain at length in my blog posting track-backed above. I welcome the response of the Hamevaser community.
31 July 2007, 3:55 pmJeff Strashun:
I have spent far to much time this past week reading the thoughts of some of the best thinkers of our generation debating the virtues of Noah Feldman.But everyone seems to be missing the real issue: what caused Feldman to, for lack of a more p.c. term, TRASH his Torah values, TRASH his yeshiva education, and in short, TRASH Am Yisroel. When I attended YC in the mid 70’s, nary a student would be seen walking on campus without a yarmulke. Eating a treif snack in public was also invisible. Yet, today, as YU expands to bring back more of our lost souls, we cannot deny that these sightings are getting more frequemt, albeit a minority. We may not be able to solve the intermarriage dilemma in a few e-mails but perhaps we should focus our discussion more on why those who were fortunate to enjoy a Torah education in thier youth to now flaunt it and reveal an amazing disrespect to our Gedolim as these youth mature and gain so called secular wisdom. To refer to Rav Mose several timesin the article as simply “Feinstein” is beyond adjectives.How dare he define the debate for us!How dare he tell us how to live a torah based life and interpet halacha for us!Unlike Shmuly Boteach’s generous comments, I do not see Feldman as a Prince but rather as a Pauper. He had it all and he threw it away. Sad to say, he is lost forever. So let us start our quest to save those who can be saved rather than throw a hole filled lifejacket to a sinking man.
31 July 2007, 6:26 pmNachum Lamm:
“Perhaps they need to study the last paragraph of the above essay until they are sore of it.”
Come, come, Ben Bayit. It’s always *other* people that need correcting.
31 July 2007, 7:09 pmBen Bayit:
Nahum - I don’t envision myself as a baal mussar or as a maggid. But if you haven’t realized by now, in addition to exposing communism, one of my favorites pastimes is exposing hypocrisy - irrespective of the practitioner. I am very familiar with the fact that
1 August 2007, 4:51 am“There are rabbis and teachers, who sometimes feel that they must show their cleverness at any cost. At times it seems that the less they have to contribute, the more they wish to stand out. Like precocious children impressing the adults, they vie for the attention of their students with forced displays of cleverness and provocation. The point is to come up with something that nobody else would think of saying and to say something shocking and memorable.”
and to the degree it is practiced by members of - what was referred to above as - “the Hamevaser community”. and that even Rabbi Carmy himself might just be guilty of this on occassion - even if only a teeny tiny eensy weensy bit. intimately familiar.
Nachum:
Ben Bayit, I’m agreeing with you. I’m only pointing out that with all due respect, people calling for “introspection” is more often than not thinking only of others, not of themselves. This is especially true when criticizing us right-wing fanatics. “We Orthodox have to examine ourselves” is very often code for “Those fanatics should disappear.”
1 August 2007, 10:55 amChaim:
Feldman did not mention the countless number of Jewish doctors, some orthodox, who use their skills to save the lives of arab terrorists even on Shabbat if they survive a suicide bombing or military attack. No, he picks a theoretical heuristic part of the Talmud, out of context, to defame orthodoxy and satisfy his hurt from being rejected.
We can expect his comments on the failure of the Iraqi delegates to write a proper constitution because the Malaki government did not give him proper respect and recognition since he offered to assist the new government to write a constitution, as if the Iraqi people are waiting to accept the advice of an American Jew who studied Arabic at Oxford.
Rabbi Carmy said it well; “His Majesty the Baby.” A smart student, he turned to the dark side and closed the gates behind him thinking that his alma mater would overlook his tresspasses and extoll his intellectual accomplishments. Let us consign him to the compost collection of apikorsim and come to the recognition that his PhD interfered with his education.
1 August 2007, 4:10 pmBen Bayit:
Let’s all be honest for a second. Had Feldman not attended Harvard, but rather had chosen to attend Har Etzion for a year and then changed his registration, he would have gone to YU, entered Rabbi Michael Rosensweig’s shiur, signed up for all the requisite intellectual classes with Shalom Carmy, Will Lee, Moshe Bernstein, Mordy Cohen, Louis Feldman et. al, been editor at Hamevaser, been editor of the SOY Tanach journal, received a Wexner fellowship and been feted as the next coming of I don’t know what. But guess what folks - he still might have ended up marrying the shiksa in Yale. None of that would have changed.
2 August 2007, 3:55 amAlso, I’m not sure that all the students who meet the above description and who did not marry shiksas, and are perhaps even practicing orthodox rabbis are necessarily all that different. “His Majesty the Baby” could be applied to them as well. Much of their “torah” content is spiritually and Jewishly lacking. They are intellectuals that are full of themselves, totally disconnected from reality.
Nachum Lamm:
Yeah, but at least they don’t badmouth Jews in the pages of the New York Times.
2 August 2007, 9:19 amSteve Brizel:
Yasher Koach on a powerfully logical, coherent and intellectually honest approach to an author who we all know now was not photocropped out of a picture. I agree with Ben Bayit that Feldman should have gone to Israel for at least a year where he would have seen very well that Talmud, Tanach, Halacha and Machshavah of all sorts are not academic subjects but the keys to how a Jew lives his or her life and that RYBS’s understanding of Amalek is still evident in the Arab media, culture, educational systems and most significantly and existentially-in Teheran.
Based upon the responses of R Carmy, R D N Lamm, D A Nadler and individuals such as Ralph Friedman and a dialogue at LookJed, I would suggest that the essay and the responses would make an excellent subject for discussion at MO high schools, regardless of a student’s future after graduation.
I must disagree with my classmate and old chaver Jeff Strashun. Yes, the YU that we graduated from in 1976 is a far better and different religious and secular environment. Yes, there are students on campus who do not even meet the standards set forth in your comment. Yet, YU should compete for Baalei Teshuvah by offering the Mechinah Program as opposed to seeking students who lack a basic committment to halacha.
3 August 2007, 10:35 amNoah Feldman, Shalom Carmy and rejewvenator Walk into a Bar « Rejewvenate!:
[…] Shalom Carmy and rejewvenator Walk into a Bar August 7, 2007 at 2:41 pm | In Uncategorized | Rabbi Dr. Shalom Carmy’s response to Noah Feldman has been widely praised (and widely anticiapted) perhaps because Carmy is today what Noah Feldman […]
7 August 2007, 3:41 pmCross-Currents » Getting to the Soul of L’Affaire Feldman:
[…] The last two weeks have provided many venues – in print and online – for valuable discussion and thoughtful responses to Professor Noah Feldman’s article in the New York Times Magazine. I was especially gratified to read, for example, the insightful arguments and incisive prose of my teachers and mentors, R. Norman Lamm and R. Shalom Carmy. […]
9 August 2007, 9:52 am