The Modern Orthodox predicted the demise of everyone except themselves. This is clear in the Five Addresses of Rabbi Soloveichik. Others espoused that too. It was common MO rhetoric in the 60’s. In the 80’s however, we had the same MO rabbis denouncing what they referred to as “Ultra Orthodox Triumphalism”. Something didn’t work out the way they thought it would. Rabbi Yeruchem Gorelick ZT’L was asked what induced him to go work in YU. He said (in Yiddish), “Rabbi Soloveichik convinced me that the future of Torah in America depends on YU.” Then he slapped his head, as if to say “What was I thinking?”
The questions will remain, after you determine “the range of beliefs held by people who describe themselves MO”, aren’t these beliefs shared by those who do not describe themselves as MO? And isn’t it true that what one group considers MO, another group who also consider themselves MO will call “beyond the pale” (such as Edah)? And why is it that these beliefs generate a new substrata of orthodoxy? If I hold that one may daven Minchah after Shkiyah, for instance, does it make sense for me to call myself a “different type of Orthodoxy”? Modern Orthodoxy is nothing but a label. It is used by different people at will to describe so large a range of beliefs and actions that there are MO who consider beyond the pale the beliefs and actions of others who are called MO.
The reason for this confusion is because, unlike Chasidim, Conservatives, Maskilim, Briskers, and other “movements” stemming from Judaism (some legitimate and some not), MO was never officially created. Rather, it began as simply people violating accepted standards of Orthodoxy, and then, when these low standards became the norm within certain communities, they decided to self-proclaim themselves MO, giving the illusion that their indiscretions are instead some kind of set of beliefs. There were no rabbis that decided “OK, we are creating Modern Orthodoxy. These are our teachings…” the way all the other movements were created. Just the opposite. After certain behaviors became excepted in certain communities, those communities said “Well, I guess we’re just Modern Orthodox!”. And anyone can do that to justify any type of behavior, we have so many diff groups and definitions and people claiming the title for themselves.
The only coherent explanation of Modern Orthodoxy comes form Rav Soloveitchik in his Five Addresses, which is, in a nutshell, we must compromise our standards in America because traditional Torah standards will not survive here. Only Yeshiva University type Judaism will survive and all else will die out. Which means the integration into secularity must be done to the extent that we must in order to survive. Obviously, the whole idea was a mistake.
The battle against YU by the Yeshiva world is not, nor was it, a simple issue of Halachic or Hashkafic disagreement which can be dismissed as routine if accompanied with the obligatory respect for the opposing view, as per ailu v’ailu etc. Not so. Rather, YU was viewed as a deviant, dangerous, and anti-Torah entity that doesn’t deserve the respect of a legitimate Torah position, even a mistaken one. Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L, and Rav Schneur ZT’L after him, would under no circumstances even walk into YU. Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT’L also, when he came to America in the ’30s, was invited to speak in YU, and he refused to even walk in to the place. Of course, this is all very offensive to the students of YU, and I understand that. But if we’re going to understand what the issues are, then, we need to be honest and put the positions on the table, whether we like them or not. And here are the issues:
The difference between the inadequacies at YU versus the inadequacies in Yeshivos, is that YU made their inadequacies into philosophical positions thereby not merely doing wrong, but changing the definition of wrong. To do wrong is a violation of the Torah, and yes, many types of Jews do that. But to make wrong into right is to change the Torah, either explicitly or implicitly. YU has done. That amounts to a new, deviant movement within Judaism, and that is the problem with YU. The good, the bad, the gray areas – are all considered part and parcel of the official YU position.
Nowhere else will you find the “President” of a Bais HaMedrash constantly representing (and creating) the Torah positions of the institution without reviewing every single word of his speeches with the official Rosh Yeshiva. In YU, Dr. Lamm, though he was merely President, and not Rosh Yeshiva, had full right to get up and speak to the world about the official policies and positions of YU, even though the Roshei Yeshiva may not have agreed with him. Nowhere does a lay leader become a setter of policy for a Yeshiva.
The fact that the President of “Yeshiva” University can get up and refer to Bnei Torah as “cavemen” because they do not go to college, and the fact that anti-Torah activities do take place there regardless of whether the “talmidim” go against the Rebbeim or not, means that the institute as a whole must be opposed. The fact that in some classrooms you will not hear the heresy of chutzpah against the Torah does not negate the corruption of the institution as a whole. Because it is a business – as opposed to other Yeshivas who have a business element which does not set policy for the Yeshiva but merely the administrative offices – you can have people like Lamm, or Rackman, or even worse spouting all kinds of drivel in the name of Torah. And you can have an Avi Weiss and others like him teaching under its auspices.