Social Change and Halakhic Evolution in American Orthodoxy by Chaim Waxman (review)

In his new book, Chaim Waxman combines a few different areas of study. There is the sociology of the American Jewish community, in particular the Orthodox. Together with this, there is a good deal of history of the Orthodox segment, and both of these areas are combined with analysis of halakhic evolution in the American Orthodox community. This latter point is very significant, since at the end of the day what defines the Orthodox community is its adherence to halakhah.

This is a valuable book, and anyone interested in American Jewish studies and halakhic development will gain much from Waxman's analysis. The reader will quickly see that there is actually a lot in the book that really has nothing to do with American Orthodoxy per se but is about Orthodoxy as a whole, or the situation in Israel. I think, therefore, that the stress on American Orthodoxy in the title is not apt, as Waxman's insights go beyond the American scene. For example, there is a discussion of the Louis Jacobs affair in England, which would seem to have nothing to do with the United States. Waxman assumes that the dispute over Jacobs's writings was not so much about what he said but reflected British inter-Orthodox politics, and he does not think that American Modern Orthodoxy would have had the same reaction to Jacobs. I do not believe this point is correct, as Jacobs advocated a complete acceptance of higher biblical criticism, which in the 1960s was anathema to the entire Modern Orthodox community.

Among the numerous important points in the book, Waxman calls attention to the fact that while many of the Modern Orthodox are selective in their observance, this is a matter of personal choice and there is no attempt to legitimate their behavior. Thus, they are not a challenge to the rabbinic authorities. In such circumstances, "Orthodoxy can tolerate deviance when it is so recognized by the actor; what it cannot tolerate is the legitimation of what it considers to be deviance through the rejection of its rabbis" (100). This is a very important point that explains a good deal about the interactions between Modern Orthodox laypeople and rabbis, including ultra-Orthodox rabbis.

Waxman also notes that the very openness of Modern Orthodoxy is what limits its attractiveness for many, maybe even most. This is because many people are looking for black and white answers rather than the sort of complexity found in Modern Orthodoxy. While there is no doubt some truth to this, how do we explain why Modern Orthodoxy was the leading type of Orthodoxy throughout much of the twentieth century? Any discussion of the growth of right-wing Orthodoxy, which has occurred at the same time as Modern Orthodox growth, just to a greater extent, also must take into account the financial assistance provided by the welfare state.

Let me note a few examples where I do not think matters are as clear as the author presents them. Waxman uses the 2013 Pew survey which, while valuable, also has problems that I have not seen discussed in any serious way. For example, of the evidence cited by Waxman, what is one to make of the result that two percent of Orthodox respondents are intermarried? Clearly, what the respondents regarded as Orthodox is not what anyone else would regard as such. There are other such problems in the survey which raise questions as to how people who identify as Orthodox understand the term. In addition, Waxman writes, "It should be emphasized that this does not mean that the amount and level of Talmud learning in the United States is the same as it was in eastern Europe, where a much higher percentage devoted several hours daily to Talmud study" (96 n. 38). Waxman has unfortunately been taken in by a widespread haredi myth. The truth is just the opposite. There are today many more people, both in...