A Response to the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

Please Share Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someonePrint this page

The Purposeful Blurring of LinesWSJ

By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

An Op-Ed appeared recently  in the Wall Street Journal by Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz that can only be described as a terrible blurring of lines.  Rabbi Yanklowitz was explaining why he, as an Orthodox Rabbi, will no longer be eating Kosher meat because, as it is currently produced, the animals are raised on the very same animal-rights-abusing farms as non-kosher meats are raised.

This article is not about government (or for that matter Rabbinic) oversight on the way animals are treated at farms across America, however correct that call may be. This article is about something else.

It is about the Wall Street Journal misrepresenting the author of their Op-Ed as an orthodox Rabbi.

Popular though he is, an analysis of Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz’s literary oeuvre will demonstrate that he cannot at all be described as following the views of Orthodox Judaism.  His writings, from a theological perspective, are not by any means orthodox.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz’s writings on Mashiach being a Christian concept that influenced Judaism, and other writings of his, clearly place him far outside the orbit of Orthodox Judaism.  The following quotes are from an article he had published in the Jewish Week, February 1, 2012.

“We have made too many mistakes throughout history, thinking that the Messiah is a person or event.. It was Christian influence that helped further this idea of the single divine human. The Jewish notion, preceding that, suggested that all people are imbued with Divinity.”

“At the end of the day, I would like to suggest that we are Moshiach—we are the ones we have been waiting for.”


This article is a flat-out denial of a cardinal principle of Judaism – the arrival and anticipation of Moshiach.   He has written that the identity of the much waited for Messiah is “us.”  This flies in the face of the Talmud, Maimonides and thousands of years of Jewish tradition.

It is disingenuous for Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz to claim that he is Orthodox and deny fundamentals of Judaism.

In a Tisha B’Av reflection, this past Tisha B’Av, Rabbi Yanklowitz actually denies the rebuilding of the third Beis HaMikdash.  Below are some quotes and the link.

“The fantasy of returning to one centralized monolithic form of Judaism is not only wishful thinking. It’s also dismissive of two of the most important aspects of modern Jewish life: diversity and adaptability.”


“Further, in any centralized system of authority, abuses of power and limits of transparency and empowerment have proven to be inevitable. The new paradigm that the Temple’s destruction and exile from Israel enabled is one that says, Bring G-d into your hearts and into the wide world every day and in every way; the Temple was a vehicle for this once, now we have so much more.”


“ It is natural to long for past models in a world of uncertainty but we must move forward with courage, creativity, and open hearts to build a world of justice, kindness, and holiness where G-d can reside.”



These articles and more have placed Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz far outside the orbit of Orthodox Judaism.  The “I’m okay, your okay” attitude cannot stretch the boundaries of the umbrella of orthodoxy to include someone who denies the meaning of the idea of Moshiach and of rebuilding the Beis HaMikdash.

This is not a matter of misinterpretation, he really writes and believes this.   The very Tefilos of our synagogues, our Shmoneh Esreh, indeed, even of the last line in the counting of the Omer would have to be thrown out in order to comport with Rabbi Shmuly’s theological writings.

It is particularly sad, because it is clear that Rabbi Shmuly is a man with remarkable sensitivities.  His work in Haiti, in improving conditions for prisoners, in calling for greater transparency in charitable organization, all point to a lofty soul.  His concern for social welfare, for immigrant rights, for the downtrodden and weak; indeed, his concern for others, all others – are all very important and admirable qualities.

And while it is true that Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz had once received semicha from Rabbis who themselves had graduated from Orthodox institutions, that does not make someone an orthodox Rabbi.  There is obfuscation going on here, of the highest order.  The obfuscation involves not only this Rabbi, but an entire group of others, presenting their ideas that lie far beyond the pale of orthodoxy, as if they are orthodox.

Chovevei Torah and Open Orthodoxy have taken the most radical positions on issues of Biblical Criticism, changing the formulation of blessings instituted by the Men of the Great Assembly, recognizing marriages that the Torah clearly prohibits and engaging in interfaith activities that are clearly forbidden by Halacha.

Rabbi Zev Farber, a leading Open Orthodox thinker, has taken the position that Sefer Dvarim was not written by Moshe Rabbeinu and came significantly later.  This is not and cannot comport with the theological views of the Talmud, the Shulchan Aruch, and Orthodox Judaism.  [See for example, http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-part-3/  and  http://thetorah.com/torah-history-judaism-part-4/ for starters.


Elsewhere Rabbi  Farber has written,

“The same holds true of the description of the development of Israel. The idea that the twelve tribes of Israel were formed by the twelve sons of Jacob has all the appearances of a schematic attempt of Israelites to explain themselves to themselves: “We are all one family because we are all children of the same father.” These Torah stories are not history, the recording of past events, they are mnemohistory, the construction of shared cultural-memory through narratives about the past.

…It is impossible to regard the accounts of mass Exodus from Egypt, the wilderness experience or the coordinated, swift and complete conquest of the entire land of Canaan under Joshua as historical.
The popular idea that the Torah’s holiness stems only from the historicity of its claims, dictated by the mouth of G-d, strikes me as an attempt to depict the Almighty as a news reporter.”

[See  http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/07/26/belief-in-torah-min-ha-shamayim-damage-control-by-yct/#ixzz33RD0Wyx6 ]

It is painful to write this, because we do want to include as many people as possible within the umbrella of Torah true Judaism.  However, in light of the above, presenting Open Orthodoxy as part of Orthodoxy is just plain not honest.

The Wall Street Journal should issue a clarification.

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com


Please Share Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someonePrint this page

7 thoughts on “A Response to the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed

  • June 2, 2014 at 10:25 am

    Why should this matter? Either he is right or wrong about his assertion. Rabbi Yanklowitz’s being Orthodox or not is irrelevant to the truth or lack of truth in his claim.

  • June 2, 2014 at 10:42 am

    Classic ad hominem at it’s best.

    Instead of attacking Rabbi Yanklowitz, how about addressing the issues he brings up? If you believe he’s wrong, tell us why he’s wrong — don’t tell us why you believe he’s not fit to give an opinion.

    The Wolf

  • June 2, 2014 at 11:56 am

    Wow! Ad hominem attack dripping with sinah!

    I’m happy to see you’re taking the shloshes y’mei hagbalah seriously, Rabbi Hoffman.

  • June 2, 2014 at 12:39 pm

    I agree with Eytan; it is more important to discuss issues raised in Rabbi Yanklowitz’s writing — in this case the treatment of farm animals — than making a narrow definition of whether he can be referred to as an “Orthodox” rabbi.

    I didnt see the original article but am very interested in reading it; the 5 Towns response tells me precious little about the content of Yanklowitz’s Wall Street Journal op-ed piece and is really a response to other writing by Rabbi Yanklowitz

  • June 2, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    The WSJ article was also inaccurate.

    1. There is no plant that supplies the kosher market that uses “shackle and hoist” as its shechita method

    2. The USDA’s official communication on the incidents at the Shrewsbury NJ plant find no wrongdoing on the part of the Kosher staff

    3. Due to KOSHER concerns no “downer” animal that cannot walk or even has trouble walking would every be used for kosher

    • June 6, 2014 at 1:18 am

      Are you sure about your “shackle and hoist” comment? Googling on “shackle hoist kosher” led me to believe otherwise.

  • June 2, 2014 at 3:34 pm

    More, related to Eytan’s point:

    Let’s say you had somehow told each reader of the WSJ article (and other media outlets and blogs quoting it) that the author of the article is not Orthodox. Since, most readers don’t care about that, and some might even be more inclined to believe a non-Orthodox author, what would have been gained? You need to fashion a convincing, well-substantiated rebuttal of all his substantive points, or kashrus has lost another round in the public eye. If some of his charges happen to be true in some respects or in some places, you need to campaign to encourage better overall Torah compliance within our meat industry.

Comments are closed.