Ethical Orthodoxy

“not changing one halacha”

“It charges frum Jews with caring about those who are not Jewish, not observant, or differently observant”

This changes many halachos. Would an “ethical Orthodox ” person rescue an idolater from death? That’s against halacha. Would he return a lost item without making a kiddush Hashem or avoiding a chilul Hashem? That’s against halacha too. Would he prioritize doing business with frum jews as the halacha requires?

That’s just a few examples.

The problem here is that something besides Torah is influencing your Orthodoxy. Unlike rav hirsch, who said that everything is subservient to Torah, people like aharon Lichtenstein believe in Christian “natural law” that Hashem put in our heads to know right and wrong. What he won’t admit is that halacha demands that we suppress even our good midos when necessary (mechias amalek) and demands that we bend our minds to fit halacha, not fake into account what we personally “feel” based on “intuition”

“Intuition” varies from person to person, and from place to place. One country’s culture would lead to one feeling of morality, and another will produce a different result.

Not that Lichtenstein has any shred of source for this delusion. Not one. It’s just his “intuition”.

Ask a goy from 200 years ago and he’d say slavery was fine. That was his “intuition”

Funny how people who are into “ethics” and who grimace at racism and treating goyim differently have usually never spent time breaking their middos and attempting to serve Hashem the way HE told us to serve Him.

Instead they run to help goyim and serve themselves.

Ethics are created and administered by the Torah. There is no ethical code of conduct that is outside of the Torah. There is therefore no need for your designation. It is redundant at best.
In fact, however, it implies that Yiddishkeit is lacking in ethics and needs to be improved, Chas v’shalom. I therefore believe that this is not Yiddishkeit at all.

I recently read a book about Jews [adults, not teenagers] who were born into Chassidic homes, but went off-the-Derech, and no longer practice mitzvot, unfortunately.

This book mentions several reasons why Jews go off-the-Derech.
Reason Number One was the lack of business ethics [or monetary ethics] in the world of Orthodox Judaism.

Simcha613: Orthodox Judaism already has ethics!

Ethics from the 613 mitzvot, ethics from all of Tanach, ethics from Mishnah, ethics from Talmud, ethics from Midrash, ethics from Halachah books, and ethics from Mussar books.

The problem is not that Orthodox Judaism lacks ethics;
the problem is that people who claim to believe in Orthodox Judaism forget the ethical teachings of Orthodox Judaism.

Ujm,Avira then why do Torah institutions respect and honor individuals who earn their wealth through unethical/illegal means? I won’t name the examples. My friends shul has two prominent frum members currently serving prison terms for embezzlement, as is the former treasurer of a five towns shul. A close friend is a lawyer and many of his clients were frum clients who were victimized civilly by other frum Jews

This statement has very good intentions but very vague so it could be mis-directed, same way as “tikkun olam” by Reform. That is why you are immediately met with criticism here.

On the positive side, I heard specific statements along these lines from many “standard/RW orthodoxy” Rabonim, and if you read from R Salanter to R Avigdor Miller, you will find similar sentiment. R Miller, for example, suggests that batei dinim will be administering punishments to bad drivers.

Focusing on “saving an idolater” is an interesting theoretical bit to clarify positions, but it does not deny my experience thinking about saying gomel after driving through a parking lot in a “frum” town [several drivers dashing in front of me, a pair of frum drivers waiting to be towed after bumping into each other, and others driving around them creating further havoc, several children from B’H large families standing alone in the cars way]. There are many areas we can improve without getting into obscure issues.

@AviraDeArah, I’m curious if you are familiar with R’ Lichtenstein׳s writings (and even though you don’t agree with him, he earned his “R” Aharon so a bissel kavod). You wrote that “Unlike rav hirsch, who said that everything is subservient to Torah, people like aharon Lichtenstein believe in Christian “natural law” that Hashem put in our heads to know right and wrong.” You can bring your issue up with the Rishonim who explain the Taanos on Dor HaMabul using that idea. You continue “What he won’t admit is that halacha demands that we suppress even our good midos when necessary (mechias amalek) and demands that we bend our minds to fit halacha, not fake into account what we personally “feel” based on “intuition”.” Your argument isn’t logical; you can believe that we have an intuition that is given by HaShem and has value, and still believe that we are commanded at times to disregard it.

Reb Moshe Feinstein Zatzal once said when asked about a boy for a shidduch if he is frum.
“Frum is a gallach. Ehr is ehrlich”

Bringing up the “Frum people who are unethical” straw man argument is a distraction that does nothing to take away from the basic point that the Torah is the source and measure of Ethics. Claiming that the Torah needs to be hyphenated (e.g. Ethical-Torah ) is a claim that the Torah is Chas vishalom deficient in some way, rl.

תורת ה׳ תמימה משיבת נפש, מאירת עינים, מחכימת פסי, טהורה ועומדת לעד.

Of course, a Torah Jew’s intuition will be in consonance with the Torah, a healthy Neshama will want what’s right and abhor what’s wrong . But the litmus test isnt one’s intuition , it’s the Torah.

In fact, there are those that explain that this was the actual Nisayon of the Akeida. Avrohom Avinu “felt” that it was wrong. That’s what his heart told him. (In fact, it wasn’t Ratzon Hashem to kill Yotzchok, so his heart was sensing correctly). Yet, he was Mivateil his human understanding and intuition to the Ratzon of HKBH. And the Aibeater said “Now I know that you are a YIREI ELOKIM “

you can argue moshe rabbeinu was an ethical orthodox jew. the gemoro in maseches nedarim says that when he married tzipora, moshe rabbeinu made a neder to stay in midyan and had to do hataras nedurim (hatara done by Hashem himself) in order to be able to go back to mitzrayim, later on. but once he satisfied his orthodox obligation as far as hilchos nedarim are concerned and he did his hataras nedurim he STILL went back to yisro to get his permission to go back to mitzrayim because that was the ETHICAL thing to do even though his halachic limitations were already addressed by the hataras nedarim. Ethical orthodoxy.

Simcha:
“halacha is not unethical, but one can be an Orthodox Jew and a Shomer Torah UMitzvos while still being unethical”
1. If the Torah and Mitzvos don’t say that something is unethical, then who are you to say that it is?
2. Do you accept upon yourself Torah UMitzvos? Are you willing to hurt people, commit crime, and fraud when the Torah requires you?

I think that there is an intuitive code, called “derech eretz” which is “kodma latorah”. However the Torah supersedes any d.e. considerations, and informs us on what true d.e. really is. I.E. “tikkun olam” is not a reform invention, it’s mentioned in mishna, but chazal used it sparingly.

Asking for a friend: I would be curious to see a teshuva explaining under which conditions insider trading is kosher.

This involves explicitly breaking a contract that a person signs and also ensuing hillul Hashem caused by almost inevitable SEC action.

Is one allowed to break a contract for no good reason?

And even if there is some heter for the contract – mybe the teshuva was written before (or was unaware of) SEC deploying algorithmic search for irregularities in trading.

Maskil > Claiming that the Torah needs to be hyphenated (e.g. Ethical-Torah ) is a claim that the Torah is Chas vishalom deficient in some way, rl.

right, I agree with the sentiment. But modernity brings this need to define your position. A similar unreasonable term is “Orthodox Judaism” – as if there are others (R’L), but everyone is using the term to define themselves. So, while “ethical O” sounds corny, there is – again R’L – who are not careful on that.

Er, fantastic question – mussar teaches us to have rachmonus. It’s a good middah, and there’s no reason not to be merachem on goyim when it’s allowed, unless that person is known to be an active enemy of klal yisroel. To speak to your case, charging a goy interest at a lower rate if you can tell that he’s not wealthy would be totally fine. Charging him no interest… I don’t know of an issur; it’s assur to return a lost item, because you’re showing that mitzvos aren’t important to you and that you’ll do them for everyone, as rashi explains. Here, by interest, are you showing that the mitzvah of lending a Jews money isn’t important by doing it for a goy? Great shailoh…

But charging a lower level of interest is definitely fine.

As to where we should get a moral compass; we call it the 5th chelek of shulchan aruch. One achieves moral thinking by immersion ones self in learning, until his thought process is the result thereof – a ben Torah is so called, because he is literally the son of the Torah… It dictates ever move and every thought he makes. The bigger one is in learning, the more of this daas torah he will have. We can get glimpses of this from stories of gedolei yisroel.

As for Lichtenstein, he promoted haskalah and violations of torah, not to mention Hebrew nationalism. My rebbeim never called him or his ilk by the term rabbi. Rabbi hershel shechter, most of my rebbeim called him rabbi, some didn’t, so i do.

Wow, who needs Hamas, neo-Nazis, and other antisemitic groups, when we have AviraDeArah?

So perhaps, Avira, one can promote an ‘ethical orthodoxy’ on the basis of rachmanis, so long as it’s within bounds of halacha. Seems it would be fair criticism if a large number of Jews aren’t acting with kavod habrios. I do think it is a problem to call such a movement anything other than Torah Judaism. No need to create new labels. If we need to show more compassion, needs to be reflected as a mainstream value.

er, the point is that it’s all torah – there’s no torah ve’taaruos, no torah ummada, no torah v’rachmanus – the expression torah im derech eretz is a mishnah, and rav hirsch used it in terms of torah and being active in the world according to the torah, not as if there’s something else of value OR something else which from the outside influences our torah values. He (and even rabbi yoshe ber soloveitchik) write explicitly that torah is a self-contained continuum, not affected by outside values – rather the torah is what guides us in how to approach anything from the outside.

rachmanus is a torah value, and it is expressed when the torah says to express it, and suppressed when the torah says to suppress it. On shabbos, if one sees a goy dying and there’s no issue of “aivah” or someone finding out and refusing to save Jewish lives in the future, there is absolutely no heter to be mechalel shabbos for him. Furthermore, if a person was mechalel shabbos for such a reason, he would be chayav misah!

I’ve told this to some modern jews, and they’ve told me, in their heresy, that they’re willing to be put to death to save a goy. But even in their foolish notion of self-sacrifice, they miss the point; the idea is that they’re flouting the will of Hashem! He and he alone decides who lives and dies, and putting a jew there on shabbos is akin to putting him behind an iron fence – you might want to help, but what can you do? you’re unable to.

n0mesorah,

“Religion is collective thought. That thought gives it no legitimacy. It could only be useful if it is believed to be Divine. It takes it’s legitimacy from it’s own context. It can never think itself into a non-existing situation. Therefore it always entertains those with serious moral failings. It allows those failings to modify the system. Some people see this as a major threat to authenticity. But it has no strength against true religion. Because true religion is convinced that it cannot be permanently vanquished Do you feel so strongly about Ethics? “

Can you clarify this paragraph? I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

n0mesorah,

“It’s hard to be specific on this thread.”

You wrote a lot, and it seems to me that you’re trying to make a specific point, I just wish I could understand it. “The paragraph is about all religions” – what paragraph? “Religions are not for one person. They are only for people.” – I never heard of this limitation in the definition of religion. It’s not what makes religion distinct from ethics, if that’s what you’re trying to argue. “So what the people as a group think of their religion tends to make up what their religion consists of. But that is not the religion itself.” – These two sentences seem to directly contradict one another.

“I never heard of this specific label [EO] before.”

No, but it’s quite common in the non-Orthodox movements. A notable example is the Conservative Movement’s “hechsher tzedek” where they seek to “certify” food that is made according to their own ethical and social justice standards. They claim a distinction between Torah and “Jewish values”, which doesn’t exist. Orthodox Jews refute the notion that the Torah, written by Hashem, is lacking something that must be filled by a separate set of ethics. I think what really bugs the OP is that someone who keeps Shabbos, kashrus, and taharas mishpacha, but is mean, or took benefits he wasn’t entitled to, is still considered “Orthodox”, while someone who’s a nice guy and submits a squeaky clean tax return to the IRS on Jan 2, but who eats out in non-kosher restaurants or uses a smartphone on Shabbos, is not considered Orthodox. So he created his own category of “Ethical Orthdox” where he could exclude the former. The thing is, inclusion in the frum community is not necessarily an attestation that a person is good or doing the right thing.

“It was all a lead up to the statement in bold and the question. As in, does the OP feel confident about adding a clause (ethics – or whatever they think it means) into something (Judiaism – as it was Divinely given) that will eternally outlast them?”

Seems so. He’s already done it after all, right?

“Religions are not for one person. They are only for people.”

Says who?

So what the people as a group think of their religion tends to make up what their religion consists of. But that is not the religion itself. It is only how they relate to it. It doesn’t go by what people claim they think of their religion. It thrives off of how they perform as a religious group.””

As I wrote above, these seem like contradictory notions to me, and thus needs more explanation. How I’m interpreting it:
1. Religion is a collective exercise, not a personal thing. Huh? Religion is all about one’s personal beliefs in the divine. Adherents with similar beliefs may opt to form religious communities though it’s not a requirement, e.g., Protestant Christianity, or one’s religious tenants may dictate that adherents form communities, as is the case with Orthodox Judaism.
2. Religion is what this collective group thinks it is, except that it’s not. Huh? I can’t reconcile these two statements.
3. Religion is independent of the people who adhere to it, but what it is depends on what those people do. Huh? I feel like the definitions of terms are shifting rapidly.

One very vital point that I think many are overlooking is that labels are meaningless. Including the label of being “Orthodox”. The descriptor “Orthodox” is not something the so-called Orthodox took upon themselves. It was a name (originally intended in a derogatory sense, comparing them to the Christian Orthodox) that was imposed on us by the “non-Orthodox”. It was intended to include anyone that, at the time, didn’t abandon half of the Torah and replace it with (then) modern concepts (i.e. Reform).

L’maaisa, the point is that labels are absolutely meaningless. A Jew is a Jew. Everything else is irrelevant. Some Jews fully keep the Torah, some mostly, some partially, etc. But they’re all Jews. The rest is commentary.

Except UJM agrees that conservatives who keep some mitzvos aren’t included in “those who keep part of the torah” – because they don’t believe that Hashem commanded them to do so. If there is no commander, there is no commandment. Their actions are meaningless in halacha, they have accomplished no mitzvah, their brochos are in vain, and they are not going to receive any reward for doing things that they themselves decided are spiritual nice things to do, or traditions.