The Modern Orthodox “Mesorah”

The scare quotes tell us what you think.

major troll. but for people who really dont understand. i suspect that most of the people you are referring to find the term a poor description or condescending. yes obviously one of the pitfalls of living in a frum non-chasidic community is that religious practices get stretched thin or ‘poorly reinterpreted’.
there are plenty of pitfalls of chassidic communities too.
if you wonder why i havent mentioned the litvish chereidim it is because they are largely similar to chasidim in this regard.

>>>Does anyone know what the MO Mesorah is? Or how old it is? Who started it?

Depends on who you ask. Some would say that the Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin was the first “modern” MO institution so MO traces it roots to there. Others would claim that Rishonim like who were up secularly educated were haskaficlly MO so they trace their roots to them. Others would claim that RYBS from Boston and YU was the founder of MO. And others would claim…

You would get conflicting claims if you were ask about the current variations of many other movements as well. While no one disputes that the Baal Shem Tov was the founder of Chasidus, many would question how strongly he would identify with the current practices and haskafa of certain Chasdish groups today.

>>> And what are the commonalities that all MO Jews share?

The answer to that would depend on how you define MO. As above one can ask that about many other groups as well

>>>Is a Rabbi ever required to be consulted or is each person able to decide everything on their own?

No learned or deeply committed member of any frum community believes that each person able to decide everything on their own. MO included. Am Haartzim and apathetic people rarely have halacha shaalos. That isn’t unique to the MO world

Just like there are different kav within the yeshiva Velt, such is the way within MO. Some follow the teachings of holy Yidden like R Moshe Feinstein, R YB Soloveitchik, and Rav Herschel Schechter and some follow Rabbi Dr Norman Lamm. The more Zionist leaning MO follow Rav Kook. R Kook and R Soloveitchik all learned in Litvish Yeshivas.

the whole point of “modern orthodox” is specifically to not be 100%. It was considered a compromise to help people stay “in the fold” by some rabanim in the 20th century. It has run its course, as the Jewish community has established itself enough that 100% Yiddishkeit has become a mainstream option.

The founder of the MO movement is Moses Mendessohn. He led the Enlightenment movement which craved acceptance in Non Jewish circles, studying German philosophy and literature etc, all the while proclaiming fidelity to Halacha.

That said it’s impossible to put all MO under one umbrella. Many have moved to the right over the past decades and the lines get blurred at some point.

I’m not going to debate anything, and will not respond to “questions” that are really opinions. But I cannot be a bystander while an entire portion of the Jewish People is smeared. I’m only responding to questions in the original post because I don’t want to be a bystander and there is an audience who may not here this if no one else speaks up.
Depending on who you ask, it was started by R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch or R’ Asriel Hildesheimer. The current Yekke community (i.e. Breuer’s) will deny the former, hence I’m referencing the latter. Basic math makes it about 175 years old.
Regardless of which of the two you will choose to focus on, don’t lie to me and say that they either was not a savior of Orthodox Judaism in Germany.
The current version that we see in America today is based on the ideas of Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveichik & Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm (not an exhaustive list, but two major ones that come to mind).
The Mesorah is as old as the Torah, as in 3335 years. They are Orthodox and have more respect for Chareidi rabbis than you have for Modern Orthodox rabbis. What they all share is the belief that there is wisdom from the outside world as well; it complements Judaism.
Anything written in the Torah is a must, assuming it applies. (In the sense that not every mitzvah applies unless you are simultaneously male, female, kohen, levi, yisrael, married, single, living in EY & chutz la’aretz, and the list goes on…) Therefore, it is mandatory if written in the Torah; not necessarily mandatory just because one rabbi said it. I believe Tosfos says in Pesachim that one is not required to follow a ruling of beis din if they have a valid source from another rabbi in the period of the ruling’s source or earlier who disagrees. Don’t dismiss this unless you can attest that you learned the entire Pesachim with Rashi & Tosfos and didn’t find it.
A rabbi must be consulted in cases of ambiguity and doubt; that’s what they exist for. Hope I answered your questions. Like I said, I will not debate UJM or anyone else. I will only answer serious questions; not poorly disguised opinions.

There is nothing modern in modern… Avraham Avinu dealt with people and norms of his time, Moshe Rabeinu went to Pharoah,
Tannaim addressed Greek influences, Ramban disputed apikoirosim of his time… As r Soloveitchik wrote, quoting from memory, we are not going to fulfill our mission in the world by hiding in caves. We can have legitimate debate on specific positions, and many issues are complicated, but a tradition of being modern is pretty old.

Moses Mendessohn lead first response to an extraordinary challenge of the modern world. I don’t think we had similar challenges from the time of Rome and beginning of Xianity. A typical view is that Moses lead jews into reform and conversion…but do we really think that his German Bible made all Yiddish speakers proficient in high German? Jews assimilated in other countries too. Maybe we can admit that he was looking for a right response, whatever the results are. And from current hindsight, unfair of course, the rest of the community didn’t respond either. Even later, when Chofetz Chaim in 1920s laments about polish jews assimilation, he is not proposing a lot of solutions… for one obvious example, Sara S proposed BY school, not any of the leaders… those were extraordinary challenges and many people tried to address them in a different ways, and no reason to denigrate those who earnestly tried

>>>From all the “sinas chinam” or “it ain’t different in xyz community” it would seem that no one has a good answer to OP’s question.

As the famous comment from the Rav Chaim Volozhiner goes “Questions have answers, answers do not” Meaning that if someone isn’t looking for an actual answer no one can give him one.

If someone is sincerely interested in understanding MO haskafa and how they deal with the questions asked in the OP they can be addressed. If someone isn’t you may as well focus on the sinas chinom and hypocrisy of the implied questions . Things are not so simple that they can be answered in the simplistic manner they are presented. They are like asking Can you be Yeshivish and wear a blue shirt and no hat? Can you be a Satmar Chosid but oppose women shaving their heads? Can you be a baal musser but only learn from musser sources that the musser movement did not stress learning? What was the mesorah that the musser movement used in picking the seforim and some of the concepts it would focus on?

If you want to know who founded Modern Orthodoxy, then I suggest that you read the biographies of Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch.
Here are a few quotes from one of his biographies:

=================================
Behold! G_d speaks to you through nature, and again through history!…

Rabbi Hirsch’s positive view of the study of secular
subjects was not limited to science and history.

SOURCE: Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch by Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman (chapter 17, pages 204 to 205), year 1996 CE, ArtScroll History Series, Brooklyn NY 11232

=================================
“The girls in the [Orthodox] Realschule [which was founded and directed by Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch] studied the same subjects, including Chumash and Hebrew grammar, as the boys, except for Talmud and mathematics, in place of which they were taught handicrafts.”

SOURCE: Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch by Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman (chapter 19, page 223), year 1996 CE, ArtScroll History Series, Brooklyn 11232, ISBN 0-89906-632-1.

=================================
“Rabbi Hirsch preferred honest Gentile teachers for secular subjects over non-observant Jews, who he felt would have a negative influence.”

SOURCE: Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch by Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman,
year 1996 CE, ArtScroll History Series, Brooklyn 11232, ISBN 0-89906-632-1.

=================================
In [year] 1888 [CE], the Prussian government issued a decree requiring all students to take standardized examinations, which were to be administered on the Sabbath.

No special dispensation was granted to Jewish students to take the exam on a different day.

Rabbi Hirsch authored a petition to the Prussian Minister of Education Gossler, signed by 115 Rabbis from all of Germany, stating that all writing on the Sabbath was prohibited by Jewish law…soon before his passing Rabbi Hirsch received a reply from the Minister of Education assuring him that school principals would be permitted to “judge sympathetically” requests to defer the examination to a weekday.

SOURCE: Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch by Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman (chapter 19, page 231) year 1996 CE, ArtScroll History Series, Brooklyn 11232 ISBN 0-89906-632-1

=================================
Rabbi Shmuel Landau, the son of [the author of] Noda BeYehudah and his successor as Rabbi of Prague, also expressed his approbation for [secular] studies directly related to earning a living:

“[One should] learn German thoroughly, as well as other required subjects, because without German, including written German, it is impossible to survive in these countries.

Someone who does not read and write German cannot succeed in any trade, and every father has an obligation to teach his son the language and customs of the country in which he lives…”

SOURCE: Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch by Rabbi Eliyahu Meir Klugman (chapter 18, page 210) year 1996 CE, ArtScroll History Series, Brooklyn 11232 ISBN 0-89906-632-1

No the movement was designed by ppl who wanted to rebel against the gedolim of the time and didn’t want to be told what to do by rabbonim. BH by now a LOT of their descendants did teshuva and understood that there is no such thing as modern “orthodoxy”

Thoughtful, i disagree. Mainstream orthodoxy makes claim to never have changed and accepts a mesorah from rishonim and achronim with complete adherence to every word of chazal as torah misinai, even the things modern society doesn’t like. It doesn’t seek to reexamine anything or change halacha or hashkafa to fit the times, or make sacrifices to “conserve” the “greater” picture. It lays claim to an unadulterated Judaism, and this encompasses sefardi jews, temani, litvishe, chasidishe, yekkish, hungarian…literally every sect of jews who did not submit yo haskalah. Modern Orthodoxy is the only group among the rest of klal yisroel which does not accept the above, depending on how modern they are versus how Orthodox they are.

So they are not mainstream. They are deviating by their own admission. They believe that humankind jas discovered something of importance not given to us at har sinai; in doing so, they have taken themselves out of the mainstream.

Also in numbers, they are the minority worldwide among Orthodox jews.

I rarely comment. However, missing from these discussions is the primary source of contention between the MO world (and similar) and the chareidi world- and people should be aware of what it is.

The main reason why there is pushback from the chareidi world is because the MO (and many similar movements that started over the years) always put something other than torah (and Mesorah) either, equal to, or higher than the the torah itself (such as secular education for the sake of “knowledge” and “being educated”). It comes out in the way they speak and from their actions. If you don’t know what I am referring to, it is because you are not talking to the leaders of these groups.

An argument these groups make is that many of the chareidi Gedolim (such as RSRH) themselves have even stated at times these things are benefit and worthwhile (like secular education for the sake of “knowledge and being educated”), and in fact, they are correct. Many Chareidi Gedolim do feel that way.

However. The charadei Gedolim vehemently disagree with MO approach and will continue to do so because under no circumstance may one put on a pedestal something other than Torah- and these groups are.

The proof that it is on a pedestal is the passion these groups (or at least the leaders) come with promoting their agenda. We could have a debate about the importance of secular education, but the passion and insistence for it is misguided and an indication of ulterior motives (many times deep down) that the chareidi Gedolim keep calling out, and unfortunately they have been proven right time and again. The next generation picks up the ulterior motive and throws away even the Torah.

A few things:
1. Secular education was used as an example because it’s a common theme for these groups.
2. keep in mind there is a MO movement heading towards the right, and as another poster mentioned, the lines are increasingly becoming blurred (in a good way for some).
3. The average person within these groups may not be aware of the bigger picture and they are generally a tenok shenishba (but watch out for those with a strange passion you can’t seem to be able to explain).

This “conversation” and back and forth has been going on for years, and like it or not, it will continue due the passion and importance of the pushback.

@EEEE
what would we name the Mesechta if the Greeks hadn’t invented the word ‘Senhedrin’. thats not a serious thing but on serious note the Gemara quotes Greek sources (for non halacha) often. The sefer Torah could be written in Greek letters.
theres something to chochmas yevanis other than Covid varient symbols

On the topic of Modern Orthodoxy, here is an excerpt from an English letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe from Adar 5738 to a woman who was becoming frum.

(Disclaimer: Obviously, the exact definition of Modern Orthodoxy is blurry, so I doubt that everything written here applies to every person who calls themself MO)

“P.S. Your using the term “modern orthodoxy” prompts me to make the following observation.

Although this term is frequently used, if you reflect on it you will realize the inner contradiction in terms. For, orthodoxy refers to a full commitment to a life regulated by the Torah, Toras Emes, and its Mitsvoth, by which Jews live, whereas “modern” implies a compromise and adjustment supposedly in keeping with “modern” ideas. But where truth is concerned, there can be no compromise or accommodation, for even 99% of truth is not the whole truth, and therefore not truth at all.

Needless to say, 99% is better than 98%, but one must not delude oneself in believing that it is the whole truth. Indeed, the Rambam rules that if a Jew accepts the whole Torah except one letter, he is deemed as if he denied the whole Torah. And one of the explanations of it is that truth and compromise are contradictory.

The above does not mean that unless a Jew observes all the 613 Mitzvoth, he is not an observant Jew. Indeed, the Torah declares, “A Jew, though he has sinned, remains a Jew.” It states further that no sinner is rejected, and eventually everyone who had strayed will return to the fold. What is emphasized above is that any thought that the Torah is in any way “outdated” and needs to be “modernized” that is heresy and a denial of the Divine origin and eternal nature of the Torah and Mitzvoth. There is surely no need to elaborate to you further on the above.”

I consider myself ‘modern orthodox” as I accept and observe all halacha but I have a secular education and work in a non Jewish environment. I wear a black hat, daven 3 times a day, hold by glatt meat and cholev Yisroel, am strict about tznius, don’t have TV or go too movies but read newspapers and interact with the world.
Everyone’s definition of “modern orthodox” differs. There is a huige difference between the teachings of Rabbi Samson Rafael Hirsch and Avi Weiss.

I do not think anyone would consider RSR’H as what is today’s modern orthodox.

There is a very distinct difference between Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) and Torah Umaada (TU). TIDE calls for secular studies to accompany Torah, but the clear and absolute primacy belongs to Torah. TU equates both on the same level. The actual terms used clearly describe the differences, which are vast.

rabbi nochum/ norman lamm z’l stated in a lecture that the idea of “torah u’mada” originates from rabbi yitzchok yaakov reines z’l of lithuania, who is often overlooked in the discussion of modern orthodoxy (ayin shum, google it). interestingly, one of rabbi jb soloveitchik’s closest talmidim, rabbi arnold rakkefet rothkopf shlita stated in an interview that rabbi solovietchik never used the term torah u’mada. in terms of mesorah, rabbi soloveitchik saw himself as perpetuating the brisker mesorah of his father rav moshe soloevitick ztzl and most importantly his illustrious grandfather, maran rav chaim brisker ztzkl.
rav jb soloveirchik writes about the tension of belief and faith that “halakhic man” faces in the modern world, but stayed away from actively embracing modernity in a theological sense, or even zionist-dati leumi-mizrahi and kookian orthodoxy, which is in a class by itself( or “open orthodoxy”). ultimately, the best summation of rabbi soloveitchik’s philosophy can be understood as “to be a torah jew in the western world” (as stated by rabbi a. rakkefet rothkopf shlita). the problem which the question of mesorah and modern orthodoxy is that modern orthodoxy is a broad tent which various philosophies and theologies, as such this forum is too short to to explain all of them.

It is a contemporary approach to Judaism that seeks to integrate traditional Jewish values and observance with engagement in the modern world.
The origins of Modern Orthodox Judaism can be traced back to the 19th century, when Jewish communities in Europe were grappling with the challenges posed by modernity, secularism, and assimilation. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888), a prominent figure in the development of Modern Orthodox thought, emphasized the importance of maintaining Jewish observance while also participating in the broader society. His writings and teachings laid the foundation for Modern Orthodox Judaism.

Commonalities among Modern Orthodox Jews include:

Commitment to Jewish Law (Halakha): Modern Orthodox Jews adhere to traditional Jewish laws and practices, known as Halakha, while also engaging with contemporary culture.

Synthesis of Tradition and Modernity: They strive to balance their observance of Jewish traditions with active participation in modern society, education, and professional pursuits.

Zionism: Many Modern Orthodox Jews are supportive of the State of Israel and view its establishment as a significant event in Jewish history.

Torah Study: The study of Torah (both written and oral) is highly valued in Modern Orthodox communities, and many individuals engage in regular Torah study.

Community Involvement: Modern Orthodox communities often emphasize communal engagement, social justice, and acts of kindness.

Ethical Values: Ethical teachings and values are important in Modern Orthodox Judaism, guiding interactions with others and promoting a sense of responsibility towards society.

In terms of practices being mandatory or optional, Modern Orthodox Judaism, like other branches of Judaism, follows a framework of Halakha. While certain practices are considered obligatory for all observant Jews, there are also areas of interpretation and flexibility. The level of observance might vary from individual to individual, but adherence to key aspects of Jewish law remains a central tenet.

Regarding the role of a Rabbi, in traditional Judaism, Rabbis are often consulted for guidance on matters of Jewish law, interpretation, and communal issues. In Modern Orthodox Judaism, Rabbis continue to play a significant role as sources of knowledge and guidance, but individual autonomy is also respected. People often seek guidance from Rabbis for clarifications on religious matters, ethical dilemmas, and personal decisions. Ultimately, the extent to which a person consults a Rabbi can vary based on personal choice, community norms, and the specific issue at hand.

Regular, norman lamm used his English name when writing Hebrew “torah” articles, so whatever he was called for aliyos is not really relevant. He identified with his English name, North Man, and it’s very telling that he did so

מצפון תפתח הרע.

Reines was a man full of fantasies if you read his post zionist writings; nor was he considered a gadol batorah by any stretch where his ideas can be reckoned with baaeli mesorah. Not only that, but where does reines say anything about there being other important things besides Torah or that secular studies are chas veshalom equal to it?

There’s no source for any of this dribble. The Torah is not missing anything; if you feel it is, אם רק נוא, מכם,! If someone thinks that the Torah is empty, or in lamms view, not full, then the chisaron is in them, not the Torah.

Who can forget Harav Gifter Zatzal screaming “Rabbi Lamn?? Mr Lamn!! Zol zein smicha aropfallen!!”

Da, those quotes all seem to agree rhat there is value in Secular studies on its own, it coexists separate from Torah, even though Torah is higher.

Torah isn’t higher. Hashem made the world from the Torah. It is the only thing valuable to Hashem and to us.

Rav hirsch looked at secular jews studies as a handmaid of the Torah, because he was frum. MO largely os guilty of ascribing something value outside of Torah, and this is akin to shituf.