Question to Toi on Modern Orthodoxy

Off the top of my head:

Rav JBS, in his 13 addresses, said “the more one can distance one’s self from secular culture the better one is for doing so…” and that the reason for creating this new MO movement was that he (incorrectly) feared that traditional Orthodoxy would become a museum piece and couldn’t exist in the new America. B”H, this did not happen.

Therefore, it is quite clear that Rav JBS himself felt that MO was NOT lichatchila in any way.

So since Traditional Orthodoxy CAN and does, B”H, not only exist but even thrive, in this (not anymore so) new America, there is no valid reason to “modernize” Judaism when doing so is at best a bidieved according to Rav JBS, its founder.

Does that help?

I’d like to try to answer your question as I am a product of this type of background.

“Modern Orthodoxy” was the orthodoxy that existed in America in the early 1900’s just by virtue of it’s existence. No one initially defined it.

Many things the old timers brought over from Europe were not continued by the next generation.

Those who remained Orthodox – kept Shabbos, but were often very unknowlegable of the details of Halacha in all areas. Ladies covering hair, carrying a key of Shabbos, correct procedures for warming food on Shabbos, making Brochos on food, Shatnez, modest clothing, etc. These things weren’t kept properly by many. This was what modern Orthodoxy was – Jews who weren’t the bearded European parents, who were educated secularly and limited in their Jewish knowlege.

In addition there were the ideological changes of the generation regarding education, knowlege and type of jobs available to Jews.

At some point Rav Soloveichik defined Modern Orthodoxy as a goal for those who were remaining Orthodox – more stringent Halacha, and the incorporation of the study secular subjects and worldliness in order to bridge the gap between the Torah and the Jews of the day.

There are those today who call themselves modern Orthodox – who go mixed swimming, etc. – this is not the Modern Orthodox the Rav wanted people to aspire to. He wanted to get people to keep the Torah properly, to keep mitzvos more correctly, but was also incorporating secular knowlege and study into it.

“Modern Orthodoxy” was the orthodoxy that existed in America in the early 1900’s just by virtue of it’s existence. No one initially defined it.

I’m not aware of anyone who would define Modern Orthodoxy that way. I’m not aware that anyone in the early 1900’s in America believed in any of the philosophy of torah umadda.

I would define it as followers of the Rav.

Excellent. Then include all the Toras Moshe Rabbis (such as Rabbi Dr. Meiselman) and their followers (such as Dovid Kornriech) as MO, and their opponents (such as Rabbi Slifkin) as Charaidi 🙂

In the fine middle eastern tradition of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” (Not calling anyone an enemy. Ok, not calling everyone an enemy. Ok, just ignore this parenthetical.)

Chareidim do not follow any specific teachings of any specific Rebbi, nor do they believe in any specific values not already in the Torah. Chasidim follow the specific teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his disciples; Telzers follow the teachings and Minhagim of the Telzer Yeshiva; the Mussar movement was started by Rav Yisroel Salanter – but “Chareidi”? There was no beginning to “Chareidism” except on Har Sinai; no particular person whose teachings they follow except Moshe Rabbeinu, and no particular Minhagim they perform.

So there really is no such thing as a “Chareidi.” Those who people refer to as “Chareidim” have mostly never referred to themselves as such – in America you can go to Yeshiva from Kindergarten through Kollel and you will most probably never hear “we are Chareidi,” and you may even never hear the term used at all.

And because words matter – it’s a strange thing but people often tend to form impressions of reality based on words and phrases rather than creating words and phrases that reflect reality – I do not use the term “Chareidi” because by giving generic, default Judaism a label it conceals the fact that this Judaism is in fact the generic and default.

Because ashkenazim feel a need to have sects — perhaps an ancient minhag from the bad side of the late second temple era — we have a sect called Modern Orthodox and another one called “yeshivish” (which is a new thing. Ah mohl there weren’t enough yeshivaleith in one place to make a sect) all the chassidim l’mineihem, another one called heimish (cultural chassidim, but no chassidish hashkafa. How this becomes a sect is beyond me) and yet another one called beis-yaakov-yeshivish-withit-light-hold-the-mayo. Sephardim have a much more sensible attitude.

pba- chareimim/prushim are the tzibbur started by the talmidei haGra and the baal ahem. They joined when they all came to EY. The hasidim compromised on their minhagim and nusach etc., and the talmidim of the Gaon on their dress, which the chasidim saw to be more important. The term chareidi was later applied more generally to the chassidish/litvish older yerushalmi community, and somehow nowadays, wrongly i think, has become associated with the righter wing of yiddishkeit. sources abound but i cant think of one now. in any case, calling everyone besides mo chareidi is laughable, its simply a misnomer.

bump. no one commented and im being a baby. harumph.

I think Kollel_Wife makes a good point, that there are (older) people who don’t cover their hair, etc. due to the upheaval from the transition from Europe to America.

But, Sam2, Rav JBS founded the MO of today and MO today is not a result of that upheaval.

It is, as mentioned above, the distortion of the ideals of Rav JBS, some of which, in retrospect and as held by other gedolim who were his peers, were mistaken to begin with, that are responsible for the various MO avlas that have occurred and continue to occur.

MO is eventually going to head either in, CH”V, a “YCT –> Conservative —> Lost to Yahadus” direction, or, hopefully and BE”H, more likely, in a Traditional Orthodox direction. “Chareidi”, based on Chassidic mesorah and practices, is not part of the equation nor is it a greater or more authentic level of observance than Traditional Orthodoxy.

ItcheSrulik, I think you must be joking. Nobody wants disunity; but by choosing to dilute and distort, CH”V, the Torah’s laws, MO de facto makes itself into its own sect. May we all be zoche to the geula sheleimah, when we will all be part of a true Aguda Echad serving Hashem the way He wants us to, BB”A.

The fact is that Chareidiut is as much a departure from pre-emancipation traditional Judaism as is MO, reform Judaism or any other movement. Jacob Katz and others have well established the truth of that, and it is undeniable. Emancipation was THE game changer, and Judaism has yet to recover from it. Reform responded by jettisoning Halacha. Chareidiut responded by hallowing the Shulchan Aruch and by elevating Dinei Derabbanan and minhag tot he status of Torah law. MO, while essentially accepting the authority of the Shulchan Aruch as normative accomodates certain deviations from it in light of an equally important manifesto to participate in the surrounding culture. Those deviations might be grounded in minorty Halachik opinions not accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, or they might be based upon contemporary sevarah. But MO does, in theory at least, seek a Halachik basis for its actions. MO, also in many instances rejects the notion that minhag always has the status of din. It also rejects/resists the jettisoning of those minhagim which contradict the Shulchan Aruch, if such practices are hoary with age. Thus at my MO seder, I divide one piece of shmurah matzah among the entire table, even though the size of each piece is far smaller than the shiur of the Chazon Ish, or even that of Chatham Sofer. I do it because my father did it that way, as did his father etc. That age old family practice, a mesorah if you will, trumps any code based criticism anyone might levy. Conservative Judaism seeks to place Halachik observance within a historic continuum in which Halachik practice remains ever fluid and always subject to modification.

But all this is merely academic. Who is anyone to criticize the Halachik praxis of anyone else, when none of the current schools of though truly reflects the pre-emancipation system?

Tora Yid: I do find them objectionable. Some people have Heterim for them from their Rabbis (though probably not for ones containing Pritzus). So while I wouldn’t go to one, I can’t honestly say that a person who listens to his Rabbi is inherently wrong (I can think the Rabbi is wrong though). My point remains that HaKatan’s indictment on what he calls “MO” is that some of the people who call themselves “MO” attend Broadway shows. I’m waiting for something more substantial to throw off a large percentage of Frum Jews.

HaKatan: I know what claims you make. Do you care to back up any of your claims of “intentional and flagrant violations of one of the 3 aveiros chamuros SheBiChamuros”?

“I’ve mentioned this many times before. Rav JBS himself wrote that the more one can distance himself from secular culture the better he is for it.”

HaKatan, please provide the source for that assertion.

“I’ve mentioned this many times before. Rav JBS himself wrote that the more one can distance himself from secular culture the better he is for it.”

…please provide the source for that assertion.

I haven’t seen this, myself, but I have seen such a thought quoted from “The Rav Speaks: Five addresses by Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik” pg.27-29.

It’s quoted in “Tradition vs. traditionalism: contemporary perspectives in Jewish thought” by Abraham Sagi, on page 39 (excerpts available on Google Books).

DY, neither site checked out online.

“(older) people who don’t cover their hair, etc. from the upheaval”

There are indications, such as old photographs, and citations in 19th century halachic literature, that in Lita, and some of the

western cities, some notable people(married women) did not cover their hair.

twisted – so what? That makes the forbidden permissible?

Rav Hirsch did not encourage non-Jewish culture, in fact his policy of austritt was designed specifically to separate culture from education. He also did not send his students to outside colleges, he made his own. And why in the world would anyone consider it a positive thing to spend years learning secular law – and if so for law, why not for MTV trivia? If all knowledge comes from G-d (quote from Dr. Lamm) and therefore is worth pursuing then all knowledge that comes from G-d is worth pursuing – why limit your knowledge to what the colleges teach?

Rav Hirsch was talking about Germany during Haskalah. He was right, then. He and his small Kehilla (about 300 members) saved German Jewry. Rav Soloveichik was talking about New York in the 60’s. There was no comparison

And the Rambam, the Ibn Ezra, the Rama…

Cantoresq, Google “Tradition vs. traditionalism: contemporary perspectives in Jewish thought” by Abraham Sagi”

There was no “modern orthodox” leaders that created their movement the way l’havdil the baal shem tov started chasidus or rav yisroel salanter the musser movement. Instead, modern orthodoxy is just a bunch of people who like what the gentiles think and do, and to one extent or another, morph judaism to fit in, and then they spend their time putting major effort into figuring out what modern orthodox means. The root problem with Modern Orthodoxy, the issue from which stem all other issues, is that they incorporate secular, non-Jewish, values into their religious practice. What the secular world values, they believe is valuable. What the secular world thinks is normal, civilized, sophisticated, good, and proper, they do too, and they incorporate those values and attitudes, which are often corrupt and against the Torah, into their religious practice.

And so, because in the secular world, a “people” is bizarre when when youre talking about a people with no country and no common language – imagine the Italians without Italy or Italian – therefore, Zionism, which, to their standards “normalizes” the Jewish nation (that was actually the word the Zionists used) becomes almost a requirement of Modern Orthodoxy; because secular studies, college education, mixing of boys and girls and a general a collegiate, yuppy lifestyle, is considered “normal” in the secular world, it become part and parcel of the MO lifestyle.

And ironically, where college and mixing of the sexes is concerned, the MO community become tremendous meikilim way beyond what the halachah allows. In these areas, they will struggle to find heterim, whether they exist or not; on the other hand, regarding making aliyah, they will become fanatical machmirim, and despite the myriad leniencies and historical precedent of Jews willingly living outside of Eretz yisroel, they will often run around saying that you have to make aliyah, and not to do so is in violation of the Torah.

When secular values demand they be fanatical machmirim, they become fanatical machmirim; when secular values demand they become unreasonable mekilim, they become unreasonable mekilim.