Reply To: Gog vs. uMagog = Modern orthodoxy vs. Charaidism

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Gog vs. uMagog = Modern orthodoxy vs. Charaidism Reply To: Gog vs. uMagog = Modern orthodoxy vs. Charaidism

#819411
mw13
Participant

First of all, I do not see anybody (sane) calling MO “apikorsim and tzidukiim”. They may vehemently disagree with certain positions or segments of MO, but I don’t think anybody goes so far as to call it apikursis.

Second, there is such thing a thing as standing up for what’s right, and that usually requires pointing out what’s wrong. If the president of a certain institution insults and demonizes full-time learners, and if the said institution doesn’t so much as blink an eye at open chillul Shabbos, homosexuality, and kol davur usar, it must be pointed out that such an institution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called Orthodox, Modern or not. This does not mean that anybody who steps foot into YU is a rasha gamur, but that YU as an institution is not shomer Torah u’mitzvos. And that is a problem. Again, there are many wonderful Bnei Torah and Yirai Shumayim in YU, but that does not take away from the many legitimate taynos against the place.

OVKTD:

“what is an apikorus? The gemara in Sanhedrin 99b gives the following definition: “Rav and Rabi Chanina both said, ‘He is one who degrades a talmid chacham.'” There are some very big talmidei chachamim, gedolei hador, who would consider themselves Modern Orthodox.”

And there are many universally accepted Gedolei Hador who have said things about MO that, would they have been said by a charedi on this site, would have generated accusations of sinas chinom and, apparently, starting milchemos gog u’magog. R’ Shimon Schwab, R’ Aharon Kotler, and R’ Elchonon Wasserman, to name a few.

mikehall12382:

“MO bashing seems to get past the MODs no problem.”

I have a funny feeling that if you saw all the MO-bashing posts that didn’t get through you’d be singing a different tune.

Sam2:

“I’m not sure what your story proves.”

The story proves that the Chazon Ish held that it is absolutely crucial that becoming a Godol, not a baynoni, is held up as the highest ideal. A movement that aims to produce merely “good Jews”, not great Jews, is inherently flawed.

Dr. Seuss:

“The Chazon Ish’s point isn’t that hard to understand.”

…unless you’re trying no to understand it.

“The Chazon Ish saw that the Mizrachim had no respect for the Chofetz Chaim and other Gedolim.”

I wouldn’t say that they didn’t respect the Gedolim, only that they did not hold of teaching their students to try to become Gedolim.