At what point are you officially one side or the other?

HakunaMatada: Rabbi Teitz (who was well-respected even in the Chareidi world; and many hold like him over R’ Moshe on sherry casks) was Mattir not covering elbows based on his reading of the Gemara and Rishonim. His opinion was respected but roundly disagreed with.

HaKatan: Once again, your post is long on invective and short on examples. Find me one example of any Rabbi who will Mattir going to Broadway shows on the grounds that “Modernity trumps Halachah”. I could hear an argument that Kol Isha is a separate type of Ervah (though I don’t know anyone who actually says it) and therefore is Muttar in a case where there is no Davar Shebikdusha going on. And I see no reason why that would be an inherently “MO” position.

Just face it, your assassination of hundreds of thousands of Frum Jews stems from anecdotes about a newspaper article (that I assure you the Rabbonim don’t read; sometimes the Commentator’s editors are Frummer and sometimes not as Frum; that doesn’t mean that “MO” as a whole says that going to bars is Muttar or encouraged) and a story about something that once happened in a high school.

Face it, you have nothing. You are a bastion of Sinas Yisrael due to… I don’t even want to try and guess why. If you have anything substantive to ever say, fine. Until then, I doubt anyone wants to hear your spewing. There are ways to debate slightly different Derachim in Avodas Hashem. Yours isn’t it.

Sam2: You said it perfectly about HaKatan.

I especially like his line that chassidus is “traditional” Judaism. Chassidus was established, as I’m sure most people here know, by the Baal Shem Tov. It’s been written that he began it when he was 36 years old, which was in the year 1734. So Chassidus is about 279 years old. That’s a far cry from the Judaism which was established at Har Sinai! Additionally, the Baal Shem Tov changed Judaism because he felt the common Jew couldn’t relate to Judaism anymore,because they couldn’t learn Torah very well, so he started a movement to try and bring Jews closer to Hashem in other ways.

It seems to me that the Besht was the one who was changing Judaism to try and “modernize” it for the people of his time. His de-emphasizing Talmud Torah was one of the main reasons the Vilna Gaon opposed chassidus.

Chassidus is anything but traditional Judaism.

I’d say you’re officially on one side when you’re throwing rocks at the other, or you’re riding a bus for more than an hour to protest the other side. Until then, you just have unofficial differences of opinion.

This conversation is , in many ways, totally erroneous. One can be on both sides of the divide! I know many chassidim (wearing bekeshe or frak) who are ardent Zionists. They also avail themselves of hetterim on some issues. What are they? Th examples given (covering hair, going to movies)does not put you into one camp specifically. Every so-called MO Rov will tell you that, lehalocho, you should cover your hair and avoid movies.How about beethoven in a concert? how about a youtube about syum hashas? As you see, you can do certain things and never be established in one side or another

Sam2:

I’m not sure what hatred you believe I cause. Halacha cannot be compromised in its own name. Period. Anybody who chooses to do so and claims that Modernity or any other reason allows them to compromise halacha cannot expect to be considered a legitimate derech. I’m not sure what your problem with this is.

Again, please don’t misunderstand my posts. My goal is to discuss what MO and Zionism are, and not, CH”V to hate or condemn anyone. Hashem is the only judge of people, and certainly not, lihavdil, myself. But when gedolim tell us that someone is wrong, then we (ask, if we have questions, and) listen to them.

As for examples, read Rabbi Soloveichik’s own words, where he wrote that Orthodoxy would have to change to fit America. Not only was he wrong about that, but he also wrote that the more one can distance themselves from culture the better it is for the spirit. But MO, instead, makes it a mitzva of engaging with secular culture. He also admitted that he was changing from his Brisker mesorah, and knew that everyone who mattered disagreed with him. Or do you deny this, too? This has all been discussed before.

As for my example earlier, please explain to me why a YU student would write a review of a bar/pub in YUs Commentator magazine and also use relatively crude lishonos in that review. Why would anyone bother to even review it if nobody went and if it were correctly viewed as assur as it is?

I have also, in other threads, pointed out other things even from YU’s own blog.

I have heard that Rabbi Herschel Schachter explained about how fighting in the IDF is *doche pikuach nefesh* as follows: “lichaora” (he did say liChaora, at least), since the State of Israel is a source of national pride, losing the state would be a fatal blow to the spirit of the nation and therefore the loss of life of a soldier in the IDF, CH”V, could be compared to an amputation of a limb needed to save the life of a person.

Remember, this is not pikuach nefesh of the soldier versus potential pikuach nefesh of other Jews, CH”V. This is pikuach nefesh of a soldier versus national pride in the State of Israel to the point that the state is considered the body of Klal Yisrael and its Jews are considered mere appendages.

Please try to tell me he never said that and please explain what he said. Because that is MO and Zionism simply superseding Judaism, never mind the other problems of Zionism.

HaKatan, what do you think a lounge is if not a fancy bar/pub?

HaKatan, why do you allow people to ask their LOR about a sukkah on SA but not on Zionism? Why do we have to follow the SR on Zionism, but not for sukkah on SA?

HaKatan: Once again, you have refused to give a single example of where someone said being “Modern” trumps Halachah.

Someone might review a bar because he went there and wanted to review it. It’s as simple as that. What, because one YU guy went to a bar that means that all of “Modern Orthodoxy” is Apikorsus and puts “modernity” before Torah. I’m sure I could find you a guy from the Mir or Ponovezh who goes to bars. Does that make them all Apikorsim? The Commentator is not indicative of any “YU Hashkafa”. Not even Kol Hamevaser is.

And as someone who listened to thousands of Shiurim by R’ Schachter online, I can say that I highly, highly doubt that your story is true in the slightest. It never happened. It’s not something he would say or hold. He could hold that morale in the army carries a Din of Pikuach Nefesh because if soldiers have low morale, they’re more likely to be killed. Then again, he wouldn’t say that keeping morale up is Doche Issurim unless that was Mamash the only way to keep said morale up (I know this for sure; I have asked a similar Shailah to him in the past and he was only Meikil if it was literally the only way). But I find it impossible to believe that he said the story as you told it.

I spent Rosh Hashana at a very modern YI shul where women did not dress in keeping with this site’s ideal of tznius by a long shot and they said a mi shebeirach for chayalei Tzahal (with names added of the children of congregants in the army).

I spent Yom Kippur at an extremely yeshivish shul where I felt like the most modern person there and Neturei Karta pamphlets have been known to have been seeded.

Both davenings were beautiful.

As someone mentioned above, it was just the yamim noraim, people. Chillax. Why do we need to take sides, anyway? I personally don’t- it’s confusing and limiting (I have friends at both shuls mentioned above).

Sam2,

Regarding your denial of the quoted views of Rabbi Schachter:

Please see the “Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society” #16. I believe the publication date was 1988.

I believe the piece is titled “Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective” and the author is listed as “Schachter, Herschel”. The above is, I believe, from page 79 there.

So, although you cannot believe Rabbi Schachter said such a thing (and now you can check it out for yourself), do you not agree, regardless, that this view is well outside the bounds of what is allowed by the Torah?

In case you are still wondering, the following is (a slightly condensed version, to save the Mods some reviewing time, of) Rav Shimon Shwab’s eloquent written response to Rabbi Schachter’s stated views, as found in “Selected Writings” and also in the community’s bulletin not long after the above was published:

But let us also remember at the same time not to yield even an inch of our emunah peshutah, and not to fall into the trap posed by the easygoing formulas of the new Centrist orientation.

There must never be any contact with organized heresy, in whatever shape or form. When it comes to Zionism, even the kind that has changed it from realpolitik into a pre-messianic religion, let us be firm and brave and defy all forces which tend to weaken our fundamentalist – yes – loyalty to the unadulterated heritage which we have received from our forbears. But all this without hate, without anger and with great humility.”

HaKatan: What kind of moronic question is that? I am going to say that someone who knows orders of magnitude more Torah than me has an untenable Shittah? That would be like you asking me to agree that R’ Elyashiv has an opinion well outside the bounds allowed by the Torah. It’s ridiculous. It’s an absolute Bizayon to Torah to say such a thing.

I read the article and, by the way, I think you’re misreading it slightly. He did not say so about the State of Israel as a Zionist entity. He said it about Jewish control of Eretz Yisrael. Since we are in a constant state of Milchama there, laws of Pikuach Nefesh don’t apply in all situations (like the Minchas Chinuch says). Thus, in order to win the war (by protecting our land), sometimes there are bigger considerations to take into account than individual lives.

I’m not sure if I agree with that or not. But that’s not relevant. It certainly is a legitimate Shittah. And he is not saying, as you want to imply, that Zionism is more important than Jewish lives.

Sam2:

So your opinion went from certainly “not something he would say or hold” to how could I say it’s wrong because he’s so much greater in Torah than I?

Even a gadol cannot say something that is clearly kineged the Torah and expect the hamon am to accept that simply because he said so. “Asher nasi yecheta” is also a possibility. How much more so when a gadol comes out and publicly condemns that shita.

So I disagree that my question was “moronic” and “ridiculous”, though I do otherwise understand your perspective since Rabbi Schachter’s your R”Y.

While you may feel I’ve misread Rabbi Schachter’s words, I’m sure you don’t feel, lihavdil (between myself and Rav Schwab), that Rav Schwab misread it, especially given Rav Schwab’s public reaction to it.

Surely, if Rabbi Schachter’s quoted shita were within normative halacha then Rav Schwab would not have written about them the things that he did.

You also haven’t answered regarding the Commentator review/bars. In fact, it didn’t even faze you that someone would do such a thing and also write a review about it and that the Commentator would choose to publish such a review with the language it used.

I respect your erudition and Torah, as I have mentioned, but the points remain about MO. In the case of Rabbi Schachter’s Zionist shita above, you’re arguing with Rav Schwab who left no room for any such opinion.

Sam2:

This does explain what I read, but since what you describe sounds like a Chilul Hashem that no Orthodox institution would allow, how can YU allow the Commentator to be “the official newspaper of Yeshiva College” and to carry its (YU’s) name?

Sam2:

It’s nice that you claim that virtually nobody cares about the Commentator, but, even if it is true that this publication does not broadly reflect on YU students and MO adherents, the fact remains that no Orthodox institution should allow anything to carry its name given these circumstances.

To illustrate, if any traditionally Orthodox Yeshiva students at a typical traditional orthodox Yeshiva were to pull something like that, especially more than once, one can be sure that the hanhala of that Yeshiva would not tolerate this and there would likely be stiff consequences for the offending student(s), in addition to disallowing such activities to continue with the school’s name attached, like what happened (to the Beacon) after the Beacon scandal and YU.

With the Beacon scandal, on the other hand, the dissociation was fairly quick in coming. So this leads one to believe that although this incident of shameful recounting of giluy arayos is a reason to deny usage of YU’s name, on the other hand, lesser shades of the same and other aveiros, are not reasons to deny usage of YU’s name.

Yet you are unfazed, again, that an institution that names itself “Yeshiva” University (no, I am not disputing the Torah studied there) and whose slogan carries the word “Torah” in it, can simply look the other way while this publication (Commentator) still proudly carries its name. Not only is that the case, but you aren’t even fazed by it since “mostly, no one cares [about the Commentator]”.

“I think many MO people view halakha and observance in terms of minimalist floors, rather than maximalist ceilings; i.e. they believe that keeping shabbat, eating kosher, going to shul once a week, and keeping taharat hamishpacha are sufficient to live Jewishly.”

There are such people. And I think they are wrong. And I self-identify as MO.

Charlie:

Regarding MO and Kollel:

No, MO is not following the traditional view in secular studies.

In fact, it is the traditionally Orthodox Jews who follow the traditional practice. And the Chassidim, too, have a tremendous amount of workers, regardless of what degrees they may or may not have pursued.

Whatever secular studies were studied historically are not comparable to MO’s elevation of secular studies to “Torah uMaddah”. Traditionally Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, do attend college and obtain various degrees, including advanced degrees. Yet they do so for the proper reason (parnassah) and with the proper balance (Torah is holy and the rest, lihavdil, including Maddah, is merely utilitarian), not via MO’s taking away from the Torah to elevate Maddah.

Again, MO is not the traditional way, much as they wish they were.

Zionism shouldn’t even be seen as something which divides us into left vs. right, and I’ll explain why.

There are a few people out there who are principled Hirschians. Rav Hirsch is inaccurately seen as a pillar of MO, when in fact, Religious Zionism tends to be rooted in the uber-mystical, particularistic views of Rav Kook. Rav Hirsch was not a mystic, and he was a humanist and a universalist who saw the role of Jews as being a people who dwelled among the broader society, incorporating its merits and aesthetics into the ranks of Jewish life (TIDE). Zionism, by definition, is not compatible with Hirschian ideals. Jewish nationalism would raise questions of dual loyalty; Rav Hirsch was very much a patriotic German. He devotes a long section of his book Horeb (pp. 460-461) to the obligation of Jews to seek the welfare of their government (Yirmiyahu 29:7). If this applied under the Babylonians, who exiled the Jews by force, all the more so in our current countries of residence, in which we settled by choice. If this applied in Babylonia, where Jews were sent for a pre-specified period of 70 years, all the more so today, when the length of our exile has not been revealed to us. For hundreds of years, Jews have honored and loved the rulers of the countries in which they took refuge, and followed all their laws faithfully.

The Torah united all the individual Jews and made them a nation, and therefore even after they were distanced from their land and deprived of sovereignty, they are a nation, not primarily because of their past, nor because of their future, when they hope Hashem will return them to their land, but because they are the bearers of an eternal tradition, a people that fulfills its covenant with Hashem. It was thanks to this identity that they have been able to maintain their existence despite the destruction of their land and sovereignty.

When we mourn the destruction of the Holy Land, Jerusalem and the Temple, we are not mourning any physical weakness that led to our defeat, but rather we affirm that the destruction was a punishment for our sins, and it is over those sins that we cry. Whatever tragedies befell us, we accept lovingly, knowing that they are the chastisements of a loving Father to induce us to improve our ways.

But this Torah commands us that as long as Hashem does not call us back to the land He set aside for us, we have to remain living in the countries Hashem has chosen for us, have a love and loyalty to those countries, and dedicate all our powers and money to the welfare of those countries.

The Torah obliges us, further, to allow our longing for the far-off land to express itself only in mourning, in wishing and hoping; and only through the honest fulfillment of all Jewish duties to await the realization of this hope. But it forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of the land by any but spiritual means.

In 1864, Rav Hirsch wrote to Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer, founder of Chovevei Tzion: “My mind is too small to recognize the good and truth that will result, according to you, from your efforts in colonizing Eretz Yisroel. What you consider a mitzvah and a great obligation, does not seem so in my humble opinion. I have no knowledge of secret matters, and I see nothing better than to continue on the road paved by our fathers and predecessors, who made it their goal only to improve our Torah observance, and to look forward to the redemption, which might come any day, if we only listen to G-d’s voice. They never approached redemption through the improvement of the Holy Land, only through the improvement of our hearts and deeds.” (Shemesh Marpei, p. 211)

Likewise, many people who are perceived as on the left end of things are Maimonideans, whose view of Eretz Yisroel is very much in line with that of Rav Hirsch. Rambam believed that the land of Israel has little inherent sanctity on its own merits; rather, he says that a person should live outside of Israel if that would more positively influence his spirituality. He also omits yishuv ha’aretz from his taryag.

I, for one, when saying the prayer for the state of Israel, do not say reshit tzemichat geulateinu. None of us living are prophets and we have no way of knowing that the modern state of Israel is the beginning of our redemption. After 60+ years of violence, immorality, and the other problems that other states deal with, I think my point is especially salient. We’re still a long way’s off from geulah.

HaKatan: if you cannot respect MO rabbanim like Rav Schachter, how can you have the temerity to think they will respect you? It doesn’t matter if you think you are right- rebbeim like the ones Charliehall cited are huge talmidei chachomim. The idea that you would accuse these scholars of avodeh zaroh, and link them to a shmutzy article about bars is shameful.

And regarding zionism, its funny you say that Hashem could bring geulah without the State. Don’t you see how much easier it is for mashiach to come when Jews are free and safe from the churbanos of Europe?

To summarize: the treife State supports and hosts an unprecedented amount of Talmud Torah in a safe and holy environment. There are no Cossacks. Pogroms, or inquisitions. You can eat kosher easily, learn lots of Torah, spend 2 years helping other Jews expand the borders of eretz yisrael, and then learn, learn, learn.