- This topic has 115 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I know plenty of “MO” Jews and I think they would all be grossly insulted at the claims that they are not practicing an authentic form of Judaism or that they put society/the world before the Torah and Halacha.
The Reform and Conservative Jews are also grossly insulted when informed they are not practicing the authentic form of Judaism.
I think they acknowledge that they are not practicing the same Judaism as was practiced 200+ years ago.
Many Chassidim would be grossly insulted when informed they were excommunicated by the Vilna Gaon
Jothar: I just scanned the index and looked at every page of Thinking Aloud, and I couldn’t find the quote from the Rav about Modern Orthodoxy and that he was wrong. If anyone else can find it, that would be nice.
ovktd: Check the quotes I provided earlier on this thread from “Five Addresses” by Rav Soloveitchik. I provided page numbers.
oy vey kids, check there where he discusses the members of the shuls being “octegenarians”. I will hopefully get a copy of the book.
By the way, I haven’t yet seen a definition here for what makes someone “MO” other than a reference to an attitude that is obviously not held by anyone Orthodox, even if they refer to themselves as “left-wing MO”. Can we understand what we’re talking about before throwing around names and accusations?
I think the divide is between those who are frum first and part of their general society second, versus those who try to bend frumkeit to match secular social and moral norms so that they can blend in while keeping the bare essentials. The first are guided by Torah and daas Torah – the second by the society around them and dass baal-habayis.
The first group are defined as charedi by some. Still, you’ll find plenty of the former in MO, especially in YU. The latter are more socially frum than anything and you’ll find them at the margins of the yeshiva and chassidishe velt. Nevertheless, they are far more prevalent in the MO world.
However, those who profess the second as an ideology are found only in MO (and RZ in EY, where you still have a hard core for whom tzioinis is more important than Torah to the point they believe that Knesset decisions have the force of Torah).
Well said, but you have limited MO to the Orthoprax 🙂 But yes, people us “MO” as an excuse not to keep Halacha, rather than an actual Shitta (whatever that might be).
Sam2, a straight-up quote from wikipedia:
In general, Modern Orthodoxy’s “overall approach.. is the belief that one can and should be a full member of modern society, accepting the risks to remaining observant, because the benefits outweigh those risks”.[2]
[3]
Additional to this, Modern Orthodoxy assigns a central role to the “People of Israel”.[4] Here two characteristics are manifest: in general, Modern Orthodoxy places a high national, as well as religious, significance on the State of Israel, and institutions and individuals are, typically, Zionist in orientation; relatedly, involvement with non-orthodox Jews will extend beyond “outreach” to include institutional relations and cooperation; see further under Torah Umadda.
Other “core beliefs” [2] are a recognition of the value and importance of secular studies (see Torah Umadda:Torah and secular knowledge), a commitment to equality of education for both men and women, and a full acceptance of the importance of being able to financially support oneself and one’s family (see Torah im Derech Eretz: Earning a livelihood); see below.
[edit]Ideological spectrum
[2] Among the issues have been the extent to which Modern Orthodoxy should cooperate with the more liberal denominations, support secular academic pursuits combined with religious learning, and embrace efforts to give women a larger role in Jewish learning and worship;[5] the acceptability of modern textual criticism as a tool for Torah study is also debated.[6] For further discussion, see Orthodox Judaism: Diversity within Orthodox Judaism; Joseph B. Soloveitchik: Debate over world view; Torah im Derech Eretz: Interpretation.
To the ideological right, the line between Haredi and Modern Orthodox has blurred in recent years; some have referred to this trend as “haredization” [7]. In addition to increasing stringency in adherence to Halakha, many Modern Orthodox Jews express a growing sense of alienation from the larger, secular culture.[7] (“Western civilisation has moved from what was once called the Judeo-Christian ethic to a consumer-driven, choice-fixated culture… Such a world is not chol but chiloni, not secular but secularist. It is impermeable to the values of kedushah.”[8] [and many] [7] Although defining themeselves as “centrist”, institutions here include the Orthodox Union (Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America), the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary.
Adherents on the ideological left have begun to develop new institutions that aim to be outward looking whilst maintaining a discourse between modernity and halakhah. The resultant “Open Orthodoxy” seeks to re-engage with secular studies, Jews of all denominations and global issues. Some within this movement have experimented with orthodox egalitarianism where gender equality solutions are found through halakhah. This has led to women taking on more leadership roles. Others in this movement are increasingly re-engaging with social justice issues from a halakhic point of view.[9] See Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, Shalom Hartman Institute, Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, Partnership minyan, Shira Hadasha, MigdalOr.
Or, here’s a quote from Saul Berman, formerly of Edah:
Charn: +1
Toi:
“tell me if im reading between the lines but wouldnt that mean that these desperate measures, taken to insure klal yisroels survival, were therefore wrong, and , as such, should be replaced or better restored, to original orthodoxy, not the watered down version. i dont get it. if its all on his shoulders and he was maskim its wrong now, whose shoulders are all the MO people on? and why dont his “talmidim” revert back to the original?”
Good question. Personally, I think the only reason MO still exists because once somebody gets used to a modern lifestyle, it’s very hard to give it up. After all, as has been pointed out the purpose of R’ Hirsch and R’ Soloveitchik mixing secular culture with the Torah was only to ensure the survival of Torah-true Judaisim; but today’s flourishing Charedi, Yeshivish and Chasidish communities prove beyond a doubt that these compromises are not necessary for Yidishkeit’s survival. So what purpose do they serve?
Sam2:
Good idea, Sam2.
Jothar, I read the part about octogenarians. (I am embarrassed to say that I had to look up the word.) I couldn’t find anything the Rav said indicating that he was wrong about Modern Orthodoxy. In fact, he doesn’t even us the words “Modern Orthodoxy.” I’ll post that section here:
There is no doubt that there is a movement, whether people are conscious of it or not, an inner desire, an inner drive, to come closer to the Ribono Shel Olam. It expresses itself in a variety of ways. Of course, if we had the proper people, properly prepared, who knew how to talk to these people, they would accomplish miracles. And a lot has been accomplished.
What has been accomplished is that Orthodoxy now is not a problem in America. When the New York Times has a question about what is our approach to abortion, other topics, where they used to go straight to Stephen WIse or Abba Hillel Silver, who used to give them the basics and goodbye, today they go to Orthodox rabbis. The New York Times is the most vain, most non-religious paper, completely secular, but they know there is an Orthodoxy, that we do exist. The goyim know about us. This is number one.
Number two, when you walk in – I remember when I came to the United States, and for years later, walking into a Conservative synagogue meant to be confronted by youth, and walking into an Orthodox shul meant to meet octogenarians. (For those Coffeeroom members who are as stupid as I am, that means people in their eighties.) Now the opposite is true.
AR: (AR is Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet.) Was it really that way, rebbe, when you came here? The Conservatives really had the youth?
I felt the Conservatives were about to win the battle. I made a mistake. I thought that what we had been doing was just futile, an exercise in futility. But it isn’t. Conservatives have lost – they cannot organize an academic colloquium. They simply couldn’t organize a colloquium in Columbia. We have youths. They couldn’t, they simply have no youths.
All Chassidim of all types know about the cherem. Next misinformation?
MO as people define it here means very simply – putting Modern before Orthodox and misdefining modern to mean bending and sinking in observance to match the times. That was true 50 years ago. It isn’t true now among the leadership, except in YCT which is fringe. Probably the real YU definition is that Torah and secular knowledge are on equal footing, which in turn is a spin of Rav SR Hirsch ZT”L’s hashkofoh.
You can be fully integrated into the modern world (usually for parnosso reasons) and wear a Samet hat, payess and a reckel down to your ankles, and you can be an ignoramus about current affairs and technology and not know how to use the Internet and wear a kippa sruga that you take off when you walk into a treyf restaurant to have (whatever your rov 30 years ago told you you could have).
By the way, this is my last serious post here until Chol Hamoed Pesach. Of course I will be back in Adar for humor posts, as well as at any other time if current or community events warrant a few satirical or joke posts.
I have too many responsibilities in the modern world and in the (most charedi segment of my) community to be really involved here.
Jothar, common some of the things mentioned actually go against hallacha, I won’t buy this notion that MO is only about being up to date. Going to the movies is not modern it is assur.
I dont get my information from some non convincing articles. Rather from the MO neighborhood I was raised in.
2scents, the words there in the second post were from Saul Berman, who used to head Edah, a prominent MO organization. He now works for YCT. He said those words as “us, not “them”.
I take strong offense at the implication that people who wear Kippot Srugot are more willing to eat Treif than anyone else. Who the heck cares what your Kippah looks like? (Answer: far too many people.)
oy vey, thanks for the quote.
The way I understood that part was that he believed that Orthodoxy was doomed to fail, and Conservatives would win. This parallels very nicely with the text charn quoted- Extreme Orthodoxy would fade away as it has no attraction for the youth of today.
From charn:(Page 31) So, yes, MO was a new movement created as a response to a problem. The problem: The new world. America. Things will be different there. America is not the place for traditional Torah Orthodoxy. Rav Soloveichik did not believe that he was merely helping a segment of Orthodox Jewry — he held that “the future of Torah in America” depends on following his approach. He held that the “separatist” Orthodox will die out and only YU and MO will survive. He held America was too strong for the real, pure Orthodoxy. Those who insisted on continuing the “old style” Orthodoxy would, he said, be come nothing but tourist attractions and die out eventually.
Now, he admits he was mistaken about the vibrancy of Orthodoxy. I could be mistaken, but it sounds to me like Charn’s quote and this view are integrally related.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Who the heck cares what your Kippah looks like?
MO people who only wear a kippa sruga apparently care.
” The Streimel will cost you a thousand “
True. But think of what you’ll save on neckties and aftershave.
mw13 said: “After all, as has been pointed out the purpose of R’ Hirsch and R’ Soloveitchik mixing secular culture with the Torah was only to ensure the survival of Torah-true Judaisim; but today’s flourishing Charedi, Yeshivish and Chasidish communities prove beyond a doubt that these compromises are not necessary for Yidishkeit’s survival. So what purpose do they serve?”
Rav Shimon Schwab zt”l rejects any interpretation of “Torah im derech eretz” as being a temporary emergency ruling to prevent assimilation (See “These and Those”). It is clear from reading Rav Hirsch’s seforim that his hashkafa was not intended to be a compromise or the like, but that he actually held it to be the ideal Torah outlook on life. Dr. Mordechai Breuer, in Hama’ayan 5736, quotes Rav Hirsch: “Torah im derech eretz is not merely a last resort to rescue the sinking ship of German Jewry!” Rav Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg zt”l similarly holds that Rav Hirsch never intended “Torah im derech eretz” as a hora’as sha’ah. (See S’ridei Eish, cheilek 4, siman 366-367)
It seems as though, from the definitions given above, that most “MO” people I know would not consider themselves “MO” if this is what “MO” means. If you looked at me, you would probably think I’m “Modern” because of the clothes I wear and the kippas I have. I don’t fit into any of these definitions more than the average “yeshivish” guy. It really seems that the definition of MO and yeshivish is your clothes and kipppa, in which case the whole differentiation ruins achdus. (Unless you think that other kippas are so inferior that those who wear them are not as religious, in which case you have other issues)
ovktd: It’s funny that you should mention Rav Shimon Schwab zt’l. Here are some direct quotes from his own writings:
(Selected Essays pp.160-162)
(ibid p.89)
(ibid p. 151)
This, from the Rav of the Torah Im Derech Eretz kehilla. TIDE is not an integration into any foreign culture nor an entry in any sort of way, into the outside community. The idea there is for Jews to be literate and learned enough to present a positive impression and an effective message to the “outside world”, plus, the ability to withstand the powerful anti-Torah impressions and messages of the outside world. TIDE does not espouse sending Jewish children to outside Universities. Rav Hirsh made his own schools – he did not send his students outside of the community. TIDE also includes what Rav Hirsch called “austritt”, meaning that secular knowledge is only acceptable after it is separated from and discards secular culture, values, and environment. Modern Orthodoxy has omitted this fundamental condition.
Lakewood and BP aren’t exactly the shtetles our ancestors grew up in either. Both “MO” (which cannot be singularly defined by one person for everybody because of the huge spectrum) and the “Chareidi” communities in America have, to varying degrees in various areas, been influenced by, and openly employ, modern society’s practices. For better and for worse.
In my opinion, the way I define the Modern Orthodoxy I practice, the “Modern” isn’t the ikkar; it just modifies the orthodoxy ONLY to the extent of acknowledging that the world we live in has changed, so the day to day APPLICATIONS of the ancient, immutable, all important Torah may have adjusted. The Torah and its values stay 100% the same. This has been a constant practice throughout history, for poskim and gedolei hador to apply the unchanging Torah to the modern realities and issues at hand – hence “Modern Orthodoxy”. For example, people don’t make their livings drawing water for the shtetle of all frum yidden anymore. They interact with all sorts of people, out of necessity, sometimes unaffiliated Jews, sometimes nonjews. MO recognizes the importance of making a kiddush Hashem with these people and emphasizes the kavod habrius aspect of these interactions. Hence, one may not be ignorant of social etiquette or “common knowledge”. Hence, MO would say once a woman in a business environment extends her hand for a handshake, you can meet her hand. (deadfish or not, you touch). Others rule not to do this… for obvious reasons.
The point is, MO (at least when you are keeping the “O”) to me, is not changing halacha chas veshalom, only modifying the emphasis in accordance with our necessity to interact with modern society.
I set the guidelines for myself as: get involved with “modern society” to the extent that it is necessary to make a parnassa and help me be megalleh yichud Hashem by making a greater kiddush Hashem among Jews and nonjews (which ramchal says is the point of creation- so I wouldn’t consider that a tier 2 compromise).
OVKTD:
All those quotes address only whether or not R’ Hirsch’s Torah im derech eretz was intended solely for his generation (although I’m fairly certain that there is some disagreement over that). However, that does not mean that adopting secular culture or values is in any way an ideal situation. Torah im derech eretz refers only to secular knowledge (ie science, history, etc) not secular culture and ideals.
So my question stands: What reason is there to mix modernity (today’s secular culture, values and ideals) into Judaism?
Nobody is questioning the fact that there are people who would be willing to be MO or not religious at all. The issue is, What is MO and is it the preferable mode of Judaism? The fact that it is, to some, the only version, or the maximum, that they are willing to accept does not address the issue at hand. If Modern Orthodoxy would be a Kiruv stage for people who aren’t yet ready for real Torah life, that would be fine. The problem is that they consider themselves not a b’dieved, but a l’chatchilah – a full fledged legitimate lifestyle. They often even make claims of being superior to Torah Judaism. That is the problem – compromises sometimes have to be made for individuals who are on their way up. But to take those compromises and make believe they are not compromises at all, thereby fooling people who WOULD be able to go higher that they need not, or worse, that they are already the highest, is a terrible crime. While it is true that on an individual, private, level, we are allowed to even proactively cause someone to sin if by doing so we will have prevented him form committing a greater sin, nevertheless, we may never, ever institutionalize those sins, making a b’dieved into a l’chatchilah, making the exception into the rule.
The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is not what their Jews do, but what their Judaism says. Jews are imperfect – we know that and accept it – but Judaism is perfect, and unchangeable. We do not make over G-d in our own image.
Across the board, traditional Orthodoxy has requested, importuned, begged, and pleaded with Modern Orthodoxy to change and join us. And to a great extent, MO has moved to the right, Boruch Hashem. And our hand is still outstretched. Any assistance that can be offered, is available. No Modern Orthodox Jew need think that if he wants to become traditionally Orthodox he shall not be accepted. We recognize MO as our brothers in Mitzvos, who have been straying in certain ways, but nevertheless are our brothers. Although Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L compared them to Reform (Mishnas Rabi Aharon Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav), he did not mean that they are considered Mechalelei Shabbos or eaters of Nevelah. He meant only that the justification for the modernizations that MO instituted and those that Reform instituted were based on the same mistaken pretense — that Judaism needs the changes. He did not say that the level of changes are anything comparable.
Here is an example of a plea to Modern Orthodoxy from Rav Shimon Schwab ZT”L, Rav of the Torah Im Derech Eretz Congregation Adas Jeshurun in Washington Heights:
“And now we address ourselves to our chaveirim bedeah, our achim bemitzvos of the Orthodox Rabbinate of America. Ad masai? How long do you want to remain a branch, without becoming part of the tree? . . . We say to our achim b’mitzvos, “have Rachmonus with yourselves, and lemaan Hashem, part company with those who have given obscene semichah to to’evah clergymen” . . . Have rachmonus with yourselves, and break off your professional relationship with those who, for instance, consider Yishu HaNotzri merely a failed moshiach . . .We implore you . . . to part company with those gravediggers of Torah. I know it is a painful subject but it is unavoidable . . . We call on you to join us, the true Modern Orthodoxy [Rav Schwab is referring to previous statements of his that MO is today outdated and “anything but modern”], which is a generation of sincere mevakshei Hashem”. (Selected Essays, pp. 90-91)
This does not sound like rejection, but a plea for MO to join us, hand in hand. The mistakes of MO are not the issue. That is for Hashem to judge and deal with, however He sees fit. Punishment for misdeeds is not our business. Unity is. And MO has been – and still is! – implored, “lmaan hashem” to join us in the traditional Orthodoxy ways. The issue is not the past. It is the present and the future.
Charn: Your post is nice but doesn’t tell us what about “MO” needs to be changes. Stop going to movies? That’s just a detail, not a lifestyle. Stop following sports? Maybe, but you can’t define a movement based on that. “Modern lifestyle”? I don’t even know what that means. Using enlightenment ideas and quoting the “great thinkers” of modern history? There is room for disagreement in how to look at them. I don’t think anyone “MO” would actually say that we care about them more or even as much as Torah. And one of the heads of YCT is not any proof for what “Modern Orthodoxy” holds. You’re writing nice prose but it doesn’t mean anything if it’s still undefined. What is different between “Modern Orthodoxy” and “Yeshivhish/Chareidi”?
Sam2, what about wikipedia’s definition?
Jothar: It was good. And I cannot see anything in there that should really be objectionable to anyone or anything that would really constitute a deviation from the original form of “Orthodoxy”. The only possible objectionable line is the first, and at least some frum Jews have always been involved with their Goyish neighbors and communities when the opportunity was there.
charn said: “It’s funny that you should mention Rav Shimon Schwab zt’l.”
I am well aware of Rav Schwab zt”l’s views of Modern Orthodoxy. That wasn’t my point. My point was that Rav Hirsch didn’t intend TIDE to be an emergency solution to assimilation.
mw13 said: “So my question stands: What reason is there to mix modernity (today’s secular culture, values and ideals) into Judaism?”
You said “secular culture, values and ideals” beneshimah achas. Our ideals and values are from the Torah, and from the Torah only. There is no reason to mix secular values into Judaism. The question is culture, i.e. education, being part of the general society.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT”L said it is preferable to be physically murdered by the Nazi’s ym”s than to be “saved” by Yeshiva University and face the spiritual destruction there.
I just want to point out that in the quote from Rav Soloveitchik, he in no way states or implies that he ever attempted “to water down” Orthodoxy.
Dr. Seuss: 1. Where does he say that?
2. Bais Shammai says to light 8 candles on the first night of Chanukah.
Dr. Suess, do you have a source for that?
If you were to look in the back of Kovetz Ha’aros you will find a tshuvah given by Rav Elchonon saying that secular college — let alone YU– is permissible assuming you don’t fraternize with ovrei avairuh, you dont learn/ study and kfiera, and a third requirement which I don’t recall.
I think you may want to verify any statement you make before ascribing it to someone, because then you portray that person (in this case Rav Elchonon Wasserman) as espousing a belief which he did not.
Yes. Here is the a translation of a letter Rav Wasserman wrote (an actual photocopy of the original letter in Loshon Kodesh can be found online — ironically coming from YU’s archives) before being murdered by the Nazi’s ym”s:
Baruch Hashem, Erev Shabbos Kodesh Naso
I received his letters but I have no ability to do anything with this, thus I did not respond.
The yeshivos in America which are able to bring over students are the yeshivas of Dr. Revel (named Yeshiva University) in New York and Beis Midrash L’Torah in Chicago and they both are places of danger in terms of spirituality because they conduct themselves in a spirit of freedom. And what benefit is there to flee from a physical danger to a spiritual danger. But I sent his letter to the revered Gaon, Rabbi Moshe Heiman, Dean of Mesivtha Torah V’Daas in Brooklyn and I suggested that he request of the revered Dean of the Mirrer Yeshiva that he should also write to Brooklyn to the address below:
Rabbi Shlomo Heiman
92 Martin Street
America
Blessing him with life and peace and all good things forever,
Elchanan Bunim Wasserman
Abelleh: Incorrect. In Kovetz Shiurim II:47 Rav Wasserman clearly writes it is ONLY permissible to learn secular studies to the extent required for parnassa, and even then it is prohibited if you will learn any apikorsus or become friends with goyim.
Reb Elchonon continues, saying that the confusion in Germany happened when people thought, mistakenly, that by Jews possessing secular knowledge the Goyim will hate them less. This caused a “negiyos” – a vested interest – that caused the German Jews to desire that their rabbis have a secular education as well.
Dr. Seuss: That was a very liberal (i.e. inaccurate) summary of R. Wasserman’s letter.
It’s not a summary. It is a word-by-word verbatim translation of the entire letter. Google “rabbi elchonon wasserman yeshiva university” (without the quotes) and you will find a photocopy of the original letter in Loshon Kodesh written in Reb Elchonon’s own handwriting on his Yeshiva’s stationary with his signature. Feel free to read it yourself.
A nice mod transcribed the relevant part. ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????. ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?”? ?????? (?????? ????? ??????????) ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???????
Charn, can you please expand the quote from p. 31 of the Rav’s book? It definitely sounds like he’s making changes in traditional judaism to fit “modern” America, which does seem to come from his experience in the shuls.
Dr. Seuss: I assumed your translation was correct. I was referring to your summary – “Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT”L said it is preferable to be physically murdered by the Nazi’s ym”s than to be “saved” by Yeshiva University and face the spiritual destruction there.”
He doesn’t say it’s better to be murdered than to face spiritual destruction, he discusses SAKANA of death. I don’t think he expected the murder that came about to actually come about (though, obviously, there was a sakana).
Out of curiosity, which is worse: secular college or YU?
Out of curiosity, which is worse: secular college or YU?
I went to secular college and it was cheap so I have no debt, YU costs $20K-$30K a year so IMO YU . It is possible in NYC to attend a seder while attending some of the secular colleges especially the public colleges like Hunter, Queens and Brooklyn
“Out of curiosity, which is worse: secular college or YU?”
YU because at least if you go to secular college you won’t come to [falsely] believe that you are getting real, true, and valid unadulterated ruchniyus,; however,if you go to an institution like YU, you will think that you have as good in ruchniyus and as valid a derech in Torah which isn’t true. (Rav Moshe ZT”L once said that one of his maalas was that his daas Torah was never corrupted in the slightest by even a shemetz of secular knowledge.)
Rasha Gamur: What do you think he meant by “secular knowledge?”
rasha gamur said: “if you go to an institution like YU, you will think that you have as good in ruchniyus and as valid a derech in Torah which isn’t true. “
If a derech in Torah is valid, it’s fully valid; if it’s invalid, it’s fully invalid. I don’t think you should be deciding what’s a valid derech in Torah and what’s not. No one’s telling you to go to YU (chas veshalom), but you have no right to say that the derech that many thousands of frum yidden are following – including talmidei chachamim of astounding proportions – is “invalid.”
And if you’re point was that there is no valid reason to have some form of secular study in a frum lifestyle, and any derech which espouses such an approach is “invalid,” then you’re not even worth arguing with.
to rasha gamur: (k’shmo kein hu) And you even have the chutzpah to invoke the name of the late posek hador in your hateful diatribe, who would NEVER say such a thing about YU!
You saw the harsh words Reb Elchonon had for YU. Reb Aaron Kilter was even harsher. And he refused to ever set foot in it — even for a levaya.
Yet others disagreed.
I’m pretty sure I remember reading that he did step foot in YU.
- The topic ‘Becoming Chareidi or MO?’ is closed to new replies.