Chumros = Kids Off The Derech?

Just as simplicity and truth are separate entities, so are extremism and greatness separate entities: Extremism is the perfection of the topic. One who waves the banner of moderation and hates extremism, is in the same camp as liars or imbeciles. If there is no extremism there is no perfection and without perfection there is no beginning. For the beginning is with constant questioning and doubts, and perfection is the sharp reply which puts each statement in the right and truthful place.

We are used to hearing certain circles declare that they are not extremists, and yet still consider themselves faithful Jews with enough faith in Torah and Torah opinion. From an arbitrary point of view, we say that just as there are among the lovers of wisdom none who love just a little wisdom and hate a lot of wisdom, so among the lovers of Torah and its commandments there is no love of mediocrity and hatred for extremism.

The above is a quote from the Chazon Ish, Yalkeit Daas Torah.

Rob, You never believe facts to your disliking.

Secondly, Lubavitch was opposed to Rav Kook approach.

Thirdly, my quote above from the Chazon Ish includes both paragraphs, despite the only partial italics.

ROB – do a google search for TEIQU and Kugel. You will find that this supposedly kosher YU organization recently invited him to speak. And if you read the same article that I did, you will find quoted that they were interested in hearing him speak because they study his “work” in their classes. If his stuff is not bible criticism, I don’t know what is.

Not to mention that I know of such classes first-hand (i.e. speaking to someone who was in these classes) and that you can research them on the YU website.

The kefirah problem is not limited to the fringes of YU. It is YU.

“In that I simply follow the gemoro that tells me to despise the “chet” (sin) and not the “choitim” (sinners). “

I really appreciate, ROB, that you posted this, because when I recently posted the same thought, someone said my quote was a goyische concept. I did not know the source from G’ Berachos that stated this, having not learned Gemarah, so I am happy to have a validated view.

Rob, I’m sorry the facts don’t fit in with your sense of reality, but I’ve provided the mekors and everything I quoted from Rav Aaron ZTV’L and the Chazon Ish are in context. Why don’t you crack open the Sefer and read it for yourself?

“In that I simply follow the gemoro that tells me to despise the “chet” (sin) and not the “choitim” (sinners). “

Can everyone leave this out of the discussion? why? Because no one is referring to the people (Choitim), they are referring to the chataim (sins) so why is this being used as an argument?

squeak, I did google the names mentioned. I also read most of the lecture that Kugel gave this past month about Chazal ans the Midrash. From what I have read, this is not even close to Bible criticism. All that Kugel does is explain the relationship of Midrashim to the Torah and how various writings of all kind are reflected in the text of the Torah. I didn’t see any Bible criticism of any kind in this lecture.

I suggest that you try to understand what classical Bible criticism was about. It was asserting that there were different authors in different time periods and how this was reflected in the actual text of the Torah. The Meforshim who were confronted with this showed that those questions had no validity and that there was absolutely no reason to believe-chas vesholom- that the Torah had different authors in diffferen times.

The above may sound strange to you but in the nineteenth century , a lot of weight was given to the study of the text and its internal contradictions. Kugel says nothing of the kind and I fail to see where Teiqu is a “pseudo -orthodox’ group,as you suggest. Please enlighten me if you can.

squeak, IIRC, he believes that the Torah is of divine origin, just not everything is 100% historical. That is a far cry from what you are saying.

“squeak, IIRC, he believes that the Torah is of divine origin, just not everything is 100% historical. That is a far cry from what you are saying. “

No idea who “he” is but whoever he is is a total SICKO and can’t believe he is being spoken about on a supposedly frum website.

I probably should stop coming here and not because of bittul zman!!

Thanks ROB. I can’t learn Gemarah, but will ask my son to explain it to me. Have a good Shabbos.

I cannot believe what some people are saying on this thread.

Squeak, the disrespect you show for R’ Soloveitchik is uncalled for. If nothing else, the term Rabbi is from gaining smicha (which is a degree nowadays since we don’t have mesorah) which he has. Is there a reason anyone should show any respect to “your” rabbonim? Imagine if I made nasty comments about R’ Avigdor Miller himself – you would be up in arms. Yet, the reverse is ok. R’ Soloveitchik was an exceptional rav – you want to question his philosophy? his piskei halacha? That’s fine. I do that with many rabbonim. When you degenerate to disrespecting him by calling him his English initials, that is NOT ok. Just remember, Hashem can forgive you for sins against Him, but not against other people.

As for the gay club and transgender professor – first, remember that its not assur to be gay, just to act out on gay feelings. I have no idea what goes on at this club, but you might not either. Maybe its more like an AA for orthodox gay men who are struggling with this? The transgender professor is a very sticky subject that the YU rabbonim came out against. Unfortunately, we live in a country that has rules and there was no way to stop this from going through. I don’t know if you know laws of tenure, but it was only after he had tenure that he told them he was having an operation. The laws of discrimination in the country are designed to protect people – Jews included. Remember that.

The point isn’t that it is wrong for anyone to be MO. Its all about madreigas. If someone is not religious, becoming MO going up many madreigas. For him MO is good. But for a Chareidi to consider becoming MO, is going down many madreigas.

Sjnyc,

What you dont get is that alot (most?) of the black hat chareidei world is brought up to think that there gedolim are the only ones worth listening to and that anyone that disagrees with them on that is just not getting it or stupid.

Now if they were ever able to explain WHY (other then there own personal opinion wich is not necessarly better then yours or mine) there talmidei chachomim are any less likely to make mistakes or why they think that there rabbonim are necessarilly bigger talmidei chachomim then say M.O.rabbonim, then i guess there would be somthing to argue with them about.

However when you ask them for a reason they generaly just get offended or they just say that they are doing a good thing beleiving that there rabbonim are the greatest without having a logical reason to do so (you must have “emunas chahcomim” only in THERE gedolim, only THERE gedolim have “daas torah” ect.).

You just cant win an argument with people who think making no sense is a good thing, so dont get worked up about it.

000646 I really hope you are wrong about that, and its only the vocal ones. I really don’t want to think that so many people are really that ignorant.

000646 i’m not such a stickler, but when you capitalize a word to make a point it kinda sticks out. (and when you do it twice i needa point it out…)

…THEIR

anytime :}

SJS, putting aside the sheker you said about the Yeshivisha oilem, can you cite a few examples of what you colloquially refer to as “MO philosophy.” I wasn’t aware there was in fact an “MO philosophy” that was generally accepted amongst all the MO, so perhaps a few examples from you can help all of us know to what you refer to. Thanks

SJSinNYC,

Why are you sooo into the tax evasion stuff?

“I really hope yeshivish people in general are not like some of the people in this thread. The ones I know generally are not, but this is one reason my husband left being yeshivish to become MO.”

Now I understand why you are so against “Yeshivish” olam as you refer to it.

Your argument about chasidis is not a good comparison. Chasidus was (is) a different derech of becoming closer to H-m which many people were against. I don’t believe the idea of mo is to become closer to H-m after all is said and done. Also, Chasidus is lasting for many, many years. I don’t think the same can be said for Modern Orthodoxy (but of course you’ll disagree).

bored@work

I think she’s mo from birth. it’s her husband who changed.

By the way sj, there are many definitions of yeshivish, and what you refer to as yeshivish, I probably do not consider yeshivish.

The seriousness of today’s situation in Eretz Yisroel does not bode for long discussions about matters that do not touch our everyday lives. However, I want to respond to Joseph and his quotation on Modern orthodoxy by R”Aharon Kotler zz’l.

I finally had the opportunity to find a “Mishnas Aharon’ and did check his source.

Joseph, you are indeed correct that R’Aharon ,in his hesped on the Brisker Rov zz’l, has harsh words on the Modern orthodox way of yiddshkeit. He does indeed take Modern orthodoxy to task for its changing of some customs and, in that way, compares in to Reform. That is indeed in that writing.

It is a written quotation of the hesped and I have no way of knowing if these were indeed the exact words of the hesped or if they were subsequently written by a talmid.

Be it what it may, this is R” Aharon’s own hashkofoh. If you follow his derech,chapter and verse, then you may indeed accept this an indictment of SOME of the ways of modern orthodoxy.

If one does not follow R”Aharon’s ways, then it is just R’Aharon’s words and one does not have to suscribe to it. You may follow whatever godol or Rov that you wish.

I am only writing this because of the original discussion. For now, I will concentrate on the news of the day- something much more important than our idle talk.

SJS, I am sure that I understand quite a bit about MO. What you seem to be missing (and correct me if I’m wrong) is that it is possible to be fully Orthodox (i.e. charedi) without being “yeshivish”. There are plenty of fine Jews who are not yeshivish (and I count myself as one). The prefix “Modern” connotes a desire to modify Orthodox standards to “fit with the times”. Choose what example you will, but you can’t avoid the fact the the MO philosophy, as you put it, is simply “permissiveness”.

Otherwise, you are just Orthodox.

And although this is an entirely different discussion, you should be able to understand from this why MO is clearly NOT the scion of Rabbiner Hirsch.

joseph- mea culpa only in that you were correct in quoting R’Aharon”s words. It does noe mean I (or others) have to agree with this view. In this, we would be going back to the manifold discussion what is ‘daas torah” and ’emunas chachomim” and when is it applicable. Not the time and place for this now.

squeak- so-called “modern orthodoxy” has two pillars. One is that we can and should interact with the world, including getting secular education and working in the general society. This is ABSOLUTELY R’ SRH Hirsch “shittah”.

The other pillar is the recognition of Israel as being the instrument of the Almighty in bringing back the Jews to their ancestral homeland. On this, we do not know what R’ SRH Hirsch would have done (he died in 1888) but a number of his followers were indeed anti-zionist in the early stages. In that, you may say that Hirsch is not a precursor for modern orthodoxy.

I think many of the so-called “modern orthodox” would take very vehement exception in your characterization of modern orthodoxy as being one of ‘permissiviness”. Actually, I do not know where you take this idea from. The fact that some of the tenets of MO is to ‘fit in with the times’ means nothing. Throughout history, we have always “fitted in with them times”. I don’t see you or others wear a turban or long ‘djelabbah’, although the Rambam and all other Sefardim wore this for centuries.I don’t see you wearing the pointed hats of the sixteenth century either.

I also think that the Rambam and others studied “alien’ philosophies and ,for sure, studied medecine.The Ramchal,auhtor of the Mesilas Jeshorim, was steeped in the local culture and so were all the Rishonim in Spain.We have always adaptd to our surroundings,while keeping the basic tenets of our traditons and halacha.

It is only in the last two centuries that, suddenly, nothing can be changed and everything must be frozen in anno 1780 or thereabouts.

BTW, I am writing all this as one who loves the chassidische “levush” but I realize that it is a tradition, not “halocho lemoshe misinai’ (who certainly did not not wear a shtreimel)

sjsinnyc, I would think that is a good thing if it stregnthened your relationsip with HaShem which is the whole point…

Dovid Yehuda,

Beautifully said!