- This topic has 289 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
It wasn’t hurtful! YES IT WAS ! How dare you say that? It wasn’t!
Can we go somewhere interesting please?
HaKatan – You have evaded the question of Zionism = Avoda Zara three times, and repeated tired lines about how the Zionists are the Devil himself. Obviously you don’t believe it either.
Shtikah K’hodah.
Hakatan:
I see you’re rehashing the same old arguments. Again the MO shita imho and of course in the eyes of our greats is the traditional Torah way going back to Sinai; as a reaction against the Haredi revolution we have dubbed ourselves “modern” or perhaps more appropriately “centrist” orthodoxy, see Rabbis Norman Lamm , Aharon Lichtenstein or Jonathan Sacks for a more broad proofs. It is the Haredim who have simply become more machmir in response to modern culture…while I disagree with this approach obviously I sympathize and of course no MO would call the Haredim illegitimate ch “v. But to call Haredi Judaism “traditional Torah Jewry” is to grossly distort history. Being machmir in response to modern society while understandable in no way makes you traditional I am sorry to say. Also Rav Chaim of Brisk, while certainly being a great gadol, was hardly the only Rabbi of the past 300 years, so continuing to post his views like they are the daas yochid does not make that so
GAW:
I repeated multiple times that according to the greatest Torah sages that Zionism is A”Z. Please see the prior posts.
ronald9:
If you were to read the post linked by Joseph, you might understand that RYBS who invented MO, wrote that he did so out of what he felt was a necessity due to time and place. As well, his sevara to do so was rejected by the gedolim of the time (as was RYBS, himself, rejected by gedolim of the time).
Regardless, his sevara certainly doesn’t apply today and according to his own writings, as posted there in that OP, the ideal Jew is the Traditional Orthodox Jew, and not MO, according to RYBS.
MO theology is against the Torah and is baseless.
Sam2:
With all your erudition and knowledge of both Torah and (lihavdil) Maddah, it’s sad that this is the best you can come up with when posting about me and what I’ve posted. Shabbat Shalom (in MO parlance).
I repeated multiple times that according to the greatest Torah sages that Zionism is A”Z.
Yet, not once have you explained why we don’t treat shomrei Torah umitzvos who believe in it as ovdei A”Z.
Sam2:
With all your erudition and knowledge of both Torah and (lihavdil) Maddah, it’s sad that this is the best you can come up with when posting about me and what I’ve posted. Shabbat Shalom (in MO parlance).
What you expect from an oveid a”z?
Yet, not once have you explained why we don’t treat shomrei Torah umitzvos who believe in it as ovdei A”Z.
I’m actually machmir to treat everyone as ovdei avoda zara just in case.
“MO theology is….”
You still have not answered my question from yesterday. Please define MO tenets based on their theologians. Also please define MO theology based on the theologians.
Just saying that you see MO people doing a certain thing is not tantamount to defining their beliefs and theology. If that was the case, I could say that Haraidi theology includes that one must be schnorrer. They schnorr from the Medina, they schnorr from the US gov’t, the schnorr from door to door. The vast majority of meshulachim that come to my door are Haraidi. Furthermore, one could say that the Haraidi system of low secular education is to produce more people who are unskilled and can’t make ends meet, who then have to schnorr. That way we institutionalize schnorring generation after generation.
My point is that no person or community is perfect nor immune to criticism. If you want to discuss the ideals and theology, please stay focused on the analysis of that.
pBa: I was saying that it’s worth studying Latin as opposed to doing anything else–except for learning–if it will lead to clarification in a minor detail in the g’mara.
What has happened to this room is embarrassing and appalling. The sinat chinam that clearly is being shot around here is upsetting and I am starting to feel embarrassed of being a Jew. First off, I don’t understand why people are so against Zionism of it is a principle that some of our greatest teachers and scholars believed in and preached for thousands of years. The concept of kedushat eretz Yisrael is something that is paramount to the Jewish faith, something out greatest teacher, Moshe rabbeinu, was unable to do and cried endlessly to God to allow him to go into the land of Israel. Countless tzaddikim, including the ramban, rambam, Ezra hasofer and many many more have taught us to love eretz Yisrael and to live there because it is the holiest land on earth. If this is so, and it is also the main point of Zionism, which Herzl does attest to in his works, then why do people think it is avoda zara? Wouldn’t it be heretical of THEM to say that a mitzva that hashem has commanded us to do is avoda zara and incorrect?
Secondly, I don’t understand why people decide to knock on modern orthodoxy. I grew up more to the right and I have moved more to the left over the last few years so I have seen both sides. What appears to me is that it is clearly possible to be modern orthodox and still adhere to all of halacha and halachik values. It seems to me that generally the people who are considered modern orthodox are usually more accepting and open minded than many people in the chareidi community. Also, one thing that I believe make modern orthodoxy special is that it really presents many different hashkafot and allows for the young people to choose. But to reiterate what I said at the beginning, even though modern orthodoxy or Zionism have their flaws, it gives no Jew the right or permission to judge and criticize the people who agree with them.
Notyeshivish: The Zionism being discussed here is not the Zionism that was preached for thousands of years.
As for the other point you mentioned, well you’re absolutely right, this thread seems to have degenerated into a petty argument full of senseless attacks and sinat chinam. Go back to the begining of the thread and you’ll find an intelligent conversation with some very well written posts, especially the link to Joseph’s rather long post which I found to be well written, well researched and fairly objective. ( it is extremely long but its worth a read)
sds: if someone has tens of thousands of extra hours to spare, why do you assume that studying Latin would not be at the expense of Torah? How could it not be?
PBA:
Your joking aside, I expected Sam2 to put forth an argument that would futilely attempt to defend the indefensible (MO/”RZ”). I did not expect grade school-type verbal attacks.
DY:
I said that this is for an LOR to decide.
MDG:
I think I have clarified more than enough. Please see Joseph’s OP for further details.
notyeshivish:
Zionism is a bankrupt anti-Jewish ideology that was invented around a century ago. The other things you are confusing with Zionism including, lihavdil, kedushas Eretz Yisrael, only further emphasize how terrible is Zionism as Zionism is an abomination to our religion and, of course, to our holy land, which the Zionists have invaded and defiled with their many impurities.
Nobody is “knocking on MO”. Someone tried to claim that MO is a valid derech, at which point some others corrected that assertion, clarifying that MO is NOT a valid derech but, rather, that MO contains heresy and idolatry. At the same time, nobody is denigrating, CH”V, MO adherents, who likely do not know any better.
DY:
I said that this is for an LOR to decide.
Yes, and I said that if it were truly A”Z, you wouldn’t need to ask an LOR, the same way you wouldn’t need ask about a buddhist.
You continue to evade the question.
PBA:
Your joking aside, I expected Sam2 to put forth an argument that would futilely attempt to defend the indefensible (MO/”RZ”). I did not expect grade school-type verbal attacks.
Yes, but can you really expect him to engage the argument that he and his rebbeim are ovdei avoda zara? Especially when it is obvious that neither you nor the people you are citing actually thought that (for example, if you did you could not use any major hechsher–do you not?)
(for example, if you did you could not use any major hechsher–do you not?)
Don’t ask him, ask his LOR.
that should actually be a serious shailah– if you hold zionism is a”z, then you must apply the nuerous halachos of relating to ovdei avodah zarah, to religious zionists. Does anyone actually do that? yayin nesech, hanaah, mitzvah l’horgo, can’t count for a minyan, shechitah and kashrus is invalid, etc. And there is no taynah of tinok shenishba on someone like Sam2, who hakatan admitted is erudite and knowledgeable…
The Rabbonim have been claiming things were analogous to A”Z forever. Doesn’t the Gemarra say excessive pride is comparable to it? Doesn’t mean the actual laws of avoidah zarah apply. I think it’s a bit of a straw man argument to attack him on the basis that he doesn’t treat Zionists as literal idolaters.
If Hakatan doesn’t think it’s literally A”Z, he’s had ample opportunity to clarify that it’s merely a figure of speech.
pBa: in which case your original post was redundant.
SDS: I’m sure if we keep saying pithy one line responses, we’ll eventually figure out what the other is talking about.
Here’s my contribution: time is relative.
So what started out as a decently legitimate debate on YWN has descended into a fight over Zionism. Who saw that coming? Totally caught me off guard…
DY and Neville:
The lashon is not at all to the effect of “domeh liMi sheAvad A”Z”. The lashon they used is that this is literally A”Z. And Kefirah.
DY:
I guess that’s why an LOR is an LOR and you are…?
It is not that simple to condemn a person just because of a particular portion of his theology. Please see the rest of this post as well.
zogt_besser:
There is a different group who are considered a sect of Judaism (I won’t mention who they are so as not to extend this thread by another five pages, but I mean people who are considered by most “Frum” Jews to be “bichlal amisecha”, not Jews for J, CH”V) whose standing, etc. might be illustrative here.
I have heard regarding this group that their sect’s extremely problematic beliefs regarding Hashem, while wrong and heretical, do not turn these individuals into heretics. Rather, we treat them as, essentially, idiots and NOT heretics.
Perhaps the same applies here. Just because MO as a theology fools itself into adopting the idol of nationalism and that and other heresies, that doesn’t automatically follow that any of its adherents are therefore idol-worshipers and heretics. Perhaps there are other reasons that its adherents are still bichlal amisecha, that you can trust their kashrus, etc. I am not dealing with any of that.
Regardless, the point, again, is simply that the gedolim have clearly stated that MO theology is idolatrous and heretical. That’s all; nobody is looking to bash anyone.
Congratulations to Neville on coming up with one
of the best usernames I’ve seen on the CR.
Hakatan- thanks for the answer.
<I> Just because MO as a theology fools itself into adopting the idol of nationalism and that and other heresies, that doesn’t automatically follow that any of its adherents are therefore idol-worshipers and heretics. </I>
Why not? for the sake of emes, you should explore the nafka minos of your shitah. one of them is that if zionism is avodah zarah, then zionists are ovdei avodah zarah. Just like Greek paganism, limashal. Thus, the halachos I mentioned above should apply, no? Sorry if I’m distracting from your point, but I think it’s a good question.
Hakatan,
One one hand you say about Zionism:
“the gedolim have clearly stated that MO theology is idolatrous and heretical.”
But when asked if MO are treated like real A”Z you said, “I said that this is for an LOR to decide.”
You changed which Rabbis to follow. You seem to want to find a way to posel.
Apparently, the Gedolim have not said that we treat them like real A”Z. In other words, do not refuse their wine, and count them for a minyan, etc.
If the Gedolim did not say to posel, then you’ll try to find others who do. It seems to me that you are looking for a way to bash others. Just like many MO go “kula shopping”, you are going “pasul shopping”.
Zogt Besser:
It’s not “my shitah”, and you’re also assuming something that may not be true. The facts of what the gedolim held of the deviancy of “MO” and that of “RZ” are what they are. What to do about it today regarding questions like does that make their wine yayin nesech, et al. is a matter for an LOR. Please see the rest of this post below.
MDG:
I’m not understanding your post.
Again, I’m specifically NOT bashing others, as I mentioned in my posts.
I am, however, conveying that our gedolim have stated that MO and “RZ” theologies are against the Torah. But I have not seen them declare the adherents to be considered ovdei A”Z. So this is, again, a matter for one’s LOR.
I am, however, conveying that our gedolim have stated that MO and “RZ” theologies are against the Torah. But I have not seen them declare the adherents to be considered ovdei A”Z. So this is, again, a matter for one’s LOR.
That makes no sense. Why do you ascribe nonsense to our gedolim?
HaKatan, your positions are inconsistent, as has been pointed out numerous times. Saying “AYLOR” simply evades the stirah. Instead of doing that, think through where you are erring.
Hakatan: Have you asked your LOR that inasmuch as RZ are ovdei avoda zara, is it ok to eat their kashrus? I’d like to hear the answer.
Also, out of curiosity is this this something you also heard from your own rebbeim, or just from reading gedolim stories?
popa, I already wrote a full report on the matter.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/modern-orthodoxy-1/page/5#post-584080
“the gedolim have clearly stated that MO theology is idolatrous and heretical.
If this was true one could not eat the food from an Apikoras, and the O-U is considered Kosher to almost anyones standards
I don’t understand the inconsistency. Maybe, could be, perhaps Zionism is Avodah Zara, but no one bows to it. So no one is an Oved AZ c”v.
There is a disagreement between the Rambam and the Raavad regarding someone who, in the course of his Torah learning, makes an honest mistake, misunderstands something he sees in the Torah, and erroneously derives from the Torah a belief that is actually Apikorsus. The Rambam holds this person is an Apikores and the Raavad holds that he is not. Even the Ravad, however, agrees that even though the person himself is not considered an Apikores, his mistaken belief is indeed considered Apikorsus.
We need to decide whether the MO is wrong because the ideology was wrong from the beginning and the followers are innocently being taken in, or if it’s wrong because its followers have deviated from its original purpose and used it as a means of violating halachah. There’s kind of a lack of consistency.
Now to indulge the current conversation a little: I don’t think pleading ignorance gets a person off the hook for dealing with A”Z. If a Jew converted to Buddhism, C”S, because he thought it was fine, you still couldn’t give him money that he might use to buy idols (e.g. trading with him before a Buddhist holiday, if there is such a thing). So even in HaKatan’s model in which the Zionists are unwittingly guilty of A”Z, the question of how to do dealings with them still stands. If someone was unwittingly breaking Shabbos, even if he isn’t quite as culpable because of his lack of knowledge, it’s not like you can benefit from it.
P.S. Thanks, Comlink, I’m glad you like it.
Neville:
It’s obviously both.
There is no question that the ideology of MO was wrong from the beginning. The gedolim of the time condemned it from the beginning, including Rav Aharon Kotler who stated that its essence was the same as Reform and Conservative.
At the same time, nobody would say that Rabbi YB Soloveitchik would approve of every single thing done by certain groups or individual MO.
I’m actually machmir to treat everyone as ovdei avoda zara just in case.
Only hareidim, or even your fellow MO?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.