Open Orthodoxy

There is an OO manifesto (“Open orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi’s creed”) which is on-line and by itself seems fine to me. However, Some OO “rabbis” have crossed the line perhaps due to the influence of other groups on YCT. This has led to a push-back by rabbis such as Avraham Gordimer.

So far as I know from what I read on the Internet (I live in Israel) there is a difference in the shuls welcoming (apparently looking the other way) active (as opposed to celibate) gays and giving greater roles to women (e.g. aliyot, leading Kabbalat Shabbat). Hopefully they will take the criticism to heart and retreat a bit as did the Chassidim (according to the Tzemach Tzedek quoted in “Mekor Baruch” by Rabbi Baruch Epstein). According to Rav Kook this is the purpose of opposition to a new group.

I think that MO is a bit more traditional in synagogue practice although now there is also Centrist Orthodoxy and Morethodoxy. Maybe the list of subgroups will become so cumbersome that people will return to tzaddikim/benoni’im/resh’im (also Rav Kook’s view).

Open Orthodoxy is trying to push modern day societal norms and political correctness into an “Orthodox” environment even if it runs counter to halachah or accepted minhag.

As an example, a recent ruling allows a woman to nurse a baby in shul while davening.

1) Do people actually affiliate themselves with OO?

Yes

2) Is it an obvious thing (like perhaps as someone would be able to tell who is Chassidish, Yeshivish, or MO based on appearance, shuls, or hashkafah)?

Yes and no. They are mainly affiliated with a Yeshiva and Shul in Riverdale (Bronx, NY)

3) What’s the difference between MO and OO?

Modern Orthodox is a term generally used for what was once called “middle of the road”. Frum but not yeshivish. What I would call those affiliated with the Young Israel movement or Yeshiva University. (I know this may not be a fair statement.)

Open Orthodoxy is basically taking up the space that used to be held by conservatve.

As an example, a recent ruling allows a woman to nurse a baby in shul while davening.

Excuse me for being ignorant, but why is this an issue?

“As an example, a recent ruling allows a woman to nurse a baby in shul while davening.

Excuse me for being ignorant, but why is this an issue?”

I was wondering the same thing (maybe I’m also ignorant).

I think people might be making OO sound better than it is. I was under the impression that they do things that are much more problematic than some of the things listed sound to me. I thought they don’t say “shelo asani Isha”. (personally, if that is true, I find their refusal to say it offensive and demeaning, aside from the more obvious problems).

LU: Nursing in shul? If one is not supposed to make a Brocha in front of a woman whose hair is not covered what do you say about a woman exposing her upper body? It is definitely a Davar ervah!

Iacisrmma- I was assuming she was in the women’s section. I was also assuming that she was doing so tzniusly.

I agree that it doesn’t sound so appropriate, but I wasn’t aware that it something that is discussed in piskei halacha (either to permit or to forbid). (which doesn’t mean it’s not – I was just wondering if it is and what the issue is).

Or are you talking about a situation in which both those conditions are not present?

I saw the letter from the moetzes hagedolah about OO, is that what you are referring to by stating “OO has been declared off-the-map of Orthodoxy” by rabbanim?

lesschumras,etc.,

Strawmen are awfully useful,maybe little more than a distraction

The Cardinal Precepts and the the 3 Chamuros without apologetics

Is what is demanded

Authentic rightwing MO are in ,everyone else is up in the air

Authentic rightwing MO are in ,everyone else is up in the air

According to your litmus test, Where does Young Israel, The OU, The RCA and YU belong?

Do you kick them out?

“1) Do people actually affiliate themselves with OO?”

Yes, but the number of people is very low. If you look at the alumni page of YCT you’ll see they have placed people at a few shuls (usually small out of town shuls), though most of them end up with other jobs like at Hillels. Presumably at least some of the people at their shuls would consider themselves OO.

“2) Is it an obvious thing (like perhaps as someone would be able to tell who is Chassidish, Yeshivish, or MO based on appearance, shuls, or hashkafah)?”

Appearance: No. Shuls: only indication would be YCT rabbi (however, not all YCT rabbis are necessarily OO — see below). Hashkafa: see below.

“3) What’s the difference between MO and OO?”

MO means accepting traditional haskhafa and halacha 100% while being more open to university education, popular culture, involvement in modern society, perhaps even exploring the varying views in controversial areas such as Chazal and science, etc.

OO means affiliating with an Orthodox shul, having a mechitza, identifying as Orthodox, and yet being more flexible about certain things (such as Biblical criticism, women’s participation in shul, attitude toward non-Orthodox, etc.) Some individual OO rabbis have advocated or done very Reform-ish things, like saying you don’t have to say shelo asani isha.

Some OO are more or less the same as left-wing MO while some are like Conservative or Reform in their hashkafa (one, for example, claimed Moshiach will not necessarily be an actual person, chas v’shalom).

I actually know one YCT-ordained rabbi who is hashkafically and halachically totally MO, not OO, and who is accepted as an Orthodox rabbi by all the other Orthodox rabbis in town. Even within YCT there is a lot of variety.

There are plenty of people who attend Young Israels who really arent that religious. They basically keep shabbos more or less and keep kosher more or less, but dont do much else.

The women do not cover their hair outside of shul and wear pants and the men do not daven during the week. Pretty much everyone in shul knows these people.

You can either tell them what they are doing wrong and risk they leave (and that does happen) or let them continue what they are doing as most do go to shul on shabbos on a regular basis and send their kids to day schools and live in a jewish area

False equivalence. There is a difference between committing a sin and asserting that an act is not a sin.

OK. Why must a woman keep what you call “Tznius” in an MO community where she dresses to the standards of her community? And what sort of “sin” is she committing?

Re Avi K’s first post: You mention YCT, but there is no such thing as Yeshiva of Central Toledo.

“Open Orthodoxy” is what Moses said the first time he tried to open the Ark. He saw some pagans saying “open sesame” to clear the entrance of a blocked desert cave, and he thought something like it might work on the Ark. But no. You can look it up in Mishnah Mishugah.

gavra_at_work,

OK. Why must a woman keep what you call “Tznius” in an MO community where she dresses to the standards of her community? And what sort of “sin” is she committing?

When lilmod ulelamaid asserted that some “MO” women do not follow all of the halachos of tznius, lesschumras could have responded as you did, “how so?” But he instead essentially responded, “well some people in YOUR camp commit theft! How ’bout that??” That’s a false equivalence, because everybody agrees that a thief is doing the wrong thing (even the thief, because he hides his actions from public view), but the dress code is in debate, with some thinking it is wrong, and others not.

Iacisrmma: “LU: In a non-tznius manner”

GAW: “1: Prove it.

2: Prove that it is a problem as long as it is behind the Mechitza.”

Iacisrmma, thank you for clarifying.

Is the issue that men might see her (either because they can see through or over the mechitza or from the hallway or if they happen to come in to the ladies section which does happen sometimes, since they are allowed to do so if they are not in the middle of davening), that it is halachically assur for women to daven in front of another lady who is not tznius, that it is not nice to the other women who might not want to daven in front of someone untznius, or that she shouldn’t be davening while nursing?

This is OO/Conservative method:

1) Decide what conclusion you want to arrive at. This will often be based on predicting what the Jewish ethical response must be in a world that has changed so significantly from the early legal texts of Judaism, that the modern author is given much leeway.

4) Find a medrash as a springboard to show how quintessentially Jewish, how much in the spirit of Jewish law your own conclusion is.

5) Accept your original argument.

If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.

If the Halachos don’t depend on the standards themselves.

Avram in MD – Fair point.

IITFT – I’m not disagreeing with the overall criticism of OO, which is much more insidious than what has been described until your last post. The big problem (as you point out) is that they know what they want the “Halacha” to be and then go about trying to justify it, vs. a truthful search of what the Halacha should be.

In all fairness, we see the same on the right and the left, but in the case of the left/OO real halacha is broken, vs. in the case of the right some unneeded societal rules are justified in the name of Judaism. I’ve hear/seen the same when spouses fight and one brings in “Frumkeit” or “Modernness” to justify their side. It is not that they know the Halacha and sources, rather they want something and are trying to justify it using the Torah as a “Kardom Lachfor Bo”.

The two examples (nursing and Tznius) brought earlier though are (I believe) incorrect from a Halachic standpoint.

gaw: I am not sure what you mean by “prove it”. If you are talking about allowing a woman to nurse a child in a non-tznius manner here is a quote from the “tshuvah” of Rabbi Katz of YCT:

??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? .

??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????, ???? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ????.

So we see that he is is stating that a woman can have herself exposed for a number of minutes since to herself it is not an “ervah”.

So yes, IMO that is the definition of “in a non-tznius manner”.

gaw: The Ezras Nashim is not part of the Beis Knesses?

iacisrmma – Shaychus? It isn’t an Ervah.

“If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.”

Much of the halachos of tznius are dependent on the standards of the community.

Lul: “If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.”

GAW: “If the Halachos don’t depend on the standards themselves.”

I was referring to halachos that are not dependent on standards.

Lesschumras, GAW, and anyone else who seemed to be questioning my definitions of MO:

I want to clarify that I was giving definitions of MO based on how I have heard the terms used by those who call themselves MO. I was not giving a personal opinion regarding how I think the term should be used. I also listed a wide range of usages.

The part about tznius was not meant to apply to all of those who call themselves MO. I have a friend who considers herself MO who I consider to be one of the most tznius people I know (just for the record, GAW, she wears things that would not be considered acceptable in Yeshivish communities, but she dresses far more tzniusly than many Yeshivish people who would not wear those styles). I know many others like this as well.

But, there are also MO people who use the term to refer to the fact that they keep some halachos and not others. For example, I once saw an advertisement looking for someone to work in a bungalow colony that was described as MO and in parentheses it said mixed swimming. They were calling themselves MO BECAUSE they had mixed swimming. That was their definition of MO. I have yet to see someone advertise that they are Yeshivish and write in parenthesis after the word Yeshivish that they engage in civil crimes and this is the definition of Yeshivish.

Again, to be clear, this is one way that the term MO is used by people who refer to themselves as MO. There are many others. Many of the people and definitions even overlap with the definitions of Yeshivish or Chareidi (certainly my defintion of Chareidi :)). There are definitely many ehrlich people who are makpid on halacha who refer to themselves as MO. Some of them are probably here in the CR.