- This topic has 52 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
While it is well known that the Gedolei Yisroel disagreed with Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik regarding his general approach to Orthodoxy, one point I think they all agreed with was that he was a godol b’kiruv.
The prewar and immediate postwar periods was a time that saw a terrible shedding of observant Jewry in the United States. Many previously nominally Orthodox congregations and adherents switched their affiliation to Conservative Judaism or other forms of non-observant Judaism. RJBS saw a need for a movement for people who weren’t ready or capable of being fully observant, and not wanting them to officially discard whatever amount of observance they still adhered to, effectively created an Orthodox-Lite movement that kept the core values of the Torah, even if it didn’t slam their affiliated members for the areas of Jewish law that they were non-observant of.
And, hence, we have what is known as Modern Orthodoxy.
👆 In case anyone was wondering what a “backhanded compliment” is.
@ujm
I’m glad you frame it as “you think”, because history certainly hasn’t been kind to the crooked path called “Modern”UJM: There are so many gross errors in your post, it is truly sad.
” it is well known that the Gedolei Yisroel disagreed with Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik regarding his general approach to Orthodoxy” – Which “Gedolei Yisroel”? Just “Gedolei Yisroel”? All of them? Most of them? The ones you like? Source, please.
“they all agreed with was that he was a godol b’kiruv” – Since when? I knew YU-RIETS graduates who were serving as rabbis in Conservative shuls whom the Rav summoned for official meetings in order to give them an ultimatum. Some heeded his warning, while others joined the Rabbinical Assembly. Further, when one of his ordinees had begun to bring hard luck cases directly to the Rav at YU, he told him to stop it and said, “This is not my area.”
“a terrible shedding of observant Jewry in the United States” – What does this mean?
“RJBS saw a need for a movement for people who weren’t ready or capable of being fully observant, and not wanting them to officially discard whatever amount of observance they still adhered to” – Again, you must provide sources.
“effectively created an Orthodox-Lite movement” – RJBS was NOT, I repeat: NOT, the creator of Modern Orthodoxy in the United States or anywhere else.
“And, hence, we have what is known as Modern Orthodoxy.” – Without any knowledge of the subject whatsoever, you are satisfied to wrap up your cavalcade of untruths and distortions in a neat bow.
UJM: This is hardly a towering moment in your life as a commenter here.
Agree with Daas. RJBS indeed cared about all Jews in US and otherwise. He planned YU Rabanut curriculum in order to mass produce rabbis who would be able to serve multitudes of small communities in US. Still, this description (as others at other threads) seem to simply quote some sources that argue with RJBS without trying to understand him.
1) He does not call this “kiruv”. He calls these people “American Jews” and takes them as they are and looks prospectively that many of them are or soon will be college-educated. He describes how he was sitting thru hours talking to such young people, noticing that neither reform clergy, nor aguda rabbis would be able to address their questions.
2) he is not suggesting “lite” movement, he is always quoting and using his grandfather as an ideal. He defines the difference in the following way: agudah is trying to ignore the world around them. He says – if we claim that we have Truth from Hashem, we should not be hiding in caves, but rather learn to address problems of modernity.
Now, looking back at almost a century of this disagreement – agudah definitely had tremendous success in saving people from assimilation and growing large communities. Definitely, many from those communities would have likely assimilated without agudah approach. RJBS’s approach worked well for some people, but probably not so well for others. At the same time, it attracted a lot of people who would not ever understand agudah (or as RJBS put it – agudah will not be able to answer their questions). But, on the main question – are we actually representing Hashem’s Truth, RJBS seems to be on target – Jews always addressed the world events of their times. It is hard to imagine that Hashem lead the world thru so many developments during last several hundreds years, and he really wants Yidden to ignore all these events and continue reviewing laws of roman avodah zorah without addressing the modern forms.
Ari > “a terrible shedding of observant Jewry in the United States” – What does this mean?
It means that those who came to US in the first half of 20th century had minimal rabbinic guidance and were assimilating. RJBS (and his father) were one of the earlies yeshivish gedolim who came to US before WW2. One of the famous earlier rabbis was walking around NY boardwalks protesting hillul shabbat and everything else. This was not attracting followers. RJBS calls these people “checking each others’ tzitzis”.
UJM:
They didn’t just “disagree with him” as in “eilu viEilu”. They condemned him for his “innovations” and the like.
Rav Aharon Kotler stated that Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was responsible for “all the tuma in America”.As to the main point you were trying to make, had he created “Modern Orthodoxy” as a temporary kiruv stage, then that would have been bad enough.
But, instead, he claimed (when creating MO) that only his (Maskilic) way would survive, and “separatist orthodoxy” would become a museum-piece. Of course, netzach Yisrael lo yishaker, as we just read, so his prediction would obviously not be possible, but that is even more obvious in hindsight.
B”H, the opposite has happened (compare the numbers in BMG and other yeshivos versus those in YU, and also note all the “flip-outs” who realize that “Modern Orthodoxy” is absurd, and then go to NIRC or other such yeshivos after being shmaded in YU, and become traditionally orthodox instead of “Modern Orthodox”). BE”H, this will continue to happen until the heresy and idolatry of “Modern Orthodoxy” finally becomes history.
A little history lesson.
Due to the Jewish & Non-Jewish enlightenment, the Emancipation of the Jews, Revolutions, Urbanization, a greater reliance on science, etc. there was a crisis in Traditionalist Judaism. Several responses occurred. 1. A continuation of “Frum” (Yeshivish, Litvish) Judaism with some small changes. 2. Chasidism 3. Reform, & 4. Modern Orthodox.
The Modern Orthodox approach says, “Torah & Mitzvos always come first & they must be the focal point of a Jew’s life. HOWEVER, if on a college campus a student can keep Shabbos (today many campuses have Eruvs), there’s a Kosher Dining Hall, there’s Jewish life (through Hillel, Chabad, etc) then there is nothing wrong with attending a Non-Jewish college. There’s nothing wrong with dressing like any other American & partaking in normal American life.
This preceded RJBS by a long time.A little history lesson.
Due to the Jewish & Non-Jewish enlightenment, the Emancipation of the Jews, Revolutions, Urbanization, a greater reliance on science, etc. there was a crisis in Traditionalist Judaism. Several responses occurred. 1. A continuation of “Frum” (Yeshivish, Litvish) Judaism with some small changes. 2. Chasidism 3. Reform, & 4. Modern Orthodox.
The Modern Orthodox approach says, “Torah & Mitzvos always come first & that must be the focal point of a Jew’s life. HOWEVER, if on a college campus a student can keep Shabbos (today many campuses have Eruvs), there’s a Kosher Dining Hall, there’s Jewish life (through Hillel, Chabad, etc) then there is nothing wrong with attending a Non-Jewish college. There’s nothing wrong with dressing like any other American & partaking in normal American life.
Thyi preceded RJBS by many years.Full disclosure: I don’t care for MO or YU.
That being said, the OP is a load of hogwash, and that is an understatement.
Are you implying Rav Soloveitchik was responsible for the Conservative movement? Because that is exactly what you just implied, and that isn’t the case.
At least go read a biography of Rav Soloveitchik by someone who isn’t an Agudist or read some authoritative American Jewish History books before speaking.
I think it’s not a far stretch to say if not for RJBS, most of what we call Modern Orthodox would not be religious at all today. YU is designed to be an alternative to Jews who would go to a secular college. But even today many YU Rabbis kids end up in the Lakewood Yeshiva world.
ZSK,
Daas has it right; Joseph pretends to praise Rav Soloveitchik, zt”l with his vomitous screed but his intention is to criticize and blame.
He thinks himself clever but is probably going to be compelled to visit Boston at some point.
lakewhut:
It’s certainly a very far stretch, because Hashem obviously didn’t want it, so it would have been far better without it. Guaranteed.
Regardless, he went beyond founding a “kiruv” movement. He called his pseudo-orthodoxy superior to actual orthodoxy. That’s the biggest problem.Note that RJBS was not responsible for everything that was done at YU. He did not even start there – he first negotiated a partnership with YU when his father was the Rav there and RJBS had a yeshiva in Boston.
One example is his article about opening of YU Medical school. He said that many people asked him – why is YU going into this business when it was first formed on donations for a rabbinical college. He then says that he can justify it b’dieved – because he was not consulted about this l’hathila! His justification is that Jewish community suffer from non-religious doctors (it was that way in Lita) who are not sensitive to religious patients (it is easier for me to talk about these issues with non-Jewish doctors than with non-religious Jewish doctors). So, if some doctors will go to YU – they will not necessarily become observant, but at least they will have sensitivity to halakha and hopefully will be better for religious Jews.
lakewhut > I think it’s not a far stretch to say if not for RJBS, most of what we call Modern Orthodox would not be religious at all today
Or become chabadnikim :).
> YU is designed to be an alternative to Jews who would go to a secular college.
not only that, but to train rabbis who can address communities of Jews who went to college.This development also shows the deficiency of previous generations of religious leaders who were not able to address Jewish masses who got access to general culture and education. They were not doomed for assimilation if there will be someone who could talk their language. This is a generalization, of course. There were, of course, R Hirsh, R Salanter, etc. It is very instructive to read letters from Chofetz Chaim in 1920-30 and from R Soloveitchik starting mid 1930s. Ch.Ch is vividly describing increasing devastation of Jewish observance and education in Poland but his proposed solutions are simply cries of desperation – please have at least one kosher school in your town, please do not send your daughters to (polish) gymnasiums (and send where?), please women who know how to read, read enclosed halochos niddah to your friends who can’t read (how about teaching them to read?). At the same time, RJBS develops ideas how to quickly train rabbis to address this ignorant population.
RJBS was probably followed his father who, I think, was already involved in modernization of Jewish schools in Poland.
so basically, everyone here agrees that RJBS was the leader of the Tinukei Shenishba kehilla. Not familiar enough with Yiddishkeit to be fully frum, but sincere enough (presumably by chazukeh) to keep the Torah if their leaders would ever dare tell them the Truth.
UJM > But he thought (and states) that “separatist Orthodoxy” would disappear and only MO will survive. Like you pointed out above, “tourist attractions” he says Chareidim would end up. Clearly he was 100% mistaken. And it was that which he said justified “Modern Orthodoxy” – survival, nothing else.
many good thoughts to discuss here, thanks. I suggest to read on RJBS more than just the most quoted (and misquoted) major addresses to understand his line of thought. He clearly argues that his derech is emes, not just accomodation. The way I understand him: Hashem gives every generation the world in it’s current state and it is our challenge to address it. We learn gemorah on relationship between Jewish leaders and Rome – and supposed to apply this knowledge to modern politics. Same way as Tannaim were learning Chumash on Yaakov Esav when going to Rome. So RJBS is trying to address these issues – see his several speeches to Mizrachi gatherings. In these speeches, he is not claiming to be an expert in politics, just bringing his Torah knowledge to their discussions. As an example of his limitations – students demonstrating for Soviet Jews in the 70s asked him whether it is a good idea, and he said “no” (as did R Feinstein and R Teitz, and, I think not sure, L Rebbe – their answers was primarily out of fear that Soviets will retaliate against these students). They did it anyway. One of them asked RJBS later if he still objects, and he said – not objecting anymore. I first asked my contacts in Israeli government what is best policy “for Soviet Jews”. Israeli advised him to be quiet. He later realized that the answer was based on Israeli interests who hoped to negotiate with Russkis. His psak was to do whatever is best for shevuim themselves, disregarding side effects on others.
And he paints “separatist O” as people who do not want to engage with the world. My own understanding is that many “separatists” positions are not based on emes but are haraa shaa to save Jews from surrounding dangers. And many of these were successful in preserving and growing large communities. But the expense of creating sick hashkafos is evident right here and we now need to heal the ribs of all those saved by R Kotler’s CPR.
> also acceptance of not full adherence to the Taryag Mitzvos
I am not sure what this means. Maybe you can clarify. That not fully observant people attend MO shuls? Most MO Shuls have normative halakha, a Rav and a core group of fully observant people. YI movement has a charter. I talked to marginally observant people, incl Israelis, who said that they were welcome to a local YI but were not given membership. And they respected that.
Jewish communities always had all kind of individuals. Now, you’ll say Chabad is not observant because they invite people from the street. With millions of Jews who already disappeared or are on the verge, it is more appropriate to look down at a shul that makes no effort to invite someone non-observant.
UJM & RJBS > true, there is a bit of Torah in the Diaspora; however the number of Torah students is proportionately very low, and it is impossible to forecast what will happen in future generations. . . whereas in that very non-observant Israel the future of Torah and traditional Judaism is far more secure.”
this is a very accurate description at the time and reflects the feelings of many. I heard from R Nosson Sherman that his father was encouraging elderly students to continue coming to class in the snow “because who knows if there will be a class after you”. This is also in the context of destruction of European Torah from which RJBS came from and pondering how we restore the glory of Torah.
And he was right that Israel is a great environment, and note that he says “impossible to forecast” about US. He is not totally pessimistic – and he is obviously doing something to change the course. In another speech, he says that Mizrachi is wrong when they only try to collect for EY and recruit people
to go to Israel: we need yeshivos in America more as people are disappearing here. Then he says – we already collected money for our school in Boston, I am not fundraising here, I am just surprised that Mizrachi did not run to help us.UJM, correct and I think the context is important. He also wasn’t the only decision maker in YU. Belkin and others were more forceful into shaping it to what it is today. Nowadays I think a lot go to get semicha and a degree. Not every town had a touro and yeshiva program.
I think some of this is overkill and revising history a bit. Yes Rabbi J.B. did indeed battle to keep his corwd from becming conservative jews and offered a more open minded approach. But the truth is the most of the Litfsiha world pre war was pretty much like the modern otrhodox . Rabbi J.B> wasn’t offering anew approach. This was just how it was done in Lita. Many famous RY’s including R Hutner, R Ruderman and others went to college. R Arons daughter went to college. And many women from Lita didn’t cover their hair. There were a few very frum such as R Elchanon zl and Briska rav. But as whole most of Lita were not “yeshvish” and would look today more like the modern orthodox community. In the 1930’s & 40’s Torah vodaath wasn’t so different then Yitzchok Elchnaon. Thy even contemplated copying Rabbi DR Revel and creating a college to. They always allowed college and until the 1980’s allowed mixed non jewish college too. So Rabbi J.B. was just contuning the litfsha approach.
lakewhut > He also wasn’t the only decision maker in YU.
Right, I think RJBS had direct influence on his students, but not always at the institution. He was not a founder. His initial discussions (while he father was with YU) were an agreement to allow associating his Boston yeshiva in 1930s-early 40s with YU and sharing fundraising funds with YU. This agreement was with YU as an institution, not like a son of a chassidishe rebbe ready to inherit.
> Not every town had a touro and yeshiva program.
Touro started in 1970s and while it has solid programs for people coming from yeshivos with limited general studies enabling a pathway to respectable jobs , YU is way higher academically. They both have a niche, not fully covered by the other.
somejew > RJBS was the leader of the Tinukei Shenishba kehilla. Not familiar enough with Yiddishkeit to be fully frum, but sincere enough (presumably by chazukeh) to keep the Torah if their leaders would ever dare tell them the Truth.
I don’t think you picture well the American scene in 1930-50s. Majority of American Jews were assimilated or on the verge of it. NY and I think other states allowed for one or several hours of religious study at public schools and various tzaddikim were trying to recruit several Jewish students at their locations to teach those students. RJBS writes with accolate about such chabad shluchim in his area (under the previous L rebbe).
I still do not understand the “fully frum” idea. I’ve davened at YI at various parts of the country and did not see any halachik problems. Maybe you are confused by the fact that less-observant people come to [some] “modern” shuls. Is this bad? The shuls themselves are generally committed to halakha. There are indeed cases where amei chaaretz take over shuls. RJBS answers several queries from his former students whether they are allowed to take jobs at places with mixed seating and he replies that they can not.
AAQ:
“Most MO Shuls have normative halakha, a Rav and a core group of fully observant people.”
Actually, “Modern Orthodoxy” today is where Conservative was 70 years ago. It is essentially Haskala 2.0. Also, Zionism is heresy and idolatry, and Zionism is a core part of MO identity. So, no, that would not be “full adherence to the Taryag mitzvos”. I guess by “normative halakha”, you mean normative for MO.Shame on all of you. The Rav- was a great a Gadol period! and was respected by so many gedolim. Check your facts is that why Rav ShneurZ”TL had many conversations and discussions with the Rav if is his own father condemned him!!! i do not think so.How many of the so called yeshivshe crowd tried to sneak into his shiur. His brilliance was obvious to thousands upon thousands. I thought that musssar was part of the yeshivishe curriculum. Obviously not to this group of so called now it alls. Tomorrow isTaanis Esther a good time to also ask mechila. Not the spirit of how I wanted to begin Purim but nebbich rellly sad!!!!
@HaKatan
Actually, “Modern Orthodoxy” today is where Conservative was 70 years ago.
Once again with your ignorant hot head false accusations.
The conservatives 70 years ago held one can drive to Shul Shabbos . Are you saying that’s what the mo holds ? The conservatives 85 years ago changed the Siddur with the Kaplan Siddur . Is that what the mo holds? You make things up and lie to conform with your hot head views just like your radical idea on Zionism. I knew an ehrlcha mo Jew a vp at a very prestigious. Company woke up 5 am to learn every day . When we davened in the office he would only join Mincha if he could not make it home on time or else the place to Daven is at Shul not work. When he was nifter from Covid they said every day he gave a din vcheshbon before he went to sleep. This was an MO Jew. How dare you call them conservative . Have you no
Shame at all?BTW, if you go to moetzes website, it has RJBS photo in the list of former moetzes members right near r Silver
HaKatan, usual assertion without the argument. What’s the point of taking your time to type this
@ujm – Joseph, you really couldn’t just say what you meant, rather than framing it within a context rife with criticism? Hogwash. You needed to take your potshot at the MO community.
@somejewiknow – Go read some American Jewish History books to learn about the realities of being Jewish in the USA during the first half of the 20th century. Sarna comes to mind in particular. If you don’t want to do that, at least read R’ Berel Wein. Or even read R’ Rakeffet’s biography of the Rav Soloveitchik.
@HaKatan – Are you capable of not mentioning Zionism for more than 30 seconds? Also, there is a huge gulf between the philosophy of Rav Soloveitchik and that of the man you and somejewiknow have essentially dubbed Voldemort or Acher. Anyone familiar with either Rav’s writings knows as such.@AAQ – I have it on good authority (first-hand knowledge and from a reliable source) that NCYI’s offical policy does not allow non-Orthodox Jews to be members – especially Mechalalei Shabbos BeFarhesiya such as those who drive to Shul. On the other hand, TTBOMK – and I haven’t heard anything to the contrary – the OU does allow such individuals to be members of Shuls part of the OU. The question is whether somejewiknow would prefer that non-Orthodox individuals go to Conservative or Reform institutions just so NCYI is “frum enough” (parenthetically, this goes for the OU as well).
As an aside: What I disagree with in this thread (and in the threads about Zionism, the IDF, etc.) is the blatant disrespect and character assassination the Chassidish and Yeshivish communities continue to engage in vis a vis MO and RZ communities and their Rabbonim. This thread is a prime example. Why is it that the MO and RZ communities are capable of showing respect to the Charedi community and their Rabbonim (depsite deeply disagreeing on a great number of issues), but the Charedi commnunity is completely and utterly incapable of showing that same respect in turn?
If you want to discuss criticise MO philosophy, there is a way to do that without having to engage in character assasination and disrespect.
When the Rav was sick he divided his shiurim among his son RCS, his brother RAS and his son in law RAL etc. Decades before when Dr BR was sick the great RYHR offered to give his shiurim and sponsor all of YU until he got well. So many Rabbonim and Geonim were with him. Like Harav Fuhrer from Holyoke ( a Volishiner) and Harav Zelmanovich from Williamsburg who was a talmid of the Avnei Nezer. (The Polish Reb Chaim). The first thing the Rov did was establish a day school in Boston. ( First out of town DS). As did RMS established YRMS so the Rav would have talmidim. All agreed that America needs Torah at all times.
ZSK:
Are you not capable of understanding the reason for that mention? The core identity of MO includes Zionism which is heresy. That’s a rather significant issue.Yes, Rabbi Dr.’s writings on Zionism are heresy, as Rav Shach wrote in his letters, despite that he wasn’t a messianic Zionist like Rabbi Kook.
Chaim:
Yes, MO do not drive to shul. That’s wonderful. But the Torah still has to “bend” for “Modernity”. Same poison as Conservative.Rav Shach wrote in his letters
Where can we see these letters?
@HaKatan
You are clueless about MO. No the torah does not bend one Iota. R Herschel Shachter is more makpid on halcha than many others. (As a side note, when chasdim eat before shachris or daven after zman tefila they bend the torah too. Sure they have heliga sefarim to answer it up but thast bending halcha)
Now you want to know if they are as farfrumt as cahedrim ? No. but they don’t bend any halcha. When r moseh zl paskend cholv stam is permitted that’s not bending halcha, that is halcha. Name one peice of the torah that they bend.@HaKatan – I got the reference and once again, you’re incorrect. Let me break this down for you:
Modern Orthodox is about survival in the modern era as an Orthodox Jew while not compromising anything within Orthodoxy. Everything from TiDE to TuM demonstrates such. It doesn’t actually include anything about Zionism, especially as *you* (erroneously) define it. The fact that some form of “Yay, State!” was added later doesn’t mean that much.
MO’s definition of Zionism is essentially supporting the State of Israel through AIPAC, Mizrachi, etc. and saying a couple of MiSheberachs that every single Shul, Yeshiva and Beis Midrash in Israel – regardless of headgear – should absolutely be saying per Pirkei Avos, but don’t actually need to be said outside Israel. Maybe MO gives some money, maybe their kids go learn in Yeshiva in Israel and spend a bunch of money there. That isn’t what RZ actually is (something I would know about, and you most definitely would not, seeing as you consider anything outside your daled amos to be treif). If anything, MO’s definition of Zionism is the watered down American version.
RZ is about cooperating with a B’di Eved State post-facto – to the degree possible within the fabric of Orthodox Judaism – with the goal of having enough religious influence upon it that perhaps (and emphasis on perhaps) it may end up in the future in retrospect as having been Aschalta D’Geula. There is real practice of Mitzvos Teluyos Ba’Aretz, including Yishuv Ha’Aretz, Shemitta, Teruma and Maaser, Peah, Neta Revai, Orla, etc. That isn’t Dechikas HaKetz. Secular Zionists already did that. This is something else.
See the difference?
As I have said to you and somejew in the various threads over the last few weeks, you have yet to actually pinpoint what is actually heretical within in RZ (and by extension Zionism itself. I could very easily do that for you, but I’d like you to actually do so. I have a good idea of what you’re going to point at, and it is most definitely incorrect. On the other hand, what I would point out is actually a problem. But I also have no interest in giving you and your ilk more ammo that you can use to screw up your chances of entering Olam HaEmet. So you’re still just making authoritarian pronouncements in the name of various Rabbonim without elaboration. This also applies vis a vis your attitude toward Modern Orthodoxy.
And again, per my above point, I challenge you to attempt to have a discussion without besmirching or demonizing Orthodox Jews who do not share your views. Meaning, try not calling people heretics or fling accusations of heresy at people willy-nilly for a change. I know it’s hard for someone like you. (And I will again remind you that you and somejew have actually violated multiple issurim surrounding Zilzul Talmidei Chachonim.)
@ ZSK
You wrote: “What I disagree with in this thread (and in the threads about Zionism, the IDF, etc.) is the blatant disrespect and character assassination the Chassidish and Yeshivish communities continue to engage in vis a vis MO and RZ communities and their Rabbonim.”
I grew up in a MO community and also lived in Bet-El for a bit and learned with a talmid from R’ Melamid’s Yeshiva. What you describe has not been my experience. I heard (and hear) a good amount of derision from both sides. To a certain extent, this is by design. The tool to effectively shape and rally public opinion has always been rhetoric, not logic, v’hamaivin, yavin, (For those who will accuse me of ascribing Greek methods to Rebbonim, I refer them to the Ramchal’s Sefer Malitza.)
Chaim87: You wrote that “The conservatives 85 years ago changed the Siddur with the Kaplan Siddur.” That is false. Kaplan was persona non grata with the JTS Talmud department (of which he was not a part) after he published his Haggadah and prayer book. Professors Louis Ginzberg, Alexander Marx, and Saul Lieberman wrote a גילוי דעת against Kaplan in the Hebrew publication הדואר when these books came out. They were NEVER accepted as standard in the Conservative movement.
Nonpolitical, it seems though that mo stereotypes are mostly based on charedi stated positions, while charedi stereotypes are based on projections. That is, if you tell that charedim do not want to work, you might get a response why it is a right thing to do. If you tell a mo that they are conservative, they’ll say it is not true.
ZSK:
TiDE is distinctly different from MO TuMA. For one, TiDE has austritt, as Rav Schwab has pointed out. More importantly, it does not elevate anything else as having intrinsic value, unlike the idolatry of TuMA.Idolatrous Zionism has been a part of MO’s (idolatrous) identity since its founder started it. He was the head of Mizrachi, as you know, and has published idolatrous nonsense about Zionism including his “Kol dodi dofek”, which any card-carrying “Religious Zionist” would hold of. No, MO Zionism is not just saying some prayers (which are themselves problematic/heretical, in some cases, as it happens) and sending their kids to learn in Israel. You certainly know better than that, as do others, incidentally.
Your contention about RZ being just about working with what’s there is so absurd that surely even you don’t really believe that. The “Religious” Zionists are generally the most fanatical Zionists of all, much more so than the “Secular” ones. Either way, Rav Elchonon and all the others (including the Brisker Rav who lived in then-Palestine and then also post-State as well,) noted that “Religious Zionism” is idolatry and heresy.
Zionism has two basic assertions that all Zionists believe.
1. The heresy that Jews are a nation like all others, with a common land, language, and culture, as opposed to being a Torah-based people which is the truth.
2. That the “State” of “Israel” is the Nation-State of that mythical Nation.Zsk > Modern Orthodox is about survival in the modern era as an Orthodox Jew
There is definitely an element of that, but the same is of the isolationist also, but both approaches have their own claim to actual Torah truth, not just Tactical survival. RJBS writes that I we hold to have access to Hashem’s truth then we should be able to relate to modern issues rather than hide in the cave.
HaKatan has knocked out the R”Z strawman in the first round and the crowd goes wild
HaKatan, on the two actual claims at the end of your post:
Def rz and mo are not holding by 1. RJBS writes in many places about fallacies of non religious zionists on that.On 2, there are different opinions… RJBS hopeful in some cases and warning that, for example, megila says that jews should not feel safe anywhere, including in state of Israel. At the basic level, if you put aside history of animosity between different groups, what would be your problem with the state? It just happened that currently a group of jews, some religious, some not live in EY and they vote together how to fight enemies and how to collect taxes. We live among non jews like that in other countries. We lived in EY under bad Jewish leaders in history. We dealt with problems as they were presented. I don’t recall neviim recommending boycott of the state.
Small one, I guess according to your definition I’m not a Zionist.
I do believe that Jews share a common homeland, language, and culture – we have Eretz Yisrael as our homeland, Hebrew as our language (real Hebrew, not Ivrit), and a culture based on Torah. But we are not like all other nations – ours was decided on and given by Hashem Himself, so we are very different.
I do NOT believe that modern Israel is the same as the old land of Eretz Yisrael. It occupies much of the same space, but it’s definitely not the same.
That said, it can definitely turn into it, and the land still has holiness to it.@ AAQ
You wrote: At the basic level, if you put aside history of animosity between different groups, what would be your problem with the state?
Why are you asking him this? Isn’t it clear that from his point of view there are at least 2 things wrong with the state
1) It is forbidden to make a state before Moshiach comes
2) You are joining in an enterprise with people who are using the said enterprise to replace authentic Yidishkeit with NationalismI’m not saying that there are no responses to the above 2 points but HaKatan has been very clear and consistent regading where he stands on this, no?
As an aside, it is worth mentioning that when secular Zionists made clear that their agenda was not merely practical statehood but proactive shmad it was Rav Kook himself who said that the Rebbonim would have to downplay the importance of E”Y (like Chazal did with the Eserah Dibros due to terumos haminim).
@Non Political –
I grew up in a mixed MO-Yeshivish “out of town” community and learned in a mixture of Charedi and RZ institutions, including a Charedi high school and a Yeshivat Hesder in the Jordan Valley. I’ve been in Israel for most of my adult life and lived in a wide range of places. I’m aware my POV is atypical, especially for this forum.I can’t speak for what goes on in Bet El. I agree with the general statement regarding the rhetorical use of such derision, as opposed to actually believing it. To be sure there is derision and disrespect from both sides. My experience is more derision and negative treatment from Charedim
– Yated, Kikar Shabbat and B’Chadrei regularly post/distribute this type of content. Certainly American Charedi outlets and American Charedim themselves can’t seem to restrain themselves from doing such – prime examples are on this thread. I generally find it’s the RZ pundits who are most guilty of disrespecting Charedi Rabbonim (especially one particular staff writer for Matzav HaRuach (who deserves the flak he complains about receiving)), but even then it’s mostly due to the lack of IDF enlistment, the lack of recognition of the plainly obvious Yad Hashem in the State’s function (the State of Israel is a barely functional parliamentary democracy), and a lack of a sense of gratitude for anything provided to Charedim over the last 75-8p years or so. In fact, in this past week’s Matzav Ruach, the guilty party above tried to turn his article about the Rabbanut Tzva’it into a Charedi hit piece. The interviewees – who are in the Rabbanut Tzva’it – weren’t having it and told him to “keep the interview on the subject at hand and not move to irrelevant issues”. Which kind of makes my point.
@HaKatan – I am going to put this very politely: You are ignorant insofar as the RZ community is concerned. That is an understatement. You come on this forum and fire off accusations without substantiating them. You won’t substantiate them because you prefer to simply declare things what you think they are. When challenged, you ignore the challenge and try to change the terms of dicussion, declaring what you disagree with to be invalid proof. You tried that with me and I called you out on it. You are not arguing in good faith or engaging in an honest discussion. I’m calling you out on such again.I stand by what I said about working with the State to the degree possible. I have solid basis for such. You are clueless of the effect the Gush Katif and Northern Shomron evictions had upon the RZ community. That was a watershed moment. The RZ community nearly turned against the State in the wake of that abomination (and the overly violent eviction from Amona shortly thereafter) – and they would have actually done so had Ariel Sharon been so stupid as to carry that abomination out on Tisha B’Av itself (Tisha B’Av was the originally planned date until an advisor bascially said, “Hey, this is the worst date you could choose. You’re going to turn the RZ community Charedi”. So they delayed it). Everything changed with Gush Katif and there has been a marked shift in the RZ community’s treatment of the State since then (certainly those evicted themselves have a very complicated relationship with the State, to say the least). The RZ community may say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim and enlist in the IDF, but they are far more willing to openly criticise the state than in the past – and they do so regularly.
Those MiSheberachs are not heretical. Per Pirkei Avos and Halacha, you are required to pray for the government, even if it is “evil” (see the Czar and Nazi Germany). There is absolutely nothing wrong with Rav Kook’s prayer – there are so many qualifiers in such that it reflects what I’ve said (which was Der Ruv’s intent). There is nothing wrong with a prayer for what is essentially (for better or worse) a Jewish Army. There is nothing wrong with a prayer for the release and salvation of Jews living under oppressive regimes. If you want to prove otherwise, actually provide material responses beyond repeating the same quotes from the same Rabbonim. We have been waiting for you do so, but so far it’s just crickets from you.
As for RJBS’s writings about Zionism – I’m not interested in them. The RZ philosophy I read (should I bother) is from places such as Merkaz HaRav, The Eretz Chemda Institute and various Yeshivot Hesder. Figures such as Rav Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, both Rav Kooks, and those that followed them. Not RJBS. RJBS is known for TuM, not RZ, ergo I do not consider him to be a major player insofar as RZ is concerned. Other people may feel otherwise and that’s fine.
As for your statements about Zionism: Ideologically Secularist Zionism, yes (and notice that no one here has disagreed that ideologically secularist Zionism is absolutely a problem). Not RZ. For the millionth time. Also I will point out that your continued insistence that EY has no significance essentially makes you one of the Meraglim, and you should probably keep in mind what happened to them after they slandered EY.
@Always_Ask_Questions – Right. Don’t disagree. Also, I’m not going to claim to be an expert on RJBS. That being said, I’ve done enough reading on RJBS and his philosophy to know HaKatan is full of it.non-political b’shem katan>
1) It is forbidden to make a state before Moshiach comes
2) You are joining in an enterprise with people who are using the said enterprise to replace authentic Yidishkeit with NationalismMy question is how should we behave now based on current situation, and I think we are all partially mislead by history of events. This is not new: Berel Wein, for example, blames animosity of Zionists towards religious communities on Russian czar’s policy that required the kahal to collect required number of recruits to the Russian army, creating negative forces in Jewish community between those in power and those who might get recruited, often poor/orphans …
So, try starting from a clean slate. How come similar people live their lives in US and other non-observant countries without being obsessed with sins of the government, but then do opposite where the country happened to be in EY and people in power happened to be Jewish. It is not that they want a choice to move to a non-Jewish state in EY – they could move to PA or Syria any time, just what is their problem; why can’t they find a way to live their life the way they want, accommodating demands of the government as Jews did over the centuries. If they demand more from the Medinah than from other medinos, then they are also zionists.
ZSK to katan> when challenged, you ignore the challenge
I don’t think he is doing it to spite us. He is simply used to talk to people with same views and his “knowledge” is from his own sources, so he is not able to respond to texts he never saw… we all are confronted here with unfamiliar positions, but some react with curiosity and some do not.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.