The Great Debate: Ultra-Orthodoxy vs. Modern Orthodoxy

Gavra: I apologize for my sharp tone. I respect your point of view; your posts are often very insightful.

Thank you, but it doesn’t change my mind that you (and I) are not the right people for the job.

May you have Hatzlacha.

Lomed Mkol Adam….Because I don’t speak for the MO community…nor Do I necessarily fall into it as well…I sprinkle a little bit from everyone….I guess I’m kind of like a salad…

5. The debate is useless anyway, it is already just bating each other into nonsense.

Please explain why there has to be a UO vs MO. Don’t we have enough “vs” from the outside world?

you forgot 6

Because Will Rogers is a sock puppet

Am I too late? Did I miss the debate? How did Wolf do??

coffee: No big deal. We can ignore him until a mod gets around to banning him and the parent account. *hint hint*

From the OP:

“May the best team win.”

Actually, I don’t see anybody “winning” here. As LMA pointed out, this is (or at least should be) about comparing and contrasting our respective hashkafos, not trying to prove that “we’re better Jews than you are”.

gavra_at_work:

“LMA: Before you start, please define UO & MO. No one yet has been unable to define the terms definitivly”

That’s because the terms themselves aren’t that definitive. Many people with many different hashkafos fall under the Chareidi/MO umbrellas. That said, I believe there are several key arguments:

1) Attitude towards the secular world. The Chareidim view any influence from the secular world as inherently dangerous, while the MO view the (intelligent parts of) the secular world as having inherent value.

2) Scope and bindingness of the Mesorah. The MO are much more willing to add or change things in (non-Halachic) Yiddishkeit than the Chareidim are.

3) Zionism. The Chareidim are against it, while the MO are for it. But that’s a little bit of a side issue, and I don’t expect it to receive much attention here.

Mod 80:

“im personally curious – does anyone posting here actually think that somehow the representatives of these two sides will be chosen by an unknown force, and that this friendly, informative debate will actually take place?”

No. But some of us were hoping that the mods would pick “teams” (for want of a better term) from the members that have been nominated and open a thread where only they would be allowed to post. What would you say the odds of that happening are?

Itchie,

Unless he’s a mod in disguise

I’d stick to 5 broad areas for defining hashkafa:

1- The values of isolation

2- The values of secular culture (they are not two sides of the same coin, at least not to this MO)

3- What is a gadol

4- The definition of minhag yisrael. (MO see it more in terms of what acharonim call “minhag” and what actual kehillos actually practiced “bshita” while charedim see it more broadly)

5- The dreaded “Mem” word.

LMA, do you agree? Mods, will you delete all posts except those of LMA and Itch? Let’s go!

5- The dreaded “Mem” word.

OK, I must be slow this evening… what is the “dreaded ‘Mem’ word?”

The Wolf

Is anyone going to really debate? I would suggest discussing these issues with Rabbi Ephraim Buchwald, he is very knowledgeable in both the MO circles & the UO circles. I never spoke with him in my life, i once heard a tape from him regarding this. I wouldnt mind debating though.

Zahavasdad: I appreciate your imput, but I can only respond to ItchSrulik whom I’m debating with now. I can’t debate multiple people at once.

lma: we can add the Rambam who writes that when society is corrupt one should move to the isolated desert.

If insularity is the goal, then a strong financial self sufficiency is an essential requirement.

The most successful insular community in the USA that I am aware of is the Amish; and they are very self sufficient.

We see more mentioning of our Avos’ efforts for self sufficiency then their efforts for insularity.

Way to go, LMA. Clear, concise, no-nonsense arguments. I can’t wait for Itche’s response. I think you should start a new thread with that post, and Mods, Please delete ALL other posters.

LMA: I wasn’t challenging. I thought we agreed that we were comparing and contrasting hashkafos. Now, I will present an MO perspective on the value of isolation. To do so, I will have to restate some of what you already said.

First, MO Jews don’t view it as a

central value of Judaism

but as one of many parts of Judaism and far from the most important one. For example, we consider knowledge of tanach (Hen am l’vadad yishkon is in parshas Balak and refers to the special hashgacha that the Jewish people have) much more important. In fact, we probably agree on that, but that’s a side point.

Charedim and MO differ in both their attitudes and practice of the “metzuyanim sham” of the hagada. First, MO don’t view isolation qua isolation to be a worthy goal. Isolation is meant to preserve us as a people in galus. To that end, chazal instituted many harchakos from gentiles that apply equally to assimilationist Jews (stam yenam, bishul akum etc). These harchakos are to preserve our distinction and separateness while living in the secular world and they work. In contrast, you present the Charedi view of isolationism as a way to preserve the idea of Jewish exceptionalism in the minds of individual Jews.

The fact that the goals of each stream are different lead to different practices. MO wear kippas, visibly identify as Jewish wherever they may be and — most importantly — keep the harchakos chazal instituted specifically for this issue. Charedim, however, must create a much more aloof image to meet their goals, hence the differing practices.

Wolf: medinah

mikehall: Good thing we’re ignoring all sock puppets then, no?

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.

ItchSrulik: To summarize your point in your last post; the contrast between Chareidim and MO in regard to the Torah concept of separation is that Chareidim believe isolation is a worthy goal for itself in order to preserve the idea of ‘exceptionalism’; whereas MO believe the Torah concept of separation is only a measure to prevent assimilation but not a worthy goal for itself.

In my above post I brought three sources from the Torah/Gemara which mentions the requirement for Jews to keep a physical separation from gentiles:

The first source, the posuk in Parshas Balak (thanks for correcting me) “Hein Am L’vudud Yishkon” is describing the character of Jewish nation. This posuk would seem to infer that separation is a goal for itself worthy of praise, since Bilam wouldn’t define [and praise] the Jewish nation by their behavior of separation if this act of is merely a practical means of preventing assimilation and not a defining character of the nation.

The second source I brought from the Baal Hagadah “She’huyu Mitzuyanim Shum” also indicates that separation is a worthy goal for itself; the Mahar”al on the Hagaddah explains that Ge’ula/salvation was only possible by God once the Jews became in essence a separate entity from the Egyptian nation through their acts of separation; otherwise redeeming the Jewish nation would have been a practical impossibility even for God.

The last source which I brought from Mesechte Megillah, “Nehenu M’Si’udaso Shel Achashveirosh, also indicates that separation is a worthy goal for itself. God would not punish the Jews for merely violating the separation barrier without them committing any actual sins, if the purpose of separation was only a means to prevent real sins and assimilation. Only if we explain the concept of separation as a goal for itself, is it possible that God punished the Jews for this mere act of not having preserved within themselves this defining feature of separation.

Lastly, the fact that Hashem punished the Jews for attending the banquet of Achashveirosh, proves that the parameters of separation is not only defined by the prohibitions which Chaza”l enacted, since the Jews did not drink Yayin Nesech at this banquet.

The first source, the posuk in Parshas Balak (thanks for correcting me) “Hein Am L’vudud Yishkon” is describing the character of Jewish nation. This posuk seems to infer that separation is a goal for itself worthy of praise, since Bilam wouldn’t define the Jewish nation by their behavior of separation if this act of is merely a practical means of preventing assimilation and not a defining character of the nation. “Ma Tovu Ohalecha Yaakov” is definitely words of praise of the Jews for their modesty, so “Hein Am L’vudud Yishkon” is likewise words of praise of the Jews for accomplishing the feature of separation.

The second source which I brought, the words of the Baal Hagadah “She’huyu Mitzuyanim Shum” also indicates that the separation is worthy goal for itself. The Mahar”al on the Hagaddah explains that the Jews merited salvation precisely because through their acts of separation they became in essence a separate entity from the Egyptian nation. If the Jews would not have made themselves into separate entity through their acts of separation, then they would have remained in essence part and parcel of the Egyptian nation and “Ge’ula” would not have been possible.

The last source which I brought from Mesechte Megillah, “Nehenu M’Si’udaso Shel Achashveirosh, also indicates that separation is a worthy goal for itself. God would not punish the Jews for violating the separation barrier without actually committing any sins, if the purpose of separation is only to prevent future sins and assimilation. Only if the concept of separation is a goal for itself, is it possible that God harshly punished the Jews for not preserving this special feature of separation.

lastly, the fact that Hashem punished the Jews for attending the banquet of Achashveirosh, proves that the parameters of separation is not only defined through the prohibitions which Chaza”l enacted. The Jews did not drink Yayin Nesech at this banquet.

Ithchsrulik: You claim that MO believe that knowledge of Tena”ch is more important than the Mitzvah of separation from Gentiles. Let me explain why. Chareidim define their Judaism with their “Hergesh”/feelings, whereas MO defines their Judaism with their intelligence. This is why a Chareidi will tell you that separation from Goyim is a far more important in Judaism than learning Tena”ch, and MO will tell you mastering Tena”ch is far more important in Judaism than keeping a separation from Goyim.

May I ask; according to MO, is the purpose of Judaism only possible for people with capacity for intelligence? How about learning disabled people, were they placed on this world for no purpose, since they are not capable of attaining any knowledge? And women who are not obligated to learn Torah; is their role in Judaism inferior to that of men since they are less knowledgable of the Torah?

Stamper, you have good point. Let’s take it to a new thread: “Pro-UO Arguments for The Great Debate. (MO are welcome to start their own thread.)

Itchsrulik: The Gemara in Megilla I quoted above indicates that the Torah concept of isolation is a central part of Judaism like the Chareidim believe. Hashem decreed for Klal Yisroel to become completely destroyed from this world for the mere sin of eating at Achashveirosh’s banquet. This can only be understood if the mitzvah of keeping a separation from Gentiles is in fact a central part of Judaism.

Like I explained above, that the idea is that Jews cannot preserve their feelings of connection with God unless they keep themselves emotionally separated from the Gentile world. Therefore since the Jews ate at Achashveirosh’s banquet and integrated into Gentile society, they subsequently lost their feelings of connection to Hashem; and once they felt emotionally disconnected from God, they caused that God likewise felt disconnected from the Jews and was therefore unable to save them from the ‘Kitrug’ of the Satan and Haman’s evil plans.

ItcheSrulik: “To that end, chazal instituted many harchakos from gentiles that apply equally to assimilationist Jews (stam yenam, bishul akum etc).”

First of all, stam yainam is primarily due to yayin nesech which is a concern of takroves avoda zara, not a harchaka from assimilation. That is why it applies to a mechalel Shabbos, because we are concerned he also does avoda zara.

Secondly,bishul akum which IS a harchaka, does NOT apply to any Jew, no matter how assimilated.

hello99: I agree with you that Litvish world believes in subjugating emotions to the intellect. However, the ultimate purpose of it all is to attain [through this subjugation] an elevation of emotions for God, and not the actual mastering of intelligence. As the Mesilas Yishorim states in the first chapter of his sefer, that the ultimate purpose of Judaism is “Deveikus Bo Yisborach”, which is in essence emotions not intelligence.

LMA you still have not answered how you retify speaking the language of the goyim

One of the reasons the bnei Yisroel deserved to be redeemed in Egypt was not speaking the language of the goyim.

There are many things we can debate on what is integration with goyim, however language is key (as shown in Egpyt).

In fact in many yeshiva language of the goyim is not spoken anymore and learning takes place in yiddish