- This topic has 189 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
LMA: I think you are missing a mojar point about R. Hirsh with respect to “seperation.” R. Hirsch was a proponent of separation from non-Torah observant Jewish institutions/organizations. He was NOT a supporter of separation from non-observant Jews as individuals, and he was also not a supporter of separation from non-Jews or non-Jewish institutions. In fact, he saw separation from the non-Jewish world as a perversion of a proper Torah approach and a product of the Ghetto of the Middle Ages.
R. Hirsch distinguished between things NON-Jewish, and things UN-Jewish. Non-Jews should be engaged and interacted with in order to fulfill our mission as an Or Lagoyim. Similarly, non-“frum” Jews should also be engaged and interacted with on an individual level to encourage Torah observance among our own people so that we may be a united Or Lagoyim projecting a single Torah-true vision to the rest of the world. Un-Jewish institutions (i.e., organizations, schools, shuls, ect. run by Jews who reject Torah observance) must be avoided – not because they may influence us, but because our associating with them gives an apperance of legitimacy to their non-Torah outlook.
LMA:
I’m pretty sure that both the Chareidim and the MO take the standard Litvish position that hergesh is not the primary focus of Yiddishkeit, observing the Mitzvos according to the Halacha is.
“Emotions connect man’s physical being with his soul. Through emotions one can connect himself with the spiritual world. Intelligence is just a vehicle for one’s emotions to express itself in a more sophisticated and broader way.”
Do you have a source for that? Because the Chovos Ha’levavos clearly says that a person’s Neshama is his intellect, and that this is the primary tool he is given to connect to Hashem. Actually, he goes so far as to say that this is why Torah is so important, because it strengthens one’s intellect.
Also, I think we’ve taken the “separation from the goyim” issue as far as it will go; perhaps we should move on to something else (like approach to secular subjects,
anon1m0us:
One of the key differences between the Chareidim and the MO is how to interpret the idea of being an “ohr la’goyim”. The MO may see ohr la’goyim as actively spreading Torah ideals to the world a large, but the Chareidim see it differently. The Chareidim see the role of “ohr la’goyim” as a passive role; by serving Hashem, we are setting an example for the goyim to follow. That’s why the Navi doesn’t say anywhere that we should “go influence the world”, only that we are ourselves an ohr; because our very existence as a nation serving Hashem is being a light unto the nations.
In addition, Avroham Avenu must have been MO too since he stands in the door way interacting with Arabs, offers them meals, and teaching them how to be a moral person.
That was before the Jewish Nation was created; now we only work on ourselves.
Yeah, because he was taken by Bas Paroh. It’s not like Moshe’s parents (or anybody, for that matter) willingly set up the above situation, so I don’t see how one can prove what our ideals should be from here.
“Are you serious when you say “he MO philosophy disregards Hergesh/feelings altogether. “?? Are you saying Rabbi Shamson Rafuel Hirsch had no Hergesh or rabbi soloveitchik had no emotions?? Seriously, where do you come up with this? “
Of course not, nobody ever said anything like that. There is a massive difference between saying that an ideology places no emphasis on emotions and saying that the leaders of the said movement have no emotions. C’mon, think before you bash.
“MO has nothing to do with Zionism.”
No, Zionism inherently has nothing to do with the philosophy of the MO. However, many of the leading MO Rabbonim came out in favor of Zionism, while almost all of the Chareidi Rabbonim came out against it. So I would still put Zionism on my list of disputes between the Chareidim and the MO.
RSRH is the antithesis of MO.
Stamper: What is farcical is your statement without any sources. You may disagree with me, but everything I have said is documented and backed up. Can you please name ONE chardai Rabbi that was influenced by philosophers or poets? In his memoirs of Germany, Hermann Schwab (1955) describes how RSRH and the yeshiva attended Friedrich Schiller’s 100th birthday celebration where RSRH delivered a speech quoting Schiller’s poems. Can you please show me ONE, just ONE, charadi Rabbi that would EVER do such a thing?
So before calling facts farcical, please read a little more.
Annoynimus: No Chareidi gadol has ever spoken out against RSRH or the Yekkesh community. However, the Chareidi leaders have constantly spoken out against the MO philosophy. There must be some real difference between these two communities.
Haleivi: I wasn’t discussing Psak Halacha. I was discussing each individual Jew’s relationship with Judaism.
Twisted: Connection with our creater is something real which we experience with our emotions; it’s not just a mere belief in our minds.
mw13: Thank you as well.
However, many of the leading MO Rabbonim came out in favor of Zionism, while almost all of the Chareidi Rabbonim came out against it.
Perhaps this can go under the “Chadash is Assur Min HaTorah!” subheading of the Chasam Sofer.
Stamper: I wouldn’t say he is the antithesis, more like just different. Really, You might look at Chareidism, MO (if you define MO as Torah U’maadah, not as apathy towards halacha), and TIDE as three points on a triangle. None of them are precise opposites of the other, they view different issues differently. At times TIDE is more on the Chareidi side (i.e., zionism; interactions with Reform institutions like JCC or UJA); at times it is more like MO (i.e., interactions with non-Jews, adoption of general modes of dress, education, and speech). The same is true for Chareidism and MO, sometimes they are have similar views on some things, sometime different. All three are entirely different philosophies, but in practice, they have similarities and differences with each other on specific issues.
R’ chaim ozer grodzinsky- clearly the posek of his dor and assumed “chareidi” called R hirsch a tzaddik gomur and that he was to the yekkish community what the sanzer ruv was to his. R yisroel salanter said that R hirsch was a gadol in nigleh and nistar. I would call that a haskomo, not that one is needed, from undisputed gedolei hador. i urge anyone who isnt clear on R hirsch hashkofo and ideal way of life to read his biography by artscroll. it will clear up a lot of your uncertainties.
RSRH: I wasn’t discussing the Yekkish concept of “Austritt”. I was dicussing the Torah concept of ‘separation’ from Goyim; which we recite every Motzei Shabbos “Hamavdil..Bein Yisroel L’amim”. I’m sure RSRH believed we must create some level of separation from individual Non Jews.
nw13: How do you understand the role of women in Judaism; they do not use their intellect to learn Torah? Also learning disabled people; are they less capable of reaching ‘Shleimus’/fulfillment in Judaism, since they lack intellectual capabilities?
Toi: The Artscroll biography is good history, but to really understand R. Hirsh’s hashkafa, one needs to study his writings ( a bit daunting, but start with the Nineteen Letters, and continue to Horeb, the Collected Writings, The Commentary on Chumash, Tehilim, and the Siddur – it took me three years to work through all of them thoroughly). While R. Klugman (the author of the Artscroll biography) is a fine historian and talmid chacham, his treatment of R. Hirsh’s philosophy in the biography is necessarily brief and overly-simplified.
i did. im a yekke. and your associating R hirsch and MO to closely. you yourself should know R hirsch wouldnt approve. if you cant be true to yourself a what a gadols view really was then theres no point in continuing. o btw i dont know how you managed a thourogh study in htree weeks. im impressed
anyone who thinks that the innovations R’SRH made under the terrible circumstances of the overpowing reform influence in frankfurt makes him “modern orthodox” really has no understanding at all of this great man. some Gedolim feel he erred in his ways, some feel he made a proper choice but no one would say his actions constituted anything like an acceptance of “modern orthodoxy”
Toi: I wrote 3 YEARS. Three weeks would indeed be an impossible feat!
I didn’t really say anything too substantive about TIDE, so I am not sure what exactly you mean when you say I am associating TIDE too closely with MO (TuM). Could you elaborate?
80- the gedolim didnt hold he erred. rather that wjat he did was a horaas shah. which doesnt apply to his actual hashkafa.
Rav Aharon Kotler zt’l, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
Rav Shimon Schwab zt”l, Rov of Rav Hirsch’s kehilla said (Selected Essays, p. 89):
Rav Schwab, p.151:
LMA-
did he say “essence”?
i personally would think “strategy” would be more accurate.
do you have the quote, perhaps?
“Gavra_at_work: I agree. I think this whole hergesh/dvakus point is shtuss and nonsense. Move on to something substantial!”
Yeah, like, lemaiseh: How’s it working out for you? Is your brand of Orthodoxy successful with its Hashkafa? Is it strong, viable, confident enough about passing on its legacy to future generations intact?
msseeker-
Yeah, like, lemaiseh: How’s it working out for you? Is your brand of Orthodoxy successful with its Hashkafa? Is it strong, viable, confident enough about passing on its legacy to future generations intact?
That’s a nice question, but I don’t think it is really relevant at this point of the discussion. You don’t (or shouldn’t) always believe in a hashkafa because it’s “succesful,” you believe it because you believe it. Now that you believe it, you figure out ways to keep the community intact without sacrificing what you believe in. But numbers don’t prove whether something is a valid hashkafa or not, which is what I thought this debate was about.
Yeah, like, lemaiseh: How’s it working out for you? Is your brand of Orthodoxy successful with its Hashkafa? Is it strong, viable, confident enough about passing on its legacy to future generations intact?
Yes.
As ususal MS, you are insulted by the Litvak viewpoint. I’m sorry you feel that way, but I’m not going Chossid. As is, the Chassidim adopted the Litvak view on Limud HaTorah, which is the only thing that really mattered.
Huh? Insulted? Who said anything about Litvak?
The Torah uses the same word Dveykus in Parshas Bereishis “V’Duvak B’Ishto”; would you say that also has nothing to do with emotions? The literal translation of the word Devekus means emotional connection. You are the one that has to bring proof that Torah doesn’t mean to infer its literal translation.
I was discussing the mitzvah of Limud Hatorah. The Mesilas Yishorim I quoted above says that Deveikus is the purpose of everything.
I explained in my above post that the literal translation of the word Deveikus means an emotional thing.
“Third, it says that dveikus is impossible, and simply that being attached to a Talmid Chacham satisfies the mitzvah to be attached to Hashem.”
Wrong. The Gemara is explaining that actual Deveikus is really accomplished as it says mifurash in the possuk “V’Atem Hadeveikim B’Hashem Elokeichem Chaim Kulchem Hayom”
Yes, but the Gemara explains this is how we can fulfill the Mitzvah of “L’Ahava Es Hashem U’Liduvku Bo”; so one of the purposes of learning is definitely to be Mikayem this Mitzvah of Deveikus.
I just explained that it is indeed a purpose in learning since this is how we are able fullfill the mitzvah of “Liduvku Bo”.
I just explained that it is indeed a purpose in learning since this is how we are able fullfill the mitzvah of “Liduvku Bo”.
LMA: Again: Circular cause and consequence fallacy. Also Chicken & Egg.
And finally, if you agree with the gemorah, then only Limud can create Devaikus, not other MItzvos (as you were Chozer before?)
anon1m0us said: “The Volozhin Yeshiva closed in 1892 because it refused to integrate secular studies.”
Not poshut at all. Read “My Uncle, the Netziv,” and the Torah U’Madda Journal, Volume Two, 1990, page 76 (which presents historical, documented information.)
I give up.
“some Gedolim feel he erred in his ways”
Sources?
Welcome, charliehall!
“Even in Amercia, until the 1940’s, all drashas were in Yiddish. “
This is not true; the Jewish community in New York heard sermons in English at least as early as the 1780s. I personally have a copy of a sermon in English from 1789. (And this was decades before the Reform movement.)
Rather than this argument that is not going to convince anyone of anything, why not a thread on what you appreciate and have learned from the Torah derechs that you don’t personally follow?
“Welcome, charliehall!”
Thanks! I’m trying to spend less time on the Internet and more time with my family and in the beit midrash.
welcome back charlie,
I sort of missed you
yitayningwut:
I give up
I did that when I realized LMA & Co. actually thought Bilaam meant isolationism in his bracha.
charlie: Efsher l’kayem shlashtan. A while ago I tried to put together a group to learn RaMBaM over video chat on google+. Didn’t work out but we can always try again.
” Do you have answers for the basic contradictions between Torah and science?”
Any apparent contradictions are only because we don’t understand Torah well enough, or we don’t understand science well enough. I certainly am not a great enough scientist and even more certainly not a great enough talmid chacham to be able to address this adequately. I can say though that science can only address questions regarding the physical universe and can say nothing regarding the spiritual universe. It can neither prove nor disprove God or Torah. And there is plenty in science that is unexplained, although it is nihilism to use that fact to dismiss all of science.
charliehall
“Rather than this argument that is not going to convince anyone of anything, why not a thread on what you appreciate and have learned from the Torah derechs that you don’t personally follow?”
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/in-honor-or-tisha-bav-what-you-respect-about
Stamper, Rav Schwab’s words are awesome (literally). Answers any doubt, I’d say, clears up any confusion between MO and RSRH. For this alone this debate was more than worth it.
“yitayningwut: I give up.”
“ItcheSrulik: I did that when I realized LMA & Co. actually thought Bilaam meant isolationism in his bracha.”
LMA, I guess you can declare victory. To think ?? ???? ????? means anything else… R. Aharon Kotler was right: The essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative.
r avigdor miller deals with what scientists decided came from billions of years ago. he explains the fallacy of carbon dating which is what scientists generally use to date things. kind of a chicken and egg problem
Mods, when I post a reasonable reply, why doesn’t it get posted?
I can’t follow the conversation, so I can’t moderate them.
- The topic ‘The Great Debate: Ultra-Orthodoxy vs. Modern Orthodoxy’ is closed to new replies.