Who Should be Giving Tochecho to Whom?

Everyone is obligated per halacha to give tochacha when necessary.

The requirements to give Tochachah are:

1) You have to first assess that there is at least a reasonable possibility of the person listening to you. (Sometimes there are Halachic ways of assessing this.)

2) You have to give the Tochachah in a non-aggressive manner, and never in front of people.

3) You have to make the person understand that the only reason you are giving him the Tochachah is because you care about him, and it is for his good, so that he can get Olam Habah.

It also says in Sefer HaChinuch perek 239 that you should give someone tochacha privately and in a nice way; but if they don’t listen to you, then you should embarrass them in public so that they will do teshuvah.

As far as your other points: 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.

The reason why it would be a mistake to view MO as merely responding to the times as opposed to making compromises, is because when a response involves lowering standards it becomes, by definition, a compromise. MO has incorporated their inadequacies into Orthodoxy – they officially allow, encourage, and even support things that are wrong. They changed the definition of wrong and right. The difference between traditional Orthodoxy and MO in regard to meeting the times is NOT a difference of quantity. It is the difference between keeping exceptional cases as exceptions versus making them into the rule.

The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is not what their Jews do, but what their Judaism says. Jews are imperfect – we know that and accept it – but Judaism is perfect, and unchangeable. We do not make over G-d in our own image.

The Modern Orthodox predicted the demise of everyone except themselves. This is clear in the Five Addresses of Rabbi Soloveichik. Others espoused that too. It was common MO rhetoric in the 60’s. In the 80’s however, we had the same MO rabbis denouncing what they referred to as “Ultra Orthodox Triumphalism”. Something didn’t work out the way they thought it would. Rabbi Yeruchem Gorelick ZT’L was asked what induced him to go work in YU. He said (in Yiddish), “Rabbi Soloveichik convinced me that the future of Torah in America depends on YU.” Then he slapped his head, as if to say “What was I thinking?”

The questions will remain, after you determine “the range of beliefs held by people who describe themselves MO”, aren’t these beliefs shared by those who do not describe themselves as MO? And isn’t it true that what one group considers MO, another group who also consider themselves MO will call “beyond the pale” (such as Edah)? And why is it that these beliefs generate a new substrata of orthodoxy? If I hold that one may daven Minchah after Shkiyah, for instance, does it make sense for me to call myself a “different type of Orthodoxy”? Modern Orthodoxy is nothing but a label. It is used by different people at will to describe so large a range of beliefs and actions that there are MO who consider beyond the pale the beliefs and actions of others who are called MO.

The reason for this confusion is because, unlike Chasidim, Conservatives, Maskilim, Briskers, and other “movements” stemming from Judaism (some legitimate and some not), MO was never officially created. Rather, it began as simply people violating accepted standards of Orthodoxy, and then, when these low standards became the norm within certain communities, they decided to self-proclaim themselves MO, giving the illusion that their indiscretions are instead some kind of set of beliefs. There were no rabbis that decided “OK, we are creating Modern Orthodoxy. These are our teachings…” the way all the other movements were created. Just the opposite. After certain behaviors became excepted in certain communities, those communities said “Well, I guess we’re just Modern Orthodox!”. And anyone can do that to justify any type of behavior, we have so many diff groups and definitions and people claiming the title for themselves.

The only coherent explanation of Modern Orthodoxy comes form Rav Soloveitchik in his Five Addresses, which is, in a nutshell, we must compromise our standards in America because traditional Torah standards will not survive here. Only Yeshiva University type Judaism will survive and all else will die out. Which means the integration into secularity must be done to the extent that we must in order to survive. Obviously, the whole idea was a mistake.

The battle against YU by the Yeshiva world is not, nor was it, a simple issue of Halachic or Hashkafic disagreement which can be dismissed as routine if accompanied with the obligatory respect for the opposing view, as per ailu v’ailu etc. Not so. Rather, YU was viewed as a deviant, dangerous, and anti-Torah entity that doesn’t deserve the respect of a legitimate Torah position, even a mistaken one. Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L, and Rav Schneur ZT’L after him, would under no circumstances even walk into YU. Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT’L also, when he came to America in the ’30s, was invited to speak in YU, and he refused to even walk in to the place. Of course, this is all very offensive to the students of YU, and I understand that. But if we’re going to understand what the issues are, then, we need to be honest and put the positions on the table, whether we like them or not. And here are the issues:

The difference between the inadequacies at YU versus the inadequacies in Yeshivos, is that YU made their inadequacies into philosophical positions thereby not merely doing wrong, but changing the definition of wrong. To do wrong is a violation of the Torah, and yes, many types of Jews do that. But to make wrong into right is to change the Torah, either explicitly or implicitly. YU has done. That amounts to a new, deviant movement within Judaism, and that is the problem with YU. The good, the bad, the gray areas – are all considered part and parcel of the official YU position.

Nowhere else will you find the “President” of a Bais HaMedrash constantly representing (and creating) the Torah positions of the institution without reviewing every single word of his speeches with the official Rosh Yeshiva. In YU, Dr. Lamm, though he was merely President, and not Rosh Yeshiva, had full right to get up and speak to the world about the official policies and positions of YU, even though the Roshei Yeshiva may not have agreed with him. Nowhere does a lay leader become a setter of policy for a Yeshiva.

The fact that the President of “Yeshiva” University can get up and refer to Bnei Torah as “cavemen” because they do not go to college, and the fact that anti-Torah activities do take place there regardless of whether the “talmidim” go against the Rebbeim or not, means that the institute as a whole must be opposed. The fact that in some classrooms you will not hear the heresy of chutzpah against the Torah does not negate the corruption of the institution as a whole. Because it is a business – as opposed to other Yeshivas who have a business element which does not set policy for the Yeshiva but merely the administrative offices – you can have people like Lamm, or Rackman, or even worse spouting all kinds of drivel in the name of Torah. And you can have an Avi Weiss and others like him teaching under its auspices.

DaasYochid

He didn’t attack the whole chareidi community just those that criticize him. As such, it is the difference between one whho kills for pleasure and one who does it in self-defense.

Vochindik: How about you define this “MO” that you think is so problematic? I will grant you that a “Modern Orthodox bungalow colony” that has established mixed swimming (should such a thing exist; which I actually doubt) is not really Orthodox. But that shouldn’t reflect on “Modern Orthodoxy” as a movement. If I would start a “Chareidi bungalow colony” with mixed dancing and mixed swimming, would that mean that people shouldn’t be “Chareidi”? No. It would just mean that I misappropriated a name. So too here.

There seems to be a widespread belief that “Modern Orthodoxy” and “Torah Judaism” are far from the same thing. It’s an idiotic assumption. The actual “Modern Orthodox” have the same Mesorah and Halachah that everyone who thinks of themselves as “Torah Jews” do.

He didn’t attack the whole chareidi community just those that criticize him.

That’s not really true. His line, “when serious issues that are plaguing the Chareidi community come to the forefront…” is clearly implying that these issues don’t plague other communities, and I think we all can guess which types of issues he’s referring to.

the difference between one whho kills for pleasure and one who does it in self-defense.

His point was that the the “assault on Modern Orthodoxy” is to no realistic purpose and without allegiance to our sources (which he’s probably right about). If his attack is a reaction to being hurt, that sounds like nekamah, which is also to no realistic purpose and without allegiance to our sources.

It seems that the answer to the question posed in this discussion’s title, “Who Should be Giving Tochecho to Whom?” should have been answered, “neither”, rather than with a scathing rebuttal.

Tochacha should never be given in this day and age, as we don’t know how to give it without adding in our personal Negius, which makes the Tochacha an Avaira. Perhaps someone like the Chofetz Chaim could have given Tochacha, but (as can be seen here and elsewhere) not others.

Yichusdik – hate to say I told you so…

Why do we discuss such useless topics?

This bickering is ridiculous and pointless. In 30 years, there will be no more MO young people since all the kids won’t be frum, and MO will be relegated to a few ill attended shuls of old people in formerly frum neighborhoods like Lawrence and Woodmere.

And then the Charedim will turn on each other The Yeshivish and Chassidim excommunicating each other, just like the good old days

popa_bar_abba

Your gentle trolling is quite sweet.

Yichusdik,

What you describe in an old phenomenon; anyone to my left is frei, anyone to my right is a fanatic. Nothing new here, and of course the ones to the left will always perceive those to the right as having “quiet paternalism or prejudice”, justified or not (and, granted, it certainly is at times justified, as are the accusations directed the other way). That’s just human nature. And paradoxically, the same “holier than thou” attitude expressed by those on the right is present by those on the left. Just look through these boards as a sample – you’ve been as guilty as anyone. You just think you’re right, so that makes it okay.

DY: Until, another 30 years later, their children are gone too.

The Vilna Gaon considered Chassidus Apikoros

Englishman – Nothing could be further from the truth! The talmidei haGr’a were staunchly anti-chassidic and kept the cherem very much in place. Nefesh Hachaim was written in direct opposition to the Tanya, and unfortunately the relationship between the two groups became rather acrimonious. R’ Elchonon in kovetz shamuos (chelek 2) brings word for word a letter he received from the Chofetz Chaim in which the Chofetz Chaim writes that the cherem was eventually lifted except for Chabad which was still in effect to that day. So now what?

Rav Shach for sure did not lift the Charem at least on Chabad

Englishman – firstly, you keep skirting the Chabad issue. You claim that it is all alright now because there is no cherem, but there is. And the reconciliation of chasidim and misnagdim came about mostly due to the need to jointly fight the various Reform and Haskala .

Englishman – if you look very carefully, I never actually made the issue about chasidim, it was all about the Gr’a’s cherem, which you claimed was no longer in effect at all. I simply pointed out that it was. The integration you spoke of is a post-war phenomenon. But this thread is not about chasidim vs misnagdim, it is about whether or not people in the CR should be ‘giving tochocho’ about hashkofos. Someone made a slightly off-hand comment about the Gr’a and we end up here. Back to subject please?

I’ve elected to ignore you (I do have that right, do I not? It is a right I intend to again exercise after this incursion) considering you chose to falsely categorize me as a chareidi in order to attribute false motivations in your diatribes against chareidim. Nowhere have I categorized myself as such, yet you simply declared me that so you can attack them as a whole. That in addition to assuming that I didn’t author or have permission from him to reuse. I won’t address whether or not that is the case considering your iniquitous motivations.

If you’re Canadian ‘ready now’ also rhymes with ‘no’. As do: so, grow, doe, dough, furrow, furlough, hoe, toe, low, bow, know, show, forgo, Tobago, Tabasco, tobacco, go, Pinocchio, vento, largo, embargo, cargo, woe, quo, also, although, joe, sow, foe, co, mow. It is not a coincidence.