Sam2:
But you’re not being realistic. If you hold of the outdated (and, clearly in hindsight, now known to be mistaken) belief/ideology that Rav JBS proposed that traditional orthodoxy will become a museum exhibit so you must be more “modern” to survive as Torah Jews, and therefore you now do things that you otherwise would not do and klal Yisrael never did, then that mindset and practice is guaranteed to color your halachic opinions. Again, for at least the third time, this is pashut.
Practically speaking, MO means “compromise” in certain areas. It would seem that these can only be achieved by distorting and/or ignoring established halacha. You can call it apikorsus or whatever else you want to call it, but that’s your call. I, however, am interested in the facts on the ground, not to judge anyone else. So rather than damning anyone as an apikores, ch”V, I simply call a spade a spade and say that since MO ideology allows for “compromise” that means that an MO Rav will issue an MO psak and that the psak may not be appropriate for a traditional orthodox Jew.
This is the danger of “anything-orthodox” rather than just plain “orthodox” (i.e. traditional orthodox). Once you add something to the Torah, you’re bound to mess up and cross lines that you are not allowed to when there is ever a possibility for conflict between, liahvdil, the two parts. Rav JBS felt it was necessary then. Regardless of who agreed or disagreed then, it certainly is not necessary now and, as history continues to show, it is harmful for many people’s spirituality. That’s the reality, as recently shown by the Beacon incident.
By the way, this bias-in-psak applies not only to MO. If any Rav, of any stripe, has a particular weakness in a certain area, say honesty in mamonus, then it’s likely his psakim will inadvertently be colored by this too, unfortunately. But how much more so if the weakness is not a weakness but an intentional stance.
Feif Un:
Wrong.
MO, as founded by Rav JBS, admittedly and intentionally (attempted to) change(d) the practice of orthodox Jewry. He spoke about it at length, and it is disingenuous of you to imply that MO is the “standard” when it is traditional orthodoxy that is the standard and MO is the (mistaken, in hindsight) experiment.
“Chareidi”/”Chassidic” Jewry is also a change, and I never claimed it is a positive one, but that is not the topic of this discussion. Notice, I compared MO not to Chareidi Judaism, but rather to traditional Orthodox, as in the way it was always done.
Again, I am not interested in discussing the liberties that MO takes, nor, as you point out (and I agree), the additional chumros that Chassidic Judaism has imposed. But MO is very certainly not the way things were always done; traditional orthodoxy is. That’s for sure.
In case this isn’t clear, I do not mean to imply, Ch”V, that a Rav of an MO community is any less respectable than one of a traditional orthodox community. But if that Rav agrees with MO changes to halacha then a traditional orthodox Jew should ask elsewhere if he wants psakim not colored by that ideology. Face the facts like a big boy: if you, the Rav, take halachic “liberties” nobody outside MO does then your psakim are colored by that. If you feel your liberties are at least muttar if not lichatchila then you have nothing to be ashamed of. If, however, you realize your liberties are certainly not lichatchila, then it should be understandable why traditional orthodox Jews should ask elsewhere.
Once again, the point of all this is that if an MO Rav says Zumba is muttar, then if you are traditional orthodox then you should ask your LOR and not rely on the psak as this is part of a broader area that MO and traditional orthodox do not agree on. No condemnations, et al. Just the facts.