- This topic has 56 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 2 hours, 59 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
Once upon a time the Orthodox Rabbinate in America and Canada were on a similar page, many who’ve came from similar places in Europe. When did YU/RIETS become Zionist and when did the Greater Yeshiva World become decidedly not Zionist?
The greater Yeshiva world has always been anti-Zionist. From when we were still in Europe before the war.
Once upon a time is how I start bed time stories for my kids.
Not true stories.when did yu allow gay clubs
“… when did the Greater Yeshiva World become decidedly not Zionist?”
The greater yeshiva world has obviously never been Zionist because Zionism is idolatry and heresy and a massive rebellion against G-d.
When was the frum Yeshiva world ever Zionist to begin with?
The yeshivas in europe were all not zionist, besides for the outlier yeshivas that weren’t really part of the mainstream yeshiva world (such as r’ reines’ yeshiva in Lida). Do some historical research. The reason for this is simple. In yeshivas, the students listened to the far far majority of gedolim of the time, since that is what the torah says to do (see sefer hachinuch mitzva 495 and 496, drashas haran 12, shiltos parshas mishpatim 58, ramban on parshas shoftim on pasuk of yamin u’smoel, the Rambam in his hakdama to mishna torah, Raavad quoted by the Rosh in sanhedrin and brought down in the Tur CM siman 25, וכו׳ וכו׳ וכו׳). The far far majority of gedolim were against zionism from the onset. Many of these gedolim were either teaching in or very connected to a yeshiva or multiple yeshivas. A very very non inclusive list would include: The Chofetz Chaim (who was the head of Radin), R’ Chaim Brisker (head of volozhin), R’ Chaim Ozer (the Ramlis yeshiva was under him), The Rugatchover, R’ Elchonon (boronovitch), R’ Baruch Ber (kamenitz), R’ Shamshon R. Hirsch (head of the berlin yeshiva), R’ Yehoshua leib Diskin, The Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’ Isaac Sher (head of Slabodka), R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld, R’ Zelig Bengis, R’ Shlomo Breuer, R’ Yosef Leib Bloch (the head of the telz yeshiva), the chazon ish, the brisker rov, R’ Ahron Kotler (head of Kletzk), R’ Reuven Grozovsky, R’ Shlomo Heiman (Ramlis), R’ Leizer Yudel Finkel (mir), The Ponovitcher Rov (head of Ponovitch), The Satmar Rov, The Klausenberger Rov. There are many many more. Almost all of them. Almost all of the above rabbis’ positions are documented, many of which you can easily find. Some can be found on the website www dot torahjews dot org under the section resources and rabbinic quotes. (not that I endorse the website).
I myself am not such a kanoi or anti zionist, but the facts are that most most most of our gedolim and the yeshivas in europe were not zionist.
the classic Torah world was never “zionist”. Zionism is just another false moshiach like Shatz and J.
This has been well expressed publicly and written about explicitly in tshivas by evey Yeshivish leader who has addressed the point including the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon Ish, the Steipler Geon, the Brisker Rav, Rav Kotler, as well as Aguda thought leaders like Rav Reuven Grazovky and later Rav Shach, Rav Avigdor Miller, Rav Michael Dov Weissmandl, etc
the Mizrachi movement in Europe like the Modern Orthodox movement later in the US was clearly and admantly rejected by the “Greater Yeshiva World”. So too Kook in EY was put into cherem for trying to even partially push zionist thought into the Torah world.
The only support you will find for zionism in the yeshiva world today are by balei batim who don’t know anything beyond artscroll and mishpacha publications.
You need to define what do you mean by “Zionist”? Members of Hashomer Hatzair – probably not. Supporting Jewish settlement and later state – probably many. Also, note that sometimes fierce fighting happens between leaders trying to bring people to join their movement at the expense of the competing movement – does not mean that they always disagree. If you look at recent discussions here, you will see that, say, Netziv, Ohr Sameach were not at the same position as others.
As to general “yeshivos”, we might have a very idealistic view of what was happening there. for example, at some point Telshe yeshiva was emptied out because all students became socialists, so Slabodka sent new students there …
As to YU, I am not sure whether there was politics involved when R Moshe Soloveitchik (son of Chaim Brisker) was there in 1930s, but R Moshe was already involved in creating modern religious schools when in Poland in 1920s. His son, R YB Soloveitchik was of course a supporter of Mizrachi, with some reservations and had explicit goal to produce Rabbis who could work with Jewish communities that had Americanized and educated people. His observation from talking to college students in 1950s that they had a lot of questions that they were not able to get answered either from reform or from Rabbis who did not know anything modern. So, it is R Soloveitchik’s “fault” (as well as Lubavitchers) that there are observant Jews outside of Boro Park – without their efforts, everyone would be assimilated already and you will not encounter such posts on YWN.
Many of the opponents of Zionism lived before the State of Israel was established. Some changed their views after it was established. They still opposed the secularists, but the idea of Zionism and having a Jewish state was separate.
There is a letter written by Professor Zvi Yehuda, who was a student of the Chazon Ish. In the letter (written to his daughter, and published in Tradition, Summer 1979 Issue 18.1), he writes about the conversation he personally had with the Chazon Ish regarding Israel after its founding. He says the Chazon Ish davened for the success of the State. He also says that when asked if Israel could be leading towards Mashiach coming, the Chazon Ish did not dismiss the idea – he simply said that it was too early to say, and time would tell.
R’ Isser Zalman Meltzer was a member of Chovevei Zion before the State was founded. He, along with R’ Moshe Mordechai Epstein, even helped to found a city in Israel (then part of the Ottoman Empire).The fact is, the Satmar Rav was a daas yachid in his views on Israel – he opposed a state in any form, even if it would be under religious leadership. Most Rabbonim opposed Zionism because it was run by secular Jews, who were anti-religion. Religious Zionists also oppose this, and would prefer that Israel be run according to halachah. However, almost all now recognize that once the state was founded, it is better to participate with it, and try to improve things for the frum Jews.
People like Hakatan and Joseph keep referring to the early Zionists and the harm they did. Nobody is arguing against that! Religious Zionists also mourn the fact that they did that. But they don’t allow it to change their views on having a Jewish state. IY”H one day soon, the State will be run according to halachah!
While prior to the shoah, much of Eastern European Jewry were not Zionists, the shoah and the establishment of the State of Israel were clear signs to some that a change was necessary. read kol dodi dofek by the Rav ztl
This is very complex question that needs to be broken down into many pieces. Firstly what’s Zionism ? Is it the idea of having our own country or is it about cooperating with secularists who are anti Torah ? Then there is the pre war to post war . Then there is Agudah vs mizrachi. Then there is peleg vs main agudaj
So before the war there were many pro the idea of a state just not a secular state. Yes R elchanon and r Chaim were anti as were of course the yershalmi tzadkim. But then you had R isser zalman zl and R Areya levin and even R Chaim ozer to an extent who were pro Zionism as in a state and supported R kook .
After the war , the punvitcha rav and R Lazer yudel Zl raised the flag and somewhat supported Zionism.
In the USA and Canada most RY supported the agudah faction with some like R Shrage fievel very supportive of Zionism. All of them held that secularism is evils and we need to oppose the govt of Israel because it’s secular and not because having a country is bad. R JB Zl on the other hand supported mizrachi and not agudah thereby saying he supports even secular Israel. So they differed then But they both held that once Israel is here to stay let’s work with them.Fast forward to 2025 . The American yeshiva system became influenced by the hard core Hungarian chasdim like Satmar and by brisk. So that slowly morphed into this new ideology that essentially opposes Israel completely but because of R Aron zl traditionally being part of agudah it’s somehow still Agudah even though it’s closer to Satmar now .
To put things in post war perspective. Aguda had a huge spectrum. There were sone who were totally pro Zionism but were anti secular and opposed Israel only because of its secular nature . They even once held that you should fight in the IDF and be happy there is a state yet oppose the secular aspect. Others held don’t join the idfakd we are opposed to the statehood yet since we have no choice cooperate for the better cause. Then others were somewhat in the middle, they did join and support the IDF but didn’t oppose the state or the idea of it. They kind of tacitly supported it via raising flags and inviting its secular members to speak. That’s where most of the yeshiva world was. So punivitch chevron and the Mir held that as did most of the USA . Basically proud that there is a state but unhappy about it being secular.However basically cooperative unless it was a direct edict like gyuis bnos. Then there was briska rav who didn’t have a yeshiva and just gave shuir to10-15 bochrim in his dinning room . He was totally opposed but a minority .
That’s still very different than REITs who was mizrachi..But there were holy Jews on the mizrachi side too. And it’s really a shikul hadas who you hold like
A lot of feelings towards Zionism were based on the politics of the time. But was “Zionism” the real issue? Imagine, there is no WW2 and many Jews still live in Eastern Europe. Would “Zionism” be the biggest problem? No, it would be communists in Russia, all kind of secular movements all over Europe, German Reform, etc. So, just because the confrontations moved to EY and the only remaining secularists were Zionists does not change that the core problem was secular anti-religious movements in whatever form they happened. As you see now, Israeli left is not so Zionist any more, but it is still in confrontation with Judaism.
We also need to look back at the start of the problem: how come so many Jews became anti-religious? In part, it was the influence of the times; amei haaretz who previously would be part of the Jewish community now had a choice to leave; and attractive influence of various isms.
But, we also need to admit that Jewish communities, and Talmidei Chachamim, did not initially have effective tools to upheld Judaism, it took some time to develop these tools – and by this time so many Yidden became members of various movements … One can say that adequate response was early developed by R Hirsh (and attempted before by Mendelssohn), R Salanter, Beis Yaakov movement, but really developed after WW2 both in Israel and US. During 1930s, Chofetz Chaim writes a lot about problems but offers almost no solutions, except “keep at least one cheder in each town so those who still want would be able to send kids there”. He even pleads with Polish President to rescind sanitation requirements on the mikvaot because Jewish communities were not able to abide by them…
So, two major approaches survived: (1) going to the desert to avoid any contact with anything “modern” and (2) developing approach that allows people to understand modernity in the Jewish context. After about 80 years, I would say approach (1) had definite successes “in the short term” by creating large community with large families of those previously committed, and (2) had definite success attracting more assimilated and educated people. At some point, we should get out of survival mode and ask the question – is Hashem looking for a nation that reads old books or a nation that reacts to the world that He sent us to.
DrYidd:
First, the Zionists both caused and contributed to the Holocaust, even if Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was not aware of that and the Zionists continue to cover that up and lie about it. Therefore, the conclusion you mentioned is obviously the opposite one that one would logically draw.Second, Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik’s Kol Dodi Dofek is flawed, at best, using specious and emotional arguments. But it’s even worse than that, because it uses “signs” to replace Torah law. We don’t make up signs that tell us to go against the Torah. Either way, his KDD is not relevant to Judaism.
DaMoshe:
Chovevei was a non-Zionist movement; it was concerned merely with living in the land, and doing so apolitically. Even that notion had plenty of rabbinic objectors including Rabbi SR Hirsch.Your take is factually inaccurate regarding the views of the gedolim and the Zionist idol “State”. For example, the Brisker Rav stated explicitly that even if the Chofetz Chaim were to be its Prime Minister, it would still be forbidden to have that “State”. He also noted that the Zionist “State” was the greatest achievement of the satan since the golden calf. The Chazon Ish held the “State” was a gezeirah raah that would ultimately be nullified. He estimated it would last for a matter of decades.
The whole “MO” meme about Satmar being a daas yachid is also ridiculous in its implication. Satmar is a daas yachid in certain minor matters like (forbidding) visiting the kosel, Israelis voting in their elections and the like. The core heresy and idolatry of Zionism and the disaster that was and is its “State” was and is obvious and acknowledged by all gedolim.
Actually, the Torah tells us to not join with evildoers even to do good. That certainly applies to the wicked Zionists who persist and compound their evil (in shmading Jews and destroying the Torah) very much in today’s times, too, not just a century ago.
Always_Ask_Questions:
Rav Aharon Kotler, who brought actual unadulterated Torah to America, stated that Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik was responsible for “all the tuma in America”.@HaKatan
Yet R Aron sat with him for chinuch Atzmo. He had a strong personal connection. There are eyewitness testimonies that he walked into YU to ask R JB ZL to provide a shteler for a close talmid. (This isn’t heresay, it happened). Rabbi JB came to R aron levaya. And R Malkiel shlita was on his way to rabbi JB levaya till R Elya Svei stopped him. And so people say sharp things but actions matter. its clear that rabbi Solvetchikc was considered a gadol despire R Aron’s comments.Maybe we should also appreciate similarity between two approaches. Both Lakewood and RIETS are a modern innovation – they are different from what was the norm in Eastern Europe from where they came. Old norm was: small yeshivos for mostly poor smart & dedicated students. The rest of the community knew basics but did not participate in advanced learning. It was not total ignorance, there was a lot of what to admire:
there is a WWI diary by a German officer who got a report of suspicious activity in occupied Warsaw: he observed Jewish balagulas gathering in some remote building for an horu every day. This looked like a preparation to a rebellion. Turns out they were coming for a quick halocha class… German officer was amazed, saying that surely Berlin drivers were more educated than Warsaw Jews, but he never saw them to gather to learn together in the middle of a work day. Still, those balagulas were not learning gemora and they were working most of the day.This system clearly failed when balagulas got access to newspapers and other sources of information – in 19th century the disaster was all over Western Europe and started in Eastern and by early 20th century Eastern Europe was also full disaster. So, both Lakewood and RIETS addressed this issue – in a different way as we all know. But the main focus was the same – how to change educational and rabbinical systems to make majority of Jews appreciate Judaism when other attractive alternatives are freely available. Lakewood focused on teaching as much Torah as possible to people who may not become Talmidei Chachamim – and keeping them away from other info. RIETS in 1940-50s focused on quickly raising a generation of Rabbis who could talk to American-born Jews (including children of recent arrivals). Add Chabad to this list, of course.
another note: there was no popular expression “yeshiva world” in the “old world”
Chaim87:
Stories of Rav Aharon dealing with him as needed are not relevant to the facts of who he was and the damage he caused (still ongoing) to American Jewry. In this very thread, people still bring up his “Kol Dodi Dofek” piece as if its halacha liMoshe miSinai when in fact it’s actually baseless and emotional at best. Regardless, it’s clear that Rabbi Soloveichik had tremendous influence, and the gedolim acted accordingly.But if you want to tell over stories, you could tell over the one about giyus banos, when Rav Aharon tried to get Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik to condemn the wicked Zionists for trying to shmad all the girls and therefore destroy Klal Yisrael. Rav Aharon said imagine that in this room were not you, but your grandfather Rav Chaim Brisker and not me but my father-in-law Rav Isser Zalman, etc. What would your grandfather say. Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik would have none of that and wished him a good day and left.
HaKatan > Rav Aharon said imagine that in this room were not you, but your grandfather Rav Chaim Brisker and not me but my father-in-law Rav Isser Zalman, etc. What would your grandfather say. Rabbi Dr. Soloveichik would have none of that and wished him a good day and left.
right, and this story demonstrates that Boston Rav and Kletzer Rosh Yeshiva valued each other and were interested in the other one joining in the opinion. In the case of Chinuch Atzmai, they agreed and in the case of drafting girls they disagreed. It happens. Again, I suggest to you reading some of the regular writings of R Soloveitchik – I see that you read some stories and even his famous polemic essays, but read more of his Torah to see where he is coming from and see if it is that easy to reject his positions the way you do now.
Wow. A few of the historical claims and perspectives that have been shared by some of our fellow commenters are quite unfounded, with some even bordering on heretical. I would implore our dear readers to do independent research before taking any claims made on this forum seriously.
Forgive me for saying this but your response is classical whitewashing. Its always a nice convenient answer to say oh he was so influential and the other rabbonim had no choice. In fact I believe that’s the excuse why so many gedolim addressed R Kook Zl with such high esteem. Same excuse oh he was so influential that they had no choice. (As if being the chief rabbi of so0me third world backwards non country was so influential)
Here is the truth, R Aron would never have sat down with a true kofer or apikoros no matter how influential they are. R Aron was not a push over or one to compromise He was pure. And in fact he didn’t sit down with anyone in JTS despite the fact that Rabbi Sol Liberman was a genuis and knew kol hatorah kula. (He was also the chazon ish cousin) Furthermore, as I noted, R Aron asked him to give a shteler to one of his talmidim in YU. If YU is complete kefira how can R Aron do that? Its also well known that the two families were close too.
(Side note, its funny how you quote R Isser zalman zl all of a sudden. You do know that he was very close to R Kook Zl. And his own son became head of hesder after R Kook)
Bottom line, yes R Aron was very mad at R JB and did not hold of his approach. He was very vocal and sharp. But he didn’t mean what he said lieterally. He still held him in high esteem. Thes excuses that oh he had no choice because he was inlfuential, I just don’t buy them
Chaim, you raise an interesting question – as indeed the story is told that he appealed to R Soloveitchik historical responsibility referring to Brisker Rav and R Meltzer, but then how would R Kotler respond to his own views on Medinah and R kook being different from R Meltzer? Too bad you were not there during this historic meeting, it would be a good question to ask 🙂
yeshivaman > A few of the historical claims and perspectives that have been shared by some of our fellow commenters are quite unfounded,
it looks like you are actively tying to avoid lashon hara and not name anyone – but you are making it worse! Now everyone here is under suspicious. Maybe you should just state what you think is wrong and why.
R Kotler says somewhere that he had to spend so much time away from home, travelling to fundraise. So, he asked himself – why did he deserve that (even as he was able to fulfil his approach of having many students by this). And his answer is that – maybe he was inconsiderate and answered in a rude way to a student at some point and that was the punishment. I first read this as a siman of humbleness, but maybe it was an example of honest self-assessment that we should all emulate. There are apparently stories of Rav’s temper and effect of it. One story is that when there was a confrontation between Kletzk yeshiva students and non-R Zionists on shabbos – where yeshiva students “learnt” loudly to prevent the speaker (in the shul that let the yeshiva be there) and some local gvir started tearing seforim and Rav (who was there too!) told him that he’ll be torn apart himself – and the gvir fell into a machine and lost his legs same afternoon. Then, a story of him cursing a Lakewood yeshiva’s neighbor for complaining about noise and then finding out that it was student’s fault and then asking Hashem to take his curses back … With this background, we can see how R Kotler was passionate about his position, and how R Soloveitchik decided that it is better to stop it as he would not change his mind in such a discussion.
@Always_Ask_Questions
Its not clear what R Isser zalamn persoanlly held re the medina but I believe actions matter. Lamza he was very close to R Kook Zl and his son became the next RY of Hesder. He was proud of that son just as much as his edim R Aron ZlAlways_Ask_Questions said – “One can say that adequate response was early developed by R Hirsh (and attempted before by Mendelssohn)”
What on Earth are you talking about putting Rav Hirsch zt”l in the same sentence as Mendelssohn ימח שמו וזכרו?! Mendelssohn (‘successfully’) attempted to create the PROBLEM, Rav Hirsch zt”l created one of the SOLUTIONS. Go learn history, together with the guy who wrote here that Rav Kook z”l was head of הסדר, something founded 30 years after his passing… Lakewood in the 40s-50s was also nothing like how you describe it, both in its goals and its modus operandi. What happened to Lakewood decades later is a different subject.
“At some point, we should get out of survival mode and ask the question – is Hashem looking for a nation that reads old books or a nation that reacts to the world that He sent us to.”
Well, those ‘old books’ as you call them (I do not want to descend to ad hominem insults, but using such an expression to refer to Toras Hashem is beyond the pale for anyone remotely claiming to be a believing Goy, let alone a believing Jew.) were in fact given to us by Hashem Himself, something we will be celebrating three weeks from now… The ‘world Hashem sent us to’ is a test how loyal we will be to doing Hashem’s Will, as described in those ‘old books’ and explained and applied by the Chachomim of each generation, (not the baalei batim from the peanut gallery.) This isn’t a Chiddush of mine, or of anyone else, this is spelled out already in Chumash and Navi many times. כי מנסה ה׳ אלקיכם אתכם, ואלה הגוים אשר השאיר ה׳ לנסות בהם את ישראל, etc. The only thing ‘new’ is the flavor-of-the-month of the Nisayon.
Speaking of changing ניסיונות and engaging modernity, let me ask you a question. Is Modern Orthodoxy really ‘modern’ anymore? In order to be even minimally ‘Orthodox’ one needs to acknowledge that the only Kosher ‘relationship’ is marriage between a man and a woman. One must also acknowledge that there is a clear definition of what the terms ‘man’ and ‘woman’ mean… Holding these positions is already enough to brand you a ‘far right homophobic transphobic extremist’, far from being ‘modern’ or ‘with it’. So can ‘Modern Orthodoxy’ continue to pretend not to be an oxymoron? Just ask whoever is in charge of YU… Zionism is a much more convenient issue for you to debate, because the debate is more historical and less relevant…
“This system clearly failed when balagulas got access to newspapers and other sources of information”
The ‘Baalei Agalos’ i.e. wagon drivers (stock name for simple working class Yidden of yesteryear for those who didn’t understand), were the LAST group of Yidden to go off, and most of them never did. (The first ones to go were krum iluyim who thought they were smarter than their Rabbeim, who then became leaders and recruiters in the Haskalah movement.) It was the children of the ‘balagulas’ who joined secularist movements, to the chagrin of their parents.
This matzav, BTW, was primarily in Lithuania/Belarus/Northeast Poland, collectively referred to as ‘Lita’, where Haskalah was raging from the mid-19th century onwards, and which was almost completely secularized by the eve of WWII. By the Chassidim, the matzav stayed better for longer, although that was being severely challenged post WWI. The secret ingredient is listening to the Gedolim, something Chassidim were and are better at…
@Yaakov Yosef A
i can agree with the “was”. Although I’d say that in certain “ashkenaz ” circles there was a very strong repsect for the RUV also just much as as by chasdim. Especially those part of a kehila which did succeed in keeping out the neologs.
However, I beg to differ on the “are better” aspect. Lately Chasdim are having a big issues with OTD, semi OTD , Tuna baigels etc. The core chasidus becomes more and more chinyuked (At times thats a good thing and at times its overdone). But not of all its people are holding by its draconain taknus. They then became shunned or second c;lass citzens. Their success rate is becoming lower and lower. Meanwhile in litfisha circles even someone not holding by the rules of the “yeshiva world” still are basically stickling around and often their children still become “yeshivish”. Chasdim need to wake up and address the crisis in their midst. Its a big issue
YYA> What on Earth are you talking about putting Rav Hirsch zt”l in the same sentence as Mendelssohn
R Hirsh disagrees with you in 19 letters: (18:8)
When the external yoke began to grow lighter, and the spirit felt itself freer, then arose a brilliant, respect-inspiring personality, Mendelssohn, which by its commanding influence has led the later development up to this day. This commanding individual, who had not drawn his mental development from Judaism, who was great chiefly in philosophical disciplines, in metaphysics, and aesthetics, who treated the Bible only philologically and aesthetically, and did not build up Judaism as a science from itself, but merely defended it against political stupidity and pietistic Christian audacity, and who was personally an observant Jew, accomplished this much, that he showed the world and his brethren that it was possible to be a strictly religious Jew and yet to shine distinguished as the German Plato.YYA > Mendelssohn (‘successfully’) attempted to create the PROBLEM, Rav Hirsch zt”l created one of the SOLUTIONS
I am aware how MM caused controversy at the time, but let’s look from the current POV: do we think that MM caused or accelerated assimilation in Germany? It was happening without him alright. And even in Lita 100 years later, communities were not well prepared to deal with free societies, even as they had so many Talmidei Chachamim … So, all anger at MM from the others might have been mis-directed. To reverse your statement, MM attempted (unsuccessfully) to come up with solutions. He was there early on. R Hirsh and others built on him. Others who were blaming MM often did not propose their own answers, they just hoped that the problem will go away. So, Western European chachamim have some excuse in that they lived through unprecedented times. But Lita/Eastern Europe had 50-100 years before it hit them – and they also did not have much success also. Arguably, the real solutions are post-WW2 in US and Israel, both in charedi and in “modern” approaches, focused on better mass education, building community institutions, etc. It took 200 years to come up with some, still imperfect, solutions. MM was there early on and did his best. R Hirsh appreciated it and so should we.
YYA > Lakewood in the 40s-50s was also nothing like how you describe it, both in its goals and its modus operandi. What happened to Lakewood decades later is a different subject.
Not sure where you are correcting me. Early on, Lakewood could not find post-HS students because they were going to college. R Kotler saw that this was pursuit of the material gains at the cost of Yiddishkeit and made a (successful) effort to reverse the trend and make it honorable to learn.
YYA > those ‘old books’ as you call them … ‘world Hashem sent us to’ is a test how loyal we will be to doing Hashem’s Will,
I am obviously pushing this term too far, but the point is that Hashem sends us the world not simply to reject it all, but to deal with it. Everywhere in Tanach and Gemora, Jews deal with politics, economies, science, ideas of their time.
> and explained and applied by the Chachomim of each generation, (not the baalei batim from the peanut gallery
this is a lame excuse – let Chachomim deal with all issues, and we will just sit and learn!? Chofetz Chaim did not start Beis Yaakov despite writing a lot about social issues of the day, but a simple Polishe lady who happened to hear a Yakkish Rav while in exile in Vienna – did.
YYA, I am not sure about your dig at “modern”. Are you talking about the YU club? First, YU as a whole is a thing in itself, not a halachik institution. And was. R Soloveitchik was negotiating a contract w/ YU in 1930s as a total outsider – while his father was the Rav there … and they had their disagreements. When he writes to defend an idea of YU medical school, he mentions that his argument is b’dieved and that he was not consulted l’hathila. Second, they were, and I believe, still fighting this, so it is clearly not something they, ahem, embrace.
YYA > The first ones to go were krum iluyim who thought they were smarter than their Rabbeim
probably, right. But how come current Mir students and probably even most YU students are not starting new movements? Of course, it was “in the air” at the time. But, also – maybe those Rebbeim were not able to protect/excite their students properly in the new environment… They say that Chofetz Chaim refused to shake hand of a Rav where Trotsky grew up.
> The secret ingredient is listening to the Gedolim, something Chassidim were and are better at…
Possibly. “Traditional” Litvish Rabonim were into learning and not into managing lives of their students. Maybe, in some circumstances, chassidic approach is preferable – and is now adopted by “Litvishe” rabbis, for better or worse.
AAQ said – “I am not sure about your dig at “modern”. Are you talking about the YU club? First, YU as a whole is a thing in itself, not a halachik institution. And was. R Soloveitchik was negotiating a contract w/ YU in 1930s as a total outsider – while his father was the Rav there … and they had their disagreements. When he writes to defend an idea of YU medical school, he mentions that his argument is b’dieved and that he was not consulted l’hathila. Second, they were, and I believe, still fighting this, so it is clearly not something they, ahem, embrace.”
I was not trying to ‘dig’ YU or anyone else, nor was I referring to that specific legal battle, which was in fact forced upon YU against their will, and is still going on. What I was pointing out, is that ‘Modern’ Orthodoxy isn’t really modern anymore, because the goyish velt is deteriorating at such a pace that it’s no longer possible to keep up with them and still be Orthodox. When feminism became in vogue, so there were those who fumfitted with different ‘solutions’ technically within the letter of Halacha, if not the spirit. When the trend shifted to LGB, so they talked about ‘understanding and accepting as people’ while avoiding the obvious impossibility of kashering the actual behavior… Something made easier by the fact that we don’t yet have a Sanhedrin… Now the newest meshugas is ‘trans’. And to really be יוצא ידי חובה according to the latest שיטה, you have to teach children from first grade on that they can choose to be a boy or girl, etc. ואכמ״ל Where they are going next only Hashem knows. The bottom line is, IMHO it’s only a matter of time before the MO world in general, not just YU, will have to make a ‘binary’ choice (pun intended) אם השם האלקים לכו אחריו ואם הבעל לכו אחריו without any room to weasel out…
I also believe that the sugya of Toeivah Rights is much more relevant today than Zionism, because secular Zionism basically no longer exists. Those who oppose Yiddishkeit in Israel today do so in the name of Progressive ideology, and Toeivah/’gender’ integration (39 flavors variety) is high on their list of priorities, including especially in the Army.
@yaakov-yosef-a
you wrote:I also believe that the sugya of Toeivah Rights is much more relevant today than Zionism, because secular Zionism basically no longer exists.
You seem to be fully unaware that the heresy called “Religious Zionism” that exists today is even worse and dangerous to Jews than secular zionism at its worst.
Chaim87 – Lately Chasidim are having a big issues with OTD, semi OTD , Tuna baigels etc
Painfully aware of that, however the approach you refer to (draconian, chanyuk, etc.) is more typical of certain specific types of (numerically very big) Chassidus where the Rebbe has no personal contact with 95% of the Chassidim, which sort of negates the whole point of having a Rebbe to begin with… The ideas of Chassidus, as well as many Rebbes and mashpiyim, who are less famous and more accessible, do continue to inspire many, including dropouts from the other type of Chassidus. No one has a magic solution for everything, nor does anyone honest claim to.
YYA > The bottom line is, IMHO it’s only a matter of time before the MO world in general, not just YU, will have to make a ‘binary’ choice (pun intended)
I am sure there are places that try to keep with the “Joneses” in all these things. I am not talking about that at all. I am not talking about that. Just about basics of reading/writing/math/science/professions. Rambam learned greek and “modern” Arab science without getting involved in their toevot.
PS And as you might see from current US politics, there is a strong backlash from part of the society to some of those things. Whether Jews should be getting involved in cultural issues, I don’t know. I personally stay out.
YYA > Those who oppose Yiddishkeit in Israel today do so in the name of Progressive ideology, and Toeivah/’gender’ integration (39 flavors variety) is high on their list of priorities, including especially in the Army.
I think you are right. And probably the best thing you can do in Israel is to provide non-observant Jews with an example of an ehrliche community that they’ll be interested in joining.
@somejewiknow
reigkus Zionism ain’t Herasy. Many are mote ehrlich than Satmar chasidim. Look at the way they Daven and learn and do mitzvos even in the toughest times like during a war. Throughout Jewish history the litmus test and gold standard of what makes an ideology aprikrosis has always been look at both how it evolved and what people do during tough times. Anything that apkikorsis whether is Shabsi Tzvi or reform or communism etc, you look at he next generation and you see how they evolved . Did they stay as Shoner Torah umitzvos. Religious Zionism get more ehrlich not less. That’s a Siman that they ate part of frum Torah Judaism. They may be a different ideology and that where shikul hadas comes and says what path to follow . But of course both are holyAAQ – “I am sure there are places that try to keep with the “Joneses” in all these things. I am not talking about that at all. I am not talking about that. Just about basics of reading/writing/math/science/professions. Rambam learned greek and “modern” Arab science without getting involved in their toevot.”
I have no doubt whatsoever that you (and the YU leadership) have no intention of having anything to do with ‘toevah’ stuff. The issue is that (for example) a professor of biology (not even a Supreme Court judge…) merely expressing the viewpoint that there are only two genders is enough to get ‘cancelled’ in academia, media, etc. Even ‘pareve’ medical information websites (again, for example, this is becoming more pervasive everywhere) use language that would make Orwell blush, ostensibly to avoid offending the 0.05% of the population who is confused about their gender identity. (At least that was the number before it became a ‘social contagion’.) This isn’t a joke. There are Orthodox Jewish professionals and academics in various fields who are afraid to say certain things, for fear of being labeled ‘transphobic’, let alone ‘homophobic’. These are people who are very well versed in secular knowledge, and probably consider themselves to be ‘modern’, but the secular world they worked so hard to be accepted in no longer sees them as modern (or at least wouldn’t if they would say what they really think and believe…) Kiruv literature and websites, and even anything that could be seen in the outside public domain, have to be more and more careful not to ‘trigger’ anyone. What happens when the goyish velt deteriorates to the point where it is no longer possible to play the game of ‘modernity’? We will have to stand up and say “Yes, we believe in God Almighty the Creator who created only two genders, and He even has what to say about how they are to behave…”
None of this is inherently a סתירה to secular ‘knowledge’ per se, but it is a סתירה to secular modernity as a value. If we are honest with ourselves, how much of Modern Orthodoxy is simply aping goyish values and seeking acceptance from them, without technically violating the Halacha (hopefully)? If the Goyim will look at ‘Modern Orthodox’ as right-wing extremists, similar to the ‘Ultra-Orthodox’, that kind of takes all the fun out of it… The Rambam did not define himself in terms of his secular knowledge, nor did he see it as a value in itself. That is not the position of YU (for example).
BTW, Rav Dr. Avraham J. Twersky z”I himself notes in his memoirs that in his day (pre-68…) college campuses were far less toxic than they are now (in terms of גילוי עריות), and he acknowledged that his example is not automatically transferable to today’s מצב. He also did not define himself as Modern, and he didn’t raise his own children that way, despite his knowledge and professional accomplishments.
The bottom line is, even if you want to be Modern and value modernity, (and I’m not interested in debating the merits of that whole approach) that isn’t enough to convince the goyish velt anymore, unless you keep a VERY low profile about the ‘Orthodox’ part.
rav aharon cried (out of humility) and tried to stop him when r’ joseph b called him the gadol hador at the first annual dinner of chinuch atzmai, which rav aharon specifically asked him to be honorary chairman of. (source: the first biography of r’ aharon, written by r’ alter pekier)
AAQ – “I think you are right. And probably the best thing you can do in Israel is to provide non-observant Jews with an example of an ehrliche community that they’ll be interested in joining.”
How would one do that? Believe it or not, most observant Jews are in fact ehrlich (I’m assuming you mean in בין אדם לחברו), something many Arachim Seminar (for example) graduates, and (secular at the time) Shabbos guests (another example) have attested to… That doesn’t stop the secular media from depicting us as caricatures from Der Sturmer. If you mean ‘sharing the burden’ etc. in terms of military service, the Dati Leumi do that MORE AND BETTER than Chilonim HANDS DOWN, and they still are vilified in the secular media as much as the Charedim are, (and never promoted past Colonel…) This is the real problem. I live in a mixed neighborhood, with Chiloni neighbors across the street. I have a friendly neighbor relationship with them. It is very common to hear Chilonim say to Chareidim they know “if only they all were like you”… When in fact most are… I have seen cartoons in secular newspapers here that look literally as if they were copied from Der Sturmer, complete with the exaggerated hooked nose and unkempt beard… And the Settler types depicted look like cartoons from Al Jazeera…
somejewiknow said – “You seem to be fully unaware that the heresy called “Religious Zionism” that exists today is even worse and dangerous to Jews than secular zionism at its worst.”
Hold your horses Reb Yid… I know all about ‘Religious Zionism’, (I’m not sure you do…), and there is a very wide range of people who go by that name. Some of them are almost Chilonim in their behavior and hashkafa (Bennett and friends come to mind), and some of them are fine ehrlicher Yidden and עובדי השם, who also happen to believe in settling the Land as part of their Avodah… I don’t think that the lady from the Shomron who nebech was murdered last week and her husband could seriously be seen as “even worse and dangerous to Jews than secular zionism at its worst”. You do know what ‘secular Zionism at its worst’ did, do you? (שמד of Sephardim, Yaldei Tehran, collaborating with the Holocaust, political murder, etc.)
To be clear, I don’t agree with any kind of Zionism בשיטה, but I don’t automatically write off Yidden who do. But it is easier for you to feel good about yourself that ‘at least I’m NOT a Zionist’, especially if you anyway live in America… It’s equally easy for MO to feel good about themselves that ‘at least I AM a Zionist’, especially if they anyway live in America…
My point was that today it is rapidly becoming no longer possible to be both Modern and Orthodox, regardless of your position on Zionism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.