March 31, 2015 4:43 pm at 4:43 pm #1070694☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
Sam, you are assuming that the YU roshei yeshiva/rabbonim are right about this. I don’t.March 31, 2015 4:51 pm at 4:51 pm #1070695
DY: No, I’m assuming that a lot of the people with negative comments who other Roshei Yeshivah rely upon have never set foot in YU and/or don’t care what it’s really like.
Now, I think there are legitimate concerns. But some of the stuff you hear is just plain false.March 31, 2015 5:50 pm at 5:50 pm #1070696
DY- I think the reason why Sam makes that assumption is because most of the YU Yeshiva learn the Torah and the hashkafah of the yeshivish velt, something that isn’t true the other way around. It is more likely that a YU Rosh Yeshiva knows about both worlds, because they respect and learn from both worlds… something that can’t necessarily be said about the roshei yeshiva and the rabbonim in the yeshiva world.March 31, 2015 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #1070697
Mods, please remove EretzHaK’s lies, as they are completely disgusting motzi Shem ra. The event may have been bad, but it was NOT in support of toeivah CH”V. It was to recognize the challenges those with homosexual desires face and to empathize with their suffering. Absolutely not to support the action of toeivah.
I hope all those arguing here are doing it l’sheim shomayim. When lies are presented, however, it makes me wonder.March 31, 2015 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #1070698EretzHaKMember
Ivdu: Then why did YU roshei yeshivos Rabbi Schachter and Rabbi Twerski condemn it, tell people to stay away from it and said it shouldn’t have been allowed? Because despite the organizers claiming it wasn’t to support toeiva, it in fact was doing exactly that – just by having it, it legitimizes it. Like Rabbi Twerski is quoted in the media as saying, it was no different than having an open forum to discuss how to handle those who covet adultery with their neighbor. Many more people are naturally challenged by that than by the type of toeiva the forum was about.March 31, 2015 6:43 pm at 6:43 pm #1070699
Ivdu, I wrote a long post about the event, but it hasn’t been approved. I’m still seeing it highlighted in yellow.
Mods, do you think it can be reworded to be acceptable, or is it not worth trying with this topic?March 31, 2015 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #1070700zahavasdadParticipant
We all know there are no Toeivah people in the Charedi worldMarch 31, 2015 7:07 pm at 7:07 pm #1070701
EretzHaK- You answered your own question. They protested it because it dealt with it publicly. BUT, it was not trying to legitimize homosexuality as a way of life. They were trying to legitimize homosexuals as people and make people understand the struggles they go through.March 31, 2015 7:16 pm at 7:16 pm #1070702☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
ZD, what claim did anyonemzke that you’re refuting?March 31, 2015 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm #1070703
EretzHaK: There is what to discuss about its objectionability even once we agree it never sought to condone any sort of homosexual activity whatsoever. The letter that the Roshei Yeshivah circulated essentially said the same thing as the event, though much more toned-down. Namely, we have to respect and sympathize with those with these Taavos but can in no way condone the actions.March 31, 2015 7:25 pm at 7:25 pm #1070704EretzHaKMember
Sam2/DaMoshe: At least one and possibly multiple of the four student speakers at the YU forum made it open and unregrettably clear he actively practices that lifestyle.March 31, 2015 7:26 pm at 7:26 pm #1070705
EretzHaK: Exactly what simcha613 said. It may have been a terrible idea, and I’m not endorsing or opposing it, but to say it actively said “Toeivah is ok” is not correct.March 31, 2015 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm #1070706
EretzHaK: That’s why I said “supposed to”. One of them inferred that he might be involved in Issurim. I don’t know (which was actually his point; it’s none of our business what kind of Issurim people do in their own homes-we’re not a Beis Din). And yes, the organizers themselves admitted that that part was regrettable.March 31, 2015 8:29 pm at 8:29 pm #1070707
As I pointed out before, the fact that many of the Gedolim vehemently criticized R’ Kook’s positions does not mean they did not respect the man himself. And as others have pointed out, there are well known stories that show many Gedolim, the Chofetz Cahim and R’ Elyashiv in particular, did indeed have a tremendous respect for R’ Kook. It is certainly possible that the Brisker Rov was an exception to this rule; but then again, he was more anti-Zionist than most of the other Gedolim as a general rule.
Mods, I second DaMoshe’s request that derogatory nicknames for YU’s slogan not be allowed.
“there is a very famous picture of Rav Aharon and Rav Soloveitchik together at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner.”
Actually, in the speech I heard from R’ Meir Hershkowitz, he said that the only reason R’ Aharon did that was because he very strongly believed in Chinuch Atzmai, and that this was not indicative of his larger position on this issue.
“And as to the mixed events: Who is denying that they are done on purpose? For those who believe that it is ok, the events are absolutely fine.”
Merely believing something is OK does not make it so. There are many maamrei chazal and a psak of the Shulchan Oruch that would seem to frown on such events. I’m not going to pretend it’s a black and white issue; but I certainly wouldn’t say its “absolutely fine” either.
As for the YU Tolerance Club, I’ve been told (by people who were actually at YU at the time) that its mantra specified several different issues, and tolerance of those openly violating mishkav zachar was one of them. Again, I think the vast majority of MO strongly disagree with the mantra of the said club; yet somehow I don’t think such a movement would ever have been allowed in a Chareidi yeshiva.
“If you ask any YU Rosh Yeshivah or respected “MO” Rav what the real ideological differences are between YU and Lakewood, the answer you will get is “nothing” (or attitude towards the Medinah, I guess)”
I don’t think that is true, and I don’t think most MO/DL Rabbonim believe that. For instance, R’ Aharon Lichtenstein wrote an article about “Centrist Orthodoxy”, and specified a number of issues where he differs from “the right”. Zionism is one of the differences, but there are others as well. (Valuing general culture comes to mind.)
“I would like to point out that unfortunately, many Yeshivas in the chareidi community (as well as communities themselves) have become molester-support clubs.”
While I do not necessarily condone everything that anybody in the various Chareidi communities have done in regards to this issue, to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever actually advocated “tolerance” or “support” towards molestation. To have problems is human; to turn them into ideals is troubling.March 31, 2015 9:58 pm at 9:58 pm #1070708
mw13: in this context, you are using the words “tolerance and support” in a way not intended. Not tolerance or support of the aveirah CH”V; rather an understanding of the challenges these individuals face and an attempt to make them not feel less ostracized just because of their urges. Of course, active baalei toeivah are a completely different story, though still I don’t think we should judge them in the way of “He’s a bad person” because HaShem takes into account the nisayon. It’s absolutely terrible, but it’s not our place to judge. All we can do is try to have them be machzir b’tshuva, which might be achieved by trying to understand their challenges. We can also daven.
What you say about not having this kind of club at a chareidi yeshiva may be correct, but I have a feeling there aren’t any clubs there to begin with.
Regarding mixed events, I meant it was fine not if one merely “believed” it based on their own logic, but if they are following a legitimate halachic opinion. Keep in mind the often non-social nature of these events.
Regarding Rav Aharon and Rav Soloveitchik, I quote (1st result when you google “remembrances and reflections rav Aharon and the rav”):
“In 1954 or 1955, Rav Aharon reached out again to him and enlisted him in efforts to raise funds for Chinuch Atzmai.” That would indicate Rav Aharon wanted Rav Soloveitchik to be involved, and wasn’t forced into that situation.
“On a hot and humid night – I think it was a Tuesday – during the shiva for Rav Shneuer Kotler, I was at his home in Lakewood when at around 8 pm in the evening a car pulled up in front of the house. Several men got out and virtually carried Rav Soloveitchik who was quite frail by then into Rav Shneuer’s home. He sat next to Rav Malkiel Kotler and said the following: “I was a friend of your grandfather, I was a friend of your father and I will be your friend.” When Rav Soloveitchik died, I called Rav Malkiel Kotler and asked that he go to the funeral in Boston as an expression of hakoras hatov. He responded that I was right that he should go and then told me why he could not do so.”
Also, there’s another picture of Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Schneur Kotler walking together.
Last point: even if your eyewitnes is in fact correct that Rav Aharon “waged a war” against Rav Soloveitchik, that doesn’t have to mean anything other than their radically different halachic opinions on many issues, but not necessarily an indicator of mutual respect.March 31, 2015 11:02 pm at 11:02 pm #1070709
I just found a picture of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Schneur Kotler zt”l sitting with Rav Soloveitchik zt”l.April 1, 2015 2:07 am at 2:07 am #1070710
Regarding Rav Ahron Kotler and MO, see:
Rav Shneur didn’t go into YU for the funeral of a close talmid. He had his driver circle outside until they came out. Rav Elchonon Wasserman hy’d declined an invitation to speak in YU when he was in America. See this letter referencing YU from Rav Elchonon during the war where he writes its better to remain in physical danger in Europe than to be brought to the US by YU at where the students will in spiritual danger:April 1, 2015 4:04 am at 4:04 am #1070711
Joseph, I read the thread you posted. There’s a reason the mods closed it. I don’t know about the quote you provided from Mishnas Aharon, but even assuming it is being interpreted correctly, “MO” was prevalently used as an excuse for people who weren’t shomrei halacha (sadly, this still happens nowadays). Perhaps that is what Rav Aharon was referring to. Or maybe the quote is taken out of context/misinterpreted; I don’t know because I have never seen the sefer. Also, I have heard that some of Rav Kotler’s hespedim are purposefully omitted from Mishnas Rav Aharon, so I have my misgivings about it.
Please read my post. I have seen pictures of a) Rav Aharon with Rav Soloveitchik at a chinuch atzmai event which Rav Aharon invited Rav Soloveitchik to be the keynote speaker b) Rav Aharon’s son, Rav Schneur Kotler, walking with Rav Soloveitchik c) Rav Schneur, Rav Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Soloveitchik sitting together. I also have knowledge of d) Rav Moshe, Rav Feinstein, and Rav Soloveitchik “officiated” at a wedding (neither of them was the Mesader Kiddushin) e) The eyewitness story I mentioned above where Rav Soloveitchik’s respect for Rav Aharon was revealed and Rav Malkiel Kotler agreed that he should have been at Rav Soloveitchik’s funeral, but couldn’t f) Another eyewitness story where Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Aharon met discussing a halachic issue to which they radically opposed each other. Rav Aharon referred to Rav Soloveitchik as “Bostoner Rav” and Rav Soloveitchik called Rav Aharon “Kletsker Rosh Yeshiva” (note: and the chinuch atzmai event was not long AFTER this disagreement between Rav Aharon and Rav Soloveitchik). e) A talmid of Rav Soloveitchik who says that Rav Soloveitchik would call Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Aharon (and later, Rav Schneur) before a yom tov.
Do you have a source for your comment regarding Rav Schneur Kotler? If you want to throw around sourceless comments, I have also heard (not from an eyewitness) that Rav Schneur actually attended a shiur at YU for some time, so there.
There are also the posts of others, which I can not confirm, which say that many other gedolim respected Rav Soloveitchik while vehemently disagreeing with him. How? Because it’s a machlokes l’sheim shomayim.
I honestly don’t know what to say about Rav Elchonon’s letter. Maybe there was a different situation at YU than there is today, and kefirah was more easily accessible, or perhaps Rav Elchonon was misinformed about the situation (as we see with some gedolim today). I don’t know.April 1, 2015 11:47 am at 11:47 am #1070712
There’s nothing to interpret. It gives the m”m in Mishnas Rav Ahron so that you can read it yourself. Regarding Rav Elchonon, it’s a pretty heavy indictment of the institution when you realize he was sitting in the midst of Nazi ravaged Europe and writes better for the talmidim to stay here in physical danger than to be saved by YU and then face that spiritual danger.April 1, 2015 2:02 pm at 2:02 pm #1070713Jewish ThinkerParticipant
Joseph-I hope you know that not going to YU was not the opinion of Rav Shimon Shkop tz”lApril 1, 2015 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #1070714
Joseph- no one is denying that there are Gedolim who were/are opposed to YU. But that’s not a reason to write off the whole Modern Orthodox movement. There were many Gedolim who were against the Chassidus movement and we haven’t written them off.
And many gedolim also said better to die in Europe than go to America and face that spiritual danger. I’m not here to debate whether they were right or wrong, but it’s clear that we don’t paskin like that.April 1, 2015 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm #1070715
simcha613- not to mention that what Sam says is correct. There isn’t that much of a difference between the frum Modern Orthodox and the Yeshivish.April 1, 2015 4:52 pm at 4:52 pm #1070716
“in this context, you are using the words “tolerance and support” in a way not intended. Not tolerance or support of the aveirah CH”V; rather an understanding of the challenges these individuals face and an attempt to make them not feel less ostracized just because of their urges.”
That’s one interpretation of the ideal. A less charitable interpretation would be that it was promoting the social acceptance of people who are engaged in giluy arayos on a regular basis.
Would you support holding an event entitled “Being Unfaithful in the Modern Orthodox World: an understanding of the challenges these individuals face and an attempt to make them not feel less ostracized just because of their urges”?
“What you say about not having this kind of club at a chareidi yeshiva may be correct, but I have a feeling there aren’t any clubs there to begin with.”
Lol. You know what I mean.
As for the regards that R’ Aharon held R’ Yoshe Ber in, I have no other information besides this one-liner by R’ Meir Hershkowitz. And while your interpretation of his words is certainly a possibility, I have to say that I don’t think that’s what he meant.April 1, 2015 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm #1070717
simcha613: Yes there was opposition to Chasidus and the Rambam etc. long ago, and that therefore opposition in and of itself does not prove someone is wrong. But you also cannot use the fact that the Rambam and Chasidim had opposition to negate charges against MO, because the Conservative and Reform etc. can say the same thing: Maybe in 100 years everyone will agree that Reform is right, like they agree that the Rambam was right? So now my question to you is, how do you know if the opposition to MO is like the opposition to the Rambam, or like opposition to Zionism or Reform? Isn’t it true that although there has been mistaken opposition in the past, there has also been legitimate opposition as well, and therefore, the most you can say is “I dont know if I am right or wrong. The Rambam and Chasidim had opposition but so did Reform. I do not know if I am like the Rambam and Chasidim or like the Reform and Conservative.”April 2, 2015 3:12 am at 3:12 am #1070718
mw13, two points.
1) “Being unfaithful” implies someone is actively committing adultery, “Being gay” means one has desires, but doesn’t necessarily mean they are acting upon them. Isn’t there a difference?
2) I am not trying to defend the event; I know that several roshei yeshiva whom I respect greatly spoke out about it, and I therefore suspect it wasn’t a good idea. However, again, they spoke out because they thought it was inappropriate to publicize these nisyonos, but not (and this was really my point) because it legitimized a toeiva lifestyle. That was not the intention.
Joseph: Did the chasidim say “I don’t know if I am right or wrong”? Or did they do what they thought was appropriate?April 2, 2015 3:12 am at 3:12 am #1070719
Joseph: By that logic, the Rambam wasn’t allowed to be the Rambam until 100 years later. There’s clearly something in the middle you’re missing.April 2, 2015 3:29 am at 3:29 am #1070720
Ivdu: Did the Rambam or l’havdil Reform say “I don’t know if I am right or wrong”? Or did they do what they thought was appropriate?
Sam: 100 years has got nothing to do with the point.April 2, 2015 1:44 pm at 1:44 pm #1070721
Joseph: exactly my point. People decide what they think is right and then do it. They don’t say “I don’t know if I’m right or wrong”. You just have to think hard about what you’re doing and whether you consider it proper. And what Sam said holds true: if you’re supposed to wait until you get accepted, the Rambam wouldn’t have been the Rambam at all, because he wasn’t accepted very much close to his lifetime.April 3, 2015 1:56 pm at 1:56 pm #1070722
“Being unfaithful” implies someone is actively committing adultery, “Being gay” means one has desires, but doesn’t necessarily mean they are acting upon them. Isn’t there a difference?”
I think “being Gay” could be taken to mean either, as could “being Unfaithful”. But that’s kinda my point: there’s a very fine line between legitimizing people who have a tayvah for X and legitimizing the actual tayvah. For some reason, people seem to be much more willing to toe, and even cross that line when it comes to mishkav zachor then they are in any other area. To paraphrase R’ Aharon Feldman, people who have a tayvah for mishkav zachor are not the only ones who have desires that they cannot fulfill; why is this issue treated differently from all others?April 3, 2015 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #1070723
mw13: People treat it differently because society defined it differently. Ain Hachi Nami society should change. But until it does the fact is that it is subjectively more meaningful to a lot of people. And, when used in a Frum context 6 years ago (some are trying to change it now), “gay” almost meant “has same-sex attraction”, not someone who is actively homosexual.April 3, 2015 9:37 pm at 9:37 pm #1070724
The term by default has always meant, and still means, someone who practices that lifestyle, not someone who has a taaiva for it but does not engage in it.
In the frun context, whether not or six years ago or any other period ago, people who had the taaiva for it but did not engage in it were not considered to be categorized under that term.April 3, 2015 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm #1070725
Joseph, I don’t know if that’s true or not. Either way, the event at YU was meant to mean those who have the urges, not those who act on them (although it didn’t exclude them.)April 7, 2015 4:43 am at 4:43 am #1070726
@damoshe I’m starting to get a feeling that you don’t sympathize with the Palestinian struggle for self determinationApril 7, 2015 2:54 pm at 2:54 pm #1070727
kj chusid: You’re correct. Do you sympathize with them? Is it because you think they deserve it, or are you just blinded by your hatred of other Jews who happen to have a different shittah than you?April 7, 2015 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #1070728
Now I’m starting to get a feeling that you support israelApril 7, 2015 4:01 pm at 4:01 pm #1070729
That’s so cute. You finally figured it out.April 7, 2015 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #1070730
That’s horribleApril 7, 2015 4:29 pm at 4:29 pm #1070731charliehallParticipant
” There isn’t that much of a difference between the frum Modern Orthodox and the Yeshivish.”
Numerous times I have seen Rabbi Ausband of the Yeshiva of Telshe Alumni davening at the Young Israel of Riverdale. The Young Israel gives Rabbi Ausband a position of honor equivalent to that of Rabbi Willig, and the two rabbis seem to go out of their way to give each other respect and honor.
- The topic ‘OU = MO?’ is closed to new replies.