February 7, 2012 2:28 am at 2:28 am #849829
Greatest, please read the entire essay. You will quickly see that the Rav was addressing how to create Torah Jewry in an America which is vastly different from pre WWII Europe. His view of things is as true today as it was when he gave that address to the Mizrachi in the 1960’s. In it the Rav zt”l rejected the rejectionish of contemporary Chareidim and explains why he rejects it, both on Torah and practical grounds. The quote upon which you rely is taken totally out of context. Whn sying those words, the Rav zt”l was speaking of a theoretical utopia, one which he quickly dismissed as untenable and unworkable (consider the current implosion of Chareidi society, mainly the lack of funds for kollelim, the backbone of the society, and you’ll understand how precient he was). A littlte intellectual honesty goes a long way.February 7, 2012 2:41 am at 2:41 am #849830February 7, 2012 7:02 am at 7:02 am #849831Shvartza WolfMember
greatest: You make a lot of assertions. I wonder if you could substantiate them.February 7, 2012 7:08 am at 7:08 am #849832longarekelMember
modern orthodoxy is a different religion based on the jewish law books. it is not the derech hashem that we have from the avos hakedoshim and it is not the derech hatorah that we have from moshe rabbeinu. they can call themselves ‘jewish’, ‘orthodox’, ‘zionists’, or whatever else they want, but it is a different religion. I will say something else: A yid is made up of a guf a sechel and a neshama. The sechel is on a higher level than the guf and the neshama is on a higher level than the sechel. The derech hashem and derech hatorah quoted above is the fact that the neshama and its unique qualities should be in control of the sechel and the guf. modern orthodoxy ignores or denies the special nishmas yisrael and does not go beyond the sechel. In doing so they cut themselves off from the derech hashem and derech hatorah. What I have written here is very important and goes to the core of the issue. It is not simply an issue of how to deal with the changing times. It goes to the heart of what we’re all about as a special people. haskala comes from the word sechel and their idea was very similar-namely the supremacy of the sechel and rejection and denial of the neshama. modern orthodoxy is an outgrowth of that philosophy, only they follow laws found in the jewish law books, and that’s why they are far more dangerous, because they thereby fool the unlearned, the unaware, and ultimately themselves. It is a different religion without true pnimiyus or connection to hashem. Please think well about what I have written here before you respond, as they touch upon dvarim haomdim berumo shel olam. (btw there are groups among ‘mainstream’ jews who also have not completely rid themselves of the influence of the haskala. As much as the neshama is made paramount and the sechel and guf secondary, to that extent true yahadus is revealed. I will not elaborate any further v’dai lichakema b’remiza.)February 7, 2012 7:51 am at 7:51 am #849833ToiParticipant
contor- im not interested in gettin involved in the same shmooze on a dif. thread for the zillionth time but your clear ignorance of the shittos of R shamshon and R hildesheimer arent a right to go use them to back up mo. theyd be the first to smack you.February 7, 2012 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm #849836
Shvartza Wolf: All my assertions on this thread about Rav Soloveitchek are directly from his words in “Five Addresses”. Including clearly stating that “separatist Orthodoxy” would disappear and only MO will survive. “Tourist attractions” he says we would end up. Clearly he was 100% mistaken. And it was that which he said justified “Modern Orthodoxy” – survival, nothing else.February 7, 2012 3:43 pm at 3:43 pm #849837
Greatest, the fact is the Rav zt”l was right. Chareidiut as a doctrine is a failure. It cannot and has never thrived in this country without engaging in serious morally/ethically compromised actions. Vehameivin yavin (besides I doubt the moderators would allow me to get into specifics). Moreover, on the intellectual side of things, Chareidi isolationism, obscurantism and anti rationalism has compelled it to adopt a series of doctrines that render it entirely irrelevant and anachronistic to the critical mass of world Jewry. People will not leave their rationalism at the door as the price of entre` into Chareidi portals. And those who do so, often don’t stay, or fail to make any significant contribution to Orthodoxy (30 some odd years into the kiruv enterprise, how many roshei yeshiva are b’alei teshuva, the sine qua non of success in the chareidi world?) because they cannot reconcile their rationalist past with Chareidi anti-rationalism. Chareidiut succeeds only by dint of its birthrate and nothing else. But that factor requires ever increasing financial resources and those two are inversly proportional. The longer Chareidiut remains isolationist and obscurantist, the fewer possibilities for economic growth are available. As the money dries up, the system will either implode with catastrophic consequences or redefine itself of necessity. And when it does redefine itself, will it then claim to the be standard bearer of Torah Judaism immemorial?February 7, 2012 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #849838thecuriousoneMember
I completely agree with your post above!February 7, 2012 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm #849839Sam2Participant
Longarekel: Your rant is nice, but you don’t define “MO”. In fact, no one here who has railed against “MO” has given anything close to a definition.February 7, 2012 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #849840Shvartza WolfMember
If by “directly from his words” you mean that you quoted from it, then it’s a false statement.
If you’re paraphrasing, I think a direct quote would be more useful. Thus far in this thread we have quotes from Rav Soloveitchik which were taken out of context (according to cantoresq) as well as (for those who were paying attention) direct quotes which were MISQUOTED.February 7, 2012 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #849841
Sam: There is no definitive definition. Often many breaches in halacha are defended with “it’s okay by us since we’re MO”. Hence a “modern orthodox bungalow colony” is often a euphemism for “mixed swimming”. Essentially it is whatever the person thinks it is. Two different people, two different meanings.February 7, 2012 4:35 pm at 4:35 pm #849842
Thank you thecuriousone. Sam2, in a prior post in this thread, I provided what I believe is a decently workable definition of Modern Orthodoxy. But be forewarned, since MO, like all of Orthodoxy is more a social construct than a “movement,” definitions can prove unwieldy.February 7, 2012 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm #849843☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
consider the current implosion of Chareidi society
You’re in dream world. Although imperfect, the chareidi world is thriving.February 7, 2012 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm #849844☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
From an earlier post:
Thus at my MO seder, I divide one piece of shmurah matzah among the entire table, even though the size of each piece is far smaller than the shiur of the Chazon Ish, or even that of Chatham Sofer. I do it because my father did it that way, as did his father etc. That age old family practice, a mesorah if you will, trumps any code based criticism anyone might levy.
This is not “Modern Orthodox”, this is simply lack of concern for halacha, and motzi shem ra on Modern Orthodox to attribute to it such behavior.
No minhag can trump the chiyuv d’oraiso to eat a k’zayis of matzah; the minhag originally was to give everyone a k’zayis from the matzah of the one who broke the matzah, this was possible either because the matzah was larger, or the participants were fewer. If you want to keep the halacha and also that minhag, either use a very large matzoh, or distribute a piece from yours together with another piece, which will, combined, yield a k’zayis.February 7, 2012 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm #849846
Actually Daas Yochid, my father z”l told me that the pieces of matzah he handed out were substantially the same size as those handed out by his father. The point is that there was no emphasis on the amount of matzah to be eaten at the Seder. One ate an amount sufficient to show he was eating matzah at the Seder. The same goes for kiddush Shabbos morning on bronf’n. We drink a one ounce shot and not a full revi’is. One drink an appropriate serving of the beverage at hand. Same happens at Havdalah, which we also make on schnaps. That’s how it was done and that’s how I continue to do it.
BTW, my emphasis on preserving such folkways leads to one ironic “right wing” conclusion. Because I am in many ways culturally Orthodox, I’m opposed to any expansion of women’s roles in ritual. My opposition does not stem from any Halachik argument (for instance the Mishne Berurah says b’feirush that a woman can make motzi on bread for a man, but I’d never go for it). Rather it’s due to my desire to do things the way they were done in yesteryear. I’d want my ihr zeide to be comfortable in my home and he would not accept any Halachik argument that it’s mutar for my wife to make motzi. (MO ignores such folkway arguments at its peril, in my opinion.) I can adopt your code based insistence on shiurim. But then I’d also have no choice but to endorse a lot of feminism.February 7, 2012 5:50 pm at 5:50 pm #849847ToiParticipant
poster that he quoted- youre in dire need of halachic guidance.February 7, 2012 5:56 pm at 5:56 pm #849848msseekerMember
“the fact is the Rav zt”l was right. Chareidiut as a doctrine is a failure.”
Look who’s talking. With 50% of your youth texting on Shabbos r”l, 60% of your boys sleeping around in colleges r”l, a 3% intermarriage rate r”l, an OTD rate supplying 19% of the chilonim… HAVE YOU NO SHAME?
- The topic ‘Question to Toi on Modern Orthodoxy’ is closed to new replies.