- This topic has 146 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 months, 3 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ujm: that itself demonstrates tat both started out Orthodox, but that the JTS changed while the RCA did not.
conservatives started in Europe, I think.
so some people have an issue:
sinas chinam, lashon hara, motzi shem ra etc.
so whats their solution? first be motzi shem ra that they are apikorsim, then that justifies being further motzi shem ra, lashon hara ..
that works maybe to jusify yourself to your freind but to g-d?
you should check what the baal shem tov says on נפרעין מן האדם מדעתו ושלא מדעתו,
כי שמעתי בשם הבעל-שם-טוב: כי קודם כל גזר דין שבעולם חס ושלום, מאספין כל העולם אם מסכימין להדין ההוא, ואף את האיש בעצמו שנגזר עליו הדין חס ושלום, שואלין אותו אם הוא מסכים, אזי נגמר הדין חס ושלום, והענין, כי בודאי אם ישאל לו בפירוש על עצמו, בודאי יכחיש ויאמר שאין הדין כן, אך מטעין אותו, ושואלין אותו על כיוצא בו, והוא פוסק הדין, ואזי נגמר הדיThe intention of JTS was for it to be Orthodox. That is a fact. Why deny it?
CJ in America really started postwar. It rose and fell with the move to the suburbs.
It came from pursuing the promise of The American Dream. Which has nothing to do with MO or Reform.
As much as we convince ourselves otherwise, the fact is that there is more of a gap between Conservative and the other non-Orthodox groups than between Conservative and Orthodox. There is a steady grade form extreme Orthodox to Conservative. After that, there is a steep drop. Then it’s another steady grade all the way through the new category of ‘Jews with No Religion’.
Dear Ujm,
Your whole we were the real Jews shiel is not one bit authentic. For two thousand years we’ve had all kinds of definitions. Both regional and ideological.
Dear Always,
Reform came from the ability of European Jews to assimilate. It was like a half assimilation.
You can’t really become Reform anymore. They aren’t promoting anything Jewish.
Chabad – you’re not a complete jew if you don’t learn chasidus. Our rebbe was bigger than the rambam, because our rebbe learned chasidus. You jews who don’t learn chasidus are holding back the geulah.
Everyone else – you’ve made some pretty big mistakes.
Chabad – sinas chinam!!!
Chabad: all jews are equal!
Also chabad: BTs and gerim can marry each other, but chas veshalom for a Gaza’an to marry the rif raf!
Dear Avira,
Your history is still all wrong.
[like Mordecai Kaplan… You picked the most unique person of his time. There was nobody else remotely like him. Same thing with Lieberman. A top level gaon. Not many like him anywhere. There was no common denominator. These two disagreed on everything.]
But your main problem is that you only count those that live up to your standards of the group.
So the solid guys in yeshiva are obviously no longer MO. And the drop outs are. The baal habatim better be careful….
The YV has the same tolerance for heresy. In the modern day people can’t be coerced to think alike.
Ilex: What you’re basically saying is that JTS was originally Modern Orthodox but later switched to Conservative. If that is true, that furthers my previous point regarding comparing MO Jews in JTS who went Conservative, to nowadays where MO Jews moved to Open Orthodox.
But the problem with your view is that the JTS itself was named after, and modeled on, the Reform/Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary of Germany led by Zecharias Frankel. The truth is that the Conservative movement in America was started jointly by the left-wing of the Orthodox movement together with the right-wing of the Reform movement. This explains how some of the same rabbis who founded the Orthodox Union (OU) also founded the JTS. Some of their fellow founding fathers in the JTS were Reform rabbis.
Indeed, in the early years of the Conservative movement there was a lot of cross-over, and often little differences, between Modern Orthodox and Conservative. Even as late as 1997 there were still seven OU Shuls that had no Mechitza.
N0m: There is little gap between the Reform and the Conservatives. The gap between Orthodox and Conservative is unbreachable . For examples, on the issues of homosexual conduct (officially approved by Conservative), female clergy (officially approved by Conservative), driving and violating Shabbos (officially approved by Conservative), eating non-kosher out of the home (officially approved by Conservative), etc. Conservative is a completely different religion from Judaism (what they call Orthodox) just as Reform is.
The Conservative and Reform each accept each other’s fake pseudo-“conversions”, whereas the Orthodox rejects the “conversions” of both the Conservative and Reform — and deems them all as remaining Gentile.
And Mr. Saul Lieberman from the JTS was the biggest apostate of them all.
@sechel83 Regarding apikorsim: If the shoe fits…. I mean, all we are saying is that the everyone except Chabad views certain practices as Apikorsus. Chabad does not and in many cases even encourages said practices. All you’ve done so far is attempt to defend those practices, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the g’mar din has already been signed and the frum veldt has made a decision.
N0m: Additionally, the Conservatives are pretty close to officially supporting intermarriage. Even though their so-called “Rabbinical Assembly” hasn’t yet declared they’re changing their religious law to say it’s okay (which they’ve already done with numerous other religious laws, including some of which I mentioned in the other comment), the Conservative “rabbis” already often officiate over their Congregants intermarriages.
Whereas the Reform movement probably has somewhere between close to 50% to an actual majority of their adherents who are halachicly goyim (intermarriages, fake conversions, patrilineal descent and over a century of decendants of all the preceding), by the Conservatives the percentage of their members who are not Jewish is between 25% to 33%.
Dear Ujm,
JTS was the best American Orthodoxy could do in the 19th century.
Note that American Rabbinate is still woefully understaffed in 21st century.
Why can’t the Ultra Orthodox produce Community Rabbis?
Eating non Kosher out of the home, is still a hot topic in CJ. You can still find a Conservative Yid who is meticulous about kashrus. We have been through this one before.
Rabbi Zechariah Frankel would be somewhere between Yeshivish and Chassidish in our day. He was considered very frum and traditional. That is why his students had such license.
I don’t think the Kanievsky’s would have had anything to do with Lieberman if he was such an apostate.
Very, very sadly, the Orthodox have the same inclination toward conversions.
The mechitza was the biggest divider between Conservative and Orthodoxy.
Being that there is ‘Conservative with a Mechitza’ even the divide is on the scale.
Female clergy is on the Orthodox side too. You didn’t need me to tell you that.
Arayos is Arayos. It’s pretty clear in my books. The public aspect is a scale. You can even find some very frum online characters that won’t miss an opportunity to say hi to girls.
Shabbos Observance is the most obvious scale of all.
Dear Ujm,
Just because Conservative is nearer to MO in religious issues, it doesn’t mean that it is related to MO in any way. They certainly were influenced by very different characters. And they share no similar origins.
Ilex: The Conservative movement in the United States was founded by the faculty of the JTS. As you are defining JTS as originally Orthodox, it follows that the Conservative movement broke off of the Modern Orthodox movement.
The RCA passed a resolution in 1948 permitting microphones to be used in Shabbos. It was only in 1952 that they reversed themselves.
“The truth is that the Conservative movement in America was started jointly by the left-wing of the Orthodox movement together with the right-wing of the Reform movement.”
So in plain English, nothing to do with MO.
Ujm, great job breaking down the facts. Bravo
N0m: the MO *are*’ the left-wing of the Orthodox.
Before Rav Moshe came to America, there was very little Orthodoxy in America other than MO. A sizable traditional Orthodox community in America, aside from MO, only occurred in the postwar period with the influx of European Jewry to American shores in the post-Holocaust period. The trickle started coming in the leadup to WWII as well as during the war period. But the large numbers came postwar.
Until the postwar period it was not so easy to differentiate between MO and Conservative. They were often interchangeable and the some clergy and regular members easily shifted between one and the other.
The big postwar break came with Conservative officially started allowing things like driving on Shabbos. They tolerated that and worse for decades until then, but that’s when they started officially justifying it with pseudo-religious arguments emanating from their Rabbinical Assembly.
While the RCA reversed itself on using microphones on Shabbos and didn’t officially permit driving on Shabbos or open gender seating in shuls, the reality was even until the 21st century some OU Shuls had no Mechitza and some even had open parking lots on Shabbos, even if the latter at least wasn’t officially condoned, it was certainly tolerated with a nod and wink. Avi Weiss’ synagogue is still an official OU Shul till this day.
As usual , ujm gets his facts wrong. The Conssrvatuve movement had it’s origins in the 1883 treife Reform banquet where shellfish and pork was served to emphasize their abandonment of kashrus. The more moderate reformers left and, in 1887, founded JTS in an attempt to unite all Reformers who were not radical. JTS was never Orthodox.
> RCA passed a resolution in 1948 permitting microphones
It took time to get consistency in psak over electricity. See early psak about refrigerators. It is not necessarily about not following mesorah, but a normal situation with new physics. Were Rashi to be suddenly confronted with electric devices, we don’t know how he would originally pasken. You can imagine tosfos having a field day.
@n0mesorah I thought that cars on Shabbos was a thing that Conservative allowed since the early 20th century? I would think that that’s a bigger divide than mechitzas. Especially since at the time many left wing “Orthodox” American shuls didn’t have mechitzas, but no one openly drove.
AJ: Then explain how the JTS and OU have the same founding rabbis.
N0m: I understand that you have close family that identifies as Conservative Jews, but Mr. Zechariah Frankel was a clear and unambiguous heretic even in his time as noted by the Rabbonim during his lifetime, just like the entire Conservative movement that models themselves on Frankel’s ideas are as well.
Apparently there were two JTS’s. The first , Orthodox JTS, was organized in 1887 by Rabbi Mendes, but it failed in 1901. A second JTS, led by Solomon Schecter, was founded in 1902 , with the financial backing of Jacob Schiff, with the ideology of Conssrvatuve Judaism. At that point, many of the Orthodox rabbis of the first JTS left. Rabbi Mendes founded the OU in 1898
Note that the Rebbe Rayatz specifically didnt join the aguda, now we know why…
Dear Anonymous,
Neither Morais or Mendes were at the banquet. Mendes was never associated with Reform. JTS founding board was the front line for Orthodoxy in America at it’s time.
Dear Yserbius,
Of the top of my head, cars was 1950. It’s a big line from outside Conservative. But within CJ it’s not so real. The upright still do not drive on Shabbos. And there is a significant amount that only drives where they believe it is permitted. As we know, electricity in general is a major problem as we get to the edges of OJ.
It comes down to this. If you believe that the real meaning of life is to march around how great we are as Jews and we represent the ultimate fidelity to the Revelation, than the CJ is on the wrong side of the divide. With a chunk of the LW of OJ. So go on parading yourself as God’s Gift. It’s a good fit for others who parade for other abominations.
But if you believe that Hashem instills everything with meaning and purpose and all that matters is to serve Him, then you know with all your being that these labels are the creation of man. And while they may be useful, they are meaningless in the Ultimate. When we look at the American Jewish scene from the angle of observance, it is one depressing slide until it falls of a cliff after Mainstream Conservative Judaism.
Dear Ujm,
Your argument amounts to sticking the word Modern into Orthodox where it suits you.
If your whole position is comparing more modern elements to more traditional ones, than you win.
But that has nothing to do with observance, integrity or ideological commitment.
And it doesn’t reflect in the least in the diligence of Torah Study. Or the breadth of Torah Knowledge.
You could also choose some very traditional Jews with no religion.
It’s all about who makes a good traditional cholent.
Around the time of WWI, there were probably more Rabbonim from Poland, Lita, Ukraine, or Russia, than from all of Western Europe combined. Germany just had it’s best period for the Jews. Eastern European Jews had been steadily migrating for forty years.
There were over a dozen Chassidishe Rebbes that came to America before Rav Moshe. And a similar number of yeshivos. The problem was the assimilation of the second generation immigrants. It had nothing to do with the brand of Orthodoxy.
Dear Tuna,
Where does Agudah come in?
Dear Anonymous,
The Rabbinical staff of JTS was almost exclusively Orthodox until 1960. It was an institution for both Orthodox and Conservative students.
Dear Ujm,
You understand my family wrong. They are all well to the right of MO.
None of Frankel’s opponents called him a heretic. They said his theories could be interpreted as heretical, and demanded a clear statement in support of the revelation.
Many staunch supporters of Orthodoxy used his theories. Haleivi uses him more than he uses Hirsch.
If Frankel is the founding figure of CJ, than all the more so that Hirsch must be the originator of today’s MO. That shatters your notion that CJ came from MO.
I thought the problem with CJ is the lack of commitment to the Mitzvos. If you can delineate what exactly makes CJ heretical, than you can save Avi Weiss a lot of grief. Alternatively, you can place him firmly on the Conservative side of the line. Which he has tenaciously resisted.
But alas you cannot. Other than grandiose claims that make no sense, your arguments on these baiting topics get you nowhere. You’ll try a few more times, and then you’ll go silent. I don’t take these issues personally, so I am ready to answer all your revisionism honestly.
anonymous seem to be right about two JTS-es. Wiki says
“Jewish Theological Seminary Association” was founded with Morais as its President in 1886 as an Orthodox institution to combat the hegemony of the Reform movement.[5] The school was hosted by Rabbi Henry Pereira Mendes’ Congregation Shearith Israel, a sister synagogue to Mikveh Israel.
In October 1901, a new organization was projected entitled the “Jewish Theological Seminary of America,” with which the association was invited to incorporate.
R Morais was already niftar and Rev Mendes stepped down either in 1901 or 1902.
About 100 days after Schechter’s appointment, the Agudath Harabbonim formed, principally in protest, and declared that they would not accept any new ordinations from JTS, though previous recipients were still welcome.
Anyway, given that Schehter came from a Chabad family, we are firmly back to the topic, and let Chabadnikim explain how one of their own founded JTS-2.
Nom, you’re completely off about zecharya frankel. He was put in cherem. His books say open kefirah, that the tannaim made psakim due to personal bias and societal influence.
It’s not how you “interpret” his words. He was a complete apikores; rav hirsch said so many times. I don’t know why you have a soft spot for maskilim, but it’s not the first time you’ve said completely demonstrably wrong statements about them.
Nom, were the rabbis in 1950 who allowed driving on shabbos, cohanim marrying divorced women and gerim, and many other horrendous laws also “orthodox”? That was the official psak of the JTS rabbinic organization.
I think R Hirsh’s disagreement w/ scientific (Wissenschaft) method is not just w/ Frankel but also with other Orthodox school of R Ezriel Hildesheimer. R Hildesheimer though also considered Frenkel treif, so you may want to analyze their differences to understand Frankel positioning.
And even further, it seems that later German sources – R Weinberg – quote Frankel with more respect, maybe because there is less urgency in the machlokes. So, it may be true that at the same time, Frankel initiated a movement that let people astray, and have some valid points to make.
Why is this important? Maybe because we should not through babies into the mikvah: just because someone disagreeable mentions an idea, does not always mean that the idea is wrong.Where does rabbi yechiel yaakov weinberg quote frankel?
i have no clue who tjs, r hirsh, r hildesheimer, r weinberg are, so i have no comment, litvaks should do the same, if you dont know anything about mosiach, chassidus. rebbe, dont argue, criticize. definatlly you could learn, you can learn gemarah perek hachelek, then bring youre arguments with Jewish mekoros, not christian
@sechel83 I guess I can sort of understand someone never having heard of Rav Hirsch ZT”L (although it boggles my mind to think it possible). But a Chabadsker who never heard of R’ Azriel Hildesheimer ZT”L? The Rosh Yeshiva of The Hildesheimer Seminar, through whose program the late and last Rebbe of Lubavitch went to the University of Berlin?
Sechel, you’ve never heard of rav shamshon refoel Hirsch?
Have you ventured even slightly outside of crown heights, ever?
I feel sorry for you.
Rabbi Y weinberg and rav Hildesheimer were indeed very famous, but I’ve never met a shomer shabbos person who hasn’t heard of Rav Hirsch, the architect for orthodoxy for large swaths of klal yisroel, the righteous hero who dedicated his life to defending Torah from reform, zionism and haskalah…
A world famous tzadik, kadosh vetahor….
The face of yiddishkeit worldwide was far more influenced by rav hirsch than the Lubavitcher rebbes; all of them, except the baal hatanya, because his psakim were accepted by many, many chasidishe communities.
Avira,
I was going by a secondary source that, upon further reading, might not be fully unbiased. Looking for hard evidence, I see only one specific reference that is obscure, but meaning seems to be clear.letter to Joseph Apfel, 1956 – suggesting not to translate Frankel’s Darkei Hamishnah: I am afraid that zealots in England will attack you because they consider him min and apikoires because R Shimshon Rafael Hirsh battled against him.
Sechel, I am sorry we all jumped on you at the same time! Consider it fortuitous that you were brave enough to ask a question and discovered a kesher to your Rebbe!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.