Let me just repeat something I mentioned in other discussions here. Everybody is aware of the issues with late minyanim, coffee rooms, long sheitels, gashmiyus etc (BTW these get worse the further left you go). Nobody thinks those are good things. No rabbanim endorse them and many constantly speak against them (unlike LW modox "rabbanim" who openly advocate violating the Torah, such as trying to justify kol isha, arayos, coed schools, chillul Shabbos, homosexuality, Bible Criticism, etc.)
But only "test" thinks that these are important features of chareidi life, compared to the immense amount of Torah, tefilah, dikduk hamitzvos, and chessed that is performed. Why is this? Obviously, as we all can testify, it not a reflection of chareidi society. Rather, it is what he himself focused on when he was a part of it.
Thus, it would make sense that he always attended late minyanim, and thinks that most chareidim daven at late minyanim.
That he spent all of his yeshiva years hanging out in the coffee room, and therefore thinks the main feature of a yeshiva is the coffee room.
That he is constantly looking at women, and is therefore an expert in sheitel lengths
That he spends all his time reading mishpacha instead of learning, and so all he knows from chareidi life is the mishpacha ads
"(unlike LW modox "rabbanim" who openly advocate violating the Torah, such as trying to justify kol isha, arayos, coed schools, chillul Shabbos, homosexuality, Bible Criticism, etc.)"
You're ignoring everyone in between. OO is pretty fringe within MO too. Their smicha isn't recognized by the RCA or OU. Ironically, some old timers there have complained that MO is becoming a version of charedi Judaism. At any rate, these discussions aren't new. They go back to the glory days of the Jewish Observer and R 'Gifter slaughtering Lamm' etc. From what I can tell, MO isn't going anywhere, but I guess time will tell.
I don't think it's limited to people who call themselves OO, probably most people with that attitude never called themselves OO. Did somebody like Rabbi Riskin ever call himself OO? But he is a perfect example of what I am describing. As is Natan Slifkin, although he is not a classical "rabbi" even by their standards.
1) He's not mainstream. That's the point. And that's what those on the left are upset about. That's why they're desperate to get some sort of alternative framework set up to the left of YU/RCA.
"This is the very paradigm that was under siege twenty years ago when Rabbi Avi Weiss wrote his manifesto “Open Orthodox Manifesto.” Important and controversial Orthodox thinkers, including Rabbis Yitz Greenberg and David Hartman, were being shunned by the so-called Modem Orthodox establishment. Even Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the founder and former spiritual leader of New York’s Lincoln Square Synagogue, was not allowed to speak at Yeshiva University."
2) Officially, OO doesn't exist any more. Because the name itself is a p'sul. Which, again, is the point.
"The reason the phrase “Open Orthodoxy” disappeared from the YCT website and mission statement at the end of 2015 may well be connected to the stepped-up criticism the seminary was receiving from the Orthodox right that year.
That was when the charedi Agudath Israel of America targeted Rabbi Weiss and his institution, calling Open Orthodox ideas “heretical.” It was also the year the mainstream Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, which bars YCT graduates from membership, barred the ordination of women and prohibited its synagogues from hiring women with the title Maharat, used by Yeshivat Maharat, the seminary for women Rabbi Weiss founded.
In 2016, The Jewish Press, a voice of the Orthodox community, condemned the school, suggesting that “Open Orthodoxy is “openly unorthodox,” asserting that the philosophy is for “heretics,” and calling it “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, appealing to unknowing Jewish communities that seek a meaningful and genuine Orthodox religious experience.”
That same year, 11 YCT graduates joined a petition distancing themselves from “partnership” minyanim, which embrace a liberal view of halacha and permit women to read Torah, receive aliyot, and lead certain parts of the Shabbat service.
This year, the Orthodox Union formally banned synagogues from hiring women clergy and is in the process of deciding what action, if any, to take against the handful of OU synagogues that engage women in rabbinic-like positions."
"YCT officials point to its 120 rabbinic graduates as a sign of their acceptance in the Orthodox world. But only 20 are in OU-affiliated synagogue pulpit positions, including three at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, the congregation Rabbi Weiss led.
"YCT officials point to its 120 rabbinic graduates as a sign of their acceptance in the Orthodox world. But only 20 are in OU-affiliated synagogue pulpit positions, including three at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, the congregation Rabbi Weiss led.
...
Sylvia Barack Fishman, a professor of Judaic studies at Brandeis University, noted that more than 90 percent of YCT graduates have jobs that utilize their rabbinic skills. She said that those who disparage YCT do so because they feel threatened.
Barack Fishman asserted that some Orthodox critics use the term “Open Orthodox derogatorily rather than descriptively, with the goal of delegitimizing Modern Orthodox leaders and lay people who support women’s leadership in public Judaism.” Such critics “are trying desperately to make Modern Orthodoxy into a closed club — and insisting that only they may define who belongs in that club,” she said."
Also, it's quite unfair to blame modern orthodoxy for Slifkin. The guy went to medrash shmuel, published his books with Feldheim with Haskamos, and wrote a whole book pushing Daas torah, before his ban experience. Not exactly a Ramaz-Gush-YU product.
R Aharaon Rakeffet once pointed out that David Hartman went to Chaim Berlin, Yitz Greenberg went to Novardhok, etc. Can't blame MO for those guys. Not to mention Ysocher Katz from Chovevei, who has smicha from a Satmar dayan.
I'm not blaming MO for these people, they are just examples of the LW MO philosophy.
I don't have much against the RW YU faction, all the power to them if they can hold strong against secularism. But I think that the general MO philosophy by its nature tends towards secularism. I mean, if "modern" is a big feature of your Judaism (which I am hopeful that for a good deal of the RW, it is not) I don't see how it can be any other way.
I'm not sure you are right that people like Riskin are not mainstream, maybe I am overexposed to that crowd online, especially through Natan's blog.
" I mean, if "modern" is a big feature of your Judaism"
That's as meaningful as the fact that I'm a 'misnagged.' Also, 'orthodox' is a Greek word https://www.etymonline.com/word/orthodox which in its Jewish context was originally used by reform to tar 'fanatics' like R Hirsch.
"During the early and mid-19th century, with the advent of the progressive movements among German Jews, and especially early Reform Judaism, the title Orthodox became the epithet of the traditionalists who espoused conservative positions on the issues raised by modernization. They themselves often disliked the alien, Christian name, preferring titles like "Torah-true" (gesetztreu), and often declared they used it only for the sake of convenience."
"I think that the general MO philosophy by its nature tends towards secularism"
Based on what? Have you read Torah U'madda? R Lichtenstein's writings? Nefesh Harav? Jewish Action? Tradition?
"maybe I am overexposed to that crowd online, especially through Natan's blog."
LOL, ya think? And anyway, how many people do you interact with there? Seems to me that 99+% of the comments are generated by less than 30 distinct commentators. That's a tiny self-selected sample which isn't representative of anything. People in real life don't exist in suspended animation at the bottom of a substack post. (I'm not saying that discussions there or here are or aren't worthwhile; simply that they aren't a basis to draw any demographic conclusions from.)
"The other reason that I decided to dedicate a post this week to Rabbi Morgenstern was because rumor has it that Rabbi Moshe Weinberger of Aish Kodesh in Woodmere is in negotiation to be the new mashgiah ruhani of YU. It may or may not come to fruition, but if it does it will give the guys the Neo-Hasidic emotionalism of their gap year programs. YU will then embody as its haskafa Rav Itamar Schwartz’ Belvavi Mishkan Evneh, kiruv Torah, Rav Moshe Wolfson, and Rabbi Morgenstern’s approach. Gone will be the intellectualism of Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein."
Learning Halacha is not meant to be be limited to certain subjects only. Discussing various opinions
in detail is part of learning. Rav VolkZa'Tzal,a prominent Rav in the early 20 th century (wrote seforim on Tuma vTaharah) , whose shiurim I attended, would say that there is no problem challenging Rebi Akivah Eiger's opinions with legal arguments and you should not be deterred by those who say you are not as great as he was. That is what is called " learning..".
"immense amount of Torah, tefilah, dikduk hamitzvos, and chessed that is performed"
That is typical of the self-delusion I go on about.
Substantial amount of chessed is undertaken by all groups - nothing unique about chareidim there. The difference is chareidim will ensure some of their tax-free charity money gets routed back to them in all sorts of convulted way.
As for torah, tefillah and dikduk hamitzos, some of that may exists amongst yechidei seguloh, but it is generaly reserved for the top few of the top yeshivos. Most of the chareidi world are happy to rely on kullos through and through. And tefillah - huh, look at the minyan factories endemic throughout the charedi world. As I said, self-delusional. And its a feature, not a bug.
Insult all you like, I'm ending my participation on this post now.
"Insult all you like, I'm ending my participation on this post now."- because everybody knows your attitude has no basis in reality and is just a reflection of how you yourself acted when you were a part of the community! You are no different than any burned-out OTD tuna bagel. Go back to reading the Mishpacha ads, that's your entire Judaism!
I enjoyed very much your series, but I think your conclusion and description of Modern Orthodoxy is not accurate. The issue today is not so much connected to academia and science, but rather, secular lifestyle and culture. The kids in Frisch, Rutgers and Binghamton are not unfaithful to Torah because they have bought into science and an intellectual approach to knowledge. Their thinking is the same as their non-Jewish counterparts, and their lives are on Facebook , TikTok and associated frivolities.
I dont think so. There are no longer any thought leaders in Modern Orthodoxy. Even YU is no longer pursuing an ideological agenda. The masses want to be successful Americans and still hold onto some Orthodoxy, so an ideological justification is put forth declaring that 'we are just as frum as the black hat crowd', but other than a few rabbis who feel guilty, no one really believes that. More pertinent, no one really cares if it is true or not, because in Englewood, Beverlywood, Ranaana and Efrat they DON'T WANT TO BE AS FRUM as the black hat crowd, and are petrified of a Yeshiva world that would influence their child away from the Ivy League.
I don't totally disagree with you, but Slifkin, Shapiro etc are thought leaders. And even if not, the 'scientists' become their thought leaders. Most people grow up a little (when thinking about creating families especially) and they develop a world view. They usually turn to 'leaders' or writers or speakers to figure themselves out.
But you aren't wrong about their fears of being a black hatter caveman's influence and other issues.
The main thing is they never really got to appreciate what we *do* have, what the Torah really is, and they therefore turn to other things. They're lives being Tiktok is do to being involved in their culture, but to me that is more an indication of their lack of understanding of Torah culture which leaves them to the outside world and its issues...
There is a vast difference between 'thought leader' and someone propped up b'dieved as intellectual justification for not being frum. Most MO people couldn't care less about Slifkin and Shapiro, don't really follow R Hershel Schechter, and ideological purity is irrelevant to them. The 'worldview' that you describe is actually just deciding to live in an Orthodox community, finding their comfort zone, and then behaving more or less like everyone else around them without thinking too much about it. This is OK except for two areas: matters that require extensive knowledge (like Hil. Shabbos), and areas that are completely private (see Rav Dessler, vol. 5, ph 158 - מהלך עוזבי התורה
A black hat does not a Talmud Scholar or שומר תורוה מצוות make nor a religious person make. We all can improve. You choose for yourself but G-d is the final Judge,not the Rosh Yeshiva. Remember on Yom Kippur we pray with the עבריינים. Don't be so smug.
That pretty much sums up chareididom too. The chareidim of Flatbush behave very differently to the chareidim of Kiryat Seifer, but they will consider themselves equally chareidi.......
Excellent article, and one I largely agree with. It's why I align myself with the yeshiva community instead of the modern orthodox community, despite finding the MO's answers more convincing.
Nope. I failnto see how chazal being great translates into them being correct. Those are two different distinct things. It is precisely that distinction that you make between science and Torah is why i have no problem saying that Chazal didn't know and were wrong about the former.
It doesn't necessarily translate. It just happens to be that if you understand what Chazal were talking about - פנימיות, not science - they said nothing incorrect. And again although scientifically they may have been dead wrong, they simply weren't describing a scientifically reality at the core. The scientific realities they seemed to be describing are really about the פנימיות, which change not at all as we discover more about the חיצוניות since the פנימיות follows the same eye view they knew about. If you don't know what I am describing, I'd suggest learning the Rambam's view on שדים and the מלאכים of Avraham's dream *in the way that the Rambam meant it to be understood* as a start...
Its far easier to say Bereishis is pnimiyus than to say Chazal on the Barrel test for virgins is penimiyus (a test found in secular sources as well) or the half mouse creature, or pregnancy periods for animals, or countless other scientific mistakes.
No, Happy, you have to understand. They were primitive. And they didn't yet appreciate what experimentation was. And they didn't know how to think because when we were fighting for food in the planes of Africa logic didn't matter. We are smarter and we know about 'epistemology'.
I can't answer every question because I am hardly an expert, but if you understood what Chazal were able to know just by looking at someone's forehead and palms, the barrel test doesn't seem too far a cry. I'd strongly assume it was not a physical scientific experiment, and only R' Gamliel, who was able to see through his עיניים שכליים could do this stuff. (He had to do it himself.)
Assuming his son is following his approach, מאמר על אודות אגדות דרשות חז"ל לר"א בן הרמב"ם, הדרך הרביעי החלק השני (I figured I'd be called out on that lol.)
He says that any encounters of שדים are in a dream because it is an impossibility in real life. This isn’t the best place to see the מהלך you’re advocating as this clearly doesn’t shtim with חז״ל.
I think the main issue is understanding what science is. I like Rav Sacks view that science just explains what things are while Torah explains what things truly mean. Seeing a contradiction between the two is silly because they are meant for two completely different things. One doesn't use science to explain the meaning of our existence just like one doesn't use Torah to observe the mechanical workings of the universe.
Correct. But science literature has generally arrogated to itself its answer to that question. This is an old 'scientific' tactic that creationists have complained about
1. Although it is true that MO learning is sometimes too academic, the more Yeshivish can use some tweaking to become a bit more grounded. (I believe you acknowledge that.)
2. I once spoke to a student in Harvard Divinity School who was boasting he learns more about Judaism and Talmud study than I do in Yeshiva, since he is studying Josephus and the history of the surrounding cultures of the time while I just learn Gemara and Rambam. I replied that I also read Josephus ect., the difference is I read it in the bathroom and in bed, so what he's reading a whole day I read in the bathroom and what I learn all day he reads in the bathroom.
1. Agreed in general, but where they are learning the right way (the 'top tier') I think it's safe to say that we don't need their ideas much; I'd say the smart people are smart and grounded anyways.
"I remember a “debate” I had in high school with a modox-leaning individual which brings out the point very well. He found it funny that the “yeshivish/chareidi” world screams “kefirah!” at him when he questions if perhaps Einstein was smarter than the Vilna Gaon. While he’s right that it isn’t kefirah per se (and yes, it is pretty funny[2]), the suggestion that their greatest can even hold a candle to our greatest is the sign of someone who lost all appreciation for the depths of Torah. It's undeniable that Einstein was a complete genius. His discoveries are so astounding that they will continue to captivate us for a very long time. But anyone with an ounce of kedusha in his bones knows that the Vilna Gaon’s greatness far surpassed any human capabilities, in the leagues of a Malach Elokim."
A few notes:
There are different kinds of intelligence. To make a very complex topic simple, the Gra probably wins in the verbal intelligence arena and Einstein probably wins in the mathematical intelligence arena. Or, going a joke route, they could actually be the same person on a different gilgul, making the entire debate pointless.
Do Sephardim not possess kedusha? From my perspective, he's a famous rabbi of another mesorah. Maybe as I advance more in my education, my perspective will change, as there are rabbis such as Rambam and Rashi whose importance transcends nusach and makes them a part of the mesorah of the whole of klal Yisrael, but he's just not that relevant to me, certainly not to the point that I would say his "greatness far surpassed any human capabilities."
As you likely know, Shabbat 75a notes that astronomy is a mitzvah because astronomy is the knowledge valued in all the nations mentioned by Devarim 6:4. And while he was not very religious in the traditional sense, Einstein was a Jew, and his place as one of the pinnacles of wisdom valued by all nations is a great credit to all Jews.
Almost all of the MO people that I have met, did not do a careful analysis of the sources and conclude that this is the correct path. They drifted into this type of observance. Poor knowledge of Torah or poor lifestyle choices, cause a person's observance to slacken. Eventually, enough falls away that we call them (or they call themselves) MO.
This is usually a de facto category, not one that is sought out.
Interesting. I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to, but either way, while I definitely know people like what you are describing, most of those that I know of this nature are actually the so-called 'intellectuals' who find themselves busy with the fact that the way we learn is not to be taken for granted (they usually begin here). And the way we live and learn is not to be taken for granted. They become 'enlightened' by an outside culture who questions things 'properly', not just following the מסורה like good little sheep. They are taken by the ספיקות of some very loud, bright, 'cultured' people (say Slifkin or Josh Berman etc.) and these ספיקות enter their young unripe minds (כידוע עמלק בגימ' ספק).
The Rambam opens their eyes to new ways of thought (of course the Rambam was trying to defend Chazal against the 'המון' but they temporarily forget how to read when the Rambam says clearly that his מאמר is not for them); they question the authenticity of the halachic system and the authenticity of shas itself. (Hopefully they stop there to turn to the DH...) Of course they read all of the paraphernalia about the zohar which was 'obviously' a forgery, in their great minds and knowledge of Kabbalah.
They are bright and see a better way of life elsewhere, and they 'actually think about things' unlike the mindless drones of the black hat yeshivish chevra who never question anything like good little sheep. They smugly bash what they don't understand as a giant mistake in the orthodox world.
"Poor knowledge of Torah" for sure. Amalek comes to Refidim, שרפו ידיהם מן התורה, but while they are confused and have read too many books and too little of our books, they are very much בשיטה and their hashkafos are very thought and sought out, a least in their minds.
The Nodah b'yehudah in the uncensored version remarks that at least some of the zohar we have is a forgery. It's obviously the case - it refers to matters introduced by amaroim.
I wasn't responding to a particular comment, I was just saying what my general observations have been. I have met lots of people who would call themselves MO, in at least 5 states, and in different cities in Israel. Most of them have a very poor knowledge of Torah and Halacha. They did not choose to be MO, their observance drifted down until that is where they are holding. At times, I have observed that there is a generational drift down. The grandparents are religious, the children are MO, and the grandchildren are hardly religious at all.
“While we agree that it’s important to be nice, it is supposed to be from the fact that we are Hashem’s nation and being rude is a bad reflection of Hashem.[8] We are kind because to not be is a tremendous chilul Hashem“
I think you are missing the point of being nice. Is it okay for non-Jews to not be nice, because they are not from the chosen nation, and thereby not a reflection of Hashem?
2. As far as non-Jews, firstly, they are also reflections of God. But in any event, we are not nice to Amalekite babies (really, really imagine taking a heavy sword with all your might and tearfully stabbing an actual baby) or to Canaanites who are against Hashem. Being nice is something we do because we are supposed to emulate Hashem's ways in order to be less about ourselves and more about other creations of Hashem, so that we can be closer to Him. If we are nice just because it feels good or just because society likes it, we will fall far and hard.
You added a new reason that was not the reason stated in the quote I mentioned above. In any case, I think being nice is just basic Derech Eretz, and basic Bein Adam L’Chaveiro. It is pretty self-evident that being nice is a good thing. It makes people feel good, and it is good when we make others feel good. I don’t believe it is necessary to theorize about all the deep reasons for why you are being nice, in order for Hashem to be happy with you being nice. What matters is that you being nice is coming from a genuine place. In your originally stated reason, being nice because you don’t want Hashem to look bad, implies a lack of authenticity. Furthermore, being nice because “society says so” or because “it feels good to be nice” are strawmen - I don’t believe either of those are the MO position on why we are nice.
I apologize for misspeaking - being selfless is just 'good', and even if deeper down it is as I described it, it is unnecessary for your point.
I was mainly referring to the idea that MO will try to explain, for example, that slaves are actually *not* appreciated by the Torah, or that some other not-worth-mentioning ideas are actually okay or not okay just because society today says so. You have to admit that we have a stronger moral system than that, one which is not as simple as 'being nice just because it is basic decency'.
You can ignore that whole sentence if it doesn't talk to you. When I wrote it I thought quite a bunch of times that it may rub some people the wrong way, but I ultimately decided it was a strong enough point to include...
A negative view on slavery is not unfounded. Those who follow the approach of the Rambam believe that there are things which the Torah did not forbid because we simply wouldn't have been able to handle it at the time like אשת יפת תואר and עבודת הקרבנות לפי המורה. Same with polygamy (and מלחמת רשות acc to Harav Kook). Was רבינו גרשוםs Takana בדיעבד, or was Hashem just waiting for him to implement the change as society developed?one can say say same when רב decreed against קדושי קטנה and when קדושי ביאה became a חיוב מלקות.
"Not unfounded" - probably true, but good luck reading the Torah and Chazal with that view. Yefas toar is discussed in Chazal straight up; I'd be very wary of extending things like this without their guidance. Korbanos are NOT bedieved - even according to the Moreh; we will still be bringing them במהרה בימינו. Was polygamy was ever recommended for the average person? - even one wife is with plenty of restrictions. Slavery, on the other hand, is talked about *positively* in numerous places, especially in Chazal, and there are good reasons for it, but that is part of a longer discussion (I'll probably get to it in my posts down the line. A lot of hakdamos are necessary for these kinds of things).
Either way, my main point stands; ask any secularist about killing the 7 nations and Amalek. We don't only care about "being nice."
There used to be a halacha that we give someone a wife when they travel to a new city. This wouldn't happen now. When I say בדיעבד I meant something which we could relate to due to needing more of a physical service. A non-polygamous society may have been too much for the ancient world. There was no טענה on the אבות or on a king up to 18 wives but these things probably won't return בימות המשיח. Maybe slavery as well. The ancient world was built on manpower. Few citizens were truly free as feudalism is also a form of slavery. The ideal is that we serve Hashem alone. The goyim will look to us as the world leaders but that's not necessarily bandage.
"The problem with modoxy is: What of Hashem?? What of His Torah?? What about the things Hashem cares about?"
Mind clarifying what *makes* something 'modox' in your eyes? Can you offer any dividing lines between it and the Yeshivish world? I.e. You talk a lot about the problems with the former as compared to the latter, but it seems to me that you're skipping a few steps by not actually explaining what it *is* you're comparing to what.
Sure: I have no problem with anyone who cares about Hashem and His Torah, and what is important to him is that. If his priorities are aligned with this, we're okay. There are many MO people who fit the bill and many Yeshivish who don't. However, in general, it is safe to say that the Yeshivish culture at large, as opposed to the MO culture at large, is the one who claims to be all about this motto. Better said, the Yeshivish culture perpetuates these ideals from the top, while the MO cultivate other priorities from the top levels.
All your examples are perfectly fine and acceptable by me, being מרביץ תורה is the best of the best, and all those who make that their mission, all good. (I do have minor issues with the way soe of it is done, but it really is besides the point for now.) But the issues that spring up, which come from misguided leaders and thinkers, them I take issue with.
I guess the 'defining line' is in what our top ideals are, and they are shown in who we choose to elevate as the top. The Chareidi/Yeshivishe gedolim are the 'shpitz' to the chareidi world, as they exemplify ultimate כבוד שמים both in their privat and pubic lives. They don't care bout themselves one iota, all they care about is Hashem and His Torah. I find the MO elevating other people to an equal to or even greater status than our Gedolim, and to me this means that they missed the boat. (Again, this doesn't mean our Gedolim are infallible; they are people. But it's still important to realize in what areas they are beyond us and we should rightfully hold them as the best.)
You highlight an important point, which I stressed in the post, that there is no actual line. There is a range. My problem is with those who have a defined set of different values, which to me shows nothing but their lack of understanding of what Torah (and by extension, what this whole life in general) truly is about.
Fair enough. As long as you realize that the stereotype isn't any more real than that dazed looking Substack avatar 'Modox' guy. They're both cartoonish exaggerations loosely based on.....something.
But this worldview it's not quite so vague. While there may be some ambiguity when it comes to the people on the spectrum, there is a clear, well-defined binary line in terms of ideology: either you try to live your life by Hashem, or you make up your own version of reality (read: follow the non-Jews).
Even within this defined sector, differences of opinion exist. No one cared about Hashem and His Torah like RSR Hirsch. Or the Rebbes. They are all part of 'us'. The MO, on the other hand - the very idea of being 'modern' is not a Torah ideal.
Pardon my use of metaphor - we have many different banners but are all centered around the Mishkan. As opposed to those 'outside the cloud', they are influenced by Amalek.
"there is a clear, well-defined binary line in terms of ideology: either you try to live your life by Hashem, or you make up your own version of reality (read: follow the non-Jews).
Even within this defined sector, differences of opinion exist. No one cared about Hashem and His Torah like RSR Hirsch. Or the Rebbes. They are all part of 'us'. The MO, on the other hand - the very idea of being 'modern' is not a Torah ideal."
Come on. You're conveniently sorting everyone into 2 categories based on whether you think they're devoted to Hashem or not, and then pointing out that those unlucky enough to be in the bucket in which you just dumped all of your amalek-adjacent eirev rav are- surprise!- amalek-adjacent eirev rav.
I ask again: are the sources I linked to in my earlier comment MO? Why or why not? If you can't answer, why not leave MO out of this and just denounce Amalek followers directly? Seems less contorted than inventing some cartoonish bogeyman of undefined dimensions.
If you don't appreciate the metaphor, drop it. I really am denouncing 'Amalek followers', but MO, you have to admit, embraces outside culture as a collective and they hide behind this vague form of representing another aspect of Torah. Such word games need to be called out because they confuse a lot of people.
As for your sources, I have no problem with any of them. The spreading of Torah ideals to others (without bending the actual ideals) is perfectly fine by me. I have no problem 'adapting' in this regard.
"MO, you have to admit, embraces outside culture as a collective and they hide behind this vague form of representing another aspect of Torah. Such word games need to be called out because they confuse a lot of people."
"The very idea of being modern is not a torah ideal"
That's nonsense. You literally just made that up. The torah ideal is to keep and learn torah and keep mitzvos. The Rishonim were all modern and lived in their times. They didn't refuse to speak the current language and deliberately dress oddly.
Last I checked most Yeshivish speak English in America and ivrit in Israel. They wear short jackets and ties. They don't dress odd, they dress more formal. And as far as I am concerned you haven't seen Rishonim to make that judgment either.
The idea of being modern is not a Torah idea if it isn't for the sake of enhancing a Torah life. In Germany for instance, Modernisation was a positive thing since people needed to acclimate to their surroundings and hold on to their Judaism. In America too in is important to a degree. But for the sake of being Modern is not a Torah ideal.
I've been tentatively thinking that a MODOX person allows others to choose what to consider primary, Torah or Mada, despite their conflict or in denial of it. This ends with a mixed bag, including spurts of enthusiasm for one and then the other, or even abandoning either one, for the other.
Although the MODOX person himself might land for example with Torah as primary, his legitimization for others not to, is an incompleteness of his own position.
Thank you for your kind words. Meanwhile today I came across a צו שטעל לע"ד from סוטה מג:
אמר רבי אבהו ילדה שסיבכה בזקינה בטלה ילדה בזקינה ואין בה דין ערלה אמר רבי ירמיה לעולם ילדה בילדה וכגון דנטע להך קמייתא לסייג ולקורות דתנן הנוטע לסייג ולקורות פטור מן הערלה ומאי שנא ילדה בזקינה דבטלה ומאי שנא ילדה בילדה דלא בטלה התם אי מימליך עלה לאו בת מיהדר היא הכא אי מימליך עלה בת מיהדר היא
I have to run but you might understand without my elaborating. I hope before or after Shabbos to do so.
To the extent that what you write is accurate (and now is not the time for paragraph by paragraph analysis) it is true only for upper league yeshivos. Which is a very small proportion of chareidim.
Once you get to middle and low tier yeshivos and ba'alei battim, including chassidim, what you write is totally non applicable and self righteous delusions of grandeur. Predominenr there is the garb and other chitzonious features. Everything revolves around money, no different to anybody else really. It's all about walking the walk and talking the talk and as you write 'being yeshivish'. Even learning halochoh is considered somewhat unyeshivish. How many ba'alei battim associated with the chareidi world know hilchos shabbos properly? Can deal with basic kitchen shailos themselves? Ask any chareidi rov what ridiculously simple shailos they get asked.
And the standard of learning, even in the top tier of yeshivos is, in the majority of cases, leaves a lot to be desired. When there are no tests, by definition there is no way of measuring standards. It's all about instant responses and shouting down a chavrusoh. And quoting by heart such as 'mefurash a rabbi akiva eiger' when the RAE doesn't exist or says something different to what is quoted. What percentage get a shach clear before moving on? Everything is often left q little vague. There is a reason why every other form of learning in the world has an assessment system.
1b - it's a bigger portion than you make it out to be.
2. I'm not here to bash chassidim like you seem to be, but I am not referring to them. They do have their own issues, but they also have their own strengths. I am all too familiar with both sides of their world, but I am not discussing them at all.
3. I acknowledged the issue of the bottom tier (and again, it isn't as large a group as you portray) and every single culture has these outgrowths, A culture is like a personality on a large sociological scale and a good thing for one can be a negative for another. Uniformity (which a culture, especially a large one) tends to require has downsides. In that you are correct.
This includes focusing on Iyun as opposed to halacha, and while it leaves what to be desired, it is coming from the fact that iyun is the true way to learn halacha, not to open up a halacha fact book (even a mishna berura) and just accept whatever they say. This comes at a price, as you point out, and it isn't correct, but I will defend the general mehalech because the alrenative is worse.
Your last paragraph was a sloppy take on what goes on in an honest beis midrash, what you're referring to does happen but is simply not goes on with those who truly know how to learn, which are, incidentally, the products of our system.
You'll have to get used to it Dovid, from this blogs inception all Test does is lump chasidim with the litvaks. They are the same as us since we're both not modox. People try to remind him but like all other things he repeats, he isn't really getting the point.
1a.Focus? What sort of defense is that? The modox will also tell you it is all about 'focus'. And point to the top learners of Merkaz Harav, who can beat the socks off most chareidi 'yeshivish guys'.
1b. That is what you want to believe.
2. Non-answer, so nothing for me to write.
3. It is a very large group, contrary to what you want to believe. It drives commercially most of chareididom. And the key difference is this 'bottom tier' is simply denied in chareidom. There is self-pretence that it doesn't really exist. Which is why you have the fascinating phenomenon in Hampishpocho, Binah whatever of rabbis writing divrei torah about spirituality, the importance of torah, miminmising gashmious, followed by pages and pages of ads for the most luxurious of items, hotels, clothes, cooking, long luxurious wigs (against da'as torah - and sometimes followed by an ad calling out those self-same wigs as not being tzenuah) etc etct (most of which, in the non-Jewish world, is relegated to magazines aimed at the high gashmoios focused part of that society). It's hypocrisy, which you will not find in modox publications.
And there is no assessment of what is meant by 'knowing how to learn'. Which is gufoh the problem. Without any assessment system, it's all undefined hot air. Try it. The next time you are quoted a source by 'somebody who knows how to learn' go look it up, and see if it really says what it is purported to say. There are few illyuim at the top of the system that can do it, but they are but a fraction of the world of yeshivish chareididom.
1a. Focus is very important סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה if you understand what we are trying to do you can see how it is being accomplished. And if there are issues along the way, as there will be, it is weighed according to its cost-risk balance. And
1b. __
2. __
3. I am not denying it at all! I am not even diminishing. Which Rabonim do you know (don't actually name any) who don't speak against these things? As I said, in modox the issues are more serious. They are explicitly advocating anti-Torah values, which they made up and call it Torah values. That is much worse!!
4. There is an assessment of knowing how to learn, it seems you are not aware. Someone who doesn't is bashed over the head for saying stupid not thought out svaros, foir missing a basic maareh makom in the sugya and will usually not get very far in a good chaburah. And yes, אחד מאלף יוצא להוראה but there are still some very good reasons to go through the system even if one is not 1 in a thousand. a. he'll appreciate what halacha really is, b. he'll actually learn some halacha properly if even for a few short years, c. he'll respect those that do, etc...
I'm not going to get involved yet again in all this. You write lots of words about 'ideals' and what things should be like. In practice, the vast majority of chareididom is nothing like these ideals, so it really means nothing. The ideals of Modox also have far less to criticise.
As far as assessment how to learn, sure, but the assessment is undertaken by those who are themselves unassessed. That's sort of my point. Without any sort of external standardised assessment process, its all meaningless really. I know plenty of chaburos where they convince each other they all know 'how to learn', but the reality is very different.
You seem to be basing your snide remarks regarding Charedim and Yeshivos on American wannabes. FYI, Mishpacha Magazine is run by a bunch of well-meaning women, pushed ahead by the strong profit margin provided by the advertisers. It really doesn't reflect much about the ideology of Charedim, there are almost zero rabbanim on board, and certainly says nothing about Yeshivos.
Regarding the level of learning, you seem to be unaware of the recent trends in strong Israeli Yeshivos, focusing on finishing the Mesechta, frequent review, peer to peer writing and lectures, and frequent testing.
You have just prooved my point. Anything that doesn't toe the utopian vision of charedim, their supposed piety, holyness, aversion to gashmiyous, and dikdukei halocoh (including mateh akum) is written off as 'wanabeee'. Once you have stripped out all these 'wannabees' you will be shocked to see the real size of chareididom. A relatively few high quality learners in a few high quality yeshivos/kollellim is all you will have left.
That's my point, but the chareidi world lives in a castle of self-denail. Just like the emperor has no clothes.
This is a silly conversation. Most of us are more than well aware of what are the sociological phenomena in all of the Orthodox community. No one has blinders, and no one is defending or denying. The fact is though, for all its flaws and drawbacks, the Yeshiva and Bais Yaakov system is the only thing that is working in the Orthodox community. The RZ in Israel are losing half of their kids, and most of their boys don't even want to go to Hesder. The MO kids aren't Shomer Torah, and perhaps a year in Israel after high school can slow the hemorrhaging for some of them. Just grow up, please, or see a therapist to clear up your bad Yeshiva experiences, and then make your points to your wife and friends. If you would like instead to see a real Yeshiva of high caliber in Yerushalayim, I invite you. Contact me at: afrumrabbi@gmail.com
As is typical in these conversations, the goalposts are moved to bashing modoxism. That is not what we are talking about here.
If you want to state that yes, charediland is full of hypocrisy and self- delusions of piety, most (but a few yechudei seguloh) chareidim chase money and gashmiyous like everyone else and, facts on the ground, is nothing like it pretends to be (look at the facts on the ground at your local minyan factory, especially bein hazmanim), but ultimately it 'works' (defined in a very narrow way that suits your purpose) I can live with that.
But I challenge you to concede that about chareidisim. You will not be able to.
Do you hear yourself? If you don't think we are producing the world's finest at the elite, that's one thing. But if we are, isn't that how a culture should be set up?? Shouldn't we be striving to be the best? And if some can't get there, they are part of this culture and appreciate it, and if they can't, there are ways of dealing with the personal issues of individuals. Most rabbeim will tell a talmid struggling to go to work at some point. But why are you willing to settle immediately for second best when you risk losing the best?
I think the Torah system today has major issues how they teach, starting from high schools and maybe a drop younger. Not sure here is the place to discuss it, though. I think the focus is not how to produce talmidei chachomim, rather how to produce kids that will feel attached to a Rebbe eventually, and will be "happy" with how they turned out (ignorance is bliss)
"I think the focus is not how to produce talmidei chachomim, rather how to produce kids that will feel attached to a Rebbe eventually..." Are you referring to how it should be or how it is?
Really? I strongly disagree. Maybe I went through a more kalte-litvishe system, but it was pretty much always about producing talmidei chachomim. Being a attached to a Rebbi was never really focused on... Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly?
That is a major issue, but a more major issue, which goes to the root of it all, is that chareidim are unable to see at all the faults in their system. It's all perfect, let by 'gedolim' who can never get anything wrong, and everything that is wrong is due to a 'relatively few drop outs'. This problem is amply demonstrated by the delusions of grandeur that permeate this blog.
The modox have plenty of faults, but I have never seen this sort of self-grandeur and claims to perfection coming from the modox world.
I think they can see the faults, just they're trying to accomplish something else.
Originally yeshivos were meant for the elite, and the intention was to produce high caliber talmidei chachomim. Nowadays the understanding is that everyone needs to be in yeshivah for many years, because of all the negative influences that are out there. Now that the yeshivah is no longer elitist but for everyone, the curriculum as well as goal has changed. It is not about producing talmidei chachomim anymore, rather about keeping the kids frum. And the understanding is that kids need to spend most of the day on lomdus which is allegedly more enjoyable. And I agree that in the short term, Lomdus is more enjoyable. But true Torah pleasure comes from actually mastering all the sources, not just hearing cherry picked Rambam's and bite sized raid. But that is impossible for many people to achieve. So you end up with the system where everything is about making it stimulating so that the kids don't go OTD.
Agreed. But the issue is the current system is passed of us being authentic and mamesh the ideal that Hashem wants. Even though the warts are out there for all to see (ask the group of yeshivish kids vaping outside my local yeshivah ketonoh. Just like the non Jewish teens hanging out vaping outside their hang outs)
Whereas we both agree that that is completely wrong.
it IS what Hashem wants. I understand the issues, but look at the goal. You know what, test, why don't you lay out what you think Hashem wants and set up the entire system accordingly. I'll say my take again, in short, and you can respond how you would create your society of Hashem:
Hashem wants us to have a connection with Him, that's all that matters. The way to get to that is by learning His Torah (because through that we see what matters to Him (and not what matters to us)) and doing His mitzvos (which gets us away from our selfish selves and connects us with Him,see Rambam or mekubalim) and so we perpetuate a culture with importance of Torah and Mitzvos. Since these things are complicated and subtle, some individuals will either be left behind or its too much for them. For that we need specialists who can help, which there is a shortage of. But at large we perpetuate Hashem's will.
You sound very much like an outsider peering in. There IS grandeur to the Torah and to Hashem's will and to connecting with Him the real (not fuzzy) way. There is actually NO other grandeur that matters even closely. That is what we are about and that is what we perpetuate.
Modox attributes grandeur to science and culture and other things that are not Hashem's Torah. We are very proud of our ability to stick with Hashem's Torah and go against the tide. We are proud and on this blog we finally get to show it! Thanks Mecharker, Happy and RT!!
I have reread all your comments assuming you are obviously joking and you have turned into a refreshing and quite humorous commentary to break the lull of serious discussion.
True, I use science as the core of the zeitgeist, which is a very true sentiment. The 'leaders' of the world and their thought have a way of thinking, and their ideas have a trickle down affect which instill an attitude to the common man. Their are plenty of sources for this, though I am highly oversimplifying (truth is the 'leaders; themselves are nothing more than followers of the zeitgeist...)
I'm here to defend the Ribono Shel Olam and Chazal not Einstein, but tbh, his discoveries were pretty unbelievable. I'm not sure how much you know about Einstein's stuff. But if that's your take, I have no problem with it!
Ash, my understanding is that our (our?) mesorah is compatible with both a flat and globe earth. One thing it is absolutely incompatible with is a moving earth, period.
I am sure my fidelity to our mesorah does tell them something, as does your lack.
It doesn't matter what illusions are presented to us on screens big and small. The earth does not move. 95% of the matter/energy needed to explain the theory you hold on to like sacred writ (aka the Big Bang Theory; what you take for rational but I know to be insane) cannot be detected because it does not exist.
Let me just repeat something I mentioned in other discussions here. Everybody is aware of the issues with late minyanim, coffee rooms, long sheitels, gashmiyus etc (BTW these get worse the further left you go). Nobody thinks those are good things. No rabbanim endorse them and many constantly speak against them (unlike LW modox "rabbanim" who openly advocate violating the Torah, such as trying to justify kol isha, arayos, coed schools, chillul Shabbos, homosexuality, Bible Criticism, etc.)
But only "test" thinks that these are important features of chareidi life, compared to the immense amount of Torah, tefilah, dikduk hamitzvos, and chessed that is performed. Why is this? Obviously, as we all can testify, it not a reflection of chareidi society. Rather, it is what he himself focused on when he was a part of it.
Thus, it would make sense that he always attended late minyanim, and thinks that most chareidim daven at late minyanim.
That he spent all of his yeshiva years hanging out in the coffee room, and therefore thinks the main feature of a yeshiva is the coffee room.
That he is constantly looking at women, and is therefore an expert in sheitel lengths
That he spends all his time reading mishpacha instead of learning, and so all he knows from chareidi life is the mishpacha ads
etc, etc,
"(unlike LW modox "rabbanim" who openly advocate violating the Torah, such as trying to justify kol isha, arayos, coed schools, chillul Shabbos, homosexuality, Bible Criticism, etc.)"
You're ignoring everyone in between. OO is pretty fringe within MO too. Their smicha isn't recognized by the RCA or OU. Ironically, some old timers there have complained that MO is becoming a version of charedi Judaism. At any rate, these discussions aren't new. They go back to the glory days of the Jewish Observer and R 'Gifter slaughtering Lamm' etc. From what I can tell, MO isn't going anywhere, but I guess time will tell.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religion-and-american-culture/article/abs/antimodernism-and-orthodox-judaisms-heretical-imperative-an-american-religious-counterpoint/3058B96023162EF73504E3D40FD84668
"In June 1979, as YU’s ranking official and one of the leading champions of
Modern Orthodox Judaism, Lamm addressed the matter before his
colleagues at a conference held by the Rabbinical Council of America
(RCA). There, Lamm urged the Modern Orthodox rabbinical group
to fight back against those who seek out “some phantasmagoric
heretic,” someone they could place beyond the borderlines of
Orthodox Judaism.10 In time, antimodernist policing entered Modern
Orthodox life, despite its “modern” sensibilities, as well.11 This
points to the trend among a variety of Orthodox Jews to accept,
perhaps subconsciously, degrees of policing and surrender to the
modern notion of “choice” because it was worth the social and
religious benefits of Orthodox living."
"The sea change disturbed the Modern Orthodox, especially in
the realm of higher education.84 Perhaps even more troubling to
leaders such as Rabbi Norman Lamm and others in this camp was
that the antimodernist impulse had found its way into Modern
Orthodoxy.85 Lamm, himself, complained in the late 1970s that his
rabbinical faculty at YU were “directing students inward,” veering
pupils away from the modernist sensibilities that he had hoped to
instill. He privately asked a piqued colleague, “What can I do?”
86 It
was a period marked by the Moral Majority and the pervasive force
of conservatism.87 That milieu, along with the emboldened self confidence of the Orthodox Right, made it difficult for Lamm’s
colleagues to flatly deny the credibility of Orthodox
antimodernism.88
religious culture that deployed heresy-hunting tactics that were
similar to (although softer than) those developed earlier by the
Orthodox Right."
I don't think it's limited to people who call themselves OO, probably most people with that attitude never called themselves OO. Did somebody like Rabbi Riskin ever call himself OO? But he is a perfect example of what I am describing. As is Natan Slifkin, although he is not a classical "rabbi" even by their standards.
1) He's not mainstream. That's the point. And that's what those on the left are upset about. That's why they're desperate to get some sort of alternative framework set up to the left of YU/RCA.
https://library.yctorah.org/2017/01/taking-back-modern-orthodox-judaism/
"This is the very paradigm that was under siege twenty years ago when Rabbi Avi Weiss wrote his manifesto “Open Orthodox Manifesto.” Important and controversial Orthodox thinkers, including Rabbis Yitz Greenberg and David Hartman, were being shunned by the so-called Modem Orthodox establishment. Even Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, the founder and former spiritual leader of New York’s Lincoln Square Synagogue, was not allowed to speak at Yeshiva University."
2) Officially, OO doesn't exist any more. Because the name itself is a p'sul. Which, again, is the point.
https://www.jta.org/2017/08/16/ny/closing-a-chapter-on-open-orthodoxy
"The reason the phrase “Open Orthodoxy” disappeared from the YCT website and mission statement at the end of 2015 may well be connected to the stepped-up criticism the seminary was receiving from the Orthodox right that year.
That was when the charedi Agudath Israel of America targeted Rabbi Weiss and his institution, calling Open Orthodox ideas “heretical.” It was also the year the mainstream Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, which bars YCT graduates from membership, barred the ordination of women and prohibited its synagogues from hiring women with the title Maharat, used by Yeshivat Maharat, the seminary for women Rabbi Weiss founded.
In 2016, The Jewish Press, a voice of the Orthodox community, condemned the school, suggesting that “Open Orthodoxy is “openly unorthodox,” asserting that the philosophy is for “heretics,” and calling it “a wolf in sheep’s clothing, appealing to unknowing Jewish communities that seek a meaningful and genuine Orthodox religious experience.”
That same year, 11 YCT graduates joined a petition distancing themselves from “partnership” minyanim, which embrace a liberal view of halacha and permit women to read Torah, receive aliyot, and lead certain parts of the Shabbat service.
This year, the Orthodox Union formally banned synagogues from hiring women clergy and is in the process of deciding what action, if any, to take against the handful of OU synagogues that engage women in rabbinic-like positions."
"YCT officials point to its 120 rabbinic graduates as a sign of their acceptance in the Orthodox world. But only 20 are in OU-affiliated synagogue pulpit positions, including three at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, the congregation Rabbi Weiss led.
"YCT officials point to its 120 rabbinic graduates as a sign of their acceptance in the Orthodox world. But only 20 are in OU-affiliated synagogue pulpit positions, including three at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, the congregation Rabbi Weiss led.
...
Sylvia Barack Fishman, a professor of Judaic studies at Brandeis University, noted that more than 90 percent of YCT graduates have jobs that utilize their rabbinic skills. She said that those who disparage YCT do so because they feel threatened.
Barack Fishman asserted that some Orthodox critics use the term “Open Orthodox derogatorily rather than descriptively, with the goal of delegitimizing Modern Orthodox leaders and lay people who support women’s leadership in public Judaism.” Such critics “are trying desperately to make Modern Orthodoxy into a closed club — and insisting that only they may define who belongs in that club,” she said."
Also, it's quite unfair to blame modern orthodoxy for Slifkin. The guy went to medrash shmuel, published his books with Feldheim with Haskamos, and wrote a whole book pushing Daas torah, before his ban experience. Not exactly a Ramaz-Gush-YU product.
R Aharaon Rakeffet once pointed out that David Hartman went to Chaim Berlin, Yitz Greenberg went to Novardhok, etc. Can't blame MO for those guys. Not to mention Ysocher Katz from Chovevei, who has smicha from a Satmar dayan.
I'm not blaming MO for these people, they are just examples of the LW MO philosophy.
I don't have much against the RW YU faction, all the power to them if they can hold strong against secularism. But I think that the general MO philosophy by its nature tends towards secularism. I mean, if "modern" is a big feature of your Judaism (which I am hopeful that for a good deal of the RW, it is not) I don't see how it can be any other way.
I'm not sure you are right that people like Riskin are not mainstream, maybe I am overexposed to that crowd online, especially through Natan's blog.
" I mean, if "modern" is a big feature of your Judaism"
That's as meaningful as the fact that I'm a 'misnagged.' Also, 'orthodox' is a Greek word https://www.etymonline.com/word/orthodox which in its Jewish context was originally used by reform to tar 'fanatics' like R Hirsch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism#Definitions
"During the early and mid-19th century, with the advent of the progressive movements among German Jews, and especially early Reform Judaism, the title Orthodox became the epithet of the traditionalists who espoused conservative positions on the issues raised by modernization. They themselves often disliked the alien, Christian name, preferring titles like "Torah-true" (gesetztreu), and often declared they used it only for the sake of convenience."
"I think that the general MO philosophy by its nature tends towards secularism"
Based on what? Have you read Torah U'madda? R Lichtenstein's writings? Nefesh Harav? Jewish Action? Tradition?
"maybe I am overexposed to that crowd online, especially through Natan's blog."
LOL, ya think? And anyway, how many people do you interact with there? Seems to me that 99+% of the comments are generated by less than 30 distinct commentators. That's a tiny self-selected sample which isn't representative of anything. People in real life don't exist in suspended animation at the bottom of a substack post. (I'm not saying that discussions there or here are or aren't worthwhile; simply that they aren't a basis to draw any demographic conclusions from.)
https://kavvanah.blog/2012/12/02/rabbi-yitzchak-meir-morgenstern-on-vayishlach-meditation-fiery-prayer-divine-in-the-material-world-also-some-possible-riets-news/
"The other reason that I decided to dedicate a post this week to Rabbi Morgenstern was because rumor has it that Rabbi Moshe Weinberger of Aish Kodesh in Woodmere is in negotiation to be the new mashgiah ruhani of YU. It may or may not come to fruition, but if it does it will give the guys the Neo-Hasidic emotionalism of their gap year programs. YU will then embody as its haskafa Rav Itamar Schwartz’ Belvavi Mishkan Evneh, kiruv Torah, Rav Moshe Wolfson, and Rabbi Morgenstern’s approach. Gone will be the intellectualism of Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein."
Fantastic! That would allay the Rav's concerns:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwja84uAuLH_AhVSVTUKHen9Av0QFnoECA4QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fhakirah.org%2FVol%252011%2520Zelcer.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1y9lFZ4VntT2S-HDm4c9qJ
"The Rav’s Difficulty in Passing on His Spirituality to His Students
"Unfortunately for the Rav, his spirituality was not something he
could easily pass on to his students:
"While I have succeeded, to a great or small degree, as a teacher and
guide in the area of ‘gadlut ha-mochin’… I have not seen much
success in my efforts in the experiential area. I was not able to live
together with them, to cleave to them and to transfer to them the
warmth of my soul. My words, it seems, have not kindled the divine
flame in sensitive hearts.19
"19 “Al Ahavat Ha-Torah,” p. 420; translation based on that of Rav Lichtenstein,
“The Rav at Jubilee,” p. 55. In another version: “I am not a bad
teacher. However, I cannot transmit my recollections to them. If I want
to transmit my experiences, I have to transmit myself, my own heart.
How can I merge my soul and personality with my students? It is very
difficult. Yet it is exactly what is lacking on the American scene… This is
exactly our greatest need in the United States—to feel and experience
God’s Presence.” Rakeffet Vol. 2, pp. 169, 170."
David Ben Yishai,
Learning Halacha is not meant to be be limited to certain subjects only. Discussing various opinions
in detail is part of learning. Rav VolkZa'Tzal,a prominent Rav in the early 20 th century (wrote seforim on Tuma vTaharah) , whose shiurim I attended, would say that there is no problem challenging Rebi Akivah Eiger's opinions with legal arguments and you should not be deterred by those who say you are not as great as he was. That is what is called " learning..".
"immense amount of Torah, tefilah, dikduk hamitzvos, and chessed that is performed"
That is typical of the self-delusion I go on about.
Substantial amount of chessed is undertaken by all groups - nothing unique about chareidim there. The difference is chareidim will ensure some of their tax-free charity money gets routed back to them in all sorts of convulted way.
As for torah, tefillah and dikduk hamitzos, some of that may exists amongst yechidei seguloh, but it is generaly reserved for the top few of the top yeshivos. Most of the chareidi world are happy to rely on kullos through and through. And tefillah - huh, look at the minyan factories endemic throughout the charedi world. As I said, self-delusional. And its a feature, not a bug.
Insult all you like, I'm ending my participation on this post now.
"Insult all you like, I'm ending my participation on this post now."- because everybody knows your attitude has no basis in reality and is just a reflection of how you yourself acted when you were a part of the community! You are no different than any burned-out OTD tuna bagel. Go back to reading the Mishpacha ads, that's your entire Judaism!
I enjoyed very much your series, but I think your conclusion and description of Modern Orthodoxy is not accurate. The issue today is not so much connected to academia and science, but rather, secular lifestyle and culture. The kids in Frisch, Rutgers and Binghamton are not unfaithful to Torah because they have bought into science and an intellectual approach to knowledge. Their thinking is the same as their non-Jewish counterparts, and their lives are on Facebook , TikTok and associated frivolities.
see my comment https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-challenge-of-modern-orthodoxy/comment/17011635
I'm happy to expound a bit if not clear
I dont think so. There are no longer any thought leaders in Modern Orthodoxy. Even YU is no longer pursuing an ideological agenda. The masses want to be successful Americans and still hold onto some Orthodoxy, so an ideological justification is put forth declaring that 'we are just as frum as the black hat crowd', but other than a few rabbis who feel guilty, no one really believes that. More pertinent, no one really cares if it is true or not, because in Englewood, Beverlywood, Ranaana and Efrat they DON'T WANT TO BE AS FRUM as the black hat crowd, and are petrified of a Yeshiva world that would influence their child away from the Ivy League.
I don't totally disagree with you, but Slifkin, Shapiro etc are thought leaders. And even if not, the 'scientists' become their thought leaders. Most people grow up a little (when thinking about creating families especially) and they develop a world view. They usually turn to 'leaders' or writers or speakers to figure themselves out.
But you aren't wrong about their fears of being a black hatter caveman's influence and other issues.
The main thing is they never really got to appreciate what we *do* have, what the Torah really is, and they therefore turn to other things. They're lives being Tiktok is do to being involved in their culture, but to me that is more an indication of their lack of understanding of Torah culture which leaves them to the outside world and its issues...
There is a vast difference between 'thought leader' and someone propped up b'dieved as intellectual justification for not being frum. Most MO people couldn't care less about Slifkin and Shapiro, don't really follow R Hershel Schechter, and ideological purity is irrelevant to them. The 'worldview' that you describe is actually just deciding to live in an Orthodox community, finding their comfort zone, and then behaving more or less like everyone else around them without thinking too much about it. This is OK except for two areas: matters that require extensive knowledge (like Hil. Shabbos), and areas that are completely private (see Rav Dessler, vol. 5, ph 158 - מהלך עוזבי התורה
Maybe. I'm not referring to the not frum. I'm referring to those who invite Slifkin as their scholar in residence for example
A black hat does not a Talmud Scholar or שומר תורוה מצוות make nor a religious person make. We all can improve. You choose for yourself but G-d is the final Judge,not the Rosh Yeshiva. Remember on Yom Kippur we pray with the עבריינים. Don't be so smug.
That pretty much sums up chareididom too. The chareidim of Flatbush behave very differently to the chareidim of Kiryat Seifer, but they will consider themselves equally chareidi.......
Excellent article, and one I largely agree with. It's why I align myself with the yeshiva community instead of the modern orthodox community, despite finding the MO's answers more convincing.
Thanks!
You still don't like my mehalech???? ;)
Nope. I failnto see how chazal being great translates into them being correct. Those are two different distinct things. It is precisely that distinction that you make between science and Torah is why i have no problem saying that Chazal didn't know and were wrong about the former.
It doesn't necessarily translate. It just happens to be that if you understand what Chazal were talking about - פנימיות, not science - they said nothing incorrect. And again although scientifically they may have been dead wrong, they simply weren't describing a scientifically reality at the core. The scientific realities they seemed to be describing are really about the פנימיות, which change not at all as we discover more about the חיצוניות since the פנימיות follows the same eye view they knew about. If you don't know what I am describing, I'd suggest learning the Rambam's view on שדים and the מלאכים of Avraham's dream *in the way that the Rambam meant it to be understood* as a start...
Its far easier to say Bereishis is pnimiyus than to say Chazal on the Barrel test for virgins is penimiyus (a test found in secular sources as well) or the half mouse creature, or pregnancy periods for animals, or countless other scientific mistakes.
This is my problem with people who find the mistakes of Chazal. It's one thing to say they didn't know modern science, or they never saw an actual mud mouse but believed it existed, because why not. It's quite another thing to say that the barrel test that Rabbi Gamliel actually used was meaningless, that what he himself observed and experimented with was just his own delusions. That is a terrible thing to say about any scholar, even a non-Jewish one, and especially Chazal. About the barrel test, see here https://www.toraland.org.il/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F/%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%90%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94/%D7%91%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%9F-%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%93%D7%A2-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99/
No, Happy, you have to understand. They were primitive. And they didn't yet appreciate what experimentation was. And they didn't know how to think because when we were fighting for food in the planes of Africa logic didn't matter. We are smarter and we know about 'epistemology'.
Im truly amazed by this
I can't answer every question because I am hardly an expert, but if you understood what Chazal were able to know just by looking at someone's forehead and palms, the barrel test doesn't seem too far a cry. I'd strongly assume it was not a physical scientific experiment, and only R' Gamliel, who was able to see through his עיניים שכליים could do this stuff. (He had to do it himself.)
“I'd suggest learning the Rambam's view on שדים”
Where would we find that?
Assuming his son is following his approach, מאמר על אודות אגדות דרשות חז"ל לר"א בן הרמב"ם, הדרך הרביעי החלק השני (I figured I'd be called out on that lol.)
He says that any encounters of שדים are in a dream because it is an impossibility in real life. This isn’t the best place to see the מהלך you’re advocating as this clearly doesn’t shtim with חז״ל.
I think the main issue is understanding what science is. I like Rav Sacks view that science just explains what things are while Torah explains what things truly mean. Seeing a contradiction between the two is silly because they are meant for two completely different things. One doesn't use science to explain the meaning of our existence just like one doesn't use Torah to observe the mechanical workings of the universe.
That's Gould's NOMA.
Was creation intended or random?
I don't understand.
Intended but that's not a question for a science textbook in the first place.
Same reason we wouldnt ask gedolim about chemical compounds or rock formations(when they pasken on new technology they consult the science)
Correct. But science literature has generally arrogated to itself its answer to that question. This is an old 'scientific' tactic that creationists have complained about
The response is they should stick to their expertise. Just like if a Rav tried to be an authority on photosynthesis.
Nice post. I'd like to make two comments:
1. Although it is true that MO learning is sometimes too academic, the more Yeshivish can use some tweaking to become a bit more grounded. (I believe you acknowledge that.)
2. I once spoke to a student in Harvard Divinity School who was boasting he learns more about Judaism and Talmud study than I do in Yeshiva, since he is studying Josephus and the history of the surrounding cultures of the time while I just learn Gemara and Rambam. I replied that I also read Josephus ect., the difference is I read it in the bathroom and in bed, so what he's reading a whole day I read in the bathroom and what I learn all day he reads in the bathroom.
1. Agreed in general, but where they are learning the right way (the 'top tier') I think it's safe to say that we don't need their ideas much; I'd say the smart people are smart and grounded anyways.
2. Well said.
"I remember a “debate” I had in high school with a modox-leaning individual which brings out the point very well. He found it funny that the “yeshivish/chareidi” world screams “kefirah!” at him when he questions if perhaps Einstein was smarter than the Vilna Gaon. While he’s right that it isn’t kefirah per se (and yes, it is pretty funny[2]), the suggestion that their greatest can even hold a candle to our greatest is the sign of someone who lost all appreciation for the depths of Torah. It's undeniable that Einstein was a complete genius. His discoveries are so astounding that they will continue to captivate us for a very long time. But anyone with an ounce of kedusha in his bones knows that the Vilna Gaon’s greatness far surpassed any human capabilities, in the leagues of a Malach Elokim."
A few notes:
There are different kinds of intelligence. To make a very complex topic simple, the Gra probably wins in the verbal intelligence arena and Einstein probably wins in the mathematical intelligence arena. Or, going a joke route, they could actually be the same person on a different gilgul, making the entire debate pointless.
Do Sephardim not possess kedusha? From my perspective, he's a famous rabbi of another mesorah. Maybe as I advance more in my education, my perspective will change, as there are rabbis such as Rambam and Rashi whose importance transcends nusach and makes them a part of the mesorah of the whole of klal Yisrael, but he's just not that relevant to me, certainly not to the point that I would say his "greatness far surpassed any human capabilities."
As you likely know, Shabbat 75a notes that astronomy is a mitzvah because astronomy is the knowledge valued in all the nations mentioned by Devarim 6:4. And while he was not very religious in the traditional sense, Einstein was a Jew, and his place as one of the pinnacles of wisdom valued by all nations is a great credit to all Jews.
Almost all of the MO people that I have met, did not do a careful analysis of the sources and conclude that this is the correct path. They drifted into this type of observance. Poor knowledge of Torah or poor lifestyle choices, cause a person's observance to slacken. Eventually, enough falls away that we call them (or they call themselves) MO.
This is usually a de facto category, not one that is sought out.
Interesting. I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to, but either way, while I definitely know people like what you are describing, most of those that I know of this nature are actually the so-called 'intellectuals' who find themselves busy with the fact that the way we learn is not to be taken for granted (they usually begin here). And the way we live and learn is not to be taken for granted. They become 'enlightened' by an outside culture who questions things 'properly', not just following the מסורה like good little sheep. They are taken by the ספיקות of some very loud, bright, 'cultured' people (say Slifkin or Josh Berman etc.) and these ספיקות enter their young unripe minds (כידוע עמלק בגימ' ספק).
The Rambam opens their eyes to new ways of thought (of course the Rambam was trying to defend Chazal against the 'המון' but they temporarily forget how to read when the Rambam says clearly that his מאמר is not for them); they question the authenticity of the halachic system and the authenticity of shas itself. (Hopefully they stop there to turn to the DH...) Of course they read all of the paraphernalia about the zohar which was 'obviously' a forgery, in their great minds and knowledge of Kabbalah.
They are bright and see a better way of life elsewhere, and they 'actually think about things' unlike the mindless drones of the black hat yeshivish chevra who never question anything like good little sheep. They smugly bash what they don't understand as a giant mistake in the orthodox world.
"Poor knowledge of Torah" for sure. Amalek comes to Refidim, שרפו ידיהם מן התורה, but while they are confused and have read too many books and too little of our books, they are very much בשיטה and their hashkafos are very thought and sought out, a least in their minds.
The Nodah b'yehudah in the uncensored version remarks that at least some of the zohar we have is a forgery. It's obviously the case - it refers to matters introduced by amaroim.
I wasn't responding to a particular comment, I was just saying what my general observations have been. I have met lots of people who would call themselves MO, in at least 5 states, and in different cities in Israel. Most of them have a very poor knowledge of Torah and Halacha. They did not choose to be MO, their observance drifted down until that is where they are holding. At times, I have observed that there is a generational drift down. The grandparents are religious, the children are MO, and the grandchildren are hardly religious at all.
“While we agree that it’s important to be nice, it is supposed to be from the fact that we are Hashem’s nation and being rude is a bad reflection of Hashem.[8] We are kind because to not be is a tremendous chilul Hashem“
I think you are missing the point of being nice. Is it okay for non-Jews to not be nice, because they are not from the chosen nation, and thereby not a reflection of Hashem?
1. See my footnote.
2. As far as non-Jews, firstly, they are also reflections of God. But in any event, we are not nice to Amalekite babies (really, really imagine taking a heavy sword with all your might and tearfully stabbing an actual baby) or to Canaanites who are against Hashem. Being nice is something we do because we are supposed to emulate Hashem's ways in order to be less about ourselves and more about other creations of Hashem, so that we can be closer to Him. If we are nice just because it feels good or just because society likes it, we will fall far and hard.
You added a new reason that was not the reason stated in the quote I mentioned above. In any case, I think being nice is just basic Derech Eretz, and basic Bein Adam L’Chaveiro. It is pretty self-evident that being nice is a good thing. It makes people feel good, and it is good when we make others feel good. I don’t believe it is necessary to theorize about all the deep reasons for why you are being nice, in order for Hashem to be happy with you being nice. What matters is that you being nice is coming from a genuine place. In your originally stated reason, being nice because you don’t want Hashem to look bad, implies a lack of authenticity. Furthermore, being nice because “society says so” or because “it feels good to be nice” are strawmen - I don’t believe either of those are the MO position on why we are nice.
I apologize for misspeaking - being selfless is just 'good', and even if deeper down it is as I described it, it is unnecessary for your point.
I was mainly referring to the idea that MO will try to explain, for example, that slaves are actually *not* appreciated by the Torah, or that some other not-worth-mentioning ideas are actually okay or not okay just because society today says so. You have to admit that we have a stronger moral system than that, one which is not as simple as 'being nice just because it is basic decency'.
You can ignore that whole sentence if it doesn't talk to you. When I wrote it I thought quite a bunch of times that it may rub some people the wrong way, but I ultimately decided it was a strong enough point to include...
A negative view on slavery is not unfounded. Those who follow the approach of the Rambam believe that there are things which the Torah did not forbid because we simply wouldn't have been able to handle it at the time like אשת יפת תואר and עבודת הקרבנות לפי המורה. Same with polygamy (and מלחמת רשות acc to Harav Kook). Was רבינו גרשוםs Takana בדיעבד, or was Hashem just waiting for him to implement the change as society developed?one can say say same when רב decreed against קדושי קטנה and when קדושי ביאה became a חיוב מלקות.
"Not unfounded" - probably true, but good luck reading the Torah and Chazal with that view. Yefas toar is discussed in Chazal straight up; I'd be very wary of extending things like this without their guidance. Korbanos are NOT bedieved - even according to the Moreh; we will still be bringing them במהרה בימינו. Was polygamy was ever recommended for the average person? - even one wife is with plenty of restrictions. Slavery, on the other hand, is talked about *positively* in numerous places, especially in Chazal, and there are good reasons for it, but that is part of a longer discussion (I'll probably get to it in my posts down the line. A lot of hakdamos are necessary for these kinds of things).
Either way, my main point stands; ask any secularist about killing the 7 nations and Amalek. We don't only care about "being nice."
There used to be a halacha that we give someone a wife when they travel to a new city. This wouldn't happen now. When I say בדיעבד I meant something which we could relate to due to needing more of a physical service. A non-polygamous society may have been too much for the ancient world. There was no טענה on the אבות or on a king up to 18 wives but these things probably won't return בימות המשיח. Maybe slavery as well. The ancient world was built on manpower. Few citizens were truly free as feudalism is also a form of slavery. The ideal is that we serve Hashem alone. The goyim will look to us as the world leaders but that's not necessarily bandage.
"The problem with modoxy is: What of Hashem?? What of His Torah?? What about the things Hashem cares about?"
Mind clarifying what *makes* something 'modox' in your eyes? Can you offer any dividing lines between it and the Yeshivish world? I.e. You talk a lot about the problems with the former as compared to the latter, but it seems to me that you're skipping a few steps by not actually explaining what it *is* you're comparing to what.
E.G Is YuTorah Modox? http://www.yutorah.org/
Is Torah Musings? https://www.torahmusings.com/
OU Daf Yomi? https://outorah.org/series/159/
How about a book called "Musar For Moderns"? https://www.amazon.com/Musar-Moderns-Elyakim-Krumbain/dp/088125875X
Artscroll? Aish Hatorah? Gush? Etc.
(Note that I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you wrote. I'm just wondering if your categories are a little too neat/begging the question.)
Sure: I have no problem with anyone who cares about Hashem and His Torah, and what is important to him is that. If his priorities are aligned with this, we're okay. There are many MO people who fit the bill and many Yeshivish who don't. However, in general, it is safe to say that the Yeshivish culture at large, as opposed to the MO culture at large, is the one who claims to be all about this motto. Better said, the Yeshivish culture perpetuates these ideals from the top, while the MO cultivate other priorities from the top levels.
All your examples are perfectly fine and acceptable by me, being מרביץ תורה is the best of the best, and all those who make that their mission, all good. (I do have minor issues with the way soe of it is done, but it really is besides the point for now.) But the issues that spring up, which come from misguided leaders and thinkers, them I take issue with.
I guess the 'defining line' is in what our top ideals are, and they are shown in who we choose to elevate as the top. The Chareidi/Yeshivishe gedolim are the 'shpitz' to the chareidi world, as they exemplify ultimate כבוד שמים both in their privat and pubic lives. They don't care bout themselves one iota, all they care about is Hashem and His Torah. I find the MO elevating other people to an equal to or even greater status than our Gedolim, and to me this means that they missed the boat. (Again, this doesn't mean our Gedolim are infallible; they are people. But it's still important to realize in what areas they are beyond us and we should rightfully hold them as the best.)
You highlight an important point, which I stressed in the post, that there is no actual line. There is a range. My problem is with those who have a defined set of different values, which to me shows nothing but their lack of understanding of what Torah (and by extension, what this whole life in general) truly is about.
Fair enough. As long as you realize that the stereotype isn't any more real than that dazed looking Substack avatar 'Modox' guy. They're both cartoonish exaggerations loosely based on.....something.
But this worldview it's not quite so vague. While there may be some ambiguity when it comes to the people on the spectrum, there is a clear, well-defined binary line in terms of ideology: either you try to live your life by Hashem, or you make up your own version of reality (read: follow the non-Jews).
Even within this defined sector, differences of opinion exist. No one cared about Hashem and His Torah like RSR Hirsch. Or the Rebbes. They are all part of 'us'. The MO, on the other hand - the very idea of being 'modern' is not a Torah ideal.
Pardon my use of metaphor - we have many different banners but are all centered around the Mishkan. As opposed to those 'outside the cloud', they are influenced by Amalek.
"there is a clear, well-defined binary line in terms of ideology: either you try to live your life by Hashem, or you make up your own version of reality (read: follow the non-Jews).
Even within this defined sector, differences of opinion exist. No one cared about Hashem and His Torah like RSR Hirsch. Or the Rebbes. They are all part of 'us'. The MO, on the other hand - the very idea of being 'modern' is not a Torah ideal."
Come on. You're conveniently sorting everyone into 2 categories based on whether you think they're devoted to Hashem or not, and then pointing out that those unlucky enough to be in the bucket in which you just dumped all of your amalek-adjacent eirev rav are- surprise!- amalek-adjacent eirev rav.
I ask again: are the sources I linked to in my earlier comment MO? Why or why not? If you can't answer, why not leave MO out of this and just denounce Amalek followers directly? Seems less contorted than inventing some cartoonish bogeyman of undefined dimensions.
If you don't appreciate the metaphor, drop it. I really am denouncing 'Amalek followers', but MO, you have to admit, embraces outside culture as a collective and they hide behind this vague form of representing another aspect of Torah. Such word games need to be called out because they confuse a lot of people.
As for your sources, I have no problem with any of them. The spreading of Torah ideals to others (without bending the actual ideals) is perfectly fine by me. I have no problem 'adapting' in this regard.
"MO, you have to admit, embraces outside culture as a collective and they hide behind this vague form of representing another aspect of Torah. Such word games need to be called out because they confuse a lot of people."
I feel like Matt Walsh: What *is* MO?
"The very idea of being modern is not a torah ideal"
That's nonsense. You literally just made that up. The torah ideal is to keep and learn torah and keep mitzvos. The Rishonim were all modern and lived in their times. They didn't refuse to speak the current language and deliberately dress oddly.
We all live with the times somewhat, that's unavoidable. And has it's place. I am referring to ideology.
"The Rishonim were all Modern".
ALL of them, huh.
Last I checked most Yeshivish speak English in America and ivrit in Israel. They wear short jackets and ties. They don't dress odd, they dress more formal. And as far as I am concerned you haven't seen Rishonim to make that judgment either.
The idea of being modern is not a Torah idea if it isn't for the sake of enhancing a Torah life. In Germany for instance, Modernisation was a positive thing since people needed to acclimate to their surroundings and hold on to their Judaism. In America too in is important to a degree. But for the sake of being Modern is not a Torah ideal.
Please leave me out of this. I was quoting David. Go take up your grievances with him.
I've been tentatively thinking that a MODOX person allows others to choose what to consider primary, Torah or Mada, despite their conflict or in denial of it. This ends with a mixed bag, including spurts of enthusiasm for one and then the other, or even abandoning either one, for the other.
Although the MODOX person himself might land for example with Torah as primary, his legitimization for others not to, is an incompleteness of his own position.
Well said, as usual.
Thank you for your kind words. Meanwhile today I came across a צו שטעל לע"ד from סוטה מג:
אמר רבי אבהו ילדה שסיבכה בזקינה בטלה ילדה בזקינה ואין בה דין ערלה אמר רבי ירמיה לעולם ילדה בילדה וכגון דנטע להך קמייתא לסייג ולקורות דתנן הנוטע לסייג ולקורות פטור מן הערלה ומאי שנא ילדה בזקינה דבטלה ומאי שנא ילדה בילדה דלא בטלה התם אי מימליך עלה לאו בת מיהדר היא הכא אי מימליך עלה בת מיהדר היא
I have to run but you might understand without my elaborating. I hope before or after Shabbos to do so.
To the extent that what you write is accurate (and now is not the time for paragraph by paragraph analysis) it is true only for upper league yeshivos. Which is a very small proportion of chareidim.
Once you get to middle and low tier yeshivos and ba'alei battim, including chassidim, what you write is totally non applicable and self righteous delusions of grandeur. Predominenr there is the garb and other chitzonious features. Everything revolves around money, no different to anybody else really. It's all about walking the walk and talking the talk and as you write 'being yeshivish'. Even learning halochoh is considered somewhat unyeshivish. How many ba'alei battim associated with the chareidi world know hilchos shabbos properly? Can deal with basic kitchen shailos themselves? Ask any chareidi rov what ridiculously simple shailos they get asked.
And the standard of learning, even in the top tier of yeshivos is, in the majority of cases, leaves a lot to be desired. When there are no tests, by definition there is no way of measuring standards. It's all about instant responses and shouting down a chavrusoh. And quoting by heart such as 'mefurash a rabbi akiva eiger' when the RAE doesn't exist or says something different to what is quoted. What percentage get a shach clear before moving on? Everything is often left q little vague. There is a reason why every other form of learning in the world has an assessment system.
1a - it's the focus, what we are all aspiring to.
1b - it's a bigger portion than you make it out to be.
2. I'm not here to bash chassidim like you seem to be, but I am not referring to them. They do have their own issues, but they also have their own strengths. I am all too familiar with both sides of their world, but I am not discussing them at all.
3. I acknowledged the issue of the bottom tier (and again, it isn't as large a group as you portray) and every single culture has these outgrowths, A culture is like a personality on a large sociological scale and a good thing for one can be a negative for another. Uniformity (which a culture, especially a large one) tends to require has downsides. In that you are correct.
This includes focusing on Iyun as opposed to halacha, and while it leaves what to be desired, it is coming from the fact that iyun is the true way to learn halacha, not to open up a halacha fact book (even a mishna berura) and just accept whatever they say. This comes at a price, as you point out, and it isn't correct, but I will defend the general mehalech because the alrenative is worse.
Your last paragraph was a sloppy take on what goes on in an honest beis midrash, what you're referring to does happen but is simply not goes on with those who truly know how to learn, which are, incidentally, the products of our system.
You'll have to get used to it Dovid, from this blogs inception all Test does is lump chasidim with the litvaks. They are the same as us since we're both not modox. People try to remind him but like all other things he repeats, he isn't really getting the point.
Both Litvkaks and chassidim are chareidim no? Are you saying chassidim are not really chareidi?
1a.Focus? What sort of defense is that? The modox will also tell you it is all about 'focus'. And point to the top learners of Merkaz Harav, who can beat the socks off most chareidi 'yeshivish guys'.
1b. That is what you want to believe.
2. Non-answer, so nothing for me to write.
3. It is a very large group, contrary to what you want to believe. It drives commercially most of chareididom. And the key difference is this 'bottom tier' is simply denied in chareidom. There is self-pretence that it doesn't really exist. Which is why you have the fascinating phenomenon in Hampishpocho, Binah whatever of rabbis writing divrei torah about spirituality, the importance of torah, miminmising gashmious, followed by pages and pages of ads for the most luxurious of items, hotels, clothes, cooking, long luxurious wigs (against da'as torah - and sometimes followed by an ad calling out those self-same wigs as not being tzenuah) etc etct (most of which, in the non-Jewish world, is relegated to magazines aimed at the high gashmoios focused part of that society). It's hypocrisy, which you will not find in modox publications.
And there is no assessment of what is meant by 'knowing how to learn'. Which is gufoh the problem. Without any assessment system, it's all undefined hot air. Try it. The next time you are quoted a source by 'somebody who knows how to learn' go look it up, and see if it really says what it is purported to say. There are few illyuim at the top of the system that can do it, but they are but a fraction of the world of yeshivish chareididom.
1a. Focus is very important סוף מעשה במחשבה תחילה if you understand what we are trying to do you can see how it is being accomplished. And if there are issues along the way, as there will be, it is weighed according to its cost-risk balance. And
1b. __
2. __
3. I am not denying it at all! I am not even diminishing. Which Rabonim do you know (don't actually name any) who don't speak against these things? As I said, in modox the issues are more serious. They are explicitly advocating anti-Torah values, which they made up and call it Torah values. That is much worse!!
4. There is an assessment of knowing how to learn, it seems you are not aware. Someone who doesn't is bashed over the head for saying stupid not thought out svaros, foir missing a basic maareh makom in the sugya and will usually not get very far in a good chaburah. And yes, אחד מאלף יוצא להוראה but there are still some very good reasons to go through the system even if one is not 1 in a thousand. a. he'll appreciate what halacha really is, b. he'll actually learn some halacha properly if even for a few short years, c. he'll respect those that do, etc...
I'm not going to get involved yet again in all this. You write lots of words about 'ideals' and what things should be like. In practice, the vast majority of chareididom is nothing like these ideals, so it really means nothing. The ideals of Modox also have far less to criticise.
As far as assessment how to learn, sure, but the assessment is undertaken by those who are themselves unassessed. That's sort of my point. Without any sort of external standardised assessment process, its all meaningless really. I know plenty of chaburos where they convince each other they all know 'how to learn', but the reality is very different.
Again, aren't 'ideals' the way to set up a society? My whole post was that the ideals of MO has what to criticize. That's actually exactly my point!
מרכז הרב hs not Modox, it's חרד"ל
You seem to be basing your snide remarks regarding Charedim and Yeshivos on American wannabes. FYI, Mishpacha Magazine is run by a bunch of well-meaning women, pushed ahead by the strong profit margin provided by the advertisers. It really doesn't reflect much about the ideology of Charedim, there are almost zero rabbanim on board, and certainly says nothing about Yeshivos.
Regarding the level of learning, you seem to be unaware of the recent trends in strong Israeli Yeshivos, focusing on finishing the Mesechta, frequent review, peer to peer writing and lectures, and frequent testing.
You have just prooved my point. Anything that doesn't toe the utopian vision of charedim, their supposed piety, holyness, aversion to gashmiyous, and dikdukei halocoh (including mateh akum) is written off as 'wanabeee'. Once you have stripped out all these 'wannabees' you will be shocked to see the real size of chareididom. A relatively few high quality learners in a few high quality yeshivos/kollellim is all you will have left.
That's my point, but the chareidi world lives in a castle of self-denail. Just like the emperor has no clothes.
This is a silly conversation. Most of us are more than well aware of what are the sociological phenomena in all of the Orthodox community. No one has blinders, and no one is defending or denying. The fact is though, for all its flaws and drawbacks, the Yeshiva and Bais Yaakov system is the only thing that is working in the Orthodox community. The RZ in Israel are losing half of their kids, and most of their boys don't even want to go to Hesder. The MO kids aren't Shomer Torah, and perhaps a year in Israel after high school can slow the hemorrhaging for some of them. Just grow up, please, or see a therapist to clear up your bad Yeshiva experiences, and then make your points to your wife and friends. If you would like instead to see a real Yeshiva of high caliber in Yerushalayim, I invite you. Contact me at: afrumrabbi@gmail.com
As is typical in these conversations, the goalposts are moved to bashing modoxism. That is not what we are talking about here.
If you want to state that yes, charediland is full of hypocrisy and self- delusions of piety, most (but a few yechudei seguloh) chareidim chase money and gashmiyous like everyone else and, facts on the ground, is nothing like it pretends to be (look at the facts on the ground at your local minyan factory, especially bein hazmanim), but ultimately it 'works' (defined in a very narrow way that suits your purpose) I can live with that.
But I challenge you to concede that about chareidisim. You will not be able to.
Do you hear yourself? If you don't think we are producing the world's finest at the elite, that's one thing. But if we are, isn't that how a culture should be set up?? Shouldn't we be striving to be the best? And if some can't get there, they are part of this culture and appreciate it, and if they can't, there are ways of dealing with the personal issues of individuals. Most rabbeim will tell a talmid struggling to go to work at some point. But why are you willing to settle immediately for second best when you risk losing the best?
I think the Torah system today has major issues how they teach, starting from high schools and maybe a drop younger. Not sure here is the place to discuss it, though. I think the focus is not how to produce talmidei chachomim, rather how to produce kids that will feel attached to a Rebbe eventually, and will be "happy" with how they turned out (ignorance is bliss)
"I think the focus is not how to produce talmidei chachomim, rather how to produce kids that will feel attached to a Rebbe eventually..." Are you referring to how it should be or how it is?
How it is
Really? I strongly disagree. Maybe I went through a more kalte-litvishe system, but it was pretty much always about producing talmidei chachomim. Being a attached to a Rebbi was never really focused on... Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly?
What percentage actually become talmidei chachomim?
That is a major issue, but a more major issue, which goes to the root of it all, is that chareidim are unable to see at all the faults in their system. It's all perfect, let by 'gedolim' who can never get anything wrong, and everything that is wrong is due to a 'relatively few drop outs'. This problem is amply demonstrated by the delusions of grandeur that permeate this blog.
The modox have plenty of faults, but I have never seen this sort of self-grandeur and claims to perfection coming from the modox world.
I think they can see the faults, just they're trying to accomplish something else.
Originally yeshivos were meant for the elite, and the intention was to produce high caliber talmidei chachomim. Nowadays the understanding is that everyone needs to be in yeshivah for many years, because of all the negative influences that are out there. Now that the yeshivah is no longer elitist but for everyone, the curriculum as well as goal has changed. It is not about producing talmidei chachomim anymore, rather about keeping the kids frum. And the understanding is that kids need to spend most of the day on lomdus which is allegedly more enjoyable. And I agree that in the short term, Lomdus is more enjoyable. But true Torah pleasure comes from actually mastering all the sources, not just hearing cherry picked Rambam's and bite sized raid. But that is impossible for many people to achieve. So you end up with the system where everything is about making it stimulating so that the kids don't go OTD.
Agreed. But the issue is the current system is passed of us being authentic and mamesh the ideal that Hashem wants. Even though the warts are out there for all to see (ask the group of yeshivish kids vaping outside my local yeshivah ketonoh. Just like the non Jewish teens hanging out vaping outside their hang outs)
Whereas we both agree that that is completely wrong.
You keep on mixing words.
Teens vaping is not the system. The discussion here is the system. Which part of the actual system are you blaming?
it IS what Hashem wants. I understand the issues, but look at the goal. You know what, test, why don't you lay out what you think Hashem wants and set up the entire system accordingly. I'll say my take again, in short, and you can respond how you would create your society of Hashem:
Hashem wants us to have a connection with Him, that's all that matters. The way to get to that is by learning His Torah (because through that we see what matters to Him (and not what matters to us)) and doing His mitzvos (which gets us away from our selfish selves and connects us with Him,see Rambam or mekubalim) and so we perpetuate a culture with importance of Torah and Mitzvos. Since these things are complicated and subtle, some individuals will either be left behind or its too much for them. For that we need specialists who can help, which there is a shortage of. But at large we perpetuate Hashem's will.
You sound very much like an outsider peering in. There IS grandeur to the Torah and to Hashem's will and to connecting with Him the real (not fuzzy) way. There is actually NO other grandeur that matters even closely. That is what we are about and that is what we perpetuate.
Modox attributes grandeur to science and culture and other things that are not Hashem's Torah. We are very proud of our ability to stick with Hashem's Torah and go against the tide. We are proud and on this blog we finally get to show it! Thanks Mecharker, Happy and RT!!
Fuzzy is great too.
Also true. (Though the Rambam would disagree strongly...) I was just responding keeping in mind things he commented on my first post.
This is absurd, testi. In every Yeshiva, all the shmuzin are directed at self-criticism and analysis.
Course they are. And then look how many bochurim behave in the dining room. And what time many roll in for shacharis bein hazmanim.
I have reread all your comments assuming you are obviously joking and you have turned into a refreshing and quite humorous commentary to break the lull of serious discussion.
I am not sure that the problem is that they are too into science. It is more an attitude of not so interested in the Torah's way if life.
Here is a comment I posted on another article here.
irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/what-is-modern-orthodoxy/comment/14323130#comment-14681967?utm_source=activity_item
True, I use science as the core of the zeitgeist, which is a very true sentiment. The 'leaders' of the world and their thought have a way of thinking, and their ideas have a trickle down affect which instill an attitude to the common man. Their are plenty of sources for this, though I am highly oversimplifying (truth is the 'leaders; themselves are nothing more than followers of the zeitgeist...)
Einstein is vastly overrated, and I say this even though he is family. My great-grandmother's maiden name was Einstein and she was his aunt.
I'm here to defend the Ribono Shel Olam and Chazal not Einstein, but tbh, his discoveries were pretty unbelievable. I'm not sure how much you know about Einstein's stuff. But if that's your take, I have no problem with it!
He believes in flat earth. That should tell you something.
I only agree with his Torah statements, I couldn't care less if he flat earths, just as I couldn't care less if you billion-year earth😊
I'm way, way more in line with you but as far as my true priorities, we are all on the same team...
Ash, my understanding is that our (our?) mesorah is compatible with both a flat and globe earth. One thing it is absolutely incompatible with is a moving earth, period.
I am sure my fidelity to our mesorah does tell them something, as does your lack.
It doesn't matter what illusions are presented to us on screens big and small. The earth does not move. 95% of the matter/energy needed to explain the theory you hold on to like sacred writ (aka the Big Bang Theory; what you take for rational but I know to be insane) cannot be detected because it does not exist.
Nice post!
This is reminding me of the book “One Above Seven Below” (or something like that.)