FACTIONS-----modern orthodox-what is it? 2
-
Monte Posted - 04 October 2000 19:36
Unfortunately, ultra-Orthodox leaders never learned how to relate to the outside world - how can you, when your nose is buried in a Gemora all day? - and they therefore have no right to decide how we should respond to a changing society.
The reason why the rav took such a sharp stand against ultra-orthodoxy is because he was the only one who was able to understand both Torah and the outside world.
The Rav [Soloveitchik] used to refer to yeshivishe black-hatters as "obscurists". He saw the lack of depth they possessed due to the lack of secular wisdom and knowledge of the world surrounding them.
It is the synthesis of this knowledge and traditional Torah concepts that created Modern Orthodoxy.
"American Orthodoxy lacks confidence. There is much tension and suspicion, each looking over his shoulder, trying to be the same as his neighbor. This attitude constricts intellectual development", said the Rav [Soloveitchik].
His goal was to encourage intellectual development through adding the thoughts of great secular intellectuals to the thoughts of great rabbis.
Rav Norman Lamm properly refers to today's yeshivishe Jews as "cavemen". They lack the intellectual breadth to move Judaism forward.
They leave it lagging behind in the ghetto of yesteryear.
And worse, they are afraid to leave the ghetto. The Rav [Soloveitchik] pointed out the cowardice in right wing Orthodoxy. If they are afraid to fly a plane, he said, let them stay on the ground. But, he added, the problem is they think their cowardice is a virtue.
And yes, the rabbis of ultra-orthodoxy, although they were talmidei chachamim, did lack the courage to admit their mistake.
They saw the Rav [Soloveitchik] forging ahead, creating a new Orthodoxy according to the needs of the times. he invited them ot join, but instead of flying they insisted on staying on the ground, like cowards.
So today the cowards think that their fear of secular knowledge and the Western world is an admirable trait.
Just like those who thought that the ghetto was the best way of life. And as the Rav stated, the fate of those in the ghetto will be hte fate of those who remain on the ground shaking in fear of the future.
Those who insist on living in the past will be doomed to relive it.
MODERATOR Posted - 04 October 2000 19:59
The word was "obscurants," by the way, not "obscurists," that Rabbi Soloveichik used to describe traditional Orthodoxy.
The reality is that the entire philosophy was based on the idea that only modern orthodoxy would survive, while traditional Orthodoxy would shrivel and die. It would have, had he been right.
Clearly, that has not happened. If anything, as time goes by, the shoe is more and more on the other foot.
So the basis for the whole idea was a bad mistake.
And the idea that Rav Aharon Kotler and others disagreed with him because of character flaws ("lack of courage") rather than their honest opinion is ridiculous and bizarre.
And the reason they did not want to join the mass integration into Western culture has nothing to do with fearing it. it's like saying I would prefer eating steak and wine over crumbs in the garbage because I am afraid of eating out of a garbage can.
It can get you sick, sometimes, true, but why in the world would someone want to eat from the trash in the first place?
So, too, why in the world would anyone who has an opportunity to spend his life learning Hashem's Torah want to feed his soul with the junk food of Corporate Law?
I mean, if a guy has to make a living, that's one thing. But as a "value"? Puh-lease.
Spice boy Posted - 06 October 2000 0:16
I am Modern orthodox and yes, OK, the Rav was wrong when he said only MO would survive, but first, that does not take away from his greatness, and second, what do you expect all of MO to do about it? Just change overnight?
Maybe that would be possible, but because Ultra orthodox Jewry refuses to recognize us, and refuses to assist us teach and and guide us, because they treat us like the enemy, they have only themselves to blame for the problems that they criticize.
Yes, it's true, OK, that MO started on pretenses that are different than was originally thought by thousands of Orthodox Jews in America.
As big a godol as he was, nobody claimed the Rav was a prophet.
So we're wrong. But at least we really believed things would be different.
What's the excuse for the Ultra Orthodox who refuse, today, to treat us as brothers, mistaken or not?
I am not asking for approval, I am asking why if they are honest and sincere in calling out our mistakes to the world, and not merely basking in the arrogance of their victory, are they not DOING something about it?
The fact that Chareidi rabbis are not putting any effort into changing things, all they can do is criticize, shows that even though they may have been right about the future of Orthodoxy in America, it is not Orthodoxy they care about but rather their own personal triumphalism.
And that's worse than making an honest mistake.
MODERATOR Posted - 08 October 2000 17:29
Differences between Chareidim and Mizrachi in Israel are many, including Zionism, secular studies, and mingling of the sexes, although technically, Rav Kook was very upset with Mizrachi for that.
In fact, the accepted prohibition against even ball playing in Chareidi communities is a self-imposed line of demarcation, almost a protest, against the mizarchi valuing of sporting events and general attribution of holiness to the secular advancement of Israel.
MODERATOR Posted - 08 October 2000 19:13
Spice boy,
Across the board, traditional Orthodoxy has requested, importuned, begged, and pleaded with Modern Orthodoxy to change and join us. And to a great extent, MO has moved to the right, Boruch Hashem. And our hand is still outstretched. Any assistance that can be offered, is available.
No Modern Orthodox Jew need think that if he wants to become traditionally Orthodox he shall not be accepted.
We recognize MO as out brothers in Mitzvos, who have been straying in certain ways, but nevertheless are our brothers.
Although Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL compared them to Reform, he did not mean that they are considered Mechalelei Shabbos or eaters of Nevelah. He meant only that the justification for the modernizations that MO instituted and those that Reform instituted were based on the same mistaken pretense -- that Judaism needs the changes.
He did not say that the level of changes are anything comparable.
Here is an example of a plea to Modern Orthodoxy form Rav Shimon Schwab ZT"L, Rav of the Torah Im Derech Eretz Congregation Adas Jeshurun in Washington Heights:
"And now we address ourselves to our chaveirim bedeah, our achim bemitzvos of the Orthodox Rabbinate of America. Ad masai? How long do you want to remain a branch, without becoming part of the tree? . . . We say to our achim b'mitzvos, "have Rachmonus with yourselves, and lemaan Hashem, part company with those who have given obscene semichah to gay and lesbian clergymen" . . . Have rachmonus with yourselves, and break off your preofessional relationship with those who, for instance, consider Yishu HaNotzri merely a failed moshiach . . .We implore you . . . to part company with those gravediggers of Torah. I know it is a painful subject but it is unaviodable . . . We call on you to join us, the true Modern Orthodoxy [Rav Schwab is referring to previous statements of his that MO is today outdated and "anything but modern"], which is a generation of sincere mevakshei hashem".
(Selected Essays, pp. 90-91)
This does not sound like rejection, but a plea for MO to join us, hand in hand.
The mistakes of MO are not the issue. That is for Hashem to judge and deal with, however He sees fit. Punishment for misdeeds is not our business. Unity is.
And MO has been - and still is! - implored, "lmaan hashem" to join us in the traditional Orthodoxy ways.
The issue is not the past. It is the present and the future.
modern_orthodox Posted - 11 October 2000 18:36
i think that rabbi barry fruendel ("lieberman's rabbi") nicely summarized what modern orthodoxy is about. by the way, fruendel is known to be on the left wing of modern orthodoxy (personally, rav lichtenstein and rabbonim at RIETS are my cup of tea). Here it is:
The term "modern" is somewhat more complex because it gives the impression that this is a development of recent times. In fact there has always been a modern orthodoxy and it is not a phenomenon of the last year, the last decade, or even the last century. By modern we mean an orthodoxy that is fully engaged with contemporary society.
There has always been a modern orthodoxy. When Jews lived in Palestine under Greco-Roman control there were some within the traditional community who engaged the secular community and the secular knowledge of that day. This was true in Spain in the fourteenth century and in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as well.
So too there are orthodox Jews, such as many of the members of this congregation, who see a value in fully engaging secular society and the positive things it has to offer.
To modern orthodox Jews, secular knowledge is another window into God's creation and therefore valuable as study in and of itself.
Obviously secular knowledge may at times be at odds with halachah, and in such a case halachah holds sway, but more often than not secular knowledge complements Jewish thought and where there is disagreement what results is a fruitful tension that adds to the understanding of both sides of the equation.
This is not the only principle of modern orthodoxy that distinguishes it from the other designations within the orthodox community. Some of the other issues that distinguish us are of great contemporary significance.
First is the theological meaning of the State of Israel. For us the emergence of the State of Israel, especially in the same generation as the horrors of the Holocaust, is an indication that God has responded to our prayers of two thousand years to return to our homeland.
Further, modern Orthodox Jews as a matter of principle will work with Jews of other denominations in any setting where we are not called upon to violate our beliefs and our understanding of Jewish law. In this way, we can make common cause in areas of shared concern.
There are other differences, but it is perhaps more important to understand the similarities.
Whatever our differences and debates on the points noted above, because of our common commitment to Jewish law we share far more with anyone who calls themselves Orthodox than with Jews of other denominations, and there is far more that we share than that which divides us.
one additional point: historically, Jews have tended to be engaged with secular society during periods that they were permitted by the goyim to do so (e.g., golden age of Spain) and have been insular during other periods (e.g., ashkenaz during the middle ages).
MODERATOR Posted - 11 October 2000 19:07
Modern,
We’ve gone through this already. It doesn’t work. It’s more of the same obscure, undefined and even untrue talk.
The term "modern" is somewhat more complex because it gives the impression that this is a development of recent times. In fact there has always been a modern orthodoxy and it is not a phenomenon of the last year, the last decade, or even the last century
Rav Soloveitchik disagrees with you. As we have seen, he clearly stated that Modern orthodoxy (at least the version he envisions) was a new reaction, “perhaps for the first time ever” (quote) to American society.
By modern we mean an orthodoxy that is fully engaged with contemporary society.
Totally undefined. What does “fully engaged” mean? If I am a chassidishe computer programmer and surf the web, drive a new car and vote in all elections, am I not fully engaged in society? If not, please tell me what I need to do, to be fully engaged.
So too there are orthodox Jews, such as many of the members of this congregation, who see a value in fully engaging secular society and the positive things it has to offer.
This is self-contradictory. Do you “fully” engage society or just the “positive” things it offers? Everyone agrees – it is a Halachah in Shulchan Aruch – that we may accept the positive behaviors of the Goyim. I am sitting here on the Internet. Am I not “engaging to positive things” that secular society has to offer?
To modern orthodox Jews, secular knowledge is another window into God's creation and therefore valuable as study in and of itself.
Nobody disagrees with this. The issue is that engaging in G-d’s Torah and doing Mitzvos is even MORE valuable, and therefore maximum time must be spent in that pursuit. Does MO disagree with that?
First is the theological meaning of the State of Israel. For us the emergence of the State of Israel, especially in the same generation as the horrors of the Holocaust, is an indication that God has responded to our prayers of two thousand years to return to our homeland
Wrong. We have prayed for thousands of years for Moshiach to come, not for secular sovereignty.
And unfortunately, our prayers have not yet been answered. If you believe that the State of Israel means our prayers have been answered then you would no longer need those prayers, would you? When the patient recovers, you stop praying for his recovery. Which 2000-year-old prayers have Modern Orthodox Jews stopped praying?
Further, modern Orthodox Jews as a matter of principle will work with Jews of other denominations in any setting where we are not called upon to violate our beliefs and our understanding of Jewish law. In this way, we can make common cause in areas of shared concern.
This applies to everyone. The issue is at what point does our partnership violate the prohibition of hischabrus im reshayim, which would constitute violation of our beliefs and Jewish law. In other words, this principle is universally accepted, despite what this rabbi would have us believe. The diff between MO and traditional Ortho is at what point is our beliefs violated.
And as an aside, I guess the Neturei Karta are even more modern than Modern orthodox, since they “worked” with Louis Farrakhan and other Arab leaders on “areas of shared concern”, i.e. helping the Jewish hostages in Iran. Please explain the difference between your revulsion for joining with those who would physically kill Jews versus your encouragement of joining with those who would spiritually kill Jews?
The issue here is not whether we would "join" with the enemy, but rather that we consider the enemies of the soul as repulsive - no, MORE repulsive, than enemies of the body. Do you disagree?
MODERATOR Posted - 11 October 2000 19:10
Obviously secular knowledge may at times be at odds with halachah, and in such a case halachah holds sway, but more often than not secular knowledge complements Jewish thought and where there is disagreement what results is a fruitful tension that adds to the understanding of both sides of the equation.
The idea that only when something conflicts with Halachah do we reject it is wrong and against the Torah. Please see the "Hashkafa vs. Halachah" boards -- even without violating Halachah, we reject any idea that collides with the Torah's hashkofos.
GaryG Posted - 11 October 2000 19:27
There is a big difference between a reform rabbi and Rev. Farakhan.
The reform rabbi is not an enemy of the Jewish people, even though he is clearly against Halachah. he still wants the Jewish people to survive, merely that they should not be religious. They would still be alive however. Farakhan wants us dead.
MODERATOR Posted - 11 October 2000 19:42
Gary,
Between our body and soul, our soul is more important. Someone who would make us non-religious is worse than someone who would kill us physically. Jews have died all throughout history rather than give up Torah.
The Halahcah is clear:
Godol Hamachtio yoser min hahorgo: Worse is he who causes someone to sin, than who causes someone to die.
The Halachah is that just like to prevent someone from dying you may violate Shabbos, so too, you may violate Shabbos to prevent someone form becoming non-religious.
You have brought out a very important point.
To a Torah-thinking Jew, it is unthinkable to look at a reform rabbi preaching his religion as anything else than a spiritual mass murderer.
And joining with him is as repulsive, even more so, than joining with a physical murderer. So if you believe your cause if important enough to join with a spiritual mass murderer, you surely would have no qualms with joining with a physical murderer.
But the Hashkafically assimilated would mistakenly look at a Reform rabbi as a "peer", albeit a wrongheaded one, as opposed to an enemy. Therein lies the Hashkafic tragedy.
The masses of reform Jewry who have been mislead may be innocent victims of the spiritual atrocities of their leaders; but the rabbis themselves are guilty of mass murder - worse! - and are no less dangerous to us than any mass murderers of our physical beings.
m Posted - 12 October 2000 14:28
I think the problem with modern orthodoxy is what the chazon ish said people like MO don't tend to strive to become better jews they just like to sail at the 50 mark.This is wrong check or'chas tzadekim.
Also secular knowledge like Renaissance painting or how the Yankees are doing will not help you survive as a nation we survived by keeping our practices for thousands of years and now we won't survive because we don't know science and art?
m Posted - 12 October 2000 14:29
re monte
Who should decide the laws of today the people who know the halacah or people like normen lamm who will start gay campuses on grounds just to hold onto precious government funding
MODERATOR Posted - 13 October 2000 2:26
Norman Lamm didn't start the gay clubs, he defended their right to exist and refused to abolish them. No big difference.
Here, too, the Hashkafically assimilated, Western-thought-meets-halachick-Judaism mindset shows itself. To the Ben Torah, gay clubs are just as repulsive as Nazi clubs.
Had YU been supporting Nazi clubs, the response would have been different. It is a sense of values, such as valuing the spiritual over the physical, understanding that what damages the soul is as bad - worse! - than that which damages the body, that killers of religion do us greater harm than killers of our body, that separate the "integrated but halachicly loyal" Jew from the ben Torah.
e Posted - 13 October 2000 14:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about men learning full day--and the way chareidis do this and MO don’t generally, why is this so if it say some ppl are yissachar and others, zevulan, meaning some ppl are made to learn and others to support them. some ppl juts cant learn and just aren’t made like that.
MODERATOR Posted - 16 October 2000 16:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e,
Please see the above posts. The issue here is not Yissachar/Zevulun. Zevulun went to work in order to support Yissachar, not in order to "fully engage" or integrate into modern society. He further did not accept any Hashkofos of secular society. And he did not consider his activities outside of the Bais Medrash valuable in and of themselves, but merely a means to enable Yissachar to learn Torah.
SooooNot Posted - 19 October 2000 21:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey-I couldn't read through this whole discussion so I don't know if my question was answered already-sorry.
About Modern Orthodoxy. I am not Modern Orthodox but I have a friend (and nor is she) who's father is a big representative in a modern orthodox institution. He is not Modern Orthodox at all, but it seems to me like he's supporting the wrong acts that they do.
For example, this group of people put on a mixed concert-where they have guys and girls singing in it. I asked my friend how her father can support and be actively representing these people if they are publicly violating Halacha.
She said that he's a representative so he has to. It seems to me like this is so hypocritical- he's an Orthodox person-a Rabbi, yet by his being a member of this 'group' he is openly showing his approval for his violating of Halachah. Is there something that I'm missing?
MODERATOR Posted - 19 October 2000 21:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't tell you about a specific case without hearing his side. How much do people think he approves of what's going on, and why? And, most of all, what his reason is for being in this organization. As a rule, it is ill advised to be part of an organization that violates Hahachah, but every case has to be assessed individually.
I suggest that you simply ask your friend's father this question, hear what he has to say, and then take it from there. That's the only fair way to do it.
Ariel Posted - 06 September 2001 20:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading thru much of the discussion in this board, it is not hard to make a connection between Hasidism and modern orthodoxy. Such a connection is not obvious by any degree when you compare the way of dressing, program of study and philosophy. Instead the connection that I refer to, is that modern orthodoxy become possible only because Hasidism had existed before.
The Chasidism was the first ideology in Jewish philosophy that didn’t see the outside world as a treat or something to be afraid. One of the basis statements of Chassidism is strikingly similar to that of modern orthodoxy: “There can’t be a good spiritual health without material health”.
And I know that some will try to point out at the pirkey avos statement: “There is no torah without kemach”, or at the attitude of Rambam or Rabi Yehuda ha levi (the first poet to ever write in Spanish). But such a comparison would be a fallacy, because Hasidism is different in the sense that it was a movement on its own and not only an idea in the middle of a bigger philosophy. And before any angry hasid complain in rage that the Hasidic rabbis don’t care much for their material being, I would need to clarify that Hasidism as it is used in this post, strictly refers to the tenants settled up by Baal Shem Tov, the creator of Hasidism.
It was also Hasidism, which opened the door for haskala, a concept that wouldn’t have gathered so much strength weren’t it for the philosophical bases already established by Hasidism a few centuries early.
But although the roots of Modern Orthodoxy may be found in Hasidism it would be illogical to assume that the two movements are branches of the same tree. Nonetheless there is another interesting comparison that can be made between Hasidism and Modern Orthodoxy, and it can be clearly seen at the shul. Before I make such a comparison I want to clearly state that the comparison refers exclusively to lubavitch Hasidism; nevertheless, because of that fact the comparison is not at fault because today a great majority of Hasidism is concentrated around chabad. In a Friday night, when you enter a modern orthodox shul and a lubavitch shul, it is very striking to see the similarities between the audience: most people seated in both shuls are baalei teshuva, or converts! A phenomena not commonly repeated at other orthodox shuls!
Now, I don’t want this comparison to be taken out of place, because in such a context everything seems illogical. Rather I just want to bring to attention that the existence of Modern Orthodox was, in great part, possible only because Hasidism existed before.
For last, let me apologize for any grammar or grammatical mistakes that I may have made. But you see English is not my first language: and although I try to make my best, I consent that I still have some faults.
MODERATOR Posted - 06 September 2001 22:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chasidism follows the Torah and Modern Orthodoxy violates it. MO does not really have a philosophy, and whatever policies it follows are not based on the Torah but social factors. So how can Chasidus have any effect on that?
belle613 Posted - 10 September 2001 19:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot understand how you can say that modern orthodoxy on principle violates halacha, because I think you are operating on a faulty definition of modern orthodoxy. I am not referring to violations of halacha carried out by individuals or groups within modern orthodoxy; there are violations of halacha by individuals and groups throughout Judaism.
First of all, what is your definition of modern orthodoxy? I gather from what I have read so far on this site that it seems to consist in the minds of frumteens.com readers and contributors of an amalgam of mixed swimming, short skirts, pants on women, football in the park on shabbos, Zionism, etc etc.
Indeed, many people who consider themselves MO sort of settle into a "comfort zone" of apathy that unfortunately leads them to excuse these behaviors, either through lack of knowledge of the proper halacha or insufficient motivation to correct said behaviors.
However, the principle of being able to enhance ones understanding of Torah and of Hashem's world by studying science, technology, politics, and history; the "torah u'maada" and/or "torah im derech eretz" philosophies that form the cornerstone of what I believe to be true modern orthodoxy, far from violating the practice of halacha, enhance the experience and help to form a cohesive world view, of Torah and Science being an integrated whole, of History being part of Hashem's plan for the world.
Any comments on this would be welcome.
MODERATOR Posted - 10 September 2001 19:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was discussed at the beginning of the forum. To learn secular studies not for the sake of making a living or for practical purposes but just for their own sake is against Halachah, and belittles the value of torah learning, which you should be spending your time on instead. Torah Im Derech Eretz is a totally different concept that shunned the Torah Umadah philosophy. Please see above.
Ariel Posted - 11 September 2001 18:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, chasidism for much time didn't a have a defined philosophy. And If I would have gathered a few disciples around me I could even have become a rebbi.
But, the idea, the main cause the origin and genesis of MO shares much with Chasidism. Let me give you a simple test. Ask 10 random MO if they would agree with the following statement:
Material health is necessary for spiritual health.
MODERATOR Posted - 21 September 2001 14:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so, Ariel, Chasidim had a very defined philosophy from the outset. It was, in fact, much more defined than it is now. And no, unless you were a great Gaon and Tzadik like every one of the Talmidei HaBaal Shem Tov without exception, you would not have been able to be anything close to a Rebbe.
The answer to your question about material health and spiritual health depends on your definition of health.
But Chasidim have not created any new philosophy on this at all, so I have no idea what your point is. Can you please explain?
danny Posted - 22 October 2001 17:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator,
"Chasidism follows the Torah and Modern Orthodoxy violates it. "
I haven't posted on these forums for over a year now, so please forgive me for asking questions that might have been answered in the past. I consider myself MO so I would like to know what you base your statement on that MO violates the Torah.
Of course I am aware that there are gray areas in defining MO and there is an entire spectrum of observance levels and factors such as TV, mixed swimming, extra-curricular activities, etc. Essentially MO is supposed to be Torah im Derech Eretz, which means observing the Torah while interacting with the outside world. This has been translated as going to college and working outside of one's community. Which part of MO violates Torah and how?
"To learn secular studies not for the sake of making a living or for practical purposes but just for their own sake is against Halachah, and belittles the value of torah learning, which you should be spending your time on instead."
Please explain how learning secular studies not for the sake of making a living is against halacha. If someone is interested say in biology but has a job that is not related to biology, is he allowed to study biology? and, if not, why not?
What if he is interested in Shakespeare or likes to read mystery novels, is he permitted to read them? How does studying secular subjects belittle the value of Torah learning? If the issue is bitul Torah, why are hours spent on the computer permitted? Is reading the N.Y. Times permitted?
MODERATOR Posted - 31 October 2001 20:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College? Why? Why spend years that could be used for accumulating holiness through Shas and Poskim and instead spending them in a college environment learning liberal arts? What kind of sense is that? Here's the answer:
MO has never officially been defined, but based on the teachings of its foremost spokesman, Rabbi Joseph B Soloveichik (quoted and discussed above extensively), it is more, and less, than you are describing.
The idea was that in America, due to great technological advances and sophisticated culture, Torah will only be able to survive if we integrate into the country's higher educational AND cultural environments. It was much less of a philosophy than it was a concessionary survival or Kiruv tactic. The "shine" (that’s a quote) of scientific discovery will tear Klall Yisroel away from Torah, which will no longer survive, unless we produce "a new type of Talmid Chacham" etc. etc. etc.
Clearly the whole idea was mistaken, to say the least.
TIDE is not an integration into any foreign culture nor an entry in any sort of way, into the outside community. The idea there is for Jews to be literate and learned enough to present a positive impression and an effective message to the "outside world", plus, the ability to withstand the powerful anti-Torah impressions and messages of the outside world.
TIDE does not espouse sending Jewish children to outside Universities. Rav Hirsh made his own schools - he did not send his students outside of the community. TIDE also includes what Rav Hirsch called "austritt", meaning that secular knowledge is only acceptable after it is separated from and discards secular culture, values, and environment. Modern Orthodoxy has omitted this fundamental condition.
The differences between MO and TIDE are explained at length by Rav Shimon Schwab, the Rav of the TIDE community in Frankfurt, and later in Washington Heights, in his "Selected Essays".
In addition, assuming there is a communal need for secular knowledge, that still does not quantify how much time and effort should be spent pursuing it. TIDE appreciates the value of secular studies to the extent that it supports Torah goals, such as described above. The amount of time and effort put into such studies would therefore vary from time to time and place to place depending on the specific need.
Nowadays, almost all Yeshiva students have a high school education, know how to read and write English as good as their non-Jewish counterparts, and are more involved in American culture than we would always like. They do just fine in Kiruv, and there is no looking down on even the most Chareidi Yeshiva students in our society by the non-Jews because of their lack of higher education.
In other words, toe goals of TIDE are fulfilled very well today even without college. Remember, in the days of Rav Hirsch, the average Torah student didn’t even know how to speak German.
Re the Halachah:
The Rama (YD 246:4) rules that a person may only learn secular subjects "incidentally" but not as an educational pursuit.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Koevetz Shiruim 2:47) and Rav Boruch Ber Lebowitz (Birkas Shmuel Kiddushin) both have responsa on this topic (both responsa were, incidentally, written for Rav Schwab!). They both conclude that for non-Parnasa or similar reasons, it is prohibited to pursue a secular education, as per the Rama above. The reason may be because of Bitul Torah, or perhaps Kovod HaTorah. Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL also prohibits college in a famous speech delivered to his students translated and titles "Counsel of the Wicked", as well as in writing.
Beautman Posted - 06 November 2001 14:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you expand on "austritt"? I never heard this before and didn't really understand the definition you gave.
“Nowadays, almost all Yeshiva students know how to read and write English as good as their non-Jewish counterparts.”
Was "as good" meant to be a joke?
MODERATOR Posted - 06 November 2001 16:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austritt means basically filtering out all foreign culture and values, as well as all secular teachings that are against the Torah. It means cutting yourself off culturally and value-wise from the outside world and fighting against its anti-Torah attitudes while at the same time knowing whatever information necessary to fulfill your goals of being a light unto the nations.
danny Posted - 14 November 2001 16:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator,
“College? Why? Why spend years that could be used for accumulating holiness through Shas and Poskim and instead spending them in a college environment learning liberal arts? What kind of sense is that? Here's the answer:
MO has never officially been defined, but based on the teachings of its foremost spokesman, Rabbi Joseph B Soloveichik (quoted and discussed above extensively), it is more, and less, than you are describing.
The idea was that in America, due to great technological advances and sophisticated culture, Torah will only be able to survive if we integrate into the country's higher educational AND cultural environments.
It was much less of a philosophy than it was a concessionary survival or Kiruv tactic. The "shine" (that’s a quote) of scientific discovery will tear Klall Yisroel away from Torah, which will no longer survive, unless we produce "a new type of Talmid Chacham" etc. etc. etc.”
I don't agree. Why college? Simple; because college gives one opportunities and options for making a good living.
With a college degree, a person could become a doctor, lawyer, CPA, etc. With a degree, large companies would hire him at high salaries with opportunity for growth.
Without a college degree, what options are available besides low-paying jobs? How many have successful businesses? How many are forced to work in sweat shops or menial jobs? How many families are forced to live in poverty, on welfare, food stamps, can't pay their bills because they have no qualifications or because they have too many children for the mother to work?
Furthermore, college expands one's mind. It opens up the world of science, literature, world affairs, etc.
I agree college is not for everyone. It is not for people who want to achieve great heights in Torah, who will be great rabbanim and roshei yeshiva. We need the great yeshivos and kollels to produce our Torah leaders. But for the majority of frum Jews who will be ba'alei batim and working for a living and supporting families, we also need a source of professional opportunities.
I believe that the above was what R' Hirsch envisioned for the O Jews. I am not much for R' J.B. Soloveitchik's philosophy and his definition of modern orthodoxy. For the majority of frum Jews his philosophy is irrelevant.
“TIDE also includes what Rav Hirsch called "austritt", meaning that secular knowledge is only acceptable after it is separated from and discards secular culture, values, and environment. Modern Orthodoxy has omitted this fundamental condition.”
Once again, I disagree. To a MO Jew, the only culture, values and environment that is acceptable is the Jewish culture, values and environment.
“Nowadays, almost all Yeshiva students have a high school education, know how to read and write English as good as their non-Jewish counterparts, and are more involved in American culture than we would always like. They do just fine in Kiruv, and there is no looking down on even the most Chareidi Yeshiva students in our society by the non-Jews because of their lack of higher education.
In other words, toe goals of TIDE are fulfilled very well today even without college. Remember, in the days of Rav Hirsch, the average Torah student didn’t even know how to speak German.”
Even with a high school education, most yeshiva boys and girls sound ignorant, I am sorry to say. Many even have a heavy Jewish accent, even though they are American born. But even if we assume that their education level gives them enough English speaking and writing talent, what about getting a good job? Isn't that the more important consideration and what TIDE stands for?
“The Rama (YD 246:4) rules that a person may only learn secular subjects "incidentally" but not as an educational pursuit.
Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Koevetz Shiruim 2:47) and Rav Boruch Ber Lebowitz (Birkas Shmuel Kiddushin) both have responsa on this topic (both responsa were, incidentally, written for Rav Schwab!).
They both conclude that for non-Parnasa or similar reasons, it is prohibited to pursue a secular education, as per the Rama above. The reason may be because of Bitul Torah, or perhaps Kovod HaTorah.
Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL also prohibits college in a famous speech delivered to his students translated and titles "Counsel of the Wicked", as well as in writing.”
Let's face it. These great Sages learned day and night and had no use for secular subjects. How many in our generation are so studious that there is no room for a secular education?
Our generation is nothing like theirs that learned Torah 24 hours a day. We are much weaker and we battel away plenty of time. Also the Polish Universities were nothing like the American ones. They were attended by 99% non-Jewish anti-Semites, while the American schools are often heavily Jewish and benign where one need not give up his Jewish values to attend.
MODERATOR Posted - 14 November 2001 18:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny,
I already said that college for Parnasa is permitted. Assuming, of course, no forbidden subjects are learned and no forbidden environment is experienced.
Expanding one's mind and etc is not worth giving up even one moment of learning.
As "e" correctly pointed out, in the next world, the only minds that will be "expanded" are those that learned Torah in this world, and only to that extent. It's simply an issue of choosing Olam Habah over Olam Hazeh. And that includes all the other "benefits" of college.
The Halachah in the Rama and the Poskim would not change because people do not learn as much today. And the Halachah as described applies to everyone, not only to those who learn 10 hours a day. The prohibition of secular education exists on its own merits, not on the merits of the Masmid in the Bais Medrash.
Plus, the same prohibition was echoed by Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL in a famous Teshuva and speech (translated into English and titled "Counsel of the Wicked") where he absolutely prohibited college on basically the same grounds as R. Elchonon and R. Boruch Ber ZTL.
danny Posted - 14 November 2001 21:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moderator,
“I already said that college for Parnasa is permitted. Assuming, of course, no forbidden subjects are learned and no forbidden environment is experienced. “
Good, then we are at least agreed that college for parnassa is permitted. Since this is why the vast majority of MO Jews go to college, why did you ask "why college?"?
Expanding ones mind and etc is not worth giving up even one moment of learning.
Is reading the newspapers permitted? Why? What about spending hours on the internet? Aren't we giving up learning? Why is reading about current events or surfing the web any better than reading a book on biology or sociology or economics? We all understand that there is no better activity than learning Torah, but for most Jews, learning full time is not in their nature. They have a need to read other subjects or engage in some extra-curricular activities.
“As "e" correctly pointed out, in the next world, the only minds that will be "expanded" are those that learned Torah in this world, and only to that extent. It's simply an issue of choosing Olam Habah over Olam Hazeh. And that includes all the other "benefits" of college.”
You are not comparing apples to apples. Of course, Torah brings one to olam haba while the other endeavors don't. We all know this. What we are discussing here is, may one read books related to non-Torah topics or is it a violation of halacha? And if it is a violation of halacha, why are other non-learning activities permitted, such as reading newspapers, surfing the internet, taking a walk in the park or playing ping pong?
“The Halachah in the Rama and the Poskim would not change because people do not learn as much today. And the Halachah as described applies to everyone, not only to those who learn 10 hours a day. The prohibition of secular education exists on its own merits, not on the merits of the Masmid in the Bais Medrash.”
Is it possible that the prohibition is dependent upon which subjects are being studied, not only because they are bitul Torah? What are the reasons given by the Rama and poskim?
“Plus, the same prohibition was echoed by Rav Moshe Feinstein ZTL in a famous Teshuva and speech (translated into English and titled "Counsel of the Wicked") where he absolutely prohibited college on basically the same grounds as R. Elchonon and R. Boruch Ber ZTL.”
In short, could you tell us what R' Moshe's problem was with college? Also what was R' Elchanan's and R' Baruch Ber's issues were? Thanks.
MODERATOR Posted - 14 November 2001 21:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was your question:
"To learn secular studies not for the sake of making a living or for practical purposes but just for their own sake is against Halachah, and belittles the value of torah learning, which you should be spending your time on instead.
Please explain how learning secular studies not for the sake of making a living is against halacha.”
Specifically about college not for the sake of parnassa.
And I added certain criteria about the kashrus of the studies as well as the environment, which are not easy to fulfill.
You asked about the newspapers elsewhere. I responded that the halachah only prohibits secular studies as an established curriculum, not as an occasional recreational breath of air.
No, the poskim were not discussing the type of studies, they were discussing even kosher studies. Their problem is either Bitul Torah or a violation of Kovod HaTorah.
Where college is permitted it is certainly not the first choice anyone should make. There is no question that a life of learning is more valuable, in infinite measure. The problem with MO is that they pass on college often as equally desirable as a life of learning, or, sometimes even more desirable.
That’s where the problem lies.
About your apples and apples, we are not discussing if it is better to go to college or put yourself in suspended animation. the discussion is taking years of learning and spending them in college instead. Even if halachicly permissible, certainly is to be pursued only upon lack of learning-only options.
And when you say it is not for everybody, that may or may not be true, but every individual can try his best to be the privileged one to learn all day. That desire and value is skewed in MO institutions. Where they encourage college, even those who had a chance to choose Olam Habah are being led the wrong way.
danny Posted - 16 November 2001 15:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moderator,
“You asked about the newspapers elsewhere. I responded that the halachah only prohibits secular studies as an established curriculum, not as an occasional recreational breath of air.”
Which posek makes such a distinction? Does the shulchan aruch make this distinction? What is the validity of this distinction based on?
“No, the poskim were not discussing the type of studies, they were discussing even kosher studies. Their problem is either Bitul Torah or a violation of Kovod HaTorah.”
If so, then why is college for parnassa permitted? Let's assume that one does not take courses that question faith and contain apikorsus.
“Where college is permitted it is certainly not the first choice anyone should make. There is no question that life of learning is more valuable, in infinite measure.”
I am sure that you are aware of the Mishna in Kiddushin that says that a father is responsible to teach his son a "clean" profession. This usually means being an apprentice to an employer and training to learn a profession. Wouldn't college serve this purpose?
And I am sure that you are aware that most tanaim prefer a life of Torah plus work to a life of just learning. Certainly learning Torah is the most noble endeavor. No question. But in a practical world where 99% of the people are ba'alei batim who need to work to support a family, learning a good profession in most cases involves college. This was not so 100 years ago, when a high school education was enough. In this day and age and in this culture a college education is vital for a good parnassa.
“The problem with MO is that they pass on college often as equally desirable as a life of learning, or, sometimes even more desirable. That’s where the problem lies.”
I don't agree. All O Jews, even the most modern, recognize the value of Torah study and understand that college is mainly for parnassa. This being said, however, it is also true that many MO Jews look down at Kollel students and consider them parasites and good-for-nothings. But not all. There are also many who understand that without kollel, we would not have a source of Rabbis and Sages.
The ones in between believe that kollel is good for a limited number of students, the ones who plan to make Torah their vocation and for the students who are especially gifted. What is happening today is that learning in kollel has become a status symbol and the only way to get a good shidduch, so even the weak young men and those who do not want to learn full time are being forced to do so against their will.
“About your apples and apples, we are not discussing if it is better to go to college or put yourself in suspended animation. the discussion is taking years of learning and spending them in college instead. Even if halachicly permissible, certainly is to be pursued only upon lack of learning-only options.”
I don't agree. (This doesn't mean I am right and you are wrong. :-)) I believe that the learning only option is good only for a select few individuals who plan to become Rebbis and teachers. For most others, these are the years before one gets married, when he needs to prepare himself to support a family and therefore must train in a profession.
“And when you say it is not for everybody, that may or may not be true, but every individual can try his best to be the privileged one to learn all day. That desire and value is skewed in MO institutions. Where they encourage college, even those who had a chance to choose Olam Habah are being led the wrong way.”
One can say the same thing about the Black Hat yeshivos that discourage college and what happens is that the young men when they find themselves married and no longer being supported by their parents or in-laws are not qualified to do anything but sit and learn.
I know where you are coming from and I believe you know where I am coming from. We don't disagree regarding what a Jew must achieve, only in how they go about achieving it.
MODERATOR Posted - 16 November 2001 16:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Danny, I don’t see that we agree. If the issue is simply whether college is permitted, that would not qualify as description of your Orthodoxy but rather as a simple Halachic opinion within the normal, traditional Orthodoxy. Those who hold that wearing a plastic covering on top of their hat on Shabbos outside an Eruv don’t rename themselves "Plastic Hat Orthodoxy".
There is more to MO - even your unique version of it - that merely a Halachic dispute. Here's a quote from you:
"Since I am MO, I send my daughters to college and I am a big believer in a college education for both boys and girls, not simply for career purposes, but in order that they enjoy a broader, more meaningful, more intellectual and more worldly lives. A person who goes to college is more interesting to talk to and with whom one can have a stimulating conversation. I am sorry to say that most young women who I meet, who did not go to college, are pretty dumb."
This is the problem. To say "I am very tolerant of college because people need a parnasa and also not everyone is cut out to learn all day" is one thing. But to apply a value to college, to say that it provides a superiority over those who learn all day - and women who are busy with avodas hashem all day - is kefirah.
Even if your perception would be correct (they are not), that most young women who don’t go to college are dumb, that college broadens your, and makes you more interesting, they will only be smarter and more interesting in this temporary, transient, illusory worlds. In the next world, none of this counts. They will be exposed as abandoning Eternal Life in favor of "worldliness" and "being interesting" for a few moments on Olam Hazeh. When the maggots will be eating our bodies, there will not be not much difference between the PhD's and the HS dropouts. They will all be equally interesting and worldly.
But their souls will be very different.
The idea of choosing Olam hazeh over Olam Habah would be bad advice in itself - and it is prohibited Min HaTorah to give someone bad advice - but to institutionalize this indiscretion and make it your official mode of Orthodoxy takes the problem into a totally different realm. When a person does a sin, they are violating the Torah, but you are disagreeing with it.
If someone violates the Torah, he is a sinner, but if someone disagrees with the Torah he is revolting against it. And making your revolt against the Torah into an official mode of Orthodoxy seeks to twist the Torah itself ("Orthodoxy") into something it never was meant to be.
danny Posted - 27 November 2001 18:52
moderator,
“This is the problem. To say "I am very tolerant of college because people need a parnasa and also not everyone is cut out to learn all day" is one thing. But to apply a value to college, to say that it provides superiority over those who learn all day - and women who are busy with avodas hashem all day - is kefirah.”
Not at all. Kefirah is defined as "denial," meaning denial of the tenets of Judaism and denial of Tanach. To claim that Jews should get a college education in order that they be more worldly in no way constitutes denial or kefirah.
Furthermore, saying that a college-educated person is more interesting, more intelligent, etc. than a person who learns all day or takes care of a home all day, does not imply that college is more important than learning all day or that a college educated person is superior to a kollel person.
It just means that there is an aspect in the former, a virtue if you will, that doesn't exist in the latter. Does this mean that the kollel person should give up learning and feel inferior to the college-educated person? Certainly not. He may not have an interest in being "interesting" or "worldly." He may be content in strictly pursuing a life of holiness. Kol hakavod.
But there are many MO Jews who do wish to possess that extra aspect and who enjoy secular subjects, even as you say "a breath of air." And if this interest does not pose a halachic problem, why not pursue and indulge in it?
So can you now see why one must be careful before making a blanket statement such as MO violates the Torah and why we have to indeed discuss the halacha in detail to determine if there are halachic problems? It's very easy to wave one's hand and declare any Orthodoxy not in line with one's own perceptions of Orthodoxy as kefirah or against halacha. Satmar do it all the time.
“Even if your perception would be correct (they are not), that most young women who don’t go to college are dumb, that college broadens your, and makes you more interesting, they will only be smarter and more interesting in this temporary, transient, illusory worlds. In the next world, none of this counts.”
This is understood. But we need to ascertain whether it is against halacha to engage in it in this world.
“They will be exposed as abandoning Eternal Life in favor of "worldliness" and "being interesting" for a few moments on Olam Hazeh.”
Not at all. It is not either or, either olam hazeh or olam habah. One can go to college and also merit olam haba. Furthermore, reading the newspaper, spending hours on the computer, playing sports and visiting family is also olam hazeh. Does one have to learn 24 hours a day to get olam habah?
“When the maggots will be eating our bodies, there will not be not much difference between the PhD's and the HS dropouts. They will all be equally interesting and worldly.”
Undoubtedly.
“But their souls will be very different.”
I don't think so.
“The idea of choosing Olam hazeh over Olam Habah would be bad advice in itself - and it is prohibited Min HaTorah to give someone bad advice - but to institutionalize this indiscretion and make it your official mode of Orthodoxy takes the problem into a totally different realm. When a person does a sin, they are violating the Torah, but you are disagreeing with it.
If someone violates the Torah, he is a sinner, but if someone disagrees with the Torah he is revolting against it. And making your revolt against the Torah into an official mode of Orthodoxy seeks to twist the Torah itself ("Orthodoxy") into something it never was meant to be.”
MO and college education are not revolts against the Torah because they don't disagree with the Torah nor do they twist the Torah. Can you show differently? Can you substantiate your claims?
I notice that you failed to answer my halachic questions regarding the issue of college and secular subjects and chose instead to write a diatribe against my hashkafa. Why?
grend123 Posted - 27 November 2001 18:52
Moderator, you said: "does this mean that someone who learns half the day and goes to college or works the other half, is superior to someone who learns Torah the whole day?"
Answer: OF COURSE!!! How many meimrei chazal, mishnayos in avos, etc. etc. etc. do you need to quote to answer this question? Here's a favorite: Im Ein Kemach Ein Torah. Or how about Kol Torah Sheain Imah Melacha Sofah Betailah V'goreres
The fact that such statements of Chazal are not politically correct in the charedi world, where kollel is the ultimate ambition, doesn't mean that they aren't true. Moderator, you asked this question, to quote a Gemaraism, Bit'miyah (in wonderment). I'm returning the question with another Gemaraism - it's Peshita (obvious)!
I heard a wonderful shiur from Rav Herschel Schachter about the yonah in Parshas Noach. This isn't the place for me to recount it word for word, but the basic point is that financial independence - from ones parents and from the generosity of the community - is a mitzvah in itself, and that kollel is a fine thing FOR A FEW YEARS, but that afterwards one must support oneself through work and be koveia itim latorah.
I don't know if you'll post this or not - like I said, it's not politically correct - but it IS halachically correct, and I do respect your commitment to portraying halacha accurately on these boards.
PS
MODERATOR Posted - 27 November 2001 19:27
Danny,
Kefirah, apikursus, meenus - the words are interchangeable - is anything you believe that is against the Daas Torah.
Every moment of learning Torah is infinitely valuable. Chazal say one word of Torah learning imbues the learner with more holiness than a lifetime of doing Mitzvos. So if someone learns, but the other guy learns more, the other guy is superior. Even if there is no halachic obligation to learn 20 hours a day, someone who does is superior to someone who only learns 19 hours a day, spiritually, all else being equal. And even if all else is not so equal, since an hour a day of learning constitutes a massive amount of holiness.
Of course we all "batel". Nobody is perfect. But when we batel, we know we are following our Yetzer Horah, we know it is due to our human weakness and our bechirah that we choose to chill on the internet rather than attain holiness. Nobody's perfect.
But we know what perfection is.
Modern Orthodoxy changed that. Everyone is imperfect, everyone, nebach, runs away from holiness. Everyone except Tzadikim. But Modern Orthodoxy runs away from holiness as a matter of principle. While those who batel on the internet violate the Torah, they still agree with it, that it would be a lot better if they would be learning.
Modern Orthodoxy disagreed with the Torah's values, or, more properly, twisted the Torah's values, to make batalah and running away form holiness part of Orthodoxy as opposed to a violation of it.
The Chazon Ish put it succinctly. He refused to talk to Mizrachi people. When asked why he refuses to see them more than others who are also sinners (bainonim, not reshaim).
The Chazon Ish answered: "Yes, the Mizrachi are bainonim and the others are bainonim, but the Mizrachi are bainonim b'schitah!" (on principle)
To sin is to be imperfect. but to institutionalize imperfection and make it into the first choice is kefirah, since you are disagreeing with the Torah’s values.
To say that since college provides you with certain personality enhancements, therefore you SHOULD go to college, as opposed to going for the personality enhancements provided by Torah - that is, infinite holiness - is not merely choosing Olam Hazeh over Olam Habah but saying that one SHOULD choose Olam Hazeh over Olam Habah.
Which is what separates Modern Orthodoxy from the Torah.
Yes, Danny, you can get Olam Habah even if you go to college, but not nearly as much as if you spent those years learning, all else being equal. Therefore by going to college you are forgoing all that Olam Habah for Olam Hazeh.
But if you go and say that it is the RIGHT thing to do, to forgo Olam Habah for the Olam Hazeh of college, it is plain kefirah against the Torah.
Regarding the Halachos of college, I explained them numerous times, but I will summarize one more time, in my next post, in response to Grend.
MODERATOR Posted - 27 November 2001 20:42
Grend,
You are making a number of mistakes:
1) All Chazals, such as Im ain kemach ain torah, just means that if you have no food, you cannot learn. Other Chazals say that if you have no food and you try to learn anyway, you will end up having to steal to eat, and what good is that. None of this has anything to do with Kollel, and surely not with college. If you are supported by your parents, in laws, Yeshiva, or wife, you are not in a situation where you have to steal, and you have fulfilled the Chazal.
And none of this has to do with college. Plenty of people get jobs without college, many communities live like that, and they do just fine. It does not say "im ain 'Lexus' ain Torah". The idea that if you don’t go to college you will not have Kemach is obviously a lie.
2) All Chazals that encourage people to work are also fulfilled by our Kollel people, and only exclude someone who has no means of support. If I become a baseball player and I have people pay to watch me play ball, that’s OK, but if I become a scholar and have people pay me to learn - that's not???
If I got a job in a think-tank thinking of stuff all day, that's wonderful - but if I get a job in Kollel thinking of Chidushei Torah that’s not????
BH today we have people who specifically want to support Kollelim, similar to Yissachar-Zevulun. If I were hired by these people to dance for them, I would be considered having a job. So why is it worse if they hire more to learn and provide them with Olam Habah instead of entertainment?
The exhortations in Chazal against being unemployed refer to those who have nobody who wants to pay them for anything, and are forced to take money form what was designated for the poor, which they do not have to be if they would get a job. But Kollel is not Tzedakah for Aniyim. there is a big difference. Kollel support is support in return for learning. Tzedakah is support in return for nothing. As long as I am earning your support - regardless of whether it is through defending you in court or learning Choshen Mishpat - I am employed.
3) There is an obligation on every Jew to become as great in Torah as he is able. There is also an obligation to not steal, or not to put yourself in a situation where you will have to steal. Or to make sure the Torah scholars live respectfully and not as beggars. The ideal sitch is to have both.
But the standard of livelihood required is bare minimum. "Kach hi darkah shel torah - pas b'melach tochal etc." -- Bread salt and water - if you have that, you have parnasah. The Rambam writes that a typical Baal Habayis works 3 hours a day and learns 8.
This is what a "working person" is. Three hours a day. 8 hours learning.
What in the world does that have to do with today's working man's lifestyle where he works 8 hours a day and almost never even learns 3? It proves nothing that Chazal endorsed working, since working in those days meant learning 8 hours a day.
4) The Rambam praises those who learn all day and don’t have jobs, as the elite "Shevet Levi" of our days. Clearly, even if working is endorsed, it is inferior to those who learn. To reconcile the Rambam with your Chazals, you can choose any of the commentaries available, some of which explain it similar to above.
5) If learning in Kollel is against the Chazals about Melachah and Derech Eretz, then so is being a Rebbi or a Rav. See the Rama YD 246:6. He brings your Chazals and says that therefore nobody can be a paid Rebbi or a Rav either, since he relies on the congregation. But then he brings dissenting opinions, and rules that the custom is that Torah scholars do benefit from their learning, by support from the community.
Then he brings other opinions that the community should support its Torah scholars even to the point of affluence.
The Rama then says it is a Midas Chasidus - praiseworthy - for someone who can become a Gadol B'Torah and make an independent living, but continues that not everyone is capable of this. It is clear that he is saying that if you have a choice between becoming a Godol B'Torah or making a living, becoming a Godol B'Torah comes first.
The Shach on the spot points out that the Halacha always follows the Minhag and the Minhag is like those opinions that one may depend on the community to support him in order to learn. He says that this is because of the Halachah of Ais La'Asos, meaning, even if it is theoretically prohibited to rely on the community, but because nowadays we cannot do both, become great in Torah and make independent livings, the right thing to do is to learn Torah and be supported.
He continues by saying that if someone spreads Torah and spends all his time learning and teaching, even if he has a skill with which to make a living, it would be wrong of him not to allow the community to support him, since this way he would be able to spend his time learning and teaching, rather than working.
See, its very nice to make an independent living, but it is more important to become a Godol B'Torah. If you cant have both, then Torah is the right choice. Whatever advantages there is in making money, they do not come close to those of becoming a great Torah scholar.
MODERATOR Posted - 27 November 2001 20:51
SECULAR STUDIES
Please see the new topic in this forum.
grend123 Posted - 28 November 2001 15:36
I don't know how much of this you'll want to post, but if there's something particular that you don't want to put up, please just cut it out (with some sort of note indicating that its missing) and post the rest. (BTW, you can certainly remove this first paragraph!)
I've been reading through the posts on this site, and I've noticed a definite slant against Modern Orthodoxy. Some of the points raised against Modern Orthodoxy are valid, but some are not, so I'd like to take a moment to defend Modern Orthodoxy on certain counts, indict the Charedi community on others, and overall, present the OTHER side of the story from a different perspective than most of the posters on this site.
First, let me explain what that perspective is.
Moderator, you said that Modern Orthodoxy are bainonim beshitta. That’s a valid point, and certainly a problem in the Modern Orthodox world, but there’s another side of the story that you are playing down, namely a very similar tendency in the yeshiva world. While the Modern Orthodox may place too little emphasis on proper clothing, the yeshiva world places too much. It's TOO EASY to identify a yeshiva guy; the white shirt, black pants, (and, if you're from
The problem with this is that ALL you have to do to be yeshivish is to dress yeshivish. Nothing more required. And, as a result, you get attitudes and actions among the yeshiva guys and bais yaakov girls that are far from the values they supposedly espouse. Of course, you tell me, these people do not represent the charedim; no one advertises a bungalow colony where 'we act obnoxiously to anyone not dressed like us'.
Yet these attitudes ARE institutionalized; having witnessed a friend of mine not be counted for a minyan in a boro park shul because he was wearing a (large, not 'tiny, trying to hide his Judaism') knitted kippa, and having furthermore seen this done with the approval of the entire shul (and, I believe, in the presence of the rabbi, although I may be wrong on that count), I can reach no other conclusion.
Which brings me to my second point; the main objection towards Modern Orthodoxy seems to be the acceptance of social interaction between boys and girls. While I have read your discussions on these subjects, and I have listened to Rabbi Orlofsky's tape, I must say that I'm not impressed.
Rabbi Orlofsky goes to great lengths to prove that there is no way a guy can talk to a girl without ulterior motives. That’s a feasible notion for someone from a yeshiva background who has never actually BEEN friends with members of the opposite sex, (and although Rabbi Orlofsky, I believe, is a baal teshuva, his intended audience is not), but for someone who has tried it let me say its simply not true. It MAY be true in an individual case; I will not call Rabbi Orlofsky a liar if he says its true of himself; but it is certainly not the case among the majority of Modern Orthodox.
I do not dispute that a yeshiva guy who starts talking to girls may have such intentions, but that is because of the novelty of contact with girls at all; for those who are used to contact, these problems simply aren't true. Rabbi Orlofsky is convincing in his claim that platonic relationships are different than same sex friendships, but he doesn’t prove that they are wrong.
Now, I've read your posts about the issurim involved in mixed socialization, and I'd like to respond on two tacks. First, Reb Moshe specifically says not to use his teshuvos as a source of final psak, and second, while you do not regard Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Kook as reliable sources of halacha, please keep in mind that others do; these issues are not nearly as clear cut as you claim. I can't disagree with you that Modern Orthodoxy often goes too far with mixed socialization, but neither can I agree with you that all socialization is assur.
Which brings me to my next point. A modern rabbi once told me that shidduchim work very well 'for that community'. What he meant was, regardless of whether the system of shidduch dating is superior to the standard meet-and-date method, its simply not practical for many people. If I'm Modern Orthodox, then the type of girl I'm looking for is not the type of girl who will be shidduch dating; its not a question of the system but of who is using it.
And finally, regarding Zionism. Let me assume, for one moment, that you are entirely correct and the creation of the state of
To the rest of the world, Jew and Israeli have become close to synonymous. It is one thing not to support
When the news shows Satmar chassidim burning flags, the world sees not a milchemes Hashem, but a bunch of crazy 'fundamentalist' self hating Jews; it sees ignorance, intolerance, and internal disunity in the Jewish people. And don't tell me tachlis; there is no practical gain in flag burning other than to make this chilul.
I have no problem with those who aren't actively pro-Israel, but I do have a problem with those who are be****a not, because, regardless of their reasoning, and even regardless of whether they are acting lishma, nevertheless they reflect poorly upon Jews as a whole.
Well, that was a long post, and I can think of more to say, but I'd like to hear some responses to what I've already said first.
MODERATOR Posted - 28 November 2001 16:36
The difference is that MO has incorporated their inadequacies into Orthodoxy - they officially allow, encourage, and even support things that are wrong. They changed the definition of wrong and right.
No such thing happens in what you call the Yeshiva world. Midos are valued, taught, even if not always adhered to (although they are adhered to in the Yeshiva world no less than in the MO world). No rabbi would rule that someone wearing a knitted Yarlmuka cannot be counted for a Minyan, it is pure lunacy, and not a single rabbi anywhere form right to left would disagree. Your story either took place in
Re platonic relationships: Study after study shows that the presence of a woman in the cashier's position causes men to smile more and to forgo their few cents change much more often. This applies to Goyim, who, I hope, are not less involved in opposite sex relationships than the Modern Orthodox. Your lack of sensitivity to the biological-psychological processes happening inside you is not proof that they do not exist. A woman sitting on a car in an ad is guaranteed to enhance the response to that ad, even though the readers still believe it is the car they are attracted to, not the girl.
Rav Moshe's teshuva is clear. He did not make anything up, but rather quoted form Chazal and Rishonim that boys and girls simply may not be friends. Period. The fact that all Teshuvos are not taken as a "final Psak" does not mean they should be ignored - it means that they apply to the circumstances that they were written in, and that if those circumstances change in a way that would change the Halachah the Teshuva was never meant differently. You are not showing why Rav Moshe's Teshuva does not apply to you, you are only claiming it does not. There is no Halahcic logic to say such a thing, and therefore the Teshuva applies.
As far as Zionism goes, yes, the world equates Zionism with Judaism, most of the world anyway, but that is because the Zionists - and people like Martin Luther King - told the world that it is so. There is no Mitzvah to let the world think that the Torah is responsible for what the government of
The Neturei Karta, whether you agree with them or not, are merely trying to tell the world that the Israeli government does NOT represent Torah or Jewry or Judaism, but merely a fanatical, political, even atheistic entity, and therefore the world should not hold against Jews what the Israeli government does.
The Satmar Rav ZTL actually said that we should make sure to let the Goyim know that the Zionists do NOT represent Judaism or Torah Jews. He said we should be Moser Nefesh to get this message across.
And the world doe NOT look at them as haters at all. On the contrary, the world looks at the State of Israel as oppressors of the Palestinian people, and as racist hypocrites who profess democracy but at the same time are occupying the territory of 3 million people against their will. You can call it anti-Semitism if you like, but if you’re talking about how the world perceives it, with the exception of the American Jewish community, most of the world sees it that way. The Neturei Karta are perceived by the world the way you would perceive some Muslim group burning the Afghanistan flag and denouncing bin Laden.
In fact, when Iran tried their Jewish hostages recently, and gave them an terribly unfair but surprisingly lenient sentence (they did not kill them, which was expected), the judge at the "trial" made it clear that the reason for his not sentencing them to death was because not every Jew supports Zionism, and that the hostages had people testify on their behalf that they in fact are among those Jews. Those witnesses were the Neturei Karta.
The problem with the NK is that they have this idea that the Arabs would peacefully allow Jews to live under their governship if they were given back the land. This is in reality outrageous. Their mistake is that they do not realize how deep the hatred that the Zionists caused the Arabs to have for Jews is rooted, so deep that giving them back the land now will only endanger Jewish lives, which the NT themselves do not want.
The Zionists have succeeded in making the Arabs bloodthirsty enemies of the Jews, because they falsely spread the idea that Jews, not just Zionists, want to take land from the Arabs. The NT are blind to how successful that crime of misrepresenting Jews and Judaism was.
gregg613 Posted - 28 November 2001 21:42
Reb Moshe has a teshuva where he writes that its assur to "be machmir" like the ramba"m, to work instead of learning. He says its the yetzer hara trying to drive a person away from torah, becuz nowadays working definitely takes away from a persons ability to become a talmid chacham.
IkeHolmes Posted - 29 November 2001 15:00
I think MO would have to say, in order to defend itself, that today the Jews are on such a low level that it is Eys L'asos lHashem to permit: 1)Secular culture and education (lots of it) 2) Women learning gemara, because with the fall of the ghetto, Jewish women were influenced by feminism and are all bechezkas prutzos. If not allowed to learn gemara, they will all become fry. And Jewish men will have no one to marry.
Now, what's the difference between that and conservative? You have to say that MO's have a more correct assessment of the matzav, condition of jewery in the modern world. This is not totally true as we see communities who are able to integrate the "ghetto" Judaism into the modern life w/o eis l'asos.
grend123 Posted - 29 November 2001 15:00
Mod, I take STRONG offense to something you've said:
“"Which is what separates Modern Orthodoxy from the Torah."“
That's not objectivity in any sense of the term; that's an agenda. Disagree or agree with Modern Orthodoxy on principles, but don't bring these forums down to the level of name-calling. I advise you to take in a shiur from Rav Kahn or Rav Saks or Rav Schachter, or even, dare I say it, Rabbi Lamm, before making such blanket statements about Modern Orthodoxy being separate from Torah.
MODERATOR Posted - 29 November 2001 19:11
Ike,
We do not use ais laasos nowadays on our own. The Seridei Aish in his famous Teshuva about the Yeshurun Kiruv organization makes this clear. Nobody disagrees (the Chofetz Chaim's permitting women to learn Torah - not Gemora - was not permitting any prohibition. Any use of Ais Laasos in that context is meant figuratively). And incidentally, , A"L cannot permit secularization or culture or mingling with Goyim or boys and girls - it narrowly only effects laws of Torah learning.
MO rabbis - including Rabbi Soloveichik - have explained their positions, and it has nothing to do with ais laasos, although you are correct that they do say that MO is necessary for the survival of Klall Yisroel, it is simply a compromise for what they saw as survival.
And Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL agrees with you, asking what is the difference between MO and Conservativism in this sense. But his answer is different - he says that MO and Conservative do indeed share the same core point: Compromise for the sake of what they perceive to be survival.
And puh-lease. If girls don’t learn Gemora they will all intermarry? Gimme a break. No such thing has happened.
The MO predicted the demise of everyone except themselves. This is clear in the Five Addresses of Rabbi Soloveichik. Others espoused that too. It was common MO rhetoric in the 60's.
In the 80's however, we had the same MO rabbis denouncing what they referred to as "Ultra Orthodox Triumphalism". Something didn’t work out the way they thought it would.
I once asked Rabbi Yeruchem Gorelick ZTL what induced him to go work in YU. He said (in Yiddish), "JB convinced me that the future of Torah in
Then he slapped his head, as if to say "What was I thinking?"
Many people thought that. They were wrong. Please see the other topics in this forum about "Modern Orthodoxy" and "The History of Torah in
MODERATOR Posted - 29 November 2001 19:15
grend,
Its not name calling, its an assessment.
And just because you don’t like my assessment, does not make it an agenda.
And if you would like me not to have that assessment, you will have to show me why it is wrong. Until then, I call 'em as I see 'em.
What I don’t understand is, is this the first time you're hearing such things? Aren’t you aware that Gedolim have said this for the past 2 generations?
FrumerThanHashem Posted - 30 November 2001 14:51
First, Please do not refer to Rabbi Soloveichik as JB, it is offensive and shows a total lack of kavod hatorah. Second, if you are going to use the Sridai Aish to criticize modern orthodoxy, you should probably do a little historical research.
Anyone who knows anything about the contemporary gedolim know that Sridai Aish studied in the
Of course we must make gedarim, but sheltering people from an entire outside culture is troublesome as well as dangerous. Perhaps if certain orthodox communities weren't as sheltered as they are we would not be dealing with the great number of runaways and young teenagers leaving the derech as we are.
So in summation let me say that Going to YU and getting culture is not as bad as most people will have you believe and perhaps historical research is necessary to find out a little more about our gedolim and where they came from.
MODERATOR Posted - 30 November 2001 15:00
I was not referring to anyone as anything, I was quoting Rav Yeruchem Gorelick ZTL, who was a Rosh Yeshiva in YU. Those were his words, not mine.
Second, the fact that there were Rabbonim who went to University proves nothing, especially in a case such as Rav Hutner's, where despite his going to University, he discouraged it among his students, and he himself radically changed since those younger years of his.
If there is any narrow-mindedness here, it is the totally baseless notion that runaways and teenagers leaving the Derech can be reduced by allowing modernity. The fact is, there is no correlation between the level of frumkeit and chances of going off the derech. In communities such as Meah Shearim,
1 comment:
If we refer to worldliness as olam hazeh to the exclusion of olam habohness, which is what it really means, it would help many people.
Post a Comment