The organization that boasts as being the primary educators encouraging Torah-observant Jews to sign a prenuptial agreement, has named it the “‘halachic' prenup.”
What is the word “halachic” meant to suggest and insinuate? Are there any recognized halachic authorities who have ruled that there is a requirement for a marrying couple to sign this prenuptial agreement. If so, who? The only explanation is that since there were and are certain prenuptial agreements that run contrary to halacha and produce an invalid get, ORA is attempting to say that this particular prenuptial is different, as it does not run contrary to halacha according to some poskim.
However, this label is disingenuous and misleading. Does ORA promote calling our jackets "halachic jackets"? Since certain jackets contain wool and linen (shatnez) and are halachicly prohibited to be worn, shouldn't we call those jackets that we may wear "halachic jackets"? The most that anyone would call it would be a “kosher” jacket. No one would call it a “halachic” jacket. As such, the most ORA should call this prenuptial should be a “prenup that is kosher according to some rabbis.”
It appears obvious that the term “halachic” is being used to entice the unknowing and the unquestioning into signing this agreement. ORA understands that asking people to sign a prenuptial that is only potentially kosher would cause the bride and groom to carefully review and deliberate whether or not they would like to sign this prenuptial agreement. The result would be that even fewer people would agree to sign it.
Is there any other explanation?
Additionally, at the Mendel Epstein torture trial, other questionable practice standards of ORA and the BDA have come into light. ORA went out on a limb to help a woman without ever having made contact with her purported estranged husband. Nathan Lewin, a defense attorney in the torture trial case, explained how easily the BDA was duped into writing a “siruv” or excommunication against a nonexistent man. The purported brother and sister showed the BDA an email that they claimed the nonexistent Alex Marconi wrote. Of course, they simply opened up an email account themselves, wrote the email, and claimed that it came from "Alex Marconi." They also provided the address of a Florida post office as Mr. Marconi’s address.
It becomes quite obvious that ORA and the BDA did not do any due diligence before waging war with "Mr. Marconi." A simple internet search would have verified that the address provided was that of a post office. A few phone calls to local community members of “Mr. Marconi” would have revealed that he is not existent, and would have blown the FBI’s cover. Yet, ORA and the BDA did not bother investigating. Interestingly, it seems that the FBI was completely confident that their cover will not be blown by some basic, basic research by either ORA or the BDA. Why?
Are these the organizations that we would like to entrust with our marriages? Are these the organizations we would like to rely upon to validate highly questionable gitten, when major halachic authorities have ruled that children resultant of a subsequent marriage after a first marriage was terminated by a get procured through their prenuptial are mamzeirim?
The feminist politicos who promote the RCA prenup have never, to my knowledge, produced ONE IOTA of evidence that a Jewish man has any halachic obligation whatsoever to sign the RCA prenup prior to marriage. All evidence is in fact to the contrary, ie halacha demands that a Jewish man may NOT sign the anti-halachic RCA prenup.
ReplyDeleteIt is time for Jewish men to demand a return to halachic Judaism and completely reject any of the contrived, one-sided, anti-male, anti-halachic, feminist prenups.
"Are there any recognized halachic authorities who have ruled that there
ReplyDeleteis a requirement for a marrying couple to sign this prenuptial
agreement."
The pre-nup is not an obligation. And it is not new.
we learn from the story of David and Bathsheva that not only Uriah, but all soldiers would have a pre-nup, or a condition to their kiddushin in terms of war. What the nature and history of such a pre-nup is, i do not have information on, but it was certainly something practiced in days of old.
I agree with this author as well as what R Sternbuch has announced.The major point here is the "FRAUD" that the MO rabbis and ORA present to the public making it look like the prenup benefits the man too! What a lie! its all 1 sided to benefit the woman only. Yet they conceal this from the public. WARNING TO CHASSANIM/GROOMS: Please discuss this matter with your kallah prior to the date of your marriage and inform her that your rabbi opposes the RCA prenup and that you wont be signing it, because if you dont do this before the wedding day, be prepared for the Mesader Kiddushin to surprise you moments before the Chupa and try to coerce you to sign it. So please wisen up and discuss it beforehand so that you know going into to your Chuppa that your Kallah has also agreed NOT to sign it and therefore no one can coerce you in your most vulnerable moment of your life!
ReplyDeletehalachic and hashgofic judaism is what we need to return to
ReplyDeletedivorce is not the jewish way
the sefer chinuch says the reason divorced women can't marry cohanim is because the character of such women is in question and cohanim require proper and holy women.
It seems that some people here are casting aspersions on the Modern Orthodox. First of all, I feel that the major problems today are with the Yeshiva Orthodox, not the Modern Orthodox, despite their qualifications as problems. I have often posted on this blog and my own www.torahhalacha.blogspot.com about this. But let us give credit where credit is due. They call themselves "Modern Orthodox." Why "Modern"? Because they are half Orthodox and half Modern. So what do you expect? Tonight I will give a telephone conference on What Beth Din is Kosher? That is today a very serious problem, as my blog has an article on this. And again, the problem is not with the Modern alone, but also with Yeshiva Orthodox. The hideous happening in Philadelphia where a woman is atttempting to marry without a GET, is completely the work of major Rosh Yeshivas in Philadelphia. The Modern Orthodox opposed it.
ReplyDeleteThat is inaccurate. They would give a conditional bill of divorce, not give a conditional betrothal.
ReplyDeleteOra education page.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.getora.org/#%21the-prenup/ctzx
Nathen Lewin:
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/05/defense-lawyer-nat-lewin-explains-how.html
They gave a conditional divorce when they went out to war. Not a peanut pre-nup.
ReplyDeleteif someone gave a conditional (pre-nup) divorce today, would it be rejected a Get m'usa?
ReplyDeleteif someone gave a conditional (pre-nup) divorce today, would it be rejected a Get m'usa?
ReplyDeleteIf someone went around giving strange women - who are not married to him - conditional (pre-nup) divorces today, would it be rejected as a Get m'usa?
------
A. Soldiers who went out to war, had been legitimately married for more than a year.
B. Prior to leaving to the battle field, they would give their wife a conditional divorce, that would be valid immediately if, and only if, the husband does not return from battle after a specified amount of time has passed after the war had ended. Then the divorce had begun when he handed her the get. If he did return, then the condition was not fulfilled, which invalidated the get.
Are you proposing that a conditional get be given under the chupah, after the kidushushin and ring giving has taken place? Right there during the wedding ceremony, in front of everyone? What a beautiful idea, Eddie!
If only we could have "halachic" husbands and wives, and avoid this sorry Parsha altogether.
ReplyDeleteSince Jews often migrate from one location to another, and from one subgroup to another, the widest possible range of expert poskim needs to endorse any new document format that obligates Jews entering into a marriage contact. Anything less is asking for trouble.
ReplyDeleteThat puts a burden on the husband to be a true mentsch.
ReplyDeleteRabbi (David) Eidensohn, I am not attempting to cast aspersions on all Modern Orthodox Jews. I have met quite a few decent, sincere MO Jews.
ReplyDeleteRather I am opposing the well-organized and well-funded MO politicos who are promoting and integrating into "Judaism" various anti-Torah feminist agendas such as anti-male prenup agreements, forced GITTIN, divorce on demand, fake agunos, fake siruvim, heter archaos, women's tefillah groups, women rabbis, denigration of men, etc.
The violations in the Yeshiva Orthodox that you refer to are real, but (to my knowledge) there exist no public, organized ORA-JOFA-OO type feminist movements in the Yeshiva Orthodox world.
emet
ReplyDeleteThe prenup isn't a conditional betrothal - get your facts straight
ReplyDeleteOK, so you are saying it was a pre-Get rather than a pre-nup, so thanks for correcting my understanding.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, let's say that conditional get is given before the war, in January; the war is in March, and the soldier unfortunately does not return. Is the get valid from January retroactively? Ok, this is not a get M'usa, but
if the woman commits adultery, and the commander in chief can organise the soldier to be sent on a suicide mission, he assures that he was not actually committing adultery. So this is also a loophole, no different from other loopholes.
Whether they are right or wrong, the Modern Orthodox take a cue form Torah im Derech Eretz, so it could also be claimed that the German Orthodox were half Orthodox and half derech eretz.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Sol Roth once explained that Torah u'Madda implies that the main part is Torah, and the Madda is just an addition (u ), whereas Im Derech Eretz is a 50/50 distribution of Torah and DE.
He was responding to the previous posters mistake. Read it in order to get you facts straight.
ReplyDeleteSo this is also a loophole, no different from other loopholes.
ReplyDeleteHuh? Allow me to quote from the sidebar of this page:
Full acceptance of Orthodox Judaism and halacha is a given. There will not be any discussion to justify or prove the validity of Torah or halacha.
Eddie, it is either halachically possible, or it isn't. These prenuptials are clearly not halachicly possible according to the majority of recognized halachic authorities. Loophole??
the Modern Orthodox take a cue form Torah im Derech Eretz
ReplyDeleteThis incorrect. Rav Hirsch made it very clear that to his students that they must engage in Austritt - complete ideological and social secession from the gentiles.
"In
ReplyDeleteFrankfurt am Main, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch established his famous austritt community. Austritt literally means “to step out.” Rabbi Hirsch’s community left the general Jewish kehilla of Frankfurt and
established its own independent kehilla. However, great rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Hirsch’s approach, foremost among them Rav Bamberger and Rav
Hildesheimer"
http://www.rabbiwein.com/blog/stepping-out-343.html
This was separating from the Jewish community, and was opposed even by the Netziv!
Do you accept Jaf-ora orange juice?
ReplyDeleteThe difference between TIDE and Torah UMadda is between secular wisdom and secular culture,
ReplyDeleteIt's ironic that there's numerous articles on the internet from actual feminists complaining that the current version of the prenup gives far too much power to the man, so I guess its all a matter of perspective
ReplyDeleteThat's not what Austritt was - I primarily had to do with the relationship vis a vis non-frum jews, specifically reform
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point, but when you start talking about literature, poetry etc the line becomes blurred
ReplyDeleteI think the simple answer to the title of this article is that the name 'Halachic Prenup' is meant to differentiate from other suggestions in the past which engendered more halachic difficulties (either other types of prenups or annulment). Putting hashkafic issues aside, the current version is the closest to fulfilling all purely halachic requirements to avoid an improper divorce (before anyone jumps on me - I'm not saying there aren't issues, just that its a lot better than any previous suggestion).
ReplyDeleteAdditionaly there exists a concept of prenuptial agreements in secular society which are very popular so perhaps the name is meant to differentiate from that.
The original halachic prenup is the Kesuba of course, but I'm just mentioning that to get some people heated up :)
An excellent explanation of the RCA/BDA so-called "Halachic Prenup" by Yomin Postelnik:
ReplyDeleteThe "Halachic" Pre-Nup is Not Halachic and Destroys Marriage
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3274435/posts
I did not say anything about the prenup, I was referring to Eddie's comment. See the little arrow next to my name? It says "Eddie" after it. That means I am responding to him.
ReplyDeleteYou mean that a loophole or let's say a heter, is only kosher if accepted by certain authorities? The argument is similar to the heter mechira, or even heter iska. Some accept heter mechira whilst others reject it as a loophole. It is not - as far as i can see - a question of being orthodox. Even mechirat chametz , which has been very widely accepted , is questioned by some who a re machmir. I am not giving any sort of psak here, chas v'shalom, that is not in my field of competence. Just showing that things have been done and are not always universally accepted.
ReplyDeleteYou mean that a loophole or let's say a heter, is only kosher if accepted by certain authorities?
ReplyDeleteHuh? What on earth are you talking about? Again, everyone understands that a conditional get is valid if the condition was fulfilled. Finish. End. There is simply no comparison to anyone attempting to create loopholes - rewrite G-d's words - when none exist.
Selling and buying requires clear intent for the transaction to take place. This is different than soldiers who did have clear intent that the transaction - the get - should take place, if the conditions are met.
That's not what Austritt was - I primarily had to do with the relationship vis a vis non-frum jews, specifically reform
ReplyDeleteQuite the comedian here Dov. Nice.
Austritt even included the reform or "enlightened" Jews, whose MO (modes operandi) was to idealize and imitate the gentiles ideologies and societal practices.
Thanks for the comic relief.
when you start talking about literature, poetry etc the line becomes blurred
ReplyDeleteNo, it does not. The literature and poetry may have been composed with wisdom; the actual literature and poetry is clearly secular culture, which Rav Hirsch demanded complete separation form it. Same as movies.
Rabbi Hirsch’s community left the general Jewish kehilla of Frankfurt and established its own independent kehilla.
ReplyDeleteThat was clearly part of it. Please do remember that the general community had become reform and voted in reform rabbis and disbandment of all halcohos.
This was separating from the Jewish community, and was opposed even by the Netziv!
LOL
Do you mean the Netziv who rather closed the down the Mother of all Yeshivos, if it would have to have a bit of secular instruction? You believe that he was opposed to Rav Hirsch keeping our separation from secular society?
the lol should be pointed at R' Berel Wein, since I am citing him,and not my own invention.
ReplyDeleteIn fact the Netziv is reported to have said that separation from non-frum jewish community is what caused the 2nd Hurban .
Yes. I once heard from R' Dovid Gottleib שליט"א: Just because nobody knows exactly at what height a hill becomes a mountain, doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of mountains that we can tell are mountains, and hills which we can tell are hills!
ReplyDelete@Eddie - you are seriously mangling the quote from the Netziv's introduction to Bereishis - unless you have another source.
ReplyDeleteSeparation from the government sanctioned community - which means from the community institutions such as the cemetery and various chesed organizations etc - was much different in Germany than it is today. I don't see that the Netziv would say the same thing today about having separate communities.
So instead of throwing out names of possible sources- please cite the actual sources of such a claim - Rabbi Wein does not count as a primary source.
I was using R' Wein's comments, as he is supposedly an historian, . So if anyone is mangling it is not me. whether you accept his comments or not is your choice. he also says that Rav Hildsheimer and Rav Bamberger
ReplyDeletedisagreed with the policy of RSRH.
@Eddie - Rabbi Wein has announced that he is not a historian. Furthermore as I pointed out - you are making an oversimplistic comparison and saying that the issue is simply separation from non religious Jews. But that is not an accurate description
ReplyDeleteHave you actually read of any of R' HIrsch's writings to see what he had to say about German literature?
ReplyDeleteRefer to Shaul Stampfer's 'Lithuanian Yeshivas of the 19th Century' for a historically accurate version of the closing of Volozhin.
ReplyDeleteBesides for that, you're mixing 2 different points - introducing secular studies into a yeshiva is not the same as co-exisitng/co-operating with other denominations of Jews. Do you think R' Hildesheimer and the other who oppsed Austritt meant to incorporate the changes of the reformers into their own Kehillas?
Fine, but there is sufficient evidence that this policy was opposed by R' Bamberger and R Hildsheimer.
ReplyDeletehttp://traditionarchive.org/news/article.cfm?id=104768
R' Hirsch certainly had good reason for his policy, I am just stating that it was not universally accepted.
Besides for that, you're mixing 2 different points
ReplyDeleteNo, no, Mr. Dov. You're the one who decided that Austritt was limited to the separation of communal life. It was only aspect of a very broad policy. The policy was much deeper and broader than that. It clearly was about ideological and social separation from gentile cultures.
Refer to Shaul Stampfer's...
Why don't you just refer me to Harry Maryles?! Stampfler is very far from an accurate historian. He is simply there to throw out his psychoanalysis and rewriting of history. Of course, it would do him well to psychoanalyze himself.
Have you actually read of any of R' HIrsch's writings to see what he had to say about German literature?
ReplyDeleteIs this your the best you can come up with? You either have a source, or you do not and are hoping to fool people based upon ignorance.
1: Rav Hirsch was not in favor of separation from German gentile culture. Anyone who know what he wrote about the poet Franz Schiller would not make such a claim.
ReplyDelete2: You don't need to rely on Stampfer. Just read the documents made available after the fall of communism that he reproduces in full.
But R Hirsch did say that Torah is ikur and that it must be examined from within itself. Thus secular material is ancillary and must fit in with the Torah.
ReplyDeleteHe said very little about it. His vast writings are Torah only really. He just said if we hear something good from the outside world, we are open to it.
ReplyDeleteSchiller is not typical of German culture. He happened to be a poet who wrote about morality and spirituality.
ReplyDeleteabsolutely
ReplyDeletehttp://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=phr
ReplyDelete"The Romantic poet Schiller so captivated Hirsch’s
intellect that the Schiller Festival in 1859 prompted Hirsch to deliver a speech to the Israelitischen Religionsgesellschaft’s
School in which he praised Schiller’s contributions to the world well as Schiller how to so beautifully express truths that can save the world and men.” Hirsch adamantly believed that Schiller
grasped the profundity of human experience and articulated it in
a way that was comprehensible to the masses. He even claimed
that, “[Our Sages] would have greeted Schiller as one of their
own, and would have recognized only familiar tones among
his sounds.”In almost radical language Hirsch emphatically
declared that Schiller was a unique thinker and artist whose works
penetrated the core of Jewish values, thereby bringing Schiller
into the intellectual Jewish fold by virtue of his commonalities
with the Jewish tradition. Evidently, Hirsch believed in the
possibility of an organic relationship between secular and Jewish
philosophy.
Source:
Marc Shapiro, “Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch and Friedrich
von Schiller,” The Torah U-Madda Journal 15 (2008-20009)
In case you don't trust Professor Shapiro, here's another one:
Not only was Hirsch interested in German intellectual many aspects of broader European culture. Most importantly,
he believed that, “European culture had substantive, not merely
instrumental value.”
Source:
Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition: The Social
History of Orthodox Jewry in Imperial Germany, trans.
Anyone who has studied even a little bit of The 19 Letters or the Collected Writings of Rav Hirsch knows there are many more examples along these lines, unfortunately I don't have time at the moment to start tracking them down so I'm relying on these secondary sources.
That's a pretty strong accustation - did you arrive at that conclusion after reading most of his works? any of them?
ReplyDeleteYehoshua - thanks for that point about Schiller! It's nice to have someone else joining the conversation who actually has some knowledge of the subject matter being discussed :) I just quoted some of what R' Hirsch said about Schiller in an earlier comment, but it's from secondary sources. If you could track down a primary source that would be great, altough I think the point has already been sufficiently made, and we're not going to change peoples minds that were taught the revisionist version of R' Hirsch and Torah Im Derech Eretz
ReplyDeleteAustritt - my foot!
ReplyDeleteTrue, its not the main focus of his writings, but there's a fair amount that discusses these issues - not neccesarily about literature specifically but the relation to secular culture in general - see the source material I provided below.
ReplyDelete"He just said if we hear something good from the outside world, we are open to it."
He said quite a bit more than that. This sounds more like the watered-down explanations given in many yeshivos nowadays to "kasher" Rav Hirsch and TIDE
Now you're starting to split hairs...
ReplyDeleteBesides for the sources included in my comment below, here's a relevant primary source:
ReplyDeleteHirsch, Collected Writings, VI:147
can you bring a primary source where he actually says that his community should separate from the general culture? That would help our understanding very much.
ReplyDelete1: Rav Hirsch was not in favor of separation from German gentile culture.
ReplyDeleteNice assertion. Of course, without a smidgen of proof.
Anyone who know what he wrote about the poet Franz Schiller would not make such a claim.
Incorrect. Regardless of professor Marc Shapiro's spin and seeing what he had already preconceived and argued for for years, in Rav Hirsch's appreciation of
Friedrich von Schiller's values, it is simply not the reality. Rav Hirsch appreciated Schiller, much as Rav Avigdor Miller appreciated the Christian and Catholic Church. When they align in fighting certain evils, as well as furthering certain truths, Rav Hirsch and Rav Miller appreciated their good. The end.
To then further try to extrapolate and instill preconceived notions, is simple intellectual dishonesty - something we've come to expect from you. Rav Hirsch did not believe that the "synergy" of Judaism and German culture would create a better Jew. A truth that you will not admit. A truth that you will not bring any sort of proof against. You will try through all sorts of abstract notions hoping to confuse people.
I had just written to another guy about Shapiro and Schiller. Here is Shapiro's translation of the speech. Skip his nonsensical introduction and go right to the actual speech. You will clealry not see what Shapiro chose to see in Rav Hirsch's words - whom Shapiro calls "Hirsch." He does insist he be called Professor Shapiro.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/231189628?access_key=key-2X6Uxzh9hqpGlR5LwVhN&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
Again, you have not quoted a primary source. Why?
So if I understand your reference to the Netziv and Volozhin correctly, you're lumping secular studies in yeshiva and Austritt together?
ReplyDeleteHow about we attempt some intellectual honesty here.
1. Do you claim that the Netziv was against Rav Hirsch having his students ideologically and socially separate from gentile cultures? This was Eddie's claim. You either agree with him, or you do not.
Do you agree with this, as is: Yes or No?
Regarding your accusations against Professor Stampler...
Is this your best retort? Have you quoted anything that he wrote?
I'm certain you could write a fascinating article rebutting his academic work on the Volozhin Yeshiva.
Is this all part of your intellectually dishonest game?
This sounds more like the watered-down explanations given in many yeshivos nowadays to "kasher" Rav Hirsch and TIDE
ReplyDeleteSounds like hate-filled slander.
Oh well, it is.
can someone do a guest post on TIDE?
ReplyDeleteMr. 'Honesty' - You've asked for sources, we'v provided sources. I myself admitted that I don't have access to the primary sources at the moment, but I did reference a chapter from the 'Selected Writings' which you seem to have ignored. You have big words to say againsts Stampfer, Shapiro and others but you actually haven't brought one single, small proof or source to back up any of your own arguments. I think you've made it very clear to everyone that's taken part in this discussion where you stand, and I guess there's really no point in proceeding since you've already made up your mind a long time ago, and are willing to disagree with any lwell reasoned or supported arguments or even facts, as long as it fits nealtly into your perfectly sculpted weltanschauung.
ReplyDeleteFWIW conceded earlier that at the very least R' Hirsch believed in accepting the truth from wherever it comes (this in fact predates Rav Hirsch as it is from the Mishna) - I think that's a lesson that would serve you well, Mr. 'Honesty'
Regarding your accusations against Professor Stampler...
ReplyDeleteIs this your best retort? Have you quoted anything that he wrote?
Generally the onus of proof falls upon the one making wild accusations, and not the reverse. I have read most of his work on Volozhin as well as a couple of articles - which works have you read on which you base your analysis?
You've asked for sources, we'v provided sources. I myself admitted that I don't have access to the primary sources
ReplyDeleteI provided a link to the actual source, for you and everyone else to see. Why quote biased third-party sources, when the actual source is available???
(Parenthetically, this translation is by Marc Shapiro himself. I wonder what a translation from a neutral translator would look like.)
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/231189628?access_key=key-2X6Uxzh9hqpGlR5LwVhN&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
I guess there's really no point in proceeding since you've already made up your mind a long time ago, and are willing to disagree with any lwell reasoned or supported arguments or even facts, as long as it fits nealtly into your perfectly sculpted weltanschauung.
Thank you for your unsupported analysis. Of course, to the unbiased observer, you are simply projecting yourself unto me. Neat.
conceded earlier that at the very least R' Hirsch believed in accepting the truth from wherever it comes (this in fact predates Rav Hirsch as it is from the Mishna) - I think that's a lesson that would serve you well
Yes, it is one you should indeed internalize. For you to ponder, when was the last time you accepted the truth from someone whom you call a "Chareidi." Do you think he only accepted the truth if it came from a from a gentile, or a person who follows in their ways?
Lets get back on topic.
ReplyDelete1. We have clarified that Rav Hirsch's Austritt included seceding from gentile ideals and culture. It even included secession from the reform "enlightened" Jewish community.
(The second part is one that was not accepted by everyone. On whose side history is, is something that we can allow each observer to draw their own conclusion about.)
2. We have clarified that the Netziv was clearly not against seceding from gentile culture and ideals.
Trying to divert from these truths through smokescreens and sidetracking is not enough. Either bring the clear proof, or just leave it. Thank you.
How about you? You wrote a nice appreciation on Rav Wosner. But please, make it rich on facts and sources. Leave the analysis and conclusions to the reader.
ReplyDeleteHis teshuvos are a great place to start. What other people claim he meant and said can be left out.
Here's a good analysis from Mordechai Breuer regarding the Austritt issue:
ReplyDeleteSeveral scholars have wondered why a rabbi with cultural openness toward Gentile wisdom would be closed to working with other Jewish denominations. Prof. Mordechai Breuer enumerates various approaches, but I am partial to Breuer’s own approach. R. Hirsch was a man of yosher or truth. He did not deny the truth that Gentile wisdom had something to contribute and that we could benefit from studying it. For the same reason, he could not work with a group whose ideology he viewed as a distortion of the truths of Torah.
This clearly explains the difference between separation from other Jewish denominations/groups vs separation from secular/gentile culture - the secular culture in his view didn't represent an attack on Torah-true Judaism and in fact could add value, as opposed to Reform Judaism which represented a direct attack on the Torah
That's a funny question, being that I've only attended Chareidi institutions and had Chareidi Rebbeim my entire life, and I live in a Chareidi community and have a Chareidi Rav and Chareidi friends. But you'll probably just say that I'm an ex-Chareidi hater, or maybe even an OTD Chareidi. Nobody else is making this an issue of labels and personal affiliations except for you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wasn't quite clear who the 'Chareidi' is that I'm supposed to be accepting the truth from? I'm happy to accept accurate sources, and I'm also open to any well-argued/reasoned analysis without first coming to a predetermined judgement based on who the author is.
Although its very enjoyable, unfortunately I don't have time this week to continue this discussion
ReplyDeleteLOL
I'm glad you finally brought some quotes. The only problem is, is that none of the actual quotes say that Jews should ideologically, culturally and socially integrate themselves with gentiles.
1, 2 and 3 speak nothing of gentile culture.
4 has been well explain by his spiritual successor, Rav Shimon Schwab.
5 is simply unreliable. Period.
6a can only be understood in the context of once you study something, do it well. Give it your best shot.
6b To qualify as a member of the highest Jewish Rabbinical body, you had to be conversant in all primary languages. It speaks nothing of being like the gentiles, culturally and socially. It us teaching them. So, are you conversant in German? Latin? Why not? How about the Kardashians? The Yankees?
What were you saying about intellectual honesty?
But its intellectually dishonest ... to try and twist R' Hirsch to fit with different views.
Yep. So why do you do it?
Prof. Mordechai Breuer
ReplyDelete...is quite obviously proof of nothing.
the secular culture in his view didn't represent an attack on Torah-true Judaism...
Are you serious? It certainly does. Certain aspects thereof, as well as certain members are consistent with truth. But in general, they certainly have many more positions and ideals that are contrary to Torah ideals.
Nobody said anything about integrating with gentiles - you're just setting up straw men to knock down. The point of all these quotes is that there's value to be gained from secular knowledge and culture (of then, probably not current culture) that can be integrated into a Torah way of life, not that we should become 'goyish'. This is opposed to the mainstream Orthodox view of the time that any exposure to secular knowledge and culture was at best a waste of time, and at worst harmful and/or bittul Torah.
ReplyDeleteTo revisit the sources above:
1) What do you understand the "Hellenistic spirit" to mean?
2) What are "other sources"?
3) "and to all that is true, noble and good in European culture" - this isn't referring to Gentile culture??
4) My focus here isn't on equating time for Jewish and secular studies, just the point that it enhances one's Judaism
5) Unfortunately I don't have the source material available because this is really a powerful piece - I'll bli neder try to find it
6a) You're arguing for the pragmatic approach to secular education which is the exact thing Rav Hirsch is coming to counter here
6b) To requote:
"they can gain entrance to the intellectual creations of the peoples and feed and enrich their minds with all that is good and noble and true in the contributions of the noblest spirits to the realm of knowledge"
Do you honestly believe that this has any connection to the requirement for Sanhedrin to know the 70 languages - if you'd studied the sugyos you'd see that its a purely pragmatic concern of being able to accept testimony directly. Did that have anything to do with "enriching their minds" from general knowledge??
Again nothing to do with becoming like the goyim - maybe you don't understand the fine nuances here - its not a zero sums game according to Rav Hirsch.
I'm just curious - do you have any interest in looking up and studying any of this source material? I actually used to have similar views about R' Hirsch as you do, but what changed by mind was reading his own works! not those of anyone else (particularly on the issue of 'hora'as sha'ah)
Which point of Professor Breuer's analysis do you take issue with? You do disagree with the statement "He did not deny the truth that Gentile wisdom had something to contribute and that we could benefit from studying it"? or "For the same reason, he could not work with a group whose ideology he viewed as a distortion of the truths of Torah." or both??
ReplyDeleteActually the only time I ever stepped foot into that "institution" was for the annual seforim sale! is that enough to make me guilty by association?
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting area, but I don't have much material on R' Hirsch and R Hildsheimer. Then the other interesting question is where and when does TIDE end and MO begin, e.g. R Hoffman, who was in the same movement but much more radical. I will do a little research to see if i can gather enough balanced material, kol tuv.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick "shehakol" rather than a full meal:
ReplyDeleteRav Hirsch wrote on the then new theory of evolution. sources: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Rabbi_Samson_Rafael_Hirsch_Evolution.htm
He is critical but then states that even it if becomes a widely accepted scientific view,Judaism will always consider the creation to have been the deliberate act of Hashem - and that the scientific evidence will conform to our Torah view of Maaseh Bereishit. In other words, the purposeful creation may have been done through the instrument of dna molecules, but it was done with design and purpose nonetheless.
I see this as both engaging with challenging scientific views and still adherence strictly to Torat Emet. As far as I know, this is what MO does, at least the YU approach.
Are you sure that's the right page, he doesn't say anything about German culture there.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the quotes. But see regarding 1) p. 191 "And yet, Hellenic culture contains only one single fraction of that truth which some day will bring salvation to mankind."
ReplyDeleteAs for the quotes about European culture, he never says anything specific, just that if they produce something noble we can accept it.
I can't think of a place where Hirsch says to mingle with gentiles but yes we can benefit from their wisdom. The Gemara says that. See intro to Duties of the Heart. He says it. It's not new to Hirsch.
ReplyDeleteAs for haros sha'ah: "'Torah im Derech Eretz' is the one true principle conducive to truth and peace, to healing and recovery from all ills and all religious confusion. The principle of "Torah im Derech Eretz" can fulfill this function because it is not part of troubled, time-bound notions; it represents the ancient, traditional wisdom of our Sages that has stood the test everywhere and at all times." Collected Writings, Vol. VI, p. 221
I really do believe that Hirsch was exaggerating somewhat with his comments on Schiller as the latter was a national hero and Hirsch was being polite. this isn't to disparage Schiller.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't refer to any specific aspect of European culture, but it definitely seems like he's referring to the culture of his time and that there is real value in it, and not just that theoretically they would accept it but there is in fact nothing of value.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100% that he would oppose to mingling just for the sake of 'acculturating', but not necessarily does he believe we should go out of our ways to avoid interacting with them in daily life.
ReplyDeleteI agree - that specific point isn't new to R' HIrsch, so the big question is - what did he add to that established view? In my humble opinion it would appear that any earlier source could be interpreted in a clearly pragmatic way - ie. we'll accept outside wisdom for practical, mundane purposes. But R' Hirsch may have been one of the first to say that it could actually enhance our Judaism and avodah hashem. This is just one small aspect and I'm not trying to summarize his whole mehalech, but the idea of synthesis is definitely a common description which seems to fit well with all of the above.
Could be, but nobody forced him to give the speech in the first place. I've seen the argument made by at least one very choshuv person that certain parts of R' Hirsch's writings which are related to education may have been more "PR focused" since he was talking to the baalei baatim etc. but one must be careful when saying those types of things because it can lead to a slipperly slope. At the end of the day he may have exaggerated a bit here and there but we can't accuse him of saying something he didn't truly believe in (I'm not saying you're doing that).
ReplyDeleteDuties of the Heart quotes the Gemara which criticizes us for the following the goyim then praises us for it. What's the resolution, we follow their traits and ignore their good ones. Whether this means culture or values or manners or highway technology I don't know.
ReplyDeleteCertainly not forced. R' Hirsch was as brave as they come. And an ish emes. He wouldn't praise Schiller if he didn't mean it. And look at Schiller. The poetry seems fine to me, the parts I have seen.
ReplyDeleteIt's so hard to know. Perhaps we can look to Rav Breuer who maintained the Hirschian derech in our lifetime. I think the main takeaway is that secular studies are not all "nonsense and emptiness" as you'll hear from parts - but certainly not all - of the Lithuanian world. So once it's possible for outside material to have value, then you have to figure out what's useful. As I mentioned, even the Duties of the Heart says that his book includes material from "wise gentile philosophers." And the Rambam used Aristotle and so on. These things are variable. There's no substitute for seichel and good faith decision making. Side note, you guys might want to look at www.TIDESociety.org, a blog about this subject.
If you look at Hirsch's writings, 1000s of pages of it, you'll find less than a half dozen references to any secular thinkers. Could be half a half dozen, ie 2 or 3. No evidence there that he was enamored with German culture. Maybe he saw some good parts to it, but enamored - a term some have used - I don't see the evidence for that.
ReplyDeleteRambam and others too.
ReplyDeletecheck collected writings vol. XI. they have a translation.
ReplyDeleteNot splitting hairs but making distinctions. To say that certain individuals have truth is very different from giving approval to a general society.
ReplyDelete