https://www.jpost.com/judaism/on-modern-orthodoxy-631076
AFTER MORE than 15 years of teaching in the Modern Orthodox yeshivot and seminaries in Israel, I have found that the students themselves are confused about Modern Orthodoxy and perceive it as some sort of “diet orthodoxy,” same great beliefs, but fewer observances. To quote Kaplan yet again, who is in turn citing Heilman, the Modern Orthodox Jew sees himself as a criminal. He is “in theory committed to meeting the demands of both modernity and Orthodoxy; however, insofar as he perceives these demands as being inherently contradictory, his commitment to the demands of modernity results in his selectively violating or, at the very least, not wholly living up to the full range of the demands that Orthodoxy makes upon him. To be involved in the modern world, ipso facto means to live a life that involves the constant compromising of the rigorous norms of Orthodoxy, norms whose legitimacy the Modern Orthodox Jew fully recognizes; in a word, it means to live a criminal existence.” Often my students will report having spent Shabbat with their “really religious cousins.” When I ask them what they mean by that, they usually explain that they are haredi (ultra-Orthodox). As if there is this understanding that haredi Jews are the ones who are “really religious” while what we do as Modern Orthodox Jews falls short of the real thing.
He writes:
ReplyDelete"the truth is that is simply not the case. Hillel and Rabban Gamliel, Rashi and Maimonides, Rabbi Yosef Karo and Rabbi Moshe Isserles were not Orthodox Jews. To claim differently would not only be an anachronism, but simply incorrect, as there are quite a few differences between what one would consider Orthodox and some of the views and practices of the great rabbis of the past."
"Today, half of all married Reform Jews have non-Jewish spouses, and 80 percent of those who married between 2000 and 2013 wed non-Jewish spouses.'
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/9-things-to-know-about-reform-jews/amp/
First, part of it is good PR on the UO community's part. There is a definitely strong effort by UO publications and PR folks to transmit the message that they are the authentic religious Jews. If you want to be authentic, you must be UO. Otherwise you're just kidding yourself when you say you're Orthodox.
ReplyDeleteSecond, MO has to change its position on inclusivity. The UO community has a long history of "Either you're with us 100% or get out". Recall the response to the haskalah - sure, 90% of people are leaving Judaism because of our inflexibility but the 10% who stay are truly committed and they're the only ones who matter!" MO, on the other hand, does the opposite. Short of sleeping with a sheep in public, you can call yourself MO without being properly observant and no one will call you on it. As opposed to UO's 100% quality control, there is 0% in MO.
MO needs to do the following 2 things
1) Declare that the M is a servant to the O. When the M contradicts proper Torah values, it must be pushed aside for the O position.
2) If you don't like that, right-wing Conservatism is over there. Have a nice time.
This, however, will not happen for two reasons
1) MO values autonomy over community, as opposed to UO's emphasis on rigid adherence to the community's demands. You can't force people to tow a line when that line is based on the principle that towing the line isn't an option.
2) It would decimate their numbers. YU would probably be half empty, if not more. Most MO shuls would empty out. Most MO summer camps would have to close for lack of enough campers. It would be suicide for the movement so it won't happen.
In the Kuzari, the Rabbi is discussing with the questioner, various "modern" trends, and he admits that the Karaites of his age are in their ascendancy, and enthusiastic and meticulous, whereas the Rabbinic (orthodox) Yidden have lost their enthusiasm for Judaism.
ReplyDeleteThis was also the case for Conservatives in the early part of the last century in America, some people felt that Orthodoxy is finished because of the mass defections - so some Gedolim even felt that - such that Shaul Lieberman was asked by Rav Hutner to come to his yeshiva, but instead he went to JTS.
The point being, at any time, a snapshot might show some trends, but these keep changing throughout history.
I recall an author on the Cross Currents blog years ago writing "Early Chareidi authorities like the Rashba". It is part of the revision of history that Prof. Marc Shapiro (he also has semicha, why do we never refer to him as Rabbi?) has extensively documented. In this case the UO propaganda is: Since Judaism has never changed, Torah-observant Jews all the way back to Sinai looked and practised Judaism just like us. Because otherwise they'd have to answer the difficult question: If you oppose innovation in religious practice, and Chareidism is an innovation in religious practice, how can you practise it?
ReplyDelete"As opposed to UO's 100% quality control, there is 0% in MO."
ReplyDeleteIt is not the way you claim.
For example, Rav Lichtenstein fought Rabbit Yitz Greenberg, I don't know if he formally threw himn out of YU, but he did leave and start his CLAL which is the primordial Open O/Conservadox.
In England, R' Louis Jacobs had come from the Hareidi stream, and was giving a shiur in Munks in Golders green, which is the Yekkes - TIDE shul, and fully hareidi. The Hareidi Rabbonim didn't do anything against him , he was a lamdan, and Talmid Hacham muvhak of R' Dessler.
Except he started espousing Bible criticism - and was so articulate, he would have become chief rabbi of England, chas v'shalom! An apikorus for chief rabbi?
It was the very Modern O Chief rabbi Brodie ztl who booted him out of orthodoxy, and he went and started his own "masorti" which is like Conservative or right wing reform.
About 25 years ago, Chief rabbi Dr Jonathan sacks ruled that Jacobs could not be given an Aliyah in the Orthodox United Synagogue (it was his granddaughter's aufruf) - becasue this would be a brach l'vatalah since he is making a bracha on the emet of the Torah, when he doesn't believe it!
If the hareidi dream is for MO to simply disappear, they are barking up the wrong tree.
ReplyDeleteRIETS is still a going concernt - perhaps they might be forced to sell or franchise the YU as a university,and just offer degrees for people who want to learn Torah as well. (The Albert Einstein medical school did exactly this).
Even if MO did disappear, so what? There would still be Jews who are secular, those whoa re frum but learn secular knowledge, and those who leave the hareidi world.
The hareidi world may produce the next Hirsch or Solovetchik who will start new MO communities, becasue he sees a need for this. And Hareidi have already done this , with training colelges for men and women to learn computer programming, because they need the parnassah to support their families.
The MOs themselves look at the UO as the real religious keepers, while they MO themselves see themselves as half-hearted religious.
ReplyDeleteI agree, but a good chunk of that is marking. Look at Lubavitch, for example. One part of their selling strategy is the "We're the authentic Jews" line. And if you don't believe us, they continue, look at the pictures of your great-grandparents. Do they look more like us or you? (I actually have pictures of a couple of my greatgrandparents and they look more like me, but whatever) they play on the "Fiddler on the Roof" image - we're the same we were in the old country so that makes us authentic.
ReplyDeleteIt's the same thing with Artscroll and Feldheim. Any of their picture books exclusively feature adults dressed in obvious UO outfits. The worst offender is one particular Feldheim machzor where the Tam is wearing a kippah serugah. Get the point?
So at all levels - the kosher butcher shop, the mohel, the Talmud teacher in your kids MO school - UO presents itself as the "big brother" in Torah observance.
Not really.
ReplyDeleteThe MO have different perspectives. They might see brisk or some chassidim such as habad or belz as being very frum.
But they also see people like satmar, nk as crazies or rashaim.
Many MO connect to Rav kook who was half litvish and half chabad.
There are people who don't have extensive Torah learning, but still are aligned with orthodoxy.
Chareidism is not all uniform.
ReplyDeleteChassidim are not all the same.
If lubavitch had not gone sabbatean, they would be a nice community, but a modern person is always going to be an outsider.
Even rav zevin ztl was a bit of an outcast because he felt an affinity for Zionism.
useless article, he says Orthodoxy is not what Rambam or Rema practiced. So the entire discussion is meaningless.
ReplyDelete