Modern Orthodoxy VII
We don’t NEED secular literature to teach us our relationship with Hashem. In real life, these secular writers cannot come up with anything regarding our relationship with G-d that we do not already know from the Torah. And even more importantly, how in the world do you know that what you are learning from the secular places is correct? Maybe it is giving you a false idea of your relationship with G-d?
A moshol would be if someone is offering you $100 bills on one side and on the other side someone is offering you pennies - who in their right mind would take the pennies? You may as well get the hundreds! Never mind that the pennies may also be counterfeit! Or booby trapped!
That's why, if someone needs a rest from learning or just a vacation for his brain, then innocuous secular literature - if it is innocuous - is OK. But if you are learning it for its value, then you are slapping the Torah in the face - because you are turning down the Torah's offer, which is much, much better.
---
If Rav Soloveitchik though that he was being moser nefesh for a certain segment of Jewry that would not be able to reach proper Torah Judaism, then he would not have criticized those Bnei Torah who do NOT go to college, which he did. In fact, I know of a then-young Rabbi who, after impressing Rav Soloveichik in learning, was asked "did you go to college?" And when the Rabbi said "no", Rav Soloveichik told him "that's a pity." If you are bringing people up to a higher level, that is one thing; but then you will not try to bring those on the higher level down to a lower one. Unless you think that the lower one is higher.
Rav Soloveichik did not believe that he was merely helping a segment of Orthodox Jewry -- he held that "the future of Torah in America" depends on following his approach. He held that the "separatist" Orthodox will die out and only YU and MO will survive. He held America was too strong for the real, pure Orthodoxy. He therefore tried to proactively change the picture of a Ben Torah into a YU guy. Those who insisted on continuing the "old style" Orthodoxy would, he said, be come nothing but tourist attractions and die out eventually, and those Gedolim who refuse to admit this "lack the courage" to admit their mistake, which is/was quite obvious to him.
Although he did expect to be ostracized he expected the ostracizers to whither away and he and his would be leading Orthodox Jewry.
His problem was that he misread the world. Rav Shach writes that he was influenced by his secular studies which corrupted his hashkofos, and that’s what derailed his vision. But whatever the reason, he made a terrible error in judgment regarding the future of Orthodox Jewry in America, and whether that error was a plain mistake or the result of tainted hashkofos, he was considered a danger because he was misleading people. Not only were his teachings bringing some people up, but they were bringing others down to the level that he held was the maximum that could be reached in America.
Why he thought that The Light of Torah could not shine here is a good question -- and as I said, Rav Shach says it was because his hashkofos were tainted by his value for secular studies. And not only in regard to this particular issue - Rav Shach says this regarding Rav Soloveichik's general outlook on Jewish matters. In context, he was referring to the first of the "Five Addresses" where Rav Soloveichik attributes certain vision flaws to the shevtei kah, which of course, serve for Rav Soloveichik as a moshol to the vision flaws of the gedolim on him.
The assimilation of secular values (not so only the studies but the values) is bad enough, but to make that assimilation into the l'chatchilah Torah lifestyle is much worse. That is why Rav Aharon Kotler said that he (Rav Soloveichik) "destroyed an entire generation" -- and that’s not the harshest thing he said about him.
He was considered a great gaon in Torah learning - but in hashkafa he was considered totally off. There were plenty of people in Jewish history - bigger geonim than Rav Soloveichik - from biblical times down - who were Torah scholars but hashkaficly tainted. It’s not such a big chidush.
---
There is no such thing as an official "Modern Orthodox" hashkafa. Modern Orthodoxy was not created in the same way that lets say chasidus or the musar movement was, where leaders got together and said "this is what we want to do." Rather, it was created from the bottom-up, by default - certain people were not meeting a certain standard, and that lower standard became communal and institutionalized and so you have modern orthodoxy. Nobody has a right to say "this is what MO believes", since everybody has equal right to call themselves MO.
Why did Modern Orthodoxy choose to follow certain specific positions? What do they have in common? You are not really explaining what drives MO, but only what you believe is the result of what drives them. WHY did they decide that the above things are important?
The answer, no matter how you cut it, is that besides Torah, MO is driven by a desire to be like the goyim. The only question is how far that goes. But that is the problem. Any factor that drives our religious beliefs besides religion is a falsification of Torah. The equation is that simple.
They will not tell you in the MO schools about the vast difference in outlook, lifestyle, and core beliefs of the MO, simply because they don’t know enough about traditional orthodoxy to understand how they are different. There are 2 main differences between traditional orthodoxy and modern orthodoxy (and this applies to all strains of MO):
1) MO includes in its religious drivers the need or desire to be like the gentiles - ergo: the State of Israel, secular education, secular culture, etc
2) The wrongheaded idea that our job in this world is to "follow Halachah" as opposed to following "the Torah". In Mo circles you will constantly hear the idea of living "within the framework of halachah" and that besides the do's and don’ts of the law, our outlook, lifestyle, and perspectives are up to us. This is plain heresy, and originates in the heretical teachings of Moses Mendelssohn.
---
To make compromises in our religion because people will not accept the real thing is the same as what the Conservatives and Reformers have done. It's only a question of how far you want to go. This is why Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol 3 - Hesped on Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
While it is true that on an individual, private, level, we are allowed to even proactively cause someone to sin if by doing so we will have prevented him form committing a greater sin, nevertheless, we may never, ever institutionalize those sins, making a b'dieved inot a l'chatchilah, making the exception into the rule. Doing so in Kefirah. By institutionalizing their compromises and making them into an official "version of Orthodoxy" which they believe, or came to believe, is just as authentic, or even more authentic, than Torah Orthodoxy, constitutes changing Judaism, and is prohibited regardless of what some people will do if you don’t provide them a new version of Judaism.
HAFTR is currently taking big a hit from schools like SKA (boys and girls versions) which compete on an educational level, but are not coed. HAFTR is losing many students to them. While there are, I am certain, people whose credo is "either coed or nothing", there are also those who would choose the more frum schools, if only those were available.
People laughed at Rav Aharon Kotler when he said that American students would be willing to go to Yeshiva full time with no college. Now look at who's laughing at whom.
It is neither our job, nor within our ability, to assess what is "better for Klall Yisroel" according to our finite vision. It is our job to follow the Torah. And the Torah says it is not permitted to institutionalize changes or compromises into our idea of Judaism, even if there are those who will not accept real Judaism.
---
The root problem with Modern Orthodoxy, the issue from which stems all other issues, is that they incorporate secular, non-Jewish, values into their religious practice. What the secular world values, they believe is valuable. What the secular world thinks is normal, civilized, sophisticated, good, and proper, they do too, and they incorporate those values and attitudes, which are often corrupt and against the Torah, into their religious practice.
And so, because in the secular world, a "people" is bizarre when you’re talking about a people with no country and no common language - imagine the Italians without Italy or Italian - therefore, Zionism, which, to their standards "normalizes" the Jewish nation (that was actually the word the Zionists used) becomes almost a requirement of Modern Orthodoxy; because secular studies, college education, mixing of boys and girls and a general a collegiate, yuppie lifestyle, is considered "normal" in the secular world, it become part and parcel of the MO lifestyle.
And ironically, where college and mixing of the sexes is concerned, the MO community become tremendous meikilim way beyond what the halachah allows. In these areas, they will struggle to find heterim, whether they exist or not; on the other hand, regarding making aliyah, they will become fanatical machmirim, and despite the myriad leniencies and historical precedent of Jews willingly living outside of Eretz yisroel, they will often run around saying that you have to make aliyah, and not to do so is in violation of the Torah.
When secular values demand they be fanatical machmirim, they become fanatical machmirim; when secular values demand they become unreasonable mekilim, they become unreasonable mekilim.
In order to avoid coming in conflict with the Chazals that explain the terrible crime of making a State in Eretz Yisroel before moshiach comes, they will dismiss them as "agadita" - not binding, and non-cognitive. It doesn’t matter what they say. Only halachic Gemoras count. (The truth is, they are wrong on both counts - Agadita is not non-cognitive - they definitely reveal the will of Hashem, and according to most opinions, they are also halachicly binding unless overwritten by a different halachic Gemora. But these Chazals that prohibit making a Jewish State in EY are quoted l'halachah by the Rishonim and Achronim in countless places).
Yet they will make "ahavas eretz yisroel" a mainstay of their lifestyle, their studies, and their duties, even though there is no halachah anywhere that says one has to have ahavas eretz yisroel. The entire obligation is completely Agadic in nature. The Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch, and the poskim codify no such obligation.
So when their secular values demand they become Agadists, they do so - to the point where Agadita becomes one of the most important elements of their philosophy, if not the most important; and when their secular values demand that they disregard open statements of Chazal, they dismiss them, saying Agadita is not binding.
And so, when their secular values demand that women be "treated equally", and that education be "available to all", and that women's "intellects should be respected", they misconstrue all of those cliches into the act of ignoring open halachos and instituting a clear aveirah into the list of what they consider noble: teaching girls Gemora.
That is why all their "heterim" are not based on shas and roshonim, but rather on the secular idea that "today's women are different - we are no longer in the shtetle (someone actually sent me that in a post); today's women think; todays women are sophisticated and deserve and need a full Jewish education - and even though they have not yet finished all the halachos and hashkofos that they are utterly OBLIGATED to learn, what they mean by "full Jewish education" is really "opportunity equal to that of males".
Feh.
And then they want to know what people have against Modern Orthodoxy. Well, here's an example, they violated an open halachah and made their aveirah into something noble, because their modernity demands that they do it. Unless they come up with some kind of real heter - something more halachicly valid than some Virginia Slims advertisement showing how much more sophisticated and intellectual their women are than our holy ancestors - what in the world do they want from those who consider them off the path of Torah?
---
No Rabbis started Modern Orthodoxy. Modern Orthodoxy did not start like Chasidus by the Baal Shem Tov or the Mussar movement by Rav Yisroel Salanter. It was started by people who simply wanted to accept the values of modern society, including but not limited to secular education, nationalism (Zionism), mixing of the sexes and etc. They will tell you that Rav SR Hirsh was in favor of secular studies, but when you tell them Rav Hirsh was vehemently anti-Zionist they’ll say yeah we follow Rav Kook for that; then you’ll tell them Rav Kook had standards of Tznius that rival today’s most strict Chasidic communities and they’ll try to find other "shitos" (Not that Rav Hirsh's version of secular studies has anything to do with that of MO anyway).
---
The Modern Orthodox world keeps saying that a reason kids are going off
is because they're not "cut out" to be so frum, and the Conservatives
have used the fact that frum kids go off as a "proof" that one of the
reason they go off is that they are not cut out to be Orthodox, and I have seen secular social workers who say that a reason is, not everyone is cut out to be religious altogether. A Lakewood kid who goes off has the exact same chance of coming back, and is equally manageable, as a kid from Scarsdale or Teaneck. And
the Lakewood kids who "go off" do not go any further off than anyone else. Like all, some go further than others.
---
Nobody said that going to work is "wrong". It's just not as high as learning Torah all day. The Rambam says this, when he declares that nowadays anyone can step up to be like the Tribe of Levi in the olden days and be privileged to learn Torah all day.
It's like this:
I show you a pile of gold coins. I tell you that you have 1 hour to collect as much as you can. I tell you that the minimum you must collect is $500 worth or else you will burn in Gehinnom. Whatever you collect you can keep.
Is it "wrong" to collect only your $500 and then sleep the rest of the hour?
That's not the point, is it? So too, we have one lifetime. We have one pile of coins. Torah learning is the most valuable of them all - Talmud Torah k'neged Kulam.
The Yerushalmi Peah says that one word of Torah imparts more Kedusha than a lifetime of doing other Mitzvos! We have a choice. We can spend all our time collecting the coins, or we can bother with other pursuits as well.
Of course, in that hour, you may have to eat, maybe even do other
things. But you will want to spend as much time as you can collecting your gold.
Someone who doesn't either has no choice in the matter (maybe they do have to eat) or doesn't appreciate the gold. That moshol, by the way, comes from the Choid Yaavetz in Avos to explain why "If two people are sitting around and no words of Torah are exchanged between them, theirs is a meeting of scoffers" (moshav letzim). He says that these guys have a chance to collect gold and don't. That means they don't value the gold. You're right. Some people do have to make a living. Some have to spend time in the hospital, because they are sick. Some have to be involved
with other necessary pursuits. All these are considered "ones" - not responsible for the "crime" of not collecting the coins. But that's not the point. You want to make sure that as much time in your life is spent gathering your gold, and whatever you have to do otherwise should be minimized as much as possible.
Torah Umadah is not a real philosophy - it is a phrase coined and used by some Modern Orthodox Jews in recent years, most notably Norman Lamm. It means "Torah and Science". And it means, in a nutshell, that secular studies have intrinsic value, not merely practical use. It's nothing new - it just rakes up old Modern Orthodox
position, overlooks the fact that they were rejected, and garnishes it
up as something new. Every now and then Modern Orthodoxy throws in a new adjective to describe itself. I suppose they think it will reignite some kind of interest in their ideas. It's like a product that’s not selling well - you change the name and the packaging hoping people won't notice. It's pretty much all a marketing tool mostly by Norman Lamm, who conjures up these terms. For a number of years, they called themselves "Centrists", and their movement "Centrism." But it's all the same.
---
The best way to distinguish between legit and illegit positions is if you are qualified to do so yourself. "Lo am haaretz chasid", an ignorant man cannot be pious, and the simplest reason is, he will not know who to follow.
But there are solutions even for the non-advanced in Torah. The formula is, See the attitude of the opposing Gedolim to the view in question. Sometimes a godol will say "I don't agree with this position." He may even say "I think this is absurd." But he will not discredit the person saying it. On the other hand, when he says "The person who said this is not a legitimate Godol", or even "Whoever says this is a fool"
then you have a right to believe it.
Example: Zionism. The opponents to it did not merely say it is absurd or wrong, but rather that it was based on wishful thinking and dishonest misrepresentation of Torah. Reb Elchonon said regarding those who believe that the work of the heretical Zionists (i.e. the State of Israel) is a great merit, (Kovetz Maamarim I:p.161), "Anyone who believes that a great merit can come from the worst sinners is either an idiot (tipish) or a mocker of the words of Chazal." This is but one example of the nullification that the Gedolim had for Zionism. Not merely that it is wrong, but rather that its motivation is wrong. There is a big difference.
You also want to see what views are "traditional". Meaning, new ideologies are always suspect. Our religion does not develop new ideologies. If the Gedolim of the previous generation did not hold of a certain ideology then it is not legitimate. Rashi says that if you are in doubt about what is legitimate, just follow the policies of the
old generation of Gedolim and then you are safe. It is also true that dishonesty often accompanies illegitimate ideologies, since there is insufficient facts upon which to build their ideologies. For instance, when the Lubavitchers claim that Rav
Aharon Kotler ZTL starved Lubavitcher students to death or that Rav Shach ZTL is against Chasidim (not just Lubavitch), or that he disrespected the Rambam in an alleged interview in Chabad - such things you don't find among legitimate places, no matter how in error they are. Checking out facts often exposes fakers for what they are.
But the first and best criteria for someone who is not a Torah scholar is to see the attitude of the Gedolim toward the ideology. Do they disagree, do they consider it absurd? Baseless? Or do they recognize it as a deviant movement with no right to exist? Using that, you will usually filter the real from the fake.
I specifically did Not say "see what the Gedolim say" because then your point would be telling - who then are the Gedolim? Rather, I said see if there are those who you yourself recognize as Gedolim who delegitimize the position in question.
So in respect to, let's say, Zionism, who is not going to concede that Ran Chaim Brisker, The Rogachover, the Chofetz Chain, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Aharon Kotler, and the Satmar Rebbe ZTL were not real "gedolim". And if they delegitimized the "other side" then you know its not a legitimate side. Even the Zionists are not going to try to say that roster of Torah giants are not Torah authorities.
Modern Orthodoxy was also rejected as simply a deviant movement by the Gedoim - who are recognized as such even by the Modern Orthodox.
So you have one side saying that the other is illegitimate, and those allegedly illegitimate ones saying "Yes but eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim". That you cannot do, since part of the divrei elokim chaim of your opponents is that your position doesn't constite divrei elokim chaim at all.
In Lubavitch, they deal with this by making up slanderous stories about their opponents, in order to eliminate this problem. So they indeed will tell you Rav Shach and Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, for instance, were not real "Gedolim". Afra l'pumam. By that itself you know that they are not legitimate.
---
Those Rabbonim who were against Bais Yaakovs still are -- and those who weren't still aren't. Nobody "changed" their opinion.
Perhaps more important, though, is that whereas the Bais Yaakov movement as a movement was never a Halachic issue (although the details of the curriculum were, and still are), Zionims was branded Apikorsus and Avodah Zorah. So whereas what can be a good strategy today may a bad one tomorrow or vice versa, such as certain mussar schools of thought, etc.
But what is Apikorsus and Avodah Zorah doesn't change.
The Zionists, religious and otherwise, sometimes try to position the issue of Zionism as if it is an "is this good for Klall Yisroel" kind of thing. By doing so, they are trying to ignore the much more important issue - the fact that their ideology and their State itself is assur according to the Torah as a serious sin and rebellion against Hashem.
---
If you are in doubt as to who to follow, you should follow who is bigger; if you do not know that, then you should follow those who follow the derech of their Rebbeim; and that you can know, because in this particular instance, even the religious Zionists admit that they have broken away from their tradition and the teachings of their Rebbeim - Rav JB Soloveichik used to speak often how his grandfather, Rav Chaim ZTL, who by the way, in basically every other aspect of Judaism except for Zionism and secularism is the model for Rav JB Soloveichik's life, was so vehemently opposed to Zionism, religious or otherwise, but he decided to pursue it anyway.
So when you are not able to see on your own the Halachic emptiness of the Zionist position and their inability to satisfactorily respond to the Halachic problems that Zionism faces, you know, at least, that Zionism is a revolution against our predecessors. And that itself is enough for you to know to stay away.
---
What's "extreme"? What's "middle of the road"? (Yeshiva guys say they're middle of the road, between moderists and chassidim; modern orthodoxy used to call themselves "centrists"; "Midstream" magazine is not religious at all; and the list goes on...)
And what's "culture"? It can mean anything from Tchaikovsky to Temptation Island.
Regarding Rav Gifter ZTL, I knew him, and I get the feeling his idea of "middle of the road" is not the same as you are describing. He on numerous occasions berated secular "culture", and I once heard him talk about how even the word "Orthodox" is not legitimate - it has no meaning in Judaism, and therefore just because a person is "Orthodox" does not mean he follows the Torah.
He preferred the total Torah life over all. I once heard him heap unending praises on a former Talmid of his who gave up a career and a living to "live in a ramshackle hut" (that’s a quote) in Israel and become a talmid of Rav Elyashev shlita.
---
Nobody is allowed to have any standards of right and wrong, are they? If they do, then those who do the wrong have a right to accuse those with the standards of hate?
What hate? Huh? I see disapproval and criticism, but hate? I don’t see any of that?
It's a game people play and a defense mechanism they use to protect themselves from and criticism, and to take license to do whatever they want, that as soon as someone says "Hello, I hold what you’re doing is wrong" they scream "HATE HATE HATE".
Sorry, but that doesn't work here.
And please let me ask you: I am accusing people of violating the Torah, and so are you - yet you feel you have a right to do so, but if I do, I am guilty of "hate"? Can you please explain that? Please tell me the logic of criticizing other Jews under the grounds that they are not allowed to criticize another Jew?
---
I am not at all attacking Rabbi Soloveichik or Rabbi Lamm by quoting them here. On the contrary, I am using the quotes as proof that one DOES say what one thinks even if it means rejecting the ideas of other Jews, Orthodox or otherwise.
---
Nobody here has mentioned a necessity of being “Yeshivish” or Chareidi. Considering the widespread ban on the Internet in numerous Chareidi circles, such a claim would be absurd. If, our objective analysis of Judaism results in the confirmation of practices and/or attitudes not shared by all Jews – Orthodox, Conservative, reform, Jesus, or whatever – well, the fact that not everyone likes what you discover is not a reason to avoid living according to your discovery.
Does taking money from someone automatically means you approve of their lifestyle? Does YU not take money from non-Jews? Reform Jews? Conservative Jews? And if they do, does that mean they approve of their lifestyle? Their Hashkofos? Does that mean that the Rebbeim in YU are not allowed to say Christianity is wrong or Reform Jewry is wrong because Christians or Reform Jews give money to YU?
---
Every time you put yourself in a Nisayon, you can either fall or come out stronger. The Halacha is that we do not take the risk, even if we think it is worth it. Many people cross the street on red lights, and survive. Maybe they even learn to be more alert when crossing. But it's bad advice to tell people to do that.
Putting yourself in a bad environment is not permitted, even if in the end it will make you stronger. This is because (a) you have no way of knowing what will happen in the end, (b) your career there isn't over. So far you say you’ve done well, but you don’t know what nisyonos you will have tomorrow. Chazal say "Do not believe in yourself until the day you die." Hopefully you will live a long life, but as long as you have life, you should not put it in danger. Even if until now you survived. (c) There may be residue weaknesses that you picked up without even noticing. Part of the danger of being in a place like Stern is that you become desensitized to things that should disturb you. Even if you don’t join your friends in their activities, the fact that you are exposed to them is itself a weakness. (d) You have no idea whether the teachings you are absorbing are legitimate or not. There are things presented as Judaism in that place that are not Judaism at all. Unless you are a Talmid Chacham, it is likely you will not know which is which.
---
Everyone has their own nisyonos, and everyone is a Baal Bechirah. You are only responsible to do what you can, but no more than that. You can control your own frumkeit but you cannot control that of others. Your job now is to first and foremost, solidify your own frumkeit, and survive your home. Secondly, to try to change it.
But whereas the first objective (for you to solidify yourself) is within your control, the second is not. You can put in the effort, but it is up to them.
That having been said, I suggest you speak to the "talmidei chachamim" in your school for some advice on how to deal with your family, and perhaps even intervention. Sounds to me like they’re on the same page as you. If that’s so, then maybe let them try to be mekarev your family to a more authentic version of Yiddishket.
And as far as what you can do yourself, perhaps give your family some of those books to read - the ones that helped you so much. You know by now which book I would recommend - Rabbi Miller's 3 Hashkafa books. Be careful though - the last one (Awake My Glory) has very sharp things to say about "Modern Orthodoxy", and your family is likely not on the level yet to digest that. So for the nonce, stick with Rejoice O Youth and Sing You Righteous. These books are designed not only to make people frum, but to make them yorei shamayim.
Also, be patient. Often families such as yours, when they see one of its members such as you grow to be happy, healthy, and spiritually rich, they come around. No guarantees - remember - it's up to them, not you - but it does happen.
So finally, be mispalel to Hashem for them. Have them in mind when you say "hachzireinu beseshuva sheleimah lefonechah".
---
A moshol would be if someone is offering you $100 bills on one side and on the other side someone is offering you pennies - who in their right mind would take the pennies? You may as well get the hundreds! Never mind that the pennies may also be counterfeit! Or booby trapped!
That's why, if someone needs a rest from learning or just a vacation for his brain, then innocuous secular literature - if it is innocuous - is OK. But if you are learning it for its value, then you are slapping the Torah in the face - because you are turning down the Torah's offer, which is much, much better.
---
If Rav Soloveitchik though that he was being moser nefesh for a certain segment of Jewry that would not be able to reach proper Torah Judaism, then he would not have criticized those Bnei Torah who do NOT go to college, which he did. In fact, I know of a then-young Rabbi who, after impressing Rav Soloveichik in learning, was asked "did you go to college?" And when the Rabbi said "no", Rav Soloveichik told him "that's a pity." If you are bringing people up to a higher level, that is one thing; but then you will not try to bring those on the higher level down to a lower one. Unless you think that the lower one is higher.
Rav Soloveichik did not believe that he was merely helping a segment of Orthodox Jewry -- he held that "the future of Torah in America" depends on following his approach. He held that the "separatist" Orthodox will die out and only YU and MO will survive. He held America was too strong for the real, pure Orthodoxy. He therefore tried to proactively change the picture of a Ben Torah into a YU guy. Those who insisted on continuing the "old style" Orthodoxy would, he said, be come nothing but tourist attractions and die out eventually, and those Gedolim who refuse to admit this "lack the courage" to admit their mistake, which is/was quite obvious to him.
Although he did expect to be ostracized he expected the ostracizers to whither away and he and his would be leading Orthodox Jewry.
His problem was that he misread the world. Rav Shach writes that he was influenced by his secular studies which corrupted his hashkofos, and that’s what derailed his vision. But whatever the reason, he made a terrible error in judgment regarding the future of Orthodox Jewry in America, and whether that error was a plain mistake or the result of tainted hashkofos, he was considered a danger because he was misleading people. Not only were his teachings bringing some people up, but they were bringing others down to the level that he held was the maximum that could be reached in America.
Why he thought that The Light of Torah could not shine here is a good question -- and as I said, Rav Shach says it was because his hashkofos were tainted by his value for secular studies. And not only in regard to this particular issue - Rav Shach says this regarding Rav Soloveichik's general outlook on Jewish matters. In context, he was referring to the first of the "Five Addresses" where Rav Soloveichik attributes certain vision flaws to the shevtei kah, which of course, serve for Rav Soloveichik as a moshol to the vision flaws of the gedolim on him.
The assimilation of secular values (not so only the studies but the values) is bad enough, but to make that assimilation into the l'chatchilah Torah lifestyle is much worse. That is why Rav Aharon Kotler said that he (Rav Soloveichik) "destroyed an entire generation" -- and that’s not the harshest thing he said about him.
He was considered a great gaon in Torah learning - but in hashkafa he was considered totally off. There were plenty of people in Jewish history - bigger geonim than Rav Soloveichik - from biblical times down - who were Torah scholars but hashkaficly tainted. It’s not such a big chidush.
---
There is no such thing as an official "Modern Orthodox" hashkafa. Modern Orthodoxy was not created in the same way that lets say chasidus or the musar movement was, where leaders got together and said "this is what we want to do." Rather, it was created from the bottom-up, by default - certain people were not meeting a certain standard, and that lower standard became communal and institutionalized and so you have modern orthodoxy. Nobody has a right to say "this is what MO believes", since everybody has equal right to call themselves MO.
Why did Modern Orthodoxy choose to follow certain specific positions? What do they have in common? You are not really explaining what drives MO, but only what you believe is the result of what drives them. WHY did they decide that the above things are important?
The answer, no matter how you cut it, is that besides Torah, MO is driven by a desire to be like the goyim. The only question is how far that goes. But that is the problem. Any factor that drives our religious beliefs besides religion is a falsification of Torah. The equation is that simple.
They will not tell you in the MO schools about the vast difference in outlook, lifestyle, and core beliefs of the MO, simply because they don’t know enough about traditional orthodoxy to understand how they are different. There are 2 main differences between traditional orthodoxy and modern orthodoxy (and this applies to all strains of MO):
1) MO includes in its religious drivers the need or desire to be like the gentiles - ergo: the State of Israel, secular education, secular culture, etc
2) The wrongheaded idea that our job in this world is to "follow Halachah" as opposed to following "the Torah". In Mo circles you will constantly hear the idea of living "within the framework of halachah" and that besides the do's and don’ts of the law, our outlook, lifestyle, and perspectives are up to us. This is plain heresy, and originates in the heretical teachings of Moses Mendelssohn.
---
To make compromises in our religion because people will not accept the real thing is the same as what the Conservatives and Reformers have done. It's only a question of how far you want to go. This is why Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol 3 - Hesped on Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
While it is true that on an individual, private, level, we are allowed to even proactively cause someone to sin if by doing so we will have prevented him form committing a greater sin, nevertheless, we may never, ever institutionalize those sins, making a b'dieved inot a l'chatchilah, making the exception into the rule. Doing so in Kefirah. By institutionalizing their compromises and making them into an official "version of Orthodoxy" which they believe, or came to believe, is just as authentic, or even more authentic, than Torah Orthodoxy, constitutes changing Judaism, and is prohibited regardless of what some people will do if you don’t provide them a new version of Judaism.
HAFTR is currently taking big a hit from schools like SKA (boys and girls versions) which compete on an educational level, but are not coed. HAFTR is losing many students to them. While there are, I am certain, people whose credo is "either coed or nothing", there are also those who would choose the more frum schools, if only those were available.
People laughed at Rav Aharon Kotler when he said that American students would be willing to go to Yeshiva full time with no college. Now look at who's laughing at whom.
It is neither our job, nor within our ability, to assess what is "better for Klall Yisroel" according to our finite vision. It is our job to follow the Torah. And the Torah says it is not permitted to institutionalize changes or compromises into our idea of Judaism, even if there are those who will not accept real Judaism.
---
The root problem with Modern Orthodoxy, the issue from which stems all other issues, is that they incorporate secular, non-Jewish, values into their religious practice. What the secular world values, they believe is valuable. What the secular world thinks is normal, civilized, sophisticated, good, and proper, they do too, and they incorporate those values and attitudes, which are often corrupt and against the Torah, into their religious practice.
And so, because in the secular world, a "people" is bizarre when you’re talking about a people with no country and no common language - imagine the Italians without Italy or Italian - therefore, Zionism, which, to their standards "normalizes" the Jewish nation (that was actually the word the Zionists used) becomes almost a requirement of Modern Orthodoxy; because secular studies, college education, mixing of boys and girls and a general a collegiate, yuppie lifestyle, is considered "normal" in the secular world, it become part and parcel of the MO lifestyle.
And ironically, where college and mixing of the sexes is concerned, the MO community become tremendous meikilim way beyond what the halachah allows. In these areas, they will struggle to find heterim, whether they exist or not; on the other hand, regarding making aliyah, they will become fanatical machmirim, and despite the myriad leniencies and historical precedent of Jews willingly living outside of Eretz yisroel, they will often run around saying that you have to make aliyah, and not to do so is in violation of the Torah.
When secular values demand they be fanatical machmirim, they become fanatical machmirim; when secular values demand they become unreasonable mekilim, they become unreasonable mekilim.
In order to avoid coming in conflict with the Chazals that explain the terrible crime of making a State in Eretz Yisroel before moshiach comes, they will dismiss them as "agadita" - not binding, and non-cognitive. It doesn’t matter what they say. Only halachic Gemoras count. (The truth is, they are wrong on both counts - Agadita is not non-cognitive - they definitely reveal the will of Hashem, and according to most opinions, they are also halachicly binding unless overwritten by a different halachic Gemora. But these Chazals that prohibit making a Jewish State in EY are quoted l'halachah by the Rishonim and Achronim in countless places).
Yet they will make "ahavas eretz yisroel" a mainstay of their lifestyle, their studies, and their duties, even though there is no halachah anywhere that says one has to have ahavas eretz yisroel. The entire obligation is completely Agadic in nature. The Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch, and the poskim codify no such obligation.
So when their secular values demand they become Agadists, they do so - to the point where Agadita becomes one of the most important elements of their philosophy, if not the most important; and when their secular values demand that they disregard open statements of Chazal, they dismiss them, saying Agadita is not binding.
And so, when their secular values demand that women be "treated equally", and that education be "available to all", and that women's "intellects should be respected", they misconstrue all of those cliches into the act of ignoring open halachos and instituting a clear aveirah into the list of what they consider noble: teaching girls Gemora.
That is why all their "heterim" are not based on shas and roshonim, but rather on the secular idea that "today's women are different - we are no longer in the shtetle (someone actually sent me that in a post); today's women think; todays women are sophisticated and deserve and need a full Jewish education - and even though they have not yet finished all the halachos and hashkofos that they are utterly OBLIGATED to learn, what they mean by "full Jewish education" is really "opportunity equal to that of males".
Feh.
And then they want to know what people have against Modern Orthodoxy. Well, here's an example, they violated an open halachah and made their aveirah into something noble, because their modernity demands that they do it. Unless they come up with some kind of real heter - something more halachicly valid than some Virginia Slims advertisement showing how much more sophisticated and intellectual their women are than our holy ancestors - what in the world do they want from those who consider them off the path of Torah?
---
No Rabbis started Modern Orthodoxy. Modern Orthodoxy did not start like Chasidus by the Baal Shem Tov or the Mussar movement by Rav Yisroel Salanter. It was started by people who simply wanted to accept the values of modern society, including but not limited to secular education, nationalism (Zionism), mixing of the sexes and etc. They will tell you that Rav SR Hirsh was in favor of secular studies, but when you tell them Rav Hirsh was vehemently anti-Zionist they’ll say yeah we follow Rav Kook for that; then you’ll tell them Rav Kook had standards of Tznius that rival today’s most strict Chasidic communities and they’ll try to find other "shitos" (Not that Rav Hirsh's version of secular studies has anything to do with that of MO anyway).
---
The Modern Orthodox world keeps saying that a reason kids are going off
is because they're not "cut out" to be so frum, and the Conservatives
have used the fact that frum kids go off as a "proof" that one of the
reason they go off is that they are not cut out to be Orthodox, and I have seen secular social workers who say that a reason is, not everyone is cut out to be religious altogether. A Lakewood kid who goes off has the exact same chance of coming back, and is equally manageable, as a kid from Scarsdale or Teaneck. And
the Lakewood kids who "go off" do not go any further off than anyone else. Like all, some go further than others.
---
Nobody said that going to work is "wrong". It's just not as high as learning Torah all day. The Rambam says this, when he declares that nowadays anyone can step up to be like the Tribe of Levi in the olden days and be privileged to learn Torah all day.
It's like this:
I show you a pile of gold coins. I tell you that you have 1 hour to collect as much as you can. I tell you that the minimum you must collect is $500 worth or else you will burn in Gehinnom. Whatever you collect you can keep.
Is it "wrong" to collect only your $500 and then sleep the rest of the hour?
That's not the point, is it? So too, we have one lifetime. We have one pile of coins. Torah learning is the most valuable of them all - Talmud Torah k'neged Kulam.
The Yerushalmi Peah says that one word of Torah imparts more Kedusha than a lifetime of doing other Mitzvos! We have a choice. We can spend all our time collecting the coins, or we can bother with other pursuits as well.
Of course, in that hour, you may have to eat, maybe even do other
things. But you will want to spend as much time as you can collecting your gold.
Someone who doesn't either has no choice in the matter (maybe they do have to eat) or doesn't appreciate the gold. That moshol, by the way, comes from the Choid Yaavetz in Avos to explain why "If two people are sitting around and no words of Torah are exchanged between them, theirs is a meeting of scoffers" (moshav letzim). He says that these guys have a chance to collect gold and don't. That means they don't value the gold. You're right. Some people do have to make a living. Some have to spend time in the hospital, because they are sick. Some have to be involved
with other necessary pursuits. All these are considered "ones" - not responsible for the "crime" of not collecting the coins. But that's not the point. You want to make sure that as much time in your life is spent gathering your gold, and whatever you have to do otherwise should be minimized as much as possible.
Torah Umadah is not a real philosophy - it is a phrase coined and used by some Modern Orthodox Jews in recent years, most notably Norman Lamm. It means "Torah and Science". And it means, in a nutshell, that secular studies have intrinsic value, not merely practical use. It's nothing new - it just rakes up old Modern Orthodox
position, overlooks the fact that they were rejected, and garnishes it
up as something new. Every now and then Modern Orthodoxy throws in a new adjective to describe itself. I suppose they think it will reignite some kind of interest in their ideas. It's like a product that’s not selling well - you change the name and the packaging hoping people won't notice. It's pretty much all a marketing tool mostly by Norman Lamm, who conjures up these terms. For a number of years, they called themselves "Centrists", and their movement "Centrism." But it's all the same.
---
The best way to distinguish between legit and illegit positions is if you are qualified to do so yourself. "Lo am haaretz chasid", an ignorant man cannot be pious, and the simplest reason is, he will not know who to follow.
But there are solutions even for the non-advanced in Torah. The formula is, See the attitude of the opposing Gedolim to the view in question. Sometimes a godol will say "I don't agree with this position." He may even say "I think this is absurd." But he will not discredit the person saying it. On the other hand, when he says "The person who said this is not a legitimate Godol", or even "Whoever says this is a fool"
then you have a right to believe it.
Example: Zionism. The opponents to it did not merely say it is absurd or wrong, but rather that it was based on wishful thinking and dishonest misrepresentation of Torah. Reb Elchonon said regarding those who believe that the work of the heretical Zionists (i.e. the State of Israel) is a great merit, (Kovetz Maamarim I:p.161), "Anyone who believes that a great merit can come from the worst sinners is either an idiot (tipish) or a mocker of the words of Chazal." This is but one example of the nullification that the Gedolim had for Zionism. Not merely that it is wrong, but rather that its motivation is wrong. There is a big difference.
You also want to see what views are "traditional". Meaning, new ideologies are always suspect. Our religion does not develop new ideologies. If the Gedolim of the previous generation did not hold of a certain ideology then it is not legitimate. Rashi says that if you are in doubt about what is legitimate, just follow the policies of the
old generation of Gedolim and then you are safe. It is also true that dishonesty often accompanies illegitimate ideologies, since there is insufficient facts upon which to build their ideologies. For instance, when the Lubavitchers claim that Rav
Aharon Kotler ZTL starved Lubavitcher students to death or that Rav Shach ZTL is against Chasidim (not just Lubavitch), or that he disrespected the Rambam in an alleged interview in Chabad - such things you don't find among legitimate places, no matter how in error they are. Checking out facts often exposes fakers for what they are.
But the first and best criteria for someone who is not a Torah scholar is to see the attitude of the Gedolim toward the ideology. Do they disagree, do they consider it absurd? Baseless? Or do they recognize it as a deviant movement with no right to exist? Using that, you will usually filter the real from the fake.
I specifically did Not say "see what the Gedolim say" because then your point would be telling - who then are the Gedolim? Rather, I said see if there are those who you yourself recognize as Gedolim who delegitimize the position in question.
So in respect to, let's say, Zionism, who is not going to concede that Ran Chaim Brisker, The Rogachover, the Chofetz Chain, the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Aharon Kotler, and the Satmar Rebbe ZTL were not real "gedolim". And if they delegitimized the "other side" then you know its not a legitimate side. Even the Zionists are not going to try to say that roster of Torah giants are not Torah authorities.
Modern Orthodoxy was also rejected as simply a deviant movement by the Gedoim - who are recognized as such even by the Modern Orthodox.
So you have one side saying that the other is illegitimate, and those allegedly illegitimate ones saying "Yes but eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chaim". That you cannot do, since part of the divrei elokim chaim of your opponents is that your position doesn't constite divrei elokim chaim at all.
In Lubavitch, they deal with this by making up slanderous stories about their opponents, in order to eliminate this problem. So they indeed will tell you Rav Shach and Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, for instance, were not real "Gedolim". Afra l'pumam. By that itself you know that they are not legitimate.
---
Those Rabbonim who were against Bais Yaakovs still are -- and those who weren't still aren't. Nobody "changed" their opinion.
Perhaps more important, though, is that whereas the Bais Yaakov movement as a movement was never a Halachic issue (although the details of the curriculum were, and still are), Zionims was branded Apikorsus and Avodah Zorah. So whereas what can be a good strategy today may a bad one tomorrow or vice versa, such as certain mussar schools of thought, etc.
But what is Apikorsus and Avodah Zorah doesn't change.
The Zionists, religious and otherwise, sometimes try to position the issue of Zionism as if it is an "is this good for Klall Yisroel" kind of thing. By doing so, they are trying to ignore the much more important issue - the fact that their ideology and their State itself is assur according to the Torah as a serious sin and rebellion against Hashem.
---
If you are in doubt as to who to follow, you should follow who is bigger; if you do not know that, then you should follow those who follow the derech of their Rebbeim; and that you can know, because in this particular instance, even the religious Zionists admit that they have broken away from their tradition and the teachings of their Rebbeim - Rav JB Soloveichik used to speak often how his grandfather, Rav Chaim ZTL, who by the way, in basically every other aspect of Judaism except for Zionism and secularism is the model for Rav JB Soloveichik's life, was so vehemently opposed to Zionism, religious or otherwise, but he decided to pursue it anyway.
So when you are not able to see on your own the Halachic emptiness of the Zionist position and their inability to satisfactorily respond to the Halachic problems that Zionism faces, you know, at least, that Zionism is a revolution against our predecessors. And that itself is enough for you to know to stay away.
---
What's "extreme"? What's "middle of the road"? (Yeshiva guys say they're middle of the road, between moderists and chassidim; modern orthodoxy used to call themselves "centrists"; "Midstream" magazine is not religious at all; and the list goes on...)
And what's "culture"? It can mean anything from Tchaikovsky to Temptation Island.
Regarding Rav Gifter ZTL, I knew him, and I get the feeling his idea of "middle of the road" is not the same as you are describing. He on numerous occasions berated secular "culture", and I once heard him talk about how even the word "Orthodox" is not legitimate - it has no meaning in Judaism, and therefore just because a person is "Orthodox" does not mean he follows the Torah.
He preferred the total Torah life over all. I once heard him heap unending praises on a former Talmid of his who gave up a career and a living to "live in a ramshackle hut" (that’s a quote) in Israel and become a talmid of Rav Elyashev shlita.
---
Nobody is allowed to have any standards of right and wrong, are they? If they do, then those who do the wrong have a right to accuse those with the standards of hate?
What hate? Huh? I see disapproval and criticism, but hate? I don’t see any of that?
It's a game people play and a defense mechanism they use to protect themselves from and criticism, and to take license to do whatever they want, that as soon as someone says "Hello, I hold what you’re doing is wrong" they scream "HATE HATE HATE".
Sorry, but that doesn't work here.
And please let me ask you: I am accusing people of violating the Torah, and so are you - yet you feel you have a right to do so, but if I do, I am guilty of "hate"? Can you please explain that? Please tell me the logic of criticizing other Jews under the grounds that they are not allowed to criticize another Jew?
---
I am not at all attacking Rabbi Soloveichik or Rabbi Lamm by quoting them here. On the contrary, I am using the quotes as proof that one DOES say what one thinks even if it means rejecting the ideas of other Jews, Orthodox or otherwise.
---
Nobody here has mentioned a necessity of being “Yeshivish” or Chareidi. Considering the widespread ban on the Internet in numerous Chareidi circles, such a claim would be absurd. If, our objective analysis of Judaism results in the confirmation of practices and/or attitudes not shared by all Jews – Orthodox, Conservative, reform, Jesus, or whatever – well, the fact that not everyone likes what you discover is not a reason to avoid living according to your discovery.
Does taking money from someone automatically means you approve of their lifestyle? Does YU not take money from non-Jews? Reform Jews? Conservative Jews? And if they do, does that mean they approve of their lifestyle? Their Hashkofos? Does that mean that the Rebbeim in YU are not allowed to say Christianity is wrong or Reform Jewry is wrong because Christians or Reform Jews give money to YU?
---
Every time you put yourself in a Nisayon, you can either fall or come out stronger. The Halacha is that we do not take the risk, even if we think it is worth it. Many people cross the street on red lights, and survive. Maybe they even learn to be more alert when crossing. But it's bad advice to tell people to do that.
Putting yourself in a bad environment is not permitted, even if in the end it will make you stronger. This is because (a) you have no way of knowing what will happen in the end, (b) your career there isn't over. So far you say you’ve done well, but you don’t know what nisyonos you will have tomorrow. Chazal say "Do not believe in yourself until the day you die." Hopefully you will live a long life, but as long as you have life, you should not put it in danger. Even if until now you survived. (c) There may be residue weaknesses that you picked up without even noticing. Part of the danger of being in a place like Stern is that you become desensitized to things that should disturb you. Even if you don’t join your friends in their activities, the fact that you are exposed to them is itself a weakness. (d) You have no idea whether the teachings you are absorbing are legitimate or not. There are things presented as Judaism in that place that are not Judaism at all. Unless you are a Talmid Chacham, it is likely you will not know which is which.
---
Everyone has their own nisyonos, and everyone is a Baal Bechirah. You are only responsible to do what you can, but no more than that. You can control your own frumkeit but you cannot control that of others. Your job now is to first and foremost, solidify your own frumkeit, and survive your home. Secondly, to try to change it.
But whereas the first objective (for you to solidify yourself) is within your control, the second is not. You can put in the effort, but it is up to them.
That having been said, I suggest you speak to the "talmidei chachamim" in your school for some advice on how to deal with your family, and perhaps even intervention. Sounds to me like they’re on the same page as you. If that’s so, then maybe let them try to be mekarev your family to a more authentic version of Yiddishket.
And as far as what you can do yourself, perhaps give your family some of those books to read - the ones that helped you so much. You know by now which book I would recommend - Rabbi Miller's 3 Hashkafa books. Be careful though - the last one (Awake My Glory) has very sharp things to say about "Modern Orthodoxy", and your family is likely not on the level yet to digest that. So for the nonce, stick with Rejoice O Youth and Sing You Righteous. These books are designed not only to make people frum, but to make them yorei shamayim.
Also, be patient. Often families such as yours, when they see one of its members such as you grow to be happy, healthy, and spiritually rich, they come around. No guarantees - remember - it's up to them, not you - but it does happen.
So finally, be mispalel to Hashem for them. Have them in mind when you say "hachzireinu beseshuva sheleimah lefonechah".
---
Labels: Modern Orthodoxy
posted by Moderator at 6:35 PM
5 comments
