IJII

I've been saying something like this for some time now. Rabbi Yehiel Weinberg, summarizing Rav Hirsch's philosophy of Torah im Derekh Eretz, says that Torah is the form (in the Aristotelian sense), and that derekh eretz (i.e. the material world, culture, secular learning, etc.) is the matter. In other words, the world and all its fullness is the raw material to be shaped in accordance with the Torah's values and imperatives.

 

Now then, we know that according to Greek philosophy, neither form nor matter can exist without the other. So anyone who discards on or the other has either which way ended up with zero. The Reformers discarded the Torah/form, and turned Judaism into zero - this much we all know. But have not the Haredim discard the derekh eretz/matter? Do they not also possess a Judaism reduced to zero? The Haredim and the Modern Orthodox might agree that Torah is to be kept, but they have such diametrically-opposed and antithetical conceptions of that Torah, of its purpose, that this agreement means very little. The Haredim believe the Torah is to be kept by itself in exclusion to all else, while the Modern Orthodox believe the Torah's purpose is to be impressed upon all aspects of life and the world. Truly, what do we both really agree on, in essence? In fact, I'd wager that the Modern Orthodox have more in common with the Reformers.

 

Rav Hirsch and Rabbi Benzion Uziel both say that the Jew knows that all the righteous of the world are working with him for the good of mankind, and that therefore, the Jew may respect and honor the non-Jews and their contributions, notwithstanding their differences. If they can say this of Christians and Muslims, why cannot we say this of non-Orthodox Jews? On the other hand, we *cannot* say this of the Haredim; we are *not* working for the same goal. Verily, I'd say that if anything, Modern Orthodox Jews have more in common with modern Christians than with Haredim. Externally, Modern Orthodox Jews and Haredim are following the code, but towards an entirely separate end. By contrast, non-Orthodox Jews and non-Jews may follow different codes, but often, at least their goal is the same; with them, there is at least something to talk about, some possibility of cooperation and trading of ideas.

 

Moreover, without overly establishing the truth of the following point - I will simply laconically make hereby a reference to the Tanakh, to Rav Hirsch's Nineteen Letters, and to Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz's Eyes to See - it is clear that in Judaism, the mitzvot bein adam l'havero take precedence over the mitzvot bein adam la-maqom. The Prophets say, "He has told you, oh man, what is good..." and "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, ... but let he who glories glory in that ...". Hazal say that one is unkind or unmerciful is not truly a Jew, but never do they say this of one who violates kashrut or shabbat. The purpose of Judaism is l'taken olam b'malkhut shakai, for ikkar shekhina b'tahtonim. Basing themselves on Jeremiah, the Yerushalmi cries in G-d's name that even if we had abandoned G-d, if only we had kept His Torah...! (If one abandons G-d, putting on tefillin and keeping kosher means absolutely nothing. By contrast, the ethical mitzvot are still rational, according to Rabbi Saadia Gaon, and so one can speak of keeping the ethical mitzvot even as one abandons G-d. Clearly, the Yerushalmi is crying in G-d's name for us to keep one set of mitzvot even if we abandon the others.) I don't want to belabor this point, as it deserves a treatise, but briefly said, we have more in common with Reformers who have abandoned G-d than we do with Haredim who have abandoned mankind and human-ness.

I applaud Rabbi Angel for allowing members to post their opinions on this topic. In my opinion, Modern Orthodoxy, as a movement, is simply that - a movement. Maimonidean Sephardic Hachamim have harbored the tenets of this movement well before it was ever nominated "movement".

Make no mistake, without the Hareidim there would be no "Modern Orthodoxy". Without Sephardim there would be no Ashkenazim, without Ashkenazic Reform Movement there would be no Orthodox Movement. We rely upon each other to help identify, rationalize, and clarify our own existence.

I have recently finished reading all of the books by Rabbi Eliyah Benamozegh, Rabbi Jose Faur and Rav Josef Soloveitchik. Prior to this I read the works of Abraham Ibn Daud, The Rif and others who helped spawn Maimonidean Philosophy. I have also received the Yemenite Mishneh - ostensibly the Andalusion Version from Maimonides. Imagine my shock at the redactions of contemporary Mishneh Torah.

I am left with a sadness that the pursuit of Truth, as expressed in Maimonidean Philosophy has been largely abandoned in favor of abused casuistic reasoning. Let's be clear, to be "Modern Orthodox" does not mean to be a Rationalist - I am witness to "Modern Orthodox" Rabbis abuse casuistry as often, sometimes more so, than Hareidim and Chassidim. In contrast, I am also witness to Rationalist Hareidim who are no threat to Rationalistic Judaism yet align themselves politically with Hareidim, who abuse casuistry, for their own benefit - to do otherwise might cause them problems in their respective communities.

This week's Parshat speaks of Idolatry - belief in falehoods. In my personal view, unilateral Dogma (as expressed by many "Modern Orthodox" and "Hareidim") borders on Idolatry - an inflexibly parochial approach to Halachic interpretation is no less idolatrous. From where I sit the age-old struggle between Maimonidean and anti-Maimonidean schools of thought continues to wage. At this moment, Anti-Maimonideans are winning this battle...and the effects are evident in the venom being spit among us in public forums. How can a Jew rationalize spitting on another? Clearly this is not a rational action since it is expressly forbidden by the sages.

From a Rationalist viewpoint this tug-of-war is healthy - it causes us to periodically revisit, through study of Torah and Talmud, why we believe what we believe. From a casuaistic viewpoint, this tug-of-war cannot be over soon enough - and the views of those who harness pilpul to justify their behavior will reign supreme. Such is the human condition; without "one" there is no "other" to compete in the realm of ideas. Good ideas eventually win out over bad ideas - unfortunately bad ideas rarely die without great gnashing of teeth. I suspect we are in the last days of Hareidi Halachic rulings being relevant in the Galut due to the volume of the teeth gnashing we read about in mainstream Jewish media.

As to the question of "Who might be friends of 'Modern Orthodoxy'" within an observant Jewish Framework? In my opinion they are found in:

1. Sephardic Rationalists (Meknes, Aleppo, Livorno, Zamosc, Lisbon, London).

2. Mizrachi Rationalists (Persian Rationalists, Baladi Yemenites).

3. Briskers who remain close to the teaching of the Rav.

4. Mitnagdishe Litvaks who eschew Lurianic Qabbalah.

I would, however, wish to ask a different question in the context of 'Modern Orthodoxy' -

"Who are the detractors of Modern Orthodoxy?"

- perhaps Modern Orthodoxy suffers from the same lack of confidence in its theology that plagues the other movements - they lack a Philosophy. Why not just shed the label? - otherwise "Modern Orthodoxy" risks becoming a metaphor for "movements that lack a foundation".

Maimonidean Judaism is something in which to be proud, versed and taught. Deliver more rationalists and Judaism may return to its rightful place as a guiding light among nations...let's return to first principles and re-discover our foundation.

Framing the issue as having modern orthodoxy having to choose its allegiance by either getting on the haredi or secular bandwagon is not the way to go. A better choice would be to keep our options open, i.e. when we feel strongly for an issue that is being championed by our brethren to the right or left of us, we throw our support to that group.As an example, Agudath Israel found common ground with the Catholic church in NY state, with both lobbying against a provision in recent legislation that would have increased the time limit for victims of child abuse by private school teachers to sue their former oppressors.In this manner we can keep a relationship with both sides and stay true to our ideals.As the late Groucho Marx once said, 'I won't belong to any organization that would have me as a member.'K'tiva v'chatima Tova

From a practical perspective, allying with one side of the spectrum and excluding the other generally leads to being influenced by the one side of the alliance with no countervailing influence from the other. We have seen this with both the Conservative movement and previous generations of Modern Orthodoxy. For the most part, there has been an iron wall of separation between Orthodoxy and all forms of non-Orthodoxy, due largely to the ideology of Austritt which although primarily holding sway in the Hareidi world, does have some influence in the certain segments of the modern Orthodox world. As a result of this separation, the Conservative movement has been influenced by its more liberal constituents and by the Reform movement with no countervailing influencing from Orthodoxy while Modern Orthodoxy has been influenced by the Hareidim with no countervailing influence from the Conservative movement. In light of that, it should not be a surprise that the Conservative movement has been drifting steadily to the left while certain segments of the Modern Orthodox community have drifted steadily to the right. To remain true to our values, we do not need to close ourselves off to anyone. To paraphrase what I once heard someone from the Conservative yeshiva say, I tolerate the Hareidim for the same reasons I tolerate the Reconstructionists. However, maintaining any one of our values while not admitting any outsiders who share that value, no matter how important the values we share with those we do admit, would likely be untenable.

I think extremism is always bad, in religion and every other aspect. REgards, reloges ganar dinero por internet