profile | register | search
|Forums | |||Post Reply||Send Topic To a Friend|
|smile2meornot||Posted - 23 January 2002 4:37
sorry to burst ur bubble but--if MO suddenly stopped teaching gemara to girls, stopped encouraging the mingling of boys and girls, and only encouraged secular learning as a means to an end, or as an aid to Torah, but not as an end in and of itself-- then it wouldn't BE modern orthodox.
|danny||Posted - 25 January 2002 6:24
<sorry to burst ur bubble but--if MO suddenly stopped teaching gemara to girls, stopped encouraging the mingling of boys and girls, and only encouraged secular learning as a means to an end, or as an aid to Torah, but not as an end in and of itself-- then it wouldn't BE modern orthodox.>
Modern Orthodoxy is not an all-or-nothing affiliation. Rather it is a continuous spectrum that goes from Conservatism to Ultra-Orthodox. Some MO believe in teaching gemarra to girls and some don't. Some believe in mixing boys and girls and some don't and some believe in secular studies as needed for a parnassa only and some believe in its other benefits as well. You can't constrain M.O. to one particular set of standards.
|smile2meornot||Posted - 28 January 2002 23:38
this is begining to sound to me more and more like what the christians did. they were one but then a man named henry the 8th i think said he wanted to devorce his wife and he wasnt allowed so he made a new branch called like the anglecan church and the stuff like catholic and protistants evolved. it makes no sence, if the pple sat and realized they r making up theri own branches- im sorry if my info is messed up and the reason i used this as an example is b/c its coming out of my ears from studying it last night but its true- why r jews now making branches off of judaism- when some hold this some hold that u know? ud expect that from x-tains not jews. what the torah says is plain clean and simple what we must go by end of story.
|MODERATOR||Posted - 29 January 2002 0:28
Yeah, Danny, except by those standards, there is no definition to MO, and no articulation of specific beliefs or policies. So the question we asked at the beginning remains: How do I know if I am MO or not? And if I am, what in the world does it mean?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 26 February 2002 0:55
Rabbi Wein is considered an expert in History, not Halahcah or Hashkofa. In those areas, he is far from universally accepted.
|Beautman||Posted - 28 February 2002 2:14
>>> Yeah, Danny, except by those standards, there is no definition to MO, and no articulation of specific beliefs or policies. So the question we asked at the beginning remains: How do I know if I am MO or not? And if I am, what in the world does it mean? <<<<
Now that we've circled back, it seems that the real answer is that the question itself is invalid.
The quetion forces answers to be analyzed in an implied framework that's not correct: namely, that MO is something which someone either is or is not, or that MO is a branch of Judaism. Valid answers will not seem to make sense because they'll be inconsistent with the incorrect implied definition.
"If 2 + 2 is five, then how much is 2 + 3?" Can't be five, because that's 2 + 2. Can't be six, because when you count it out on your fingers you don't get six. I guess Math is just no good.
Better questions would have been, for example, "What is the range of beliefs held by people who describe themselves MO?" or "What are the beliefs/policies/hashkafot/etc.] of gedolim who people tend to associate with the term 'MO'?" Those questions are answerable.
But I must say, this has been one of the most interesting and informative forums.
|MODERATOR||Posted - 07 March 2002 1:32
Yeah but that wouldnt help either. Because those questions do not tell us much about Modern Orthodoxy; rather, they tell you somethign about individuals who are known as MO.
The questions will remain, after you determine "the range of beliefs held by people who describe themselves MO", aren't these beliefs shared by those who do not describe themselves as MO? And isnt it true that what one group considers MO, another group who also consider themselevws MO will call "beyond the pale" (such as Edah)?
And why is it that these beliefs generate a new substrata of orthodoxy? If I hold that one may daven Minchah after Shkiyah, for instance, does it make sense for me to call myself a "different type of Orthodxy"?
Modern Orthodoxy is nothign but a label. It is used by different people at will to describe so large a range of beliefs and actions that there are MO who consider beyond the pale the bleiefs and actions of others who are called MO.
The reaon for this confusion is because, unlike Chasidim, Conservatives, Maskilim, Briskers, and other "movements" stemming from Judaism (some legitimate and some not), MO was never officially created. Rather, it began as siply people violating accpted standards of Orthodoxy, and then, when these low standards became the norm within certian communities, they decided to self-proclaim themselves MO, giving the illusion that their indiscretions are instead some kind of set of beliefs.
There were no rabbis that decided "OK, we are creating Modern Orthdoxy. These are our teachings..." the way all the other movements were created. Just the opposite. After certian behaviors became excepted in certian communities, those communites said "Well, I guess we're just Modern Orthodox!".
And anyone can do that to justify any type of behavior, we have so many diff groups and definitions and people claiming the title for themselves.
The only coherent explanation of Nodern Orthodoxy comes form Rav Soloveitchik in his Five Addresses, which is, in a nutshell, we must compromise our standrads in America because traditional Torah standards will not survive here. Only Yeshiva Universty type Judaism will survive and all else will die out.
Which means the integration into secularity must be done ot the extent that we must in order to survive.
Obvisouly, the whole idea was a mistake. But where does that leave them now?
|ponder2||Posted - 07 March 2002 23:05
I don't know if this helps you mod, w/ your definition of M.O. but i've heard a rabbi say his definition of it is: are you focused on growth or not? Do you see the torah as 613 mitzvos or 613 problems that u need to get around?
|grend123||Posted - 12 March 2002 20:39
Getting back to the original discussion in this thread, namely rav kook, i'd just like to say that the chazzon ish was makpid to stnad through one of rav kook's drashos, because, according to his own words, one must stand in the presence of a 'sefer torah' on parchment or alive. Doesnt sound quite like an apikores to me. And speaking of apikorsim, you ARE aware of the halacha that saying derogatory things about a talmud chacham is grounds for chairem. I know youur unconfirmed story about the chofetz chaim (i admit that i cannot confirm the chazzon ish story even though i know it for a fact from a former talmid of his) but whether or not you disagree with him, calling him an apikores or equating zionism with apikorsus really seems to be an example of shmuel's dictum from arba yuchsin in kiddushin; namely, kol haposel bemumo posel. Harsh, but the amora says it for a fact, and that anyone can confirm.
|MODERATOR||Posted - 12 April 2002 23:15
I dont believe the story with the Chazon Ish for a second. Its totally incinsistent with everythign we know abotu the Chazon Ish and what the Chazon Ish said publicy about Rav Kook.
The story abotu the CHofetz Chaim is easily confirmed. The person who it happened with was named Rabbi Avrohom Moshe Gorelick, father of Rav yeruchem Gorelick ZTL, who was a talmid of the Chofetz Chaim and a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University. Rav Gorelick said the story over numerous times, as did Rav Berel Soloveichik ZTL, Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk.
As far as the Kol haposel bemumo posel, that only applies if what you are saying is not true. If it is true, then obviously there is no problem, like when you say Shabse Tzi for instance was an Apikores, that would not indicate your being one.
And there is an error in your logic. If your logic is correct, you yourself must be an Apikores. Because since you decided that I am an Apikores (based on Kol Haposel etc.), and Kol Haposel bmumo posel, that would mean that you are an Apikores for deciding I am one.
So obviously, there must be legitimate criteria to critisize withotu beign subject to Kol Haposel.
|MusicMan||Posted - 23 May 2002 21:32
Mod - I think i am a little uncomfortable with the label "zionist." Personally, I have a great love for Eretz Yisroel, the physical land, as well as the jews there. But, that is strictly on a Torah level (for lack of a better term) but NOT on a political level. Is that a wrong feeling? I feel a love for Eretz Yisroel because its the Holiest Land and i feel holy there, NOT because it is a place of "Jewish" government. I love the Jews there because the are Jews, just as when i go on a trip (to anywhere EXCEPT NEW YORK) and see Jews, i feel a common bond with them. But those two things combined makes for a love of the Land of Israel... I understant your probably going to say that ANY JEW anywhere feels the same, but that doesn't make them "Zionistic." That a Chassidic person loves the LAND of Israel but is not a Tzioni. And, I do agree with you. But, I just want to try to make clear that very often when people use the word "Tsioni" or "Zionist" the political implications of that are not being considered. Thank You
|mo||Posted - 21 November 2004 8:40
**The Chofetz Chaim's dismissal of him ("Kook, Shmook!" is the exact quote) doesnt sound like something that paragon of Shemiras Halashon would say about someone following a legitimate Mesorah, no? Or Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld's description of him as a "Purim Rav the whole year". Yet both do not come close to the blunt labels of villian, apikores, and kofer that other Gedolim heaped upon him.**
I there any psak from Eido Chareidis regarding Kook being apikoires and his books to be burned? I've seen only from Rogachever, r. Shoul Brach and some other rabonim. The tradition seems to be that r. Zonenfeld did hold that Kook is apikoires.
|Qs||Posted - 21 November 2004 20:33
I thought R'Kook and R'Zonnenfeld were good friends..?
|MODERATOR||Posted - 21 November 2004 20:39
I dont know about such a psak from the Edah, but I do know that Rav Zonnenfeld contacted the Satmar Rav enlisting his help against Rav Kook. The Satmar Rav's response to Rav Zonnenfeld is printed in the Teshuvos Divrei Yoel. That Teshuva contains the strongest of statements that I have ever seen against Rav Kook. In there he does say that in light of the things Rav Kook wrote and said it obvious that one may not rely on his psakim in any way whatsoever. But at the time the Satmar Rav was not yet head of the Edah Hachareidis, so I do not know whether the Edah made that Tesahuva their official position.
|yp23||Posted - 15 December 2004 23:03
I was hurt to c the horible things writen about rav kook. I wasnt personaly offended but offended in the name of judiasim.
I dont blame u im sure u want for the best of the jews and the tekon olam be malchot shaday. Therefor i would want to clarify a few things about the rav kook. The rav kook was a great eloy no 1 can argue about his knowledge in torah he was bakky in all sects of torah there r outstanding facts about his bekkiut- when he was in valosin he learned 18 hours straight and very connected to the natziv.There were periods in his life where he would learn 60 daf a day in iyyun!!!untill he would get physiclly sick!The chafetz chaim made him acept his first rabinic job. R zalman melzer(whos considerd 1 0f the gdoli hador) told another great gadol that there big untill the door knob of rav kooks room and stopped davening in his set shul bc a purim joke they made there that was negitve to rav kook He also said he wishes his mincha erev yom kippur would be like the rav kooks everyday mincha.The admor of gor would visit the rav kook on his visits to israel and was amazed from him and o - he was the aderts chatan(the teomim gaon which was also 1 of the great gdolim of that time)and when his first wife died the aderet was sad the rav kook wont be considerd his son anymore he married him to his nefyu ( or cousin). I think if the gedolim of that time new the rav kook was a great gadol i think we should think twice(and learn who the rav kook really was) before we say what we heared about him from snother person who probably didnt really look in to who was rav kook. It is really sad that such a great gadol is ignored by some sects(there r so many books about gdolim that ignore the historical facts about the gadol when it has to do with his connection to rav kook)We have so much to learn from the rav Kook and im sure if we would all study his torah and internalize it we would bring alot of kedush hashem and get closer to the geola shlema bemhera be yamainew. I think it would be apropiate to read a book about the rav kook and think things over when we really know who he was- The book 'angels amoung people' was translated to english and highly recomended. thank u
p.s- r sages say a person is blamed for the thing hes most perfect at the rav kook said in his case its the emunah(faith)
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums | Post Reply