 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Interesting Discussions
Peanut2
|
 Thu, Feb 07 2013, 7:53 pm
| Frenchfry wrote: | "I have an uncle (about 82 years old) that used to be a Rabbi in a conservative shul. Conservative Jews of that time period would be considered religious today."
So what was the line that differentiatedconservative from orthodox? |
Back in the day it was how Judaism was to be studied. Conservative Jews allowed academic study of Judaism, which includes historical developments and even academic study of e Tanach. Academic study of the Tanach raises questions about divine authorship (did G-d write the bible? Many human authors?) and is also done by non-Jews.) Even without the Bible issues, this is still a contentious issue, even within orthodoxy. Even within Modern Orthodoxy for that matter.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 2
|
Peanut2
|
Thu, Feb 07 2013, 8:37 pm
I asked DH and he said Modern Orthodox, of the right wing variety. We are Modern Orthodox.
MM was a very frum man, meticulous in his observance, who advocated for engaging with the modern world and modern culture. He was "Orthodox."
I wanted to say charedi 
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
PinkFridge
|
Thu, Feb 07 2013, 8:43 pm
| tissues wrote: | | Raisin wrote: | Modern Orthodoxy as espoused by Shimshon Raphael Hrsch (and others) is a reaction to Reform and haskala. Hirsh wanted to show that you could be modern and frum. So Mendolsohn could not have been M.O since the concept did not exist then. Maybe he kept halacha from force of habit/social pressure. I know people who keep kosher for social reasons but I wouldn't call them orthodox, modern or otherwise.
J.C also kept halacha, for that matter. |
R' Shamshon Repheal Hirsch's idea of torah im derech eretz is today's MO modus operandi (MO)? Didn't know that. Sure doesn't seem like there's any connection between the two ideaologies except the integration into the secular world. |
They may overlap but they're very different, in many ways. As taught to me by a Hirschian scholar, the prefix means a lot. There's Torah IM derech eretz and Torah U maddah. The derech eretz is auxiliary to the Torah, not synthesized. And Rav Hirsch was all for austritgemeinde, which was a form of withdrawal from the world at large as well. I don't know if Rav Hirsch wrote anything on religious Zionism but I don't know if he would have embraced it fully. I think we've been down this road before. I'm not bashing one over the other or anything, just saying that there is a distinct school of thought on each side of Amsterdam Ave, and this was true even a generation or two ago.
And as I said, MO seems to have more staying power than what MM espoused.
| |
|
| Back to top |
6
|
tissues
|
Thu, Feb 07 2013, 9:52 pm
| Peanut2 wrote: | I asked DH and he said Modern Orthodox, of the right wing variety. We are Modern Orthodox.
MM was a very frum man, meticulous in his observance, who advocated for engaging with the modern world and modern culture. He was "Orthodox."
I wanted to say charedi |
I remember learning that he wasn't oiver on any halachos (well, at least what people know). But of his ten children, eight were not frum (IIRC, intermarried) and the other two, their kids were no longer shomer torah umitzvos.
Just wondering: Is this also what's happening with the majority of MO, either shifting to the right or to the left and not may remaining in the middle?
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
zaq
|
Thu, Feb 07 2013, 10:46 pm
| tissues wrote: |
Just wondering: Is this also what's happening with the majority of MO, either shifting to the right or to the left and not may remaining in the middle? |
They've been saying that about Modern Orthodoxy for as long as I can remember. They've also been saying that about Conservative Judaism for nearly as long. NOBODY is where they were 50, 40, or even 30 years ago. 40 years ago there were no alternate-side-of-the-street walking regulations and tzniusdik pix of tzniusdik women were not pixilated out of publications. At the same time, there were no halfway houses for refugees from the charedi world and no formerly-chassidish-now-liberated writers of exposes about the world they fled. Unless you count Chaim Potok...
| |
|
| Back to top |
5
|
Mrs Bissli
|
Thu, Feb 07 2013, 10:55 pm
| Frenchfry wrote: | From what I learned:(these are my layman's definition)
Haskala:"a movement that took authentic Torah Judaism, and replaced it with a fake, Jewish culture". (Hence the stress on Yiddish/Hebrewtheatre, literature, poetry, etc.
Reform: "A movement that encouraged being a good jew in the house, but attempting to blend with non - jews outside. (This as a direct result of the emancipation of the ghettos).
|
OP, I think that's where much of the misconception stems from. As someone else already stated, there's a BIIIIGGGG gap between MO hashkafa and Reform/Masorti/Liberal hashkafot. Mainly, we in the MO camp does hold by halachot and past psakim, Torah shebealPeh. It has absolutely nothing to do with attitude toward non-Jews.
On whether Moses Mendelssohn would be MO or Reform, the criteria should not be the level of observances but why he believed he kept mitzvot, and whether he believed in Torah shebeal Peh. Not knowing his theological stance, maybe you can say he was the first Orthoprax if he was a practicsing Jew who doesn't hold necessary by orthodoxy?
And for the record, being shomer mitzvot and being Reform is NOT a mutually exclusive concept. So saying "I know a Reform/Masort/Liberal person who keeps shabbat/TH/kashrut etc" doesn't really mean much IMHO. As I said they're coming from different perspectives (eg as a personal decision rather than halachic requirement).
Pinkfridge, you explained it so beautifully and concisely.
I think this thread is quite informative as I suspected many people are not familiar with the distinction between MO and non-orthodox Judaism.
As for LW RW MO, I think the dividing line is quite fluid. I shall comment on that maybe after another generation and see where everyone stands. I personally consider myself centrist MO, but then pretty much everyone thinks other people who practice differently as right or left of herself, no?
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
ora_43
|
Fri, Feb 08 2013, 4:17 am
| PinkFridge wrote: | | zaq wrote: | | Frenchfry wrote: | "I have an uncle (about 82 years old) that used to be a Rabbi in a conservative shul. Conservative Jews of that time period would be considered religious today."
So what was the line that differentiatedconservative from orthodox? |
AIUI the fundamental if oversimplified difference in philosophy is that where Orthodox believes in Torah MiSinai being entirely Divinely given and dictated to Moshe by G-d, Conservative believes that the the laws are Divinely inspired but of human origin. |
I might have answered French Fry's question with one word: mechitzas. Leaving aside the ideology of Conservatism, there were a number of Orthodox rabbis who took over Conservative kehillos. Some shlepped the kehillos along but not many. |
Yes. I think there are real theological differences, but the main differences for laypeople were two things: no mechitza in conservative shuls, and the movement officially gave the go-ahead for driving to shul on Shabbat.
Today there are more differences, like women being counted in a minyan and leading prayers, but AFAIK the "old school" conservative shuls didn't have that.
Also, I learned that the original theological difference wasn't regarding the truth of Torah miSinai. It was reform that didn't/doesn't believe that Torah miSinai was divine. Conservative believed it was divine but that rabbinic law was subject to change (including rabbinic description of Torah law, eg. hilchot Shabbat as described in the Gemara). Just what I learned, could be wrong.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
PinkFridge
|
Fri, Feb 08 2013, 8:27 am
| Mrs Bissli wrote: | | Frenchfry wrote: | From what I learned:(these are my layman's definition)
Haskala:"a movement that took authentic Torah Judaism, and replaced it with a fake, Jewish culture". (Hence the stress on Yiddish/Hebrewtheatre, literature, poetry, etc.
Reform: "A movement that encouraged being a good jew in the house, but attempting to blend with non - jews outside. (This as a direct result of the emancipation of the ghettos).
|
OP, I think that's where much of the misconception stems from. As someone else already stated, there's a BIIIIGGGG gap between MO hashkafa and Reform/Masorti/Liberal hashkafot. Mainly, we in the MO camp does hold by halachot and past psakim, Torah shebealPeh. It has absolutely nothing to do with attitude toward non-Jews.
On whether Moses Mendelssohn would be MO or Reform, the criteria should not be the level of observances but why he believed he kept mitzvot, and whether he believed in Torah shebeal Peh. Not knowing his theological stance, maybe you can say he was the first Orthoprax if he was a practicsing Jew who doesn't hold necessary by orthodoxy?
And for the record, being shomer mitzvot and being Reform is NOT a mutually exclusive concept. So saying "I know a Reform/Masort/Liberal person who keeps shabbat/TH/kashrut etc" doesn't really mean much IMHO. As I said they're coming from different perspectives (eg as a personal decision rather than halachic requirement).
Pinkfridge, you explained it so beautifully and concisely.
I think this thread is quite informative as I suspected many people are not familiar with the distinction between MO and non-orthodox Judaism.
As for LW RW MO, I think the dividing line is quite fluid. I shall comment on that maybe after another generation and see where everyone stands. I personally consider myself centrist MO, but then pretty much everyone thinks other people who practice differently as right or left of herself, no? |
Thanks. And what you wrote is the impression I've got over the years of MM.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
SRD
|
Fri, Feb 08 2013, 9:17 am
I've spent quite a bit of time studying the different sects of Judaism, and often find myself in the position of explaining them (I'm MO).
I agree with ora_ regarding theological perspectives on Torah MiSini and Rabbinic Law. Conservative judaism requires observance of halacha, but not all (okay most) Conservative jews follow the halcha that a conservative rabbi would say they are bound by. Also, some interpretations of halacha are different. They've also essentially given a heter to driving on Shabbat, only if you don't live near a shul, and only to the shul nearest where you live (so technically if a Conservative Jew lived a closer drive to chabad shul than a Conservative one, conservative law would require him to drive to Chabad and not the Conservative shul), same with mechitza.
Reform on the other hand feels no requirement to abide by any form of halacha, although they may see a personal benefit of our ancient laws for tradition's sake or otherwise.
Modern Orthodoxy - as has been stated - requires observance of all halacha. The fundamental difference to other sects of orthodox judaism is the value of secular education and secular professions. (I'm not saying other sects don't value secular education though). This is the message of YU, Rav Soloveitchik, Rabbi Sacks etc. In practice, some MO Jews (including myself) will be less stringent in some areas of halacha than others. (e.g. wearing pants or at least not wearing tights). But the liturgy and the obligations are the same.
As for the idea of whether or not modern orthodoxy is growing/shrinking, There is a growth in the MO movement because there is movement from the left, people of conservative Jewish backgrounds that become BTs.
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
freidasima
|
Fri, Feb 08 2013, 9:46 am
HUH?
This is like basic Jewish history 101 that we learned in college.
Mendelson was a fully orthodox Jew, lived an orthodox Jewish life and was the founder of the Jewish enlightenment.
He had nothing to do with reform Judaism. His philosophy was that at some time in the far far future ALL mitzvos maasiyos of ALL religions will melt away (how? He wasn't sure) and that the boundaries between all monotheistic religions would therefore fall. But that would be hundreds or thousands of years in the future and as a result of some type of Divine revelation anyhow.
He believed in torah shebichtav and torah shebeal peh and lived them fully.
He had nothing to do with reform Judaism. Davka the opposite. His children married out because they did not accept his teachings that one would eventually be accepted by the non Jews while remaining a fully practicing Jew, and they only bought into the part of being accepted being very important.
He was part of German culture and admired it greatly. So BTW did a lot of orthodox Jews. German culture of the time, as opposed to Jewish eastern european culture (think: Shtetl mentality) was art, music, literature that wasn't only religious. None of this, however, kept him from being shomer mitzvos.
The reform movement was created long after Mendelson's death, in order to act as a bulwark to keep young Jews in Germany from converting in order to have the dignity of service and ceremony that they wanted in their lives. The orthodox shuls were awful, crowded, undisciplined, dirty, and the reform temple and ceremony was trying to give them the type of dignified service they wanted (women were NOT ordained at the time, nor were they counted for a minyan BTW in those days) in a language they understood.
Unfortunately, it did not work and the Jews in germany kept converting out. But Mendelson had nothing to do with the reform movement.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
Cookies n Cream
|
Fri, Feb 08 2013, 9:50 am
| freidasima wrote: | HUH?
This is like basic Jewish history 101 that we learned in college.
Mendelson was a fully orthodox Jew, lived an orthodox Jewish life and was the founder of the Jewish enlightenment.He had nothing to do with reform Judaism. His philosophy was that at some time in the far far future ALL mitzvos maasiyos of ALL religions will melt away (how? He wasn't sure) and that the boundaries between all monotheistic religions would therefore fall. But that would be hundreds or thousands of years in the future and as a result of some type of Divine revelation anyhow.
He believed in torah shebichtav and torah shebeal peh and lived them fully.
He had nothing to do with reform Judaism. Davka the opposite. His children married out because they did not accept his teachings that one would eventually be accepted by the non Jews while remaining a fully practicing Jew, and they only bought into the part of being accepted being very important.
He was part of German culture and admired it greatly. So BTW did a lot of orthodox Jews. German culture of the time, as opposed to Jewish eastern european culture (think: Shtetl mentality) was art, music, literature that wasn't only religious. None of this, however, kept him from being shomer mitzvos.
The reform movement was created long after Mendelson's death, in order to act as a bulwark to keep young Jews in Germany from converting in order to have the dignity of service and ceremony that they wanted in their lives. The orthodox shuls were awful, crowded, undisciplined, dirty, and the reform temple and ceremony was trying to give them the type of dignified service they wanted (women were NOT ordained at the time, nor were they counted for a minyan BTW in those days) in a language they understood.
Unfortunately, it did not work and the Jews in germany kept converting out. But Mendelson had nothing to do with the reform movement. |
So why is he "credited" as the Founder and Father of the Reform movement?
(I also remember vaguely learning that he himself was Shomer Torah Umitzvos, but the next generations kept moving to the left due to his theories, until we ended up with the Reform Movement).
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
freidasima
|
Sat, Feb 09 2013, 1:10 pm
Because there are idiots who don't know the first thing about basic Jewish history and they see that Mendelson believe in changes in Jewish life and think that is reform.
To understand his changes one has to understand that the way Jews in Germany lived before him was nebuch. They were living in a ghetto, had absolutely nothing to do with their surrounding society except for one or two "court Jews" who were shadlanim, and basically the few Jews who were allowed to live in Germany lived - and rightly so - in fear of being kicked out of their cities, which they were every few years and made to move.
It was only when Mendelson was a young boy that Jews were even permitted to live legally in Berlin. He learned German - the Jews of the time spoke yiddish as they were originally from Eastern Europe as the original Jews of the area had long been exiled. He made a non Jewish friend who introduced him to German literature, music etc. and he thought it was beautiful. He loved the dignity of German life compared to the balagan of the shtetl like existence of the Jews he knew who were living a really sub cultural life. Think of the worst of the crowded, dirty, shtetl and you can get what I mean.
In short, the people thinking he is reform are obviously so mixed up with their facts that they can't imagine that someone could be enlightened in terms of culture, language etc. and remain a fully orthodox Jew.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
StrongIma
|
Sat, Feb 09 2013, 3:18 pm
|
so how did his philosophy differ from R. Hirsh's (who proved to be so successful, imo the father of MO)?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
freidasima
|
Sat, Feb 09 2013, 4:13 pm
In several ways.
Hirsch never took anything past the practical side without the long term philosophical side that Mendelson spoke about. He talked about eventually having all mitzvos maasiyot of the world, Jewish and Gentile, melt away making all monotheistic religions eventually (like a millenium in the future, after Divine intervention) become one. Hirsch never dealt with such a subject.
Mendelson lived a hundred years before Hirsch, consequently he was talking about a very different Germany, long before the Reform movement existed in anyone's mind, when Orthodox Jewry was the only kind of Jewry, and the kind that existed was the yiddish speaking, totally separatist because they were under threat of discrimination and exile and of course didn't want to have anything to do with the local non jews. At his time Jews weren't allowed to study in University, they couldn't live in most places and work in most professions.
At Hirsh's time he was already basically the kind of Jew that Mendelson had imagined. He dressed like any other cultured man around him other than the fact that he wore arba kanfos under his clothing and a headcovering. He spoke fluent German. He read German literature and found nothing wrong with getting a degree and being a Rabbi and a doctor at the same time etc.
Hirsh could succeed just because there HAD BEEN a Mendelson three generations before. Mendelson was actually the predecessor who laid down the groundwork that allowed a modern and orthodox community to grow. Had it not been for him, religious Jews wouldn't even KNOW german!
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
Peanut2
|
Sat, Feb 09 2013, 8:12 pm
I wrote a reply before shabbos and it kept getting longer and longer and I never sent it. FS wrote what I wanted to say. Please write more. I'm inclined to just copy something from a textbook.
Anyway, different people played different roles in history. SR hirsch could only do what he did because MM came first.
And he was not a founder of Reform. Professor Wikipedia writes that he was father, not founder, and Professor Wikipedia became professor without getting a Phd first. So someone out there thinks he was, maybe people in the Reform Movement view him fondly. They should.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
PinkFridge
|
Sun, Feb 10 2013, 10:09 am
| freidasima wrote: | | Because there are idiots who don't know the first thing about basic Jewish history and they see that Mendelson believe in changes in Jewish life and think that is reform.. |
Idiots?
Patronizing isn't the most effective chinuch tool. But neither is sarcasm, which is why I've edited this 
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
|
Frenchfry
|
Sun, Feb 10 2013, 11:34 am
Had Mendelsohn not started the trend that he did, R' Hirsch wouldn't have needed to do his "mission" in Germany.
Approx 100 years after Mendelsohn, there were practically no unassimilated Jews left in Germany.
Before Mendelsohn's "encouragement" to mix with the secular world, the entire Jewish community was insulated, and frum. When R' Hirsch came onto the scene 100 years later, he had a major "kiruv job" on his hands thanks to the push of Moses Mendelsohn which began the Reform movement 100 years earlier.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
StrongIma
|
Sun, Feb 10 2013, 12:50 pm
| Frenchfry wrote: | Had Mendelsohn not started the trend that he did, R' Hirsch wouldn't have needed to do his "mission" in Germany.
Approx 100 years after Mendelsohn, there were practically no unassimilated Jews left in Germany.
Before Mendelsohn's "encouragement" to mix with the secular world, the entire Jewish community was insulated, and frum. When R' Hirsch came onto the scene 100 years later, he had a major "kiruv job" on his hands thanks to the push of Moses Mendelsohn which began the Reform movement 100 years earlier. | excellent point!
But I'm still confused as to what major change MM engendered?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
|
Frenchfry
|
Sun, Feb 10 2013, 1:50 pm
"But I'm still confused as to what major change MM engendered?"
The idea that integration into the secular world is an ideal, and that one should make an effort to "blend in" in terms of dress, language, and culture.
When Mendelsohn traslated the Chumash, one of his motives was to expose insulated jews to the German language.
When R' Hirsch wrote his translation of the chumash, the idea was to bring already assimilated Jews back into the fold.
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
|
freidasima
|
Sun, Feb 10 2013, 2:29 pm
Frenchfry you aren't portraying what happened, maybe what you THINK happened.
The minute Jews, anywhere, are allowed out of the ghetto they integrate with the local Gentiles because economically it allows them to stop living in poverty. However to do so they have to adopt the basic Gentile language in order to communicate and as soon as they can they end up going to university in order to learn a profession which helps them get ahead economically. If you understood what it was like for a Jew to live in the ghettos in German speaking lands in the year 1700 you would understand the great desire to stop starving!
The fact is, there was no Mendelson in France or England and yet, in those countries, the minute the Jews - all of whom were Orthodox - were permitted to mingle with Gentiles, you had intermarriage. The question therefore has nothing to do with Mendelson but rather - "Why is Orthodox Jewry of the time so distasteful that Jews were willing to give it up"!!!
The fact is that throughout Jewish history lots of Jews intermarried. Converted and intermarried. Otherwise we would have had not 18 million Jews before the Holocaust in the world but closer to 180 million Jews. However when the local [gentile] was a muzik, some ignorant violent distateful BUM, who wanted to convert? One did it under duress and there was a lot of duress. One did it out of starvation and there were places in which Jews were starving.
But guess what? All of a sudden when the non jews were no longer BUMS but cultured - think: Western Europe, not eastern - and particularly not to Catholicism but to Protestantism which was in a sense a lot easier for Jews to stomach than being Catholic with all the rigmarole, Latin and Mumbo Jumbo pictures...well you have lots of them converting BECAUSE THEY WERE SICK OF BEING HUNGRY, they were sick of being persecuted, and obviously Yiddishkeit hadn't done too good a job of educating them.
In a sense - and now sit down before anyone has a cow from this statement - what the Besht was doing in Eastern Europe - the Reform movement was trying to do in Western Europe in a totally different way - TO KEEP JEWS FROM CONVERTING TO GOYDOM. Because that was what was going on in the Besh'ts time in Eastern Europe. Chassidus was a movement which made the simple, uneducated Yid feel like he wasn't a second class Jew but a full one, which kept him in the fold. Until then, if he was uneducated and poor he was looked down upon by the high class educated Yidden...and it was a wonder he didn't convert, the only reason most didnt was because the local non jews were so distasteful, but they were definitely on the way.
The Besht saved these yidden and kept them yidden by giving them legitimacy as Jews.
Now look at the Reform movement. It was basically created to keep the German Jews from converting because the Judaism of their time was so distasteful to them - so crass, so Eastern European, so crowded, noisy and filthy shteiblech and no decent big beautiful shuls like the churches they saw that the neighbors had. The reform movement was trying to put "dignity" into Yiddishkeit in the form of a shul that was a big beautiful building, davening in a language that the Jews - who didn't know Hebrew as they were a different type of "ignorant" - could understand. A Rav that dressed in a long fancy coat like what they were used to seeing, sermons in the local language etc.
Unfortunately, along with all of that the Reform movement also introduced philosophical changes in Yiddishkeit and then practical changes which were against Halocho. Had they stuck to the davening in German, the big buildings and a few of the other things, it would have been ok, they just went too far.
And even more unfortunate is the fact that they managed to keep these German Jews Jewish for only one more generation. There were very few second generation reform because at the end, the pull for economic freedom was too strong and they realized that the only way to actually be accepted was to become non jews and convert. The Jewish Poet Heinrich Heine was said to have held up his conversion certificate and laughed that it was his "ticket of entry into European society", he converted "pro forma" and did not ever take it seriously, nor did most German Jews actually....as they were not greatly religious Yidden, they weren't greatly religious non jews.
A teacher of mine in college once said something that made me think. Had the non jews of Eastern Europe been more palatable, he claimed, everything that the Besht tried might not have worked because the Jews might STILL have decided to convert out there in order to stop being poor....but lucky for Chassidus, the local Ukranian non jews were soooo unpalatable that Jews thought a million times there before leaving Yiddishkeit. Had the Besht tried what he did in Germany or in France, so claimed my teacher, he would probably not have had the incredible success that he had with the chassidic movement.
Food for thought.
| |
|
| Back to top |
3
|
| Related Topics |
Replies |
Last Post |
|
|
Whats your favorite Modern Chandelier, for 18' ceiling,
|
2 |
Mon, Mar 25 2024, 10:48 am  |
|
|
Modern buffet table online
|
1 |
Tue, Mar 12 2024, 8:40 pm |
|
|
Where to buy abstract (modern) large area rugs, reasonably?
|
7 |
Mon, Feb 26 2024, 10:35 pm |
|
|
ISO Reclining 2 seater sofas well priced modern look
|
0 |
Tue, Feb 20 2024, 10:18 am |
|
|
Modern Orthodox birthright trip
|
10 |
Thu, Feb 15 2024, 4:04 pm |
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
