"the right way" | Imamother

tichellady

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 11:31 am

chayalas wrote:

I'm a little confused. can you give me an example of a change in traditional (orthodox) judaism that occurred that was not done before the reform movement that you can attribute to a resistance to change and therefore a new "ideology?" how did they become more conservative if they were basically living the way they always were?

Here's two random examples that just came to my head: the Chatham sofer had this slogan " ain chidush Mean hatorah" ( which is a biblical verse about grain) that he used to say that nothing can be new in Judaism. The whole thing is very ironic because he was making up this very idea and using a biblical verse that had nothing to do with that- so that itself is chidush. The things is is that is not a traditional Jewish concept, there is room within halakha for innovation, as technology changes and society changed changes are made ( takana of rabbeinu gershom , selling chametz, lighting candles for yomtov, for example). This line was really a response to Reform Judaism but it became a big tenet of orthodoxy.

Another example: I think it's accurate to say that before the orthodox movement started there was more room for diversity with halakhic/ hashkafic thought but orthodoxy created stricter guidelines that didn't exist before to the same extent. I remember learning the abarbanel who said that next time around Hashem will not appoint a king because there's too much room for corruption with a king and my whole class was like " what, who is this guy, that's not a frum thing to say, he is going against the Torah." So yes the abarbanel may not have fit into orthodoxy but that doesn't mean he wasn't an authentic Jewish leader.

Does that answer your question?

amother

Forestgreen

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 11:36 am

tichellady wrote:

Excuse my lack of hebrrew but doesn't the 'ain chidush mean haTorah' actually come from koheles, where it says there is nothing new under the sun, and the meforshim say the sun means the Torah?

etky

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 11:39 am

chayalas wrote:

The world around them was changing, becoming more secular and more welcoming of Jews (if not of Judaism). Reform was one reaction to this changing world and Jews' place within it and Orthodoxy was a reaction to that reaction. It was Judaism's "Counter-Reformation".
The Chatam Sofer's proclamation "Chadash Asur Min Hatorah" is emblematic of this new, mindset - the vigilance against change. More than ever, change became percieved as inimical to the preservation of authentic Judaism. Change was always regarded with caution, but now that caution was very much heightened and ideologically opposed.
More specifically, things like enshrining the status quo of the time in terms of halachic praxis and making changes even regarding minhag (Kitniyot is a good example) more difficult, tendency to prefer chumrahs over leniency to combat the 'slippery slope' that modernity posed, the new centrality and importance of the yeshiva as an insulated world that could remain 'untouched' by external influences.

Ihatepotatoes

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 12:01 pm

tichellady wrote:

No it doesn't, the chasam sofer wasn't saying to change the way the people of that time were living, he was saying they shouldn't change it. saying that "Chadash assur min hatorah" is itself a chiddush and therefore is ironic is a little strange when the premise is that orthodoxy changed to become more strict in reaction to reform, the mishna says we are supposed to erect boundaries for the torah , so thats what he was saying . using a concept (it's not a posuk- sorry verse) to explain what he meant. that doesn't mean that traditional yiddishkeit changed to become more strict, He was just saying that new innovations ( music in shuls, women leading tefilla, and other reformist changes are of limits

trying to bring proofs from takanos also is wrong as A) those you mentioned are around way before this supposed "reaction to reform" and B) again, the chasam sofer was not saying anything about not reacting to technology or society. we just can't change the torah around to fit where we want it to. it's not a call to arms for a fundamentalist tilt, it's just a affirmation to stand firm and resist change. it's not a change in a different direction

Lastly, you said this
"I think it's accurate to say that before the orthodox movement started there was more room for diversity with halakhic/ hashkafic thought but orthodoxy created stricter guidelines that didn't exist before to the same extent. I remember learning the abarbanel who said that next time around Hashem will not appoint a king because there's too much room for corruption with a king and my whole class was like " what, who is this guy, that's not a frum thing to say, he is going against the Torah." So yes the abarbanel may not have fit into orthodoxy but that doesn't mean he wasn't an authentic Jewish leader."

A) that was my question. saying that "I think it's accurate to say " is not a proof that there was a idealogical change and B) your premise that the abarbanel wouldn't fit into orthodoxy based on your classes opinion that "that's not a frum thing to say" is a bit wrong and using that example as a proof that modern day traditional judaism ( orthodoxy") is a little strange. there is room in yiddishkeit for differing opinions, as long as they stay true to the fundamentals. Your classmates are wrong but that does not prove that A) traditional judaism changed in reaction to reformist movements or that B) judaism used to be more diverse. in fact, if you look at some of the rishonims view on differing opinions you would see that traditional yiddishkeit is probably more diverse today and accepting of other opinions fitting into fundamental torah true yiddishkeit then in the times of the early rishonim and achronim

so once again I would like a proof that is based on facts , not a perception of change due to a more liberal tilt in the other direction

tichellady

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 12:29 pm

chayalas wrote:

Honestly I don't understand what you are saying at all. Maybe this forum is not the best for debating something so detailed.

But it doesn't matter- we don't have to agree. There are clearly different views about this. And many people do think Orthodox Judaism is the exact continuation of historical Judaism- so you are free to think that as well. It doesn't make sense to me and it's not what most historians think but it's not a fact- it's a way of looking at things and there is more than one way of looking at things.

Ihatepotatoes

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 1:31 pm

tichellady wrote:

np, have a nice day! Very Happy

But thats my point, it IS the exact continuation, and what I was asking for is proof that it is not. You brought proofs that I don't believe prove anything, and which I believe is a misunderstanding of what chodosh assur min hatorah meant. it is not a doctrinal change, just a confirmation that we will not change in our mesorah. but like you said, it's my opinion, and we are all entitled to believe what we want.

(separate point, and one which I have no interest in discussing, but I don't think I would trust most historians in this area. They are coming from an outsiders view, and therefore in my opinion have an incorrect and over simplistic method of analyzing. but I don't want to get into a wonkish discussion of historians)

leah233

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 2:47 pm

etky wrote:

Not really. Orthodoxy, led by the Chatam Sofer, was a reaction to modernity and the Emancipation. It created an ideology out of sticking to tradition. In this way it also influenced and altered the tradition that it was shielding from change, making it more conservative (emphasis on the small "c "...) in nature. Ironically, both Reform and Orthodoxy were novelties and they derived from the same historical processes.

Most people who consider themselves Orthodox Jews and are universally regarded as Orthodox Jews do not believe in "an ideology out of sticking to tradition" per se.

Halochos or minhagim are kept within the context of Torah Judaism that existed way before the Chasam Sofer .

If an innovation is considered to be a bad precedent or carries a risk of taking things in the wrong direction then it is to be avoided.There is no Orthodox consensus of what constitutes a risk to Mesorah etc. or what changes are to be avoided. It is a fiercely debated issue within Orthodox Judaism.

Last edited by leah233 on Thu, Mar 31 2016, 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

etky

Thu, Mar 31 2016, 3:25 pm

leah233 wrote:

Plenty of people who consider themselves Orthodox Jews and are universally regarded as Orthodox Jews do not believe in "an ideology out of sticking to tradition" per se.

Halochos or minhagim are kept within the context of Torah Judaism that existed way before the Chasam Sofer .

Orthodoxy today and its practitioners is not the topic.
The topic is whether what became known as Orthodoxy following the rise of the Reform movement in Europe was a direct continuation of the halachic Judaism that preceded it or whether the rise of Reform also impacted and altered halachic Judaism to some degree.
Historians talk of 'traditionalism' at this point as opposed to merely observing tradition. During this period of change, retaining religious traditions entailed a measure of conscious choice in a manner that was very different from previous historical periods when adhering to tradition was the default (in all of society).