Spinoza and Farcical “Orthodoxy”

This article originally appeared in Times of Israel:

He rejected the concept of divine revelation; he equated God with nature; he denied the idea of a personal God, Who intervenes in history and performs miracles; he renounced external interpretations of Scripture, such as the Oral Law, the Talmud; he believed that Jesus was greater than Moses; he denied the existence of prophecy; he dismissed the concept of the Jews as chosen by God. He fit to a T the various categories of heretics as codified by Maimonides (Hil. Teshuva 3:6-8).

Yet Shmuly Yanklowitz, in An Open Letter to Spinoza, apologizes to Baruch Spinoza, the famed heretic who propounded the above ideas and was hence excommunicated by the Jewish community of Amsterdam in 1656. In what can be called nothing short of the absurd, Shmuly honors and blesses Spinoza, condemns his excommunication and apologizes for it, and affirms, in Shmuly’s eyes, Judaism’s welcoming of ideas that are deemed by the Torah to be apostasy:

Those who don’t understand the subtle complexities of your ideas ban them simply for being foreign and threatening. But these individuals are spiritually xenophobic. Your philosophy must, at the least, be understood. For doesn’t Judaism thrive most amidst an open marketplace of ideas where critiques, protests, and counterpoints are not only to be welcomed but encouraged? Is not this the source of our intellectual sustenance? The ban on you has, for centuries, represented fear. And Judaism must embrace a bold and fearless journey forward.

Judaism shuns clinging to dogmas and the notions of religious exclusivity. Our normative practices reflect the intellectual ideals we hold dear. We must make clear, then, that the precepts of Torah embrace autonomy, open-thinking, hermeneutical diversity, and engaging with ideas that may be outside the comfortable framework that is all too prevalent in contemporary Jewish thought. Thus, defending you is defending the essence of Judaism itself.

May your neshama have an aliyah…

Judaism does encourage inquiry and new ideas, but only once the dogmas — yes, dogmas — such as those formulated by Maimonides and other classical authorities, which affirm an omniscient and omnipotent God, prophecy, divine providence, divine revelation, the truth of the Torah — both Written and Oral — and so forth, are first accepted, along with the traditions of the Sages. One may not even entertain ideas that give rise to rejection of the above fundamentals of belief (Maimonides Hil. Av. Kochavim 2:3).

This is traditional/Orthodox Judaism. As such, the ideology of Spinoza needed to be forcefully renounced, and an iron-strong message of condemnation was most certainly required. Spinoza’s excommunication has been basically accepted as proper by centuries of rabbinic leadership, and its correctness has even been affirmed by several modern religious academics.

Let’s shift gears a bit — but not too much:

It just dawned on me that I am waking up from being under a 20-year spell of the patriarchal god. I don’t know that I want to be in constant negotiation with male-centered texts… She (my daughter) explained that she did not accept the curse that Eve got from God — both about grief in childbirth and about women being ruled by men. (With this in mind she chanted these verses in the specific mourning trope of Lamentations!)

These are the words of Dr. Melanie Landau, a recently-ordained star graduate of Yeshivat Maharat, the Open Orthodox rabbinical school for women, endorsing new bat mitzvah rituals and attitudes. These words are about as unaccepting of Torah values and tradition as it gets. Yet they are feted on the Yeshivat Maharat Facebook page. Similarly, Shmuly, who has repeatedly made public statements that are not in consonance with Orthodox Judaism, is nonetheless honored by Open Orthodox leadership and his fellow graduates of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah, who serve as frequent guest speakers at Shmuly’s Valley Beit Midrash and who participate in other programs under his coordination.

Although the words of Shmuly and Melanie could be dismissed as the well-meaning, yet naive and wayward expressions of less learned, wet-behind-the-ears young clergy (and I do believe that these two people, along with their colleagues, are indeed very sincere and well-meaning), their endorsement by the Open Orthodox establishment speaks volumes. It speaks of a movement that claims the Orthodox brand yet is anything but, as embrace of heresy and adoption of attitudes that reject Torah values and beliefs are a dominant part of the package. Just as it is silly and farcical to call North Korea a democracy, despite its assertion that it is the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, expropriating descriptive terms whose meaning it glaringly defies, so too has Open Orthodoxy comically co-opted the Orthodox designation, despite its rejection of Torah tradition and core values in so many fundamental ways.

It is hard not to relate this train of thought to the annual Martin Luther King Jr. Day concert in the epicenter of Open Orthodoxy, where a Baptist choir sings church music in this congregation’s sanctuary, before its holy ark. To describe this as a form of Orthodoxy is an exercise in absurdity and irony of the highest order. Such can also be said of the recent Open Orthodox rabbinical affirmation of Christianity (“Orthodox Rabbis Bring Jesus Home for Christmas“).

I am tired of writing about a movement that turns the word “Orthodoxy” into a farcical, silly and empty term, pliable without limit and able to be turned on its head. We have already read about Open Orthodoxy’s celebration of gay marriage, its ordaining of women, its engaging in banned interfaith discourse, its changes to conversion procedure, its feminization of prayer services, its defense of heresy and its rejection of core Torah values. How much further will the Open Orthodox movement go until it itself realizes that it cannot honestly claim any bedrock connection with Orthodoxy?

You may also like...

135 Responses

  1. mb says:

    The reason Spinoza was excommunicated by the Esnoga community was because it ran afoul of a deal worked out between the Spanish/Portuguese Jews and the Dutch government. Spinoza had ran afoul of Christian heresy, something the Jewish community had agreed that none of their community would do such a thing,  as part of being allowed to settle in Amsterdam. At that time Holland was part of the Spanish empire, but was an “inquisition free zone”. Those incoming Jews, until recently, had been outwardly practicing Christians themselves. They, left to their own devices would not have done such a thing.

    • Charlie Hall says:

      Actually the Netherlands’ independence from Spain had been recognized in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia. Spinoza’s expulsion was in 1656.

      • mb says:

        Correct. At the time of admission it was still Spanish. After independence they (the Jews) still had to abide by the deal (struck in the early 17th c).

    • mycroft says:

      “oel rich
      February 4, 2016 at 8:43 am
      if the shiur does not allow for give and take (imho) then other than schar halicha, I find listening on mp3 more effective.

      KT”

       

      Agreed-Problem with shiurim that are given with intent to be put on line they don’t have give and take and wo give and take why be there, At home one can stop the tape and check things out in sforim when an issue is raised.

  2. YbhM says:

    I am tired of writing about a movement that turns the word “Orthodoxy” into a farcical, silly and empty term, pliable without limit and able to be turned on its head.

    In the course of your posts and the ensuing discussions there have been some things that have happened repeatedly:  a) OO figures (in particular Ysoscher Katz) tend to deny or disavow these controversial views when pressed  b)  defenders of OO such as Daniel Schwartz and dr. Bill have ultimately been reluctant to state that they identify with the movement and start to call them “they” when the seriously heterodox aspects of OO are presented  c) some people unfortunately seem to identify with OO primarily due to valid and understandable sociological critiques of the mainstream Orthodox community  d) some people think that the fact halacha is always changing and that there have always been theological controversies somehow implies that “Orthodoxy” can include absolutely anything.

    The discussion does not seem to accomplish much.

    What’s necessary is to confront OO at the communal level and ensure that its graduates do not receive appointments in Orthodox pulpits and schools  They should confine their smug and facile approaches to post-denominational congregations who know and assent to what they will be receiving.

    • joel rich says:

      so perhaps there are those who are not fully satisfied with the direction that they perceive mo to be taking but feel oo has gone too far.  actually it’s not perhaps.

      kt

      • dr. bill says:

        Joel Rich, As usual, you make a very perceptive comment.   I would argue that in the US, but not Israel:  First, modern orthodoxy is at least intellectually if not numerically in retreat and largely leaderless.  Anyone who could assume a leadership role, is disincented by the immediate prospect of attack.  Second, any number of “chareidim in disguise” have attempted to pilfer the MO moniker and redefine it in their own image.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        “MO is ..intellectually if not numerically in retreat” but hardly “largely leaderless”. Your issue is that none of RIETS current RY approach your POV.  Have you purchased any sefer or English language halachic work by any of the current RY? Their works are obviously too frum for the LW MO world and different in their style so as to be seen as not frum enough for the Charedi world. 

      • mycroft says:

        Yes recently and given my age it is Torah lishma from the RIETS Practical Halakah Series The Laws and Concepts of Niddah byRabbi Zvi Sobolofsky-enjoy the Mareh mkomot by section in the back

      • mycroft says:

        Rabbi Yosef Blau is probably close to my point of view. Rabbi Jeremy Wieder sometimes expresses interesting viewpoints.

        Since I am retired I have listened to shiurim by most RY on YU Torah including RHS-probably more than any single person

      • mycroft says:

        The leading RY in RIETS is not MO-he is great talmid chacham, but not MO.

      • Doc P says:

        Is there an accepted definition of MO that you can use to weed out “charedim in disguise “?

        Or do you simply label anyone to the right of your position a charedi?

      • R.B. says:

        Aye, there’s the rub!

      • mycroft says:

        Probably the best summary of differences between MO and Centrism can be found on YU Torah there is semester course that Prof Alan Brill taught about 10 years ago that discusses Modern Orthodoxy. It is worth listening for its general overview.

        He discusses difference inYu in the past few decades under current leadership than leadership until roughly 1984.

      • dr. bill says:

        As Justice Potter Stewart noted in a different context, I know it when I see it, but I cannot define it.  And yes, there are those to my right that I view as MO, perhaps many J.

      • mycroft says:

        Absolutely correct I know musmachim who are disappointed in the impact of revisionism in RIETS of the past 3 decades but they dare not speak up because they will harm their congregants

      • Steve Brizel says:

        The only “revisionism” from your POV is that none of the RY have a PhD in existential philosophy, you don’t view any of the RY as your rebbe that you accept and follow ( mkabel and are mvutal to -to paraphrase a Mishnah in Avos)  and their view of Halacha doesn’t fit your POV. That is an assertion of a “lost cause” akin to the lost cause of the Confederacy or the wonders of Communism. Like it or not, the odds of another RYBs with a PhD are at best negligible. Hoping that anyone can fill RYBS’s unique shoes is a profound waste of time-as opposed to delving into RYBS’s massive legacy as expounded by any Talmid muvhak and anyone who has faithfully transmitted the same, even if he neither learned in RYBS’s shiur.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Listening to a shiur is wonderful, but in no way as much a kiyum as actively attending a shiur.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Have you read the works in English by R M Willig on Bishul on Shabbos and R D Feldman on many issues relating to Mitzvos Bein Adam LChavero?

      • mycroft says:

        “Listening to a shiur is wonderful, but in no way as much a kiyum as actively attending a shiur”

        Agreed-I do go to shiurim in my schul BTW of interest the black hatters which are a majority of my schul go to fewer shiurim than I do.

        “The only “revisionism” from your POV is that none of the RY have a PhD in existential philosophy”

        Nonsense BTW FYI I never took a philosophy course in my life. The revisionism is not my original words-I was quoting Dr Tovah Lichtenstein, you are aware of others who have written about revisionism on the Rav.

        If Cross Currents wanted a debate on Revisionism and theRav there are many qualified to write about it starting with Prof Kaplan who wrote about revisionism and the Rav by both the left and right.

        “Like it or not, the odds of another RYBs with a PhD are at best negligible.”

        The odds of another Rav are neglible-not that it is crucial but al regel achat R Heshie Reichman,R JD Bleich, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, Rabbi Michael Rosensweig all current YU RYs have Phds-there may be more but so what they all have different points of view from Right to Left

        “as opposed to delving into RYBS’s massive legacy as expounded by any Talmid muvhak and anyone who has faithfully transmitted the same, even if he neither learned in RYBS’s shiur.”

        One should read the Ravs words and then follow what was done under his direction. Certainly tapes and transcripts of public shiurim are worthwhile.  Most important by far what was published by him in his active years.Things published about the Rav while he was still active have great credibility. The fact that one is a great talmid chacham does not automatically give one extra credibility for what one says the Rav said in private conversation. See if the quote is consistent with other behavior of the Rav.

        “their view of Halacha doesn’t fit your POV”

        It is the accuracy of mesorah that counts.  I have no objection if a talmid disagrees with the Rav just don’t distort him to say that the Rav told you x,y,or z to agree with you if he didn’t.

         

      • joel rich says:

        if the shiur does not allow for give and take (imho) then other than schar halicha, I find listening on mp3 more effective.

        KT

      • mycroft says:

        dr. bill
         

        “….  There are numerous examples of more generally versed talmidai chachamin being bested by one with greater yediot/depth in an individual area. ”

        Agreed. I refuse to accept the premise that a person of lesser knowledge-cannot in a given situation be found to be mistaken. If the person of greater believes the person of lesser knowledge is wrong show how they are wrong. It should be much easier for the person of greater knowledge is correct and knows more to show how they are correct. Of course, of equal importance to knowledge is being able to apply the knowledge, which may not be the same skill as knowing shas and meforshim.

        I am beginning to think that perhaps all the claims to authority bar hachi etc are hiding a basic weakness in position. Claiming mesorah without explanation may be simply a mesorah in the imagination of the person claiming mesorah.

        Dr Bill’s point is also important that there are many experts in different fields of halacha, kashrut, gittin, gerus, non Jews, shviis, may all be different people.

  3. lacosta says:

    perhaps the MO followers they attract and lead in increasing numbers,  are voting their ideology with their feet  ….

  4. mycroft says:

    “We have already read about Open Orthodoxy’s celebration of gay marriage, its ordaining of women, its engaging in banned interfaith discourse, its changes to conversion procedure, its feminization of prayer services,”

    I probably personally agree am opposed to all what OO is doing in the above issues-BUT show me where they violate halacha-do they say mishkvei zachar is permitted or do they treat them the same way most Orthodox organizations will treat a mechalel Shabbos.

    Banned interfaith discourse-let us compare what they are doing and how it compares with what the Rav permitted lemaaseh for the roughly quater of a century where the RCA followed his dictates on every single conference etc. Don’t look to what Brisker chakiras he may have said in shiur but look what he constantly permitted lemaaseh-I believe that comparing what he permitted lemaaseh will give a different flavor than what is attributed to him.

    Ordaining of women lets have a halachik discourse on it-al regel achat RHS appears to have an interesting argument from why we don’t permit a women to be a shochet for a community while she is allowed to be a shochet for her own shechita-but the place to argue is halachik argument. A Rabbi has no serara in the US, and all the classical rules don’t apply.

    Changes to conversion procedure-are you telling me they don’t require bris and tvila. About 45 years ago there was an exchange in Tradition between R Melech Schachter and Rabbi M Angel on gerus-read it.

    Changes of prayer services-fair enough discuss each change from a halachik perspective-explain what halacha what are they doing wrong.

    “its defense of heresy and its rejection of core Torah values.”

    Heresy according to whom? According to the Rambam there is a good chance that many people who are considered frum by most of us would be heretics in his eyes. They include many mashgichim and I like most eat their food. They are acceptable to most reliable hashgachik agencies.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      Mycroft- wrote in relevant part:

      1)”BUT show me where they violate halacha-do they say mishkvei zachar is permitted “-Look at the comments of OO leaders as summarized here and elsewhere after the Supreme Court decision legalizing same gender marriage and their stated views in favor of accommodating the same within OO.

      2)”let us compare what they are doing and how it compares with what the Rav permitted lemaaseh for the roughly quater of a century where the RCA followed his dictates on every single conference etc. Don’t look to what Brisker chakiras he may have said in shiur but look what he constantly permitted lemaaseh-“RYBS consistently championed unity on issues of Klapei Chutz , but not on Klapei Pnim on a wide range of issues.Speaking at a non Jewish theological college in the late 1950s prior to the issuance of Vatican I hardly has the same weight as what RYBS wrote in Confrontation, and what he deemed the boundaries of appropriate interdenominational contact, who RYBS consistently referred to as heterodox as nature. 

      3)Ordaining of women lets have a halachik discourse on it-al regel achat RHS appears to have an interesting argument from why we don’t permit a women to be a shochet for a community while she is allowed to be a shochet for her own shechita-but the place to argue is halachik argument. A Rabbi has no serara in the US, and all the classical rules don’t apply.” who says that a rav has no serrara and that the “classical rules don’t apply.” What other “classical rules don’t apply”-those that are ignored even if they are binding as part of the covenental relationship between HaShem and His People.

      4)Changes of prayer services-fair enough discuss each change from a halachik perspective-Look at partnership minyanim and the book authored by R D D Sperber where wholesale changes in the Nusach of the Amidah are suggested

      5)Heresy according to whom? -why not a comparison with the Nusach of Musaf of RH which sets forth the basic bedrocks of Emunah-Malciyos, Zicronos and Shofaros and the capacity of man to do teshuvah-which one of the OO affiliated speakers who is the subject of this article has openly rejected. Again, I wonder what OO leaders , their apologists and their sympathizers do with the Nusach of every Birkas HaMitzvah-Asher Kidshanu Bmitzvosav Vtzivanu, and similar texts in every Tefilah. Is the same a mere ritual without meaning or worse?

      Refusing to see the obvious for what it is -apikorus writ large-is as deplorable as what you describe without particulars as “what Brisker chakiras he may have said in shiur’

      • mycroft says:

        I do not spend much time at all reading what OO leaders have said. Has either Rabbi Weiss or Rabbi Linzer ever stated that mishkavei zachar is permitted?  If so, that would be a game changer to me. Not that we will accept them into schul. After all OU, NCSY certainly ccepts mechalei Shabbos to their events.

        ““RYBS consistently championed unity on issues of Klapei Chutz , but not on Klapei Pnim on a wide range of issues.Speaking at a non Jewish theological college in the late 1950s prior to the issuance of Vatican I hardly has the same weight as what RYBS wrote in Confrontation, and what he deemed the boundaries of appropriate interdenominational contact, who RYBS consistently referred to as heterodox as nature.”

        Unity Klapei Chutz and pnim is dealing with joint activities with heterodox Jews not non Jews. I am stating that one should look at the record of what the Rav permitted  as the Rav interpreted his guideline until he stopped being active-there is a public record for decades  of actions of what he permitted.  We have a record of what he permitted.

        “A Rabbi has no serara in the US, and all the classical rules don’t apply.” who says that a rav has no serrara and that the “classical rules don’t apply.” What other “classical rules don’t apply””

        Listen to shiurim on YU Torah about a Ravs right to his job forever when the case goes to a Bes Din. A Rabbi who acts as if he has serara will be a total failure. The Rav is not hired forever-typically for a term and the schul has a right not to rehire him-different than model of hundreds of years ago.

         

        “Look at partnership minyanim and the book authored by R D D Sperber where wholesale changes in the Nusach of the Amidah are suggested”

        See what halacha is being broken and discuss each one. Are changes different than Chassidic changes to Nusach. I’ve read Sperber on minhagim I don’t read him as a posek

        “Refusing to see the obvious for what it is -apikorus writ large” I don’t spend my time reading OO works but do they reject Torah minhashamayim? Refusing to see the obvious for what it is -apikorus writ large Do they deny matan Torah happened? If so, give me quote of who does and I will reject their viewpoint. As you are aware for decades Rabbi I Greenberg with at least as problematical beliefs was not kicked out of the RCA-does that mean that every RCA member and its chairman of the Halacha Commission can be attacked as tolerating such beliefs. Show me what Rabbis Weiss, Linzer etc have stated about their beliefs.

      • Steve brizel says:

        Why do you engage in apologetics

      • mycroft says:

        I write what I believe is the truth.

      • Steve brizel says:

        Ryg and a oo leader threatened the rca with litigation. What is your point

      • mycroft says:

        RIGs biggest defender was not generally considered to be OO-he was considered to be one of the most famous MO figures of latter 20th century.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Take a look at RAL’s strong critique of RYG and his POV in the YU Judaica book. Commenting about RYG’s resort to a threat to litigation and whoever was his supporter really is irrelevant to the issues under discussion.

      • mycroft says:

        “Take a look at RAL’s strong critique of RYG and his POV in the YU Judaica book. Commenting about RYG’s resort to a threat to litigation and whoever was his supporter really is irrelevant to the issues under discussion.”

        RAL openly broke with Greenberg by 1966. These events were roughly 2 decades later after RAL had made  aliyah. Rabbi Greenbergs defense came from the highest levels of YU-thus if you attack YTC  for tolerating inappropriate beliefs YU has done the same thing.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Read R Gordimer’s analysis of the defense of one OO clergyman who has a whole web site devoted to a rejection of Torah minhashamayim

      • mycroft says:

        “Confrontation”, first delivered at the 1964 Mid-Winter Conference of the Rabbinic Council of America. The work was formally published later that year as an article in the spring edition of Tradition”

        Re Lonely Man of Faith ”
        … Rav Soloveitchik’s daughter, Dr. Atarah Twersky, has verified that it was St. John’s, which was the only Catholic seminary in Brighton at that time.“ The Lonely Man of Faith” lecture later was published in Tradition, Summer 1965, p
        https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/center/conferences/soloveitchik/Korn_23Nov03.htm

      • dr. bill says:

        IIRC, the Lonely Man of Faith, was part of a project funded by Loyola, a Catholic university, with participants from multiple faith communities.  I would never deign to claim I fully understand how to reconcile the various positions the Rav ztl took and advised other to take.

      • mycroft says:

        ” I would never deign to claim I fully understand how to reconcile the various positions the Rav ztl took and advised other to take.”

        But that problem hasn’t stopped those who are students and followers of those who Dr Lichtenstein is referring to :

        “And yet, there are former students,
        notable among them a number of faculty members or former faculty
        members at RIETS, who have not only turned their backs on the complex
        worldview the Rov espoused but are anxious to claim that the Rov himself
        turned his back on this view.”

        Yet it hasn’t stopped those followers and students from following the ap0proach of Carthago delenda est-but instead of just saying OO must be destroyed at the end of any drasha that becomes the totality of their published yahadus comments.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Ain Haci Nami.  The Lonely Man of Faith was written before Confrontation. When it was published really is irrelevant.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      Mycroft wrote in relevant part:

      “bout 45 years ago there was an exchange in Tradition between R Melech Schachter and Rabbi M Angel on gerus-read it.”

      R Angel relied on the view of R Uzziel ZL, who posited that we should welcome gerim even in the absence of any evidence of Kabalas Ol Mitzvos solely for reasons of demographics. RHS emphatically rejected that POV in a public shiur on Inyanei Gerus

      • mycroft says:

        I am aware that RHS follows his fathers viewpoint rather than R Uzziels. I am aware that RHS believed his father was a zaddik.

        However IMO R Angel was acting well within classical halacha in his exchane with R Melech Schachter-that does not mean that I agree with R Angel but to most people his exchange was an appropriate halachik argument.

      • Steve brizel says:

        R uziel stated that his view was against rov binyan uminyan she’ll rishonim vacaharonim.don’t elevate it beyond such a position

      • mycroft says:

        RHS is not afraid of going both lechumra and lekula against generally accepted halachik practice.

        Every gadol at time has gone against standard  accepted halacha-RMF did etc

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft wrote:

        “RHS is not afraid of going both lechumra and lekula against generally accepted halachik practice”

        That is a misstatement-RHS always considers Mesorah and constantly contrasts the views of CI with the MB and RMF, and in many areas of Psak Halacha.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Invoking RMF when you are defending R Uzziel’s psak is simply inappropriate. RMF was a great Baal Mchadesh but always relied on the views of Rov Rishonim and Acharonim and predicated any of his most seemingly controversial Piskei Halacha on their views ( i.e. Chalav Akum, Gerus, etc)

      • mycroft says:

        This is not the place to start a discussion of RMF and what influences influenced him. Your description of him is simply not true for him or anyone-“but always relied on the views of Rov Rishonim and Acharonim” I  put Steves always in bold

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft-we  previously have discussed Dr Twersky’s statement previously and the seeming anomaly of a nephew and at least three grandchildren who by no means have  PhDs in any secular field but are amazing Talmidei Chachamim in their own right. You can ignore the fact-but that is the same logic as condemning the actions of Bill Cosby but  ignoring the equally repugnant acts of  Bill Clinton- a rather selective recall of the facts

      • mycroft says:

        Which statement of Dr  A Twersky did I cite in this blog? To the best of my knowledge I quoted Dr. Tovah Lichtenstein’s Tradition comments about the Rav.
        I certainly over the decades  have spoken to  Dr Twersky-but unlike her sister she has not in general gone public with articles about the Rav. It is certainly possible that I might have quoted her but I have not cited her to the best of my knowledge in this blog. If I am wrong please correct me.

        Grandchildren-the Rav was a grandson of Rav Chaim and certainly had different viewpoints than Rav Chaim. Another of the Ravs nephews  son won the Zalman Shazar award for the best Jewish history book in 2013-so what.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        “To most people”- you are seriously contending that R Angel was in the same league as R Melech Shachter as a Talmid Chacham?

      • mycroft says:

        “RHS is not afraid of going both lechumra and lekula against generally accepted halachik practice”

        “That is a misstatement-RHS always considers Mesorah and constantly contrasts the views of CI with the MB and RMF, and in many areas of Psak Halacha.”

         

        Steve let us even assume I accept your statement that does not contradict my statement

      • mycroft says:

        It is irrelevant who wrote the articles if we judge them on their merits. Read the articles and judge them.

        I do not give bechinas to Rabbonim-it is only those few who I have talked to a lot I can personally vouch for.

      • dr. bill says:

        Your argument is unsound.  There are numerous examples of more generally versed talmidai chachamin being bested by one with greater yediot/depth in an individual area.  

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Are you seriously maintaining that RYBS would support the agenda and POV expressed in OO , especially the linked articles that R Gordimer has continuously provided?

      • mycroft says:

        I have never implied that the Rav would in general support OO-there is  probably more revisionism against the Ravs positions in general found in OO than found in the current leaders of RIETS. But that does not take away from the revisionist actions of the current leaders of RIETS which have helped set the stage for OO.

        Also it is quite clear to me that the Rav would have been opposed to the tenor of the campaign against OO. He certainly would have opposed distortions/lies  in homiletics used by some in RIETS about the Rav and Boston.

        Obviously, if given a false choice as the only choices to follow the current leadership of RIETS or the leadership of OO IMO the Rav would have followed RIETS. That does not give them the moral right however to distort actions/policies of the Rav

  5. sk says:

    Am sure glad oo came along, or no one would know who rabbi Gordimer was.  When your fame rests solely on the ability to criticize others, it is time to reconsider your calling.

  6. Steve Brizel says:

    The historical background as to why Spinoza was excommunicated is fascinating. Yet, does anyone deny the views attributed to him by R Gordimer as summarized by R Gordimer? Once again, R Gordimer demonstrates why OO theologians seek to kasher a sheretz.

    • dr. bill says:

      as real talmidai chachamim, they probably know 70 reasons:), but in any case removing a cherem is not the same as kashering!

      • Chochom b'mah nishtanah says:

        Bill,

         

        What would you call this gem of a comment?  ” Thus, defending you is defending the essence of Judaism itself.

        May your neshama have an aliyah…”

         

        Your apologetics no know limit.

      • dr. bill says:

        hopefully, when we meet after meah ve’esrim, i will remember to thank you; unless of course, you are not zoche to join me.  until then, continue practicing your non-sequiturs.

  7. mycroft says:

    ,” as embrace of heresy and adoption of attitudes that reject Torah values and beliefs are a dominant part of the package.”

    For those of us whose primary  source of knowledge about OO are R Gordimer’s posts please clarify what they believe is heresy and what is the source and who stated such belief. It is not enough to state a talmid of YCT said x,y,z after all Rabbi Greenberg was at YU and a member of the RCA.

    What Torah values and beliefs do they reject?

     

    • Steve brizel says:

      Please read the

      Oo responses to the supreme court decision at issue

      • mycroft says:

        I don’t know reference -I am not an expert on what OO says and don’t intend to spend much time becoming one. I did a quick check of YCTs website and Rabbi Linzer has one statement on homosexuality rather liberal “(1) The duty to protect all Jews from harm
        (2) The duty to protect homosexuals from the dangers of ephemeral relationships, and from the dangers of a gutter culture
        (3) The duty to protect people from losing their families, communities, rabbis and peers
        (4) The duty not to torture, harass or cause emotional pain, through our words or actions, to people who are wired differently, and
        (5) The duty to ensure that people grappling with these challenges are able to hold on to as much of the religious framework of Judaism that they feel able to, in a user-friendly manner, without constant reminders of their halakhic shortcomings.”

        But notice refers to their halachik shortcomings where is the heter? Where going against Torah?

        Will read any reference that you mention that has a url

         

      • Steve Brizel says:

        All of the articles posted by R Gordimer have links. Why not read all of the linked articles instead of engaging in rope a dope as to the contents of the same?

      • Steve Brizel says:

        We look forward to a detailed critique of any of R Gordimer’s linked articles.

    • Steve brizel says:

      See the prior discussions here re oo and Torah mi Sinai

      • mycroft says:

        Please either paste or copy or give me precise URL for your ideas. I simply have to read to see what exactly was said by whom.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft-read each and every linked article that R Gordimer has posted on OO. Until you have done so, you are really writing without an awareness of the facts and simply comparing what you know with what you don’t know

      • mycroft says:

        Which of course we all do-we all compare based on facts that we know.

    • Steve brizel says:

      Hillel’s comments in avos to ignorance being the opposite of either being learned or righteous person strike me as quite applicable. It helps to read the linked articles before one comments on this issue

      • mycroft says:

        As I wrote I have read any recent articles linked in CC websites-I just don’t find them as convincing as you do. As you can tell it is not rare that I do a search engine search before commenting. Truth is not found in only one derech

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft -you wrote in relevant part:

        “I am not an expert on what OO says and don’t intend to spend much time becoming one.”

        Merely looking at what R Linzer said on one occasion does not pass muster. If you were either looking at sources quoted by a Rishon or Lhavdil conducting any other investigation would you be satisified with such a superficial search?

  8. Steve brizel says:

    Mycroft read the linked articles. why are you confusing the obvious differences between pluralism at  costs with kiruv and  chizuk

    • mycroft says:

      I have read those linked pieces before-the one about Christianity bothered me-but to be fair there are a lot of names on the list who are respectable people-starting with R Benny Lau-full disclosure when in Jerusalem I usually daven in his schul and BTW a lot of RIETS musmachim. A lot of the Americans  signingI have not seen for decades they were knowledgeable people. Do I think they made a mistake having R I Greenberg on the list yes and there is some problematical Greenberg elements on the document-but the area of how to deal with nosrim is complex-even listening to a few shiurim by DIFFERENT people on YU Torah will give you different approaches-Rishonim had different approaches.

      R Menachem Hameeri vs Rambam is a classic difference.  Current Rabbonim from different countries have paskened lemaaseh all over the place.

      Re Conservative Judaism and OO I see a major difference-I know lay members of OO who bench during the week-I doubt few Conservative Jews ever did. Conservative Judaism permitted chillul Shabbos bvarhesea-I am not aware of OO doing that.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Citing the Meiri when his view is a decidedly minority view does solve the issue. OO’s stances towards Halacha and Mesorah are far more radical than whether someone benchs during the week or ignores Chillul Shabbos. Again, read the cited articles before you look at the religious standards and values articulated by OO.

      • mycroft says:

        There is strong evidence that lemaaseh the Rav has done things that only make sense halachikally if he holds like the Meeri.

        I see in my own lies how at least a substantial portion of R Weiss’s shul behave and it is not like a standard Conservative Synagogue.

      • mycroft says:

        I see in my own lies

        obviously I meant to write I have seen in my own eyes

      • mycroft says:

        I meant to write eyes rather than lies.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        I am sure that many on this list would choose to daven at other shuls in Riverdale than HIR precisely because of many of the departures from Halacha and accepted Minhagei Yisrael therein.

      • mycroft says:

        “I am sure that many on this list would choose to daven at other shuls in Riverdale than HIR precisely because of many of the departures from Halacha and accepted Minhagei Yisrael therein.”

        If I lived in  Riverdale I would choose to daven regularly  someplace else other than HIR-so what-you are certainly aware that I am far from being a fan of R A Weiss but maybe one should realize that I might not be the only one who feels put off by the constant ad hominem attacks against OO personalities. It is frankly counterproductive. I also see routine attacks against others.

      • dr. bill says:

        listen to a shiur by RAS ztl, on YU Torah, entitled “Aspiring to Kedushah,” IIRC.  Its relevance to your comment should be clear, but your observation about a daat yachid in psak is much more complex issue.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        The list on the article of the so-called  “shared covenant” was noticeable for the usual LW MO and RZ suspects. R D D Berger wrote a very sharp critique of the sum and substance of that article and showed how it was overly apologetic and willing to walk away from critical Ikarei HaYahadus without any basis for doing so. You may like R B Lau-I found his book on Avos  an attempt to reduce Chazal to his level and at times an exercise in psychobabble.

      • mycroft says:

        You may like R B Lau-”

        Irrelevant what I think of him he gets a lot of people to his schul during a 7 day period  for shiurim including sons and sons-in-law of RIETS RY.

      • mycroft says:

        Do you accept R Bergers viewpoint on Chabad and its mashgichim-of course than do you believe that the OU should use Chabad mashgichim.

        “You may like R B Lau-I found his book on Avos  an attempt to reduce Chazal to his level and at times an exercise in psychobabble.”

        Is that how you would describe SRHs depiction of Chazal-psychobabble

      • Steve Brizel says:

        R D Berger’s view on messianism within Chabad is a superb tour de force and is absolutely correct in that regard . Ask the Poskim for the OU who they employ as Mashgichim. However, I would always suggest that the best address for anyone to experience the Kedusha of a Shabbos table in the context of a family would be a Shabbos with a Chabad shliach anywhere in the world. FWIW, I highly recommend a trip to the Ohel of the Rebbe ZL for anyone who values Tefilos at Kivrei Tzadikim or anyone who has never appreciated the same.  For college students and adults in the most lonely communities in the world, Chabad and its shlichum have always been one of the best portals of entry into an exploration of Torah , Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Neither RSRH’s commentary on Chumash, Chorev, the original translations of The Nineteen Letters nor his commentary on Avos or his Selected Writings contain anything in which RSRH remotely reduce Chazal to his level-to the contrary, RSHR emphasized that such was an erroneous approach.

      • mycroft says:

        “Neither RSRH’s commentary on Chumash, Chorev, the original translations of The Nineteen Letters nor his commentary on Avos or his Selected Writings contain anything in which RSRH remotely reduce Chazal to his level-t”

        RSRH is far from The R A Kotler approach that avos are perfect. It appears that in theYeshiva world RAKs approach is treated as the only possible one-SRH did not have that approach.

      • dr. bill says:

        anyone who has ever asked or shared a meal with dr. berger knows that he will not drink wine WITH an OU hashgacha where the mashgiach used by the OU is a lubavitcher from a country controlled by messianics.  Dr. Berger is very principled.

         

      • Steve Brizel says:

        See Page 146 of R D D Berger’s book on OU Hashgacha and Chabad messianism. I personally have not eaten at a well known steakhouse under a very refutable hashgacha  in NYC precisely because the entire atmosphere  inside reeks of Chabad messianism

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft and DR Bill-There you go again-R D Berger’s book at page 146 contains no proof that the OU relies primarily without any investigation whatsoever on a ” mashgiach used by the OU is a lubavitcher from a country controlled by messianics”

  9. dr. bill says:

     I take it that you are not a Spinoza scholar and neither am I.  Other than reading Spinoza while at YU, my only other exposure was a book on Spinoza by a former neighbor, Rebecca Goldstein, which did not receive rave reviews in (parts of) academia.  In any case, your summary of his views requires a bit more appreciation for his significantly more nuanced positions.  There has been significant value in differentiating some of his more radical/heretical views from more traditional, albeit disputed, positions of both early Kabbalists and the many who promote pshat over Rabbinic interpretation.
    I think rather than attacking the student, you should criticize the teacher – Rabbi Lopes Cardoza.  As I have argued, in Israel the likes of OO are flourishing and provide a more fruitful set of views to examine.
    Frankly, given the relatively minuscule number of excommunications for heresy, I think Spinoza’s stature may be enhanced by being so singularly treated, not that his reputation needs any embellishment.  Then again, you are also doing a good job bringing the views of the OO to a broader audience (including me.)
     
    As to your critique of Dr. Landau (and her daughter), it would be more useful to address the issue that Ktoret raised.  That would be much more worthwhile.

    • YbhM says:

      <i> In any case, your summary of his views requires a bit more appreciation for his significantly more nuanced positions.</i>

      Yes we know that R. Gordimer is not Yirmiyahu Yovel (or Leo Strauss).   The point about Rabbi Shmuly’s “apology” is salient nonetheless.

      <i>As I have argued, in Israel the likes of OO are flourishing and provide a more fruitful set of views to examine.</i>

      OO as a movement does not exist here in Israel.  Generally the OO-ish people and institutions (eg. R. Benny Lau, the Hartmann institute, Shira Hadasha) tend to be little worlds unto themselves.  You can call these “flourishing” if you like – but their appeal tends to be toward people who do not identify as Orthodox or full shomer mitzvot.  And I don’t think the scholarship coming from these places can be placed in the same league with the works of leading Hesder rabbis, R. Shagar z”l, or original Haredi rabbis like R. Shlomo Fisher.

      <i>As to your critique of Dr. Landau (and her daughter), it would be more useful to address the issue that Ktoret raised. </i>

      You mean Ktoret’s “rejection” of the “curse” of Eve?  I’m not sure in what sense she thinks she can reject it.

      The curse of Eve is interesting topic.  Somehow I can’t imagine an OO person trying to grapple with that topic in a fashion that doesn’t simply take for granted the prejudices of America in 2016.

      • dr. bill says:

         Sorry, I thought he was Della RoccaJ.
         As I have noted many times, Israel is the home to well more than a dozen groups to the left and right of OO growing and confronting modernity of which the three you noted are but a small part.  They include Rabbis of kehilot, thinkers, RY, academics who do NOT march under a single umbrella.  Given the diversity of opinion, there is real strength and IMHO the future thought leadership for what is called modern orthodoxy.

  10. dov says:

    The fact that OO is growing , thus “people are voting with their feet”, should be of no consequence.

    1. if the given assumption is OO is mixing heavily into 1950’s conservative ideology we shouldn’t be surprised it is growing. Conservative Judaism in the 40’s and %0’s grew rapidly. But, growth in numbers does not mean growth in adherence .  Just as in the 50’s conservative Judaism was an easy net to fall into , so too OO is as well.

    2. Most of this growth is created by MO highschools vigorously being controlled by LW boards. Examples of this are easy to see… (SAR hires a who’s who of YCT). You will see more than 50 percent of students who attend these schools have no problem attending Ramah for summer camp , Nativ for yeshiva and those frummies that don’t will go to Yavnah (they bill themselves as non denominational summer camp). Its clear that there is a lack of education about what ideological issues separate us .

    3. LWMO (see comments from the usuals on this site ) box themselves into a tiny corner. Everybody who encourages “extra” observance is put of the chumrah of the month club . Covering your hair or sending your kids to a single gender school is considered the most disrespectful thing one can one can do to the memory of the RAV. When your Judaism and your definition as a MO Orthodox Jew is so easily called into question when you move an inch to the right , its very easy to take a step to left and not know I have veered off. When the critique is more highly leveled on the RW vs OO its easy to understand why people so easily go to OO.

     

    • Larry says:

      Is SAR the school of choice for OO families in the NYC metro area?

      The people I met who identify as LWMO are kovea itim, send their children to single sex schools and wear a jacket to davening.  They take a more lenient stance than RWMO on a variety of issues, but I think it is generally l’shem shamayim.  Not keeping certain mitzvot like covering hair does not make a person LW instead of RW, it makes them a trangresser of a mitzvah.

      To me, the essence of the OO hashkafa is that everyone has an equal right to customize halacha to suit their needs.  To me, this hashkafa finds traction among people who want to identify as Orthodox, but do not want to give Rabbis authority to tell them how to behave.

      • mycroft says:

        “Not keeping certain mitzvot like covering hair does not make a person LW instead of RW, it makes them a trangresser of a mitzvah.”

        I don’t want to reopen the individual issue of covering ones hair-but one has to be careful to call people transgressors when they are relying on different viewpoints-suffice it to say this is one issue where there have been different views permitting such behavior.

        There are other issues -im yesh al mi lismoch or even the people believe that they have al mi lismoch don’t call them transgressors.

         

         

         

         

      • dov says:

        Larry,

        I am referring specifically to people who use weak answers like the one we just saw by “mycroft”, I dont consider LWMO as people who you describe.

        I agree with the entirety of your statement .

      • mycroft says:

        Please explain my “weak” answer is a weak answer.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        The approach described by Dov and Larry is what the CI described  when you elevate by all kinds of convoluted logic a oosition that is clearly a Daas Yachid or Bdieved into a POV that the same is Mutar Lchatchilah Lchol HaDeos, when after all the ink has been spilled, the Daas Yachid or Bdieved remains the same. That is the inherently weak and IMO intellectually dishonest nature of such an approach.

      • Dov says:

        95 percent of Modern Orthodox  Rabbis would say one Halachically must cover their hair  (esp in America). If you are going to point to a R’ Broyde article and the fact that Reb Soloveitchik didn’t cover her hair you are grasping at straws. (Just to add to it: my mother was one of the many people told by the RAV that she Halachically must cover her hair. He told her what his wife has nothing to do with anyone including my mother.) Your argument is people honestly believe those that don’t cover are just relying on differing opinions. Larry’s point was there is a segment of people who do not want to rely on Rabbi’s to tell them how to behave. If my shul Rabbi (and 95 percent of Rabbi’s) say X is Halacha and I say Y , to say at that point they are just relying on differing opinions is “weak”.

    • Steve Brizel says:

      Dov wrote very cogently ( throughout ) and in relevant part:

      “Everybody who encourages “extra” observance is put of the chumrah of the month club”

      That POV ignores the view that going beyond what is minimally required in many Mitzvos  has always been viewed as a sign of Ahavas HaShem . What is viewed as a “chumra” may very well be required lchatchilah . One should know what is a hiddur, a midas chasidus,  minhag tov, minhak mkubal bnahug bolam, meikar hadin, lchatchilah, bdieved, shas hadchak, shas hadchak gadol meod before labeling what appears to you as a “chumra”

  11. Steve Brizel says:

    I wrote and Mycroft responded;

    “Take a look at RAL’s strong critique of RYG and his POV in the YU Judaica book. Commenting about RYG’s resort to a threat to litigation and whoever was his supporter really is irrelevant to the issues under discussion.”
    RAL openly broke with Greenberg by 1966. These events were roughly 2 decades later after RAL had made  aliyah. Rabbi Greenbergs defense came from the highest levels of YU-thus if you attack YTC  for tolerating inappropriate beliefs YU has done the same thing.
    RYG wrote a revisionist account of the aforementioned issue in the YU Judaica book which led to a rejoinder by RAL in which RAL reiterated why he disagreed with RYG. RYG himself wrote that he felt that he had moved to a post denominational POV and that he had bigger and better fish to fry than arguing the merits of his case within the world of both MO and YU. Please provide written contemporaneous proof that anyone “from the highest levels of YU” defended RYG during the relevant time period”. In the absence of the same, that claim deserves to be taken with a large degree of skepticism.

    Anyone who has attended YU knows that there is a vast range of hashkafic views within YU, and that one can decide which courses aid or detract in one’s growth as a Ben or Bas Torah.

    • mycroft says:

      “Please provide written contemporaneous proof that anyone “from the highest levels of YU” defended RYG during the relevant time period”. In the absence of the same, that claim deserves to be taken with a large degree of skepticism.”

      You are well aware that these matters are not handled with written public documentation.

      However, the fact is well known. Close to 30 years ago my wife and I were Shabbos lunch guests of someone from an important family that supported R Greenberg-a  lay person whose family was very important to YU. It was well known on the street why that major player supported R Greenberg-I told that family member and was happy that he helped out a Rabbi who they knew well.

      Steve-you make claims that you believe and others don’t no one has ever asked you for written proof. I stand by credibility or lack of by probably a decade or so of commenting on blogs and people can judge for themselves the persons credibility.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft wrote:

        “However, the fact is well known. Close to 30 years ago my wife and I were Shabbos lunch guests of someone from an important family that supported R Greenberg-a  lay person whose family was very important to YU. It was well known on the street why that major player supported R Greenberg”

        A major lay supporter is not the same as a person ““from the highest levels of YU”

      • mycroft says:

        You can figure out who the important Rabbi who put pressure not to force out R Greenberg was. A Rabbi who certainly who would be very concerned about YU and thus be influenced by an extremely important financial benefactor of YU.  It is obvious-I choose not to spell it out -why add material that is not necessary to google searches.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        I stand by the written record in the YU Judaica book that contains the correspondence between RAL ZL and RYG as to their differences.

  12. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft wrote:

    “One should read the Ravs words and then follow what was done under his direction. Certainly tapes and transcripts of public shiurim are worthwhile.  Most important by far what was published by him in his active years.Things published about the Rav while he was still active have great credibility”

    That is a very small self defined  corpus of written material, which I think is an example of “moving the goalposts backward” logic . Your limitation would eliminate any work that was responsibly published, directly or indirectly by Talmidei Chachacim  or MiToch Ksavim shel Talmidim-which is how many works of Torah were and are published about great Gdolei Torah-and which are not questioned as to their authenticity, unless one shows a serious error in the transmission process. B”H, we now have a wealth of material from RYBS that has been carefully edited and transcribed without any objection except by misguided purists who reject the same as lacking careful editing, or the same, or would prefer to leave any and all such manuscripts rotting away in their manuscript form. The Torah world is clearly the better for the dissemination of all of the same.

    • mycroft says:

      There is much more than a small set of written material see eg Selected Bibliography

      http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~turkel/engsol.html

      The Rav did edit his works that he published in his lifetime-thus they have more credibility than any edited transcripts  and tapes. However, secondary works that rely on oral statements without seeing a transcript of the exact words of the question are close to worthless if not published during the Rav’s lifetime. Thus, an interpretative article has different credibility if it was published even in a scholarly/Torah magazine after the Rav’s ptirah than lets say a popular public column about the Rav published in the Jewish Advocate-Bostons Jewish paper in 1960.

       

      • Steve Brizel says:

        In the Torah world,  shiurim, drashos and chidushim that are faithfully disseminated , transmitted, edited and translated by a Talmid Neeman ( and none of the works that I refer to have ever been regarded as not meeting that standard) are viewed very  favorably and are viewed far more favorbaly what you claim to being “close to worthless” or a mere “interpretative article.”  Walk into any Beis Medrash 0r sefarim store and you will scores of such sefarim  of that genre.

        Your standard if adopted to its logically absurd conclusion, would also negate usage of the works of well known Rishonim and Acharonim that were painstakingly edited hundreds of years after their PetirahI think that the overwhelming majority of people interested in the dissemination of the full package of the Torah of RYBS has rejected your POV that only that which RYBS published in his lifetime is entitled to be so considered. It is well known that the Chiddushim R Chaim HaLevi Al HaRambam  were published years after the Petirah of R Chaim solely because of the insistence of R Chaim Ozer ZL. If we applied your standard, that sefer itself would be disregarded as containing the Torah of R Chaim because it was not published by the editor in his lifetime.

         I applaud any Talmid Chacham who faithfully disseminates the Torah of RYBS, from a tape of a shiur , regardless of whether he ever learned in RYBS’s shiur . 

      • Steve Brizel says:

        I think that anyone who is interested in the full package of the Torah of RYBS would strive to get as much of the above referenced works in Lashon Kodesh followed by the works of Talmidim in his or her library. Again, by your move the goal post back POV,  anything that a Rishon or Acharon did not publish in his lifetime or was not edited in his lifetime has no value-a concept that the Torah world has quite emphatically rejected.

      • mycroft says:

        Steve since you are emphasizing that we read  secondary works about the Rav I will state that if one is to read secondary works by students and others about the Rav-read from as wide variety of sources as possible for different perspectives. A worthwhile set of lectures to see are those from the Van Leer symposium on the Rav. Available free on line search engine will find it.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Ain Haci Nami-but start with shiurim , drashos and sefarim authored by Talmidim as opposed to merely academic explorations and symposium wondering why the world has changed since RYBS was at the zenith of his powers.

  13. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft wrote in part:

    “the odds of another Rav are neglible-not that it is crucial but al regel achat R Heshie Reichman,R JD Bleich, Rabbi Jeremy Wieder, Rabbi Michael Rosensweig all current YU RYs have Phds-there may be more but so what they all have different points of view from Right to Left”

    None of the aforementioned RY  is known within RIETS, YU or elsewhere as “HaRav Dr.” Each is respected for their being great Talmidei Chachamim .

    • mycroft says:

      BTW for what its worth I find it embarrassing when any Rav who is acting as a Rav uses another title/or uses another title in addition to Rabbi to describe himself while acting as a Rabbi. To give an obvious example if someone phoned up the Rav’s household and his wife picked up the phone and someone asked for Dr. Soloveitchik-she would say speaking-when the caller would indicate that they wanted the Rav she would say so why didn’t you ask for Rabbi Soloveitchik.

      To the best of my knowledge Jesuit universities usually had Jesuit who had a Phd as president the title would be father not Dr.

      I believe it is standard among Rabbis who have Phds not to use another title in their Rabbinic role. Thus to me a a Rabbi Physician IMO should not list both titles.

    • dr. bill says:

      nor was the Rav ztl, but unlike the above he had few equals as either a talmudist or a Jewish philosopher in the 20th century.  RAL ztl’s hesped in Israel at a shloshim is still the assessment of the Rav that i think captured him best.   I would be happy to see a group of people who collectively approximate his in unique persona.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        I wouldn’t waste my time waiting for such an event with respect to a unique Gadol BaTorah whose appearance at a critical historical epoc doesn’t happen frequently- I think that appreciating the Gdodei Talmidei Chachamim across the whole spectrum of the Torah world is a far more beneficial POV , especially to the next generations to whom RYBS and his works will be books on a bookshelf.From what we are learning about R Belsky ZL, we see a RY who had amazing Yedios HaTorah coupled with an amazing appreciation for seular knowledge which certainly played a huge role in his Piskei Halacha .

      • Steve Brizel says:

        DR Bill-I trust that you are referring to the Hesped published in Leaves of Faith Vol. 1-see especially Page 233, immediately before Section IX thereof., for RAL’s own caveat as to passing “definitive judgement upon the standing of his path as a way of life for the future, as an option for the many. Time will tell..”

      • dr. bill says:

        i read it in the original hebrew i believe in OU kashrut publication mesorah, and also heard it online, i believe.

        believe me i am not wasting my time waiting for someone like the Rav ztl to appear; i waste time commenting on cross-currents.

        i knew rav belsky zl well.  i was a talmid the first year he gave shiur in 1964.  we talked occasionally, but mainly through a third person who we both talked to regularly. the following year, i was a talmid of RAL ztl.   they were immensely different people.

         

  14. mycroft says:

    I never attempted to imply that a Phd is necessary to be involved in Jewish learning, You are the one  who wrote “The only “revisionism” from your POV is that none of the RY have a PhD in existential philosophy,” which I think is obvious to everyone is notthe  reason why Dr Lichtenstein and others have maintained that there is revisionism about the Rav by current RY of RIETS who were his students.

    I then listed al regel achat YU RY who have Phds there are more. Even RHS  I don’t believe would ever claim a Phd disqualifys-his own father had one and he treated his father as a Zaddik

  15. mycroft says:

    joel rich
    February 4, 2016 at 8:43 am
    if the shiur does not allow for give and take (imho) then other than schar halicha, I find listening on mp3 more effective.

    KT”

    AGREED!!!

    There are shiurim that I have stopped going to because there is no give and take, the live audience is there merely so there can be a stated place where the shiur was given to be listed on YU Torah. Beauty of Shabbos Shiurim there is give and take nobody is worried about ruining the impression the Rabbi wants to make on YU Torah.

  16. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft wrote:

    “It is irrelevant who wrote the articles if we judge them on their merits. Read the articles and judge them.
    I do not give bechinas to Rabbonim-it is only those few who I have talked to a lot I can personally vouch for.”
    Again, the only person who seriously contended that R Uzziel ZL’s standard for gerus should be adopted was R Angel. Like it or not, there is a hierarchy of authority among Talmidei Chachamim as to who is entitled to opinions on such issues and whether an articulated POV  is setting forth the POV of  a Daas Yachid or represents the view of Rov Rishonim and Acharonim.  That is the gold standard-not whether we have read the article in question and how we judge the same on the merits

    • mycroft says:

      If you are interested in receiving a broad background in conversion-not just one opinion of how gerus has been done-I suggest you read Conversion-Halakhah and Practice by Menachem Finkelstein.

    • mycroft says:

      “Like it or not, there is a hierarchy of authority among Talmidei Chachamim as to who is entitled to opinions on such issues and whether an articulated POV  is setting forth the POV of  a Daas Yachid or represents the view of Rov Rishonim and Acharonim.  That is the gold standard-not whether we have read the article in question and how we judge the same on the merits”

      An assumption made by those who try and make up new halacha by saying others are not a bar hachi. We don’t have a Sanhedrin-one has the right to pick who they want to ask their shailas to. We don’t use a computer to follow Rov  Rishonim and Rov Achronim -every gadol has their own preferences-see eg Rav Bleich in general goes outside the lita world more than Rav Schachter. We don’t and no one simply follows a majority count. Even the SA that claims to be a best 2 out of 3 does not always follow that rule Even a gadol saying something does not permit you to follow such information if you know it is wrong. Thus, in a simple case you saw the cow slaughtered died naturally-non shechita- and a gadol  mistakenly says its kosher you still can’t eat the meat. Thus, as a matter of theory you can’t tell anyone that there is no way that Rabbi A is wrong  and Rabbi S is correct-one has to read the tshuva and see  the basis of the tshuva. I understand it is likely that Rav Schachter will agree with his father and if you want to follow Rav Schachter he is certainly a reasonable person to claim as ones Rebbe. Is it likely that I would agree with Rav Schachter over R Angel-but that is not the issue here. It is the attacks on anyone who chooses to learn and examine an issue and read for oneself. Obviously, halacha lemaaseh NO ONE should pasken for oneself or ones family for that matter–one can’t pasken when one will be a nogeah bdavar-one has to ask a sheila of a Rav who one trusts. Once one asks the Rav a sheila one is bound to follow the answer of that Rav.

      BTW-this whole discussion started because I mentioned that Rabbi Angel is one who had a halachik exchange 45 years ago or so with Rav Melech Schachter and used halachik arguments. I had no intention of opening up a gerus discussion just to show that people can use halachik arguments and issues should be discussed that way.

      How is your hierarchy determined? Is it worldwide or country by country or community by community? The attacks on anyone who may have a different viewpoint and attempted challenges of frumkeit of those who challenge positions is unbecoming of those claiming to represent derech hashem.  I am one and you know it who has not been sympathetic to R Avi Weiss over the decades-but the mere fact of challenging ones position intellectually is fine-but personal challenges are inappropriate. None of us are bochen kliyot valev.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Listen to RHS on Mesorah-there are traditions in Psak-Yekke, Galitizaner, Hungarian and Litvishe. Claiming that RHS merely follows his father ZL is a misnomer, to say the least.  Even R Angel’s reference to R Uzziel ZL is predicated on the assumption that the approach cited therein runs contrary to the accepted Halachos of Hilcos Gerus. WADR, citing academic articles as to the development  of Hilcos Gerus , is by no means the same as having shimush from a rebbe in the ins and outs of the same. Try looking at the entries in the Enclopedia Talmudis if you are interested in a “broad background in conversion:,

        Hierarchy is determined by simply looking at who is the address for the resolution of halachic issues.  I stand by my observation as based in the CI as the difference between a Lchatchilah and a Bdieved in Halacha LMaaseh, and rationalizing a Bdieved into a Lchatchilah.

      • mycroft says:

        “Claiming that RHS merely follows his father ZL is a misnomer”

        It certainly was not my intention to imply that. I don’t believe that to be true. RHS is certainly mechadesh a lot.

        “WADR, citing academic articles as to the development  of Hilcos Gerus ,”

        Finkelman is not an article it is  treatise of  over 700 pages.

        “Try looking at the entries in the Enclopedia Talmudis if you are interested in a “broad background in conversion:,”

        Agreed-it is probably  more than 25 years ago when I asked someone about the Jewish attitude on conversion-the response was to receive an unbiased view read the  article in Encyclopedia Talmudis which I did. Finkelman’s book was published later.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Exactlty my point-Finkelstein’s work is an academic treatise-not exactly the kind of work you will find in any Beis Medraah , yeshiva or utilized by a Beis Din that is involved in Hilcos Gerus.

      • mycroft says:

        Steve Brizel
         
        February 7, 2016 at 3:59 pm
        Exactlty my point-Finkelstein’s work is an academic treatise-not exactly the kind of work you will find in any Beis Medraah , yeshiva or utilized by a Beis Din that is involved in Hilcos Gerus”

        A quick cursory sample of the footnotes and his book is heavily footnoted appears to me that at least 90% of the footnotes are from sources that any posek would use. It is a very expanded article in more detail than encyclopedia talmudis. I find the book very fair-it lays out positions.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        When RHS’s shiur in Forest Hills learned the sugyos in Brachos that dealt with ervah, one of the regular attendees mentioned that most women in the MO world did not cover their hair. RHS responded that many people don’t pay taxes-does that make such conduct legal and proper?

      • mycroft says:

        I am not going into the argument about whether or not it is proper for a married women to cover her hair. I am simply stating that there is al mi lismoch and the behavior of the Ravs family is a classic place to begin. Thus, don’t call those people transgressors. They are following a viewpoint that quote the Rav leading gdolim followed and thus he couldn’t assur it.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft-You stated the following:

        “They are following a viewpoint that quote the Rav leading gdolim followed and thus he couldn’t assur it.”

        Let’s get to the core of the issue here-the above quote is a nice restatement of the AS whose view is a well known bdieved, not a lchatchilah POV on this issue. It is also known that RYBS many times told anyone who asked-don’t ask me for rayos or be somech on what the practice is in my family.

      • mycroft says:

         

         
        Mycroft-You stated the following:

        “They are following a viewpoint that quote the Rav leading gdolim followed and thus he couldn’t assur it.”

        “Let’s get to the core of the issue here-the above quote is a nice restatement of the AS whose view is a well known bdieved, not a lchatchilah POV on this issue. ”

        You are attributing to the Rav the viewpoints of certain living RY-very dangerous-they are different-the Ravs own daughter has written about the revisionism of current YU RY about her father. The Rav simply was following classicTosfot/Brisker approach that practice that was accepted beats svara-end of story. Not having a savara does not mean bdieved.

        “It is also known that RYBS many times told anyone who asked-don’t ask me for rayos or be somech on what the practice is in my family”

        The person who asked the question who is in the olam haemet had a long history with the Rav never wrote about that issue but like most talmidim was interested in the whole Torah of the Rav not just that which he may  be known for. The answer was to a  question by a single individual not in group. Obviously, the person did not feel essence of discussing that viewpoint of the Rav-but that is reliable viewpoint.

        Like all issues don’t ask not only what his family did or HE did thus the Rav did not put on tfillin chol hamoed but told  those wo a family minhag to put on tfillin-case was North America student of European descent. There he also stated what I do is irrelevant. A fortiori what his family did is irrelevant.

        I find this example one that is typical of the academic  followers of the Rav those who never practiced outside of the academy and certainly did not see him regularly in action where the Rav spent most of his week. Look at Rabbi Yoseph Blau, Rabbi Menachem Meier for starters of those who went to Boston to work with the Rav for their attitudes and compare with those who’ve spent their total career in NY. Look how a person the Rav acted and decisions that he was responsible for.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft wrote in part:

        “You are attributing to the Rav the viewpoints of certain living RY-very dangerous-they are different-the Ravs own daughter has written about the revisionism of current YU RY about her father. The Rav simply was following classicTosfot/Brisker approach that practice that was accepted beats svara-end of story. Not having a savara does not mean bdieved”

        I find it hard to believe that RYBS followed “classicTosfot/Brisker approach that practice that was accepted beats svara” and did not work with such basic categories as lchatchilah and bdieved. Yes-there were differences between NY/RIETS and Boston-the same issue posed would deserve a different answer based on the level of observance and knowledge of the questionner.

  17. Steve Brizel says:

    Mycroft -re RYBS and the Meiri-both RHS and R H Reichman have noted frequently that RYBS did not rely on Meiri because the text of Meiri’s commentary was only recently published.

    • mycroft says:

      I am aware of the conflict between the “mesorah” of RHS and  RHReichman and the “apparent behavior” of the Rav in conflict with that “mesorah” The issue of the conflict has been raised on YU Torah. I have heard that R David Berger has discussed it. You appear to be friendly with him. Ask him for maareh mkomot of his writings.

      I will note that I have seen  myself discussions of the Meeri and R A Soloveitchik by Dr Berger. I have witnessed another sibling of the Rav encourage her aid to attend church. I have heard discussions of the subject. There certainly to put it mildly is a lot out there that discusses the Rav lemaaseh as a follower of halacha did actions that would not be consistent if he did not give great credence to the Meeri.

      • Steve Brizel says:

        Mycroft-The question is whether and how RYBS, not RAS , viewed the Meiri.

         

        “have heard discussions of the subject. There certainly to put it mildly is a lot out there that discusses the Rav lemaaseh as a follower of halacha did actions that would not be consistent if he did not give great credence to the Meeri.”

        Proof please?

      • mycroft says:

        I agree-there are discussions in YU Torah about the issue-lectures that refer to the conflict that I mention. Actually, conflict maybe too strong-it is an apparent conflict at least to all those of us who compare “actions” with “mesorah”Sadly, the Rav is no longer here. I saw a written piece by Dr Berger on RAS -he has and others have discussed the issue  of RYBS on YU Torah. One of the lecturers  referred to  a mention of Dr Berger that he wrote on the issue of RYBS and Meeri. I have not found it yet. I am sure that we aren’t the only two readers of Cross-currents who have followed this issue.

      • dr. bill says:

        i do not follow the issue.  there was an interesting lecture on the Meiri that i heard from  Dr. Grach at the 5th avenue synagogue  a few years back.  FWIW,  I do not remember the Rav ztl quote the Meiri in the three years I was in shiur or at the many public shiurim I attended, but i would not trust my memory on what i did not hear.  I only heard a handful of shiurim by RAS ztl, and he quoted the Meiri with whom he agreed against the SA in the case i remember.  I do recall the Rav asking someone if he read a particular Rishon inside or in the Meiri which told me he was familiar, but kedarcho bekodesh, rarely quoted beyond a relatively limited set of rishonim, that his father and grandfather used.  it also reflected a strong bias to what was written versus just how it was repeated/summarized by a later authority, a strong preference that unfortunately is now more broadly associated with the academy versus the yeshivah,

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This