tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post1901513394156987140..comments2024-01-30T12:26:03.019-05:00Comments on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart: More Flawed Definitions of Modern OrthodoxyMighty Garnel Ironhearthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-74909894200880442772015-12-05T22:46:45.001-05:002015-12-05T22:46:45.001-05:00It would seem from your opening paragraph that you...It would seem from your opening paragraph that you believe that the thrust of this desire to define Modern Orthodoxy is the need to distinguish it from Open Orthodoxy. What hits me, though, from this presentation of the principles of Modern Orthodoxy is how similar it would seem to be to a presentation of the principles of Open Orthodoxy. <br /><br />What I actually see happening is that there is a challenge from two fronts on what is termed Modern Orthodoxy or Centrist Orthodoxy. One of these fronts -- emerging from those who essentially agree with Open Orthodoxy -- involves an attempt to define Modern Orthodoxy as very similar to Open Orthodoxy. This is what I believe we are encountering in this presentation of the principle of Modern Orthodoxy -- the attempt to co-define Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy. It is important that this be identified.<br /><br />Rabbi Ben HechtRabbi Ben Hechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13424122479105225620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-90902302553200270742015-11-04T08:29:02.962-05:002015-11-04T08:29:02.962-05:00Great Post Garnel,
I have always had trouble unde...Great Post Garnel,<br /><br />I have always had trouble understanding exactly what "Modern Orthodox" is. <br />It seems very different from say Religious-Zionism which is the equivalent in Israel.<br /><br />The 12 points in the article seem somewhat random, and reflect more the bias of the writer rather than Modern orthodox dogma (if there is such a thing).<br /><br />I think your critique pretty much sums up the problems with the article.Michael Sedleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02684514303911193073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-13913882272472198332015-11-04T08:26:33.091-05:002015-11-04T08:26:33.091-05:00I don't see how one can universally define som...I don't see how one can universally define something so amorphous, except by contrast with other outlooks that have clear, well-accepted principles (Torah or anti-Torah principles). MO means something new every few years and varies with location, social class, etc.RAMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-67855128273319864942015-11-03T13:19:34.805-05:002015-11-03T13:19:34.805-05:00Random comments, by item number in the definition ...Random comments, by item number in the definition list:<br /><br />1- I have often likened halakhah and Jewish values to a Foucault's Pendulum, one of those things you find in a tall room in a science museum used to prove the earth rotates. The pendulum goes back and forth on the same plane, but because the world turns beneath it, the endpoints of its motion move in a slow circle about the floor.<br /><br />Our values too -- we stay put. It only looks otherwise because the world moves.<br /><br />That said, halakhah is a process. The specific practices do evolve. Precedent is a major factor in decision-making, but there are times it can be overruled. (Although most often, it only looks overruled and in reality it's that circumstances have changed.)<br /><br />2- The Shoel uMeishiv argues that copyright violation is prohibited halachically even beyond dina demalkhusah dina (the obligation to obey civil law, and the notion that civil law and market norms are assumed by the parties in a fiscal transaction). Rather, he argues that because this protecxtion is part of societal morality, and we are prohbited against being less moral, we have to protect copyrights as though it were halachic property, beyond what the law demands.<br /><br />So there is precedent for saying that societal morality has a say in halakhah.<br /><br />Personally, though, I would have focused on natural morality. "What you would loathe for yourself, don't do to others."<br /><br />3- "Torah study isn't a primary Jewish value, it is the primary Jewish value."<br /><br />I disagree. The primary Jewish value is benefiting others. As per Hillel, Rabbi Aqiva and Ben Azzai.<br /><br />Even Rav Chaim Volozhiner, founder of the yeshiva movement and author of Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 4 held this way. As his son describes him, in the introduction to NhC:<br />והיה רגיל להוכיח אותי על שראה שאינני משתתף בצערא דאחריני. וכה היה דברו אלי תמיד שזה כל האדם לא לעצמו נברא רק להועיל לאחריני ככל אשר ימצא בכחו לעשות<br /><br />To quote Rav Shimon Shkop:<br />יתברך הבורא ויתעלה היוצר שבראנו בצלמו ובדמות תבניתו, וחיי עולם נטע בתוכנו שיהיה אדיר חפצנו, להיטיב עם זולתנו, ליחיד ולרבים בהוה ובעתיד בדמות הבורא כביכול, שכל מה שברא ויצר היה רצונו יתברך רק להיטיב עם הנבראים, כן רצונו ית׳ שנהלך בדרכיו כאמור "והלכת בדרכיו", היינו שנהיה אנחנו בחירי יצוריו, מגמתנו תמיד להקדיש כוחותינו הגופניים והרוחניים לטובת הרבים, כפי ערכנו<br /><br />I realize that due to the Rav, Mod-O is a yeshivish spin-off, but that doesn't mean the yeshiva movement got it right.<br /><br />5- "The only knowledge and culture that has true and eternal value is Torah-based culture. Shakespeare in isolation, da Vinci in isolation, Star Trek in isolation, have no real value." Perhaps, but that's more the Vilna Gaon or R SR Hirsch than the Rav. To him, Ramasayim Tzofim, he stared out from two peaks, and looked at the dialectic, not that one was always the other's handmaiden.<br /><br />6- Agreed that 6 and 7 may or may not be true, but they aren't definitional features of Mod-O.<br /><br />8- Variant on a theme on what i said on #5.<br /><br />11- His statement is just plain wrong. Not only are there the bounds of propriety determined by local custom, there are also absolute standards.<br /><br />Again, not a defining feature of Mod-O.<br /><br />Although I would argue that eschewing uniforms is. Regardless of how many fedoras one might find in a Young Israel today. The whole idea of the uniform is to defy fashion and create a separate society. It's the "raise the walls" attitude to modernity that defines chareidism, rather than Mod-O's approach of sanctifying what can be utilized from Western Civ.<br /><br /><br />In terms of definitions, I would say it's simple, Or at least I did until a blog post of yours from a while back.<br /><br />Chareidim see the dangerst of modernity and assimilating its values, and therefore treat it as the opposing team.<br />Mod-O sees modernity as the field we play on.<br /><br />Then you added the whole issue of autonomy vs da'as Torah, and nowadways that might better fit what is actually dividing the social camps then the more obvious definition.<br />micha bergerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11612144735431285113noreply@blogger.com