I must admit to being a little amused at the following terms: ‘chareidi’, ‘chareidi-lite’, ‘MO’, ‘RZ’, ‘ultra-orthodox’. Especially at this time of bein hametzarim (or just after) we should be stressing what is common to all streams of Orthodoxy. Belief in torah min hashamyim and the supremacy of torah sheb’al peh which, when it comes down to it is what distinguishes us (NOT divides) from non-Orthodox groups. Having said that, there ARE differences in approach but a discussin often turns just a bit nasty at times.

If Rav Kotler said what he said, well, I think it is regrettable. It is also a shame that every statement which comes from a Rabbi is regarded as halacha mi sinai. It is my experience that in all the tapes, books and what-not we are constantly reminded how we are NOTHING compared to Chazal.

As far as the original article goes - I’m afraid that there is widespread bad middos demonstarated by large numbers of “”chareidim”", be it in parking etiquette or simply the way they relate to shop-workers. No doubt, many many other people behave in the same way but what really winds up others is the over-weening self-importance and self-righteousness. I worked in a clinic in Israel and was told that it is to be exclusively chareidi because of “tohar machaneinu”! In the experience of people close to me who work in the frum part of my English city, they are treated with great arrogance which the non-Jewish neighbours (in a pretty working class area) do not share. Oy vei - don’t get me started on how they talk about “shvartzers” (PLEASE forgive me for using that awful term). Several colleagues of mine in the hospital have asked me why “the guys in the black hats” are so brusque - which I find very upsetting.

I hope this isn’t perceived as an anti-chareidi rant because there is plenty to criticise in the MO (oh no - I’m doing it as well!!) world. Just as with any ideology, the motives of the progenitors might be pure but the practice often falls below the ideal. There is a lack of observance amongst many supposed adherents of modern Orthodox philosophy.

Please let us not be like Kamtsa and Bar-Kamtsa when BOTH sides (and the rabbis watchng from the sidelines) caused the churban.

Wishing everyone a meaningful Tisha B’av and more emphasis on what unites us. It is that aspect of blogging, that thrives on controversy, that does worry me.

it all depends who you are using the phrase with. none of us doesn’t call the teacher “rebbi” even though there are other rebbis in the world. but if you start referring to him as rebbi to those not in his class, THAT is takeh irritating.

What did Rav Aharon Kotler say, and when did he say it?

Did Rav Aharon say offshoot of Reform? Same dynamic as Reform?

In those days, modern orthodoxy was synonymous with Yeshiva University, which was hated by many European rabbis (and still is, let’s not kid ourselves). The idea of Torah learning and secular studies on the same campus, awarding degrees, and wearing caps and gowns to boot, was anathema. Extreme statements directed at YU, and some modern orthodox practices common for that era such as mixed dancing, were not unusual.

To appreciate the zealous, uncompromising character of Rav Aharon Kotler, I highly recommend, “The Legacy of Maran Rav Aharon Kotler”, by Rabbi Yitzchok Dershowitz (Feldheim 2006), which I read for a few hours this past Shabbos afternoon.

Thank you for the quote. As to your comment that “blogging has given rise to something Brisk could not begin to fathom – publishing what people should not have the temerity to call thinking.” It predates blogging and goes back to the chat groups on the internet. It is, in fact, a very real consequence of the entire e-mail phenomenon. It is one of the most cogent arguments I know for the ban on the internet.

You write of Rav Aharon and Modern Orthodoxy, “You may not like it, you may not accept it, but he meant it.” Exactly what he meant and how he meant it I don’t know, but some of our posters bring to mind Dr. Joseph Kaminetsky’s book in which he details a story of how a Lakewood yungerman working for Torah uMesorah was complaining how “Dr. Joe” was leading the organization down the path to Mizrachi. This yungerman was making things very difficult for Dr. Joe, who was unabashedly Mizachri and fairly modern to boot, and he basically told Rav Aharon that one of the two of them would have to go. In the end, Rav Aharon eased the Lakewood Yungerman out of Torah uMesorah, and the “modern” Dr. Joe stayed.

So the question remains what Rav Aharon said, when he said it, and what he meant by it. And by the way, one could also make the same observation about Rav Shimshon Rafoel Hirsch coming from the same dynamic as Reform. Not to mention the historical context that produced the Malbim, the Emek Davar, and the Torah Temimah (problematic I know, but still in our libraries).

To Yitzchak Adlerstein, calling someone “the Rav” may be endearment on their part, but it denotes and exclusionism that I still find demeaning. And if you want to pick EY Brisk and Lubavitch as examples, I find both can be irritating in the extreme. Or maybe, by pointing out it’s not just an MO macha, you proved my point.

“Dr. Gewirtz,

I am not suggesting anything to diminish Rav Soloveitchik ZTâ??L, only that you and like-minded people should stop carping about ArtScroll and start to toot your own horn more effectively.

Comment by Bob Miller â?? July 20, 2007 @ 8:03 am”

Thank you for your clarification and advice. Relative to the Rav ZT”L, i do not believe it is necessary. I am sure in time much more will be published. History is just harder than hagiography. Artscroll serves its readership and, I assume, is reflective of their beliefs; carping would be time poorly spent and ineffective.

“To: William Gewirtz

The source for Reb Aharonâ??s statement likening MO to Reform is his HesPed on Rav Y.Z. Soloveitchik printed in MIshnas Rav Aharon.

He states very clearly there that MO is the same dynamic as Reform was when it beganâ??accomodation to and compromise with â??modernity.â??

Comment by HILLEL â?? July 20, 2007 @ 9:48 am”

Your original statement:

“Modern Orthodoxy is, in the words of Rav Aharon Kotler, ZTâ??L, an offshoot of Reform, embodying the same dynamicâ??accomodation to â??modernity,â?? at the expense of Halacha.”

Your two statements are different. “An offshoot” would be factually incorrect as I stated. Taking your current statement as accurate, I will read it later, is an opinion that, history will decide. In the forty-five plus years since the statement was made, modern orthodoxy has, if anything, moved to the center / right. Early returns do not support the validity of the statement; I pray that our future never does.

does not sound like a nice way to address people

Rav Aharon made the statement in a very serious context, in a Hesped on the Brisker Rav, ZT”L. You can look it up in “MIshnas Rav Aharon.”

Please don’t demean Rav Aharon–a brilliant clear-headed Godol–by implying that he made irresponsible “emotional” statements.

You may not like it, you may not accept it, but he said it and meant it.

The source for Reb Aharon’s statement likening MO to Reform is his HesPed on Rav Y.Z. Soloveitchik printed in MIshnas Rav Aharon.

He states very clearly there that MO is the same dynamic as Reform was when it began–accomodation to and compromise with “modernity.”

I am not suggesting anything to diminish Rav Soloveitchik ZT”L, only that you and like-minded people should stop carping about ArtScroll and start to toot your own horn more effectively.

Why wait for others to fairly represent Gedolim you revere? Go buy your own hagiograph and let ‘er rip.

Comment by Bob Miller — July 19, 2007 @ 8:52 am

Modern Orthodoxy is, in the words of Rav Aharon Kotler, ZT”L, an offshoot of Reform, embodying the same dynamic—accomodation to “modernity,” at the expense of Halacha.

I am personally acquainted with one of the most prominent leaders of MO, and I watched his metamorphosis from Yeshiva man to accomodationist sophisticate over a span of years. It wasn’t ideology that drove his transformation; it ws raw ambition—to be accepted by the rich and powerful.

Comment by HILLEL — July 19, 2007 @ 1:26 pm

First, Rabbi Alderstein, seriously thank you for explaining the use of the term Rav. You provided perspective. The Brisker, RYBS, R. KOOK and the Rebbe, might all have something unique in common.

Second, Mr. Miller, as one who had some limited first hand knowledge of the Rav’s grasp of mathematics (it came up twice in three years of shiurim) and having read his more philosophic essays, you are free to argue that knowledge of mathematics and secular philosophy are not relevant to a Gadol, but independent of its importance, in that regard, the Rav ZT’L, was unique. That is not exaggeration, just something that very few generations in our history have witnessed. I would never say, and I do not believe that the Rav was unique either as a Gadol or in his mastery of multiple secular subjects. It is the combination that was unique, independent of how it might be valued. How valuable is clearly subject to debate.

HILLEL, your second paragraph is irrelevant. Citing an unnamed individual to besmirch a movement should not have passed muster from the moderation panel. In secular settings that would be considered undignified and hardly convincing of anything, except perhaps the biases of the author.

Your quote of R. Aharon Kotler ZT’L is, without some delimiters, in my opinion, historically inaccurate; I assume either out of context or in a very specific context. As many have requested, source and context would be appreciated.

Mr. Reisman, the Brisker quote as I have heard it is: Not all that is thought should be expressed, not all that is expressed should be written and not all that is written, should be published. In any case, blogging has given rise to something Brisk could not begin to fathom - publishing what people should not have the temerity to call thinking.

- could have been worse … Reform an offshoot of MO

“The quotation reflects his characteristic zealousness; and I daresay should not be understood literally.”

I agree with the above respective statements of Lawrence Reisman and Eliot Pasik that one either needs to take such statements in the original historical context in which they were made, or with some grain of salt, and at the very least, one should not use them as talking points in intra-Orthodox conversations. There are also many different ideas included under the term “Modern Orthodox”, and one should ascertain exactly what was being referred to. Personally, I doubt that Rav Aharon Kotler(assuming the quote is correct) was referring to every philosophy held by groups to the left of Agudah(both Hillel and Dr. Gewirtz were very general).

I thought of this general issue when reading Rabbi Avi Shafran’s recent Jewish Action essay, which did not address directly (for understandable reasons) the issue of sharp statements made by some Gedolim about people or ideas. However, it is a theoretical obstacle that might come up when trying to bridge the divide(at least partially) between Orthodox Jews.

On the one hand, even if for argument’s sake, one feels that certain statements should not have been made, there are problems involved in publicly directly disagreeing with Gedolim, especially if one is a talmid of theirs and part of that world.

On the other hand, besides being an obstacle in relationships between followers of both communities, the followers of those critiqued might feel justified in rejecting much more than just the sharp statement in question. While the above was not the intent of the reviewer, I was struck by this paragraph that appeared in a recent Torah Umaddah Journal article:

” …[The author] apparently sees this volume as an important resource against this dogmatism, and indeed it is. If [certain non-charedi Gedolim could be accused of heresy for statements they made], then the misuse of the term “heresy” has gotten out of hand… Yahadut can accommodate a good deal of diverse opinion and even sharp debate without anyone being branded a kofer.”

Whatever the way to get around this issue is, as the above commenter’s wrote, the solution is not to bring these statements back to life in full force in current intra-Orthodox conversation. For example, a respected individual once termed an author who was very critical of charedi policies, a “charedi basher”, and I repeated his opinion. A(charedi) relative of mine knew the author from childhood, and protested that he was a “wonderful person”. When I defended myself by pointing out that I was merely repeating what someone else said, my relative told me that even if the person in question, for the sake of argument, was justified in using the terminology in the circumstance in question, others can not take for themselves the same liberty.

I would also like to know more about your claim that Rav Aharon Kotler referred to modern orthodoxy as an offshoot of Reform. Who did Rav Aharon say it to, who else was present, what year, was it a private discussion, a public speech, what was the context, etc. Did he write it? - in a letter, article, book? - I doubt it. Mixed dancing and swimming were common in modern orthodox circles in those days - was that the context? He was an emotional man. Rav Aharon was active in the formation and development of Torah U’Mesorah, to say the least - they opened day schools throughout the country. The historic era is also relevant. Rav Ahron lived from 1892 to 1962. Those were difficult years for a gadol b’dor. He did not have an easy personal life, and he worked 24/6. An out-of-context quotation, with some element of bombast, has to be interpreted carefully.

I’ve always been inspired by one famous Rav Ahron Kotler quote, written in Dr. David Kranzler’s book, about the American orthodox response to the Holocaust: “I would prostrate myself before the Pope if it would save the fingernail of one Jewish child.” (It is confirmed by several witnesses, including unimpeachable family members.) This quotation seems to fit the personality of Rav Ahron Kotler, with the caveat that I know very little, only various readings, and conversations with people who did know Rav Ahron. The quotation reflects his characteristic zealousness; and I daresay should not be understood literally.

In this day and age, I would be very cautious in utilizing the quote you attribute to Rav Ahron Kotler.

No one ever referred to Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky as “the rav,” because that would have singled one out at the expense of others. Only the followers of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik have the temerity to do that

Not really. Briskers (the yeshivish kind, who don’t accept RYBS)commonly use the title “The Rov” for favorite members, depending on which branch they attended. Followers of R Kook referred to him as “The Rav.”

And to Chabad, there can be only one “The Rebbe.”

Annoying to the rest of us, but take it for what it is - a term of endearment, not (for at least some of those mentioned) one of exclusion.

For years, I have heard that the Modern Orthodox are interested in honest depictions of Torah giants, not hagiography. So why make an exception in the case of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik?

For years, I have heard that the Modern Orthodox respect other gedolim and will not denigrate them in any way. Then why is it that they refer to Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik as “the rav” as if he were the only rav in his time? No one ever referred to Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky as “the rav,” because that would have singled one out at the expense of others. Only the followers of Rabbi J. B. Soloveitchik have the temerity to do that.

To Hillel:

If Rav Aharon Kotler really called modern Orthodoxy an offshoot of Reform, I would be very careful where I repeat it, since as (I believe it was)the Brisker Rov (who)once put it, not everything that has been said should be repeated in public. If you are going to dismiss people with such abandon, don’t expect to be able to have an intelligent discussion with them. And by the way, I’m no MO. You can find my articles in the Jewish Observer that will show you otherwise.

What you describe is what Agudas Yisroel people practice daily, as lawyers, accountants, and doctors–as well as Kollel people and Roshei Yeshiva.

Modern Orthodoxy is, in the words of Rav Aharon Kotler, ZT”L, an offshoot of Reform, embodying the same dynamic–accomodation to “modernity,” at the expense of Halacha.

I am personally acquainted with one of the most prominent leaders of MO, and I watched his metamorphosis from Yeshiva man to accomodationist sophisticate over a span of years. It wasn’t ideology that drove his transformation; it ws raw ambition–to be accepted by the rich and powerful.

Why wait for others to fairly represent Gedolim you revere? Go buy your own hagiograph and let ‘er rip.

“I suggest that, in their heart-of-hearts, people who have adopted a watered-down version of religion feel very uncomfortable in the presence of those who have remained steadfast and refused to compromise.

The MO rationalizes his adoption of a “more contemporary” style of Judaism with the argument that it is impossible—in today’s modern world—to live the old values, as they were lived for the last 2000 years.

The existence of a viable and significant community of Chareidim, puts the lie to this rationalization, and makes the MO extremely uncomfortable. Therefore, he pounces on any sign that the Chareidi lifestyle is defective, in order to legitimize his own.

Ditto for MO Chritians, LeHavDil.

Comment by HILLEL — July 13, 2007 @ 9:02 am ”

This represents exactly what Modern or Centrist Orthodox philosophy disputes - it is not compromise to live within the modern reality, it is preferred. There are risks and some failings are inevitable, but it is our purpose as a people to engage the world around us in almost every age and in almost every circumstance. We have a proud heritage that is further developed in the interaction. It is not BeDeivid but LeChatchila.
I am not uncomfortable; I just see charedim as taking an easier, less risky and hence less rewarding, alternative path. And using the term “lie to this rationalization” is not very catholic or respectful. It will not get you invited to the debate.

1)

Growing up in the RW charedei world; there was (at least)one area about Rav Kook and RYBS being praised and considered worthy of emulating-namely that they never spoke evil or even held a grudge/ill will towards their opponents. It is tragic that those who feel themselvs talmidim of those two don’t follow their example.

Comment by Zadok — July 16, 2007 @ 10:37 am

a) Great men do great things; mere mortals behave less well. It is demeaning to both Gedolim to expect the same of their talmidim. b) Besides, they lived in a kinder, gentler time - See R. Berel Wein’s recent article in Jewish Action.

2)

This is the entry for R’ Yosef Dov Soloveitchik in the Bibliography of Artscroll’s Stone Chumash

“Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshivas R’ Yizchak Elchanan and rabbi of the Boston Orthodox community. A scion of the Brisk Torah dynasty, he was an original Talmudic scholar, thinker and leader.”

That leaves me less than convinced that the “Charedi World” (of which Artscroll is usally associated with) by definition vilifies this great man and his legacy.

Comment by Jacob Haller — July 17, 2007 @ 9:28 am

Let me be very discreet; Artscroll had its reasons to include the Rav ZT’L teachings and be tempered/guarded in its biographical note. You might note the number of times the insights of the Rav ZT’L are quoted in the chumash. Other charedi obituaries were less motivated. In any case, even a positive citing that understates the persona of a Gadol, is less than fair. We have to go back perhaps to the Gaon of Vilna, but more likely to Maharal or Rambam, to find an individual with greater knowledge of Torah coupled with almost all areas of chochmah. I don’t expect that Artscroll will write a Hagiography anytime soon!

Agreed; I just posted a link to it on my own blog. For the record, some comments above could have benefited from my own editing–so take them for what they are worth

They will be appreciated for all the good they have to offer, and people will feel no need to focus on their problems, unless in a constructive way.

I honestly think this is the root of the problem.

menachem