Volume 39 Number 20 Produced: Fri May 9 6:13:02 US/Eastern 2003 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Apology to Stan Tenen [Janice Gelb] Modern Orthodox Educational History (2) [Dov Bloom, Eitan Fiorino] Niskatnu Hadoros [Moshe Schor] Open Orthodoxy [Binyomin Segal] "Open Orthodoxy": A Request [David Waxman] Separation between Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism [Edward Ehrlich] A Serious but Halachic Approach to the Orthodoxy Problem [Edward Ehrlich] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:56:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Apology to Stan Tenen Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...> wrote: > Stan Tenen <meru1@...> wrote: > > In order for Torah, Torah > > Jews, and Israel to be respected, _we_ must find legitimate (not fudged, > > not merely polite) reasons to _genuinely_ respect non-believing,Reform, > > Conservative, and Reconstructionist Jews, and non-Jews also. If we > > cannot genuinely respect the contributions of others, even though their > > points of view may be very different from ours, then we can't expect > > others to respect our views. > > [snip] > > If you truly mean this, you might start by finding terminology other > than "non-believing" to refer to Jews in other streams of Judaism. > [snip] I owe Stan Tenen a public apology. I missed a key comma between the term "non-believing" and the list of other streams of Judaism. (This is especially embarassing because I work as an editor!) I am sorry to have misread Stan's message and chastized him when he didn't deserve it. -- Janice ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dov Bloom <dovb@...> Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 16:53:08 +0200 Subject: Re: Modern Orthodox Educational History Try sources that would describe Rabbi Reines's Yeshiva in Lida. Reines was the founder of the Mizrachi and there are many books and pamphlets about him. A biography was published in English, written by a YU musmach who was blind, the author's name escapes me at the moment (began with a W). Reiness's Yeshiva combined Limudei Kodesh and secular studies, for-runner of modern Day Schools-Yeshiva High Schools. There was quite a "pulmus" in Europe over that Yeshiva. Rav Moshe Soloveitchik, father of the Rov, taught at Reiness' Yeshiva before coming to America and REITS. Dov A Bloom <dovb@...> 02-9963196 058-903727 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Eitan Fiorino <tony.fiorino@...> Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 12:16:48 -0400 Subject: Modern Orthodox Educational History Amitai Bin-Nun <binnun@...> asked: > How did the community reconcile- or did they not feel > the need to- the founding of schools such as Flatbush and Shulamith with > the traditional European model of education? Did any sort of precedent > exist (I am aware of Yavneh in Lithuania- the precursor of Shulamith, > but I would like to know if anyone knows of any literature on the > subject). Did the immigrants view co-education and modern pedagogy as > "American" vs. "European" as opposed to "Traditional vs. > non-Traditional"? Does anyone know of any literature about the founding > of these institutions.... Having recently completed reading Mordechai Breuer's history of Orthodoxy in Imperial Germany and David Ellenson's biography of Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer, it is clear to me that a model for primary and secondary school education along the lines of US day schools existed in 19th and early 20th century Germany, including the inclusion of secular studies and education of girls/women (which meaningfully pre-dated the start of the Bais Yaakov movement). Whether schools such as Flatbush and Ramaz explicitly modeled themselves on the German model is a question that should be easy enough to answer by calling the schools directly. There is a book about Ramaz which may have some of the information you are looking for: "Ramaz: School, Community, Scholarship and Orthodoxy" edited by Jeffrey Gurock. Hope that helps. -Eitan Fiorino ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <mschor707@...> (Moshe Schor) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 14:46:12 -0400 Subject: Niskatnu Hadoros Some posters have mentioned that the Rambam did not hold of the concept of "Niskatnu Hadoros".. Can anyone explain the proof that this is the case? Thanks, Moshe Schor ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...> Date: Mon, 5 May 2003 14:43:43 -0500 Subject: Re: Open Orthodoxy I apologize for the delay in getting this out, I've been busy the past week or so. On 8 Apr 2003 Avi Feldblum wrote: > I see the rejection of diversity and the > encouragement of a non-intellectual approach to Judaism as one of the > most disturbing aspects of modern Chareidi Judaism. I accept that many of > them see my embracing of diversity and an intellectual approach to > Judaism as dangerous to the long term health of the orthodox community. What is interesting to me about this is the way it contrasts with my own experience. While I accept that there are practices within chareidi judaism that are hierarchical and as such not open to diversity, and there are segments of the charedi community that are less intellectual than others, overall I see the chareidi world as far more intellectual than the MO world. IN MY EXPERIENCE, most MO seem to cut corners with halacha - often from ignorance. And that ignorance is all the more troubling because it seems to be a conscious choice. I recently returned to the town I grew up in, and was struck by how many MO people I grew up with (or their parents) were highly educated - except when it came to Jewish sources. An extreme example was the college professor who is an FFB but could not competently read hebrew. While most of my friends know that I defy definition to some degree, I am for the most part in the chareidi "camp". This is true because the experience I had in yeshiva was one of intense intellectualism. Further, from various discussions I have had over the years, I know many of my friends feel similarly that real Jewish intellectualism can be found - at least primarily - in the charedi "camp". I mention all this NOT because I want to start name calling - in fact, just the opposite. I have "known" Avi for many years, and over the years I have learned to respect and value his intellectual honesty and integrity. When Avi says that MO is intellectually open vs the non- intellectual camp of the chareidim I take what he says seriously. It seems to me that perhaps we should all acknowledge a few general rules about leaders and groups. Many (most?) people are not interested in using their brain. It is perhaps unfortunate, but it is true. As a result, if you look carefully at any group of followers, you are apt to conclude that the group is non-intellectual. Most groups have social rules of conformity that are not based on anything except some (innate?) human need to distinguish between us and them. These rules have the force of LAW in whatever group. Further, as communications have become more global (and hence less personal) the control of that communication has become more vital. We often think we know what "the movement" and its leadership represents because some media person told us - and in fact the real position is almost always more nuanced and balanced than what got conveyed. Perhaps this is just an opportunity to again acknowledge the debt we owe Avi for creating this forum where Orthodox Jews who do want to use their brain in understanding Judaism and all that entails can get together and do so. (Rabbi Moshe Meiselman once told a number of us that Orthodox Jews all agree about 90% of everything, but they keep focusing on the other 10%.) bivracha - binyomin segal [Bli Neder, I will try and explain a little further what I had written that Binyomin has responded to here. I suspect that we are not so far apart, some of it having to do with exact definitions of terms, but I think there are also some inportant differences in approach that I would like to continue to explore. Avi.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Waxman <yitz99@...> Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 02:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: "Open Orthodoxy": A Request >> I would very much like to discuss these and other "Jewish survival" issues with as wide a range of Torah-caring people as possible. If you set something up, please let me know. I have some colleagues here in Sharon, MA., that also might want to participate. << I would also advocate the cultivation of a lively, open-minded, and open ended discussion about this topic. My only request is that you do it in an appropriate venue, and mail-jewish is not it. If I understand the history of this list correctly, it was a break away from a liberal list that spent a lot of bandwith on the very issues that Stan is grappling with. Certainly this is interesting and productive for some people. Others prefer to retain the focus on Torah and halacha from an orthodox point of view, without debating its legitimacy. Go to shamash.org and look over the list of lists. I'm sure that you will find a group of people that will willingly exchange views on the topic of an 'open orthodoxy'. I am an advocate of the freedom from speech, as well the freedom of speech. Regards, dw [The critical question I see is whether there is room to discuss the issue WITHOUT debating the legitimacy of Torah and halacha. That is the primary criteria I will be using in deciding whether to allow the discussion to continue, or how much of the discussion to move to the list. If I feel that I need to reject to much of what is submitted on the topic, I will close it down. Mod.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...> Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:42:17 +0300 Subject: Separation between Orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism Batya Medad wrote: >In the '50's and '60's in the New York area, there was little difference >between many of the conservative and modern orthodox shuls. They both >dovened from the same siddur, and they both had dinner dances. The >rabbis had also trained together; some ended up compromising in >conservative shuls. The big difference was in the mixed seating and >special Friday night service in the conservative. Until 1962 we were >members of the Oakland Jewish Center, and I know that many other >conservative shuls in Queens were similar. This was my experience at the Flatbush Jewish Center and the many other Conservative synagogues that I attended during the 1960s. It was basically an "Orthodox" service with mixed seating. At the F.J.C. it wasn't even that mixed. The synagogue was divided by 3 aisles into 4 sections. One of the narrow aisles on one side had only women while the opposite aisle had only men seated. There were no signs telling people to maintain the separation, it was just done. When I attended a Conservative synagogue out of "the city" in Vestal, New York for the first time, I was very surprised at how different it was from what I grew up with. Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...> Jerusalem, Israel ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Edward Ehrlich <eehrlich@...> Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 14:31:46 +0300 Subject: A Serious but Halachic Approach to the Orthodoxy Problem Russell J Hendel wrote: >Another example: When I was in the south the local Chabad Rabbi had a >chevruta with the local conservative Rabbi EVEN THOUGH HE WAS >INTERMARRIED. I did ask him about it...he explained that in small >southern towns Rabbis have to pool all their resources together to >sustain the Jewish community. He further explained that by having a >chevruta with him he was not in any way lowering his own standards. 1. I'd like to point out that a Conservative rabbi who performs an intermarriage, much less marries a non-Jew himself, is violating the policy of the Conservative movement. 2. I saw a similar situation about 10 years when I spent some time on business trips in Japan. The Jewish community of Tokyo was so small that Jews who would normally have attended different synagogues prayed together every Shabbat. There were 3 seating sections: men, women and mixed. I'm not advocating this as a Halakhic solution but merely as an indication of the type of tolerance that can develop in small communities. Sadly, while the Jewish community of Tokyo has not grown any larger, there are now at least two separate minyans (which considering the size of the community must be almost impossible to maintain). In a separate message "Halacha and pluralism" Mordechai Horowitz wrote: >But that cooperation [between different "streams" of Judaism] should >never be confused for acceptance of the legitimacy of non observance. >As the saying goes we love the sinner but not the sin. The problem is that in an effort not to grant legitimacy of non-observance some have refused any joint activities, except regarding the support of Israel, with members of non-Orthodox movements regardless of the level of adherence to Halakha by members of these movements. Too often, Orthodox rabbis refuse to cooperate with non-Orthodox rabbis, not because of any Halakhic difficulty but because of non-Halakhic considerations such as what organization the other rabbi is associated with. For instance, it's one thing to reject someone as a witness because they drive on Shabbat. There are graduates of Orthodox institutions who are not Shomeir Shabbat and can not be a witness. It's quite another thing to reject someone as a witness who is Shomeir Shabbat by generally accepted Halakhic standard but is a rabbi or a member of a synagogue associated with the Conservative movement. Ed Ehrlich <eehrlich@...> Jerusalem, Israel ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 39 Issue 20