Do you ever wonder why there's no Divre Yoel in YU's beis? Have you ever searched for Hameshet Haderashot on the Mirer's shelves?
Each camp of the frum world has designated for itself classic rabbinic figures as ancestors to its modern philosophy. Modoxy has undoubtedly placed the flag of torah umadda on the Rambam. The Yeshivish community clearly appropriated Rashi. Why is this so? Who else has been divided amongst the battle lines? This video presents a survey of an in-depth analysis of all the Rabbis who have been usurped by the different ideologies of the Orthodox world today.
This was extremely intellectual. Kudos for standing up for what you believe in. Maybe you should try to sit on a stool reciting Tehillim. You will see the great appeal there is to it and maybe convert into a charaidy woman.
ReplyDeleteA wonderful blend of sarcasm, rhetorics and expressions. This video reveals some aspects of nuances of different circles in a negative light. I wouldn't call it intellectual per se (not an insult); however, you really channled your anger into this to effectively splash cold water on quite a few people's faces.
ReplyDeleteI extend to you a hardy “Ḥazaq U’Barukh”
ReplyDeleteAlthough the video was both highly salient and genuinely humorous, it was not entirely accurate in its characterizations of sifrei Tanach. I would argue that sefer Bereshit is of the most Modern Orthodox of all sifrei Tanach (the prize for most MO sefer is shared by Iyov and Kohelet) in its descriptions of the human condition and human nature. Since the belief that the opening perakim of the sefer are to be understood literally is one of fundamentalist Christianity and certainly not of classical Judaism, your claim that Bereshit is yeshivish is fallacious and specious. Additionally, Tehilim, although emotional in nature, is also a Modern Orthodox sefer. First, poetry, in general, is Modern Orthodox. Also, loving God is not per se an anathema to Modern Orthodoxy, even in the latter’s most rationalistic, litvak manifestations. For example, Rav Soloveitchik’s classic U’Bikashtem Misham, which discuses intense and all-encompassing yearning for God, opens with a citation from Tehilim 42:2, a pasuk emblematic of that desire. The Rambam’s comments on ahavat Hashem are also pertinent. To reiterate, the film had me bursting at the seams, but I do disagree with some of its minor points.
Whoever wrote the previous comment missed the entire point of the video; the video was meant to scoff at those who, for example, lable Sifrei Tanach in their own denominations. You can quote the Rav and Rambam as much as you want, but you still lack the understanding of the motivation for this rant.
ReplyDeleteAs the third commenter, I wish to respond to the fourth commenter and defend myself from his ad hominem invective. I certainly recognize the point of the video, which was to deride and disparage those who claim certain elements of our mesorah as their own, meaning to the exclusion of others. However, it seems that the fourth commenter was not able to distinguish between semi-accurate, if oversimplified, categorizations of figures in our mesorah, who lend themselves more easily to placement into philosophical camps, and elements of our mesorah that are more removed and detached from ideological trends, such as sifrei Tanach or mitzvot. Although the labels of “Modern Orthodox” and “Yeshivish” are quite obviously anachronistic, one can see what are at the very least historical-philosophical antecedents for Modern Orthodox thought in figures such as the Rambam or Ibn Ezra and historical-philosophical antecedents for more chareidi thought in figures such as Rashi (although I would take issue with many of the specifics in that particular case). This type of demarcation must be done carefully, but it has some potential to be meaningful. However, as the author of the rant demonstrates, that same process of categorization is simply ludicrous when it is applied to, for instance, sifrei Tanach. This was the reductio ad absurdum that was presented in the video. My earlier comment, which was clearly misinterpreted by the fourth commenter, sought to argue, half in jest, that more of Tanach was actually Modern Orthodox. In the comment, I voiced my disagreements with some of the underlying assumptions of the author that manifested themselves in the video, but of course I understood his purposes and objectives in making the video itself.
ReplyDeleteFifth/Third Commenter:
ReplyDeleteYour comment displays a popular trend in the newest generation of Modern Orthodox proponents. Read the seforim blog, Natan Slifkin's blog, the related Torah and Science blog, or your comment here, and you will find no glorification of Modern Orthodox doctrine per se. Rather, you will encounter frivolous claims of Modern Orthodoxy's heritage as the heir to a tradition of classic Jewish thought. Isn't the whole point of Modern Orthodoxy that it is necessarily a new philosophy which is more compatible to the new societal structures and status?
As the third, fifth, and now seventh commenter, I wish to respond to the sixth commenter. I fundamentally disagree with the latter’s assertion that “the whole point of Modern Orthodoxy” is that it is a “new,” more convenient philosophy. Although the term and movement did not exist until the 20th century, philosophical antecedents may be found in Tanach (let’s not open that Pandora’s Box once more...), Mishnaic and Talmudic literature, the works of the Rishonim and, if you know where to look, the writings of several of the earlier Achronim (the latter actually were either Modern Orthodox or not). Torah U’Madda is not a compromise of the two, but an organic blend or, to use R. Lichtenstein’s term, a “synthesis” of the seemingly disparate bodies of knowledge. Of course Modern Orthodoxy is profoundly modern in many of its elements and positions, but it certainly has more than just al mi lismoch. I challenge the sixth commenter to justify Modern Orthodoxy on a basis extrinsic to the mesora that doesn’t simultaneously justify heterodox movements such as Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism. I also challenge the sixth commenter to refute Modern Orthodoxy due to the fact that it finds support in thousands of years of Jewish intellectual history. Methodologically, the only ways to confirm whether or not a position or opinion is consonant with a larger collection of postulates, axioms, and theories are either to precisely define the two and use the tools of logic to derive an answer or, less exactly, to inquire of an individual who has connected himself to that larger tradition as to the harmony or disharmony of the two. For obvious reasons, the latter is more practical, and to that end it must be determined who is able to make that judgment call. In the end one may say that the process is “grassroots,” but there are certainly individuals who are qualified and those who aren’t. Essentially, the tenability and integrity of Modern Orthodoxy come in its ability to identify proponents of aspects of its ideology and the adherence of many contemporary gedolei Yisrael to its principles, such as the Rav, R. Lichtenstein, R. Prof. Twersky, and the like.
ReplyDeleteDon't any of you have homework to do?
ReplyDelete