In the introduction to Doubleday edition of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s classic, “The Lonely Man of Faith”, Dr. David Shatz highlights man’s dual nature of conquering, creating, dominating and controlling the world on one hand and his thirst for redemption, self-discipline and submissiveness to G-d on the other.
Man’s task is to integrate this dual nature through Halakha (Torah), as Rabbi Soloveitchik says “the Halakha believes there is only one world, not divisible into secular and hallowed sectors”. Secular society strongly rejects the transcendental and religious society often withdraws from the secular, so the man of faith faces intense loneliness in his quest for integration.
As BTs we’ve lived in both worlds and perhaps because of this, we face additional challenges of integration and loneliness. As we try to establish our roots firmly in the spiritual world of faith, we both reject the world we left and face rejection by those we’ve left, even as we attempt to integrate these two worlds.
Do you think our experiences makes us more lonely?
If our experience has led to better integration, why have we failed to positively influence our fellow secular and religious Jews on this path?
What thoughts and actions can we use to make this process better for ourselves?
Thanks, Steve. Have a great Shabbos!
Ron Coleman wrote in part:
“Did RYBS ever speak or write publicly, forcefully or otherwise, with respect to LW MO (ah, that I got!), already a well-established phenomenon during his active years?”
Go to the Bergen County Beis Medrash website and download RYBS’s shiurim on Korach and Gerus. Once you will have listened to the same, you will see that the answer to your query is in the affirmative.
Steve. In response to this riposte of yours, I know little or nothing of bliss — just ask anyone who knows me. My inability to have fun is one of my salient features. More seriously, I could respond that while it is true that where ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise, other aphorisms — non-Jewish and Jewish — could also be quoted that counsel discretion and a degree of fealty to one’s teachers and guides about what is and is not an appropriate path to pursue. But then we just repeat ourselves.
I address your second point below, but here just point out that each time you indulge in characterizations of arguments and groups, e.g., “extremely ignorant,” “disingenuous,” “standard haredi line” (I am no haredi, by the way; ask any haredi), you lose some percentage of potentially sympathetic readers in total and, among others who may not share either your exact point of view or your passion, lose some credibility. If you think I don’t really care about that and am just being facetious, well, then I will just stop say stop with the labels and the name-calling, and rely on your more than adequate skills of logic and analysis!
Your third point seems to finally confirm what I thought you objected to my saying, which is that in fact the haredi world does not have all that much use RYBS’s intellectual legacy. And, really, all I originally said was … that. To avoid more links and cross-referencing, here were the words I wrote which set you off on this:
So the only way to justify your agitation here is, I think, for you to say that anyone who does not“necessarily appreciate everything R’ Soleveitchik had to say” cannot, axiomatically, be considered “people of some considerable intellectual distinction.”
And before you respond to that, ask yourself: Faced with such a proposition,would RYBS either be offended or shocked? Do you believe the Rav regarded Reb Moshe, Reb Aharon, Reb Shach, the Chazon Ish, Reb Yaakov — blah, blah — either receptive to his “thought” or dumbbells?
As to your subsequent comments, WADR, your OUOA (obsessive use of acronyms) is MMEW (making my eyes water). I also don’t understand them all. But I will try to answer.
You refer to the idea of “viewing RYBS’s thought via the POV that it is not necessary to understand RYBS” as a launching point for an argument, but I think this phrase is loaded. What is “understanding” here? You yourself made a very strong point about — my words, now — distinguishing among those who claim to be his “real” talmidim, those who are perhaps inappropriately so regarded, and those who truly carry the Rav’s mantle today. Understandably, in this context and given the sensitivities, you did not identify which public figures fall into which category, however. This makes it hard even to understand who understands RYBS, much less to say whether or not I may claim to understand him maybe just enough to know what I am talking about, or otherwise.
If YCT and those other thingies somehow fill in some meaning here, it is, in all seriousness, lost on me. I just don’t spend enough time in this space to know all the initials.
But I would like to know: Did RYBS ever speak or write publicly, forcefully or otherwise, with respect to LW MO (ah, that I got!), already a well-established phenomenon during his active years? Because if he had, I imagine this false-identification business would be a lot harder to justify no matter who does it. Alternatively, has RHS (yup, just figured that one out) done so? This would be good stuff to have on hand for those who, notwithstanding your reactive ire at me, seek both understanding and moderation on this issue.
I would say on a related note that many in the YU camp who are RYBS “fans” don’t understand him nearly as well as you surely do and perhaps not even as well as I do — but they are every bit as much starry-eyed hasidim of the person everyone around them keeps saying is the towering orthodox intellectual of our lifetimes as any other Kool-Aid drinker in this discussion, pro or con.
I bet those are good pictures, by the way, with all the initials in them, but why do you keep raising the issue of all the good that RYBS did with respect to Chinuch Atzmai, etc.? I think this actually weakens your point for reasons I hope I don’t have to get into here.
Ron-any time you would like to see pictures of RYBS, RMF and RAK at dinners that were taken in the 1950s, just let me know.
Ron-let’s be real and avoid the fluff-your post posited that there is no difference between RHS and the founder of YCT or other LW MO figures who claim to be talmidim of RYBS. IMO, such linkage is at the heart of your claim, and is a classic example or Charedi urban myth.
Ron-Viewing RYBS’s thought via the POV that it is not necessary to understand RYBS in order to reject his POV strikes me as perilously close and as inappropriate as saying that I don’t need to study Apikorsus because I know it when I see it. What a tragedy that so many in the Charedi world share your POV.
Ron Coleman-I don’t think that your response to my critique of your comment re RYBS was evasive and an attempt to avoid the issues that I raised. I stand by my original comment in its entirety and will note that you made the following comments that warrant a response:
1)The only factual claim I made that would not fit into this category is “So many of us — even those of us who may enjoy the conceit of having adequate intellectual equipment — don’t care too much about what the Rav had to say.†That’s not revisionist, either; I am asserting it as an objective fact
2)I wonder how it is you have determined which persons I had in mind when I referred to his talmidim?! In terms of his legacy, again, I am speaking from my own perspective: Outside the YU world, and indeed within it, many people share my view.
3)”For most of us, the Rav did not influence those who have influenced most of us, and who do so today. We are respectful of his achievements and of many of his students, who are model bnei Torah, rabbonim, lay leaders and educators. But we cannot but observe many prominent people who were his students whose contribution to Jewish life and thought ranges from dubious to repellent.”
Let me offer the following comment:
1) First of all, since when is ignorance of a Gadol’s Hashkafic and Halachic POV bliss?
2) One has to be extremely ignorant to pretend to lump together RYBS’s Talmidim Nuvhakim with those who pretend to claim his mantle. What you offered is the standard Charedi line that asserts that there is no difference or that it is confusing to decipher who is or is not such a Talmid. Such a claim IMO borders on the disinegenous.
3) The notion that the Charedi world has any respect either for RYBS, his halachic and hashkafic POV warrants some proof other than a recent article in Mishpacha.
I agree with just about everything you wrote in that last comment (“45”), BD.
Yosh:
This “golden age†which you have recast as “a classical liberal/democratic idea of responsible citizenship†— I’m not convinced that this ever really existed.
– – – – – – – – –
Yes, it did – I am old enough to have caught the tail end of it, and to have been raised by people who lived it. A world of reality instead of media fantasy, of adults instead of overgrown children.
Yes, it most definitely did exist – if only because life was much harder until recently.
Yosh:
As for shirking adult obligations…. our Torah leaders must start to be held accountable (for things that they sign, for rhetoric that incites others… etc.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
The halachic contructs for that accountability are largely in place – going all the way back to the special korban for leaders who sin.
These halachic precedents have been distorted/undermined by an emphasis on ecstatic piety, blind allegiance to “Da’as Torah” and a purposely closed – even stifled – intellectual/social community.
Which touches on your reference to personal autonomy in the secular world – and brings us back to the core argument of the thread :)
Ben David wrote:
My question was not a request for you to compare your investment in learning about paths in orthodox Judaism you do not follow to what you speculate (erroneously, it turns out) to be the investment made by others.
Then again, it is probably not a fair question; I could not tell you how many hours I spent looking into these subjects — sometimes at the suggestion of my “haredi” mentors, sometimes independently — either. Nor do I have any idea what the requisite shiur [quantity] of exposure is before opining is anyway.
Steve, I see now that you responded to my comments regarding RYBS a little while ago. I didn’t mean to either ignore them or, certainly, to “run away” from a good, em, discussion.
You quoted a passage from my comment, and then wrote:
This seems to be a ready-made response to criticism of the Rav, but it does not appear to have any relation to my actual comments. “Revisionism” cannot be an accurate description of someone’s own admittedly personal, subjective observations. The only factual claim I made that would not fit into this category is “So many of us — even those of us who may enjoy the conceit of having adequate intellectual equipment — don’t care too much about what the Rav had to say.” That’s not revisionist, either; I am asserting it as an objective fact.
I wonder how it is you have determined which persons I had in mind when I referred to his talmidim?! In terms of his legacy, again, I am speaking from my own perspective: Outside the YU world, and indeed within it, many people share my view.
If your position, Steve, is that you have to have been an real talmid muvhak [chief disciple] of the Rav to have an opinion on his legacy, I don’t think that’s a very defensible intellectual position.
A better question is when did I ever claim to be judge or jury over all that stuff? I do claim to have an opinion. Surely a decently intelligent person who has more with passing familiarity with a topic may have an opinion about it without being accused of arrogating a position of undeserved authority to himself, which I never did. This is an irrelevant point.
I never asserted that.
I am not sure of your point here. If you are objecting to my statement that “We are respectful of…,” because you believe that in reality RYBS “gets no respect,” then, for one thing, you would be admitting my hypothesis — indeed even your parody of it, wouldn’t you?
But do you think I was lying?
In fact, when I said “we,” did you believe I was perhaps speaking on behalf of some specific group or organization? I was not. I should be clear: I meant myself and many of the people I know and respect. There are very, very severe exceptions, of course; I was, however, trying to be, well, politic.
That would be “far too much” if you consider Steve Brizel’s view to be preferable to that of R’ Aharon. I am sure many people share that preference, but I was not characterizing their views. I also — as you know — had not asked how much of that work you had read; I would never ask that to make a rhetorical point because you are thoughtful and open-minded and scholarly and I would have expected you to have a good answer.
Now, having said all that, let me make it clear: I had and have no interest in debating the merits of the Rav’s legacy. I am saying that it a legacy that has little impact on the main part of the yeshiva world, and that there is no particular moral, religious or intellectual obligation for any Jew or even any person engaged in issues that Rav Soloveitchik wrote about to be fully conversant in his worldview — much less to reach the level of understanding that you posit — in order to have his own opinion on the subject.
Refer to the comments following the recent article, “I’m Getting Married in the Morning,” particularly Yosh #9 and Bob Miller #15. I seem to remember that Yosh said, “Bob, you’re driving me crazy,” to which Bob Miller replied, “Join the club!”
???
How dare you lecture me on teshuva, label my arguments as impulsive, and imply that I attack “orthodox society”? Who do you think you are? Now that it’s clear who the administrator is — who is monitoring and censoring YOUR comments? Why don’t you worry about YOUR teshuva. I see that you care to support other “interested Jews” only so far as they fit into YOUR narrow concept of “orthodox society”.
The premise of Beyond BT is that Teshuvah is a good thing and those who do it need support from each other and other interested Jews. I don’t see how a sustained from-the-hip attack on Orthodox society does much for Teshuvah.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
I still maintain that
1) There’s plenty in the secular world to criticize and it’s mostly a waste of time to do so.
2) This “golden age” which you have recast as “a classical liberal/democratic idea of responsible citizenship” — I’m not convinced that this ever really existed.
3) There are positive lessons that Judaism could take from secular political developments, starting with the very assertion of individual rights that you label as emotional and narcissistic. I’m not on board with the whole “Judaism focuses on obligations not rights” cliche, and this way of thinking may be a root cause for some of the more egregious violation of personal rights that one hears about. I say, let’s have a little more emphasis on personal rights. As for shirking adult obligations — yeah, that’s a problem. Perhaps the lesson we can learn is that just as we see in the secular world that responsibility is starting to be enforced, starting from the top down (CEOs and hedge fund managers, and some prominent politicians), so too our Torah leaders must start to be held accountable (for things that they sign, for rhetoric that incites others… etc.)
Yosh – Bob is making specific claims, that are mirrored by other critics of post-WWII social developments.
He points out that the classical liberal/democratic idea of responsible citizenship on which America (and the democratic West) were founded, has been replaced by emotional, narcissistic assertion of “rights” not previously known to exist, and ignorance/shirking of the obligations of adulthood.
He’s not the only one making these observations. And if the larger context of this thread is Judaism engaging the larger world – there’s not much for Judaism to learn from these developments…
Stereotypes and generalizations like that are what make me embarrassed to be part of a religious community. Why don’t you give an insulting lable to the middle culture, and then your negation of the whole world is complete.
I think our job is to cultivate what is positive about the world in which hashem saw fit to bring us into, not to label it and negate it. Anyway, you are completely off topic. The hedonism and nihilism you are speaking about has to do with middos, not chochma. Yesh chochma bagoyim, and that chochma is producing new ideas in many areas at a breathtaking pace.
…such as a hedonistic low culture and a nihilistic high culture.
What I see is an explosion of emotionally driven stupidity.
Bob, the world is exploding with intellectual development.
Perhaps the conservative nature of our dogmatic religious worldview blinds us to the innovation in our world, in our life, and in our Torah? Perhaps we do not have time to keep up with all of the intellectual developments going on? But to question whether or not there is something going on at all — are you that isolated from reality?
But what bothers me even more is the rhetoric you use. You invoke the strawman of a mythical Golden Age of education and then bash it — to prove some kind of point? And the language — feeding off of, spawning — is intended to convey what, exactly? And “development” implies something that was there originally — so what is wrong with a later development “feeding off of” an earlier development?
Have there actually been any intellectual developments lately in the secular world?
– – – – – – – – – –
Doesn’t seem like it :)
Here in Israel, a small group of YU/TIDE/Dati-Leumi Jews are wrestling with the relevance/application of post-Enlightenment civil rights and democracy in a Jewish context – taking on both the distortions of Bolshie Israeli socialist “progressives” and Haredim who are still trying to make the Tzarist-era us-vs-them script work in the Jewish state.
It’s 300-400 years old, but why don’t we start with that?
One question is:
Have there actually been any intellectual developments lately in the secular world?
Possibly, they are feeding off the developments in yesterday’s world, a time when educational standards were higher and ideas were taken more seriously (which still did not prevent communism and other destructive ideologies from spawning).
“Austritt” (literally “secession”) was primarily about the internecine politics of working with the Reform movements and thereby legitimizing their approach.
That has not been the focus of this thread – which addresses the openness of TIDE and TuM to intellectual developments in the secular world, in contrast to the Haredi world’s insularity.
Similarly – nobody in YU is uncritically accepting of Biblical criticism. They remain solidly on the Orthodox side of this and other divides. So again – this is a moot point and side issue.
Ben David-One should always be careful to realize that RSRH not only created an autonomous Jewish community in Frankfurt that was based on TIDE, but that RSRH’s approach on Austritt ( communal autonomy) was opposed by other German Gdolim and other Gdolim such as R David Z Hoffman ZL and the SE fought the war against Biblical criticism, while RSRH’s approach eschewed any discussion of the same.
I have a copy of Elu v’Elu and have read it, but still have the feeling that TIDE and TuM in their various manifestations are in the same general category. Some divisions among groups in this category seem to be the result of sociological or historical factors, and not on the level of basic theory.
Bob Miller and Ben David-I would strongly sugggest that you read R Schwab ZL’s Elu vElu which while eplaining where TIDE differs from TuM, clearly is a means of kashering TIDE for the yeshiva world, and in effect burying TIDE as a valid Lchatchilah option for that world. I would agree with the POV expressed re R Leo Jung ZL and other German rabbinical advocates of TIDE, whose views differed from RSRH on Austritt and other hashkafic issues.
As far as TuM is concerned, there are many intellectual and hashkafic definitions that can be found in the various issues of the TuM Journal as well as R D Lamm’s book of the same title. I question whether RYBS subscribed to TuM any more broadly than I have phrased his statement to a very close friend.
Steve Brizel:
I would not agree with your claim that RYBS was an exponent of TIDE. One of my closest friends told me that RYBS felt that a Jew should be equally capabale of working in a wholly secular profession and be a learned and observant Jew capable of learning Torah on the highest possible level, in other words, at least a Lamdan who was Kovea Itim LaTorah, if not a Talmid Chacham. RYBS saw no contradiction between being a college educated professional and a Ben Torah capable of deciphering the words of Chidushei R Chaim HaLevi Al HaRambam.
– – – – – – – – – – –
… and that’s exactly the sort of people I met as my parents became religious through R. Hirsch’s kehillah, K’hal Adath Yeshurun.
The combination of high-level secular and Torah scholarship is most definitely part of classical Hirschian TIDE.
When I studied in YU, the exposition of “Torah U’maddah” differed from TIDE primarily in being more amorphous and, to some extent, extemporaneous/b’di-eved.
TIDE is a braod category, not only the approach followed by Rav Hirsch ZT”L and his successors. There were other versions. Rav Leo Jung ZT”L, for example, exemplified another approach, and various Mizrachi rabbonim in Europe and elsewhere had their own approaches. Rav Shimon Schwab ZT”L combined strands of TIDE and Litvish thought.
Bob Miller-I would not agree with your claim that RYBS was an exponent of TIDE. One of my closest friends told me that RYBS felt that a Jew should be equally capabale of working in a wholly secular profession and be a learned and observant Jew capable of learning Torah on the highest possible level, in other words, at least a Lamdan who was Kovea Itim LaTorah, if not a Talmid Chacham. RYBS saw no contradiction between being a college educated professional and a Ben Torah capable of deciphering the words of Chidushei R Chaim HaLevi Al HaRambam.
In fact, RYBS, in a very similar manner to REED, pointed out that the TIDE system, while saving many German Jews from RJ and worse, produced observant Baalei Batim who were not Talmidei Chachamim.
You’re right – I can only go on what you post here. And you did post a defense of those who reject RYBS out of hand, as I’ve described. And that line of argument fits the pattern I’ve described – and observed in many other situations.
Ben David, you know next to nothing about my particular reality, what I read, my life story, you name it. In particular, I have no basic problem with RYBS and some other exponents of TIDE. Sometimes I agree with what they’ve put forward and sometimes I disagree. I’ve bought several books by RYBS and went to a public hesped after his petirah.
Bob Miller:
I have interacted with the same worlds within Orthodoxy and found significant gradations and variations in each, such that your angry blanket condemnations offend me.
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
1) I condemned the “frum” intellectual atmosphere in which certain opinions are dismissed – without examination – due to fashion and a closed clique mentality.
Your responses have basically confirmed – and attempted to justify – exactly this incurious dismissal, by both yourself and your Torah mentors. If you’ve found “gradations” – people of true intellectual openness and rigor – it doesn’t seem you’ve made them your mentors.
So far my “blanket” condemnation covers your reality nicely. (oh and Ron Coleman: based on Bob’s own posts, I’ve invested more in learning about hassidus than he’s invested in RYBS – and more important: I was encouraged to do so by my Dati-Leumi, YU, and TIDE Torah mentors…)
2) I further bemoaned the situation in which BTs who already participated in a broad intellectual landscape narrow their intellectual horizons to fit in with the closed circles of their new “frum” world.
R. Soleveichik is a perfect test case for this – an undeniable Torah giant whose broad intellectual view mirrors that of most BTs – yet those BTs disavow any knowledge or interest in his works in order to…. get shidduchim without reminding people how “weird” or “inferior” they are.
…. Maybe, just maybe, Hashem brought about waves of BTs to OPEN UP the frum world?
Maybe, just maybe, the BTs are NOT supposed to lobotomize themselves to fit in – but to contribute perspectives that most FFBs lack?
Rabbi Yitzchak Frankfurter, formerly of Mishpacha Magazine and now of Ami Magazine is someone who uncommonly combines different traditions, including those of Satmar, Lakewood and some of RYBS. Below is a quote from his article from Mishpacha and a link to the article through the somewhat Chasidic VIN website, links to an interview on OU Radio archives(“Fostering Achdus in The Orthodox World”), and R. Adlerstein’s review of AMI on Cross Currents.
According to the OU Radio and Talkline interviews, he sees his mission at AMI as one of Achdus, and has also recently published a second article in AMI on Brisk partly about RYBS, including a letter to the Editor from R. Gil Student about RYBS’ chiddushim on Yoreh Deah.
On the other hand, he has also requested on Talkline that people, including other Charedim, respect his Chasidic world(in connection with blog criticism of the Hillary Clinton photshopping by a Chasidic paper) in the same way he reaches out to others. Three of his interviews on Talkline(including the one about the Hillary photo)can be found in the Talkline Archives, linked below.
From his article in Mishpacha:
“In Lakewood’s Beth Medrash Govoha library, I first encountered Rav Yoshe Ber’s writings and was quickly smitten by his insights, including his multi-dimensional approach to Torah understanding. And I wasn’t alone in this endeavor. I soon discovered that some of the best and brightest talmidim of Brisk were fluent in Rav Soloveitchik’s thoughts. But it took us some time before his words were able to work upon us their weighty yet melodious, tantalizing magic.
Initially his entire style and tone seemed so very foreign. We had to study his works with dictionaries at our side. He would employ the most obscure terms to express his insights. How could we full-time yeshiva bochurim possibly know what a
“noetic system†or “ontological principle†was? But the further we delved into his works and overcame the proliferation of exotic phrases and novel colloquialisms, the more we discovered how accurate and even traditional his observations and understandings were. His Talmudic genius and penetrating insights were of such awesome power that once you were touched by them it was hard to extricate yourself from their overwhelming spell.”
http://www.vosizneias.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/R-schachter.pdf
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/02/28/reading-writing-and-a-new-periodical-for-the-jewish-home/
http://www.ouradio.org/ouradio/channel/C271/
http://talklinecommunications.com/broadcasts/feed.xml
Northwards-I took a look at the web site that you mentioned. It struck me as containing an awareness of the issues, but limited in that it basically cited Charedi thinkers on the issues. I saw zero therein on any of RYBS’s works such as Lonely Man of Faith, Emergence of Ethical Man, etc.
I posted this elsewhere, but I realized that it actually belonged here.
“Ron Coleman-FYI, and for that of any posters here and elsewhere, we will be spending Shavuos in Passaic-where we daven at R Eisenman’s shul, and where I go to attend the wonderful shiurim of R Sacks.
Ron Coleman wrote in part:
“For most of us, the Rav did not influence those who have influenced most of us, and who do so today. We are respectful of his achievements and of many of his students, who are model bnei Torah, rabbonim, lay leaders and educators. But we cannot but observe many prominent people who were his students whose contribution to Jewish life and thought ranges from dubious to repellent. So many of us — even those of us who may enjoy the conceit of having adequate intellectual equipment — don’t care too much about what the Rav had to say.
The Rav’s legacy is a mixed and ambivalent one.”
Once again, negative revisionism about RYBS asserts itself from a person who admittedly is part of a Dor Asher Lo Yada Es Yosef, and who unfortunately has no comprehension IMO as to were the talmidim of RYBS and his legacy, and those who merely passed through RYBS’s shiur without gaining an understanding as to RYBS’s derech, chumros, kulos and hanhagos, and whose views were never considered representative of that of RYBS in any shape or manner
WADR, who appointed you, or anyone else, judge and jury over the myriad accomplishments and the legacy of RYBS to assert that some sort of Tumaas Magaah in an intellectual sense is applicable to RYBS, his talmidim and their talmidim? Asserting that the Charedi world has any sort of respect “of his achievements and of many of his students, who are model bnei Torah, rabbonim, lay leaders and educators” requires some sort of affirmative proof that the same is the case, when the overwhelming evidence is to the absolute contrary.
FWIW, I have read enough of the Musar section of Mishnas R Aharon to realize that far too much is devoted therein as a means of deligitmizing RYBS as a Gadol HaDor, who helped RAK, Lakewood and Chinuch Atzmai, despite their profound hashkafic differences.
I think that the above cited post illustrates that as we are almost approaching Shavuos, that we all have a long way in being Msaken our Midos, and that Sinas Chinam is all too alive and well . Perhaps, the same is also evidence that we are a long way, as the Midrash in Vayikrah Rabbah, states from performing Mitzvos that is truly Temimos in nature.
Ben David, how much investment have you made into learning and understanding each and every school of hasidim before determining that they were not for you?
How much of Mishnas R’ Aharon have you learned?
Ben David asked,
“Yes, I know the world(s) I criticize. Could you now address the criticism?”
Ben David, who am I to say your personal observations are bogus? All I can say is that I have interacted with the same worlds within Orthodoxy and found significant gradations and variations in each, such that your angry blanket condemnations offend me.
Ron:
I don’t think anyone should be called “stupid†or a “know-nothing†if he decidse that he is not all that interested in the Rav’s work or his hashkofah [worldview].
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Based on what?
Oh, yeah – based on nothing:
I don’t think it’s completely irrational to reject R’ Soloveitchik without comprehending his work
– – – – – – – – – – –
I never called anyone stupid – but this definitely qualifies as “know-nothing”.
Your response boils down to: I have adopted the prejudices of my new community, and don’t want to be bothered by having to think about a godol whose wrestling with modernity just may relate to me as a BT – and to the challenges the Jewish world faces.
You also seem to have ignored the waves of maskilim and other rebels that came out of the great yeshivas and Chassidic courts of Europe over the last 150 years – why don’t those serial, generational failures count against the “frum” world the way R. Soloveitchik’s wayward talmidim do?
Oh, right – Da’as Torah, mustn’t stray from intellectual fashion, needn’t really THINK about it…
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
I don’t think it’s completely irrational to reject R’ Soloveitchik without comprehending his work, or even some of it. We routinely make such decisions about points of view that we know, without thorough consideration, get us to a place we do not want to go. Overcoming this habit, which is a necessary one, is one of the challenges of kiruv. But one need not be open-minded about everything, all the time.
For most of us, the Rav did not influence those who have influenced most of us, and who do so today. We are respectful of his achievements and of many of his students, who are model bnei Torah, rabbonim, lay leaders and educators. But we cannot but observe many prominent people who were his students whose contribution to Jewish life and thought ranges from dubious to repellent. So many of us — even those of us who may enjoy the conceit of having adequate intellectual equipment — don’t care too much about what the Rav had to say.
The Rav’s legacy is a mixed and ambivalent one. (I recommend Hillel Goldberg’s chapter on the Rav found in From Berlin to Slobodka for what appears to me to be an even-handed essay on this.)
For these reasons I don’t think anyone should be called “stupid” or a “know-nothing” if he decidse that he is not all that interested in the Rav’s work or his hashkofah [worldview].
Bob Miller –
I am the child of BTs. I grew up in NY, now live in Israel, and have experienced both Brooklyn and Bnei-Brak streams of “know nothing” frum-yeshivish communities – up close.
I have been equally unsparing in my criticism of the more mindless, wanna-be Modern Orthodox. You can take a look at the post about Rabbi Bechhofer
and his attempts to create a “new yeshiva” to see my approach.
I am hardly the only person to notice that the haredi world is in the grip of an extreme, anti-intellectual insularity unheard of in Jewish history – not even in “the Old Country”.
I am also not the only person to notice that this approach has failed – spectacularly, and repeatedly – to answer the challenges of post-Enlightenment modernity, or to grasp the new opportunities presented to Jews by modernity and now Zionism.
Indeed, most of us are BTs precisely because our grandparents received no cogent Jewish answer to the obvious achievements of modern science and political thought.
… so now: could you please address the substance of what I’ve said – for example, this ironic notion:
While BTs in “frum” communities cravenly wonder if they’re intellectual/holy enough to discuss R. Soleveitchik, the FFBs in those communities do not have the intellectual background to even parse R. Soleveitchik, and have been trained under “know-nothing” Da’as Torah to spurn him with a knee-jerk reaction against anything “mod’ner”.
Very telling Yiddish word, that – taking the word “modern” to mean “weird”….
Yes, I know the world(s) I criticize. Could you now address the criticism?
I’m not sure if BTs are left with greater loneliness (it’s certainly not universal), but I can say from loads of experience that their influence on big chunks of the FFB world is very deep – if sometimes subtle. This web site on emunah aimed at frum people seeking growth would not have been possible without the input of a generation of BTs.
I agree, Ron, that wrong attitudes may be found in all kinds of places. My objection was to the idea that they’re always in the places where the “others” live.
The Mussar movement was created precisely because, without proper reflection and self-preparation, one can be exposed to Torah without getting to its essence.
Ben David may, as Bob says, be “guilty” of some quantum of the same know-nothingism he is talking about among sectors of the FFB world. And I do think that there are people of some considerable intellectual distinction who do not necessarily appreciate everything R’ Soleveitchik had to say.
Having said that, Ben David’s point has some validity, from what I can tell. I have certainly encountered plenty of smug ignorance from people from whom I expected much more because of their vaunted exposure to the dialectic of Torah learning, to put it mildly.
Ben David, life outside the shtetl presents its own hashkafic challenges and its own fixed ideas, no?
As for know-nothings, I wonder what real inside knowledge you have of the group you’re ridiculing. Or are you stereotyping in a way that you don’t want others to do to you?
Considering that most of the frum world is still locked in the dismissive, us-vs-them mindset of The Old Country, I think BTs have a great advantage in having actually lived outside the self-contained shtetl of frum life.
It’s worth noting – and ironic – that most BTs who describe themselves with words like “frum” are probably surrounded by FFBs who dismiss R. Soleveitchik and YU as “modern” – without having the intellectual chops to even appreciate what he’s saying.
So yes: Since Hashem created all the rest of reality, and wants us to serve Him in that context – someone who know about the world will always have an advantage over frum know-nothings who turn away from it. There are no Jewish monasteries – at least, there aren’t supposed to be.
And the “existential tragedy” in this case is BTs lopping off entire stretches of life experience – and boarding up intellectual horizons – in order to “fit in” with the Heshies and Hindies of the intellectually sealed “frum” world.
“If our experience has led to better integration, why have we failed to positively influence our fellow secular and religious Jews on this path?”
1. Have we all failed, all the time?
2. There are not many of us compared to the number of such Jews, so our collective chances for one-on-one interaction with all of them seem low.
3. Don’t discount the effects of conditioning, inertia, and constant exposure to secular media.
Especially if you have not one single frum relative in the entire universe.
Yes, I think the emotional isolation of being a BT is probably something a “typical” FFB does not experience.
IMHO, I actually think we BT’s are worse equipped than the FFB’s. Most FFB’s grow up from infancy seeing how their parents and other frum Jews manage to live and even thrive in the modern world. However, we BT’s were taught from our youth by our secular environments that it couldn’t be done. So we struggle to do the same integration of holy and profane that comes naturally to an FFB who has been doing this all his/her life.
I just blogged on a similar topic, in my post “A new kind of ba’al teshuva” http://ruchoshelmashiach.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-kind-of-baal-teshuva.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RuchoShelMashiach+%28rucho+shel+mashiach%29
IMO, BTs have a far more acute sense of the existential loneliness described so eloquently by RYBS. I would suggest that BTs have a responsibility to find their own niche, which then may impact positively on the secular and FFB worlds.