Gil Student recently posted some thoughts regarding the current Modern Orthodox shift to the right which he has graciously permitted us to repost. We thought it might be of interest to our readers as his comments highlight our beliefs that at their core, the differences between Modern Orthodoxy and Charedi Orthodoxy are not that great, and we need to unite on our commonalities and not be divided by our differences.
Menachem Butler, in his now defunct AJHistory blog, recently directed readers to an exchange in the 2005 issue of Contemporary Jewry (link). Samuel Heilman wrote an article about Modern Orthodoxy shifting to the right. You know, his regular material. I’m amazed how many articles — and even a book — he can turn that same material into. His article then received responses from David Ellenson and Marc Shapiro. The former doesn’t seem to have much to say. The latter, however, does. His article can be found here (PDF). As someone living in the Modern Orthodox community and keenly observing, he presumably has a good deal of insight into it. Yet I found a lot of things in the article with which I disagreed.
1. Shapiro oddly states that Modern Orthodox students who adopt black hats and yeshivish dress do not do so in Israel but in Yeshiva University. In my experience, that is the exception (myself included) and the opposite is the general rule.
2. In the second paragraph, Shapiro defines Modern Orthodox as “people who go to college and are professionals.” My friends and neighbors from Torah Vodaas and Chaim Berlin fall within that definition of Modern Orthodox, which leads me to suspect that it is overly broad.
3. In the third paragraph, Shapiro suggests that the right-wing Orthodox adopt stringencies in order to distinguish themselves from the Modern Orthodox. Now that the Modern Orthodox are being fairly strict, the right-wing has to become even stricter. I find that suggestion to be farfetched. The right-wing generally does not even realize that the Modern Orthodox community has become more strict, as can be seen in the still prevalent usage of outdated stereotypes about the Modern Orthodox.
4. Shapiro notes that even the Modern Orthodox who have adopted the haredi style of dress are still Modern Orthodox in many of their views. I find this to be a very perceptive and accurate observation. Many of my friends think they are yeshivish but are not. They just don’t realize how deeply they have been influenced and that what they consider “normal” is just Modern Orthodox. (See this post by Joe Schick for just one of many examples.)
5. Shapiro writes: “There are now two types of modern Orthodox Jews: the old-fashioned type and the new type, which is modern in ideology but doesn’t cut corners when it comes to halachah.” I think his dichotomy is correct but that this is not a new phenomenon. In Avodah/Areivim-world, we refer to the MO and the MO-lite. The MO are the ideological Modern Orthodox and the MO-lite are members of the Modern Orthodox community who are lax in their observance. Similarly, there is the UO and the UO-lite referring to those who are Ultra Orthodox and members of that community who are lax in their observance. There have always been MO and MO-lite. It is just that recently the proportion of the MO vs. MO-lite has changed and the MO make up a larger part of the community.
6. Shapiro notes: “[T]here are no modern Orthodox works of practical halachah. This realm has been ceded to the haredim.” This is not entirely accurate (e.g. I, II), but close enough. That could change, if I have my way.
7. Shapiro then proceeds to argue that the OU and other kosher supervision agencies have overly extreme standards. I find his portrayal to be exaggerated and laced with apparent Abadi influence.
8. Shapiro’s example about the use of medicines on Passover is not a good one, because the right-wing Orthodox community is not in agreement on this. It is just that those who are strict advertise (literally) their positions while those who are lenient do not. Although even this is changing (I, II).
9. Shapiro agrees with Heilman’s statement that Haredim are the main teachers in Modern Orthodox schools. I’m not denying this, but I’ll just say that this was not at all the case in my high school.
10. Shapiro writes: “Modern Orthodoxy currently has no gadol, or authority figure. That means that halachic guidance comes from the haredim.” I found that surprising. I grew up in Teaneck and visit for Shabbos on occasion. Not only is Rav Soloveitchik regularly cited as the top halakhic authority, but R. Hershel Schachter and R. Mordechai Willig are also frequently quoted. They are certainly the authorities with whom my rabbinic friends regularly consult.
11. Shapiro states that the various Ba’al Teshuvah movements are all Haredi dominated. I just don’t know what he’s talking about. Maybe he means that a lot of the outreach professionals are Haredi. OK, maybe. But dominated? Certainly not the Ba’alei Teshuvah themselves.
LC:
That apple curriculum sounds great!
My point simply was that if you take away the categorization of “morning is for Jewish things”, etc., you’re taking away one more extraneous assumption that could get attached to the learning.
Steg,
I was expressing similar ideas to both those of you and Steve.
my point was that in mixing classes, it’s easier to have a holistic as opposed to compartmentalized experience.
(Steg comment #14)
I don’t see that. There is no inherent reason that a schedule of:
math, Gemora, science, English lit., modern Ivrit, gym, for example, in that order,
should have any impact on whether the science teacher is finding ways to connect Torah perspectives to the information being taught.
Holistic vs. compartmentalized is more an issue of the training, perspective and goals of the teachers. The only smidgen of “holistic” education I got in HS was when I took physics & pre-calc at the same time.
And it is thoroughly possible to have a holistic approach with a “divided” (AM/PM) day; my son’s 1st grade learned about apples from a science (lifecycle, seeds, etc.) and historical/literature (Johnny Appleseed) perspective and then went apple picking *because* R”H was approaching (all in Sept!)
Boruch Horowitz:
i think we were trying to express similar ideas when i said before:
Doctors, teachers, artists and scientists have it easy; but if someone believes that their God-given talents with investment banking or whatnot are their best tool for expressing Yahadut (by following the halakhot of monetary interaction, and being upstanding honest representatives of Judaism’s business ethics), then that is what they should be doing.
Steve and Steg,
This is an interesting discussion. I agree that some occupations like business fields, are at a lower point on the TUM or TIDE continuum, but I think that nevetheless, the lower levels still have an Avodas Hashem value.
I would rather be an astronaut, than balance books and memorize tax rules, the latter being a product of a human mind, and somewhat(or totally !) arbitrary. OTOH, one can argue that the rocket scientist has more of an appreciation for Hashem’s world than the astronaut; there are always greater and lesser levels. The same might go with comparing chemists who create pills to doctors that prescribe them. The bottom line is, people get to play different roles.
I think this has to do with what R’ Chaim Volozhin told a man who complained that his donation to the yeshiva was being used for the equivalent of the fundraiser’s Cadillac:
According to one version, he said that if one’s intention’s are pure than the donation goes for seforim, versus transportation. According to the second version, he said that the Jewish concept of Korbonos is that not everything is burned on the Mizbayach, and that Tzedokah to an institution works like this as well.
Either way, there seems to be a hierarchy in the Beis Hamikdash and in providing for a Mossad Hatorah. By extension, one might say for example, that it is better to be a scientist who understands Hashem’s world than to account for the flow of money which fuels the economy , or to analyze the laws that underpin social interactions in society. Working in a laboratory versus preparing a tax return might be like providing the Beis Midrash’s Seforim versus the meshulach’s car.
Nevertheless, even on the lower level as well, one can use one’s intelligence and capabilities, and then at the end of the day, use one’s knowledge acquired to interact with Torah or Mussar.
I think that the Rambam also states that a wise person can’t do everything by himself, so others need to play supporting roles in society.
Steg-one’s Talmudic or legal training can be of assistance in understanding either secular law or Talmud. My point was that the practice of law seems to be difficult to place into the theory or practice of TuM.I agree with your point re sustained learning vis a vis the needs and situation of one’s family
Here’s one point-how much one can use that rationale if one is involved in politics, investment banking, corporate mergers, and similar careers where one’s entire focus is reducing civil, tax and regulatory liabilities as well people on a corporation’s payroll as opposed to medicine , mathematics and the sciences or even literature-all or some of which may be of benefit to a Ben or Bas Torah? I once discussed this issue with a prominent advocate of TuM who admitted that law, etc was far tougher to place within the context of TuM than the sciences ,etc.
As someone unfamiliar with the corporate world, i don’t understand what you mean by “careers where one’s entire focus is reducing civil, tax and regulatory liabilities”. If that means getting people out of their obligations, i don’t think that’s spiritually healthy for someone whose life should be centered around, as you put it, T, A & G.Hh.
I disagree with the evaluation of law. I have a friend who left a lucrative career in Law to go into Jewish Education, and has found that his Law background has given him incomparable insights when learning and teaching Gemara, Halakha and Jewish Ethics.
I agree with the importance of sustained learning, though, especially in a family context (as long as the family isn’t too dysfunctional ;-) ).
Steg-one follow up. I think that it is essential for anyone with a career in the secular world that they make time for a seder in learning both with a chavusa and in the family context as well as Tefillah Btzibbur. You have to remind yourself that no matter what your endeavors are during the day, you always return to Torah, Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim-no matter how difficult it is to get up for that chavrusa and minyan or daven Mincha.
…which is to say that total integration of studies may be desirable but not always doable. Most schools don’t have access to staff who can really work the Torah perspective into secular studies, so practicality makes them divide the day as they do. At the very least, though, the secular subjects should not be taught (as has happened)from a perspective that is incompatible with Torah.
Steg-Let me begin by reiterating an observation which I believe is demonstrable via a simple reading of Jewish history. It is very evident that the world revolves around Torah, Avodah and Gmilus Chasadim. We also know that many hashkafic systems beginning with the Gaonim and continuing thru the Middle Ages until our time have developed as a response to different societal needs. However, when the hashkafic response threatens to supercede the above stated three core elements ,developes an intellectual hardening of the arteries or fails to preserve itself via the development of new leaders or a new response, then the response itself loses relevance until and unless it is revitalized by a future generation’s leading thinkers.
That being the cae, I believe that your advocacy of a Torah UMadah (“TuM”) based view of Mamleches Kohanim is subject to the above based critique, I think that you will agree that even those of us who have secular careers have to know when to advance and retreat.Your concept of Mamleches Kohanim is wonderful on the screen and in the printed page, but as is the case in many philosophical systems, it loses something in translation and in reality. Here’s one point-how much one can use that rationale if one is involved in politics, investment banking, corporate mergers, and similar careers where one’s entire focus is reducing civil, tax and regulatory liabilities as well people on a corporation’s payroll as opposed to medicine , mathematics and the sciences or even literature-all or some of which may be of benefit to a Ben or Bas Torah? I once discussed this issue with a prominent advocate of TuM who admitted that law, etc was far tougher to place within the context of TuM than the sciences ,etc.
One can also posit that the concept means very simply that we accepted a special relationship with HaShem by virtue of Kabbalas HaTorah that requires us to live a different way of life that is supposed to ennoble , as opposed to coarsen and/or debase our way of life.
Half a listic is better than none.
definition of HOLISTIC
relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts
LC:
my point was that in mixing classes, it’s easier to have a holistic as opposed to compartmentalized experience.
michal:
Who says anything about compromising on Torah values?
“Holistic” means that you are a Jew, and you express Torah values, whether you’re sitting in a Beit Midrash, running a grocery store, digging up dinosaur bones, taking out appendices, analyzing literature or studying astrophysics.
Interacting with the world is not secondary, it’s part of being mamlekhet kohanim. Like kohanim, we need to be “out among the people”, and not cloistered from birth through brith and death in the precincts of the Beit Hamiqdash.. And of course, like kohanim, we need to be wary of sources of tum’a. But the entire world is not metamei’.
Placing one’s career ahead of Yahadut is not “interacting with the world”. Interacting with the world in a true MO way is going into a career that calls you as your way to express Godliness in the world. Doctors, teachers, artists and scientists have it easy; but if someone believes that their God-given talents with investment banking or whatnot are their best tool for expressing Yahadut (by following the halakhot of monetary interaction, and being upstanding honest representatives of Judaism’s business ethics), then that is what they should be doing. Torah values, as part of God’s world.
the MO yeshiva i went to mixed Torah and General subjects throughout the day.
As a kid in public school, the MO day schools I was familiar with (NCSY friends) had Torah subjects in the morning, boys & girls separate classrooms, and secular subjects in the afternoon, boys & girls together, divided by academic level.
After college, I moved to a city with a day school like Steg describes above, and found it bizarre; involving yourself in the secular world is NOT the same as saying that Shabbos and overtime pay (for example) are equivalent.
Having heard stories of girls in PS (or college) writing term papers on Shabbos while the men davened in shul, this “everything is important, everything is equal” approach bothers me from a hashkafic perspective:
There need to be priorities. Torah is life (aitz chayim hee, right?), and the secular subjects are either means to appreciating Gd’s world, or a means to earning a livelihood. But as the minority who managed to remain observant as new immigrants knew, Shabbos comes first, and the job situation second. Which isn’t to say that I could withstand the pressure to know I had income to support my family, but the goal is that halacha defines the priorities.
I don’t have such an issue with the morning vs. afternoon thing, but I’m a night owl. But there needs to be acknowledgement that they (Torah & general studies) aren’t interchange-able.
1. to show that Judaism is holistic; i.e. it’s not just learning Talmud, it’s also learning about and interacting with the World
huh? And a school day split AM/PR *doesn’t* show this? There are (some) UO schools where no secular studies are taught in HS. Or 2-3 hours out of a 12 hour (including davening, lunch, dinner) HS day.
Steg:
“Judaism is Holistic”? I have never heard Judaism defined in that way. Jews for centuries have interacted with the world. However, they did not compromise on Torah values. There was always and still is(thank G-d) a strong emphasis on Torah values inside and outside the home. Interacting with the world was always secondary. Today, unfortunately, many Jews, not just the MO, place careers first and foremost in their lives. This can cause Jews to compromise on their Yiddishkeit, r”l.
Judging from blogs I read, the main area of secular study for many Orthodox Jews must be taxonomy.
Once every possible flavor of Orthodox Jew has a definition and a distinctive acronym, Mashiach will be ready to come. So let’s get this over with in a hurry.
Michal:
the MO yeshiva i went to mixed Torah and General subjects throughout the day. There are a number of reasons for this kind of schedule:
1. to show that Judaism is holistic; i.e. it’s not just learning Talmud, it’s also learning about and interacting with the World
2. students are more awake during certain hours, and you don’t want to disadvantage the classes you schedule exclusively during those hours
From what I see of MO whether RW or Lite is their primary focus is on the importance of a professional career over Torah learning. I have seen this many times with MO families who raise their children with a modern hashkafa. In my community, there is a MO yeshiva that on certain days it teaches secular studies before Torah learning. I asked my MO neighbor why they do this. She told me that this is done to teach their children that secular studies and torah learning are equal in importance.
Unfortunately, some of those things i believe should be (or used to be) characteristics of MO as a whole, and would have defined them that way until i met people here in the Judeoblogosphere who call themselves RWMO and reject what i thought were basic beliefs of MO.
MRN:
That’s not LWMO, that’s “MO-Lite”.
LWMO is:
1. a generally positive view of general society (i.e. “what’s out there that can make me a better person/jew” as opposed to “what’s out there that i should avoid in order to be a better person/jew”)
2. a preference for lenient opinions over more stricter ones, especially for the sake of preserving community
3. a differentiation between halakha and sociology; i.e., just because something “isn’t done” doesn’t mean it’s forbidden, and if it’s not forbidden, and there are good reasons for it, do it (commonly found in issues of gender and women’s roles)
4. a valuing of integration over isolationism, both in cooperating with other Jewish groups and in views on interacting with Non-Jews
5. an acceptance of academic methodology as part of learning Torah (such as Critical Talmud study, and Literary Analysis of Tanakh)
Rachel — To me, left wing MO means you attend an Orthodox shul and that’s about it.
Regarding Steve’s Comment #2 above:
It’s much easier for a writer to be considered an expert when the intended audience…
1. is predisposed to believe the writer’s main thesis (here, the creeping influence of the supposed Other Side, the Chareidim)
2. has little or no direct personal experience with some or all of the writer’s key objects of study (here, actual everyday Chareidim)
The responsible sociologist should be able to resist the urge to pander, and be able to challenge his/her own preconceptions through objective, exhaustive, bona-fide research in the field.
Point of clarification- would you divide Left Wing Modern Orthodoxy and Right Wing Modern Orthodoxy as MO and MO-lite? (That is to say, do you assume that people who call themselves LWMO are the ones lax in their practice? If so, then I have more to say, but I’ll wait…)
I think that R Gil’s analysis utterly demolished R D Shapiro’s comments.I also commented on many of the flaws within both R D Shapiro and D S Heilman’s works. The more that I read of both R S Heilman and R D Shapiro’s voluminous commentaries on the state of MO and the Charedi world, the more I am convinced that their fame is due far more to the quantity of their output than the quality of their work.
When I lived in a “mixed” MO/UO community for a number of years, I got the impression (based on what people spoke/joked/complained about) that the MO were much more concerned about UO attitudes towards them than vice versa. This near-obsession seemed to reflect a degree of insecurity.