lo bashamayim hi
The current group of prevailing frum Rabbis(defined as you will) determines how to proceed. Those who follow will be considered frum, those who don't will follow Frankel. Where that puts raionalists is a bit scary but I suspect true
I'm pretty sure Krochmal's book was Moreh Nevukhei Ha-Zeman.
In general, you seem to be ignoring those who went down the path of "scientific" Judaism but reached different conclusions and remained frum, e.g. R. Azriel Hildesheimer and R. David Zvi Hoffmann. Today's practitioners would include R. Shnayer Z. Leiman and R. David Berger. In other words, intellectual Modern Orthodoxy.
>The current group of prevailing frum Rabbis (defined as you will)
That's a methodological problem, no?
> I'm pretty sure Krochmal's book was Moreh Nevukhei Ha-Zeman.
You're right, thanks.
>In general, you seem to be ignoring those who went down the path of "scientific" Judaism but reached different conclusions and remained frum, e.g. R. Azriel Hildesheimer and R. David Zvi Hoffmann. Today's practitioners would include R. Shnayer Z. Leiman and R. David Berger. In other words, intellectual Modern Orthodoxy.
That's true, but I just banged this post out almost without thinking, it was almost automatic writing. ;)
People like Rs. Leiman and Berger are perfect examples of what I meant by a "chevra". They exist and are nice people but they aren't necessarily so accesible, although I have gotten some help from Dr. Berger via email.
You're not really wrong, though. It just seems like a bind that a lot of us (okay, me) are in. Also, this isn't really an issue of remaining "frum", but rather Orthodox and not completely isolated intellectually. You can read all the Orthodox Forum books you like and forge an intellectual Orthodox path, but without real world reinforcement is can be daunting. Yes, I know the obvious solution, but still. It's a post.
Halivni's issue wasn't that he 'couldn't' find a halakhic basis for ordaining women. he and the CJLS decided,for whatever reason, that they shouldn't ordain women, and the issue was then put to the vote of the entire JTS faculty. Halivni's problem was that the halakhic process was placed into the hands of linguists.
Okay, but in his letter published in his memoir he claimed that he searched and couldn't find a basis. In fact, he also says that one of his motivations for teaching women Talmud is that he hopes to raise up a great female halakhist who will find the halakhic basis for it in the future.
I always knew you were one of the maskilim. Lets start a new strain of Judaism - Modern Orthodox Maskilim (MOM).
Are there "intellectual Modern Orthodox" who are acknowledged halchists/poskim? Without that element your problem persists.
One way for an "ivory tower intellectual" to become an acknowledged posek is to start writing teshuvos.
Unlikely as his academic intersts differ from those of a posek. It is unlikely that they would have the requiste breadth of knowledge and "shimush" that would make their psakim carry any weight
A few things:
I don't understand the story at the end - whats the significance of the handkerchief (that he didnt want to carry?)
Also, my Rebbe once said (not Rav Shachter) that the beauty of judaism in the 21st century is that you can be a maskil and still be frum. He's a well known orthodox-forum-type who you may know but I don't feel like naming here.
>I don't understand the story at the end - whats the significance of the handkerchief (that he didnt want to carry?)
Yes, that he was meticulous about shemiras shabbos.
In R. Rakefet-Rothkoff's book about RYBS there is a piece where the Rav talks about Rozenzweig's meticulous observance, but that he didn't know a lot of Gemara and was trying to remedy that.
Are there "intellectual Modern Orthodox" who are acknowledged halchists/poskim?
R. Aharon Lichtenstein, for one. There's a whole group of younger Hesder roshei yeshiva who fit into this group.
Does RAL ascribe to "modern scholarship" ala weissenschaft? I've never read anything by him that is along that line. Perhaps R Mordechai Breuer? R J Wieder is probably too "modern" to become become a posek that is along the lines of what you describe but seems to have the academic credentials and Talmudic/halchick knowledge.
See his article in Judaism's Encounter with Other Cultures, in which he discusses the value of incorporating modern methodologies into the study of Torah.
I should add that he doesn't necessarily do it himself, but many of his talmidim do. Just look at VBM.
VBM?
ah.
There are a few shiurim on some edgy topics on yutorah.org too.
I think that you've hinted at a major point: intellectual Orthodoxy is not sustainable. Too many will peek behind the curtain, and only a few will say "but I believe anyway." Remember what Gil said: "I will believe even if the evidence contradicts that belief." That's what it takes to remain Orthodox even if you're knowledgable. How many will so willfully curtail their critical thinking, especially if they're already by definition intellectually inclined?
Halivni's problem was that the halakhic process was placed into the hands of linguists.
Hey, what's wrong with linguists?! ;-) (j/k)
Godol:
I think the term Maskilim is too poisoned by now to be adopted.
Like a bad penny, Mis-nagid turns up again
Also, this:
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/
I think Rabbi Gil's post (and subsequent comments) affirms everything you are saying. Orthodxy is stuck.
On the UO hand, you have to be irrational and impute ill intent on all of secular (e.g., the scientists are conspiring against God).
On the MO hand, you have to live the irreconciable dialectic between the rational and the religious, which really makes you equally irrational. There is no such thing as qualified raitonalism.
http://zooshoteh.blogspot.com/
The real story of Slifkin that GH and Gil Student refuse to allow on their sites.
(Don't bother tracking my IP. I am using anonymizer)
"I think the term Maskilim is too poisoned by now to be adopted."
To that crowd, so is "Modern."
a valid point.
>(Don't bother tracking my IP. I am using anonymizer)
Don't be a moron. I haven't censored you or threatened to ban you.
>To that crowd, so is "Modern."
Not necessarily true. A recent article in Commentary attributed some of the modern phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred to conditions arising from the Haskalah. There are aspects of the Haskalah which are praiseworthy, and some less so, and not just to the UO.
ma'aseh about Franz Rozenzweig. It seems that he was visiting in England and given maftir one shabbos and he read the haftarah with emendations he had made in the text (!).
==== !!!!???? It was not Franz Rosenzweig (who is not known to have visited england). This famous incident was Moritz Steinschneider on the shabbat before the great Anglo-Jewish Historical exhibition of 1897 .....
"That's true, but I just banged this post out almost without thinking, it was almost automatic writing"
I know you are talking about alienation more than intellectual approaches, but the alienation IME is much lessened the less idealized the approach to the intellectual/critical "positive Historical" peeking behind the curtain (Or whatever you are calling it;-)).
This famous incident was Moritz Steinschneider on the shabbat
============== er, on rethinking, maybe Heinrich Graetz
-- but definitely 1897!
SORRY .. the definitive version:
1. The exhibition was in 1887, not 1897
2. It was 99% Graetz, who a) was one of the major guests of honour at the exhibition and b) was in addition to being a historian also a bible scholar, known for his Biblical emendations: "The most characteristic features of Graetz's exegesis are his bold textual emendations, which often substitute something entirely arbitrary for the Masoretic text, although he always carefully consulted the ancient versions." (Jewish encyclopedia). bGraetz was also staunchly orthodox, so the second half of the story would fit - tying your handkerchief round your neck was standard shabbat (non-eruv) practice in the UK right u until 20-30 years ago (and may well still be!).
R2B wrote: "On the MO hand, you have to live the irreconciable dialectic between the rational and the religious, which really makes you equally irrational."
Does not the tension between the two sides create faith? Rock solid belief, on either side, is intellectual laziness. To doubt is to re-learn how to believe. Can you really study if the person/class you're studying with does not/do not question?
Does not the tension between the two sides create faith? Rock solid belief, on either side, is intellectual laziness. To doubt is to re-learn how to believe. Can you really study if the person/class you're studying with does not/do not question?
I roundly the wrong person to answer these questions, since my answer to each is that I don't really know.
>==== !!!!???? It was not Franz Rosenzweig (who is not known to have visited england). This famous incident was Moritz Steinschneider on the shabbat before the great Anglo-Jewish Historical exhibition of 1897 .....
There's a version circulating about Rosenzweig too.
edit: Although on second though, perhaps I did read it about Graetz so if there's now a second version its MY fault.
My suggestion: Get yourself a "Rebbe." :)
Besides a regular Rebbe, get a "Rebbe" one who has this historical knowledge and still is frum. There are quite a few at YU, I would think:
Rabbi Carmy or Rabbi Elman. Dr. Steiner, Dr. Eichler.
Dr. Steinfeld, who is teaching a course this semester at JTS.
Commenting by HaloScan
