The recent letter from Agudath Israel of America’s Moetzes condemning R. Jonathan Sacks’ recent statements and pamphlet (“A Judaism Engaged With the World”) raises an important question. The wise rabbis of the council know the following two things:
- When you condemn someone influential, his admirers will not drop him. They will dismiss you, not him.
- We are now in the period of the Three Weeks, when any fighting is ill-advised.
Why would the Moetzes take the unpopular step of denouncing R. Sacks’ recent statements and demanding a retraction at this inauspicious time? The answer, I believe, is obvious. The Charedi community in Israel is facing unprecedented legal challenges that has it up in arms. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the new measures, you surely recognize that the Charedi community feels under attack.
R. Sacks’ farewell message inadvertently touched on that sore subject. In an act of defense against Israeli criticism of Charedim, in solidarity with the Israeli Charedim, the American Moetzes reacted to R. Sacks’ remarks.
Given the season, I have chosen not to respond on R. Sacks’ behalf. Instead, in the Nine Days spirit, I include below a passage from his book, One People?, about diversity within Orthodoxy.
One People?, pp. 92-93:
Orthodoxy is not a denomination. It encompasses astonishing variations. Partly, these are geographical: Russian, Polish, British, French, Italian, Yemenite, and American Jews all evolved their own syntheses of Jewish tradition and local culture. Partly, they are institutional: from the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries, each of the many Hasidic groups and each, too, of the many yeshivot developed its distinctive and indigenous style, from manners of dress to ways of analysing biblical and talmudic texts. Partly they are temperamental: the rational confidence of Samson Raphael Hirsch, the urgent mysticism of Abraham Isaac Kook, and the introspective conflicts of Joseph Soloveitchik could not be less alike. And partly, as we have seen, they are ideological, for different groups evolved widely different responses to modernity.Orthodoxy, then, is diverse. While it does not recognize the existence of alternative denominations, it does embrace a wide variety of different constructions. To what might we compare it? Perhaps the best analogy is a language. A language is determined by rules of syntax and semantics. But within that language an infinite number of sentences can be uttered or books written. Within it, too, there can be regional accents and dialects. Orthodoxy is determined by beliefs and commandments. These are its rules of syntax and semantics. But within that framework lies an open-ended multiplicity of cognitive, emotional, spiritual, and cultural styles.
Orthodoxy is not a denomination. It encompasses astonishing variations.
============================================’
An interesting exercise would be to make a chart with each variation listed on the rows and columns and for each row, enter which of the variations does that variation recognize lchatchila, bdieved or not at all as part of orthodoxy.
She-nir’eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
“The wise rabbis of the council know the following two things:
1. When you condemn someone influential, his admirers will not drop him. They will dismiss you, not him…”
What then is the Agudah’s purpose in alienating people from itself?
“What then is the Agudah’s purpose in alienating people from itself?
STBO”
Because they are not so wise.
And there is nothing new at all in CR Lord Sack’s pamphlet in regard to Cheradim. See Future Tense and The Great Partnership for example.
It has to do with the real possibility of his coming to the U.S.
AND GOING TO A NON-CHAREDI UNIVERSITY.
tHIS IS THEIR INTRODUCTION.
I found this on Harry Maryles’s comments’ page.
According to the Agudah statement he “referred to the multitude of Jews who came together to celebrate the Siyum HaShas nearly a year ago – an event that captured the hearts, minds and souls of countless Jews, and the reverent wonder of much of the non-Jewish world – as representative of such an “extreme.””
Up until now I never saw the full text of the CR’s remarks,just highlights, I downloaded his pamphlet that he distributed at his retirement and he writes the following:
“Meanwhile the world of inward-turning, segregationist Orthodoxy is growing at speed. in the summer of 2012, 70,000 crowded into a baseball stadium to celebrate the completion of daf Yomi, the seven-year cycle of daily Talmud study. Never before in all of history have so many Jews studied at yeshivot – not in the great days of mir and Volozhyn, not even in the academies of sura and Pumbeditha where the Babylonian Talmud was born.While the two extremes are growing, the centre is shrinking.”
Had he called out certain elements of the Charedi community, I would sort of get it. But he implied that a whole community, and used as an example the 70,000 (his number – it was actually about 90,000) people that attended the Siyum Hashas as representative of that community, are inward turning segregationists. As Agudah rightly pointed out that is just a blatantly ignorant stateme
So in my understanding he called the attendees at the Siyum HaShas representative of an “extreme”. That is indeed an outrageous statement and deserves Agudah’s condemnation.
STBO: What then is the Agudah’s purpose in alienating people from itself?
To stand up for Charedim when they are perceived to be under unprecedented attack in Israel.
MB: Because they are not so wise.
I think you are being unkind and unrealistic in your statement.
And there is nothing new at all in CR Lord Sack’s pamphlet in regard to Cheradim. See Future Tense and The Great Partnership for example.
I agree with you. It’s a combination of timing and that this is his main theme right now.
Moderate Charedi: As Agudah rightly pointed out that is just a blatantly ignorant stateme
So in my understanding he called the attendees at the Siyum HaShas representative of an “extreme”. That is indeed an outrageous statement and deserves Agudah’s condemnation.
I disagree. At most, he was wrong. But that alone does not deserve condemnation. But I’m not sure how wrong he was. While the attendees were not only Charedim, the entire event was a show of power by the Charedi establishment and used repeatedly to show its strength.
The interesting question is the reaction of the American amcha that looks up to the Agudah for Rabbinic leadership. Do they really want to be led by people who align themselves with the extremist rhetoric of the Israeli Charedi leadership?
And if they do, what are the implications for those like Harry Maryles that desperately want to maintain achdus with them, while reserving the right to criticize them on individual issues?
It’s ironic that those itching for schism within Orthodoxy may find it unexpectedly to their right, rather than to their long-term target on the left.
R’ IH,
I’m not sure anyone is itching for schism, just trying to define boundaries and fwiw I have always thought it more likely the split would come from my right rather than left because the outward differences are more obvious (if you don’t wear my uniform, you’re not one of unserer)
She-nir’eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
The siyum hashas was one of the greatest, most beautiful events in the history of American Orthodoxy. it happens to be most of the Daf Yomi learners are from the yeshivish velt so the event had a yeshiviah feel.
Rav Sacks chose to portray that incredible kiddush Hashem in a negative way?! That is inexcusable. And he is the one who is choosing to time this attack during the Three Weeks. The press termed his pamphlet an ‘attack’.
It is interesting that his attack was ignored, and only the (relatively) modest response was responded to and commented on.
Moderate Charedi: The siyum ha-shas is regularly used to show the growth of Charedi power. Using it to show the growth of Charedi power is not entirely wrong. When I read it, I disagreed with his usage. But I can understand why he did it.
He is articulating a Hirschian worldview by arguing for it and also by arguing against the opposites. He praises Charedim and even says their approach may have been appropriate in the twentieth century, following the Holocaust. But now, he says, we need to focus our community outwards. I don’t see anything wrong with doing it during the Three Weeks, although technically he did it before.
The following is a citation from harry Maryles’ blog:
Lord Sacks drew an equivalence between assimilated Jews “who embrace the world and reject Judaism, and those who embrace Judaism and reject the world.”
“It is an abdication of the role of Jews and Judaism in the world. We are here to engage with the world, to be true to our faith and a blessing to others regardless of their faith.”
Do you think there is an ‘equivalence’ between these two groups? Does comparing right wing Orthodoxy to assimilated Jews not qualify as an ‘attack’ against the right wing world?
Again, the word attack is taken from various news outlets’ description of Rabbi Sacks’ pamphlet.
Moderate Chareidi – “Had he called out certain elements of the Charedi community, I would sort of get it.”
I think the writer doesn’t get it and neither does Agudah. R’ Sacks is not calling these people extremists. they are perceived by themselves and others to be isolationists and segregationists. They do not want their children playing with “others” not like them – its there in the mo world too, they believe in the higher walls onto their enclaves (to keep out perceive threats). perhaps the example of siyum hashas that was organize by agudah was the wrong example in a paragraph using the word “extreme” – it was meant to show the growth in numbers that has not been there before in recent history. The growth in assimilation one side of the equation is matched (not saying numerically) by the growth in a certain brand of orthodoxy -that believes in separation as a motto – on the other side. these are two extremes of a continuum.
On R’ Sacks view on the other extreme – assimilation. he ignores the usa phenom -the growth in the unaffiliated. according to some we have enter an new era called ” American Post-Judaism: Identity and Renewal in a Postethnic Society” (shaul magid’s new book). which have important implications to the future of judaism in america(if he is right in his description): from a review:
“Magid identifies the creation of postethnic Judaism – a type of Judaism that does not take its identity from a tribal dynasty or a shared history, but from cultural values: things that are universal and suitable for everyone. In contrast to the Orthodox school of thought on the subject, he does not see this trend as the end of Judaism as a religion, or the end of Judaism as a culture.
while many Jews simply forget Judaism, others are choosing to adhere to it – though not as a tribal origin but as cultural capital and an ethical framework. These Jews adopt traditional elements such as Torah study and observance of the Sabbath (not necessarily according to Orthodox Halakha) and set out to perform social acts of Tikkun Olam. They are proud of their religion and disseminate it as an idea, not as a bloodline.”
Moderate Charedi: Don’t be ridiculous. It wasn’t an equivalence. He compared two opposite approaches on one issue in order to advocate a middle approach. Surely you agree that assimilationists and Charedim take opposite approaches.
“1.When you condemn someone influential, his admirers will not drop him. They will dismiss you, not him”
It’s more complicated than that. I revere the Moetzes and greatly respect R Sacks. I would like to know who exactly falls into his category of ‘worse than dangerous’.
Quite apart from that is that the moetzes wants THEIR OWN admirers to know where they stand.
“2.We are now in the period of the Three Weeks, when any fighting is ill-advised.”
What are you trying to say? That it’s a good thing R Sacks got his attack in *before* the three weeks?
“The answer, I believe, is obvious. The Charedi community in Israel is facing unprecedented legal challenges that has it up in arms. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the new measures, you surely recognize that the Charedi community feels under attack.”
I disagree with your answer. But if true, there would be an interesting historical parralel:
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/m_breuer_tide.pdf
“There was indeed one case when he [RSRH- as in Hirsch] acted with
special caution and self-denial; this was the objection of the
Ashkenazic rabbis of Jerusalem to the establishment of an
orphanage in the Holy City where the pupils would also acquire
general knowledge and vocational training. Contrary to Rabbi
Esriel Hildesheimer, Rabbi Hirsch was not prepared to arouse
the anger of the competent rabbis of Jerusalem and to rely upon
the evidence of travellers whom he did not consider sufficiently
trustworthy.”
In his letter printed in Shemesh Marpeh, RSRH also writes that only Rabbonim in Jerusalem can decide what’s best for them.
Just as a counterpoint to the uncharitable interpretation of R. Sacks’ remarks made by some here, in the following address, given at a celebratory melaveh malka for ‘The Beis’ (described on its website as “London’s foremost Mokom Torah for those wishing to combine serious learning with University study or work”), R. Sacks waxes lyrical about the importance of talmud torah. Note in particular R. Sacks’ remark, when describing the sight of scores of men learning into the night – “ashrei ha’ayin ra’asah kol eileh”:
http://www.thebeis.co.uk/listen.html?shiurid=340
IH-
“The interesting question is the reaction of the American amcha that looks up to the Agudah for Rabbinic leadership. Do they really want to be led by people who align themselves with the extremist rhetoric of the Israeli Charedi leadership?”
Yes. At least on my part. Then again, I also look up to R Moshe Feinstein despite what you call his ‘culture wars’.
“And if they do, what are the implications for those like Harry Maryles that desperately want to maintain achdus with them, while reserving the right to criticize them on individual issues?”
My guess is that you ‘maintain achdus with them’ and continue to ‘criticize them on individual issues’. But why don’t you ak R Harry yourself?
“It’s ironic that those itching for schism within Orthodoxy may find it unexpectedly to their right, rather than to their long-term target on the left.”
Can you define ‘schism’? Does it mean not davening in their shuls? Considering them Apikorsim/too fanatic to be around on a personal level? It’s not exactly as though Satmar Chassiddim daven in Young Israel as it is. Clearly there are disparate communities within O already- including some to my right.
My own view of a schism is an unbridgeable ideological/theological, and ultimately practical, gap similar to that expressed by R Avi Weiss about Conservative. What’s yours?
It could just be a misreading.
“Meanwhile the world of inward-turning, segregationist Orthodoxy is growing at speed. in the summer of 2012, 70,000 crowded into a baseball stadium to celebrate the completion of daf Yomi, the seven-year cycle of daily Talmud study. Never before in all of history have so many Jews studied at yeshivot – not in the great days of mir and Volozhyn, not even in the academies of sura and Pumbeditha where the Babylonian Talmud was born.While the two extremes are growing, the centre is shrinking.”
1. “Inward-turning, segregationist” are not necessarily pejorative terms, and would be embraced by many chareidim.
2. R. Sacks’ use of the siyyum ha-shas has no negative valence, and if anything has a positive valence. Is it even thinkable that R. Sacks would exclaim how “never before in history have so many Jews studied in yeshivot” with the underlying intention of saying that this should not be so, that this is a travesty? Clearly he is a product of and proponent of strong Torah education, and here he is describing the remarkable triumph of one aspect of that cause, not without a twinge of pride.
3. The reference to extremes is an accurate one, that many Chareidim would also accept. It does not have to mean “extremist” which in our time has come to mean “terrorist”. Clearly R. Sacks finds something redemptive in both the Torah extreme and the cosmopolitan extreme, and like many tzadikim is speaking to a space in between that does not exist as thrivingly in our time as, i”yH it could in the future.
Sometimes the ability to parse gemara doesn’t translate into a reasonable reception of prose; and, of course, vice versa.
P.S. a simple “nevertheless” or “yet” before “while the two extremes are growing…” (which a charitable reader would have provided automatically) might have dispelled the whole complaint.
while many Jews simply forget Judaism, others are choosing to adhere to it – though not as a tribal origin but as cultural capital and an ethical framework. These Jews adopt traditional elements such as Torah study and observance of the Sabbath (not necessarily according to Orthodox Halakha) and set out to perform social acts of Tikkun Olam.
Lots of buzzwords there, but what does it mean in practice? Of the vast numbers of unaffiliated Jews in America, what percentage regularly study Torah (to take your example)? Unfortunately I’d guess it’s miniscule. And for all the talk of tikkun olam, do unaffiliated Jews actually do more social volunteer work on average than either Orthodox Jews or non-Jews?
“Magid identifies the creation of postethnic Judaism – a type of Judaism that does not take its identity from a tribal dynasty or a shared history, but from cultural values: things that are universal and suitable for everyone.
I was going to bring up the issues of Jewish continuity in non-denominational communities.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/demographic_duo/item/all_our_kids_married_out
But I guess if anyone who accepts the Democratic party platform is to be considered a Jew, then we have no further demographic worries, our numbers grow by over a million every year.
Shlomo — See Tomer Persico’s review of Magid’s book in Ha’aretz or a more complete version is at: http://tomerpersicoenglish.wordpress.com/2013/07/07/american-post-judaism-on-shaul-magids-new-book/
As background:
Personally, I find Jewish Renewal completely uninteresting; but, I note their outpost on the UWS — Romemu — has been very successful.
The central point here is tht Rabbi Sacks proposing a creative form of ‘manifesto’ which I imagine is both practicable and appealing to many Jews who are searching for ways to sanctify daily life through positive engagement.
Yes, some of his phraseology should have been tighter but a reader who is ‘dan lecaf zechus’ should prioritise substance over form, focusing on the ikar.
R.Sacks’ criticism would therefore in this context refer to those who do not want to engage and share the beauty of Yahadus with others.
Can someone explain to me how the vision Rabbi Sacks presented is any different than what the Rav writes in Confrontation and Lonely Man of Faith? Why all this controversy now?
I think that only someone out to get R’ Sacks could read something negative into his remarks on the Siyum HaShas. The word “extreme” is, first, not used to directly refer to the siyum; also, criticism reflects a lack of literacy, or at least American vs. British English: An “extreme” is the far end of something. Zero degrees and 100 degrees are both “extremes,” that doesn’t imply any sort of value judgment that the word “extremist” does.
(I especially like all the people who try to defend the Moetzes by citing criticisms the Moetzes didn’t seem to notice.)
(Also parenthetically, how are we to know the whole thing wasn’t written and issued by, say, Shafran? His word? There are not even any signatures.)
(Also, I like how the Moetzes feels obligated to say, “We ARE worldly! You’re wrong!” thus, in essence, proving R’ Sacks’ view to be the correct one. Of course, the examples they prove aren’t exactly shining- business, kiruv, and getting government benefits. The first two at least are positive, but not really worldly behavior. So they try to match up to R’ Sacks’ standards, ironically, while still failing.)
However, I think people are missing the funniest detail: As any American knows, the Siyum HaShas was not held in a *baseball* stadium but in a *football* stadium- the largest NFL stadium, in fact. To my eyes- and I love R’ Sacks- I see a distinct “Those uncouth Americans with their strange sports and customs, having a siyum in a *stadium.*”
daat y.: Interesting! R’ Lamm retires, R’ Sacks retires, and…hmmm!
This is why Gil very cleverly headlined the Aguda’s statement, “Agudah Denounces Hirschian Outlook”.
Nachum — I’ve been to several corporate functions held at Emirates (Arsenal) stadium in London when there was no game. http://events.arsenal.com/events_meetings.htm
I think R Sacks can end this whole thing now by spelling out exactly who he was referring to.
“(I especially like all the people who try to defend the Moetzes by citing criticisms the Moetzes didn’t seem to notice.)”
Are you referring to me? If yes,can you be more explicit in how I ‘try to defend the Moetzes by citing criticisms the Moetzes didn’t seem to notice’?
“(Also parenthetically, how are we to know the whole thing wasn’t written and issued by, say, Shafran? His word? There are not even any signatures.)”
And if there WERE signatures? How do we know any organizations’ leaders are represented in public statements. (IIRC that’s why R Chaim Brisker was opposed to Agudah in the first place)
“(Also, I like how the Moetzes feels obligated to say, “We ARE worldly! You’re wrong!” thus, in essence, proving R’ Sacks’ view to be the correct one.”
Huh? They’re saying his critiscm is faulty because it describes a relity that doesn’t exist!
“However, I think people are missing the funniest detail: As any American knows, the Siyum HaShas was not held in a *baseball* stadium but in a *football* stadium- the largest NFL stadium, in fact.”
I noticed that as well. Someone brought it up Saturday night in the discussion between R. Avi Shafran and R. Eliyahu Fink on Zev Brenner about the Agudah statement.
On a similar note, one of the speakers at the Siyum Hashas from outside America talked about *kicking* a ball at Met Life Stadium(football=soccer).
My previous comment (as well a part of this one) was adressed to Nachum:
“(Also, I like how the Moetzes feels obligated to say, “We ARE worldly! You’re wrong!” thus, in essence, proving R’ Sacks’ view to be the correct one. …. So they try to match up to R’ Sacks’ standards, ironically, while still failing.)”
I don’t know where you got the idea that the Agudah has any interest in trying ‘to match up to R’ Sacks’ standards’.
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/07/04/statement-from-agudath-israel-of-america/
“Portraying the “ultra-Orthodox” world as detached from awareness of, and interaction with, the larger world betrays an astounding ignorance of reality. Not only are charedim in the workplace and the “outside world,” but the charedi universe has played a leading role, if not the leading role, in outreach to the rest of the Jewish community with a wealth of chesed, limud haTorah and kiruv projects. Many charedi-sponsored initiatives touch the non-Jewish world as well. Charedi communities have developed healthy, sophisticated relationships with their governmental representatives and public institutions. Rabbi Sacks appears not to know the world he arrogates to judge.”
Do you hear them claiming they have PhD’s? I don’t.
joripo-
I haven’t read R Sacks’ whole speech. Did he say that “Jews who choose to “embrace Judaism and reject the world” as parts of a phenomenon he calls “worse than dangerous” and “an abdication of the role of Jews and Judaism in the world.””? And if yes, who was he referring to?
If R. Sacks would mean like R. Belovski’s article here, would there be the same objection ?
http://www.ou.org/jewish_action/09/2007/avoiding_the_slide_into_extremism/
“Much has been written about the “slide to the right” in the Orthodox community. Professor Samuel Heilman devoted his most recent work to the American manifestation of this phenomenon; blogs and social commentators refer to the topic increasingly frequently. This “slide” has a number of expressions, including a creeping tendency towards stringency in halachah, growing uniformity of practice and garb and the increased role of rabbinical regulation in all aspects of life, including those previously considered outside of its purview. In some places, such changes have been accompanied by the proliferation of restrictions on personal autonomy, the preaching of a narrow and homogeneous version of Judaism, growing rejection of the secular world and its aspirations and the promulgation of bans against those who express dissenting opinions. Examples from early 2007 include the attempt to introduce segregated buses in religious districts in Israel, the restrictions imposed on women’s higher education in Chareidi schools there and the decision of a school in the United Kingdom to refuse admission to children whose mothers drive.”
“…The Torah community is still recovering from the devastating losses of the European Holocaust, during which the bulk of its leadership, infrastructure and adherents were annihilated. The religious world has risen with astonishing success to the apparently insurmountable challenge of rebuilding what the Nazis destroyed. Yet this has not been without cost. It is obvious that the urgency to reconstruct the religious world demanded an extraordinary degree of commitment and a desire to focus completely on the holy task at hand—at the expense of any involvement with the outside world. The success of this enterprise was articulated by the Slonimer Rebbe who remarked that “we are seeing with our own eyes the most amazing phenomenon of our generation: suddenly, a generation has risen and prospered, a generation of Torah and meticulous attention to the commandments. The houses of learning blossom again and the halls of the Chassidim thrive in all their glory.” Despite this astounding achievement (which the Slonimer Rebbe attributed to Divine intervention), it has been argued that the process now needs to change direction. Coupled with an understandable acute mistrust of the Gentile world that gave rise to Nazism, this focus on rebuilding in the aftermath of the Holocaust has fostered an insular society so exceedingly protective of its position that it sometimes exhibits symptoms of extremism. The historian Rabbi Berel Wein has suggested that some parts of the Orthodox world behave as though the destruction of European Judaism took place just a few years ago, rather than two generations ago.”
A personal attack on R.Sacks as he ends his tenure to me says there is much more that is personal here. Why did the Agudah not
talk in terms of the Chief Rabbinate of Great Britian?
Why attack him now and not inearlier years.
I maintain that this is their headquarters for their future relationship toward him.
“MB: Because they are not so wise.
Gil Student”I think you are being unkind and unrealistic in your statement.”
Sorry, but they have been issuing a lot of unwise statements lately.
Also, I’m assuming CR Sack’s pamphlet was written months ago and included parts verbatim from previous works, including the Syum Ha Shas comment.
And to those that don’t think CR Sacks holds Torah study and Torah scholars in the highest esteem, I’m guessing you’ve never read a word of his.
IH – You have just shown what an apikorus you are. If you were a true believing jew, you would support Tottenham Hotspurs and would never step into the Arsenal stadium!
Shkoyach, groinem. I’m still smiling…
Has anyone noticed that “arrogates to judge” is meaningless? To arrogates means to appropriate. Perhaps they were trying to say: “arrogates the right to judge”.
Interesting demonstration of worldliness.
>STBO: What then is the Agudah’s purpose in alienating people from itself?
R’ Gil: To stand up for Charedim when they are perceived to be under unprecedented attack in Israel.
When a group is under attack doesn’t it typically solicit allies rather than pick new fights with onlookers?
Really: calling the statements of the orthodox Chief Rabbi “un-Jewish” (!) and “uncouth” (!!) and accusing him of “turn[ing] his back on the ideals he has ably championed for many years” (including “the fostering of true Jewish unity”)?! Who thought of this??? How is it not simple hotza’as laz? I really find it shocking.
R’ Nachum: yes, I immediately noticed the same thing in the Agudah’s statement. Almost as if it is saying: ‘He’s wrong, we *are* worldly! And we’re successful because we’re *not* worldly! And who said worldliness is so great anyway?!’
“Moderate Charedi on July 8, 2013 at 9:53 am
The siyum hashas was one of the greatest, most beautiful events in the history of American Orthodoxy.”
repeating
” mycroft on August 25, 2012 at 11:37 pm
“joel rich on August 25, 2012 at 9:32 pm
R’Mycroft,
I suppose the public policy question is especially given that the daf yomi train has left the station, is more lost than gained by trying to wean folks away? Especially if one focuses on the hours learned not the results?”
The mitzvah of talmud torah is learning-how many are learning? See Chakirah article from about 2009 about Daf Yomi and requirements for learning.
The 90000 who attended Met Life Stadium included what percentage who learnt Daf Yomi? Of relatives of mine-my sister-in-law and her daughter attended-I can assure you neither learnt Daf Yomi.
Since Daf Yomi has been a major PR organizational success for the Agudah they must continue pushing the Daf.
Much more effective learning would be done by practically all if they spent even half thetime learning then they spent “doing the daf”
Daf yomi has always been an Agudah production that is why I have no objection when they were not going to give kavod to a YU president at their siyyum-the siyyum Hashas has always been a demonstration of power by Agudah.
“Can someone explain to me how the vision Rabbi Sacks presented is any different than what the Rav writes in Confrontation and Lonely Man of Faith?”
How did the Agudah treat the Rav-see eg their famous “obituary” of the Rav in the JO.
“Then again, I also look up to R Moshe Feinstein despite what you call his ‘culture wars’. ”
Has anyone ever written a study of RMF and his hashkafa and how it relates to his psak?
You can download a discussion between R. Avi Shafran and R. Eliyahu Fink on the Zev Brenner Show about the Agudah statement this past M. Shabbos.
http://finkorswim.com/2013/07/09/my-appearance-with-rabbi-shafran-on-talkline-with-zev-brenner/
“Really: calling the statements of the orthodox Chief Rabbi “un-Jewish” (!) and “uncouth” (!!) and accusing him of “turn[ing] his back on the ideals he has ably championed for many years” (including “the fostering of true Jewish unity”)?! Who thought of this??? How is it not simple hotza’as laz? I really find it shocking.”
1) Actually there’s a backhanded compliment there; they’re saying he has ably championed ideals for many years.
2) They do NOT in any way attack his character. They attack his statements.
3) They in fact leave open the idea that he in fact meant no ill. The last sentence reads: We call on him to apologize for the derision and condescension that, intentionally or not, were embodied in his recent remarks and writing.
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2013/07/04/statement-from-agudath-israel-of-america/
I just read Rabbi Sacks’ pamphlet and it leaves me even more disappointed with the response of the Aguda. There is a noticeable dearth of intellect in that pamphlet. It looks like a publication for the lowest common denominator. I remember his predecessor, Rabbi Jakobowitz and see the yeridas hadoros with this intellectual lightweight as his successor. The Aguda was shooting fish in a barrel, and they should have done a better job.
The basic idea is that segregation has always been a Jewish way of life. This, through most of history, was not by choice. However, when the walls were broken down, there was not one Jewish heavyweight who accepted the idea of embracing the outside world. The world had, at the time, the Chasam Sofer and Rabbi Akiva Eiger, the ketzos and the Nesivos and Reb Chaim Volozhiner and his illustrious talmidim. We have no information on any innovative attitude to the outside world. Even later, there is no Torah heavyweight that accepted this belief.
Of course you will answer with Reb Shamshon Refoel Hirsh. Even if he did disagree with everybody else, why should we accept a da’as yochid over the overwhelming majority of Talmidei Chachomim. Which sefer do we use when deciding a halocho; Chasam Sofer or Shemesh Marpeh? Additionally, it would greatly surprise me if RSRH was of the same belief as Rabbi Sacks. The Yekkes I knew growing up were not products of the outside society. In fact, they were more likely to be extremely anti-zionists and to generally have a strong backbone of their own opinion, without caring for any outside ideas. TIDE is not the Tora Umada of YU. It is an understanding of the internal belief system of Judaism and a greater acceptance of gashmiyus and olam hazeh in the grand scheme of things than that of the ba’alei mussar or chassidim or the mekubalim. I do not believe he would advocate having internet or TV at home, or following sports or the discarding of a distinctive Jewish attire.
A friend of mine asked Rabbi SHimon Schwab if he was against being machmir on Yoshon. He said “My objections are not to eating Yoshon, it is to those who make sure to eat Yoshon, but the rest of them is completely chodosh”, an obvious dig at his neighbors in Upper Manhattan.
You will also use the name of RYBS and claim that he accepted Torah Umada. Again, his opinion against the Talmidei Chachomim of the generation immediately preceding and following the Holocaust should be, to an objective outsider, a da’as yochid. The Talmidei Chachomim of the time, recognizable intellectual giants such as the Chazon Ish and the Tchebiner Rov, the Brisker Rav and Reb Moshe Feinstein, Reb Aaron Kotler and Reb Reuven Grozovsky did not accept such an innovation. Rabbi Sacks is hardly a Talmid of these people, let alone their bar plugta.
I asked the Gateshead Rov zt”l why he felt he had to publicly condemn Rabbi Sacks’ other book. He did not know what I meant with the question. I don’t remember his exact language, but the gist was that any kefira like that which was printed there must be condemned. Most Rabbonim in England at the time did not see the point. They claimed that he does not represent us and whatever he writes will not be taken as an authentic Jewish opinion. It seems the Gateshead Rov zt”l understood the outside society better than them and he knew the devastating effects his apologetic and defeatist attitude to Judaism could engender.
why should we accept a da’as yochid over the overwhelming majority of Talmidei Chachomim.
============================================
Would you ask the chassidim to lay down their arms since the Besht was a data yachid?
She-nir’eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,
One can certainly take issue with certain aspects of CR Sacks’ valedictory speech and pamphlet, but one need not have done so in such a knee jerk manner. FWIW, I disagree with CR Sacks and R Gil’s assessment of the Sium HaShas-the message is not Charedi growth and power, but rather a night dedicated to Talmud Torah BRabim VLomdehah.
I previously wroten on a related subject:
“Re CR Sacks essay-Let me note the following:
1) there is a huge difference between American MO and what passes for MO in the UK.
2) there is a huge difference between the American Charedi world and the British Charedi world. I would argue that the American yeshiva world, whether in Lakewood or other venues, is far more engaged with the secular American world than the UK CXharedi world-whether in Gateshead or Stamford Hill. Perhaps, that is due to the greater tolerance of distinct minorities in the US than in the UK.
3) The best way of demonstrating the relevance and eternal nature of Jewish values is by intensive study of Torah and exposure to Jewish observance in a positive and profound manner, as opposed to either what is called in vogue “service learning” which has become popular in some segments of MO in the US and/or debates with secular celebrities whose antipathy to organized religion of all sripes is well known. Neither “service learning” nor debates will inspire the large majority of a spiritually apathetic generation to explore their Jewish roots in detail or provide them with a uniquely and/or inherently Jewish experience, as opposed to become a fine secular humanist who is a wonderful human being. Both RYBS , as cited by CR Sacks, and the CI, in Emunah UBitachon sressed that Halacha is the root and source of Jewish philosophy. One cannot talk about mutual responsibility without a basic grounding in the principles elucidated in the issues in Elu Metzios, HaMafkid, etc.
CR Sacks, in his noting the attendance at the Siyum HaShas, IMO, and WADR missed why most attended the Siyum. While many attendees did finish the Daf Yomi cyle, many attended as a means of celebrating and underscoring the centrality of Torah study and observance in today’s Orthodox world”
I think Agudah should have noted the following praise R Sacks wrote:
“With an intensity of commitment that is nothing short of awe-inspiring, the survivors married and had children and rebuilt their lost communities, growing from sheirit hapeletah, a tiny remnant, to become a significant presence in contemporary Jewish life”.(pg 9)
“Never before in all of history have so many Jews studied at yeshivot – not in the great days of mir and Volozhyn, not even in the academies of sura and Pumbeditha where the Babylonian Talmud was born(pg 13.)”.
R Shafran said on Talkline(see MP3 on Eliyahu Fink’s blog) that R Sacks used too broad a brush, and if he would have criticized insularity vs. integration in less broad terms, they would not have objected, IIRC. Imagine, if instead of Agudah criticizing a specific book or speech of R. Lamm, they criticized the entire YU institution, as well as the OU. That’s how the Agudah seems to understand R. Sacks’ message–there is something dangerous about the entire Charedei world, rather than certain degrees of insularity, or their being pluses and minuses to it.
R. Shafran was asked why they didn’t first call R Sacks, and he explained why he felt it wasn’t necessary. I still think Agudah should have made a courtesy call. Maybe R Sacks would have either clarified or apologized for his remarks or how they were perceived, and this publicity could have been avoided. As Chazal said, Moshe made an overture to reach out to Korach,
וישלח משה וגו’: מכאן שאין מחזיקין במחלוקת, שהיה משה מחזר אחריהם להשלימם בדברי שלום
From here we derive that one should not persist in a dispute, because Moses sought them out to conciliate them with peaceful words. — [Mid. Tanchuma Korach 10, Sanh. 110a]
“in his noting the attendance at the Siyum HaShas, IMO, and WADR missed why most attended the Siyum. While many attendees did finish the Daf Yomi cyle, many attended as a means of celebrating and underscoring the centrality of Torah study and observance in today’s Orthodox world”
Certainly many attended to show homage to the Agudah world-thus in other demonstrations eg against Internet-many attended not because they necessarily agreed with the message but they had to show up to show homage to the organizers-similarly true with the Aguedahs biggest power play of every 7 and 1/2 years. I have always maintained it is their party and they can honor whom they wish thus I had no objections if they chose not to honor important YU figures. Of course, money talks and they ultimately did honor because a major contributor was a friend of the that important YU figure.
Joel – You are being facetious, right?
Besides the facts not being the way you say, the analogy is wrong. If the question was about Misnagdim staying Misnagdim in the face of chassidus, your analogy would be right. Here the Chossid is trying to stop the Misnaged staying a Misnaged. The one who is continuing the old way is being asked to give up his hashkofo for a da’as yochid.
The Agudah response is not about engaging or not engaging with the secular world, it is about terming those who choose not to engage a danger. However, this was certainly not the Chief Rabbi’s intent, and this “controversy” is purely a result of those reporters and bloggers who presented his ideas inaccurately. For more see:
http://www.mohoshiv.com/segregation-vs-engagement-pt-2/
Rabbi Sacks in his farewell drasha was speaking to his constituency, which is Modern Orthodox. He could have forced them to face their challenges instead of attacking Chareidim. (And it was an attack – that is the way it was described in every media report)
I saw a similar thing in Los Angeles a few months ago. I live in a different area but I was in the Pico Robertson area for Shabbos. Rabbi Sacks was speaking Shabbos afternoon. This was a Drasha that was advertised for weeks and it looked like the entire community came out to hear him. Here was his chance to inspire a community to become more committed to Mitzvos, Limud HaTorah and Bein Adam Lchaverio. What did he speak about? How the Chareidim are the problem facing Jewry. (Never mind that there are almost no Chareidim around for miles!). The crowd drank it up! It’s just as they thought all along. We are doing great. If only if those Chareidim would see the light, Mashiach would come!
On the way to the drasha, I passed a large basketball game. Boys and girls in shorts, some with Yarmulkas, some without. I was told that they’re all frum kids. Wouldn’t have it been better had he addressed how we can inspire these kids to have some feeling for Shabbos?
Contrast this to the Chareidi leadership. For the last 20 years I have been going to hear the Roshei Yeshiva and Mashgichim when they come to Los Angeles and speak at shuls on Shabbos. Their Drashos always are pushing people to dedicate more time to Limud Hatorah, Bein Adam Lchaveiro, the pitfalls of modern technology etc. The message always challenges you to improve. It’s never a message that we are great, but if only those modern Orthodox would just change…
The modern orthodox community in LA wonders why most of their kids who get turned on to Torah become Chareidi. It’s easy to understand. Take the kid who is inspired to leave his basketball game and attend a drasha Shabbos afternoon . In one community he will hear a complacent and patronizing message, pandering to the crowd, that all is great with you and yours. In another he will be challenged. Which do you think he will choose?
I wasn’t there during R. Sacks’ speech, but an approach might be to acknowledge what one can learn from the other side, as noted below from R. Yitzchak Blau(R. Shmuel Goldin did this, for example, when he recently spoke in Toronto with R. Shafran). Another point, as noted below from Rabbi Dr. Aharon Hersh Fried, is that every group faces the same problems, no matter the height of the fences:
“The preceding paragraphs should not be our main focus; we cannot build an identity upon attacking other groups. Nonetheless, Modern Orthodox spokesmen need to explain why we prefer our path, an endeavor that sometimes involves noting the shortcomings of alternative models. I imagine a critic responding that doing so will mean our functioning in the very same way as the Ḥaredi world we criticize. Can we resent their triumphalism while emphasizing the advantages of our approach?
I would answer in the affirmative. First of all, our educators will not cover up the rabbinic authorities who disagree with our positions. We will teach the many dissenting rabbinic voices even as we affirm the religious value of worldly wisdom and the State of Israel. Secondly, we will confess the dangers inherent on our positions as well as the advantages of other approaches. The complexity of life usually means that approaches include positives and negatives. Finally, we will attempt to learn from what other communities have to offer. If the Ḥaredi world has more successfully internalized the need to avoid bittul Torah, we should admit it and go about trying to improve. In this manner, we can avoid excessive flag waving even as we argue strongly for Modern Orthodoxy.”
(R. Yitzchak Blau, Orthodox Forum, “Contemporary Challenges for Modern Orthodoxy”)
” I should also point out that I am not talking about one or another isolated segment of our community. To different degrees the problem of “children at risk” or “children alienated from, or just cold and indifferent to, Yiddishkeit” exists about equally in every segment of the frum community, from the very chassidic, through the yeshivish, to the Modern Orthodox. I don’t really see any fundamental differences between the fences built by Torah Vodaath, Chaim Berlin, and the Mir and the fences built by Satmar, Skver, Bobov, and Gur, certainly not in the past 10-15 years. My experience is that even the more “Modern Orthodox” have similar, though lower, fences, accompanied by similar problems and conflicts. Thus each group at its level ought to look at what it is doing.”
(Rabbi Dr. Aharon Hersh Fried, Hakirah, “Are Our Children Too Worldly?”)
Steve – You compare Stamford Hill to Lakewood? Stamford Hill, today, is the same as Williamsburg or Kiryas Joel. Gateshead is not Lakewood, and you are right that the reason is more connected to the tolerance of the secular society in the US than any internal opinions amongst the Charedim.
The MO in England seem to be more at ease with themselves. They seem to be less defensive and have no need to have their own gedolim, unlike their American counterparts, who are desperate to prove that RYBS is the equivalent of RMF and RAL is on par with Rav Shteinman. MO never recognized the ideal of Da’as Torah and Gedolim and the British MO keep up that proud tradition.
Moshe Levy: Sadly, most people don’t like to be challenged.
Nachum – That isn’t the point. When a guest Rabbi comes to town, he will never inspire everyone. He can give one speech and will relate to a specific amount of the townspeople. The logical place to try is with those who are available to be inspired anyway. Those who don’t want to be challenged have nothing to gain from the speech anyway. But if the guest were to use his time advocating Torah growth and challenging people, at least those people who are available will leave inspired. This way of speaking, bashing others, is just negativity and Lashon HoRa, not even justifiable as constructive. When Kanoim bash others, they at least justify it as a method of preventing outside influences, but this is plain hatred.
Well written Moshe Levy
Groinem wrote:
“The MO in England seem to be more at ease with themselves. They seem to be less defensive and have no need to have their own gedolim, unlike their American counterparts, who are desperate to prove that RYBS is the equivalent of RMF and RAL is on par with Rav Shteinman. MO never recognized the ideal of Da’as Torah and Gedolim and the British MO keep up that proud tradition”
Actually, MO, and especially RYBS’s talmidim and their talmidim viewed RYBS as a Baal Mesorah with as an equal right to a POV on Halacha and Hashkafa as RMF and RAK. The Amercian Charedi world, to this day, never understood this and continues, as you do , to denigrate RYBS. OTOH, the notion of Daas Torah, which is a huge logical jump from either Emunas Chachamim, has assumed a sense of infallibility that one finds attributed to none of the Avos, Imahos, Moshe Rabbeinu, the Mraglim or Dor HaMidbar. It is clearly a huge jump from the eminently admirable and deeply rooted view of Ahavas Torah and Ahavas HaShem being rooted in one’s enthusiasm for Limud HaTorah and Shmiras HaMitzvos.
Shades of Gray wrote in part:
“The preceding paragraphs should not be our main focus; we cannot build an identity upon attacking other groups. Nonetheless, Modern Orthodox spokesmen need to explain why we prefer our path, an endeavor that sometimes involves noting the shortcomings of alternative models. I imagine a critic responding that doing so will mean our functioning in the very same way as the Ḥaredi world we criticize. Can we resent their triumphalism while emphasizing the advantages of our approach”
I would emphasize that RYBS had a Mesorah and that by following his talmidim you are identifying with the same in terms of Halacha and Hashkafa.
“Actually, MO, and especially RYBS’s talmidim and their talmidim viewed RYBS as a Baal Mesorah with as an equal right to a POV on Halacha and Hashkafa as RMF and RAK. The Amercian Charedi world, to this day, never understood this and continues, as you do , to denigrate RYBS. OTOH, the notion of Daas Torah, which is a huge logical jump from either Emunas Chachamim, has assumed a sense of infallibility that one finds attributed to none of the Avos, Imahos, Moshe Rabbeinu, the Mraglim or Dor HaMidbar. It is clearly a huge jump from the eminently admirable and deeply rooted view of Ahavas Torah and Ahavas HaShem being rooted in one’s enthusiasm for Limud HaTorah and Shmiras HaMitzvos”
Agreed.
“I would emphasize that RYBS had a Mesorah and that by following his talmidim you are identifying with the same in terms of Halacha and Hashkafa.”
Agreed but should be read in conjunction with the following quote from Prof Waxman:
.” My central argument is that his stature derived from his public involvement in every issue of focal concern to the identity of American Jews who define themselves as modern Orthodox, as well as his position, for almost a half-century, in the premier institution of higher learning of American Orthodox Jewry. As a result, even if most of those who identify as modern Orthodox have not heard, read, or understood The Rav, this has not hampered his status; indeed, it possibly enhanced it. Likewise, the fact that some non-Modern Orthodox view him as in their camp does not minimize his impact on Modern Orthodoxy. He was, indeed, a very complex person and was different to different people: Moshe Meiselman’s view of him is different from Herschel Schachter’s, whose view is different from Lawrence Kaplan’s; David Singer and Moshe Sokol’s view of him is different from that of Walter Wurzburger a”h, whose view is different from David Hartman’s; some recall him as a wonderful teacher, while others recall him as very impatient and intolerant with many students who did not meet his demanding standards of intellectual accomplishment. In some ways, he is reminiscent of Rambam, in that there are those who know him as a philosopher but are totally unaware of his Halakha, and vice versa. None of that need concern us as we seek to understand how he became the religious and intellectual leader of Modern Orthodoxy.”
Gil – your censorship of something critical of the MO belief in RYBS proves my point. The US MO is still not comfortable enough in its own skin without their own semblance of Gedolim and infallibility.
Back to Rabbi Sacks’ point. He claims that Judaism has a lot to offer the outside world and we would be remiss bu not utilizing this opportunity. He does not prove this point. The Gemoro says that the day the Torah was translated for the outside world was a sad day for Yidden. Our Torah was supposed to be internal not looking outward.
The ideas of Tikun olam and ohr lagoyim do not feature too much in Jewish ethics over the years. Nefesh Hachayim does not mention them and I don’t remember seeing it in the writings of the Vilna Gaon or the Rishonim. The debates with Xtians were forced upon those Rishonim that took part in them and we don’t find them from the Rishonim that lived in a less religious society. It was only after the Reform movement came along that these ideas entered the national discourse and a minority of Orthodox Talmidei Chachomim also mentioned it, but it never was the mainstream ideal of Talmidei Chachomim.
One thing just occurred to me regarding the criticism of R’ Sacks’ line about the Siyum HaShas: The Agudah’s easy assumption that not only the Siyum, but Daf Yomi as a whole, belongs to them, and the Charedi world. This is of course nonsense: Daf Yomi may have been proposed at an Agudah convention, but once the very first day was announced, there’s really been no more work required, or done, to keep it going. Of course, most shiurim are started and go on with no involvement by the Agudah at all. And while Agudah may run the main (no longer only) US Siyum, thus reinforcing the idea that Daf Yomi is “theirs,” a look at the many, many siyumim held in Israel- only one or two sponsored by the Agudah- easily disproves this point.
In short: R’ Sacks, as I’ve pointed out, was in no way criticizing the Siyum. (See the different meanings of “extreme.”) But even if he was, that’s certainly not criticizing Daf Yomi or learning in general!