tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post8870144500249325760..comments2024-01-04T19:35:00.635-08:00Comments on ThanBook: Post-Orthodox or Pre-Orthodox?thanbohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06197564008203120013noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-85660114903018900772010-01-28T04:44:54.336-08:002010-01-28T04:44:54.336-08:00Rabbi Student's latest piece is simply crimina...Rabbi Student's <a href="http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-did-we-get-here.html" rel="nofollow">latest piece</a> is simply <b>criminal</b>. His final section is the most damning. <br /><br />He says (I've added section-numbers for reference), <i>(1) Because it [viz. the rise of Post-Orthodoxy] was inevitable, we can't look to see where the Modern Orthodox leadership have lost in Post-Orthodox circles and identify those issues as failures. Instead, we have to estimate how bad it would have otherwise been. Maybe by not confronting Biblical Criticism they lessened its impact on our community.<br /><br />(2) Modern Orthodox leaders led on social issues but not on theological issues. On which set did they lose more? I suggest the social. It could be for other reasons but, perhaps, the very act of protesting made the problem worse. Or, we could look at it and say that it would have otherwise been much worse. Social issues could have torn the community in half but, because of the strong leadership, only a small portion has turned Post-Orthodox.</i><br /><br />Let me translate into a less verbose form:<br /><br /><i>(1) Post-Orthodoxy would have occurred anyway, so we cannot blame the rabbinic leadership AT ALL. They are totally blameless. We cannot attribute any errors or mistakes to them, because they have Daas Torah, and Post-Orthodoxy would have occurred without them anyway, so they cannot be at fault.<br /> <br />(2) Modern Orthodox authorities DID take social positions, and therefore, if Post-Orthodoxy exists, it must be despite (not because of) the positions the rabbis took.</i><br /><br />My reaction:<br /><br /><i>(1) I reject Daas Torah, and I'll say that maybe the rabbis WERE wrong. You cannot just assume that the MO rabbis are correct, and that Post-Orthodoxy is wrong. This begs the question.<br /><br />(2) Maybe the MO authorities took the WRONG position! Rabbi Student is assuming that the MO authorities took the correct social positions, and that therefore, Post-Orthodoxy must be DESPITE the good positions taken, and not BECAUSE of them. But this begs the question. Maybe the authorities took the WRONG positions and CAUSED Post-Orthodoxy! Cf. Rabbis Hirsch and Kook, on desiccated Tanakh-and-Midrash-less Judaism leading to Reform. Even if rabbis DO take positions, their taking the WRONG position can fuel false movements.</i>Mikewind Dale (Michael Makovi)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08590233386034506578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-77146679154207896282010-01-28T04:32:54.191-08:002010-01-28T04:32:54.191-08:00Oh, and Tosafot rejected much of the Bavli, the sa...Oh, and Tosafot rejected much of the Bavli, the same way that the Rema rejected parts of the Shulhan Arukh, and the Bavli rejected parts of the Mishnah.Mikewind Dale (Michael Makovi)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08590233386034506578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9267923.post-47059094608295453572010-01-28T04:31:50.834-08:002010-01-28T04:31:50.834-08:00Great response. Your adducing "hasurei mehsur...Great response. Your adducing "hasurei mehsura v'hakhi ketani" is exactly what I responded as well. By the way, the Gra says (I believe this is recorded in Shimon of Shklov's translation of Euclid, but I'm not sure) it does not really mean that the Gemara is restoring the original text of the Mishnah. Rather, says the Gra, the Gemara is trying to replace the minhag and mesorah of Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi with their own variant Babylonian customs. When the Rema got a hold of the Shulhan Arukh, he saw that many of his own traditions were not accounted for; the Babylonian rabbis, says the Gra, reacted the same way to the Mishnah. <br /><br />Other things Rabbi Student says, are simply rejecting anything not said by an Ashkenazi aharon. For example, Rabbi Benzion Uziel said women may be rabbis, but Rabbi Student calls this "Post-Orthodox". Professor Michael Silber, in his "The Invention of a Tradition" (regarding Hungarian Ultra-Orthodoxy), shows how many of the Haredi responses to the Neologs were not halakhic, but were merely sociological knee-jerks, elevating what had been merely custom, into a newly-invented halakhic tradition. Rabbi Student does exactly the same. Of course, Professor Haym Solveitchik says MO trails Haredism by 15 years, so should we be surprised that Rabbi Student is now doing exactly what Rabbis Hillel Lichtenstein and Akiva Yosef Schlesinger did?Mikewind Dale (Michael Makovi)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08590233386034506578noreply@blogger.com