All these people also just so happen to be charedim who disagree with my critiques of charedi society, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Anyway, in response, I decided to share something written by someone writing under the moniker of "Troy."
Unhealthy Obsession or Valuable Critique?
by Troy
They say that Natan S. is obsessed with criticizing the problems of a society for which he harbors a pathological hatred. They say that he is so scarred by the trauma that he suffered in that society that his views are not to be taken seriously. They say that he should be getting therapy rather than platforming his critiques.
It's undeniable that Natan is very preoccupied with this topic (but note that it is not his day job!). And it's entirely reasonable to presume that this has a lot to do with the trauma that he suffered. After all, his troubles occurred during his formative years. It was almost immediately after his marriage to Avital that he was literally removed from society for expressing his views. He was denounced and condemned for saying things which, as far as he was concerned, were simply a normative part of being a Jew. Enormous pressure was placed upon him to renounce his position, which would enable him to return to society, and he stubbornly refused to do so - for which he paid a high price.
Still, it's not as though his views can be attributed solely to his personal experiences. After all, he's hardly the only one with criticisms of that society. It's all very well for Americans to turn a blind eye, but anyone who lives in such a society is going to see its problems, and the effect on their own lives and the country as a whole, very, very clearly.
Furthermore, to the extent that Natan's personal trauma created a motivation, that's a good thing. It's always much easier for people to keep their head down and not say anything. If trauma results in someone finding the motivation to speak up, then it has served a valuable purpose. In addition, he suffered as he did precisely because he was part of that society - and it's his insider perspective which makes his critiques so powerful.
It's important for people to know about how a society which is based on fear suppresses the truth. It's important for people to learn about how slavish devotion to revered leaders can have catastrophic consequences. It's important for people to understand how you get to a situation whereby tens of thousands of able-bodied young men are avoiding the army draft. It's important for people to understand how that society results in a few individuals getting rich while the society as a whole causes great poverty and even national economic catastrophe.
Natan's writings are an important service to society, for which we should be grateful. We should be wishing him and Avital many years of happiness together in their Jerusalem home, with much nachas from their daughters and grandchildren. Russia's loss is Israel's gain, and Natan's insights, evaluations and critiques of the Soviet regime are invaluable.
(What, you thought he was writing about me?! Lehavdil!)
(If you'd like to subscribe to this blog via email, use the form on the right of the page, or send me an email and I will add you.)
Is your wife actually called Avital?
ReplyDeleteNot only is she called Avital, she is actually named after Avital Sharansky!
DeleteTo my understanding, only מכרכר actually came out and said you needed help. I did not (I did say to Amused he "may need help too" so there is that), but I do agree with his sentiment.
ReplyDeleteTo the uninformed outsider, the standard-bearer of rationalist Judaism is solely concerned with observing and commenting on the failings of Charedi society to the exclusion of all else. You should talk up your museum more and talk down Charedim less. IMHO, of course.
Shimshon, I have strong reason to believe that Amused was a Slifkin sock-puppet! So in fact, you also told Slifkin to get help, albeit without knowing it was him.
DeleteWell done.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWithin the Charedi world, much if the social criticism already exists. Not all of it, but it's not outside of standard shul hock. Corrupted political leadership, abuse of charity are all normal game.
Some of his topics are lesser common such as the role for secular studies, or army.
The lack of dealing with these problems in a public forum is precisely our largest problem. We don't have a free press willing to publish anything, hence the only breakthroughs are from outside. Then, the knee jerk reaction is always "who are they to criticize?" Or some whataboutism.
Chazal taught us איזהו חכם הלומד מכל אדם. If we want to improve ourselves, we would pay attention to all criticism. The defence of our system, leadership heirarchy. does absolutely nothing to further any form of Avodas Hashem.
Well said!
DeleteWell said!
DeleteDid you sit in the Lubyanska with the KGB?
ReplyDeleteDoes it not occur to you that drawing this parallel between yourself and Sharansky is obscenely self aggrandisingly ridiculous?
And where does this obsession end? Sharansky had a clear goal. What do you want?
Hat, you are a kofer. You have revealed that you do not believe in the Torah. So really, just shut up. We don't care about anything you have to say anymore if you do not believe in Judaism. This site is for exploring the legacy of the rationalist Rishonim. But if you are an atheist, you have no place here.
DeleteActually, Hat, Slifkin is infinitely better than Sharansky. I'm not taking away from the fact that Sharansky was moser nefesh for Judaism, but maybe in your kefiradike head, you fail to see the problem with the fact that he endorses the Reform movement, and the wholesale heresy and corruption of Judaism that comes along with it.
DeleteBut in fact, Sliflkin did not draw a parallel with Sharansky. He ended off with "Lehavdil". Because like I said, Sharansky doesn't come close.
Halevay I should get a fraction of the Olam HaBa that Sharansky will get.
DeleteTaking of Rational rishonim, The Ibn Ezra stated cryptically that he believes parts of Chumash were written by humans. Rambam comes close. Of course he had to be cryptic because peanut butter and jam and his alter ego existed in his time.
Deletehttps://www.thetorah.com/article/seven-torah-passages-of-non-mosaic-origin-according-to-ibn-ezra-and-r-joseph-bonfils
Archaeology proves this to be true. What's a Jew to do? The conventional orthodox Rabbinite practice of the past few millenia is to pasken Halacha in the full knowledge that "darkei shalom" or general societal need overrides a deoraysa when necessary, but not to say the quiet bit out loud. I'm anonymous so I can speak the truth without getting cheremed.
Hence the invention of the pruzbul, the hetter for doctors on shabbos as understood by Reb Moshe, the gemora in gittin 56a blaming inflexible frumkeit for the churban and saying that "heifeiru torasecha" is legitimate on occasion.
If you claim to pasken Halacha straight from a possuk you are a Karaite. There's nothing frum about it.
"that "darkei shalom" or general societal need overrides a deoraysa when necessary, "
DeleteUntrue. The application of דרכי שלום is quite limited.
"Hence the invention of the pruzbul"
You don't know what you're talking about. But I know what you're talking about. "Pruzbol" is a shibboleth. 99% of people who say "Pruzbol" (during the other six years) don't mean "Pruzbol". They mean radical leftist agenda.
That there's meta-halacha is clear, though not so obvious. But it's not the case that the existence of meta-halacha undermines halacha.
Pruzbul?!
DeleteThe Gemara literally asks the question about how it is possible that pruzbul works against the Torah! Chachmei Hashas did not think 'societal need' was sufficient at all. They only accepted it because of a סייג לתורה - people were transgressing a commandment.
It's right there in the Gemara.
Also, according to the predominant opinion in the Gemara, pruzbul only works because shemita nowadays is a Rabbinical enactment and not M'doiraysa. Additionally, the gemara brings amoraim that declared that really pruzbul should be reversed because it is perceived as a change in the Torah (even though it's not), just they are incapable of changing it because Hillel, who lived before them already enacted it! So not only can't M'doiraysas be reversed, even Rabbinical enactments can't be reversed.
DeleteI have seen a number of MODOX commenters here assert that D'oiraysas can be overturned for societal reasons. I am not too ignorant and do not know of any examples of this and Jefferey wasn't able to show me any examples either, so I turned to two of the biggest MODOX Jewish historians. They both came back with the same one single example: R' Shlomo Zalman's psak that we are mechalel Shabbos for a baby born at 8 months nowadays. But that is not a good example at all! Because the gemara is quite clear that in its time, such a baby was not capable of surviving! So if nowadays things are different, as R' Shlomo Zalman himself theorizes, then the logic would follow that we would be able to be mechalel Shabbos for it.
This assertion that the Torah can be changed is a hallmark of the Reform, and an assertion of their close cousins the Maskilim (Shaul Berlin in particular), and their descendants the MODOX.
Bringing proofs that the Torah has been changed from archeological digs of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which belonged to some Karaite-like sect is flat out ridiculous.
I don't know if this random guy is interpreting the Ibn Ezra properly, but the Ibn Ezra was considered beyond the pale for some of his beliefs by both Rishonim and Achronim alike. See my comment here:
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2022/08/the-kaniveskys-blow-whistle-on-daas.html?showComment=1662345790055#c2483973294738987303
It's plain absurd to accuse the Rambam of doing so if he held that someone who does so deserves to be killed.
But we do not have the memory of a gnat. What Hat said a few days ago was far worse than even that:
http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2022/09/the-relevance-of-assassination.html?showComment=1664460644258#c1873345958867016808
Irredeemable kefira l'chol hadeios. Even Marc Shapiro would agree that this cannot be justified even by MODOX's revision of the 13 Ikarim. I'm with PB&J on this. I don't know why Hat identifies as Jewish and why he thinks we should take anything he says about Judaism or Israel seriously.
Rabban Gamliel overturning the Torah requirement for two eidim for an aguna…
DeleteMecharker - Orthodox Jewish doctors break deoraysas every shabbos for the benefit of Gentile patients.
DeleteYou do what you have to do.
Ibn Ezra may or may not be beyond the pale. But the mere fact that you are all discussing a pale proves my point. The pale is what matters.
DeleteHalacha flows from normative behaviour, not exclusively from textual sources. Minhag overrides all, and minhag changes.
"Orthodox Jewish doctors break deoraysas every shabbos for the benefit of Gentile patients"
Delete(Insert eye roll)
Like you have discovered America. No, it is for the benefit of the Jewish patients whom they cannot serve otherwise.
@Frank
The Rabbis in the times of the Talmud had the authority to negate biblical concepts in a limited fashion. Like not blowing shofar an Shabbos, עת לעשות להשם etc. So this application (which is subject to debate amongst the Rishonim, and anyway can be arguably be another application of הפקיעו רבנן קידושין) isn't any more significant.
Only reform and the spiraling parts of MODOX who follow in their footsteps think this can be done post Talmud.
Sorry Hat, try again. Actually, many if not most frum doctors try not to put themselves into situations where they may need to be mechalel Shabbos for a non-Jew. The Mishna Berura, who knew a tad more than you, held that there was no heter for it (§330:8). Even R' Moshe, who did permit it, did it on the basis that the doctor is putting himself or the greater Jewish community in which he lives, in mortal danger (OC §4:79). Many people who don't think that his dispensation realistically applies to them avoid coming onto it. So so far, the best we proof we have from the MODOX that textual sources can be ignored is from their own lack in observance. But like I said, you are not even MODOX.
DeleteAnd yes, we know you don't think there is a 'pale'. Because you don't think that there is a Torah at all. Even the Ibn Ezra,
who may or may not have alluded that some pesukim were added after Matan Torah, elsewhere himself says that it is kefira to claim that pesukim were written later in history than Yehoshua.
When people say the Ibn Ezra/Ralbag/Rambam is "beyond the pale" about this issue or that, they mean he is incorrect. In error. Wrong. Not "We don't hold like him but he is entitled to his totally valid and legitimate opinion". No. He is definitely not entitled to that totally incorrect, invalid, erroneous opinion. Although I'm not so sure I agree that this particular Ibn Ezra is beyond the pale/incorrect, ואכמ"ל.
DeleteI would like to add to Ely's response- who told you that you need two witnesses for a marriage or a divorce in the first place?! It is certainly not stated explicitly in the Written Torah! It is the same Sages who allowed the testimony of a single witness/woman in many cases. And the Sages explain their reasoning very clearly for allowing it in those cases.
What we do today is a different question. But mecharker was looking for examples where Torah commands were overturned and/ or effectively nullified for societal reasons and I provided an example above. Torah requires two witnesses, no ifs ands or buts and R Gamliel overturned that in the case of an aguna.
DeleteProzbul is another good example.
Not putting on tefilin second day yom tov may be another.
The whole period of yavneh was a period of great innovation, leadership, facing the world’s new challenges head on, and having a living Torah.
There were risks in such an approach such as R Elazar who ended up forgetting his Torah. But without it Judaism would not have survived the churban.
Yes there are risks in the dati Leumi approach but it like yavneh is a living Torah, that participates in the building of the land, serves in the Jewish army and is the vibrant future of am Yisrael.
We hope and pray that our chareidi brethren will one day see the light and come on board. Until then we’ll do the work alone. לא עליך המלאכה לגמור …
Frank, I was referring to post Chazal. There are a number of Rishonim which discuss the power of Chazal to enact Takanos and the like, such as the examples that Ely gave (see Rambam Sefer Hamitzvos 174, and in Yad Brachos 6:2, 11:3, Mamrim 1:2; Ritva in Rosh Hashana 16a). But no one extends those powers past Chazal.
DeleteOh so death is established based on whether a person is breathing or not? Got it
Delete@Frank: The Rambam (Hilchos Gerushin 13:29) says that Chazal allowed an agunah based on a single witness, or even if the single witness is a woman, or a non-Jew מסיח לפי תומו, because the Torah only required 2 witnesses when the situation can't be verified without proper testimony.
DeleteBut, if, for example, we find a corpse with the same DNA as the missing person, we have an alternative way of verifying that what the non-kosher witness said is true. The Rambam explains that the Torah doesn't require 2 witnesses in such a case.
Do not wonder at the fact that our Sages discharged the prohibition [against a married woman], which is considered a very severe matter, on the basis of the testimony of a woman, a servant or a maidservant, statements made by a gentile in the course of conversation, a written statement or [testimony] that was not investigated by the ordinary process of interrogation, as we have explained.
[These leniencies were instituted] because the Torah requires only testimony of two witnesses, and all the other details of the laws of witnesses with regard to matters that cannot be verified definitively except via witnesses and their testimony - e.g., that one person killed another, or that one person lent money to another. When, by contrast, the matter may be verified definitively without the testimony of a witness, and the witness cannot justify [his statements] if they are not true - e.g, when one testifies that a person died, the Torah did not necessitate [that the requirements of formal testimony be met in these instances]. For it is unlikely that a witness will testify falsely.
For this reason, our Sages [extended] the leniency with regard to this matter and accepted the testimony of a single witness that is based on the testimony of a maidservant, [testimony] from a written document, and [testimony] that was not investigated by the ordinary process of interrogation. [These leniencies were accepted] so that the daughters of Israel will not be forced to remain unmarried.
There's a second reason to allow it, since a woman is so concerned about the possibility of her offspring being mamzerim, she'll be very diligent in checking before remarrying.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/957718/jewish/Gerushin-Chapter-Thirteen.htm#footnote80a957718
https://www.yeilat.org/media/2799/%D7%A2%D7%93-%D7%90%D7%97%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%A8%D7%96%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A7.pdf
"Oh so death is established based on whether a person is breathing or not? Got it"
DeleteSay what?
"Torah requires two witnesses, no ifs ands or buts"
DeleteThis is simply incorrect. Sorry.
"Oh so death is established based on whether a person is breathing or not? Got it"
Before modern medical technology, breathing was a pretty good way to establish life or death. And it still is, although less so.
In general, the question of whether the Torah can "change" based on changing needs is broad, and was discussed in a recent post. It definitely happened in the Talmudic and pre-Talmudic period. I'm sure my good friend Mekarker agrees that there were some post-Talmudic "changes" as well.
So that is not the question. Rather, the question is what type of changes and for what reasons. Christianity was a change to the Torah that many argued was necessary, based on the teachings and revelations of Jesus, and then the continued plight of the Jews for centuries, and then millenia. The Haskalah/Reform was another such change based on imagined "needs". On the other hand, l'havdil, we have the Yeshiva and Bais Yaakov systems that were based on real needs. We have many minhagim and post-Talmudic takanos that developed for various reasons.
Clearly we must be very cautious about what "changes" we accept, based on the spirit and values of the Torah, the rest of the mitzvos of the Torah, and the acceptance of the Sages of the generation. Modern Orthodoxy is a very broad spectrum, encompassing righteous talmidei chachamim like R' Herschel Schachter, to academic kofrim of all stripes too numerous to mention. But unfortunately, the overall ideology is one of apathy and belittlement of the Torah and mitzvos, a continuation of the Haskalah, which has led to the abandonment of the Torah by the vast majority of our nation.
@mekharker
DeleteRead the book גישת התמורות by the staff of ישיבת מעלה גלבוע
It will give you examples and perhaps give u something to think about.
@mekharker
DeleteI would also recommend The Turner Diaries by William Luther Pierce. It will likewise give you something (actually, many things) to think about.
Thanks @not a fan. I skimmed through it. It's actually in regards to something else (perceived 'stiros' in the the Torah, whereas I am seeking historical precedence of poskim changing halacha to conform with societal norms), but if in the future you do come across examples of halachos changed to conform with societal norms, please drop me an email. I am attempting to compile a collection of all such instances I can find. So far, the furthest we have is either ex post facto 'justifications' of *old* practices which do not seem to conform with Halacha (in which even in such cases, certain poskim such as the Gr"a push back in almost every instance) or changes based on the fact that our 'metzius' does not seem to be the same as Chazal's (the eight month preemie being a good example).
DeleteWoah, there is some pretty heavy kefira in there! (Sanhedrin 99a, Rambam Hilchos Teshuva 3:8)
DeleteI can't imagine why you find it hard to find examples
DeleteHere is one.
https://www.torahmusings.com/2013/03/shaving-on-chol-hamoed/
Hello? Yes, I know that the MODOX think that you can change Halacha to conform with modern society. I am trying to find PRECENDENT to such an attitude!
DeleteIt's always easier to shoot the messenger.
ReplyDeleteRNS, first of all, nice little prank there with the Sharansky piece!
ReplyDeleteSecond, I am just as surprised as you are that my offhanded comment that I added as an afterthought without thinking too deeply into sparked a whole thread dissecting your mental well-being. I apologize. I must say that you have skin that makes an elephant's look like paper in comparison for letting the whole discussion through!
I have nothing against healthy criticism (not that I agree with all of it, it seems that you and many of the other MODOX commenters here have an entirely different value system than us, and the practical ramifications are numerous), but I still think that the fact that you keep circling back to the same topic, post after post, month after month, year after year, is nothing short of strange.
Where did Sharansky critique chareidim, would be very interested in reading it?
ReplyDeleteHahaha!
ReplyDeleteThis post has nothing to say in defense of Rabbi Slifkin.
ReplyDeleteThe Usual YA.
"All these people also just so happen to be charedim who disagree with my critiques of charedi society" what utter nonsense. I am not charedi and I know a free non charedim who all make similar complaints.
ReplyDeleteWe always think it's a blessing to see the Sharanskys, just walking down the street.
ReplyDeleteSo, if I'm not much mistaken, all your detractors agree that you are entitled to critique charedi society endlessly, just they don't understand how this fits within the purview of a self declared Rationalist Judaism site
ReplyDeleteWhy not just change the website ne, that should then keep everyone happy.
RNS was not appointed Minister of Criticism of Chareidim and DL.Nor did he appoint himself to that position.He is free to moment as he chooses and does not have to follow the dictates of the bloggers here.
ReplyDeletePeople with 'issues' don't have to follow the dictates of anybody. Quite true. That doesn't mean they don't have 'issues', does it?
DeleteBig Mouth is spot on here. I am quite far from being chareidi and also agree with much of what RNS posts. Doesn't change my opinion that he really needs psychological help for this obsession and needs to get past the ptsd of his books being banned. I also agree that it's very much to his credit that he openly discusses the issue (and shows extremely thick skin) but in the spirit of yk and aseres ymei teshuva it might behoove him to internalize the message instead of dismissing it all as a further chareidi conspiracy or by comparing himself to Sharansky.
ReplyDeleteThe reactions of the sycophants is even more telling of their own tortured souls. There is no need for any of them to white knight for Slifkin. They do so enthusiastically and rather viciously, in this specific instance and really whenever a critical observation is made, no matter how cogent and pleasantly stated. He does seem to have a rather thick skin and is perfectly capable of defending himself if he desires.
DeleteYa - this blog looks like an intellectuals version of failed messiah.
DeleteIs this post also a spoof in not describing either Natan fully accurately? I only see online a Gil Troy with Natan Sharansky?
ReplyDeleteThe usual YA
Chazon Ish at Oct.2 at the 2:50 PM.. Ad Hominem arguments against RNS do not lessen the strength and force of his arguments.You're all obsessed with RNS's viewpoints because they upset the basis of your religious lifestyle. Do you all need therapy? Of course not! Examine the arguments that is what is important, not ad hominem arguments.
ReplyDeleteSome people (although not all) seem to be suffering from collective obtuseness. As many have pointed out, Mecharker and Co's point is that the Rabbi Dr. seems to be obsessed with Chareidim! Not that he criticizes them! Anyone who has been following this site recently recognizes that Mecharker loves the posts where the Rabbi Dr. latches into the Chareidim. That's where he really goes into action. It seems that he is just expressing concern (and perhaps rightfully so) that this blog seems to be an unhealthy obsession rather than some alternative viewpoints and healthy criticism!
Delete"Of course not! Examine the arguments that is what is important, not ad hominem arguments."
DeleteThe below is not doing that, forgetting also that it doesn't even take a critic to see an obsession here. A casual Modern Orthodox person, could easily come to the conclusion.
"All these people also just so happen to be charedim who disagree with my critiques of charedi society, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence."
The usual YA
One of principles of the Soviet regime education was "anyone who is not with us is against us".
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately too many people in the Torah world are infected by the same approach (although only few of them took that from the Soviet regime, such the approach could be found in rabbinical literature while before Marxism was invented).
Of course, our dear RNS is much healthy than most of his enemies, and for my opinion he is correct in in his critique against Haredim in absolute majority of cases. Despite that, in some particular cases he is wrong, typically because his hatred blinds him (again, for my opinion). Each case should be considered separately.
"Second, I am just as surprised as you are that my offhanded comment that I added as an afterthought without thinking too deeply into sparked a whole thread dissecting your mental well-being."
ReplyDeleteGiven that it's about 48 hours until we say Kol Nidrei, it's a good time to consider the detrimental and even hurtful impact our words can have if we're not careful. Especially with impersonal modern forms of communication, such as emails, instant messaging, and blogs, where the reader can't perceive facial expressions, tone of voice, etc., and therefore often can't discern that the writer is not 100% serious.
"Death and life are in the hand of the tongue" (Mishlei 18:21); perhaps all-the-more-so when we're dealing with written communications that can be saved/published and memorialized and where the readership can't always be located to be apprised of any retraction. May we all think before we type and review before we hit send/publish.
I am confused, was there actually ever a piece from "Troy" written about Natan Sharansky? Googling sections from it produced no results except for this page?
ReplyDeleteWow! Slifkin is a R' Yudl Rosenberg in our time!
DeleteLOL! What a sneaky little faker!
DeleteObviously not. Troy=Troll. The giveaway was the line about avoiding the draft. As if Sharansky is bothered that countless able-bodied men are avoiding the Soviet draft. LOL
DeleteThe giveaway was the line about avoiding the draft.
DeleteVery perceptive! I also was confused by it.
Its a typo - not Troy but Troll
ReplyDeleteas a non charedi, i think you suffer from OCD, obsessive charedi Disorder, but becasue of what you went through, i dont think anyone can blame you,try spending a few months not critizing charedim ad nasuem, it may make you and us feel better
ReplyDeleteHappygolucky at Oct.3 at 4:43 PM. "
ReplyDelete...
I
Happygolucky at Oct.2 at 4:43 PM."...the overall ideology is one of apathy and belittlement of the Torah,
ReplyDeleteHappygolucky at 4:43 PM."...the overall ideology is of apathy and belittlement of the Torah..." (MO) Rabbi Shachter and the RCA , the rabbinical arm of YU, (MO) denounced the Open Orthodox movement and the RCA threw out it's members Rabbi Weiss and Rabbi Lopin the leaders of this movement.They declared that those who declare themselves Orthodox are not necessarily so especially if they are not recognized by the RCA who do not recognize Batei Knesset that are not in line with the basic tenets of 0rthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteOkay valuable objection, but some of those posts......like the flights one and ones where he is bashing moderate haredi Rabbis who are actually trying to help matters..............how is thay valuable or rational at all. Those posts are clearly a product of trauma or at least revenge/anger. Tgey are not a rational objection but just finding any way to attack a certain viee or event that a haredi person is involved in.
ReplyDeleteMoshe at Oct. 4 at 9:04 AM. Correction. Rabbi Asher Lopatin.
ReplyDeleteHappygolucky at Oct. 4 at 4:43 PM.When I attended yeshiva Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary ( YU) in the early 60's (YU) no one talked about MO.YU's logo was Torah Umada. ( You could say in line with the Rambam's approach to general knowledge especially science. All the Roshei Yeshiva were well known from European yeshivot. As a general rule they didn't get involved in what we call today מחשבת ישראל. We hathe traditional Gemorrah learning. Jewish philosophy was a college course by Rabbi.Shmidman.There were also lectures in the evening about religious political issues. I believe it was in the 80's when this term became common. If there was a term mentioned in previous years it was Centrist.
ReplyDeleteToday YU uses the term Centrist and has indicated that M0 has nuance which undermines their loyalty to traditional Orthodoxy, and to their loyalty to the traditional tenets of Othodox Judaism and and the traditional approach to Halacha.
Moshe at Oct. 5 at 8:28 PM .
ReplyDeleteCorrection. " ...lectures in the evening about religious political issues." Instead,.... religious approaches to Judaism.