March 22, 2004

R. Reinman Wrapup

R. Yakov Yosef Reinman, of Lakewood, NJ, spent this past Shabbos at Shomrei Emunah as a Scholar in Residence. R. Reinman spoke on five separate occasions; I made it to two and a half of these. The thoughts below are a bit disjointed; please ask questions if you think something needs clarification.

The first was his shiur at the 8:15 minyan. I was in the kitchen preparing the kiddush (one of my many "jobs"), so I missed most of it. It was an in-depth analysis of something from Chosen Mishpat.

I also attended R. Reinman's afternoon lecture, entitled "Did Rechavam worship Avodah Zarah (idols)." In addressing this question, R. Reinman delineated what he called, "a methodology for learning Tanach." He began the lecture with the statement, "There really is a good reason why we don't learn Tanach in Yeshiva - because it's very hard to understand." His methodology, in a nutshell, is that Tanach can not be understood without the Talmud. For example, when it says that Sholomo HaMelech (Solomon) worshipped idols towards the end of his life (I Kings 43), the Tanach is, in reality, exaggerating. As the Talmud states, "Anyone who says that Solomon worshipped idols is simply mistaken." Since Solomon did not actively oppose the idol worship practiced by many of his pagan wives, the Tanach considers it as if he himself participated. He then expanded this idea in regards to Rechavam (Solomon's son), to show that perhaps he was also innocent of idol worship. The main point of the lecture, however, was his methodology, the concept that Tanach is sometimes intentionally elaborate and exaggerated in its depictions of actual events, in order to convey or empasize a moral message.

And finally, what you've all been waiting to hear about: the Book Club discussion! R. Reinman began by giving an account of how he got involved with the book. He recounted his first meeting with Ammiel Hirsch, and detailed his process in composing his letters. He then went on to discuss the controvesy around the book, reiterating that he had suffered no persecution at the hands of the Agudah or Moetzes regarding their disapproval of the book. He offered criticisms of their statement against the book, noting that the wording could have been a bit more refined (Hirsch read the statement at each one of his stops on the book tour). R. Reinman felt positive about the overall impact the book made; he feels that his case was the better-presented in the book, and that both movement's ideologies were put on the table, something that, at least for Reform, is something new. He recounted the number of people that have communicated to him how the book changed their life, and their view of Judaism (he said many had become Orthodox after reading the book).

The central point for R. Reinman, in the book and in life, is Matan Torah. For him, this is the essence of our connection to Judaism. His main opposition to Reform (and other denominations) is their lack of acknowledgement of the significance and/or reality of the Covenenant at Sinai. Much of his talk was spent discussing how he viewed non-Orthodox Jews, and whether or not their religious expression is to be considered authentic Judaism (The book itself can be seen as basically an extended argument over this point. Whatever the topic, R. Hirsch would attempt to bring textual support for the liberal approach. R. Reinman, in turn, would show how the traditional position excluded the liberal view point). R. Reinman said that he believes a non-Orthodox Jew's feeling of the need for religious expression is a sign of a latent connection to Sinai; to be fully realized, it should be expressed in the traditional fashion (hence, his feeling that it would be better to watch TV than to learn Talmud with a Reform rabbi).

As regards the controversy, R. Reinman said it worked out for the best. The book tour, it turned out, was really just a platform for soundbites; it was about having the best jokes, not the best arguments. He asked if he could back out, but was told that he must fulfill his contract. Then the Moetzes came out against the book tour, and he was able to back out of the tour without a lot of undue trouble. He also said that most of the political hub-bub surrounding the book was directed at others that had supported him, and not at himself.

A few points I want to focus on: R. Reinman's description of the process he went through in composing and editing each response was very interesting. R. Reinman learns b'chavrusah (in partnership) with R. Mattisyahu Solomon, who encouraged him to take on the project, and reviewed every single letter before it was sent. He consulted frequently with, among others, R. Noach Weinberg (founder of Aish HaTorah, probably the largest Orthodox outreach organization in the world), R. Shalom Kaminetsky and an association in Israel called Arachim (according to their English website [warning, page is accompanied by annoying music], "...in Israel in 1979...Arachim was established to provide an intellectual response to the thirst of a growing secular Israeli public who were seeking to understand the basic philosophical concepts of Judaism.). Basically, R. Reinman had the full force of Charedi Orthodox Judaism at his disposal.

I asked R. Reinman if he knew if R. Hirsch had similar assistance from members of the Reform movement. R. Reinman responded that, "[Hirsch] denies it, but I can't imagine he didn't [have help]."

I think this is an important pont. The book is characterized as a convesation between two individuals; indeed, R. Reinman stated, both in the book and at the beginning of the lecture, that the only reason he was able to participate in a public debate with a Reform rabbi was because he did not represent the Orthodox rabbinate in any way. He came as an indepedent individual, with no pulpit or school assocaitions. In preparing his arguments, however, R. Reinman drew upon the advice and arguments of many people who have researched these topics in-depth (R. Reinman stated that he, personally, rarely contemplates most of the issues covered in the book). Hirsch, on the other hand, if he did indeed compose his arguments on his own, is writing more from a personal perspective. And this shows through; R. Reinman's arguments are elaborate, well thought-out and consistent, as one who had a well-prepared argument at hand. Hirsch, on the other hand, comes across as less composed and sometimes inconsistent (he contradicts himself at least once in the book), much as one who is arguing from one's own personal perspective often would. I think this significantly changes the nature of the book. On one side, you have the full breadth of dogma of Orthodox Judaism, and on the other, the personal philosophy of an individual. This might be a moot point, however, as one could argue that R. Hirsch was simply drawing upon the thought of Liberal Democracy.

Another anecdote: R. Reinman, several times, noted that the yeshiva world is unfairly characterized as being antagonistic towards other denominations (and to Modern Orthodoxy, I would add; R. Reinman referred to Shomrei as a Modern Orthodox shul, which, I imagine, would irk to no end some of our members). He claimed this was a misconception, that if we knew more members of these communities, we would see that it is altogether uncommon. This doesn't change the fact that we know that many charedi organizations, both in the U.S. and Israel, openly encourage this antagonism to their students.

Overall, I will say that I came impressed with R. Reinman. There is no question that he is an extremely intellegent and committed person. Hearing him speak about his personal faith was, to me, inspiring. As Sweet Rose (whom I finally got to meet!) said, "From the book, I didn't especially like Rabbi Reinman's viewpoint. Hearing him speak, I really liked him a lot more." Something about hearing him speak, the confidence and faith he had in his history and tradition, reminded me of the importance of experiencing the religious, as opposed to proving it. R. Reinman stated that most of the issues, like the facticity of the revelation at Sinai, are non-issues for him. He believes in them as a matter of tradition, handed down to him by his parents and grandparents. Although my parents passed this on to me, albeit a bit diluted, I was also brought up in public school, and given a healthy dose of positivistic skeptisim as well. To see someone who can look beyond the need for a rational crutch to support his religion, to me, is inspiring. It doesn't (and can't) work for all of us, but that doesn't mean it isn't a beautiful thing.

Posted by Greg at March 22, 2004 3:31 PM
Comments

Thank you for the update. Did he address the contradiction of the disapproval of the Moetzis to the book, while at the same time he had the approval of R' Soloman? Did he mention if he still has a kesher with Hirsh, personally or professionally?
I liked the fact that he said Shomrei is a modern orthodox shul. It only took a weekend of observation to state. And right on the money he is.

Posted by: interesting at March 22, 2004 5:20 PM

I'm not up on Lakewood/Agudah politics, but R. Reinman seemed to imply that the opposition from the Moetzes came from individuals who had axes to grind with R. Solomon. R. Solomon was completely supportive of the endeavor from the beginning (in fact, R. Reinman consulted him before accepting in the first place).

R. Reinman said he still maintains close contact with Hirsch. They communicate frequently.

As for Shomrei, it may be modern, but I don't think it's a Modern Orthodox shul. Going to Teaneck and going to Shomrei are two very different experiences.

Posted by: Greg at March 22, 2004 8:29 PM

"This doesn't change the fact that we know that many charedi organizations, both in the U.S. and Israel, openly encourage this antagonism to their students." Having attended several yeshivos that I am assuming you would characterize as "charedi", such as Ner Yisroel and Mir Yerushalayim, among others, I wonder exactly what you are referring to with this statement. Could you back up this antagonistic charge with a documented example?

Posted by: Izzy at March 23, 2004 2:41 PM

Izzy's point is intriguing - I wonder if he can point to a documented example of the charedi world expressing support for something objectively positive (feeding the poor, clothing the unclad, whatever - I'm not looking for sanction of Reform philosophy, obviously) done under the auspices of the Reform movement.

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 23, 2004 5:31 PM

I am not sure what your point is, but I think you missed mine. The quote that I mentioned (and challenged) had to do with perceived "charedi antagonism" towards the Modern Orthodox, not the reform movement.

Posted by: Izzy at March 23, 2004 5:38 PM

Izzy,

Most of the examples are not documented, but you know they are out there. Everyone has stories of some sort of ridiculous incident that was predicated on "frumkeit."

As for documented examples, one that comes to mind is R. Elya Svei's tirade against Yeshiva University at the Agudah Convention (circa 1998), directed in particular at R. Lamm and the other Roshei Yeshiva. I believe the term he used was "Sonei HaShem."

Moishe Potemkin's point, if I understand it correctly, is that the passive lack of approbation given to Reform encourages, most likely amongst the masses, a conceptualization of their (Reform's) inferiority and lack of importance. No one is asking Agudah to sanction the Reform philosophy, but, as R. Reinman said he failed to do in the book, a simple affirmation of their work as positive would engender a more positive outlook in general in the Charedi community.

Posted by: Greg at March 23, 2004 8:42 PM

Izzy -

You're right, I missed your point. Sorry. Greg's interpretation of what I was saying is accurate, but that doesn't make it relevant to your issue.

One example of the documentation you seek can be found in the Jewish Observer's odious 'hesped' for Rav Soloveichik. I'll see if I can dig up a copy, but the antagonsitic tone toward the pre-eminent Modern Orthodox gadol b'yisrael was unequivocal.

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 24, 2004 8:17 AM

The “hesped” in the Observer was an embarrassment to both the editorial staff and the talmidim of R’ Yoshe Ber.
However, rather than a sign of antagonism towards either the individual or the institution, it should be seen as a sign of serious disagreement with some of the views of the Rav.
As meaningless as it might seem to you, the staff views a “true” hesped in their pages as an indication that such a person can be confidently followed regardless of the opinions espoused. This was not a position they were willing to give the Rav.
It does not mean he was not a godol. It does not mean that he did not accomplish much to advance the state of Orthodoxy in America. It simply reflects the opinion that they will not vouch for his views.
An example of the positive side to the yeshiva view of the Rav was evidenced in the hesped Rav Weinberg gave for him at Shomrei. If you weren’t there it is well worth getting a hold of the video. If I recall correctly, the Reches brothers took a video of it.
For a half hour, Rav Weinberg gave a beautiful hesped about the Rav’s accomplishments in learning and yiras shamayim. He did not touch upon those areas which he found troubling- and there certainly were such issues.
Antagonism is just not a word that captures such nuances.
There is much to say on the larger issue of yeshiva views on YU, however space only allows for a more limited discussion.
See last weeks discussion on Protocols regarding the Mir and YU.

Posted by: reader at March 24, 2004 11:31 AM

I'm not sure how to respond to Reader here. The original challenge was to find documented proof of antagonism between the yeshiva world and modern orthodoxy. (Wouldn't that make a great title for a book? Oh, wait.) I believe that the cited example does exactly that.

Reader raises a new issue - the question of whether this antagonism is acceptable if its intent is to convey disagreement with certain hashkafos.

That's a fair question, but I think that the JO's choice of an abbreviated dismissal rather than a full discussion incorporating both the Rav's gadlus and the areas of disagreement is itself antagonistic. In other words, if there was actually any real concern over how the Modern Orthodox camp would receive this hesped, this concern could have been reflected by not equating a hesped with a wholesale endorsement ab initio.

One final point that I think is also relevant - what was the nature of the hespedim for the Rav in Mir, Philadelphia, Torah Temimah, et cetera?

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 24, 2004 12:29 PM

"You know they are out there"- No I don't, and as I wrote, I have attended only chareidi institutions. I never heard R' Aron Feldman or R' Kulefsky (the roshei yeshiva during my tenure at Ner Yisroel) or R' Noson Tzvi Finkel (rosh yeshiva of Mir Jerusalem) exhibiting antagonism towards Modern Orthodoxy. Regarding the Agudah convention- I wasn't there and have never seen a transcript of R' Svei's speech, but I can say that I have heard of a lot of roshei yeshiva (including some at YU) saying some very critical things of R' Lamm, but I don't think that amounts to antagonism towards MO. If it does, than it sounds to me like YU is having an identity crisis. As far as R' Soloveitchic is concerned, I do remember seeing the JO issue when I was in high school, but all I can remember of it is that the cover said "Zichrona Levracha", leaving out the "zaddik" part. It is true that many Charedi leaders did not (completely) hold from R' Soloveitchic, and many also had some very critical things to say of him. I have heard first-person quotes of R' Weinberg and R' Schwalb that were very strongly negative of him. Both statements were to talmidim that inquired about him. Do you take issue with a rebbi arguing strongly against the hashkafos of a man that he strongly disagrees with? Do you understand such statements to be antagonistic to Modern Orthodoxy in general? Should they then be left unsaid?

Posted by: Izzy at March 24, 2004 4:03 PM

Izzy -

Respectful statements of forceful opposition to differing opinions within the Torah world should never remain unsaid. That would be almost as bad as saying them disrespectfully.

However, the yeshiva world has managed to come to terms with the Satmar Rebbe's strident opposition to the establishment of Bais Yaakovs (batei Yaakov?) without treating him as a pariah. This is not true of the prevalent (documented in the JO 'hesped', as you requested, which was publicly refuted by no-one, to my knowledge) dismissive attitude toward the Rav, and this distinction is interpreted by many in the Modern Orthodox camp as antagonistic.

You are, of course, welcome to review the article in question to ascertain whether it is materially different from the typical JO eulogy of a gadol, R"L.

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 24, 2004 5:11 PM

I am not sure what you mean about about the Satmar Rebbe and Bais Yaakov, as far as I know, satmar girls attend BY schools (BY having been sanctioned by the gedolim of previous generations). Even if you are correct that the roshei yeshiva disagreed with the Satmar Rebbe on this issue, I don't think that such a disagreement can be compared to the numerous disagreements that they had with R' Soloveitchic. Unfortunately, the JO issue in question is not available online (their archives only go back to 2001).
M.P. wrote: "You are, of course, welcome to review the article in question to ascertain whether it is materially different from the typical JO eulogy of a gadol, R"L." -Maybe the yeshiva world considered R' Soloveichic to be materially different from the typical gadol, and eulogized accordingly. That is definitely my understanding of the Yeshiva worlds opinion of R' Soloveitchic.
None of this however goes to the crux of the issue. Greg wrote "This doesn't change the fact that we know that many charedi organizations, both in the U.S. and Israel, openly encourage this antagonism to their students", and I challenged him to come up with one such example. Instead all I have seen is a JO article that was published over ten years ago. Is this the extent of the open encouragement of antagonism that he "knows" about?
I am not trying to be confrontational. My point is that having attended charedi institutions and never having been witness to this antagonism, I am convinced that Greg's attitude is a misconception borne out of his lack of contact with yeshivos.

Posted by: Izzy at March 24, 2004 6:04 PM

Izzy,

First off, just to set the record straight, I went to YU, and learned in Ner Israel's Kollel for a year, as well as learning there weekly for a time after starting to work, so I've had plenty of contact with yeshivos.

As for documented evidence, I already cited R. Elya Svei's speech. Characterizing the Roshei Yeshiva of a Yeshiva as "Haters of God" in a public forum would certainly, in my opinion, encourage antagonism towards that institution. I have heard the speech; in fact, I was sitting at R. Schachter's dining room table on Purim when it was played for him; I'd be happy to relate to you, in a non-public forum, what he had to say about it.

In general, what I was trying to convey with the statement was not meant as a focus on the gedolim or roshei yeshivos, but more as a cultural millieu. Any elementry school kid who is told he's not allowed to wear a kippah sruga, or girls who were told there parents weren't frum because they lived in a certain part of town...this kind of attitude, often attributable to ignorance, in my opinion, is reinforced and tacitly supported by the yeshiva education system in the US. It's OK to be more frum, even if you're doing it out of ignorance.

It's also antagonism that is directed, not at people, but at thoughts and ideas. There is usually a certain level of acceptable divergence from the norm; anything beyond that is usually not tolerated. Sometimes this is with good reason, but often it is not.

Also, please don't think that I'm only objectively critical of charedim vis-a-vis MO or non-Orthodox. Of course, this antagonism towards charedis exists in these factions as well; I was simply commenting on the fact that R. Reinman's attitude, to me, seemed an oversimplification.

It is nice to know that people read what I write, though ;)

Posted by: Greg at March 24, 2004 10:35 PM

I agree that a public, verbal attack on R' Lamm could be perceived as antagonistic towards YU, and even towards Modern Orthodoxy in general. Perhaps R' Svei should have made it clear that his comments were related strictly to R' Lamm, and not any greater movement. I have heard a tape of a shmooze by R' Gifter where he does just that. He quite specifically lambasts R' Lamm, but not YU. Since I have never met R' Lamm or heard him speak, I can not comment substantively on him. I can say that I have heard very negatithings about him from others, including friends who attended YU. As to your examples of the kipa sruga and the school girl, I can not imagine any school in Baltimore or any institution that I have attended exhibiting such small-ndedness. The Yeshiva day school and high school that I attended had a few kipa sruga wearers, I Don't think that they were ever criticised for it. Since you attended Ner Yisroel, perhaps you can tell me of any anti-MO sentiments that you encountered there. Maybe I'm not sensitive to such feelings, but I dont think I ever experienced that there or the Mir, or any other institutions that I attended.

Posted by: Izzy at March 24, 2004 11:35 PM

To the extent that personal anecdotes have any value, I would recount that during my own years at Ner (Toronto, that is), ridicule of Modern Orthodoxy, YU, the Rav, Zionism, kippot serugot, college, you name it, was quite the norm. Never, it should be noted, from Rav Friedler, but certainly from most rebbeim.

I hesitate to extrapolate from my personal experiences to general yeshiva culture, and I cite this only to counter your experience in which such hostility was blessedly totally absent. I simply do not know which attitude is prevalent, but the limited documentation may well represent prudent discretion rather than an absence of hostility.

I believe that many in the Modern Orthodox camp resent both the fact that numerous rabbanim simply dismissed the Rav (in spite of, say, the ample respect displayed for him by Rav Moshe and many others), and how this attitude played out practically among the hamon am.

The Satmar Rebbe was vociferously opposed to the establishment of Bais Yaakov. I brought that episode up in disagreement with Reader's suggestion that a respectful hesped implies unqualified agreement.

One additional point that bears mentioning is that while Rabbi Lamm has done and said things that are considered controversial by numerous roshei yeshiva, he capably bore an enormous amount of responsibility for harbotzas Torah over a period of decades, during which the Rav apparently never saw fit to remove him from his office.

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 25, 2004 8:01 AM

Izzy,

Seriously, what good is it if I bring "documented proofs," if your response is simply going to be, "I never read/saw/heard that, so maybe its not like you say?" Fact of the matter is, R. Svei's comments were NOT directed exclusively at Rabbi Lamm; R. Schachter wouldn't have reacted the way that he did if they were.

But all this is missing the "big picture." As I said before, in general, I don't see this "antagonism" coming from the figure heads of the Charedi movements. Most Gedolim that are worth their salt have enough conviction in their lifestyle to view belittling others as beneath them. I see this antagonism stemming more from the lower echelons; the high schools, rabbaim, moros, parents and co-students.

Just as an example, how many yeshivos in Israel take it upon themselves to speak to their students about how to handle returning to Teaneck after a year in Israel? How many educators or institutions honestly consider the parents (and the students themselves, for that matter) when promoting increased observance or advocating a particular lifestyle. How accepting are fellow talmidim of the choices and decisions that one might make?

While there is certainly no majority in either direction, I don't see enough being done by these institutions/individuals to eradicate this kind of uninformed behavior.

Coincidentally, I saw this post (http://www.thebronsteins.com/archives/000135.html) over on Avraham Bronstein's blog.

Posted by: Greg at March 25, 2004 9:49 AM

After reading many different blogs (such as protocols and some of the responses in this one) I have started to lose respect specifically for the MO community. I used to think that in general the MO had much more respect for other people that are different than they are including charaidi. After all, they are more "worldly" while the charadi world is much more sheltered and closed minded. As I read more and more, there seems to be more hate on both ends for each other, and especially from the MO community. I have gone to many "right wing" yeshivas my whole life and although I have heard specific negetive things against specific people, it was never towards a movement. In the end, I am still not sure who is right and if there is a right answer. But I do know, that as I start reading and seeing that it is really no different in either side, I think i will take my bets with the Rabbonim and Roshei yeshivas that are clear in their own ideology. And all of the followers who keep spewing their hatered to the other group, well I'm sorry that they dont have enough to worry on their own end that they have to worry about everyone else.

Posted by: a thought at March 25, 2004 12:56 PM

My original intention in posting here was to dispell the notion that the yeshiva world is antagonistic towards modern orthodoxy. Since I apparently have not been very successful in that end, I will try to make this my last post on the topic, instead of continuing to engage in a never-ending debate, and will therefore try to make this as comprehensive as possible.
"I believe that many in the Modern Orthodox camp resent both the fact that numerous rabbanim simply dismissed the Rav (in spite of, say, the ample respect displayed for him by Rav Moshe and many others)"
-as I wrote earlier, I have heard firsthand quotes from R' Schwalb and R' Weinberg commenting on the Rav. Since they were said in private, I dont feel its appropriate to repeat them verbatim in this forum. My understanding of both statements are that they felt that overall, the Rav had a very negative effect on American Orthodoxy. Also, I have heard from talmidim of R' Shurkin from Toras Moshe, that R' Moshe said that while it was permissable for R' Shurkin to attend shiurim of the Rav, he should limit his association to just that, and not have any other "hanah" from YU, or something to that effect.
"One additional point that bears mentioning is that while Rabbi Lamm has done and said things that are considered controversial by numerous roshei yeshiva, he capably bore an enormous amount of responsibility for harbotzas Torah over a period of decades, during which the Rav apparently never saw fit to remove him from his office."
-your logic seems to be circular. If these roshei yeshiva didn't hold from the Rav in general, and certainly didn't hold from many specific shittos of his, what support can you bring from the fact that the Rav didn't remove him from office. Also, my understanding is that YU is administered primarily by a board of directors, and that the Rav might not have had the authority to remove R' Lamm from office (any more than the current Roshei yeshiva at YU had the authority to prevent Richard Joel from taking office, which some opposed), but I could be wrong on that point.
"Seriously, what good is it if I bring "documented proofs," if your response is simply going to be, "I never read/saw/heard that, so maybe its not like you say?"
-when I said "documented proofs", I meant an article or transcript of a speech that you can share with your readers, not an assertion that something was said in a speech or magazine article without providing the original source. Such UNDOCUMENTED empty assertions have little value in the realm of intelectual discourse.
"how many yeshivos in Israel take it upon themselves to speak to their students about how to handle returning to Teaneck after a year in Israel? How many educators or institutions honestly consider the parents (and the students themselves, for that matter) when promoting increased observance or advocating a particular lifestyle."
- I did not attend one of those post-high school yeshiva in Israel that seem to specialize in producing talmidim that are to the right of their families and communities, so I cant really answer this. Maybe such institutions do not adequately take such factors into account when molding their talmidim. I just dont know. I can however tell you that my rabbeim at Ner Yisroel; R' Feldman, R' Berkowitz, and R' Neuberger, and my rabbeim at the Mir; R' Elefant, R' E. Finkel, and R' N. Finkel were always cognizant and sensitive to the issue of parents and family in my discussions with them.
While I have not read much of the Rav's writings or ever heard him speak, and therefore can not comment substantively on his shittos, I do think that it significant that there seems to be many different versions among his relatives and talmidim about his shittos. From what I have heard, R' Lamm, R' H. Schacter, R' JJ Schecter, R' Meiselman (a nephew, I think) all seem to have different ideas as to what he held. We are talking about someone that was alive within the past generation, not hundreds of years ago. I can't think of anyone who was living so recently, to whom such radically different views are attributed(with the possible exception of the Lbbavitcher Rebbe). What does that tell you?
Only tangentially related, I am not exactly sure what the term MO means, or what R' Reinman meant by describing Shomrei as such. I think Shomrei is a shul filled with balei aliah, and what could possibly be more worthy of admiration than that?

Posted by: Izzy at March 25, 2004 2:25 PM

Moshe:
It seems this conversation is getting a bit more heated than it needs to. Out of respect for the type of blog Greg keeps, as oppossed to others, maybe all of us could tone it down a notch.
Why is it, do you think, that view suchs as those put forth by the Satmar Rav don't result in his personal condemnation as is the case, in your view, with the Rav?
Or better yet, why is the yeshiva world more accepted to Satmar when both YU and the Yeshiva world are too far to the left for them? It can't simply be because YU is even farther to the left than yeshivos. Or perhaps you disagree.
Lastly, when the yeshiva world begings to speak as harshly of elements of YU as the Yu rebayim themselves, them I belive your distaste would be more justified. I do not think we have reached this point.
I hope you will take these comments in the sincere spirit they were written in.

Posted by: dropped by at March 25, 2004 2:57 PM

A couple of minor points:

I believe that there is an important (presumably unintentional) disconnect between Izzy's assertions. He sees little or no antagonism within the yeshivish community toward the world of Modern Orthodoxy, yet his understanding is that several roshei yeshiva contend that the Rav had a very negative impact on American Orthodoxy.

The unfavorable assessment of the Rav and his accomplishments, including the development of the rather wide umbrella referred to in shorthand as Modern Orthodoxy, is precisely the attitude perceived as antagonistic by those professing Modern Orthodoxy.

I share Izzy's discomfort in my inability to reproduce Rav Svei's comments or the language used by the JO. I did not realize that the tones in question were disputed by those familiar with them, if in fact they are.

I believe that the varying interpretations of the Rav testify to his complexity, which I do not see as a bad thing.

My comments regarding Rabbi Lamm were simply intended to highlight positive contributions that seem to me to be too frequently overlooked.

Rav Meiselman is married to the Rav's daughter.

Rabbi Reinman was specifically referring to Shomrei's practice of reciting the tefillah lishlom hamedinah. His reference to Shomrei as a Modern Orthodox shul did not seem designed to be received as pejorative.

I don't have well-developed answers to the questions posed by Dropped By. My initial supposition is that the greater cultural homogeneity between Satmar and the yeshiva world (contrasted with the relatively larger societal gap between these groups and Modern Orthodoxy) fosters greater tolerance for divergent ideologies, the details in which many people have little knowledge or interest.

To my knowledge, the only distaste I have evinced was toward one article in the Jewish Observer. I harbor no negative feelings toward the yeshiva world in general. I believe that the yeshiva world contributes enormously to improved avodas hashem. Relevant to the issue at hand, I contend that some differences of opinion could be expressed more precisely in the interests of advancing achdus.

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 25, 2004 4:44 PM

Moishe- I respectfully disagree with you. I believe the Rav's sister Rav Meiselman's mother. The Rav only had two daughters- one married R' Yitzchak Twerski and the other married R' Aharon Lichtenstein.

Posted by: peninah at March 25, 2004 6:18 PM

Well - thank goodness for the protective anonymity of the Internet.

Posted by: Moishe Potemkin at March 25, 2004 8:57 PM

Exactly ;)

Posted by: peninah at March 26, 2004 7:58 AM