"Many of the statements about women in the Talmud and Midrash, and some of the halakhot applicable to women, reflect the Rabbis’ own beliefs about women, beliefs that they mistakenly thought were “scientific facts.” Today we realize that many of these ideas were totally incorrect. But just because we know more than the Rabbis did about women doesn’t automatically mean that we can change the rules of Jewish law on our own."
"In contrast, most yeshivish people think there's nothing wrong with slavery, and when moshiach comes, we are all going to have slaves again so we can learn the whole day."
The slavery that exists in the Torah is, at least in some places, not chattel slavery. After the Redemption, if a Goy wants to work for free so that Jews are freed up to learn full time, that would not be what we traditionally think of as "slavery"
"Yeshivish people generally see no intrinsic value to secular studies"
So what would be the response to someone like the Vilna Gaon who thought that secular studies were necessary for the purpose of being able to fully comprehend the Torah?
This is the most brilliant and simplest (in a good way) explanation of the tensions between MO and yeshivish communities I've ever read.
You start with a very simple sociological (peoples' conscious/unconscious behaviors and feelings towards Torah and learning) premise and then explain so many aspects of contemporary hashkafa with it. It seems to work a lot better than boiling it down a difference in one aspect of hashkafa, or a disagreement in an ikkar or consequences of believing in a certain ikkar (like slifkin does by his emphasis on yeshivish peoples' beliefs in the infalliability of chazal vs. MO falliability of chazal).
The difference is that conservative rabbis, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and chareidim essentially view the Torah as a god or infallible and perfect. In so doing, they descend into idolatry and worshipping paper and ink in place of God’s Word.
Rationalists understand that the Torah is a human document inspired by all that God created or formed. The Torah was written during the Bronze Age for freely emancipated slaves. In other words, it was written for the generation that received it. It reflects the ancient barbaric culture of that time. Therefore, the Torah "allowed" slavery, animal sacrifices, rape of captive women, stoning misbehaving children and oxen, etc. There are errors in the text, the Torah lacks a scientific framework. There is nothing scientific in the work. How convenient it would have been for it to have included some knowledge clearly of divine origin, that no human could have known at the time. For example, that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, itself a star, that our world revolves, or that our world is suspended in a system of celestial bodies that fly about a massive swirling mass of stars (a galaxy), and that there is a countless number of them.
No. Nothing like that. Instead, we read about stoning misbehaving oxen or a man killed because he carried some sticks on the Shabbat. Furthermore, there is no mention of evolution, the Genesis story certainly contradicts what science teaches. Moreso, there is no theology or philosophy in the Bible.
Lastly, the book has the appearance of a human invention. Man has the power of writing stories about God and calling them the word of God. The Koran exists as an instance where this was done. The Torah obviously copied pagan myths. Noah's flood was copied from the epic of Gilgamesh. The "Garden of Eden" story reads like mythology. There was no Tower of babel and, so on.
Does this mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater? No. Because although the Torah is a human document, it was inspired by all that God has made. And, if we use it properly to improve ourselves and society, it even becomes divine. The Torah is divine only when we use it properly. If we misuse it to promote slavery, sexism, and crusade, it becomes nothing but paper and ink.
The difference is that rationalists believe the Tanakh was the word of God, written by man, inspired by God. While Charedi Jews believe it is the word of God, written by God.
Equality for all wouldn't be a fact, but an ideal, an endeavor for optimal conditions. What would be the basis for restricting one of the sexes but not the other? What is a good argument for non-egalitarianism?
I don't think you are accurately portraying the standard Modox shita.
I heard a shiur from Rav Moshe Soloveichik from Chicago (son of Reb Aharon) this past Sukkos. And his entire theme was הסתכל באורייתא וברא עלמא. His point was, the reason we don't say אף הן היו באותו הנס on a מצוה דאורייתא (according to some ראשונים), is because the mitzvos weren't given to commemorate the nes, rather the opposite, the נס happened to "commemorate" the Torah.
This is in line with the idea that we eat matzah because the Jews had to flee Egypt quickly without sufficient time to allow their dough to rise, and yet the previous night, they were commanded to eat matzah, before they ran out of time fleeing Egypt.
Exactly. The faithful Modern Orthodox oftentimes fancy themselves as the successors of the Hirschian approach. That is, a full commitment to Torah while also valuing secular knowledge as a subsidiary to Torah. Nothing like the kefirah of Maroof and Slifkin.
I'm sorry, but have you seen Samuel Lebens book published under YU's imprint? There he essentially advocates for a Conservative understanding of halacha (something which I do not believe Maroof does). This is what is widely believed by Modern Orthodox intellectuals who accept the ikkarei emunah. The rabbonim you mentioned, such as R Willig, are essentially Chareidi light.
The problem is you are making a cholent of all sorts of different MO views. Even taking your long disclaimer into account. Like as Chelm points out, RYBS who is certainly not considered chareidi lite but a leader of American MO, certainly did not take this view of Lebens or Maroof that you quote.
So was Rav Soloveitchik zt"l also chareidi light? Why do you think modox intellectuals define modox beliefs, over their rabbanim? Maybe Maroof is just conservative heavy.
It is not heresy but is deeply mistaken. The Torah did not preexist creation. The Torah was composed (probably by Moses) 3,000 years ago. It makes no sense to say that God looked into the Torah and created the world. This is utter nonsense. If the Torah is God's word, logically God "must have preceded his own speech".
Isn't it obviously a metaphor? And I'm saying that even to the so called ultra-Orthodox.
It's like saying that it's good for kids to read Harry Potter because they can learn so many good lessons, such as integrity, loyalty, bravery and honor. But we don't learn these things from the Harry Potter series because they pre-existed the 7 books. Rather, JK Rowling had the ideas that integrity, loyalty, bravery and honor were good attributes and she wove them into a sometimes charming sometimes comical and sometimes dangerous tale that would act as a vehicle to deliver her messages to the readers.
In much the same way, what's the morality of lying? Is it ok? Is it never permitted? Sometimes? Many conflicting arguments could be made about the morality of lying. Sam Harris seems to say that it's never ok to lie. The authors of the Torah obviously disagreed. Perhaps they maintained that it's not the lying that is a problem, but the unethical selfishness of the lying, so that when one can divorce the lying from selfishness, then it's permitted or even required to lie, if only good will come from it. Which is why we see lying in the Torah such as Jacob lying to Isaac about the blessings, and why Abraham was able to lie about his wife being his sister, and Tamar deceiving Judah.
It's not that we learn these lessons from the stories, but that the stories are written in order to teach lessons. This, of course, is from the perspective that the stories didn't actually happen, much like there is no Harry Potter and no Professor Snape and no Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
I agree with you that it's a metaphor. What you wrote is accurate and is as close to the truth as we can get. I agree with you that Abraham probably never existed but that his story teaches us moral lessons. Thank you for your comment.
Jacob was supposed to breed more speckled and spotted sheep because he marked branch bark in these patterns and Joseph was supposed to be a masterful dream interpreter.
The ancients who read these stories had no reason to not believe both of these, as well as stories about gardens and snakes and towers and arks and angels and mobile wells. These stories were written down and shared at a time when people believed in all sorts of things that by today's standards are crazy because they hadn't yet developed good epistemology.
Fast forward 2000 or 1000 years to today and we take kindergarteners and teach them to believe in these things. The universe didn't change in a significant way from then to now, but rather our understanding and appreciation of hypothesis testing and conclusions that follow changed. By example, if we had a solar powered table saw or calculator and we were able to time travel back to the stegosaurs (150 MYA) or the tyrannosaurs (65 MYA) or the Neanderthals (50 KYA), and also 2000 or 1000 years ago, these devices would work.
So if the reason why people millennia ago didn't appreciate the scientific method was because they were not informed enough (as a global population), and we raise kids today in ignorance (which we do in yeshivas) and then we raise them to adulthood with blinders on in an insular community, then they can easily remain as uninformed as the people who lived 1000 or 2000 years ago.
I find that most OTD people who reach out to me fall into 2 groups...those who are around 20 and those who are around 35. They finally come across information and they feel confused and lost because Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph is all they know and they don't know how to think when these things are removed from the history they always thought they knew.
I agree. I don’t think any ultra-orthodox ideology is going to survive because it doesn’t survive scrutiny. It’s tradition — literally the way you’re raised — over everything else. If there’s one thing that time teaches you it’s that future generations do not carry over the same concepts. Well, that’s the problem and then when they’re introduced to new concepts such as evolution they will realize that they’ve been lied to.
Not at all. Many MO and Datim rely heavily on kabalistic chasidic sources. Think of Yeshivat Otniel. Rav Kooks writings are all based on כתבי האריז"ל. Unless youre only discussing MO in America. Even then, i bet all the ראשי ישיבה of YU respect kabbala.
"Rav Kooks writings are all based on כתבי האריז"ל."
Definitely. In my opinion, Orot Teshuva is probably for a modern audience the best way to convey what the Arizal meant when he talked about tikkun olam, while also incorporating the best elements of Rambam's writings on teshuva.
I wouldn't describe what Ash is explaining here to be "facing head on", but surrendering. Facing head on would be openly disputing and refuting modern values and assumptions.
This is a poorly written article based on stereotypes as opposed to any actual knowledge of the RY of RIETS and the Many Talmidei Chachamim in the RIETS Beis Medrash
I read it and since you seem to be a person who thinks seriously about many issues you really should look at the RIETS Beis Medrash and listen to the shiurim of the Gdolim who are in that Beis Medrash and who learned there and learn their sefarim That alone would show Ahavas Yisrael on your part to Gdolim who quote Torah from Satmar to Lakewood to Brisk and RYBS and Rav Kook ZL as a Cheftza Shel Torah.
This is a great piece and I've just stumbled upon it today. Thanks for putting it together!
I wonder if the people inside the two camps here of the debate and the people on the sidelines just engaging with the debate could all take a large step back and observe the discussion from a very global perspective.
Here we have a topic where claims are made but we can't verify any of things that are being argued about. I find that people get very heated about both the assertions they make and the assertions they want to clash with...but that none of it scales with the quality of the information they are compelled to work with.
Sorry, but this sounds like Slifkin's two camps approach already. Either you believe that Chazal never made mistakes and the Chazon Ish magically knew how to perform brain surgery, or you believe that Chazal and the Rishonim had no idea how to read the Torah, and it's essentially a myth.
"As an aside, my fun way of testing if a Chabad sentence is kefira or not, I substitute the word Torah for Rebbe. If it wouldn’t make me nervous anymore, I am fine with it. But if it still would, then I consider it questionable."
Did you mean you substitute Rebbe, for Torah? Either way, it's a pretty poor litmus test.
"Many of the statements about women in the Talmud and Midrash, and some of the halakhot applicable to women, reflect the Rabbis’ own beliefs about women, beliefs that they mistakenly thought were “scientific facts.” Today we realize that many of these ideas were totally incorrect. But just because we know more than the Rabbis did about women doesn’t automatically mean that we can change the rules of Jewish law on our own."
This is pathetic. Is the guy married?
"Is the guy married?"
Well, considering that the full article is titled "Letter to my Daughter" and refers to a "we" that was raising her, I'd presume so.
"In contrast, most yeshivish people think there's nothing wrong with slavery, and when moshiach comes, we are all going to have slaves again so we can learn the whole day."
The slavery that exists in the Torah is, at least in some places, not chattel slavery. After the Redemption, if a Goy wants to work for free so that Jews are freed up to learn full time, that would not be what we traditionally think of as "slavery"
"Yeshivish people generally see no intrinsic value to secular studies"
So what would be the response to someone like the Vilna Gaon who thought that secular studies were necessary for the purpose of being able to fully comprehend the Torah?
Great post Ash
no
why?
not taking sides but isnt this a fair framing of the argument?
I explained in my longer comment
agreed!
This is the most brilliant and simplest (in a good way) explanation of the tensions between MO and yeshivish communities I've ever read.
You start with a very simple sociological (peoples' conscious/unconscious behaviors and feelings towards Torah and learning) premise and then explain so many aspects of contemporary hashkafa with it. It seems to work a lot better than boiling it down a difference in one aspect of hashkafa, or a disagreement in an ikkar or consequences of believing in a certain ikkar (like slifkin does by his emphasis on yeshivish peoples' beliefs in the infalliability of chazal vs. MO falliability of chazal).
Bravo!
Thanks for the compliment! The Lehrhaus just published a post on this subject as well, that also misses this main point.
https://thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/rack-up-those-mitzvot/
I wish I could’ve read this when I was in high school.
The difference is that conservative rabbis, ultra-Orthodox Jews, and chareidim essentially view the Torah as a god or infallible and perfect. In so doing, they descend into idolatry and worshipping paper and ink in place of God’s Word.
Rationalists understand that the Torah is a human document inspired by all that God created or formed. The Torah was written during the Bronze Age for freely emancipated slaves. In other words, it was written for the generation that received it. It reflects the ancient barbaric culture of that time. Therefore, the Torah "allowed" slavery, animal sacrifices, rape of captive women, stoning misbehaving children and oxen, etc. There are errors in the text, the Torah lacks a scientific framework. There is nothing scientific in the work. How convenient it would have been for it to have included some knowledge clearly of divine origin, that no human could have known at the time. For example, that the Earth is the third planet from the Sun, itself a star, that our world revolves, or that our world is suspended in a system of celestial bodies that fly about a massive swirling mass of stars (a galaxy), and that there is a countless number of them.
No. Nothing like that. Instead, we read about stoning misbehaving oxen or a man killed because he carried some sticks on the Shabbat. Furthermore, there is no mention of evolution, the Genesis story certainly contradicts what science teaches. Moreso, there is no theology or philosophy in the Bible.
Lastly, the book has the appearance of a human invention. Man has the power of writing stories about God and calling them the word of God. The Koran exists as an instance where this was done. The Torah obviously copied pagan myths. Noah's flood was copied from the epic of Gilgamesh. The "Garden of Eden" story reads like mythology. There was no Tower of babel and, so on.
Does this mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater? No. Because although the Torah is a human document, it was inspired by all that God has made. And, if we use it properly to improve ourselves and society, it even becomes divine. The Torah is divine only when we use it properly. If we misuse it to promote slavery, sexism, and crusade, it becomes nothing but paper and ink.
The difference is that rationalists believe the Tanakh was the word of God, written by man, inspired by God. While Charedi Jews believe it is the word of God, written by God.
Interesting take, but you are conflating TSBP with TSBC.
Also, I'm not sure magical thinking and chareidim are the same thing.
In which sense is equality of the sexes a scientific fact?
Equality for all wouldn't be a fact, but an ideal, an endeavor for optimal conditions. What would be the basis for restricting one of the sexes but not the other? What is a good argument for non-egalitarianism?
Good analysis
I don't think you are accurately portraying the standard Modox shita.
I heard a shiur from Rav Moshe Soloveichik from Chicago (son of Reb Aharon) this past Sukkos. And his entire theme was הסתכל באורייתא וברא עלמא. His point was, the reason we don't say אף הן היו באותו הנס on a מצוה דאורייתא (according to some ראשונים), is because the mitzvos weren't given to commemorate the nes, rather the opposite, the נס happened to "commemorate" the Torah.
(That shiur is not on yutorah, but can hear other shiurim from him there https://yutorah.org/search/?teacher=81884)
This is in line with the idea that we eat matzah because the Jews had to flee Egypt quickly without sufficient time to allow their dough to rise, and yet the previous night, they were commanded to eat matzah, before they ran out of time fleeing Egypt.
Exactly. The faithful Modern Orthodox oftentimes fancy themselves as the successors of the Hirschian approach. That is, a full commitment to Torah while also valuing secular knowledge as a subsidiary to Torah. Nothing like the kefirah of Maroof and Slifkin.
I'm sorry, but have you seen Samuel Lebens book published under YU's imprint? There he essentially advocates for a Conservative understanding of halacha (something which I do not believe Maroof does). This is what is widely believed by Modern Orthodox intellectuals who accept the ikkarei emunah. The rabbonim you mentioned, such as R Willig, are essentially Chareidi light.
The problem is you are making a cholent of all sorts of different MO views. Even taking your long disclaimer into account. Like as Chelm points out, RYBS who is certainly not considered chareidi lite but a leader of American MO, certainly did not take this view of Lebens or Maroof that you quote.
Agreed. But many of his talmidim do, such as Riskin
So was Rav Soloveitchik zt"l also chareidi light? Why do you think modox intellectuals define modox beliefs, over their rabbanim? Maybe Maroof is just conservative heavy.
God looked into the torah and created the world?
Heresy!
It is not heresy but is deeply mistaken. The Torah did not preexist creation. The Torah was composed (probably by Moses) 3,000 years ago. It makes no sense to say that God looked into the Torah and created the world. This is utter nonsense. If the Torah is God's word, logically God "must have preceded his own speech".
Isn't it obviously a metaphor? And I'm saying that even to the so called ultra-Orthodox.
It's like saying that it's good for kids to read Harry Potter because they can learn so many good lessons, such as integrity, loyalty, bravery and honor. But we don't learn these things from the Harry Potter series because they pre-existed the 7 books. Rather, JK Rowling had the ideas that integrity, loyalty, bravery and honor were good attributes and she wove them into a sometimes charming sometimes comical and sometimes dangerous tale that would act as a vehicle to deliver her messages to the readers.
In much the same way, what's the morality of lying? Is it ok? Is it never permitted? Sometimes? Many conflicting arguments could be made about the morality of lying. Sam Harris seems to say that it's never ok to lie. The authors of the Torah obviously disagreed. Perhaps they maintained that it's not the lying that is a problem, but the unethical selfishness of the lying, so that when one can divorce the lying from selfishness, then it's permitted or even required to lie, if only good will come from it. Which is why we see lying in the Torah such as Jacob lying to Isaac about the blessings, and why Abraham was able to lie about his wife being his sister, and Tamar deceiving Judah.
It's not that we learn these lessons from the stories, but that the stories are written in order to teach lessons. This, of course, is from the perspective that the stories didn't actually happen, much like there is no Harry Potter and no Professor Snape and no Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
>there is no Harry Potter and no Professor Snape and no Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
Just because you didnt get the letter from Hogwarts doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Ha!
It may sound like sour grapes, but the reason I don't believe in Hogwarts is not because I didn't get a letter.
An Obscurus in the making I see.
I agree with you that it's a metaphor. What you wrote is accurate and is as close to the truth as we can get. I agree with you that Abraham probably never existed but that his story teaches us moral lessons. Thank you for your comment.
Jacob was supposed to breed more speckled and spotted sheep because he marked branch bark in these patterns and Joseph was supposed to be a masterful dream interpreter.
The ancients who read these stories had no reason to not believe both of these, as well as stories about gardens and snakes and towers and arks and angels and mobile wells. These stories were written down and shared at a time when people believed in all sorts of things that by today's standards are crazy because they hadn't yet developed good epistemology.
Fast forward 2000 or 1000 years to today and we take kindergarteners and teach them to believe in these things. The universe didn't change in a significant way from then to now, but rather our understanding and appreciation of hypothesis testing and conclusions that follow changed. By example, if we had a solar powered table saw or calculator and we were able to time travel back to the stegosaurs (150 MYA) or the tyrannosaurs (65 MYA) or the Neanderthals (50 KYA), and also 2000 or 1000 years ago, these devices would work.
So if the reason why people millennia ago didn't appreciate the scientific method was because they were not informed enough (as a global population), and we raise kids today in ignorance (which we do in yeshivas) and then we raise them to adulthood with blinders on in an insular community, then they can easily remain as uninformed as the people who lived 1000 or 2000 years ago.
I find that most OTD people who reach out to me fall into 2 groups...those who are around 20 and those who are around 35. They finally come across information and they feel confused and lost because Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Joseph is all they know and they don't know how to think when these things are removed from the history they always thought they knew.
I agree. I don’t think any ultra-orthodox ideology is going to survive because it doesn’t survive scrutiny. It’s tradition — literally the way you’re raised — over everything else. If there’s one thing that time teaches you it’s that future generations do not carry over the same concepts. Well, that’s the problem and then when they’re introduced to new concepts such as evolution they will realize that they’ve been lied to.
Can I be bold and word this differently? The difference boils down to if we accept the Zohar or not. Is that fair?
I would say not the Zohar but Nefesh Hachaim.
yah i really meant the gr'a (arizal) mesora
Not at all. Many MO and Datim rely heavily on kabalistic chasidic sources. Think of Yeshivat Otniel. Rav Kooks writings are all based on כתבי האריז"ל. Unless youre only discussing MO in America. Even then, i bet all the ראשי ישיבה of YU respect kabbala.
"Rav Kooks writings are all based on כתבי האריז"ל."
Definitely. In my opinion, Orot Teshuva is probably for a modern audience the best way to convey what the Arizal meant when he talked about tikkun olam, while also incorporating the best elements of Rambam's writings on teshuva.
no
Which is in turn based on how much they value the world vis a vis the Torah.
I wouldn't describe what Ash is explaining here to be "facing head on", but surrendering. Facing head on would be openly disputing and refuting modern values and assumptions.
It means addressing questions. One major risk of addressing uncertainty is giving in.
So like Irrationalist Modoxism. Or Kiruv seminars. Nothing to do with the Modoxism Ash is describing.
Kiruv seminars are not about finding the truth, unfortunately.
>>>Kiruv seminars are not about finding the truth
Word.
That's what substack is for.
This is a poorly written article based on stereotypes as opposed to any actual knowledge of the RY of RIETS and the Many Talmidei Chachamim in the RIETS Beis Medrash
Did you read the warning?
I read it and since you seem to be a person who thinks seriously about many issues you really should look at the RIETS Beis Medrash and listen to the shiurim of the Gdolim who are in that Beis Medrash and who learned there and learn their sefarim That alone would show Ahavas Yisrael on your part to Gdolim who quote Torah from Satmar to Lakewood to Brisk and RYBS and Rav Kook ZL as a Cheftza Shel Torah.
This is a great piece and I've just stumbled upon it today. Thanks for putting it together!
I wonder if the people inside the two camps here of the debate and the people on the sidelines just engaging with the debate could all take a large step back and observe the discussion from a very global perspective.
Here we have a topic where claims are made but we can't verify any of things that are being argued about. I find that people get very heated about both the assertions they make and the assertions they want to clash with...but that none of it scales with the quality of the information they are compelled to work with.
Sorry, but this sounds like Slifkin's two camps approach already. Either you believe that Chazal never made mistakes and the Chazon Ish magically knew how to perform brain surgery, or you believe that Chazal and the Rishonim had no idea how to read the Torah, and it's essentially a myth.
Not buying it.
As an aside, is this basically an expounding of this https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-challenge-of-modern-orthodoxy?
"As an aside, my fun way of testing if a Chabad sentence is kefira or not, I substitute the word Torah for Rebbe. If it wouldn’t make me nervous anymore, I am fine with it. But if it still would, then I consider it questionable."
Did you mean you substitute Rebbe, for Torah? Either way, it's a pretty poor litmus test.
"The Rebbe will protect me".
"The Torah will protect me".
See how easy it is?
I hear ya,
So are you trying to prove that saying the torah protects is avodah zara?
(See Rambam ע"ז יא יב about הלוחש על המכה)
I'm saying the Rebbe protects is not