Wednesday, 10 December 2014

Modern Orthodoxy

http://i2.wp.com/www.jewishpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Rav-Yosef-Dov-Soloveitchik.jpg?zoom=1.5&w=477

 

The Modern Orthodox (MO) movement is something I knew well, since I was part of it for some time. It is different from ultra-orthodoxy, since it welcomes the combination of academic studies in any field, and Torah + Talmud studies. It does not object to modern dress, although rabbis would frown on the wearing of denim for example.
It claims to adhere to the oral law - talmud, shulchan aruch etc, and many of its proponents are believers in the Kabbalah.

Here lies the first paradox of Modern orthodoxy. Unlike the rationalist rabbis such as Maimonides and Saadia Gaon, who blasted kabbalah and mysticism, most modern orthodox rabbis are not rational, other than in a very limited boundary. They prefer to model themselves upon Rav Kook, who was a genius and a great thinker, but also a kabbalist. The Yeshiva University rabbis in general are Zoharists, and this is not the same as the Dor Deah movement of Rav Yachye Kapach, which rejected the falsehoods of kabbalah.

The next issue is that there is greater emphasis on individuals, and on possible lenient views on certain halachic issues. This might involve for example, the permission to consume dairy products that are not from kosher supervised dairies (chalav Yisroel).

However, MO is still faithful to the Shulchan Aruch. They do not question the absurdities or the contradictions of rabbinic law. They keep the mourning period associated with the Omer, as well as the false notion of counting it from the 2nd day of Hag Hamatzot. Within MO, there have been some radical thinkers, who wish to modernize halacha, and have even discussed abolishing certain rabbinic laws which are no longer “relevant” such as the observance of an extra day for every holiday outside of Israel. However, the basis for this kind of leniency, which is never practical, but only a theoretical discussion, is that there may be some rabbinic sources that would support such a move.

Some of the radicals, such as the late Chief rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren suggested that building the Temple and setting up sacrifices would be possible today. He also was open to questioning certain statements of rabbis, based on contradictions with empirical reality. Thus, for example, the rabbinic blessing for the new moon includes a verse which suggests that man cannot touch the moon. Maimonides said the moon was not physical matter but an intelligent essence. Rabbi Goren argued that since the moon landings of NASA, these notions have been proven wrong, and hence are obsolete and require change or updating. It should not come as a surprise that the MO are despised by the Ultra orthodox, and they save their greatest hatred for people like Goren.

The logic of great thinkers like Goren and Kapach is very healthy. It is also a threat to real phariseeism, since it exposes the fallacies of infallibility, and omniscience ascribed to the rabbis. Once the door is opened, then it threatens all the fallacies of the Talmud to be exposed. Unfortunately, no MO rabbi has ever done this and remained orthodox. Some have instead gone the way of reform, and deconstructed the Written law instead.

Another good example is Jonathan Sacks, who whilst he held the position of Chief Rabbi was to afraid to do anything radical, but now that he is no longer in any position of authority, he occasionally writes something that sounds remotely rational.
The MO are too afraid of Hareidi Ultra orthodox, and do not wish to be totally banned from orthodoxy. It is quite possible to find professors of secular subjects, who are MO, but they do not and cannot question Talmudic Judaism.

A positive characteristic of many MO people is they are less judgemental than their ultra- brothers. This may well be because many of them have secular friends and relatives, and they are involved in the secular world on a daily basis. Whilst, for example, they might take leniencies with certain things, eg wearing a kippa all the time, there still seems to be an inability to question whether the rabbis have got it right or not.

Despite these positive attributes, it should be noted that a MO Yeshiva is still an oppressive and dishonest place, where they present what they intellectually know to be false, as facts. One interesting little caveat, is a recording I heard of Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet, who is from Yeshiva University and now heads the Gruss Kollel in Jerusalem. In a training session for young rabbis, they discussed the presentation of Talmud/Halacha as a great humane body of work. This is often the promotion that Talmud and halachic lifestyle is given by the marketing men of orthodoxy. Rakeffet said to his young rabbinic students, that there are a lot of things in the Talmud which are not so nice or humane! This is a valuable admission. However, it was not said in a manner of openness or a desire for true representation. He was not suggesting that the dark side of the Talmud is also presented to congregations where the Rabbis will serve. It was rather his fear that the cat may be let out of the bag, if they were to present the Talmud as a perfect and just law, when in fact it is a tyrannical mind control system, whose brutal proprietors would stop at nothing to dispose of the rightful leaders of Israel – The Sadducee Priests.






No comments:

Post a Comment