Special, Identifiable Clothing - For Torah Umadda Book (1998)

View Text View Original

One of the visible differentia between the Right-Wing and Centrist Orthodoxy is the black felt hat, or black suits.

There is a good argument to be made for such outward identifying marks...

However, there is equally good argument to oppose them. For one thing, they set apart Orthodox Jews from others, and thus make them immune to whatever beneficent influence Orthodox Jews can have on other Jews. The "Alter" of Mir used to insist that his students dress "normally" and be shaven... (Check on this).

Moreover, excessive emphasis on outward appearance often becomes a cover-up for inward moral flabbiness. The Kotzker once said: We read in the Torah that, at the occasion of the spies who entered Canaan, that Joshua and Caleb tore their clothing. Why so? The answer is: When the two saw that twelve spies who were all distinguished princes could wear their shtreimlech and white "chupitzes" and yet speak ill of the Land of Israel, they came to the conclusion that outward appearance no longer has any significance whatever, and they therefore tore their clothing, i.e., the clothing of the spies. Why, he asked, do we need any shtreimlech and "chupitzes", when the outward clothing no longer protect inner purity?

Torah Umadda: Centrist Orthodoxy - Re: Haredi Provincialism (1989)

The January 13, 1989 edition of Per Yid, the Satmar organ (which announces itself as the "Voice of American Orthodox Jewry"), carries an article on page 45 by a Rabbi Landsman, one of a series on, "The Trials of the New Generation." In this particular column, which otherwise has certain perceptive ideas on Talmud education, we read some rather astounding things about this group's formulation of the trials and temptations of being a Jew in the modern world. This particular article is directed to a relatively large amount of publication of halakhic works by people of suspect ideological purity. The Satmar Rebbe taught that no volume of pure Halakhah, even if it does not contain any questions of ideology, may be used if the author is not one of the "in-group," that is, those who identify with their brand of Orthodoxy. In the previous issue of Per Yid, in the article by the same author in this series, he tells of the late Tzehlemer Rav, Rabbi Levi Greenwald, who in the middle of a sheur asked a student to bring him a classic halakhic work (Shitah Mekubetzet on Pesahim), and when the student brought it he noticed that it was a fairly new volume, and he asked who issued it. The student answered that it was a Gershuni (the rabbinic title was removed from the story, although Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni has been prominent for ears as a distinguished talmudic scholar). The Tzehlemer Rav inquired whether this ws the same Gershuni who was active in Mizrachi, the organization of religious Zionism, and when the answer was affirmative he asked that the book be taken out immediately. When the student returned and the rabbi asked him what he did with the volume, and the student replied that he put it with the Shemot—the scraps of sacred literature that are prepared for being discarded and buried—the rabbi was alarmed and said, "No, that is not good enough; I want it out of this house altogether..." How does one examine the religious credentials of standard halakhic works which are otherw…

Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim

The Mandate to Promote Kiddush Shem Shamayim (1994)

I. Of Over-Confidence and Setbacks: Every unusual, seemingly inexplicable occurrence that befalls Klal Yisroel, Chazal say, must have some sort of initial cause, with a lesson to teach us. Thus, the violation of Dena by Shechem (see Bereishis, Chap. 24), so contrary to the values and conduct of Yaakov Avinu’s family, must have come from some earlier weakness. Indeed, the Midrash points out that the misfortune befell Yaakov because he had transgressed the principle: אל תתהלל ליום מרוד—“Do not be sure of yourself in regard to the morrow” (Mishlei 27:1). When Yaakov had arranged the terms for his tending Lavan’s sheep, he set up a number of safeguards to protect Lavan’s property from embezzlement, adding, “My integrity will answer for me on the morrow” (Bereishis 30:33). According to Rabbi Yehuda ben Rav Shimon, G-d responded: “You are so assured of your integrity on the morrow. On the morrow your daughter will be violated.” This may seem difficult. After all, as long as Yaakov was in Lavan’s employ, his devotion and integrity were so exemplary that Yaakov emerged as the paradigm of Emes, to be eternally identified with this attribute. Yet Yaakov was still faulted. His self-assurance somehow implied a relaxing of his guard against a lack of adherence to principle. As a result, his family ultimately suffered a major breach in its integrity. Like Passengers Aboard a Sinking Ship vorably on our Torah institutions. Unfortunately, we cannot proudly declare: “My integrity will answer for me” on this morrow. Reading the Report of the Nunn Commission on the misappropriation of government funds by certain educational institutions, we cannot shrug off the smear against us by saying, “It was that institution... their actions.” The Chillul Hashem must be borne by all of us, for the status of all Torah students has fallen. This affects us all. As Targum Yonasan ben Uziel says in regard to the command, “Do not steal”: “Do not be friends or partners with thieves, lest your children …

Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim

Torah U-Madda: A Critique of Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm's Book and Its Approach to Torah Study and the Pursuit of Secular Knowledge (1992)

It is over 200 years since Moses Mendelssohn brought to the fore of German Jewry the issue of Judaism’s stance towards the surrounding culture, and of the proper relationship between Torah learning and secular studies. And when Napoleon’s armies spread the French Enlightenment 30 years later, the confrontation between Torah and secular ideals reached Eastern Europe as well. But the nature of the struggle between Jewish life and modernity has changed over the years. The intellectual challenge to Torah today is, if anything, less than it was sixty years ago. It is doubtful that any current Rosh Yeshiva would feel the need to prove that Torah is deeper than Kant, as one well-known mashgiach did in post-World War I Lithuania. Nor is there any modern-day parallel to the intellectual attraction that socialism and Zionism once exercised on yeshiva students.

Modern Orthodoxy & the Charedim