[Avodah] Only Torah Judaism

[Micha Berger]

I got the following in email, in response to R Prof Levine's post:

> Regarding Rav Shimon Shwab's beliefs in which he wrote:

>> Let us state here unequivocally that the term "Orthodoxy" is false
>> and misleading. There is no Orthodox Judaism. There is only Judaism.
>> Reform and Conservatism is non-Judaism, or anti-Judaism. Without
>> the fundamental conviction that the whole Torah is handed
>> down to us from Sinai, there is no Judaism. There is nothing.

> How would he explain the constant disputes and disagreements between
> Hillel and Shamai?
> The same Torah from Sinai has always been interpreted by various
> commentators in a variety of ways throughout Jewish history.

> I believe what he says is very divisive.

(The author of the email is Bcc-ed.)

I believe intentionally so. RSS is the inheritor of R SR Hirsch's Austritt
community, the ones who believed the only way to preserve orthodoxy was to
"exit" or "withdraw" out of the general Judische Gemeinde to form their
own government recognized religious community.

In contrast, here in the US the position of Mod-O has been either RYBS's
stance of only working Together with the non-orthodox on communal issues,
or "kelapei chutz" (WRT the outside) but not ecumenical work on religious
issues (those that are "kelapei fnim", internal). RYBS felt that movements
that did not insist on Torah miSinai and the authenticity of the Oral
Torah broke the sanctity of Adas Yisrael (eidah beinga conjugation of
eidus, testimony). But that did not give us license to be the ones to
violate the sanctity of Kelal Yisrael. And so read his teshuvah about
the OU joining the SCA.

Among his students, many took his position. Others work together
with non-O organizations on religious matters. Some agreed with his
position but felt it was a pesaq for a time when O was struggling to
survive, during the rise of the C movement. And we don't need such
survival strategies matters now. Personally, I didn't actually see that
consideration in the teshuvah to say that was RYBS's motivation.

In any case the majority of O, including my own rebbe at the self-same
YU, Rav Dovid Lifshitz, did not hold O organizations should join the
SCA. Certainly R Schwab wouldn't have.

As for eilu va'eilu and Batei Hillel and Shammai.... Everyone agrees
there needs to be a plurality of derakhim. And everyone agrees that
there has to be limits; saying "these and those are the Words of the
'Living' G-d / the Living Words of G-d" doesn't mean G-d said and meant
everything and anything.

Orthodoxy differs from Conservative and Reform in that it's not a
movement. I don't just mean the lack of a central structure, or trying
to say my team is different in kind to make a polemic point.

In response to the cultural rupture caused by the opportunities created
by the Emancipation, movements arose in the Jewish Community. Whether
we are talking about German Reform or Chassidus, or the Yeshiva Movement
or Mussar, or the Chasam Sofer's Chadash Assur Min haTorah or RSRH's or
R Hildesheimer's Neo-Orthodoxies.

Orthodoxy is more a property of these movements. Something they and
successor movements maintained, or didn't. Not to say there weren't cases
like Chassidus, where we weren't initially sure which side of the fence
they were on. Or maybe, which side of the fence they would end up on.

When an O source like RSS thinks of eilu va'eilu, he is -- by definition
of being O -- really ony thinking in these terms. Seeing the schools
founded by Hillel and by Shammai as predecessors to the various O
movements.

That said, Elliott Shimoff, a math professor who used to post on
soc.culture.jewish and scjm (the moderated spinoff created after
antisemites and missionaries ruined the original) brought an interesting
proof that halakhah does treat non-O movements as Jewish.

If someone with a Jewish mother was raised Baptist, or ch"v joined
a church (maybe j4j) and wanted to return, we would expect geirus
lechumerah. A ritual "only" with the weight of minhag, of going to the
miqvah befor we consider the person a Jew in good standing, who (if male)
could be counted for a minyan, whose testimony is valid, etc...

This is not true for someone who joined Reform. Even though the Baptist
never questioned the historiticity of Yetzias Mitzrayim or Maamud Har
Sinai, and the R Jew likely did.

It seems to be something much like RYBS's point -- that someone who
chooses to remain within the Jewish community is inherently more "one
of us" than someone who joined another faith community.

But in terms of kelapei fnim, the Ism, even R or C would agree there
are limits to what Isms are Jewish ad Torah. The difference is that O
has far narrower limits.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Today is the 44th day, which is
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
Author: Widen Your Tent      Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                          does unity demand?