[Avodah] Normal People Don't Care About Those Things

[Ben Bradley]

I appreciate the point that a concept can exist before a word is coined to describe it, and that's usually the course of events. But the use of the term orthodox to describe people who lived before the era it came into use does not work well, I think. Even it you want to apply it to Mendelsohn, was the Rambam an orthodox rabbi? Was Rabbi Akiva? They have the properties you'd describe as orthodox once the term came into use, but surely there you'd consider it an anachronistic application.
That's quite apart from the troublesome roots of the term, I'd much prefer we found a better term altogether for Torah Judaism in all its forms and return Orthodox to the Eastern churches whence it was misappropriated by the early Reform movement.
________________________________
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
Sent: 22 January 2026 02:32
To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Cc: Ben Bradley <bdbradley70 at hotmail.com>; Ilana Elzufon <ilanasober at gmail.com>; Meir Shinnar <chidekel at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Normal People Don't Care About Those Things

On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 04:59:40PM +0200, Ilana Elzufon via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 9:26AM Meir Shinnar via Avodah <avodah at lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> > 1. the first person I know who is explicit about actions being primary is
> > Mendelson. While he is viewed now by many as Reform,in his lifetime he was
> > viewed by most to be Orthodox.

> To the best of my knowledge, Rav Moshe Mendelssohn himself was most
> definitely Orthodox (although that term may be a bit anachronistic?), even
> if his ideas later became important in the development of Reform...

So he was Orthodopractic, and more people don't bother considering
someone with heterodoxical beliefs alone outside the camp. Which is
where this discussion's subject line came from.

Nor do I personally think that believing heresy always makes one
halachically someone we must treat like a min, apikoreis or kofer, and
for that matter whether or not we assume the heavenly court will treat
him as one -- I cannot assume that nebich an apiqoreis "ein lo cheileq
le'olam haba", although the Rambam (in a very Aristotilian move) did.

But since thebelieds themselves now fit in R, not O, I stand by theidea
that the notion that the Torah only requires and revelation only
transmitted orthopraxy is from Reform, or if you prefer proto-Reform.

--

> Yes it is anachronistic to call Mendelson Orthodox or Reform, as neither
> term was yet in use...

Sanhedrin is a Greek term, but I don't think it's anachronistic to
simply use the term for any Beis Din haGadol, even those that preceded
Galus Bavel.

Similarly, I have no problem using the word Jew for someone who is
subject to the covenants of Sinai and Arvos Moav even before "Yehudi"
was applied beyond sheivet Yehudah (Esther 2:5, Mordechai is described
as a Yehudi and a Benjaminite), even to someone who lived in Malkhis
Yisrael.

The concept a word was coined to refer to can exist before the word.

I have said here that O is a property a movement can retain, not
a movement or an invention, but an adjective. Summary on my take about
what O means: https://michaberger.substack.com/p/orthodoxy
(Copied from a Mi Yodeya [Jewish Stack exchange] post)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger                 The true measure of a man
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   is how he treats someone
Author: Widen Your Tent      who can do him absolutely no good.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Samuel Johnson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20260131/41b890a5/attachment.htm>