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

[Micha Berger]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 08:38:38PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Sent: 22 January 2026 02:32
>> 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.

> 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.

Why would you have thought that I "surely" would? I would have no
problem calling Moshe Rabbeinu "Orthodox".

After all, whatever feature the Ashkenazi movements that call themselves
Orthodox that Sepharadim saw in themselves as well as our communities
ensed up in proximity is a an attitude toward Beris Sinai and Torah
that we believe is a direct evolution of the same process Moshe Rabbeinu
gave us. (As crippled by the things we lost along the way, like the
Sanhedrin.) If you believe that Ravina veRav Ashi were on the chain
that started with Moshe Rabbeinu, and RMF was as well in ways that
<pick your favorite non-O leader here> isn't, then why not use the
label O to describe that? Loyalty to the dynamics of TSBP that are
given within TSBP vs not.

>> 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

Either Moshe's teachings too shared that property, or O is OTD
and not "Torah Judaism".

As I had hoped was clear from my post, my problem with the word O is
specifically that it means too many things depending on context. In
sociological conversation it is a kind of self-identity. In halachic
discussion it can be used either as the set of Jews who aren't apiqorsim,
minim or koferim, the set of Jews who don't believe heresy and yet still
excluding people who for other reasons don't qualify as apiqursim, minim,
or koferim, or even a third possible set -- the Jews whose beliefs
are capable of maintaining Orthopraxy. (Andin all three cases, that
would entail belief that a Jew is supposed to try to be observant.) In
hashkafic context we get into who is a Yisrael" in the sense of "Kol
Yisrael yeish lahem cheileq". Etc...

Historically these have been pretty correlated sets, and it's more
fora like this than real life in which the gray areas loom.

I would want to see the sociological category broadened. I think Chabad
has a great model for making Jews feel welcome regardless of personal
belief or practice without sacrificing any clarity on what their party
line is. that often. I would like to see more of use doing similarly.

Especially as C implodes we need to foster a rebirth of the O affiliated
non-observant community. Because otherwise the newly homeless C congregant
will drift further from our ideals. But that's not my main motive,
just a cause for feeling an urgency.

Yes, "Orthodox" is a horrible term to have ended up with. Even if
it hadn't been polluted by having too many different usages.
But what are our other choices? What positive self-description do
we have that non-O would agree they don't. Do you think they don't
view themselves as following the Torah. C considers itself a
halachic movement, albeit for a different bredth of ideas about how
halakhah ought to work.

I don't think there is an easy path to a better label, and we should
simply live with what we have.

And I'm skipping the question of do we need labels at all, because that
is thread by itself.

> 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.

And my point about Mendelssohn saying that revalation only contains
values and actions, not beliefs, is that it was the one thing he said
that fails most of my list of uses of the label Orthodox. Yes, he would
still be sociologically O, and I wouldn't have wanted to drum him out
of our community, had I been a contemporary (who by some magic still
had the opinions my actual life left me with).

But this particular idea pardoxically means that revelation doesn't
include belief in that revelation of those actions, either. Which makes
observance an unjustified act of will. It violated both of my "halachic
definition" discussions.

And in that sense, rather than the sociological one, I agree with R's
choice of calling him a major step along the path to their existence.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "I hear, then I forget; I see, then I remember;
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   I do, then I understand." - Confucius
Author: Widen Your Tent      "Hearing doesn't compare to seeing." - Mechilta
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    "We will do and we will listen." - Israelites