We all know that the recent horrific murders require a response of avodah against sinas chinam. As my own attempt to work on this terrible phenomenon, I am mekkabel al atzmi bli neder that from Tisha b'Av until Roch Chodesh Marcheshvan 5772, I will bli neder avoid the use b'ksav and b'al peh of the divisive terms "Charedi" (aka "Haredi"), "Modern Orthodox (aka "MO") and "Centrist Orthodoxy." I am willing to entertain refraining from other terms as per any suggestions.
If you think this might be a good avodah, please spread the word. Add a comment here, write about it on another blog, sign up to the FB page (and Google+ if I can figure out how to do it) I hope to make on this topic.
ונזכה לראות בנחמת ציון וירושלים במהרה
You're using a sledge hammer. Those terms are not intrinsically divisive, they are neutrally descriptive. There's no problem in using those terms. Issues arise in how they're used and that's what we all need to work on.
ReplyDeleteYeshivish
ReplyDeleteZionist
Mussarist
are also divisive terms
...agree with Michael
ReplyDeleteReb Michael and Reb Harry:
ReplyDeleteרמב"ם יד החזקה הלכות דעות פרק ב
(ב) וכיצד היא רפואתם מי שהוא בעל חמה אומרים לו להנהיג עצמו שאם הוכה וקולל לא ירגיש כלל וילך בדרך זו זמן מרובה עד שיתעקר החמה מלבו ואם היה גבה לב ינהיג עצמו בבזיון הרבה וישב למטה מן הכל וילבש בלויי סחבות המבזות את לובשיהם וכיוצא בדברים אלו עד שיעקור גובה הלב ממנו ויחזור לדרך האמצעית שהוא דרך הטובה ולכשיחזור לדרך האמצעית ילך בה כל ימיו ועל קו זה יעשה בשאר כל הדעות אם היה רחוק לקצה האחד ירחיק עצמו לקצה השני וינהוג בו זמן רב עד שיחזור בו לדרך הטובה והיא מדה בינונית שבכל דעה ודעה:
Following a suggestion by Reb Reuven Meir Caplan, I include the term "ultra-orthodox" in my resolution.
ReplyDeleteThat's very nice, but I don't think it applies here. It's not an "extreme" it's non-sequitur. We would not be able to have constructive dialogue otherwise.
ReplyDeleteIf you feel that's what you need to do in order to be less divisive I guess that's fine, but I don't think is the "magic cure" for the rest of us.
WADR, what we all need is to be less defensive of our positions more open to listening to the "other".
So how do we draw the line between the OK other and the destructive other? Or is drawing the line too divisive?
ReplyDeleteThe whole point is the internal struggle to not pigeonhole an entire segment of the Jewish community and make presumptions about individuals based on the limited information one has about them. Therefore, yes, such terms do function divisively.
ReplyDeleteglad you left the immensely useful "heimish" off your list. not sure how you can do shidduch research without it
ReplyDelete"The whole point is the internal struggle to not pigeonhole an entire segment of the Jewish community and make presumptions about individuals based on the limited information one has about them."
ReplyDeleteActually, all of these term are self-descriptors. So it really goes back to how they're being used.
As self-descriptors they are no less divisive. When a shul self-describes as "Modern Orthodox" or a newspaper as "Charedi," the implications are exclusionary and automatically derogatory of the "other."
ReplyDeleteBut as a nod to Reb Aaron, I agree to the continued use of "heimish."
Absolutely not. We need this information to make important decisions about our day to day lives.
ReplyDeleteHey, let's not name anything!
Have an easy fast...
Those of us who grew up in West Hempstead and went to HANC did not know we were MO. Nor did we realize that when we went to MFH (Chofetz Chaim, then in Forest Hills) for HS we were going Charedi(-lite?). We were not encumbered by these labels and were far better off for it in so many ways. וא"א לפורטם כי רבים הם.
ReplyDeleteYes, and 200 years ago we went the bathroom in outhouses!
ReplyDeleteWhat you remember is not today's reality. Frankly, I'm not even sure it was yesterday's reality. You may be the victim of romanticized youth.
I'm even older than you and I went to a "day school" and yes it was wonderful. We had non-frum, regular frum, Lubavitch, etc. But after 8th grade we all went our separate ways each to his own "hashkafic" high school. It was a temporary accommodation born of living "out of town".
But even with that, all of the Limudei Kodesh teachers were from Lakewood, and whether you gave it a label or not, we all knew the differences.
Sorry Reb Michael, I disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe labels are misleading at best and pejorative at worst. The reality is that there is far more in common between myself and the RW YU guy in Teaneck - perhaps even the LW YU guy - than there is between myself and a Toldos Aharon chosid in Meah Shearim - yet I generally get lumped together with the latter as Charedi, and separated from that guy in Teaneck by the gulf between Charedi and MO.
Reb YGB,
ReplyDeleteThere are a whole series of labels in your most recent comment RW, LW, YU, Teaneck, and Meah Shearim are all labels.
Why not refer to a person by what he or she believes rather than a grouping him or her? If we don't do that we are just trading one set of label for another (RW and Meah Shearim are just synonyms for Charedi and LW, YU, and Teaneck are just synonyms for Modern Orthodox).
This is a great issue to address and a very appropriate time to address it. Have an easy and meaningful fast.
Reb Dov:
ReplyDeleteJust a small note: I used RW in conjunction with YU - according to your comment, a transcendence of labeling!
L'gufo shel inyan, I wrote on this issue elsewhere today:
Since labels are intrinsically inaccurate, they are demeaning. I am who I am, and you are who you are. To label is to diminish individuality and thus to dehumanize. Accordingly, the only accurate label for me is my name, as the only accurate label for you is your name. A label also sets up artificial and arbitrary boundaries which one then feels qualms over crossing for entirely superficial reasons. ויש להאריך
R. Bechoffer,
ReplyDeleteYou spilled the beans, maybe even w/o realizing it.
You don't have a problem with labels, your problem is with YOUR label.
You said, you "generally get LUMPED together with the latter [Toldos Aharon] as Chareidi". And also that labels "are intrinsically inaccurate." Again, your label may be, but not everyone agrees.
I've said for many years that the "Chareidi" label is ridiculously broad. How does it make sense to lump a Ner Israel guy who went to Hopkins and Einstein with a Nuterei Karta guy?
You must be honest. Isn't it important for you to be able to distinguish yourself from those guys who dress in black and white, and wear hats and hang out with Arafat and Amenijad? Thank God you can say, "Oh they're Neturei Karta"! I sure as hell don't want to be associated with them. I certainly wouldn't want the newscaster to just call them "Jews".
If, anything, the point you're making is that we need finer, more accurately descriptive labels. You need a LWUO label.
Reb Michael,
ReplyDeleteI cannot deny a vested interest in the abolition of labels. But let me assure you that I myself am also thoroughly guilty of using labels in a pejorative manner.
As to the NK - they are a group, not a label, ויש לחלק.
Rav:
ReplyDeleteWhat's the difference? Are groups self-definitive, and labels other-applied?
Also, having grown up in Boropark i find it amusing/confusing when people use "heimish" to mean anything other than Hungarian Hasidish. :-)
ReplyDelete"I myself am also thoroughly guilty of using labels in a pejorative manner."
ReplyDeleteThen that is what you (we all) need to work on. We simply cannot have an intelligent discussion about important issues in our "world" without these "labels".
And I simply cannot see the distinction between a "group" and a "label". Earlier you referred to "Toldos Aharon". Is that a group or a label? If, as I suspect, what the practical difference between them if they are both used pejoratively?
What's the difference? Are groups self-definitive, and labels other-applied?
ReplyDeleteYes. Also, generally speaking, groups are defined by close political and/or ideological affinity.
You've just blurred any distinction.
ReplyDeleteMO and Chareidi ARE self-defined terms. Rabbi Lamm and others who speak for Modern Orthodoxy make a point of defining their term. Rabbi Shaffran, spokesman for the Aguda, also proudly self-identifies his "group" as Chareidi.
As for ideology, see above. The spokespeople for these groups/labels have spilled tons of ink of defining their "ideology".
And, more so in Israel but also in the US, "Chareidi", "Religous Zionist", etc. labels also are defined politically.
What discussion can you not have without these label? I cannot think of any.
ReplyDeleteEarlier you referred to "Toldos Aharon". Is that a group or a label? If, as I suspect, what the practical difference between them if they are both used pejoratively?
A group has a definite political or ideological stance with which its adherents choose to identify.
You're being very selective in your responses. Unless you're backlogged with the comments...
ReplyDelete"A group has a definite political or ideological stance with which its adherents choose to identify."
Chareidi, MO, RZ all fulfill these criteria.
What discussions can't we have:
Conversion
Issues relating to women
Learning vs. working
The value of Kollel
Zionism
Daas Torah
The value of secular education
This list goes on and on and on...
ReplyDeleteMO and Chareidi ARE self-defined terms. Rabbi Lamm and others who speak for Modern Orthodoxy make a point of defining their term. Rabbi Shaffran, spokesman for the Aguda, also proudly self-identifies his "group" as Chareidi.
Please see:
"Ahava & Sina" - Part 3 - "Facades" - Tisha B'Av 5771 by HaRav Zev Leff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDr9o1cpd00&feature=player_profilepage
The very notion that "Charedism" or "Modern Orthodoxy" have spokespeople is symptomatic of the issue: If I am defined as Charedi I must accept to be defined by Rabbi Shafran? And if I am defined as Modern Orthodox I must accept to be defined by Rabbi Lamm? מי שמם לאנשים שרים ושופטים עלינו?
"A group has a definite political or ideological stance with which its adherents choose to identify."
ReplyDeleteChareidi, MO, RZ all fulfill these criteria.
What are those definite stances? I am not familiar with them. I am familiar with stereotypes...
Conversion
This is not a Charedi/MO issue. Defining it as such is a very big problem. It detracts from the objective Halachic examination of the issues and exacerbates pirud in a terrible manner.
Issues relating to women
Such as?
Learning vs. working
There are many "Charedim" who are working f/t and many "MO" who are learning f/t. The stereotypes that prevail are corrosive.
The value of Kollel
See above.
Zionism
One of the great tragedies of the C/MO divide is the incapacity of many Charedim to acknowledge their Ahavas Eretz Yisroel and the incapacity of many MO to acknowledge the problems caused by lip-service Zionism.
Daas Torah
The stereotypes that the C/MO divide have generated have been very debilitating in this area. They have led to stylized, superficial respect for rabbonim among the former, and stylized, superficial disrespect for rabbonim among the latter.
The value of secular education
Another area in which the labels have only caused irrational calcification.
Reb Michael,
You have enabled me to articulate that the point that the labels are not only pejorative, they are causative of many of our contemporary Orthodox problem areas. Yasher koach!
Again, all your saying is that YOU don't like your label. Based on what you've said until now, here in Israel you would probably be Chardal.
ReplyDeleteI think I've shown that much of what you consider unacceptable labels are really what you DO consider to be acceptable groups.
Just because you don't agree with everything a spokesman for your group says does mean you are, or want to be, disengaged from your group.
For every one of the items I mentioned there are differing ideologies in different groups. (I'm sorry but I can't believe that you don't know of the difference toward acceptable roles for woman between MO and UO.)
For the items you've written about, e.g. Daas Torah, all you've done is given your own ideology on these issues. MO, as articulated by Rav Schachter for instance, has a very different take on this issue than does UO. These are not "stereotypes", they are real ideological differences.
Your description of the Zionism is very condescending. That's the old one-two side step, replacing Ahavat Yisrael with Zionism knowing full the issue is modern Zionism. Likewise, assuming that a MO who is a proud Zionist is merely paying "lip service" and doesn't have deep understanding the problem with modern Zionism.
I could go one, but your descriptions of these issues actually do a terrific job of reinforcing what I've been saying. (I know you think otherwise, but in every one of those statements you were forced to use those group names.)
I think we've beaten a dead horse. I'll finish off by saying that I think labels/groups, whatever you want to call them, are important. They are a fact of human nature, they help us self-identify, and this includes, to thinkers like yourself, ideologies of the group one doesn't identify with as well.
The real challenge is to find a way to love each other while we revel in our differences.
Rabbi Amsalem wrote the following in the Jpost on Erev Tisha B'av:
"The Zionist dream will not fully materialize until we all relate to one another as brothers and sisters, love each other like family, care for each other’s needs like best friends despite our ideological differences, and recognize the role that each one of us plays as a piece of the puzzle that creates an am shalem, a complete nation."
You can read the full article here:
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=232995
Reb Michael,
ReplyDeleteI leave you the last word.
והמעיין יבחר
(hyperbole alert!)
ReplyDeleteDo we each need to carry a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) to detail the particular hazards of hanging out with us?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_safety_data_sheet
A perfect example of the relevance of the resolution:
ReplyDeletehttp://yated.com/content.asp?categoryid=0&contentid=430
http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2011/08/torah-and-mada-forbidden-mixture.html
Bandying the terms about with little or no regard for definition (if it were even possible!), wielding them as clubs to come to blows with each other.
R' Bechofer,
ReplyDeleteI like you're idea, and agree with the substance of your concerns. I find that the excessive focus on social labels tends to degenerate the substance of conversation, where people end up often-times talking past one another.
It is more productive, say, to attempt to approach any given issue of relevance from the framework of what the varying approaches have been within the Torah, to utilize sound critical thinking, and let the ideas and arguments provide the basis for conversation. Social categories often encourage more superficial thinking, based on perceptions of the underlying kashrus of a particular group (i.e. group X are fanatics, group Y are passul).
Some of the criticisms above still appear convincing, however, in my view. As a personal hanhagah, it may be appropriate to adopt this policy whenever possible, to mitigate against this thinking in one's personal life, but it seems that it would be difficult for all people to avoid the use of these labels completely. The reason is that it is possible to identify various social problems as being caused by perspectives adopted by large numbers of individuals within social groups (MO tend to have their mix, and chareidi otherwise). It is very difficult to describe the challenges a community faces, if you cannot identify the community itself.
A relevant email from an old friend:
ReplyDeleteI have followed your published thinking over the years since you left Chicago. You underestimate yourself enormously. Your hashkafot defy description because they run far too deep and clean for many of your fans and followers fully to understand. You once told me of RYBS that his "was a religion of one" -- so true in light of RYBS's peculiar engagement with the frightening existentialist core of Judaic emes as well as his isolation from growing trends planted by the Chazon Ish. I say "peculiar" because RYBS struggled to retain his misnaggeded sense of dialectical Torah while dealing with concepts almost impossible to explicate without some measure of chassidic inward sensibility. He succeeded, as did Chaim of Volozhin. Few others have had the courage to attempt it. I understand that yours is not simplistically a Litvishe kop, but I'd put you among those few because your path runs parallel to theirs and requires the same sort of approach to be taken the same degree of care and intellectual rigor. In the end, your thinking, like that of others among those few, defies categorization by derech or minhag. I suspect that people who are aware of your work cannot begin to understand that. They don't understand that in some ways yours, like RYBS's, is necessarily a religion of one.
Here's my point: when you complain of such terms as "chareidi" or "centrist" in addition to "flipping out," you know what you mean but others probably don't. They don't have your perspective on the utter irrelevance of left-center-right when it comes to matters of emunah. They don't understand that this sort of pigeon-holing is a snare and a delusion (to a phrase from Robinson Crusoe, a book that you once told us that you liked), a taxonomy that is more Greek than Jewish to begin with. The Word is the Word; it is the sprachliches Wesen, the ruach melemalah through which we comprehend the knowable presence of HaShem; one can't the describe the word in words other than those of Word, assuming you know how to find them. Bereshit Rabbah and Sefer Yetzirah, come shake hands with Soren Kierkegaard. You can't get that concept across on an Internet blog.