Mashiach and Eliyahu Hanavi

↑ fromthedepths ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:14 am

FS, I don't understand why you keep insisting that your version of Judaism is the only right one and that everyone absolutely must read Rabbi Kellner in order to be a good Jew.

MaBelleVie ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:15 am

Edit. I need to read the book.

Last edited by MaBelleVie on Thu, Jun 27 2013, 11:32 am; edited 1 time in total

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:29 am

Ma Belle, You are referring with that quote ONLY to the last chapter in R. Kellner's book, the one that Rabbi Berger does not agree with. It has absolutely nothing to do with the other sections of his book which deal with the concept of Dogma in Judaism and specifically the 13 ikkarim.

Read the entire book, not the reviews or blurbs and you will understand. You are picking and choosing and then misrepresenting statements as a result, hopefully not deliberately. READ THE BOOK.

From the depths you jest. Every group believes that their version of Judaism is the ONLY right one. Or rather the MOST right one. Otherwise they wouldn't hold by it. If you didn't believe that charedi Judaism was the most correct way why be charedi? Become MO if it is equally correct in your mind.

No one except the charedi ladies on this board has insisted that THEIR version of Judaism is the only right one and that everything else is a sin. Nor have I ever stated that to be a good Jew everyone must absolutely read Rabbi Kellner. He is one of the many accepted streams of Jewish thought among Modern Orthodoxy. And that is the difference between Modern Orthodoxy and charedi judaism. Modern Orthodoxy can state that there are many equally acceptable interpretations and the fact that someone chooses a derekh doesn't automatically say that all other drochim are sinners. Charedi Judaism appears not to be willing to accept any Modern Orthodox interpretations of Judaism that do not fit the Charedi mindset.

But we are just "grinding water" as the Hebrew saying goes. As long as posters here insist on discussing and villifying a book that they have never read based on quotes from reviews or blurbs taken out of context...well it just shows me once again how superficial the judgement and thinking is in the world of those posters.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:31 am

freidasima wrote:

Would this be called apologetics? Tongue Out

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:41 am

Pink I don't understand.
In the original volume of R. Kellner's book as far as I remember he only wrote about the questions of dogma and ikkarim. In the newer expanded edition he added a chapter that had to do with something much more contemporary (2006 if I remember correctly), and that was the relationships between Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jewry. The chapter was an outgrowth of a series of lectures that he gave and for whatever reason he decided to publish his conclusions together with the new expanded version of his book on dogma.
There was a lot of debate about this matter - meaning the chapter vis a vis the interdenominational relationships, primarily because of what was going on at the time in the State of Israel vis a vis recognition for these groups and the charedi insistance in the USA at the time to break up the last of the "unified botei din" which had existed for purposes of giyur in places, if I remember correctly, like Chicago where they had existed for ages.

R. Kellner tried to find a theological explanation that could lead to an understanding between the groups. What this had to do with the rest of his book no one understood until he explained simply that he wasn't going to write an entire book about the subject and as many scholars, rabbis and others do, when they have a published book coming out, they just add it as an additional section to an existing book.

Which is what he did.
And why R. Berger came out against this section because he disagrees with R. Kellner's approach to the Conservative and especially Reform movements. He did not come out against the first version of the book nor against anything R. Kellner wrote about the ikkarim. R. Kellner had many orthodox rabbinical supporter of what he wrote about the ikkarim, who wrote very fascinating and positive review of his book.

BTW, This is explanation, not apologetics. Because one could not know any of this if one did not read the book and understand the difference bewteen the first edition and the second expanded edition and what R. Berger was referring to in his comments or what R. Kellner was referring to in the out of context blurb that a poster quoted here.

As for the comments about the university of Haifa. Potato, ever learn in a university at all? Do you have any idea what it is? Do you have any idea who university tenured staff is? How they are chosen? Who does the choosing? Why are you defaming the University of Haifa? Do you have any idea at all how many rabbis who are also professors are teaching at every single one of the Jewish universities in the State of Israel??? Or is this just another diatribe against a non charedi institution and you get your knowledge about universities in EY from where? Yateld Yom Leyom? Hamodia? That's really deep knowledge you know..

↑ MaBelleVie ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:52 am

1. These views have been published elsewhere as well.

2. Pluralism is a defining point for many of us. Once you lose certain common ground, the territory changes.

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 9:59 am

What views are you talking about? R. Kellners? Elsewhere? Where? How do you know what his views are if you have not read his book?

↑ MaBelleVie ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 10:13 am

His essay on pluralism has been published elsewhere. I don't need to read his book to read about his views on orthodoxy vis a vis other streams of Judaism.

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 10:22 am

But we have long ago said that part of the book is NOT what we are discussing here. So why is it relevant?

↑ MaBelleVie ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 10:52 am

It is certainly relevant to me when someone is attempting to define principles of orthodoxy while saying that other streams of Judaism are equally valid.

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 11:05 am

No ma belle, again, read the book. He does not say there that the other streams are equally valid halochically, he claims something totally different.

Read the book.

↑ MaBelleVie ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 11:19 am

OK, I may have misunderstood. I apologize for misrepresenting his point.

↑ fromthedepths ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 11:46 am

Freidasima wrote:

Quote:

From the depths you jest. Every group believes that their version of Judaism is the ONLY right one. Or rather the MOST right one. Otherwise they wouldn't hold by it. If you didn't believe that charedi Judaism was the most correct way why be charedi? Become MO if it is equally correct in your mind.

What?? Honestly, I never in my life heard such narrow minded sentiments from a MO person!

Each and every Jew has a unique neshama, which has its own unique way of expressing itself (see Nesivos Shalom in Netivei Daas; let me know if you want an exact citation). This means that there are as many ways to serve Hashem as there are neshamos! Some Jews need to learn mussar, others need to learn chassidus, yet others draw their spiritual nourishment from the writings of Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Kook. I choose to learn the sefarim that speak to me and help me grow spiritually. Others find that completely different sefarim help them grow spiritually. I don't understand why anyone has to claim that some are better than others.

And BTW, why do you insist on labeling and calling me chareidi? I don't think I'd be considered chareidi by Israeli standards. Just plain frum.

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 12:31 pm

Let me get this.

So from the depths are you claiming the the MO derekh is just as good, as holy as the charedi derekh? that the litvish derekh is just as good and holy as the chassidic derekh? That the meshichisti lubavitch derekh is just as good and holy as the non meshichisti lubavitch derekh? That they are all equal before Hashem and just the only difference is that a particular person needs a particular derekh because of their own psychological or spiritual makeup?

So you are saying that Mo rabbonim are just as good and holy as charedi rabbonim? And their psikos as well?

cinnamon

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 12:35 pm

Freidasima wrote:

Quote:

I didn't read any of the thread, just this jumped out at me and I had to say that I totally agree.

↑ PinkFridge ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 1:05 pm

Freidasima, I'm glad I gave you a chance to clarify. Again, I can't say that I'll feel I was derelict in honest and rigorous pursuit of emes and fulfillment of my Yiddishkeit if I never get around to reading it though.

(P.S. To all who've been sending me care packages, my favorite flavor KoolAid is red Tongue Out

)

↑ fromthedepths ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 2:07 pm

freidasima wrote:

I didn't say anything goes! As long as they're within normative Judaism. We have to define the labels here. Meshichist Lubavitch who stick notes into a sefer to get guidance I might not agree with, but still within norms. Meshichist Lubavitch that pray to the Rebbe? No way!!

Holiness has nothing to do with labels, but with the person's dedication to Hashem and to the Torah. So, assuming we're talking about within normative Judaism, and leshem shamayim, then yes, MO as good and holy as chareidi. BTW, Rav Kook was very much respected by all the chareidi rabbanim of his time. Moreover, he certainly did not bash chareidim. In fact, he helped Rav Eliashiv's family come to Eretz Yisrael.

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 2:20 pm

Define what you mean by "normative Judaism".

So you also accept and think that Rabbis Shlomo Riskin, Avi Weiss, Benny Lau, David Stav, David Berger, Menachem Kellner, Jeffrey Wolff, and Daniel Sperber, who all are frum Jews and do what they do and write what they write lishem shomayim, are all good, holy, frum Jews whose derekh is equal, in the eyes of the Ribono Shel Olam, to the derekh of Rav Kanievsky, Rav Shteinman, etc? And their followers who hold as their rabbinic teachers do - are they all good and holy in your eyes because they do what they do because they believe in their rabbis and teachers and do it lishem shomayim?

↑ MaBelleVie ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 3:20 pm

What on earth are you trying to accomplish with this line of questioning?

↑ freidasima ↓

Thu, Jun 27 2013, 3:26 pm

What do you think?