"Present-day Orthodox Judaism has a distinct and readily identifiable profile. It finds its expression in robust institutionalized forms such as nationwide organizations of synagogues, communities, and rabbis; schools and yeshivas; newspapers and other media; and even political parties in Israel and Hasidic townships in the United States that are self-designated as Orthodox. Orthodoxy in all its variety is characterized by a firm ideological stance, defining itself in relation to rival trends within Judaism. It implies more than an adherence to traditional forms of religious observance; rather, it is an ideology committed to the preservation of tradition. It is this conservative posture that lies at the very core of the self-definition of the modern-day Orthodox. As such, it is a relatively new phenomenon, a consequence of the challenges posed to tradition by modern ideologies. With the authority of tradition no longer taken as self-evident, it has had to be consciously defended and justified, augmented and amplified. Orthodoxy thus emerged in response to ideologies that challenged tradition and presented themselves as legitimate alternatives. It did not arise in the absence of ideological confrontation even where there was noticeable erosion of tradition associated with modernization."
First Paragraph, YIVO Encyclopedia of Judaism in Eastern Europe
Please post ONE question on only ONE of the homeworks for this week. After you post your question, post a respectful response to ONE other person.
Can fact that the author changes tense from past "challenges posed" to the present tense "it has to be...defended and justified" imply that he is defending and justifying orthodoxy himself.
ReplyDeleteThe definition starts with the statement: “Present-day Orthodox Judaism has a distinct and readily identifiable profile.” It then proceeds to give a very vague and indefinite answer. It seems to combine the definitions of Hasidism and Orthodoxy into one large denomination and over-emphasizes tradition. Who is writing this definition? It does not seem to be written by somebody with a positive outlook on Orthodoxy. The author presents Orthodoxy as something that focuses on tradition and ignores modern outlooks. This leads me to believe the author is reformed, conservative, or unaffiliated. He is certainly not Orthodox based on how he presents Orthodox Jews.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to his original statement, does Orthodox Judaism have a readily identifiable profile? Do all Orthodox Jews have phylacteries, yarmulkes, and ear-locks? Of course not! So this distinction is clearly not as distinct as the author suggests. However, how much of how orthodox Jews are portrayed is based on definitions like this? To how many people do we look like conniving and sanctimonious thieves like this guy: http://fathertheo.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/jew-stereotype.gif? In short, how much do definitions like this create stereotypes and cause a larger gap between Jews from the outside world and from each other?
The author does not argue that Orthodox Judaism has a readily identifiable profile as Joey Eleff says he does. The source website actually states that it only represents a "majority of Jews in the world on the basis of the most up-to-date and objective scholarly".
ReplyDeleteThis seems to be a definition of orthodoxy from the outside looking in. Instead of describing orthodoxy as the original branch of Judaism which recognizes the divinity of the Torah and the authority of the oral law, Dr. Michael Silber claims it is a “relatively new phenomenon, a consequence of the challenges posed to tradition by modern ideologies.” We just read Rav Hirsch who pointed out that the term “orthodoxy” was coined by Reform Jews to describe what they viewed as an antiquated version of Judaism, which foolishly held on to its meaningless traditions. Dr. Silber appears share in part this sentiment, though maybe not as harshly, as he describes orthodoxy as “an ideology committed to the preservation of tradition. It is this conservative posture that lies at the very core of the self-definition of the modern-day Orthodox.” Are Jews who believe in the eternally binding written and oral law, Torah Shebichtav and Torah Sheba’al Peh, merely trying to preserve tradition? As an orthodox Jew, I don’t agree with this “self definition.” Following God’s commandments and adhering to the Law are much more to me than “preservation of tradition.” Orthodox Jews don’t spend a fortune educating their children merely to preserve a tradition, and Orthodox adults who continue to study Jewish texts don’t do so because it is “tradition.” Each Jew is supposed to view himself as if he received the Torah on Sinai, and revelation continues in every place of Jewish learning.
ReplyDeleteSilber also claims orthodoxy “emerged in response to ideologies that challenged tradition and presented themselves as legitimate alternatives.” Is orthodoxy new? What is now labeled “orthodoxy”, I would argue, is the form of Judaism which dates back thousands of years. Tradtional Judaism has been confronted in the past with people and ideologies which questioned certain aspects of the Torah, such as the Sadducees, Karaites, and the early Christians (lehavdil). Did orthodoxy “emerge”, or was it always around? Is orthodoxy a true phenomenon or is it a label?
To respond to Ami,
ReplyDeleteI don't think he is defending orthodoxy himself. He seems to be writing that line from the perspective of orthodox Jews who now have to preserve tradition against movements such as the Reform movement, which seek to present a version of Judaism which is not so rooted in tradition. I'm not sure he is taking a position on the issue of whether orthodoxy is correct.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Eleff,
ReplyDeleteI read your post about your thoughts on the “readily identifiable profile” and was offended. It appears to me by your statement that “It does not seem to be written by somebody with a positive outlook on Orthodoxy. The author presents Orthodoxy as something that focuses on tradition and ignores modern outlooks.” You are being too lenient on your outlook of Orthodox Judaism. Know don’t get me wrong, I am an Orthodox Jew, and happily practice my religion with a positive outlook on both life and my religion, yet my religion, the religion of my forefathers, is deeply rooted in tradition. We do, many times, ignore modern outlooks, but that is part of our religion, our culture, and our beliefs. To say that someone that says such things “doesn’t have a positive outlook on Judaism” is harsh, unjust, and downright hurtful. I hope you realize that stating the fact that Orthodox Judaism “focuses on tradition and ignores modern outlooks” one is being truthful, and doesn’t necessarily have a negative outlook on Judaism. Furthermore, to say Orthodox Judaism ignores modern outlooks, implying all modern outlooks, is ignorant, and shows a lack of knowledge of the intricacies of this Jewish movement.
Yes, I realize this is not a question or a statement. This is to prove a point.
ReplyDelete"Present-day REFORM Judaism has a distinct and readily identifiable profile. It finds its expression in robust institutionalized forms such as nationwide organizations of synagogues, communities, and rabbis; schools and yeshivas; newspapers and other media; and even political parties in Israel and JEWISH townships in the United States that are self-designated as REFORM. REFORM in all its variety is characterized by a firm ideological stance, defining itself in relation to rival trends within Judaism. It implies more than an adherence to SOME traditional forms of religious observance; rather, it is an ideology committed to the ADAPTATION of tradition TO THE TIMES. It is this conservative posture that lies at the very core of the self-definition of the modern-day REFORM. As such, it is a relatively new phenomenon, a consequence of the challenges posed to ADAPTATION by TRADITIONAL ideologies.
This clearly isn't a good definition, if I am able to make it fit Reform Judaism by changing a couple of words (as shown through the words in CAPS). This author must not have had a clear understanding of the differences between the different Jewish movements; therefore, his definition may be one of a general Judaism, but not specifically orthodoxy.
Now the haters out there will say that the words I changed are essential for the definition, and by changing them I can make the definition fit the 'opposite' from of Judaism: Reform. Except none of the words I changed effect his premise--showing/describing the "readily identifiable profile" of Orthodox Judaism.
The author says that Orthodox Judaism is a result of “the challenges posed to tradition by modern ideologies.” Does he think that without the opposing ideologies Orthodox Judaism wouldn’t exist? By saying that “with the authority of tradition no longer taken as self-evident, it has had to be consciously defended and justified, augmented and amplified,” is the author stating that Orthodox Judaism is not about anyone wanting or liking the style of Judaism, but it is about the people who take the responsibility to defend the religion and uphold the traditions?
ReplyDeleteI cannot deny that Orthodox Judaism is being challenged by other liberal movements of Judaism, but I do want to question why this author focuses so much on the importance of defending and justifying Orthodox Judaism, rather than focusing on the importance of preservation of essence of torah values. There is no single definition of Orthodox Judaism, but the main focus is certainly not to defend tradition, rather it's to preserve the essence of those traditions.
ReplyDeleteRose L.
Dear Mr. Zwillinger,
ReplyDeleteAre you able to change the definition to Reform Judaism with the alteration of a few words? You say the Reform movement “finds its expression in robust institutionalized forms such as nationwide organizations of synagogues, communities, and rabbis; schools and yeshivas; newspapers and other media; and even political parties in Israel and JEWISH townships in the United States that are self-designated as REFORM.” Is this true? There is no real movement of Reform communities, schools, or townships in the United States today. You can go to Monsey, New York or Kemp Mill, Maryland and say “Wow, that place is Orthodox (and Hispanic), is there any place in the world you can say “Wow, what a Reform community”? In my limited world experience, I humbly say there is not. Yet, you drive at a good point, is it possible to define one sect of a Religion without it being eerily close to another sect?
However, the subtle differences are the things that create the largest strife between us, just ask a Catholic how he feels about Consubstantiation as opposed to Transubstantiation. You defend your statement by saying “the haters out there will say that the words I changed are essential for the definition.” I agree with the aforementioned “haters” and say the few words you changed are essential to the respective faiths, though I would not characterize myself as a hater. I agree that this is not a good definition, partly due to the vagueness of the statement. However at the end of the day there are 1.67-1.8 million Orthodox Jews out there, how can one define a movement that encompasses so many individual people, each with their own individual takes on their religion?
Respectfully yours,
Mr. Eleff
As an Orthodox Jew, I find it difficult to relate to much of what this author speaks about. He emphasizes similarities between different sects of Judaism where I only feel differences, he highlights closeness and solidarity where I can only feel distance and disunity. He goes as far as mentioning that though Hasidism views itself as part of this Orthodoxy movement, its "readily identifiable profile" (as if it even has one with all the sects of Hasidism...) is radically different from my own. To what extent is my inability to appreciate and visualize what connects me to other sects of Judaism who claim to be "Orthodox" due to my very distinct perspective, and to what degree am I factually accurate? To use a more concrete example-the chimpanzee and the human are almost identical genetically but do not appear exactly alike nor are their intellectual capabilities or understandings of morality relatable whatsoever. Yet, that is from a human perspective. We, who are very self-aware, are conscious of and harp on the differences, however minor, between us and the chimpanzee. However, outsiders do not. Aliens coming to visit or even scientists, who attempt to remove any presuppositions or biases in order to be as objective as possible, will find similarities much more easily than I will and will view the differences as much less significant than I will (obviously, this isn't always the case but is often). Going back to this specific example, I obviously do not agree with the author. I believe "Present-day Orthodox Judaism" does not have "a distinct and readily identifiable profile" but would I be more likely to agree with the author if I weren't Jewish or even if I weren't Orthodox (but Jewish)? Or do my concerns go beyond the relativistic and is this author simply factually ignorant of the breadth of differences between various sects? Could I simply be misunderstanding the writing and the "profiles" referred to are only the very basic things which do relate all subsections (though I'm not sure if you can call them that)of Orthodoxy to each other?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Nathan's set of questions:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I believe you're equating two terms that are not truly the same. The Present Day Orthodox Judaism which Silber discusses does not equal Traditional Judaism. You allude to this slightly in your final question. Silber would likely see Traditional Judaism very differently than what he talks about. He explicitly defines the Orthodoxy he speaks of as a reaction to "the authority of tradition no longer [being] taken as self-evident" and an attempt to "consciously defend[] and justif[y], augment[] and amplif[y]." Though, indeed, Traditional Judaism has responded to countless confrontations since it was first started, Silber would argue that what makes Orthodox Judaism is the specific group attacking, the specific attacks, and the specific strategies taken to respond to the attacks. So, I guess in a sense, what may be bothering you is more along the lines of what Orthodox Judaism has become. Like you said, Rav Hirsch talks about Orthodox Judaism being simply a label given by the Movement of Reform to Traditional Judaism. However, today "Orthodoxy" is not viewed as something derogatory nor is it limited to being a historical or even ideological response to the Movement of Reform. Silber clearly understands "Orthodoxy" according to the former understanding. Perhaps he was writing at a very different time period in the establishment of Orthodox Judaism. I guess something interesting to trace would be how and from where our current understanding of "Orthodoxy" emerged. In response to your second question, I don't believe he's saying adherence to tradition is the only thing that defines "Orthodox Judaism". I think he is using "self-definition" in a more relative sense-meaning that tradition is not the only thing which defines "Orthodoxy" but it's what makes it different from other forms of Judaism-specifically, in this case, Reform Judaism. It's not that you only do mitzvot because of tradition nor is tradition the only thing for which we send our kids to day school. Rather, commitment to tradition is a noticeable difference between Orthodox education and Reform education or between Orthodox learning and Reform learning.