I’m very OTD and never really hid - went from Yeshiva believer in an Elul Zman to working on Shabbos by the time Chanukah came around. Agree with most of this but I do have to disagree with the idea that critical thinking isn’t taught in Yeshiva. Obviously there are topics that are taboo - or even directly enforced as off limits (I’ve been called into the Mashgiach’s office more than once and told not to touch a topic/book etc).
That said critical thinking is very much taught in the Frum system more so than anywhere else I’ve experienced it. If there’s one saving grace of the Frum education I got that left me not knowing what a cell or the periodic table was - it gave me the ability to critically think. Rote memorization was looked down on (and I came from a Cheder that did a lot of that) and the ability to build and take apart arguments using logical inference and comparison tools were perhaps the biggest focus in Yeshiva. Don’t know about the women’s side of the mechitza because I haven’t experienced it but I think part of the challenge yeshivas have is they pump out guys who can shred the arguments for faith if they turn their efforts toward that end. Their saving grace is they produce guys capable of doing effective apologetics too if they so choose (a good critically thinking lawyer can argue for or against any position)
I think you’re overstating several aspects of the old yeshiva. For example you mention Bialik - he was sent to Valozhin by his family at age 17 and last about a year before leaving/being kicked out (I don’t think we actually know which). Similarly both my paternal great grandfathers were sent by their families to Radiin and Gorodna (from New York) and to Slabodka and Chevron (from Kovno/Kaunus)
Rabbonim were extremely well respected in shtetl life and Yeshiva was Rav training school. Much like today within the Yeshiva world bubble, yeshiva was very well respected but that respect didn’t go beyond the bubble.
And the yeshiva today; much like the college system today is sort of more democratized but that’s made elite schools more competitive not less. Sure there’s a cultural imperative to go to BMG but there’s still a ton of variety before that point and lots of them are very hard to get in to. It’s probably harder to get into a top yeshiva today than it was to get in to Volozhin. Much like it’s much harder to get into an Ivy today than it was 100 years ago.
Simply put I think you’re just over romanticizing both the process and the outcomes of the old Yeshiva world and downplaying the modern yeshiva world. But that’s kind of expected - romanticizing the past is a staple of Charedi Judaism
>>>but I do have to disagree with the idea that critical thinking isn’t taught in Yeshiva
They certainly promote critical thinking when it comes to talmudic discussions ofעוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה and מתנה על מנת להחזיר and יד סולדת בו. But I did not experience any guidance in yeshiva in thinking critically when it came to questions of the existence of god, the historicity of the biblical narrative and whether or not the story of Judaism reflects reality, nor have I ever met anyone who had. Are you the first?
The foundations of religion are compartmentalized in a special box where they are not subjected to rigorous scrutiny, while everything else, from the time is takes to answer amen or consume a slice of bread or for dough to leaven or for barley to ripen or for a fetus to develop or menstrual blood flow to cease, is picked apart with no hesitation.
>>>I think part of the challenge yeshivas have is they pump out guys who can shred the arguments for faith if they turn their efforts toward that end
Oh yes! My point indeed. It's like the corruption of a keen lawman who pays no heed when his own family breaks the law...nothing to see here...keep it moving.
For someone who’s already realized that their beliefs no longer align with orthodoxy, the choice then becomes whether it’s worth giving up the stability, family values, and social support (and potentially family) that it engenders in order to pursue personal authenticity and resolve the cognitive dissonance.
From a societal standpoint, encouraging (too much) questioning could undermine the community’s structure, as cohesion relies on conformity.
Everyone draws the line somewhere (not like we're gonna be open to biblical criticism and the historical approach which can easily lead to reform), it's about where the community chooses to draw it.
Way I see it, the question is how much of the unique character of the Orthodox community are you willing to jeopardize in the pursuit of intellectual freedom.
Historically, religious groups retain members by being less hardcore - but without going fully secular. There's a sort of U-shaped curve of risk of losing members, with the most strict groups appealing to only few people, and the most loose and progressive ones fading away into irrelevance.
There's a happy middle ground of strictness of observance, I would suggest, which lies somewhere between the extremes of charedim crossing the road to avoid women, and the Reform shuls which are indistinguishable from Pentecostal churches (even complete, in other countries, with American rabbis sounding very much like born-again preachers).
It appears to me that this is what has already happened in Judaism.
There are the more macro divisions of Orthodoxy, Conservative and Reform, and for those with keener eyes, there are the micro divisions on the spectrum of observance and cultural norms. There's the black hat and gartel of Lakewood or Flatbush and there's the blue shirt and rainbow tallis of Riverdale, and there are many notches in between, where each behavioral / cultural / mode of dress phenotype can be said, at least for the purposes of this argument, to refer loosely to an observance / theological genotype.
But there's no way to grapple with challenges to the truth values of Judaism without being considered heterodoxical. If the only response to "how do you know this is true?" is "put your finger back onto the place in the gemarah," I don't really see how Orthodoxy beats orthopraxy. Sure, indoctrination is alive and well in the yeshiva system, whether it be black hat or yeshiva day school, but indoctrination is not an argument...it's just a means of survival.
I like this post. And honestly I wish you were correct that allowing more open discussion on doubt would keep more people in the fold. But I don't think you are correct (and i say this as a non believer who no longer keeps halacha except in public). If people were encouraged to openly voice doubts, and if non belief was de-stigamtized, I think Orthodox judaism would start hemorrhaging. What keeps 90% of people from allowing questions to bother them is fear and shame. Some people face those questions despite the fear and shame. But most believe because there is tremendous "negius" causing them to. What was always ironic to me is that we were taught that really emuna is pashut and only our negius stops us from seeing it. But the truth is the exact opposite. There is far far far more negius which kept me wanting to believe. Admitting to myself that I didn't really believe took a huge emotional toll. And I mean huge. But that was my honest feeling. I would love to ask a rosh yeshiva - who has more negius than you to keep the jewish faith alive? So what kind of chutzpa to say someone who doesn't believe is because of negius
Agreed. There can be no open discussion on this matter "within the machane" because recognizing its legitimacy *is* considered "outside the machane."
In public, I find that rabbis have lots of things to say but in private, their arguments crumble and they fall onto the idea that believers just gotta believe. Not much of an argument, but maybe they themselves feel stuck as clergy members.
I just re-read all these comments. Two things crossed my mind: 1) how many of you are so yeshivish in your arguments for apikorsus. I think it’s kind of funny. And 2) I just keep thinking about all those Jews from Roman times to Crusader, Inquisition and other times when it was possible to give one’s life for being a Jew (not during WW2–there was no choice). So all those millions just gave their life for nothing? I believe they would disagree.
😂 I appreciate the humor of point 1 Liba, but your 2nd point is really not a serious argument. Think of the millions of (insert any belief system or religion) that gave their lives….and that proves what? Only that humans are prone to give their lives for ideas they believe in deeply.
Really? Millions gave their lives for other religions? Could be, I suppose. Buddhists in China. Right. Lots of Muslims (forgot about that one). I didn’t actually mean it as a proof (I never went to yeshiva), I meant it as a sort of sigh…
I just got שלום צדיק's new book, and it seems relevant to this topic.
As a heterodox, orthoprax person- I think that the conformity of much of Jewish life (esp. Hareidi and Ultra-Orthodox) is suffocating and a problem to be solved. This is a social problem.
Beyond that, the actual faith/attitudes/perspectives are often very shallow, ridiculous and soul-crushing. It's fertile for self-loathing guilt, OCD, and irrationalist text masturbation.
BUT- I think that Judaism can be redeemed- or rather, that the good stuff is there, but it needs amplification.
The first step is that people who are HIGHLY and ELECTRIFYINGLY critical of judaism from within have an incentive to change things from the inside. These people need spaces to discuss about how to change reality, not how to live with a torn heart OR how to escape.
If there is no space like this, people will simply leave and go away and Judaism will have a massive spirit and brain drain.
Typically, when your spirit and brain leave- you are dead.
>>>The first step is that people who are HIGHLY and ELECTRIFYINGLY critical of judaism from within have an incentive to change things from the inside. These people need spaces to discuss about how to change reality, not how to live with a torn heart OR how to escape.
I don't see how this idea launches.
The moment someone acknowledges that orthopraxy is a valid pursuit they can no longer be considered within the camp. Rabbis Krohn or Rietti could conceivably discuss the situation of a college kid who grew up secular and in the midst of becoming more religious, and how the frum community should welcome him with open arms, even though he might show up to shul or your shabbos table with a ponytail or a cell phone. But what tolerance could be given toward heterodoxical views such as, "there's no good reason to believe in a god, but let's eat matzah or sit in the succah because a) I'm nostalgic or b) it's fun or c) my in-laws don't know that I don't think this stuff is real anymore."
Once Orthodoxy acknowledges that orthopraxy accurately reflects reasonable practice for those who want to remain in the community without believing incredible things on bad evidence, it would itself become orthopraxy. But the moment Charlie Harary admits this, he'll be pushed aside as a spokesman.
>>>If there is no space like this, people will simply leave and go away and Judaism will have a massive spirit and brain drain.
As long as the next generation continues to be indoctrinated in Orthodox schools, this could easily remain the state of Orthodoxy for decades.
>>>I think here is a good reason beyond a, b, and c
I did not mean for this to be a comprehensive list of possible reasons one might have. Rather, I meant to demonstrate that if words mean things at all, one ought not say, "I am eating matzah or sitting in a succah because the God of Abraham and Moses is real and he commanded me to do so" because who knows such thing and it's almost certainly not true. People will deny this, but their arguments will not stand in the face of rigorous scrutiny.
>>>If Arthur Green can do it so can we
I don't know why we need an example of a person who can do things. Maybe we should just discuss things to do and prioritize them based on hierarchy of reasonableness, rather than on the celebrity status of those who perform them.
The example is not meant to be celebrity status, of which I fully agree is useless in these matters. It's purpose is to show alternative ways of finding meaningfulness in ritual actions. I also agree that having serious conversations about what is reasonable is a very good thing. That's why we're both here (even if the discussion is not as good as face to face)
I think it's possible to say things like "I am eating Matzah etc." but it would require an honest inquiry about what it means for two different people to recognize the same god, what it means to be part of a heritage, what the 'realness' of such a god is, and what it could possibly mean that such a being 'commanded' anything as parochial as eating matzah. It's true- someone who took all these words at face value would not stand scrutiny.
>>>It's purpose is to show alternative ways of finding meaningfulness in ritual actions.
That's fine, as I already clarified that my "list of meaningful reasons" was never intended to be comprehensive.
But this is the wrong question, I think.
Christmas is very meaningful. Come Christmastime, everyone's suddenly very nice. People are less likely to steal your parking spot and the cashier at both Macy*s and the bodega dole out more smiles and thank yous. Even without being consumed with the current day commercialism, Christmastime gifts can build friendships and heal wounds and blunt disagreement. So why don't we do it?
The reason Judaism doesn't do Christmas is decidedly not because we are against brotherly love. It's decidedly not because we are against the commercialism. And it's decidedly not because we like to encourage grudges and fights over parking spots. No. It's because Christmas is not real. It's because Jesus wasn't the messiah and so there's nothing to celebrate here. And to do so would promote heresy in a way that we don't risk when celebrating Thanksgiving, which is why the latter is embraced by many Orthodox Jews while it might be a safe bet to figure that Christmas is embraced by 0.00% of Orthodox Jews.
I can't tell you what your questions about religion are, but the most important question about religion is "is it true." And finding ways for it to be meaningful seems to straddle the non-observant / orthoprax line rather than the orthoprax / Orthodox line.
I don't think it's because it's not real. Thanksgiving, for all we know, can be a complete historic forgery.
Heresy, is closer, but still not the point. Lag Ba'Omer and Uman Rosh Hashana, are pretty close to heresy by many standards. I think it has to do with meaningfulness. And that it has to do with the holiday (or system) fitting the observer (or individual). Christmas doesn't fit us, because we weren't raised by it. And adopting it, for most people, doesn't make sense, because it is a family holiday, and few families would adopt it. And even if a family would, it would lack the heritage, the symbols and everything. It doesn't fit.
Pesach does. And it's story permeates are lives. A story about slaves finding freedom and meaning, starting on a mission that we are still discovering and manifesting.
"true" with regards to society-wide rituals has much more to do with its effects than its history. Or another way of putting it, is that noble lies are actually noble, and also actually lies, and people who have already deciphered the nobility, don't mind the lies, because myths are part of human psych. (this is vague, but I hope it points in the direction I'm trying to communicate)
However, one can take his main point- (the split between communal ethics and folk theology) and with it develop different types of belief. These philosopher/thinkers would still be part of the political entity defined by halacha, but would diverge radically on the content of the their thought.
I'm not sure I agree with your point about the community maybe allowing more freedom for doubt etc. I think you can make the exact opposite argument, that the only reason these communities have been able to continue growing and thriving is precisely because of their insularity and rigidness.
Also based on totally anecdotal data I'm not convinced this issue is as widespread as you make it sound.
(For background I myself am ITC, although not from lakewood but from a chasidishe community)
"The result is a growing number of individuals who outwardly conform but inwardly feel alienated. They’re not just questioning; they’ve lost their belief entirely. And yet, they stay, because leaving feels even more impossible.
"This is not sustainable. Communities that prioritize appearance over authenticity, that value conformity over genuine connection to faith, are setting themselves up for a crisis. You can only paper over so many cracks before the entire structure starts to crumble. And make no mistake: the cracks are there, and they’re widening."
Do you have any evidence that this phenomenon is growing? Seems to me that hard core orthopraxy has been around for a while https://cross-currents.com/2013/12/22/rabbi-bleichs-new-book-and-the-growth-of-orthodox-non-orthodoxy/ . It may have gotten a little bump with the rise of the internet, but it's remained pretty fringe. It doesn't seem likely that any decent percentage eg 5% or higher are actually walking around with deeply held heretical beliefs and yet somehow it's buried by the moetzes deep state. I don't deny that there are social pressures to conform in frum society, but let's not go overboard. This isn't Stalinist Russia. No one is going to disappear you. If there's really a large sector of the community that doesn't believe anything, you'd think they'd have something more to show for it than a few Facebook groups and Substacks.
We'll likely never know the percentage of orthoprax masquerading as Orthodox because they could never be accepted. Unlike, say, the gay community, it's not just a matter of waiting for greater social acceptance among the heterosexual majority. The frum community could never accept heresy because its so fully erosive...universal acid, as Daniel Dennett referred to it.
I'm not talking about being accepted as legitimate. I'm talking about having enough sway to eg support some real OTD commercial enterprises. Or voting for Orthoprax-friendly candidates in elections. https://ballotpedia.org/Adina_Sash
>>>I'm not talking about being accepted as legitimate.
Well, as I touched upon, orthoprax can never, by definition, be considered legitimate. It's like Orthodoxy recognizing Conservative or Reform Judaism. It's one thing to say that we hold by the eruv and that guy doesn't but we can still be friends and even chavrusas, but to say that that guy doesn't believe in god is something quite different. On the microlevel, you can be friends with him, but on the macrolevel, the community must have standards that exclude non-believers, insofar as the community is built on belief as rule #1.
The orthoprax recognize this and so would never even consider legitimacy as a goal. At least both sides here are agreed on the terms of engagement in this regard, which is why I thought the suggestion by someone here that orthoprax representatives need to be bold and charismatic to make their case for the masses not only bizarre, but misguided and doomed to fail.
>>>I'm talking about having enough sway to eg support some real OTD commercial enterprises.
Perhaps I don't fully understand what you're trying to argue for here.
Blacks in America want to be more accepted, and some things they wanted, for example, was more inclusion in media and healthcare products. So let's say we talk about family-oriented shows from the 80s and 90s...you have Full House and The Hogan Family and Blossom and The Nanny and Boy Meets World and Home Improvement and let's just say that black people didn't seen themselves represented sufficiently. But then blacks began to have more input, as we added to this The Cosby Show and Sister Sister and The Parent Hood.
So, too, blacks felt left out that there were only white-person-colored Band-Aids in the past decades, but can now be more comfortable with darker tones to match their skin.
And so greater acceptance and understanding by commercial enterprises, as you might call them, can and has led to greater appreciation of the racial and cultural differences in society. But I don't get how this would apply to the clandestine orthoprax community. The idea is that there is no longer a recognition that the religion is based on truth, but that observance serves a purpose and so is maintained so some extent, either only publicly or ever privately. What sway or commercial involvement would even be pertinent?
Again, the orthoprax merely deny the existence of god and the truth of the Torah. They are not looking for orthoprax measures to be taken up in state and local legislatures. Orthoprax are essentially atheists who appear to practice Judaism, and as atheism is not a platform and there is no agenda per se, again, I'm confused as to what you're getting at here.
All reasonable candidates can be and should recognize that their constituents ought to be free to practice their religion or no religion, or practice a religion without really believing that the tenets of the religion are true. In that sense, most any reasonable person is an orthoprax-friendly candidate.
>>>as Daniel Dennett referred to it." I don't take Dennet all that seriously.
"The orthoprax recognize this and so would never even consider legitimacy as a goal...
"They are not looking for orthoprax measures to be taken up in state and local legislatures."
Are we talking about the same thing? This post is subtitled 'rumblings of a new enlightenment.' The author of the post claims that he expects a subbreddit populated by orthoprax to 'grow exponentially.' https://yitz.substack.com/p/first-glance-at-jewish-orthopraxy/comment/81139899 I'm asking what the evidence is that there's anything afoot. Is there any evidence from the real world- as opposed to a necessarily self selected collection of online voices which resurface https://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/08/yeshiveshe-orthopraxy.html every few years? If not, my default is to assume that actual orthoprax are relatively few and far between, that it's always been this way, and there's no reason to think anything is going to change going forward. (That doesn't mean there couldn't be radical change. If e.g. the moetzes were discovered to be involved in some giant pizzagate style child smuggling ring, there would be reason to think a tectonic shift might happen. But, to state the obvious, nothing like that seems to actually be the case.)
Now, I take your point that given orthopraxy's tendencies, it may be harder to see. But that isn't an argument that it exists to begin with. I tried to give some examples of ways we might be able to tell. Feel free to share others.
">>>as Daniel Dennett referred to it." I don't take Dennet all that seriously.
Oh...why not?"
Because I read a couple of his exchanges and he comes as off insufferably pompous, and not someone worth taking seriously.
Here is an article by David Berlinski. https://www.discovery.org/a/130/ Dennet literally wrote an expletive tinged response, which appeared in Commentary and was reprinted in Berlinski's book along with a response to the response by Berlinski. (I believe it can be found here https://www.commentary.org/articles/and-critics/denying-darwin/ but my filter blocks it for some reason... Apparently it's a "Newsgroups/Forums", "Society/Daily Living" 🤷♂️ )
....Okay. I've said my bit. Unless there's some new angle, I probably won't engage further on this topic. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses to my comments. I think they helped me clarify to (at least to myself, hopefully to others as well) what I was getting at.
>>>Are we talking about the same thing? This post is subtitled 'rumblings of a new enlightenment.' The author of the post claims that he expects a subbreddit populated by orthoprax to 'grow exponentially.' I'm asking what the evidence is that there's anything afoot. Is there any evidence from the real world- as opposed to a necessarily self selected collection of online voices which resurface every few years? If not, my default is to assume that actual orthoprax are relatively few and far between, that it's always been this way, and there's no reason to think anything is going to change going forward.
I didn't take Yitz's missive as a response to a recent shake-up, but rather, as a reflection on what he's noticed over the past 20 years, let's say. Orthodoxy pretends that it sits firmly on solid ground when it comes to its claims, and when you wonder about these claims, you can easily be gaslit into thinking that you're the crazy one when everyone around you continues to follow the incessant beat of the drum. But the internet now provides those who are separated by community and by age and by familial association to band together, or at least observe that they are not alone.
Religion is unlike other systems we fabricate like tracks for society to run along. When you're poor you can complain that the system isn't working, but the rich guy will often disagree..."the system," he might reply with a smile, "seems to be working quite well." Seventy years ago in America, the black man (and woman) would say that the system wasn't working, while the white man (and perhaps woman) might have replied (also with a smile), "I don't know...it seems to be working quite fine."
But not so with religion. Religion is not primarily a system to organize life so that society runs smoothly for all, or even for the ruling class. Rather, it's been proposed as a reflection of how the world really is. But there's no good evidence and there's no reason to suppose it's true.
Maybe Yitz's warning sound like those of Chicken Little, as do the warnings of all those who warn society to watch out. And watch out for what, precisely, I don't quite know myself, for there's no solution to the problem, really. Religions, including Judaism, were ideas cooked up a long time ago and many people still think they are true. As we age and become more mature as people, some / many / most recognize that the way they saw religion 5 / 10/ 20 years ago was misguided and they lighten up, recognizing that it's not what they thought it was. But because it's so disruptive to leave, they remain. And what's it to remain in Christianity? Not much. But Judaism has a lot of rules and when people wake up and see that there are no good answers and just a lot of rules, it can be difficult to know where to go from there.
I think that's all Yitz meant, but he can speak for himself. I don't think he meant to say that he alone has noted a 17% increase in orthopraxy in the last 15-month period, prompting you (and all reasonable people) to now ask to review his data to ensure he ran the correlation coefficients and regression analyses correctly.
Maimonedes said that belief in God is the fundament of all. But there's actually not much support for that in Talmud. What's required is to follow the Law.
Whether I believe in the existence of Parliament is a matter of no import to the government, so long as I follow the laws made by parliament. I would be considered eccentric, but so long as I abide by the civil law, they would not care that I don't believe in their existence or goodwill.
Now, this raises the question as to exactly why you'd follow the Law if you don't believe God exists. But like the civil law, you can recognise that adherence to some of it, at least, carries benefits.
>>>Maimonedes said that belief in God is the fundament of all. But there's actually not much support for that in Talmud. What's required is to follow the Law.
Maimonides, however substantial, is but one perspective in a tapestry of opinions, and while bold, this is not how almost anyone in Orthodoxy views Orthodoxy today. Show me someone who who will agree to remove משה אמת ותורתו אמת from the song list on שמחת תורה. While this is mere ritual practice (and not required by law), is it not a prerequisite to get into any yeshiva or to marry any rosh yeshiva's daughter? What about to marry the rosh yeshiva's son? Your focus on law, while perhaps sourced from more than legitimate sources, is not how Orthodoxy works in 2024, because if it did, then it would be equivalent to orthopraxy and there would have been no original post for us to be commenting on.
>>>Whether I believe in the existence of Parliament is a matter of no import to the government, so long as I follow the laws made by parliament.
I sense that your parallel here is not actually parallel, and so any derivations will be off the mark. A governing body, whether it be a parliament or a congress, can be observed. Parliament is real. You can visit congress, you can meet congressmen and women and we can observe them coming and going through the candidacy and voting processes. It's all natural and demonstrable and observable. But a divine lawgiver is a story we tell. He's never been seen and he's never been heard, and all tales of the contrary are quite dubious.
>>>I would be considered eccentric, but so long as I abide by the civil law, they would not care that I don't believe in their existence or goodwill.
That's because civil law does not concern itself with why one abides.
The proverbs often ascribed to Socrates are wise even if he never actually existed. The profundity or poignancy of the aphorisms derive from their content, not the owner of the lips who uttered them or the hand which held the pen that wrote them down. They could actually be the invention of Yogi Berra or Pee Wee Herman...it makes no difference. They are either profound insights into life or they are not. This is not at all the case with rules of law. If the body of lawgivers doesn't actually exist, the laws aren't really laws.
>>>Now, this raises the question as to exactly why you'd follow the Law if you don't believe God exists. But like the civil law, you can recognise that adherence to some of it, at least, carries benefits.
Orthodox Jews would be exceedingly dismissive of the claims of Christians, Hindus and Muslims of deep faith, rejecting their stories and the scriptures these stories are based on, but they rarely pause to consider whether their own claims have any superior merit.
Now, why would someone observe laws if they don't believe in a lawgiver? Perhaps because they can't break out of the cycle, or perhaps because they are concerned for what others might say. Each orthoprax individual might have his or her own reasons.
But to present Judaism as a religion of laws rather than as a religion of belief is a misfire, despite what Maimonides and Menachem Kellner might have to say about that. We are now in an era of religious observance that also demands belief, and one will accrue great personal penalty and social rejection for announcing out load that they do not believe.
The majority of Jews have no interest in entering yeshiva, since they neither want to become rabbis, nor want to evade military service in Israel. So that’s neither here nor there.
We must concern ourselves with the majority, who, if they observe, do so for reasons other than “God told me to.”
No it doesn't. If I were on reddit, I'd probably join the group just for kicks, despite being plenty Orthodox myself. And 11,000 subscribers from all sorts of Orthodox backgrounds over a bunch of years isn't actually all that much. How many accounts are even active?
Why do you need a new enlightenment when you have a perfectly serviceable old one? Go to the Reform, Conservative, Modox, Secular Zionist, unaffiliated. They are all way more enlightened than the orthoprax are. Why reinvent the wheel? And frankly, your not even doing that. Where's all the original enlightenment content? Parroting Spinoza or 19th century Bible critics is very far from a new enlightenment.
You don't need to believe that a system is morally correct in all respects, or even useful in all respects, in order to follow its rules. After all, most of us think parliament is full of corrupt hypocritical idiots, and that the laws and bureaucracy are absurd - but we still tick the right boxes and say the right things according to civil law.
This does not destroy our souls, even though it carries far fewer psychological benefits than membership of a community.
Every single question that a person has are dealt with in BT yeshiva, and no one is scared of those questions. I’ve known FFB’s who start attending classes at those BT yeshivas. I think it’s a good idea. If the person is still interested. Maybe he is past that interest.
They do that in Chabad with bochurim who aren’t to well with frumkeit in the regular yeshiva system, due to doubts, etc.
Send them off to a baal tshuva yeshiva where they’ll be accepted at whatever level they’re at and they’ll feel free to ask questions of the teachers without being shamed, since that’s what everyone is there for.
I still mostly keep shabbos, kosher, fasts, considering learning for a few hours a day, toivel Keilim and other things that no one would even notice. I will answer amen in shul only when I think halachically I’m allowed to (if I don’t know the bracha being made), will clean my hands if I’m I’m making a bracha sometimes. Etc.
Typically the meticulous keeping of halacha takes several years to break after losing faith. For me, I kept davening with a minyan and learning every day and keeping all halacha for a long long time after I stopped believing. It's difficult to uproot feelings of guilt despite knowing it's all fake.
More effective than guilt is family and friends you'd like to continue relationships with. Spouses, kids and parents, not to mention friends.
The effects of being ostracized from the community are often not appreciated until it happens. What percentage of a frum person's social circles consist of non-Orthodox Jews? For most, it's likely less than 1%, if even that high.
Thank you for this
For the people I know personally it’s a reality not a talking point
Wdym?
I couldn’t not write something on this.
Got it. People like you are much valued, and I hope that you can help effect change in the frum worlds approach in dealing with us skeptics.
I’m very OTD and never really hid - went from Yeshiva believer in an Elul Zman to working on Shabbos by the time Chanukah came around. Agree with most of this but I do have to disagree with the idea that critical thinking isn’t taught in Yeshiva. Obviously there are topics that are taboo - or even directly enforced as off limits (I’ve been called into the Mashgiach’s office more than once and told not to touch a topic/book etc).
That said critical thinking is very much taught in the Frum system more so than anywhere else I’ve experienced it. If there’s one saving grace of the Frum education I got that left me not knowing what a cell or the periodic table was - it gave me the ability to critically think. Rote memorization was looked down on (and I came from a Cheder that did a lot of that) and the ability to build and take apart arguments using logical inference and comparison tools were perhaps the biggest focus in Yeshiva. Don’t know about the women’s side of the mechitza because I haven’t experienced it but I think part of the challenge yeshivas have is they pump out guys who can shred the arguments for faith if they turn their efforts toward that end. Their saving grace is they produce guys capable of doing effective apologetics too if they so choose (a good critically thinking lawyer can argue for or against any position)
Please read my just published piece.
The bit about rabbonim signing some dumb memo about AI?
no
I think you’re overstating several aspects of the old yeshiva. For example you mention Bialik - he was sent to Valozhin by his family at age 17 and last about a year before leaving/being kicked out (I don’t think we actually know which). Similarly both my paternal great grandfathers were sent by their families to Radiin and Gorodna (from New York) and to Slabodka and Chevron (from Kovno/Kaunus)
Rabbonim were extremely well respected in shtetl life and Yeshiva was Rav training school. Much like today within the Yeshiva world bubble, yeshiva was very well respected but that respect didn’t go beyond the bubble.
And the yeshiva today; much like the college system today is sort of more democratized but that’s made elite schools more competitive not less. Sure there’s a cultural imperative to go to BMG but there’s still a ton of variety before that point and lots of them are very hard to get in to. It’s probably harder to get into a top yeshiva today than it was to get in to Volozhin. Much like it’s much harder to get into an Ivy today than it was 100 years ago.
Simply put I think you’re just over romanticizing both the process and the outcomes of the old Yeshiva world and downplaying the modern yeshiva world. But that’s kind of expected - romanticizing the past is a staple of Charedi Judaism
Whoops read that as first published piece not just published piece. I’ll read and get back to you
>>>but I do have to disagree with the idea that critical thinking isn’t taught in Yeshiva
They certainly promote critical thinking when it comes to talmudic discussions ofעוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה and מתנה על מנת להחזיר and יד סולדת בו. But I did not experience any guidance in yeshiva in thinking critically when it came to questions of the existence of god, the historicity of the biblical narrative and whether or not the story of Judaism reflects reality, nor have I ever met anyone who had. Are you the first?
The foundations of religion are compartmentalized in a special box where they are not subjected to rigorous scrutiny, while everything else, from the time is takes to answer amen or consume a slice of bread or for dough to leaven or for barley to ripen or for a fetus to develop or menstrual blood flow to cease, is picked apart with no hesitation.
>>>I think part of the challenge yeshivas have is they pump out guys who can shred the arguments for faith if they turn their efforts toward that end
Oh yes! My point indeed. It's like the corruption of a keen lawman who pays no heed when his own family breaks the law...nothing to see here...keep it moving.
Critical thinking is a skill set. They definitely tell you not to use it on taboo topics but that doesn’t mean the skill set isn’t developed.
Sounds like you're reiterating what I wrote above. :)
Typo: Exit 98
Clearly, I need an editor lol
For someone who’s already realized that their beliefs no longer align with orthodoxy, the choice then becomes whether it’s worth giving up the stability, family values, and social support (and potentially family) that it engenders in order to pursue personal authenticity and resolve the cognitive dissonance.
From a societal standpoint, encouraging (too much) questioning could undermine the community’s structure, as cohesion relies on conformity.
Everyone draws the line somewhere (not like we're gonna be open to biblical criticism and the historical approach which can easily lead to reform), it's about where the community chooses to draw it.
Way I see it, the question is how much of the unique character of the Orthodox community are you willing to jeopardize in the pursuit of intellectual freedom.
Here lies honesty , and unless this is addressed we will lose some of our best and brightest. Actually we have already in many many cases.
>>>and unless this is addressed we will lose some of our best and brightest
What do you suggest Orthodoxy do to address this? In your estimation, what could be said to confront this "honesty," as you call it?
Historically, religious groups retain members by being less hardcore - but without going fully secular. There's a sort of U-shaped curve of risk of losing members, with the most strict groups appealing to only few people, and the most loose and progressive ones fading away into irrelevance.
There's a happy middle ground of strictness of observance, I would suggest, which lies somewhere between the extremes of charedim crossing the road to avoid women, and the Reform shuls which are indistinguishable from Pentecostal churches (even complete, in other countries, with American rabbis sounding very much like born-again preachers).
It appears to me that this is what has already happened in Judaism.
There are the more macro divisions of Orthodoxy, Conservative and Reform, and for those with keener eyes, there are the micro divisions on the spectrum of observance and cultural norms. There's the black hat and gartel of Lakewood or Flatbush and there's the blue shirt and rainbow tallis of Riverdale, and there are many notches in between, where each behavioral / cultural / mode of dress phenotype can be said, at least for the purposes of this argument, to refer loosely to an observance / theological genotype.
But there's no way to grapple with challenges to the truth values of Judaism without being considered heterodoxical. If the only response to "how do you know this is true?" is "put your finger back onto the place in the gemarah," I don't really see how Orthodoxy beats orthopraxy. Sure, indoctrination is alive and well in the yeshiva system, whether it be black hat or yeshiva day school, but indoctrination is not an argument...it's just a means of survival.
There is certainly a way. The Gush does it. Sholom Tzadik does it. Joshua Berman does it.
I am unfamiliar with all of these, although it appears that Berman has somehow become convinced of the reliability of the Torah.
I like this post. And honestly I wish you were correct that allowing more open discussion on doubt would keep more people in the fold. But I don't think you are correct (and i say this as a non believer who no longer keeps halacha except in public). If people were encouraged to openly voice doubts, and if non belief was de-stigamtized, I think Orthodox judaism would start hemorrhaging. What keeps 90% of people from allowing questions to bother them is fear and shame. Some people face those questions despite the fear and shame. But most believe because there is tremendous "negius" causing them to. What was always ironic to me is that we were taught that really emuna is pashut and only our negius stops us from seeing it. But the truth is the exact opposite. There is far far far more negius which kept me wanting to believe. Admitting to myself that I didn't really believe took a huge emotional toll. And I mean huge. But that was my honest feeling. I would love to ask a rosh yeshiva - who has more negius than you to keep the jewish faith alive? So what kind of chutzpa to say someone who doesn't believe is because of negius
Agreed. There can be no open discussion on this matter "within the machane" because recognizing its legitimacy *is* considered "outside the machane."
In public, I find that rabbis have lots of things to say but in private, their arguments crumble and they fall onto the idea that believers just gotta believe. Not much of an argument, but maybe they themselves feel stuck as clergy members.
I just re-read all these comments. Two things crossed my mind: 1) how many of you are so yeshivish in your arguments for apikorsus. I think it’s kind of funny. And 2) I just keep thinking about all those Jews from Roman times to Crusader, Inquisition and other times when it was possible to give one’s life for being a Jew (not during WW2–there was no choice). So all those millions just gave their life for nothing? I believe they would disagree.
😂 I appreciate the humor of point 1 Liba, but your 2nd point is really not a serious argument. Think of the millions of (insert any belief system or religion) that gave their lives….and that proves what? Only that humans are prone to give their lives for ideas they believe in deeply.
Really? Millions gave their lives for other religions? Could be, I suppose. Buddhists in China. Right. Lots of Muslims (forgot about that one). I didn’t actually mean it as a proof (I never went to yeshiva), I meant it as a sort of sigh…
Many such examples
Love #1.
I just got שלום צדיק's new book, and it seems relevant to this topic.
As a heterodox, orthoprax person- I think that the conformity of much of Jewish life (esp. Hareidi and Ultra-Orthodox) is suffocating and a problem to be solved. This is a social problem.
Beyond that, the actual faith/attitudes/perspectives are often very shallow, ridiculous and soul-crushing. It's fertile for self-loathing guilt, OCD, and irrationalist text masturbation.
BUT- I think that Judaism can be redeemed- or rather, that the good stuff is there, but it needs amplification.
The first step is that people who are HIGHLY and ELECTRIFYINGLY critical of judaism from within have an incentive to change things from the inside. These people need spaces to discuss about how to change reality, not how to live with a torn heart OR how to escape.
If there is no space like this, people will simply leave and go away and Judaism will have a massive spirit and brain drain.
Typically, when your spirit and brain leave- you are dead.
>>>The first step is that people who are HIGHLY and ELECTRIFYINGLY critical of judaism from within have an incentive to change things from the inside. These people need spaces to discuss about how to change reality, not how to live with a torn heart OR how to escape.
I don't see how this idea launches.
The moment someone acknowledges that orthopraxy is a valid pursuit they can no longer be considered within the camp. Rabbis Krohn or Rietti could conceivably discuss the situation of a college kid who grew up secular and in the midst of becoming more religious, and how the frum community should welcome him with open arms, even though he might show up to shul or your shabbos table with a ponytail or a cell phone. But what tolerance could be given toward heterodoxical views such as, "there's no good reason to believe in a god, but let's eat matzah or sit in the succah because a) I'm nostalgic or b) it's fun or c) my in-laws don't know that I don't think this stuff is real anymore."
Once Orthodoxy acknowledges that orthopraxy accurately reflects reasonable practice for those who want to remain in the community without believing incredible things on bad evidence, it would itself become orthopraxy. But the moment Charlie Harary admits this, he'll be pushed aside as a spokesman.
>>>If there is no space like this, people will simply leave and go away and Judaism will have a massive spirit and brain drain.
As long as the next generation continues to be indoctrinated in Orthodox schools, this could easily remain the state of Orthodoxy for decades.
I think here is a good reason beyond a, b, and c.
If Arthur green can do it so can we.
>>>I think here is a good reason beyond a, b, and c
I did not mean for this to be a comprehensive list of possible reasons one might have. Rather, I meant to demonstrate that if words mean things at all, one ought not say, "I am eating matzah or sitting in a succah because the God of Abraham and Moses is real and he commanded me to do so" because who knows such thing and it's almost certainly not true. People will deny this, but their arguments will not stand in the face of rigorous scrutiny.
>>>If Arthur Green can do it so can we
I don't know why we need an example of a person who can do things. Maybe we should just discuss things to do and prioritize them based on hierarchy of reasonableness, rather than on the celebrity status of those who perform them.
The example is not meant to be celebrity status, of which I fully agree is useless in these matters. It's purpose is to show alternative ways of finding meaningfulness in ritual actions. I also agree that having serious conversations about what is reasonable is a very good thing. That's why we're both here (even if the discussion is not as good as face to face)
I think it's possible to say things like "I am eating Matzah etc." but it would require an honest inquiry about what it means for two different people to recognize the same god, what it means to be part of a heritage, what the 'realness' of such a god is, and what it could possibly mean that such a being 'commanded' anything as parochial as eating matzah. It's true- someone who took all these words at face value would not stand scrutiny.
>>>It's purpose is to show alternative ways of finding meaningfulness in ritual actions.
That's fine, as I already clarified that my "list of meaningful reasons" was never intended to be comprehensive.
But this is the wrong question, I think.
Christmas is very meaningful. Come Christmastime, everyone's suddenly very nice. People are less likely to steal your parking spot and the cashier at both Macy*s and the bodega dole out more smiles and thank yous. Even without being consumed with the current day commercialism, Christmastime gifts can build friendships and heal wounds and blunt disagreement. So why don't we do it?
The reason Judaism doesn't do Christmas is decidedly not because we are against brotherly love. It's decidedly not because we are against the commercialism. And it's decidedly not because we like to encourage grudges and fights over parking spots. No. It's because Christmas is not real. It's because Jesus wasn't the messiah and so there's nothing to celebrate here. And to do so would promote heresy in a way that we don't risk when celebrating Thanksgiving, which is why the latter is embraced by many Orthodox Jews while it might be a safe bet to figure that Christmas is embraced by 0.00% of Orthodox Jews.
I can't tell you what your questions about religion are, but the most important question about religion is "is it true." And finding ways for it to be meaningful seems to straddle the non-observant / orthoprax line rather than the orthoprax / Orthodox line.
I don't think it's because it's not real. Thanksgiving, for all we know, can be a complete historic forgery.
Heresy, is closer, but still not the point. Lag Ba'Omer and Uman Rosh Hashana, are pretty close to heresy by many standards. I think it has to do with meaningfulness. And that it has to do with the holiday (or system) fitting the observer (or individual). Christmas doesn't fit us, because we weren't raised by it. And adopting it, for most people, doesn't make sense, because it is a family holiday, and few families would adopt it. And even if a family would, it would lack the heritage, the symbols and everything. It doesn't fit.
Pesach does. And it's story permeates are lives. A story about slaves finding freedom and meaning, starting on a mission that we are still discovering and manifesting.
"true" with regards to society-wide rituals has much more to do with its effects than its history. Or another way of putting it, is that noble lies are actually noble, and also actually lies, and people who have already deciphered the nobility, don't mind the lies, because myths are part of human psych. (this is vague, but I hope it points in the direction I'm trying to communicate)
Tzadok requires a belief in God (which in itself is fully rational)
However, one can take his main point- (the split between communal ethics and folk theology) and with it develop different types of belief. These philosopher/thinkers would still be part of the political entity defined by halacha, but would diverge radically on the content of the their thought.
I'm not sure I'm responding to your intent
I'm not sure I agree with your point about the community maybe allowing more freedom for doubt etc. I think you can make the exact opposite argument, that the only reason these communities have been able to continue growing and thriving is precisely because of their insularity and rigidness.
Also based on totally anecdotal data I'm not convinced this issue is as widespread as you make it sound.
(For background I myself am ITC, although not from lakewood but from a chasidishe community)
"The result is a growing number of individuals who outwardly conform but inwardly feel alienated. They’re not just questioning; they’ve lost their belief entirely. And yet, they stay, because leaving feels even more impossible.
"This is not sustainable. Communities that prioritize appearance over authenticity, that value conformity over genuine connection to faith, are setting themselves up for a crisis. You can only paper over so many cracks before the entire structure starts to crumble. And make no mistake: the cracks are there, and they’re widening."
Do you have any evidence that this phenomenon is growing? Seems to me that hard core orthopraxy has been around for a while https://cross-currents.com/2013/12/22/rabbi-bleichs-new-book-and-the-growth-of-orthodox-non-orthodoxy/ . It may have gotten a little bump with the rise of the internet, but it's remained pretty fringe. It doesn't seem likely that any decent percentage eg 5% or higher are actually walking around with deeply held heretical beliefs and yet somehow it's buried by the moetzes deep state. I don't deny that there are social pressures to conform in frum society, but let's not go overboard. This isn't Stalinist Russia. No one is going to disappear you. If there's really a large sector of the community that doesn't believe anything, you'd think they'd have something more to show for it than a few Facebook groups and Substacks.
We'll likely never know the percentage of orthoprax masquerading as Orthodox because they could never be accepted. Unlike, say, the gay community, it's not just a matter of waiting for greater social acceptance among the heterosexual majority. The frum community could never accept heresy because its so fully erosive...universal acid, as Daniel Dennett referred to it.
I'm not talking about being accepted as legitimate. I'm talking about having enough sway to eg support some real OTD commercial enterprises. Or voting for Orthoprax-friendly candidates in elections. https://ballotpedia.org/Adina_Sash
"as Daniel Dennett referred to it."
I don't take Dennet all that seriously.
>>>I'm not talking about being accepted as legitimate.
Well, as I touched upon, orthoprax can never, by definition, be considered legitimate. It's like Orthodoxy recognizing Conservative or Reform Judaism. It's one thing to say that we hold by the eruv and that guy doesn't but we can still be friends and even chavrusas, but to say that that guy doesn't believe in god is something quite different. On the microlevel, you can be friends with him, but on the macrolevel, the community must have standards that exclude non-believers, insofar as the community is built on belief as rule #1.
The orthoprax recognize this and so would never even consider legitimacy as a goal. At least both sides here are agreed on the terms of engagement in this regard, which is why I thought the suggestion by someone here that orthoprax representatives need to be bold and charismatic to make their case for the masses not only bizarre, but misguided and doomed to fail.
>>>I'm talking about having enough sway to eg support some real OTD commercial enterprises.
Perhaps I don't fully understand what you're trying to argue for here.
Blacks in America want to be more accepted, and some things they wanted, for example, was more inclusion in media and healthcare products. So let's say we talk about family-oriented shows from the 80s and 90s...you have Full House and The Hogan Family and Blossom and The Nanny and Boy Meets World and Home Improvement and let's just say that black people didn't seen themselves represented sufficiently. But then blacks began to have more input, as we added to this The Cosby Show and Sister Sister and The Parent Hood.
So, too, blacks felt left out that there were only white-person-colored Band-Aids in the past decades, but can now be more comfortable with darker tones to match their skin.
And so greater acceptance and understanding by commercial enterprises, as you might call them, can and has led to greater appreciation of the racial and cultural differences in society. But I don't get how this would apply to the clandestine orthoprax community. The idea is that there is no longer a recognition that the religion is based on truth, but that observance serves a purpose and so is maintained so some extent, either only publicly or ever privately. What sway or commercial involvement would even be pertinent?
>>>Or voting for Orthoprax-friendly candidates in elections. https://ballotpedia.org/Adina_Sash
Again, the orthoprax merely deny the existence of god and the truth of the Torah. They are not looking for orthoprax measures to be taken up in state and local legislatures. Orthoprax are essentially atheists who appear to practice Judaism, and as atheism is not a platform and there is no agenda per se, again, I'm confused as to what you're getting at here.
All reasonable candidates can be and should recognize that their constituents ought to be free to practice their religion or no religion, or practice a religion without really believing that the tenets of the religion are true. In that sense, most any reasonable person is an orthoprax-friendly candidate.
>>>as Daniel Dennett referred to it." I don't take Dennet all that seriously.
Oh...why not?
"The orthoprax recognize this and so would never even consider legitimacy as a goal...
"They are not looking for orthoprax measures to be taken up in state and local legislatures."
Are we talking about the same thing? This post is subtitled 'rumblings of a new enlightenment.' The author of the post claims that he expects a subbreddit populated by orthoprax to 'grow exponentially.' https://yitz.substack.com/p/first-glance-at-jewish-orthopraxy/comment/81139899 I'm asking what the evidence is that there's anything afoot. Is there any evidence from the real world- as opposed to a necessarily self selected collection of online voices which resurface https://rygb.blogspot.com/2012/08/yeshiveshe-orthopraxy.html every few years? If not, my default is to assume that actual orthoprax are relatively few and far between, that it's always been this way, and there's no reason to think anything is going to change going forward. (That doesn't mean there couldn't be radical change. If e.g. the moetzes were discovered to be involved in some giant pizzagate style child smuggling ring, there would be reason to think a tectonic shift might happen. But, to state the obvious, nothing like that seems to actually be the case.)
Now, I take your point that given orthopraxy's tendencies, it may be harder to see. But that isn't an argument that it exists to begin with. I tried to give some examples of ways we might be able to tell. Feel free to share others.
">>>as Daniel Dennett referred to it." I don't take Dennet all that seriously.
Oh...why not?"
Because I read a couple of his exchanges and he comes as off insufferably pompous, and not someone worth taking seriously.
Here is an exchange he had with John Searle.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/12/21/the-mystery-of-consciousness-an-exchange/?srsltid=AfmBOoqOQuVYRGaJXBrYBitEhn1QBPjdAlOxw8LzoKWPtmn_mRGjyPzy
Here is an article by David Berlinski. https://www.discovery.org/a/130/ Dennet literally wrote an expletive tinged response, which appeared in Commentary and was reprinted in Berlinski's book along with a response to the response by Berlinski. (I believe it can be found here https://www.commentary.org/articles/and-critics/denying-darwin/ but my filter blocks it for some reason... Apparently it's a "Newsgroups/Forums", "Society/Daily Living" 🤷♂️ )
EDIT- See also here. https://exit98.substack.com/p/one-summer-night/comment/80687325?utm_source=activity_item
....Okay. I've said my bit. Unless there's some new angle, I probably won't engage further on this topic. I do appreciate your thoughtful responses to my comments. I think they helped me clarify to (at least to myself, hopefully to others as well) what I was getting at.
>>>Are we talking about the same thing? This post is subtitled 'rumblings of a new enlightenment.' The author of the post claims that he expects a subbreddit populated by orthoprax to 'grow exponentially.' I'm asking what the evidence is that there's anything afoot. Is there any evidence from the real world- as opposed to a necessarily self selected collection of online voices which resurface every few years? If not, my default is to assume that actual orthoprax are relatively few and far between, that it's always been this way, and there's no reason to think anything is going to change going forward.
I didn't take Yitz's missive as a response to a recent shake-up, but rather, as a reflection on what he's noticed over the past 20 years, let's say. Orthodoxy pretends that it sits firmly on solid ground when it comes to its claims, and when you wonder about these claims, you can easily be gaslit into thinking that you're the crazy one when everyone around you continues to follow the incessant beat of the drum. But the internet now provides those who are separated by community and by age and by familial association to band together, or at least observe that they are not alone.
Religion is unlike other systems we fabricate like tracks for society to run along. When you're poor you can complain that the system isn't working, but the rich guy will often disagree..."the system," he might reply with a smile, "seems to be working quite well." Seventy years ago in America, the black man (and woman) would say that the system wasn't working, while the white man (and perhaps woman) might have replied (also with a smile), "I don't know...it seems to be working quite fine."
But not so with religion. Religion is not primarily a system to organize life so that society runs smoothly for all, or even for the ruling class. Rather, it's been proposed as a reflection of how the world really is. But there's no good evidence and there's no reason to suppose it's true.
Maybe Yitz's warning sound like those of Chicken Little, as do the warnings of all those who warn society to watch out. And watch out for what, precisely, I don't quite know myself, for there's no solution to the problem, really. Religions, including Judaism, were ideas cooked up a long time ago and many people still think they are true. As we age and become more mature as people, some / many / most recognize that the way they saw religion 5 / 10/ 20 years ago was misguided and they lighten up, recognizing that it's not what they thought it was. But because it's so disruptive to leave, they remain. And what's it to remain in Christianity? Not much. But Judaism has a lot of rules and when people wake up and see that there are no good answers and just a lot of rules, it can be difficult to know where to go from there.
I think that's all Yitz meant, but he can speak for himself. I don't think he meant to say that he alone has noted a 17% increase in orthopraxy in the last 15-month period, prompting you (and all reasonable people) to now ask to review his data to ensure he ran the correlation coefficients and regression analyses correctly.
Maimonedes said that belief in God is the fundament of all. But there's actually not much support for that in Talmud. What's required is to follow the Law.
Whether I believe in the existence of Parliament is a matter of no import to the government, so long as I follow the laws made by parliament. I would be considered eccentric, but so long as I abide by the civil law, they would not care that I don't believe in their existence or goodwill.
Now, this raises the question as to exactly why you'd follow the Law if you don't believe God exists. But like the civil law, you can recognise that adherence to some of it, at least, carries benefits.
>>>Maimonedes said that belief in God is the fundament of all. But there's actually not much support for that in Talmud. What's required is to follow the Law.
Maimonides, however substantial, is but one perspective in a tapestry of opinions, and while bold, this is not how almost anyone in Orthodoxy views Orthodoxy today. Show me someone who who will agree to remove משה אמת ותורתו אמת from the song list on שמחת תורה. While this is mere ritual practice (and not required by law), is it not a prerequisite to get into any yeshiva or to marry any rosh yeshiva's daughter? What about to marry the rosh yeshiva's son? Your focus on law, while perhaps sourced from more than legitimate sources, is not how Orthodoxy works in 2024, because if it did, then it would be equivalent to orthopraxy and there would have been no original post for us to be commenting on.
>>>Whether I believe in the existence of Parliament is a matter of no import to the government, so long as I follow the laws made by parliament.
I sense that your parallel here is not actually parallel, and so any derivations will be off the mark. A governing body, whether it be a parliament or a congress, can be observed. Parliament is real. You can visit congress, you can meet congressmen and women and we can observe them coming and going through the candidacy and voting processes. It's all natural and demonstrable and observable. But a divine lawgiver is a story we tell. He's never been seen and he's never been heard, and all tales of the contrary are quite dubious.
>>>I would be considered eccentric, but so long as I abide by the civil law, they would not care that I don't believe in their existence or goodwill.
That's because civil law does not concern itself with why one abides.
The proverbs often ascribed to Socrates are wise even if he never actually existed. The profundity or poignancy of the aphorisms derive from their content, not the owner of the lips who uttered them or the hand which held the pen that wrote them down. They could actually be the invention of Yogi Berra or Pee Wee Herman...it makes no difference. They are either profound insights into life or they are not. This is not at all the case with rules of law. If the body of lawgivers doesn't actually exist, the laws aren't really laws.
>>>Now, this raises the question as to exactly why you'd follow the Law if you don't believe God exists. But like the civil law, you can recognise that adherence to some of it, at least, carries benefits.
Orthodox Jews would be exceedingly dismissive of the claims of Christians, Hindus and Muslims of deep faith, rejecting their stories and the scriptures these stories are based on, but they rarely pause to consider whether their own claims have any superior merit.
Now, why would someone observe laws if they don't believe in a lawgiver? Perhaps because they can't break out of the cycle, or perhaps because they are concerned for what others might say. Each orthoprax individual might have his or her own reasons.
But to present Judaism as a religion of laws rather than as a religion of belief is a misfire, despite what Maimonides and Menachem Kellner might have to say about that. We are now in an era of religious observance that also demands belief, and one will accrue great personal penalty and social rejection for announcing out load that they do not believe.
The majority of Jews have no interest in entering yeshiva, since they neither want to become rabbis, nor want to evade military service in Israel. So that’s neither here nor there.
We must concern ourselves with the majority, who, if they observe, do so for reasons other than “God told me to.”
You realize that the exjew sub reddit has over 11,000 members?
Yes, and I expect it to grow exponentially
Why? Based on what?
I didn't know that. I don't think it challenges my point. There's probably a subreddit with thousands of subscribers on all sorts of weird things. Per this site, it's way behind HappyCowGifs, Compare https://subredditstats.com/r/happycowgifs with https://subredditstats.com/r/exjew .
A frum Jew won't join ExJew, and other religions have their own ex sub reddit.
This points to thousands in this situation.
ExJew sounds like a title that would attract millions of nonJews.
I'm surprised there are so few.
No it doesn't. If I were on reddit, I'd probably join the group just for kicks, despite being plenty Orthodox myself. And 11,000 subscribers from all sorts of Orthodox backgrounds over a bunch of years isn't actually all that much. How many accounts are even active?
You are an exception. Most orthodox people would not join a sub like that.
In addition, although there is the occasional non orthodox poster, almost all are Yeshivish/chabad/chassidish.
Is there any way to know how many are actually active? I'm genuinely curious what the numbers and makeup of that group is.
Ramblings of a new enlightenment
Gud gezukt
Why do you need a new enlightenment when you have a perfectly serviceable old one? Go to the Reform, Conservative, Modox, Secular Zionist, unaffiliated. They are all way more enlightened than the orthoprax are. Why reinvent the wheel? And frankly, your not even doing that. Where's all the original enlightenment content? Parroting Spinoza or 19th century Bible critics is very far from a new enlightenment.
You don't need to believe that a system is morally correct in all respects, or even useful in all respects, in order to follow its rules. After all, most of us think parliament is full of corrupt hypocritical idiots, and that the laws and bureaucracy are absurd - but we still tick the right boxes and say the right things according to civil law.
This does not destroy our souls, even though it carries far fewer psychological benefits than membership of a community.
Well done Yitz, hope you don't mind I piggy-backed on your Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/perplexedjew/p/were-all-orthopraxists-now?r=hhumo&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Every single question that a person has are dealt with in BT yeshiva, and no one is scared of those questions. I’ve known FFB’s who start attending classes at those BT yeshivas. I think it’s a good idea. If the person is still interested. Maybe he is past that interest.
They do that in Chabad with bochurim who aren’t to well with frumkeit in the regular yeshiva system, due to doubts, etc.
Send them off to a baal tshuva yeshiva where they’ll be accepted at whatever level they’re at and they’ll feel free to ask questions of the teachers without being shamed, since that’s what everyone is there for.
What’s particularly eye opening is how these individuals continue to perform their religious obligations meticulously.
Umm, exit98 eats pepperoni pizza. Unless I am not understanding?
In public
Many of us also perform many things meticulously in private.
Say more?
I still mostly keep shabbos, kosher, fasts, considering learning for a few hours a day, toivel Keilim and other things that no one would even notice. I will answer amen in shul only when I think halachically I’m allowed to (if I don’t know the bracha being made), will clean my hands if I’m I’m making a bracha sometimes. Etc.
And your theological position on these things is.... they're worthless ?
I’m a nonbeliever. So yes.
What's mostly kosher? Don't wait six hours? Tri k? Etc?
Actually yes exactly lol. And fruits with bugs. I’d have to think more about all of the areas.
Perhaps edit it in.
I see now that it’s a bit confusing, will edit. Thanks
Typically the meticulous keeping of halacha takes several years to break after losing faith. For me, I kept davening with a minyan and learning every day and keeping all halacha for a long long time after I stopped believing. It's difficult to uproot feelings of guilt despite knowing it's all fake.
More effective than guilt is family and friends you'd like to continue relationships with. Spouses, kids and parents, not to mention friends.
The effects of being ostracized from the community are often not appreciated until it happens. What percentage of a frum person's social circles consist of non-Orthodox Jews? For most, it's likely less than 1%, if even that high.