Apparently one of the main criticisms of modern orthodoxy is their lack of focus on spirituality. But is that really what’s going on? Or is it something else.
Among other things modern orthodoxy has been challenged as to why they seldom if ever refer to Rashi with the prefix ‘holy’… especially in the Yiddish usage of the phrase “Der Heilige Rashi’. Another phrase seldom used is the phrase ‘Yiras Shamaim’. These phrases and others like them have become popular Charedi catch phrases. The lack of usage of terms like these in the world of modern Orthodoxycritics say… implies a certain lack of spirituality.
Phrases like “Der Heilige Rashi’ have a two fold purpose. One is that it is designed to make historical and even current rabbinic figures into superhuman individuals. Another is - perhaps even more significantly - that it defines and separates Charedim from the rest of Orthodoxy. It makes them sound ‘Frummer’ when they speak like that.
The problem in the first instance is that human beings are somehow seen as transcending the physical world and entering the spiritual world of God. The more that phrases like this are used about certain human beings, the more we remove humanity from them and turn them into saints. Chasidim use this terminology about their current Rebbes and turn them into near gods! Lubavitch has made a whole theology about holiness to the point that one can actually become ‘God clothed in a body’ if one is holy enough. Quite a slippery slope if you think about it.
Was Rashi a holy person? Of course he was. But that doesn't mean we must dwell on that aspect of him. Nor does it mean that if we don't refer to him that way that we don't think he was holy. All it means is that we don't obsess about it. The more focused one is in that area the more theologically dangerous it can become.
In all my years of learning with the many Rebbeim including those in Telshe… and including some of the greatest Talmidei Chachamim of the 20th century, such as Rav Herzel Kaplan, Rav Zelig Starr, Rav Mordechai Rogov, Rav Aharon Soloveichik and YBLCTA Rav Yaakov Perlow. I never heard any of them use the expression ‘Der Heilige Rashi’. Not once!
Where does this all come from? The source is the world of Chasidim. As it applies to the Lithuanian world of Yeshivos, I believe it is an invention of the late 20th century. This is the standard way Chasidim refer to Rashi. So…in a bid to not be out 'frummed' by Chasidim, the Lithuanian Yeshiva world started talking that way too.
This phenomenon is part of the over-all ‘move to the right’, that has been taking place over the last 60 years. After the holocaust when Chasidim immigrated to the United States in huge numbers, they brought all their Chumros with them. Chumros not practiced in the United States and not common in the Lithuanian Yeshivos of Europe. That is how the slide to the right began. Many Kulos that were standard practice even pre holocaust were abandoned in the US when the Chasidim who never used these Kulos immigrated and widely practiced them. The Yeshiva world saw it and copied it.
There are two very clear instances of this.
In one area it was actually a Tikun. It restored a Halacha that was all but abandoned even in pre-holocaust Lithuania: that of married woman covering their hair. Chasidim never abandoned that Halacha. When the rabbinic leaders of the Yeshiva world saw that, they were somehow able to convince their wives to cover their hair too. And they made sure this Halacha was instilled into their students. Since that time hair covering has come back with a vengeance. Where it was virtually unknown in the United States pre-holocaust, the vast majority of observant women today cover their hair. The younger they are, the more likely they are to do so even among the modern orthodox.
The other area which is not a Halachic requirement is in the area of separate seating of the sexes. The biggest Lithuanian type Gedolim of the last century sat with their wives at at weddings. There are photos that prove that. And they proudly introduced their wives to everyone. This was not only the case here it was the case in Europe.
When asked about it by a Talmid who back in the late sixties was faced with pressure to have separate seating at his wedding: Rav Mordechai Rogov told him, “In Der Lita, Zennen Mir Nit Given Makpid”. In Lithuania weddings had mixed seating.
But, when the Lithuanian Torah world saw that all the Chasidic wedding had separate seating, they instituted it for themselves. Telshe banquets in Chicago started out with mixed seating. After a few years of observing the Chasidic world, they made a conscious decision to not be out-Frummed by the Chasidim.
Now they actually bully people into having separate seating at weddings. Case in point: Back in the early nineties the daughter of a close friend of mine got engaged to a Telzer. My friend intended to have mixed seating at his daughter’s wedding. When Telshe found out about it, one of the Roshei Yeshiva paid a visit to my friend. And he used extreme pressure on him to have separate seating. ‘How would it look’ he said, ‘if one of their Bachurim had a mixed seating wedding?!’ My friend relented.
How would it look! That(!) …is what concerned them.
Just like Chasidim have been the cause of the move to the right in those two areas, so too in other areas... such as in the Yeshiva world incorporating their ‘Frummer’ sounding lingo.
So in the end ‘talking the talk’ isn’t about Yiras Shamayim at all. It’s about image. It’s about ‘Frumkeit. Who can look ‘Frummer’ …who can sound ‘Frummer’…and who can act Frummer.
Among other things modern orthodoxy has been challenged as to why they seldom if ever refer to Rashi with the prefix ‘holy’… especially in the Yiddish usage of the phrase “Der Heilige Rashi’. Another phrase seldom used is the phrase ‘Yiras Shamaim’. These phrases and others like them have become popular Charedi catch phrases. The lack of usage of terms like these in the world of modern Orthodoxycritics say… implies a certain lack of spirituality.
Phrases like “Der Heilige Rashi’ have a two fold purpose. One is that it is designed to make historical and even current rabbinic figures into superhuman individuals. Another is - perhaps even more significantly - that it defines and separates Charedim from the rest of Orthodoxy. It makes them sound ‘Frummer’ when they speak like that.
The problem in the first instance is that human beings are somehow seen as transcending the physical world and entering the spiritual world of God. The more that phrases like this are used about certain human beings, the more we remove humanity from them and turn them into saints. Chasidim use this terminology about their current Rebbes and turn them into near gods! Lubavitch has made a whole theology about holiness to the point that one can actually become ‘God clothed in a body’ if one is holy enough. Quite a slippery slope if you think about it.
Was Rashi a holy person? Of course he was. But that doesn't mean we must dwell on that aspect of him. Nor does it mean that if we don't refer to him that way that we don't think he was holy. All it means is that we don't obsess about it. The more focused one is in that area the more theologically dangerous it can become.
In all my years of learning with the many Rebbeim including those in Telshe… and including some of the greatest Talmidei Chachamim of the 20th century, such as Rav Herzel Kaplan, Rav Zelig Starr, Rav Mordechai Rogov, Rav Aharon Soloveichik and YBLCTA Rav Yaakov Perlow. I never heard any of them use the expression ‘Der Heilige Rashi’. Not once!
Where does this all come from? The source is the world of Chasidim. As it applies to the Lithuanian world of Yeshivos, I believe it is an invention of the late 20th century. This is the standard way Chasidim refer to Rashi. So…in a bid to not be out 'frummed' by Chasidim, the Lithuanian Yeshiva world started talking that way too.
This phenomenon is part of the over-all ‘move to the right’, that has been taking place over the last 60 years. After the holocaust when Chasidim immigrated to the United States in huge numbers, they brought all their Chumros with them. Chumros not practiced in the United States and not common in the Lithuanian Yeshivos of Europe. That is how the slide to the right began. Many Kulos that were standard practice even pre holocaust were abandoned in the US when the Chasidim who never used these Kulos immigrated and widely practiced them. The Yeshiva world saw it and copied it.
There are two very clear instances of this.
In one area it was actually a Tikun. It restored a Halacha that was all but abandoned even in pre-holocaust Lithuania: that of married woman covering their hair. Chasidim never abandoned that Halacha. When the rabbinic leaders of the Yeshiva world saw that, they were somehow able to convince their wives to cover their hair too. And they made sure this Halacha was instilled into their students. Since that time hair covering has come back with a vengeance. Where it was virtually unknown in the United States pre-holocaust, the vast majority of observant women today cover their hair. The younger they are, the more likely they are to do so even among the modern orthodox.
The other area which is not a Halachic requirement is in the area of separate seating of the sexes. The biggest Lithuanian type Gedolim of the last century sat with their wives at at weddings. There are photos that prove that. And they proudly introduced their wives to everyone. This was not only the case here it was the case in Europe.
When asked about it by a Talmid who back in the late sixties was faced with pressure to have separate seating at his wedding: Rav Mordechai Rogov told him, “In Der Lita, Zennen Mir Nit Given Makpid”. In Lithuania weddings had mixed seating.
But, when the Lithuanian Torah world saw that all the Chasidic wedding had separate seating, they instituted it for themselves. Telshe banquets in Chicago started out with mixed seating. After a few years of observing the Chasidic world, they made a conscious decision to not be out-Frummed by the Chasidim.
Now they actually bully people into having separate seating at weddings. Case in point: Back in the early nineties the daughter of a close friend of mine got engaged to a Telzer. My friend intended to have mixed seating at his daughter’s wedding. When Telshe found out about it, one of the Roshei Yeshiva paid a visit to my friend. And he used extreme pressure on him to have separate seating. ‘How would it look’ he said, ‘if one of their Bachurim had a mixed seating wedding?!’ My friend relented.
How would it look! That(!) …is what concerned them.
Just like Chasidim have been the cause of the move to the right in those two areas, so too in other areas... such as in the Yeshiva world incorporating their ‘Frummer’ sounding lingo.
So in the end ‘talking the talk’ isn’t about Yiras Shamayim at all. It’s about image. It’s about ‘Frumkeit. Who can look ‘Frummer’ …who can sound ‘Frummer’…and who can act Frummer.
