Although the various doctrines I have described seem like politics, and even hate, this is not necessarily true (although there are politicians and haters among us). We essentially have two definitions of Orthodoxy. One is all Jews who beleive in the Torah, Written and Oral Torah, who practice it to the best of their ability, and see themselves as answerable to G-d alone. The other is based primarily on a devotion to emulating the ways of a community and its leaders. This is seen as an unbroken connection to Sinai, and the very embodiment of the Oral Torah, trumping any textual record to the contrary. These conflicting concepts are not new, and can be traced back to RAMBAM versus the Tosafot. Moreover, neither concept is exclusive to "Hareidi Orthodox" or "Modern Orthodox". In each group, there are those who are source based, and those who are community leadership based. A few years ago, there was a Hareidi rally in New York, with a large number of Lithuanian Yeshiva heads to deliver impassioned messages on the evils of the Internet. I overheard two young men talking about this. One commented, and the other heartily agreed, that whoever didn't attend is a "Sadducee". On the other hand, I have been astonished to see publications of followers of the late Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, that read "The view of Rabbi so and so can be ignored, because HE IS NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION". That is, if you are not in the MESORAH of Yeshiva University, your opinion is null and void. And then they criticize the Hassidim for following a particular Rebbe! Torah literature is very vast. We even find the expression "The Sea of the Talmud". There are different views on anything and everything. A corollary to the above mentioned division is, if we consider or dismiss out of hand, a classical view that contradicts the present understanding.,Should we study each view in light of sources, history and logic, adjusting our practice where applicable, or have the earlier views been made obsolete by the later rabbis who had different ideas? I was once giving a lecture on the laws of a Torah Scroll; what defects would necessitate stopping the reading in the middle, and taking a different one from the ark. I quoted a divergent view of RAN (Rabbenu Nissim of Gerona 1310–1375). Present was one of the famous Rosh Kollels (advanced Yeshivas) in Israel. The view was so out of sync with what he had studied, that he stood up, and shouted "Ein RAN kazeh!" (there is no such statement of RAN). He stormed out of the room. The next day, I showed him the statement in black and white. "It can't mean that!" was his response. "Then what does it mean?" I asked. "I don't know, but certainly not what it sounds like". I never received an acknowledgement from him, nor an apology for the public shaming and denunciation. I had, after all, challenged a tradition that everyone "knew". Many of our most basic assumptions have sources to the contrary. One can find sources for every Egalitarian and Feminist claim and demand. The first approach is to see if the sources is valid and logical. Even if it is, would the effect on the community be worth the confusion of back tracking? Is truth preferable to people's sensibilities? These are by no means easy questions. The second approach, however, would argue that the community, its leaders, as well as history, have already made the alternate opinion into a "dead letter", which we have no business reopening. A Baal Teshuva or convert, confronting an Orthodox rabbi with such a source, is opening up a "can of worms", The rabbi feels pressured, as well as challenged. Anything he says, can, and will be, used against him, by the Court of Public Opinion. I have mentioned two posts ago, that the rabbis of Morasha (UTJ) have been rebuffed by the rabbis of Open Orthodoxy. This discussion is precisely the reason. The Morasha rabbis look to sources. If a point is clear in Talmud and other classical sources, that is the halachah. Someone in the twentieth century disagreed? His views will be examined for logic and faithfulness to sources. if the new opinions do not "fit" they will be rejected. OO, on the other hand (as we have seen in the article I posted on Thursday), claimed loyalty to the "Gedolim", although they have a hugely different approach. From their perspective, fealty to the Gedolim is the ver defition of "Orthodox". Morasha rabbis (and others) would say that submission to Torah, Talmud and related sources are what makes one "Orthodox". My criticism of Morasha is that issues of Feminism are mostly off the table, as they see those issues as having lead to the downfall of the Conservative movement. It is my fervent hope that open dialogue will ensue, and the Great Questions will be resolved.