Could we have a vote please.

So many problems would be resolved once this basic tenet of belief would be acknowledged. So much divine energy unleashed once we decided to unite in cultivating this belief.

IAAGS!!

(it’s all about G-d, stupid)

The Mitzvos are simply the means.

SKT – Shabbos, Kashrus (kosher), Taharas Mishpacha (family purity)

BALM – Bein Adom L’ Makom – Mitzvos between Man and G-d as opposed to

BALC – Bein Adam L’Chavero – Mitzvos between man and his fellow man.

IYKWIM – If you know what I mean

Needed are:

RYH
SKT
BALM
IYKWIM
BALC

Thanks…and please if you are going to use hebrew or yiddish terms, not everyone knows what they are.

May I further refine your definition?

R Shimon Schwab, IIRC, said that a Jew who steals should not be considered “frum”. If that is so, no matter how prominent the person is in the frum community, he would not be observant if involved in chilul Hashem(or at least in theft).

SKT, of course are “big ones”, especially for a beginner, but a frum Jew who is jailed for financial reasons would not be “observant” according to R. Schwab(of course that doesn’t mean that frum people in jail shouldn’t do teshuvah and become “Observant”). So one would have to add chilul Hashem to SKT, as excluding from “Observance”.

Your main difference seems to be “disbelief” in not doing mitzvos versus “mitzvah non observance is based on character deficiencies, rationalization, and lack of knowledge”, which I generally agree with.

I would add that rationalization, whether for BALC or BALM can sometimes also be considered a lack of emunah, ie, a full palpable belief in schar v’onesh (although in those cases it’s a more subtle lack of belief). This would mean that there are infinite levels of “Observance”, although there are at the same time, outward base standards which one can judge about–hanistaros l’aShem Elokeinu, etc.

Also, people talk a lot about how to increase emunah in both adults and children. If we assume, as some kiruv people do, that there are more frum people than we care to admit walking around with doubts, would that mean that these people–children and adults– are not fully “Observant”?

I tried to distinguish, above, between the extent of doubts and when they reach a level of “Orthopraxy”(or “nonobservance”, according to your definition).

It is interesting that in comment # 26 in “Shlomo Hamelech For a Day”, RYH wrote as follows:

” I also wanted our readers to see the complexity of these situations. many in our community see yiddishkeit like a light switch — it is either on or off — when it is far more like a dimmer, with so many shades of gray.”

Notwithsatnding the above, I am sure that RYH also has a baseline for “Observance”(and he’s also not referring to my moniker :) )

.

But what about someone who is a decent individual, and believes in Orthodoxy but doesn’t practice it? Like some Sfardim who might describe themselves as “Masorti” — they are not necessarily Shomrei Shabbat, but the stream they’re not observing is Orthodoxy, IYKWIM. Are they still “observant?” I wouldn’t think too many people would refer to them that way (in fact, I’ve heard them referred to as nonobservant Orthodox). So it seems like your Havruta’s distinction breaks down.

My chavrusa said non-observance has to be based on character deficiency or rationalization. The hypothetical Sefardim’s non-observance is not because they’re trying to observe, but failing, but rather because they’re choosing not to observe.

I think a definition of Observant would be:

1) Believe in the Rambam’s 13 principles which can be broadly characterized as Believe in G-d, Torah from Sinai, Reward & Punishment (13P)

2) Observance of Shabbos, Kashrus, Taharas Mishpacha (SKT)

3) Any mitzvah non observance is based on character deficiencies, rationalization, lack of knowledge.

Of course the true goal is to constantly move Beyond Observant.

I think there is a slightly larger category which we might call the Tent of Torah and for this category I would include those who believe in the 13P and observe SKT.

The next and perhaps the most important is anybody actively trying to get closer to Hashem. As has been mentioned before, Torah Judaism is not so much where you are, but where you’re going.

And going back to Mark’s question, if someone does keep a 100% kosher home but eats non-kosher (maybe vegatarian) do you eat at their house?

Define “believe in orthodoxy”. what part of orthodoxy do they believe in, in theory, but then decided they would just rather not practice it.

Ironically, isn’t the shulchan aruch, serphardic in origin and theme.

Also regarding your dishonest point, define dishonesty and all of the contexts to which you are referring to.

How can one be dishonest without violating bein adam lamokom commandements.

According to Merriam Webster
Doxology = a usually liturgical expression of praise to God
Orthodox = 1 a: conforming to established doctrine especially in religion

“Established” versus “establishing” does get tricky in 2009 but I think that the inherent definition answers all questions about qualifying for the observance label in two, easy to read definition sentences.

I think that observance is essentially based on a doctrine, basically praising and sanctifying a G-d, not praiseworthy actions or feelings the individual is proud to practice and perpetuate.

Clearly, one doesn’t need G-d or a doctrine to practice and perfect bein adam lchaveiro traits which are obviously essential in 2009.

But they don’t have anything to do with observance (other than the observance of personal feelings) and or religion unless they are incorporated into a religious context.

See shabbas 127a for a partial proof .

Squarepeg, if the severity of chilul shabbos where as clear to them as the danger of jumping off a roof, they would keep shabbos. They just don’t believe enough. It’s like those who know smoking is unhealthy but do it anyway because they’re not sure it’ll kill them.

In fact I like Mark’s chavrusa’s theory better than mine (#22). I might add that this is probably the reason why those who are long on BALM and short on BALC, while they may convince themselves that they’re ok in this or that midah (character trait), or that the rules don’t apply to them (which is bad enough), as a rule they’d never assert that chessed is not important or lashon hara is ok. OTOH those who are long on BALC and short on BALM generally dismiss the importance of, or downright belittle or even bash, anything in BALM they haven’t achieved (yet?).

Methinks they do protest too much.

In answering the question about what does observant mean, it is therefore imperative to understand that one who considers themselves observant does not just have that experience during services, but in every aspect of their lives. To those who keep many of the halachas in their home life, yet check them at the door of their egalatarian synagogue, perhaps you could say you’re observant in your home but not in your synagogue? There are clearly halachas as to why men and women sit separately during davening, and dropping those in a quest for more membership is clearly not working, as the demise of the conservative movement that many of us grew up with indicates. Religion is not a popularity contest, nor is the Torah the equivalent of the US Constitution. Torah Judaism is not something on which we vote for passage of amendments, it is what is forever.

Mark, I will have to think about your Havruta’s distinction between BALC and BALM. You are saying that someone who is Shomer Shabbat but dishonest is observant because down deep he believes in being honest but rationalizes his dishonesty. So belief seems to the criterion for observance. But what about someone who is a decent individual, and believes in Orthodoxy but doesn’t practice it? Like some Sfardim who might describe themselves as “Masorti” — they are not necessarily Shomrei Shabbat, but the stream they’re not observing is Orthodoxy, IYKWIM. Are they still “observant?” I wouldn’t think too many people would refer to them that way (in fact, I’ve heard them referred to as nonobservant Orthodox). So it seems like your Havruta’s distinction breaks down.

Shades of Grey, very interesting. Thank you for your contribution.

“Orthoprax is used these days to denote someone who does the outward actions of the mitzvos, but doesn’t necessary believe the Torah is from G-d and might not even believe there is a G-d”

I see three aspects regarding the issue of “Orthoprax” people:

How to define and distinguish them from ordinary Orthodox individuals who might experience doubt, how the community should judge such people (if at all), and most importantly, how to help such a person.

“Orthopraxy”, defined here as one who “doesn’t necessary believe”(as opposed to simply “doesn’t believe”), seems to point to a weakness of faith in an individual. While it might be said that there are infinite levels of faith possible among all believing Jews(see Alie Shur Vol II, Vaadim on Emunah), the label “Orthoprax” presumably refers to someone who does not meet a baseline level of faith as far as belief in the generally accepted ikkarei emunah. An additional difference might be that an “Orthoprax” person uses his or her doubts as an excuse to not increase his level of Judaism–in both deed and creed. This, as compared to the “Orthodox” person with ordinary doubts, who is on a trajectory of increased Torah growth, even though he may also go through ups and downs in the area of belief, over a lifetime.

In how relate to such a person, there might be the issue of accountability, versus being able to represent a community. While perhaps only Hashem, who is bochein k’layos v’lev, can ultimately decide to what extent, an “Orthoprax” person should be held accountable, nevertheless, an “Orthoprax” person, in my opinion, should not be able to represent to the world, the community of wholesome believers, nor to speak in their name to define(or redefine) Judaism.

How to help an “Orthoprax” person would seem to be the most important issue. It is perhaps easier to be m’ekareiv people for whom the strength and duration of their intellectual opposition is weaker and shorter (although I sure that there are cases of successful kiruv where the person does not fit this mold). However, as a community, one must care about everyone if one is truly interested in kvod Shomayim!

R. Emanuel Feldman( “Tales out Of Shul”) writes that a person might find it less burdensome to care for the needs of a helpless infant, but the same person might find it harder to care for an elderly adult with the exact same needs! Apparently, some forms of chesed and of Kiruv are easier and/or more attractive than others, for various reasons.

I believe that many “Orthoprax” individuals, although ostensibly defiant, have a side of them which feels positively about Judaism, as in the Rambam regarding “kofin oso”; this positive side needs to be tapped into. The existence of “Orthoprax” individuals represent a challenge for all “Orthodox” individuals, I think in part, because it forces wholesome believers to rethink the depth of their own commitment, and for us to honestly focus on any doubts that we might have.