“Torah true schools”?

[bochur22]

.Ah. This would explain the lack of understanding of modern orthodox ideology and how you would make the mistake of thinking that most modern orthodox schools consult with and follow “daas Torah” when so many of so called modern orthodox simply reject the concept as a newfound idea, and the ones who acknowledge it are wolds apart from “chareidim” in their understanding of it.

I can also be "educated" by Rabbi Google. But I trust him slightly less than I do Dr. Google. So instead I'll go by what I know from hearing the Modern Orthodox Rabbonim speak about it, as opposed to the 3 random things that pop up when you Google "Modern Orthodox Da'as Torah"

[bochur22]

since when does Torah Umesorah have a monopoly of deciding if a school is run APDT? Do they even make this claim about these schools?

Torah Umesorah has guidelines based on the Psak of American Gedoilim as to what they can or cannot allow. Teachers in mixed high schools, for example, are not eligible for TU subsidies or services. Schools must fit certain criteria to be included.

[bochur22]

We are simply debating if Modern Orthodox schools can be considered Torah True.
Some are sticking true to Torah Hashkofos and Halacha (perhaps like the schools you point out), and in such a situation, they would be Torah True. They just also may put a heavy emphasis on secular studies as well and other such things. 

But many, as we all know, (and please don't try to deny,) are not run in accordance with the proper Hashkofos and not even Halacha. If they teach the girls Gemara it goes against basic Halacha.

https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/are-women-permitted-to-study-gemara-by-rabbi-howard-jachter
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik taught women Gemara at the inaugural Shiur delivered at the Stern College Bait Midrash and instituted girls' study of Gemara at the Maimonides School in Boston.

If every modern orthodox school was run al pi the daas Torah of Rav Soleveichik the Jewish world would be in amuch better place.

[bochur22]

pretty sure that at least some of these aren't even orthodox

The first two claim to be on their website. I can't access the third one

[imayid2]

I can also be "educated" by Rabbi Google. But I trust him slightly less than I do Dr. Google. So instead I'll go by what I know from hearing the Modern Orthodox Rabbonim speak about it, as opposed to the 3 random things that pop up when you Google "Modern Orthodox Da'as Torah"

Is it a secret what they said or are you willing to share?

Hardly “random things” that I’ve quoted, and you haven’t provided any citation otherwise.
https://rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Daat-Torah-2017-Shiur-1-Modern-Approaches-to-Daat-Torah.pdf

[Moshe Green]

https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/are-women-permitted-to-study-gemara-by-rabbi-howard-jachter
Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik taught women Gemara at the inaugural Shiur delivered at the Stern College Bait Midrash and instituted girls' study of Gemara at the Maimonides School in Boston.

I'm sorry to say this but you are being extremely intellectually dishonest.
You take quotes out of content and make a Chulent (of the parve variety) out of it and then post it as if "HA! Got ya!"

You took what i wrote out of context. Here's what you missed:

Of course if there is a special reason they do that and they have a Heter from a Rav then they aren't necessarily doing the wrong thing, but it would be hard to say that its Torah True...

Regarding the article which is written by i don't know who, (but judging from the fact that you accuse others of such actions, you probably got it from google) you missed this part:

"Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik taught women Gemara at the inaugural Shiur delivered at the Stern College Bait Midrash..."
Rav Meyer Twersky explains the Halachic basis for his grandfather's practice:
The prohibition of teaching the Oral Law to women relates to optional study.  If ever circumstances dictate that study of the Oral Law is necessary to provide a firm foundation for faith, such study becomes obligatory and obviously lies beyond the pale of any prohibition.

This is clearly a Heter of the times, and specifically of the lifestyle that the MO community chooses to live by. The very fact that Chareidi schools do not teach Gemara tells us that its not the times that makes this necessary but the chosen lifestyle of the MO world that makes the demand/Heter of learning Gemara. Hardly Lechatchila or as we are discussing, "Torah-True".

[bochur22]

Is it a secret what they said or are you willing to share?

Hardly “random things” that I’ve quoted, and you haven’t provided any citation otherwise.
https://rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Daat-Torah-2017-Shiur-1-Modern-Approaches-to-Daat-Torah.pdf

https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/748842/rabbi-dr-aharon-lichtenstein/daas-torah-religious-imperative-or-good-advice-/
https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/888200/rabbi-efrem-goldberg/living-with-emunah-part-58-do-we-believe-in-da-as-torah-/

[bochur22]

You took what i wrote out of context. Here's what you missed:
This is clearly a Heter of the times, and specifically of the lifestyle that the MO community chooses to live by. The very fact that Chareidi schools do not teach Gemara tells us that its not the times that makes this necessary but the chosen lifestyle of the MO world that makes the demand/Heter of learning Gemara. Hardly Lechatchila or as we are discussing, "Torah-True".

The Chofetz Chaim's Heter to teach Chumash also wasn't Lechatchila. The fact that they feel they need to teach Gemara based on their circumstances and the Rabbonim they have doesn't make them not Torah True

[imayid2]

https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/748842/rabbi-dr-aharon-lichtenstein/daas-torah-religious-imperative-or-good-advice-/
https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/888200/rabbi-efrem-goldberg/living-with-emunah-part-58-do-we-believe-in-da-as-torah-/

How does this support your contention when Rabbi Lichtenstein is clearly arguing with the chareidy definition?
They view it very differently, not sure why you’d deny it. According to Rabbi Lichtenstein it is less applicable now then it ever was. According to Rabbi Shachter to ask the Steipler a question is not considered to be getting daas Torah.

[imayid2]

According to Rabbi Lichtenstein it is less applicable now then it ever was.

[T]here are many apologists who contend that the primary issues are matters of haskafah [Jewish thought rather than practice], to which authority per se is far less relevant, and with respect to which classical sources are arguably self-sufficient. This brings us to the familiar shibboleth of da’at Torah. This concept is generally in disrepute among votaries of modern Orthodoxy, who have sought to challenge both its historical progeny and its philosophic validity. I must confess that I find myself, in principle, more favorably disposed to the idea. I readily concede that the concept, in its more overarching permutatioins, is of relatively recent vintage...

Moreover, I freely concede that one’s faith in the concept is periodically put to a severe test. As but one instance, the doyen of [then-]current rashei yeshiva, R. [Elazar Mann] Schach, proves the value of Torah as the self-sufficient repository of all knowledge by asking, rhetorically: “Whence did Hazal know that the earth was forty-two times larger than the moon, and that the sun was approximately one-hundred-and-seventy times larger than the earth (as explained in the Rambam, Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 3,8), if not from the power of the Torah?”[24] In raising this question, he is wholly oblivious not only to the rudiments of astronomy but also of the fact that the selfsame Rambam explicitly states, with respect to these very issues, that they are beyond the pale of Hazal’s authority...

contrary to the historical course of the idea, I find it less applicable today than heretofore. At a time when many gedolim do not spring organically from the dominant Jewish community to whose apex they rise, and instead distance themselves from it; and when the ability to understand and communicate in a shared cultural or even verbal language is, by design, limited, the capacity of even a gadol to intuit the sociohistorical dynamics of his ambient setting is almost inevitably affected. And while the quasi-mystical element of Sod Hashem Li-Yrei’av U-Veriso Le-Hodi’am [the secrets of the Lord are for His fearers, and His covenant to inform them] always remains applicable, that, too, presumably is not wholly independent of circumstances

[imayid2]

.Every one of those opinions while not being agreed to by all gedolim have not been proven to be wrong. Obviously the hardest one  to understand is the immigration prior to the holocaust to a place that was at the time a makom shmad (or the equally endangered eretz yisoel  )but to say daas torah was proven wrong is ridiculous.

This is how Rabbi Willig explains that particular issue
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rwil_shmini.html

Ironically, the great rabbanim of that very era were criticized for offering bad advice that led to terrible consequences during the Holocaust. The proper resolution is that while Torah confers great insight on general matters to those who pursue it lishmah and master it, mistakes, both large and small, do exist and at times are caused by divine intervention confounding the wise.

He is very much on the ideological right of MO, he sharply criticizes the Modern Orthodox world at large for their mistaken notions in this area

in principle, there is the idea that greater Torah knowledge in the specifics of Shas and poskim confers greater authority on matters of halachic policy, and that authority must be accepted.

In the world of Modern Orthodoxy this acceptance is far from universal. American culture, which objects to submission to authority, and the greater tolerance for opposing views, in all halachic areas, generally shown by the Torah scholars of this community have combined to create the illusion that, if no specific classical text is violated, anything goes. This mistaken impression is a grave danger to this community as such and individuals and families that belong to it.

[imayid2]

The fact that they feel they need to teach Gemara based on their circumstances and the Rabbonim they have doesn't make them not Torah True

I have no idea what Torah true means, but here is what Rabbi Willig feels about it:

https://www.jta.org/2015/08/19/ny/yu-rabbi-questions-womens-talmud-study
In an article published last week, Rabbi Willig, at rosh yeshiva at YU since 1973, suggested that the “inclusion of Talmud in curricula for all women in Modern Orthodox schools” be re-evaluated.

“While the gedolim [outstanding rabbis] of the 20th century saw Torah study to be a way to keep women close to our mesorah [tradition], an egalitarian attitude has colored some women’s study of Talmud and led them to embrace and advocate egalitarian ideas and practices which are unacceptable to those very gedolim,” he wrote.

He cited the rise of women’s ordination and egalitarian services as causes to re-evaluate, implying a kind of slippery slope from women’s learning to more liberal forms of Jewish practice.

https://www.torahweb.org/torah/2015/parsha/rwil_ekev.html

[yungermanchik]

Do you have evidence that most aren't before trashing the lot of them as not torah-true? Suggestion: Check out the Torah Umesorah website for their list of schools which are run under their guidance.

I don't believe that that is the intent of the list. It seems more likely that it is a comprehensive list of all Orthodox schools. Especially, look in the Brooklyn, NY section. Highly unlikely that all the schools there receive their guidance from TU

[shwarmabob]

This is how Rabbi Willig explains that particular issue
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rwil_shmini.html
He is very much on the ideological right of MO, he sharply criticizes the Modern Orthodox world at large for their mistaken notions in this area

I don't believe Rabbi Willig and several other YU rabbanim would ever define themselves as MO. Maybe you want to pigeonhole them into some title that you dislike, but they are not any more MO then some poskim in Flatbush or Boro Park.

[imayid2]

I don't believe Rabbi Willig and several other YU rabbanim would ever define themselves as MO. Maybe you want to pigeonhole them into some title that you dislike, but they are not any more MO then some poskim in Flatbush or Boro Park.

https://www.torahmusings.com/2011/04/who-is-modern-orthodox/

[imayid2]

I don't believe Rabbi Willig and several other YU rabbanim would ever define themselves as MO. Maybe you want to pigeonhole them into some title that you dislike, but they are not any more MO then some poskim in Flatbush or Boro Park.

Why do you imply that I dislike the title? It is a meaningless term in this thread which has not been defined, and being it was understood as people part of the “Chareidi” community which is generally understood as mutually exclusive to MO

massive swaths of the Chareidi community,

I’d think he fits the bill.

Rabbi Jachter wouldn’t classify himself differently than Rabbi Willig either.

[Yehuda57]

I don't know squat about MO ideology. What I do know is there are very many chareidi (in a shomer tu"m way, not a political identification way) Jews I have met who identify as MO.

[aygart]

I have no idea what Torah true means,

Come on. We all know that it means whatever I feel about something.

[imayid2]

I don't know squat about MO ideology. What I do know is there are very many chareidi (in a shomer tu"m way, not a political identification way) Jews I have met who identify as MO.

MO ideology isn’t to run counter to Halacha. On the contrary, as a whole the movement (hard to really call it such)  profess fidelity to Halacha. The criticism to *their ideology* whoever that may be, is that it leads to disregard for Halacha in *their* education systems for a variety of reasons outlined in the articles I linked above, and by innovative psakim ostensibly within the boundaries of Halacha.

So when you say the people you refer to are “shomer tu”m” it doesn’t really help define who you are talking about. Moses Mendelssohn was shomer tu”m too, but I’d assume you wouldn’t call him Chareidi.

[Yehuda57]

MO ideology isn’t to run counter to Halacha. On the contrary, as a whole the movement (hard to really call it such)  profess fidelity to Halacha. The criticism to *their ideology* whoever that may be, is that it leads to disregard for Halacha in *their* education systems for a variety of reasons outlined in the articles I linked above, and by innovative psakim ostensibly within the boundaries of Halacha.

So when you say the people you refer to are “shomer tu”m” it doesn’t really help define who you are talking about. Moses Mendelssohn was shomer tu”m too, but I’d assume you wouldn’t call him Chareidi.

My point was only to frame my involvement in this ill fated conversation.