Editing Modern Orthodox Judaism (section)

==Comparison with other movements==
As above, Modern Orthodoxy comprises various approaches, ranging from traditionalist to revisionist, and the movement apparently overlaps with Conservative Judaism and with Haredi Judaism at its respective boundaries. At its centre too, the movement appears to share practices and values with Neo Orthodoxy and with Religious Zionism. Therefore, in clarifying what Modern Orthodoxy in fact entails, its positioning must be discussed with reference to these movements.

===Haredi Judaism===
{{hatnote|See also under [[Torah Umadda#Centrist Orthodoxy|Centrist Orthodoxy]] and [[Divine providence in Judaism|Divine Providence]] for further elaboration of the differences discussed here.}}
Although there is some question as how precisely to define the distinction between Modern Orthodoxy and [[Haredi Judaism]], there is basic agreement that they may be distinguished on the basis of three major characteristics:<ref name="Waxman" />
# Modern Orthodoxy adopts a relatively inclusive stance toward society in general, and the larger Jewish community in particular.
# Modern Orthodoxy is, in comparison, accommodating, "if not welcoming", to [[modernity]], general scholarship, and [[science]].
# Modern Orthodoxy is almost uniformly receptive toward Israel and [[Zionism]], viewing the [[State of Israel]] (in addition to the [[Land of Israel]]) as having inherent religious significance.

A fourth difference suggested, relates to the acceptability of moderation within [[Halakha|Jewish law]]. Both Modern Orthodoxy and Ultra Orthodoxy regard ''Halakha'' as divine in origin, and as such, no position is assumed without justification in the [[Shulchan Aruch]] and in the [[Acharonim]]. The movements differ, however, in their approach to strictures (''[[Khumra (Judaism)|chumras]]'') and leniencies (''kulas'').
Modern Orthodoxy holds that strictures are not [[Norm (sociology)|normative]], rather, these are a matter of personal choice;<ref name="Diverse Orthodox Attitudes">Rabbi Saul Berman (edah.org): [http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/diverse.cfm#Chumrah ''Diverse Orthodox Attitudes: Chumrah'']</ref> "severity and leniency are relevant only in circumstances of factual doubt, not in situations of debate or varied practice. In the latter situations, the conclusion should be based solely on the legal analysis." 
See {{slink|Torah Umadda|Moderation}}.
Note though, that in recent years, many Modern Orthodox Jews are described as "increasingly stringent in their adherence to Jewish law".<ref name="Kress">Michael Kress, [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/orthostate.html The State of Orthodox Judaism Today]</ref> 
As to the contention that Modern Orthodoxy's standards of observance of [[halakha]] are "relaxed", as opposed to moderate, see [[#Standards of observance|below]] under ''Criticism''.
In the Haredi view, on the other hand, "the most severe position ... is the most likely basis for unity and commonality of practice within Orthodox community, and is therefore to be preferred". Further, "such severity ... results in the greatest certainty that God's will is being performed".<ref name="Diverse Orthodox Attitudes" /><ref>See also, ''[[Mesillat Yesharim]]'' {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20100714155030/http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/14.htm Ch 14]}}</ref> ''Haredi'' Judaism thus tends to adopt ''chumras'' as a norm.

Related to this<ref>Friedman, M. (2004). Halachic rabbinic authority in the modern open society. Jewish Religious Leadership, Image, and Reality, 2, 757–770.</ref> is the acceptance of the concept of [[Da'as Torah]] - the extent to which Orthodox Jews should seek the input of rabbinic scholars not just on matters of Jewish law, but on all important life matters.
Most rabbinic leaders from [[Haredi]] communities view the concept as inextricably linked to the centuries of Jewish tradition. Within Modern Orthodox Judaism, many rabbis and scholars view the matter as a modern development that can be traced to changes in Jewish communal life in the nineteenth century.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Kaplan|first=Lawrence|url=http://www.balintlaw.com/DaasTorah.pdf|title=Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy|date=1992|publisher=Jason Aronson|pages=1–60|chapter=Daas Torah: A modern conception of rabbinic authority|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110124204625/http://www.balintlaw.com/DaasTorah.pdf|archive-date=2011-01-24}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lawrence|first=Kaplan|title=Between Authority and Autonomy in Jewish Tradition|date=1997|publisher=Hakibbutz Hameuhad|pages=105–145|language=Hebrew|chapter=Daat Torah: A modern view of rabbinic authority}}</ref> 
Thus, while the notion of da'as Torah is viewed by [[Haredi Judaism|Haredi]] rabbis as a long-established tradition within Judaism, Modern Orthodox scholars argue that the Haredi claim is a revisionist one. According to Modern Orthodox scholars, although the term "da'as Torah" has been used in the past, the connotations of absolute rabbinic authority under this banner occurs only in the decades that follow the establishment of the Agudas Yisrael party in Eastern Europe.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Katz|first=Jacob|date=30 November 1994|title=Da'at Torah: The unqualified authority claimed for Halachists|url=http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/Gruss/katz.html|url-status=live|website=The Harvard Law School Program in Jewish Studies (The Gruss Lectures – Jewish Law and Modernity: Five Interpretations)|publisher=The President and Fellows of Harvard College|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100317193356/http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/Gruss/katz.html|archive-date=2010-03-17}}</ref>
See {{slink|Rabbinic authority|Orthodox Judaism and da'as Torah}} for further elaboration of these differences.

Modern Orthodoxy's efforts to encourage religious observance among non-Orthodox Jews has been likened to similar efforts by the [[Chabad]] movement. The similarity between the two groups in their relationships towards the non-Orthodox, and its adoption by some Haredi groups, has blurred the lines between the modern and Haredi segments of Orthodoxy.<ref name="chabadquestion3">Ferziger, Adam S. "Church/sect theory and American orthodoxy reconsidered". Ambivalent Jew – Charles S. Liebman in memoriam, ed. Stuart Cohen and Bernard Susser (2007): 107–124.</ref>

===Neo-Orthodoxy/Torah Im Derech Eretz===
Both Modern Orthodoxy and [[Torah im Derech Eretz#Neo-Orthodoxy: the "Breuer" communities|Neo Orthodoxy]], the movement directly descended from Hirsch's Frankfurt community, have combined Torah and secular knowledge with participation in contemporary [[Western world|Western life]], and thus some maintain that there is a degree of practical and philosophical overlap between the two. The movements are nevertheless distinct, and in general, Neo-Orthodoxy has taken a more qualified approach than Modern orthodoxy, emphasizing that followers must exercise caution in engagements with the secular world.

Differences between the movements may be more than a question of degree: some Hirsch scholars argue that Hirschian philosophy is at odds with that of Modern Orthodoxy,<ref name="Elias">See, for example: Joseph Elias' introduction to ''The Nineteen Letters''. Feldheim, 1995. {{ISBN|0-87306-696-0}}</ref> while some Modern Orthodox scholars maintain that Modern Orthodoxy accords with Hirsch's worldview.<ref>See, for example: Norman Lamm ''Torah Umadda: The Encounter of Religious Learning and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition''. Jason Aronson, 1994. {{ISBN|1-56821-231-3}}</ref> These philosophical distinctions (though subtle), manifest in markedly divergent religious attitudes and perspectives. For example, [[Shimon Schwab]], second rabbi of the Torah Im Derech Eretz community in the United States, has been described as being "spiritually very distant" from Yeshiva University and Modern Orthodoxy.<ref name="Waxman" />

From the viewpoint of Neo-Orthodoxy, that movement differs from Modern Orthodoxy (and particularly Centrist Orthodoxy) on three main counts.<ref name="Elias"/><ref>Others claim that these distinctions -save the last one – are unclear and/or unsubstantiated given the selective nature of the evidence.</ref>
* The role of secular life and culture: In the [[Torah im Derech Eretz#Secular culture and education|Hirschian view]], interaction with the secular and the requisite acquisition of culture and knowledge is encouraged, only insofar as it facilitates the application of Torah to worldly matters. For Modern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, secular culture and knowledge are seen as a complement to Torah, and, to some extent, encouraged for their own sake. Some would suggest that in Modern Orthodoxy, Judaism is enriched by interaction with modernity, whereas in Neo-Orthodoxy human experience (and modernity) are enriched by the application of Torah outlook and practice.
* Priority of Torah versus Secular knowledge: In the Hirschian view, Torah is the "sole barometer of truth" by which to judge secular disciplines, as "there is only one truth, and only one body of knowledge that can serve as the standard.... Compared to it, all the other sciences are valid only provisionally." (Hirsch, commentary to [[Leviticus]] [http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9919 18:4–5]; see also [[Rashi]] [http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9919/showrashi/true ''ad loc.'']). By contrast, in the view of Modern Orthodoxy, although Torah is the "preeminent center", secular knowledge is considered to offer "a different perspective that may not agree at all with [Torah] ... [but] both together present the possibility of a larger truth". (''Torah Umadda'', p.&nbsp;236).
* Broader communal involvement: Neo-Orthodoxy, influenced by Hirsch's philosophy on ''[[Samson Raphael Hirsch#Frankfurt am Main|Austritt]]'' (secession), "could not countenance recognition of a non-believing body as a legitimate representative of the Jewish people", and is therefore opposed to the ''[[Mizrachi (religious Zionism)|Mizrachi]]'' movement, which is affiliated with the [[World Zionist Organization]] and the [[Jewish Agency]].<ref>Ernst J. Bodenheimer and Nosson Scherman {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20051109103642/http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/jo/tworld/rbreuer.html ''Rabbi Joseph Breuer: The Rav of Frankfurt, U.S.A.'']}}</ref> Modern Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is characterised by its [[Torah Umadda#Centrality of the People of Israel|involvement with the broader Jewish Community]] and by its [[Religious Zionism]].

===Religious Zionism===
Broadly defined, [[Religious Zionism]] is a movement that embraces the idea of Jewish national [[sovereignty]], often in connection with the belief in the ability of the Jewish people to bring about a [[Jewish eschatology|redemptive state]] through natural means, and often attributing religious significance to the modern [[State of Israel]]. The spiritual thinkers who started this stream of thought include Rabbi [[Zvi Hirsch Kalischer]] (1795–1874) and Rabbi [[Yitzchak Yaacov Reines]] (1839–1915). <!-- (This attitude is rejected by most Haredim—but not all, particularly the [[Hardal]] movement.) --> Thus, in this sense, Religious Zionism in fact encompasses a wide spectrum of religious views including Modern Orthodoxy.

Note, however, that Modern Orthodoxy, in fact, overlaps to a large extent with [[Mizrachi (religious Zionism)|"Religious Zionism" in its narrower form]] ("Throughout the world, a 'religious Zionist day school' is a synonym for a 'modern Orthodox day school'"<ref name="mizrachi.org">{{Citation |first=Rav Yosef |last=Blau |url=http://www.mizrachi.org/ideas/view.asp?id=122 |title=Religious Zionism And Modern Orthodoxy |publisher=Mizrachi |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041216072651/http://www.mizrachi.org/ideas/view.asp?id=122 |archive-date=2004-12-16}}.</ref>). At the least, the two are not in any direct conflict, and generally coexist,<ref name="Liebman2" /> sharing both values and adherents. Further, in practice, except at their extremes, the differences between Religious Zionism and Modern Orthodoxy in Israel are not pronounced, and they are often identical, especially in recent years and for the younger generation.<ref name="autogenerated2">{{Citation|first=Shlomo |last=Fischer |url=http://www.vanleer.org.il/Data/UploadedFiles/Files/fundamentalis.doc |title=Fundamentalist or Romantic Nationalist?: Israeli Modern Orthodoxy |publisher=Van Leer |place=[[Israel|IL]] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070926234137/http://www.vanleer.org.il/Data/UploadedFiles/Files/fundamentalis.doc |archive-date=2007-09-26}}.</ref>

Nevertheless, the two movements are philosophically distinct on two broad counts.

* Firstly, ([[Chardal|the more conservative]]) Religious Zionists differ with Modern Orthodoxy in its approach to secular knowledge.<ref>{{Citation |first=Ami |last=Isseroff |url=http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/religious_zionism.htm |title=Religious Zionism Revisits the State of Israel |publisher=Zionism Israel}}.</ref> Here, engagement with the secular is permissible, and encouraged, but only insofar as this benefits the [[State of Israel]]; secular knowledge (or, at the least, an extensive secular education) is viewed as valuable for practical ends, though not in and of itself. See [[Torah Umadda#Religious Zionism|further under ''Torah Umadda'']].
* Secondly, under Religious Zionism, a "nationalistic coloration" is given to traditional religious concepts, whereas, by contrast, Modern Orthodoxy includes "a greater balance which includes openness to the non-Jewish world";<ref name="mizrachi.org" /> thus, under Religious Zionism, the Jewish nation is conceived of as an "organic unity", whereas Modern Orthodoxy emphasises the individual.<ref name="autogenerated2" />

Applying the above distinction, in [[Israel]] today, Modern Orthodoxy—as distinct from (right-wing) Religious Zionism—is represented by only a select group of institutions: the [[Religious Kibbutz Movement]], [[Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah]],<ref>{{Citation |url=http://www.toravoda.org.il/ |title=Tora Voda |place=IL}}.</ref> the [[Meimad]] political party, and the [[Shalom Hartman Institute]], [[Yeshivat Har Etzion]] / [[Migdal Oz (seminary)|Migdal Oz]] and [[Yeshivat Hamivtar]]/[[Ohr Torah Stone Institutions]]/[[Midreshet Lindenbaum]] (some would include [[Yeshivat Hesder Petach Tikva]], [[Yeshivat Ma'ale Gilboa]], and the [[Tzohar Foundation]]<ref>{{Citation |url=http://www.tzohar.org.il/english/ |title=Tzohar |place=IL}}.</ref>).

===Conservative Judaism===
<!-- This section is linked from [[Conservative Judaism]] -->
In some areas, Modern Orthodoxy's left wing appears to align with more traditional elements of [[Conservative Judaism]], and in fact some on the left of Modern Orthodoxy have allied with the formerly Conservative [[Union for Traditional Judaism]]. Nonetheless, the two movements are generally described as distinct. Rabbi [[Avi Weiss]], from the left of Modern Orthodoxy, stresses that Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are "so very different in ... three fundamental areas: ''Torah mi-Sinai'', rabbinic interpretation, and rabbinic legislation".<ref name="Avraham Weiss">Avraham Weiss: {{cite web|url=http://www.yctorah.org/downloads/articles/aw-open-orthodoxy.pdf |title=Open Orthodoxy! A modern Orthodox rabbi's creed |access-date=2006-05-21 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050305235117/http://www.yctorah.org/downloads/articles/aw-open-orthodoxy.pdf |archive-date=March 5, 2005}} ''Judaism''; Fall 1997</ref> Weiss argues as follows:
* ''Torah mi-Sinai'' ("Torah From [[Sinai Peninsula|Sinai]]"): Modern Orthodoxy, in line with the rest of Orthodoxy, holds that Jewish law is Divine in origin, and as such, no underlying ''principle'' may be compromised in accounting for changing political, social or economic conditions,<ref name="Kaplan">See for example, Rabbi [[Aryeh Kaplan]], [http://www.aish.com/jl/m/pm/48932007.html ''The Rules of Halacha''].</ref> whereas Conservative Judaism holds that [[Posek|Poskim]] should make use of literary and historical analysis in deciding Jewish law, and may reverse decisions of the [[Acharonim]] that are held to be inapplicable today.<ref name="Avraham Weiss" /><ref name="Elliott N Dorff" />
* Rabbinic interpretation: (Modern) Orthodoxy contends that legal authority is cumulative, and that a contemporary ''[[posek]]'' (decisor) can only issue judgments based on a full history of Jewish legal precedent,<ref name="Kaplan" /> whereas the implicit argument of the Conservative movement is that precedent provides illustrations of possible positions rather than binding law. Conservatism, therefore, remains free to select whichever position within the prior history appeals to it.<ref name="Avraham Weiss" /><ref name="Golinkin">Rabbi Professor David Golinkin: [http://www.responsafortoday.com/about/about.htm ''The Hows and Whys of Conservative Halakhah'']</ref>
* Rabbinic legislation: Since the (Modern) Orthodox community is ritually observant, rabbinic law legislated by (today's) Orthodox rabbis can meaningfully become binding if accepted by the community (see [[minhag]]).<ref name="Kaplan" /> Conservative Judaism, on the other hand, has a largely non-observant laity.<ref name="Avraham Weiss" /><ref name="NJPS">According to the 1990 [[National Jewish Population Survey]], 29% of Conservative congregants buy only [[kosher meat]] and 15% consider themselves [[shomer Shabbat|Sabbath observant]]. According to the 2001 survey, 30% keep Kosher at home and 50% Light Shabbat candles. See also: [http://www.jtsa.edu/x497.xml#6 Sacred Cluster #6] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005151246/http://www.jtsa.edu/x497.xml |date=2011-10-05}}, jtsa.edu and [[Conservative Halakha#Conservative Jewish observance of Halakhah|Conservative Halakha]].</ref> Thus, although Conservatism similarly holds that "no law has authority unless it becomes part of the concern and practice of the community"<ref name="Elliott N Dorff">Elliott N Dorff: [http://www.adath-shalom.ca/dorff158.htm "How Conservative Judaism Makes Decisions in Jewish law halakha"]</ref> communal acceptance of a "permissive custom" is not "meaningful", and, as a result, related rabbinic legislation cannot assume the status of law.

In general, Modern Orthodoxy does not, therefore, view the process by which the Conservative movement decides ''halakha'' as legitimate—or with the non-normative weighting assigned to halakha by the Conservative movement. In particular, Modern Orthodoxy disagrees with many of Conservative Judaism's ''halakhic'' rulings, particularly as regards issues of [[egalitarian]]ism. See further on the [[Orthodox Judaism#Beliefs about Jewish law and tradition|Orthodox view]] and the [[Conservative Judaism#Jewish law|Conservative view]].

Modern Orthodoxy clearly differs from the approach of [[Reform Judaism]] and [[Humanistic Judaism]], which do not consider ''halakha'' to be [[normative]].