R'YGB has started an interesting group on Facebook entitled "TIDE". There is a discussion thread that I have created entitled "What is included in the rubric of Derech Eretz". Here is a snapshot of the conversation so far.
As an aside, if any of the readers of this blog would like to add me on Facebook, please feel free to do so. Just send me a message saying you are are a reader of my blog. Respond to this thread here, or online on the Facebook group.
Rael wrote:
In contrast to the time of R’Hirsch whose world was permeated by humanistic poetry, philosophy and art (ie Friedrich Schiller) , content which could be included in a torah framework, I struggle to define what should / could be included in DE today.In a world inundated by erotic imagery, foul language and unrestrictive morals, what can the contemporary world of culture contribute to a torah lifestyle?
A couple of questions to elicit some debate:
1)What room does contemporary music, film and literature have in a torah lifestyle. What are the criteria for inclusion?
2) In the marketplace of commerce and ideas, where woman and men are equal contributors, how can a torah lifestyle allow for the inevitable interaction between the sexes and the halachic difficulties (think kol isha, erva, etc)
Looking forward to some responses
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote 9 hours ago:
I'm also looking forward to see responses. These are core issues.
Rael wrote:
From Rabbi Danziger's review of R'Elias translation of the 19 Letters
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdfConcerning the danger of exposure to today's permissive culture, the point of Rabbi Elias is well-taken, but is the solution "isolating oneself", as he suggests? Today, real isolation is not pssible. We are face wit ha situation "where there is no alternate road" (leak darka acharisa) and its resultant oness (unavoidable exposure), as explained in Bava Basra 57B. To quote Rav Breuer again "Rav Hirsch and the proponents of his ideology were fully aware that their approach to Jewish education and professional training would also claim victims. They regretted this deeply, but they saw no other way… How many victims may have been claimed by the rejection of the Torah im Derech Eretz ideology? Every system claims victims.
Rabbi Elias suggest that we isolate ourselves and "forgot about any mission to the nations" as though the Torah im Derech Eretz ideology invented that mission. Hashem imposed that mission on us when he gave us his Torah. "I… have set thee… for a light of the nations" (Isaiah 42:6) is not something that we may choose to forget. It is the Divine definition of the place of the Torah people in the world.
Moreover, the "Torah only" isolation that Rabbi Elias suggests as a means of solving problems caused by Torah im Derech Ertetz creates problems of its own. Isolation limits our skills of communication and our opportunities for Kiddush Hashem as representatives of Torah Judaism. "Torah Only" isolation also result in economic problems that give rise to other religious dilemmas no less severe than those faced by the adherents of Torah im Derech Eretz.
Rael wrote:
My takeout from the above is that world we live in demands unfortunate concessions. Some of these concessions require exposure to licentiousness. I think some halachic guidlines are in order here.
Trivial example: Can we read the daily newspaper when every second page is full of half naked celebrities or crude advertisements?
Can one use Facebook when the same advertising problems occur?
What of the halacha (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 152:8 that states, "He who gazes, even at the small finger of a woman in order to enjoy its sight, commits a very grave sin."?)
These issues may be trivial, but if you think through it clearly, this issue is one of the major impediments to engagement of the world of DE. It is also one of the prime reasons for such vehement opposition to this approach bizman hazeh.
Can we truly blame people for wanting to "hide in noahs ark"?