Yahadus teaches or Yiddishkeit. No, no, no. A person doesn't, you know, you have to come up with a term for what you represent, so the erroneous implication is that you represent something new. And we're not supposed to represent something new; we're supposed to represent something which is thousands of years old. There may be different tactics and strategies and languages to communicate in because of changing circumstances, and the Torah may even say that certain things were intended for certain times, but we don't represent something new. And he never, he never used that terminology, and I'm sure the people who use it, certainly some of them don't mean to convey this, but it's a very, very misleading, the implications are very misleading. There's nothing, there's no need to fashion a new Orthodoxy, there's no need, there's no, there's no new Torah. It's to find what the Torah tells us to do in every circumstance. Yeah, we have to find, sometimes we have to find new guidance because we find ourselves in new circumstances, but that's not a new movement; that's the same movement which is now called upon to answer a new sha’ala. Unfortunately, unfortunately, there are people who don't understand this without commenting on kavanos because it's not, it's not our job or prerogative to do so, nor is there any need to do so, but it is important to realize that what the Rav stood for was not compromising, was not validating modernity, but was facing modernity and dealing with modernity and not being intimidated by modernity and by developing a modus vivendi for Torah within modernity, but not for validating it, not for, not for giving it, again, neither even, even intellectually. That's what we began with, the observation, he never sought to reconcile, he never sought to reconcile Torah with anything else, with everything he knew. So you would have thought that someone who knew so much would spend his life solving religion and science problems, solving the problem of evolution versus Breishis, solving the problem of the age of the world versus Breishis. Nothing. So he has one paragraph in "The Lonely Man of Faith" which says these things don't bother me, I'm not interested in these things. Let's talk about what religious experience is. Let's talk about kavanos, that's it. There's evolution, there's this and that, doesn't interest me, doesn't interest me, doesn't interest me. So it's very important that we recognize in what sense he was modern. He was modern in that he very much lived in the modern society and he knew it and he understood it and he was willing to confront it and he was willing to speak all of its languages, all of its vernaculars to communicate to people and he did it, but it didn't, it didn't mean and he didn't tolerate any compromise to modernity, any compromise to modernity. Anything that was different is because sometimes the Torah tells you to do things differently at different times, but there was no, there was no compromise to modernity and any suggestion that that is what he stood for, any programs or anything of the like which are built on this premise are certainly inappropriate for talmidim in yeshiva and certainly should not be pursued. Also part of what the Chashmonaim resisted, and the tim'ei Beis HaMikdash, part of why HaKadosh Baruch Hu said that the culmination of their victory could not be to rely on tumah, on hadlakas neiros betumah. Not only can a person not compromise halacha in response to modernity, you can't manipulate halacha either. It's possible not to compromise halacha but to manipulate halacha. It's possible to have a women's tefillah group and to tell them not to say Birkas HaTorah in the morning, and then to tell them to say one of the brachos as a bracha lifneha in Birkas HaTorah and one of the brachos as a bracha l'achareiha, and then to say, well, we didn't go against the letter of halacha because it says in Shulchan Aruch that nashim are mevarchos Birkas HaTorah, and that's all they did, and what objection can there be? So the point is, not only is a person not allowed to compromise, which the Chashmonaim realized, but you can't manipulate halacha either. There's such a thing as not compromising it, but trying to manipulate halacha. And trying to again, and how so, what defines manipulation as opposed to just applying halacha? So context and motive distinguish between whether a person is implementing, applying halacha, or whether he's manipulating halacha. In the example we gave, so it's quite clear to any objective person that that's an example of manipulating halacha to try to artificially create a scheme which will give modern people something which they, which they may sincerely and genuinely want. But that too is something which is a terrible distortion of halacha and in many ways much more dangerous because the more subtle it is, the more insidious it is. Things like hetter iska, for example, they could be seen as manipulation of halacha. So superficially yes, so all the Reform rabbis wrote about pruzbul and they still write about pruzbul, אין כל חדש תחת השמש and superficially yes. And I don't know that the average layman is in a position to distinguish, and clearly one, if you have something where the people who stand in the vanguard of the movement are not people who are distinguished rabbanim or ba'alei halacha, not even talking about gedolim, so then one has to question whether or not they're in a position to make this judgment. Yes, superficially there seems to be a certain resemblance. Now whether pruzbul should be viewed as rachmana litzlan manipulation of halacha, or whether pruzbul is supposed to be viewed as seeing what the halachic solutions there are for the problem of people being over on לא תגוש את ידך, so that's a judgment which the Chachmei HaMasorah had to make and did make. And you can't if you read anything in, suggest view things superficially and phenomenologically, you can't judge that way. You have to know the neshama of the, that's what the Rav used to say about Reb Chaim. Reb Chaim got the neshama out of Torah. You have to know the neshama of Torah to know what's manipulation and what's on the contrary and what is exploring and probing what Torah says in such a case. No one would say chas v'shalom that a Rav who racks his brains to find a hetter agunah... everyone knows that when a Rav gets a sheila of an agunah, so when you get a sheila or any other sheila, so you're not looking for what the maskana should be, you follow where it takes you. Everyone knows a Rav gets a sheila on agunah he's looking for a hetter, he's looking for a hetter, everyone knows that, everyone knows that. So you have to have a certain kabbalah and be a part of the masorah and have a profound understanding of the masorah, you're absolutely right, to be able to distinguish these things between a hetter iska and a pruzbul as opposed to... as opposed to the examples we're giving. Just to view it very superficially does have about as much substance and worth as a comparative religion which is always based on the same superficial view. So if a person wants to know, if a person wants to continue that legacy of the Rav. A person thinks that YU has a unique mission. So that mission is to be willing to recognize, acknowledge, confront, and not be intimidated by modernity. It doesn't mean, it doesn't mean, getting the fact that you go to college is not a compromise with modernity. It's not a compromise with modernity. Why is it a why is it a compromise with modernity? Why is if you learn computers, so nowadays there aren't as many job openings making putting shoes on horses as there once upon a time. So nowadays there are more job openings in computer science or as doctors. Okay, so Lomed Ummos is different, is different. And we're not intimidated by modernity. That was the Rav's teaching. Not to be intimidated by modernity. Not to think that Torah can't withstand modernity. Torah can withstand anything. If you know enough Torah, so Torah can withstand anything and everything. But it doesn't mean that you compromise with modernity. It doesn't mean that since we're modern, so we erase certain halachos which are offensive to the modern temperament and that we ignore kodesh or or things like that. It doesn't it doesn't mean that. And again, one even, Chachomim Hizharu B'divreichkem, I think one should avoid using any of these labels, modern orthodox, centrist orthodox. If you're asked to identify yourself, say you aspire to be a יראי שמים מזרע אברהם יצחק ויעקב. That's what you aspire to be. Okay, so maybe there are different ways of doing that. But you don't aspire to fashioning some new movement. There's no new movement and there's no and what's unique, of course, was the Rav unique, 100 percent? Was he unique in his approach, yes? But the uniqueness did not consist of and did not tolerate compromise. But it was rather a question of how do you deal with it? Do you try to withdraw from modernity or do you try to conquer it, try to find a modus vivendi within modernity? And the Rav's feeling was that if you withdraw, so you'll lose 98 percent of the Jewish people if you withdraw. If you try to conquer modernity because so many Jews have already become modernized, so then there's a hope. And there's no question that you see be'chush that that is correct. But that doesn't imply any compromise with modernity, with modernity. He was willing to say and did say, he let musmachim from YU take rabbonus in a temple, a shul, or whatever it should be referred to, which had no mechitza and told them if you can do so, if you think that within two years you can get a mechitza, you should only do it if you think that can be done. And if you turn out to be wrong, so then you have to leave, then you have to leave. So he was willing, you know, Dovid HaMelech says ידיים מלוכלכות בדם לטהר אשה לבעלה. Okay, it's easy not to get your hands dirty and not to handle certain things. So he was willing, he was willing to get his hands dirty and he was willing to confront modernity and he was willing to overcome it. But none of that implied any concession, nor should any of that be an obstacle to contact the people do. So it's important to be able to try to communicate to people in a language they can understand and a language they'll appreciate. And all those things are important and they're valuable and they're part of what should and does distinguish YU. But it's not supposed to be a lack of principle. It's not supposed to be a tolerance which deteriorates into relativism. And it's not supposed to be an... and the current phase is to find a ritual role for women. No, the question is to find what does the Torah recommend for our generation and how can we best teach and project that. Some of the Rishonim, some of the Rishonim compare ta'amei mitzvos to seasoning. They say that they give the mashal that the Torah, its mitzvos are the food, and the ta'amei mitzvos are the seasoning. But the ta'amei mitzvos, no, we don't, we don't claim to know absolute ta'amei mitzvos. Who can understand the ריבונו של עולם כוונות? But it gives seasoning for us. So it's important, so part of what we should do and part of what should distinguish us and part of what our, what our modernity should consist of is that we should try to be able to communicate and project Torah to as wide an audience as possible and let them understand. But that doesn't mean changing the substance or the content. It just means maybe, maybe what language you communicate in. If you're in France, so then try to, try to communicate it in, in French and, and try to convey it. But it doesn't mean that there's any compromise. It doesn't mean that there's any compromise. It doesn't mean that, that we expand tolerance into, into relativism. And it's very, very important to be mindful of that. You know, to go to the, the other extreme is also, to go to the extreme of not recognizing, not recognizing legitimate dissent within the Torah community is also wrong. And that's what we have to try to do is we have to try to maintain that balance and it's very careful. You have to, you have to always be mindful when you're countering people who abuse tolerance and let it deteriorate into relativism, so you have to be careful at the same time that what you're saying is worded carefully that you're not, that you're not denying the legitimate role of tolerance and it's a balance which always has to be maintained. And it's especially hard because they're both distortions are very much at either end of the spectrum, you know, are flourishing. And therefore it's something which has to be maintained and it's not easy to maintain. It's not easy to maintain. It's not easy to maintain. It's difficult. It's difficult.