Originally published 5/28/07, 7:51 PM, Eastern Daylight Time
Rabbi Benjamin Hecht
Recently the student newpaper of Yeshiva College, the Commentator, presented an interview with Rabbi Dr. Joel Roth of JTS which can be accessed here.
The article touched upon two issues that may be deemed somewhat controversial. One questioned the difference between Conservative Judaism and the Open Orthodoxy advocated by Rabbi Avi Weiss. This, it should be noted, follows an article in Yated Ne'eman, from a few months ago, questioning the Orthodoxy of Rabbi Weiss' yeshiva, Yeshivat Chovivei Torah. This, however, is not the issue that I wish to address in the post. (It is my desire, at a future time, to discuss this issue in a more extensive manner, within the context of discussing the definition of Orthodoxy. I should perhaps mention that, while I do hope to again return to this broad subject within the context of this specific issue of YCT, I have addressed aspects of this broad issue in the past, in such articles as those found on the Nishma website, regarding the Slifkin Affair)
The issue I wish to address in this post is Rabbi Dr. Roth's description of the process of Halacha. When questioned about the difference in the Conservative movement's approach to Halacha and the approach within Orthodoxy, Rabbi Dr. Roth makes a few, most interesting statements. While we may wonder about the application of Halacha to Conservative Judaism, specifically in that the vast majority of lay members of Conservative Judaism do not see themselves as truly bound to Halacha, it cannot be forgotten that Conservative Judaism did -- and still does -- see itself as a halachic movement, albeit pursuant to its definition of the halachic process. It is this halachic process to which Rabbi Dr. Roth was commenting, with an implication that it is actually the more valid approach.
The question for me is not which approach is the more valid one. As an Orthodox rabbi, it is obvious to which approach I owe, with reason, my allegiance. The question for me is whether individuals recognize these distinctions in approach and are able to identify approaches to the process of Halacha that are within the parameters of Orthodoxy and those approaches that are not. What is your response to Rabbi Dr. Roth? Do we even understand what he is saying? Do we know why Conservative halachic decisions, especially those from early on in the twentieth century and before that, were unacceptable to Orthodoxy?
12 comments:
I posted the following on the Commentator web-site:
Rabbi Roth claims that the Halachic process was fossilized by the acceptance of the Shulchan Aruch. I find that difficult to believe and I think hisotrically inaccurate.
What might be more fair to say, is that following the advent of Reform, the "Orthodox" or Torah True Jews tened to dig in its heels and tended to become reactionary about any change. Consider the case of the Neologs in Hungary whose proposal to introuduce sermon in Hungarian was rejected. This rejection was not a function of Shulchan Aruch, it was a function of a reaction to M. Mendlesohnn having translated the Hebrew Bible into German vernacular.
------------------------------------
It is my thesis that Radical Reform did more hard to Halachic dynamism than devotion to any single text or methodology. Rabbis and lay people are afraid to tamper with anything lest the entire structure collape
-RRW
Rabbi Wolpoe makes an excellent point. The exact role of the Shulchan Aruch in the realm of psak is actually a matter of debate within the realm of Orthodoxy. While it may have narrowed the parameters of acceptable halachic possibilities, to what extent is hard to define. By the term Shulchan Aruch, we do not mean the actual text of Rav Yosef Karo but this realm of halachic study including the various commentaries on the actual Shulchan Aruch. That world is actually still quite broad. In addition, we have commentators -- the Gra, the world of Brisk come to mind -- who still initiated their own perspectives. So, as Rabbi Wolpoe states, it is difficult to attibute the world of the Shulchan Aruch to the fossilization of Halacha -- if that is what indeed has occurred. And if there is some truth to the assertion that we are less bold in our halachic pronouncements -- although I am not the only one who would state that Rav Moshe Feinstein did indeed show what it meant to be a halachist in its full sense including the boldness on thought -- I would agree with Rabbi Wolpoe that it came from the concern for what new pronouncements would do in a world with Reform Judaism.
For me, though, the real issue in Rabbi Dr. Roth's words was his understanding of the role of subjectivity in Halacha. Orthodoxy demands of posek the aspiration of objectivity. Is there still a possibility of subjectivity? Perhaps. Perhaps this is even inevitable. But the goal is objectivity. What Rabbi Dr. Roth, though, seems to be saying is that subjectivity is actually okay. This demands some contemplation - especially in regard to the consequences of such a perspective. It may be on this specific point that we see the inherent weakness of the Conservative view of Halacha and, specifically, why it never caught on with the layity.
Where to begin?
Oh I know. The YU Commentator just lets you read 2 pages before you have to freakin' register so I couldn't even finish the article!
Next: I like the chess analogy because it's now easy to describe how wrong Roth is. The better analogy would be: The Orthodox insist on using chess pieces and moving them only according to the rules. The Conservatives still use the chess board but now any piece can move any way that it has a whim to without regard to consistency. Hell, you can add checker pieces to the game and fit them in if you so have the inclination.
Frozen in a dome? Has he not heard of that mostly ignored group of rabbonim called "the Acharonim"? I mean, what did they do other than continue the process of halachic development?
His analysis of the car teshuva is also similarly wrong. Melachah sheino tricha l'gufo? You want to go to shul. You want to use your car. You need the internal combustion engine to be working. There's a huge tzricha l'gufa here and only through distorted and contorted thinking could anyone decide otherwise.
Finally, the issue of personal feelings is relevant but here's how it differs. The Orthodox Rav wants to matir the mamzer. He goes through the sources and tries to find someone, anyeone with a bit of authority on whom he can validly rely. And if he can't, or if he finds a permitting source but doesn't hold it to be reliagble and authoritative, he doesn't permit the mamzer.
The Conservative (a) hasn't heard of most of the sources (b) these days he/she/it doesn't have the education to read and understand those sources (c) decides ab initio that the mamzer will be permitted no matter what and (d) when no halachic source to support the position can be found, he/she/it mentions stuff like love, respect and not wanting to exclude anyone.
That's the difference in their subjectivity and ours.
The Sonservative halachic process is best described in Avi Shafran's "The Conservative Lie". It's a joke and YU just disgraces itself by attaching words like "halachic" and "psak" to it.
Boooyaa!
Dr. Mike,
I can forward you a private copy of the entire text w/o stepping on copyright law. Unfortunately, Copyright provisions - as I am told - make it difficult to reproduce more than an excerpt on our site.
KT
RRW
In referring back to Rabbi Dr. Roth's example of subjectivity in the halachic process, he speaks of the motivation of a posek to find a heter in specific situations. Indeed this is a reality in the halachic process -- there are personal motivations in regard to what we will put time into and to the efforts that we will exert. Rabbi Herschel Schacher describes this very reality in regard to the Rav (Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik) and how defeated he felt when he was not able to find a heter in a specific situation. The key point is that this is outside the specific analysis. There is motivation to exert energy and this motivation may arise from a subjective source. The point is that once one is working within the parameters of the halachic system (the daled amot of halacha) the objective is objectivity. The objective is to arrive at the honest answer that the posek believes the Torah is conveying.
Interestingly, Rabbi Dr. Roth also seems to recognize this for in the article, he mentions that it is not always possible to find a heter. In saying this he is recognizing an objective reality to the halachic system and a separation between what one wishes and what is the truth. Yet in marking a subjectivity to the halachic process he is implying that Halacha is read with an intention. In fact, Halachs is read within the parameters of the system. There is an outside intention to investigated and question and study to see if there is a possible conclusion in objective Halacha that would alleviate the distress -- but Halacha itself cannot be read with intention per se.
Now does that mean there is no subjectivity in the halachic process. This opens the question of the source of Eilu v'Eilu and how disagreement within Torah develops. This opens a new discussion beyond this discussion but the attempt of the posek is to find the objective truth, i.e. what God is saying through Torah, not how the Torah can be read in line with a personal desire.
RBH
It is the human condition to expect Halacha to be SOMEWHAT subjective. The questions are:
1. Are posqim bounded by rules?
2. What are those rules?
3. When can those rules be set aside?
4. What to do when a poseq steps outside those rules?
This topic requires a new thread of its own.
-RRW
Rav Hecht said:
>Interestingly, Rabbi Dr. Roth also seems to recognize this for in the article, he mentions that it is not always possible to find a heter
But according to Rav Avi Shafran, if you research the archives of the JTS Law & Standards committee, you'd be hard pressed to find a single instance in which they said no. Indeed, their recent decision on homosexual marriage proves this point. Here's something which is forbidden in the Written Torah, never mind the Oral Torah, and they still found a heter! It's as I said above - first the answer (yes) is picked. Then either a twisted version of halacha is picked or a feel-good paean to justify saying yes with authority. That's not a process. It's a sham.
>Rabbi Herschel Schacher describes this very reality in regard to the Rav (Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik) and how defeated he felt when he was not able to find a heter in a specific situation
That's the proper way to look at subjectivity within halachah. The Rav knew the answer he wanted (yes) but wasn't prepared to go outside the established rules to get that answer. Sometimes intellectual honesty demands saying "No, and I'm really sorry".
> Now does that mean there is no subjectivity in the halachic process?
Of course there is. Which poskim you see as authorititative, which version of conflicting answers you'll follow, these are all subjective things.
>the attempt of the posek is to find the objective truth, i.e. what God is saying through Torah, not how the Torah can be read in line with a personal desire.
But is there an objective truth? Does it matter what G-d said through the Torah if "lo b'shamayim hee?"
It is interesting that Drmike mentions the Conservative decision on homosexuality as Rabbi Dr. Roth voted against the majority and subsequently resigned from the law committee because of its lenient ruling. He actually did draw a line and stated it. If there is going to be any validity to the argument that the Conservative movement is halachic, it is going to have to mean that sometimes one must follow halacha in the face of a the desired response. The truth is, as Drmike points out, the Conservative movement more that usually followed the desired leniency. We must be careful, though, not to fall into the other trap that equates a decision that is against the desired result with the truth. Just because a decision is against what one wishes does not make it the correct one either.
This leads to what we must understand to be the place of the reality of subjectivity in a true, honest halachic process of psak. There are two types of subjectivity. One is the desired result, i.e. I like this law better. The other is the perception of which idea, thought process, logical argument is better. Can we really say what is objectively the truth? The answer for the human being is no. What we can say is what we think is the correct answer. This may include a subjective element as we make this judgement call. This place of subjectivity -- i.e. I like the argument of Rashi over Tosfos, not I like Rashi's actual halachic directive over Tosfos -- is a reality of psak.
Is there an objective ture halacha? The question is framed in literature as: Is there a real clear one answer kalpei Shemaya, in the realm of Heaven? There are views that say no; the truthin Heaven is the disagreement. In this world, in any event, the disagreement is the closest we can get to truth. But the disagreement only has validity if every voice in the disagreement states their view as if it is the truth kalpei Shemaya. In Orthodoxy, we strive for the objective turth even as we know it is beyond us.
RBH
>He actually did draw a line and stated it.
Hah! That's like me saying "Okay, you can change X, Y, and Z about medicine because they're not politically correct but when you go after AA, well that's too much for me!" My impression of this is that Roth's resignation is more hypocrisy than anything else. A L&SC that allowed driving on Shabbos, that he could live with. Change the rules of kashrus vis a vis cheeze and wine? No problem! But what really got him was the homosexual marriage thing. He drew his line far too late in the game to have it mean anything.
As for the disagreement, I think it's an excellent comment worth developing. Due to human imperfection, subjectivity is unavoidable in halachic analysis. The greatest psak in the world, one which is flawless in its logic, can be disregarded because the leading rabbonim of the day either (a) can't accept the conclusion because it doesn't fit their worldview or (b) politically oppose the posek which means anything he says they'll reject.
Could it not be postulated that mature disagreement leading to honest debate and a final consensus answer that satisfies a little bit of each side's position is what G-d wanted of us in bequeathing such a system to us? Is not the whole point of an Oral system to demand discussion, justification of positions and a synthesis that is the result of compromise, something Chazal tell us is one of the best middos in the world?
No way dude! We're a stiff-necked people and the BGU knows that. Who would ever accept a halachic compromise that didn't allow him to claim he'd gotten 100% of what he wanted? I mean, that's like what gets your semichah revoked, isn't it? Admitting you weren't right about your psak?
The REAL reason is because times change and a halachic ruling that was appropriate for one era and/or place isn't always the right one later on and/or somewhere else. The Mishnah in Eduyos tells us that the reason minority opinions were recorded in the mishnayos was because a beis din later on might need to rely on them. Now if they're rejected opinions, how could a judge ever do that? But when the Mishnah was set down they were rejected. In another time, another place, they might be the best available ruling.
So that's why there's always debate about what the truth is. There is no permanent objective truth for all times and places. Everything about the circumstances leading to the psak is a relevant variable and this system allows the flexibilty to deal with it without compromising halachic integrity.
Less filling!
FWIW, I just initiated a new thread on the underlying generic questions involved.
To be fair to all involved: there have been several Conservative decisions that seem to me to be well within the parameters of Orthodox methodology and yet were rejected simply because of their authors. IOW, the who was rejected w/o regard to the what was said. Examplesinclude some pre-nup proposals and other Agunah related proposals.
As for Orthodox Teshuvot that seem to cross the line, I would suggest a very careful read of Igros Moshe Orach Chaim vol. II #100. re: dancing on Shabbath. R. M. Feinstein OBM seems to be hypothesizing a kind of Halachic forum that sounds a lot like a Rabbinical Assembly of sorts. I suspect that: Had almost anyone other than R. Moshe wrote this, they would have been subjected to a lot of abuse.
Nevertheless, I DO agree mostly with Dr. Mike, A few exceptional cases does not a Trend make.
> there have been several Conservative decisions that seem to me to be well within the parameters of Orthodox methodology and yet were rejected simply because of their authors
Which has an ample precedent in the words of Chazal in that even if local non-Jewish courts have the same set of laws as the Shulchan Aruch, it is forbidden for Jews to go to those courts to settle a case. But why not? Because the source of the non-Jewish laws, as identical as they may be, is not Torah MiSinai. Similarly, the JTS rejects Torah MiSinai and he concept of G-d's perfect Written and Oral Law. So what if they come up with good solutions? they're not doing it from the correct mekor.
Post a Comment