Originally published 6/24/07, 12:13 AM, Eastern Daylight Time
Rabbi Ben Hecht
The Jewish Week's article on Rabbi Marc Angel, entitled "Modern Orthodoxy's 'Cultic' Influence"
presents a most interesting insight into one of the issues that separates Modern Orthodoxy from Charedi Orthodoxy. In general terms this issue may be defined in terms of Centralization and De-Centralization, with the latter favouring centralization in the hands of gedolim and the former favouring de-centralization in the hands of the pulpit rabbi, the communal rav or the individual's chosen rav.
There are many questions and issues that are subsumed within this topic. My intention is to identify just one. One of the challenges against decentralization is that the gadol is the greater expert and thus should be the one to respond the a Torah question. There is much value in this assertion -- yet this is not the entire issue. Rabbi Angel points to the fact that a pulpit rabbi will consult with Torah scholars in rendering a decision thus availing himself of this greater source of knowledge. The question really is: who is carrying the ball? Whose psak is it? Should an individual be directed to ask the question himself or herself of the gadol, or should the rav consult with the gadol before rendering his decision?
Framing the question this way actually changes the nature of the issue. It is no longer an issue of knowledge. The issue is actually the nature of psak. Who can best render decisions? In regard to this question, there are again many sub-issues. For example, one may favour decentralization because an important ingredient in psak is knowing the specific situation, including the personality of the one asking the question. This demands that the psak stay in the hands of the person's rabbi. He may have an intuitive perception of the questioner that cannot be simply relayed to another. Interestingly, the chassidic model, which favours centralization includes the idea that the rebbe through ruach hakodesh knows the individual situation. (One may wonder how much this argument affected the present perception that da'at Torah is built on ruach hakodesh and not simply greater Torah knowledge.) The argument for centralization may, on the other hand, include the idea that even the process of psak demands the greater expert.
There are many other issues involved in this question of centralization and decentralization but this is one we open for you consideration. Who should have the ball in psak?
3 comments:
The concept of "ruach hakodesh" as currently articulated by the chareidim is a joke. It's a semi-mystical ability to know what Hashem is thinking which leads the gadol to then make the right decision each and every time. And who qualifies for ruach hakodesh? Only chareidi leaders. Funny that.
The aspect overlooked here is the nature of the question. Some are (a) easy, (b) some require a little bit of research and (c) some are groundbreaking.
a) Rabbi, I accidentally used my milchig knife to cut the onions which I then put into my soup.
b)Am I allowed to brush my teeth on Shabbos?
c) What is the definition of physical death?
Theoretically, this is how it should work: a pulpit rabbi should be trained and learned enough to answer questions like (a) with little difficulty. Questions like (b) should be answerable after he looks up some sources or calls his rebbe for advice. (c) type questions require deliberation amongst the leading scholars of the day due to the implications of any answer given.
But that's not what's happening. People with question of (a) type either look up the answer in the relevant Artscroll book or call the local Vaad Hakashrus and ask to speak to the most senior rav there. (b) type questions either go straight to higher authorities, bypassing the pulpit rabbi, or the rabbi is asked which gadol would be the best to ask. (c) type questions go straight to the top but then, that's probably appropriate.
The reason for this, I believe, is due to access. In the good ol' days in Poland, if you were living in western Poland, you could have sent a shailoh to a leading Gadol in either Lithuania or Russia but it would take ages to get the response. This led to a situation where only really important questions got sent, meaning the local rabbonim had to handle matters on their own.
Nowadays, with e-mail, faxing, and the Bar Ilan CD, there's no need to feel isolated and dependent on your local rabbi. If you could get a gadol to answer your question, why settle for the schmendrick who drays the sermon each week? This has led to the loss of authority of the local rav.
Modern Orthodoxy's contention that decentrilization is good, by the way, only serves to weaken it. No decentralized movement survived when confronted by a centralized one.
Certainly the idea of Ruach Hakodesh and Da'as Torah and other such bromides are terribly abused today.
Nevertheless the trend is either very old or the term is mis-understood!
Ashkenazic Poskim granted approbation to th Rif because he had this "Ruach Hakodesh" - or something similar
I suggest that Ruach Hakodesh might refer to a God given talent. E.G. in music Mozart had a form of Ruach hakodesh. Anyone who saw the film "Amadeus" could see the blatant jealousy and resentments of his mediocre contemporaries towards what was obviously this boy genius.
Ruach hakodesh might simply refer to this kind of talent or command of a field.
Similarly, the word intuition is sometimes confused with inspiration. The rational use of the word implies that an expert i n a field does no thave to analyze each tree in order to judge the forest as a whole. It can therefore refer to a sub-conscious process that happens when great experts pull together their entire knowledge base in the background processor in their minds. Donal Trump might be able to instantly judge the worth of a real-estate
long before the accountants crunch teh numbers because of his vast-experience in making deals!
Not every great ballplayer could analyze or even teach another how to do what they did. Ted Williams did right a masterful book on the science of hitting but I'll bet it produced precious few .400 hitters. Even though Babe Ruth wrote a book on hitting, neverthless MOST sluggers do it unconsciously with sheer force of talent.
Perhaps Ruach Hakodesh is meant to be a barometer of the FRUMKEIT of the poseik but simply an acknowledgment of how much God-Given Talent the Poseik has. Thus, instead of crediting the poseik's ego with that talent the term gives the credit to God as THE Supplier of the talent.
What may be said fairly:
It is not enough for a moderately talented individual to delve into a given subject and over-rule people who perhaps have 10-20 times greater knowledge-base of the classic texts.
The sentiment is that one has to be a master of Bavli/Yerushalmi etc. to make an authoritative decision even in a narrow area of Halachah.
On the other hand, Even Inspired poskim with all the Ruach Hakodesh in the world are not infallible. And a well-thought-out challenge is always appropriate.
We ought to respect the masters and talent that goes into being a leading poseik and give credit where it is due. Nevertheless, we cannot be kneejerk slaves to authority. We need to raise our own questions and to see things through on our own.
As my rebbe- Rav Gorleick OBM - used to say " ich vil NISHT frum Torah! I don't want pious subservience, I want YOU to think it through for yourselves and not to "punt" to others.
KT
RRW
>E.G. in music Mozart had a form of Ruach hakodesh. Anyone who saw the film "Amadeus" could see the blatant jealousy and resentments of his mediocre contemporaries towards what was obviously this boy genius.
Ahem. Anyone who saw Amadeus and actually thought they were getting a real history lesson instead of a dramatized, extremely liberal version of the life of Mozart is also asked to purchase land in central Florida for a reasonable price at this time.
>It is not enough for a moderately talented individual to delve into a given subject and over-rule people who perhaps have 10-20 times greater knowledge-base of the classic texts.
Yet that is close to how the term is being used today. Daas Torah become the trump card in any discussion between the Chareidim and non-Chareidim in halachic disputes. As soon as the non-Chareidi authority starts to make the more convincing argument, the Chareidi screams "Daas Torah, I'm right!" and considers the matter concluded in his favour.
For example, a Conservative Rabbi and Torah observant Rav may argue over a subject in halacha but in the end, if the Rav wants to win the debate, he has to do it using convincing arguments showing the fallacy of Conservatism and its thinking. If he were to fall behind in the argument and then conclude "Well Daas Torah sez I'm right!" he'd be ridiculed and rightly so.
Yet in the not-so-recent metzitzah debate, that's exactly what Rav Eliashiv did when confronted with plentiful halachic evidence that metzitzah b'peh is NOT l'hatchilah required to have direct contact of the mouth on Mr. Winkie. Why is his psak respected?
Because he said so, that's why. Talk about a foundation of sand.
Post a Comment