Originally posted 8/26/07, 3:15 PM, Eastern Daylight Time.
Are there any objective limits to Rabbinic Authority? Or can rabbis rule subjectively and perhaps capriciously to advance their opinions, ignoring Black letter Law or the concept of Eilu v'Eilu? This subject was previously broached on this blog, here. More than ever, it is something to consider seriously.
Here is an e-mail I sent to The Jewish Week that was recently published. More background on this matter is available and BEH will be published on this thread or subsequent threads.
Are there any objective limits to Rabbinic Authority? Or can rabbis rule subjectively and perhaps capriciously to advance their opinions, ignoring Black letter Law or the concept of Eilu v'Eilu? This subject was previously broached on this blog, here. More than ever, it is something to consider seriously.
Here is an e-mail I sent to The Jewish Week that was recently published. More background on this matter is available and BEH will be published on this thread or subsequent threads.
(08/24/2007) Rabbinic Decisions I would like to echo the remarks of Rabbi Noah Gradowsky (Letters, July 13). Certainly Orthodox rabbis should be empowered to render decisions concerning halacha [Jewish law]. That said, I have two caveats: First, they should not make decisions that are absolute when the matter is in dispute. The Lower East Side eruv controversy comes to mind. Some Orthodox rabbis are prohibiting making an eruv. Instead, they should be merely rendering an opinion as to the eruv"s validity.
Second, rabbis should not be "thought police." People should be entitled to think for themselves. The hidden thoughts are for God alone to determine. At most, rabbis can rule on prescribed behavior. However, the philosophy as to how best to implement laws should remain a matter for open-minded debate.Rabbi Richard Wolpoe Teaneck, N.J.
NB: The Hidden Thoughts refer specifically to "hanistaros L'Hashem Elokeinu" - [end of Shlishi in Parshas Nitzavim]. While a Beth Din has every right to enforce behavioral standards "v'haniglos lany ul'evaneinu" nevertheless our intimate thoughts [and possibly intimate behavior] are "bein Adam Lamakom" alone.
6 comments:
While I am not fully familiar with the eruv controversy in Lower East Side, from the little I know there would seem to be an additional issue involved, although it has not been stated explicitly, and that is the legacy of Rav Moshe. I would venture to say that a major reason that there was no eruv in the Lower East Side was that Rav Moshe's opinion was that it would be invalid -- and given that this was his community, his opinion would be unquestioned. The question now emerges of the effect of the construction of an eruv on Rav Moshe's legacy. The question, thus, is not solely one of Rabbinic Authority, as Rabbi Wolpoe correctly presents it, but of Kavod HaTorah, Rabbinic Honour, and the extent of this honour after death, under the stewardship of a new Rabbi (although the distinction in standing of Rav Moshe has to be acknowledge) and the needs of the community.
A similar issue arose in the 90's, in Toronto, with the passing of Rav Avraham Price. Recognized as a gadol, Rav Price established an eruv, for years, in Toronto based upon some controversial positions he maintained in the halachot of eruv. While Rav Price was alive, while there were some challenges of the eruv and a movement to build a new eruv, the disrespect that this would entail led the majority of the Rabbinic leadership of the community to live with the situation. The result was that many, privately, did not hold of the eruv and did not use it. Upon Rabbi Price's passing, a new eruv in Toronto was established that met with more conventional standards. There were those, though, who still found this to be an affront to Rav Price even after his passing. Of course much of the issue was in form and not substance but clearly the issue concerned kavod haTorah, which we may call Rabbinic Honour, and how to balance that with other Torah values. I think that this is also part of the Lower East Side issue.
The greater sadness, though, may be that this matter is not even part of the explicit discussion. Kavod HaTorah in terms of how we relate to rabbis must be an open topic of discussion. This does not mean that it is always the trump card. I would not venture to say that in Toronto it was wrong to create a new eruv or in the Lower East Side to establish an eruv albeit that both acts conflict with positions of not only gedolim but gedolim in the community who paskened for the community. But I think that it is greater kavod haTorah to state the issue explicitly and with respect. As Rabbi Wolpoe states, differing positions is part of Torah. I do not think it is part of kavod haTorah to promote an opinion as the only one in order to further the respect due to a gadol. That really isn't Torah. I do think that, as the gemara points out in the case of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, it is kavod haTorah to quote the opposing view respectfully albeit that one disagrees. This furthermore leads to Halachic shakla v'tarya, Torah discussion and the advancemetn of Torah thought. I think that the greatest kavod haTorah is not to avoid the machloket but to state it. In Toronto, it was more explicit that the new eruv was going up because of the controversies with Rav Price's eruv but the greatest kavod to Rav Price was not to simply accept his positions but to learn and argue over his halachic views and for people to know the Torah issues. This is similar in the Lower East Side. The greatest kavod to Rav Moshe is to explicitly raise the issue, present his halachic opinions on eruvin, argue for why kavod haTorah demands respect of his legacy in his community -- and turn the matter into a Torah discussion for, just as Beit Hillel did not end up holding like Beit Shammai, in presenting the view with respect, in raising the issue of the place of respect for legacy in the halachic discussion, we actually forge kavod haTorah.
Otherwise we have the result that Rabbi Wolpoe questions -- the misapplication of Rabbinic Authority.
No doubt the issue of K'vod Rav Moshe is a factor here. But the letter that went out seemed to indicate it was under the authority of the undersigned.
At any rate, each generation must listen to its own poskim. Unless a tradition can be shown to exist for a long period time with commensurate of peer review and lacking significant dissent or controversy any p'sak is subject to re-exmamination.
KT
RRW
I was wondering what exactly you meant by this line: "However, the philosophy as to how best to implement laws should remain a matter for open-minded debate."
It would seem to me, and from what Rabbi Hecht wrote, that how laws are implemented is at the heart of halacha, and therefore very much a matter of for prescribed behavior. But I think I don't fully grasp what you mean.
The fact that the issue of the kavod due to Rav Moshe was not even mentioned is precisely my point. I agree with Rabbi Wolpoe's statement that psak is in the hands of the present posek and I am not saying that Rav Moshe's position has to be followed but his position still is a factor to be considered, yielding a variety of potential Torah discussion that could be very worthwhile, such as this preliminary discussion on our relationship to previous psak and previous poskim. The fact that this was not mentioned only thwarts this discussion and gives an incomplete impression of what is really happening.
I find it interesting that, for LES, the issue of an eruv is a matter of the kavod of Rav Moshe zt”l. In fact, Rav Moshe himself (Igros Moshe, Y.D. 3:88) argued regarding the Chazon Ish, that even in his hometown, Bnei Brak, it was permitted to disagree with him, and that it was even a kavod, since Torah is being debated in his name. Eruvin does not have anything to do with kavod any more than or less than other piskei halachah. Due to its public nature, eruvin is more a matter of perceived power, hence the harsh debates.
I said: "At most, rabbis can rule on prescribed behavior. However, the philosophy as to how best to implement laws should remain a matter for open-minded debate."
L'chaim... said: It would seem to me, and from what Rabbi Hecht wrote, that how laws are implemented is at the heart of halacha, and therefore very much a matter of for prescribed behavior."
Rabbis shold rule on the law. They have authority to make rulings on that plane.
They should not rule on
A) "what your opinions ought to be on a matter" or
B) what OTHER rabbis ought to think on the matter at hand
A) because Rabbis are not imho thought police. Only Hashem has the power to police one's thinking.
B) because Rabbis have a right to differ and imho you cannot legislate that rabbis have no right to do X. All they can say is, that if other rabbis build an eruv here, it is invalid. They may IMPLORE other rabbis to be co-operative but they cannot rule on them unless they have some kind of territorial authority to do so. To proscribe other rabbis is to assume some kind of superior or supreme authority like a Sanhedrin of sorts.
Imagine if a judge in court said:
I not only rule that YOU are guilty but I insist that EVERY court rule the same way as I do when this matter comes up to their courts.
Or if a judge said: "I not only sentence you to jail but I also forbid you to 2nd guess my ruling!"
Shana Tova
RRW
Post a Comment