Pesak, Gedolim, and Halakhah Class 12 Shlomo Zuckier 03.05.18 1. Shlomo Zuckier and Shalom Carmy, “An Introductory Biographical Sketch of R. Aharon Lichtenstein,” Tradition 47:4 (2015), p. 9 Due to his wide scholarly output and his complex and developed positions on contemporary issues, R. Lichtenstein is considered by many American Modern Orthodox Jews to be their gedol ha-dor, like his father-in-law R. Soloveitchik before him. If the Rav bestrode American Orthodoxy like a colossus, R. Lichtenstein has been a remote polestar, projecting his influence from a distance, as his votaries ponder his every word, rendered all the more precious by his unwillingness to meddle uninvited in American affairs. R. Lichtenstein has often been asked to present the hashkafic overview at the annual Orthodox Forum gathering, and at many other RCA or YU conclaves, with the justified presumption that his position carries authority for Modern Orthodoxy. 2. Chaim Saiman, “The Market for Gedolim: A Tale of Supply and Demand,” Lehrhaus, Oct. 13, 2016 On the whole, rabbis classified as “gedolim” are far more supportive of haredi viewpoints than of those associated with modern Orthodoxy. This situation begets the question “why there are so few modern Orthodox gedolim?” In my experience, this conversation quickly turn to a question of supply. That is, who is that elusive Rabbi/Dr. who has the entire Talmud, halakhic codes and commentaries at his fingertips, who has mastered the literature of Jewish thought and philosophy, and who is also fully conversant in cognate fields such as the humanities, law, and social sciences? Centrist Orthodoxy seeks a gadol who understands the social and intellectual currents of the time, yet exudes authenticity as he articulates our timeless tradition in a timely manner… The problem with the structure of this conversation is that it focuses almost exclusively on the supply side of the gadol market, while wholly neglecting the question of demand. A gadol is not a naturally occurring resource found amidst the shtenders of a yeshiva. Rather a gadol is a social phenomenon characteristic of a community whose members are willing to talk, act, speak, and conceive of themselves as being led by a rabbi who is not merely smart and competent on a human scale, but who, on some level, has divine imprimatur if not direct divine inspiration… it is not surprising that the fault line between liberal Orthodoxy and other segments of the community runs just to the left of Yeshivat Har Etzion. Though liberal by yeshiva standards, the Gush has been able to produce and sustain a culture of rabbinic authority and gadolhood that is structurally similar to what exists in the haredi world. True, it is a less authoritarian model which respects the intellectual autonomy of its constituents far more than in haredi circles. Moreover, there is no doubt the success of the Gush model is due mainly to R. Lichtenstein’s once-in-a-generation intellectual mastery of the rabbinic corpus and his unsurpassed personal integrity, rather than the reverence of his pedigree, charisma, or fuzzier notions of a spiritual aura that often accompany haredi gedolim. What made him a centrist Orthodox —as opposed to haredi—gadol is that he was perceived as authoritative rather than authoritarian. And yet, when R. Lichtenstein reached a decision or articulated a position, the entire social, moral, and intellectual force of the Gush, along with its subsidiary communities, and the secondary and tertiary elites, opinion makers, and influencers who function as part of its social sphere coalesced around the ruling and treated it as binding—even when individuals disagreed or wished things were otherwise. This impression, the sense of living under an authority, both pre-existed and outlasted any specific issue, and applied whether R. Lichtenstein staked out a position perceived to be on the left or on the right of the Orthodox consensus… 3. “If there is No Da’at, How Can We Have Leadership?,” trans. Joseph Faith, accessible at http://www.zootorah.com/RationalistJudaism/DaatTorahLichtenstein.pdf What is Torah-leadership? Does it really consist of a special characteristic known as 'Da’at Torah’?... Talmud Yerushalmi (Brachot 5:2): 1 [email protected] "...in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi. As Rebbi said 'I am shocked that they removed the request for 'da’at' from the Shabbat prayers. Without 'da’at' what use is prayer? Without 'da’at', how can one make 'havdala' (in which one 'distinguishes' between shabbat and weekdays)?" In order to distinguish between one thing and another, between blue and green, between a donkey and a wild ass, between one man and another, a person requires 'da’at'. As long as he has not requested, and been granted, 'da’at', a person is not capable of making distinctions. In a similar fashion, 'If there is no 'da’at', how can there be leadership? In the same way that it is impossible to have prayer or havdala without 'da’at', so too can there be no leadership without 'da’at'. We are discussing a crucial ingredient, a sine qua non, a primary factor without which leadership cannot exist… From a normative perspective, the first question is to what extent a Jewish person is obligated to adopt the 'Da’at Torah’ doctrine… This conception is innovative, inasmuch as we are not discussing the obligation of obeying gedolei Torah merely because of the commandment of 'Lo tasur (You shall not depart from what they tell you..)', or because of the commandment of 'Ve'asita ke'khol asher yorucha' (And you shall act in accordance with all that they teach you)', but rather due to two additional suppositions: 1. That a person who has learnt a lot of Torah can be relied upon, and it is appropriate for him to give advice in all fields of life, both holy and profane equally. 2. There is either a halachic or ethical obligation to obey the 'Da’at Torah' of a particular talmid chacham (i.e. one who has learnt enough Torah that he is an expert in all other areas). It may well be that these suppositions have some basis in the words of Chazal, however, certainly not to the extent that some like to present it today… According to the 'Da’at Torah' outlook, every Jewish person, who is a part of the Torah system, is obligated to absolutely obey those who stand at its helm - the gedolim. The main innovation here is that a person is not allowed to avoid adhering to the 'dayan' or gadol's ruling, even when he is outside of beit din… A superficial glance suggests that the concept of 'Da’at Torah' is based on an explicit verse in Devarim (17:11): "According to the teaching that they instruct you, and according to the ruling which they shall tell you, you shall act, you shall not depart from that which they tell you right or left." Despite this, there is almost no detailed discussion in the entire Talmud of the commandment of 'you shall not depart'. It would appear that it is restricted to a few limited cases, which are themselves dissimilar from each other in their character… The Gemara clarifies the laws which are contained in the verse [of lo tasur], but does not refer whatsoever to social, policy-related or political issues. It would appear that it did not occur to the Gemara for even one second that the commandment of 'you shall rise up and ascend' relates to a political issue that is currently on the communal agenda or to matters of legislation in parliament. This means that the beit din does indeed have wider authority, however this is only in issues that are explicitly halachic or otherwise directly Torah-related: Nidda blood, the beheading of a calf, the purification of a leper. That - and nothing else! Thus I would say that the attempt to widen 'Da’at Torah' to matters of a purely profane nature is a profound 'jump' in the process of widening the definition of 'you shall not depart'… The Rivash (Siman 61) discusses the definition of a talmid chacham, [saying]… It is not only a matter of extensive Torah knowledge which is necessary, but one also needs to consider other issues, such as a person's clarity of expression, the lack of which may bring his listeners to error. An intermediate approach has been suggested by R. Aharon Feldman, the Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael in Baltimore and one of the leaders of Charedi Jewry in America. According to him, there is indeed no halachic obligation to adhere to the words of rabbis and the 'Gedolei Yisrael' in non-spiritual matters. On the surface, it is even slightly strange that we make use of scholars who are great in Torah and halacha to find solutions to questions that have no relevance to halacha. 2 [email protected] However, R. Aharon added, that although there is no obligation, it may well be foolish not to listen to them. If you believe that certain rabbanim have been granted special capabilities, and have been crowned with the quality of 'the secret of Hashem is granted to those who fear Him, and he makes known to them His covenant', would it not be utterly foolish not to take advice from them?... According to his approach, in the same way that in medical matters one does not go to any old doctor, but picks the greatest expert, so too in 'wordly matters', one should turn to the greatest possible expert… In summary, we can see three main approaches: 1. 'Da’at Torah' is obligatory in every field of life, whether sacred or profane.