The system of Daat Torah; turning to a group of men who are both learned and of the greatest integrity, would seem like it would be the best vehicle for both bringing about a consensus, and arriving at truth. Often, it has worked that way. However, there were and are pitfalls. First of all, with the rise of Hasidism in the eighteenth century, the face of Jewish leadership changed. The position of the Gadol (Rabbinic Greats) was primarily dependent on knowledge of sources and their application. The Hasidic leaders, called Rebbes rather than Rabbis, was primarily based on charisma. spirituality, and the ability to counsel people in crisis. The classical rabbi rarely dealt with these things. He was more interested in the permissible or forbidden, proper and improper doctrine. The Rebbe is interested in your hopes, fears, ambitions, hurts and disappointments. Although many Rebbes were also Rabbis, many were not; or even particularly learned. When an anti-Hasidic rabbi was informed about a statement made by a famous Hasidic Rebbe, that was apparently based on a very obscure Talmudic statement, he expressed surprise that the Rebbe had known the statement. Upon hearing this, the Rebbe replied "He's right, I didn't know the statement. I got it from where the Talmud got it!" In the U.S., the usual reality is that the community rabbi is rarely a great scholar, but more of a pastoral figure. When legal questions come up, he will usually defer to a Gadol. When I lived in Israel (1984 to 2001), I would often visit the Chief Rabbi's office. Once, his personal secretary asked me "Are you sure you are a rabbi?" I said to him "of course, Why?" He said "because you're always smiling. I never saw a rabbi smile". Yes, in most of the world, the idea of a rabbi as a friend and guide is still unknown. The American experience has, in effect, blended the traditional rabbi with the rebbe.
Herein lies a problem as well as a blessing. The community rabbi (in the U.S., more often the rabbi of a synagogue rather than an entire community) is free, for the most part, of making momentous decisions. That is for the Gadol. But that also means that decisions are made by those who don't interact with the people. The local rabbi knows all about the community's circumstances. The Gadol in the ivory tower probably doesn't. There is a lovely Hasidic story about a Rebbe who visited a Gadol. He asked the Gadol "What are the roofs in your community made of?" The Gadol answered "brick". "Too bad" said the Rebbe. "It would be better if they were made of iron". The Gadol thought the Rebbe a madman. He related the story to a follower of that Rebbe. "That's amazing" said the follower. "The Rebbe was speaking about leadership. He was saying that if there is a "fire", a spiritual or material crisis, brick leadership will be unmoved. Iron will moan and groan with the rest of the house. What a pity that the people of this community only have a brick roof".
Still another issue is if setting universal standards is such a good idea. Many areas of Jewish thought are not spelled out in Tanach or Talmud. Numerous approaches appear in the writings of later scholars. Although there may have been disagreements, there was almost always respect and tolerance for other views. With the system of Daat Torah, one view generally became the only legitimate one. Since the Gedolim were educated in Torah, with little or no secular education, a decision might reflect this ignorance. Even how things are done by the average person might be unknown to them. One example came in the 1950s, when a major Gadol issued an opinion about women using makeup on Shabbat. He ruled that makeup does, indeed, violate the prohibition of "tzove'a" (coloring, dying), but powdered makeup is OK. This has become standard Orthodox policy. One can buy "Shabbat makeup" in all colors, in powdered form. Another Gadol, far better versed in worldly matters, asked the first for his reasoning. He said "Powder is not coloring. If she walks out in the slightest breeze, it will blow right off". The second Gadol wrote "Not in the slightest breeze, and not in a hurricane". But the first Gadol is seen as one of the ultimate sources of Daat Torah. His view is still accepted, not for his view's logic (or lack thereof), but because of that Gadol's stature. Some will say that this is Daat Torah. Others would say that it is a distortion of the halachic process.
More issues will be discussed in my next post.
Herein lies a problem as well as a blessing. The community rabbi (in the U.S., more often the rabbi of a synagogue rather than an entire community) is free, for the most part, of making momentous decisions. That is for the Gadol. But that also means that decisions are made by those who don't interact with the people. The local rabbi knows all about the community's circumstances. The Gadol in the ivory tower probably doesn't. There is a lovely Hasidic story about a Rebbe who visited a Gadol. He asked the Gadol "What are the roofs in your community made of?" The Gadol answered "brick". "Too bad" said the Rebbe. "It would be better if they were made of iron". The Gadol thought the Rebbe a madman. He related the story to a follower of that Rebbe. "That's amazing" said the follower. "The Rebbe was speaking about leadership. He was saying that if there is a "fire", a spiritual or material crisis, brick leadership will be unmoved. Iron will moan and groan with the rest of the house. What a pity that the people of this community only have a brick roof".
Still another issue is if setting universal standards is such a good idea. Many areas of Jewish thought are not spelled out in Tanach or Talmud. Numerous approaches appear in the writings of later scholars. Although there may have been disagreements, there was almost always respect and tolerance for other views. With the system of Daat Torah, one view generally became the only legitimate one. Since the Gedolim were educated in Torah, with little or no secular education, a decision might reflect this ignorance. Even how things are done by the average person might be unknown to them. One example came in the 1950s, when a major Gadol issued an opinion about women using makeup on Shabbat. He ruled that makeup does, indeed, violate the prohibition of "tzove'a" (coloring, dying), but powdered makeup is OK. This has become standard Orthodox policy. One can buy "Shabbat makeup" in all colors, in powdered form. Another Gadol, far better versed in worldly matters, asked the first for his reasoning. He said "Powder is not coloring. If she walks out in the slightest breeze, it will blow right off". The second Gadol wrote "Not in the slightest breeze, and not in a hurricane". But the first Gadol is seen as one of the ultimate sources of Daat Torah. His view is still accepted, not for his view's logic (or lack thereof), but because of that Gadol's stature. Some will say that this is Daat Torah. Others would say that it is a distortion of the halachic process.
More issues will be discussed in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment