Another issue that many have with the Daat Torah idea is the fact that nearly all the recognized "Gedolim" are of the Lithuanian stream of Orthodoxy. The Jews of Lithuania (and surrounding areas) developed a system of study involving deep analytics of Talmudic texts and deriving ideas and doctrines from these texts that are not actually spelled out. Many have accepted these methods wholeheartedly. Many have not. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for example, considered much of this type of learning as "confusion". ("bilbulim") The method of study in most other places involved a strong effort to understand what the text is actually saying (not always easy!). The Lithuanians set up a great network of Yeshivot, which has been transported to Israel, the U.S., as well to as many other countries. The "Harvards and Yales" of Yeshivot are all Lithuanian-style. For most Orthodox Jews, this has become standard Judaism, with other Jews expected to hop on the bandwagon. But there are dissenting voices as well. Rabbinic leaders who are rooted in other traditions see this as a form of cultural imperialism. The Syrian Jewish community of New York is deeply divided between those who wish to maintain the way of life of their ancient community, and those who feel that it is essential to accept the ways of the Lithuanian Gedolm. Many Hasidic leaders also struggle to maintain their way of life and thought. Even German Jewish leaders, the cultural and religious fore-bearers of Ashkenazi Jewry, have reservations about this. Calls for "unity" often translate into "let's all be the same".
A related factor is the effects of all this on halachah. Different communities always maintained their own interpretations of halachah. But the Gedolim of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have pushed the idea of one unified approach. In the first decade of the twentieth century, two great books of halachah appeared in Eastern Europe. One was the "Aruch HaShulchan" of Rabbi Y.M. Epstein. It is a rewriting of the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), but it did much more. In each area of halachah he analyses the development from the Torah, through the Talmud and later opinions. He describes how the accepted final decision was made, but then analyses whether that conclusion is correct. He often jettisons the common practice for another one, more firmly based on sources and logic. The Aruch HaShulchan became the standard halachic work in Yeshivot until about 1950. The second work to appear simultaneously is the Mishnah Berurah of Rabbi Y.M. Kagan, known as the Chafetz Chaim. The Chafetz Chaim had made his reputation primarily as an ethicist. The Mishnah Berurah is based on the first part of the Shulchan Aruch, only (dealing with daily rituals, Shabbat and Holidays). Unlike the Aruch HaShulcahn, its primary goal is to show how the practices of Lithuanian Judaism are completely based on sources, and is essentially the only way to understand these sources. In essence, the halachic system had ended in one definitive work; a compendium of Daat Torah. The work was hailed by some, but opposed by many. Both German and Hasidic rabbis pointed out the cultural bias. Even among the Lithuanians, most preferred the analysis of the Aruch HaShulchan over the ultra-conservative Mishnah Berurah. However, around 1950, a change occurred. Many rabbis were horrified that Orthodox Jews were changing centuries-old traditions in favor of the Aruch HaShulchan's theories. This put the common man's Judaism in danger; opening the way for considering that there might be greater truths outside the Daat Torah community. The Mishnah Berurah was substituted in virtually all Yeshivot. it has become the "gold standard", with later rabbis' opinions needing to conform. Even groups that used to oppose it have accepted it, albeit with reservations. Does this signify a culmination, or decaying of the classical halachic system? Each side has its distinguished proponents. To be continued.
A related factor is the effects of all this on halachah. Different communities always maintained their own interpretations of halachah. But the Gedolim of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have pushed the idea of one unified approach. In the first decade of the twentieth century, two great books of halachah appeared in Eastern Europe. One was the "Aruch HaShulchan" of Rabbi Y.M. Epstein. It is a rewriting of the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), but it did much more. In each area of halachah he analyses the development from the Torah, through the Talmud and later opinions. He describes how the accepted final decision was made, but then analyses whether that conclusion is correct. He often jettisons the common practice for another one, more firmly based on sources and logic. The Aruch HaShulchan became the standard halachic work in Yeshivot until about 1950. The second work to appear simultaneously is the Mishnah Berurah of Rabbi Y.M. Kagan, known as the Chafetz Chaim. The Chafetz Chaim had made his reputation primarily as an ethicist. The Mishnah Berurah is based on the first part of the Shulchan Aruch, only (dealing with daily rituals, Shabbat and Holidays). Unlike the Aruch HaShulcahn, its primary goal is to show how the practices of Lithuanian Judaism are completely based on sources, and is essentially the only way to understand these sources. In essence, the halachic system had ended in one definitive work; a compendium of Daat Torah. The work was hailed by some, but opposed by many. Both German and Hasidic rabbis pointed out the cultural bias. Even among the Lithuanians, most preferred the analysis of the Aruch HaShulchan over the ultra-conservative Mishnah Berurah. However, around 1950, a change occurred. Many rabbis were horrified that Orthodox Jews were changing centuries-old traditions in favor of the Aruch HaShulchan's theories. This put the common man's Judaism in danger; opening the way for considering that there might be greater truths outside the Daat Torah community. The Mishnah Berurah was substituted in virtually all Yeshivot. it has become the "gold standard", with later rabbis' opinions needing to conform. Even groups that used to oppose it have accepted it, albeit with reservations. Does this signify a culmination, or decaying of the classical halachic system? Each side has its distinguished proponents. To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment