Second, so much of our G’dolim’s talents seem to be addressed to bitterly denouncing other G’dolim. Why? The impression thus created is that this is what Torah consists of. I agree with Dr E that the spin doctors may have a lot to do with this – but why are they tolerated?

Ultimately no one can reconcile two utterly different ways of looking at people who lead. Any Jew engaged in the modern world is exposed to a culture in which people are judged on their results and are expected to announce what will be achieved before beginning the task of achieving it. In that respect we perhaps have something to learn from them.

As a lawyer I appeared before Dayan Ehrentrau sitting as Av Beth Din in London – and I can say absolutely that he could have swapped with a Court of Appeal Lord Justice and (apart from the dress and the constant company of a can of diet Coke) no one could have told the difference.

As Moshe Rabbeinu found, the more public you are the harsher the judgement. So, I would add a third element to the two proposed by the article – a noticeable commitment to scrutiny, justification and middos which permeates everything done personally or in the name of the Gadol in question. I would find that far more persuasive than no 2.

That’s likely true, as Olmert has now ordered Israeli soldiers to directly violate the commandment of lo ta’amod al dam ray’echa — ‘Do not stand idly by your brother’s blood.’

From Ha’aretz: “The current orders are not to shoot at the militants even if they have been clearly identified as preparing to launch rockets against Israel.”

I don’t think “Daas Torah” could be worse than this. I’m not sure anything could.

Then I lament the fact that our leaders today are not quite as good as Moshe Rabeinu. I proclaim Hasheivinu shoftainu kvareishona. Restore our judges as in earlier times and our advisors as in the beginning. I then ask G-d to rule over us as King and then I bless G-d as the king who loves righteousness and judgement.
As a thinking person endowed by G-d’s wisdom and in concert with the Shmona Esrei compiled by the Anshei Knesset Hagadola why would I relinquish my gift of G-d’s wisdom to a great Torah scholar who makes a statement which is not directly pertaining to halacha? This statement is something I will respect, analyze and decide on myself being an individual, whether it is applicable to my unique situation or not. Even if I do not accept it in its entirety for myself, I will still be in awe of it as a general guidline with much merit for many people. This to me will be Das Torah.

An example of this is that I was elevated by hearing Rav Shteinman speak in Los Angeles. His speech was truly Das Torah. I continued to follow his trip by reading in Hamodia of Harav Shteinman’s visit to Mexico City. There he warned people about the dangers of the internet in a very forceful way to the point that if there is internet at home then bochrim should not be let into the local yeshivas to the best of my recollection. See the back issue of Hamodia covering the Gedol’s trip to Mexico City for more details.I agree that the internet poses dangers, however I am still on line. I know that Das Torah expressed by this Gadol will help many avoid the pitfalls of the internet even if they don’t disconnect entirely. We need Das Torah. The problem is defining it.

What if, in principle, Torah law covers everything and secular law covers only some things, and any Israeli secular law in conflict with Torah law is illegitimate? What if, in principle, those with the greatest grasp of Torah are the most likely to understand government policy on a deep level, and have the duty to communicate their understanding to guide formulators and implementers of practical policy?

David does not share this point of view, but it is self-consistent.

As an aside, I’d like to see the Daas Torah program for engaging terrorists; it’s probably much better than abandoning Israeli cities to bombardment and strategic settlements to the enemy.

Okay, I bit! I reviewed the site, and saw a goodly number of good things. So Yasher ko’ach (and on the learning this morning and last Thursday too, needless to add).

In reading your ruminations about Daat Torah, after having perused some of my friend Jonathan Rosenblum’s postings, a dybbuk entered me and posed the following line of thought:
********
Many of JR’s trenchent pieces over the year have focused on the overreacing of the Barak Supreme Court. One example of many is the notion that any judicial body may order soldiers in the army to fire at fleeing terrorists seriatim rather than in collective bursts. JR rebels against the notion that there is judicial competence to enter such domains.

How do we balance that sensibility against the notion of Daat Torah? In other words, does JR object to anyone setting himself up as supreme arbiter of everything, in the process usurping the army’s core competence? Or is it only when Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinish don that mantle that his hackles rise? R’ Adlerstein’s posting implies that, for one with Daat Torah, all subjects become justiciable. Should one consult that Gadol about how the army should fire against fleeing terrorists?
****
I tried to access Prof. Lawrence Kaplan’s piece against the notion of Daat Torah. Is it the article in Tradition magazine from 1980? Is there a posting on the web somewhere? If he has posted here to Cross-Currents, I didn’t find it.

Kol tuv

David

You will find people who certainly think independently, and are bona fide charedim. I remember reading in the JO’s obituary issue for Rabbi Moshe Sherer an appreciation by one Gadol who wrote that Rabbi Sherer had very good ideas, even if he ultimately submitted to the Moetzes for the course of action. I think that Rabbi Naftali Neuberger was also a idependent thinker; he didn’t say, “what does the Yated say on this issue?” The idea of one of the acharonim, I think, is taken out of context, to perpetuate the myth that the Daas of Bale Batim is automatically in opposition and inferior to Daas Torah.

Part of what you refer to has to do with the impression given by the media which implies homogeneity on more thoughtful issues. I am wondering what the long term effects of blogs will be on the chareidi media. Also, unless one creates a new print medium, the only solution is to try to get the charedie media to make small changes, or to have people use the internet for expression, but the charedi world wants to avoid the latter. I also think that there are positive, small changes in the charedi media, if you keep a sharp eye out for them.

If you agree that one can be a 100% chareidi and still articulate opinions, or respectfully analyze responses of Torah leaders, then perhaps we can create a new label: “Charedie Maskil”, a person whose hashkafos are acceptable by charedi standards, but thinks through each idea carefully.

Also note that the problems you refer to, may be in the issues which Rabbi Adlerstein writes are not the core aspects of Daas Torah:

“I am purposefully avoiding issues such as who has more Daas Torah than whom, how to weigh the contribution of Daas Torah to a decision relative to other contributions, such as experience and specialized study, and which kinds of questions need to be brought to Torah leadership for answers.”

Perhaps it’s the infection of traditional misnagdish societies by chassidishe ideas, or by Catholic/Christian ideologies. Maybe it’s just a reflex response to the pressures of modernity. You said: “The notion…that Daas Torah means that one is not permitted to think or express an opinion, does a disservice to the idea.” Indeed it does, and yet that is virtually the exclusive meaning and application of the term in contemporary frum society.

In secular law, there is a concept of “discretion” which a judge — usually a trial judge — has, and the Court of Appeals should defer to his judgment unless the decision was an “abuse of discretion” — usually something really outrageous. As the concept is explained, there are certain decisions where there is no clear yes or no, black or white answer. There has to be some level of discretion for the judge to, for example, run his courtroom, determine the order of presenting evidence, etc. The Court of Appeals is supposed to defer to the trial judge not because he is smarter (in fact they, as three or five judges probably have greater collective wisdom) but because someone has to make the decision, and it is the judge who has been vested with that power.

In other words, with power and leadership, there comes a certain element of making a discretionary “judgment call” type of decision. That is the nature of leadership — there are many factors which go into making a leadership decision, some of which may pull the person in a different direction. One can always second-guess the decision, since it is based on weighing multiple competing factors. But inherent in the person being the leader is that his “judgment call” type decisions deserve deference.

The gemara tells us — Man Malkhi – rabbanan. Since the end of Jewish kingship, it is the rabbanan who exercise leadership. Leadership requires one to make decisions in complex situations, sometimes with competing or conflicting considerations. But the leader is owed deference simply by virtue of the fact that he is the leader — otherwise everything becomes hefker.

Moreover, if you live in blissful ignorance,

1. You have neglected the mitzvah of Talmud Torah

2. You can’t properly formulate or communicate a shaila to a Gadol or any other posek

3. You can’t figure out the full, true meaning of his answer.

Absolutely. The notion, usually implicit in some people’s relationship to the concept, that Daas Torah means that one is not permitted to think or express an opinion, does a disservice to the idea.

E.g., take the following conversation I’ve occasionally witnessed:

A: “What’s the positives and negatives, or complexities of idea X, or action Y ?”

B: “I don’t know–ask the Gedolim.”

One can be “A”, and be a charedi in good standing, l’mehadrin !

Yesteryear? That’s the case today as well. R’ Shmuel Kamenetsky and R’ Israel Belsky are very accessible and you can call their phone and they will actually pick up (in my own personal experience). Maybe you’re calling the wrong gedolim .

1. Issues that do not require a Torah sage. If you see somebody choking, you administer Heimlich. There is no time, nor need, to consult a Torah sage. We all know that Gdoley Israel believe Pikuach Nefesh is important.

2. Issues where a Torah sage’s opinion counts, but is not necessarily decisive.

3. Halachic issues, where a Rabbi’s opinion is binding.

Does Daat Torah involve issues in the second category, or the third? Yitzchok Adlerstein seems to be discussing the second category, but the Chazon Ish’s quote given by Bari seems to refer to the third.

Am I misunderstanding anything?

Looking at history to provide a window on the width of the use of daas Torah also may be a bit misleading. I would guess that the rabbi was probably the best educated person in the village, both in religious matters as well as secular. Also, the community was bound by it’s own religious law, with the rabbi/kahal having significant power. Therefore, it is not surprising that many questions not directly of a halachic nature were posed to the rabbi. Since the demise of the semi-autonomous community and the spread of higher education, these conditions do not apply.

The chief rabbi of the Old City, R. Nebenzahl, in his “Thoughts for the Month of Elul,” writes that the goal is to be able to make decisions for oneself, and to use the gift of bechira the way Hashem intended, not to depend on others.

I think that da’as Torah is important in the context of halacha, realizing that not one part of the community has a monopoly on those who would qualify. However, on non-Halachic matters, advice from wise people is always useful, but not mandatory.

One is… how much weight does one give a Torah Scholar or Gadol when he expresses an opinion that he has incomplete knowledge about. We know that they have the Torah knowledge. But can we trust that he has researched all the relevant non-Torah information? I am not entirely convinced of that. I know that many Gedolim do not issue an opinion unless they know all the facets of the issue at hand. But there are some who do not fully research and they issue an opinion anyway. Issues such as Mezizah BePeh and the Slifkin affair come to mind.

The second problem is the way Daas Torah is used by ultra-Orthodox segments of Orthodoxy. In the United States they consider the exclusive province of single politicized body, Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudath Israel. In Israel they consider one man, HaRav Yosef Sholom Elyashiv, the sum and substance of it. I have no real quarrel with the greatness of the Moetzes and certainly not Rav Elyashiv.

But I question Daas Torah as it is used by this group. Granting sole proprietorship to a politicized body diminishes its authority in my eyes, at least as it is used by that group.

And I question the phenomenon of considering nearly infallible a Gadol who has admitted being deceived by people around him that he trusts and then prematurely banning a book because of it… as he did with Rav Nosson Kaminetsky. This too diminishes it in my mind.

Just to be clear. I am not diminishing the authority of Daas Torah in the ideological sense of the concept, only in how it is utilized today.

I think RHS in the tape referenced above makes an interesting point regarding technology. In Europe, different minhagim were able to develop because of the geographical divides. Today, the global world has shrunk, and we can fax questions instantly to Israeli Torah authorities. Also, Torah authority has shifted from America to Eretz Yisrael after the death of Rav Moshe Zt’l. These are some of the elements of the different dynamic of our generation.

If this analysis correct, then we are more prone to “take things to the top” today. Assuming we do that, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing, if we realize that Hashem gives each generation the proper leadership structure it needs. One might also distinguish between major issues like brain death, and relatively less complex ones, like hilchos berachos.

This is not to say that every Reuven, Shimon, or Levi with Semicha is a Daas Torah. And there certainly should be an appropriate hierarchy, by which the weightier the question, the higher up one goes. It’s just that the way that the term Daas Torah has been thrown around in the past 5-10 years or so by “askanim” and the press. Consequently, the term has been cheapened and predictably brought with it a spirit of cynicism and disrespect. Those in the pro-DT camp have to just chill a bit and come to the realization that Daas Torah is merely an abstract concept, not the caption on a picture or headline on a weekly Kol Koreh. To perpetuate DT as in-your-face dogma is merely counterproductive to any goal they seek to achieve.

KT

Look more closely at shu”t literature. You will find many instances of “taking it to the top” – of questions that were responded to on a local, or less authoritative level, and then submitted to a greater talmid chacham for approval or review. They understood the pecking order

I think that it is unfortunately impossible to have a “macro-Jewish people”. Rabbi Yissocher Frand spoke at the Agudah convention on the topic of minimizing controversy. He quoted an adam gadol who stated that the reason why the collective merit of the community didn’t protect the Monsey community from eating tarfus, was perhaps because there is no “tzibbur” anymore. That is a pretty sharp observation!

Both Satmar and Religious Zionists have diametrically opposed positions, and maintain that the other’s approach to yishuv haaretz is a danger to the Jewish people. There can be no unity between them on a philosophical level. Lubavitch concepts about Messianisim and Chabad Chassidus’ role, when compared with the philosophy of other groups, makes unity difficult on the philosophical level. The Yeshivah world’s definition of “Mesorah” and Torah leadership prevents equal recognition as “Gedolim” of the leaders respected by the Centrist world. If Side A doesn’t recognize the authority of Side B’s leaders to offer an authoritative opinion on Torah thought in the spirit of Elu V’elu, there is an unbalanced relationship, and there can not be unity on the philosophical level.

There may be unity on the personal level,however, and people may have close personal relationships. Even strangers can share in each other’s simchos and misfortunes, lo aleinu. On the philosophical level as well, all Orthodox Jews recognize halacha and Torah min Hashomayim. If people come together and focus on such concepts and agree to disagree on the other one’s, then they can transcend the other unbridgeable gaps.

http://ajhistory.blogspot.com/2005/03/modernorthodoxisms.html