I follow the principle of and rely on “rov” until proven otherwise. If you add one’s personal interest, then together with religious and political orientation much can be explained and predicted.

But that aside, I sat next to a wonderful Rav from Israel, a few days ago before the comment, and asked him his opinion on the (non-jewish) russian olim in general and the case referenced in particular. Since I do not know the details, there is little point in giving you his short comments. It supported what you labeled my ““religious-political” default view.” We all have biases; I believe mine are just closer to reality.

As I indicated, I do not have the facts and I sincerely look forward to reading the learned defense of R. Atia’s opinion. We can then both judge how well it reflects “pure” halachic reasoning independant of personal, political and religious views. (yes - there exist religious views on all sides that may not reflect our halachic traditions.

Until then, and perhaps even after, I will respect my instincts.

Shana Tova

The individual bothered by this phenomenon(and similar ones) was not a “scoffer”, but was sincerely baffled by the language used in the poster. The rabbi who recognized his point, is a sincere person as well, in addition to being a competent, Charedi rav(admittedly, his competence is in the Shulchan Aruch, not in Halachos of Posters ).

Even the American Yated wrote that putting Gedolim on lampposts could be viewed as “hero worship”(although it’s done for pressing needs); so we see that at some point, genuine k’vod chachamim becomes cheapened, to the exact opposite of one’s intentions.

My point was not about the video(I was fortunate to meet two of the featured Gedolim when I was in Bnie Brak), but rather about the way it was advertised. Some people are “turned off” when one speaks of “daas Torah” as having almost tangible attributes( e.g., “witnessing daas Torah in action”, “asking daas Torah”). Some, of course, find such language meaningful. As I implied in my comment, people can express themselves as they wish, and others should respect the motives behind such expressions, even if they feel the expressions to be excessive or dramatic.

The objective issue, however, is whether such language is effective overall in terms of cost/benefit in today’s diverse Orthodox world of instant communication. That’s something that those involved in Charedi communication and advertising need to consider, and indeed to “ask daas Torah”(or, “sheilas chacham”, if someone prefers the old-fashioned term) from someone who is familiar with the facts on the ground. It might be possible to retain the essential concept of daas Torah and kavod Hatorah in varying degrees, while using effective language that speaks to, what eventually becomes a global audience in our day of instant communication.

It’s also quite possible that other Jews viewing the presentation, even though they are not the intended audience and would continue to follow their own set of leaders, would still be impressed. These others are presumably mature enough to know that leaders of the highest caliber may differ on policy, etc.

Those inclined to scoff at Gedolim in general, or at specific Gedolim, would be unlikely to spend time viewing the video presentation anyway.

My friend, who has connections both to the YU and the Yeshivah world and who like myself, is sometimes confused by happenings in the charedi world, showed one of the posters to his (Charedi) rav, who admitted that he did not know what to make of the idea of viewing daas Torah “in action”. There are similar examples of this as well, one even noted by the American Yated.

Evidently, either some of the charedi world likes to express their feelings of affection for gedolie Torah is such a manner, or this is merely a marketing technique which dramatizes the relationship between the public and it’s Torah leaders because of various pressing reasons. Either way, there may be a negative collateral effect to the entire concept of rabbinic authority, when the wrong target audience reads this type of message.

Joel Rich,

Rabbi Yisroel Greenwald(Jewish Observer, 3/07) writes that when he asked his rosh yeshiva what “the” daas Torah on an issue was, that his rosh yeshivah “cringed at the question, and explained that there is no such things as a single daas Torah”(I assume he would distinguish between a personal question, versus a public Kol Koreh, but even in the latter case, the principle can be true, in theory).

I think that if one views “daas Torah” as a process which some talmidie chachamim can engage in varying degrees, rather than as an infallible result akin to the Urim V’tumim, then it becomes easier to relate to a) a multiplicity of contradictory views, b) the situation of a talmid chacham making a mistake in judgment c) the mere fact of a talmid chacham having secular knowledge not detracting from the “daas Torah” status of his ideas, out of concern that he might be “influenced” by secular knowledge.

This takes the “religious-political” default view of a case about which Dr. Gewirtz admits he needs more facts. The more we enter any discussion with cliche-based assumptions related to people’s Jewish group affiliations, the less likely that we’ll get to the bottom of the issue.

“As Rav Haim David Halevy writes, the approaches among rabbanim vary from one extreme to the other where conversion is concerned, and the halacha has left much up to the judgement of the rav and the beit din. I understand Rav Angel’s greatest distress over conversion to be the abolishment of local authority and responsibility in these matters; not some mere quibbling over ‘standards’.”

I strongly agree with the sentiment, though I might quibble on exactly how much is left to discretion and circumstance.

In a similar vien, on another thread I raised the possibility that this disagreement is less about the law than about the judges. When a charedi judge can overturn the status of a woman and her two children 15 years after her conversion by a distinguished religious zionist Rav, without objection from gedolim, i can only wonder. Attacking R. Angel and Prof. Ish Shalom would not be where I would start.

How this case differs from other cases on prior converisons where RMF zt’l ruled or from the Langer case where R. Goren zt’l was attacked so strongly particularly by the charedi community, is something I hope gets clarified. I may well be wrong and this “unconversion” was quite defensible, but I would give more attention to clarifying cases/actions than attacking based on short, op-ed pieces or interviews.

I don’t disagree with you regarding the issue of Rav Moshe zt”l acknowledging other opinions regarding eruvin (I don’t believe this apocryphal story is true). However, just like in Flatbush where Rav Moshe was forced to clarify his personal opinion objecting to an eruv but nevertheless resisted issuing a p’sak din barur, so too regarding Boro Park. Since RMK claimed that Rav Moshe agreed to an eruv, he was forced to clarify his personal opinion, but he didn’t issue a p’sak din barur, as well. (Unless ,of course, you want to believe kol koreis.)

KVCT

My comments are not nitpicking but are the result of being a long time admirer of your mastery of eloquent language and nuance. It is a bit strange for person justly viewed as the erudite voice of charedi views claiming that he didn’t realize how his words would be perceived.

The term “recently” is not an innocent indication of the chronology of events in your sentence.

Your sentence reads:
R’Angel “recently” [something he had not done in the past) vociferously dissented from the view which was axiomatic to his mentor [in other words he would not have gone against what his mentor held while he was alive].

Thus in the context of your essay you were saying - R’ Angel was now deviating from his long held positions and was finally revealing his shocking true views or had just developed shocking new ones which deviated significantly from his own teachers.

My point is that R’ Angel’s views are not something he has recently developed nor which he has been keeping a secret all the decades he has been an articulate and erudite spokesman for Modern Orthodoxy. Your essay conveyed the opposite message. In addition most of the other points you made are typically dredged up when criticizing Modern Orthodox - despite your disclaimer at the beginning of the essay. Your theme seemed to be that R’ Angel is simply bemoaning the fact that the Modern Orthodox movement has final come to its senses and is moving towards the chareidi position and away from his outdated and incorrect one - and R’ Angel is angrily clinging to a discarded corpse.

R’JR-I understand that this wasn’t your point, my question is, theoretically, why not? If one invests daas torah with near (or complete but I don’t think I need to get into that debate to make my point)infallibility, would not one be best served by completely being mvatel daas (abnegation) to the greatest torah authority (or the greatest you have access to)? If this is true in theory, why not practically get as close as you can.

I have written in the past about the dangers of people refusing to make any decisions for themselves about how to conduct themselves in life.
Agreed, so perhaps R’ YGB could comment as iirc he went to a gadol to determine whether to come back to the US or stay in yeshiva in Israel - how do you communicate family dynamics, relationships, mesora, personalities…. that develop over decades to a gadol in a short time?
BTW this happens all the time at the RY level in American programs in Israel - is “she’ll be upset but eventually get over it” from a headstrong 18 year old enough? (full disclosure - this was not personal experience)

KVCT

By the way, my point was not that every life decision is of course a shayla for the greatest posek to whom one can gain access. I have written in the past about the dangers of people refusing to make any decisions for themselves about how to conduct their lives. At that time I quoted the daughter of Rav Chaskell Levenstein, zt’l, to the effect that in Lita people would have been embarrassed to take a gadol’s time with many of the questions asked today. (In answer to the question posed by Joel Rich on another string: No, in never occurred to me to ask a shayla about whether I should take my sons with me to shuls in which I was speaking, though in one instance, I decided on my own not to bring them.)

Nor do I think that the greatest talmid chacham is necessarily the best person with whom to consult. Knowledge of the underlying metzios, knowledge of the one asking the shayla, and time to listen are all factors that may be much more important in determining to whom a shayla should be presented. And one must distinguish between halachic shaylos and decisions over one’s life course.

I confess to being somewhat at loss as to what my friend and neighbor Daniel Eidensohn is attempting to say in his initial post. He seems quite exercised that I wrote that Rabbi Angel has “recently” written critically of the view that conversion requires Kabolos ol mitzvos. Now, it is true that I was not aware that Rabbi Angel has a scholarly work on the subject of geiros written decades ago. But that is hardly a contradiction to the fact that he also wrote recently on the subject in the Jewish Press. Nor do I see why writing “recently” is an insult.

The apocryphal story supposedly involving Rav Moshe Feinstein did not remotely suggest that Rav Moshe’s position was: I’ve spoken: no one else has a right to an opinion. Rather the point was that he did not view “semichah” as the great equalizer. In any event, I have since received a communication from Rabbi Yitzchok Frankel of Cedarhurst informing me that the incident in question involved Rabbi Finkel of the Young Israel of Bedford Bay at a meeting of the Vaad Harabbonim of Flatbush. In response to the assertion that semichah makes everybody equal, Rabbi Fink asked the proponent of that view how many perakim (not how many dapim) there are in Eruvin. (Rabbi Frankel heard this story from Rabbi Reuven Fink of the Young Israel of New Rochelle.)

At this point I confess I simply don’t understand what you are saying. My original point was that Rav Moshe Feinstein was willing to acknowledge valid views concerning the eruv.[contrary to the implication of an apochryphal cited by R'Rosenblum] It was only when there was an insult to kavod haTorah he came out emphatically against making the eruv. You keep saying that he didn’t want to give a p’sak din barur - but he did in fact do just that.

Comment by Daniel Eidensohn — September 1, 2007 @ 3:06 pm

Please refer to that same teshuvah (page 102), where Rav Moshe states that since RMK mentioned that he would allow an eruv, he must clearly express his opinion that he does not agree to an eruv (see Shaarei Halacha page 14-15 where RMK stated that Rav Moshe agreed to an eruv in Boro Park). There is no doubt that Rav Moshe personally objected to an eruv in Brooklyn, but both of his teshuvos (4:87 and 5:28) were in response to claims that he would allow an eruv in Boro Park and Flatbush. I don’t see how the teshuvah in 5:28 changes the fact that Rav Moshe clearly stated in 4:87 that he doesn’t want to give a p’sak din barur.

- if this is what he honestly believed about Rabbi Angel, and the groundrules of this blog are that we are allowed to express exactly what is on our minds, then such public musing are perhaps not inappropriate. but if so, it wuold be in appropriate for the readership not be similarly allowed - as you just done - to indulge in similar analyses about the posters’ personal motives.

It’s not pretty bad; however, I’d like to see Jonathan—and the other writers here—step in more often to reply when their statements are challenged or are not totally clear to all. Jonathan took some heat in this case and I’m more than open to what he has to say in response.

I don’t accept Dr. Kaplan’s Jekyll-and-Hyde theory.

Comment by David Roth — August 31, 2007 @ 1:10 pm

Look at O.C.V #28 page 93
“Concerning what I have previously said that one should not make an eiruv in Brooklyn even in the Flatbush part and also that it is impossible to make it in Boro Park and they are relying on HaRav HaGaon R’ Menshashe Klein shlita who has printed in Shaarei Halacha that even the big cities like New York and Brooklyn which have 600 000 and more still are not considered a reshus harabbim because of 11 reasons. THEREFORE I AM FORCED TO EXPLAIN THIS DIN TRUTHFULLY SO THAT THERE WILL NOT BE A STUMBLING BLOCK TO HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

What follows is a very long teshuva systematically refuting the 11 reasons and stating that it is prohibited to make an eiruv in these areas. There is no question that he is absolutely prohibiting making the eiruv becaue there is no legitimate basis for it.

I have read his book, and previous writing on the subject. Like any talmid hacham, he is making an argument in learning. One with a very firm basis, btw. As Rav Haim David Halevy writes, the approaches among rabbanim vary from one extreme to the other where conversion is concerned, and the halacha has left much up to the judgement of the rav and the beit din. I understand Rav Angel’s greatest distress over conversion to be the abolishment of local authority and responsibility in these matters; not some mere quibbling over ’standards’. He doesn’t want to see (if I understand correctly) the ’standards’ imposed where the halacha does not do so. One can certainly argue that is a distortion and doing violence to the Torah. One can also argue that it is precisely what disturbs him about community rabbanim - that they abrogate their authority all too often.

Once, when I argued a point with Rav Mordechai Eliyahu (what WAS I thinking?!), he stopped the argument and told me in no uncertain terms “I stand by my answer to you. You are the only one responsible for what you will do. THE BEIT DIN SHEL MAALAH WILL HOLD YOU RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS, AND YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EXCUSE YOURSELF BY SAYING YOU WERE MERELY DOING OR NOT DOING WHAT I INSTRUCTED YOU.” He was clear on that point on other occasions, as well. Too many community rabbanim and individuals are acting as if they are absolved of responsibility by asking someone bigger. As I was taught, that doesn’t change anything. Asking may, of course, be a sign of being responsible; but it may also be a mistaken move towards evasion. I think that is some of what may be troubling Rabbi Angel.

What troubles me is the disdain shown for a talmid hacham and faithful servant of Hashem and Am Yisrael who is brave enough to present his understanding of Torah for the Torah-concerned public to consider.

Were I Rabbi Angel, I might refuse to present my views in a place that has already shown such hostility to rabbanim who aren’t on the ‘approved list’. It would be a matter of k’vod haTorah.

Shanah Tovah!

I didn’t see Rabbi Angel referred to anywhere in this post as Dr., Do you have information that he prefers this title?

Three commentors seem to have understood the line “Rather it is that the younger rabbis are not referring their shaylos to Rabbi Angel” to imply that Rosenblum is claiming R. Angel is looking for personal honor. They then went on to attack it as “mean-spiritied”.

They MISSED Rabbi Rosenblum’s point.

As I’ve pointed out on several occasions, if enough people tell you you look sick, lie down. R’ JR has been misunderstood on a number of these posts and I have pointed out that some peer review/editing might help. In this case try showing the post to a number of people without the names (or titles)in it and let me know if you get a result different than what I got when I tried it (e.g. what a slam)

WADR to R Angel, no rav or RY can or should decide a Halachic issue on his own without discussing it with his peers-whether the issue is seemingly simple and straightforward or complex.

Really? IMHO there has always been a balance between what you paskin on your own and what you farm out. Technology may be part of it but it seems that there is less desire now to seek counsel but make a final decision at the local level.

I know that RAL has spken about the need for a local rav to consider himself halachically autononmous as the Moreh DAsrah, but RAL also has publically stated that there is a mitzvah of Emunas Chachamim in halachic issues.

Does that mean everyone should get all their questions answered by the gadol hador, is there only one?
it is viewed as “cultic” to rely upon their greater body of knowledege. The simple question raised by this article and R Auman is-why.

Perhaps if the reasons for a psak can’t be articulated but must be accepted?

RYBS spoke out against those who would apply a strictly “common sense” approach as opposed to Lomdus in determining Halachic expertise and employing non-halachic disciplines to determining and understanding TSBP. In a shiur on the Aseres HaDibros,

Comment by Steve Brizel

does R’ YBS’s statement ,ean that Rabbis can’t paskin on their own?

KVCT
Joel Rich

I sometimes get the impression that there are two JRs: the private and the public. The private is the author of the chinuch and Two from the Road articles; the public is the author of most of the others. Both are very intelligent and articulate, both are equally frum and have the same hashkakfah. But the private JR strikes me as being very sensitive, nuanced, and and understanding, while the public JR strikes me as very polemical, highly ideological, toeing the Hareidi line and not giving an inch, and at times even allowing himself to indulge in unworthy suspicions. I understand that JR’s public role requires a different stance than his private one. But perhaps the public JR might do well to take some lessons from the private one.