Mesorah On The Fly

When time allows, can you define/explain in more detail “Mesorah” & “hashkafic texts”? thxs, cvm

Sorry, I don’t think mesorah is that obscure of a concept.

Mesorah is the culture we received at Sinai. All those elements of Torah that can’t be captured in formal text. To use Dr Moshe Koppel’s metaphor, a foreigner learning English learns rules of grammar. A native speaker somehow manages to distinguish between grammatical and broken sentences without remembering that “would” could be used to introduce a subjunctive. And because the native speaker knows something more complete than the rules, he knows what it grammatical but oddly phrased, or know when the rules can be stretched by poetic license, and when that would violate the entire system.

Similarly, the Torah is more complex than what could be articulated in writing. Some of what a rebbe transmits a student requires shimush, the student serving the rebbe, because only then do you absorb the culture, not just the words. The explosion in number of machloqesin when the Torah was passed from Hillel and Shammai to their students was because of a lack of that shimush. On a more positive note, the reason why Yehoshua was Moshe’s true successor was because he was the one who set up and dismantlted the “beis medrash” when Moshe would teach. Yehoshua didn’t “only” learn the words of his rebbe, he learned Moshe Rabbeinu’s world.

Mesorah is inherently that aspect of Torah that is difficult to articulate.

“The Far Left effectively deep-sixes it; traditional Orthodoxy values it, even when imperfectly understood.”

Whatever “Mesorah” is, it’s not binary. It floats on a continuum along with so many other things in our world that are less monochromatic than people would like to believe. It’s unfair and inaccurate to say that the far-left “deep sixes it”. All of orthodoxy, and truthfully most Jews with any connection, “value” it. The issue is the degree to which it’s used as governor to change. While the “far left”, in the eyes of many, may place too low a “value” on it and thus allow for more rapid change, the far right have enshrined it into a religion unto itself far detached from historical reality to the point where any change is considered a violation of that value.

In reality the Mesorah is an evolutionary process, sometimes guided by “superstars”, but just as often, if not more so, catalyzed from the bottom up. So in the final analysis we can only know if something is part of the Mesorah retrospectively.

The mesoraniks freaked even at superstar changes like those invoked by the Rambam, the Chofetz Chaim, the Rav, etc. Most of those changes eventually become part of the Mesorah, not necessarily due to the “superstars” but to the gradual evolution of communal acceptance.

That said I think we are somewhat bifurcated. For example women learning Gemorah is very much part of the MO/RZ Mesorah and yet not at all part of the Chareidi Mesorah. Whereas the modern invention of mass long-term Kollel learning is not part of the MO/RZ Mesorah. Of course it’s still too soon to really know as we still need move forward a few generations to gain the proper perspective.

So to with the issue of Maharats. IMO this is hardly revolutionary. In retrospect it was easy to see that it is merely the logical conclusion of what the Chofetz Chaim set in motion by allowing Bet Yaakov and the Rav pushed along by allowing women to study Gemorah. The Chareidi world capped it off by not allowing themselves past the level of Bet Yaakov learning. As such they really have no skin in this game. (Of course they are free to voice their opinion, but to make over the top statements about “removing themselves from orthodoxy” does nothing to advance the discussion and does everything to make themselves look ridiculous.) However, I find it baffling at how resistant the mainstream MO world is behaving given that this was totally foreseeable and inevitable. This is happening, whether people like it or not, and I think people should chill out and let time decide whether or this will have been part of the Mesorah or not.

[YA – A continuum there is – but the Far Left is not on it in regard to Mesorah. They consistently meet every invocation of the concept with a demand: Show us the mekoros! – which can them be debated ad nauseum into a graveyard of conflicting arguments. Those on the continuum will disagree about its application at times, but recognize that there are decisions that need to be made by more seasoned Torah thinkers. The left in Israel might say, “RAL disagrees!;” the Far Left in the US has no one to quote other than people light-years away from eminence.

I was not aware of an organized Far Left in Israel other than a group of partnership minyanim and one or two idiosyncratic roshei yeshiva, who have not banded together to effect major changes in the community.]

I am not sure I should even attempt to make a comment, as I may be totally clueless regarding what everybody is talking about here. I will still give it a try, though, hoping that what I have to say about this, makes some sense.

I am certainly no Torah scholar, nor in the thick of things in the Orthodox Jewish world. And yet, I have noticed that while far more latitude is allowed when interpreting Torah texts as compared to deciding Jewish law, that there still are nevertheless very definite boundaries in Torah interpretation that one is simply not allowed to cross, if one hopes to be looked at as a legitimate Torah commentator. Without mentioning other religions, any Jew, for example, who would interpret just about every Torah passage to be a sign of a certain Nazarite, would not even be given the time of day by his fellow traditional Jew, and rightly so. It is not necessarily that the person could not use some kind of logic to justify such an interpretation as much as it is so far outside of our handed down traditions, that he simply cannot be taken seriously. Perhaps another example of this is the Rambam’s attitude toward Aristotle. While the Rambam had a rather shockingly high admiration for that greatest of the gentile philosophers, the Rambam nevertheless knew where to draw the line, that is, which parts of Aristotle’s ideas are simply too absurd to be compatible in any way with Torah Judaism.

Perhaps what I am trying to say, is that not everything has to be explicitly written down somewhere, for it to be universally understood among Orthodox Jews, to represent authentic Judaism. Some things are part of Judaism, and some are not. Orthodox Jews fully engaged in religious Jewish life, usually have a pretty good instinct for making such distinctions.

Once again, always a pleasure to “spar” with you about issues that matter.

Largely I agree with what you wrote: Judaism is not just text but context, cultural sensibilities and the habitus in which we operate religiously are very important, and that we should not reduce Torah commitment exclusively to technical legalism. In that sense, the way that we perceive that things have always been done matters a great deal. (Though I think you overstate the role of gedolim, but that’s for another time.)

My problem involves the work that the concept of “mesorah” is being asked to do. You admit that the mesorah changes, albeit slowly, sometimes imperceptibly, and with the kind of organic coherence that links one moment to the other (even you must admit, I assume, that at least some changes happen quickly and dramatically also, though).

But, it’s hard to figure out in advance when change is okay and when it is not. Here is where history matters. If we look at the history of Jewish practice, it is full of examples of innovations that were once rejected as against the mesorah but have become commonplace. Sermons in the vernacular, choirs in at least some Orthodox synagogues, indoor chuppah are a few of the most obvious 19th century examples. (Poskim in the 19th century argued that it was absolutely prohibited to set foot in a synagogue that offered sermons in the vernacular.) Look at the Eastern European rabbinic opposition to Torah education for girls in the decades before Sara Schneirer got up and did something (with much, much, much less support from the great rabbis than people tend to think – see Rachel Manekin on these issues). History laughs at us. We are absolutely convinced that proposition X is against the meorah, but our grandchildren will take those innovations for granted. This makes me very skeptical of the power of arguments based on mesorah. Two generations from now, they may not understand how we could possibly be arguing about such things.

There is also a sociological aspect. There is no mesorah in Jewish texts for acupuncture, yoga, pickup basketball games, women’s dance classes, life coaching, cognitive behavioral therapy, female assistant principals, and a literally endless innovations in the cultural of the contemporary frum and yeshivish community. Yoga and acupuncture could certainly plausibly be linked with Eastern religions, which could themselves be plausibly linked to avodah zarah, and yet the same frum communities that reject what you have called the “far left” for being against the mesorah are extensive consumers of all kinds of Eastern-linked alternative medicines. No doubt, the explanation for this phenomenon has to do with religious intuition. Much of the right does not intuit yoga or acupuncture as problematic, but it does intuit female clergy as problematic. The Halakhic arguments against yoga are much stronger than against female non-rabbis.

Part of the reason why these changes are perceived as being so threatening has to do with gender. “Gender stands at the center of every cultural system” (can’t find who I’m quoting). Changes in diet, exercise patterns, and even various synagogue patterns are not nearly as threatening to a cultural system as changes in gender roles. Mess with gender roles and everything about a culture shifts. That helps explain why a conservative culture like the Orthodox right is terrified of changing gender roles, but not so much about alternative medicine.

For the most part, in contemporary discourse, the concept of “mesorah” is used to veto, reject, and at least in the case of female Orthodox non-rabbis, used to de-legitimate advocates of a particular position. My problem is not with the concept of continuity, tradition, or change that happens slowly. My problem is with just how much power is being attributed to an ill-defined and inconsistently applied term like “mesorah,” as well as the way it is used in the discourse as if it is a transparent, easily understood concept that makes a slam dunk argument soon as it is evoked.

[YA – Let’s get the easiest one out of the way first. I completely disagree about the Eastern stuff. The issue there is entirely halachic, and can be subject to a yes-or-no treatment. Enough serious baalei halacha have weighed in on when offshoots of foreign ideological systems lose the halachic taint of avodah zarah. The practices you describe are mutarim, and haven’t raised any serious hashkafic eyebrows yet.

I’m sure you are correct about the importance of gender in this discussion. I also think, however, that we would be ignoring what to me (and I suspect others) is the more important way in which the Far Left has removed itself from the mainstream. Sure, they come in for greater suspicion because of the gender-thing. But in the process, we learn about how they approach halacha, and how they ignore the entire concept of mesorah. That taints everything they do.

Now for your main observation, about the predictability of mesorah as process. You may be correct about it not being able to tell us about the future. It might best be suited to tell us about the present. At the moment, all gedolei Torah reject the antics of the Far Left. According to my definition, that translates as “the proposed change is perceived/understood/intuited by us to be foreign to the way we understand Torah values.” Could things change in the future? Who knows? Some changes that are broached ultimately prove to be suited to changed conditions in a future generation; others die on the vine. The changes you point too were indeed foreign to the baalei mesorah (yes, we do disagree about the role of gedolim) at one point in history, and rejected at that time, but not rejected later. In other cases, they were rejected by most, but embraced by others. Partial acceptance makes a huge difference. As many have pointed out, mechitzah became almost a defining element of Orthodoxy, despite it not appearing as a clear halachic mandate in the gemara or Shulchan Aruch. (So today we observe that Partnership Minyanim still have mechitzos!) One of the reasons for this is that all major halachic authorities – in all camps, without exception – upheld the need for mechitzah. Had Soro Schneirer gotten no support at all for her innovation, she would have failed. With the Chofetz Chaim and the Gerer Rebbe on her side, she had more than a chance. I am reasonably sure that in the case of all the changes you pointed to, there were some major figures who embraced them.]

I agree, that the so called “far left” often makes arguments based on readings of the sources independant of any mesora. But their opponents consistently present their positions which are really rooted in what we are calling here “mesorah” in technical halakhic terms. This invites the other side argue in terms of “mekoros” and not relate to “mesorah”. Quite frankly in many cases with regard to women’s issues, the halakhic arguments put forward from the right are not overwhelmingly convincing to the extent that they would de-legitimize those who disagree. As such they actually empower “far left”. Marc Shapiro has written on this.

On the flip side, you have defined Mesorah as lying with in the purview of posek’s discretion and not really open to challenge. Granted, but we must acknowledge that mesorah comes out of a social and ideological context and that in fact there are multiple streams of mesorah. What appears “universally understood” in one community may not be so in and other. The Slifkin affair is a good example of this. The “far left” will argue that RHS Shachter represents a mesorah with is in many ways far removed from the mesorah represented by the Rav, RAL and others, and as such his claims to rule on the basis on mesorah are irrelevant to them. I think that this claim is entirely legitimate, the problem is that they lack legitimate alternative leadership.

[YA – I agree with both of your points. The case at hand, however, is a special case. There is unanimous rejection of the ordination of women. Unanimity (and near-unanimity) do not happen very often. When they do, we ought to listen up. There was nothing close to unanimity regarding the writings of R Natan Slifkin. ]

Rabbi Finkelman presents an important challenge here, calling for a more intellectually rigorous approach. Knowing him personally, I will go out on a limb by saying that he might be in agreement with the conclusion of discomfort as it relates to the Maharat innovation. However, if one wants to use the Mesorah argument, the construct needs to be more tightly defined. (And Rabbi Finkelman is asking us all to use intellectually honest and rigorous principles to flesh out what that is.) Otherwise, any contrarian perspective in the debate will be relegated to that of “Daas Torah”, which is not only without definition and precedent (as applied), but politically driven. And as we have seen in Hapeles vs. Yated 2013, the weakness of the Daas Torah theory has exposed in the Charedi world for exactly what it is.

You write: I was not aware of an organized Far Left in Israel other than a group of partnership minyanim and one or two idiosyncratic roshei yeshiva, who have not banded together to effect major changes in the community.

i see it quite the opposite. the US has a limited set of what you call far-left. israel has a rich academic wissenshaft culture, that is changing the face of orthodoxy in a dramatic way, bottom-up. being more academic, they do not affix themselves to movements. as a very astute observer noted a while back, the renaissance of jewish learning in israel is not (just) happening in the yeshivot – chareidi and hesder. the learning is of a different nature; valuable in a different way. a yeshiva student who reads a rashba wants to know everyone who has commented on the rashba; an academic focuses on what the rashba read and how/why he is commenting. one reads with an eye towards conceptualization, the other towards the historical development of ideas.
one can certainly question the academic output or gadlus of the US left; not so in Israel.

“At the moment, all gedolei Torah reject the antics of the Far Left.”

Rabbi Adlerstein, I truly hold that you are above this type of language of delegitimization. Whatever you have to say about the validity of the positions of those on the “far left”, I think you can admit that they are sincere and worthy of respectful dialog, especially from a person of your stature and sensibility who respectfully dialogs with those far more “different” than orthodoxy’s “far left”. Also, I think it only feeds into into the very atmosphere created in the media as mentioned in your wonderfully critique of Rabbi Grylak.

[YA – Dear Reb Menachem,

Flattery will get you somewhere – but not as far as you would want! Help me along with this. I don’t want to delegitimize – but I do have to have to draw lines of demarcation.

Let me explain the difference. Unlike many of my colleagues, I would not hesitate to catch a weekday shacharis or mincha in a Far Left shul. I believe that the conversation with both laypeople and clergy of the Far Left should be respectful and own up to their sincerity. (I can drop the term, if someone comes up with something better. It is not a term of my invention, but it does accurately describe their position on a continuum of Orthodoxy. And as I have said before, it is far less insulting that their use of “Open Orthodoxy.”) I would accept an invitation to speak in one of their shuls.

At the same time, respectful discourse can often come only when everyone understands that their are lines of demarcation. You are right, Menachem, I speak with groups much further distant than those of the YCT/IRF orbit. When they sometimes speak about how we really don’t disagree, we all share the same values, etc. I am quick to throw in (with the right inflection, and usually linked to some humor) that one of the things we share is “irreconcilable differences.” Without that disclaimer, I could not function, for fear that I would be perverting the message of Yiddishkeit.

Differences with the Far Left are perhaps not irreconcilable. But they are huge. And they can – and should – make a big difference in the kind of Torah, the kind of inspiration, the kind of guidance that people will receive from those who find themselves in that orbit. Undoubtedly, some people fully belong there, and won’t relate well to people further to the right. But the flip side is also true. Those who seek a kind of Yiddishkeit that is built on an entire constellation of values, that relates to psak halacha in a certain way, that treats traditional texts in a certain way – those people must know that the Far Left has sociologically/culturally become a different group. As an educator, I do need to stress that difference. As hopefully a mensch, I do need to not exaggerate it, or demonize people in the process.

It is a challenge. Thank you Menachem for holding my feet to the fire.]

Dr. Finkelman,
I would suggest the following explanation to address the “speech in the vernacular” challenge to mesorah: in this wonderful world-in-flux we live in, the rules of the game often change in unpredictable ways, sometimes in subtle shifts and sometimes in tectonic ones. The leading thinkers in any given generation cannot be expected to predict how new trends, which may or may not portend major change, are going to play out over time. When “speeches in the vernacular” first became an issue, it represented a clear and present threat to the distinctiveness of Jewish identity. Torah ideals and values – through the eyes of the mesorah – simply could not absorb this practice without being severely compromised. Thus, such speeches were rejected. Eventually, the underlying trends evolved from the order of a potential challenge to Torah society to the challenge of a whole new order of society. Torah WAS compromised and something precious was lost (Many would argue much was gained as well, but that’s a question for hindsight).
Mesorah is that part of the halachic system that evaluates varying social and historical circumstances and applies that generation’s broadest and deepest vision to protecting its most essential values and preserving the purity of its character to the best of its ability. Sure, circumstances may eventually change and that will affect the application of mesorah. But no less often a trend will rise up with sound and fury only to drift away, washing the weak element that could not resist it out of the Torah community. There is no shortcut to figuring this out and there are no rules to “know in advance.” It is simply a social commitment in each generation to empower its greatest visionaries (in the sense of “ain ohr ela Torah” – vision of reality is a function of Torah insight) to lead the way when such judgments are necessary. They may seem to be on the wrong side of history as things play out, and those they railed against may even prove to have been ushering in the future. When that happens, though, something of inestimable value is always lost and the new world is a shell of what was. Different visionaries adjust to these changes at different paces and with different views but there is no connection to the light of Torah without them.

>”Young” is not synonymous with tinok shelo calu lo chadashav

I agree. But scholars like R’ Sperber is neither young nor a tinok shelo calu lo chadashav. My main point is that chassidut was subversive to tradition and that its early leaders were simply did not meat the criteria contemporary chareidi sociology demands of people who try to change tradition. And their were batel beShishim when compared to the religious establishment which rejected them.

In fact, looking at historical literature, much of the same invective that is today hurled at scholars like R’ Sperber was hurled at the early chassidic leaders. The trope that the Besh”t did not even know mishna property was particularly common. (and this is important because the early chassidic leaders who WERE accomplished talmudists often attributed their reforms to the authority of the Besh”t). The question here is whether mesorah is a valid category to use in fighting against changes in tradition – and IMO, the history of the chassidic movement makes any such argument extremely tenuous.

[YA – I’m not convinced. Mesorah was important – and that is one of the reasons that Chassidus met with such fierce opposition. Chassidus would have remained outside the pale had it not been ultimately accepted by Torah heavyweights in the next generation. And it is quite likely that the next generations would not ever have accepted Chassidus, had it not been tempered by the pushback from the misnagdim! (For a reminder of some of what the heady days of the beginnings of Chassidus were like, reread R. Eliyahu Shochet’s book on the Gra and his rejection of Chassidus.) Mesorah functioned then to make sure that the incorporation of a new movement would not be overly disruptive, and would stay within boundaries necessary for the perpetuation of Torah.

Could the same happen in regard to some issues that are on the YCT/IRF agenda? Sure. Right now, what is called for is pushback. In the dialectic, something may well emerge in time that no one is now thinking of, but will suit the Torah community of a future day.]

Rabbi Adlerstein, thank you so much for that thoughtful response to my comment. However, do you remember Gilda Radner’s Emily Litela Weekend Update routine from SNL? I wasn’t referring to your use of the term “Far Left”, as I think that’s appropriately descriptive and fine. (Totally my fault for putting “far left” in quotes!) My issue was with the word “antics”. I believe that word takes something that is important, sincere and thought out and totally trivializes it.

Never mind. 🙂

“For starters, because anyone who has learned for a good number of years in yeshiva can tell from a mile away who is NOT a superstar. That narrows the field considerably.”

Rabbi Adlerstein, this small comment makes a lot of things clear. It definitely explains why, over the years, I’ve found myself not able to agree with you on some important issues (on many others I do agree with you). This little tidbit is not just untrue, but the most dangerous source of conflict in the Orthodox world today.

My impression of today’s yeshivah world (which I have been a part of for decades in both the USA and Israel) is the exact opposite: That whether one is widely considered a “gadol” or a “posek” often has little or nothing to do with reality. People who have spend years in yeshivah quite often apply these titles with zeal to people who really do not deserve them, if only because of their charisma, or their fervent talmidim (whose efforts to market their rebbe create a movement that it becomes easy to join in with), or because these people have succeeded in getting support (deserved or not) from others who are considered “gedolim” or “posekim” (who are not always honest or fair in whom they grant support and recognition to). In each of these cases, the “great” person’s hashkofos nearly always conform to what the his followers currently think must be the “correct” Torah approach.

The opposite is equally true: There are plenty of good men or Torah whose learning, skills, experience, and balanced sense of judgement are consulted by those who personally know and respect them, but whose talmidim don’t have a fervent inner need to turn them into the next thing closest to God Himself (yes, I do think there is an element of avodah zarah in this too). Many of them are easily the equals or better of people who are called “gedolim” in North America today. But when these people express their opinions or their psak publicly, they are roundly condemned for their chutzpah in expressing opinions in matters that must be relegated to “gedolim”. Or they have people like Rabbi Adlerstein mocking them and those who look up to them as second rate.

I’ll give you an example from several years ago, which made me lose a lot of respect for your column. In the Israeli giyyur controversy a few years ago, you took a lot of trouble to make it clear that Rav Chaim Druckman is neither a “gadol” nor a “posek”. You even mentioned that you consulted people you trust, who told you that in the RZ world he is not considered as such. Now, despite your anonymous sources, this is simply not a reflection of reality: There is hardly anyone in Religious Zionism today who is more widely and universally respected as a talmid hakham and a posek throughout all the various streams within RZ as Rav Druckman. Even in the case at point, giyyur, his approach is nearly universally accepted today. This was already clear at the time, but it clashed with your underlying assumption: How could someone who is considered second rate by everyone that YOU consider superstars, and by all the people whom according to you get to rate the superstars, and whom they all agree is doing something perhaps well-meaning but ultimately wrong — how could he possibly be a superstar himself and entitled to act on his own judgement?

But he is. Because the community you rely on to judge who is a superstar isn’t really qualified to do any such thing.

Thank God, Rav Druckman won that conflict.

I’ve never met Rav Druckman personally in my life. But I do live in a typical Zionist Torah community which, while not worshiping him and not always agreeing with him, nevertheless sees him as someone whose rabbinic opinion is of the highest importance (alongside those of other great Torah scholars).

The same thing is likely true of Rabbi Daniel Sperber (whom I did meet once by chance but don’t really know him). Can you honestly say with assurance that today’s American “gedolim” are even his equal? Can you honestly put the decision about whether he is a “superstar” to the yeshivah populace? Are they even qualified to make such a decision?

Even though Rabbi Sperber’s name comes up so often in North American discussions, he is far from the only relevant personality. And no, it is not just a couple of “idiosyncratic” Israeli Zionist rashei yeshivah. Religious Zionism is, today, a playing-field with so many Torah outlooks and perspectives competing with each other to the extent that it makes America’s intra-Orthodox debate look like a dry, lifeless immitation. Do you consider YCT to be radical and “far-left”? Well it is just a small experiment compared to what is going on in Israel right now, with people who are first rate talmidei hakhamaim (whether the yeshivah crowd agrees or not) on all sides.

Instead of trying to decide who is a “superstar” and who isn’t, and who has “gedolim” on their side and who doesn’t, it would be a lot better to deal with the issues themselves. “Mesorah” isn’t the issue, because no one side has a monopoly on it in the Orthodox world today.

[YA – There is much merit in what you say, but I don’t think that it touches my argument. Agreed. The word “gadol” is misused as often as it is properly applied. I have been avoiding it, choosing the ancient Ugaritic term “superstar.” I do think we (meaning people who spent years in yeshiva, whether they be Lakewood, Mir, Shaalvim, KBY or Mercaz HaRav) can spot the superstars by looking at the depth of what they write. You are certainly correct that we have, BH, many fine first-rate talmidei chachamim in different camps. But they may not be superstars. I do not remember what I wrote about Rav Druckman. But I am pretty sure that he is not a posek, according to the defintion I have used several times on CC, and that I was instructed in by a wonderful chassidishe figure in LA, who was a mainstay of halacha here – but not a posek. I use the term posek in contradistinction to a moreh horaah. The latter is the one to whom we turn 99% of the time. He knows the literature well enough to answer the questions that have come up before. The former, the posek, can address a problem that has not come up before, and write intelligently and persausively by meticulously taking apart a sugya. Rav Moshe did that; the Minchas Yitzchok did that; Rav Elyashiv did that; lehavdil bein chaim lechaim, the Shevet HaLevi does that today. I don’t believe that Rav Druckman does that – although he is in fact a revered and beloved moreh horaah.

Must a person be a posek to be one of the critical baalei mesorah to rule on new innovations? Not sure. Likely not. But if not, he needs to have some other quality that elevates him to superstar status. My point again is that in the case at hand – rabbahs/maharats/rabbis, there is wall to wall agreement by all who are regarded as superstars, whether on the right or left – that YCT is acting outside the mesorah, and dangerously so.

Anyone want to ask Rav Druckman what he feels about it?]

I would generally compare it to the translation of the Torah into the Septuagint, which is one of the primary reasons we continue to fast every year on the 10th of Teves. When Torah is overly exposed, it loses some of its ability to create a special bond between G-d and His people – truly something to mourn over.