Daas TorahThe role of a talmid chacham in society Should we go to a talmid chachom to ask guidance issues not strictly connected to Torah? YES Tiferes Yisrael, on Pirkei Avos, Chapter 6, Mishnah 1 ) מסכת אבות פרק ו משנה א,שראוי להתחבר עמו לשמוע עצתו בכל דבר (תפארת ישראל The same is said by the Meiri ibid. NO Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Chapter 22: Remember the days of old, consider the years of every generation. Has such a thing ever happened in days past? Where indeed have you found such a custom in any of the books of the early or latter Sages of Israel, that it should be the custom and established norm to ask for advice in mundane matters, as to what one ought to do in matters of the physical world? [Such questions were not asked] even of the greatest of the former sages of Israel, such as the tannaim and amoraim, the authors of the Mishnah and the Gemara, “from whom no secret was hidden,” and8 “for whom all the paths of heaven were clearly illuminated,” but only of actual prophets who used to live among the Jewish people, such as Samuel the Seer to whom Saul went to inquire of G-d through him about the donkeys that his father had lost. Why, indeed, were sages of stature such as the tannaim and amoraim not asked about mundane matters? For in fact all matters pertaining to man, except for words of Torah and the fear of heaven, are apprehended only by prophecy. [As the verse states,] “there is no bread unto the wise,” and as our Sages, of blessed memory, said, “Everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven.” Likewise, “Seven things are hidden...: no man knows how he will earn his living, nor when the Kingdom of David will be restored...,” i.e., when Mashiach will come. Note that these [two questions] are likened to one another. Just as no one knows exactly when Mashiach will come, so, too, no one knows by what means he in fact will obtain his sustenance. As for the phrase in Isaiah, “A counselor and a man whose wisdom silences all,” suggesting that Torah wisdom qualifies one to advise in other fields as well, —and also, as for the statement of our Sages, of blessed memory, regarding one who studies Torah lishmah, “for its own sake,” that “people derive from him the benefit of etzah (counsel) and tushiyah (wisdom),” — these teachings refer specifically to [counsel in] matters of the Torah, which is called14 tushiyah (assistance). זכרו ימות עולם בינו שנות דור ודור ההיתה כזאת מימות עולם ואיה איפוא מצאתם מנהג זה באחד מכל ספרי חכמי ישראל הראשונים והאחרונים להיות מנהג ותיקון לשאול בעצה גשמיות כדת מה לעשות בעניני העולם הגשמי אף לגדולי חכמי ישראל הראשונים כתנאים ואמוראים אשר כל רז לא אנס להו ונהירין להון שבילין דרקיע כ"א לנביאים ממש אשר היו לפנים בישראל כשמואל הרואה אשר הלך אליו שאול לדרוש ה' על דבר האתונות שנאבדו לאביו כי באמת כל עניני אדם לבד מדברי תורה וי"ש אינם מושגים רק בנבואה ולא לחכמים לחם כמארז"ל הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים ושבעה דברים מכוסים כו' אין אדם יודע במה משתכר כו' ומלכות בית דוד מתי תחזור כו' הנה הושוו זה לזה ומ"ש בישעיה יועץ וחכם חרשים וכן משארז"ל ונהנין ממנו עצה ותושיה היינו בד"ת הנקרא תושיה So do Torah scholars possess some kind of special insight into mundane matters? Gemara, Bava Basra 12a חכם עדיף מנביא Ritva, Bava Basra, 12a בשיעור כרם ושדה לדין חלוקה הכל לפי המקום שיראה בית, ולענין פסק. פירוש לשבח קאמר לה כדמייתי לה שניתנה נבואה לחכמים.אלא דברי נביאות וחכם עדיף. פי' שיש שישיגו בשכלם דברים הרבה שאין כח בשכל הטבעי להשיגם. וניתנה לחכמים. כדמוכח שמעתין,דין שיש בו דבר ראוי לכל אחד ואחד וכמו שביאר הרמב"ם ז"ל בספרו כי, פי' מאותו נביא שיש לו כח לראות עתידות ואין לו דרכי הנבואה שהם מצד החכמה שרוח שכינה שורה עליו.מנביא הנבואה אינה שורה אלא על חכם What this implies is that a person who is immersed in Torah has an almost intuitive grasp on what Hashem wants-- Rabbi Alfred Cohen It is comparable to an individual experiencing certain symptoms, turning to a medical expert for advice. After the doctor has taken many tests and ruled out the usual illnesses, he may still turn to the patient and admit, "I can't tell you for sure what you have, because the tests came out negative. However, based on my years of study in medical school, my experience with patients, and years of practice, I have an intuitive feeling that your problem is–." Certainly, his advice would be well worth following. Could his reading of the situation be faulty? Possibly. But it is far more likely that he understands the situation better than the patient himself does. 1 To make this chabura I used Daat Torah, Rabbi Alfred Cohen and Daas Torah, Classic Jewish Theology, Daniel Eidensohn, as well as the Bar Ilan Responsa Project Daas Torah- Metahalachic considerations The concept of Daas Torah has to exist at least at some level, as “the Jewish community has been guided for millenia by its Torah leaders. That leadership entails far more than simply deciding whether a chicken is kosher or not, or whether something is assur or muttar.” (Rabbi Alfred Cohen). Leading rabbis have made and continue to make key decisions that shape Jewish society: Example 1: Hildesheimer Rabbinical Seminary of Berlin Rabbi Yisrael Salentar strongly opposed any suggestion to create a rabbinical seminary in Russia, like the one in Germany. Even though he greatly recognised neo-Orthodoxy in Germany and admired them he rejected its model for Russian Jewry. He said in a letter to Rabbi Reines that when he visited the seminary in Berlin he saw a rabbi teaching girls the Shulchan Oruch, and that “this rabbi is doing a thing beyond value. Nevertheless, let a rabbi in our country attempt to create a school of this type, they would insult him and chase him away; and there is no doubt that he would be forced to cease practising the rabbinate, for he would no longer be suited for it”. Rabbi Salanter even said in a letter written in 1880 that “the rabbinical seminary of the honarable Torah personality is a great thing, beyond all praise, for strengthening fear of God… but in Russia… they are masny who devote themselves to Torah exclusively, and are prepared to become Gedolim” therefore such a proposal is out of the question. (Rabbi Israel Salanter and the Musser Movement seeking the Torah of Truth, Immanuel Etkes, pages 283-285) When Rabbi Hildershiemer asked Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski about moving the seminary from Berlin to Tel Aviv, the Achiezer advised him not to: "I told him and requested that he report to others my Daat Torah that this should not be done under any circumstances." “R. Chaim Ozer explained that when the senior R. Hildesheimer had started his Seminary in Berlin, it was done to combat the Reform movement, "but how can you even think to establish a 'Rabbinic factory' such as this in the Holy Land, wherein there are great yeshivot and great rabbis, great in Torah and yirat shamayim? " He was objecting to the purported purpose of turning out "new style rabbis, to whom Derech Eretz [worldly knowledge] is the main thing, while Torah is secondary!"” (Rabbi Alfred Cohen). Example 2: the Chariedi educational system in Israel (in essence almost identical to the issues presented in Example 1) Brought by Rabbi Daniel Eidenstein Rav Dessler (Michtav M’Eliyahu 3:356-357): [translation copyrighted] The Frankfurt school system taught secular subjects and viewed going to university as an accepted part of education. The price that they paid for this approach was the reduction in the number of great Torah scholars that came from their students. And even those who went on to learn in the Lithuanian and Polish yeshivas after learning secular subjects in Germany – only an extremely small number...went on to become great Torah scholars. On the other hand the advantage of this system was that only a very small number of the students ended up leaving religious observance. In spite of this minimal loss, there was a definite problem about the purity of religious faith in the Torah. Whenever there was a conflict between Torah and the sciences, they would make strange compromises. As if it was possible to have contradictory beliefs in one heart. Nevertheless almost all of them remained faithful to observing the mitzvos with dedication and self-sacrifice. And many were extremely careful to observe even the finer details of the mitzvos. In contrast the Lithuanian yeshivos focused on a single goal – to create great Torah scholars who were also G-d fearing people. To accomplish this they prohibited going to university. They realized that there was no other way to produce great Torah scholars except by concentrating all their students’ energies and desires exclusively to learning Torah. Don’t think that they didn’t realize from the beginning that this approach would ruin some who would not be able to deal with this extreme lifestyle and would consequently leave religious observance. But this is the price that they paid for the sake of producing in their schools great Torah scholars who were G-d fearing. Obviously they tried their best to deal with those who could not remain full time yeshiva students – but not in a way which would encourage others to follow in their path of leaving yeshiva. For example, those who had to leave the yeshiva were advised to become storekeepers or other low-status jobs which were not professions. These were jobs which didn’t require training or studying and would not be attractive or interesting to the students. However those who had a strong desire to learn a profession and surely those were interested in become academics were completely abandoned and not dealt with at all. This rejection was done so that the actions of these students wouldn’t harm others by giving them any legitimacy by trying to help them in any way. I heard that they found support for such an approach by the statement found in Vayikra Rabba (2:10), One thousand students enter to study Bible and only one comes out as a posek and G-d says “that is the one I desire.” They also mentioned the words of the Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim, “It is better that 1000 fools die in order to obtain one Torah scholar.” 2 Rav Dessler (in consultation with the Chazon Ish) was noting that after the Holocaust it was critical to rebuild Torah leadership as well as appreciation for Torah scholarship. He was asserting that this was best done by a system which was elitist and was focused on greatness in Torah. The fact that such a system would inevitably result in losses was acknowledged but it was felt that there was no alternative to try to recover from the devastation of the war. It was now a time to fight for Torah and as in every war there are losses. We are not talking about a lack of concern for the masses. His point of view was simply that the entire world requires and benefits from having gedolim. The fact that there were many who would not develop to their potential as Torah scholars because of the focus on producing gedoim would be compensated by the production of gedolim. Rabbi Greenwald pointed out that this approach has succeeded but now we are no longer facing the same crises. The issue now is whether the system would not be better served by altering the single focus to one that allows a multiple tier educational system. Are the losses justifiable anymore? It is not that Rav Dessler was wrong but that the circumstances are no probably longer best served by the approach he advocated then. Rabbi Greenwald stated that the gedolim have in fact been reorienting their goals as a result of the changed circumstances. Example 3: Beis Ya’akov, Sara Schneier, with the support of the Gerrer Rebbe and the Chafetz Chaim… These two example show issues that extent beyond strict Halacha and yet we see great rabbis providing insight and passing rulings gained through their ‘Daas Torah’ Over similar issues, that are not black-and-white Halacha include: bochrim and the army… Israel… A Torah leader will, and is required, to use his Daas Torah: Emes l’Ya’akov, Parshas Veyechi, page 237 A practical example of zealousness not based on a strict reading of the Law...[arises] from the following question: What should a person do, if he has the choice to marry a Jewish girl who will not follow the laws of family purity or to marry a non-Jewish woman? Which is preferable? A scholar who has not served an "apprenticeship" with a major posek sufficiently, would certainly say that inasmuch as relations with a Niddah [a woman who has not immersed in a mikvah, in accordance with the laws of family purity] is [punishable] by Divine excision from the Jewish people [karet],[therefore it would be better to marry the non-Jew]. Nevertheless, the Rambam ruled differently... [Translation: Rabbi Alfred Cohen] Therefore, from the above we do see that Torah leaders are required to use their insight, and issue rulings that extent beyond the confines of strict Halacha. 3 Mistakes The following parable is said, by Rav Hutner: Assume there are two people poised to jump from the roof of a building; horrified onlookers beg them not to One agrees, and proceeds to take the stairs in order to reach the street, but trips and breaks his neck. The other man decides to jump, but happens to land on a mattress on the back of a truck! Although the outcome for him was miraculously good (and even more so in the face of what happened to the other would-be jumper), yet it would be ridiculous to blame the onlookers for giving bad advice. The advice was wise, and the one who listened to them indeed chose the right path. The guidance of our Torah leaders, Rav Hutner concluded, is just that – Torah inspired wisdom, but it is not prophecy, and it is not fail safe. Our rabbis are wise men, not prophets. (Rabbi Alfred Cohen) (This can be linked to issues involving the Holocaust…) Rabbi Avi Shafran of Agudath Israel What Da’at Torah means, simply put, is that those most imbued with Torah-knowledge and who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes are thereby rendered particularly, indeed extraordinarily, qualified to offer an authentic Jewish perspective on matters of import to Jews – just as expert doctors are those most qualified (though still fallible, to be sure) to offer medical advice. Can we go against Gedolim? Igros Moshe (Yore Deah, 3:88) בדבר שיש לך איזה חשש לקבוע מקומך. אפילו במקומם בע"ה י"א ניסן תשל"ז לגדול אחד,אם מותר לחלוק על דברי רבותינו ברבים לא מובן שום חשש בזה ואדרבה זהו כבודו,בבני ברק מצד שבתוך דברי תורה איכא פעמים שאתה אומר שלא כדברי החזון איש זצ"ל ולא עלה כלל על דעת החזון איש זצ"ל,אשר מזכירים שיטתו בד"ת ומעיינים בדבריו אף שהמסקנא דחכם המעיין הוא שלא כדבריו ,שלא ימצאו ת"ח שיפלגו עליו ולא שייך שיקפיד ע"ז דאדרבה האמת והשלום אהבו כדאיתא ביבמות י"ד ע"ב על פלוגתא דב"ש וב"ה ) ור' יהושע (חגיגה כ"ח ע"ב, אבל ודאי צריך להזכיר בדרך ארץ,וענין שפתותיו דובבות הוא אף כשמזכירין דברי החכם וחולקין עליו שהושחרו שיניו מפני תעניותיו לא היה משום שהקשה על דברי ב"ש אלא מפני שאמר בבטול בושני מדבריכם ב"ש אבל בלשון דרך ואדרבה מפורש בב"ב סוף דף ק"ל,ארץ ודאי שליכא שום קפידא לא על מה שמקשין על דברי החכם ואף לא על מי שחולקין עליו שאמר רבא לתלמידיו ר"פ ור"ה בדר"י דאם יהיו להם קושיות על פסקא שלו אסור להו לדון כדבריו דאין לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות ורק אמר שלא יקרעו פסקא שלו לבטל דבריו דאי הואי בחיים דלמא אמינא לכו טעמא ופי' רשב"ם ושמא גם אתם,וה"ה באיסורים וא"כ כ"ש וכ"ש שאין לחוש, אבל כל זמן שלא מוצאין תירוץ אסור להם להורות כרבא אף שהיה רבם,תמצאו תירוץ לקושיתכם שלכן ליכא שום חשש ושום קפידא להשאר בבני ברק,מלהקשות ומלחלוק על גדולי דורותינו אף הגדולים ביותר אבל באופן דרך ארץ משה פיינשטיין, והנני מוקירך.ולומר שיעורים ואדרבה יהיה מליץ יושר בעדך על שאתה מעיין בספריו Rav Moshe Feinstein was once asked about the propriety of a talmid chacham's opening a yeshiva in Bnei Brak, home of the Chazon Ish, when the rabbi knew that at times he would take positions disagreeing with the opinions of that legendary sage. With his characteristic sweetness of character, Rav Moshe assured him that there would not be any problem with this, inasmuch as he cannot imagine that the Chazon Ish assumed no one would ever disagree with him! Moreover, as a lover of the truth, the Chazon Ish would certainly have rejoiced if a talmid chacham revealed depths of Torah which he himself had not seen. [Story, Rabbi Alfred Rabbi Cohen]Alfred Cohen In a personal comment, however, I find it distressing that some of our leaders often do not appear to have much faith in the Jewish people. 58 Some of the pronouncements or actions taken in the name of Daat Torah bespeak a suspicion that the Jewish community in America today, even the yeshiva-trained, observance-committed multitudes, have to be kept within very narrow parameters, or else they will lose their commitment. Issues are portrayed in black and white, with no shadings. History is revised, books are censored, historic figures are idealized to the point of caricature, blanket prohibitions are issued – all seemingly out of fear that "if we give an inch, they will take a mile." It is painful to see that great scholars, even Roshei Yeshiva, whose opinions may be a little different, are not included in plenary councils of Torah leaders. (Rav Kook and Rav J.B. Soloveitchik come to mind, as well as other more recent Torah figures). There seems to be an urgency to portray Jewish thinking as monolithic and beyond challenge. 4