Rav Schachter's missive, and the response

Rav Herschel Schachter recently weighed in on the girls-wearing-tefillin question. He makes a number of persuasive points (though he certainly needs no endorsement from me). For instance, one point of many -- and this is me channeling, rather than summarizing what he wrote -- people think themselves experts because they can search Bar Ilan and get instant access to all the relevant sources. However, they are not really experts. People who live and breath the sources develop a feel for the way halacha works. And they might better assess a halachic question to understand the far reaching implications, and aspects of the question that the pseudo-experts who know how to Bar-Ilan-search would not even consider. For example, people posted about Guf Naki, about Aino Metzuveh veOseh, about Michal bas Shaul. These sources just pop up when researching the topic. But did they even consider, let alone deal with, the issue that it is a sectarian practice (of Conservative Jewry), such that its adoption might be forbidden as a yehareg va'al yaavor? No, because they don't know enough to know what far-flung halachic aspect might come and transform the whole shayla. Rabbi Zev Farber (who has a unique definition of belief in Torah miSinai) wrote an erudite article about tefillin and clean bodies (and see part two). His daughter, Eden Farber, wears tefillin, and writes how she was introduced to wearing tefillin by "[a] Conservative rabbinical student and a girl [her] age who identified as traditional-egalitarian."

Rabbi Josh Yuter posted Rav Schachter's letter on his website and after a brief critique of it on Facebook, elaborated in a lengthy blogpost.

I have neither the time nor erudition to properly respond. But I guess I am motivated to respond because I consider myself a talmid of Rav Schachter (though I don't know if he would consider me so); and because I feel he has, many times, been unfairly judged.

So, a few points in response.

1) While Rabbi Yuter posted Rav Schachter's letter in Hebrew, he did not translate it. It is a strong letter when read in full, in context. But I think that many of his readers will not read it, or understand it, in Hebrew. And they won't see how the points flow together. They will see the points Rabbi Yuter summarized or excerpted, but I am not so sure that that is a fair representation of Rav Schachter's position.

This may be my own hangup. In most of my posts, I present sources (on parsha), translate them to make them more accessible, and then respond to them, agreeing or disagreeing. But the first thing to do is to present it and translate.

2) This is a long-standing objection that Rabbi Yuter has to Rav Schachter and his positions, not confined to this one area. And in those cases as well, I feel that Rav Shachter has over been misconstrued and taken out of context.

3) So let us see excerpts from Rabbi Yuter's post. (But read it in full -- it is accessible in English):

My previous post publicized a recent letter (PDF) authored by Rabbi Hershel Schachter of Yeshiva University. At the time of posting I did not have time for a thorough analysis, but several people took offense at my initial glib reactions on social media, calling it various forms of “disrespectful” or “not nice.” While I found these responses to be somewhat ironic given that R. Schachter himself used his letter to delegitimize those with whom he disagrees by comparing them to Korach and stating that they violate yehareg ve’al ya’avor, the rebuke is nevertheless well taken. 

Rav Schachter compared them to Korach in terms of the egalitarian motivation, as well as in the belief that anyone is equally qualified to render pesak. Stating yehareg ve'al yaavor was a halachic concern, even in cases where the act is one of chumra.

ודבר פשוט הוא שכמו שהקפידו חכמי המסורה שלא להרשות לנהוג אפילו כחומרת הצדוקים, והקפידו בדוקא לטמא את הכהן השורף את הפרה ולהטבילו, כדי שתעשה הפרה בדוקא ע“י טבולי יום, כן בנד“ד ממש, דפסקי הלכה אינם נאמרים “מתוך חלל ריק“, אלא מתוך ההקשר (קאנטעקס“ט)של אותו הדור, ובדורנו אנו, כל התנאים וכל הראשונים וכלהאחרונים יסכימו שהנהגה זו אסורה היא בהחלט, אע“פ שהיא לחומרא יתירה, שלא לחקות את המינים, עי‘ משנה סוף פ“ב דחולין (דף מא.).

ונראה דד“ז הוא בבחינת ערקתא דמסאנא, דרבנו ז“ל אמר שערקתא דמסאנא גדרו- כל הנהגה שהיא שהפכה להיות סמל להריסת הדת, אפילו אם “ע“פ הלכה” היא מותרת, זה גופא (שנהפך לסמל להריסת הדת), גורם לכך שיהי אסור. וכך התבטא רבנו בשעתו (בקשר לפרשת “מי הוא יהודי” שפתח בן-גוריון), דאין הבדל בדבר בין אם האנס הוא נכרי כאנטיוכס הרשע או יהודי כבן-גוריון, עדיין דין אותה הנהגה כערקתא דמסאנא ויהרג ואל יעבור. (וביטוי זה לענין אנס יהודי, מקורו בשו“ת אבנ“ז או“ח סי‘ תקל“ז, ועי‘ ס‘ נפש הרב עמ‘ רל“ג.)

 וכזה ידוע בשם רבנו, שכשהתחילו הקונסרבטיבים להכניס טקס בת מצוה לבנות באמצע התפילה- דוגמת הבר מצוה לבנים, הצהיר בזה רבנו שהרבנים האורטודוקסים אסורים בהחלט לעשות כמותם, שזה בבחינת ערקתא דמסאנא, ודינו שיהרג ואל יעבור.

You want to take offense at it and say it is "delegitimizing"? No, it is a real part of the halachic discussion, whether or not you ultimately agree with it. And it is a real point that those discussing it did not seem even aware of its existence or relevance.

How about this?

Thanks to the resources mentioned, today’s Jewish community has unprecedented access to traditional sources. R. Schachter somehow distinguishes between “researching” a difficult topic and being intuitively knowledgeable of all the relevant factors. Indeed, R. Schachter argues that even though one reads the sources one does not truly know them. Thus people who assume that they too can read Jewish texts and make up their own minds are following in the tradition of Korach. R. Harcsztark committed the cardinal sin of not acknowledging and submitting to his superiors since “he did not seek guidance from the great halakhic decisors of today.”

Yes, I would agree, even though "somehow" was thrown in to question it.

There is a difference in kind between one who recently arrived at a shallow knowledge of a sugya and one who has grappled with it, in depth, and also grappled with thousands of other sugyos in similar fashion. Shmuel said: "The paths of heaven are as clear to me as the pathways of Nehardea." For someone for whom the currents of the Sea of Talmud are clear to him -- the types of analyses that he can come up with are different in kind than one who superficially conducts research.

But this is impossible to explain, especially people who are proponents of the "research" approach. They don't understand what it is that they could be missing.

And there are certainly tiers of Talmidei Chachamim. This is not "Daas Torah" but simple obvious fact.

I don't know what Rabbi Harcsztark did or did not do. (As I've written in the past, I've heard it was a complicated situation, so I don't want to judge.) But I think it is a valid point that (a) this is not a trivial matter that should be treated by research in the same way as whether to say Tachanun on a certain day; (b) whether or not he ultimately listened to such advice, it is good to at the very least seek guidance from those who may well know better.

When R. Schachter quotes R. Moshe Isserles O.C. 38:3 who rules that we prevent women from putting on Tefillin, he does so assuming that the Ramo is the final definitive word on all practice... Furthermore, someone who has access to a Bar Ilan CD (and know for what to look) can easily find examples where the current Ashenazi practice does not follow the Ramo, such as wearing tefillin on Hol Hamoed (O.C. 31:2).

Really? Is Rav Schachter an am ha'aretz, that he believes that the Rama is the final definitive word on all Ashkenazi practice? Rav Schachter is a posek, knows halacha, and certainly knows places where we don't pasken like the Rama!

Here is what Rav Schachter wrote, which Rabbi Yuter incorrectly summarizes and attacks:

ותמיה אני, מעיקרא מאי קסברי המתירים בזה, הלא כבר הביא הרמ“א (לאו“ח סי‘ ל“ח ס“ג)מהראשונים, ואין חולק עליו מכל מפרשי השו“ע שם, שבזמננו יש לכולנו בעיא של גוף נקי, אשר על כן החלטנו למעט בהנחת התפילין אף לגבר ים עד המינימום(כלומר רק בשעת תפילת שחרית), כאשר ביאר בזה רבנו ז“ל בשיעוריו בטוב טעם ודעת, (עי‘ מש“כ בס‘ מפניני הרב, ערך תפילין, אות א), וכאשר כן פסק רבנו ז“ל למעשה בשעתו בנדון בעלת תשובה שהיתה תלמידה בבי“ס התיכונית על שם “פריש“, שרצתה בדוקא להניח תפילין, והורה רבנו עפ“י דברי הרמ“א האלו למחות בידה. ואין נראה לומר שבמשך ארבעים השנה האחרונות שהשתפר המצב ביחס לטוהר המחשבה הנצרך להנחת תפילין, וכידוע לכל, ככה היתה ההנהגה המקובלת מדורי דורות, ומי הוא זה שיהיו ויתחצף להורות נגד פסק המקובל של רבינו הרמ“א. 

"And I am astonished, foremost what those permitting are thinking. Did not the Rama already bring down from the Rishonim, and there is no one who argues upon him from all the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch there, that there is in our days a problem of guf naki... So was the accepted practice from many generations, and who is the one who will presumptuously rule against the accepted pesak of Rabbenu the Rama."

Rav Schachter clearly says that it is possible for the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch to argue with the Rama. And practice might then follow those commentators. Just in this case they haven't.

There a huge difference between "The Ramo is [always] the final definitive rule on all practice" and that in this case, no commentator disagreed, such that this was the accepted pesak of the Rama.

I am out of time, and so I'll end here.