The Spirit(s) of Halacha

There are parallel legitimate halachic Judaisms which dwell in parallel universes. The contours of mainstream Sefardic halachic practice is different from mainstream Ashkenazic halachic practice. And the contours of each differ from e.g. the halachic practice of the Rambam.

This is fine. After all, תני יצאת בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים אבל הלכה כדברי בית הלל (Berachot 9a). Each is the end-product of a legitimate halachic paradigm. Each such halachic Judaism is formed by its laws, decisors, and practitioners.

Part of this legitimacy stems from Emunas Chachamim. (See Pirkei Avot 6:5.) This has been defined in one of two ways. (A) One is trust that everything that the Chachamim say is absolutely correct, such that we cannot question it. (B) The other is trust in the Chachamim to be Chachamim, and to try to rise above personal agendas.

I take the second definition of Emunas Chachamim, that is:

Yes, indeed, emunas chachomim is a very fundamental principle in our faith: we believe Hakadosh Baruch Hu will give divine assistance to an honest and deserving talmid chochom that he should be above his personal negios in issuing a psak; he will not have an agenda. But it doesn't mean that we should believe in nonsense.

It would be a great insult to a member of Chazal to say that he would invent halacha or tradition in order to achieve a particular desired end. (See Yerushalmi Peah 1:15; and Berachot 19a.)

Yet -- while perhaps this takes me outside the pale -- I do think that there is foreign influence on pesak, from the surrounding culture. For example, the Rambam was greatly influenced by Greek philosophy, and lived in Arab countries. This does not mean that he deliberately modified halacha to conform with Aristotle or with Sharia. But it makes sense that his world-view could color his interpretation of ambiguous statements in the gemara, or would make one line of argument more compelling than another.

Certain methodologies of interpretation gained favor in specific parts of the world, or in specific times, but not others. For example, as Professor Haym Soloveitchik said about how the approach of Tosafot differed from that of the Geonim:

They worked on different assumptions. They were aware of contradictions between sugyas and occasionally attempted to resolve them. However, in instances of conflict, the Geonim generally privileged, what was called ‘the sugya de-shemattsa.’ There was a major, controlling sugya where the issue is discussed in the fullest manner, and the halakhah is in accord with the upshot of this sugya. Other minor sugyas, if they contradicted the major one, were not to be heeded.

I would not be at all surprised if the rise, or spread, of different methodologies correlated someone to the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times.

This sort of development of a halachic system is natural and organic. It is not a deliberate discarding of the Torah worldview and deliberate imposition of an external worldview upon it. And it is a flavor of legitimate halachic Judaism.

While I have emunas Chachamim, I must confess that I don't have emunah in the Chachamim of YCT, Open Orthodoxy, Morethodoxy, and so on. Gideon Slifkin wrote recently about Partnership Minyanim:

It's religious politics masquerading as lomdishe debates in psak. Where there's a Rabbinic will there's a Halachic way is the most relevant thing ever said on this topic, and it cuts both ways.

And Ysoscher Katz (of YCT) responded:

Nice summary, Gideon. (As usual) I agree with everything you said up to the last line. (I'm just slightly less cynical-I'm a glass-half-full type) I would paraphrase your conclusion as follows: it's ideology masquerading as halakha. And that is the essence of my debate with Rav Schachter. I believe that ideology is also halakha and as such needs to follow the same standards we have for when we are conducting halakhic debates.

If we genuinely want the debate to move forward, two things need to happen: A) Each side needs to clearly articulate the ideological beliefs that inform their opinion. B) Halakhic debates are textual, they are conducted by evaluating and debating sources. The same needs to happen here. Each side should be required to identify the texts and articulate the sources that form the basis for their ideology.

I believe that Rav Schachter is extracting his ideology, methodology, and his sense of the way that halachic practice should go, from one such legitimate halachic Judaism.

Meanwhile, some others acknowledge, or assert, that Judaism as it has been practiced until now has a patriarchal system which has been unfair to women, and that it needs to be reformed. And if a bunch of halachic sources can be interpreted to achieve that end, and to overturn existing halachic practice, then so be it. This is a good thing. After all, where there is a Rabbinic Will, there is a Halachic Way. Partnership minyanim seems to be one such example, of combining a series of pesakim to achieve a desired end. I don't see that is legitimate, or intellectually honest.

These pesakim don't reflect the ruach halacha, or even a ruach halacha. And in such instances, it would pay to consult those who have gained a sense of the ruach halacha, which was influenced by reading through Shas and poskim, hashkafic works, and so on, rather than American pop-culture.

Further, it is specifically in the face of such deliberate reworking of halacha to meet the external agenda that one should oppose the specific halachic conclusions.