Monday, February 17, 2014

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.

24 comments:

Efraim said...

Beautifully written!

Yair Daar said...

Well written and thought-provoking. A few thoughts:

1) Although I wouldn't automatically accuse anyone (Gedolei Torah in particular) of bending sources to fit an agenda (unless it is admitted or obvious), I have a hard time thinking that ideology doesn't have some degree of influence on the answers of Gedolim to many hashkafically-loaded shailos.

Let's say a Gadol is, for example, very machmir in his hashkafic views regarding tzniyus. Don't you think that will color his views on all the related halachos? This does NOT mean he will be dishonest about his interpretations, but that ideology will play a factor in how lenient of a view he is willing to attribute to the sources. Same goes for someone who has a more lenient ideology regarding modesty.

2) Can't choosing a methodology (whether consciously or unconsciously) also be affected by ideological factors? What if some of our sages were affected by spirit of the times because they were open to their surrounding culture, and the opposite were true for others? Isn't that likely to have occurred numerous time throughout our history?

3) Even if you disagree with the above points, in this specific scenario, it seem that ideology has to play a factor. Whether or not you judge the actions of the Conservative Movement/Open Orthodoxy akin to sha'as ha'shmad would depend on your ideological take regarding these movements and the threat they pose.

I am not in any way equating R' Schachter and YCT in terms of the degree to which they allow ideology to guide/alter/ruin pesak (especially considering the quote from R' Katz). But I think the way you set it up is lacking some realistic nuance.

Thanks.

joshwaxman said...

Yair:
Thanks. I think many of your points were explicitly or implicitly addressed. E.g if they were not affected by surrounding culture, then it is a continuation of an internal Jewish culture. If they were, then fine, they were, but it is a new flavor and development. In neither case is it agenda and results driven, a deliberate attempt to reject the past and read the sources to reform judaism to conform to modern values.

Hillel said...

R' Waxman,
I have to admit I find your conclusion a little disturbing. Basically, as best I understand, you are saying that while some people on the right may be intellectually dishonest and read the sources looking to support a given conclusion or ideology, EVERYONE on the left does this.

Why would you reach such a radical conclusion about the motivation of dozens if not hundreds of Rabbis and Jewish thinkers? Because one YCT Rabbi takes the approach that ALL Rabbis, left and right, analyze text this way?

If he's right, then left and right do this equally, and if he's wrong, why would you believe all Rabbis on the left do this? Why is it impossible to believe they looked at the sources and reached conclusions different from yours, organically and based on the sources themselves?

The sad (ironic?) part is that I'm having a similar discussion with a friend who is absolutely convinced right-wing Rabbis are concerned only with reading sources to support their lifestyle and outlook (especially in the Haredi world) and that only the moderate/left wing is reading sources honestly.

Why can't we just admit that sometimes, perhaps many times, smart, learned people do the best they can to grapple with many contradictory sources in an honest fashion, and that they sometimes reach contradictory conclusions?

If you disagree with their conclusions, don't follow them! But there's no call to disparage them or question their motives.

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

Hillel:
I don't think you are accurately restating the thrust of my post.

For instance, No, I don't think that everyone on the left does this, or does this in every instance. But partnership minyanim seems like an instance in which they decided a priori that it would be a good innovation to have, and so combined shittot and selected minority opinions to achieve that goal, something they would not have done if paskening on the validity of a Rubashkin chicken.

Also, from there public statements that I have read I get the impression that they are seeking to transform orthodox judaism. Not that this is an evil thing, or that they are necessarily wrong in their assessment of the present state.

But see for example the phrase about transform from the About us on chovevei's website.
Quote.
We at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School (YCT) believe that the future of Orthodoxy depends on our becoming a movement that expands outward non-dogmatically and cooperatively to encompass the needs of the larger Jewish community and the world. For this vision to succeed, we require a new breed of leaders - rabbis who are open, non-judgmental, knowledgeable, empathetic, and eager to transform Orthodoxy into a movement that meaningfully and respectfully interacts with all Jews, regardless of affiliation, commitment, or background.

end quote.

This was just an offhand search.

Hillel said...

Rabbi,
I appreciate the clarification, but I don't really understand your position here. You have successfully shown that YCT has a hashgafa. OK. Many yeshivas do. Hashgafot influence the way one sees the world and the text, but it doesn't mean anyone is being intellectually dishonest or undeserving of emunat chachamim.

Rayionalist yeshivas have very different outlooks from kabbalistic yeshivas, hesder is very different from haredi, and, as a result, they reach very different conclusions of halacha from the same texts, all based on their initial outlook. But the outlook itself is based on the sources, and the various roshei yeshiva would be glad to demonstrate how and why they reached their conclusions.

Why should YCT be any different?

Put another way, would you also agree with the following argument regarding haredi Rabbis (which is based on shulchan aruch and Rambam and countless mishnayot, gemaras, pesukim and other sources)?

"Communal kollel life on the public dole seems like an instance in which they decided a priori that it would be a good innovation to have, and so combined shittot and selected minority opinions to achieve that goal, something they would not have done if paskening on the permissibility of quinoa on Pesach."

What's the difference between a radical innovation on the right and a radical innovation on the left? (And surely requiring lifetime kollel for the entire male population is a much larger change than permitting partnership minyanim for those interested.)

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

The difference is that one is a hashkafa influencing how they read the text (legitimate, though arguably fortunate or unfortunate) while the other is a commitment to end results to transform orthodox practice in a way they think is good, prior to any examination of the texts. And they are explicitly recruiting social activists committed towards that end.

joshwaxman said...

I can give you the name of a rabbi on the left who I think is honestly assessing the sources. His opinions include:

× reporting child molesters even if the perpetrator will be in danger to life and limb in prison
× people should sign a halachic prenuptial agreement
× mixed seating at weddings
× there are no Gedolim nowadays so you aren't bound by what Rav Elyashiv said
× support new communal pressure on men who refuse to give a get
× rewrite the ketuba to match what modern day semitic scholars say the aramaic should be
× oppose the extension of kitniyot to quinoa

And so on.

His initials are rhs

Hillel said...

Respectfully Rabbi, you have not addressed my question. What leads you the conclusion that Rabbis supporting partnership minyanim are doing so by rendering a decision first and then looking for textual cover, while those supporting mandatory lifetime kollel are not doing the same?

You are delving into the murky world of motivation here, and it seems uncharitable to say one side has improper motivation based on their radical innovative conclusions and the other side has proper motivation despite their radical innovative conclusions.

KT,
Hillel

PS: I believe you have mildly misrepresented R' Schachter's positions on numerous things above, but likely because he has very nuanced positions and you are writing in a summary fashion.

joshwaxman said...

Respectfully, I believe I have addressed your question. Because they say so, in multiple contexts. (Partnership minyanim would require a detailed analysis of just what is being said and done.) I don't believe it uncharitable to say they have motivations (improper is a loaded word) when they day they have these motivations.

Yes, I summarized. But At the same time I think it likely that you fell for the false summaries provided by his critics (eg the ignorant summary by the forward and certain leftist rabbis), such that you see more of a "mischaracterization" than is really present. My point though is that too certain folks he is on the left, and left and right are somewhat subjective. And even if i said i didn't have emunah in all the Chachamim you would consider left, so what?

And who days i wouldn't say this for some groups on the right? For example there is a rambam group that seems to be trying to recast religious practice to be in line with Islamic practice. I have questions about it.

Kolel nowadays is not an innovation but an established practice, with its set of prooftexts already in place. People who buy into it are not saying, right now: i think Jewish practice should be modified in this way, so let me and a butch of social activists commit to interpreting texts in a manner to legitimize this innovation.

joshwaxman said...

Meanwhile, on the right, in the field of agunah, I DO question whether motivations of anti - feminism / misogyny has led to certain predetermined conclusions about whether public pressure would invalidate a get, to accept a get on behalf of a woman and not give her access to it so as to show him to remarry, to allow the innovation of pilegesh, kidushei ketana and so on.

But these are not the hot topics on blogs and Facebook right now.

Hillel said...

Rabbi Waxman,
You wrote that YCT has said, "in many contexts" that this is what they were motivated to permit partnership minyanim, and read the sources accordingly. Where and when have they done this? I'm not aware of any such statements, but fully concede I am not really holding in this parsha.

The only YCT statement you identified is a fairly bland mission-statement type paragraph that I believe describes YU just as well a YCT. (I can't think of anything in the statement you identified that YU would disagree with) It certainly says nothing about reaching a conclusion first and then reading sources.

Re kollel, I am very surprised by your take. It's an "established practice" as a mandatory lifestyle? It's been in existence as such for maybe 50 years! When hared leaders say they will engage in violence and civil war rather than surrender that lifestyle, that's not modifying Jewish practice?

I'll address the statements you made about R' Schachter in a few minutes, but suffice it to say everything I believe about R' Schachter's positions come from R' Schachter himself. I have never read any summaries of his positions from anyone (right or left).

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

You just modified my statement when you "quoted" me. I wasn't pointing specifically to ytc, nor specifically to partnership minyanim. Please retread my original statement, in context.

Kollel has evolved, sociologically in some circles, as a mandatory lifestyle. And so you cannot say about people talking today, February 17, 2014, that they are trying to innovate a new practice. maybe we could have had that conversation 50 years ago.

joshwaxman said...

Rabbi zev farber, time for a paradigm shift.

http://www.kolech.com/english/show.asp?id=55159

and accompanying this paradigm shift "Instead of saying that since women have never historically participated in public ritual, so each shul and each rabbi will—upon request—think about creative ways to allow women to participate ritually in things that are permitted, we should be saying that all Jews, men and women, can do or participate in any meaningful ritual unless it is clear that halakha expressly forbids this. "

Hillel said...

Rabbi Waxman,
I don't see how I took your statement out of context. You said YCT does not deserve emunat chachamim because they reach conclusions first, then justify them, and as an example gave partership minyanim. I asked you why you thought that about YCT and you said it was "Because they say so, in multiple contexts." I am asking you for examples of such statements. I don't believe you have provided any, but I may well have misunderstood you or missed something, in which case clarification is appreciated.

Re R' Schachter's statements, what you wrote is, in some cases, simply not an accurate description of what he has said. For instance:

"mixed seating at weddings"
This is not his position. He has stated that he allows, even encourages mixed seating for singles, but is opposed to mixed seating for couples at weddings. This is pretty significant given that so many people call R' Schachter their Rebbe and pay lip service to his genius, but I have never been to a single wedding or heard of a single wedding where this practice was used.

Also:
"there are no Gedolim nowadays so you aren't bound by what Rav Elyashiv said."
This is not necessarily false, but it is, in my opinion, somewhat misleading. R' Schachter does not believe in daas torah as it practiced in the chassidishe/chareidi world, that is true. And he holds there is no one with a status of "Rebbe Muvhak for Klal Yisrael" like there was in the days of Eli and Shmuel, such that a single Rabbi's p'sak is binding on all jews.
BUT he absolutely believes in "gedolim" in the sense that he holds there are only a very, very few select Rabbis who are permitted to pasken on significant issues. He also holds that many of the people (right and left) that people consider to be major gedolim and poskim are in fact not qualfied. However, for the few people that
are deemed qualified, they may - and, indeed, must - pasken on everything from whom you should vote for to who you should marry to what job you should take and where you should live. And if they ae your Rav you are bound by their p'sak. I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like a "gadol" to me...

KT,
Hillel

Hillel said...

Re Rabbi Farber's article:
1) How is this quote indicative of reaching conclusions first? Rabbi Farber says everything should be mutar unless it is clear that it is asur. You are free to disagree with that hashkafa, but it is well sourced in primary texts,(koach d'heteira adif, the yerushlmi in Kiddudhin 4:12, etc.), and many Rabbis have adopted that approach. (IIRC, R' Berman has written on this topic, and I think R' Steinzaltz has spoken on it.) It's only an issue if you decide ahead of time that something is permitted and don;t care what the texts have to say, and R' Farber's quote does not indicate this - it argues agaisnt it!


2) I assume you are not writing off emunat chachamim for an entire organization based on a statement from one of its alumni. I was expecting something on YCT letterhead, or at least a statement from one of its heads...

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

I am running out of time to reply, so please excuse me for cutting this short.

Re mixed seating, what I have heard was not that he was *opposed* to mixed seating for couples. Rather, when asked about separate seating, he said that for couples or is allowed, just so long as the singles were mixed. Not mandatory for couples but allowed. It was meant to be humorous, to stress that singles should be mixed as an ideal.

I would suggest that you are misremembering the statement and accusing me of misrepresentation.

Meanwhile, Rav Schachter was my mesader kiddushin at my wedding and he and his wife sat mixed, not in the separate seating section.

joshwaxman said...

Re rabbi farber, so now I must present every bit of evidence I have ever encountered within the comment section and argue the implications. I have neither the time nor desire for that. And it would be futile anyway. These were meant to be examples of a greater trend. Not because I found one statement which then impugns an entire institution.

joshwaxman said...

He doesn't really hold that anyone in the practical world should ask a pesak on who to marry out that a rabbi should give such a pesak. Not in the real world. That wouldbe rabbinic malpractice. It was a rhetorical point to show that many things people assume are outside the realm of pesak are not.

But that is beside the point. Yeah, he has a complex view. But the point I highlighted, that there is no posek hador is a real and critical one. And something that many on the right would consider left.

joshwaxman said...

from here:
http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,97/

"One YCT student, Nissim Antine, affirms in the YCT
publicity handout that “my immediate goal for my years in Rabbinical School
is to acquire the tools that are necessary to overcome the halakhic and social
impediments to change.”

Thus, a priori, there should be change. Now, let us overcome the halachic "impediments". And this in the YCT publicity handout.

don't know if it was on their letterhead, not that it matters...

Hillel said...

R' Waxman,
Thank you for taking the time to discuss these matters with me. Re R' Schachter, you undoubtedly have a much better understanding of what R' Schachter meant; I can only go by what he said, but it may well be he meant it as a theoretical construct and not practical psak.

Re YCT, I just feel there's a wide gap between the conclusion you reach (that there was an a priori decision to be matir partnership minyanim) and the evidence you bring supporting this, which basically consists of general statements that change is good and important and halachic tools should be used to effectuate change. Every single Rabbi believes that change is needed for certain things (e.g., 'solving' the agunah crisis or the conversion crisis or the singles crisis, etc.)

The question here is whether the heter was come by from the sources or the sources were manipulated to attain a heter. The latter is a very serious allegation and I just feel that nothing you have provided comes close to supporting that charge. Just as I feel the charges agaisnt right-wing Rabbis of an anti-woman bias are poorly sourced and largely false. There are just different conclusions from honest readings of the sources based on different hashkafot.

It strikes me that your conclusion in this regard is based on your intuition and general sense of the matter, rather than specific statements that have been made. You are an expert and I am a layman, so your sense of the matter has much greater weight. I am personally just reluctant to make such an accusation agaisnt anybody absent very strong proof.

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

Rav schachter gave these caveats and limitations in the very shiur. They are what he said! Just as the statement about separate seating being ok for couples ( rather than required) is what he said.

I could more properly source the statement about SOME right wrong rabbis, but don't feel the need to. The whole topic cane up because you alleged that I only held this about rabbis on the "left". Now that it emerges that I don't, this becomes a new vector for attack. Maybe had it been a main topic, I would have pointed to the specific statements made by certain rabbis, perhaps on the daat torah blog.

You may say my claim (about approaches to b social change by a bunch of rabbis, not singling out exclusively yct or exclusively partnership minyanim) is poorly sourced and is just intuition. I disagree, and think I have seen multiple statements, explicit and implicit, only SOME of which I brought here, which show a commitment to change of women's role (sometimes dressed up to in halachical or meta halachic terms) prior to unbiased and neutral analysis of the sources.

joshwaxman said...

Regarding partnership minyanim, see for example this early article in which those forming the minyan explain their methodology in selecting sources from 2007.

http://www.geretz.org/Jewish%20State%20Feb%2016%202007.pdf

Hillel said...

Rabbi Waxman,
I'm not sure what to make of your response. Re R' Schachter, he has made statements along the lines of 'everything is a shayla, but most people don't know to/refuse to ask' many times. I've never heard him give any caveat, and the only limitation I've ever heard him give is that for many shaylas you need a Rav who's an expert in the metzius, and sometimes no one is an expert in the metzius. But if your Rav has such knowledge, you must ask and they must pasken and you are bound by the pesak. He said so explicitly in that shiur and on other occasions. Re mixed seating, I remember what I remember, but you are the expert so I concede it is certainly possible/likely that you are correct and I am misremembering.

Re YCT, I don't think there has been any "vector of attack." I consider you to be a smart and intellectually honest person and am curious as to the basis of your approach to these issues. It is true that intuitively my own approach is to assume people have proper motivation unless proven otherwise, but you suggested there was such proof and I wanted to know what it was. I don't think of that as an attack, and apologize if it came off in that way.

KT,
Hillel

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin