Jewish: July 2006 Archives

Last night, Mt. Sinai hosted an evening with R. Ben-Zion Wosner, the "rabbinic advisor" of the new Washington Heights Eruv. On the whole the evening was light on the halakhic details of eruvin, but focused more on addressing and mitigating the communal disagreements with the Eruv. The Breuer's community has long been opposed to the Eruv and there are authorities such as R. Moshe Feinstein who hold that there cannot be an Eruv at all in Manhattan.

R. Wosner was extremely cordial and concilliatory and basically said that the Eruv follows "rov poskim," and no one has to use the eruv if they don't want to. R. Wosner continued to appeal to the amorphous "rov poskim" in the question and answer session, but given the circumstances I'm not sure he could have done more. Considering the communal tensions and the diverse educational background of those in attendance, a detailed shiur in Eruvin would not have been well received or appreciated and not entirely appropriate.

In terms of what halakhic content I did hear, I was not always in agreement, but again, his intent was more to quell communal tensions. For example, one woman asked why/how he could rule on the community's Eruv when other Rabbis in the community would not. R. Wosner responded that like being asked a question in tzitzit, as a rabbinic advisor he could give halakhic advice which is not bound by geography. Although the question raised a serious issue of mara de'atra and local authority, R. Wosner would not have had the time to give a more detailed answer.

All things considered, the shiur went over very well and was extremely well attended for a Monday night. I also think R. Wosner and R. Schnaidman should team up more often, but that's a different story.

Personally, I will not be using the eruv for reasons which apply to just about every eruv I've seen. I did ask R. Wosner one question, but was not impressed with the truncated answer he was forced to give. There is one more Rabbi I wish to consult before I post in detail my thoughts on Eruvin.

Despite the expectation from its title, Rabbi Herschel Schachter's recent Beit Yitzchak article "Kuntres B'Inyanei Pesak Halakha" (PDF) does not articulate a system or method of deciding and applying Jewish law. Instead of outlining his views of how pesak works, the article is nearly entirely comprised of sources and anecdotes illustrating the dangers of blindly following observed practices even when they have been approved or enacted by rabbinic authorities. For example in some cases a rabbi could be responding to extenuating circumstances and in a different situation could pasken differently. It is also possible (if not likely) that a person will simply misunderstand or misinterpret the given pesak and thus not be competent to apply that pesak to other cases.

We've discussed these concerns in our Perils of Pesak from the perspective of the posek in terms of taking care in formulating responses. Here, R. Schachter passively argues that there is a corresponding responsibility on the recipient or observer of the pesak. Specifically, while non-gedolim are expected to follow the "hachmei ha-mesorah," the typical Jew is not allowed to apply that pesak or observed practice to other situations since it is likely that a "ba'al ha-bayit" will be missing crucial information or intellectual sophistication to process and apply a gadol's pesak on his own.

By itself, this is a completely reasonable position considering how often people misunderstand or misquote Rabbis, but it does raise the question of what should be done. To answer this questions, R. Schachter tacitly argues for an additional level in a rabbinic hierarchy. Towards the conclusion of the first paragraph, R. Schachter refers to Rabba's statement in (B. Avoda Zara 5b (English) that a person "does not stand/rely on the thoughts of his teacher until after forty years," meaning it takes forty years to truly understand the methods of one's teacher. This citation reveals the intention in the article's first sentence, in which R. Schachter's refers to his education with R. Soloveitchik "more than forty years ago." Taking the Talmudic citation and the introductory statement together, R. Schachter establishes himself as one of the few genuine and authoritative interpreters of R. Soloveitchik.1

R. Schachter has previously argued for a restrictive model of halakhic discourse in which only certain individuals are entitled to an opinion. See for example his comments on Yom Tov Sheni:2

If one is a then he is entitled and indeed obligated to research each and every halakhic issue and to follow his own personal view on any matter. But, if one is not higia lehoraah (as the overwhelming majority of people who learned in yeshiva would be classified) then one may not pick and chose arbitrarily from amongst the various opinions of the poskim.

However, R. Schachter does not define exactly who is higi'ah l'hora'ah or how one achieves this status.3 From Kuntres, it is possible he is distinguishing higi'ah l'hora'ah with ba'al mesorah, where one can decide for himself but cannot speak for others, or if the two are in fact synonymous. In either case, pesak must only be made by approved people, but only those with the requisite experience may speak on behalf of the gedolim. I would suggest that for R. Schachter the two must work in tandem, since otherwise anyone who was in the Rav's shiur 40 years ago would have equal standing for interpreting R. Soloveitchik - a common perception considering how many people claim to speak for R. Soloveitchik.

Practically speaking, R. Schachter's suggestion further restricts the possibility of personal autonomy in following halakha. Only certain people allowed to go back to the original sources, and everyone else must ask them for halakhic decisions. However, even though one may have a pesak for one case, or observes how someone paskened in another case, one still should not repeat the pesak in other instances, but ostensibly should once again ask for another pesak. In other words, the solution to people not being able to follow the gadol system correctly, is to have an intermediary to explain and apply the gadol's pesak for us.

While I can understand the pragmatic need for such a position, I think this is ultimately unhelpful since adding the additional rabbinic level simply creates another person to be misunderstood. If there is a risk of misapplying the pesak of a gadol, there is an equal risk of misapplying or misunderstanding the pesak of his student. Furthermore, we would also have to assume that the student does not have an agenda of his own or a desire to see his Rebbe portrayed in a certain light. Again using R. Soloveitchik as an example, there are numerous Rabbis trying to re-create R. Soloveitchik in their own image which requires ignoring or rationalizing certain decisions or behaviors of the Rav which are inconsistent with the student's perception. For example, one Rabbi remarked at R. Soloveitchik's funeral that he never saw the Rav reading a secular book. While this may be entirely true, the implication is misleading. Or for another example, despite R. Soloveitchik's vehement stance against mixed seating, he allowed an uncle of mine to take a non-mehitza pulpit. When I mentioned this to one YU Rosh Yeshiva, the response was, "it couldn't be - he must have misunderstood." I cannot comment on who is right here, but the problem is the same regardless. If the gadol is widely accepted (or expected to be accepted), then of course there will be more of a desire to interpret his positions in a particular way to coincide with a student's own hashkafa.

It would seem to me that the cause of such misapplications of halakha is the very lack of perceived autonomy in the "gadol system" of halakha. We have trained people to simply follow the gedolim, and that is exactly what people are doing. If the problem is that people do not know what they are doing in following the gedolim, then perhaps education in the halakhic nuances of pesak would be a more effective long-term solution.4

1. And by constantly referring to R. Soloveitchik as our teacher (rabbeinu), R. Schachter implies that this authority is sweeping.
2. Hat tip to Shaya for the link.
3. Though it's clear that he does not consider most smikhas to be sufficient.
4. Or we could change the system, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Despite the expectation from its title, Rabbi Herschel Schachter's recent Beit Yitzchak article "Kuntres B'Inyanei Pesak Halakha" (PDF) does not articulate a system or method of deciding and applying Jewish law. Instead of outlining his views of how pesak works, the article is nearly entirely comprised of sources and anecdotes illustrating the dangers of blindly following observed practices even when they have been approved or enacted by rabbinic authorities. For example in some cases a rabbi could be responding to extenuating circumstances and in a different situation could pasken differently. It is also possible (if not likely) that a person will simply misunderstand or misinterpret the given pesak and thus not be competent to apply that pesak to other cases.

We've discussed these concerns in our Perils of Pesak from the perspective of the posek in terms of taking care in formulating responses. Here, R. Schachter passively argues that there is a corresponding responsibility on the recipient or observer of the pesak. Specifically, while non-gedolim are expected to follow the "hachmei ha-mesorah," the typical Jew is not allowed to apply that pesak or observed practice to other situations since it is likely that a "ba'al ha-bayit" will be missing crucial information or intellectual sophistication to process and apply a gadol's pesak on his own.

By itself, this is a completely reasonable position considering how often people misunderstand or misquote Rabbis, but it does raise the question of what should be done. To answer this questions, R. Schachter tacitly argues for an additional level in a rabbinic hierarchy. Towards the conclusion of the first paragraph, R. Schachter refers to Rabba's statement in (B. Avoda Zara 5b (English) that a person "does not stand/rely on the thoughts of his teacher until after forty years," meaning it takes forty years to truly understand the methods of one's teacher. This citation reveals the intention in the article's first sentence, in which R. Schachter's refers to his education with R. Soloveitchik "more than forty years ago." Taking the Talmudic citation and the introductory statement together, R. Schachter establishes himself as one of the few genuine and authoritative interpreters of R. Soloveitchik.1

R. Schachter has previously argued for a restrictive model of halakhic discourse in which only certain individuals are entitled to an opinion. See for example his comments on Yom Tov Sheni:2

If one is a then he is entitled and indeed obligated to research each and every halakhic issue and to follow his own personal view on any matter. But, if one is not higia lehoraah (as the overwhelming majority of people who learned in yeshiva would be classified) then one may not pick and chose arbitrarily from amongst the various opinions of the poskim.

However, R. Schachter does not define exactly who is higi'ah l'hora'ah or how one achieves this status.3 From Kuntres, it is possible he is distinguishing higi'ah l'hora'ah with ba'al mesorah, where one can decide for himself but cannot speak for others, or if the two are in fact synonymous. In either case, pesak must only be made by approved people, but only those with the requisite experience may speak on behalf of the gedolim. I would suggest that for R. Schachter the two must work in tandem, since otherwise anyone who was in the Rav's shiur 40 years ago would have equal standing for interpreting R. Soloveitchik - a common perception considering how many people claim to speak for R. Soloveitchik.

Practically speaking, R. Schachter's suggestion further restricts the possibility of personal autonomy in following halakha. Only certain people allowed to go back to the original sources, and everyone else must ask them for halakhic decisions. However, even though one may have a pesak for one case, or observes how someone paskened in another case, one still should not repeat the pesak in other instances, but ostensibly should once again ask for another pesak. In other words, the solution to people not being able to follow the gadol system correctly, is to have an intermediary to explain and apply the gadol's pesak for us.

While I can understand the pragmatic need for such a position, I think this is ultimately unhelpful since adding the additional rabbinic level simply creates another person to be misunderstood. If there is a risk of misapplying the pesak of a gadol, there is an equal risk of misapplying or misunderstanding the pesak of his student. Furthermore, we would also have to assume that the student does not have an agenda of his own or a desire to see his Rebbe portrayed in a certain light. Again using R. Soloveitchik as an example, there are numerous Rabbis trying to re-create R. Soloveitchik in their own image which requires ignoring or rationalizing certain decisions or behaviors of the Rav which are inconsistent with the student's perception. For example, one Rabbi remarked at R. Soloveitchik's funeral that he never saw the Rav reading a secular book. While this may be entirely true, the implication is misleading. Or for another example, despite R. Soloveitchik's vehement stance against mixed seating, he allowed an uncle of mine to take a non-mehitza pulpit. When I mentioned this to one YU Rosh Yeshiva, the response was, "it couldn't be - he must have misunderstood." I cannot comment on who is right here, but the problem is the same regardless. If the gadol is widely accepted (or expected to be accepted), then of course there will be more of a desire to interpret his positions in a particular way to coincide with a student's own hashkafa.

It would seem to me that the cause of such misapplications of halakha is the very lack of perceived autonomy in the "gadol system" of halakha. We have trained people to simply follow the gedolim, and that is exactly what people are doing. If the problem is that people do not know what they are doing in following the gedolim, then perhaps education in the halakhic nuances of pesak would be a more effective long-term solution.4

1. And by constantly referring to R. Soloveitchik as our teacher (rabbeinu), R. Schachter implies that this authority is sweeping.
2. Hat tip to Shaya for the link.
3. Though it's clear that he does not consider most smikhas to be sufficient.
4. Or we could change the system, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

Menachem Butler has an excellent post on the current non-existence of Hamevaser. Having been involved with Hamevaser during a significant transitional period, I'd like to add a personal perspective as to the how's and why's Hamevaser is no more.

SIW is reporting on Orthodox mayors and not surprisingly, good 'ol Springfield, NJ gets overlooked once again. Not only have we had an Orthodox mayor in Clara Harelik, but a female Orthodox mayor who has served several terms1 and recently won the Mayor of the Year award for Union County.

Who knew Springfield could be so progressive?

1. For some wacky reasoning you don't vote for mayors directly in Springfield, but for a five-member Township Committee who selects the mayor from among themselves.

It's not surprising that as we approach the GLBT World Pride in Jerusalem (August 6-12), we find increasingly critical and hostile rhetoric against the event. Jerusalem is no stranger to religious controversies, and the opposition to homosexuality is nearly universal among the major religions.

My understanding is that there are two major goals of the Pride events. The first is to provide support and encouragement for the GLBT community internally, and the second is to promote tolerance and acceptance. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification). From the World Pride mission statement:

It is time to demonstrate to our community, to our neighbors and peers and indeed to the world, not only that we belong, but that our love and our pride can cross the harshest borders that divide people.

"In these times of intolerance and suspicion, from the home of three of the world's great religions, we will proclaim that love knows no borders." [emphasis added]

World Pride is not simply a matter of communal bonding or promoting tolerance, but a subliminal protest against intolerant religions. There is of course an intelligent strategy at work here. By assuming a greater challenge, the GLBT community can more effectively galvanize itself by breaking another barrier (if peaceful) or standing strong in the face of opposition.

But consider some of the stated themes of the upcoming World Pride:

• Our values are guided by tolerance, equality and pluralism.
• The parade in Jerusalem is conformed to the city's nature in respect toward the local orthodox populations.
• The pride events bring a new inner-faith message of equality and tolerance.
• Obeying the law and avoiding violence and harsh criticism are some of our messages.

Given the underlying attitude towards religion, these statements are disingenuous at best. If the values are guided by tolerance, then a better location should have been selected. The parade obviously does not conform in respect to the Orthodox populations as evidenced by the vehement opposition. And if the theme is truly to avoid harsh criticism (unclear if it refers to giving or receiving) then why select such a volatile location?

My issue here is not questioning the right to assemble or even the right to protest GLBT's treatment in the major religions. But I personally find it hypocritical to do so under the banner of tolerance. The choices of Rome and Jerusalem seems to be an "in your face" approach almost daring people to pick a fight. If the message is really about tolerance, then this strategy is counter-productive since the parade will most likely breed even more resentment.

I do think there can be a compromise between religion and the GLBT community, and I offered my own suggestions to that effect. But as I argued regarding pluralism, tolerance does not mean that other people must unilaterally accept you on your terms. There first has to be mutual acknowledgement and respect of each other's beliefs and perspectives, and this would have to entail avoiding obviously antagonistic actions.

If one requests tolerance, one must be willing to give it as well.

Nine years ago Edah entered into the Modern Orthodox world with much fanfare and controversy. Touting the slogan "The Courage to be Modern and Orthodox," Edah seemed poised to combat the perception of Orthodoxy moving increasingly "towards the right" with Yeshiva University leading the way.1 Those against Edah likened them to Korach or Conservative Judaism in breaking away from "the tradition." Edah's supporters felt they finally had a voice within the often stifling Orthodox world and optimism for effecting actual changes in their communities. The dissension was so great that there were even rumblings of a formal schism within Orthodoxy. Regardless of how one considered Edah, there was a near universal feeling that Edah was going to be significant.

Nine years later, we have the ingenious revelation that Edah is closing down its operations. For the past few years it seemed evident that Edah as an organization had been in a gradual decline. The initial lavish conventions held in eventually became glorified yimei iyyiun at the Skirball center. Aside from producing a consistently solid journal, Edah had been relatively quiet in terms of its programming and contributions in the Modern Orthodox world.

Considering all the hype which has followed Edah, its inconspicuous closing seems anticlimactic though not altogether unexpected. Today on YUTOPIA, we take a brief look back at our experiences with Edah and offer our take of what once the most controversial organization in Modern Orthodoxy.