It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” (Deut. 30:12-13)
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. Given his perceived stature in the Orthodox community, R. Schachter’s letter deserves a thorough analysis, as I’ve done before regarding his approach to Jewish law, especially as it pertains to the imposition of select religious authority.
Let us begin by briefly reviewing what led to this recent controversy. This past December, Rabbi Tully Harcsztark, the principal of the Orthodox Jewish school SAR High School in Riverdale New York, permitted female students to wear tefillin at their school’s regular prayer services. Given that women generally do not wear tefillin in the Orthodox community (at least, not in public), this decision sparked controversy in the Orthodox world. While R. Harcsztark received some support amongst this colleagues, for just one example, Rabbi Haskel Lookstein of the Ramaz school, there has been significant backlash as well, including the aforementioned missive from R. Schachter.
To understand R. Schachter’s letter, it would help to review ideas I presented in a classic post comparing the roles of “Rav” and “Rosh Yeshiva”. Two of my teachers both emphasized significant distinctions between these positions, albeit for different reasons. Haham Yosef Faur compared the Rav and Rosh Yeshiva to their analogous authority in a legal system. The Rosh Yeshiva was comparable to the law professor, who may be exceptionally well versed in legal texts and reasoning but carries no inherent legal authority while the Rav, who may be less knowledgeable than a Rosh Yeshiva, has by virtue of his appointment as a Rav wields the actual halakhic authority for setting religious policy. To illustrate his point, Haham Faur noted that while law professors could give countless arguments as to why Al Gore ought to have won the 2000 election, none of them possessed the legal authority to declare Al Gore as the 43rd President of the United States of America.
I would add to Haham Faur’s analogy that nature of this authority may be attributed to the willing acceptance of a specific community. When a Rav is appointed, a congregation accedes to that Rav’s authority, as defined by the very nature of his employment. There is a reciprocal relationship between the Rav and his kehillah, one which is necessarily based on the mutual consent of the leader and his constituents (M. Avot 1:6). On the other hand, a Rosh Yeshiva is employed by the academic institution of the yeshiva. Certain communities may decide to follow the religious ethos of a particular yeshiva, but there is no halakhic mandate on any one community to follow any one yeshiva. A Rosh Yeshiva may also serve as Rav, but his authority would be limited only to the specific community which willingly accepted his authority. According to ancient Rabbinic law, only the Jewish Supreme Court of the Sanhedrin is imbued with the authority to mandate Jewish law on the entire Jewish people. Without that legal institution, as Maimonides writes, “we do not coerce the people of one nation to follow the practices of another…[nor do we] listen to words of an earlier authority, but rather to the opinion which is most convincing, regardless of it being an earlier or later source” (Introduction to Mishnah Torah). Outside of the legal system established by the Sages of Rabbinic Judaism, there is no individual or institution which has any halakhic sanction to impose its religious will on the entire Jewish community, let alone to coerce others do submit to their authority.
Another teacher of mine, R. Moshe Tendler differentiated between the Rav and Rosh Yeshiva on the grounds of skill. In his inimitable words, “God forbid you want a Rosh Yeshiva making psak for you. You want a Rosh Yeshiva to make psak like you want a mathematician to build your bridges.” For R. Tendler, the art of practical psak comes not from pure knowledge or reason, but in knowing how to apply Torah in the real world. A mathematician may know more about the calculations and equations than an engineer, but that does not mean he has the same aptitude to build large constructs. Similarly, a Rosh Yeshiva may be more knowledgeable of Jewish sources, but being secluded in the ebony obelisk of the yeshiva one does not necessarily know how to apply those sources to the actual situations one confronts in the real wold. 1
In this specific controversy, a duly appointed Rav of a community made a halakhic decision specifically for his own constituents. While he explained his policy in an open letter, he did not make any sort of enactment binding on the Jewish people as a whole. In this letter, a Rosh Yeshiva with no inherent halakhic authority over the decisions of other communities not only disagreed with a Rav’s decision, but did so in the harshest of terms stating that this Rav’s opinion contradicted the very fabric of the Torah itself.
R. Schachter’s objection towards women wearing tefillin in public may be understood via two interrelated issues: diversion from the halakhic process as he see sees fit, and the need for denominational differentiation from those communities who do not follow halakhah as he sees fit. Regarding the latter, R. Schachter begins his essay by citing B. Yoma 2a which records the rabbinic sages intentionally followed a lenient opinion in order to dissociate themselves from the Sadducees, an ancient sect of Judaism which rejected what is now known as Rabbinic Judaism. For R. Schachter, Conservative Judaism is the modern day version of the ancient Sadducees. Furthermore, R. Schachter equates any concession to Conservative Judaism with acquiescing to a an antagonistic king like Antiochus who enacts decrees against the worship of Judaism. In such cases, it is better to let oneself be martyred rather than change “evan a shoe strap” when it comes to Jewish practice (B. Sanhedrin 74a-b). Therefore, since the practice of women putting on tefillin is closely identified with Conservative Judaism, that mere association is enough to consider it prohibited for all Orthodox Jews, as a matter of distinction.
The necessity for such differentiation is not merely superficial, that is giving the appearance of borrowing practices form Conservative Judaism, but according to R. Schachter, the decision to permit women wearing tefillin follows similar halakhic methodology and ideology as that he ascribes to Conservative Judaism. Specifically, Conservative Judaism, “is based on the foundation that it is permitted – and possibly even obligatory – to deviate from the ways of the tradition based on how they see fit,” even based on their own “sources.”
R. Schachter sees a similar problem with the particular tefillin decision, and presumably others as well.
In our days anything can be found on the internet or in ‘Otzar Hahochma’ or the Bar Ilan Responsa project and the like, and even an ignoramus can become a sage and teach and rule and decide Jewish law even regarding difficult matters, as if he knows of the sources on his own and all the sources and opinions.
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.”
As I wrote at length in my post on “Gadolatry,” Rabbinic Judaism never established a class of uberrabbi which wields greater authority over the Jewish people, nor is there any objective criteria for defining who would qualify. By the fact that R. Schachter writes numerous opinions, including this one, we can assume that he considers himself to be among this elite to which all Jews must pay deference.
Whence does this authority derive? At one point in Jewish history being knowledgeable in the Jewish sources was considered to be a most important skill:
תלמוד בבלי הוריות יד:א
אמר רבי יוחנן: פליגו בה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן, חד אמר: סיני עדיף, וחד אמר: עוקר הרים עדיף. רב יוסף סיני, רבה עוקר הרים, שלחו לתמן: איזה מהם קודם? שלחו להו: סיני עדיף, דאמר מר: הכל צריכין למרי חטיאR. Johanan said: [On the following point] there is a difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis. One view is that a well-read scholar is superior [to the keen dialectician] and the other view is that the keen dialectician is superior. R. Joseph was a well-read scholar; Rabbah was a keen dialectician. An enquiry was sent up to Palestine: Who of these should take precedence? They sent them word in reply: ‘A well-read scholar is to take precedence’; for the Master said, ‘All are dependent on the owner of the wheat’. B. Horayot 14a
When the most knowledgeable individuals were the Roshei Yeshiva, Jews depended on his scholarship, which unless someone was equally well versed in Jewish texts, would normally go unquestioned. Fewer people today are dependent on the institution of the Roshei Yeshiva because they too have become “owners of the wheat” in the sense that the do not need someone to go to the heavens or cross the sea to obtain the information they require. This does not necessarily mean that Rabbis are obsolete – I concede my own bias on this point – but the additional skills of value are less those which belong to the encyclopedic mathematician but the teacher who can explain the sources and the logic behind them.
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. He does not cite Tosafot B. Berachot 14a which records that it was once prevalent for women to put on tefillin, even with a blessing, just as they shake the lulav on Sukkot. 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). Or perhaps one would research the reason for Ramo’s ruling preventing women from wearing tefillin, and find that the reason is based on the fact that wearing tefillin requires a “clean body,” which would disqualify menstruating women. One could then find numerous examples where Jewish practice changed because of a different situation and conclude that women who are on birth control may no longer be assumed to lack a “clean body.” In fact, someone could find evidence in the Ashkenazi legal tradition which would seem surprisingly similar to the methods employed by Conservative Judaism.
The democratization of knowledge is thus a significant threat to those who wish to control it, and by extension, the people who depend on it. R. Schachter must create and rely on his myth that he and his cadre are the true arbiters and representatives of Judaism, and by extension, God’s will. Since the community at large has not formally appointed any “gadol,” he must delegitimize individuals and entire communities as being against the true Torah, even as they cite from the same texts on which R. Schachter relies. Past Roshei Yeshiva did not need to be accountable on the merits of their arguments because so few people had access to the same data to even attempt a rebuttal. Rather than face the indignity of having to defend a position, it is much simply to discard those who disagree.
With few fortunate exceptions, the Rav must constantly engage in dissension. He does not have the luxury of stepping down from a speech without taking questions because he constantly has to face his congregation. A (good) Rav is trained not only as a posek – a decisor, but a moreh ho’ra’ah / an educator of teachings. As an increasing number of Jews become owners of their own Torah, they will not need imperious dictators but teachers and guides to help augment, clarify, and navigate through the waters of Torah. This relationship requires mutual accountability, and a desire from the Rav to educate and the student to learn.
R. Harcsztark not only made his decision in the capacity of a Rav but he explained his position in a public letter with the attitude, sensitivity, and sensibility of a Rav. Perhaps what we are witnessing then is a social rebellion not against Torah, but against those who truly raised themselves over God’s community.
Notes:
- See B. Sanhedrin 24b and B. Sanhedrin 88b for Talmudic examples demonstrating the halakhic importance of being actively engaged society. ↩
The relationship between would-be female tefillin wearers and the rabbinic establishment is analogous to that intelligent design advocates and the scientific establishment. In both cases, one is likely able to construct an unfalsifiable argument for a fringe idea. In both cases, the vast majority of experts agree that the argument is flawed in both tangible and intangible ways, and cannot responsibly be relied upon.
The “democratization of knowledge” is good in many ways. But as intelligent design theory shows, it is not enough to know facts, you must also know what to do with them. And what is obvious to someone who someone who has studied for decades (in science or halacha) is not at all obvious to a newcomer who is searching for anecdotes and ordering them with a specific goal in mind.
On Guf Naki, I think you should clarify the other explanations that relate to men also, as mentioned here among other places:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/gender-and-tefillin-possibilities-and-consequences/
and
http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/01/why-no-tefillin-2/
The sources mentioned in these article seem to be clear that it’s not about menstruation.
If that’s the case, your otherwise excellent article is weakened by your explanation of guf naki.
What would follow is that we could legitimately see that the Ramo’s reasoning arguably no longer applies to people today.
Two corrections you should note:
Rabbi Harcsztark is the principal of SAR High School and not the Academy and second, and extremely important, he is allowing these two girls to wear tfillin ONLY in the Women’s Tfilla that they currently attend and NOT the main minyanim at SAR.
Respectfully I would take issue with several of your points.
1. Do we know for a fact that Rabbi Harcsztark was in fact issuing a private psak halacha to those women versus asserting a policy for a school? My kid’s school may only allow chalav yisroel but that doesn’t mean the principle has issued a psak on what my kids can and cannot eat. He has just asserted what they may eat within his jurisdiction.
2. Not knowing the type of s’micha which Rabbi Harcsztark and not wanting to impugn his knowledge I would still say that there are countless examples where leading torah figures of a generation countermand rulings made by private Rabbis. Especially when the leading torah figure is the Rosh Yeshiva of the institution which the private Rabbi received his ordination. I believe your contention here which implies that this is something innovative only to Rav Schachter is disingenuous.
3. The tosfot you quote is misleading. There is an amending of the girsa there and it does not say that there was a prevalent custom for women to wear tefillin it just says they would recite a blessing as they would on lulav. Is it not possible that the inverse was the reality? ie that women bentched lulav much less frequently?
4. regarding the pervasiveness of access to torah sources, I would point out that having knowledge is a far cry from knowing how to use it properly. That is why the gemarah states that though one has learned repeatedly if that person has not performed shimush talmidei chachomim is an ignoramus (Brachot 47b)
To mrw pants: Rabbi Harcsztark made it eminently clear in his letter to the school community that this was NOT SCHOOL POLICY but rather only an accommodation made to these two girls at a women’s only Tfilla. As far as his cred goes: he is a YU Musmach (which Rav Scachter notes) who also attended Torah Vedaas
#1 Is RHS really simply a rosh yeshiva?. Ex: Is he not a rav in his work with the OU? Is he not therefore a Rav to a much wider orthodox community that views itself as part of the OU orbit?
Is it intellectually honest to simply view him as a RY?
#1a to go to your original law professor vs. judge analogy. There is no reason why law professors can’t be judges. It’s simply a matter of who gets to decide what’s law. If people ask RHS question on matters of law (and many many do), that by your definition he is a Rav.
I think this strengthens my argument that you are being intellectually dishonest on this point.
#2 Your conception of the lack of uber rabbi in the jewish world goes against what the RCA reccomends itself in regards to eruv. They have qualifications for a “posek for an eruv” that goes above and beyond what a “local rav” might have. This by definition means that in their view, not all rabbis are equal.
I believe that bolsters my critic.
Rabbi Yuter states: In this specific controversy, a duly appointed Rav of a community made a halakhic decision specifically for his own constituents.
This would seem to be an erroneous representation of the facts. If there is no psak halacha than Rabbi Schachter cannot be taken to task for countermanding it .
Let’s face the simple fact that RHS has repeatedly made regrettable public statements (e.g. shooting the Prime MInister, women and apes, Jews possessing higher level souls than others) to disqualify anyone categorizing him as anyone else than an ivory tower Rosh Yeshiva who is terribly out of touch with any kehillah, other than the bochurim of his shiur and of the YU Bet Midrash, who have no choice than to look up to him and his colleagues. It is for them that I am most sad. His learning is admirable. His common sense is abominable. His role model is damaging in the extreme.
As to #1, he is said to be a posek to the Kashrut division of the OU. So he’s a Rav but only in terms of posek to an organization for kashrut – related issues – not as a Rav to a school, shul or a town, etc.
So that weakens your argument actually.
How many shul rabbis, school rabbis forward Qs to him. i.e. point 1a. So I disagree in practice.
i wont disagree with the fact that his comments have made me uncomfortable, but this goes into attacking the person which isn’t so much the point of Josh’s analysis. I’m dealing with his analysis. your points indicate that you don’t care about his analysis.
I very much care about his analysis and don’t separate, as you wish, between the person and his analysis. That approach went out with Elisha ben Abuya and R. Meier. And our young people make no chiluk. His analysis, which is replete with attacks against respected Rabbis, is a perfect example of Avot’s dictum that warns Talmedei Chachamim to be careful with their words. He often is not, to our sorrow.
This captures at least one aspect of his view on women – speaking as a Rabbi on a panel:
huh!? I was talking about Josh’s analysis. you don’t care about josh’s analysis, you just dislike the person he’s talking about. please read what I wrote before you respond.
already responded to on harry’s blog. but as I wrote there. If you had a choice on a bus, to sit next to someone of the same gender or someone of the opposite gender, which would you choose (everything else being equal)?
as a person who has ridden many buses and likes to people watch, my observation is that the large majority of people choose someone of the same gender.
that is not fundamentally different from what RHS is talking about.
Totally ridiculous statement. First of all, you are taking (as so many have done) RHS’s comments wildly out of context, to the extent that it is clear that you either did not attend, listen to, or (at the very least) understand the shiurim in which those comments were made. Additionally, you are making outright claims about someone who you clearly do not know personally nor academically from a primary (not secondary or tertiary) perspective. But yea, sure, go with that line of thinking without actually investigating facts, taking the time to speak with, meet with, engage with, or otherwise interact with RHS. Your comments equate to armchair criticism from a halachic “amateur” when compared to a “pro” like RHS. It’s disgusting that the gut reaction is to publicly criticize and critique without asking questions directly to RHS. Knowing him, he’d happily answer.
R’ Yuter wrote:
“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”
Your quote is very misleading, the very next words of R’ Shachter are ואין חולק עליו מכל מפרשי השו“ע שם, that none of the commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch disagree with the Rema. Therefore your point that we don’t always follow the Rema is moot and very misleading, yes we don’t always follow the Rema if come of the commentaries (e.g. Magen Avraham, Taz, Gra, etc.) argue, however that is not the case here.
Your point about finding examples from the Bar Ilan is exactly what R’ Shachter is talking about. The average person doesn’t have the context and knowledge to fully comprehend all the references and assign halachic weight to them.
Completely inaccurate analogy. If it isn’t falsifiable, it isn’t science. And Rabbi Harcsztark is not a “newcomer” to paskening for a school.
My rav asks R’Schachter shilahs. Some were from me! But he does not hold like R’Schachter on all things, particularly where he heard something different from Rav Soloveitchik. (This happens to be one such example.)
If the average rabbi doesn’t have the context and knowledge to fully comprehend all the references and assign halachic weight to them, we need to shut down all the semicha-granting institutions. Getting semicha is permission to pasken!
charlie, and getting an MD is a licence to practice medicine and if you try to practice medicine in an area you have zero experience in, you can be committing malpractice.
it’s possibly to commit halachic paskening malpractice as well.
that reinforces my point. he is a rav in terms of psak and not simply an ivory tower RY. he’s also not simply a rav in terms of psak and perhaps would be a better rav in terms of psak if he wasn’t also a RY, but josh’s dichotomy is not applicable.
A Yeshar Koich from one of the people who gets to ask a Rav questions, including about gadolotry and Roshei Yeshiva..Realistically, human authority is something that Jewish communities have negotiated and contested as well as accepted. Even with a Rav, there may be limits if history is any guide. While R. Jacob Josephs, z’l, is revered as a rabbi and a teacher, we have yet to find anyone who believes that in the 19th, 20th or 21st centuries, New York City, let alone the whole Jewish world, is ready for ONE chief rabbi. Learning from older models in developing newer ones is very much the business of an educator of teachings.
You’re being intellectually dishonest in your use of the “Korach” line. You know full well that R’ Schachter, like many of the Rav’s talmidim, likes to quote things his Rebbe said, and often uses the same tropes, for better or worse. In a famous speech, the Rav saw Korach as the original rebel against Torah authority, who argued (as is explicit in the pasuk) that everyone is holy and fit to lead. This was seen as dangerous on many levels, but it’s especially apt (at least in the eyes of R’ Schachter and many others) in cases like these, where half-educated YCT grads think they can wave a magic wand and make homosexuality normative.
R’ Schachter is a favorite whipping boy of the soi-dissant “Open Orthodox” (I think the Jewish Week must have a full time staffer to listen to his shiurim and try to “chap” him), and may have just figured out why: They know full well that he *isn’t* just another charedi gadol. Anyone who knows anything about him, or has ever heard him speak, knows that he’s part of the MO world, and a formidable one at that. And yet, lo and behold, he isn’t as “progressive” and “enlightened” as they! Something is wrong in that equation. So they have to try their hardest to dismiss him as a charedi crank leading MO astray rather than face the uncomfortable fact that maybe, just maybe, it’s they who are incorrect.
I may as well respond that if it has no real mesorah, it’s not halacha. And paskening for a school is not the same in the age when everything gets plastered over the Forward instantly. He couldn’t have said, “OK, but not a word of this gets out?”
Yuter does indeed sound very much like a Conservative rabbi
“Especially apt…in cases like these, where half-educated YCT grads think they can wave a magic wand and make homosexuality normative.”
Are you serious? R Schachter calling YU ordained rabbis Korachs because of a local psak to allow girls to wear tfillin at a women’s tfilla group in a school is = “half -educated……” I can’t even write the rest of your nasty comment.
Then we should shut down all the medical schools, law schools etc. if you had a complicated legal or medical issue would you go to any lawyer or doctor? I think not, you would go to an expert to deal with your complicated problem. When I have a simple fever I go to my family doctor. However, if I need complicated open heart surgery I go to an expert. That is what R’ Schacter is saying here. For everyday questions your local rabbi is qualified but for really complicated questions you need to toban expert who has more knowledge and experience.
No argument, but the tefilin issue is not a complicated question. Everyone knows what the sources are.
Practicing medicine in an area you have zero experience in is NOT malpractice. Otherwise every first year intern fresh out of medical school would be committing malpractice.
Right. He is the posek when people want to make him the posek. This was not one of the times.
If there was no psak halachah then there is nothing to complain about! You certainly don’t think that Rabbi Schachter should be micromanaging policy at every Jewish school in the country! (And in any case his positions on how Jewish schools should be run are completely ignored; he has saying that yeshivot spend too much time on gemara for a long time.)
” it has no real mesorah, it’s not halacha.”
In that case, we had better stop saying the tefillah for the State of Israel; we had better stop observing Yom HaAtzmaut and Yom Yerushalayim, and we had better take down the mechitzah at the Kotel.
For that matter, teaching torah to girls had no real mesorah. Close down all the bais yaakovs and let girls go uneducated.
And drop this modern “kabalat Shabat”: service. There was no mesorah for that when it was developed.
“he’s part of the MO world”
That isn’t really accurate, at least ideologically. He isn’t charedi — he is of course a huge Zionist — but this position on limiting rabbis from paskening is not MO either.
Oh, and stop wearing techelit. That includes Rabbi Schachter!
Hilchot eruvim is not something that rabbis with yoreh yoreh are expected to know, so your point is irrelevant.
What you think is MO, at least. My father got semikha from YU in 1961; back then, the Rav gave his phone number out and told the young rabbis that they weren’t nearly ready to pasken anything. I imagine this has happened to new rabbis for millennia; nowadays, YU does it through an email service.
And you think it’s all not related?
I knew you’d bring all that up. But it’s apples and oranges.
Yes but would you want him treating you especially in a complicated case?
Incorrect. Once the discussion left the confines of the privacy of a school and entered into the media, becoming part of public discourse it makes perfect sense for one of the leaders of modern orthodox Judaism to voice his opinion!
I highly doubt there are examples of Rabbi Schachter contacting schools to tell them how they should be run. The responsibility for the elevation of this issue into the public sphere lies with Rabbi Harcsztark, does it not?
Having read Rav Schachter’s artlicle on Partnership Minyanim, I’m wondering if someone could explain to me the ad hominem attack on R’ Moshe Tendler at the top of page 2. Has R’ Tendler approved partnership minyanim? If not, what is the point of that digression?
ok, so his psak shouldn’t matter to these people then, but it doesn’t say he can’t give his psak. Josh’s thesis is that a RY should never ever be giving psak, only a “Rav” should. AS RHS isn’t a “Rav” (under Josh’s thesis), he shouldn’t give psak. However, your example demonstrates that Josh’s thesis is false. He is considered someone who gives psak.
Charlie be intellectually honest, you write about demonstrating falsifiability, this falsified one of Josh’s points.
This demonstrates that there isn’t a single class of rabbis. It’s not a stretch to argue that while a “lower class” of rabbi has the right to pasken, if he goes against the the vast majority of responsa as well as making fundamental changes to communal practice, he can be engaging in what’s considered halachic malpractice.
No different than a lawyer giving legal advice against what he knows is generally accepted practice. he has the right to give that advice, he might even be correct, but its very dangerous. In general, you want the big guns to make changes like that (ala court system).
charlie, please read papers about malpractice law and medical interns and what they are responsible for and what their attending is responsible for. there’s a huge amount of literature on this subject.
The Masorah that was authorized by Maimonides as Oral Law ended with Ravina I and Rav Ashi at Baba Metsia 86. After that, every Bet Din may do what it wants as long as it obeys TSBP’s defining, refining limits. Just as women are allowed to do Talleit, Lulav and Tefillin because God’s Oral Torah does not forbid those acts, we need reeeeeeally good and compelling reason to change in post-Talmudic times. The Oral Torah, which for Maimonides is the Masorah that started at Sinai, allows women to lean on the qorban, an act that is required of men, for nahat ruah, to make them good or prthaps included. Who has a greater claim to being Masoretic, bHagiga 16b, which authorizes women’s leaning on the qorban, or the pilpul of a latter day aharonic scholar?
Regarding women studying Torah, see what Oral Torah, which to all acounts is Masorah, says at Tosefta Berachot 2:12, and ask, if this work is Torah/devar haShem, why is it not cited by gedolim.
Regards, AY
In what way? What that he wrote makes him sound Conservative?
They have a long history of disagreements.
Why should Rabbi Harcsztark take the responsibility of it being elevated in the public sphere? He did not publicize his decision in a press release. He sent a letter to the parents of his student’s explaining the policy decision. Should Rabbi Schachter then take responsibility for some of his statements being elevated in the public sphere, merely because the press picks it up?
1. He belittles the very notion of centralized halachic authority by a false distinction between “Rosh Yeshiva” and “Rav.” This reminds me of Solomon Shechter’s notion of Catholic Israel — ie normative Jewish practice is whatever local Rabbis and local Jews wish it to be. Sometimes, if not often, a “Rosh Yeshiva” can also be and is a “Rav”. Rav HS clearly falls in this category. See also Yuter’s favorable reference to the “democratization of knowledge” and implied opposition to “those who wish to control knowledge”. Our entire halachic system is not premised on democracy or egalitarianism in intellectual matters or halachic rulings. Some special people, whether due to their superior intellects, superior character, dedication, or hopefully all three, are qualified to determine and yes dictate normative practice. Without this system we wind up with the Conservative movement’s “law committee” in which ingoramuses (from a Jewish education standpoint), both laypeople and rabbis, make halachic decisions based on whim and the prevailing cultural milieu.
2. Yuter is results oriented, hundreds or thousands of years of normative practice be damned, just like Conservative “Judaism”. Just because someone technically CAN do something doesn’t mean they should do it. The use of the “thumb” in halachic argument can be a dangerous thing; the Ramo says something is assur? Ok, we’ll find some other psak to justify what we’ve already decided to do, even if that psak is an outlier.
3. Yuter acknowledges R Shachter’s critique that the tefilin issue strengthens and gives credence to Conservative “Judaism’s” approach but seemingly dismisses that concern. That concern is not an idle one. Just look at the abysmal state of the Conservative movement and you will be forced to acknowledge the prescience of the early and mid- 20th century Gedolim (including the Rav) who recognized that Conservative Judaism, despite its surface veneer of fealty to halacha, is a sham and one destined to warp the fabric of traditional Judaism and cause tremendous damage. They were laughed at at the time, but have proven to be 100% correct.
Just a clarification. Rav Schachter is not “The” Rosh Yeshiva of YU, But “A” Rosh Yeshiva of YU. There are more than one, actually close to Twenty. Of those that are, they tend to have differing opinions. In cases where there are differing opinions, I haven’t heard that Rav Schachter’s trumps all the others.
1. the distinction between Rav an RY is irrelevant. Your point would be more accurate to distinguish between Rav of relevant kehillah and Rav of irrelevant kehillah, because that is the relevant halachic point you are trying to make. This point however is a mistake because if a community has a Rabbi unqualified to render certain psaks, then you turn to the poskim, and if a Rabbi fails to paskin right, then it is up to gedolim/poskim to make people aware of the mistake.
2. Your assumption that Roshei Yeshiva are not worldly while Rabbonim aare is contradicted by the fact that many Roshei Yeshiva are indeed Rabbonim. In fact, Rav Shachter is a posek for the OU, and is very down to earth and not ivory towerish. The opposite is apparent, it appears that the author has not been active in the Beis hamedrash for quite a while, hence his misconceptions.
3. The gm’ in Brochos 14a, the Tos cited does not say it was common for women to put on tefilin. First of all, see the Bach there and others not hard to find, it may not be talking about tefilin at all. Secondly, it says hani neshei “those women. Sound very uncommon.
4. This article is in fact proof that everyhting Rav Shachter wrote is completely accurate. You can democratize sources, but knowledge and comprehension you canot democratize b/c it is a direct by-product of the one learnig it, his commitment, his sincerity and his aptitude.
5. If you paskin for your community incompetently, and you go way outside you abilties, that is a major breach of authority and competence. Rav Shachter let him off relatively easily. He has to show Rabbis that just because you have a community doesn’t make you a posek. The fact that the author indicates an assumption that he is qualified, after this article he should seriously reconsider.
6. Many prominent poskim were roshei Yeshiva. I am not personally familiar with the chacham but tzarich iyun on his inimitable words. Perhaps he only knew a few Roshei Yeshiva from whom he got a wrong impression. Many are not poskim, but many are. And even those who are not, the vast majority of the ones I am familiar with are down to earth, not relegated to the ivory tower of the beis hamedrash.
7. Your statement about an uber rabbi is not relevant to your article b/c Rav Shcachter’s point isn’t you must listen to me b/c I know more. It is you are not qualified too paskin this question.
8. You clearly show you have no experience or understaning of Halacha. Your arrogance towards Rav Shachter is revealing. G-d should help you discover the true Torah so that you should return and serve him in humility and sincerity.
WARNING – See what can become of a JEw who is very involved in secular society. Look what happens. Look how he misunderstands Torah. look at his irreverance for genuine gedolim. G-d should have mercy on our generation.
Isn’t Maran Bet Yosef’s and the Rama’s opinions more significant to us non-Yemenites than the Rambam’s? As an Ashkenazi, I think the go-to source would be the Shach’s qunterus on pesaq, not the Rambam’s intro.
I would also argue with your underderstanding of the Rambam. Rav Ashi and Ravina II (! — note the order in which he names them compared to his other usages) were the last who every accepted. As R JB Soloveitchik notes, the authority of the Greater Shulchan Arukh (with the Rama et al) is on the same basis as the authority of all shas — public acceptance. But as I said in the prior paragraph that’s tangential as I question your assumption we follow the Rambam’s version of the halachic process rather than Rashi’s, Tosafos’, the Tur’s the Rosh’s or the Beis Yoseif’s — which have much more in common with each other, with the Rambam as an outlier.
Besides you “gadolatry” meme ignores the dynamic in place during the geonic era, where the LOR knew to turn the big questions to the geonim. Yes, we don’t believe in classes — gedolim vs regular rabbis. But making gedulah a continuum is different than saying it doesn’t exist.
Changing long-standing tradition in traditional Judaism is always “complicated.” Otherwise you’re Conservative.
They go through residency. This analogy isn’t necessarily worth fighting over, but what did you mean?
He’s a posek because over time people started going to him for p’sak and he developed that expertise and is now bombarded with sh’elot. If a RY does not ordinarily give p’sak then you wouldn’t call him a posek, right? That’s not R’ Schachter.
Therefore what? He went to him to consult and not make a decision alone. That is R’ Schachter’s entire point! Well one of two at least. :)
I’m not saying I wish that more people didn’t follow that dictum, but that is a ridiculous point of view that would negate most of the g’mara and much of the following tora leaders. I think it must be consigned to dealing with people one on one (in which case he is very sensitive). As others piointed out though, the monkey and women thing wasn’t anything of the sort; I’m unfamiliar with the PM shooting; and we do have “higher” souls than non-Jews. That’s normative Orthodox Judaism (and I;ve read it myself in ramkha”l). The last point must be understood and doesn’t mean we are supremacists, but it’s true. (or at least indisputable that he and most Orthodox Jews believe that to be true.)
Sincere question here. I thought I read the letter. Does he discuss R’ Harczstark specifically in it? I thought he was just commenting on general rumblings on the Internet.
Yes.
Inside joke?
guf naki, in the understanding of ram”a etc. is about purity of thought. Yes, flatulence also, and maybe menstruation fi the flow is happening right then (I could see that being in the same category of expelling waste). But the reason men wear t’filin for so little generally (and Chabad women might have a different claim) is because of impure and frankly inappropriate thoughts in our head. Let me ruin it for you by linking to this book (NSFW):
http://www.rmichelson.com/Artist_Pages/Nimoy/pages/Shekina.htm
Women nowadays especially are no different (from Twilight to 50 Shades of Gray). So having no obligation to put on t’filin, our minimizing path would lead to them not wearing it at all. The public nature of this wearing is a separate issue that R’ Schachter also deals with.
guf naki, in the understanding of ram”a etc. is about purity of thought. Yes, flatulence also, and maybe menstruation fi the flow is happening right then (I could see that being in the same category of expelling waste). But the reason men wear t’filin for so little generally (and Chabad women might have a different claim) is because of impure and frankly inappropriate thoughts in our head. Let me ruin it for you by linking to this book (NSFW):
http://www.rmichelson.com/Arti…
Women nowadays especially are no different (from Twilight to 50 Shades of Gray). So having no obligation to put on t’filin, our minimizing path would lead to them not wearing it at all. The public nature of this wearing is a separate issue that R’ Schachter also deals with.
I like to sit next to pretty girls. Oh wait. I guess that was the point…
How is that anything about his view on women? It’s about relations between the sexes which ultimately boils down to views on men (I don’t think anybody’s accusing a woman of sitting next to a kharedi guy because she finds his scent irresistible; or that once she does she’ll start thinking of long walks in the park holding hands or whatever it is men think about these days).
I don’t think he is referring to R. Tendler.
Who else has opposed tuna fish and has annulled marriages? And regardless, how was that relevant to the teshuvah?
You are confusing this with Rav Moshe Tendler’s famous position regarding the Kashrut of Swordfish (not Tuna, where the debate focuses on whether a mashigaich is required).
Rav Tendler was at the center of the tuna debate. But the real issue is Rav Schechter publishing, republishing, rechilus he allegedly heard from Rav Soloveitchik.
1. the matter could have been handled privately, the principle chose not to do so
2. to the best of my knowledge Rav Schachter has not made a statement which has become public and has adversely effected the lives of others in the same way. If he has I see no reason he shouldn’t have to address that as well.
The difference in the latter case being Rabbi Harcsztark is a principle not the personal Rav of these women, nor one of the acknowledged leaders of modern orthodox Judaism. As such I believe he has a responsibility to seek counsel from a person higher up on the totem pole when an issue escalates. I don’t believe Rav Schachter has that same responsibility (though he has done so in the past, to his credit).
The matter was handled privately. Rabbi Harcztark is the prinicipal of a
school. He made a decision and thought it needed to be explained and
shared with school community, who are his constituents. That is the only
community he shared it with. He did not publicize it outside the school
community.
Regarding Rav Schachter, just to give you one
example, his public comments regarding abuse have caused great pain to
those survivors of abuse, who look to their Rabbis to be supportive of
them, not to take the sides of their abuser. With regards to Baruch
Lanner, Rav Schachter’s consistent support of him, and his failure to
accept the degree of Lanner’s harm, adversly affects many more people,
in a much harder way, than Rabbi Harcztarks decision. When the scandal
of Baruch Lanner broke, Rabbi Schachter’s response was that he was
worried about Baruch’s chance for a shidduch. There was no statement
regarding how horrible this was, or any statement sympathetic to his
victim’s. Even after Baruch’s conviction and incarceration, Rav
Schachter still does not understand that people look at his actions, in
the same way as his statements. His decision to be an eid Kiddushin at
Baruch Lanner’s second wedding two summers ago, had a much more adverse
affect, especially for Baruch’s victims, than the affect Rabbi
Harczstarks decision will have on the greater community.
Rabbi
Harcztarks decision was not a Psak for Clal Yisroel, he was explaining a
decision that he made for the school. He was not paskening girl’s in
general. The girl’s asked if they could put on tefilin in the women’s
tefilla group in the school. The school is his Jurisdiction.
How
do you know he didn’t ask someone “higher on the Totem Pole?” Are you
saying that Rav Schachter needs to be the one higher on the Totem Pole,
and that there is no one else in the Modern Orthodox community that
meets that criteria?
Why wouldn’t Rav Schachter have a
responsibility to seek council from other great Rabbi’s? Is his
judgement infallible? Is he incapable of making mistakes or using bad
judgement? I think it’s very dangerous to afford any one person, Carte
Blanche over Clal Yisroel. I also think it goes against Halacha. I may
be wrong, but according to Halacha, my Mora Deasroh has the final
Halachic say for my community, providing of course that the psak is
based on halacha. If the Psak is halachicly sound, but someone disagrees
with it outside the community, the community is bound to their mora
deasroh. Absent of a Sanhedrin, we don’t have a Halachic supreme court,
with a halachic Chief justice. Each community picks their Rav, and
trusts his halachic wisdom. If a person is close to a different Rosh
Yeshiva at YU who’s halachik opinion is trusted, and he differs with Rav
Schachter’s view, is he allowed to follow that Rosh Yeshiva? Or must he
defer to Rav Schachter’s view? It seems that there are a lot of people
that would feel he should defer to Rav Schachter, but does halacha
demand that he does?
I’ll share my personal view now, as I don’t
want my words to be misconstrued as to how I view Rav Schachter. I
think Rav Schachter has a brilliant command of halachic sources. I think
his ability to quote countless sources off the top of his head is
amazing. I feel that knowledge alone doesn’t make a person wise. Wisdom
comes from the application of knowledge to different situations. I don’t
feel so comfortable with the way Rav Schachter applies that knowledge. I
think that at times he exhibits a very narrow focus with a lack of
understanding to the totality of issues. I worry that sometimes his good
neshoma makes him naive of the world and of other’s in the orthodox
community. I believe that this naivete’ opens himself up to be taken
advantage of by those who’s intention’s are less than pure. I think it
is too easy on these people’s parts to be able to convince Rav Schachter
about the motivation’s of other people’s actions. I think he is also
naive about how people use him in terms of Haskama by default. That
people maneuver to get close to him, therefore being able to use that
friendship as a personal Haskama for themselves or their ideas. What is
dangerous to me, is not that it is easy for people to do that, but
rather his lack of acceptance that someone would do that in the first
place. In other people there may be a decision among themselves to turn a
blind eye and let the person do it. I think Rav Schachter is so good
inside that he just can’t be mekabel that people would do that. This to
me is not a good thing, as it makes Rav Schachter highly susceptible to
manipulation by others, and having him as the ultimate halachik decisor for Modern Orthodoxy a bit dangerous.
Does
anyone here know if Rav Schachter spoke to Rabbi Harczstark before Rav
Schachter wrote his letter. In the letter there are a lot of assumptions
that Rav Schachter makes about the motivations involved here.
>> His decision to be an eid Kiddushin at
>> Baruch Lanner’s second wedding two summers ago,
Now, now, possessing ruach hakod…halacha means that you can tell when a person has done teshuva. There is no way Rav Schachter would have ever done this unless he was convinced 100% that Lanner had done teshuva.
Except that in this rush to parade out the knee-jerk responses, no one bothered listening to what R’ Herschel Shachter actually says on the subject. He too derided that whole rav-as-oracle thing, going so far as to call it avodah zarah. To RHS, daas Torah means giving religious guidance, helping the person identify the halachic issues. Not to tell them what to do.
R’ Akiva Miller collected some quotes from the Q&A section to illustrate, and posted them to Avodah Avodah vol 32 #29. I’m adding emphasis.
1:09:39 – 1:10:12
“People ask me eitzas about shiduchim, I can’t tell him yes or no. I just bring out points — keep this in mind, keep this in mind. I can’t make the decision. I don’t know him that well, I certainly don’t know the girl at all…. Rabbanim should refrain from expressing positions on issues where they’re not [garbled] with all the facts…. If you’re not looking at the chicken, you can’t pasken the shailah. We don’t believe in daas Torah like an oracle.”
1:11:17 – 1:11:53
“Rav Soloveitchik said after the ’67 war, you have to consult the generals, and after they tell you the information, then the rabbanim have to make a decision what the halacha has to say about this. The generals are going to make the decisions based on their information and their hashkafa. But their hashkafa doesn’t necessarily correspond to what the Torah has to say. The rabbanim have what to pasken, but they can’t pasken without first listening to the facts that the generals know. After they get their information, then the generals are giving their suggestion what they think is more important for Medinas Yisrael But the rabbanim have a different opinion what’s more important for Medinas Yisrael.”
1:23:54 – 1:24:53
“It would be a smart idea if they’d stop giving psakim, and they should give eitzos. They should bring ideas to the shoel: Keep this in mind, keep this in mind. How can they give a psak if they don’t know all the details of the case? A lot of times nobody knows! The doctors don’t know all the facts either. The doctors have to tell the rabbi all the information, and the rabbi gives a psak. … He should give a recommendation. He should say: Keep this in mind, keep this in mind. If this comes up, so it’s more important this than that. How can he give a psak if you’re not looking at the facts of the case? It’s not right, it’s k’neged hadin, it’s like an oracle from the ovdei avoda zara. We don’t believe in oracles.“
Rav Shachter was relying on the mesorah that we believe an orthodox molester who claims he did teshuvah. #sarcasm
Thanks for the great analysis and for citing the full letter of R. Shachter.
Since it seems that nobody at Israel knows anything about this whole story, I wrote about it in Hebrew here:
http://ivri.org.il/2014/02/women-and-tefillin/
“He does not cite Tosafot B. Berachot 14a which records that it was once prevalent for women to put on tefillin, even with a blessing, just as they shake the lulav on Sukkot”.
The Bach in his glosses changes the word tefillin to tekios. The Glosses of the Bach are generally considered authoritative. You failed to cite the Bach when criticizing Rabbi Shachter.
“The glosses of the Bach are generally considered authoritative.”
This assumption depends a great deal on “who” is doing the considering and if the Bach’s glosses are supported by extant manuscripts. See footnote 7 on this post where the Bach’s emendations are unsubstantiated: https://www.joshyuter.com/2013/07/22/special-features/yutopias-10th-year-anniversary/the-meaning-of-bashert-in-rabbinic-judaism-and-its-implications-2/#fn-3420-7
Independent of the above, it is clear that in this instance the Bach’s glosses are not considered as “authoritative” as in others. For example:
הגהות מיימוניות הלכות ציצית פרק ג:ט מ
והשר מקוצי כתב ג”כ כדברי ר”ת שנשים יכולות לברך אלולב ואתפילין וכיוצא בהן וכ”כ רבינו שמחה גבי תקיעת שופר שהאשה התוקעת לעצמה יש לה לברך ואין מוחין בידן ע”כ:
שו”ת יביע אומר חלק א – אורח חיים סימן לט
שכ’ בשם השר מקוצי, שאפשר לברך על ההלל בר”ח, כדין לולב ותפלין שהנשים מברכות. ע”כ, ודו”ק].
שו”ת אגרות משה אורח חיים חלק ה סימן יח
הקשו, הא לתוס’ (ראש השנה ל”ג ע”א ד”ה הא רבי יהודה) יכולה אשה לברך על ציצית ועל תפילין. ואף להרמב”ם (הלכות סוכה פ”ו הי”ג) דאינה מברכת, מכל מקום יש לה מצווה כאינו מצווה ועושה. אם כן תהיה מותרת להכניס. אך בתפילין יש לומר דכיון דשבת לאו זמן תפילין, וההיתר להכניסן הוא רק משום דהוא דרך מלבוש, לא הוי זה ממילא דרך מלבוש לאשה, כיוון שאינה רגילה ללבוש התפילין למצווה בחול.
I’ll admit this point probably deserved a footnote.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you believe that any old musmakh should pasken arbitrarily on any topic. Do you believe that any learned rabbi is qualified to decide on matters of agunot or even chalitza (which is significantly less severe)? If so, you’d be arguing with most classical Shu”ttim whose authors were very careful about receiving the approval of the gedolim of that particular city/country/generation. For example, the Netziv in his Shu”t (despite his great lamdanut) often didn’t even free a woman from chalitza without the approval of the gedolim of his time. In all honesty, Rabbi Yuter, why do you disregard the concept of seeking insight and approval on major halachic issues from the best-known contemporary scholars – as some recent invention of Orthodox politics (and then go on a diatribe against R. Schachter)?
Also, is arguing with the Ramo something that you and I (substantially less lamdanim) can so easily decide to do on our own?
The “old school” of deference to those who know far more when it comes to major halachic decisions is not only ethically correct; it’s also clearly the way it’s been done for centuries.
This is not at all what I’m saying. Instead:
1. A Rav of a shul is *the* posek for his congregation.
2. The requirement of “approval” is primarily one between the Rav and his community. On the type of “approval” you’re assuming see this subsequent post on “Consensus” https://www.joshyuter.com/2014/04/06/judaism/jewish-law-halakha/conceits-consensus-halakhic-rhetoric/
3. Regarding the limits of what a Rav can do in his own shul, all Jews are ultimately bound by the Biblical interpretations and legislation of Hazal. Not infrequently the “accepted” practice is at odds with these criteria.
4. Furthermore, a Rav does have some authority to apply hora’at sha’ah, though limited specifically to his congregation. These instances are essentially violations of Jewish law, but based on subjective judgement calls (again determined by the local Rav) for exigent need. https://www.joshyuter.com/2013/03/21/judaism/jewish-law-halakha/horaat-shaah-and-the-real-world-rabbinate/
5. I have no objection to consulting with people who have more expertise. I did so frequently in my tenure as a Rav, and I personally think it’s a good idea to do so. However, keep in mind that it is up to the Rav when he feels out of his league and/or when he needs a consultation (though to be sure many offer their advice without solicitation), and a consultation does not mean being convinced of a particular opinion such that he must defer. If someone else, particularly a communal outsider, wants to convince a Rav that his psak was incorrect, he is of course free to do so, but he must also carry the burden of proving wrongness, not just in knowledge of the law, but in the applications thereof given the specific realities of a particular congregation.
At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for paskening for his community belongs to the Rav and only the Rav, by virtue of the agreement the Rav has with his community. You don’t have to like it, but you’d be free to find another shul, or as is equally common, a different Rav.
“Another teacher of mine, R. Moshe Tendler differentiated between the Rav and Rosh Yeshiva on the grounds of skill. In his inimitable words, “God forbid you want a Rosh Yeshiva making psak for you. You want a Rosh Yeshiva to make psak like you want a mathematician to build your bridges.”
This happens to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. I don’t know how it’s possible, but both you and Rabbi Tendler appear to have forgotten that (the shver) Rav Moshe Feinstein, the greatest Posek of the last 100 years, was a Rosh Yeshiva, and not a pulpit rabbi.