"The greatest Gadol B’Torah of all time - Moshe Rabbeinu himself - gets his life coaching from his father-in-law Yisro, who tells him to arrange a system of judicial authority rather than wearing himself out. And which yeshivah did Yisro get his wisdom from? None at all - he was a pagan priest!"
"Of course, this completely demolishes popular contemporary ideas about great rabbis being an authoritative source of wisdom about all kinds of life issues solely due to their knowledge of Torah."
Yisro's advice was to set up a system *subservient* to Moshe. Moshe was still the one who eg ordered (others, while he stayed safely up on a mountain!) to go to war. Unless this post is meant as an esoteric argument in favor of gedolim having more layers of handlers while making the military decisions from the safety of an enclave, I'm hard pressed to see how it demolishes anything other than the brain cells of the people reading it.
After all your snark, you're completely missing the point. No one is saying that Yisro knew more Torah than Moshe. But in spite of Moshe's spiritual greatness, he still needed advice on how to organize the judicial system. That's why in a way chacham adif minavi, because a navi has to rely on Hashem's communication, but a chacham is always a chacham.
The Or Hachaim couldn't be more clear that there is great wisdom in the world (which is obvious), and that we weren't chosen for our wisdom. Ever been to the comments section of VINNEWS?
"That's why in a way chacham adif minavi, because a navi has to rely on Hashem's communication, but a chacham is always a chacham."
Again. Why don't you spell out the charedi position on daas torah, and explain how it's 'demolished' by anything the ohr hachaim might have said. (You might want to bother actually reading up on the supposed target of demolition. You can start here if you'd like. https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf )
"....and that we weren't chosen for our wisdom. Ever been to the comments section of VINNEWS?"
As opposed to the comments section of the New York Post, which is filled with commentators engaged in intellectual combat on a level would make Einstein blush. Why bother citing to actual research https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4098351,00.html when you can enlist the bottom feeders of the internet as evidence?
Like I said, that's an argument in favor of giving more resources to gedolim, not less. It's certainly not an argument against their authority. Klal Yisrael didn't decide whether to take Yisro's advice; Moshe did.
You haven't addressed the point of the article. You're talking about the content of the advice, and RNS is talking about the context in which the advice was given- that it didn't come from the גדול; it came from below.
I'm all in favor of people from below offering advice to gedolim. I don't know who isn't. Do you honestly think modern day gedolim don't go to doctors? https://mishpacha.com/tending-greatness/ Only in some alternative universe where charedim exist as an undifferentiated cartoonish blob of unthinking simpletons led by a bunch of cult leaders who pretend to know everything would that fact come as a revelation.
"The fact remains that Yisro didn't challenge Moshe's authority."
But that wasn't the point of the article.
"Do you honestly think modern day gedolim don't go to doctors? "
The article was not talking about doctors. It's talking about Moshe receiving insight on a sacred matter, not from his holy erudition, but from a secular expert. To be sure, I consider it one of RNS's weaker articles, but you've missed the point.
" Only in some alternative universe where charedim exist as an undifferentiated cartoonish blob of unthinking simpletons led by a bunch of cult leaders who pretend to know everything would that fact come as a revelation. "
You're setting up a straw man, and you haven't explained what you believe the Charedi consensus (to the extent to which it exists) of defining דעת תורה. It could be that you actually reject דעת תורה as defined by some in the Chareidi world.
For example, what is you take on Rabbi Bernard Weinberger's definition of דעת תורה? The article he wrote back in the early 60s has, perhaps, earned a bit of a notorious reputation at least among the critics of דעת תורה. (I wonder whether proponents of דעת תורה may have misgivings too, and consider Rabbi Weinberger's formula too much for even them.)
In consistency with my displeasure with commenters posting links without any summary of its content, I'll cite the most notorious quote from the article:
"Obviously, these qualities of knowledge, erudition, and. piety are basic. But, over and above these there's another factor that is crucial and that is what we generally
describe as "Daas Torah." This involves a lot more than a Torah weltanschaung, or a Torah-saturated perspective. It assumes a special endowment or capacity to penetrate objective reality, recognize the facts as they "really" are, and apply the pertinent Halachic principles. It is a form of "Ruach Hakodesh,''. as it were, which borders if only remotely on the periphery of prophecy."
"The article was not talking about doctors. It's talking about Moshe receiving insight on a sacred matter, not from his holy erudition, but from a secular expert. To be sure, I consider it one of RNS's weaker articles, but you've missed the point."
If that's all his point was, I would be inclined to shrug and ignore it. It certainly seemed to me that his point was more broad than that. But I acknowledge that I may have assumed there was more there than there really was.
Re R Weinberger. It's hard for me to know exactly what he even meant. I should note that after all the fireworks between Dr Lawrence Kaplan, R Berel Wein, and others whom I'm probably forgetting, it emerged that there wasn't all that much substantive difference between them.
(I didn't want to incur your wrath, so I included a quote. But the entire thing is really worth reading.)
"But what I want to emphasize is that, as I explicitly state in my article, I wasn’t putting forward my own positive view of rabbinic authority. I was more criticizing the idea of Daas Torah as I think it’s popularly presented in the Haredi world. Some people might have misunderstood me to mean that I believe that all rabbis should speak only about pots and pans and should not have any say on communal matters. I never said that. And the other point which I made in my article is that I’m not sure if there’s necessarily throughout Jewish history one view of the limits and scope of rabbinic authority. Moreoever, I acknowledged the traditional rabbinic authority accorded to the rabbi who is the rav of the kehillah – actually I may have done this more in my Hebrew article, based on a reference that Professor Marc Shapiro pointed out to me – where the rav of the kehillah, by virtue of being rav of the kehillah, is granted a good deal of extra-halakhic authority on general communal issues. But even with respect to the rav of a kehillah, it’s not so clear – if you look at the Vaad Arba Aratzot, the laypeople oftentimes kept the rabbis on a short leash. If you look at the community in Amsterdam, it was the lay figures who put Spinoza in Cherem. Not the rabbis. Even though there were some prominent rabbis there at the time. To repeat, a lot of times, even in term of rabbis of communities – certainly in the Middle Ages and early modern times – lay leaders played quite a great role. Now the Rashba, on the other hand –but again, he was the official head of the community – obviously played a major role in the Maimonidean Controversy. But it should be pointed out that other people weren’t afraid to disagree with him, even though they admitted his preeminent stature. Other figures weren’t afraid to take issue with him, obviously respectfully, but they weren’t afraid to take issue with him. The idea of Daas Torah, as a charismatic notion of rabbinic authority, is something different. It doesn’t come out of nowhere, so it’s not yeish me-ayin. But, as I and others see it, it is an expanded view of traditional conceptions of rabbinic authority, precisely because of greater challenges in the modern period to rabbinic authority. And the classical sources which have been cited as support for it don’t seem to prove the larger claims made on its behalf. One such source is the notion of Emunas Chachamim. But it must be said that the phrase is very general; what it means is not so clear. The meaning attributed to it by the exponents of Daas Torah seems to be a late nineteenth century development, imported from the Hasidic view of the Rebbe. The source cited most often in support of the notion of Daas Torah, and which I focused on most in my article, is Lo Sasur. As I pointed out, according to most authorities it applies only to the Beis Din Hagadol. I further pointed out that the view of Afilu omrin lekha al yemin shehu semol is that of the Sifre. The Yerushalmi is the other way, that only if they say yemin is yemin and semol is semol do you have to listen to them. In my article, particularly the Hebrew version, I went through all the different ways how different scholars try to reconcile the two sources. The authority who seems to be the key figure for the exponents of Daas Torah is the Sefer HaChinuch — he’s the one who applies the Sifre generally to Chachmei HaDor. But the Sefer HaChinuch’s view is more of a practical view; you have to submit to the authority of Chachmei HaDor not because they necessarily have such great understanding, but just because otherwise you’re going to have chaos and anarchy. So it’s a more practical view. So what I suggested is that the modern view of Daas Torah – again, I’m not saying it was made out of whole cloth – is arrived at by taking the idea of the Sefer HaChinuch applying Lo Sasur to all Chachmei HaDor and combining that with the view of the Ramban who talks about the Beis Din Hagadol’s great understanding and how God will protect them from error, etc [7]. Part of the problem in writing a critique of the concept of Daas Torah is that it is a moving target; people keep on defining it differently. When people are oftentimes defending it, they define it more modestly: it’s a limited notion, we’re not saying the “gedolim” are infallible, maybe there’s a plurality of views that are Daas Torah, but obviously rabbis should have some say on broader communal issues, etc. There was an exchange in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society between me and Rabbi Alfred Cohen — where if I understood him correctly, he proposed this type of scaled-down notion of Daas Torah [8]. And if that is all that is meant by it, I’m not sure if I would necessarily disagree that much. But what I find is that when it’s actually used in the rhetoric of the Haredi world, it’s used to make rather extreme claims. First of all, despite the idea of the plurality of Daas Torah, it’s pretty clear to me that originally within the Agudah circles, it was used to legitimate the Haredi world and to delegitimate the Modern Orthodox."
As to my own understanding of the term, especially as applied to politics:
See 'Dr G"rach:
Political reactions are not innate. Opinions on public issues are formed by values and ways of looking at things. In other words, they are cultural. What had been lost, however, in migration was precisely a “culture.” A way of life is not simply a habitual manner of conduct, but also, indeed above all, a coherent one. It encompasses the web of perceptions and values that determine the way the world is assessed and the posture one assumes towards it. Feeling now bereft, however, of its traditional culture, intuiting something akin to assimilation in a deep, if not obvious way, the acculturated religious community has lost confidence in its own reflexes and reactions. Sensing some shift in its operative values, the enclave is no longer sure that its intuitions and judgments are—what it has aptly termed—“Torah-true.”86 It turns then to the only sources of authenticity, the masters of the book, and relies on their instincts and their assessments for guidance. Revealingly, it calls these assessments “da’as Torah”– the “Torah view” or the “Torah-opinion”.87
As a further aside, a lot of the contretemps over issues such as women's prayer groups and other edgy chovevei Torah style innovations largely boiled down to YU roshei Yeshiva essentially asserting some form of extra-halachic authority to ban things which go against the mesorah. They couldn't call it daas torah because (as one wag put it) 'they don't hold of daas torah because Rav Soloveitchik told them they don't.' All of which is to say that whatever term you want to use, the basic concept is going to exist. It probably gets abused in the context of Israeli politics, but that's more a feature of the sullied nature of just about anything related to the Israeli political system. The rift within the Dati-Leumi community during the Bennet government wasn't exactly a model of 'ahavat yisrael' either.
On this case it means supplantiing the Word of G-d as given through Moshe and giving it to judges ! Who gave the right ?! It's talking about the halachah.!
Btw, Natan, the simple reading of the OHC is just to say that he didn't pick us because of our brains or brawn - the other nations have that too, sometimes more! (as we see from Yisro's genius) - rather, because He loves us and our forefathers and we should be thankful for the free gift He gave us.
Does this have any bearing on if we can come to these levels of wisdom after matan torah on our own via the torah itself? Not sure...
According to the opinion that Yisro was before matan torah, according to what system of law were the judgements made?
And according to everybody, what sort of disputes took place between litigants in the desert anyway? Was there so much petty theft that Moshe was so busy? Business deals gone wrong? Inheritance? Your tent is encroaching on my tent's back yard? Your ox gored mine? Bad investment advice? Non payment of rent?
I'd wager they were doing a lot of gambling. Using their land portions that they expected to be getting soon as collateral. They had tons of animals also, and there was nothing for the animals to eat, so the animals were probably going around causing damage, eating the other fellas mon and wrecking his tent. How much does mon cost? Can you pay for it? Also, you ever learned the part in Baba Kama about the guy holding the vessel and smashing into the other guy? So in the desert they were traveling in this long line, like in the Yam Suf pictures. I would be very surprised if this vessel-smashing didn't happen hundreds of time on every journey. Lots of work for the judges.
Ya man, I always wondered about that! What kind of legal cases were going on?
But last year I was thinking about it honestly and, I mean, there *were* 600,000 families with wives, kids, parents, besides the erev rav, (I once heard, I think from the Chofetz Chaim, an estimate of 5 million people!) so there must have been some kind of setup every time they camped, where human beings, as great as they were, could have encountered some bumps along the way, getting into all sorts of different legal disputes. Even if they all had good will and love for each other, more than plenty of halachic q's could've risen, enough to keep Moshe busy full time.
Rabbi Slifkin, it is quite ironic that in "demolishing" Daas Torah, you expose yourself as an adherent of Daas Torah! Somebody who truly doesn't believe in Daas Torah wouldn't rely on the Daas Torah of the Ohr Hachaim to tell him that non-Jews can be wiser than the wisest Jews. By relying on Torah evidence for this scientific question of who is wiser, you have inescapably joined the Daas Torah train! Welcome aboard! Next stop, Rechov Rashbam!
You mean that people who believe in Daas Torah need the Daas Torah of the Ohr Hachaim to tell them what the Daas of the Torah is, but Rabbi Slifkin already knows what the Daas of the Torah is. Youre still on board the Daas Torah train,
No they wouldn't rely on the Ohr Hachaim but on their own observation
and the observation of others.But some people don't trust their own eyes and need the Ohr HaChaim to tell them what they see.So RS has to cite the Ohr HaChaim.
"Somebody who truly doesn't believe in Daas Torah wouldn't rely on the Daas Torah of the Ohr Hachaim to tell him that non-Jews can be wiser than the wisest Jews."
The אור החיים is not דעת תורה in the sense used here. In most contexts, the modern term דעת תורה refers to the authority of a select group of גדולים on non-halachic (and non-aggadic!) applications.
And by the same token, you're just as cruel by not keeping quiet and calling out the person who was calling out the person who was calling out the other people.
To view NS as the nirdaf I presume you refer to the midrash that says אפילו צדיק רודף את רשע, אלוקים יבקש נרדף That does not apply here. The point of the midrash is to say that God favors the underdog, even if the underdog is a sinner. NS is hardly an underdog. Moreover, it does not apply to public communal matters, for it it did, every time Beis Din took steps to punish someone it would be rendering itself a Rodef and the guilty party a nirdaf.
NS has taken his personal grievances and back-of-the-beis-midrash grumbling into the public sphere. Accordingly, he has zero status as a nirdaf, even if somehow he would otherwise qualify.
Since so many people worship Daas Torah it still remains a new topic to consider a change of thought! Perhaps it will always be a point of controversy.
A very strange conclusion. The doctrine of "Da'as Torah" as presented by Chareidim is not that Gedolim know everything first hand, but that they're 'shikul hada'as' is superior. This story seems to corroborate that - Yisro presenting the advice is not newsworthy, rather it's Moishe's stamp of approval.
In any case, MRA"H, whilst a great Prophet, was still a human, and perhaps in this instance was 'nogeia bedavar' and unable to see this fact until an outsider pointed it out. This is possibly pshat in the Abarbanel.
Yisro was a priest, some say the high priest, others say that he had examined all the religions available to him and found them lacking. He knew that Moshe Rabbenu was going to establish a new religion and came to see for himself. The dynamics of all religions are similar and they are constructed from the same components. Yisro, with his experience, was the greatest expert around. He wasn't consulted, he interfered on his own accord to calm the misplaced zeal of the neophite. What he proposed was no major breakthrough and was widely practised in history.
Good קשיא against the most extreme version of Daas Torah.
I haven't seen anything inside. However, based on what you wrote, there is some irony. The the Abarbanel, one of the more "rationalist" meforshim, goes with a less pshat and "less rationalist" approach while the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, one of the more mystic meforshim takes the "more rationalist" approach. These things often don't line up so neatly...
"When the cruel Pharaoh gave the order that all Jewish baby boys should be thrown into the river, her parents decided to separate and have no more children, for they already had a daughter and son. Then the six-year old Miriam said to her father, “Your decree is worse than Pharaoh’s, for Pharaoh aimed at boys only, while you would prevent both boys and girls from being born.” Being the leader of the Jewish people, Amram had set an example which other Jews were quick to follow, and they too divorced their wives. Amram saw the wisdom of his young daughter, and he remarried his wife, whereupon all others also remarried their wives. The following year Moses was born."
Definitely, in the areas of Torah in which females are experts. In fact I would say females are the biggest contributors of Daas Torah they probably tell their husbands what the Daas Torah more than the other way around.
R. Lichtenstein comments that you can't have Daas Torah if their isn't Daaas. Hence many worldly issues Rabbis or Rebbeim have no knowledge about unless they researched and consulted with those who do, something that some Rabbonim do not do or are unable to do
"The greatest Gadol B’Torah of all time - Moshe Rabbeinu himself - gets his life coaching from his father-in-law Yisro, who tells him to arrange a system of judicial authority rather than wearing himself out. And which yeshivah did Yisro get his wisdom from? None at all - he was a pagan priest!"
"Of course, this completely demolishes popular contemporary ideas about great rabbis being an authoritative source of wisdom about all kinds of life issues solely due to their knowledge of Torah."
Yisro's advice was to set up a system *subservient* to Moshe. Moshe was still the one who eg ordered (others, while he stayed safely up on a mountain!) to go to war. Unless this post is meant as an esoteric argument in favor of gedolim having more layers of handlers while making the military decisions from the safety of an enclave, I'm hard pressed to see how it demolishes anything other than the brain cells of the people reading it.
After all your snark, you're completely missing the point. No one is saying that Yisro knew more Torah than Moshe. But in spite of Moshe's spiritual greatness, he still needed advice on how to organize the judicial system. That's why in a way chacham adif minavi, because a navi has to rely on Hashem's communication, but a chacham is always a chacham.
The Or Hachaim couldn't be more clear that there is great wisdom in the world (which is obvious), and that we weren't chosen for our wisdom. Ever been to the comments section of VINNEWS?
Hey what about the comments section of Rationalist Judaism? That's full of great wisdom also, isn't it? Including your comments!
"That's why in a way chacham adif minavi, because a navi has to rely on Hashem's communication, but a chacham is always a chacham."
Again. Why don't you spell out the charedi position on daas torah, and explain how it's 'demolished' by anything the ohr hachaim might have said. (You might want to bother actually reading up on the supposed target of demolition. You can start here if you'd like. https://www.jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf )
"....and that we weren't chosen for our wisdom. Ever been to the comments section of VINNEWS?"
As opposed to the comments section of the New York Post, which is filled with commentators engaged in intellectual combat on a level would make Einstein blush. Why bother citing to actual research https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4098351,00.html when you can enlist the bottom feeders of the internet as evidence?
Now now Shaul, that is a bit harsh!
<i>Democracy dies in darkness</i>
A real life raaya that the wisest man of his time, and nearly of all time, still needed help with management that he couldn't figure out for himself
Like I said, that's an argument in favor of giving more resources to gedolim, not less. It's certainly not an argument against their authority. Klal Yisrael didn't decide whether to take Yisro's advice; Moshe did.
It's not about either resources or authority, it's about wisdom.
Right. Charedi gedolim go to doctors. I said as much. Now what exactly was the position which you were supposedly demolishing?
Doctors are not wisdom, they are specialised technical knowledge.
Medical specialists involved in research do have wisdom they use to analyze data for new therapies
I'll ask again: what exactly was the position which you were supposedly demolishing?
It's an argument against Moshe Rabbeinu's authority to deny what he was maskim to
Huh? You talkin' to me?
You haven't addressed the point of the article. You're talking about the content of the advice, and RNS is talking about the context in which the advice was given- that it didn't come from the גדול; it came from below.
I'm all in favor of people from below offering advice to gedolim. I don't know who isn't. Do you honestly think modern day gedolim don't go to doctors? https://mishpacha.com/tending-greatness/ Only in some alternative universe where charedim exist as an undifferentiated cartoonish blob of unthinking simpletons led by a bunch of cult leaders who pretend to know everything would that fact come as a revelation.
The fact remains that Yisro didn't challenge Moshe's authority. Korach did. And we know how that worked out. https://cross-currents.com/2017/03/16/defense-rav-soloveitchik-response-dr-nathan-lopes-cardozo/ (Note that I'm not arguing R Soloveitchik was a fan of the concept of daas torah. I'm well aware of this:https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA64507449&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00225762&p=LitRC&sw=w&userGroupName=rock50261&aty=ip But it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm making.)
"The fact remains that Yisro didn't challenge Moshe's authority."
But that wasn't the point of the article.
"Do you honestly think modern day gedolim don't go to doctors? "
The article was not talking about doctors. It's talking about Moshe receiving insight on a sacred matter, not from his holy erudition, but from a secular expert. To be sure, I consider it one of RNS's weaker articles, but you've missed the point.
" Only in some alternative universe where charedim exist as an undifferentiated cartoonish blob of unthinking simpletons led by a bunch of cult leaders who pretend to know everything would that fact come as a revelation. "
You're setting up a straw man, and you haven't explained what you believe the Charedi consensus (to the extent to which it exists) of defining דעת תורה. It could be that you actually reject דעת תורה as defined by some in the Chareidi world.
For example, what is you take on Rabbi Bernard Weinberger's definition of דעת תורה? The article he wrote back in the early 60s has, perhaps, earned a bit of a notorious reputation at least among the critics of דעת תורה. (I wonder whether proponents of דעת תורה may have misgivings too, and consider Rabbi Weinberger's formula too much for even them.)
Here it is:
https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/JO1963-V1-N02.pdf
In consistency with my displeasure with commenters posting links without any summary of its content, I'll cite the most notorious quote from the article:
"Obviously, these qualities of knowledge, erudition, and. piety are basic. But, over and above these there's another factor that is crucial and that is what we generally
describe as "Daas Torah." This involves a lot more than a Torah weltanschaung, or a Torah-saturated perspective. It assumes a special endowment or capacity to penetrate objective reality, recognize the facts as they "really" are, and apply the pertinent Halachic principles. It is a form of "Ruach Hakodesh,''. as it were, which borders if only remotely on the periphery of prophecy."
"The article was not talking about doctors. It's talking about Moshe receiving insight on a sacred matter, not from his holy erudition, but from a secular expert. To be sure, I consider it one of RNS's weaker articles, but you've missed the point."
If that's all his point was, I would be inclined to shrug and ignore it. It certainly seemed to me that his point was more broad than that. But I acknowledge that I may have assumed there was more there than there really was.
Re R Weinberger. It's hard for me to know exactly what he even meant. I should note that after all the fireworks between Dr Lawrence Kaplan, R Berel Wein, and others whom I'm probably forgetting, it emerged that there wasn't all that much substantive difference between them.
https://seforimblog.com/2009/10/interview-with-professor-lawrence/?print=print
(I didn't want to incur your wrath, so I included a quote. But the entire thing is really worth reading.)
"But what I want to emphasize is that, as I explicitly state in my article, I wasn’t putting forward my own positive view of rabbinic authority. I was more criticizing the idea of Daas Torah as I think it’s popularly presented in the Haredi world. Some people might have misunderstood me to mean that I believe that all rabbis should speak only about pots and pans and should not have any say on communal matters. I never said that. And the other point which I made in my article is that I’m not sure if there’s necessarily throughout Jewish history one view of the limits and scope of rabbinic authority. Moreoever, I acknowledged the traditional rabbinic authority accorded to the rabbi who is the rav of the kehillah – actually I may have done this more in my Hebrew article, based on a reference that Professor Marc Shapiro pointed out to me – where the rav of the kehillah, by virtue of being rav of the kehillah, is granted a good deal of extra-halakhic authority on general communal issues. But even with respect to the rav of a kehillah, it’s not so clear – if you look at the Vaad Arba Aratzot, the laypeople oftentimes kept the rabbis on a short leash. If you look at the community in Amsterdam, it was the lay figures who put Spinoza in Cherem. Not the rabbis. Even though there were some prominent rabbis there at the time. To repeat, a lot of times, even in term of rabbis of communities – certainly in the Middle Ages and early modern times – lay leaders played quite a great role. Now the Rashba, on the other hand –but again, he was the official head of the community – obviously played a major role in the Maimonidean Controversy. But it should be pointed out that other people weren’t afraid to disagree with him, even though they admitted his preeminent stature. Other figures weren’t afraid to take issue with him, obviously respectfully, but they weren’t afraid to take issue with him. The idea of Daas Torah, as a charismatic notion of rabbinic authority, is something different. It doesn’t come out of nowhere, so it’s not yeish me-ayin. But, as I and others see it, it is an expanded view of traditional conceptions of rabbinic authority, precisely because of greater challenges in the modern period to rabbinic authority. And the classical sources which have been cited as support for it don’t seem to prove the larger claims made on its behalf. One such source is the notion of Emunas Chachamim. But it must be said that the phrase is very general; what it means is not so clear. The meaning attributed to it by the exponents of Daas Torah seems to be a late nineteenth century development, imported from the Hasidic view of the Rebbe. The source cited most often in support of the notion of Daas Torah, and which I focused on most in my article, is Lo Sasur. As I pointed out, according to most authorities it applies only to the Beis Din Hagadol. I further pointed out that the view of Afilu omrin lekha al yemin shehu semol is that of the Sifre. The Yerushalmi is the other way, that only if they say yemin is yemin and semol is semol do you have to listen to them. In my article, particularly the Hebrew version, I went through all the different ways how different scholars try to reconcile the two sources. The authority who seems to be the key figure for the exponents of Daas Torah is the Sefer HaChinuch — he’s the one who applies the Sifre generally to Chachmei HaDor. But the Sefer HaChinuch’s view is more of a practical view; you have to submit to the authority of Chachmei HaDor not because they necessarily have such great understanding, but just because otherwise you’re going to have chaos and anarchy. So it’s a more practical view. So what I suggested is that the modern view of Daas Torah – again, I’m not saying it was made out of whole cloth – is arrived at by taking the idea of the Sefer HaChinuch applying Lo Sasur to all Chachmei HaDor and combining that with the view of the Ramban who talks about the Beis Din Hagadol’s great understanding and how God will protect them from error, etc [7]. Part of the problem in writing a critique of the concept of Daas Torah is that it is a moving target; people keep on defining it differently. When people are oftentimes defending it, they define it more modestly: it’s a limited notion, we’re not saying the “gedolim” are infallible, maybe there’s a plurality of views that are Daas Torah, but obviously rabbis should have some say on broader communal issues, etc. There was an exchange in The Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society between me and Rabbi Alfred Cohen — where if I understood him correctly, he proposed this type of scaled-down notion of Daas Torah [8]. And if that is all that is meant by it, I’m not sure if I would necessarily disagree that much. But what I find is that when it’s actually used in the rhetoric of the Haredi world, it’s used to make rather extreme claims. First of all, despite the idea of the plurality of Daas Torah, it’s pretty clear to me that originally within the Agudah circles, it was used to legitimate the Haredi world and to delegitimate the Modern Orthodox."
"I didn't want to incur your wrath, so I included a quote. "
That's not a quote, it's an extract. You should summarize .
Okay, here goes: Most of the debate over daas torah boils down to semantics.
As to my own understanding of the term, especially as applied to politics:
See 'Dr G"rach:
Political reactions are not innate. Opinions on public issues are formed by values and ways of looking at things. In other words, they are cultural. What had been lost, however, in migration was precisely a “culture.” A way of life is not simply a habitual manner of conduct, but also, indeed above all, a coherent one. It encompasses the web of perceptions and values that determine the way the world is assessed and the posture one assumes towards it. Feeling now bereft, however, of its traditional culture, intuiting something akin to assimilation in a deep, if not obvious way, the acculturated religious community has lost confidence in its own reflexes and reactions. Sensing some shift in its operative values, the enclave is no longer sure that its intuitions and judgments are—what it has aptly termed—“Torah-true.”86 It turns then to the only sources of authenticity, the masters of the book, and relies on their instincts and their assessments for guidance. Revealingly, it calls these assessments “da’as Torah”– the “Torah view” or the “Torah-opinion”.87
As a further aside, a lot of the contretemps over issues such as women's prayer groups and other edgy chovevei Torah style innovations largely boiled down to YU roshei Yeshiva essentially asserting some form of extra-halachic authority to ban things which go against the mesorah. They couldn't call it daas torah because (as one wag put it) 'they don't hold of daas torah because Rav Soloveitchik told them they don't.' All of which is to say that whatever term you want to use, the basic concept is going to exist. It probably gets abused in the context of Israeli politics, but that's more a feature of the sullied nature of just about anything related to the Israeli political system. The rift within the Dati-Leumi community during the Bennet government wasn't exactly a model of 'ahavat yisrael' either.
Chazal already said this explicitly - חכמה בגויים תאמין. This is not novel.
OK - but still worth exploring other (re) sources.
Point is we all know this already. It's not quite a "surprise"
Not everyone is familiar with all the references (inc me!)
But Yitro is talking about halachah and yet Moshe,the greatest of Prophets seriously considers Yitro"s suggestion!
Are you helping Rabbi doctor's position or arguing that this is actually a terrible source?
He is not talking about halachah, he's talking about setting up an efficient system to deliver it.
But accepting a new system suggested by a high priest of עבודה זרה!
"Former" high priest who renounced his idols.
Mm
This article is about Daas Torah. Rabbi Slifkin is not suggesting that goyim should give rabbis halachic advice.
But as the Rambam comments one should take the truth from whomever says it.
שמע האמת ממי שאמרו is the Rambam. Chazal also say חכמה בגוים תאמין. but תורה בגוים אל תאמין.
The Rambam isn't talking about halacha either. Neither Rabbi Slifkin nor the Rambam were talking about halacha.
דעת תורה is not about הלכה.
On this case it means supplantiing the Word of G-d as given through Moshe and giving it to judges ! Who gave the right ?! It's talking about the halachah.!
Good question. I will try to think about it.
Btw, Natan, the simple reading of the OHC is just to say that he didn't pick us because of our brains or brawn - the other nations have that too, sometimes more! (as we see from Yisro's genius) - rather, because He loves us and our forefathers and we should be thankful for the free gift He gave us.
Does this have any bearing on if we can come to these levels of wisdom after matan torah on our own via the torah itself? Not sure...
According to the opinion that Yisro was before matan torah, according to what system of law were the judgements made?
And according to everybody, what sort of disputes took place between litigants in the desert anyway? Was there so much petty theft that Moshe was so busy? Business deals gone wrong? Inheritance? Your tent is encroaching on my tent's back yard? Your ox gored mine? Bad investment advice? Non payment of rent?
Much of this was going on?
I'd wager they were doing a lot of gambling. Using their land portions that they expected to be getting soon as collateral. They had tons of animals also, and there was nothing for the animals to eat, so the animals were probably going around causing damage, eating the other fellas mon and wrecking his tent. How much does mon cost? Can you pay for it? Also, you ever learned the part in Baba Kama about the guy holding the vessel and smashing into the other guy? So in the desert they were traveling in this long line, like in the Yam Suf pictures. I would be very surprised if this vessel-smashing didn't happen hundreds of time on every journey. Lots of work for the judges.
<i>Democracy dies in darkness</i>
Hahaha!
While the following only begs the question, it may offer some idea:
רש"י דברים א:יב
טרחכם. מלמד שהיו ישראל טרחנין היה אחד מהם רואה את בעל דינו נוצח בדין אומר יש לי עדים להביא יש לי ראיות להביא מוסיף אני עליכם דיינין
Ya man, I always wondered about that! What kind of legal cases were going on?
But last year I was thinking about it honestly and, I mean, there *were* 600,000 families with wives, kids, parents, besides the erev rav, (I once heard, I think from the Chofetz Chaim, an estimate of 5 million people!) so there must have been some kind of setup every time they camped, where human beings, as great as they were, could have encountered some bumps along the way, getting into all sorts of different legal disputes. Even if they all had good will and love for each other, more than plenty of halachic q's could've risen, enough to keep Moshe busy full time.
Whaddya think?
What sort if differenet legal disputes?
Rabbi Slifkin, it is quite ironic that in "demolishing" Daas Torah, you expose yourself as an adherent of Daas Torah! Somebody who truly doesn't believe in Daas Torah wouldn't rely on the Daas Torah of the Ohr Hachaim to tell him that non-Jews can be wiser than the wisest Jews. By relying on Torah evidence for this scientific question of who is wiser, you have inescapably joined the Daas Torah train! Welcome aboard! Next stop, Rechov Rashbam!
<i>Democracy dies in darkness</i>
I don't need Ohr HaChaim to tell me the plain message of the Torah. But others do.
You mean that people who believe in Daas Torah need the Daas Torah of the Ohr Hachaim to tell them what the Daas of the Torah is, but Rabbi Slifkin already knows what the Daas of the Torah is. Youre still on board the Daas Torah train,
<i>Democracy dies in darkness</i>
No they wouldn't rely on the Ohr Hachaim but on their own observation
and the observation of others.But some people don't trust their own eyes and need the Ohr HaChaim to tell them what they see.So RS has to cite the Ohr HaChaim.
So you mean he has to cite Daas Torah
<i>Democracy dies in darkness</i>
"Somebody who truly doesn't believe in Daas Torah wouldn't rely on the Daas Torah of the Ohr Hachaim to tell him that non-Jews can be wiser than the wisest Jews."
The אור החיים is not דעת תורה in the sense used here. In most contexts, the modern term דעת תורה refers to the authority of a select group of גדולים on non-halachic (and non-aggadic!) applications.
Thats exactly what listening to this Ohr Hachaim is about
<i>Democracy dies in darkness</i>
This is so immature. The 9th grade kid who reads something and thinks he's the only one who ever read it.
This comment is so cruel.
The 9th grade kid who finds fault with something and jumps at the opportunity to "shtuch someone out" (in public).
(Rather than be silent).
It's comes from boredom, immaturity, a cruel nature, and the thrill of the "shtuch."
(And BTW, it's R' Slifkin's blog, not yours; you're his guest here.)
Whoa Shlomo, chill! I've heard worse
And by the same token, you're just as cruel by not keeping quiet and calling out the person who was calling out the person who was calling out the other people.
Yes, there's been far worse (regularly) in the comments section here.
Should decent human beings become desensitized, just because we've been regularly exposed here to far worse?
Regarding your second comment, the person he's calling out (R' Slifkin) is publicly identifiable; the person calling him out is not.
And the person he's calling out is the owner of this blog.
And that owner is allowing him to visit here, as his guest.
I didn't think calling someone out is particularly cruel, especially if that person is [trying to] call other people out as well.
"And the person he's calling out is the owner of this blog.
And that owner is allowing him to visit here, as his guest."
Yes, that's true. But it cuts both ways. https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/every-tehillim-is-a-bullet/comment/44297814
Nothing wrong with taking issue; it's how one does so.
Your comment was substantive.
The one I responded to is not:
"This is so immature. The 9th grade kid who reads something and thinks he's the only one who ever read it."
Shim's comments as expressed by him fall into the category of true "erlechkeit". Look at the last blog topic.
Shim?
Shim from the article A Declaration.
To view NS as the nirdaf I presume you refer to the midrash that says אפילו צדיק רודף את רשע, אלוקים יבקש נרדף That does not apply here. The point of the midrash is to say that God favors the underdog, even if the underdog is a sinner. NS is hardly an underdog. Moreover, it does not apply to public communal matters, for it it did, every time Beis Din took steps to punish someone it would be rendering itself a Rodef and the guilty party a nirdaf.
NS has taken his personal grievances and back-of-the-beis-midrash grumbling into the public sphere. Accordingly, he has zero status as a nirdaf, even if somehow he would otherwise qualify.
Oh well, then, in that case, certainly, I retract my response.
:)
Exactly!!
Since so many people worship Daas Torah it still remains a new topic to consider a change of thought! Perhaps it will always be a point of controversy.
Great article, though not quite the zinger you wished it to be...
A very strange conclusion. The doctrine of "Da'as Torah" as presented by Chareidim is not that Gedolim know everything first hand, but that they're 'shikul hada'as' is superior. This story seems to corroborate that - Yisro presenting the advice is not newsworthy, rather it's Moishe's stamp of approval.
In any case, MRA"H, whilst a great Prophet, was still a human, and perhaps in this instance was 'nogeia bedavar' and unable to see this fact until an outsider pointed it out. This is possibly pshat in the Abarbanel.
I thought daas torah meant that there are no "negios"?
I think you're trolling. If you're not, go learn Pirkei Avos and revert.
Yes, and that story was the basis of a children's book that I illustrated many years ago called ' A Little Girl Named Miriam' by Dina Rosenfeld.
A new bottom reached for pure silliness.
Yisro was a priest, some say the high priest, others say that he had examined all the religions available to him and found them lacking. He knew that Moshe Rabbenu was going to establish a new religion and came to see for himself. The dynamics of all religions are similar and they are constructed from the same components. Yisro, with his experience, was the greatest expert around. He wasn't consulted, he interfered on his own accord to calm the misplaced zeal of the neophite. What he proposed was no major breakthrough and was widely practised in history.
Rabbi Sacks has a great dvar Torah on the power of chachma.
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/yitro/the-universality-of-wisdom/
A little hashgacha pratis surprise
Idiotic nonsense.
Moshe had noone else to turn to. There was no godol greater than him. So what choice did he have.
It's bizarre and logically weak to extrapolate from this that we mortals shouldn't turn to our gedolim
Good קשיא against the most extreme version of Daas Torah.
I haven't seen anything inside. However, based on what you wrote, there is some irony. The the Abarbanel, one of the more "rationalist" meforshim, goes with a less pshat and "less rationalist" approach while the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, one of the more mystic meforshim takes the "more rationalist" approach. These things often don't line up so neatly...
Thank you, Shimon. I hoped and suspected as much.
Just wondering, do you think any man would listen to a female 'Daas Torah'?
I can think of at least one....
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/112396/jewish/Miriam.htm
"When the cruel Pharaoh gave the order that all Jewish baby boys should be thrown into the river, her parents decided to separate and have no more children, for they already had a daughter and son. Then the six-year old Miriam said to her father, “Your decree is worse than Pharaoh’s, for Pharaoh aimed at boys only, while you would prevent both boys and girls from being born.” Being the leader of the Jewish people, Amram had set an example which other Jews were quick to follow, and they too divorced their wives. Amram saw the wisdom of his young daughter, and he remarried his wife, whereupon all others also remarried their wives. The following year Moses was born."
Definitely, in the areas of Torah in which females are experts. In fact I would say females are the biggest contributors of Daas Torah they probably tell their husbands what the Daas Torah more than the other way around.
Daas Torah - no, but an expert opinion or an exposition of a Torah text - yes. In Slifkin's circles they might. Alot of DL are henpecked.
R. Lichtenstein comments that you can't have Daas Torah if their isn't Daaas. Hence many worldly issues Rabbis or Rebbeim have no knowledge about unless they researched and consulted with those who do, something that some Rabbonim do not do or are unable to do