051) Women, Tefillin And Cars

51) Women, Tefillin And Cars

After R Shmuel Wosner, the Belzer Rebbe and R Amnon Yitzchak have decreed that women should not drive motor cars, it is refreshing to find another rabbinic authority who adopts a very different approach with regard to women.

In Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s Peninei Halacha, the author presents a most daring approach to women and Tefillin.

He begins by explaining that the reason why women do not wear Teffillin, is because of a fundamental principle in Jewish law – that women are exempt from positive commandments that are bound by time constraints. Tefillin falls neatly into that category because it is a positive (or ‘thou shalt’, as opposed to a ‘thou shalt not’) mitzvah, and it is limited only to weekdays (Tefillin are not worn on Shabbos, Yomtov or at night).

So far so good.

Then he goes on to explain that because of the Tefillin’s extraordinary holiness, over time, we have minimalised its usage because we are no longer as spiritual as we used to be. This is why nowadays men no longer wear Tefillin for the entire duration of the day as they used to. And this is also why women do not wear Tefillin at all (as some may have in the past). Thus across the board, both men and women have been marginalised to a degree from its performance.

The wording, however, is very interesting. He never says women cannot wear Tefillin. Instead he says[1] that the custom is for women to desist from wearing them[2].

Now for the bombshell.

He continues: “If a woman asks if it would benefit her to wear Tefillin, she should be discouraged from doing so. But, if she persists, and wants to do so modestly (i.e. not make a show out of it) - it would not be correct to deny her that right. Even though many would disagree, this holds true because there does exist a basis for this expediency. And the principle is that whenever we have ‘al mah lismoch’ (i.e. a precedent or basis), we can never reject it outright.”

Wow!

He does, however, object to women abusing the privilege as a means for social protest.

Women wearing Tefillin is a very emotive issue, which will evoke all sorts of responses by people on all sides of the halachik spectrum. This is understandable and to be expected.

However, what I love about Rabbi Melamed is his unwavering commitment to the principle of Halachik precedent which he is not scared to make constant use of. He sticks steadfastly to the idea that any and all legitimate Torah views are exactly that: legitimate Torah views. And he is fearless in his reliance on them if and when a need arises.

This is why I consider him to be an honest, sensible, practical, relevant and 'Ethical Halachacist'[3]. 

---

[1] Quoting the Magen Avraham and the Aruch HaShulchan.

[2] Here are some of the views for and against:

·      The Mishna in Berachot 20a says that women are Patur (exempt) from Tefillin, but it does not address the issue of a woman who may want to wear them (like the case of women who may want to observe other time bound mitzvos like Lulav and Shofar, which they may do).

·       A Braita in Eruvin 96a, records how Shaul’s daughter Michal, used to wear Tefillin, and the sages did not oppose it. (Tosafot, however says they did oppose it, because of ‘guf naki’. The challenge to this is the fact that the reason given is ‘zeman grama’ not ‘guf naki’. Even those who are lenient, agree that Tefillin should never be worn during menstruation, and that is why the directive is for her to wear Tefillin modestly and privately.)

·      Some say that Michal knew she possessed a reincarnated male soul.

·      There is much discussion as to the truth behind the common perception that Rashi’s daughters wore Tefillin.

·      The Ramo writes that the reason women should not wear Tefillin is because they would not be sufficiently well versed in laws that generally do not apply to them.

·      The Shulchan Aruch YD 38,3, says clearly that women should not wear Tefillin, even if they want to.

·      The Kabbalah also bring reasons to discourage women from wearing Tefillin.

·      There is evidence that some women during the early and latter generations did wear Tefillin, such as the wife of R Chaim ben Attar.

·      The Orchot Chaim and the Olat Tamid say that if a woman persists, she may wear Tefillin.

·      The Aruch HaShulchan writes that if a woman is known to be righteous she may wear Tefillin.

[3] See post 50.

UPDATE TO KOTZK BLOG 42 "WHAT THEY FORGOT TO TELL US"

THE GLORIOUS POOR

The following is an extract from a recent pamphlet distributed by Kupat Haír, a charity endorsed by many contemporary Gedolim: "..when you give a poor man money - you feel great, but....With Kupat Ha'ir you get to be part of feeding tens of thousands of poor people, each a evyon mehudar...We're not talking about people who need a bit of assistance...we are referring to twenty-five thousand people who truly lack bread to eat." 
What amazes me is that notwithstanding what is being described here as a humanitarian disaster and tragedy by any standards, if you were to offer these 25 000 people the possibility to work - how many of them would accept your offer? Any way, their leaders forbid secular studies which to a large extent precludes the possibility of ever being able to earn a living. Is it really such a mitzvah to help people who refuse an opportunity to better their lives and instead opt for charity in the first instance?
And the crowning insult to humanity is calling these poor people 'mehudarim' (glorified).

Counter this attitude with someone like Rabbi Soloveitchik who rejects views held by religious thinkers who see no religious significance in participation in secular society. He was fascinated by space exploration, established Yeshiva University and encouraged religious people to get degrees and professions. He said; "I hardly believe that any responsible man of faith, who is interested in the destiny of his community and wants to see it thriving and vibrant, would recommend the philosophy of contemptus saeculi (contempt for the secular)."

Rabbi Soloveitchik tells us that the concern should rather be for secular man, not secular knowledge.
He also warns us not to confuse religious faith for religious culture.

WOMEN DRIVERS

It now seems as if modern day Belzer Chassidim have inadvertently aligned themselves with Saudi Arabian ideology, which imposes a driving ban on women. The fifth and present Belzer Rebbe, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, has thrown his weight behind a directive to expel school children in London’s Stamford Hill, if their mothers drive them to school. This is because in his view, women should not be allowed to drive, as this transgresses the Torah laws of Tzniut (modesty). The Belzer dynasty is no small insignificant sect. They number among the larger and more powerful of international Chassidic movements, with strong communities in the West, including Great Britain, Canada and America.[1]

In 2013, Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak, a leading Sefardi Hareidi, cited HaGaon HaRav Shmuel Halevi Wosner (considered by many to have been the Posek HaDor or leading Halachik authority of the generation), who also said that it was forbidden for women to drive. This, said Rabbi Yitzchak was forbidden by Rabbi Wosner, “Betachlit HaIssur” (as an absolute and serious prohibition). He further said that “this is halacha because it is not tzniut for a woman to be a driver”.[2]

This is yet another example of the reform and radicalization of Judaism slowly moving across the globe, and an utter misrepresentation of genuine Halacha.

THE iPHONE

Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, the Sefardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, said; “If there is a student with an iPhone, then he needs to be kicked out of the yeshiva...” He went on to say that he had in fact told a student who had such a device, to bring a bowl of water to class and “...I put it inside, it bubbled and was gone.”  He further claimed that he did not have to pay damages to the student who, he suggested, could go to the Beth Din if he had a problem with the decision.

This, however is not a new innovation of the Chief Rabbi. Even the illustrious scholar Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky said; “It is forbidden to be in possession (of an iPhone) and one must burn it.”

Rabbi Kanievsky was asked by a businessman if he could use such a phone for his urgent business, and he replied; “It is forbidden to own one, and one is obligated to burn it. It cannot be sold to a non-Jew under the prohibition of selling weapons to a gentile.” [3]

---

[1] See THE TIMES OF ISREAL May 29 2015

[2] See theyeshivaworld.com Nov 13 2013

[3] See Times of Israel Feb 1 2015

050) The Ethical Halachist

Jewish Law, or Halacha, is often presented as a dry and matter-of-fact compilation of Torah related jurisprudence. Not having been raised in religious Zionist circles where the writings of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed were studied, I was nevertheless so delighted to have discovered his teachings. He writes and expounds Halacha, clearly, concisely and relevantly, making sure to always place a strong emphasis on morality and ethics.

   

                                                  Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, author of the Peninei Halacha series.

His iconic work, ‘Peninei Halacha’, means Pearls of Law. And I think I have discovered some of these pearls. Let me cite a few examples to give you some idea of what I mean:

1)      With regard to the laws of re-heating liquids on Shabbos, the Ashkenazim and Yemenites differ fundamentally as to its permissiblity.[1] So what happens when an Ashkenazi goes to visit a Yemenite on Shabbos, may he partake of his host’s food?

Now, I did a little experiment. I asked a number of my colleagues what they would say if asked the same question. They all said the answer was no. I also thought the answer would be no. But the Peninei Halacha says: “When an Ashkenazi visits a Yemenite on Shabbos, he may partake of the food because the host is following his own practice and his Halacha. Every single Jew may Lechatchila (in the first instance) eat that food (even though it may not be their practice to do so in their own homes).”

2)      In reply to a question about custom, Rabbi Melamed writes: “I was once a guest at a family whose custom is to wash their hands before Kiddush, and they asked me if I wanted them to alter their custom in my honor. I answered them ‘quite the opposite’.”[2] Custom is something we all take very seriously, but he was prepared to forgo his, in deference to that of his hosts. I wonder how often this scenario of respect plays out in the real world?

3)      It is more important to pray with a Minyan than to attend a Bris Mila (circumcision). However, Rabbi Melamed adds that if the family of the child would get upset by his non attendance, he may pray at home, miss the Minyan and attend the Bris.[3] Here again, human feelings were factored into his equation. 

4)      Regarding the question of whether or not a boy under BarMitzva can be counted towards a Minyan, the Peninei Halacha explains that it is actually a debate among the Amoraim (the rabbis of the Gemora period). Most views say the answer is no. However, after going through various sources, he says that (because the concept of a Minyan is only DeRabbanan – of rabbinical origin) where a community experiences difficulty with their numbers for a Minyan, they may rely on minority opinions and indeed include a young child.[4]  A functioning minyan is often a highly emotive issue, especially in dwindling communities. Once more, his empathy (not just his knowledge), clearly informed his decision.

5)      When it come to the custom of choosing a community in which to belong, he writes; “It would be good to move to a place where there is a synagogue with your minhag (custom). This is on the condition, however, that the community acts with a Torah attitude towards derech eretz, namely, they have a positive attitude towards earning a living and secular studies, or at the very least, do not object to it, as some Hareidim mistakenly do. This is because the right attitude towards work and secular studies is far more important and fundamental than the nusach (rite) of prayer.”[5]

6)      Concerning the very controversial debate in Israeli media as to whether civil, as opposed to religious marriages should be adopted by the state, Rabbi Melamed writes; “While we believe that the State of Israel must have a Jewish character, we also do not wish to cause grief to anyone. Nor do we claim the authority to interfere with one’s personal life and tell him who to live with, or how[6]. It should be established that any two people are entitled to sign a domestic partnership agreement that grants them all privileges derived from a shared life, like a family.”[7]

7)      This is what he says about conversions; “How many laws must a convert be taught before he is asked if he is ready to accept upon himself the commandments of the Torah?...It is clear to all that there is no need to teach him the entire Torah. It is sufficient to teach him some of its foundations, and if he accepts them, it is already possible to convert him. This is what the Shulchan Aruch says; ‘He is taught some of the minor commandments and some of the major commandments. But we do not overburden him and we are not overly strict with him.’[8]  He need not be taught all the fine details and stringencies...The reason for this is that even if he is sincere, if he is suddenly confronted with all these stringencies, he will recoil and change his mind about converting.”[9]

8)      When asked about his view concerning some the contemporary Gedolim (Torah leaders), he said; “Torah greatness necessitates an all-embracing, fully accountable handling of serious issues facing the generation, including: the attitude towards Am Yisrael in all its diversity and various levels – both religious and non-religious...the attitude towards science and work, and contemporary social and economic questions...The simple answer is; I don’t consider them Gedolei haTorah.”[10]

9)      Rabbi Melamed also has a strong position on the thorny issue of segregating men and women on busses[11]. He believes that ‘Mehadrin’ busses undermine family structures, as men are unable to sit with their wives and daughters, and mothers are unable to sit with their sons. “There are very clear boundaries in halacha distinguishing between what is required and what is optional. When you try to obligate people to follow a custom that is laudatory but not actual halacha, you destroy the very foundations of Torah and halacha...It is important not to add additional stringencies when it come to matters of tznius (modesty).”[12]

10)   He is also very in favour of Christians who support Israel. He says; “We must battle missionaries, not moral Christians who respect our religion and support us. These are about 70 million citizens of the largest superpower in the world...Their moral stature is higher and more exulted that that of the Persian King Cyrus who assisted the return to Zion...American Evangelists are the most important and meaningful group supporting Israel nowadays.”[13]                                                                         

                                                                                                                                                  

      It is so refreshing and exciting to follow the teachings of a leading rabbi who carries with him a general ethos of sensibility and social responsibility. This philosophy seems to flow through all his writings, and serves as a constant practical reminder to his students and readers, of the ethical imperative required of a Torah Jew. Far from being insular, he constantly reminds us that it is possible to function in, influence and contribute to, the society around us, without having to compromise our commitment to Torah. Although not without opposition, his work is fast becoming a major force to be reckoned with in the Halachik sphere today.

                                                                          

      It seems as if Rabbi Melamed is finally putting the ‘Jew’ back into jurisprudence.

        

      The Kotzker Rebbe said that there is no mitzvah to just become a scholar, amassing huge amounts of knowledge, if it is not directed to practical good. He said the sole purpose of studying Torah was to affect good[14].

His best friend, the Vurka Rebbe said that the most important thing he learned from the Kotzker, was that “...to get to the inner garment, one first has to remove the outer garment”[15]. This means that before one overly concerns oneself with the ‘inner garment’ - the soul, and the theology that goes with it -  one has to work with the ‘outer garment’ – the social behaviour, which is the only real aspect of the religious persona that the rest of the world actually sees.        

---

[1] Ashkenazim, following the Ramo, do not permit re-heating a liquid (say soup), that has cooled down. Yemenites, however, following the Rambam, Rashba and Ran, maintain that it is permissible.

[2] How Binding is Minhag? By R Eliezer Melamed.

[3] Peninei Halacha, HaMinyan 5.

[4] Peninei Halacha, HaMinyan 6, note 7.

[5] How Binding is Minhag? By R Eliezer Melamed.

[6] In a similar vein consider the Bostoner Rebbe’s recent statement about being “afraid of a Halachik state” should the religious parties get a majority; “...I am afraid of the day we have 61 MKs because I don’t know how you can run a state with the responsibilities of keeping Torah...in the modern world I don’t know how you can do that...Thank G-d no one comes to ask me these types of questions.” Quoted in nrg.co.il 3/3/2015.

[7] R, Melamed quoted in The Jewish Week 06/242014. He does, however, insist on the caveat that not all domestic partnerships are called ‘marriage’.

[8] Yoreh Deah 268;2

[9] How Much Must the Convert Learn Before Conversion? R Eliezer Melamed.

[10] R. Melamed quoted in Israel National News August 13 2013.

[11] R. Melamed does, however, encourage separate seating at religious gatherings such as wedding etc.

[12] R. Melamed quoted in Vos Iz Neias, December 28 2011.

[13]R. Melamed quoted in Breaking Israel News June 29 2014.

[14] Amud HaEmet p 107, par 4. ‘Study it well (good)’ (Yeshayahu 1,17), means study it – not to be a scholar- but (lehaytiv) in order to do good. ‘Bechol haTorah kulo, lo matzanu shum mitzvah liheyot lamdan...vekavanato la’asot  et hatov ’

[15] Amud HaEmet p 191, par 7. The Gemora also speaks of ‘Tocho Keboro’, where the ideal state is for the ‘inside’ to reflect the ‘outside’. Not the other way around. So that, ideally the first thing to change in any religious encounter should be the ‘outside’. 

049) Writing Women Out Of Judaism

When 44 world leaders marched in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, an ultra-Orthodox newspaper, HaMevasser, reported on the event. The problem was that there were now only 40 leaders because 4 had been photoshopped out of the picture. Why? -Because they were women.[1]

Spot the difference between the first picture as seen through the real lens of a camera, and the second picture, as depicted in HaMevasser:

 

                                                    

             A similar thing happened to Hilary Clinton who was also removed from a photograph taken during the Bin Laden mission, by an American Chassidic newspaper, Der Zeitung:  

Ironically in all these pictures the women were dressed very modestly with coats and jackets, but still, it seems as if the editors were less concerned with Geneivas Da’as (deceit), and more concerned with, totally obliterating women from the public arena.[2]

In a brilliantly jarring article, Shoshana Jaskoll writes:

“Do I care if an insular community, in their own place and tiny publications omit women? Yes I do; but I would not be writing about it if it remained within said small community. Instead it is spreading...

In some communities, women’s names are not printed. Not in publications and not in announcements such as wedding invitations.

A baby formula even stopped printing an outline of a mother holding her baby.

(...words like “breast cancer” are not used in Charedi society...Because of this extreme take on modesty, women are less aware, get fewer mammograms...The rate of death from breast cancer is estimated at 30 percent higher among Charedi women...Excluding women from health pamphlets, both as doctors and as patients, can only exacerbate this phenomenon.)

A (recent) book depicts a Shabbat table – completely female free. The entire book dedicated to the Shabbat, a day of family and Torah, is devoid of even one girl or woman. Where is Ima??

My preteen daughters were told to go to the back of the bus on their way home from school. Extremism seeps outward.

Beyond the damage it does to boys. Beyond the damage it does to girls. Beyond the damage it does to a healthy society where respect, interaction and balance between genders should be the norm. Beyond all of this – it is a falsehood...it is a LIE.”[3]

On the shelves of a shop featured below, the female has been covered over with a piece of paper:

Remember the iconic picture below? This is how the ultra-Orthodox weekly Bakehila (re)printed the photo, blurring out the face of the Jewish women:

Amazingly, we are quick to say ‘yemach shemam’ (may their memory be blotted out) when we speak of the Nazis. But now we print Nazis and blot out Jewish women. [4]

The great strength of the Kotzker Rebbe was his fearless ability to always stand for truth. He spoke out against so many things he believed to be wrong with the  Judaism of his day. I could never, even in my wildest moments of religious fervour, ever believe that this position on women is truthful Judaism. Keeping quiet and not registering opposition, allows the deception to perpetuate itself. Were that to happen, we would have written in new innovations that are nothing other than reforms... and have written women completely out of Judaism.

The Kotzker Rebbe wrote extensively against religious fanaticism, which was rapidly becoming prevalent in the mid 1800’s.[5] (He passed away in 1859). He said; “There will come a time when those who dress in white garb (i.e. the extremists), will need all the help they can get, to prevent them from turning to a distortion of Judaism”.[6]

---

[1] The four women were German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo, EU foreign affairs and security chief Frederica Mogherini, and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (who was cropped and only her hand remains in the altered photograph).

[2]It needs to be pointed out that not all Chareidim buy into this new trend of writing women out of Judaism. Unfortunately the term ‘Chareidi’ is very misleading.  I wish we would come up with another designation for the extreme ultra-Orthodox, to differentiate between them and the centralists. See a very balanced article; “Who are THE Chareidim?” by Ronit Peskin, Times of Israel May 22, 2013. Nevertheless, there does seem to be a gradual leaning towards the right, with many centralists tacitly endorsing some of the sentiments of their far-right counterparts.

[3] See full article; ‘Vanishing Women’, Times of Israel January 20, 2015.

[4] See Kotzk Blogs 42 “What They Forget To Tell Us”, for more examples of censorship by the ultra-Orthodox.

[5] See Kotzk Blogs 41 “The Reforms Of The Ultra-Orthodox”, for a short history of the rise of the ultra-Orthodox.

[6] Amud HaEmet p 187, par 3.

048) Contemporary Daas Torah - Protecting Or Overstepping The Boundaries?

POPULARITY OF THE DAAS TORAH CONCEPT

I am always happy to receive a (very occasional and rare) compliment, but I was completely bowled over when an ex-student called the other day to ask a question. He had just returned from yeshiva and in his latest and updated phraseology, asked what my ‘Daas Torah’ (Divinely inspired opinion) was, regarding the issue of attending a pro-Israel rally during the Sefira period.

Politics aside, I assured him that I certainly did not posses Daas Torah. And added that (in my view) I doubted whether anyone in this generation has the authority to unquestionably speak for G-d, or unreservedly represent His Torah. This doesn’t mean that (outside of pure Halacha), great scholars cannot hold views or opinions, it’s just that they need to remain firmly within the confines of views, opinions, interpretations and postulations. And not become binding, de-facto, on all the community (as would be the case with a Halachic ruling).

Yet, within contemporary Judaism, many would be surprised to discover just how widespread and popular the notion of Daas Torah actually is. It is even used extensively in religious Israeli politics to sway voters one way or another, with leaders claiming to be speaking with Daas Torah.[1]

The irony is that notwithstanding Yeridot HaDorot (the gradual spiritual decline of generations since Sinai), Daas Torah is possibly more popular today than ever before.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DAAS TORAH AND PSAK HALACHA

Technically, the expression Daas Torah refers to a scholar having divine inspiration, NOT specifically in Halachic matters, but particularly in affairs of the secular world, such as medicine, science and politics[2]. And strangely enough, the less he was exposed to secular studies the more ‘expert’ he is considered to be because of his ‘piety’. Now he no longer pronounces just on matters of Halacha, which should be his speciality, but he even advises on whether people should have operations, who should stand for elections, and whether people should move from one city to another.

HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF DAAS TORAH

We are led to believe that Daas Torah has always been the pivot around which the entire Torah world turned. The popular ArtScroll series on Tehillim says: “Many times the Sages describe natural phenomena with which they could not possibly have had a personal acquaintance. The Talmud explains their amazing knowledge with the verse, ‘The secret of Hashem is for...those who fear Him (Sod Hashem Liyereiav).”[3]

Historically, however, this occurrence did not really take place ‘many times’ as claimed. This type of event is only recorded three times in the entire Talmud (and insignificantly at that). There are only three instances where detailed knowledge of the physical was acquired through supernatural means. And even on those three occasions, Daas Torah or (Sod Hashem Liyereiav[4]) is only offered as an optional explanation among other more plausible suggestions. Furthermore, no claim is ever made by the individual himself as to acquiring his uncanny physical insights by supernatural means. All other recorded insights of such a nature, in the Talmud, are made as a result of study or physical observation with no claim of hidden access to Daas Torah.[5]

Following on these three recorded cases of possible divine intervention in acquiring secular knowledge, the vague concept of Daas Torah acquired more and more density in the post-Talmudic era through medieval times.  Some say the expression was used more as a figure of speech, expressing gratitude to Hashem, rather than claiming to be privy to divine knowledge. But it seems as if the ever developing Daas Torah concept was generally understood to be real, literal, and it was gaining momentum.

This evolution reached a radical crescendo with the emergence of the kabbalist Rabbi Shlomo Elyashiv[6] (1841-1925) who applied the Daas Torah concept not just to the secular realm but, unprecedentedly, to Halacha as well[7]. He also included in this category every single statement by the Sages[8], and turned Daas Torah into a prerequisite and mandatory belief. This view has, to a large extent, informed the opinion and belief of many today.

However, our generation has taken it a step forward by applying Daas Torah, not just to the sages of the Talmud, and not just to Halacha, but even to some of our present personalities. And unlike issues of Halacha which were traditionally always predicated on sources and analysis, no reasoning or explanation is required when it comes to modern day Daas Torah.

DEFENDING DAAS TORAH

In defence of modern day Daas Torah, the following extracts may be of interest:

*R. Nisson Wolpin writes, “This exceptional capacity... guides the gadol in dealing with problems that appear to be extra-halachic in nature, appearing to belong to other disciplines, such as politics, sociology, or psychology.”[9]

*In fact, ‘a rabbinic authority has greater latitude when declaring Da’as Torah than when defining a halachic opinion’[10].

*Rabbi Alfred Cohen writes: “From time to time rabbinic figures will make pronouncements about political agendas or personalities...a person who spends his nights and days immersed in Torah wisdom eventually becomes imbued with an almost intuitive grasp of what Hashem wants...Although the role of Roshei Yeshiva, possessed of great Torah scholarship and often personal charisma, may indeed be far more prominent nowadays than in the past, it is hardly indicative of a new phenomenon.”[11]

*“Haredi Judaism espouses the belief that Jews...should seek out the views of the prominent scholars of the generation...not just on matters of Jewish law or matters of ‘religion’, but in every aspect of life, from issues of health to secular politics.”[12]

These popular views, however, seem to fly in the face of many traditional sources, like the post-Talmudic Gaonim, who warned against following some of the medical advice offered in the Talmud; and those Rishonim who said that some Sages were mistaken in their understanding of the natural order.

POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY

But there is another factor that needs to be taken into serious consideration as well, namely, that of relatively recent religious history and politics. As a reaction to the Enlightenment movement, where individual autonomy was fast becoming sacrosanct, the Chassidic movements, in a valiant attempt at perpetuating the authority of their Rebbes, were keen to adopt the Daas Torah concept. Chassidim and their rivals, the Mitnagdim, became strange bedfellows in that they found common ground opposing the newly formed Haskalah, Zionist, Moderate Orthodox and Mizrachi organisations. They merged together forming a new movement, Agudas Yisrael. On the 19^th of June 1914 Agudas Yisrael, in a signed manifesto, officially adopted two resolutions which the Chassidim insisted upon before they would agree to join the organization; 1) The decrees of the Rabbinic leadership would be issued without the need to justify or explain them, and 2) Rabbinic jurisdiction would go beyond issues of Halacha and extend to worldly matters as well[13].

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

If this last analysis is correct, and I believe it is, one needs to think very carefully before subjecting oneself and family to decisions based on the modern representation of Daas Torah, born, probably more out of political expediency than authenticated tradition.

Perhaps the Kotzker Rebbe was pre-emptive to this danger, when he explained the Mishna; ‘Asey Lecha Rav’ (Make for yourself a teacher) - not meaning finding someone to subjugate yourself to - but rather to ‘make yourself’ into ‘the teacher’. And to be aware of the possibility that some may have overstepped the traditional boundaries of rabbinic jurisdiction.

---

[1] See Kotzk Blog 42, where a letter was circulated in Bnei Brak claiming that according to Daas Torah, a certain individual should be voted in as mayor.

[2] Interestingly enough, because of the principle of ‘Lo BaShamayim Hi’ (The Torah is not in Heaven), Halacha has to be rationally and rigorously authenticated and substantiated before it becomes acceptable. Not so when it comes to Daas Torah which generally relates to worldly and non-Halachic affairs. 

[3] ArtScroll/Mesorah 1977 vol. 1 p.313

[4] According to Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for Agudas Yisrael; “The phrase Da’at Torah may be a relatively new one...(but) Emunat Chachamim, or ‘trust in the judgement of the Torah-wise’, has been part and parcel of Jewish tradition for millennia.”

[5] For a detailed analysis of these three cases, see Sod Hashem Liyerayav by Rabbi Natan Slifkin.

[6] Not to be confused with R Shalom Eliashiv (1910-2012), whose father married R Shlomo Eliashiv’s daughter, and changed his surname from Erener to Eliashiv to enter British Palestine.

[7] This application of Daas Torah to Halacha seems to be in conflict with the “Lo Bashamayim Hi’ principal.

[8] Including matters of scientific, medical and general secular nature.

[9] The Torah Personality, p, 15.

[10] Rabbi Yaakov Feitman, Daas Torah: Tapping the Source of Eternal Wisdom. 1995.

[11] Daat Torah, Rabbi Alferd Cohen.

[12] Rabbi Yaakov Feitman, see above.

[13] See Kotzk Blog 41 for another example of a signed manifesto which also changed the historic perspective.





UPDATE 31 AUGUST 2015


A recent Daas Torah ruling is compelling schools to accept children who have not been vaccinated against childhood diseases. The decree states that it is contrary to Halacha to prevent children from attending school, even if they hadn't been vaccinated. It was promulgated by leaders of Lakewood Yeshiva and distributed to boys and girls schools in that city.
It quotes Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky who forbids schools to turn away students who have not been vaccinated.

Rabbi Harry Maryles writes in Emes Ve-Emunah (Friday August 28 2015);

"More importantly, those children that are not vaccinated run the risk of exposing other children to the diseases they are now more likely to contract. To the best of my knowledge vaccination are not 100%  effective. They only improve the odds of not getting the disease. Which increases the risk for others getting it -  even if they have been vaccinated. Which increases the chances of it spreading. The best way to reduce the odds of any child contracting one of those diseases is if everyone is vaccinated. The only exception I would make is if a child is known to be allergic to the vaccine – making his risk of danger greater if he is vaccinated than if he isn’t. Otherwise all children should be vaccinated."

"For me this is a no brainer. It is plain old fashioned common sense. The overwhelming benefits of vaccinations strongly argue in favor of requiring them for a child’s entry into a classroom full of other children."

"I truly do not understand what these Roshei Yeshiva are doing, other than going against vast majority of current medical advice on this issue.

As Rabbi Eliyahu Fink put it on Rabbi Bechoffer’s Facebook page, 

Schools cannot deny enrollment to unvaccinated students.  But schools may or even MUST deny enrollment to students with Internet at home / long hair / blue shirts. So to recap, parents who risk the physical health of an entire school are cool. Parents who are merely perceived as risking spiritual wellbeing of others are not cool."

.