When I was younger, I thought that the primary difference between the RZ and Haredi community was who was regarded as a "Gadol", each community had their own Gedolim, and ultimately the buck stopped with them.
As I got older I realized that the difference between the 2 communities was not on WHO the gedolim were, but WHAT a gadol is, and what authority he has.
My son learned in a Hesder Yehsiva with 2 Roshei Yeshiva. Both are tremendous talmidei chachamim, but there were issues where they disagreed with each other. For example, one RY believed that it was an important Mitzva to go up to Har Habayit, and encouraged his students to do so, and even lead trips to Har Habayit. The other RY believed that it was not only forbidden to ascend to har Habayit, but may be liable for Karet.
The fact that there were Halachic and Hashkafic differences between the 2 Roshei Yeshiva did not diminish their standing, the opposite, the students were taught that there are often different halachic opinions, and students were encouraged to learn the relevant sugya for themselves, and consult with their own Rabbonim before making and informed halachic opinion.
This whole approach could not exist in the Charedi world, where what is permitted or forbidden is determined by a few individuals who have no obligation to even explain the basis of their opinion, and in many cases may not even be informed of all relevant facts.
To me, their approach makes a mockery of learning Torah, as Talmud Torah becomes no more than a mental exercise, and has no bearing on halachic practice or understanding of the world. It is a Torah that can only exist inside the Beit Midrash as it is not connected to anything outside.
Another beautifully written piece with great sensitivity Scott. Do you happen to remember the Orthodox Forum work from around 1990 on rabbinic authority and personal autonomy? I was wondering if it is available on line
Thank you, Stephen - yes, I have a copy of it here. It's entitled Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, edited by Moshe Z. Sokol and published by Jason Aronson in 1992.
When you write "This is a position which, I believe, many religious Jews find upsetting. It smacks of the attitude noted by John Henry Newman, when he spoke of a Roman Catholic bishop who said that, “In matters of faith he would believe a single Pope rather than a thousand Fathers, saints, and doctors [of the church].”"
- you never explain why they find it upsetting. Is it because they have a particular problem with elements of belief that are similar to Catholicism rather than Protestantism? I don't understand the merit of this complaint, any more than complaining that synagogues are similar to churches in that both are places where people gather to pray. I also don't understand the comparison to the pope in the first place, since typically chareidim trust several Gedolim, not just one. It is more comparable to the Beis Din Hagadol than to the pope.
You also write "In other words, I need not insist that all important medical decisions rest exclusively in the hands of the the medical field’s biggest geniuses; it is not foolish to rely upon a less renowned yet eminently qualified expert."
-Chareidim would agree with this, which is why for the vast majority of questions they trust their own local rabbis. But surely you would agree that if the biggest geniuses are unanimously opposed or in favor of one thing, it would be prudent to rely on them rather than on lesser practitioners who dispute that opinion.
You also write that that "In fact, most non-Chareidi religious Jews suspect that many Chareidi Gedolim are quite insulated, and receive information that is incomplete or even incorrect - and they often lack the mechanisms to learn the truth. There are countless stories (with video evidence) of someone being ushered into the presence of an elderly Gadol, who then is given the background by his ever present handlers - and then pronounces his opinion on the subject. "
-I think that chareidim would respond that those who base their opinion of Gedolim on snippets of videos and "countless stories" are guilty of much a worse epistemology than that which they accuse the chareidi Gedolim of.
Doctors are authoritative because they're right (if they're right). It doesn't matter what credentials a doctor has—if he or she says something ridiculous, it's still ridiculous. Science is ultimately the sole criterion in determining what's right in a medical context, and no one person, no matter how great, has a monopoly on scientific knowledge.
Haredi gedolim, on the other hand, are right because they're authoritative (even if they're wrong). In recent times, some gedolim have made pronouncements that defy common sense and innate morality, but they are not challenged by their followers because their word is final. In the haredi worldview, credentials are everything.
Therefore, I think Rabbi Shafran's analogy fails.
Also, anyone with even a passing familiarity with political machinations in the haredi world knows that gedolim, especially when they're on a committee like the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah, are subject to huge political pressure from askanim and other gedolim. It's fanciful to suppose that they make their pronouncements in a rarefied world of pure reason.
Since disbelief in science is a bedrock characteristic of Haredim, Shafran’s analogy to medical specialists is unfortunate. Many frum people maintain distrust of science, though, with mystical trust in doctors.
When I was younger, I thought that the primary difference between the RZ and Haredi community was who was regarded as a "Gadol", each community had their own Gedolim, and ultimately the buck stopped with them.
As I got older I realized that the difference between the 2 communities was not on WHO the gedolim were, but WHAT a gadol is, and what authority he has.
My son learned in a Hesder Yehsiva with 2 Roshei Yeshiva. Both are tremendous talmidei chachamim, but there were issues where they disagreed with each other. For example, one RY believed that it was an important Mitzva to go up to Har Habayit, and encouraged his students to do so, and even lead trips to Har Habayit. The other RY believed that it was not only forbidden to ascend to har Habayit, but may be liable for Karet.
The fact that there were Halachic and Hashkafic differences between the 2 Roshei Yeshiva did not diminish their standing, the opposite, the students were taught that there are often different halachic opinions, and students were encouraged to learn the relevant sugya for themselves, and consult with their own Rabbonim before making and informed halachic opinion.
This whole approach could not exist in the Charedi world, where what is permitted or forbidden is determined by a few individuals who have no obligation to even explain the basis of their opinion, and in many cases may not even be informed of all relevant facts.
To me, their approach makes a mockery of learning Torah, as Talmud Torah becomes no more than a mental exercise, and has no bearing on halachic practice or understanding of the world. It is a Torah that can only exist inside the Beit Midrash as it is not connected to anything outside.
Thanks for the comment, Michael, I agree that learning Torah should be related to practical implementation, at least sometimes.
Another beautifully written piece with great sensitivity Scott. Do you happen to remember the Orthodox Forum work from around 1990 on rabbinic authority and personal autonomy? I was wondering if it is available on line
Thank you, Stephen - yes, I have a copy of it here. It's entitled Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, edited by Moshe Z. Sokol and published by Jason Aronson in 1992.
When you write "This is a position which, I believe, many religious Jews find upsetting. It smacks of the attitude noted by John Henry Newman, when he spoke of a Roman Catholic bishop who said that, “In matters of faith he would believe a single Pope rather than a thousand Fathers, saints, and doctors [of the church].”"
- you never explain why they find it upsetting. Is it because they have a particular problem with elements of belief that are similar to Catholicism rather than Protestantism? I don't understand the merit of this complaint, any more than complaining that synagogues are similar to churches in that both are places where people gather to pray. I also don't understand the comparison to the pope in the first place, since typically chareidim trust several Gedolim, not just one. It is more comparable to the Beis Din Hagadol than to the pope.
You also write "In other words, I need not insist that all important medical decisions rest exclusively in the hands of the the medical field’s biggest geniuses; it is not foolish to rely upon a less renowned yet eminently qualified expert."
-Chareidim would agree with this, which is why for the vast majority of questions they trust their own local rabbis. But surely you would agree that if the biggest geniuses are unanimously opposed or in favor of one thing, it would be prudent to rely on them rather than on lesser practitioners who dispute that opinion.
You also write that that "In fact, most non-Chareidi religious Jews suspect that many Chareidi Gedolim are quite insulated, and receive information that is incomplete or even incorrect - and they often lack the mechanisms to learn the truth. There are countless stories (with video evidence) of someone being ushered into the presence of an elderly Gadol, who then is given the background by his ever present handlers - and then pronounces his opinion on the subject. "
-I think that chareidim would respond that those who base their opinion of Gedolim on snippets of videos and "countless stories" are guilty of much a worse epistemology than that which they accuse the chareidi Gedolim of.
I think this is a good post idea...
Doctors are authoritative because they're right (if they're right). It doesn't matter what credentials a doctor has—if he or she says something ridiculous, it's still ridiculous. Science is ultimately the sole criterion in determining what's right in a medical context, and no one person, no matter how great, has a monopoly on scientific knowledge.
Haredi gedolim, on the other hand, are right because they're authoritative (even if they're wrong). In recent times, some gedolim have made pronouncements that defy common sense and innate morality, but they are not challenged by their followers because their word is final. In the haredi worldview, credentials are everything.
Therefore, I think Rabbi Shafran's analogy fails.
Also, anyone with even a passing familiarity with political machinations in the haredi world knows that gedolim, especially when they're on a committee like the Moetzes Gedolei Hatorah, are subject to huge political pressure from askanim and other gedolim. It's fanciful to suppose that they make their pronouncements in a rarefied world of pure reason.
Outsider's comment
Outside of what? I was once haredi and am now dati-leumi.
Since disbelief in science is a bedrock characteristic of Haredim, Shafran’s analogy to medical specialists is unfortunate. Many frum people maintain distrust of science, though, with mystical trust in doctors.
ולא־מעבר לים הוא לאמר מי יעבר־לנו אל־עבר הים ויקחה לנו וישמענו אתה ונעשנה׃
כי־קרוב אליך הדבר מאד בפיך ובלבבך לעשתו׃
You're right, that was a mistake on my part.