[Avodah] Hypocrisy in halakhah

[Michael Makovi]

First, I thank R' Zev Sero's response. It certainly troubles me, but I
cannot say it disagrees with what I already knew; he reaffirms what I
had already seen myself. Obviously, one cannot create a solution to a
problem if said solution is not authentic.

> You're again teetering very close to Historical School.
> R' Micha

Very possibly. I remember when I was reading Rav Hirsch on Frankel,
and a lot of what Frankel said, I found objectionable only if his
unspoken intention was of a certain variety. I.e., many of his
statements I found could be read more than one way, and only one of
the two sounded heretical.

For example, Frankel says the laws in Seder Zeraim are likely very
ancient. Now, Rav Hirsch reads this as meaning there is no Sinaitic
Oral Law, and that the Rabbis **made up**, **invented** the laws of
Zeraim, albeit a long time ago - this I would very much agree is
heretical!

But you could just as well read Frankel as saying that the laws of
Zeraim, as an application of Sinaitic (yes, Sinaitic mamash)
principles to new and everchanging conditions, were formulated a long
time ago, and haven't changed since agriculture doesn't change (until
recent technology). I.e., since agriculture is stable, the practical
application of Sinaitic agricultural principles is also stable. On the
other hand, the Biblical and Talmudic economies were VERY different,
so Sinaitic economic principles would have to be adapted and
interpreted according to whatever method they were.

Indeed, the Soncino Zeraim says that the halakhot of Zeraim are
largely anonymous because they were formulated a long time ago and had
their machlokets solved long before the Mishnah, and Soncino is
certainly Orthodox (left-wing, it is true).

So I think a huge factor in the validity of the Historical school is
intention. Is it because one finds halakhah burdensome and wants to
get rid of as much as one can, or is it an honest intention to
discover the truth of Hashem's Sinaitic Oral Law? In other words, it
is a disingenuous attempt to get rid of halakhah by ascribing it to
humans, or is it an honest attempt to discover what "lo bashamayim hi"
in truly Sinaitic law means? David Glasner, regarding the Dor Revi'i,
writes that even though the Dor Revi'i was accused of Wissenschaft
tendencies, the difference is that the Dor Revi'i was committed to
halakhah. This, I think, makes ALL the difference.

For the record, Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein's Preface to the Soncino
Midrash Rabbah reads very much like Dor Revi'i and Rabbi Berkovits. I
know Rabbi Dr. J. H. Hertz refers to Jews' College as the sister of
JTS, but remember that this was during the Orthodox days of JTS when
there was thought of fusing JTS and YU.

It is also interesting that when I emailed Kahal Adath Yeshurun about
my views on the Oral Law, the talmid hakham whom they had answer me,
told me that my views are certainly reconcilable with Rav
Hirsch's....!!!!! I only expected an answer on why Rav Hirsch would
disagree with me (I wondered how Rav Hirsch would rebut my support of
Frankel-ish views), but instead, he told me that very likely, Rav
Hirsch would not...!!!!! So maybe it is only the one reading of
Frankel that Rav Hirsch would object to, and not my own reading of
Frankel.

This talmid hakham (who was appointed by KAJ itself to answer me) also
had a refreshing take on TIDE versus TuM: he told me that there are
TuMists who view secular studies as a means to understand the Torah
and to better fulfill "pru u'rvu u'milu et ha'aretz u'cavshah", and
others who see TuM as giving limudei hol their own independent value
as their own end in and of themselves. He said the former type of TuM
would be the same as TIDE, no difference, and that only the latter
type of TuM is objectionable.

Obviously, I hope I have not misunderstood this talmid hakham's responses to me!

Mikha'el Makovi