[Avodah] Dr. Berkovits and R' Marc Angel

[Michael Makovi]

I was reading Rabbi Marc D. Angel's "The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A
Sephardic Approach" this past Yom Tov, and I found the following
passages. If anyone sees or does not see any parallels to Dor Revi'i
and/or Dr. Eliezer Berkovits, either way, I'm offering the following
passages from Rabbi Angel's work, without commentary of my own, save
what is in brackets. Especially, I do NOT quote either Rabbis Glasner
or Berkovits herein. But as far as I can tell, if Rabbi Angel's
presentation is accurate, Rabbi Benzion Uziel would perhaps agree to a
great degree with Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits.

(An aside: someone emailed me off-list, telling me that I should drop
my interest in Dr. Berkovits. This individual appealed to his being a
rabbi with smiha, saying that since he knows more than I do, his word
(as a rabbi) should be enough to convince me that he is right and I am
wrong. He seems to have held that I should drop my views without any
discussion, without any parrying of sources or sevara. Besides the
fact that following charisma (i.e. the mere fact that he has "rabbi"
before his name) over sources and logic goes against everything I
believe - this individual's email to me thus highly disturbed me, and
represents, I believe, one of the chief problems with Orthodoxy today
- cf. Einaim Lirot and Rabbi Weinberg's letters to Professor Atlas - I
might note that Rabbi Dr. Pinchas Hayman at Bar Ilan seems to regard
Dr. Berkovits's views well. If so, then I have Rabbis Uziel, Angel,
Glasner, Berkovits, and Hayman to rely on - enough for me if my goal
is simply to rely on anyone and everyone who has smiha, regardless of
his sources or logic. On the other hand, if we discard charisma and
appeals to authority, and argue based on the sources, I'm all ears.
Also, I'll note that I DID contact one of the other smiha'ed haverim
(a career Torah educator of renown) on the list, forwarding him the
criticism of me (minus the name of its author), asking this haver
whether I should honor his words or not (he said I shouldn't).)

Now, to quote Rabbi Angel:

Pp. 66ff:

The words of the Torah, even with their ancient explanations, still
leave many questions unanswered. The language of the Torah is not
legalistic, for the most part. Even in its legalistic sections, it is
not usually precise as a code of law. The words of the Torah demand
explanation and interpretation. The Torah provides us with the word of
God - but also leaves much room for human interpretation and
application of principles. Due to changed conditions and/or
perceptions, the words of the Torah are not always easily applied to
contemporary life. Therefore, the halakhah also includes categories of
rabbinic law. The rabbis of each generation are given the
responsibility and authority to apply the teachings of the Torah to
their own situation. Categories of rabbinic law include a) laws
derived by hermeneutic principles, by interpretations of the Torah
[Rabbi Angel seems to be following Rambam's Sefer haMitzvot, contra
Ramban's hasagot thereto, and so all the same discussions of that
machloket, apply here to Rabbi Angel's words]; b) rabbinical
ordinances; c) local regulations and customs.

These categories of halakhah are not based directly on God's command,
but on the rabbinic application of Torah principles to their
contemporary situations. The Torah and the original oral law [Rabbi
Angel, a page earlier, describes oral law that is explanations of the
Written Law, given explicitly at Sinai] represent God's words to
Israel; the rabbinic categories of halakhah represent the effort of
human beings to derive God's will from the principles of the Torah.

...

The Great Court had the authority to interpret the Torah and to
declare its judgment concerning the will of God. Yet interpretations
could change from one generation to the next; the oral law was "oral"
so that it would retain fluidity and flexibility [the same reason
offered by Rabbis Glasner and Berkovits]. Maimonides writes (Laws of
Rebels 2:1): ... [to summarize Rambam: if one Great Court rules the
halakhah one way, based in its exegesis of the Torah, a latter Great
Court can overrule that interpretation in favor of its own personal
exegesis].

...

Rabbi Yehuda the Prince, in the mid-second century C.E., compiled the
Mishnah, a record of the oral law up to his time. From then on, the
mishnah became the central text in halakhah; rabbis no longer derived
laws directly from the text of the Torah, but focused their studies
and decisions on the texts of the Mishnah. [Menachem Elon, in the
Encyclopedia Judaica, "Interpretation", makes this same point. Rabbis
Glasner and Berkovits attribute this change to the writing qua writing
per se of the Mishnah, explaining the prohibition to write the oral
law. Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein, in his Foreword to the Soncino Midrash
Rabbah, rather explains this as the result of the change from midrash
halakhah to mishnah; whereas midrash halakhah had previously worked
exactly like midrash aggadah, with the same degree of freedom, the
level of freedom was now curtailed by the mishnaic method. See
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com/2009/01/rabbi-dr-isidore-epstein-on-oral-law.html]
... The dissolution of the Great Court changed the method of halakhah.
No longer was there one universally recognized institution which could
rule authoritatively for all Jews. No longer did rabbis go directly to
the Torah in order to determine halakhah.

...

There have been some individuals who have called for the establishment
of a new Sanhedrin in our times. They would like a revival of a
central halakhic authority for the Jewish people. The Sanhedrin would
not only provide unity in halakhah, but would re-institute the
original methodology of the oral law - interpreting the Torah itself,
applying the law to life with the freedom to overrule precedents and
previous decisions.

One of those calling for a Sanhedrin was the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of
Israel, Rabbi Benzion Uziel (1880-1953). In a speech delivered on 12
Kislev 5697, he called for a authoritative rabbinic body along the
lines of the Great Court of Jerusalem. [Mikhmanei Uziel, Tel Aviv,
1939, p. 358.] [As far as I can tell, Rabbi Uziel here would be more
extreme than Rabbi Glasner; Rabbi Glasner said the Oral Law would
become oral again with Mashiah's coming, but Rabbi Uziel seems to have
tried to bring this about even sooner. On the other hand, Rabbi Uziel
is less extreme than Dr. Berkovits, who sought to restore the oral
law's nature even today. On the other hand, Dr. Berkovits explicitly
said that we cannot discard the Shulhan Aruch, but that rather, we
must strive to reintroduce the flexibility of the original oral law,
back into our exegesis and utilization of the Shulhan Aruch's binding
rulings. Also, Dr. Berkovits said we cannot create a new Sanhedrin
today; he said the Sanhedrin is more than just a collection of the
greatest rabbis of the age in one room; it is rather a group of rabbis
with powers and methods of halakhic decision-making entirely unlike
today's, and a paradigm shift in halakhic-thinking is required before
we can blithely resurrect the Sanhedrin. Perhaps, then, Dr. Berkovits
was trying to resurrect the Sanhedrin's method, as a preparation for
the Sanhedrin itself's own resurrection?]

(end quote) As an aside, in the following pages, Rabbi Angel suggests
that Sephardi poskim themselves regard Sephardi halakhah as being more
lenient than Ashkenazi; Rabbi Angel cites the Hida as saying that
Sephardi halakhah is hesed and Ashkenazi is gevura. Rabbi Angel says
this may or may not be true, but it indicates the Sephardi self-image,
he says. Also, Rabbi Angel says Sephardim were more in touch with the
needs of the common man, and the Sephardi way of life had more "joie
de vivre".

-----

It is well-known (at least, I think it is...?) that Rabbi Angel thinks
highly of YCT, and has close ties to Rabbi Avi Weiss. Someone recently
told me that an anonymous authority within Rabbi Avi Weiss's Open
Orthodoxy said that Open Orthodoxy is aspiring to what the original
intent of Conservative's right-wing JTS wing was. Rabbi Weiss's
description of the Oral Law in his article "Open Orthodoxy!"
(http://www.yctorah.org/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,143/,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n4_v46/ai_20583577), is
highly reminiscent of Dr. Berkovits:

Aside from Sinaitic law, there are laws that are non-Sinaitic. Halakha
is a partnership between God-given law and laws based on the biblical
mandate: "And you shall rise and go to the judge of your day"
(Deuteronomy 17:10).

This verse in part refers to laws that are logically deduced by the
rabbis from the Torah or from the thirteen hermeneutic principles
given at Sinai. These laws are interpretive in nature (ha-dinin
she-hoziu al darkhei ha-sevara). While they were set down by the
rabbis, they have biblical status (de-Oraita), since they emerge from
the Torah.(5 - See Harry C. Schimmel, The Oral Law (Jerusalem/New
York: Feldheim Publishers, 1971), pp. 62, 63. 6. See Maimonides in his
Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah. Other rishonim (early
commentaries) disagree with this distinction.)

The fundamental difference between Sinaitic law and non-Sinaitic law,
according to Maimonides, is that laws from Sinai, coming as they do
directly from God, are free from controversy. There is only one view
on every issue. Non-Sinaitic law, on the other hand, which is the
result of rabbinic interpretation, is subject to controversy.(6 - See
Tosafot to Pesahim 5 la, s.v. 'I'ata and Maimonides in his
Introduction to his Commentary on the Mishnah. See also Maimonides,
Code, Laws of Rebels 2:5.) After all, two rabbis of equal piety,
intellectual ability, or stature may disagree - and both may be
correct.

Thus, Halakha has a degree of flexibility. While bordered by a system
that is external to humankind - the God-given law, Torah mi-Sinai, to
which Jews are subservient - it also includes laws derived by the
rabbis, concerning which there may be more than one view. It follows,
therefore, that Halakha is a living structure that operates within
absolute guidelines, yet one which is broad enough to allow
significant latitude for the posek (decisor) to take into account the
individual and his or her circumstances. Simply put, within airtight
parameters, Halakha is flexible.

In the same framework, all those who hold to Orthodoxy contend that
"new Halakha," which emerges constantly from the wellspring of the
halakhic process, must always be based on the highest caliber of
religio-legal authority. There must be an exceptional halakhic
personality who affirms the new ruling on the grounds of sound
halakhic reasoning.

----

Michael Makovi

-- 
Michael Makovi
מיכאל מאקאווי
mikewinddale at gmail.com
http://michaelmakovi.blogspot.com