[Avodah] Precedent and Change

[Jonathan Baker]

From: "Samuel Svarc" <ssvarc at yeshivanet.com>
>R' Josh Feigelson as quoted by RMYG:

> >that. So the question is not 'does halakha change'? but rather 'Can
> >halakhic change happen in a conscious manner? Can we actively change
> >halakha, or must it 'change on its own'?

> It all depends on what you mean by "halachic change". The only change that I
> see when learning Gemara or Beis Yosef is, who do we pasken like. For a
> while we could have paskened like X, and now due to a new sevara we'll
> pasken like Y. There is no "real" change, that shitta was always there.

Which is change.  Admit it or not, if halacha was one way for hundreds or
thousands of years, and suddenly conditions change such that a formerly
rejected shitta comes to the fore, particularly in a way that changes
the behavior or attitudes of a significant part of Judaism - that is change.
It's just a type of change that is ratified by the Mishna in Eduyot 1:5,
that doesn't require rov minyan ubinyan.

> For example, the three major revolutions, to my mind, are: Beis Yakkov,
> Chassidus, and Mussar. None of them have made any "real" changes. Beis
> Yakkov doesn't teach anything that is prohibited. Chassidus didn't "change"
> any halachos. And Mussar did it's best to establish that it's really an old
> mehalech (Rabbeinu Yonah is already a rishon, etc.).

Beis Yaakov certainly was a change - from taking R' Eliezer's statement
about women and Torah as proscribing women's learning (which opinion was
consistently held from the Gemara through Rambam to Shulchan Aruch), to
taking it as a specific statement about saving one's daughter from sotah.
See RMB in http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol13/v13n090.shtml#02 .

The other opinion was there, but rejected.  But times changed, and the
old shitta had to come to the fore.

Similarly by chassidus - most of their innovations were there, but rejected
by the Gemara and weight of precedent.  And the Gedolim of their period
rejected Chassidus, so you can't even claim imprimatur of Gedolim for these
changes.  See, e.g., Wertheim's book on Chassidism and law, or the polemics
in Wilensky's Hasidim uMitnagdim.

Mussar, if anything, was a change, in transforming behavior-modification
therapy into "limud Torah".

> >In my experience, Orthodox Jews tend not to mind the idea that halakha
> >changes; they just don't want to know that it's changing. That's all
> >well and good, except that the pace of change has increased
> >exponentially in the last century. The challenge that those of us in the
> >M.O. camp feel is this tension between the rapid pace of change in the
> >rest of society, and the struggle of halakha to keep up.

> This is ludicrous. Halacha doesn't "struggle" to keep up. It's all inherent
> in TSBP. Does nature have to "struggle to keep up" when they invent
> something new? When electricity became an issue on Shabbos the poskim didn't
> "invent" the halacha for it, they found the parallels for it in TSBP and
> paskened based on that. The choice of words here reveal a disturbing
> attitude: Halacha is "invented" as new circumstances arrive.

Physics does have to "struggle to keep up" as we find more and more in
the Universe that isn't explained by existing physical laws.  That
halacha for electricity on Shabbat/Yom Tov is settled now (and it's not
entirely) ignores the reality that Halacha did struggle to keep up with
the new technology, for well over 50 years.  The Melamed leHoil's ideas,
based on light bulbs with carbon filaments, are no longer applicable
today.  The Aruch haShulchan's ideas about electric lights on Yom Tov
from c. 1900 have been rejected, as poskim learn more about the nature
of electricity and current flow (there's a good book to educate poskim
about the basics of electrical engineering, so they can posken in an
atmosphere of understanding, by R' Zev Lev).  The correspondence between
the Chazon Ish and RSZA in the 1930s, debating which parallels in Torah
should apply to electricity shows the halacha's struggle to keep up with
new technology.  And then everything changed again with the introduction
of solid-state (transistors) in the 1950s.  In fact, I don't see anything
wrong, other than the fact that "nobody does it", with using my computer
on Shabbat or at least Yom Tov: solid-state screen, indicator lights are
all LEDs, and besides are grama if the machine is already on, keyboards
often use Hall-effect switches rather than physical switches (presence of
a magnetic field closes the circuit), etc,

You make the process sound painless, when in reality it's a big struggle.
And when the laity have more knowledge of new technology, or new science,
than rabbonim/gedolim who never took a science or engineering course, well,
that's a problem.

> > No question
> >there have been major changes: Women's learning is probably the biggest
> >of them, which until 100 years ago was unheard of,

> As I've pointed out already, this, the biggest of all revolutions, didn't
> make any "halachic changes".

Except for the big one: changing 1700 years of psak and precedent.

> >and today women learn
> >in a graduate Gemara program at YU, not to mention Drisha and many fine
> >institutions in Israel.

> These are bona fide changes, but they are of no consequence

Victory by redefinition:
  Change-1 == not really a change because the opinion existed somewhere.
  Change-2 == really a change, but can be disregarded.

So in your view, there are no changes, because you've redefined change
to be either not real, or not relevant.

> >So the question becomes, How can change happen in a way that is still
> >authentic? For many the answer is that if a 'Gadol' says something is
> >okay then that gives an appropriate gashpunka, and conveys a sense of
> >authenticity.

> It is only then that such change *is* authentic. We are talking about
> halacha here, so even those who refuse to recognize Daas Torah, admit that
> in Torah itself Gedolim B'Torah are the highest authorities. If they don't
> approve of an halachic change, what basis is there for such change?

If the Gedolim refuse to address their concerns, except in a "you can't do
that, and are evil for even asking" mode, they feel justified in ignoring
the Gedolim.  There's a real precedent for this, one you regard as authori-
tative - it's called Chassidut.

> I think what is missing here, is not the Gedolim's understanding, but rather
> those people's understanding. They don't understand that a true Gadol can
> understand them. When Pirkie Avos says (6,2), "Whoever toils in Torah
> l'shmah receives many things... and [people] get counsel from him...", it
> applies in all generations, including our own.

Of course a Godol can understand the shoel.  But if the Godol never
actually speaks with the people he's banning, or with the proponents
of ideas he's banning, how can he understand the shoel?  How can he
address the shoel baasher hu sham?  "People get counsel" implies actual
contact between the Godol and the person he's acting upon.  In the
Slifkin case, among others, that didn't happen.  Similarly, in the case
of the Chasidim that didn't happen - the Vilna Gaon reportedly refused
to see emissaries from the Chasidim.  And so, the Chasidim didn't feel
bound by the Godol Hador.

> >So here's the question: How to acknowledge the tremendous struggle of
> >many Jews to live committed halakhic lives while they have been shaped
> >by such 'newfangled' values as historicism, science, and gender
> >equality, values which halakha is still only beginning to deal with, and
> >which many Gedolim seem unable to deal with in a way that speaks to an
> >important segment of the amcha (not to mention the vast majority of Jews
> >who aren't shomrei halakha)? Do we simply write them out, and say 'Sorry
> >Charlie, your values have no place in the world of halakhic Judaism'? Or
> >does halakha contain within it the ability to adapt and deal with these
> >new categories, while retaining its authenticity? I for one believe it
> >would be a disservice to Hakosh Baruch Hu's Torah to say that it
> >doesn't.

> The disservice I see is the implicit zilzul of Torah that this POV has.

Well, yes.  Torah always fights against the "-isms" of the moment.
But eventually it gives in, if those "-isms" are not directly contradictory
of Jewish fundamentals (like atheism); or rejects large parts of the Torah
world.  Halacha gave in to Chasidism, even if it took close to 100 years.
Halacha gave in to women's education.

> "Newfangled" values are raised up to levels of profundity that Gedolie
> Torah, people who inherently must be incredibly wise, are unable to "get a
> handle on it". So who can do it? "We", those who do understand these values,

If the Gedolim don't try, avoid secular education, avoid scientific
training, how do you think the Gedolim will "get a handle on it"?
Miraculous ruach hakodesh, like the late Lubavitcher Rebbe?  Oh, right,
he *did* have scientific and secular training.

> we'll do it. How will we intersect with halacha? Once again, we'll do it.
> Halacha is something that any "Bar bei Rav", or someone a few steps past
> that, can figure out. In reality, it's the reverse. Torah is the subject
> that has limitless profundity, a subject that only the greatest experts,
> those that have spent their lives immersed in it, are qualified to pass
> judgment. The rest of reality is limited, there is an end to it.

If the Gedolim refuse to confront change, and deal with it constructively,
the amcha feel justifed in finding smaller rabbis who are willing to
deal with it constructively.  And if those rabbonim have less knowledge
of Torah, so they have trouble finding suitable precedents, then there
are problems.  But it's almost impossible to become great in both Torah
and secular studies.  Only a few have managed it, e.g. RYBS, and he's
rejected by the non-Modern Torah world, for having the wrong politics
on Israel.  The gedolim of YU, who have sufficient training in both sides,
are rejected by the non-Modern world.

If Gedolim, and potential Gedolim, are rejected for political reasons,
those who adhere to them are still going to adhere to them, despite
the protestations of those Gedolim who hold different political opinions.

> >It's late. I'm sure that's enough food for fodder.

> The tone is distinctly annoying. Doesn't it get cold on Mt. Olympus?

I don't know, does it?

* * *

P.S.  On the other issue, I'm sorry, I conflated the posts of MYG and
MSS - you were both expressing such similar views on the YCT debate,
that I must have attributed things said by RMYG to you.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker at panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com