[Avodah] Intuition - sources

[Daniel Eidensohn]

Arie Folger wrote:
> On Thursday, 6. September 2007 03.38:13 avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org 
> wrote:
>   
>> I don't see the contradiction. Rav Moshe apparently first reacted on an
>> intuitive level which was based on his Torah learning. That intution was
>> supported by marshaling texts and sevoras. But the starting point was
>> the intution. This apparently was also the approach of the Chasam Sofer.
>> On the other hand the Tzitz Eliezar is saying that he doesn't have an
>> answer until he has examined the text and based on induction and
>> deductions from the text he will discover what the answer is. The psak
>> concerning artificial insemination was not text based since there is in
>> fact very little text on the subject. He was simply objecting to a
>> talmid chochom being concerned or even noting what the goyim say.
>>     
>
> How would you describe the Satmare Rebbe's opposition to AI in this model?
>
>   
 To reiterate I stated that daas Torah is the intuition that results 
from immersion and mastery of Torah. It is not universal commonsense. 
Nor is there only one daas Torah. Thus gedolim can legitimately disagree 
even though all sides are relying on their daas Torah

This highly trained intuition is what is known in the literature as 
being an expert and it is found in all areas of knowledge. See my "Daas 
Torah" page 168-173, "Descartes Error" and "Blink" for support for this 
from research literature. The Malbim calls it being yoshor - one who is 
intutive and spontaneous in his yiddishkeit as  opposed to tzadik who 
consciously has to force himself to follow the rules. The Rambam (Moreh 
Nevuchim 2:38) uses it to explain the fact that some people can 
accurately predict events without the aid of ruach hakodesh.

There are two basic issues 1) Both Rav Moshe and the Satmer Rav were 
basing themselves on their Daas Torah and the issue was not the result 
of specific texts. One can speculate that Rav Moshe, Rav Shlomo Zalman 
Auerbach and others who permitted it had a daas Torah that gave priority 
to the horror of not having children and this outweighed the negative 
aspects of the procedure while the Satmer Rav was arguing that it was 
obvious that it didn't and it was simply adultery. 2) I think that Rav 
Moshe was responding -not to the opposition to his psak per se - but 
rather the assertion that the procedure was so offensive that even 
non-Jews viewed it as prohibited. Rav Moshe asserted it was totally 
irrelevant what goyim think about halachic issues. One's daas Torah is 
to be entirely the product of Torah sources.

http://www.daat.ac.il/DAAT/english/ethic/grave_1.htm Dr. Richard V. 
Grazi and Rabbi Joel B. Wolowelsky
"Artificial insemination with a donor's sperm, as we noted, is not 
universally accepted. In fact, it was one of the issues that generated a 
most heated debate between two of the major /poskim/ of the previous 
generation. Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rav) considered donor 
insemination (DI) to be adultery pure and simple, while Rabbi Moshe 
Feinstein argued that a charge of adultery could not be sustained in a 
case where there was no physical intercourse. While Rabbi Feinstein 
argued that DI involved no technical halakhic violation, he too had 
serious reservations about it because it violated the exclusivity of 
relationships that should characterize a marriage. He was willing to 
allow it only in the case of a distraught woman who could not be 
reconciled to a childless marriage."

We can perhaps extend this type of daas Torah conflict to the dispute 
between Hillel and Shammai in Kesubos 17b. Do you praise a kallah as 
being beautiful when she it isn't or do you point out only those 
positive aspects that objectively exist? Hillel's position seems 
comparable to Rav Moshe Feinstein while Shammai's fits with the Satmer Rav.

In contrast in the case of abortion the Tzitz Eliezar was saying - after 
clearly examining the written sources - it was clear that abortion in 
certain circumstances was not murder and that one can not alter the 
sources to fit one's preconceived understanding.  Rav Moshe Feinstein 
felt that it was intuitively obvious [from his daas Torah] that abortion 
is murder and therefore he had every right to alter the text of Tosfos 
because obviously evidence to the contrary had to be the result of 
corrupted texts.

Daniel Eidensohn