[Avodah] Daas Torah

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:44:36AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: But the notion of Da'as Torah in worldly affairs has to be taken with a
: grain of salt.

I recently wrote that the world isn't assur-reshus-chiyuv but rather
a spectrum. And therefore there is no question of "Is there a middle
ground between assur and chayav?" The range runs
    the clearly assur,
    the assur according to some shitos which can be done beshe'as
	hadechaq etc...,
    neveilus birshus haTorah,
    baal nefesh yachmir,
    not obviously right or wrong,
    middas chassidus,
    tov veyashar,
    chosheish leshitah,
    chayav.
    And gradations in the middle.

The flipside of that is that there is not a simple line but a gray area
between the appropriate domain for pesaq and the territory where one
can argue that daas Torah is appropriate or not.

IOW, worldly affairs are not disconnected from religious ones. The
religious issues may be greater or smaller, but they are never entirely
absent.

This, I think, is what RYS originally intended when he recoined the term.
Not infallibility or even better track record WRT the non-religious
aspects of the question.

BTW, for those who didn't chase the links I posted earlier this thread,
I think there are three contemporary models:

1- Ruach haqodesh / siyata diShmaya (differing in quantity but same
   basic idea) -- the nevi's successor is the chakham
2- Refining the mind through Torah impacts analysis of the beri'ah.
   Histakeil beOraisa uvarei alma, so studying the one should help
   understand the other. Like the legend about the CI and brain surgery.
3- R' Dovid Cohen says the rav is the successor to the melukhah.
   Following da'as Torah doesn't depend on increased rightness, but on
   a chiyuv to obey.

But I think RYS was speaking of something very different. An argument for
involving a moreh derekh to help with the religious implications of the
decision. Even to help identify implications you might not realize exist.

But in a generation that has too few Erev Shabbos Jews, this concept is
bound to have devolved.


A second major difference is that he had no concept of "the gedolim". A
chavrusah could turn to a sr chavrusah, a talmid to a rebbe.

The primary problem MO has with da'as Torah isn't da'as Torah itself.
As I wrote before, I've watched YU Jews debate minutia of RYBS's writings
to defend or attack topics like land-for-peace. It's that of "the gedolim
say". The notion that increased rightness means convergence on a single
right answer.

Which of course will bug people who feel they have a different right
answer. Aside from deligitimizing the answer, it also forces disemissing
those gedolei Torah who reached it. (Can't be a gadol if "the gedolim
hold X" and he doesn't.)

Yes, RYBS had elements of recognizing relative authority that the
yeshiva world does not. He would push his talmidim to learn how to be
autonomous LORs before assuming the role. The yeshivish LOR is more
likely to refer to his RY. Balance needs to be found -- matching ability
to responsibility assumed.

But notice that the first half of this post, defining Daas Torah is
totally unrelated to the issues raised in the half about MO and DT.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?