[Avodah] Differences between Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy

[Micha Berger]

RET wrote:
: While I don't like to disagree with my rebbe I find this hard to
: accept....
: One nice example is the explanation of Prof. Aumann (recent nobel
: prize winner) on the gemara in Ketuvot originally based on game theory
: (though simplified). The explanations of most rishonim is very forced
: while his seems very natural.

I don't think RYBS meant it as you took it. After all, ein beis medrash
belo chiddush. In order to understand what he is saying, I think you have
to look at RYBS's distinction between chiddush (good) and shinui (bad).

Prof Aumann was engaging in chiddush.

Actually, the blog RHM later pointed us to better captured the notion
as RARR tends to explain it on yutorah.org MP3s.

I repeat RHM's advice to see
<http://curiousjew.blogspot.com/2008/07/introduction-to-haredi-philosophy-part_23.html> (a/k/a <http://tinyurl.com/56heb5>).

Rn Chana-the-curious-Jewish-blogger quotes RYBS as saying:
> What does kabalas ol malchus shamayim require of the lomeid
> hatorah, person who studies Torah? First, we must pursue the truth,
> nothing else but the truth; however, the truth in talmud torah can
> only be achieved through singular halachic Torah thinking, and Torah
> understanding. The truth is attained from within, in accord with the
> methodology given to Moses and passed on from generation to
> generation. The truth can be discovered only by joining the ranks of
> the chachmei hamesorah [11]. It is ridiculous to say "I have
> discovered something of which the Rashba didn't know, the Ktzos
> didn't know, the Vilna Gaon had no knowledge, I have discovered an
> approach to the interpretation of Torah which iscompletely new." One
> must join the ranks of the chachmei hamesorah --chazal, rishonim,
> gedolei achronim -- and must not try to rationalize from without the
> chukei hatorah...

Prof Aumann followed a long line of baalei mesorah in using all
availalbe secular knowledge to explain the din. Aristotle, for
example.

What RYBS is objecting to is new methodologies. The question isn't
what he would say about using game theory to explain an odd case of
yerushah. It's more about things like revadim, or whether to give more
weight to a Frankel Rambam than the versionS (belashon rabbim, some
exploration of girsaos was "always" within the norm, albeit not that
much among Briskers) of the text halakhah actually developed against.

On Fri, July 25, 2008 11:16 am, R Harry Maryles wrote:
: What exactly does it mean to be Charedi? That may be as difficult to
: define as is what it means to be Modern Orthodox. Just as there are
: many divisions in Modern Orthodoxy so to are there in Charedism. But
: there are certain features that are distinctive to each.

I do not think their appproaches to emunas chakhamim is a defining
issue. I've seen YU guys argue over RYBS's position, resorting to diyuqei
lashon to resolve a debate. And even on this list where the population
is more heterogeneous, people from YU spheres have confused proving
something wasn't RYBS's position with proving it's wrong. Daas Torah.

...
: Modern Orthodoxy has often been accused of believing that Chazal were
: fallible - that they made mistakes. They were human beings subject to
: the spirit of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic
: law which we must follow.
...
: Faulting Chazal in this way is tantamount to heresy! Where we differ
: is in matters of science. Charedim believe that Chazal were infallible
: there too. Or more precisely scientific statements recorded in the
: Gemarah were passed on to them via Mesorah -- just as were Halachic
: statements.

There are also differences WRT halakhah and aggadita. Not between
communities, but there isn't a monolithic opinion.

Halakhah: all agree that you can't simply pasqen against Chazal. (Except
when saving a preemie on Shabbos who was born in the 8th month,
ukhedomeh.)

Some believe that siyata diShmaya guaranteed correct results.

Others believe that their authority to define the law means that their
interpretations are not held up to a standard called "correct" but they
*define* correct. Like RRW's analogy to umpires.

Yet others believe that nothing guarantees they're correct, but even
where they're wrong, we're less likely to correctly identify which
places they are and less likely to reach a more correct conclusion.

Aggadita: Most take chazalic statements as miSinai, but historically
RSRH and many others attribute aggadic positions to personal theories.

And WRT general advice: R' Dovid Cohen, certainly not MO, does not believe
that "the gedolim" have any guarantee of getting answers right. Rather,
he shows that without a melekh, some of the authority of melukhah fell
to the rabbanim. So RDC still says that we need to turn to gedolei Torah
to run a community but because of authority, not accuracy.

: Contradictions between scientific statements in the Gemarah and the
: scientific knowledge we have today is simply thought of as either a
: misunderstanding of what Chazal said. Or those statements were meant
: as allegory. Or were statements about Kabala - not science as they
: seem to be at first blush.

I think this is a misdiagnosis. It's not so much about science in
particular as about authority vs autonomy.

MO stresses autonomy, and therefore doubt it often resolved by
finding sources to defend an indeprendently reached conclusion.

Chareidim stress authority, and therefore tend to take maximalist
positions that require the greater reliance on authority (Rivka was 3,
not 15; qeri'as Yam Suf involved a tunnel for each sheivet, etc...)
and similarly shun claims of allegory. (Dspite this ironically being the
more mesoretically supportable position.

: This view - although promoted by accepted Rishonim - has recently been
: rejected by Charedi Poskim who say it is heretical to believe that in
: our day. Modern Orthodoxy does not consider that to be heretical at
: all. It is only the Halacha that is Masoretic and there fore
: infallible. Not the science.

Neither do a large segement of chareidim. I think this is another issue
that isn't quite on MO-Chareidi lines.

As RHM notes:
: It should be noted that Rav Ahron Soloveichik is of the view that
: Chazal were infallible in matters of science too. He takes the same
: view as do the Charedi Poskim. Rav Ahron often explained difficult
: passages in the Gemarah in the modern scientific terms of our day...



On Fri, July 25, 2008 3:13 pm, R Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: It is one thing to say that Hazal can error, which is undeniable, but
: quite another to say that "They were human beings subject to the spirit
: of their time and that influenced how they created rabbinic law". [I
: take no position here as to whether the latter belief is true, false,
: pernicious or heretical.]

The problem becomes justifying the use of precedent. How does someone
teach this notion and then not dismiss halakhos based on the absence of
the social forces that created it?


This notion of autnonomy vs submission to authority brings me to a point
raised in another thread.

On Mon, July 28, 2008 8:22 am, RAM <kennethgmiller at juno.com> wrote:
: We often hear varied stories about this tzadik, or that gadol, and
: frankly, they are sometimes difficult to believe. I have often heard
: this as a common reaction to such incredulity: "If you think all these
: stores are true, then you're a fool. But if you think they're all
: false, you're an apikores. The message of these stories is that they
: *could* be true."

>From RARR's "The Rav" vol I #1.04, given by RYBS Sep 14 1968, before the
first selichos (I happened to read it the same commute as I read RAM's
post):
    I once heard the following story from my father.  It was most
    probably a true story, since the stories that were transmitted in 
    our family from generation to generation are mostly true. They are
    not like Chassidic stories, where miracles happen. [Laughter] These
    stories which have been told and passed down from generation to
    generation are usually true. These stories do not deal with
    miracles, but with natural phenomena....
The story RYBS tells is that of Avraham ben Avraham Hy"d, the geir tzedeq
of Vilna, the Graf Potocki. RARR makes a point of letting you know where
people laugh so that you know the audience who heard tone of voice knew
RYBS was joking.

To get to the point, there is a chiluq between maaselakh, midrashim,
and Tanakh. You can't lump all three kinds of miraculous claims together.

There is a strong history of saying that midrashic stories are deep
truths that are recorded in parable. (I argued here more than once,
based on the language in Peirush haMishnayos intro to Cheileq, that the
Rambam explicitly tells you that talmud Torah isn't about figuring out
which midrashim are historical -- worrying about it is already taking a
different approach than Chazal's.) For pesuqim, some pesuqim have such
traditions, some don't. Of those that don't, different rishonim imply
different amounts of autonomy -- how much is something we've debated in
the past in probably every volume since #1.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha at aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie