[Avodah] Differences between Charedism and Modern Orthodoxy

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 05:35:21PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> 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.

: I've heard R'HS say something similar but what is the source? ...

See R' Algred Cohen's paper on Daat Torah at
<http://jlaw.com/Articles/cohen_DaatTorah.pdf> (RJJ, Spring 2003)
and R' Yitzchak Kasdan's response at
<http://jlaw.com/Articles/observ-on-daat.html>.

RDC is in "Maaseh Avos, Siman Labanim" I, which Artscroll had translated
in "Templates for Ages" at page 33: "The Crown of Torah and the Crown of
Kingship; the Hasmoneans and the Concept of Daas Torah". (That's from
RYK's fn 14.)

RYK also points out:
>                                              For example, in Gitin
> 62a the gemara calls rabbanim, "melachim." See also "Harrirai Kedem"
> (R. Michal Shurkin's sefer based on the Torah of Rabbi Joseph B.
> Soloveitchk, the "Rav") at page reish samach hei (265), where (as my
> brother pointed out to me) the Rav zt'l compares a mara d'aatra to a
> melech. Finally, see"Keser Torah: Based on the Words of Rav Hutner zt'l"
> found at http://www.countryyossi.com/dec98/torah3.htm (anonymous author).

> Moreover, the linkage between Rabbis and royalty did not appear to
> be a controversial point to a reviewer in Tradition of a 1977 book by
> Rabbi Mendell Lewittes, "Religious Foundations of the State of Israel"
> (reprinted by Aronson Press in 1994). In his volume (at 87), Rabbi
> Lewittes bases himself upon the Ran in Drashot Haran when he states:
> "[I]n the absence of a kingdom, the religious authorities are able to
> assume the responsibilities of political leadership." Rabbi Lewittes
> also writes (at 56):

>     When the first Temple was destroyed and king and priest were
>     banished from Israel, the prophet assumed the whole burden of
>     leadership . . .but when, six and a half centuries later the Second
>     Temple was destroyed and again king and prophet were banished, the
>     chief scholar was able to assume the whole burden of leadership for
>     a vanquished but surviving people. Thus, R. Simon could now say that
>     in Israel 'there are three crowns: the crown of the Torah, the crown
>     of the priesthood, and the crown of kingship' (Avot 4:13); and
>     another Sage could add: 'Torah is greater [in its emoluments] than
>     the priesthood and kingship.' (Avot 6;5).
...
> In this regard, see also "Emes l'Yaacov," the writings of Rav Yaacov
> Kaminetzky zt'l, wherein he cites the Ibn Ezra on the pasuk in Shoftim
> (Deut. 17, 9) "U'vata" as the source for the prohibition of being "mored
> b'malchut" (rebelling against a king) because the "shofet" in the second
> verse there is the "melech."17 By his comment, the Ibn Ezra appears to
> indicate that the principle of "lo tasur"18 -- not deviating from the
> pronouncements of the "shofet" -- which appears only a few verses later,
> applies to royal pronouncements which must be obeyed regardless of their
> unreasonableness (and even, according to the Ran in Drashot HaRan, drasha
> 11, with some limitations, if they are inconsistent with the laws of the
> Torah itself)....

> One additional "source" for such a link between kinglike powers and Rabbis
> might also be found in lectures of Rav Soloveitchik including the drasha
> found in Rabbi Besdin's "Reflections of the Rav" (Vol. I) entitled "Who
> Is Fit To Lead The Jewish People?" at 133-37, which Hebrew version is
> found in "Haadam V'Olamo" ("Hamalchut b'Yisrael"). In that presentation,
> the Rav compared the quintessential Rebbe-teacher to a king.19 However,
> in the last paragraph in Rabbi Besdin's version -- which interestingly,
> but for reasons unknown to this writer, is not found in the Hebrew version
> -- the Rav distinguishes between a king and a Rebbe: "Kingship [because
> of its potentially autocratic nature] is,... sharply circumscribed. This
> does not prevail in the teacher-disciple relationship, where the exercise
> of authority is encouraged and submission to teachers is extolled." As
> the Rav explained (as found in both the English and Hebrew versions)
> "Why is this authority of man [i.e., the Rebbe] over his fellow man [the
> student] sanctioned?... [T]he authority of a teacher is not imposed;
> no coercion or political instrument is employed. A Torah teacher is
> freely accepted and joyfully embraced...."20

As I said in an earlier post, I see a growing tendency to recast the MO
- Chareidi divide from being about how to confront modernity to being
about the relative values of authority and autonomy. I do not believe
this division is as consistent with the sociological facts of who is
happy in which camp than the more obvious issue of maqdish es hachol vs
avoiding the ta'avos of chol.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
micha at aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH