I believe that this issue is amongst the most important issues facing Torah Jewry today. In fact it goes to the heart of our differences.
Who are our Gedolim? How do we decide? Well, this question has not been asked in a direct way before so I ask it now. As I indicated in my last essay on this subject, my own view is that we are in a certain sense a Dor Yasum. The last great Gedloei Hador were those who preceded WWII or were at least educated pre-WWII and were in a stratosphere all their own. Is there a Chazan Ish today? ...a Chafetz Chaim? ...a R. Moshe? ...a R.Yoshe Ber? The answer clearly is no.
I remember a lecture on the subject about twenty years ago by R. Nosson Scherman. He claimed that there is no such thing as a Dor Yosum because there will always be some who rises to the occasion. To illustrate this point he told the story of how each of three Gedolei HaDor assumed the position of Gadol Hador as one of them passed away. R. Issar Zamen, The CI, and The Brisker Rav... as each one died one of the others took his place as THE Gadol Hador. But when the last of those three, the BR, finally died people said, “Who can possibly take his place?” There was no one left!... in effect claiming to be a Dor Yasum. But then arose R. Aharon Kotler, R. Moshe and others of similar caliber who indeed WERE Gedolei HaDor.
But that is not the case today. I do not see anyone in the mold of RMF who died over 20 years ago. None of the current Moetzes or anyone else even comes close to replacing them and I think they would probably be the first to admit it. But... by default, these people are called “the Gedolim” since Klal Yisroel seeks leadership and Agudah is eager to provide it for them with Gedolim of their choosing.
And the Agudah Moetzes Gedolim are quick to say that their Hashkafos are Daas Torah, Yehareg VeAl Yaavor. It is their view of the world that they disseminate as such to the exclusion of all others. And, in my view, this is a misuse of the very term Daas Torah.
A case in point is their controversial view that a book like “The Mekor Baruch” can’t be translated because in their own view it says some unflattering things about the Netziv. This, despite the fact that it was written and published by a Gadol that was so far ahead of any of them in Gadlus that they couldn’t even stand at his feet. (This was almost a direct quote by R. Aaron Soloveichik at the time, about the banning of the translation of the Mekor Baruch.) Yet, because of their vested stature by Agudah as Gedolim, that view now becomes Daas Torah.
But their Daas Torah is not my Daas Torah. My Daas Torah is not the Agudah Moetzes version. My Daas Torah is based on the views of R. Aaron Soloveichik, who could easily have been a Rebbe of all the Moetzes and WAS in fact the Rebbe of the Novominsker Rebbe, Rabbi Yaakov Perlow who is the Yoshev Rosh of their Nesius.
Please do not misunderstand. I have the greatest respect for Rabbi Perlow who was my 12th grade Rebbe at HTC (his first class ever). But I do not accept that his views and those of his peers on Agudah are the final word on Daas Torah... not for me and not necessarily for anyone else.
One should look to any Gadol with great admiration and respect but not necessarily as the final arbiter of Daas Torah even from those as great as the last generation. One should look to a Gadol as a role model and seek his advice the way one would from any great figure. But it should be treated as good and even sage advice, not necessarily as Daas Torah.
In matters of Hashkafa, I believe it is imperative to use one’s mind and formulate a Hashkafa based on input from all. It is a disservice and intellectually dishonest to say that one simply accepts the Hashkafa of a single individual because of who he is. This is the crux of the argument between those who support R. Nosson Slifkin and those who oppose him.
By way of illustration of that point, when I was in Israel recently, I spoke with the head of a women’s seminary who vehemently opposes RNS based entirely on R. Elyashiv’s Cherem on his books. His attitude was that, if one goes against the Psak of R. Elyashiv, one is putting his Olam HaBah in jeopardy. It is nothing less than Daas Torah and therefore disagreeing with it is tantamount to K’fira! When I asked him about the masses of Ehrliche Torah Jews who believed the kinds of things written in RNS’s books, he simply whisked them away with the statement: It doesn’t matter how many Jews you write off if their beliefs are wrong. Who said so? R. Elyashiv. So one man’s view is now treated as the word of God.
This illustrates a fundamental dichotomy between the two camps which speaks to what extent one is allowed to use one’s own mind in matters of Hashkafa. This is also evidence of an ever divisive force within Torah Judaism. Instead of uniting, we are further dividing, and where it will end no one can know. But it isn’t good.
Is there such a thing as normative Hashkafa? Well, it depends on who you ask. Charedi leadership will say of course there is and it is theirs. It is definitive Daas Torah and no less than the word of God. Any disagreement is Sheker... outside the mainstream and unacceptable.
Should there be normative Hashkafa? Of course there should but it should be broad based and not limited to a singular narrowly defined one. Who should teach it? Parents AND teachers. It should be a collaborative effort and should include a broad base of ideas. It should be inclusive of all Torah Hashkafos and not exclusive to one.
That would then be a legitimate Daas Torah and would incorporate the spirit of Elu VeElu, Divrei Elokim Chaim.
