There is an article by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein in Cross-Currents that raises some interesting questions: Can Halacha follow opinions other than the ones established in the Shulchan Aruch? Is there solace in finding ancient voices of agreement that are not accepted? Is Jewish thought a huge intellectual smorgasbord, at which one dines to his or her pleasure?
He bases his questions by comparing two statements, one by the Conservative provost of the University of Judaism, Rabbi Elliot Dorff and the other by Rabbi Dov Linzer, Rosh HaYeshiva of the left-wing Orthodox Chovevai Torah Rabbinical School. In a nutshell Rabbi Dorff advocates the classical Conservative approach of adapting the Torah to fit the times and Rabbi Linzer advocates finding Talmudic sources to fit the times... as he puts it, “finding within the Talmud voices that articulate those same values”. It seems that Rabbi Adlerstein in essence wonders what the real difference is, and how far can Orthodoxy go before it turns into Conservatism... at least in practice
I agree that the two approaches are similar. But there is a distinction to be made that is critical. But I also think that even with that distinction made, Rabbi Linzer’s position is problematic.
The Conservative approach is driven entirely by societal determinations of right and wrong. Their approach to Halacha is that it is “dynamic”... which they define as changing or adapting to fit the times. If the times redefine social mores then Halacha needs to follow and be re-defined by it.
Rabbi Dov Linzer, while agreeing that modern sensibilities should determine the direction we take is not advocating adapting the Torah to fit the times. He seems to be saying instead that we should be finding Halachic precedent in searching for ways to incorporate modern sensibilities. The famous statement by Orthodox Feminist Blu Greneberg in her quest for feminist equality in Orthodox Judaism comes to mind: (paraphrasing...) If there is a rabbinic will there is a Halachic way. Although somewhat radical in that it seems to prioritize Zeitgeist as the determinant of Halacha, it recognizes that Zeitgeist alone cannot change it. It, therefore, remains an Orthodox viewpoint since it maintains fealty to Torah and Rabbinic law.
The problem (if I understand Rabbi Linzer’s position) is whether we are allowed to modify law that has been encoded in the Shulchan Aruch by choosing opposing rabbinic opinions that predate it... so as to make it more relevant to our time. I do not believe there are any Poskim who would allow it and would consider it a grave violation of Halacha and Torah Hashkafa to change the Psak of the Shulchan Aruch. However, there is one Orthodox Jewish thinker who indeed advocated doing so
Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz addresses this very issue in his book “Lo BaShamyim He” wherin he goes even further. In essence he says that while it was needed for its time (an Eis Laasos) the Shulcahn Aruch is really the antithesis of what it is supposed to be: Torah She Bal Peh. Torah She Bal Peh was never meant to be written down and was never meant to be static. He claims that now that we have a Jewish State we can revert to the original intent of Torah SheBal Peh and dispense with the Shulchan Aruch by convening a Sanhedrin. In this way we can create a new body of rabbinic law more applicable to the times.
This would be quite a radical departure for Orthodoxy and I don’t believe that even Rabbi Linzer would agree to it. But it is interesting that a major thinker, a Musmach of pre- WWII Europe, an Orthodox Jewish philosopher, and disciple of the Rabbi Yechiel Weinberg author of the Sridei Eish would advocate such a radical position as the true Derech HaShem.
