One of the most defining features of the Charedi world and the one which most distinguishes itself from Centrism is its understanding of Daas Torah. Daas Torah can be defined simply as the wisdom of the Torah.
As Jews our goal should always be to know what that wisdom is. It is the wisdom of the Torah that should inform our every act. And to that extent, there is no real difference between the Hashkafos of Charedim (more commonly called Ultra Orthodox in the United States) and Centrists.
Before I go any further, I should really explain what I mean by Centrist.
The first thing I would say about Centrism is that it is not monolithic. It encompasses a wide variety of religious thought. One of its primary features is that it has a positive view of secular studies. A Centrist can therefore believe in either the Hashkafa of Torah U’Mada (TuM) or that of Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE). They have broad overlap.
Secondly, Centrism includes among its values aspects of secular culture that do not conflict with Halacha. Some of it having higher value than others.
On a practical level the Centrist view of apropriate behavior is one that holds extremes at both ends of the religious spectrum are inappropriate. This can be viewed as an application of the Maimonidian ‘Golden Mean’ … the Rambam’s Mida HaEmtzais. This is the principle of moderation in one’s Midos or character traits.
The truth of the matter is that there is… or should be… much overlap not only between TuM and TIDE but even between the Hashkafos of Charedim and Centrists. But there us one very important diference. Because of their orientation to secular studies, I think it is fair to say that Centrists have a more critical approach and therefore a more open mind to things.
That brings me back to Daas Torah. As I said, I think all of Orthodoxy, whether Charedi, Centrist or any other segment agrees that the Torah is what should inform our behavior.
So what is the difference? It is in how Daas Torah is defined. In a recent article, Rabbi Avi Shafran explains the Charedi view of Daas Torah. It can be seen in Rabbi Shafran’s statement defining how Agudath Israel works:
Agudath Israel is unique among Jewish groups. Its administration does not set policy; that role resides among the venerable rabbinic elders at our helm. The organization’s officers and executive staff are sometimes asked to provide the Council members with information, even to lay out various approaches to an issue. But we do not tell our religious leaders what we think they should think. One might say that we report, they decide…
Judaism teaches humility, and special respect for the judgment of those most experienced and knowledgeable. The letters of the Hebrew word for “elderly” – zaken – are parsed by the Talmud to yield the phrase “this one has acquired wisdom.”
And so, particularly in matters of Jewish communal welfare, we believe that Jews are exhorted to heed the direction provided by the community’s most Torah-learned elders, those who have internalized a large degree of the perfection of values and refinement of character that the Torah idealizes. Even when those elders’ judgment differs from our own. Actually, especially then.
As far as it goes, I agree with this sentiment, but there are some things left unsaid that make a difference.
What is left out is the idea that no matter how knowledgeable a Gadol is in Torah knowledge, on the matters upon which his views are expressed he is often less than expert. Of course they are the most Torah knowledgeable. No one disputes that. What is sometimes questioned is the level of knowledge about the non Torah aspect of a Psak.
For example on a medical question, is his medical knowledge accurate? Where does he get that information? That information is vital to any Psak and will affect it, no matter how knowledgeable one is in Torah. Both Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalmen Auerbach are famous for knowing all the facts before Paskening. The former by making extensive enquiries of experts and the latter by often learning the actual Mada of the subject of his Psak. But that is unfortunately no longer always the case.
The non Torah portion of his knowledge can be lacking in even more subtle ways. For example a decision to withdraw a book from circulation for various reasons. Is the reason based on their Torah knowledge or is it also determined by they perceive how people might react to it? I think both elements are at play.
But the second element is key factor not necessarily based in a Gadol’s knowledge of Torah. It is also based on his perception of human nature. And that in turn is based personal perspective and experiences. One may get different conclusions and therefore opposing views from different Gedolim. Which is the real Daas Torah? It remains unclear in those cases.
To a Centrist this means that pronouncements of Gedolim, are not always to be taken in the absolutist terms. But according to Rabbi Shafran’s approach, once the Gedolim have spoken, this is the Torah view and it cannot be questioned.
It is clear to me that many decisions taken recently by various Gedolim were based on insufficient information and therefore has to be valued accordingly. Need I remind anyone of the reaction... even by Charedi leaders.. to the various Psakim in the name of certain Israeli Gedolim in recently? According to the Rabbi Shafran’s definition, which is the Charedi definition, it doesn’t matter. They Paskined. We listen.
But by the standards of Daas Torah I have here outlined, one can in fact challenge these edicts even though they are from those in our generation who have the most Torah knowledge. If their Psak is based on faulty information it cannot be considered Daas Torah any more than the reverse… someone who has exact knowledge of the facts but insufficient knowledge of Torah.
