Q&A: Haredi “Da’at Torah” as Opposed to Ordinary Opinion
Haredi “Da’at Torah” as Opposed to Ordinary Opinion
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Following the strange conduct (coronavirus, etc. …) of those who claim ownership over “Da’at Torah” among the Haredim, could the Rabbi explain why the above-mentioned “Da’at Torah” is the exact opposite, in 100% of cases, of ordinary “opinion”? Is ordinary “opinion” always in contradiction to “Da’at Torah”? Also, if I decide to act against my true opinion, will I certainly merit to align myself with “Da’at Torah”?
Regards, Benjamin, lacking opinion, Goralin
Answer
Hello Benjamin. The source of the saying, “the opinion of ordinary householders is the opposite of Torah opinion,” is in the Sma, section 3. And the story is well known about the rabbi from Brisk who asked Sheinfeld how he always manages to hit upon Da’at Torah, and he answered that he asks people in the street and says the opposite. But clearly this is just a saying and should not be taken too seriously. The point is that the plain common sense of the ordinary householder (which is not a derogatory term; I mean genuinely sound common sense) does not always coincide with Da’at Torah.
Discussion on Answer
There are articles by Benjamin Brown on the subject, and I recommend that you read them. In general, halakhic rulings contain a component of sources and a component of interpretation. Interpretation depends on the insights and reasoning of the halakhic decisor. You call that mood and gut feelings—expressions with rather lowly connotations. I relate to it as intuitions and reasoning, which are part of the ruling process. If you want to call those Da’at Torah—fine by me.
Does “Da’at Torah” include a component of sources???
Which sources are included in the “Da’at Torah” of the “great ones of the generation” regarding the continued operation of the Haredi yeshivas?
Benjamin, please read what I write. I explained that halakhic rulings have two components: sources and their interpretation. The sources are the objective part, but the interpretation is partly carved out of the reasoning and insights of the sage issuing the ruling. The second part, interpretation, is subjective to some degree, and if you really want, you can call it Da’at Torah. It certainly exists, but what to call it is not an important question.
Needless to say, even in the guidance of the two rabbis in question (which I oppose, as stated) there are sources. Therefore your emphatic puzzlement points, once again, to tendentiousness.
Benjamin, do you accept the concept of ‘Da’at Torah’ for any Torah scholar (who is not ‘Haredi’), or do you reject the concept altogether?
Good evening, Moshe. I reject “Da’at Torah” completely, if only for the reason that it is not based on objective sources but only on an interpretation of an imaginary event, unlike halakhic rulings, where I of course accept Rabbi Michi’s definition above.
To the best of my understanding, Rabbi Michi is mistakenly interpreting the term “Da’at Torah” as interpretation of objective sources, whereas it is clear to every Haredi (and not only to them) that what is meant is mood and gut feelings and nothing more than that.
Benjamin, if this really interests you, you are welcome to read Benjamin Brown’s articles, where he shows that you are mistaken. The Haredim themselves (at least their rabbis) do not understand Da’at Torah that way.
Are those articles available online for free?
What are they called?
Does the Rabbi mean “Toward Democratization in Haredi Leadership? The Doctrine of Da’at Torah at the Turn of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries”? Professor Brown defines “Da’at Torah” as political theology, and I fully agree with him. My claim is that this is one of its visible dimensions, but there is an additional dimension, hidden away, and that is the dimension of infallibility, which is the main thing and the foundation of the whole structure—similar to the dimension of infallibility in the Catholic religion, the twin sister of Haredism. Hence the “great ones of the generation” enjoy a special status similar to that of the pope.
I don’t know. Search for Benjamin Brown, Da’at Torah. If not, maybe you can contact him at the Hebrew University and ask him to send it to you.
He discusses the sphere in which the doctrine of infallibility applies. His claim is that it does not apply in areas of life outside Jewish law.
For those interested – https://www.idi.org.il/media/3711/pp_89.pdf
Rabbi Michi, insofar as there is such a thing as “Da’at Torah,” could you please define its essence, its scope, etc. … Clearly this is not about a halakhic ruling, since those who claim ownership over “Da’at Torah” do not rely on objective reality but on their mood and gut feelings, from which it follows that the results of their “common sense” depend on the imaginary reality in which they live?