Q&A: The Dispute Within What Is Called Orthodoxy
The Dispute Within What Is Called Orthodoxy
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Is it possible to summarize the dispute between the plain-sense interpreters and the midrashic interpreters this way, and say that the dispute is whether we look only at the dry Jewish law governing what stands before us? The Haredim relate only to Jewish law and are not influenced by anything outside it, in every sense.
Micah Goodman once explained that when Haredim look at the sun, they do not see it through the same glasses that others use to look at it. For them, the sun is some kind of cold system that tells us when sunrise is, so one must pray, and when sunset is… nothing more than that. End quote.
If so, for them there is no context, and therefore in their ethos at least, the laws were, are, and always will be.
As opposed to others, who look at the context, including what lies outside the purely halakhic system, as the Rabbi often does in the academic world—then things become much more colorful and flexible.
And consequently the dispute is itself exactly what you mentioned: is Jewish law the fact, or is Jewish law the bridge?
On another plane, “The Holy One, blessed be He, has nothing in His world except the four cubits of Jewish law”—is that a deficiency or an advantage?
The Haredim do not look at the context, and therefore they explain that this is the norm: this is how it was and this is how it will be.
By contrast, others explain that this is because of the destruction of the Temple, and since this is seen as a punishment given to us, our task is to bring about the repair.
And similarly regarding the issue of women, who at least in the ethos are supposed to remain under the punishment of “and he shall rule over you,” whereas for others, since there is context to these things, we are therefore supposed to bring about a correction in this matter.
Moreover, as you wrote, if we believe that everything is Torah from Moses at Sinai, then there is no room to give context to it, at least at the level of ethos.
I would be glad to hear whether you agree,
or whether there is some conflation of concepts here.
Thanks in advance.
Best regards
Answer
Hello.
Why don’t you post this as a talkback comment on the column?
In the second column I explained that even the plain-sense camp relies on interpretation, especially when they use midrash, like the Hazon Ish regarding the two thousand years of Torah.
The description of reality as a practical setup for Jewish law already appears in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s book Halakhic Man. I do not think this is connected to plain-sense or midrashic conservatism. It is somewhat connected to the Haredim, and I’ll get to that.
And finally, the Haredim too operate within a context, except that they are not aware of it.