Q&A: Following Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s arguments in his talk “This Is Sinai”
Following Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik’s arguments in his talk “This Is Sinai”
Question
I’ll quote here the arguments of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik of blessed memory, and I’d be glad to hear the Rabbi’s response to them:
1. Attitude toward the sages of the tradition –
“Fourth, accepting the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven requires us to feel respect and love, and to revere the words of the sages of the tradition. Whether these be the Tannaim, Amoraim, or medieval authorities (Rishonim) – they are the final authority. Irresponsible remarks about the Sages border on—I do not like to use the word, but that is how it is according to Maimonides—heresy. And so Maimonides writes (Laws of Repentance 3:8): ‘And likewise one who denies its interpretation, namely the Oral Torah, and denies its transmitters, such as Zadok and Boethus.’ Anyone who denies the truth and reliability of the Oral Torah is a Sadducee. Why did he add ‘and denies its transmitters,’ meaning one who denies the authority of the sages of the tradition? Because under the category of ‘those who deny the Torah’ are classified not only those who deny the Oral Torah—of that there is no doubt—but even those who admit the truth of the Oral Torah yet criticize the personality of any of our Sages of blessed memory. They find flaws in the Sages, defects in their character traits, their conduct, their philosophy, their worldview, or attribute prejudices to them, Heaven forbid. In truth these have no effect on Jewish law, yet they must still be regarded as heretics. Such a person is a heretic because he denies their faultless perfection and their reliability as speakers of truth.”
Where is the line between recognizing mistakes of the Sages—which they certainly had, such as an ‘error in an explicit Mishnah,’ and the like—and “denying its transmitters”?
Is there really a problem with saying that the Sages were influenced by foreign philosophies, just as they were influenced by mistaken scientific views?
2. The validity of the presumptions of the Sages –
“Not only the laws, but also the presumptions that the Sages instituted for adjudicating Torah law, are not open to challenge. Do not tamper, not only with the laws but also with the presumptions, for the presumptions of which the Sages spoke are not based on fleeting, changing patterns of psychological behavior, but on fixed ontological principles (ontology = that part of metaphysics that deals with the essence of beings), rooted in the very depths of the metaphysical human personality, which is no more subject to change than the heavens above.”
(Later he refers to the principle that “it is preferable for a woman to dwell as two than to dwell alone,” and to the annulment of betrothal.)
Again, is one really obligated to say this?
It is true that if one cancels these presumptions, countless laws collapse, but that is not an argument. Why shouldn’t human presumptions change over the years? After all, just as “in pain you shall bear children” may change with proper medical treatment (epidural for now; who knows what else in a few years), one could also say that “your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” may change with the proper development of feminism.
3. On the method of studying Jewish law –
“The study of Jewish law and its interpretation, Korah argued, are exoteric acts, democratic acts, in which every rational person is entitled to participate. Moses’ claim to be the exclusive halakhic authority and the exclusive interpreter of the law, Korah argued, has nothing to stand on. The implication of this democratic philosophy is clear. What Korah wanted—and many still want even now, and I am not speaking only about opposition groups, I am speaking about the Orthodox community, whether they state it openly or use ambiguous language, or cunning language in order to cover it up—is that the ‘tools of interpretation’ of the Torah should be common sense, everyday empirical reason, and not the esoteric conceptualizing logic, which can be acquired only through diligent study and training and effort…”
Does the Rabbi identify with these words regarding the logic of the thirteen hermeneutic principles by which the Torah is expounded?
As for questions 1 and 2, I can understand that Rabbi Soloveitchik presented a relatively extreme position because he probably had to provide a counterweight to Conservative and Reform approaches (although that does not fit, in my mind, with descriptions of his personality), but the positions he presents—in a talk to rabbis—seem too absolute to me.
Thanks in advance.
Answer
- The line is common sense. We are talking about human beings like you and me, and the attitude toward them should be accordingly. See the commentators on the Mishnah, “Judge every person favorably,” who explain that this should be interpreted according to common sense. See also my article on Occam’s razor. https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A7%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D/
There is absolutely no problem saying the truth. And even if it is not the truth but only your mistaken opinion, it is permitted and desirable to say it.
2. About this I have already written more than once that, in my opinion, Rabbi Soloveitchik himself did not believe this nonsense, and wrote it as an answer to the heretics (the Reform movement).
3. I do not identify with it at all. These are common Brisker slogans. It is true that there are certain basic assumptions, but the tools of thought and interpretation are the tools of common sense.
Discussion on Answer
Not exactly, and in my opinion this is not really his approach either.
I do indeed think that the two categories are not dependent on one another, and that moral values do not necessarily underlie Jewish law, but he presents it too extremely. First, there is room for criticism. Second, it is reasonable that the value of human life underlies “You shall not murder,” except that Jewish law says that human life has religious value and not only moral value.
I do not believe that he himself saw the cultural values of the society in which he lived as a neurotic society. And the call not to cooperate with secular philosophy sounds really strange coming from someone who wrote quite a bit and made quite a bit of use of such sources. These are slogans that I am sure he himself did not stand behind. You can also see this in his writing.
I think he means importing philosophy into Torah, and subordinating Torah to philosophy. He is saying that you can study philosophy, but you need to know that it has no connection to Torah.
In fact, two days ago I heard that he himself did not think his philosophical books were in the category of Torah.
This talk is basically Briskerism in thought, and not only in the analytic style of study.
I’ll bring another quote from the talk: “The laws and ordinances of the Torah must not be judged or evaluated according to the standards of a secular system of values. Such an attempt—whether based on historical or psychological interpretation, or whether coming from a utilitarian direction—undermines the very foundations of the Torah and the tradition, and ultimately leads to the most tragic consequences of ideologies of assimilation and nihilism, no matter how good the intentions of the person proposing these ideas may be. We must not surrender emotionally. We must not feel inferior… One who suffers from an inferiority complex yields to the passing charm of a modern political or ideological slogan. I say that not only must one not compromise… one must not even surrender emotionally, not feel inferior. It must never enter the mind of one who has accepted upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven that it is important to cooperate even in some way with the direction of modern secular philosophy. In my opinion, Judaism does not need to apologize either to the modern woman or to modern representatives of religious subjectivism… Needless to say, one must not try to adapt the eternal halakhic norm to the passing values of a neurotic society, and indeed such is our society.”
Is this basically like the Rabbi’s approach to morality and Jewish law?