Posts
Rabbi Twerski's definition of daas Torah generated some mixed responses by Hamodia readers. He has even presented and responded to some of them in his own column this week. Here are two letters, one is more "maximalist" than Rabbi Dr. Twerski about daas Torah, and one is more "minimalist" (for lack of better terms):
I
Q: I can't understand why a frum person should consult a psychologist. Doesn't the Torah have answers to all kinds of problems? Isn't consulting a psychologist demeaning to the Torah?
A: The Torah indeed has answers to all problems, both physical and psychological. The Zohar says that Hashem used the Torah as the blueprint for creating the world, so that everything in the world is contained in the Torah. Inasmuch as the Torah is the wisdom of Hashem, it is perfect and complete in every way.
The problem is that we do not know how to derive the information from the Torah. For example, the Shelah Hakadosh says that anyone who would fully understand the first passuk in perek 2 of Bereishis would know the entire science of physiognomy (knowing everything about a person by studying his face) and palmistry (being able to interpret the hand) But who can say he achieved such knowledge?
By the same token, the Torah has the solution to all physical diseases yet every posek will say that a person who has , for example, diabetes or pneumonia and does not consult a physician because he wants to find the answer in the Torah, is sinful in neglecting his health…
Of course gedolim have more access to the Torah's secrets than ordinary people. We know that there were instances where the Chazon Ish gave surgeons directions on how to operate.
What we know from the Torah cannot be compared even to the tip of the iceberg. Torah is infinite and we have access to such a small fragment of it. Consulting a psychologist is by no means demeaning to the Torah because many of the secrets of the Torah are beyond our reach.
[Nothing significant to add to this response.
I think when the MO cynics (like Lawrence Kaplan, et,al.) bash daas Torah, it is due to the misconception that it is equated it with infallibility, which is in turn based on the false assumption that charedim claim to have access to all the Torah's wisdom today and can apply it to everything with total accuracy. This is simple ignorance of the fact that we openly admit that we are simply ignorant. "im reik hu, mikem hu reik"]
II
Q: In your column you disqualify anyone as daas Torah who as attained knowledge from sources other than the Torah. What about the Rambam, who studied Greek philosophy? I recall Harav Gifter, z"tl, giving a list of Gedolim who had secular knowledge.
A: No one today can compare ones self to the Rambam, or any other Rishonim Kamalachim. Furthermore, even the Rambam did not escape criticism from the Vilna Gaon (Biur HaGra Yoreh Deah 179)
I have had the opportunity to discuss issues with Gedolim, and I could see how their thought processes were qualitatively different than mine. I have also had discussions with some talmidei chachamim who had secular education, and although I respect them highly, I could see where they might have been influenced by non-Torah ideas.
Therefore I reiterate that daas Torah is daas that is formed solely by Torah.
Notice how, based on his anecdotal evidence, he has clearly demoted the talmid chacham with secular education from achieving Gadol status on his scorecard. He is perfectly entitled to do so, but it seems to me that he is edging towards a "no true Scotsman fallacy". This of course runs him into trouble with the Rambam and he had to appeal to yeridas hadoros as an escape route.
But this may not be adequate even for Rabbi Twerski. Is he willing to deny bestowing "Gadol status" to any Acharon who was trained in secular disciplines? This might produce another list of people that he may not be as comfortable withholding daas Torah from.
I prefer to not make any hard and fast rules but rather do the dirty work and judge each candidate on their apparent level of discernable negative non-Torah influence. This will get messy since one of the very functions of daas Torah is to be able to recognize which foreign ideas contain some grain of Torah truth! And such a subjective approach is sure to ruffle somebody's feathers.
Of course we must keep in mind that any sort demotion in status will not invalidate anyone's contributions to authentic Torah scholarship. That is clearly not the issue. The issue in my mind is mainly this:
Who is qualified to enunciate proper Torah ideology on his own authority without having to appeal to earlier sources? Or to put it another way, whose Torah opinions will themselves in turn be quoted as a source for authentic Torah ideology by the next generation?
I guess I just answered my own question. We will only be certain who possesses daas Torah when those individuals have been singled out by the next generation through some kind of Klal Yisrael consciousness (guided by the Hashgacha) as their leading lights. We don't have to define what the precise criteria are. It's a waste of time. Klal Yisrael knows it when it sees it.
In other words, history as guided by Hashgacha pratis has the final veto. (After all, isn't "history" really a contraction of the words "His story" with a capitol H?)
Now waitaminute. Who gets to comprise the un-elected body of Klal Yisrael in this context, you ask?
That's easy: Its comprised of the people who care enough to (whatever extent) follow daas Torah.
Of course!
