It is an approach that rankles some, especially those who might not appreciate the humor in a sign I have that reads: But it must be said that the phrase is very general; what it means is not so clear. Anyway, getting back to what I was saying. However, there is one condition attached: So just at the very end of my Tradition article, I decided to raise some issues about Daas Torah in a somewhat critical vein.
All the other statements of the Chafetz Chaim were more general statements that a person who studies Torah is given insight into reality, can understand many things, etc. But the fact that Baja Mexico has evidenced only much smaller fires than adjacent San Diego County suggests strongly that something else is at work.
Now Benny in his article was willing to attribute more authenticity to this statement of the Chafetz Chaim than I was. Rabbinic authority and personal autonomy essay Needs Scholarship" treats the challenges for emerging Talmudic methodologies.
As I pointed out, according to most authorities it applies only to the Beis Din Hagadol. Rabbinic authority and personal autonomy essay such source is the notion of Emunas Chachamim. Put simply, the longtime American approach to fire suppression — extinguishing small fires as soon as they appear, rather than allowing them to run their natural course and create undergrowth-free zones — has created huge swaths of unburned brush that, when fire does break out, serve as rich and abundant fuel for infernos of exceptional scope and intensity.
And he remembered the meeting so clearly that he even remembered the chairs in which he and Roosevelt sat! The third essay by R. Because you said Rav Elchonon Wasserman never mentions it. The point, then, that I made to Benny was that the statements he cites from actual texts of the Chafetz Chaim himself do not really go as far as the oral shemuah.
To return to the general issue of Daas Torah and to your original question as to what extent am I rethinking things. Maybe Rav Kamenetsky or Rav Belsky — they seem to have dissented from everybody else; they never retracted their haskamos. I wonder though if he made the statement publicly. Yet the confluence of the messages and the maelstrom held a truth worth contemplating.
I think they were upset and felt they would be looked upon by the general world as some type of primitives. Part 4 examines The Odyssey Years: But two vital commodities in all-too-short supply these days are humility and respect for elders. A host of factors can make the right decision seem the wrong one, puzzling observers, even outraging them.
The volume has two types of papers. But it seems to me at least, and I discussed this with him, that none of the other statements of the Chafetz Chayyim that Benny cited actually made the point made by the statement attributed to him by Rabbi Greineman. Can I interject right there, though —the story is that a lot of askanim had a lot to do with this ban .
I guess my first question has to be if you changed your position since writing your famous essay on Daas Torah  and also, has Daas Torah evolved as a conception since then?
In my article, particularly the Hebrew version, I went through all the different ways how different scholars try to reconcile the two sources. Some people might have misunderstood me to mean that I believe that all rabbis should speak only about pots and pans and should not have any say on communal matters.
Now the Rashba, on the other hand —but again, he was the official head of the community — obviously played a major role in the Maimonidean Controversy. But, of course, they all retracted their haskamos once the terrible kefirah in the books was called to their attention. Imagine, though, how the suggestion that forest fires be permitted to burn uncontrolled, would have been received had it been offered fifty years ago.
But the more political and delegitimating emphases of the statement attributed to him by Rabbi Greinman are not found in his other statements. Of course, you have your own interpretation and cannot be completely objective, but still you try to give all the evidence, whether it supports your view or calls it into question, and try to be as fair as possible to opposing views.
It was their tone that stood out. I have conducted two semi-formal interviews with Dr. The writers were urging Agudath Israel of America to take a certain stance on a political issue.
When people are oftentimes defending it, they define it more modestly:Moshe Z. Sokol (ed.), ‘Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy’ The first question is discussed at length only by Moshe Sokol in the essay entitled: ‘Personal Autonomy and Religious Authority’; he notes that even the most dedicated follower of the Halakhah has numerous opportunities to make his own choices: in his family life, his.
Michoel- please read the end of Dr. Lawrence Kaplan’s essay in the somewhat famous volume of the Orthodox Forum “Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy.” There is a very stark and well documented example of advice and consequences(and subsequent attempts at covering up the advice). Oct 07, · The point of the shemuah of the Chafetz Chaim that was attri buted to him by Rabbi Greineman was [Dr.
Kaplan opens up my copy of Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy and finds page 8] -- “The person whose view is the view of Torah can solve all worldly problems, both specific and general.
Alan J. Yuter Review Essay: Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, ed. Moshe Z. Sokol (Northvale, New Jersey and London: Jason Aronson, ) This collection of essays, published by the Orthodox Forum, a think tank.
authority, see the long essay by Lawrence Kaplan in Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy, cited in the previous footnote. Kaplan argues essentially that the concept Daat Torah was invented, or at least developed, in order to create a submissive.
killarney10mile.com - A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought is a publication of the Rabbinical Council of America.Download