The problem to be dealt with here can be formulated without difficulty.
The term da'at torah - `Torah view', occurs only once in the Babylonian
Talmud. There it is contrasted with da'at nota, that is, the personal
opinion of the scholar. This indicates that its opposite means the documented
halachic decision. In contemporary usage the term, however, assumed the
meaning "the pronouncement of the halachists ex cathedra, based
simply upon the general prestige conferred on the halachists, and therefore
binding for religious Jewry. The questions which occupied the scholars who
studied this phenomenon were how and when this change in the term's meaning
occurred, and how it was justified, in view of its obvious deviation from
the traditional role of the halachist as a mere interpreter of the sources.
In order to find an answer, they surveyed the relevant sources, we shall
later see with what results.[1]
My approach will be different. My leading question is: What purpose does
this peculiar use of the term serve? Obviously it is meant to legitimize
the halachist's functioning in capacities outside the realm of halachic
procedure. Knowing however, that social or political developments often
make their appearance long before an appropriate designation for them is
produced, our main interest is not in when the term da'at torah came
to be employed in the new meaning, but when the halachist began to function
in this novel capacity. I shall therefore present two small case studies
which reflect such a situation. One of the two is the history of the well-known
Rabbinical Council of Agudat Israel. The other is the lesser known, or rather,
unknown role of the rabbis in Hungarian Orthodox Jewry's struggle for its
organizational independence. My book-length study on this subject has recently
been published, and here I shall submit the details relevant to our subject
matter.[2]
Hungarian Jewry was emancipated in 1867 by a special law promulgated by
the newly established liberal government in the wake of the political compromise
with the Austrian authorities. By then the nearly half a million Jews who
had been exposed to the process of modernization were deeply divided about
the consequences of Emancipation in terms of Jewish accommodation to the
new situation. The so-called Neologs, ready to demonstrate their willingness
to integrate themselves into the state and surrounding society, altered
even their religious institutions in more or less visible fashion. These
changes, although of only slight halachic significance, antagonized the
Orthodox, leading to continuous tension and struggle in most communities.
However, the Orthodox themselves were divided in their reaction to the situation.
One trend especially prominent in the northeastern part of the country desired
to retain all the external signs which made Jews recognizable as a religious
ethnic species apart. Accordingly, a group of rabbis led by Hillel Lichentenstein
declared in 1865, that is, two years before the Emancipation, that any individual
or community that would introduce any change; for instance, preaching in
any language except Yiddish, would be regarded as a heretic. Hillel Lichtenstein
had been a student of the Hatam Sofer in Pressburg, and saw himself as carrying
on the legacy of his master in his new environment in the north of the country.
But whatever the intention of the Hatam Sofer might have been, the fact
is that the western part of the country and Pressburg itself developed in
the opposite direction. Here even observant Jews went through a measure
of acculturation. Yiddish was gradually supplanted by German or Hungarian,
the heder replaced by modern schools. The Orthodox attitude concerning
these changes was to differentiate between the essentials of the tradition,
that which is halachically commanded, and what was merely customary. A novel
kind of Orthodoxy was fully and consciously developed in Germany, where
the process of acculturation was universal and complete. Its main ideological
proponent was, as is well known, Samson Raphael Hirsch. A new term, probably
his own invention, became its slogan, gesetzestreu, that is, loyal
to the law. The term gained currency in western Hungary as well, as Hirsch's
influence in that area is well documented. The affinity between the developments
in both places is further revealed by the fact that in 1851 the community
of Eisenstadt found it appropriate to appoint as its rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer
from Halberstaat, in Germany. Outspoken partisan of this new variety of
Orthodoxy, Hildesheimer's presence in one of the important communities in
western Hungary for almost two decades could not but strengthen the expansion
of the trend he represented.[3]
These two Orthodox trends, the one connected with the name of Hillel Lichtenstein,
the other with that of Hildesheimer, were obviously in deep conflict with
each other. This conflict turned not only on the possibility of acculturation
but also on its religious legitimation; that is, the attitude towards rabbinic
authority. Hillel Lichtenstein presented himself as a faithful defender
of the entire tradition, whether evident in positive or negative requirements,
and was prepared to do battle to support its obligatory nature. He and his
group, knowing that their position could not be substantiated by detailed
halachic argument, resorted to a generalized and rather emotional appeal
to the community to remain steadfast to the inherited way of life. Some
twenty-five rabbis assembled in 1865 by Hillel Lichtenstein promulgated
the so-called Pesaq Beit Din, which listed a number of prohibitions
to be enacted by their decree, without giving halachic sources. Their sole
authority was their position as rabbis immersed in the study of Torah.[4]
Had the recent metamorphosis of the term da'at torah been developed
in their lifetime, they would no doubt have quoted it in support of their
Pesaq Beit Din.
One dissenting voice was raised against this method. It was that of a contemporary
personage who shared the wish to see the tradition in its cultural entirety
retained unimpaired, R. Moshe Schick, Mahara"m Schick, an even more
outstanding student of the Hatam Sofer than Hillel Lichtenstein, who too
was called in his old age to serve as rabbi of one of the northern communities,
H'ust. Mahara"m Shick considered most of the injunctions contained
in the Pesaq Beit Din precautionary measures called for under the
existing conditions. But according to him, the nature of the prescriptions
should have been stated in the declaration, rather than having been represented
as of halachic provenance.[5] We shall
later see whether Mahara"m Schick remained consistent in making this
distinction.
The Pesaq Beit Din was only a prelude to the clash of the Orthodox
of all shapes and the Neologs in the wake of Emancipation. Despite the emancipation
of the Jewish community, it remained under the supervision of the state
authority, as were the Christian churches. These were represented vis-à-vis
the state authorities by a countrywide church organization. The Acting Minister
of Education and Religion, Baron Joseph Eötvös, wished to have
the Jewish community united in one organization in order to facilitate state
supervision over the affairs of the community. He therefore suggested that
a congress of the communities' representatives be convened, the task of
which would be to decide upon the constitution of the planned organization.
A friend of the Jews, who was instrumental in bringing about their Emancipation,
he nonetheless had an ulterior motive in this suggestion. Though liberal
and tolerant, Eötvös favored the culturally adapted Jews, and
hoped that a centralized Jewish organization would further the trend of
Jewish integration into state and society. In this he saw eye to eye with
the Neolog leadership who greeted the idea of the Congress, while the Orthodox
felt compromised and at a loss how to react.[6]
Then a small group of traditional householders in the capital decided to
establish an organization to take care of the interests of the Orthodox.
Called Shomrei Hadat - The Guardians of Religion, its constitution
called for a body of laymen to be responsible for its overall conduct. The
leadership would be assisted by a rabbinical council of five, who would
act in two different capacities. The rabbis would advise the leaders concerning
their general activity, and would authoritatively answer questions of a
religious nature put to them by the laymen. This relationship between the
rabbis and the laymen obviously followed the pattern set by the local communities,
whose lay leaders elected their rabbis. These then functioned in the double
capacity of advisers and halachic authorities. However, this conception
failed in the case of the nationwide organization. The Shomrei Hadat
founders submitted the constitution of their organization to the minister
for approval. Having gained his sanction, they published it, appealing to
the Jewish public to join the association. Knowing, however, that they lacked
the necessary prestige to draw the Jewish community, they asked three well-known
rabbis to recommend them and their plan to the public; R. Abraham Shmuel
Benjamin Sofer from Pressburg, the Ketav Sofer, Yirmiyahu L`v from
Ujhezy and Menahem Eisenstuter from Ungvar.[7]
That this was necessary indicates the difference between the local communities
and the planned countrywide association. The first was a defined social
entity, whose functions for the benefit of its members was prescribed by
halacha and at the time of the event, was also supported by the law of the
state. The second had first to be created by a voluntary union of the potential
members. The initiators of the Shomrei Hadat, lacking any standing in the
public eye, had to secure the recommendation of the rabbis, indicating the
organization's dependence for its very existence upon their support.
The date of the Congress was fixed for mid - December, 1868. The leaders
of Shomrei Hadat invited the major local figures of their planned organization
for a meeting two weeks in advance of the Congress' opening. On this occasion,
the election of the rabbinical council of five was to have taken place.
However, the unexpected happened. Some rabbinic circles seem to have resented
the unauthorized activities of Shomrei Hadat, and they induced R. Abraham
Schag, one of the most respected senior figures among the former students
of the Hatam Sofer to forestall the meeting by inviting all the rabbis of
the country for an independent consultation. To save the situation, the
leaders of Shomrei Hadat themselves adopted the idea of a rabbinic conference,
and so it happened that some two hundred rabbis from all over the country
assembled in Buda, the old part of the capital, some three weeks before
the Congress. Though organized by Shomrei Hadat, its leaders could act only
behind the scenes. Overtly, the assembly operated as an autonomous rabbinical
convocation.[8] In session for over two
weeks, it concentrated on preparations for the forthcoming Congress. One
result was a memorandum sent to Minister Eötvös, stating their
conditions for accepting the Congress' decisions. Any proposal to be discussed
by the Congress should be presented first to a committee of halachists,
appointed by the conference. Only if this would be found to be in harmony
with religious law could it be discussed by the Congress. That this stipulation
contradicted the very idea of the Congress, and thus had no chance of being
accepted by the minister, was probably clear to its proponents. Nonetheless,
the majority, led by Mahara"m Schick, was ready to risk the clash involved,
for they saw it as the only guarantee of their supremacy against the Neologs
in the Congress.[9] This bold decision
of the rabbis was at the same time and indication of their independence
from the lay leaders. Thus the planned election of the rabbinical council
of five was forestalled, the relationship between the lay leaders and the
rabbis reversed.[10] Rather than being
limited to sanctioning the activities of the lay body, the rabbis directed
policy, the laymen assuming the role of mere assistants. The rabbis' proposal
for control of the agenda of the Congress was retained and formally submitted
to it.
On this demand the Congress faltered. The Neolog majority rejected it, and
as a result most of the Orthodox, led by the rabbis, walked out of the Congress.
The planned countrywide organization, though established, its constitution
even signed by the king, in practice, could not embrace the entire Jewish
community. The Parliament, following the principle of freedom of conscience,
exempted the Orthodox from joining it, allowing the Orthodox communities
to remain independent.[11] But Mahara"m
Schick and some of his colleagues regarded this as a dangerous situation,
fearing that the individual communities would in the long run not withstand
the inducements offered by the Congress organization. Thus they decided
to establish a parallel, Orthodox organization, and due to a stroke of luck,
the sudden death of Minister Eötvös, they received the same public
status for it as granted to its competitor.[12]
Still, the joining of either of the two organizations by any of the communities
remained voluntary, and many observant traditional communities, though reluctant
to join the Congress organization, refused also to be members of the Orthodox
organization. They called themselves Status-Quoers. The Orthodox organization,
led by lay officers, then conducted a relentless and virulent campaign against
the Status-Quoers, dubbing them traitors to the Orthodox cause. It was the
Mahara"m Shick who gave his blessing to this strong condemnation. He
ruled that joining the Orthodox organization was an absolute religious duty
for any observant Jew and loyal religious community.[13]
The arguments assumed in support of this ruling were mostly of aggadic and
emotional character, based on the general assessment that only entrenchment
behind the wall of the organization would ensure the preservation of the
tradition. Oblivious to his contention at the time of the Lichtenstein controversy,
that any obligation imposed on the community by the rabbis must differentiate
between halachic decisions and precautionary requirements, he himself blurred
the borderline between the two on this occasion. This case demonstrates
my contention that whenever rabbis assume a task for which they lack halachic
foundation, they nolens volens rely on their unqualified prestige. I am
inclined to say once again that had the term da'at torah been in use in
its recent interpretation at that time, it would have been the perfect slogan
for Mahara"m Schick.
Let me now turn in a more concise fashion to the second example, the history
of the Rabbinical Council of Agudat Israel. The whole organization, as is
well known, was the brain child of Yaakov Rosenheim in Frankfurt, a dedicated
follower of Samson Raphael Hirsch's example and teachings.[14]
One of the central tenets of Hirsch's teachings was that the religious life
of the individual as well as of the community should be founded exclusively
on halacha, and conversely, Hirsch believed that halacha is a sufficient
guide for the actions of any public body. Indeed, when in 1876, half a decade
after the Hungarian legislation, the Prussian parliament too permitted the
secession of the Orthodox from the mother communities, Hirsch obliged every
Orthodox Jew to take advantage of this opportunity.[15]
But, contrary to Mahara"m Schick, Hirsch adduced halachic arguments
for his demand. While these arguments rested on forced interpretations of
the relevant sources, Hirsch himself was convinced that he was on firm halachic
ground in his decision. At any rate, he would never have been able to base
his demand on Aggadah or precautionary considerations. This would have contradicted
the basic tenet of his Orthodoxy - that adherence to halacha is the only
criterion of Jewish faithfulness.
It was in this spirit that Rosenheim declared the Torah to be the supreme
sovereign of the planned organization in his draft of the constitution for
Agudat Israel, while the human representatives of the sovereign would be
the Council of the Great Torah Scholars. The verdict of these would be the
yardstick for the practical work of the Agudah, and would serve as a guide
for its directives.[16]
This draft of a constitution was presented to the founding session of the
assembly in Katovitz in 1912. The final constitution of the Agudah was confirmed
only by the first Kenessiya Gedolah in Vienna in 1923. It was formulated
by Isaac Breuer, the grandson of Hirsch, who was not only his spiritual
heir, but an original and sophisticated ideologue of modern Orthodoxy in
his own right. Breuer went beyond Rosenheim in stressing the Torah's sovereignty.
Rosenheim had left open the question of who would appoint the members of
the Rabbinical Council, apparently reserving this right to the lay assembly,
the Kenessiya Gedolah. Breuer empowered the rabbis of every country to elect
their supreme council. In Breuer's formulation the rabbis decided at their
own discretion what the domain of their own authority would encompass. But
wide as was this rabbinical authority according to both men, it is clear
from the wording of their suggestions that all rabbinic decisions must be
based on legitimate halachic sources.[17]
Here I have to reverse my statements about the possible application of the
slogan of da'at torah. Had the recent metamorphosis of the term been suggested
to Rosenheim or Breuer, they would have protested against it absolutely.
They would have regarded it as a falsification of the very principle of
halachic ruling, according to which the halachist is no more than a loyal
interpreter of the law, not a substitute for it.
Now the fact is that the new understanding of the term occurred to no one
at that time. Once it popped up in Israel in recent decades, becoming the
slogan legitimizing the rabbinic leadership of Agudat Israel in this country,
historians tried to find its origin in the struggles of the inter-war period,
especially in Poland. But a closer examination reveals that these are misinterpretations.
The term is used, but in more conventional meanings. At times, it is simply
a colorful expression for admonitions based on traditional sources. R. Elchanan
Wasserman, in a Yiddish booklet carrying the title Da'as Torah, says at
its close, "do not regard me as a moralist preacher who rebukes people
according to his own views. I simply teach you da'at torah following what
I have learned from scholars and books".[18]
The term is thus divorced from its original halachic context. R. Hayyim
Ozer Grodzinski, on the other hand, refusing to answer a query from Palestine
because he lacked information about the circumstances of the case, gives
the following advice: Ask the great scholars residing in the country who
are acquainted with the facts concerning the issue. They should convey you
da'at torah, the din, that is, the prescription to be followed.[19]
Here the term is used strictly according to its original meaning, and I
found it applied accordingly in many other pronouncements of the rabbis
of the time.[20]
Although far from advocating the unqualified authority of the halachists,
the founders of Agudat Israel nonetheless granted them this in practice.
Upon the conclusion of the Kenessiya Gedolah in Vienna in 1923, a manifesto
was published appealing to the Jewish public all over the world to join
the Agudah. This was an emotional appeal, pointing to the deterioration
of the tradition in recent times and promising a remedy through the reunification
of the faithful under the auspices of the Agudah. Although no doubt written
by the lay leader, the manifesto was signed only by the Rabbinical Council.[21]
This is an exact parallel to the case of the Shomrei Hadat in Hungary. Only
the famous rabbis had a chance to be heeded by the faithful in an attempt
to gain the voluntary cooperation of people. On the other hand, however,
the rabbis could not act here as interpreters of the law, but had to rely
on their diffuse charisma. The German ideology of Rosenheim and Breuer,
which aimed at the sovereignty of the law, the halacha, turned into a fiction,
proving inappropriate for the situation.
The discrepancy between this ideology and the facts of life became most
obvious during the Agudah activities in inter-war Poland, where it succeeded
in playing an important part in the political life of the community. Jews
having been formally acknowledged as citizens of the newly established state,
with the rights of an ethnic religious minority, they formed political parties
which reflected the various sectors of the community. Agudat Israel was
one of these parties, claiming the loyalty of the traditional section of
Jewry. It played a certain role in the conduct of the communities, as well
as representing them in the Sejm. The Agudah's appeal to the traditional
elements in the community rested on the claim that its affairs would be
under the auspices of the Rabbinical Council, guaranteeing their impeccable
adherence to religion. But as Gershon Bacon has shown in his doctoral dissertation,
the practical management of the Agudah lay in the hands of lay persons,
the supervision of the Rabbinical Council being at times a mere formality.[22]
Moreover, the composition of the council deviated from the original conception
as presented by Rosenheim and Breuer. These two German personages were fascinated
by the great Talmudists of the Lithuanian schools. The idea of halachic
sovereignty made sense with their cooperation. But in inter-war Poland,
although it embraced some part of Lithuania as well, the bulk of the Jewish
population was of Hassidic background, and the Orthodox among them were
guided by the Hassidic rabbis. These, even if known as outstanding halachists,
derived their prestige from other qualities, such as their personal or inherited
dynastic religious charisma. Indeed, the Agudah achieved its prominence
in inter-war Poland due to the support of the head of the Ger Hassidim,
Abraham Mordechai Alter.[23] True, Rabbi
Haim Ozer Grodzinski from Vilna also took a part in supporting the organization,
but the bulk of the community was of Hassidic background. Thus the whole
idea of rabbinic halachic sovereignty was obviously only a sham.
The glaring discrepancy between ideology and reality was continued under
the rather different conditions obtaining in the State of Israel. Founded
and established by secular or religious Zionists against the protests of
most Orthodox leaders, it is here where, after the destruction of European
Jewry, Orthodoxy in all its shapes was granted a revival. From a negligible
small group at the time of the founding of the state, it grew into a conspicuous
minority, commanding the allegiance of some ten percent of the population.
Due to the deep division between the political parties of right and left,
the Orthodox minority gained a bargaining power beyond its numerical strength.
Most of the time is was Agudat Israel that benefited from the situation.
It retained its organizational structure, and its activities were backed
by spiritual guidance of the Council of Rabbis. There was a shift in favor
of the rabbis in the relations between the lay body and the Rabbinical Council.
The members of the council were not elected; once instated, it became the
custom that they would themselves elect a new member in case of need. In
fact, the council represented the different sections of the Orthodox community
consisting of the various Hassidic groups and the non-Hassidic Lithuanian
Orthodox. Despite the tensions arising from old disputes as well as from
contemporary differences, the need for a common front against the community
at large was strong enough to secure their cooperation. Here the supremacy
of the Rabbinical Council over the lay people in conducting the political
activities of the Agudah became a reality. In Poland, the mere physical
dispersion of the members of the council militated against a running involvement
in the lay leaders' activity. Lacking this impediment in Israel, the Rabbinical
Council was able to decide, not only who of the lay leaders would be a candidate
for the Knesset, but even how the Knesset members would vote on this or
that issue. In practice, the lay leaders could of course influence the rabbis
in their decisions, but this could only be done behind the scenes. Officially
and overtly, the Knesset members obeyed the rabbinic suggestions in all
decisions.
This relationship lacked precedent in Jewish history and called for some
ideological justification. Attributing the rabbis' unqualified wisdom to
their being immersed in Torah study did the trick. This line of reasoning
found its concise expression in the use, or rather, misuse, of the term
da'at torah. Its invocation became a dogma, and as such, capable of withstanding
rational arguments or practical experience. Thus, when in more recent years,
the political body of the Agudah, together with its Rabbinical Council,
split into at least three factions, this alleged Torah wisdom now suggested
conflicting decisions on the same issues. This absurdity nonetheless did
not prevent members of each community from following their spiritual leaders.
They obviously were reluctant to carry the burden of personal responsibility,
laying it rather on the shoulders of their spiritual guides.
I may at the close of my deliberations be asked my assessment of this state
of affairs. In doing so, I must step down as historian, and speak in the
humble capacity of a citizen of the State of Israel alone. Nonetheless,
I wish to refer to a bit of history, connected with the subject of my lecture.
When the Hungarian rabbis demanded the right to judge the admissibility
of any proposition to be discussed in the Congress, their opponents argued
that this would be tantamount to ultramontanism. As you may know, the word
means `beyond the mountains' and had been used to characterize the Catholic
parties who looked for guidance to the Papacy in Rome. The Orthodox laughed
off this comparison, saying: we have no one beyond our country to turn to.
But their opponents were not misguided in using the term to express their
objections. For the critics of the Catholic parties did not resent the intervention
of the Papacy in their internal affairs because of its geographic remoteness
but because of the apprehension that it would rule according to principles
and considerations foreign and external to the issue on the agenda. And
that is exactly the objection to be voiced against citizens of Israel who
empower their rabbis to rule in their name on political issues. Rabbis by
the very nature of their position, are obliged to care for the interests
of religion. Whenever religious issues are on the agenda, their voice of
course carries its special weight, but when political power is given into
their hands, they are led to use this in securing religious interests, thus
leading to a double calamity. The process of political decision making is
be perverted by allowing religious considerations to influence it. At the
same time, religion is discredited by its resorting to means of a secular
nature, lending weight to the objection that it cannot stand on the appeal
of its inherent values alone. I am afraid that this is at present the situation
in my country. It is a result of special historical circumstances, and though
a historian should never try to prophesy, he is not prevented from hoping
that what emerged in the course of history may also disappear in the course
of time.