Rising to the Occasion- How Technology has Changed the World of Psak

Talmud Torah, the study of Torah, is one of the most essential mitzvos in the Torah. Although we might think of the act of studying as one that has essentially not changed in thousands of years, this is not the case. For most people who lived before the invention of the printing press, as well as for a while after its invention, talmud Torah was usually done by listening. Other than in the libraries of those who were wealthy, few, if any, texts could be found in the Jewish home. In talmudic times, this even included the siddur. This meant that for the most part, expertise in any area of Torah was not possible for the laymen.

Even, when books became more available, few men and almost no women, were well versed in the Talmud, which, along with its commentaries, were the primary tools for deciding matters of Jewish law. When legal codes were published beginning with Rambam's “Mishneh Torah”, and especially with the Shulchan Aruch several centuries later, there were many rabbis who were bothered by these texts. They were concerned with the idea that people would use these texts to decide halachic matters on their own, without knowing the requisite information. Despite these protests, and the fact that these rabbis were not incorrect in their assumption, legal codes were here to stay.

In the past 15 years, another major change has occurred. Computer technology has made nearly all major works of Jewish law available to anyone who wants it. The Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, has made it possible for anyone to research even the most complex of topics. Once again, there are protests that laymen should not be deciding matters of Jewish law, without consulting with an expert. Are those who protest correct? Possibly, but it doesn't matter. Just as the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch thrived despite the protests against their use, the use of programs like the Bar-Ilan database will not disappear.

It is not possible to avoid change. Throughout our history, many of our biggest talmidei chachamim have been willing to deal with the challenges brought on by new circumstances. While to be sure, there were those who insisted on fighting the change, for the most part, they were unsuccessful. To pick one example, for all but the most dogmatic, no one believes that the world is less than 6,000 years old. However one reconciles the idea of it being the year 5774 according to the Jewish calendar, the idea of a much more ancient past is accepted.

To my mind, the advances in technology present a wonderful challenge to our rabbinic leaders. For many, even within the more insular communities, the days where the local rabbi decided halchic issues, and was, more or less accepted as the final word, are gone. It is no longer enough for a rabbi to posken. He must make a case for why his understanding is correct. Of course, part of this case involves explaining the sources and the thought process that led to the particular decision. It also involves something else. In order for a psak to be accepted, the posek needs to make his case in a way that resonates with those within his community, be it local or global. Part of this case is living, acting and speaking in a manner that combines scholarship, piety and compassion. Additionally, it must be clear that the psak shows an understanding of the realia of the case, as well as the community who is being addressed. To be sure, there will be those who will insist that nothing but scholarship should matter. Even if that once was the case, and I suspect that it was not, things have changed. Once again, great talmidei chachamim are rising to the challenge and will continue to do so.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

Can We Say It Too?- Addressing the Confusion of Acceptable Beliefs

It has been nearly 10 years since Rabbi Natan Slifkin's books were banned for their supposed heresy. What was perhaps most ironic was that much of what he said came from the Rishonim, and achronim who are very much accepted in the charedi world. When this objection was made, the reply was “They could say it, we can not”. I would like to explore the idea behind this claim.

Recently, Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote an article examining a connected idea, “Does Psak Apply to Matters of Hashkafa?”. I will not be addressing it from that perspective however. Rather, I wish to show how this related question connects to much confusion when it come to which beliefs are acceptable according to Jewish tradition.

There are three terms which, although somewhat connected, are used interchangeably with the expected confusion that follows from a lack of precise language; Orthodoxy, Torah and Truth. By examining each of them, I hope to show why the concept of psak is mostly misguided when it comes to hashkafa, and that while there are certain ideas we might not be able to say or teach within particular communities, we are certainly permitted to think them.

Orthodoxy is a social construct. As with all social constructs, it has its own rules and beliefs. Additionally, these rules and beliefs are decided on by the members of the group. While they might be factually correct, the truth of the claims is not what matters. If a person wishes to be part of the group, these are the beliefs which they must embrace. As such, the term Orthodoxy, and all its subdivisions, changes from time to time, and from group to group. As a social construct, it makes no sense to talk of psak. The only question that must be answered is, whether a statement is acceptable to the group. It is here that one can say that certain views of the Rishonim are off limits. If you want to be in their “club” you can not publicly say or teach these ideas. For those who wish to remain in the group, these prohibitions will matter. To everyone else, they could not matter less. Even where these things impact halacha, whether one is a heretic and it is allowed to drink wine they have handled, in a world without a Sanhedrin, this too remains subjective and will vary from group to group.

What counts as an acceptable understanding of the Torah can not easily be defined, and therefore can be debated. It is natural that there would be an attempt to clarify the issue and for traditional Jews, certain ideas are essential. Examples would be the existence of God, His relationship with the world, that the commandments are to be obeyed etc. While the Rambam most famously identified 13 principles, it is far from clear that we must accept them as the essential beliefs. Different groups in Orthodoxy may accept them, but as mentioned above, that is binding on no one, but those who self-identify with the group. I would suggest (while recognizing that this is not a definition) that any idea taught by one of the Rishonim, is a legitimate way to understand Torah. Thus, while Ralbag's view of Divine Providence goes against the commonly understood definition of the term, any Jew is free to believe it.

What however of Truth? By that I mean, how do we know if any idea is objectively true? Either God directly controls every little thing including when we stub our toe, or pull the wrong coin from our pocket, or He controls nothing and allows nature to take its course (as per Ralbag) or there is some third way, which lays somewhere in the middle, how God runs the world. Simply put, we can not know the answer. We can believe one approach to be correct based on understanding of the Torah, personal experience or wishful thinking, but we can not know the ways of God.

We live in interesting times. The internet has brought knowledge and ideas to our fingertips that we might not have had access to before. Biblical scholarship, philosophy and theology, areas that were mostly studied by scholars, are now studied by all and debated on blogs, Facebook and during kiddushes at shul. As these ideas are considered, those of us who seek to figure out where we stand and what we believe run up against those who insist that we must accept certain ideas in order to remain within the fold. If we keep the three concepts of Orthodoxy, Torah and Truth in mind, and recognize the ways they differ, we can have more respectful, nuanced and meaningful conversations and debates.