Rabbi Eli Mansour, "Everyone has His Own Share of Torah"
David Shasha
Everyone has His Own Share of Torah
By: Rabbi Eli Mansour
In recent months I have been on the case of Rabbi Mansour for his obsequious attitude towards Ashkenazi custom and legal method:
In these posts it is clear that Rabbi Mansour has a deeply conflicted relationship to the Sephardic tradition which is rooted in the Ultra-Orthodox concept of rabbinic infallibility and the strong demand for legal stringency (Humra) that permeates the Ultra-Orthodox world.
These two values present a distinct problem for those who adhere to the Sephardic tradition.
An important example of Sephardic legal reasoning is presented by Samuel Morell in an excellent study of the Sephardic-Egyptian Rabbi David ibn abi Zimra:
This important study shows the way in which Sephardic rabbis adapted the Law to the needs of the community while maintaining the complete integrity of intent and precedent. Unlike Reform Judaism, Sephardic rabbis upheld the letter of the Law while finding creative ways to be flexible in their rulings. Adapting to changing circumstances the Sephardic rabbis used rational and scientific insights to ensure ethical consistency in applying the Law to their communities.
Eschewing the PILPUL methodology, the Sephardi decisors maintained the Law while seeking ways to ensure that justice would always be served. The Sephardim refused to honor the concept of rabbinic infallibility and valued juridical independence. Unlike the Ashkenazim, the Sephardim did not adopt a quasi-magical posture in regard to the Law. The Law was given to human beings in order to provide security to our communities and not to empower the specific concerns of individual rabbis. The rabbi too – it must be remembered – was just as beholden to the Law as the individual member of the community. Rabbis could be prosecuted for legal violations.
It would appear that Rabbi Mansour is aware of the issues I have been raising – whether he has read my critiques or not – and in this post he addresses them.
Interestingly, his approach in the discussion is to raise the figure of Rabbi Yosef Hayyim of Baghdad – the Ben Ish Hai – and present his view as sacrosanct; essentially turning the Sephardic rabbi into an Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi rabbi. It is a common approach among the Sephardi Ultra-Orthodox.
A number of issues arise here: As is usual in the Ultra-Orthodox world, the idea is to valorize a rabbi and set his words as infallible. When a point must be made it is mandatory to appeal to a rabbinic authority and present that view as unquestionable.
What is critical to note here is that the position of the Ben Ish Hai contains two elements: there is an apologetic tone vis-à-vis the Ashkenazim which shows the rabbi’s respect and humility. It should not – as we read the larger point – be taken as acquiescence to the Ashkenazim. Indeed, Rabbi Hayyim’s ultimate ruling is that Sephardi decisors must maintain their open liberalism and reject Ashkenazi stringency. This method is upheld by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef in his ruling.
So for Rabbi Mansour there remains the problem of the clash between Ashkenazim and Sephardim that he is not quite sure how to resolve.
Since all rabbis are perfect, and since Sephardi rabbis have an important set of Jewish values that clash with the Ashkenazi rabbis, it is very difficult to determine how the rule of infallibility can be maintained. And Rabbi Mansour continues his complicated and somewhat tortuous balancing act where both Ashkenazim and Sephardim can both be correct in their approach.
In other words, the position of the Ben Ish Hai is polite but dismissive. Rabbi Mansour misreads this politeness for acquiescence when he knows well that the Sephardim reject the Ashkenazi approach and elevate their own pluralistic, open method above that of the Ashkenazim. More than this, Rabbi Mansour never addresses the core issue of PILPUL and the subjective nature of Ashkenazi rabbinic method. In the hands of the Ashkenazi decisor the Law becomes a piece of clay to be molded according to the view of the individual rabbi.
The idea is that the rabbi is the sole possessor of the truth and that his decision is akin to a prophetic oracle. His decision is final and presented in a closed, not open, legal system. This is the paradox of Ashkenazi Judaism: the Law is both subjective and unquestioned. The freedom to remake the Law leads to an undermining of the ultimate integrity of the Law.
The logical problem with this is that different rabbis make different decisions, so it is impossible for all of them to be right all the time.
In this regard, the Sephardic approach is both more rational and more consistent: the rabbi is handed over the keys to legal decision-making and uses his own understanding to best apply the Law in his community. Differences can occur, but the rabbi is required to seek justice as best as he can. New decisions can be made as time progresses.
There is nothing magical about the process and new decisions are arrived at – not through Divine Revelation as Rabbi Mansour insists in his presentation of the Hatam Sofer – the same rabbi who famously stated that the “New is prohibited according to the Torah” (he-Hadash ‘assur min ha-Torah) – but through juridical analysis (‘Iyyun). The system is evolutionary and not static as the Ultra-Orthodox continue to insist.
Rabbis need not adopt an occult approach to the Torah. This is the point of the Ben Ish Hai which repeats the standard understanding of the legal process in the classical Sephardic tradition. It is not the same position as that of the Ashkenazic tradition which insists on the quasi-saintly status of rabbis and has made the Law into a mystery where talismans are used to achieve magical results.
The Law in the Sephardic tradition is predicated on the idea articulated in Leviticus 18:5 which insists that man must live by the Law and not fall victim to the Law. The rabbi is a privileged interpreter of the Law who is responsible for the welfare of the community. The rabbi is not elevated above human beings as is the case with Catholic Priests, but is a member of the community who is charged with seeing that the Torah is made known and properly applied.
We must reject the idea that the Torah is a Platonic concept that simply needs to be revealed in the proper time by the rabbi. The Law is not magical. Based on Deuteronomy 30:12, the Sages in the Talmud reject the magical conception of the Law in a story known as the Oven of Akhnai (Babylonian Talmud Baba Mesi’a 59b):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_in_Heaven
According to Rabbi Mansour’s understanding of Torah we are beholden to the occult wisdom of rabbis who are directly connected to God. According to the Sages themselves prophecy ceases at the time of Malachi. Rabbi Hayyim Angel discusses the matter in detail:
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/end-prophecy-malachis-position-spiritual-developmen
Rabbis are rational agents according to the Maimonidean-Andalusian tradition that is firmly reinforced by the Ben Ish Hai and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Rabbi Mansour is trying to connect the classical Sephardic tradition to an Ashkenazi-occult approach which would permit the two traditions to co-exist on equal terms.
But the reality is that the Ashkenazi and Sephardi legal traditions are not in agreement on the way in which the Law is to be decided in spite of Rabbi Mansour’s heroic attempt to make them compatible.
And this is the perennial problem for those Sephardim like Rabbi Mansour and his Ultra-Orthodox contingent: Sephardic tradition has specific moral values that refuse to countenance the rigid authoritarianism of the Ashkenazi decisors. The magical-occult manner of the Ashkenazi legal system has served not only to undermine the classical Maimonidean view, but to throw a monkey-wrench into the entire Halakhic process as we know it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/dangerous-mystic-motifs-i_b_637535.html
The magical-occult method upholds the value of superstition and irrationality as it rejects science and philosophy in a way that chains Jews to the subjective values of the rabbinical class. It is a situation that was rejected by the Sephardic rabbis and is currently in the process – as we see in the work of Rabbi Mansour and other Ultra-Orthodox Sephardim – of being revisited in order to transform our Sephardic heritage into a variant of the Ashkenazi.
DS
The
Gemara in Masechet Erubin (54b) cites the verse from Mishleh (5:19), “Dadeha Yeravucha
Be’chol Et,” which compares Torah to the breast of a nursing mother. The Gemara
explains that just as the infant always finds milk when he sucks, similarly,
one can always receive new understanding and insight every time he learns
Torah.
The Hafetz Haim (Rav Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin, 1839-1933), in his work Shem
Olam, writes that we can infer from this Gemara the proper attitude and mindset
that one should have toward Torah study. One should not think to himself, “So
many thousands of great Rabbis have studied and probed this topic already, and
they must have exhausted all possible explanations and insights. Why should I
bother studying it and trying to find novel insights?” This is not the correct
attitude. Just as each time a nursing baby sucks he finds fresh milk, there is
always new material in Torah that is available and waiting to be discovered.
The Almighty leaves material for every student and every scholar, because each
and every Jew has his own unique share in Torah, as we pray, “Ve’ten Helkenu
Be’Toratach” – “Give us our portion in Your Torah.” Hashem leaves each person’s
share concealed until he comes along and uncovers it. The Hatam Sofer (Rabbi
Moshe Sofer of Pressburg, 1762-1839) writes that Hashem will withhold insights
even from great scholars of an earlier generation so that it can be revealed by
a lesser scholar of a later generation, whose soul is connected to that piece
of Torah. Therefore, one should not think that he is not worthy of learning
Torah in depth and trying to arrive at Hiddushim (novel Torah insights),
because every Jew has a portion of Torah for him to reveal.
The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in the introduction to
his work of responsa Rab Pe’alim, notes a difference that he observed between
the styles of the Ashkenazic and Sephardic scholars. The Ashkenazim, he writes,
study the Gemara and the major Rishonim (Medieval commentators), and then
proceed directly to determine the Halacha. Sepharadim, on the other hand, take
the time to study as many works of the Rishonim and Aharonim as they can before
reaching a conclusion. The Ben Ish Hai writes (listen to audio recording for
precise citation) that “after asking forgiveness a thousand times” from the
Ashkenazim, for whom he had great respect, he believes there is a distinct
advantage to the Sephardic methodology because, as mentioned, every student and
scholar is given a new insight. Even though the scholars of the earlier
generations were greater, Hashem allows the later scholars to reveal certain
insights and perspectives that were withheld from the giants of earlier
generations. It is therefore important to study the works of all the great Torah
scholars, because each brings a new, fresh perspective that cannot be found in
the works of others, even of those who achieved a higher level of
scholarship.
A perfect example of the Ben Ish Hai’s observation is HaGaon Hacham Ovadia
Yosef. Anyone who is familiar with the Hacham’s works knows that when he
approaches a subject, he reads all the material in all Sefarim relevant to the
discussion, including books that few others have even heard of. He wants to
make sure to see every possible angle and every way of analyzing the issue
before reaching his conclusion, realizing that every scholar has his own,
unique share in Torah and thus offers his own perspective.
No matter how much we study, we always have more to learn and new insight to
gain, and it therefore behooves all of us to learn to the best of our ability
to invest maximum effort so we can reveal and uncover our unique share in
Torah.
From Daily Halacha, May 3, 2013