- This topic has 42 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by .
-
Posts
-
I stans corrected. I said here several times, uncritically taking the words of my Teacher at face value, that there is no Daas Torah in gemora. Not even half way through the shas, here it is in Kiddushin 71: r Zeiri goes to learn to EY from Bavel and r Yochanan not only teaches him Torah but also insists on a shidduch (to his own daughter). So, modestly following r Shimon Alsani on esim in Torah, I am admitting that daas Torah is mentioned in the gemora
Welcome to the Torah world – we’ve been waiting for you
AAQ, it’s interesting that you draw a parallel between yourself and Shimon Ho’amsuni. As you will know, he was able to expound every ‘es’ in the Torah, until he reached one he couldn’t explain; at which point he retracted all of his דרשות. The Gemoro (Kiddushin 57a et al.) ends the story by saying, “עד שבא ר’ עקיבא ולימד את ה’ אלוקיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים”. In other words, Shimon Ho’amsuni’s initial position – that every ‘es’ has a דרשה attached – was indeed correct! It’s just that he couldn’t think of a דרשה for one of them; so it was left to Rebbi Akiva to uphold and validate his initial view by finding a דרשה for that את.
I think our case is indeed very similar. I agree with your initial position (based on the words of your teacher) that the concept of דעת תורה does not appear in Shas; and I fail to see how the Gemoro you quote contradicts this notion. The Gemoro simply says that Rebbi Yochanan wanted Ze’iri to marry his daughter, and tried to convince him to do so. How does this imply דעת תורה? I’m sure there are many baalebatim who would like to see their daughter marry a top בחור, and might try to persuade him if he was reluctant!
However, saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה in Shas is not the same as saying there is no מקור for דעת תורה. The מדרש תהלים (שוחר טוב) on והיה כעץ שתול על פלגי מים reads as follows:
וכל אשר יעשה יצליח, שהכל צריכים לעצתו, כגון ר’ אלעזר בן ערך שהיה יועץ עצות ומתקיימות ומצליחות. אמרו לו, נביא אתה? אמר להן, לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא, אלא כך אני מקובל מרבותי, כל עצה שהיא לשם שמים סופה להתקיים. אמר רבי מנשיא מקרא מלא הוא, שנאמר ועצת ה’ היא תקום, עצה שיש בה דבר ה’ היא תקום.I don’t understand.
Maybe I’m not sure what daas Torah is, suggesting a shiduch is daas Torah?The phrase דעת תורה is not mentioned in Tanach, Mishnah, or Jerusalem Talmud.
However, דעת תורה is mentioned one time in the Babylonian Talmud,
and three times in Rashi’s commentary on the Babylonian Talmud.@ubiquitin
Exactly.@SQUARE_ROOT
The Gemoro to which you refer is in Chullin 90b; it’s in a discussion about the Gid haNosheh and has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה as it exists today.i think different people have different ideas what daas torah is, but the fact is that torah tells us how to live our lives 100%, torah is the blueprint for the world so obviously torah has a teaching for everything. now one may wonder that seemingly learning the lomdishe sugyos of shas dont direct him in his marriage dor example, but learning agadah and medrash, kabalah and chassidus will give him a clear picture on every detail of his life. because not everyone can be baki in kol hatorah kulah, torah says make for yourself a rav.
R Moshe Z”L has an explanation of what Daas Torah and why its even on things that seem unrelated to the Torah.
In order for this discussion to make any sense there needs to be consensus on the definition of Daas Torah. Is everyone OK with this
“Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa” An example would be asking a talmid chacham business advice.
Does anyone like that?
@AAQ does that mean you are ready to apologize for your belittling them for following their ravs direction especially during Covid?
Rocky, i disagree.
It’s mainly chasidim who approach tzadikim for advice in business, and the baal hatanya was against this, because money is totally bidei shomayim.Daas Torah is seeking the Torah’s guidance in life decisions, including which community to live in, which job or business to get involved in(not what investment to make, see above… rather to understand one’s inclinations…a rebbe can tell you if you’re going yo be a good doctor, lawyer, etc..), shiduchim, how much gashmius is too much..how to relate to relatives and how to deal eith relationships, especially shalom bayis – do you know how many marriages have been saved because both husband and wife agreed to blindly follow the decision of their daas torah? It’s unbelievable.
ותנח עליו רוח עיצ-, the Torah confers on its diligent students proper advice.
And gadol hador, thanks for that medrash; i was not aware of it before.
AAQ, thanks for the kind words about my posts!
Now, about the Gemoro in Chullin:
1) It isn’t a double reference, “da’as – da’as Torah.” The Gemoro is explaining a B’raisa which uses the word da’as, and the Gemoro is asking if da’as in the B’raisa means Da’as Torah. So the first דעת is part of the question, and not part of the phrase דעת תורה. (This is the same mistake that appears on every כתב סמיכה which uses the phrase יורה יורה. This phrase is a quotation from Sanhedrin 5a, but there too the first יורה is a question (can he pasken?) and the second is the answer. So a כתב סמיכה should really say יורה just once.)
2) The phrase does not refer to סברא; rather, it refers to a דרשה: either the ה of הירך or the phrase בהאבקו עמו teaches us (according to Rebbi Yehuda) that the איסור גיד הנשה only applies to the right sciatic nerve. So what makes you think your teacher was unaware of this Gemoro, seeing as it has nothing to do with the concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing?Rocky and Avira, I’m not sure you’re arguing. Rocky defined דעת תורה as, “Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa.” Asking a talmid chacham business advice was only an example. Many of the examples Avira gave fit into this definition.
AAQ
“here r Yohanan is the godol hador and he tells you this is a good shidduch, would you not listen?! and to add to that – his own daughter …”
So all shadchanim who propose a shidduch have daas Torah? Is it only if they propose a shiduch to their daughter?
I don’t get itHe saw a talmid chacham, so he wanted him as a son in law. what does that have to do wit hdaas Torah?
@AAQ, my bad I thought you had a genuine change of heart, did not realize you were “stam hocking a chinik” like they say in certain quarters. Do whatever floats your boat, like Amil Zola once said you do your I will do mine.
Shimon Hamosini learned lashem shomaim as he gave up his whole life’s work when one place did not follow his darush. There are 2600 essen in the Torah and he almost covered all of them. Why did he not darshen like Rebbi Akiva, to fear a Talmid Chacham? Maybe the midrash says ויאמינו בה’ ובמשה עבדו – אם במשה האמינו בה’ לא כ’ש, אם כן למה נאמר במשה? They believed in Hashem and his servant Moishe. If they believed in Moishe then they certainly believed in Hashem, so why does it say Moishe? It says so to trust and believe the words of a talmid chacham. The question is that Hashem is the obvious, so why should Moishe not be stated? The Talmid Chacham get his belief from Hashem, so he is unnecessary to be stated. Similarly Shimon Hamosini saw the fear of a Talmid Chacham as obvious. However, for Rebbi Akiva who was originally an am haaretz was not so obvious.
Look in Pesachim 42a: Rav Masnah taught that Rabbi Yehuda said, for matzos one should use Mayim Shelanu. The next day everyone came with their pails asking for his water. He explained it meant water that had sat overnight.
What is the point of this Gemara? A joke? To make the people look ignorant?
No, it’s to emphasize they had Emunas Chachomim, even if they didn’t understand the reason.@AAQ, If one realizes that he may have been interpreting something wrong and rather than change being up the subject for purely a discussion basis that is called haking a chinik or stam gerit.
FYI If someone ask his/her Daas torah and is told to do something and that person does so, they have my full admiration even if it conflicts with my hashkafa““Conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa” An example would be asking a talmid chacham business advice.
Does anyone like that?”
Not really because it is lacking some critical elements:
1) Is this a form of Ruach Hakodesh? or Is it that learnign torah sharpens your mind so you can grasp things quickly and covers many facets of life so have a grasp of Human relationships, business etc? Or something in between?
Meaning the idea that if you explain say the pros and cons of different shiduchim to a Rebbe who knows you well, it is very logical that he can help guide you. I don’t think this is particularly controversial and wouldnt really promt arguemtns over whther here is such a thing. Just like your accountant can help guide you which medical treatment makes more financial sense for you.
That was my trouble with the OP’s example. R’ Yochanan met R’ Zeira he met his own daughter. I dont understand why his suggesting a shidduch shows somesort of special power gained through Torah?2)assuming there is such a thing as Daas torah is is there some sort of imperative to listen.
These points have been debated ad nasueum, and dont really interest me (any more).
Im caught up on the specific example providedAAQ, I see that you are struggling to understand what I wrote, so I’ll explain it again. The concept of דעת תורה that we’re discussing is seeking the Torah’s guidance in life decisions (Avira) by conferring with a Torah expert on matters that do not relate to halacha or hashkafa (Rocky). Thus the Medrash that I brought is extremely relevant, as it tells us that people used to ask Rebbi Elazar ben Arach for advice on matters that do not relate to halacha – דעת תורה in action.
However, both the Gemoro in Kiddushin which you brought and the Gemoro in Chullin are totally irrelevant here. Nowhere in that Gemoro in Kiddushin does Rebbi Yochanan claim דעת תורה rights, as you put it. He simply said to Zeiri, “My Torah is good enough for you, but my daughters are not good enough for you?” As for the Gemoro in Chullin, if you really think your teacher meant to say that nowhere in Shas do we find דרשות that teach us halacha, I am stunned that it took you until the end of Kiddushin to realise that Shas is full of halachic דרשות. And I have no idea why you bring the Chasam Sofer.
You then say that “the apparent fact that some modern people use the expression differently is their problem, not [the] Gemora’s.” No, it’s YOUR problem if you’re conflating the two and trying to bring proof from a Gemoro that is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand.
And for the same reason the Gemoro brought by provaxx is also irrelevant. There the people thought there was a halachic reason behind Rav Masnah requiring everyone to use his water. Yes, they showed great אמונת חכמים in accepting a דין that would not have made sense to them, but that has nothing to do with דעת תורה.
I’m really lost here.
I think the debate is around if the Gedolim can advance an idea that has broad implications for the community without having to ‘sell’ the idea. And is one allowed to be critical of the idea if it seems to be insufficiently thought out.
But everything here is about an individual seeking or receiving personal advice. What could be debated about that? Why can’t you have a full discussion with somebody on whatever the issue is? Why would the Rav or Mentor just dictate and not advise? And why would anyone think that a Torah Personality is less able to give advice then some other human?
I’m more interested in hearing about why we need a source for personal advice, than bringing up public leadership questions. The position that the OP seems to be abandoning, is that an individual has no right to personal advice from ?????. I never realized that that was even under consideration.
@AAQ, When someone starts a thread by writing “I stand corrected” it generally means that that person had a change of heart, if he write “I offered you for your thoughtful analysis” it is called hocking ah chinik or ah be geret”.
to quote Ubiquitin this topic had been discussed ad nauseum, so who cares.AAQ, I restate my case: what the Gemoro means when it employs the phrase דעת תורה is irrelevant here. The דעת תורה in the גמרא is not an alternative definition of our דעת תורה; it means something else entirely. Words and phrases can have multiple, unrelated meanings. As for Kiddushin, the fact R’ Yochanan puts his Torah and his daughter(s) in the same sentence does not mean he’s leaning on his Torah authority. He’s not saying, “Since I am your Torah teacher, I have דעת תורה, and I recommend you marry my daughter – you should listen to me.” He’s just saying, “You value and respect my Torah to the extent that you come and learn from me, yet you regard my daughter(s) as inferior?”
Dear Always,
You claim that ‘lack of terms’ seems strange to you. Well, check out this site that I occasionally post on: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/
You should notice that most of the major issues suffer from a lack of agreed upon definitions of terms. Such as, Zionism, MO, Yeshivish, Democrats, Communism, Morals, Belief, Orthodox, and Trolls.
I would like to repeat the point of my post as a question. Do you doubt that people are allowed to turn to others for personal advice? And do you have any logic why a Torah Leader’s advice would be less significant than mine?
AAQ, why is my argument modernishe? You will know that in current parlance the word אירוסין means ‘engagement,’ but in Gemoro terms (and indeed in the Torah) it is a synonym for קידושין. Do we need here as well ‘a good source to claim that we can easily reject [the Gemoro’s definition of אירוסין] and inject new meaning into it?’
And if someone was to say that nowhere in Shas do we find any mention of getting engaged or of an engaged girl, would you refute him from the many times the term ארוסה appears there?
As for the Gemoro in קידושין, I don’t see anything for מפרשים to get excited about.
AAQ, don’t worry, I’m not offended at all. Not sure what you mean by ארוסין being a social practice with a halachic basis – I mean, I suppose קידושין is a social practice with a halachic basis, but then so is חסד and שבת, which were your examples.
You say that you believe דעת תורה is a halachic imperative, so it needs to have halachic parameters. I have never heard of דעת תורה as a halachic imperative. I just think the concept means that it is sensible to follow advice from a גדול, because he knows better than you do, and can see things you cannot. The concept of taking advice from Gedolim about matters unrelated to halacha already existed in the time of Chazal (as can be seen from the Medrash I brought); it just wasn’t called דעת תורה back then.
In the Gemoro in Kiddushin, Ze’iri did not approach R’ Yochanan for advice. R’ Yochanan started a conversation trying to persuade him to marry his daughter. Obviously Ze’iri rejected R’ Yochanan’s advice, because he remembered the statement of R’ Elozor that R’ Yochanan had forgotten, so he knew his teacher was making a (halachic) mistake. And to answer your questions, if you come to your Rov and ask advice for a shidduch, I believe it’s perfectly ok halachically to reject it; however, it might not be a smart thing to do. And it certainly is ok not to ask if you know the answer yourself, or to reject a Rov’s advice if you know for sure he is wrong.
“As to your questions – of course, people can and should ask for advice. And Torah scholars should be first on the list.”
Good so the discussion is over and we can close this thread or do keep on beating a dead horseDear Always,
Daas isn’t halachic. You have to actually know what is going on. The predicate is contained in the subject. It means ‘daas’ and not ‘halacha’. If you would follow through on it, you would follow the intent and not the literal meaning of his words.
We do not have papal decrees. I don’t understand your possible positions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.