In the traditional Jewish world over the past 75 years, there has been some debate and a great deal of confusion over the concept of “daas Torah.” Loosely defined, this is the belief that a scholar’s profound Torah knowledge allows him singular and perhaps definitive insight into political and social issues not normally associated with religion.

Daas Torah

What is the definition of the concept of daas torah and the extent of its impact on halacha? Can daas torah impact non-halachik issues?

I suspect that the idea that Torah knowledge provides one with the ability to properly advise others in non-halachik areas is as old as the Torah itself. For instance, King Saul was originally introduced to the prophet Shmuel through his desire to find his lost donkeys (I Samuel 9). It seems to have been natural for someone to ask such questions of prophets.

Granted, it was Shmuel’s prophetic ability that attracted Saul and (according to the Daas Sofrim) the fact that such a hugely important first meeting should begin with the subject of lost donkeys was a subtle expression of God’s displeasure with Israel’s desire for a king. Still, there seemed to be a culture of referral on a wide range of issues.

More to the point, Pirkei Avos 6; 1 tells us that “Rabbi Meir says, ‘anyone who involves himself in (the study of) Torah for its own sake merits many things…and (others) will benefit from his advice…’”

I once heard a Torah scholar commenting that everyone really believes in daas Torah – even many non-religious Jews – it’s just that they don’t accept the daas Torah of this or that specific rabbi. They prefer their own. What’s the proof? The very rabbis who, through the ‘70’s and ‘80’s, preached against daas Torah would almost universally base their Shabbos sermons on newspaper-inspired themes! Now what do current events have to do with the parsha or with Shabbos morning shul attendance? These guys obviously felt that their Torah knowledge afforded them special insights on the world around them…daas Torah.

By the way, I was always particularly inspired by the open miracles inherent in these sermons: each and every parsha “just happened” to provide the setting for the international events that “just happened” to have occurred that week – and always according to the outlook of that particular rabbi – while that same parsha would often provide equally convincing proof to the opposite for the rabbi down the street!!

To my knowledge, the “anti-daas Torah” movement began as a reaction to R’ Elchonon Wasserman’s rejection of both Zionism and of various secularizing trends. There were people who disagreed and some of them claimed that Rabbi Wasserman’s Torah knowledge gave him no authority to express opinions in worldly matters.

In truth, though, don’t Zionists (or ideological secularists) also consider their ideals to be an application of Torah values to the non-Torah sphere?

Return to Home Page