The most bizarre and troubling aspect about child abuse in the religious community is not the abuse itself. It is the lack of seichel and moral outrage about children being harmed. It is common for victims of abuse and their family to be more traumatized and angry at the community and its leaders - than at the sick person who did the abuse. A child who runs to his rabbi or parent to report being abused - and is slapped and humiliated by these authority figures whom he viewed as his protector and role model - often suffers more psychological damage than he does from the abuse itself. The victim who is silenced or driven out of the community for complaining about the abuse has been horribly betrayed by those who are at the foundation of his existence.
I have often wondered how great rabbis who spend their whole life seeking spirituality and immersed in Torah study - react in a more boorish and insensitive fashion than not only the ignorant religious masses - but also the non-religious or non-Jew. What has happened to their human feelings? The answer obviously is that their understanding of religion and halacha has displaced their natural feelings. In fact they will proudly tell you that emotions and feelings can only follow - not lead an intellectual understanding from Torah. This loss of commonsense is the loss of the sense of yoshrus which I discuss at length in my books on abuse. There obviously are exceptions to this and the exceptions are becoming more numerous as the result of learning about the reality of the harm of abuse.
update June 17, 2014 See Post - Biblical Slavery and Morality
update: 6/13/14 Dr. Marc Shapiro on Seforim Blog noted that not only did Rav Kook emphasize the value of commonsense to distinguish right and wrong but Rav Itzele Ponovezh stated that the masses not the gedolim are the repository of Daas Torah - apparently because of their collective commonsense. And that this idea is clearly acknowledged by Chazal and Rishonim and Achronim.
In previous posts I have commented that one of the novelties of haredi ideology is the notion that the “Gedolim” are the carriers of all truth. See here where I quote R. Itzele of Ponovezh’s assertion that it is the people, עמך, not the Gedolim, who represent what today is referred to as Daas Torah.[13] This idea can be found in the Talmud and later rabbinic literature as well. When the Talmud and post-Talmudic authorities state אם אינם נביאים בני נביאים הם or פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר or קול המון כקול ש-די or מנהג ישראל תורה they are not referring to the Gedolim but to the masses of pious Jews, the ones who make up the kehillah kedoshah.
update June 17, 2014 See Post - Biblical Slavery and Morality
update: 6/13/14 Dr. Marc Shapiro on Seforim Blog noted that not only did Rav Kook emphasize the value of commonsense to distinguish right and wrong but Rav Itzele Ponovezh stated that the masses not the gedolim are the repository of Daas Torah - apparently because of their collective commonsense. And that this idea is clearly acknowledged by Chazal and Rishonim and Achronim.
In previous posts I have commented that one of the novelties of haredi ideology is the notion that the “Gedolim” are the carriers of all truth. See here where I quote R. Itzele of Ponovezh’s assertion that it is the people, עמך, not the Gedolim, who represent what today is referred to as Daas Torah.[13] This idea can be found in the Talmud and later rabbinic literature as well. When the Talmud and post-Talmudic authorities state אם אינם נביאים בני נביאים הם or פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר or קול המון כקול ש-די or מנהג ישראל תורה they are not referring to the Gedolim but to the masses of pious Jews, the ones who make up the kehillah kedoshah.
update 6/16/2014: Rabbi Yitzchok Isaac Sher (Leket Sichos Mussar 1:59): The Rambam (Hilchos De’os 1:7) teaches concerning the perfection of character that a person should not chose an extreme position in character traits but rather he should pick the moderate middle position which is the path of G-d Who has commanded us to conduct ourselves in that manner. This raises an important question – who decides that a trait is in the middle? Furthermore why is this middle path called “the path of G-d”? The answer is that it is clear that the Rambam’s meant that a person should rely on his commonsense (seichel) to guide him in finding the middle path. Therefore when a person conducts himself according to seichel (commonsense) rather than his basic lusts – this is “the path of G-d”. In fact this is the path that G-d taught Adam from the beginning of his creation and He implanted in him good commonsense to guide him properly. And even after we received the Torah and the 613 mitzvos in order to guide our commonsense according to the Divine intelligence – we are still told “It is not in Heaven” (Devarim 30:12 – Bava Metzia 59b). We are not to rely on Heaven to teach us what G-d’s will is but rather we are to rely on our commonsense [as we were before the Torah was given] in order to clarify the path of the Torah and the path of G-d. If we do that we will be successful – as the Rambam concludes there, “This is the heritage that Avraham taught his descendants –as the Torah (Bereishis 18:19) states, “For I have known him so that he will command his descendants...to keep the path of God.". One who follows this path brings benefit and blessing to himself, as [the verse concludes]: "so that God will bring about for Abraham all that He promised.
update: Read the Seichel Deficit from Yated
update: One of the children of a young kollelman developed a very high fever on Shabbos. Being a talmid chachom he researched the halacha and concluded that while it was permitted to call the doctor or even take the child to the hospital - he decided that he would be machmir and not violate Shabbos. When Shabbos was over - Rabbeinu Tam - he rushed the child to the hospital where the doctor said that his son had suffered irreversible brain damage from the fever. The broken father went to Rav Moshe and asked him how his son could have been harmed when he had been so careful to observe halacha? Rav Moshe replied that this was a case of pikuach nefesh and seichel should have told you that it wasn't time to be machmir.
update There are many sources describing the need to follow commonsense as well as the oligation to observe that which commonsense dictates. This is the issue known as natural law. I have a chapter devoted to this issue in my sefer Daas Torah. Spirtuality and Decency: Torah and Natural Law
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky[(Emes L’Yaakov): According to the Halacha, Avraham was not obligated to risk his life to save his nephew Lot…. Avraham risked his life because the Patriarchs were yeshorim (upright) [Avoda Zara 25a]. That means that their actions were not governed only by the strict letter of Torah law - but by straight thinking. G‑d made man inherently yashar (upright). According to uprightness, there was an obligation to try and save Lot… Avraham felt responsible for Lot’s welfare because Lot’s father had died in a furnace because of his belief in the G‑d of Avraham. Therefore, according to uprightness (menshlikeit) Avraham had to organize his men and pursue after Lot’s captors. In truth the lives of the Patriarchs - which was before the giving of the Torah - was based on the attribute uprightness. This is the meaning of the expression [Vayikra Rabbah 9:3] that derech eretz (civility) preceded the Torah… Therefore, this civility and menshlikeit can be expected even from non‑Jews. Even though they weren’t given all the mitzvos, but everyone can live in accordance with the inherent uprightness - if he wants.
update: The Netziv says that commonsense obligates one as well as the Torah. Where there is a contradiction then Torah takes precedence. On the other hand where there is no Torah directive but there is from commonsense - then one must follow commonsense. For example he notes that while there is no obligation from the Torah to honor a non-Jewish father - but there is one from commonsense.
Netziv(Approbation to Ahavas Chesed): ….It says in Yevamos (79a): There are three inherent characteristics of the Jewish people – they are merciful, shy and they do acts of kindness to others. … Nevertheless there are explicit commands in the Torah to do acts of kindness such as Vayikra (25:35): You shall support your brother who has become poor, Shemos (22:24): Do not lend money with interest. The reason for this is to teach us that besides being obligated to do acts of kindness because we are human beings we have an addition obligation from the Torah – just as we have for all the mitzvos which we wouldn’t know from commonsense. The consequences of having both an inherent commonsense obligation as being part of mankind as well as an explicit command in the Torah is illustrated by the obligation to honor parents. The Torah command teaches that even though there is a command from commonsense that all of mankind is obligated to keep and receives reward for do it, nevertheless G‑d has in addition explicitly commanded us to do it as an aspect of the Torah (Shemos 20:11)… As a Torah mitzva honoring parents is a statute which must be done simply because it was commanded and not because it makes sense. For example if a non‑Jew fathers a child with a Jewish woman, than according to the Torah that child has a mother but no father. Therefore there is a greater obligation of honoring the mother than the father because the honor of the mother is dictated by not only commonsense but also from the Torah. …There are also consequences for lending money to a needy person. Even though it is clearly a commonsense obligation but it is also governed by Torah law. In this case the obligation from commonsense is inconsistent with the obligation of the Torah. The contradiction occurs in regard to charging interest. For example, in the case of a person whose life depends upon lending money with reasonable interest. From the commonsense point of view he still performs a great mitzva of lending money – even with interest – to sustain another person who desperately needs the loan. However the Torah specifically prohibits charging interest. Therefore according to the Torah a Jew would not be able to lend the money and thus he is prohibited from doing the kindness to the other person as well as sustaining himself. [This was explained in Harchev Davar - Bereishis 48:19 – concerning the Tabernacle at Shiloh…]
I recently came across two statements of Rav Kook which while acknowledging the reality of this process - explicitly reject it as an invalid Torah process. Rav Kook notes that a religious education that make one less sensitive and aware of commonsense morality and concerns - is invalid. While I have translated his words, it is best to see the Hebrew text.
Rav Kook(Shemonah Kevatzim (1:463): The people who rely solely on their commonsense - because they are not learned - actually have an advantage in many respects over those who are learned. That is because their natural understanding and sense of decency has not become corrupted by errors that result from scholarship and or by the exhaustion and emotional frustrations that result from the burden of study. Nevertheless the unlearned masses obviously need the guidance of the scholars to know the particulars of the halacha. On the other hand, the scholars need to adopt and utilize as much is possible of the unadulterated commonsense of the unlearned masses – whether it is the approach to life or recognizing the natural moral values. This will result in the continued proper development of their understanding. This approach is even for tzadikim and even for those wicked people who retain a natural part which provides them with the potential to build on their natural power and purity to the same degree as the righteous at their highest level. The same can be said in regards to the nations in their relationship with each other – in particular non-Jew and Jews.
Rav Kook(Shemonah Kevatzim 1:75): It is prohibited for fear of heaven (yiras shamayim) - which is the result of learning - to displace natural commonsense ethics and morality. Because if it does - then it is no longer pure fear of heaven. Fear of heaven is only pure and genuine if the native moral sense itself is developed and elevated to a greater degree than it was before. However if one imagines that fear of heaven is something that without its influence, life is more likely to be good and to produce results that are beneficial to the individual and the community and that its influence actually reduces the goodness of life – such fear of heaven is not genuine.
רב קוק (שמונה קבצים א:תסג): האנשים הטבעיים שאינם מלומדים, יש להם יתרון בהרבה דברים על המלומדים, בזה שלא נתטשטש אצלם השכל הטבעי והמוסר העצמי ע"י השגיאות העולות מהלימודים וע"י חלישות הכחות וההתקצפות הבאה ע"י העול הלימודי, ומ"מ הם צריכים לקבל הדרכה בפרטי החחים מהמלומדים. והמלומדים צריכים תמיד לסגל לעצמם, כפי האפשרי להם, את הכשרון הטבעי של עמי הארץ, בין בהשקפת החיים בין בהכרת המוסר מצד טבעיותו, ואז יתעלו הם בפיתוח שכלם יותר ויותר, וכן הדבר נוהג אפילו בצדיקים ורשעים שישנם רשעים כאלה, שהחלק הטוב שנשאר אצלם הוא מבונה בכח טבעי עצמי וטהור כ"כ, עד שצדיקים במעלתם העליונה, וכן הדבר נוהג גם בכלל האומות ביחש כל אחת מהם לחבירתה, וביחוד בין אוה"ע לישראל.
רב קוק (שמונה קבצים (א:עה): אסור ליראת שמים שתדחק את המוסר הטבעי של האדם, כי אז אינה עוד יראת שמים טהורה. סימן ליראת שמים טהורה הוא כשהמוסר הטבעי הנטוע בטבע הישר של האדם, הולך ועולה על פיה במעלות יותר בגוהות ממה שהוא עומד מבלעדה. אבל אם חצוייר יראת שמים בתכונה כזאת שבלא השפעתה על החיים היו החיים יותר נוטים לפעול טוב, ולהוציא על הפועל דברים מועילים לפרט ולכלל וע"פ השפעתה מתמעט כח הפועל ההוא יראת שמים כזאת היא יראה פסולה.
רב קוק (שמונה קבצים (א:עה): אסור ליראת שמים שתדחק את המוסר הטבעי של האדם, כי אז אינה עוד יראת שמים טהורה. סימן ליראת שמים טהורה הוא כשהמוסר הטבעי הנטוע בטבע הישר של האדם, הולך ועולה על פיה במעלות יותר בגוהות ממה שהוא עומד מבלעדה. אבל אם חצוייר יראת שמים בתכונה כזאת שבלא השפעתה על החיים היו החיים יותר נוטים לפעול טוב, ולהוציא על הפועל דברים מועילים לפרט ולכלל וע"פ השפעתה מתמעט כח הפועל ההוא יראת שמים כזאת היא יראה פסולה.
