You’re calling “creativity” what’s really permissioned variation inside a cage where anything genuinely new or creative gets disciplined or banned. There’s no genuine self-expression. Your freedom ends when your rabbi says it ends.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom in any creative endeavour. All creativity, by definition, operates within rules or an implicit framework. A medium without constraints just produces noise. Charles Taylor has a lot of good stuff on this.
Are there various groups within Orthodoxy that have varying levels of openness to personal creativity? For sure. But it would be absurd to look at the evolving canon of the Oral Torah and not see immense creativity and innovation throughout. From the Chassidic movement to the lomdus of the Ketzos and Reb Chaim, the tradition is saturated with original thought.
The “punishment” for non-compliance varies enormously depending on the Orthodox community in question. In a highly insular sect, one might indeed face ostracisation. In more liberal Modern Orthodox communities, however, there may be little to no repercussion at all.
More fundamentally, it is unclear to me why the mere possibility of ostracisation should be taken to render creativity impossible. Shakespeare, for example, worked under severe social, political, and religious constraints in Tudor England, yet it would be absurd to claim that his output was anything other than extraordinarily creative.
If by ‘elite’ you mean people who are seriously proficient in the material they are working with, then I agree. That is true of any great creative worth mentioning. Figures like Beethoven or Michelangelo could only ‘break rules’ because they had first absolutely mastered the canon or the basics of their fields. Their work only makes sense in the context of the vast tradition they emerged from, not despite it. And who identified these people as greats? The other experts in their fields. I would agree that the smaller the level of one's grasp of the field they are trying to innovate in, the less leeway they would have to do so.
There are several points to be made with regard to the ideology of Daas Torah.
Firstly, it is an undeniably modern claim, originating at the earliest in the 19th century.
Secondly, it is a highly amorphous concept. One encounters extreme interpretations, in which the bearer of Daas Torah is understood to possess almost magic-like powers. At the other end of the spectrum are far more restrained understandings, which see Daas Torah simply as proficiency in Torah shaping a person’s judgement in areas that are not explicitly halachic. For example, where a doctor presents two possible courses of action with differing ethical implications, the individual possessing “Daas Torah”, having trained his mind through sustained engagement with Torah sources, is able to identify the approach that best accords with a Torah outlook.
Thirdly, there are plenty of orthodox communities that don't subscribe to the idea at all. I am not on the ground in the modern orthodox or religious zionist world, but everything I have read or heard from the respected thinkers in those circles seems to reject it.
I hear your point but "As Jews, we find profound beauty in the halachic minutiae that cover every aspect of our daily living. Famously, there are even detailed guidelines as to how to tie one’s shoelaces" is a bit disingenuous.
Finding beauty in a routine is not the same as creative beauty.
Art is based on the human condition as it is, and religion is based on ideals so they are a bit contradictory.
I don't think religion suppresses creativity if there is honesty and recognition that we don't always live up to ideals
Rav Kook suggested that the teshuva process could be the fertile ground for art as it combines the spiritual striving with human failings.
The next line is 'but with such a ubiquitous legal tradition, can we ever be said to be engaging any personal ingenuity? After all, we appear to inhabit a system which prevents spontaneity and self-legislation.'
I definitely think there is massive room for creativity when it comes to the oral torah, certainly one becomes more limited the less at home they are with the canon. But that would arguably be true about most great acts of coherent creativity.
It is, however, possible at a less revealed level to be involved in the moulding of Jewish tradition simply through participation and choice making.
During the time of Jesus, did not the followers of Beis Shammai have more influence in the Sanhedrin than did the followers of Beis Hillel? One ponders when the followers of Beis Hillel held sway over those of Beis Shammai.
You’re calling “creativity” what’s really permissioned variation inside a cage where anything genuinely new or creative gets disciplined or banned. There’s no genuine self-expression. Your freedom ends when your rabbi says it ends.
There is no such thing as absolute freedom in any creative endeavour. All creativity, by definition, operates within rules or an implicit framework. A medium without constraints just produces noise. Charles Taylor has a lot of good stuff on this.
Are there various groups within Orthodoxy that have varying levels of openness to personal creativity? For sure. But it would be absurd to look at the evolving canon of the Oral Torah and not see immense creativity and innovation throughout. From the Chassidic movement to the lomdus of the Ketzos and Reb Chaim, the tradition is saturated with original thought.
Constraint of a medium isn’t the same as constraints of authority.
I’m not saying there should be no rules, what I am saying is who sets them? can they be challenged, and what happens if you don’t comply?
Creativity in orthodox is for the elite, they have a special super power called dass Torah so they set your rules
The “punishment” for non-compliance varies enormously depending on the Orthodox community in question. In a highly insular sect, one might indeed face ostracisation. In more liberal Modern Orthodox communities, however, there may be little to no repercussion at all.
More fundamentally, it is unclear to me why the mere possibility of ostracisation should be taken to render creativity impossible. Shakespeare, for example, worked under severe social, political, and religious constraints in Tudor England, yet it would be absurd to claim that his output was anything other than extraordinarily creative.
If by ‘elite’ you mean people who are seriously proficient in the material they are working with, then I agree. That is true of any great creative worth mentioning. Figures like Beethoven or Michelangelo could only ‘break rules’ because they had first absolutely mastered the canon or the basics of their fields. Their work only makes sense in the context of the vast tradition they emerged from, not despite it. And who identified these people as greats? The other experts in their fields. I would agree that the smaller the level of one's grasp of the field they are trying to innovate in, the less leeway they would have to do so.
There are several points to be made with regard to the ideology of Daas Torah.
Firstly, it is an undeniably modern claim, originating at the earliest in the 19th century.
Secondly, it is a highly amorphous concept. One encounters extreme interpretations, in which the bearer of Daas Torah is understood to possess almost magic-like powers. At the other end of the spectrum are far more restrained understandings, which see Daas Torah simply as proficiency in Torah shaping a person’s judgement in areas that are not explicitly halachic. For example, where a doctor presents two possible courses of action with differing ethical implications, the individual possessing “Daas Torah”, having trained his mind through sustained engagement with Torah sources, is able to identify the approach that best accords with a Torah outlook.
Thirdly, there are plenty of orthodox communities that don't subscribe to the idea at all. I am not on the ground in the modern orthodox or religious zionist world, but everything I have read or heard from the respected thinkers in those circles seems to reject it.
I hear your point but "As Jews, we find profound beauty in the halachic minutiae that cover every aspect of our daily living. Famously, there are even detailed guidelines as to how to tie one’s shoelaces" is a bit disingenuous.
Finding beauty in a routine is not the same as creative beauty.
Art is based on the human condition as it is, and religion is based on ideals so they are a bit contradictory.
I don't think religion suppresses creativity if there is honesty and recognition that we don't always live up to ideals
Rav Kook suggested that the teshuva process could be the fertile ground for art as it combines the spiritual striving with human failings.
The next line is 'but with such a ubiquitous legal tradition, can we ever be said to be engaging any personal ingenuity? After all, we appear to inhabit a system which prevents spontaneity and self-legislation.'
I definitely think there is massive room for creativity when it comes to the oral torah, certainly one becomes more limited the less at home they are with the canon. But that would arguably be true about most great acts of coherent creativity.
It is, however, possible at a less revealed level to be involved in the moulding of Jewish tradition simply through participation and choice making.
During the time of Jesus, did not the followers of Beis Shammai have more influence in the Sanhedrin than did the followers of Beis Hillel? One ponders when the followers of Beis Hillel held sway over those of Beis Shammai.