Out of Bounds: Part 8--Current Complications
By: Jonathan Seidel
Israeli rabbis have persistently demonstrated grave latitude and flexibility in their halakhic decisions. The consistency behind their innovative strategies and conclusions radiates a bright light on the conscious of the halakhic future.
Present Crime
Today we grapple with new issues. The problems of the previous century have been updated with new ones. We cannot simply remain in a bubble instead marching forward confronting these problems with our legal armour. We are able to win if we believe and fight. Some major rulings have been issued to combat travesties. R’ Re’em and R’ Rabinovitch against the rabbinate published a method for converting the Russian immigrants so they would not be public violators1 and R’ Riskin made some big leaps with his opinions on female adjudication2 and the agunah3. He has written extensive rulings to promote women in the elite sphere of Jewish learning and leadership as well as freeing women from terror and misery. There have been other rulings R’ Henkin permitting women to wear pants4 and R’ Lichtenstein allowing people to choose their opinions to an extent5. R’ Bin Nun went as far as to obligate women in time bound commandments due to social change but received much blowback (supposedly by women)6. Organ donation has been accepted by countless Jewish leaders7. R’ Schachter obligates the blue thread8 and permits mouthwash/toothpaste on Yom Kippur9.
These advances have inspired a new wave of dynamic legalism. R’ Benny Lau has argued decisions should be guided by our responsibility to the needs of the people10. Legality is not a domineering system, it is demanding yet liberating. We need sensitivity to the circumstances and empathy to solve the issues. R’ Ovadia upheld a case of a woman who delivered a son through a sperm bank11, R’ Feinstein permitted a blind man to bring his dog into the synagogue12. R’ Lau is explicit in his examples demonstrating as R’ Cherlow does often the importance of dignity in legal analysis13. As R’ Lau powerfully states, R’ Cherlow acknowledges the slippery slope of the deconstruction of the nuclear family as well as ignoring the pain of the distressed. His goal is not to reduce law to influence others to opt in but to bring others in via genuine legal investigation14. R’ Lichtenstein was clear about the attitude to social factors and was adamant about relating to them15. We do not abolish the system, we work through it.
There are many who disagree not necessarily with the concept of innovation but believe certain issues should not change. R’ Feinstein was challenged on his opinion of the blind man+dog+synagogue16, there are many opposers of R’ Re’em and R’ Rabinovitch’s conversion plan17, as well as dissenters to R’ Riskin’s ‘radical’ approaches to modernity18. Plurality is critical for development. The ability to debate and disagree is truly a gift. Still we must not monopolise into freezing the legal system and recognise the flexibility19. Opposition will inevitably exist but that can deepen the search for new legitimitate opinions.
Endnotes
1. Controversial New Conversion Courts Elicit Sharp Condemnations. For another perspective a conversion issues see: Marc Angel’s Conversion to Judaism: Halakha, Hashkafa, and Historic Challenge.↩
2. Shlomo Riskin, WOMEN AS SPIRITUAL LEADERS AND HALAKHIC DECISORS – A POSITION PAPER.To what extent may we look to Women.↩
3. Shlomo Riskin, “Hafka’at Kiddushin: Towards Solving The Aguna Problem in Our Time” Tradition 36:4. Bernard S. Jackson, Agunah: The Manchester Analysis Deborah Charles Publication 2011.↩
4. Yehuda H. Henkin, (Bnei Banim 2:211:38, 4:141).↩
5. Aharon Lichtenstein: “Legitimization of Modernity: Classical and Contemporary” Engaging Modernity: Rabbinic Leaders and the Challenge of the Twentieth Century ed. Moshe Sokol, Jason Aronson 1997.↩
6. Yoel Ben Nun “Women Should Rule for Themselves” [Hebrew], Nekuda 268 (Shevat 2004), pp. 42–43.↩
7. HUNDREDS OF ORTHODOX RABBIS CARRY ORGAN DONOR CARDS.↩
8. Herschel Schachter, Ginat Egoz 2.↩
9. Herschel Schachter, Daf Ha-Kashrus 12:2.↩
10. Benjamin Lau, “The Challenge of Halakhic Innovation” Meorot 8 pg. 6.↩
11. Ovadia Yosef, Yabia Omer, Even haezer, 10:10.↩
12. Moshe Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 1:45.↩
13. Supra note 10 pg. 9. See. Yuval Cherlow, In His Image: The Image of God in Man (Maggid:Jerusalem, 2016).↩
14. Ibid, pg. 12. See also: R’ Cherlow’s essay “Halakhah U-Madron Chalaklak,” Tzohar 23 pp. 40-41.↩
15. R’ Aharon Lichtenstein has effectively maintained the Rav did believe in the relevance of the sociohistorical setting “The Human and Social Factor in Halakha” Tradition 30.4 pg. 15 .↩
16. Shaul Breisch, Hilchot Yaakov, Orach Chaim 34.↩
18. Regarding opposition to female clergy: Orthodox Union to enforce ban on women rabbis, See: Herschel Schacter “Women Rabbis?” Hakirah 11 and Michael J. Broyde and Shlomo Brody, “Orthodox Women Rabbis? Tentative Thoughts that Distinguish Between the Timely and the Timeless” Hakirah 33. Concerning objections to agunah methodology see: Jeremy Weider, “Hafka'at Kiddushin: A Rebuttal” Tradition 36:4 and then his “Hafka'at Kiddushin: Rejoinder” in the following issue. R’ Aharon Lichtenstein did question what the decision will be in down the road “Formulating Responses in an Egalitarian Age: An Overview,” Varieties of Jewish Experience (Ktav, 2011) and even suggested that he is in the middle, dialectically enthusiastic for change but also resistant during his conversations with Chaim Sabbato, In Quest of Your Presence—Conversations with Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein (Tel-Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth and Chemed Book, 2011). It seems he is not diametrically opposed. His position, though somewhat vague in this context, is positive. He wishes to see change grow organically.↩
19. Haim David Halevy, “On the Flexibility of Halakha” Shana b’Shana, 1989 pg. 183.↩
Comments
Post a Comment