Out of Bounds: Part 9--conclusion

 

By Jonathan Seidel

                                                   Conclusion: A Step in the Right Direction!

R’ Sacks writes that Torah doesn’t change, halakha does1. It is because the former will not change the latter is required to. Prof. Waxman has noted the stringent tendencies and the removal of any inclination to develop2. This fear of modernity is vested in a phobia. We must carefully observe reality not stifling in panic but rather confidently approaching issues. Not every social export is to be accepted. American law has accepted abortion we do not3. We will not be compelled by social pressure to alter our values but we will listen. We will be attentive to the present. Female empowerment is not a crime, it is beautiful. Men and women each have their roles but that does not mean that certain traditional standards cannot be swapped. There is no crime for a husband to care for his children while his wife works at a corporation. R’ Norman Lamm respected the feminist evolution but believed that equality did not merit mixed sitting4. He refused to break tradition arguing it would have negative psychological effects. Whether this is accurate is debatable5. His argument further classified separate pews as separate roles dignifying women as beloved righteous individuals. It was an honest attempt at articulation in defence of separate seating. Our adherence to the text must foster our awareness of reality. We develop our values to positively influence society. 

The changing times will present a new methodology and we are to evaluate if it is in line with our values. We either accept or refuse, build a bridge or build a wall. History is effective and for the positive changes we should accept them into our ideology. Different eras focused on different issues. We have progressed more technologically in the past twenty years than in the past millennium. The world has established a new wave in the postmodern vision. R’ Re’em argued the high court can reinterpret the text6. The text remains, the interpretation not necessarily; the text is eternal the interpretation is temporary. 

R’ Soloveitchik explained the telos of Halakha as a response to biological urges. I would argue further it is a response to social reality. We experience the world and at times wish to shield ourselves but that is temporary as we provide a new solution to step forward. R’ Soloveitchik states that legality forces us to recoil. He cites the midrash of the couple finding out she is in niddah on the night of their wedding. He poetically describes their courageous retreat from one another7. I believe he fails to mention the end to the story. They only retreat momentarily in shock of the uncovered issue. They quickly reflect and reevaluate the situation then re-advance towards one another. They may not be able to physically unite but they can emotionally. They are still able to spend the rest of their wedding in joy; dancing, singing, and communicating with one another. Legality restricts, it does not separate. 

The legal solution was to progress together on your wedding day despite the unfortunate situation. This example is the awareness of the circumstances. I wish to use this metaphorically when we hit a bump and instinctively retreat, take one step back, gather ourselves and evaluate the situation. Once we are aware of the issue we can proceed forward with a new path. We must not always be on the defensive. We need to be brave and brazen. We may not be able to change everything but we can reflect one at a time. We are not submitting to society; we are aligning our pre-existing values with society’s to carve a brighter future. We live in a tough era for legal traditions, we must use our intellect, passion, and creativity to  develop our heritage. 

Endnotes

1. Jonathan Sacks, “Creativity and Innovation in Halakha” Rabbinic Authority and Personal Autonomy ed. Moshe Sokol, Northvale, Jason Aronson, 1992 pg. 136.^↩

2. Chaim Waxman, “Towards a Sociology of Psak” Tradition 25.3 pp. 15-17.^↩.

3. Aharon Lichtenstein, “Abortion: A Halakhic Perspective” Tradition 25:4. Shalom Carmy, “Halakha and Philosophical Approaches to Abortion” Tradition 25:4. There are exceptions that even haredi decisors acknowledge. They believe that it is a viable life and we cannot kill it unless it falls under certain guidelines.^↩

4. Norman Lamm, Separate Pews in the Synagogue Tradition 1:2 pg. 148.^↩

5. Ibid, pp. 156-157. He quotes the study of Alfred Kinsey around fifty years ago regarding erotic imagination and the need for separaton to maintain purity. Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Phila. & London: W. B. Saunders Co., 1948) pg. 363 and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Phila. & London, W. B. Saunders Co., 1953), pg. 651.^↩

6. I heard this from one of his shirium. R’ Rabinovitch and R’ Dardik both affirmed this theory. For Tzitzit the command is only on the men (women are exempt but may volunteer), “Bnei Yisroel and not Bnot Yisroel” (Kiddush 71a). The sages can reread the text arguing Bnei includes Bnot as the plural form of the former is grammatically used to group men and women together, thus obligating them. “Bnei Yisroel” is mentioned throughout the biblical text and seems odd to assume that in each case it is only referring to the men since there are cases where women are obligated-—daily sacrifice as well as others. Nor should the sages be gerrymandering these few cases. Instead it is possible, historically speaking, Moses gathered the men alone and then they returned to their tents to inform their wives. The women were preoccupied with the children so the men assembled as their representatives. In other cases where Moses assembles the nation (Parshat Vayakhel) it is applied to the entirety. Now though such a social dynamic has developed and both are equally obligated.^↩

7. Joseph B. Soloveitchik “Catharsis” Tradition 17:2 pg. 45.^↩