See:
«On the Nature and Future of Halakha in Relation to Autonomous Religiosity | Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals»
http://www.jewishideas.org/articles/nature-and-future-halakha-relation-autonomous-relig
One fellow from the Avodah List once called me "an independent thinker" in matters of
Halachah
My secret? I learn Tur Bet Yosef and Darchei Moshe
The simplest retort to the proposal of rolling back the Shulchan Aruch is to
A. NOT go back 1,000 years to the Talmud but
B. Rather roll back to just a few years prior to SA namely Tur-BY-DM.
That will provide almost all the desired flexibility and none of the Talmud's obscurity
Shalom
RRW
4 comments:
I understood the focus of R' Cardozo's ire not being the SA as much as the more recent guidebooks in the vernacular.
To quote:
A careful read of modern Jewish Orthodox literature reveals that many authors misunderstand the nature of Jewish law. Much of this literature is dedicated to extreme and obsessive codification, which goes hand in hand with a desire to "fix" halakha once and for all. The laws of muktzeh, tevilath kelim, tzeniut and many others are codified in much greater detail than ever before. These works have become the standard by which the young growing observant community lives its life. When studying them one wonders whether our forefathers were ever really observant, since such compendia were never available to them and they could never have known all the minutiae presented today to the observant Jew. Over the years we have embalmed Judaism while claiming it is alive because it continues to maintain its external shape.
The majority of halakhic literature today is streamlined, allowing little room for halakhic flexibility and for the spiritual need for novelty....
Another obsessive attempt which contrasts the very nature of Judaism is the attempt to codify Jewish beliefs. Jewish beliefs are constantly dogmatized and halakhicized by rabbinic authorities, and anyone who does not accept these rigid beliefs is no longer considered to be a real religious Jew. A spirit of finalization has taken over Judaism.
We are a generation who believes a good religion supplies answers, even to unanswerable questions. Rather than religion being a way to meaningfully grapple with the questions.
Not only that, but the answers have to fit into our sound-bite culture to boot. Our times call for simplification, for seeking out hard-and-fast rules, rather than the reality that halakhah is a collection of rules of thumb that define pros and cons that we must weigh in a very human, non-programmatic, manner.
I don't hear Rabbi Cardozo talking about rolling back to the gemara as much as not taking the Shulchan Arukh and Rama (or whatever book) as etched in stone "there is only one right answer" without the richness of considering other opinions and historical practices. The Shulchan Arukh should remain a place to start, but rules of thumb have exceptions.
-micha
To repeat in public what I wrote our host in private email...
I don't see RNLC as objecting to the SA as much as our falling prey to the problem the Maharshal warned us of -- the lazy use of the SA.
To provide another supporting quote:
By all means, we should continue to study the works of Maimonides and Rabbi Joseph Karo and possibly even live by their directives. They belong to the best which Judaism has to offer. But we should be careful not to create an impression that there are no alternative ways.
The is another real factor, although admittedly a side issue, to this phenomenon beyond the zeitgeist's need to tie up every problem with a bow in 43 min of airtime (after commercials)... The Conservative movement exists as a warning against too much fluidity. We therefore had a counter-reformation response and produced an Orthodoxy which is more rigid than the original.
In a broad sense, we can agree with R. Cordozo's contention that there is generally too much rigidity and dogmatism within modern Halachic formulations. Clearly within the realm of Halacha there is flexibility and fluidity, given the reality of different opinions and the clear directive to consider at times the specific circumstance that surrounds the question. When the SA states that in a case of hefsed meruba, one should be meikel, it means that in a case of hefsed meruba one SHOULD be meikel. To be machmir in that case is wrong. So clearly Halacha is not monolithic in many different ways and the present trend to try and present it as monolithic is problematic. I agree with Micha's point that it may be because people want THE answer and do not want to confront the complex reality that is Torah. That is a major problem and on this point I would agree with R. Cordozo. This false presentation of Torah as monolithic may attract some people -- and therefore, because of its presumed success, this process is reinforced -- but the reality is that this very same process -- which is really a deviation from the true essence of Torah which is more that not monolithic but is averse to this singular and simplistic perception of life -- actually turns many people away. The answer is as R. Cordozo maintains, to go back to the true Torah.
Yet, this is also where R. Cordozo becomes difficult. Flexibility and fluidity within Halacha also has its boundaries. Rav Moshe said that one could argue even with a Rishon based solely only a sevara brura but not if it constradicts SA. Of course, we can ask: what does he mean by SA? Already the nosei kelim on the SA present a wide spectrum of possibility. Yet, there is still a limit and, in a certain way, this is the issue that R. Cordozo does not truly confront. Going back to the gemara clearly raises many issues regarding the allowable specturm of Halacha at this time. Less so as we go back to the Rishonim but even there, we must also recognize that the question of how flexible and fluid modern Halacha is, is in itself a Halachic question. And in any discussion of this nature, it is important that this issue not be ignored.
Simply, it is so important in a debate (and fight) of this nature that the argument for flexibility be made in a way that does not allow one advocating rigidity to challenge it based upon what is ultimately a red herring. The argument for flexibility and fluidity can be made without arguing that we should go back to Talmudic arguments -- for then the argument can be challenged not on its essential merits but on the question of the force of the Mesora and the definite rulings on Talmudic disagreements. Make the argument for flexibility in the simplest manner against rigidity in its narrowest presentation. How many people, for example, clearly present the MB as the posek acharon with the assumption that the AS is to be discounted completely in favour of the MB? Doesn't everyone know people that declare that one must pasken like the MB? Try saying to such a person that there are people who actually only look at the AS without considering the words of the MB. Its on this issue that we need to focus so that the point is clear. Raising the issue of going back to the gemara only allows for the issue to ultimately be avoided.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
A Few quick Comments
RNCL is OK if he's floating a trial balloon. his proposal taking to extreme "throws the baby out with the bathwater"
The problem my dear Rabbis is not with the Talmuds and Codes but with us in that we are its underlings.
Well we need to try and ferret out the best answer for any given situation, but we can neither be too slavishly rigid, nor play to fast and loose
The Jewish Reformation took Halachah and threw it out. The Jewish Counter Reformation calcified Halachah.
It's time to "synthesize" a bit of each.
To me the Sea of Talmud includes all of the Oral Law [TSBP]and Posqim and we need some rules of thumb of course but not rigid rules. True too much flexibility has been discredited but so has too much rigidity.
If you want excellent paradigms, the finest I have found are the the Sefer Beth Yosef and the Aruch Hashulchan.
They give the flavour of what I'm seeking.
Some great Modern Orthodox thinkers have provided us with analysis and flexibility, but somehow their methods prove too eclectic for my taste
Shalom
RRW
Post a Comment