A Little Respect Please

The need for individuality of thought in the halakhic decision-making process is undeniable. Throughout history, halakhic principles have been debated, beginning in the Gemara itself where Amoraim such as Abaye and Rava openly differed on the most fundamental of halakhic principles. Similarly, Rishonim such as the Shach and Taz often found themselves at odds in evaluating the understanding of individual Talmudic positions. This is central to halakha - allowing for open debate on halakhic issues and their application to emerging situations.

Here, however, modern opinions diverge. Classical halakhic theory works on the tacit assumption that certain ideals cannot be called into question. Its success stems directly from the fact that debate centers on the application of these principles and how the particular guidelines are applicable to the cases presented.

Others posit that the very ideals which comprise the halakhic system may themselves be called into question. Halakhic ideals which had been held in the highest esteem may be voided, they say, following a modern reinterpretation. This position, that the Rabbinic opinions which have been trusted for hundreds of years are unsound, is especially disconcerting.

It has been noted recently, both by Orthodox and non-Orthodox writers alike, that the success of Orthodox Jewry stems directly from its pedagogical system. The flow of knowledge, passed from generation to generation, forms a corpus of information which guides people in their daily lives. By contrast, modern deviations from classical Jewish interpretations fail simply because they lack a solid basis for maintaining this continuity.

One of the emerging trends in Modern Orthodoxy seems to be the desire to read older halakhic dictums in modern terms. In this vein, a column appeared in the last issue of The Commentator attempting to justify using the paper as a forum for open discussion of halakhic issues. This is a fine suggestion, assuming that the discussion focuses on the halakhic process itself. What better forum for exposing students to the rigors of the halakhic process than the pages of their own newspaper! However, what the author insinuated in his arguments must be carefully scrutinized.

The Commentator is not a place for cynicism towards the halakha and the Rabbinate. Were that the case, I could easily argue, as others had similarly implied, that my freedom to choose a mechanic to fix my car confers on me an innate understanding of the car's inner workings. Clearly, this is not the case.

The column opened by noting a confrontation between secular culture and halakhic values. It seems to be attempting a Hegelian synthesis, concluding that the inevitability of conflict leads, by necessity, to a compromise by the well-established halakhic corpus. The halakhic process itself involves making chakirot (distinctions) and diyyukim (implications) as to the nature of the laws in place. As such, it allows for seemingly incompatible situations to work in congruity.

However, the mechanism of halakhic "compromise" does not weaken the halakha, it simply determines the criteria for its application. The article notes further that "halakha and learning are not merely morning classes peripheral to everyday life; they imbue us with a methodology." This is obviously a valid statement, assuming that the methodology one uses is the methodology of the halakhists. The assumption that halakha must necessarily defer to cultural (read: modern) situations is simply untrue. This assertion smacks very clearly of alternative motivations.

What is missing from the essay is the realization that most people do not think along the same lines. Believe it or not, just because the halakha doesn't seem fair in light of current social considerations, that does NOT mean that the halakha must be reworked. Believe it or not, many things do remain assur, even in today's society. Halakha is not a cultural code of conduct. The hallmark of a good argument is that it effectively explains the concerns brought to light by the opposing viewpoint. Blatant misrepresentations of halakha coupled with effusive arrogance are not enough to convince us otherwise.

What was most upsetting about the treatise was its overt lack of respect. Where does one find the gall to welcome us to a "new age" in which "No one, and that includes the rabbeim, is beyond reproach!" If one questions anyone's opinion, it must be done with respect. I am confident that I speak for others in saying that slinging invectives in this manner is beneath contempt. Does the author really think that displaying a lack of kavod toward the rebbeim will endear him in the eyes of the halakhically disenfranchised?

Fundamentally, we must resist the temptation to reevaluate the guidelines that comprise the halakhic system, despite modern pressures to do so. Statements calling a woman's voice as ervah "dirty or unethical" are perversions of halakha. If a woman's voice is an ervah, then it is prohibited for whatever reason, not because it is dirty or unethical. An unmarried woman's hair is not ervah, yet a married woman's is. Clearly hair is neither dirty nor unethical.

Yet these misinterpretations do fulfill one promise which the article noted, namely that there will be "more provocation." Public statements which hurl stones at those in YU and the frum community who refuse to bend halakha to make life more comfortable for others, misrepresent the halakhic process and do not engender meaningful discussion. Only with careful consideration and due respect should halakha be brought into such a forum.