I am making this into a post because it expresses the view of many Modern Orthodox - that halacha can not cause pain. Torah always is pleasant and that G-d would never want any one to suffer [Totally ignoring the huge literature on the suffering of the righteous]. If a person is sincere enough or needy enough - then we count it as if he had fulfilled the halachic requirements. Such a view is nonsense from the point of view of halacha. If you reject the halacha - that is your choice - but don't twist halachic Judaism into something it isn't.
There is an additional factor for posting this. The ready assumption of the commentator that he "knows" what G-d wants independently of a source in the halacha. Scholarship is not important because he knows G-d's values - which are that of any compassionate person. He creates G-d in his image! On the other hand he condemns those who disagree with his views to the worse possible fate. How does he know? Is he a prophet? Was he in Heaven discussing this with G-d? As one of my rebbeim put it, "There is kiruv Torah for the beginners and those who can't handle reality- but there is a reality which exists independently of our wishes and fears. At some point an adult needs to deal with reality." Compassion is important - but it is bounded by halacha.
Halacha is not infinitely plastic - and we don't give A's to everyone who cries for failing the test.
There is an additional factor for posting this. The ready assumption of the commentator that he "knows" what G-d wants independently of a source in the halacha. Scholarship is not important because he knows G-d's values - which are that of any compassionate person. He creates G-d in his image! On the other hand he condemns those who disagree with his views to the worse possible fate. How does he know? Is he a prophet? Was he in Heaven discussing this with G-d? As one of my rebbeim put it, "There is kiruv Torah for the beginners and those who can't handle reality- but there is a reality which exists independently of our wishes and fears. At some point an adult needs to deal with reality." Compassion is important - but it is bounded by halacha.
Halacha is not infinitely plastic - and we don't give A's to everyone who cries for failing the test.
R' Moshe Lehman wrote on the post "Conversion crisis - because Modern Orthodox are w...":
We must love the Ger, a Mitzva D'Oraita. To tell a righteous convert that he is not Jewish clearly comes close to the worst thing one could do to him or her.
DT: The mitzva to love the ger only applies to gerim. The issue before us are people who have been declared not to be gerim.
Says Daas Torah that this is not relevant if the Beis Din he converted at was Pasul, because then the convert is not a Jew, I do not need to love him.
DT: The mitzva to love the ger only applies to gerim. The issue before us are people who have been declared not to be gerim.
Says Daas Torah that this is not relevant if the Beis Din he converted at was Pasul, because then the convert is not a Jew, I do not need to love him.
DT. Concerning halacha - if a person eats the most expensive matzah and with great kavana - on the Fourth of July - it doesn't count. If there was no beis din - the geirus doesn't count. If a person wore tefilin for 50 years and then discovered they had no parchments inside - he has not fulfilled the mitzva of tefilin. A woman who remarries with the consent of the greatest rabbis - but here husband is still alive - is sinning and her children are mamzerim. A person who is not a ger is not included in the mitzva of loving the ger.There is no Torah obligation to love him. On the other hand, he is still a human being and we should feel his pain and upset.
The issue at hand reaches far beyond itself. How do we see Halacha? How do we see Torah?
Is Torah something technical, or are (some) Jews being technical about it?
Does truth play a role in defining Halacha, or is Halacha a system that legally defines truth for us?
This is a Litmus test. The Kitrug screams to Shamayim. There are no words to describe the fate of those who choose to be technical even in the case of righteous converts.
Is Torah something technical, or are (some) Jews being technical about it?
Does truth play a role in defining Halacha, or is Halacha a system that legally defines truth for us?
This is a Litmus test. The Kitrug screams to Shamayim. There are no words to describe the fate of those who choose to be technical even in the case of righteous converts.
Moshe Lehman asked...
ReplyDelete"Does truth play a role in defining Halacha, or is Halacha a system that legally defines truth for us?
This is a good question considering that Chazal points out that the cosmos re-arranges itself in order to reflect the reality that was poskined by the Sanhedrian. I think that the example their was kiddush hachodesh. At the same time their is a halacha for the Sanhedrian to bring a korban for a mistaken psak. How do we reconcile these two things?
Bartley Kulp said
ReplyDeleteThis is a good question considering that Chazal points out that the cosmos re-arranges itself in order to reflect the reality that was poskined by the Sanhedrian. I think that the example their was kiddush hachodesh. At the same time their is a halacha for the Sanhedrian to bring a korban for a mistaken psak. How do we reconcile these two things?
====
The simplest solution is that concerning issues of the calendar - it was left up to Sanhedrin. However when Sanhedrin forgot or misunderstood the halacha - they were wrong and the halacha did not change to conform to their views.
daas torah said...
ReplyDelete"However when Sanhedrin forgot or misunderstood the halacha - they were wrong and the halacha did not change to conform to their views."
I understand your answer in forgetting a halacha. However who was to tell them that they misunderstood a halacha? Did they not have internal debates as to how to intemperate and deploy psak halacha? Would they not conclude with a vote to determine by which interpretation they would hold?
I am making this into a post because it expresses the view of many Modern Orthodox
ReplyDelete=========================
R'DE,
Straw man - enough said.
KT
Joel Rich
R' Joel Rich wrote
ReplyDeleteStraw man - enough said.
===================
Terse assertion to the contrary - it is not a straw man.
Wikipedia says;
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
The assertion is readily demonstrated by the dominant theme of the Modern Orthodox comments on the conversion crisis.
You are welcome to send me your attempt to refute my assertion.
R' Bartley Kulp said...
ReplyDeletedaas torah said...
"However when Sanhedrin forgot or misunderstood the halacha - they were wrong and the halacha did not change to conform to their views."
I understand your answer in forgetting a halacha. However who was to tell them that they misunderstood a halacha?
==========================
One possibility is mentioned in Hilchos Mamrim chapter 2. A later beis din could decide that an earlier court had misunderstood the material.
It is also possible that they could be given testimony after their ruling that traditional understanding conflicted with their view or scholars outside the court could show them that their reasoning was mistaken or that they had left out sources which would have altered the psak if they had been aware of them. Not all scholars were members of the Sanhedrin.
First, we must remember that the rule that the Heavenly Sanhedrin rearranges things to match the decisions of the earthly Sanhedrin is already a Halachah. Part of "truth", according to God, is what His representatives decide on. So there's no real contradiction between that and a mistaken psak.
ReplyDelete> If a person wore tefilin for 50 years and then discovered they had no parchments inside - he has not fulfilled the mitzva of tefilin.
On the other hand, Chazal tell us that if one wanted to perform a mitzvah and was unable to because of duress, one is still credited with the mitzvah. How does one square both these principles?
I would agree that many on the left side of Modern Orthodoxy use the "pain free" principle as their guide and that this is not the right way to approach halachah. On the other hand, one could apply the same criticism to parts of the Chareidi world that use the principle "it's forbidden" to guide their psaks and then, if they can't find halachic opinions to back them up, invoke "Daas Torah" as a trump card to end debate. Neither approach recognizes the complexity and flexibility of halachah.
Unfortunately, it's easier to pasken with an agenda than to apply a dispassionate approach.
Back to the original topic at hand....
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia's paragraph on 'Tikun Olam':
"The role of ethical mitzvot
In Jewish thought ethical mitzvot as well as ritual mitzvot are important to the process of tikkun olam. Some Jews believe that performing mitzvot will create a model society among the Jewish people, which will in turn influence the rest of the world. By perfecting themselves, their local Jewish community or the state of Israel, the Jews set an example for the rest of the world. The theme is frequently repeated in the sermons and writings of across the Jewish spectrum: Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox.[citation needed]
Also, the mitzvot often have practical worldly/social effects (in contrast to mystical effects as held by Lurianic Kabbalah)."
"For some Jews, the phrase tikkun olam means that Jews are not only responsible for creating a model society among themselves but also are responsible for the welfare of the society at large.[22] This responsibility may be understood in religious, social or political terms and there are many different opinions about how religion, society, and politics interplay."
"Second, their vision of social justice is rooted in the Jewish commandment to remember the experience of slavery and the Exodus from Egypt. From this they infer that "we are all harmed by oppression directed at any group or individual".
This philosophy places "Tikkun Olam" as the primary factor in reaching Halachic decisions. The flaw is that the issues of Tikkun Olam can vary greatly depending on what has moved the masses.
Some people find it hard to differentiate support the Civil Rights movement from support of the Gay Rights movement.
This same attitude leads to permissiveness of fraudulent conversions. (because both of our desire for 'social justice' AND because Zionism has become a modern day 'Tikkun Olam' issue for many.)
When do 'ethical considerations' take precedence over traditional Halacha? I don't know the answer, especially since each situation has its uniquenesses, but it's clear that many people today feel they have the wisdom to make that decision for themselves.
By the way, if anyone has access to it, the most recent edition of the English Mishpacha magazine has a reoprt about how the Belzer Rebbe himself attended the entire chupa and shevah brochas of a young Polish ger tzedek (who claims to have a paternal Jewish ancestor as well) who was recently learning in the Belzer BT "Torah Ve'Emunah" yeshiva in Yerushalayim and who married the daughter from a family of geirim from Germany who were megayerd in Switzerland and now live in Israel. The young ger is completely a Belzer with the peyos, shtreimel, levush and all.
ReplyDeleteOne thing is for sure, the present Belzer Rebbe is different to most others and he certainly does not hold that Belz should follow in the steps of the notorious "Syrian takana" banning the acceptance of any geirim (especially by marraige) into the Syrian community and that he (the Belzer Rebbe) understands the deep significance and merit of accepting true geirei tzedek bazman hazeh.
Recipients and Publicity said...
ReplyDeleteOne thing is for sure, the present Belzer Rebbe is different to most others and he certainly does not hold that Belz should follow in the steps of the notorious "Syrian takana" banning the acceptance of any geirim (especially by marraige) into the Syrian community and that he (the Belzer Rebbe) understands the deep significance and merit of accepting true geirei tzedek bazman hazeh.
========================
The horse that you are beating died a long time ago. You are misrepresenting the Syrian Takana - as has been amply documented on this blog.
Why don't you find out if the Belzer Rebbe has ever condemned the Syrian Takana - in fact why not compile a list of all the gedolim who have condemned it. I haven't seen credible evidence that even a single gadol has denounced it. But according to you the list should include every rabbi from the last 70 years.
The assertion is readily demonstrated by the dominant theme of the Modern Orthodox comments on the conversion crisis.
ReplyDelete=====================
Please, is this the scientific method you studied? I know of no modern orthodox thinker who states " - that halacha can not cause pain." If anything R' YBS wrote about the pain. At best you might cocnclude that modern orthodox posters give greater weight to dracheha darchei noam etc. as a halachik issue to give weight to in determining halacha.
KT
Joel Rich