A friend and colleague was the rabbi in a suburban New York synagogue. An outstanding scholar, he was displeased with several aspects of his congregation's liturgical practices. Some were peculiarities of that particular community, which he felt were not in conformity with Jewish law. Other things were right in line with American traditional Jewish practice, but his reading of sources led him to propose a "better way" to do things. He was dismissed from his position. I asked one of the heads of his congregation for the reason for his dismissal. He answered "He does not respect our traditions!". Had he said "we have found that his rulings were incorrect", I would have understood and been sympathetic, although I would have questioned their competency to make such a decision. But it wasn't that. "We've always done it this way" clearly trumped a desire to be "right". One may question, then, what is the rabbi for; to teach or to enforce a community's folkways?
Historically, stable, ancient communities maintained traditions for centuries that were passed down from generation to generation. They became a Mesorah. Even there, some rabbis may feel that one or another practice could stand a "tweaking", but few would tamper with an established tradition. In modern day synagogues, often a blend of Jews from varying traditions, compromises are worked out. Sometimes these compromises are made under rabbinical auspices, sometimes not. When a qualified rabbi comes to that community, should he have the right...or obligation... to make corrections? We have here a conflict between Law and Mesorah!
Another case of this conflict is when there is, indeed, a very ancient practice that might no longer be appropriate in the present day reality. An example would be women's participation in observances that were not traditionally done by women. Many aspects of Torah law exempt women. This is especially true of "time bound" commandments, which would tend to interfere with their vital functions as wife and mother. However, the ruling is that although not obligated, they may, in every case, perform these acts should they wish to. It is universally accepted that women hear the Shofar blowing on Rosh HaShanah, eat in the Sukkah and wave the "Four Species" on Sukkot; all actions which are time bound, and from which women are exempt. (There is a difference between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim regarding the recitation of the blessing on these actions). But there are many others that the vast majority of women, in all communities, did not take on, such as the wearing of Tallit and Tefillin. Some present day rabbis feel that in this day and age, when women are educated, and few go down to the river to do the laundry, or slaughter, dress, and cook animals for their family's food, there is no reason for them not to utilize their new found leisure time in performing righteous deeds. Most rabbis, however, fear the possibility...or likelihood...of a slippery slope. Once practices of many centuries are changed because of new circumstances and values, what else will change? A woman may, and should, hear the Shofar. But since she is not under OBLIGATION to hear it, can she blow the Shofar for the synagogue to fulfill the requirement for men? There is zero question that the answer is "no"! But a community that allows, or even encourages, "permissible" innovations, will often start on the slippery slope towards abandoning all law and tradition. On the other hand, many will feel that women denied these expressions of Jewishness will then feel less connected and opt out. In the last few days, a very powerful rabbi issued a statement that a woman may not light Hanukkah candles in the presence of men. Doing so would be a breach of modesty "insulting our ancestors and the great rabbis of previous generations." This, despite the fact that Jewish law is very clear that women's obligation of Hanukkah candles is identical to men's, and wife may light for her husband. This rabbi is actually falsifying halachah, in order to prevent a theoretical "slippery slope." Another factor is the question of motivation. Is she doing the non-typical practice because of a spiritual thirst; or is she trying to "break the system"?Those rabbis who oppose innovations of this type will often make the argument that while the innovations don't violate Jewish law, they violate a long standing Mesorah. This can readily be seen in some non-Orthodox communities. They may have started with small innovations, but after a decade or two are no longer recognizable as being traditional Jews.
I have used the women's issue here as an example. But there are many others. Some see such an exra-judicial system as unnecessary, or even stifling. Others see it as essential for maintaining a Jewish identity and the Torah way of life. Most Orthodox rabbis and communities are opposed to these changes, and see Mesorah as a great governing force in Jewish life.
Please allow me to emphasize that I am not taking sides on this debate. I, and hopefully you, can see the valid arguments on each side. When there was a Sanhedrin, they were entrusted by the Torah to make these decisions. Now, we must make our own decisions, with the guidance of knowledgeable and dedicated leaders. (Although these are few and far between).Is Mesorah an acceptable substitute, at least until a new, valid Sanhedrin is born? Or are we in danger of alienating large numbers of people, thereby destroying Judaism by neglect? Are we encouraging stagnation?May G-d guide us in perceiving His will!
Historically, stable, ancient communities maintained traditions for centuries that were passed down from generation to generation. They became a Mesorah. Even there, some rabbis may feel that one or another practice could stand a "tweaking", but few would tamper with an established tradition. In modern day synagogues, often a blend of Jews from varying traditions, compromises are worked out. Sometimes these compromises are made under rabbinical auspices, sometimes not. When a qualified rabbi comes to that community, should he have the right...or obligation... to make corrections? We have here a conflict between Law and Mesorah!
Another case of this conflict is when there is, indeed, a very ancient practice that might no longer be appropriate in the present day reality. An example would be women's participation in observances that were not traditionally done by women. Many aspects of Torah law exempt women. This is especially true of "time bound" commandments, which would tend to interfere with their vital functions as wife and mother. However, the ruling is that although not obligated, they may, in every case, perform these acts should they wish to. It is universally accepted that women hear the Shofar blowing on Rosh HaShanah, eat in the Sukkah and wave the "Four Species" on Sukkot; all actions which are time bound, and from which women are exempt. (There is a difference between Ashkenazim and Sepharadim regarding the recitation of the blessing on these actions). But there are many others that the vast majority of women, in all communities, did not take on, such as the wearing of Tallit and Tefillin. Some present day rabbis feel that in this day and age, when women are educated, and few go down to the river to do the laundry, or slaughter, dress, and cook animals for their family's food, there is no reason for them not to utilize their new found leisure time in performing righteous deeds. Most rabbis, however, fear the possibility...or likelihood...of a slippery slope. Once practices of many centuries are changed because of new circumstances and values, what else will change? A woman may, and should, hear the Shofar. But since she is not under OBLIGATION to hear it, can she blow the Shofar for the synagogue to fulfill the requirement for men? There is zero question that the answer is "no"! But a community that allows, or even encourages, "permissible" innovations, will often start on the slippery slope towards abandoning all law and tradition. On the other hand, many will feel that women denied these expressions of Jewishness will then feel less connected and opt out. In the last few days, a very powerful rabbi issued a statement that a woman may not light Hanukkah candles in the presence of men. Doing so would be a breach of modesty "insulting our ancestors and the great rabbis of previous generations." This, despite the fact that Jewish law is very clear that women's obligation of Hanukkah candles is identical to men's, and wife may light for her husband. This rabbi is actually falsifying halachah, in order to prevent a theoretical "slippery slope." Another factor is the question of motivation. Is she doing the non-typical practice because of a spiritual thirst; or is she trying to "break the system"?Those rabbis who oppose innovations of this type will often make the argument that while the innovations don't violate Jewish law, they violate a long standing Mesorah. This can readily be seen in some non-Orthodox communities. They may have started with small innovations, but after a decade or two are no longer recognizable as being traditional Jews.
I have used the women's issue here as an example. But there are many others. Some see such an exra-judicial system as unnecessary, or even stifling. Others see it as essential for maintaining a Jewish identity and the Torah way of life. Most Orthodox rabbis and communities are opposed to these changes, and see Mesorah as a great governing force in Jewish life.
Please allow me to emphasize that I am not taking sides on this debate. I, and hopefully you, can see the valid arguments on each side. When there was a Sanhedrin, they were entrusted by the Torah to make these decisions. Now, we must make our own decisions, with the guidance of knowledgeable and dedicated leaders. (Although these are few and far between).Is Mesorah an acceptable substitute, at least until a new, valid Sanhedrin is born? Or are we in danger of alienating large numbers of people, thereby destroying Judaism by neglect? Are we encouraging stagnation?May G-d guide us in perceiving His will!
No comments:
Post a Comment