Stringencies Part 1

A few years ago, a former Facebook friend posted, a few days before Passover, "Just got up off my hands and knees, after cleaning the cracks in the floor tiles with a tooth brush for six hours". I wrote to him "This is a needless stringency, unless you are planning to eat or cook on the floor. The prohibition of owning hametz only applies to pieces larger than the size of an egg. Although the prohibition of eating hametz applies to even a crumb, that is only if you know it's there, or at least have good reason to suspect its presence. We are commanded to rejoice in our Festival, not to become enslaved by anxieties and insecurities". He replied "what are you talking about? Passover is all about stringencies". I can find that idea neither in Torah or Talmud. Yes, we have a halachic principle that we may, in a situation of doubt, be lenient in a rabbinic law, but we must be strict in a Biblical law. But where was the doubt in the above case? RAMBAM makes clear that even in the principle that we need to be strict in a Biblical law, this concept is itself purely rabbinic. (RASHBA disagrees).Biblically, if an object or an action is doubtful, it is permissible. The rabbis instituted that we are to be more careful, so as not to violate the laws of G-d. The Talmud rules that if I find a piece of meat lying in the street, in a place where kosher butcher shops outnumber non kosher, the meat may be considered kosher. Nevertheless, the rabbis ruled it should be avoided, as there is more than a reasonable doubt that it might not be kosher. The Talmud enumerates many guidelines to what is and isn't a reasonable doubt in each case. Yet, many communities take a very stringent view on many issues, way beyond any rhyme or reason. Their feeling is that we can show our devotion to G-d by taking the most strict approach to every law. Think of a husband who loves his wife so much, he can't imagine doing anything that may remotely hurt her feelings. So one who truly loves G-d will want to please Him, and in no way offend Him. Others disagree. They argue that stringencies are generally not shows of love, but rather of insecurity in one's relationship with G-d. Moreover, they often violate the intent of the law, or even a larger principle. Going above and beyond the requirements of halachah to avoid hametz on Passover, will lessen the sense of joy and freedom we are urged to feel. If one is overly strict in the menstrual laws, the ideal of a loving relationship between spouses can be hurt, not to mention the mitzvah of procreation. The Talmud pictures King David as devoting a great deal of time and effort every day, into permitting a woman to her husband a day sooner. Qualified Orthodox rabbis spend much time learning the details of these laws, not just to say "well, I'm not sure if this stain invalidates you, so just be strict". Moreover, stringencies can lead to an unjustified sense of accomplishment and pride (arrogance). Rabbi Nachman even said that they lead to depression, and are to be avoided. (Please don't write that you know a follower of Rabbi Nachman who observes all sorts of stringencies. We live among other Jews who do things differently, and follow rabbis who have the wildest ideas of propriety. Rabbi Nachman would not approve. Rabbi Natan, his main disciple, makes a point of saying that Rabbi Nachman observed no stringencies).Rabbi Shabtai Sabato, a Sepharadi Rosh Yeshiva in Israel, said to me once "Look how the rabbis of the Talmud put every law through 'thirteen sifters' before saying either yes or no. They didn't just say 'we're not sure, so let's avoid the question by being strict". As you may have guessed, this, too, is an Ashkenazi-Sepharadi battleground. (There are exceptions on each side, however). The approach that stringencies are a good thing, is a major feature of (most) Ashkenazic opinion, whereas most Sepharadic opinion prefers a straightforward lenient approach. Askenazim tend to respect a rabbi who can show that something we have been seeing as permissible is actually problematic (I have previously shown that the standards of avoiding insects in food gets stricter every five years or so), while Sepharadim will hail the rabbi who shows that an action assumed to be prohibited is actually permissible. Each group will have its sources, as well as its logical arguments. Each will see its approach as following the will of G-d. None of this is arbitrary. Already in the first century BCE, the Jews were divided between the strict approach of the School of Shammai, and the lenient approach of the School of Hillel. We are told that this debate went on for several centuries, until a Heavenly Voice rang out "Both are the words of the living G-d, but the halachah follows Hillel". We sure could use such a voice today! What are the basic considerations for each approach, and where do they come from? To what degree do history and sociology, rather than purely religious considerations come into the picture? To be continued.