Stringencies part 2

The type of stringencies that I was referring to in my last post was those actions that either have no basis in halachah, or that have been, at one time or another, proposed, but were firmly rejected, based on both sources and logic. This must be distinguished from other forms of stringency. There are other considerations and cases. One would be where a very lenient, almost fringe view has been widely accepted; usually because of an unusual emergency situation. Such a case might be the observance of the Sabbatical Year rules in the Land of Israel. The location of agricultural lands being distant from population centers makes the real observance of these laws virtually impossible. (All fruit being declared ownerless, and giving all people the right to come and take). Two methods of "outs" for the circumvention of these laws have been proposed, with one or the other found by most to be acceptable under the circumstances. A significant minority, however, do not appreciate the "thin ice" situation, and choose to either buy produce from non-Jewish farmers, or to use only imported produce. Many can, and do, argue that this is unfair to Jewish farmers, and bad for the Israeli economy. But that may not be enough for a pious individual, who remembers all the dire words of the prophets concerning the non-observance of the Sabbatical year. (Please don't write to me that some groups actually observe the laws. No one does.). Are the legal "outs" acceptable? Under the circumstances, I would say yes. But I can't disparage those who refuse to accept the legal fictions. Another case would be where a particular question has significant opinions on both sides. A final decision has never been made. However, one side has received the sanction of custom. Some individuals may choose to not accept such a tenuous position, and thus try to follow both opinions. One example would be Tefillin. The order of the four Torah portions written in the Tefillin has been debated for almost two thousand years. In the last seven hundred years or so, custom has accepted one of the two opinions. This is widely accepted. But many (including yours truly) choose to wear two pair of Tefillin in order to be certain (besides Kabbalistic considerations). Another debated point would be stringencies that originate in Kabbalah, but have no basis in either Torah or Talmud. Many see these as being the pinnacle of Jewish practice. Some see this as appropriate for those deeply involved in Kabbalah, but not for general consumption. Some (CHATAM SOFER), while recognizing the truth of Kabbalah, totally reject it as part of the halachic system. One example would be the morning washing (Neigel Vasser). The Zohar and ARI are very strict that the impurity of sleep be washed away first thing in the morning. Many keep a basin of water at their bedside for this purpose. The Shulhan Aruch mentions the washing, but with little of the emphasis that is to be found in Kabbalah, despite that the author of the Shulhan Aruch, Rabbi Yosef Karo, was himself a Kabbalist. Many far fetched explanations for this apparent omission have been proposed. But others point out that in the Talmud, RAMBAM and other early sources, the washing is only a pre-prayer sanctification; so no need to hurry or stress. Those who choose to be strict, as well as those who are lenient, each have a solid basis. An Ashkenazi-Sepharadi issue would be the matter of statements by rabbis, that express opinions not to be found in any sources. In fact, they may even contradict sources. Sepharadim would greet these with a chuckle. Most Ashkenazim will follow these, especially if expressed by a rabbi who lived in their region. This process continues until today. Some would say that this is the way of Oral Torah. Some call it heresy. Of course, all of this is hurt by the lack of a valid Sanhedrin. The Torah puts the proper interpretation of halachah into the hands of this body (Deuteronomy 17:8-13). Although the existence of a Sanhedrin would solve much, this is nowhere more true than with situations engendered by modern technology. (Opposition to such an institution far exceeds the desire to solve these problems, however). I have been pleasantly surprised that I have largely been able to avoid the minefield topic of electricity for the last several years that I have been writing. The time has come to deal with this issue, and see what is actually law (Biblical or Rabbinic) and what is merely stringency, and where we must admit ignorance. Next time