While I'm not going to comment on the halakhic or theological legitimaticy of this approach, this distinction between internal evolution and external influence captures very well the tendencies of conservative groups. While they may resist change which clashes with their texts and traditions, they are not immune to shifts in their own perception of their values and practices.
However, I think it is inaccurate to create some kind of dichotomy between the shift coming from 'internalized Torah values' and 'external learned values'.
Firstly, there is no objective definition of actual Torah values according to your model, only am interplay of elements that it's interpreters and practicers can choose to emphasize or deemphasize. What determines how those are emphasized? Real world influences. For example, under different circumstances the Jews could have hypothetically worsened their treatment of non-jews as part of the 'torah values' of recognizjng the Jewish people's unique status (and this actually happened during certain eras). What tells you that Thomas Hobbes interpretation of tzelem elohim reflects a deeper Torah value than the strong borders erected by chazal of insider vs. outsider? (This is one example out of thousands.) The answer: either the broader zeitgeist or internal workings. The designation 'internalized Torah values' is simply a label assigned to connote legitimatacy, but devoid of actual meaning.
Secondly, this distinction holds true not so much due to differences between Torah vs. conflicting values, but due to the tribal distrust of outside influences. If it's packaged in the right 'yiddishe' terminology= good, if it's packaged in academic or secular or christian or whatever terminology= bad. The reason why such criteria are successful (as opposed to for example the conservative movement which abandoned this commitment) is because it reinforces identity and therefore commitment. Not because one is more reflectove of "Torah true values" and the other isn't.
Thirdly, if you trace many influences historically this has not been the case at all. Of course countermyths and counter traditions have a prominent role in the formation and evolution of Judaism, but adoption (at times even without significant repackaging) has arguably been more prominent. If organic evolution within the Torah loyal community is paramount, you ought to delegitimize traditions such a lighting the menorah on chanukah, yizkor, classical monotheism, and many more. The fact that you don't shows that your true criteria doesn't question the origins, but the current compatibility with accepted Jewish norms and perspectives.
Yes, I agree with what you said. It uses R Kooks model of progressive revelation to determine which values enter. The success of those values make them Torah values. There is no other way to determine their correctness except for their success.
The point isn't whether those values are objective, it is to provide a theoretical basis for halachic change in a way that differs from conservativism and to explain why some Halachic changes fail from both a practical and theological basis.
So is this characterization of your position accurate: Halakha can and does change based on sociological factors, and one of the factors which determines its success is the conservative tendencies of the religious community. However, whatever the factors may be, it's legitimaticy is determined by its long term success, which somehow indicates it's part of the ongoing revelation. Nevertheless, Hareini is not a valid development for the simple reason that it doesn't seem that it will be successful judging by the criteria which led to the success of contemporary orthodoxy and the relative failure of conservatism.
Yes, correct. I was just giving theological underpinnings to this result.
Btw, Chanukah is a good example of something people felt internally morally was right and then accepted despite the Rabbis likely being opposed initially.
But then your whole argument about Torah being aligned with inner morality and the corruption of secular morality vs. without that influence falls apart. There is no absolute category called Torah morality and Judaism's evolution draws on a wide array of influences.
To put it better, a value held by the majority of the Torah observant comminity that is attributed to Torah automatically becomes Torah values regardless of their origin. But if the Halachic change is clearly bound to outside influence it is doomed to fail.
"A real halachic push would have much more respect for halacha, attempt to bend as little as possible, slowly find temporary dachuk heterim based on Onnes or Es laasos Hashem"m
This careful calibration you use to determine what's a corrupting outside influence like Hareini, vs what's an internal, Torah-moral driven change like women saying Kaddish doesn't quite fit with what Rav Kook was referring to.
Secular Zionism was anything but subtle in its attempts to uproot halacha. And yet he embraced them as תשובת הדור using the same mechanism you're describing here.
Thanks so much for this post. It's given me a lot to chew on, and a little hope that whatever derech I'm on is, at least for me, still the right one. Part of me wants to write a lengthy response, but the years I've lived tell me to sit on it a little longer before trying.
I’m surprised to hear you now disagree with this. I think you are 100% right here. And in fact what you say does not contradict your point that Halacha will (probably - who knows with a new Sanhedrin) never update to contradict an explicit pasuk. I don’t want to get explicit, but there’s plenty of grey area to exploit, on exactly the basis you mention at the end.
And by the way: I predict that it will emerge in Israel in the religious zionist community in exactly the way the praiseworthy women’s rights movement did.
(Tangentially I have to say I had the identical feeling about the American version of the Orthodox feminist movement when I was exposed to it in yeshiva - and I grew up in a strongly feminist household! Even then, it was impossible to ignore that the motivating impulse was “I deserve to be a chazan if I want”, not “I want to serve Hashem and contribute to our kehila”.)
I was curious if you thought my approach, if implemented more, would be a valid successful one under your thesis:
When I discuss gay rights with OJers, I ask why the rabbis can’t find heterim like they do for adultery by Agunos. People give various responses, but my goal is to make people more acceptable to the idea in order to help someone in need who can’t control their situation very well. That has always felt like a core Torah value to me- to help those in need.
Um like the whole sugya of agunos. Ever hear those stories where rabbonim stayed up all night to find a way to let a women get remarried after their husband had a rumor that he died?
Honestly agunos is a very strong argument against my point, in that we never see rabbanim changing the issue, and one suspects the same will happen with gay marriage.
Well for one person who there isn’t enough circumstantial evidence, we keep stuck their whole life. And this person passes the threshold so we allow the risk of adultery.
What would this heter for homosexual relationships be? Agunos is a well-defined sugya, and does not transcend credibility. In fact, when the death of the husband was not considered credible, the teshuvos were not written. Only when the Rav knew instinctively that the husband was dead did he begin to research the halachic permissibility (which topples the thesis of this blog).
Many have worked very hard to find a heter for homosexual activities and failed quite miserably. The very fact that their ideas are so ridiculous shows us how impossible this heter would be.
If people are getting upset and leaving yiddishkeit en masse because of this (something currently not true at the time) I think an argument can be made.
Yeah I hear. It could be. I just feel like if it weren’t such taboo issue, the “impossible” nature of it might fall away.
I was thinking a long the lines of:
Sexless marriages
Non-penetrative sex
Also, if people viewed it like Loshen Hara, where people definitely think it’s wrong, but are accepting of individuals who speak loshen hara and allow them to participate in society, that may be a way to help them. Although that is a bit off the topic because it’s not a heter per se.
Sexless marriage isn't a thing. Marriage has a definition, call it something else if you want.
Any ejaculation outside of sexual activity is also forbidden. So what are you suggesting?
Your 'helping them' is a new angle. Right now, it is unacceptable. And many people refrain because of it. Accepting it helps those who are sinning anyway, yet hurts many who control themselves. Just like Lashon Hara. If we are in a group that doesn't allow it, we don't speak it. Who is to say that accepting them is beneficial?
<<<<<Sexless marriage isn't a thing. Marriage has a definition, call it something else if you want.
I am not really interested in arguing the definitions. I think you get the concept that I am referring to, but happy to clarify if you still aren't sure
<<<<Any ejaculation outside of sexual activity is also forbidden.
For this there is at least some room to be Makil for some some activities such as for IVF so there is room to move more than "only during sexual activity".
Also, it is not like im suggesting Rabbis should condone ejaculation outside of sexual activity. But more like "look, you are probably going to ejaculate anyway, so why be against a gay union which also causes distress to those people."
It is somewhat like the folowing but obviously not a perfect analogy: Having social activites witll increase the likelihood of loshen hara. Should we be against social activities? Instead, we try to educate and build this desire to not speak loshen hara.
<<<<<<<Your 'helping them' is a new angle. Right now, it is unacceptable. And many people refrain because of it. Accepting it helps those who are sinning anyway, yet hurts many who control themselves. Just like Lashon Hara. If we are in a group that doesn't allow it, we don't speak it. Who is to say that accepting them is beneficial?
I agree. There has to be a weight of importance. I am not saying others should share my values. If they think the harm caused to gay people is "worth it" because the alternative of having more homosexual activity is a worse alternative, that's fine. I just have different values than those people. I care more about people suffering than the fact that others will make a conscious choice to engage in Aveiros.
I think in personal cases of loshen hara, taboo is great. I think if there was large scale taboo arounsd it, it would hurt many people and not be worth the benefits of having less loshen hara. if someone disagrees that is fine too.
I should really get off these blogs. It's terrible for my blood pressure.
Did a sentient human being actually make the claim that there is room to be meikel for homosexuals, just like IVF? Are people that superficial? IVF is not 'levatalah', homosexuals is.
The problem isn't merely that people can let such stupid things fall out of their mouths and keyboards. The problem is how such people consider themselves entitled to an opinion.
לשון הרע is much less serious than גילוי עריות. Obviously certain forms of לשון הרע could lead to people losing money and reputation, but overall the day to day לשון הרע people speak is far less serious. Before the חפץ חיים it's hard for anyone to come to a different conclusion.
But I want to comment on your machlokes between Rav Kook and Reb Asher Weiss. It's just plain embarrassing to read that. This machlokes pre-dates both of them by centuries, why not quote the primary sources? None of us have any obligation to care for either of those characters' opinions, but Rishonim and Gedolei Acharonim are different. It lowers the level of discourse when the sources are Rabbi Sacks and Rabbi Weiss.
Because I want to link to those blogs. The machlokes is much older - at least R Asher Weiss side, which is I believe a Bartenura. I don't think anyone pre Rav kook holds like him
You are conflating shmiras shabbos, Gay marriage, and women rights in an attempt to make sense of your argument, but that is where the first problem lies in reconciling our own morality and comforts and the Torah. There are categories in the Torah and halacha, and it is clearly delineated what is biblical and what is rabbinical. Additionally, we see the Rabbis changing multiple times biblical laws. That means that they felt that a value of the Torah is more important than the law, and that that value was being compromised by the law.
Shmiras shabbos is bilbical, and praying with minyan is rabbinical. So given that minyan is difficult it is more Halachickly sound to pray at home, and keep Shabbos 100%. This is not rocket science, and because the reform didn't care, doesn't mean that we can never engage in appropriate halachick reformations.
Engaging in gay relationships is not allowed. I understand why a club is frowned upon, but it is not technically assur, and in a different culture may actually prove beneficial and help gay people keep Halacha.
Women rabbis being assur is not biblical, and it is debated in rabbinic authority. Our society chose to make it a core feature of orthodoxy in an attempt to be machmir, but choosing to allow women rabbis is not actually a huge reformation at all.
In order to attempt to reconcile our own beliefs and the Torahs we need to categorize both beliefs first. For example, hitting children. While the Gemara says its allowed, it is by no means a chiyuv. The gemara was describing what was normal to them and perceived as ok. They were humans, it isnt biblical. Today we know it is not ok, so we can say we dont do it, and at the time they didnt have that awareness. It is not like chas vshalom we are saying that on Hashem or the Torah. They were humans, and in humanity there is room for human error.
Here's my primary question: how does this work theologically? God gave a Torah that was full of terrible things but it's ok because at the time they didn't know the difference? Were there no revolutionary ideas in the Torah that changed the world? Was it not revelation that delivered it? Doesn't revelation mean they had some encounter with the true God = the true good of creation? If slavery was wrong then, are you telling me God instructed them on how to do inherently bad things but it's ok because we were good enough to overcome God's unfortunate misdirections? Have you ever heard of תורת ד' תמימה and countless verses that echo this thought, such as כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, and דרכיה דרכי נועם always applied to mean the ultimate true good and pleasantness? And most urgently, doesn't you're theory open every mitzvah to our doubt about whether we really ought to keep it if in a generation or two we'll realize it's immoral, stripping the Torah of all power? Isn't this the whole point of the ikarim about how today is from heaven and will never be changed? I understand your attempt to sidestep conservative Judaism and their theory of Catholic Israel but like open orthodoxy, your theory is ultimately indistinguishable. Your questions are unavoidable for the thinking person but your answer, as others have said, is at least dangerous and in my view almost certainly heretical.
We only ever realize it's immorality in hindsight. We never go ahead and change it intentionally.
I don't see how any of the pesikim contradict what I said. In fact it is precisely those verses that make us understand the Torah in light of morality in our times. The Torah cannot mean we whip thirteen year olds and this we need to reinterpret it (unconsciously of course) precisely because deracheha Darchei noam. If not we can just go ahead and accept the immorality.
My problem was not in the changing. I hear what you are accomplishing there. My problem, as I've emphasize, is theological. A perfect God can only give a perfect Torah. There cannot have been anything in it that is wrong or was wrong or might conceivably be wrong. There is certainly an additional element of ועשית הישר והטוב and קדושים תהיו that call upon us to raise the bar beyond the explicit mandates of the Torah. There is room, for example, for the Sanhedrin to remove themselves from the location that authorized capital punishment because there were too many murders and they decided it would be wrong to try and execute so many people. Maybe a BD would see today that malkus for teens is problematic and would instruct people not to give halachically sufficient warnings, or whatever. But if you tell me malkus to teens is inherently immoral and therefore wrong and bad, the god that commanded it is immoral, wrong and bad. (He could so easily have commanded it only for twenty and up. And he could have taught that slavery was abhorrent, as we discovered ourselves as slaves in Egypt. Same for all your examples. And btw, where in the world is rape considered ok?) And then Moshe was flawed, wrong and bad, as were pretty much all the greatest people who ever lived, until the 20th century when we got woke and finally realized what was going on. If only we were there to straighten them all out. There's no way out of that and it's theologically incompatible with all forms of unopened orthodoxy ;). Your idea of change from Rav Kook is fine. You can argue we're getting more morally refined and able to go beyond the path to perfection the Torah represented as given. More ישר, טוב, קדוש. We can debate that. I will not debate that the Torah offered the true ultimate good to everyone at all times.
I disagree with that statement, as does the Rambam and many others. Hashem can give a Torah with imperfections if He so wants to - and He did. He is described as having hands, talking, getting angry etc - all which are false. The Rambam says at the time they needed that as they could not conceive of an omnsmiscient God. All the pesukom were not meant literally.
That is absolutely NOT what the Rambam said by any stretch of the imagination. Not literal does not equal false. What the people need is still the perfect good - that's the definition of the whole Torah! It's not what malachim need, it's what people need to achieve the purpose of creation. What people need, though, is the actual true good of the world. Not bad mitzvos to lead them astray for three thousand years. The Rambam was absolutely clear that the Torah will never change or you have no Torah at all. Korbanos were needed because the needs he describes is inherent to human nature. Not as some temporary concession to small minded people who couldn't handle the truth. Absolutely no one in the mainstream Orthodox world understands the Rambam your way. The Torah is the path from us to our purpose and is obviously defined on one side of it's path by our imperfections and weaknesses. That's the midrash about the malachim not wanting it "sent down to Earth." But the end of its path must be the achievement of the ultimate good of creation - not some dead end because God couldn't figure out how to help these poor dolts overcome their need to hit kids or enslave people or whatever. IKEA won't give you instructions that produce some distorted bookshelf just because you're not handy enough to do it right. It's not like the Jewish people nailed it throughout history - they never seemed to get things right as it was. There's so much here to say. Hatzlacha with your learning
No scholar to the right of open orthodoxy (and not even most of them) will ever take seriously the proposition that the Torah was "wrong then" and needed almost all of recorded history before it dawned on us (you) how it all works and how we're supposed to radically alter parts of it to get it into shape. My points, which I notice you ignored, are entirely valid (to the extent they can be for into a blood comment). You've always struck me as being open minded and a creative thinker but seriously with the Orthodox world. Am I wrong? If so, I apologize for writing this way. I assumed we shared a framework of thought.
I've skimmed Ani Maamin. What are you taking from there?
Btw, I don't think you actually understood my thesis. We are never ever supposed to radically alter anything. It happens by itself subconsciously and automatically. Once one is doing it intentionally, and not as unlearned masses, the whole process fails
Ok, this is a great question and requires more than a quick answer.
In short: this wasn't a late innovation but always the original purpose. Second, there is the aspect of Hashem doing this, and it's latent inside the Torah the whole time. Third, it's precumbent that the change is not done intentionally to match the outside world, rather it happens of it's own, organically and unconsciously. We see it happening nowadays (look how Chaim Walderss family sat Shiva despite his suicide being as planned and manipulative as can possibly be). Finally, this growth happens both ways as well. We now keep Kashrus far more than Chazal ever instituted, and I do that too based on this theory.
I humbly submit that you would be better served considering these questions with more careful deliberation than by jumping to defend what you've already written. The odds that you've just neatly solved one of modern history's most widely held sets of criticisms of the Bible without theological damage to Orthodox Judaism is negligible. If your theory is worth anything to you, take these theological challenges seriously and acknowledge you have massive questions to answer that will inevitably require revising your thoughts. Otherwise, it's just another blog post that that ticked some interesting issues but otherwise wasted our time.
I agree with every criticism of this piece and more.
Chillul Shabbos d'oraisa because of an inner feeling to light candles?
Bina Yeseira comes from not learning halacha? (What is wrong with the simple straightforward explanation that they have deeper emotional understanding aka intuitions?)
Sitting shiva for a pervert is a moral upgrade?
V'ahavta l'raicha Kamocha was once farfetched to apply to women and children?! (Chazal is full of concern for the plight of women)
Kavod Habrios is to copy men and to make a movement to study Torah Shebaal Peh, and go even further than men to say kaddish for sons? None of those things are against halacha but they are definitely against the spirit of halacha and just plain stupid and naive. A real zechus for them and their children would be to (make organizations to) help mothers of young families raise their children. Its just common sense.
And the part about gay clubs I just didn't get. Are they 'frum' and keeping halacha or aren't they?
Also, do you really think Conservative teshuvos show no regard for halacha and the 'spirit of halacha'? I know very little but that wasn't my impression.
What am I missing? I will have to check again later.
I see nothing immoral about slavery. American ideals are built on a certain simplicity and lack of acceptance of reality, making the claim of 'racism', 'misogyny', and 'slavery' conversation stoppers.
The Torah accepts these things as problematic, but not absolutely.
Yes, some people need others to control them. When they do so, they achieve their life's purpose and make the world a better place. Freeing them has them sitting on their porches getting fatter and fatter, producing children who do the same, and are an albatross on society. This has nothing to do with skin color. Any slave who can successfully protest his slavery is probably not a candidate for this. But many people are.
There is a difference between races, whether society likes it or not. And taking those differences into account will ensure better decisions. The basic right to life and property should be universal, but that does not mean all are equal.
Same with women. Yes, their lives are equal to men's (at least for non-Jews, Jews live to keep Torah and the more Torah, the more right to life). But there are still differences between the genders, and it would be foolish to ignore it. Employment opportunities are just one example where the anti-misogyny culture has messed things up.
Your claim that lashes for a thirteen year old is immoral is a product of a world that gives thirteen year olds (and fifty year olds) the ability to ignore Torah. If we had a governmental system that enforced Torah as it should, our mindests would be different.
Which is how the Torah works in today's world. The same galus that causes us to accept Western ideals of democracy and personal freedom, to our detriment, also removed the idea of semicha from our lives, making lashes impossible. That is how things are intertwined.
My Response
https://vitalistjew.substack.com/p/halacha-does-not-evolve-we-do
While I'm not going to comment on the halakhic or theological legitimaticy of this approach, this distinction between internal evolution and external influence captures very well the tendencies of conservative groups. While they may resist change which clashes with their texts and traditions, they are not immune to shifts in their own perception of their values and practices.
However, I think it is inaccurate to create some kind of dichotomy between the shift coming from 'internalized Torah values' and 'external learned values'.
Firstly, there is no objective definition of actual Torah values according to your model, only am interplay of elements that it's interpreters and practicers can choose to emphasize or deemphasize. What determines how those are emphasized? Real world influences. For example, under different circumstances the Jews could have hypothetically worsened their treatment of non-jews as part of the 'torah values' of recognizjng the Jewish people's unique status (and this actually happened during certain eras). What tells you that Thomas Hobbes interpretation of tzelem elohim reflects a deeper Torah value than the strong borders erected by chazal of insider vs. outsider? (This is one example out of thousands.) The answer: either the broader zeitgeist or internal workings. The designation 'internalized Torah values' is simply a label assigned to connote legitimatacy, but devoid of actual meaning.
Secondly, this distinction holds true not so much due to differences between Torah vs. conflicting values, but due to the tribal distrust of outside influences. If it's packaged in the right 'yiddishe' terminology= good, if it's packaged in academic or secular or christian or whatever terminology= bad. The reason why such criteria are successful (as opposed to for example the conservative movement which abandoned this commitment) is because it reinforces identity and therefore commitment. Not because one is more reflectove of "Torah true values" and the other isn't.
Thirdly, if you trace many influences historically this has not been the case at all. Of course countermyths and counter traditions have a prominent role in the formation and evolution of Judaism, but adoption (at times even without significant repackaging) has arguably been more prominent. If organic evolution within the Torah loyal community is paramount, you ought to delegitimize traditions such a lighting the menorah on chanukah, yizkor, classical monotheism, and many more. The fact that you don't shows that your true criteria doesn't question the origins, but the current compatibility with accepted Jewish norms and perspectives.
Yes, I agree with what you said. It uses R Kooks model of progressive revelation to determine which values enter. The success of those values make them Torah values. There is no other way to determine their correctness except for their success.
The point isn't whether those values are objective, it is to provide a theoretical basis for halachic change in a way that differs from conservativism and to explain why some Halachic changes fail from both a practical and theological basis.
So is this characterization of your position accurate: Halakha can and does change based on sociological factors, and one of the factors which determines its success is the conservative tendencies of the religious community. However, whatever the factors may be, it's legitimaticy is determined by its long term success, which somehow indicates it's part of the ongoing revelation. Nevertheless, Hareini is not a valid development for the simple reason that it doesn't seem that it will be successful judging by the criteria which led to the success of contemporary orthodoxy and the relative failure of conservatism.
I would phrase it slightly better - because it doesn't seem to be driven with a respect towards Halacha which is essential for change to work.
This is a vague rule
Yes, correct. I was just giving theological underpinnings to this result.
Btw, Chanukah is a good example of something people felt internally morally was right and then accepted despite the Rabbis likely being opposed initially.
But then your whole argument about Torah being aligned with inner morality and the corruption of secular morality vs. without that influence falls apart. There is no absolute category called Torah morality and Judaism's evolution draws on a wide array of influences.
To put it better, a value held by the majority of the Torah observant comminity that is attributed to Torah automatically becomes Torah values regardless of their origin. But if the Halachic change is clearly bound to outside influence it is doomed to fail.
The result of honest deliberation of Torah values and it's interplay is what is called Torah values. I'm merely expanding that category.
"A real halachic push would have much more respect for halacha, attempt to bend as little as possible, slowly find temporary dachuk heterim based on Onnes or Es laasos Hashem"m
This careful calibration you use to determine what's a corrupting outside influence like Hareini, vs what's an internal, Torah-moral driven change like women saying Kaddish doesn't quite fit with what Rav Kook was referring to.
Secular Zionism was anything but subtle in its attempts to uproot halacha. And yet he embraced them as תשובת הדור using the same mechanism you're describing here.
Yes, I allude to that in a footnote
Thanks so much for this post. It's given me a lot to chew on, and a little hope that whatever derech I'm on is, at least for me, still the right one. Part of me wants to write a lengthy response, but the years I've lived tell me to sit on it a little longer before trying.
Can I ask where you're quoting Rambam from?
Interesting post, even if a bit radical, and don't agree with everything. Defintely food for thought.
Would just add that Eshes Yifas Taor being a concession wasn't Rabbi Sacks's Chiddush. It's already a Gemara in Kiddushin (around Chuf).
I’m surprised to hear you now disagree with this. I think you are 100% right here. And in fact what you say does not contradict your point that Halacha will (probably - who knows with a new Sanhedrin) never update to contradict an explicit pasuk. I don’t want to get explicit, but there’s plenty of grey area to exploit, on exactly the basis you mention at the end.
And by the way: I predict that it will emerge in Israel in the religious zionist community in exactly the way the praiseworthy women’s rights movement did.
(Tangentially I have to say I had the identical feeling about the American version of the Orthodox feminist movement when I was exposed to it in yeshiva - and I grew up in a strongly feminist household! Even then, it was impossible to ignore that the motivating impulse was “I deserve to be a chazan if I want”, not “I want to serve Hashem and contribute to our kehila”.)
Interesting thesis!
I was curious if you thought my approach, if implemented more, would be a valid successful one under your thesis:
When I discuss gay rights with OJers, I ask why the rabbis can’t find heterim like they do for adultery by Agunos. People give various responses, but my goal is to make people more acceptable to the idea in order to help someone in need who can’t control their situation very well. That has always felt like a core Torah value to me- to help those in need.
I am unaware of any heterim for adultery by agunos! What are you smoking!?
Um like the whole sugya of agunos. Ever hear those stories where rabbonim stayed up all night to find a way to let a women get remarried after their husband had a rumor that he died?
Honestly agunos is a very strong argument against my point, in that we never see rabbanim changing the issue, and one suspects the same will happen with gay marriage.
Yeah, but they didn't permit adultery. Sheesh.
That’s literally permitting adultery. Having sex with another man while your husband is alive.
No?
Well we are presuming the husband is dead.
Well for one person who there isn’t enough circumstantial evidence, we keep stuck their whole life. And this person passes the threshold so we allow the risk of adultery.
What would this heter for homosexual relationships be? Agunos is a well-defined sugya, and does not transcend credibility. In fact, when the death of the husband was not considered credible, the teshuvos were not written. Only when the Rav knew instinctively that the husband was dead did he begin to research the halachic permissibility (which topples the thesis of this blog).
Many have worked very hard to find a heter for homosexual activities and failed quite miserably. The very fact that their ideas are so ridiculous shows us how impossible this heter would be.
Yes, agreed. I don't think any heter would work outside of Es Laasos Lashem.
How would this be an עת לעשות לה?
If people are getting upset and leaving yiddishkeit en masse because of this (something currently not true at the time) I think an argument can be made.
It is evolutionarily impossible for masses to be gay, at least for too many generations.
Also, the reasons behind 'leaving Yiddishkeit' are rarely visible or clear.
But it is possible for masses to be disillusioned due to that Halacha
Yeah I hear. It could be. I just feel like if it weren’t such taboo issue, the “impossible” nature of it might fall away.
I was thinking a long the lines of:
Sexless marriages
Non-penetrative sex
Also, if people viewed it like Loshen Hara, where people definitely think it’s wrong, but are accepting of individuals who speak loshen hara and allow them to participate in society, that may be a way to help them. Although that is a bit off the topic because it’s not a heter per se.
Sexless marriage isn't a thing. Marriage has a definition, call it something else if you want.
Any ejaculation outside of sexual activity is also forbidden. So what are you suggesting?
Your 'helping them' is a new angle. Right now, it is unacceptable. And many people refrain because of it. Accepting it helps those who are sinning anyway, yet hurts many who control themselves. Just like Lashon Hara. If we are in a group that doesn't allow it, we don't speak it. Who is to say that accepting them is beneficial?
<<<<<Sexless marriage isn't a thing. Marriage has a definition, call it something else if you want.
I am not really interested in arguing the definitions. I think you get the concept that I am referring to, but happy to clarify if you still aren't sure
<<<<Any ejaculation outside of sexual activity is also forbidden.
For this there is at least some room to be Makil for some some activities such as for IVF so there is room to move more than "only during sexual activity".
Also, it is not like im suggesting Rabbis should condone ejaculation outside of sexual activity. But more like "look, you are probably going to ejaculate anyway, so why be against a gay union which also causes distress to those people."
It is somewhat like the folowing but obviously not a perfect analogy: Having social activites witll increase the likelihood of loshen hara. Should we be against social activities? Instead, we try to educate and build this desire to not speak loshen hara.
<<<<<<<Your 'helping them' is a new angle. Right now, it is unacceptable. And many people refrain because of it. Accepting it helps those who are sinning anyway, yet hurts many who control themselves. Just like Lashon Hara. If we are in a group that doesn't allow it, we don't speak it. Who is to say that accepting them is beneficial?
I agree. There has to be a weight of importance. I am not saying others should share my values. If they think the harm caused to gay people is "worth it" because the alternative of having more homosexual activity is a worse alternative, that's fine. I just have different values than those people. I care more about people suffering than the fact that others will make a conscious choice to engage in Aveiros.
I think in personal cases of loshen hara, taboo is great. I think if there was large scale taboo arounsd it, it would hurt many people and not be worth the benefits of having less loshen hara. if someone disagrees that is fine too.
I should really get off these blogs. It's terrible for my blood pressure.
Did a sentient human being actually make the claim that there is room to be meikel for homosexuals, just like IVF? Are people that superficial? IVF is not 'levatalah', homosexuals is.
The problem isn't merely that people can let such stupid things fall out of their mouths and keyboards. The problem is how such people consider themselves entitled to an opinion.
Lol
לשון הרע is much less serious than גילוי עריות. Obviously certain forms of לשון הרע could lead to people losing money and reputation, but overall the day to day לשון הרע people speak is far less serious. Before the חפץ חיים it's hard for anyone to come to a different conclusion.
(Humor me here.) When you use expressions like "al achas kammah vekhammah", you could at least write it with italics.
Or better yet, why not just write it in actual Hebrew? Our smart phones these days make doing that easy as pie.
Don't be lazy now. 😉
Too much to unpack here.
But I want to comment on your machlokes between Rav Kook and Reb Asher Weiss. It's just plain embarrassing to read that. This machlokes pre-dates both of them by centuries, why not quote the primary sources? None of us have any obligation to care for either of those characters' opinions, but Rishonim and Gedolei Acharonim are different. It lowers the level of discourse when the sources are Rabbi Sacks and Rabbi Weiss.
Because I want to link to those blogs. The machlokes is much older - at least R Asher Weiss side, which is I believe a Bartenura. I don't think anyone pre Rav kook holds like him
Try Chovas Halevavos - צו השכל. But not in the way you quote it. And the Chasam Sofer strongly disagrees.
You are conflating shmiras shabbos, Gay marriage, and women rights in an attempt to make sense of your argument, but that is where the first problem lies in reconciling our own morality and comforts and the Torah. There are categories in the Torah and halacha, and it is clearly delineated what is biblical and what is rabbinical. Additionally, we see the Rabbis changing multiple times biblical laws. That means that they felt that a value of the Torah is more important than the law, and that that value was being compromised by the law.
Shmiras shabbos is bilbical, and praying with minyan is rabbinical. So given that minyan is difficult it is more Halachickly sound to pray at home, and keep Shabbos 100%. This is not rocket science, and because the reform didn't care, doesn't mean that we can never engage in appropriate halachick reformations.
Engaging in gay relationships is not allowed. I understand why a club is frowned upon, but it is not technically assur, and in a different culture may actually prove beneficial and help gay people keep Halacha.
Women rabbis being assur is not biblical, and it is debated in rabbinic authority. Our society chose to make it a core feature of orthodoxy in an attempt to be machmir, but choosing to allow women rabbis is not actually a huge reformation at all.
In order to attempt to reconcile our own beliefs and the Torahs we need to categorize both beliefs first. For example, hitting children. While the Gemara says its allowed, it is by no means a chiyuv. The gemara was describing what was normal to them and perceived as ok. They were humans, it isnt biblical. Today we know it is not ok, so we can say we dont do it, and at the time they didnt have that awareness. It is not like chas vshalom we are saying that on Hashem or the Torah. They were humans, and in humanity there is room for human error.
The Torah says it's a chiyuv if the thirteen year old was warned first
They were looked at and treated as young men. They definitely biologically weren't.
Can someone explain to me what is wrong with women Rabbis?
Here's my primary question: how does this work theologically? God gave a Torah that was full of terrible things but it's ok because at the time they didn't know the difference? Were there no revolutionary ideas in the Torah that changed the world? Was it not revelation that delivered it? Doesn't revelation mean they had some encounter with the true God = the true good of creation? If slavery was wrong then, are you telling me God instructed them on how to do inherently bad things but it's ok because we were good enough to overcome God's unfortunate misdirections? Have you ever heard of תורת ד' תמימה and countless verses that echo this thought, such as כי לקח טוב נתתי לכם, and דרכיה דרכי נועם always applied to mean the ultimate true good and pleasantness? And most urgently, doesn't you're theory open every mitzvah to our doubt about whether we really ought to keep it if in a generation or two we'll realize it's immoral, stripping the Torah of all power? Isn't this the whole point of the ikarim about how today is from heaven and will never be changed? I understand your attempt to sidestep conservative Judaism and their theory of Catholic Israel but like open orthodoxy, your theory is ultimately indistinguishable. Your questions are unavoidable for the thinking person but your answer, as others have said, is at least dangerous and in my view almost certainly heretical.
We only ever realize it's immorality in hindsight. We never go ahead and change it intentionally.
I don't see how any of the pesikim contradict what I said. In fact it is precisely those verses that make us understand the Torah in light of morality in our times. The Torah cannot mean we whip thirteen year olds and this we need to reinterpret it (unconsciously of course) precisely because deracheha Darchei noam. If not we can just go ahead and accept the immorality.
My problem was not in the changing. I hear what you are accomplishing there. My problem, as I've emphasize, is theological. A perfect God can only give a perfect Torah. There cannot have been anything in it that is wrong or was wrong or might conceivably be wrong. There is certainly an additional element of ועשית הישר והטוב and קדושים תהיו that call upon us to raise the bar beyond the explicit mandates of the Torah. There is room, for example, for the Sanhedrin to remove themselves from the location that authorized capital punishment because there were too many murders and they decided it would be wrong to try and execute so many people. Maybe a BD would see today that malkus for teens is problematic and would instruct people not to give halachically sufficient warnings, or whatever. But if you tell me malkus to teens is inherently immoral and therefore wrong and bad, the god that commanded it is immoral, wrong and bad. (He could so easily have commanded it only for twenty and up. And he could have taught that slavery was abhorrent, as we discovered ourselves as slaves in Egypt. Same for all your examples. And btw, where in the world is rape considered ok?) And then Moshe was flawed, wrong and bad, as were pretty much all the greatest people who ever lived, until the 20th century when we got woke and finally realized what was going on. If only we were there to straighten them all out. There's no way out of that and it's theologically incompatible with all forms of unopened orthodoxy ;). Your idea of change from Rav Kook is fine. You can argue we're getting more morally refined and able to go beyond the path to perfection the Torah represented as given. More ישר, טוב, קדוש. We can debate that. I will not debate that the Torah offered the true ultimate good to everyone at all times.
I disagree with that statement, as does the Rambam and many others. Hashem can give a Torah with imperfections if He so wants to - and He did. He is described as having hands, talking, getting angry etc - all which are false. The Rambam says at the time they needed that as they could not conceive of an omnsmiscient God. All the pesukom were not meant literally.
That is absolutely NOT what the Rambam said by any stretch of the imagination. Not literal does not equal false. What the people need is still the perfect good - that's the definition of the whole Torah! It's not what malachim need, it's what people need to achieve the purpose of creation. What people need, though, is the actual true good of the world. Not bad mitzvos to lead them astray for three thousand years. The Rambam was absolutely clear that the Torah will never change or you have no Torah at all. Korbanos were needed because the needs he describes is inherent to human nature. Not as some temporary concession to small minded people who couldn't handle the truth. Absolutely no one in the mainstream Orthodox world understands the Rambam your way. The Torah is the path from us to our purpose and is obviously defined on one side of it's path by our imperfections and weaknesses. That's the midrash about the malachim not wanting it "sent down to Earth." But the end of its path must be the achievement of the ultimate good of creation - not some dead end because God couldn't figure out how to help these poor dolts overcome their need to hit kids or enslave people or whatever. IKEA won't give you instructions that produce some distorted bookshelf just because you're not handy enough to do it right. It's not like the Jewish people nailed it throughout history - they never seemed to get things right as it was. There's so much here to say. Hatzlacha with your learning
Of course it was radically revolutionary! It created the ethical monotheism revolution. That said, it still took time for it to take full effect.
Read R Joshua Berman's Ani Maamin.
No scholar to the right of open orthodoxy (and not even most of them) will ever take seriously the proposition that the Torah was "wrong then" and needed almost all of recorded history before it dawned on us (you) how it all works and how we're supposed to radically alter parts of it to get it into shape. My points, which I notice you ignored, are entirely valid (to the extent they can be for into a blood comment). You've always struck me as being open minded and a creative thinker but seriously with the Orthodox world. Am I wrong? If so, I apologize for writing this way. I assumed we shared a framework of thought.
I've skimmed Ani Maamin. What are you taking from there?
Btw, I don't think you actually understood my thesis. We are never ever supposed to radically alter anything. It happens by itself subconsciously and automatically. Once one is doing it intentionally, and not as unlearned masses, the whole process fails
Ok, this is a great question and requires more than a quick answer.
In short: this wasn't a late innovation but always the original purpose. Second, there is the aspect of Hashem doing this, and it's latent inside the Torah the whole time. Third, it's precumbent that the change is not done intentionally to match the outside world, rather it happens of it's own, organically and unconsciously. We see it happening nowadays (look how Chaim Walderss family sat Shiva despite his suicide being as planned and manipulative as can possibly be). Finally, this growth happens both ways as well. We now keep Kashrus far more than Chazal ever instituted, and I do that too based on this theory.
I humbly submit that you would be better served considering these questions with more careful deliberation than by jumping to defend what you've already written. The odds that you've just neatly solved one of modern history's most widely held sets of criticisms of the Bible without theological damage to Orthodox Judaism is negligible. If your theory is worth anything to you, take these theological challenges seriously and acknowledge you have massive questions to answer that will inevitably require revising your thoughts. Otherwise, it's just another blog post that that ticked some interesting issues but otherwise wasted our time.
I do acknowledge that. Well put.
Copyright is BS
Ash, I'm just severely disappointed with you.
I agree with every criticism of this piece and more.
Chillul Shabbos d'oraisa because of an inner feeling to light candles?
Bina Yeseira comes from not learning halacha? (What is wrong with the simple straightforward explanation that they have deeper emotional understanding aka intuitions?)
Sitting shiva for a pervert is a moral upgrade?
V'ahavta l'raicha Kamocha was once farfetched to apply to women and children?! (Chazal is full of concern for the plight of women)
Kavod Habrios is to copy men and to make a movement to study Torah Shebaal Peh, and go even further than men to say kaddish for sons? None of those things are against halacha but they are definitely against the spirit of halacha and just plain stupid and naive. A real zechus for them and their children would be to (make organizations to) help mothers of young families raise their children. Its just common sense.
And the part about gay clubs I just didn't get. Are they 'frum' and keeping halacha or aren't they?
Also, do you really think Conservative teshuvos show no regard for halacha and the 'spirit of halacha'? I know very little but that wasn't my impression.
What am I missing? I will have to check again later.
I see nothing immoral about slavery. American ideals are built on a certain simplicity and lack of acceptance of reality, making the claim of 'racism', 'misogyny', and 'slavery' conversation stoppers.
The Torah accepts these things as problematic, but not absolutely.
Yes, some people need others to control them. When they do so, they achieve their life's purpose and make the world a better place. Freeing them has them sitting on their porches getting fatter and fatter, producing children who do the same, and are an albatross on society. This has nothing to do with skin color. Any slave who can successfully protest his slavery is probably not a candidate for this. But many people are.
There is a difference between races, whether society likes it or not. And taking those differences into account will ensure better decisions. The basic right to life and property should be universal, but that does not mean all are equal.
Same with women. Yes, their lives are equal to men's (at least for non-Jews, Jews live to keep Torah and the more Torah, the more right to life). But there are still differences between the genders, and it would be foolish to ignore it. Employment opportunities are just one example where the anti-misogyny culture has messed things up.
Your claim that lashes for a thirteen year old is immoral is a product of a world that gives thirteen year olds (and fifty year olds) the ability to ignore Torah. If we had a governmental system that enforced Torah as it should, our mindests would be different.
Which is how the Torah works in today's world. The same galus that causes us to accept Western ideals of democracy and personal freedom, to our detriment, also removed the idea of semicha from our lives, making lashes impossible. That is how things are intertwined.
Would you want to live in a country ran fully by Torah? I wouldn’t to be frankly honest.