Q&A: Personal Opinion in Halakhic Rulings
Personal Opinion in Halakhic Rulings
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Contrary to what is accepted in our circles, the fact that some rabbi said something does not make it sacred for me, and I’m not obligated to “beware of his glowing coal, for it is a coal of fire” or whatever it is. If his argument seems stupid to me, I’ll say so. Nobody is immune to criticism—not Rabbi Ovadia, not Rabbi Kanievsky, and not even Moses our Teacher.
How much do you think personal opinion is involved in halakhic rulings?
The best example I have is the prohibition of cross-dressing.
Rabbi Kanievsky, for example, said several times that there is a prohibition of cross-dressing for men in wearing a wristwatch. He was apparently born on Mars, where there certainly are no men’s wristwatches. Another example is opinions that say pants are forbidden for a woman because they are men’s clothing—even though there are women’s pants and women’s suits, right? What are the chances that this is simply their personal opinion—that a watch is not suitable for men, or that pants are not suitable for women—and that there isn’t really any halakhic prohibition involved?
An even more obvious example is homosexuals. As far as I know, there is no obstacle to homosexuals serving as prayer leaders, joining a prayer quorum, or even receiving rabbinic ordination. What are the chances that someone who rules against all of this regarding homosexuals simply hates homosexuals (as per the commandment of our Torah!)?
I could go on with Hallel on Jerusalem Day, etc. etc. etc. But in general, what are the chances that personal opinion—apart from their understanding of the Talmudic passage—is involved in halakhic ruling? I don’t think there are objective people today, and I’d like to hear your opinion.
Answer
It is obvious that a person’s views and positions play a role in his rulings. We are human beings, and the Torah was not given to ministering angels. But the examples you gave are not about people’s views; they are about biases. Of course we are human, and therefore we have biases, but biases are something one must overcome (as distinct from views).
By the way, regarding the example of homosexuals, it really is not so simple. I am not speaking about people with the inclination, but about those who live that way. We are talking about people committing a very serious transgression (in my view, under compulsion), and therefore those rulings are not groundless.
Discussion on Answer
“Those who live that way” means someone who maintains a full romantic relationship with a man. Kissing and the like are a prohibition of physical closeness in forbidden sexual relationships. “The Jewish people were not suspected” is not relevant when the person is openly gay.
Recently I heard that even openly gay men are not always interested in the act itself (something like a third, based on statistics from their app).
Could that have implications, if it’s true? Meaning, when an openly gay man comes to synagogue, is there room to say that maybe he is not violating the transgression itself? Could it be that even prohibitions of physical closeness do not apply to such a person, who has no attraction to the act itself—if that is the norm among them? Of course, if not, then his view is nullified relative to all gay men.
I don’t know. I’d need details about the phenomenon.
What do you mean by “those who live that way”? Actually, that’s an interesting discussion. If, for example, there is a single gay man and he really loves men—there’s nothing to be done, he tried conversion therapy and it doesn’t help. He doesn’t sleep with men, only kisses them or something. So is that prohibited? As far as I know, the Shulchan Arukh also writes that the Jewish people were not suspected of male homosexual intercourse, and the Torah prohibition is only on intercourse. It reminds me of a story about a gay cantor where people shouted not to answer amen after his blessings. If you have a column on the topic, I’d be happy to read it—I already read 5 today anyway.