Akko cooking

asked 9 years ago

Shalom Rabbi Avraham

I have only recently started reading your articles. It seems to me that you are trying to touch on the burning issues of our time and remain faithful to the boundaries of Halacha. Kudos for the courage to seek the truth.

Today I read an article from your website called “Revocation and Changing Regulations in Our Time.” I was interested in your article following a new “ruling” published (in Hebrew) about three months ago by the Conservative movement. The article deals with the issue of the attitude towards the Gentile in Judaism, and at the end of the comprehensive article they rule to revoke the prohibitions on eating Akko and Setham Yinam, because the reason for the prohibition is “because of their daughters,” and today this is irrelevant. A prohibition on eating Akko cooking does not prevent mixed marriages, and eating Akko cooking is not the cause of the phenomenon of mixed marriages. (You cited in your article a reference by the Tosafot scholars to Akko cooking and setham Yinam.)

For now, it does not appear that the prohibition of Akum cooking is the next battle for those seeking changes in halacha within the Orthodox world, but one must still ask. The poskim (among them the Tzomet Institute) are moving forward and developing technology that enables the observance of Akum cooking laws (apps that allow a Jew to light the fire remotely, etc.) that has nothing to do with the meaning of the law, but rather as offering solutions to the dry halacha. Ostensibly, according to your article, this could be interpreted as a slander and a lie that rabbis are seeking solutions to a problem that does not exist, just because it is a regulation.

In light of your article and its conclusions, is the conservative ruling a kind of “even when there is no judicial system at all, a consensus can be created ‘from below'” (quote from the end of your article)?

If you have time to think and answer me – please address the essence of the matter, and ignore the fact that they are conservatives, and the fact that in their “ruling” they are not at all bothered by the need for another court or a “great judge” in wisdom and reason, but rather easily overturn a regulation.

Thanks in advance,

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Hello. First, I have a rule that I never address the arguer, only the claim. Therefore, it really doesn’t matter to me whether the argument is from conservatives, Christians, or Orthodox Christians. There are stupid arguments from the latter and excellent ones from the former. Second, you cannot ignore the question of the ability to repeal regulations (even when they are unfounded). After all, that is the focus of the discussion. The fundamental debate with conservatism in most cases is not about whether the regulation is still relevant, but about whether we have the authority to repeal it. Although there are quite a few people who are not willing to recognize/admit this. But even as for the matter itself, I am not sure that the current prohibition does not achieve its goals. In my opinion, it does prevent, at least to some extent, the connections. It is certainly not clear and unambiguous enough to cancel a regulation without having authority (because as I wrote when the situation is clear and unambiguous – there are quite a few precedents for canceling regulations even without a great court of law in wisdom and number. I think I referred to the last chapter in Neriah Gotal’s book, The Change of Nature, by N.). Therefore, the antics of the Tzmet Institute, with all the ridicule that I also feel towards them, are sometimes a necessary and only possible solution, since there is a formal dimension in Halacha from which we cannot deviate. This is intended, among other things, precisely for situations in which we have become convinced that it is appropriate to change but we do not have the authority to do so. And of course, also for other situations (when the prohibition is in effect but there are situations in which it is appropriate to ease up and bypass it, such as hospitals and the like). What I wrote is that in situations where change can be made and the rabbinical establishment does not do it, sometimes it is created from below, and it is good that it is (like Torah study for women). This is a mechanism that sometimes (not always) involves the prohibition of the first ones who lie on the fence, and legitimacy comes in stage two when the permit has already been abolished. In this case, it is difficult for me to legitimize someone who would make a change from below, since it does not seem to me that the prohibition has clearly lost all of its meaning. On the other hand, whoever invents it will be blessed. And when it harms another (i.e. a gentile), there is also room for leniency, since harming a person is a reason to violate a rabbinical prohibition (the law of human dignity). Some may tell you that it does not belong in relation to a gentile, but I have no part with them. See My articles are here . All the best,

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.