Parashat Tazria–Metzora (5760)

With God's help, on the eve of the holy Sabbath, Parashat Tazria–Metzora, 5760

Jewish law and extra-legal values, or: Is God postmodern?

The rabbinic exposition of the verse that concludes Parashat Metzora has received intensive attention from Talmud scholars,

and some see in it an instance of legal authorities relating to extra-Torah values, and of 'adapting' the Torah

to those values. The text of the exposition is as follows:

It was taught: The early elders used to say, 'And she who is infirm in her menstrual impurity' (Leviticus 15:33) — that she may not apply eye paint or rouge

[=that is, she may not put on makeup], nor adorn herself in brightly colored clothes. Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: If so, you

make her repulsive to her husband, and the result will be that her husband divorces her. Rather, how am I to understand 'And she who is infirm in her menstrual impurity'?

She shall remain in her menstrual state [=in her impurity and in her prohibition to her husband] until she comes into the water [=until she immerses in a ritual bath].

At first glance, what is described here is a development from ancient times, when there was a prohibition against a woman adorning herself during the period

when she was forbidden to her husband. Later רבי עקיבא the 'reformer' came and determined that such a situation could not

be allowed, since she would become repugnant to her husband and he would divorce her. That is, apparently the legal situation that prevailed

until his day did not suit the extra-legal values that guided Rabbi Akiva (=preserving

the woman's dignity and marital harmony). Therefore Rabbi Akiva innovated that there is no prohibition at all against adorning oneself during the days of menstrual impurity.

From here some have found support for the claim that we must adapt the Torah to the values current in our own day

(women's equality, attitudes toward non-Jews, and the like), and if necessary we must slightly distort

the meaning of the verses so that Jewish law will fit. A Judaism centered on Jewish law that opposes such processes is perceived

not only as fossilized and unsuited to modern values, but even as itself harming the continuity

of Jewish law, since legal authorities, like the above-mentioned Rabbi Akiva, did indeed adapt their interpretation to the values

of the modernity current in their own time.

There are two claims here against conservatism: a. one ought to be 'reformist.' b.

the Orthodox are in fact reformists, since they changed the conception of Jewish law that prevailed in the past

and allowed changes and adaptations.

From the formulation here it emerges clearly that these are two claims that contradict one another. If we are supposed

to be reformists, then what is wrong with the kind of reformism proposed by Orthodoxy (changing

legal practice in such a way as to deny changes in the law, even though in the past they were possible)? And if

it is forbidden to be reformists and we must continue legal practice as it was conducted in the past, then it is not

clear what defect the first claim is pointing to?!

With respect to Rabbi Akiva's above exposition, I would note that the assumption that Rabbi Akiva acted

on the basis of extra-legal values is by no means clear. It is entirely possible, and indeed very likely, that the values of a woman's dignity

and marital harmony are Torah values according to Rabbi Akiva, and perhaps one can even find for them a source in the Written Torah

itself. Rabbi Akiva argued against the sages who preceded him that their position did not conform to the demands of the Torah

and not that it failed to conform to some extra-Torah values. Beyond that, it is entirely clear to me that the intellectual

integrity of Rabbi Akiva is incompatible with an unfair interpretation of the verses merely in order to make them conform

to some desired result (this is not a matter of worldview but of intellectual integrity).

This is not the place to exhaust the issue of possible changes in Jewish law, and therefore I will add only a few

brief remarks on the level of principle. It goes without saying that a divine Torah does not need to adapt itself

to any external value. Regarding the rulings of the Sages, one might seemingly raise the claim

that their words suited their time but do not suit ours, yet even here the matter is by no means

simple, for at least two reasons:

1. If the Sages' interpretation of the Torah is indeed the correct interpretation, then what they say is what

the Torah demands of us. If so, even if we are more moral and wiser than the Sages, every change

in Jewish law must be anchored in an interpretive argument; that is, we must prove that the new requirement is implicit

in the Torah's intent [according to an interpretation that is intellectually honest], and it is not enough to claim that it accords

with the spirit of the age.

2. Beyond that, the demands of the age, especially in our current age, change at an ever-increasing pace,

and sometimes even return to positions that were condemned in the past as immoral or as out of step with the spirit of the age.

For example, when many Torah scholars opposed nationalism, they were denounced as outdated and clerical,

and now many fine representatives of our modern cousins have joined the denouncers of nationalism?

At one time

anyone who objected to immodest advertisements in the public domain was old-fashioned, and now many fine

members of our modern feminist sisters have joined that same old-fashioned demand. Today there is accepted

the view—ridiculous both intellectually and morally—that a woman's right over her own body

permits her, or her doctor (?), to murder (!) the fetus in her womb. I hope and believe that this too

hideous position will change in the near future, like its predecessors. If so, to which values should we

adapt the values of the Torah: to those prevailing today, or to those that will prevail tomorrow? In our

postmodern world, values are to a large extent a matter of fashion and public relations (see the entry

'politically correct'). Are God's demands as well determined by the latest fashionable trend

of the moment? Perhaps He too is postmodern?

Have a peaceful Sabbath

This may be deposited for respectful disposal in any synagogue or yeshiva. Comments and responses will be welcomed.

Biton85.doc