Q&A: Greeting and Haredim
Greeting and Haredim
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Yesterday I was at a vort for a Haredi friend of mine. When I asked whether it is customary to say “mazal tov” to the bride as well, he said of course not. As we kept talking, he also explained that even after the wedding, she is forbidden to speak with his brothers. To my surprise, after I looked into it a bit, I saw that there does indeed seem to be broad agreement about this in the Talmud and among the halakhic decisors, at least regarding speech that could lead to affection.
My wife and I, as Religious Zionists, regularly host and are invited to Sabbath meals with other young couples, and yes, I do end up talking with the wife at the event too, even in a friendly and affectionate way (needless to say, all respectfully and within the bounds of modesty, or at least that’s what I thought until now), and at family events there’s no point even talking about the teasing from aunts, cousins, sisters-in-law, etc.
I’m trying to understand whether there really is a problem here, and if so, how it is that most of the Religious Zionist public, or at least the part I know, which does claim to keep all of Jewish law and be careful with major and minor matters alike, simply lives as though this doesn’t exist. And if there is an answer, what is the basis of the disagreement between us and the Haredim on this issue.
This also connects for me to other random Jewish laws that seem undisputed, and yet it looks like nobody really lives by them, such as listening to music while there is no Temple, and a few other things I’m probably missing. (Regarding the music issue, I haven’t really studied it in depth, I just saw it in the Shulchan Arukh.)
Thank you
Answer
The root of the disagreement is the question of how relevant prevailing social norms are to Jewish law. I see no problem at all, in an open society, with sitting together in mixed company and speaking freely. In a closed society, such a situation can lead to forbidden thoughts, and therefore the norms there create a prohibition. It’s a positive feedback loop. The rule is that a prohibition is relevant only when one comes to sexual thoughts, not mere affection. And even then, if this is a normal way of life, then that is the situation, and there is no obligation to avoid it. This is connected to the topic of “it is unavoidable and not intended.”
Discussion on Answer
Yes. The question of how the norms were formed doesn’t matter all that much. As long as these aren’t norms found only among criminals. The prohibition back then was also based on the norms that prevailed then. It didn’t come down from Sinai.
My Haredi friend’s argument wasn’t about modesty; it was about the halakhic ruling of the medieval authorities based on the Talmud. Clearly this law is not Torah-level in any sense, and I also know the Rabbi’s argument that the medieval authorities have no formal authority, but if most of the medieval authorities interpreted the Talmud there as binding law, doesn’t that tell us something?
From what I saw in the Talmud, it’s a discussion among the Amoraim about how to conduct oneself, in a narrative/aggadic framework (that is, it wasn’t a discussion in the study hall; rather, they tell us what happened), but the discussion is very similar to a regular halakhic discussion. True, they didn’t bring verses, because it isn’t Torah-level, but in my opinion one could perhaps still understand from here that this was some kind of rabbinic enactment.
I also think this is another issue of a gap, in that among the Haredim they take aggadic passages from the Talmud much more literally.
So I’m trying to understand where the interpretive line runs between what we understand as a rabbinic enactment for all generations and where we are dealing with customs of the Amoraim that may or may not be applied.
I wasn’t addressing the question of whether this is Jewish law and whether the discussion is halakhic. The question is whether this ruling is based on the norms that prevailed then, as with swimsuits, for example.
And how am I, as a learner, supposed to make that distinction? In the end we’re expected both to use common sense and to be committed to the Torah sources, which didn’t give me a solid reason for putting on a swimsuit. So do we just attach to them a rationale that’s convenient for us?
I don’t understand where this bizarre discussion is going. Are you denying the existence of human interpretation of the sources of Jewish law? Both laws from the Torah and those from the Sages. What do you want from me? Every law goes through interpretations and decisions about how it is to be applied in different circumstances.
I’m trying to understand how one issues halakhic rulings based on halakhic sources that didn’t give a reason for their rulings. Obviously the ruling also stems from the social customs that prevailed then, but where is the boundary?
You use common sense and understand it from the context.
Alright, thank you Rabbi, and Sabbath peace 🙂
Isn’t there some circularity here? The norms create the prohibition, but they themselves were built from a prohibition whose source is in Jewish law. Can norms just be set arbitrarily and then lived by accordingly?