Q&A: A Moral Act
A Moral Act
Question
Hello Rabbi, and may you be sealed for a good year.
I study in a Hasidic synagogue where there is a sign at the entrance saying: please follow the instruction of our rabbis and wear a suit while studying. The thing is that more than half of the people sitting there simply ignore what is written and sit without a suit. My question is: am I still obligated to follow this rule from a moral standpoint? I did see that you have often explained that morality is binding even when my individual actions have no effect. But even when an individual sees that the majority are no longer obeying the rule, does morality still obligate him to act in accordance with it?
Another question: suppose I decide to be stringent with myself and wear a suit. My study partner does not own a suit at all (he’s from the Religious Zionist crowd). My question is whether I would be considered as causing him to stumble, and whether it would be proper for us to look for another place to study, or whether there is no need to be so strict.
Thank you in advance.
Answer
This sounds to me like excessive piety. The degree of validity of procedural rules like these is determined by society’s attitude toward them. The same is true regarding state law. There may be a certain maximum speed limit on a road, and nobody actually keeps it. Everyone drives somewhat above that speed (within reason). I do not see that as a flaw, even though there is an obligation to obey the law. These are not halakhic laws, which are at least commonly treated as inherently binding rules as such (and even that is open to discussion). After all, even regarding danger-related rules such as smoking, halakhic decisors wrote that they are not binding if the public does not act carefully about them. They rely on “The Lord protects the simple,” but in my opinion that is not meant literally, as though there were a guarantee that God will protect your health.