Q&A: Prohibitions That Have Become Obsolete
Prohibitions That Have Become Obsolete
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve noticed that there are sometimes prohibitions that people generally do not bother avoiding, even though there is no real halakhic permission to violate them. For example, there is the prohibition of “it shall not be heard from your mouth,” which is written in the Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 147:1: “It is forbidden to mention it by name, whether for a need or not for a need,” and from what I’ve noticed people are not concerned about this at all. Or for example, in the laws of honoring one’s father and mother, Maimonides writes as follows:
3. What is reverence, and what is honor? Reverence means not standing in his place, not sitting in his place, not contradicting his words, not deciding between his words, and not calling him by his name, neither during his lifetime nor after his death; rather, one says, “My father, my master.” If his father’s name or his rabbi’s name was the same as other people’s names, he changes their names.
And here too, I haven’t seen people behave this way (at least regarding the underlined part). In your opinion, is it okay to be lenient about prohibitions that the entire world no longer observes? And if so, why?
Best regards,
Answer
Regarding honoring parents, yes, because this depends on the accepted social norms of honor.
Regarding mentioning the name of idolatry, see Darkei Teshuvah there, where he discussed possible grounds for leniency. Especially nowadays, when there are no longer idol worshippers, mentioning its name has no concrete significance, and it is not reasonable to prohibit it in such a case.
Discussion on Answer
Common sense. There are no mathematical, rigid rules for this.
“Accepted norms of honor” — one should say “accepted norms of disrespect.”
Okay, but does each community/sector have its own norms, or does it need to be uniform for the entire Jewish people?
If nowadays each sector has its own norms, then in the time of the Sanhedrin would they define the details of the laws for the entire Jewish people?
Each place and time according to the norms practiced there. When a Sanhedrin is established, they will do whatever they decide. I’ve already written more than once that there is no point in deciding disputes and striving for uniformity in Jewish law, except where differences in custom interfere with practical functioning. Here that is not the case.
When a Sanhedrin is established, will it then be binding on all Jews everywhere?
And where did you write about this? And briefly, why is there no point in striving for uniformity in Jewish law (and do you mean only in a period when there is no Sanhedrin)?
Thank you
I wrote about it here: if the Sanhedrin decides yes, then yes; the question is whether it will decide that way. I think not.
There is no point in striving for uniformity because there is value in autonomy, that each person should do what he understands. I have written about the value of autonomy in several places. Search here among the articles: “Autonomy and Authority in Halakhic Rulings,” and also “Is Jewish Law Pluralistic,” and also “The Price of Tolerance,” among others.
Regarding honoring one’s father and mother, how do you determine the accepted norms? Each community or sector on its own terms (and what are the criteria for being included in a certain sector from this perspective)? Or according to the majority of Jews in the world? Etc.
Thank you.