Q&A: Question about the new Innovations, Reform, and Tradition lecture
Question about the new Innovations, Reform, and Tradition lecture
Question
With God’s help
Hello Rabbi,
I missed lecture 7 and made it up from the column. I wanted to understand whether you meant that the claim of “it just doesn’t fit” is a Reform claim? That’s how it came across from the column, but in the lectures themselves it didn’t sound that way (including lecture 8, which I finished today).
One more thing: in lecture 8 there was a bit of touching on the topic of reasons for the commandments. I recently started giving a study group on the laws of immersing utensils, and the first time we worked on the source of the law; next time I wanted to deal with the reason for the commandment. I’d be happy if the Rabbi has any “interesting” insights on the subject. In general, there is the Jerusalem Talmud’s reason about the “conversion” of the utensils, which raises a number of questions, but it sounds like the strongest reason is simply “it is a scriptural decree,” and everything else is not all that strong. If the Rabbi has suggestions for interesting sources, or an interesting idea on the topic, I’d be glad to hear.
Thank you very much!
Answer
Definitely not Reform. I gave examples of legitimate “it just doesn’t fit” cases (civil courts, loss of idol worship, and so on).
I don’t have ideas here. In general, I don’t deal with reasons for the commandments.
Discussion on Answer
Indeed, that example there seems problematic to me. It’s not “it just doesn’t fit” on the value level, where one can see a conflict here between Jewish law and morality and a decision (not a halakhic one) in favor of morality. In Rabbi Ariel’s case, he decides purely on his own reasoning that there is a halakhic prohibition, with no source and without a conservative midrashic reading. For that, a religious court is required.
With God’s help
That’s a halakhic “it just doesn’t fit,” no?
Why is there preference for a moral “it just doesn’t fit”?
For both of them, there are no proofs or midrashim, only common sense that says: “It can’t be like this!”
Because in a moral “it just doesn’t fit” there is a conflict between Jewish law and morality. The source of moral values is conscience (which recognizes this as an expectation of the Holy One, blessed be He, from us) versus Jewish law, whose source is the Torah. The decision is extra-halakhic, meaning we will not say that the moral behavior is what Jewish law commands, because it isn’t. But morality overrides Jewish law.
By contrast, in Rabbi Ariel’s halakhic “it just doesn’t fit,” he is proposing a halakhic ruling, not proper conduct. Jewish law requires a source. And if Jewish law permits indirect causation, then he cannot forbid it because “it just doesn’t fit.” And it is hard to accept that there is some conflict here between something and Jewish law, since the contradictory “something” is itself Jewish law and not another value (moral or otherwise). In such a case, at most one can establish an enactment or rabbinic decree that forbids it, but that authority is entrusted to the Great religious court.
Thanks. In the column you wrote about the example of a smart home from Rabbi Ariel as an example of a Reform claim.
So basically, the answer to why we immerse utensils is: because that’s what God said!