Q&A: Bennett and the Spirit of Jewish Law
Bennett and the Spirit of Jewish Law
Question
Hello Rabbi, this is A’. How are you?
I wanted to ask two things:
1. I asked this also in a comment on your column on the site, but I saw you didn’t address it there. You wrote in the column about the fall of Bennett’s government that there is a lack of a Torah-based alternative that is not Hardali in the style of Merkaz HaRav and Har HaMor, one that would be more similar to Modern Orthodoxy in the U.S.
But it דווקא seems that there is such an alternative—what about Yeshivat HaGush and its offshoots? (Which you know better than I do, as someone who was a ram in Yeruham.) Yeshivat Ma’ale Adumim?
These are serious batei midrash headed, and that have been headed, by serious Torah scholars who are not students of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook and do not come from his outlook and worldview, and these two batei midrash have produced Torah scholars who have presence and a “say” in the religious public discourse and in the educational arena.
2. On another topic: you write about this from time to time, but until now I haven’t understood your position:
Regarding what is commonly called “the spirit of Jewish law” or what you call “halakhic policy,” do you support making rulings based on such considerations, or do you oppose it?
For example: women’s hakafot on Simchat Torah are considered something that, although halakhically completely permitted, is famously the subject of huge battles, and there are rabbis who strongly oppose it—not because of halakhic considerations, but because of considerations of halakhic policy and a struggle against feminist trends and the like.
Do you think it is possible to forbid what is permitted on the basis of such considerations, provided that the prohibition is presented as such and not as a halakhic prohibition, or do we have only what Jewish law itself has forbidden, and one should not forbid what is permitted for any reason that is not strictly halakhic?
Sorry if I went on too long, but this really interests me.
Best regards
Answer
1. I remember answering there that indeed in HaGush and in Ma’ale Adumim there is such a group (each in its own shade), but they did not develop a distinct identity, and therefore they still speak in the regular Religious Zionist discourse, and as a result they are recessive in the face of the dominance of that line. I wrote that there are many who think this way, but they have no leadership and no distinct identity. Even the term “Modern Orthodox” is not in use. They themselves define themselves as Religious Zionists, and even that terminology itself places them under the heading led by the collection of Haredim who lead this public.
2. I think that in principle it is definitely legitimate to rule according to the spirit of Jewish law, but I have two comments: 1. One must say that this is not the Jewish law itself but the spirit of Jewish law (in your opinion). That is inconvenient, because the questioner can now depart from it, but that is the truth. 2. If there is an authorized institution like the Sanhedrin, they can also incorporate this into Jewish law itself, through legislation (rabbinic law) or binding interpretation (Torah-level law).
All the best,