Q&A: That Doesn’t Fit — Rejoicing with Bride and Groom
That Doesn’t Fit — Rejoicing with Bride and Groom
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In Minḥat Eshel on the portion of Ki Tetze, he writes that according to Jewish law a person is obligated to go to every wedding he hears about and every funeral he hears about.
He says that this “doesn’t fit” — that it’s impossible to fulfill this today, because with modern communications nowadays, every day there is some funeral we can hear about and every night there is a wedding.
He argues that the Jewish law was established in a generation when people lived in isolated villages and everyone knew everyone, and they ordained that the whole community should take part in the joy and the sorrow of every member of the community.
Therefore he claims that since today it’s impossible to fulfill this obligation, because it isn’t reasonable to live that way, then if there are enough people at the wedding I’m not also obligated to go.
He admits that he has no internal halakhic argument, and says, “times have changed.”
My question is whether, in your opinion, this argument (as I presented it here) is an acceptable one?
On the one hand, it sounds like the “doesn’t fit” argument that you wrote about. On the other hand, it sounds to me like a Reform argument that you also wrote about — that saying this Jewish law was established under different social conditions is enough to nullify it without serious internal halakhic arguments.
Thank you very much
Answer
I of course completely agree, but this is not a very successful example, because at most we are dealing with a rabbinic law, and even that is not very clear.
There is no connection to Reform, because here there is a relevant rationale. It’s not that I don’t like it on a value level, or that it’s merely difficult; rather, it is impossible to live this way, and the sages who instituted this presumably did not intend a situation like ours. Especially since it is obvious that they did not mean there should be millions of guests at every wedding and every funeral, and that nobody should go to work or sleep. There is common sense. These are exactly the “doesn’t fit” arguments. By the way, there are also laws that one may violate in a case of great need or hardship. The sages also abolished capital punishment and exile once murderers became too numerous. That too is not Reform.
Discussion on Answer
“The sages also abolished capital punishment and exile once murderers became too numerous. That too is not Reform.”
Let’s be precise —
The sages did not abolish capital punishment or exile; rather, they refrained from enforcing the Torah’s laws based on the following considerations:
1. In a case of mass violation of the law, where the law-enforcement system is no longer effective. The decision to reduce enforcement does not mean turning what is forbidden into what is permitted, but only refraining from enforcement.
2. In a case where the government is unable to enforce the law immediately, enforcement is postponed to a later time. As David said about Joab after the murder of Abner (II Samuel chapter 3, verse 39): “And I am this day weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me; the Lord shall repay the evildoer according to his wickedness.” Here we are speaking of a gradual expansion of enforcement, according to the government’s ability to enforce.
3. When enforcing the law would cause an injustice in a particular case.
Because abolishing punishments — that most definitely is Reform!!!
Glad to help
Dear Dissenter, I see you had a productive night. Good for you. Just next time be careful, because as is well known, the night is conducive to fatigue.
Abolishing a law because it does not apply in a certain time or situation can definitely fall under what you call Reform. For example, the Babylonian Talmud’s cancellation of shofar blowing on Rosh Hashanah that falls on the Sabbath (and there it is not even because of changed circumstances, but a general consideration). Abolishing it and non-enforcement or non-observance amount to the same thing for this purpose. And not for nothing did the medieval authorities discuss why this does not violate “do not add” or “do not subtract.”
Following your reasoning, one could perhaps say this regarding the obliteration of Amalek and the seven nations, as Maimonides wrote in Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 187.
Glad to help in return.
With God’s help, 13 Elul 5783
Perhaps one could say that the bride and groom waive it, both because they themselves do not take part in every wedding, and because they are not interested in strangers participating in their wedding. If so, it is an evident presumption that someone who did not receive an invitation is exempt from bringing them joy.
Best regards, Fish”l