Q&A: The Authority of the Talmud and Changes in Custom and Jewish Law
The Authority of the Talmud and Changes in Custom and Jewish Law
Question
Mishnah Kiddushin, chapter 4, mishnah 12: “A man may seclude himself with his mother and with his daughter, and may sleep with them in physical closeness; but if they have grown up, this one sleeps in her garment and that one sleeps in his garment.”
Rabbi Yoni Gutman ( dafyomi20.co.il ) said in his lesson on Kiddushin 80a, at minute 12:50/25:30: “And in parentheses, let us say the obvious thing: the Mishnah is speaking about the old world, and if today you know of a man or woman who sleep in physical closeness with their children, there is an obligation to report it to the police immediately.”
Kiddushin 81b: “If they have grown up, this one sleeps in his garment, etc.” How old is that? Rav Adda bar Rav Aza said in the name of Rav Assi: a girl of nine years and one day, a boy of twelve years and one day. Some say: a girl of twelve years and one day, a boy of thirteen years and one day.
With the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, with the development of weaving machines, the prices of fabrics and clothing dropped dramatically. People no longer sleep naked.
In my opinion, this is a change in moral norms as a result of changes in technology and culture.
Even so, Arukh HaShulchan, written about 150 years ago, repeats the Talmudic law (Yoreh De’ah, end of section 21).
What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
I’m not sure the police need to be notified, but it is certainly not appropriate.
It is definitely possible for there to be a moral change as a result of technology.
If a halakhic decisor repeats the Talmudic law, that could also stem from sheer conservatism. But regarding the matter itself, it is possible that in his time this was still accepted. One should remember that the number of beds and rooms was not what it is nowadays.
Discussion on Answer
Both. It’s hard to distinguish between the two. In many cases, the ability to implement determines the boundaries of behavior and what is required of me. For example, when I live in a hot area, I will dress less modestly. But the boundaries of modesty themselves will be different there, because what is required of me is also a function of the circumstances.
Isn’t that (dependence on time and place) the definition of relative morality?
Absolutely not. Exactly the opposite. A principle that is applied in the same way under all kinds of circumstances is relative. See my well-known swimsuit parable (search the site).
For example, the shawl-women are a blatantly immodest phenomenon, despite—or actually because—they are covered from head to toe.
A moral change, or a change in the ability to implement moral principles? Even back then, were they behaving immorally, just under compulsion (both in thought and in practical ability)?