Monday, March 11, 2013

Kol Isha and Modern Orthodoxy

In a previous post I wondered how the Modern Orthodox community seems to ignore the accepted halachic psak regarding the issue of kol isha. I received some thoughtful comments, including one from Noam Stadlan who wrote:
Many in the thinking MO community agree with the rationale, underlying assumptions, and thinking set forth by Rav Bigman, and certainly do not agree with Chareidi views of society and the place for women. Why should they adopt the Chareidi psak? If you think that Rav Bigman's view should not be followed, then in order to make a case that will fall on accepting ears you have to address the issues. For the thinking MO, it is the quality of the argument, not who said it (within reason) or how many said it, that matters. So if you oppose the action, you have to make an argument based on sources and logic, not a list of poskim.
Noam's comments concretized exactly why Modern Orthodox practice regarding kol isha bothers me so much. Since when has the Shulchan Aruch been appropriated by the Chareidi community? Suddenly, every rav and posek who doesn't conform to our values is now Chareidi? Even Seridei Eish, who allowed mixed groups to sing for kiruv purposes would never have permitted a public performance like "The Voice". Does that now mean that he was clearly Chareidi as well?
The comment suggests that the normative halachah of Kol Isha follows Modern Orthodox practice, and that some kind of Chareidi chumrah has crept into modern day Jewish life. Reading the sources (and I did); that is simply not the case, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. It's one thing for Rabbi Bigman to publish his position, which is of course his right. But at least he himself must acknowledge that his opinion contradicts normative halachic psak. It's quite another to suggest that someone who disagrees with him is "Chareidi" (i.e. radical), which can and should be easily dismissed. Noam wrote,
"For the thinking MO, it is the quality of the argument, not who said it (within reason) or how many said it, that matters."
Really? That's how halachah works? Every psak must be argued and debated and explained to the satisfaction of every individual? This entire line of thinking is precisely what bothers me (and to my understand, many, many others) about so-called "Modern Orthodoxy". It articulates the view that if a behavior or value that's explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and later poskim - and it is explicit and cannot be denied - doesn't match with my view, I can choose to ignore that view and attach myself to the da'at yachid I do like and do agree with, labeling anything more radical than myself as "Chareidi". Is there no notion of submission in Modern Orthodox thinking? Is everything subject to the litmus test of the individual?
That's not the way I learned that Halachah works. Rabbi Bigman is a moreh hora'ah, and can issue whatever psak he chooses. But Halachah isn't a poo-poo platter of choices for us to choose from, grabbing the ruling that we like and disregarding those that offend our tastes. Doing so flies in the face of the concept of Mesorah and an allegiance to the tradition that we believe can and must be transmitted through the generations. While the thinking you articulated certainly does match post-modern values which reject absolutes and demand that we only adhere to practices that match our personal, individual attitudes, that's not how Jewish law works.
If you want to follow Rav Bigman, then follow Rav Bigman. But don't just do it for kol isha. Do you know anything else about the piskei halachah that he issues? Do you follow his chumrot as well as his kulot, or does he too need to justify his thinking to you? (Clearly he does).
I'm not suggesting that I'm perfect. Far from it. I doubt that the Shulchan Aruch smiles on the fact that I watch "Top Chef" (not a good example, I know). But instead of suggesting that I'm really correct, and that anyone who thinks watching "Top Chef" is out of touch, and even worse - Chareidi - I'm mature enough to recognize that I probably shouldn't watch it, and this an issue that I struggle with.
A recent comment on Hirhurim about keeping two days of Yom Tov illustrated this point precisely. Joseph Kaplan wrote,
I was once told by R. Adler that there are Teaneck residents who daven in other shuls but are affiliate members of Rinat just so they can consider R. Adler their moreh deasra and follow his psak on observing only 1 day. We’re full members so it was slam dunk that all four of my kids observed 1 day during their year in Israel. And my sense is from speaking to friends that more and more MO observe only 1 day in Israel, some of whom observed 2 days not so long ago.
At least in Teaneck they some feel the need to affiliate with Rabbi Adler's shul in order to follow his psak. But according to Noam's way of thinking, who needs to affiliate? What difference does it make if he's your rabbi? After all, it's the arguments that count, which is precisely why "more and more MO observe only 1 day in Israel." They like the psak, so why not follow it?

This brings me to another comment regarding kol isha related to the Rav. Another commenter wrote that the Rav attended the opera. Sorry, that's not a psak to me, and the fact that individual rabbis allowed (or allow) individual people to attend the opera also doesn't convince me.
There's a concept in Jewish law of individuality, and not everything every rabbi tells an individual immediately becomes normative Jewish law. It's well-known that the Rav's wife did not cover her hair. Does that mean that the Rav also didn't believe in kisui rosh? Quote me a shiur, a written article, anything - where the Rav issued a psak allowing men to attend to opera. He was a very, very smart man, and knew his audience and the time in which he lived. He knew when he was speaking publicly, and when he was speaking privately, and the two are not the same.
I myself have issue piskei halachah for individuals that I would never write in public. Halachah is quite flexible in this manner. Yet, when every individual has a me-too attitude, and tells himself, "If he could do it, why can't I," the very foundation of halachah finds itself in peril of collapse.
Truth be told, this is where I fear a significant chunk of Modern Orthodoxy is headed. Without fealty to mesorah; when we can choose what appeals to us and reject authority when rulings do not - the very concept of shemirat hamitzvot finds itself on very shaky ground indeed.

My problem with a religious girl singing on The Voice isn't the fact that her rav allowed it. I know for a fact that he doesn't permit public singing. My problem is the fact that she never even asked the question in the first place. And that, as you wrote, is the very essence of Modern Orthodoxy.

18 comments:

  1. To an extent, though, that IS the halachic process; the Torah is given to our Sages, but our Sages can't impose something that the klal doesn't accept. Why are umbrellas muktzah on Shabbos but a folding chair isn't? They both use the same mechanism. They are both designed that way, and you could make an argument that either one is a "tent." However, the Nodah Beyehuda prohibited it in Prague, and people accepted it, so umbrellas are muktzah, even if there were equally prominent Rabbis who permitted it l'chatchila (ex: Chatam Sofer). You can prohibit potatoes on Peseach or Shabbos makeup or kol isha (or texting or an embedded Google Now corneal implant, if you want to be really forward-looking) but if the klal ignores you, it's hard to call it normative halacha.

    Where things are unique historically is that there are two klals; one which accepts stricter interpretations on just about all ritual observance and imposes social norms that are indistinguishable from halacha on top of that, and another that doesn't. The split is the thing I find most interesting here, not that the Rav of their community is machmir on kol isha but the residents all cheered the girl on TV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or Haym Soloveitchik's famous example of the minhag of eating fish on Shabbat. Why would an activity that might cause many many people to be over on borer become a central minhag of Shabbat?

      Delete
  2. > Every psak must be argued and debated and explained to the satisfaction of every individual?

    Well to be fair, yes. But then the individual who asked the original shailoh and has had his concerns answers must in turn accept that psak, not say "Well that's not what I think is right".

    Here's what I think the problem is: when Ravs Moshe and Shlomo Zalman, zt"l both, passed away the Chareidi leadership underwent a fundamental shift in optics. Until then the "Gedolim" were seen as poskim for everyone. Starting with the final years of the leadership of Rav Shach, zt"l, the "Gedolim" came to be seen more as the political leaders of the Chareidi community and this impression only got stronger when Rav Eliashiv, zt"l, took over. In short: when Rav Eliashiv said "X is assur" my response was "for Chareidim, he's not paskening for my community".
    As a result when Chareidi rabbonim now attempt to pasken in a way that is unacceptable to MO they can be rejected with the same line. Even if that psak is universal or based on the Shulchan Aruch. It's not right but it is the inevitable consequence of the current system.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am honored to be the topic of a post. However, it is distressing to see that my comment has been butchered and misunderstood. I invite anyone who believes in fairness to read the entire comment in the last thread, paying particular attention to what issues were addressed and which were ignored.

    Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address this post in detail. The main point I wanted to make is that it is important to identify a particular approach(not result) within Halacha that you identify with. That approach may lead you to kulas or chumras. Ol malachut Shamayim means that you have to follow Halacha, and it will not always cohere with modern or premodern sensibilities.

    The second point was that the details of the argument are important. How a posek reaches his psak is important, not just the psak itself. The underlying assumptions regarding science and society in the Talmud and Rishonim are important and have major impact on psak. Ignoring all this and focusing only on counting books is a disservice to our God given intellect. I share Rav Spolter's unhappiness with those the approach of searching for kulas without any regard for the underlying thinking and methodology. I agree that this is not a proper assumption of the burden of Heaven.



    ReplyDelete
  4. For more on the topic of "kula shopping" see here:

    http://why-aanot.blogspot.com/2010/02/more-on-kulah-shopping.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. " It articulates the view that if a behavior or value that's explicit in the Shulchan Aruch and later poskim - and it is explicit and cannot be denied - doesn't match with my view, I can choose to ignore that view and attach myself to the da'at yachid I do like and do agree with, labeling anything more radical than myself as "Chareidi"."

    I think you are stating a very simplistic and inaccurate view of the mo community that is typical from a yeshivish/chareidi hashkafa. you might be surprise if you read the SA from cover to cover how much we disregard and not follow (same can be said of the talmud as well). BTW, how could MO be MO with regards to women and co-education, advanced gemera, leadership positions in shuls and politics....(not to mention WTG as acceptable although controversial)? its an intuitive dance that has existed among orthodoxy and halacha by all including chareidim - its not simply a search for every kula (which mo is against).

    Lastly, the notion that one should follow every psak of r' bingman is also ludicrous - if i don't live in his community (only that i be consistent in women's issue perhaps). if i hold from rav moshe's stam chalav does that mean i cannot carry in parts of manhattan with its new (or recent) eruv? refuse aliyahs to non-religious jews? not do a bat mitzvah? there is much one can complain about mo and how its practice but its more nuanced and complex.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) you ocant pick and choose and shop for kulot, but you can pick and choose and go l'chumra always? I mean, the yeshivish people ignore R' Moshe's p'sakim that are meykal, and they are hailed as great honorbale frum people, but LO, if someone takes a kullah from this one or that one, they are horrible?

    2) this concern you and others have over what others are doing is neausiating. you want to follow some crazy, old fashioned strict form of halacha, be my guest, but what gives you the right to say if i dont follow your method, then i am doing it wrong!??!?

    you are worse than the charedim

    ReplyDelete
  7. A friend sent this piece, and this was my reply via email; realized perhaps worth posting here:

    It started very good - particularly regarding Kol Isha - but then I thought some of his points were weak. One can easily make the argument a bit differently (and certainly this is just as much the case in the Yeshivish/Charedi community). People tend to follow those piskei halacha which make sense to them and reject those which seem 'extreme' to them. Certainly people's biases impact this, but the argument that one must follow all the piskei halacha of a Rav (other than perhaps a Rav one chooses for himself as such) seems silly at best. There is a difference between "kula shopping" and seeking a svara that resonates. R' Moshe, as an example, did not always follow the same Rishonim; he picked those svaros which made the most sense to him from a Torah/Emes perspective. I don't see that following that approach individually is any worse [*so long as one is self-honest, and I would still recommend consulting with a Rav who knows oneself well on 'big' issues].

    I do think that an interesting issue of today is how one balances svara and historical knowledge, particularly now that as a people we have much greater access, with past minhagim/piskei halacha that m'svara don't really fly well - especially those where other major segments of frumkeit have a different approach. Examples like Kitniyos, 1 vs. 2 days, Gebrokts, etc. (and I don't mean to equate them) are on the forefront because of this inherent contradiction. From these more glaring examples which perhaps are appropriate to discuss, we start to see a self-permissive break regarding halacha in general - "well, someone says it's OK, and that kind of makes sense to me/I want to do that, so..." - that leads to a chaotic approach where everyone just decides for themselves on issues that are often not even m'svara, and obviously with little/no basis in halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It would be good to read or review Haym Soloveitchik's Rupture and Reconstruction. He addresses all of these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Rav was far from the only gadol in Europe who attended the opera. Much more "black" gedolim did too.

    R' Rakeffet (from the Gruss kollel, where I think you may have learned) has cited specific sources regarding this fact in his shiurim on numerous occasions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Harry,
    I don't make personal attacks on my blog - I am very careful about that. Moreover, I actually agree with the point that you made, so I'd ask that you resubmit the comments without getting personal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't recall making any personal attacks... but if you still have it in your moderation page, send it back to me in an e-mail at:

    hmaryles@yahoo.com

    ...and I'll modify it. IIRC what you may be referring to was what I thought as the angry tone of your post. If I am wrong and misread you, I apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ..."Another commenter wrote that the Rav attended the opera. Sorry, that's not a psak to me,"...

    Actually if I'm not mistaken, the Gemarah is full of halachos derived from observing a Tana or Amora doing or refraining from doing something.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sorry for the delay. I apologize for the way I worded my earlier comment. Its tone was indeed a bit hostile and it shouldn't have been. Here is the revised version of my original comment.

    Your definition of Modern Orthodoxy is not the definition I use. I believe that it is appropriate to distinguish between the wide variety of MOs that comprise MO as a whole... from the left to the right as well as what I call MO-lite.

    The MO community that I identify with is meticulous in following Halacha and Mesorah. And yes we do ask Shailos.

    I would add that there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking different Poskim to Paskin a Shaila for you. There is nothing in Halacha that requires you to always ask the same person every Shaila. As long as you don't go shopping for it after you get it you can ask any Posek you want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unless you "shop" for or just pick up every chumrah in the book...then you are praised and viewed as more frum !

      shkoyach

      Delete
  15. You write:

    >This brings me to another comment regarding kol isha related to >the Rav. Another commenter wrote that the Rav attended the >opera. Sorry, that's not a psak to me, and the fact that >individual rabbis allowed (or allow) individual people to attend >the opera also doesn't convince me.

    I think you are discussing two different things here. There is indeed, as you say, a concept in halacha that halacha can be quite flexible for individuals, and that there are piskei halacha for individuals that were never intended to be written in public. But this is not about certain individuals that the RYBS might have allowed to go to the opera, this is about RYBS himself attending the opera (assuming he did). There is a concept in halacha called ma'ase rav, and it carries very great weight. Indeed it is often *the* determining factor in how we rule from the gemora.

    And this particular case of ma'ase rav cannot be said to be one of halacha v'ain morein ken - ie something that is really the halacha, but we don't teach (because ignoramous's may misunderstand it) - because those are cases where the true halacha is carried out in private. It is hard to think of a more public occasion than going to the opera. Anyone who goes is seen there by hundreds and hundreds of people. So going to the opera would constitute a public demonstration of any rav's position halacha l'ma'ase - because not only does one think the halacha is so, but one acts on it, and one acts on it in public in front of everybody and anybody who might possibly misinterpret it. That is, if anything, an even stronger halachic statement than any teshuva.

    Now I do think this needs to be distinguished from the case of RBYS's wife. She did not necessarily ask, when she married him, to be the wife of a prominent Rav, with a high public profile, and to be held up as an example to all and sundry. Nor is she the one that people turned to for psak, or the one who would unquestionably know all the ramifications of the halachos of ma'ase rav, and how incumbent it is upon a known and public talmud chacham to behave in ways that do not create a chillul HaShem or lead the halacha to be misinterpreted. Therefore the phrase that is sometimes quoted in her name "my hair, my averah" would seem to be perfectly appropriate. She was a private individual who happened by association to be thrust into a public position. Thus I agree that I don't think you can learn anything out from her actions. The only thing that I think can safely be learnt out of her relationship with RYBS is that it is not incumbent upon a man married to a woman who does not cover her hair to divorce her - because that is what RYBS, by his ma'ase rav demonstrated.

    But that same cannot legitimately be said about him and his own very public actions. In taking on the level of authority and rabbonos that he did in the American community, he unquestionably put himself within the framework of the ma'ase rav doctrine, and therefore, if he did indeed go publically to the opera, that is a significant halachic statement. You may wrestle with it, and not understand it in the light of the various sources that you have learnt, but I do not think you can discount it as simply as you have done.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Another commenter wrote that the Rav attended the opera. Sorry, that's not a psak to me, and the fact that individual rabbis allowed (or allow) individual people to attend the opera also doesn't convince me.
    There's a concept in Jewish law of individuality, and not everything every rabbi tells an individual immediately becomes normative Jewish law. It's well-known that the Rav's wife did not cover her hair. Does that mean that the Rav also didn't believe in kisui rosh? Quote me a shiur, a written article, anything - where the Rav issued a psak allowing men to attend to opera. "

    There's a huge difference between something the Rav's wife does and something he does himself. There's a huge difference between allowing someone else to do something and doing it yourself. You claim that the Rav thought it was assur to go to the opera, yet he went *himself*?

    ReplyDelete

Comments transform a blog into a community. Please join.