Thursday, August 12, 2010

Make sure to check my Tefillin

In a conversation the other day, someone used me as grounds for permitting a certain leniency, extrapolating from another practice I had once permitted.

This was a significant mistake, for two reasons:

First: I had specific halachic guidance, unique to that situation, from a respected authority. The talmudic rule of אין מדמין מילתא למילתא, that we do not extrapolate from one case to another, applies here.

And second, and the focus of this post: Practices and rulings, whether lenient or stringent, are not automatically enshrined as law.

Unfortunately, people often cite precedent unquestioningly. Every shul rabbi knows the Precedent Conversation:
Rabbi: I think we should change shul policy, to do X [such as have the chazan wear a talis/jacket; daven at plag on Friday night; have youth leaders daven hashkamah before running their youth groups].
President/Gabbai/Board/Membership: Rabbi Predecessor didn’t require this. Wasn’t he frum enough?

And so do teenagers learning in yeshiva:
Teen: I don’t feel comfortable doing that [eating in Restaurant X; going to a movie; kissing her uncle] anymore.
Parent: It was good enough for your parents/grandparents, it’s good enough for you.

But argument from tradition is not necessarily valid. I am familiar with the argument that Judaism was classically passed down memetically, by imitation of the previous generation’s behavior, but (1) This thesis is not universally correct, and (2) Saying that general current practice is based on general past practice does not mean that all past practices are carried forward. Respect is our predecessors’ just due, but questioning is warranted.

There are poskim, legal authorities, whose word ought to be automatic law by dint of their proven knowledge, clarity and analysis; their maturity and gravitas; and their apprenticeship to other such authorities. But even then, such guaranteed authority is granted to their explicit rulings, not to vague stories which are open to interpretation.

To return to my opening point, then:

When I move on from this world and my tefillin go to someone else to use, I hope his rabbi will have them checked, and not simply say, “Those were Torczyner’s tefillin, they should be fine.”

When I eat a certain product, I hope that someone who sees me will ask about the hechsher and not assume that I must have done so.

And when someone finds out that I permitted X, I hope he’ll stop and ask, “But does that mean I should do the same?”

9 comments:

  1. Nice post.

    The balance between "The way we've always done it" (AKA "Minhag HaMakom") and the way reccommended by halacha is a tough call.

    (Although the examples you give all seem to have strong halachic basis for changing from the way things were done in earlier years).

    Do you ever encounter the opposite - that the Rabbi recommends being more lenient on an issue and the congregation objects, because that's not the way the pevious rabbi (or Grandfather) did it

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think the checking of Tefilin is a good example. Regardless of who made the Tefilin the fact is that a frequently used product made from animals that undergoes semi-frequent temperature changes will inevitable degrade. That is not a matter of how frum the owner is, but a matter of physics and chemistry.

    On a more general note, what is the point of Sha'alot V'teshuvot if we aren't supposed to extrapolate from them? Yes, they are Torah, but if one is going to study Halacha L'ma'aseh it seems he should stick with specific Halachic books on the subject. However, I have seen those types of books cite SH'UT for the purposes of establishing the basic Halacha.

    When it comes to asking about the products you eat, at what point does clarification become Chutzpah? Unless I see that a Rav is doing something that appears highly unconventional (like eating Triangle-K products) why shouldn't I assume that you know what you are doing?

    There appears to be another, perhaps better, reason for not relying on precedent. How often are the practices in a shul actually in violation of Halacha, but not challanged due to the Rabbi (and previous Rabbis) choosing to avoid battles they feel they cannot win in order to preserve their already tenuous authority? For example, the Young Israel shuls in the early 20th century were known to tolerate or encourage mixed dancing. That does not mean the Rabbis running Young Israel shuls approved of it. They may have figured that if they protested this practice they would be ignored in more important matters.

    (On a more personal note, I was among the many Yeshiva students who had conflicts with my parents based on what we were taught in Yeshiva. Something I have noticed is that while Yeshivas may do a good job of explaining the practical aspects of Halacha from an ideal perspective they don't explain what is allowed to preserve peace at home. I feel that many of the fights come not from the students being chutzpatic but from ignorance due to not knowing what Kuladic shitas are around. For example, in Yeshiva we were taught that it is forbidden to brush our teeth on Shabbath. They never mentioned that the Rav allowed it. Similarly, we were taught that opening soda bottle caps is absolutely forbidden, but we were never taught that there are opinions who hold that it is permissible.

    In an ideal world the yeshiva student will be able to ask his Rav what he should do. However, the situations often come up without notice. The damage is usually done before a Rav can be consulted because the parents for various reasons do not believe the kids enough to even want to ask a Rabbi.

    I mention this here in this context because there are teachers in this forum. I hope that the right people can explain to the right people why it is better to cover such topics in more detail than to cover more ground and create more needless machlokes.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think the checking of Tefilin is a good example. Regardless of who made the Tefilin the fact is that a frequently used product made from animals that undergoes semi-frequent temperature changes will inevitable degrade. That is not a matter of how frum the owner is, but a matter of physics and chemistry.

    On a more general note, what is the point of Sha'alot V'teshuvot if we aren't supposed to extrapolate from them? Yes, they are Torah, but if one is going to study Halacha L'ma'aseh it seems he should stick with specific Halachic books on the subject. However, I have seen those types of books cite SH'UT for the purposes of establishing the basic Halacha.

    When it comes to asking about the products you eat, at what point does clarification become Chutzpah? Unless I see that a Rav is doing something that appears highly unconventional (like eating Triangle-K products) why shouldn't I assume that you know what you are doing?

    There appears to be another, perhaps better, reason for not relying on precedent. How often are the practices in a shul actually in violation of Halacha, but not challanged due to the Rabbi (and previous Rabbis) choosing to avoid battles they feel they cannot win in order to preserve their already tenuous authority? For example, the Young Israel shuls in the early 20th century were known to tolerate or encourage mixed dancing. That does not mean the Rabbis running Young Israel shuls approved of it. They may have figured that if they protested this practice they would be ignored in more important matters.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anon,

    Not sure which Yeshivot you studied in, but from your description it sounds like the failed to educate students properly.

    The Yesshiva that I attended had many students who were either Ba'al Tshuva, or were more careful in mitzvot than their parents, and the Yeshiva emphasized many times that for Shalom Bayit you shoudl always look for lenient opinions, even a Da'as Yachid.

    There was a Rav who made a point of sitting individually with Ba'al Tshiva studenst who were going back to live with their parents to discuss potential Halachic problems that they may encounter and to look for solutions that would not compromize Halacha or Shalom Bayit.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This post deserves a book but let me nit pick one point and provide one point:
    1.Tfillin is not imho a great example -it's a "chiddush" in itself that if you buy it from a reputable sofer (and there are no unusual circumstances that call into question the kashrut-e.g. you left them in Mcarthur's park in the rain), you need never check them; yet if the owner was niftar, the same tfillin need to be checked before the next user.

    2. Someone I know is an anav who can't imagine why anyone would care what his personal practices were (not a shul rabbi or even a rabbi, just a sincere pashut yid), his rabbi had to give him mussar about perceptions of his personal practices because people assumed if he did it it was OK without necessarily thinking about any "extenuating" circumstances. It goes with the territory.

    KT
    Joel RIch

    ReplyDelete
  6. Michael-
    Thanks. I have encountered the opposite, but it's certainly much less prevalent than the argument for leniency.

    Anonymous 5:50 AM-
    Tefillin - True, but I am talking about the assumption that they must have been purchased from a good source and taken care of properly.
    Teshuvos - Notable poskim specifically wrote that their teshuvos should be used as a basis for talmud torah rather than psak. Rav Moshe was against publication of his teshuvos for a long time, because of this concern.
    Chutzpah - Agreed; this is not simple. But, yes, I meant the unconventional case.
    Rabbis do not necessarily approve - Agreed 100%.
    Yeshivot - I think they are getting better at informing of shalom bayis issues [and as a lechatchilah], at least from my anecdotal experience.

    Joel-
    Tefillin - See my reply to Anonymous above.
    Anav - Yes, exactly what I'm discussing here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael,

    The yeshivot I went to did not cater to Ba'alei Teshuvah, though they were in no way discouraged. I am referring to the phenomena of "frumming out" when a post-high school bochur comes back from Israel with an "attitude", though this is by no means excludes those in US Yeshiva high schools. Other parents see this and think twice about sending their kids to Israel or a school like YU or Touro.

    The advice to look for a Da'as Yachid is good but it requires that one be taught those opinions, at least those one can possibly hold by.

    Something else I saw lacking is an explanation on the consequences of violations. For example, one may not prepare for the 2nd Seder on the first day of Pesach. A bocher who learned this comes home and sees this happening anyway. Can he participate in the seder? Bochrim need to guidance when to make issues of such things.

    I specifically asked for guidance, but only got sympathy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The question of passing on mimetic tradition vs. text tradition is an interesting one, and I agree that some observers overemphasize the power of the mimetic tradition in the past - even then, rabbis opposed certain popular practices. But are all the examples you gave of equal value? Let's take the plag issue - I recall a major Rav at YU telling me that he specifically telling me that he attends the minchah-kabbolas Shabbos minyan in the main Beis in order to show that minhag kadmon to daven minchah on erev Shabbos after plag is legitimate. This would be despite the possibility that rabbis expressed discomfort with the problematic practice - even hundreds of years ago. I think the major difference is that in the past, rabbonim were more hesitant to override minhag, even if it was a problematic one, because minhag itself represents an authentic "text" - not all of Torah is included in Bavli. Take the famous debate between the Rama and Mechabber over what to do a about a problematic food mixture: that says that Ashkenazim don't have a non-Jew taste it, despite the fact that the Gemara implies that he should taste it, because no community in Ashkenaz did so. This minhag for him represents an authentic tradition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just to clarify, one is not required to check tefillin that are inherited from someone who has passed on. However, the custom is to do so.
    Furthermore, the claim that it is a chiddush that one need to check tefillin is not such a chiddush afterall. The chazaka that the tefillin are kosher if bought from a reliable source and properly cared for is true but it only applies to the parshios. The batim and straps require a visual inspection on ocassion by anyone who is familiar with the halachos of batim and retzuos (excludes most of us). Furthermore the chazaka doesn't mean that the halachic status of the tefillin hasn't changed - meaning that mehudar parshios will remain so and hence, one who wants to fulfill the mitzvah at the level of the parshios were at when he purchased them should check them every number of years. It is not uncommon for tagim and oktzim to fade, affecting the LEVEL of kashrus.
    Finally, while it is true that decent quality or better parshios are found to be passul, I can't tell you how often I've found the level of kashrus of the parshios was not what the tefillin owner thought it would be (based on what he was told or based on the price) due to the sofer and/or original or previous examiner(s) overlooking something that could have been corrected with relative ease.
    My book, Tefillin and Mezuzos, published by Targum Press, is highly recommended for anyone who wears or will purchase STAM.

    ReplyDelete