No Longer Alone- Getting real with Hilchos Yichud

If the last few years have taught us anything, it is that it is way past due for us to have a conversation with our rabbis and daughters about yichud. While both groups might, to a greater or lesser extent, be familiar with the basic rules of yichud, recent events have shown that the conversation needs to expand.

For those who are unaware, the laws of yichud involve the Torah prohibition against men and women being secluded in situations that might lead to forbidden sexual interactions. The rabbis, at the end of Maseches Kiddushin, discuss these laws, and the situations to which they apply. Interestingly they don’t stop there. The gemara tells of certain strictures that particular rabbis took upon themselves in this area. At first glance, some of these cases sound very strange to modern ears, even beyond the general prohibition of yichud. Why would some of the greatest rabbis need to be extra careful about these laws?

There is a concept in the gemara that says that the greater the person, the greater is their evil inclination. While this concept is sometimes mentioned, it often seems that it is not taken seriously. Do great rabbis really have a stronger yetzer hara? From the gemara in Kiddushin, the answer seems to be yes.

Rav Yuval Cherlow, a well known Israeli rav, has taken it upon himself to only meet alone with women in public places. When challenged over the propriety of meeting a woman at a cafe, he is quick to point out that he is being careful and thus appropriate. Along these lines, I would suggest that we as a community need to be extra strict with hilchos yichud.

Our rabbis need to be told by their employers that under no circumstances, should they meet behind closed doors with a woman, unless there are windows that make the meeting visible from the outside. It is to be made clear that meeting should take place in public where it is clear to all that nothing inappropriate is going on. This will protect them from being situations where they might cross lines, or be accused of doing so. All schools and shuls need to adopt this as official policy.

We must make clear to our daughters that hilchos yichud applies to all men, including their rabbis, and that no matter how holy the rabbi seems, it is never okay for him to speak with her alone in a secluded area. We need to convey the sense that we will always support our daughters if they come to us about a situation that makes them uncomfortable, and that they should trust their intuition. In no uncertain terms, we should make clear that kevod harav never requires them to do something that makes them uncomfortable.

Both respect for rabbis, and our community in general, have taken a big hit over the last few years. It is time to start rebuilding that which has been destroyed.

A Case Study- Some thoughts on my interests in Torah

The other day, I commented to my wife how glad I was that the seforim on our shelves are being used so frequently. While this was perhaps, in some small measure, an attempt to justify my frustrating habit of not returning sefarim to the shelf and putting sefarim back in a fairly messy way, there was much more behind my comment. To me, it is sad to walk into a house and see from the sefarim that they are positioned in a way that suggests that they are hardly ever used. Essentially, I was saying that no one would ever make that mistake by looking at our shelves. Thinking about it a little more, that’s only half true. It depends upon which of our shelves one looks.

We have about 6 bookcases packed with sefarim in our living room, with three on one wall, and the other three on the adjoining wall. Along one wall, are the sefarim that deal with Tanach and machshava/philosophy. On the other shelves, are sefarim that deal with gemara and halacha. Of course, being that these sefarim are mine, it’s not quite that neatly divided, but I digress. The first set of shelves look as if they have been hit by a tornado. Sets are somewhat broken up, sefarim lay horizontally on top of other sefarim, and everything looks used. By contrast, the Shas and halacha shelves are, if not collecting dust, way too ordered and neat. It’s hard for me not to think about what this means.

For a long time, my learning interests tended to be talmudic and halachic, as were the shiurim I gave. I loved tracing a topic from its talmudic roots through modern day posekim. I would often pick up a SHU’T (Shailos and Teshuvos) to see how a modern posek dealt with a particular subject. All of that has changed. While I continue to be fully observant and enjoy hearing halacha shiurim when the chance comes up, that is not the area that draws my mind and heart. These days, I am more likely to pick up Rav Kook rather than Rav Moshe, the Moreh rather than the Mishnah Torah, and the Tzidkas HaTzaddik rather than the Mishnah Berura.

This was brought home to me last night when I posted a comment that contained a few sloppy mistakes about halacha. While it was by no means part of a serious Torah post, I couldn’t help but realize that I wouldn’t have made that same mistake five years ago. Whereas a number of friends took the opportunity to push me to return to a more balanced approach, I’m not yet ready to find the middle ground. For now I simply recognize that I traded one pole for its opposite. I know the middle exists, and I will one day find it, perhaps by looking at the interplay between the two poles, but for now, I am not yet ready.

Rising to the Occasion- How Technology has Changed the World of Psak

Talmud Torah, the study of Torah, is one of the most essential mitzvos in the Torah. Although we might think of the act of studying as one that has essentially not changed in thousands of years, this is not the case. For most people who lived before the invention of the printing press, as well as for a while after its invention, talmud Torah was usually done by listening. Other than in the libraries of those who were wealthy, few, if any, texts could be found in the Jewish home. In talmudic times, this even included the siddur. This meant that for the most part, expertise in any area of Torah was not possible for the laymen.

Even, when books became more available, few men and almost no women, were well versed in the Talmud, which, along with its commentaries, were the primary tools for deciding matters of Jewish law. When legal codes were published beginning with Rambam's “Mishneh Torah”, and especially with the Shulchan Aruch several centuries later, there were many rabbis who were bothered by these texts. They were concerned with the idea that people would use these texts to decide halachic matters on their own, without knowing the requisite information. Despite these protests, and the fact that these rabbis were not incorrect in their assumption, legal codes were here to stay.

In the past 15 years, another major change has occurred. Computer technology has made nearly all major works of Jewish law available to anyone who wants it. The Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, has made it possible for anyone to research even the most complex of topics. Once again, there are protests that laymen should not be deciding matters of Jewish law, without consulting with an expert. Are those who protest correct? Possibly, but it doesn't matter. Just as the Mishneh Torah and Shulchan Aruch thrived despite the protests against their use, the use of programs like the Bar-Ilan database will not disappear.

It is not possible to avoid change. Throughout our history, many of our biggest talmidei chachamim have been willing to deal with the challenges brought on by new circumstances. While to be sure, there were those who insisted on fighting the change, for the most part, they were unsuccessful. To pick one example, for all but the most dogmatic, no one believes that the world is less than 6,000 years old. However one reconciles the idea of it being the year 5774 according to the Jewish calendar, the idea of a much more ancient past is accepted.

To my mind, the advances in technology present a wonderful challenge to our rabbinic leaders. For many, even within the more insular communities, the days where the local rabbi decided halchic issues, and was, more or less accepted as the final word, are gone. It is no longer enough for a rabbi to posken. He must make a case for why his understanding is correct. Of course, part of this case involves explaining the sources and the thought process that led to the particular decision. It also involves something else. In order for a psak to be accepted, the posek needs to make his case in a way that resonates with those within his community, be it local or global. Part of this case is living, acting and speaking in a manner that combines scholarship, piety and compassion. Additionally, it must be clear that the psak shows an understanding of the realia of the case, as well as the community who is being addressed. To be sure, there will be those who will insist that nothing but scholarship should matter. Even if that once was the case, and I suspect that it was not, things have changed. Once again, great talmidei chachamim are rising to the challenge and will continue to do so.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

The Individuality of Spiritual Heroism- A response to David Benkof's article

David Benkof has written a very powerful article on Times of Israel. In it, he discusses his experience as a gay man, and his attempt to live a celibate life. I, along with many others, are impressed by his candor, and willingness to share something so personal. His desire to live a religious life, and thus, be “koveish es yitzro”, is nothing short of heroic. This article will, no doubt, be part of the conversation about Orthodoxy and how it deals with homosexuality. That said, I am worried about how this article might be used.

Benkof is very open about his personal life, including his lack of celibacy before he became Orthodox. This alone means that he is not dealing with the same challenge as an Orthodox homosexual who has grown up as an observant Jew. While Benkof's is a great challenge, it can not be denied that it falls short of what is asked of a homosexual man who is not a Ba'al Teshuva. As such, while his story can serve as an inspiration to any Orthodox homosexual who seeks to live a fully observant life, indeed to any Orthodox Jew who seeks to live a fully observant life, it should be read, as the author wishes it to be read, as a personal account of dealing with a challenge, and not as a message of “If I can be successful, anyone can be successful”.

There is a greater concern, which follows upon my first point. I fear that this article will be used by those who suggest that homosexuals can be celibate as a way of criticizing and attacking those who are not. Even if Benkof was a FFB, and had been celibate his whole life, that would not mean that every homosexual man could pass that test, something with which I believe he would agree. If so, what is the message that could apply to any such man, and to all of us who struggle in the inherent battle to channel and/or overcome our Yetzer HaRa?

I would suggest that an aanswer, if not the answer, can be found in the “Michtav MiEliyahu” by by Rav Eliyahu Dessler ZT”L. In an incredibly psychologically profound essay, Rav Dessler discussed the limitations of free will. Although we like to think that we can choose to do anything we want, or refrain from doing so, he suggests our choices are more limited. There are certain sins with which each of us do not struggle. Although I struggle at times to control my anger, I have never been tempted to murder someone who was the object of my anger. Conversely, which I admire the saintliness of the Chofetz Chaim ZT”L, I do not believe that I could completely stop speaking Loshon HaRa at this point in my life. Rav Dessler terms the middle area between the areas that are out of our control, as the “Nekudas HaBechira”, the point at which we can choose to exercise free will. It varies for each person, and it varies throughout a person's life.

We all have spiritual challenges with which we struggle. My test is not your test, and yours is not mine. What might be easy for one person to overcome, takes tremendous heroic restraint for another person to overcome. While there are objective actions which are halachically forbidden, each of us deals with, and responds to those prohibitions with varying levels of success. For those of us who might feel that we have easier tests to overcome, it behooves us to not be smug and tell others with tougher tests how they must think and behave. Benkof, in writing a first person narrative, has avoided telling homosexual men how to to deal with their challenges. It behooves the rest of us to follow his lead.

Post by Pesach Sommer.

Missing the Forest for the Trees- A new approach to teaching halacha

“Why don't we just sleep for 25 hours, so we don't do any melacha?”, my student said sarcastically. As much as I might have wished for her to have expressed her frustration with Hilchos Shabbos in a different way, she was not the only frustrated by the school mandated halacha curriculum. I disliked having to teach halacha that way. Although there was a small attempt to get into the ideas behind the halachos, in my estimation, it was far from enough. What follows is an attempt to suggest a better approach to teaching halacha to high school students.

When I was in the Aish HaTorah Kollel, I first heard about the Sheish Mitzvos Timidiyos (the six constant commandments), from Rav Noach Weinberg zt”l. The SMT, which as far as I know, was first discussed by the Sefer HaChinuch, are six mitzvos which have some sort of “constancy” that the other 607 mitzvohs do not. The six mitzvos on the list are:

1. Anochi HaShem Elokecha- I am HaShem your God (It is beyond the scope of the current discussion to discuss whether it is a mitzvah and what the mitzvah might be)
2. Lo Yihiyeh lecha elohim acheirm al pa'nai- do not serve other powers
3. Shema Yisrael- God is one in every sense of the term
4. V'ahavta- Loving god
5. Es HaShem Elokecha tir'eh (Is this the correct citation?)- Fear/Awe of God
6. Lo sasuru- Do not stray after forbidden desires

The way I understand the “constancy” of these six mitzvos, is that while the other 607 are not obligatory at every moment of life, these six mitzvos are always to be observed. I never thought to question why, or to draw any further conclusions. Recently, my friend Yehoshua Hershberg shared an explanation that blew me away. I am hesitant to bring the context, as the topic is one which could sidetrack the idea, but I do think the context is too important to leave out. Other than direct quotes, the ideas in this essay are only my own, and any mistakes should be attributed to me, and not to Yehoshua.

His comments came up in a discussion which involved a discussion about the push, by some men and women, for women to have more options in performing mitzvos from which they are not halachically obligated, and which have, for the most part, if not entirely, traditionally been performed only by men. Yehoshua made six points, five of which are relevant to this discussion, which are quoted verbatim:

1. Women and men will never be ritually equal in halachic Judaism
   2. The natural thrust of feminism, the philosophy influencing all this, is to drive towards complete equality
   3. Feminism and improvements in women's education have created a situation where many orthodox women want to be more involved in Judaism and want to be "closer to God" (author's note- the quotation marks are there, only because he is quoting from something that was said, not as a way of disparaging this desire), etc.
   4. The general philosophy of most rishonim is that the way to be close to God is through the emotional/intellectual mitzvos, of which men AND women are equal in their obligation.
   5. I would advise that, in general, for men and women, (4) should be an important educational message (without underwriting the ritual mitzvos).

While one might quibble with the second point and suggest that there are various approached to halachic feminism, I do not wish to get distracted by that point. Additionally, while one can discuss what the mitzvah or mitzvohs will be at which the line will be drawn, despite any halachic attempt to being inclusive, I tend to agree that full ritual equality is an impossibility.

Yehoshua went on to elaborate on his fifth point, and tie it in to the SMT. He suggested that these six mitzvos are singled out due to being qualitatively different from the other mitzvos. While the other commandments are means to an end, the SMT are the end to which the other 607 mitzvohs point. I have my thoughts on why no bein adam l'chaveiro mitzvos (commandments between person and person) are on the list, but I will not share them here. Thus, while the halachic system does not have full ritual equality with those 607, both men and women are obligated in mitzvos which fall into each of those six categories, and thus, are equal in terms of the ultimate goal of mitzvah performance.

Whether or not one accepts these implications as a way of, at least partially, dealing with the halachic/hashkafic analysis of the desire for women to have more ritual opportunities, I wish to take his fifth statement at face value and deal with the implications for general Torah education for both men and women.

One of the subjects that is most difficult for teachers in Jewish schools to teach is halacha. Besides the challenge of not making it dry and boring (which can be overcome), getting students to see mitzvah observance as a means and not as an end to itself is a big challenge. Furthermore, even if we can inculcate the message that mitzvah observance is only a means, the end is often misunderstood as being some version of “mitzvah points”, and/or Olam Haba and other types of reward. Yehoshua's approach would allow for a paradigm shift. Whether we are to take Rambam's approach and suggest that the mitzvos are a means to achieving Y'dias HaShem (knowledge of God), or Crescas's approach that the goal is Ahavas HaShem (love of God) each mitzvah would be taught within a framework that treats it as a means to one of these goals through the prism of the Sheish Mitzvos Timidiyos. This would, of course, have to include an emphasis on ta'amei HaMitzvos (possible reasons for the commandments), with a strong preference on various approaches, both rational (Rambam and Chinuch etc.) as well as spiritual/mystical (rav Kook, chassidus etc.).

It is my contention that such an approach could complete change the way we view mitzvah observance, how we teach it, and, most importantly, how we live it.

Post by Pesach Sommer.