Rav Chaim Kanievsky |
Someone sent me a link to a story on Yeshiva World News. It was
about R’Chaim Kaneievsky’s Kuntres - published notes on dealing with a Choson and Kallah – a groom and a bride.
One of the more salient points he made is that when seeking a bride - the seminary she attended is not important. It is far more important that she follow the Hashkafa of her husband… even if it differed from the Hashkaka of her home.
One of the more salient points he made is that when seeking a bride - the seminary she attended is not important. It is far more important that she follow the Hashkafa of her husband… even if it differed from the Hashkaka of her home.
It is always a good idea that the husband and wife be on the
same page Hashkaficly. For me, it is immaterial whose Hashkfa is followed – or whether
there is some sort of melding of the two. The important thing is to be on the
same page when raising children. Serious differences in Hashkafa can create
hyper arguments to the point of dysfunction. Which can easily undermine a child’s
observance and emotional welfare.
Another point he made was that it doesn’t really matter
whether the parents were on board with his or her marriage choice. Their disapproval
does not mean that they were not Bashert (intended for each other).
While I agree in theory, in practice if the parents do not approve of the
marriage, that is a prescription for trouble down the road. I have seen too
many marriages destroyed when one or both sets of parents are constantly meddling - bashing their child’s mate.
But somewhat more surprising was his advice that a father in
law should not speak to the Kallah at all except when absolutely necessary,
other than offering a typical greeting like ‘Good Shabbos’ or ‘How are you’. My
correspondent made the following observation about this:
(T)his is ridiculous and an example of gender separation taken to its absurd conclusion. While some will stipulate that this was not meant as Halacha Lemaaseh, (practical law) the tendency for hero worship of Torah luminaries, will invariably be followed by some at least to some extent.
I too have to wonder whether this takes gender separation
too far. I cannot imagine what it would be like to never have spoken to my daughter
in law prior to her marrying my son. Or my daughters never to have spoken to
their fathers in law prior to their marriage.
That said, the great Poskim of the world certainly have the
right to see things in their own way. But to make blanket statements about the
propriety of such an interaction when it is clearly not mainstream Halacha
(which R’Kanievsky admitted to in a disclaimer prefacing his Kuntres) is
to add further Chumros to the lives of people even outside of his own community
in Bnei Brak. Because as my correspondent indicated, it will invariably be followed by some at
least to some extent.
One of the characteristics of the Charedi world is that many
among them will follow the customs or suggestions of the people they see as
great leaders. It would not therefore surprise me that at some point in the not
too distant future, this becomes the norm and quite mainstream among Charedim.
It would not be the first time in this has happened. For example it used
to be the norm for a Kallah to come over to the men’s side of the dance floor
during the wedding, sit next to her new husband and watch the men dance.
This has becomes far less frequent in recent years. Why? Because it’ s Frummer
for a woman not to go where the men are. What about the Mitzvah of dancing in
front of the Kallah? Small sacrifice for the increased Fumkeit they now
embrace.
Now Charedim can obviously do as they please. If they feel
that taking upon themselves this new Chumra will somehow advance their Avodas
HaShem, God bless them. They have that right. Except that it creates yet
another Frumkeit target goal for the rest of the world to achieve. A Fumkeit that already
has incorporated many other Chumors that are unreasonable in the greater
Orthodox world. It will become yet
another cog in the wheel of Frumkeit that already has too many cogs. Like the
one (besides the above-mentioned one) that refuses to publish a picture of even the most modestly dressed woman. Why? Because it
may cause a temptation in men to sin.
As in all things there has to be common sense at play. In
this case common sense depends on the kind of society in which we live. If one
segment of Orthodoxy is extremely sensitive to the sight of a woman, that does
not mean it should become the standard for the rest of us. That a particular segment
is so sensitive can easily be based on how isolated they choose to be from the
rest of world. They may live in a closed society where men and women rarely see
each other in public. Whereas the rest of us live in an integrated world where men
and women are frequently in the same place at the same time. Whether in a job, in public transportation, or in the market
place.
If one is on constant contact with members of the opposite
sex, it would be absurd to tell a father in law to refrain from talking to a future
daughter in law for reasons of modesty. And yet it would not surprise me if
this kind of thing catches on by those whose eyes are always chasing Frumkeit by looking eastward for religious guidance.
It is in effect why certain
publications that will not publish pictures of women. Publishers look to their
right and see it as the Frum thing to do, despite the fact that they see women
on the job every day of the work week. Not to mention walking in an American
street where women walk around in all manner of undress in the summer. And where
one finds billboards filled with ads featuring women in suggestive poses
wearing very immodest clothing.
It boggles the mind to see how they can justify not
publishing a picture of a modestly dressed woman so as not to entice their male
readers who see much worse every day. And yet that has become the new standard for
the right.
New York and Chicago are not Bnei Brak. You are going to encounter
women - both real and in images - that are not dressed modestly all over the
place. You are going to be in social or business situations where you will have
to speak with women that sometimes look like that.
It seems almost hypocritical for someone to say he will not
look at a picture of a modestly dressed woman in a magazine when he encounters immodestly
dressed woman every day just by walking in the street! And it is just ridiculous for someone to not
talk to his future daughter in law when conversations with women take place all
the time and are a natural part of living in America.
I am therefore disappointed with this Kuntres. Even if R’
Kanievsky only intended it for his own community. Because we all know
that such things don’t stop there but
spread to the rest of the world in the never ending chase for Frumkeit.