Guest Contribution by Elliot Resnick
 |
| Who would sit on today's Sanhedrin? (Algemeiner) |
Elliot Resnick is a writer and editor for The Jewish Press, as well as the author of “Movers and Shakers: Sixty Prominent Personalities Speak Their Mind on Tape” (...in which I was honored to be included) and the editor of “Perfection: The Torah Ideal.” As always the views expressed in this post do not necessarily reflect my own. His words follow.
Was halacha more flexible in ancient times? Some Jewish intellectuals – even those who
identify as Orthodox – claim it was. They
argue that our ancient chachamim made bold reforms to Judaism in response to
changing times, and we should as well.
I disagree. Even if
these thinkers are right that halacha was less rigid in ancient times, radically
amending halacha in the 21st century would be a disaster in my opinion. Here’s why:
To make major sweeping changes to Judaism without fracturing
the Orthodox Jewish community, we would need a central rabbinic body – something
akin to the ancient Sanhedrin. Unfortunately,
though, a contemporary rabbinic body of this nature would almost assuredly be
politicized. It would be widely suspected
of deciding controversial issues – not based on halacha – but on the extent to
which it accepts or rejects the modern liberal agenda. It would resemble America’s Supreme Court,
which half the country routinely accuses either of obscurantism or dishonestly interpreting
the
Constitution in an effort to be politically correct. Do we really wish to introduce this state of
affairs into our community?
Some would argue that cynicism towards, and disrespect of, poskim
already plague Orthodox society. To some
extent, that’s true. But when Rabbi X
gives a liberal psak, or Rabbi Y gives a conservative psak, he can be ignored –
even dismissed – by those who dislike his worldview without harm to the
reputation of halacha. Not so a modern-day
Sanhedrin.
A Sanhedrin cannot be ignored
any more than America’s Supreme Court can be ignored. Orthodox Jews would be forced to follow its
verdicts no matter how politically-driven they suspected them to be. As a result, bitter resentment towards this
rabbinic body would quickly develop and respect for halacha as G-d’s divine
will would decline.
Amending halacha nowadays, though, is problematic for
another more basic reason. Even if one
assumes that Chazal routinely reformed halacha, their changes arguably flowed
organically from the Torah itself; they weren’t enacted in response to values
external and alien to the Torah. In
other words, the changes generally came from within, not from without. And when they did indeed come from without, the
external ideas to which our ancient chachamim responded were ideologically parve
in nature.
The same cannot be said of the ideas influencing those who
wish to change halacha today. These
ideas are rooted in the cultural revolution of the 1960s, which consciously
cast off the “shackles” of G-d and religion. The sad fact is that modern-day liberalism is not
yesteryear’s liberalism. Movements like abolitionism
and the fight for women’s suffrage never attacked religion as “the enemy.”
If anything, the opposite is true. Modern-day liberalism, however, routinely does,
evincing an almost instinctive disgust of religious tradition. It believes G-d a pernicious delusion,
traditional marriage homophobic, Judeo-Christian sexual morality repressive,
and the belief that men and women should play different roles in society nothing
less than bigotry and oppression of the highest order.
That is why winning hearts and minds is not enough for
liberals. They are determined to crush
the opposition. People who disagree with
them are not merely wrong. They are
racist, bigoted, xenophobic, misogynistic, and homophobic. Thus, a private Christian baker, for example,
must be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Mordechai must publicly bow before
Haman. Anything less is unacceptable.
Liberal Orthodox Jews are fond of quoting Rav Avraham
Yitzchak Kook’s comment that yirat shamayim should elevate, not supplant,
natural human morality. That might be
true, but I doubt Rav Kook had in mind the “natural” morality of activists who
consciously aim to expunge G-d and tradition as standards of behavior in
society.
To this “natural morality,”
Judaism must take a firm stand. Even if halacha
may evolve at times, it can never do so to accommodate ideas and worldviews conceived
in rebellion to divine values. In the
face of such ideas, we shouldn’t feel defensive or apologetic. We should rather walk in the footsteps of the
ancient Chashmonaim, proclaim, “Mi laShem eilai,” and not cede an inch.
