Berakhot 066

Reuven's question is: What age was there, if any, when halakhah was the standard, and how do we know this for a fact? If there ever was such an age, it would be interesting to look in detail at what the halakhah le-ma'aseh was then, and compare it to present times.

I respond:

Historically speaking, I'm not sure that there ever was an age in which halakhah was the national standard. Even during the heyday of the second Bet Mikdash it was not the sages who were in political control but Jews of other persuasions – Sadducees, Hasmoneans. And yesterday I mentioned the self-imposed dichotomy between the Ĥaver and the Am ha-Aretz that was effective during the Talmudic period. But surely there were periods and places where our halakhic tradition was the all-pervading life-style of the masses. What about East-European Jewry during the 17th and 18th centuries CE? Would they qualify?

In the explanations for Mishnah Five I had written: Such existent rabbinic legislation can only be abrogated by a Bet Din that is greater than the innovating Bet Din in number and halakhic standing. Can such a Bet Din exist today?

Art Kamlet writes:

Amazing coincidence! I thought the reason Tefillin are not worn on Chol ha-Mo'ed (for those who do not wear them) is because of a very modern-day rabbinical decree, "greater in status …." Or is there a different reason?

I respond:

Tefillin are not worn during ĥol ha-mo-ed as a sign that these days are not completely mundane: the only work that is permitted is such that if ignored would incur a considerable financial loss or work that cannot be done at any other time [davar ha-aved]. It is a fact also that there are specific mitzvot connected with these days (Matzah and Sukkah). The Sefardi Rabbi Yosef Karo in his Shulĥan Arukh [Oraĥ Ĥayyim 31:2] states categorically that it is forbidden to wear Tefillin on ĥol ha-mo-ed. The gloss there by the Ashkenazi Rabbi Moshe Isserles notes that it is the custom in "these areas" to wear Tefillin until before Hallel. In the State of Israel the general custom is not to wear Tefillin on these days. It is all a matter of custom, and I know of no "rabbinical decree" in this regard.

Yesterday I wrote: However, there is no doubt that at certain stages in our religious development the sexual act was looked upon as something "degrading"… In view of the almost rabidly permissive and, in my opinion, degrading attitude to sex that may be observed in our modern society in general, perhaps we should re-emphasize these more reserved attitudes as a temporary corrective.

Meredith Warshaw writes in this connection:

I am bothered by the connection you are made here. I agree that we should emphasize more reserved attitudes towards sex. However, I think that doing so by returning to viewing the sex act as degrading would be unhealthy and counter-productive. It seems to me that the attitude toward sex is one place (of many) where Jewish religious views are clearly much more positive than those of Christianity – that is, viewing sex as a beautiful and positive way of bringing spouses closer together, rather than as something sinful. Wouldn't a more Jewish way of countering the over-permissive attitudes in our society be to emphasize the specialness of sex as part of the marital relationship? That sex is a gift from God and therefore cannot be inherently degrading, but becomes degrading when misused by being engaged in casually, purely for one's own physical pleasure, without concern and love for the other person involved.

I respond:

My suggestion of yesterday most certainly was not intended to suggest a return to "viewing the sex act as degrading", and I agree wholeheartedly with Meredith that to do so would be "unhealthy and counter-productive". I also agree with Meredith that it would be beneficial "to emphasize the specialness of sex as part of the marital relationship". This just leaves the question of "how?" My instincts tell me that the "more Jewish way" of instilling values and mores is not by ideology but by custom and behaviour-patterns: traditionally, the ideology emerges from the actions, rather than informing them. Would a (long overdue) upgrading of mikveh in popular consciousness – and the ideology that emerges therefrom – have anything positive to contribute here?