Changing the Halakha

Judaism, Fall, 2001 by Irvin Brandwein

One hundred years ago the orthodox Rabbinate of Bombay, India (Baghdadi) approved and endorsed train travel on Sabbaths and Holy Days for their Jewish community. A train ticket which clearly reads: "The Municipality of Bombay-Coupon for Jews only. Available on tram services. For use on Saturdays and Jewish Holidays"-with Rabbinic approval!-can be seen in the Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 8 page 1353.

Pre-modern orthodox, Codes of Jewish Law report the following ruling: "Akkum hamennagen bekellay shir afilu Israel yomar lo la'asotto b'shabbat," granting explicit permission for Jews to engage non-Jews to provide live, instrumental music on the Sabbath. (3) Elsewhere, I have connected this ruling with the rabbinic reference to "mishteh neginnatam," in the nuptial blessings. The late Professor Boaz Cohen reported: "a group of liberal scholars in thirteenth-century Provence permitted the playing of all kinds of stringed instruments (Arabic "oud" = French "Le' oud" = English "lute") on the Sabbath." (4)

Jews living in Jerusalem during the first half of the twentieth century attended, en masse, sports stadiums for soccer games and restaurants for hot meals on the Sabbath with the approval of the orthodox Rabbinate. Obviously, they paid in advance.

In the Shulhan Arukh, the Code of Jewish Law-universally acknowledged as the supreme and ultimate authority in all of Halakha-R. Joseph Caro (b.1488), author of the Code, ruled: "Kol hatemayyim afilu niddot mutarrim le'ehoz b'sefer torah" (Y.D. 282:9) . . . all impure individuals even any women are permitted to hold the scroll of the Torah and to read from it (publicly). The final clause "Veliqrot bo" always means to read liturgically with trope and publicly as part of worship services. In the entire body of halakhic literature vast and oceanic though it is, this ruling of R. Caro stands completely uncontested for centuries! Despite the fact that the first Chief Rabbi (Sephardic) of the State of Israel permitted women to vote and to hold public office, one still notices how some leaders insist on prohibiting Jewish women, in the name of Halakha, from even addressing the public gathered (not in synagogue) at the wedding and bar mitzvah receptions of their own children and grandchildren! (5)

The painstaking research of Professor S. D. Goitein brought to light evidence from the Cairo geniza regarding the status, functions, and power exercised by Jewish women in Medieval Mediterranean society which is even more astonishing. Lest we consider these examples to be more alleged cases of the supposed Sephardic penchant for halakhic leniency, mention must be made of the responsa of Rabbis Meir of Rothenberg (b. 1215-Responsa #108) and Rashi (b. 1040) (Ellenbogen ed. Responsa#68) which clearly permit extensive female participation in public Jewish worship.

Kashruth

A sign recently posted in a Montreal supermarket read: "OUR SOUP IS PARVEH: MAY NOT BE EATEN WITH DAIRY." The sign bore a seal indicating a local Kashruth supervisory authority. The confusion caused by such pronouncements cannot be measured. For centuries, were we not all taught that PARVEH is a neutral category of food, which may be eaten with anything? (e.g., vegetables, eggs, fish, milk or meat). Why is it now a source of confusion and a subject of new stringencies? The mere fact that the term itself (PARVEH) is so linguistically problematic (various scholars have posited Latin, Greek, Czech, Slavonic, Yiddish, and even Hebrew as possible origins for this obscure word), and that neither the category nor the term seem to appear in any of the major codes of Jewish Law, renders its status questionable. Why have Kashruth authorities only recently introduced new changes to this time-honored practice? The very recent introduction of "Glatt" Kosher (Kashruth is thousands of years old) as a new category and standa rd for Jewish food further confuses all boundaries.