One of the most divisive issues facing the Jewish
world today is the place of Chumrot (religious stringency) in our daily
lives. On the one hand it is undeniably accepted
and proper to create a “fence” around the commandments, as did our Sages in
times of old in order so that a person should not fall prey to sin, as is
written in Ethics of our Fathers “And make a safety fence around the Torah” (Chapter 1:1
). However, on the other hand, the Torah clearly states, “The entire word
that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and
you shall not subtract from it.” (Devarim 13:1). Additionally it is written, "Do not
be overly righteous” (Ecclesiastes 7:16.). How are we supposed to reconcile
these two conflicting interpretations?
Maimonides writes in The Laws of the Rebellious Ones 2:9, “A
court has the authority to issue a decree to forbid something which is
permitted and have its decree perpetuated for generations to come.” However,
he then writes that while this is holds true, if the Sages declare that their
rabbinic enactment is to be considered equal to a Torah prohibition, then they
are transgressing the verse “…you
shall not add to it.” This
explanation from Maimonides helps us to reconcile our question brought above in
regards to how one must balance Chumrot: it is permitted and commendable to
make stringencies, but it must be clear and known at all times that it is a stringency
and not the law itself. Unfortunately, the failure to comprehend this distinction
can lead to devastating conclusions.
While very much a contemporary
issue for our modern times, much has been written and discussed on this topic
by leading Jewish thinkers throughout the ages. More than twenty years ago, Rav
Solovetchik commented on this phenomenon of adding stringencies and wrote, “On the one hand the young Talmidei
Chachamim(Torah Scholars) of America
occasionally tend towards exaggerated extremism which is frightening in its
arrogance; frequently, they move in the opposite direction and agree to
concessions and the path of least resistance. In a word they are perplexed in
the pathways of Judaism, and this perplexity is the product of an imperfect
grasp and experience of the world.” (Al Ahavat HaTorah pg 408) Sadly, this
trend is not limited to the United States, and has not slowed down with the
passage of time but rather it has intensified on both ends. The exaggerated
extremism Rav Solovetchik decries, expressed in the stringencies that are now
passed as law, has today surpassed even the wildest of imaginations. And the
path of least resistance as referred to above can easily be applied to modern
day rabbinic leaders who at times fail to combat this growing trend with a
strong voice.
Furthermore, Rabbi Naftali Zvi
Yehuda Berlin writes that there can be dangerous consequences when practicing
stringencies which fall beyond the letter of the law. He writes quite clearly that in some cases, a
person’s intense desire to draw close to God through enacting stringencies can
lead to behavior that is against Halacha (Jewish Law). He points out that the entire
episode of the rebellion of Korach, which ended in disaster and destruction,
was motivated by a pure desire to come close to God. Rabbi Berlin points out
that the significance of the commandment of tzitzit (fringes)
preceding that of the story of Korach is to allude to the fact that this
commandment should preclude such behavior. As the verse states, “and
you will see them (tzitzit) and you will remember all of the commandments of
Hashem your G-d, and perform them…” The very essence of donning the white
and blue strands of tzitzit is to serve as a material reminder for all Jews –
those practicing according to letter of law as well as those trying to reach
beyond-- to remain within the normative boundaries of halakha(Jewish law). Most
symbolically to our discussion, the blue threads of tekhelet (fringes)
allude to those who are yearning for the heavens, who wish to elevate their
level of religious commitment with the addition of stringencies, Rabbi Berlin
reminds them that they must not allow their yearning to lead them to transgress
the normative law. (Ha’amek Davar, Bemidbar 15:39.)
Having established that boundaries are required and
that stringencies must be taken on with care, what then is the appropriate
course for those who are motivated to practice above the letter of the law? How
can they determine the proper circumstances in which to fulfill this worthy
aspiration? Rav Shlomo Aviner provides a
rubric which, I believe if followed correctly, will ensure that going beyond
the letter of the law will not impinge upon the law itself. First and foremost,
he writes, a person must follow the letter of the law and do all that is
required, avoiding the negative commandments and observing the positive
ones. Only after fulfilling these baseline
requirements, a task which is no simple matter, should a person begin to accept
stringiness upon themselves.
With that in place, even once the decision is made to
accept a stringency there are still two more conditions that must be taken into
account. Rav Aviner writes that first and foremost, a person must consider
whether or not the stringency in one matter will lead to a leniency in another.
He explains that if a person is stringent and meticulous to perform the command
of rebuking ones fellow, until the point where he embarrasses him publicly, this
is no longer stringency but rather a leniency in “loving thy neighbor.” I would
like to cite additional sources from the Talmud which support the
stringency/leniency conundrum which Rav Aviner brings above. The Talmud
illustrates the concept of “a pious fool” with the following two examples: A
woman is drowning, and a man with the ability to save her does not do so because
it is improper to look at a woman. Similarly, a small child is drowning and a
person delays saving him until he removes his tefillin (since jumping into the
water while wearing tefillin is disrespectful towards them). By the time he has
removed the tefillin, the child too has drowned (Sotah 21b). The common
denominator of these examples is a lack clear understanding of what is actually
required of a person in a given situation, and the fallacy of inappropriate
stringencies leading into horrendous miscarriages of action.
The second condition, according to Rav
Aviner, is that if a person wishes to practice beyond the letter of the law
they must first make sure that they are doing it with the pure motivation to draw
close to God and not for any egocentric reasons. Rav Shlomo Volbe in his
work Alei Shur, asks if our motivation to go beyond the letter of law has pure
motivations, then why is it that the vast majority of stringencies are between
man and God and not also between man and his fellow? He writes, “We must ask
ourselves why He would only expect that premium level of service in our Chalav
Yisrael milk, and Glatt Kosher meat, and not expect the same level of premium
service in our level of charitable giving, true love and support of other Jews
even those with views that differ from ours, meticulous care to go beyond the
letter of the law in our business dealings and monetary interactions…” (Alei
Shur, V.II, page 152) A true desire to cleave close to God would reflect itself
in all dimensions of spiritual service, both between man and his Creator -- and
no less important -- between man and his fellow.
By taking to heart the message of the blue tekhelet (fringes),
we should remember that those who are yearning for the heavens should not let that
yearning lead us to transgress any of the other multiple dimensions of Divine
service. And with this we should merit to “...walk in
all the way that the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live, and
that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you
shall possess.” (Devarim 5:33)
