![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maybe this is old hat- but it just struck me that a lot of the dispute about halakha and especially how it is seen in the Conservative Movement is very much akin to the linguistic debate between prescriptive and descriptive linguistics. A serious difference of approach seems to go on between those folks who see halakha as prescriptive- and if you don't fit the way it says you should do something, you're wrong, and those who see it as eventually mostly descriptive- this is what people whom we think are good Jews (often meaning the people speaking) do, and if halakha doesn't fit this, then it should change.
Maybe this is just another way of trying to break people into two camps. But I think even as endpoints of a spectrum, it's an interesting idea to explore. Thoughts?
Maybe this is just another way of trying to break people into two camps. But I think even as endpoints of a spectrum, it's an interesting idea to explore. Thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Plus, prescriptive linguistics is just plain wrong. ;-)
From:
no subject
But really, I was making more of an analogy as to how people Talk about the two systems and how they do regard them from a conscious perspective, more than which linguistic anaylsis system is right or wrong. I mean, the halakha/Jewish text as language metaphor is great, but one can push it only so far... (After that, all you're left with is a collar and a few buttons.)
From:
no subject
I suppose Halakhic Anarchists would be entirely descriptive-- halakha is whatever people are doing-- but I can't see how that qualifies, in any way, as "halakha".
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
The only place where the analogy may break down is in the matter of halakhic justification. I have no problem with eating fish and meat together (though I don't know if I've ever actually done it) even though the Shulhan Arukh says I mustn't. But, I have a teshuva within the framework of halakha that says I may do that. Is this a prescriptive approach on my part (in that I'm following a sound rabbinic enactment) or a descriptive one (in that I'm ignoring an authority in light of what I think makes sense)?
From:
no subject
Neither. The terminology doesn't make any sense with regard of what your own practice is, but only with regard to how you relate to the practice of others.
From:
no subject
What does that have anything to do with being descriptive?
(BTW, my own attitude toward the fish/meat thing is that because (a) the entire idea of the "danger" of eating meat-scented bread with fish is medical advice, which doesn't make any sense to our medical understanding, and (b) the Mogein Avrohom says that "in our day, there isn't really so much סכנה in this", I would rather not keep the practice. However, if I didn't keep it-- or even talked a lot about my desire to not keep it, rather than keeping my mouth shut-- my friends would think I was krum, so I avoideq permitting or talking about the practice. I don't think that there's anything prescriptive or descriptive in this attitude.)
However, there are definitely prescriptive and descriptive books about halokho. Example of a prescriptive book: Any book-of-responsa, commentary-on-Shulhon `Orukh, or the like. Example of a descriptive book: Daniel Sperber's מנהגי ישראל; to a slightly lesser extent, Binyomin Hamburger's שרשי מנהג אשכנז. These books focus on the "minhog" aspect inherent in halokho, and describe practices as they exist in various communities, and try to explain how each of them developed, while referencing the Talmud and codes in every relevant place. Fascinatng books.
From:
no subject
An example (and I apologize if I'm being deliberately obscure here because it was a "hot" topic and a well-known rabbi who was trying to give private advice, and this is a very public blog -- ask me in person if you want more details) is a particular Orthodox Rabbi who had multiple congregants that needed -- for professional reasons -- to take opposite sides on a very contentious topic. The rabbi in question refused to speak publicly from the pulpit about the issue until it ceased to be relevant as a current issue. He did, however, invite different people directly involved to speak with him privately if they wanted his opinion.
If you also think back to some of what's said about Rabbi Soloveitchik -- that he didn't write down many of his opinions because he felt that advice needed to be personalized to individual situations -- it perhaps provides a better model.
In other words, people paint with a broad brush when they must state general rules, but those familiar with human nature are willing to individualize those rules and make exceptions as needed so long as the exceptions don't overwhelm the rules or change the overall utility/structure of the system.
I actually have another good example for you, which comes from an experience I had with some very religious people who were (most likely) violating halakha in certain things that they did. I posed the hypothetical to a 16-year-old charedi boy and his father. The boy -- as he had been taught -- immediately exclaimed the most drastic solution to their problem. I was somewhat impressed when the father, who studied full-time in kollel, corrected his son and told him that even though the halakha seemed to point to a strict, almost inhuman, solution, that the son should consider the horrible consequences of what would happen if he didn't look for some exception to the rule. (Again, I would rather not post details publicly because it involves somebody who might see this on the internet, but feel free to ask me in person or via e-mail.)
From:
no subject
I'm quite aware that I was making an overly simplistic analysis. It was just a thought based on the way different folks seem to approach halakha, and how some folks Perceive how other people approach halakha...