Another Thought About Halakha and Linguistics

[debka_notion]

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?

Comments

[tovah623.livejournal.com]

[carnilius.livejournal.com]

I disagree. One big difference is that language is learned in early years, and it is very difficult to change how it is used at a conscious level; religion, on the other hand, starts out as purely prescriptive and then conscious choices can be made later on when one understands better.

Plus, prescriptive linguistics is just plain wrong. ;-)

[margavriel.livejournal.com]

Well, both camps are really descriptive-->prescriptive. There has always been the tension between people who want to force the Bavli's rules on the communities (thus, being descriptive of what's in the Bavli, and hence prescriptive for the future), and the people who want to force the community's own practices on other communities (hence, descriptive of the first community, and prescriptive for other communities).

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".

[taylweaver.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting analogy and I think it may make sense - I need to think on it a bit more. But it makes me uncomfortable, because with language, I am into descriptive - as a former linguistics major - and I am not so into prescriptive. With halakha, I am the opposite.

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

That seems like a good description of two extremes amongst those who self-identify as halakhic Jews. Naturally, there's a large grey area in which both approaches are applied to greater or lesser extents.

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)?

[wildblueyonder2.livejournal.com]

Assuming I understand what's meant by "prescriptive" and "descriptive," I'm not sure one can break down religion quite the same way.

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.)