For What Should I Compromise on Religious Observance?
As the co-chair of the egalitarian minyan at Columbia University, I was surprised to hear that an Orthodox student leader at Hillel was confused why some of our community members wanted to have joint Shabbat meals with Orthodox students. If students cooked food and ate it together, the 鈥渟tricter鈥� kashrut standards of Orthodox students might conflict with the 鈥渕ore lenient鈥� practices of students in my community, the student objected. The comment struck me because there seemed to me better ways to mitigate any kashrut concern than to outright reject a communal meal with other Jewish students鈥攕tudents who, by the way, may not necessarily be less observant or 鈥渟trict鈥� than their Orthodox peers.
The episode raised a question: To what extent should we be flexible in our adherence to religious precepts, and to what extent can we remain steadfast in our commitment to certain principles, even if they exclude others? With this dilemma in mind, I want to consider the opening lines of this week鈥檚 parashah, which discuss cases where a priest may allow himself to receive tumat met (impurity from a corpse), something he is not usually permitted to do.
讜址讬止旨讗诪侄专 讛壮 讗侄诇志诪止砖侄讈讛 讗直诪止专 讗侄诇志讛址讻止旨讛植谞执讬诐 讘职旨谞值讬 讗址讛植专止谉 讜职讗指诪址专职转指旨 讗植诇值讛侄诐 诇职谞侄驻侄砖讈 诇止讗志讬执讟址旨诪指旨讗 讘职旨注址诪指旨讬讜變
The LORD said to Moses: Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin . . .
The Torah bars a priest from coming into close contact with a corpse, except (as it continues to delineate) under certain conditions, e.g., the death of a loved one. But when I read the opening verse, I was immediately reminded of a baraita (early rabbinic text) I had encountered in my Introduction to Talmud class during my first year at 91快播 that seemed to say otherwise!
转指旨讗 砖职讈诪址注 讚职旨讗指诪址专 专址讘执旨讬 讗侄诇职注指讝指专 讘址旨专 爪指讚讜止拽: 诪职讚址诇职旨讙执讬谉 讛指讬执讬谞讜旨 注址诇 讙址旨讘值旨讬 讗植专讜止谞讜止转 砖侄讈诇 诪值转执讬诐, 诇执拽职专址讗转 诪址诇职讻值讬 讬执砖职讉专指讗值诇. 讜职诇止讗 诇执拽职专址讗转 诪址诇职讻值讬 讬执砖职讉专指讗值诇 讘执旨诇职讘址讚 讗指诪职专讜旨 讗侄诇指旨讗 讗植驻执讬诇旨讜旨 诇执拽职专址讗转 诪址诇职讻值讬 讗讜旨诪旨讜止转 讛指注讜止诇指诐, 砖侄讈讗执诐 讬执讝职讻侄旨讛, 讬址讘职讞执讬谉 讘值旨讬谉 诪址诇职讻值讬 讬执砖职讉专指讗值诇 诇职诪址诇职讻值讬 讗讜旨诪旨讜止转 讛指注讜止诇指诐.
Come and hear that which Rabbi Elazar son of Zadok said: We would skip over coffins to greet the kings of Israel. And they did not say this only regarding the kings of Israel, but even gentile kings, that if he will merit, he will be able to distinguish between Jewish and gentile kings.
Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 19b
Rabbi Elazar son of Zadok is a priest living in the first century CE who is prohibited by the verse presented above from becoming impure by coming into contact with a corpse. This would presumably happen if he were jumping over coffins! The verse, however, does not mention a king as an exception to the rule. How can it be that he is saying he became impure to greet a king鈥攁nd not just any king, but even a gentile king? Enter the principle of kevod habriyot (human dignity). The baraita cited above is part of a broader Talmudic discussion on the question of when human dignity trumps law. That is, are there certain cases in which the dignity of the person supersedes whatever halakhic rules the situation requires? Rabbi Elazar son of Zadok answers in the positive: he, a priest who must respect the strictures of Jewish purity law, may become impure to greet the kings of Israel.
The two sources (Torah and baraita) present different rules. According to the Torah, a priest may not defile himself unless the corpse is that of his immediate family. Yet, according to the baraita, a priest may even become impure for a non-Jewish king. It isn鈥檛 that for the rabbis purity laws were less important; on the contrary, proper observance of purity was a fundamental concern for Jews in the ancient world. I read this not as a shift away from purity but rather as an example of how the rabbis struggled to balance observance with the value of kevod habriyot.
In approaching these texts, I cannot help but think of how the question of priests and defilement is emblematic of a larger, still-relevant question modern Jews face: How do we navigate competing values that may require us to be lenient or make exceptions in certain situations?
For an answer to this question, it would do us well to look to Maimonides鈥檚 Mishneh Torah, wherein he prescribes that one should seek a middle path, the derekh beinonit, between two extremes:
砖职讈转值旨讬 拽职爪指讜讜止转 讛指专职讞讜止拽讜止转 讝讜止 诪执讝旨讜止 砖侄讈讘职旨讻指诇 讚值旨注指讛 讜职讚值注指讛 讗值讬谞指谉 讚侄旨专侄讱职 讟讜止讘指讛 讜职讗值讬谉 专指讗讜旨讬 诇讜止 诇指讗指讚指诐 诇指诇侄讻侄转 讘指旨讛侄谉… 讜职讬值诇值讱职 讘职旨讚侄专侄讱职 讛址讟旨讜止讘执讬诐 讜职讛执讬讗 讛址讚侄旨专侄讱职 讛址讬职砖指讈专指讛. 讛址讚侄旨专侄讱职 讛址讬职砖指讈专指讛 讛执讬讗 诪执讚指旨讛 讘值旨讬谞讜止谞执讬转 砖侄讈讘职旨讻指诇 讚值旨注指讛 讜职讚值注指讛. [1]
The two extremes opposite from one another for every trait are not the right path and are not fitting for a person to walk by their way . . . A person should walk in the path of the good ones鈥攁nd this is the straight path. The straight path is the middle measure in every trait.
Mishneh Torah
While Maimonides discusses how one should always act according to the middle path鈥攆or example, not being too quick to anger, but also not being numb to all feeling鈥攈is teaching presents a useful paradigm for many aspects of our lives, religious observance included. For example, on a scale of strict purity (represented by the Torah) to abandoning the concept of purity entirely, the baraita might actually represent a derekh beinonit, a middle path. It does not reject purity but expands on the Torah鈥檚 narrow conditions.
We, too, should be able to balance holding fast to traditional observance鈥攁llowing it to inform our lives鈥攚hile being able to accommodate practice, in certain situations, when values conflict. There should be a derekh beinonit, for example, where one neither needs to isolate from sharing a meal with others, nor abandon kashrut entirely. The student who refused to eat with my community would have done well to heed this teaching. Nearing graduation, I hope to take this lesson into the future鈥攃rafting for myself a life full of derakhim beinoniyot, middle paths, as an effective and meaningful compromise in the world in which we live.
The publication and distribution of the 91快播 Commentary are made possible by a generous grant from Rita Dee (锄鈥漧) and Harold Hassenfeld (锄鈥漧).
[1] Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De鈥檕t 1:3-4.
