In a conversation with students on
parshas Chukas, R’
Soloveitchik cited the Rambam in warning against mockery of
the chukim even as a person
inquires legitimately into Torah laws. The Rambam said that such
mockery of chukim is
worse than misappropriation of sanctified objects as the latter were
originally secular objects such as wood that were set aside for holy
purposes but the former are holy from the outset as established by
the Almighty. R’ Soloveitchik points out that the Rambam's intent
was not to promote observance of the laws as people in his day were
observant, but rather to warn against projection of secular ideas
onto them. This constituted mockery of the chukim:
What is the Rambam interested in? In
our psychological, axiological approach towards chukim.
Against ascribing lesser significance to chukim,
or secularizing them. In other words, one must not interpret chukim
in practical terms, and inject contemporary meaning in them.
You'll ask me, what is the practical
interpretation of chukim?
If a rabbi tries to interpret ma'achalos assuros [forbidden
food] in terms of hygiene and sanitation. Or taharas
ha'mishpacha in terms of sexual
psychology, as I once heard a rabbi say, that taharas
ha'mishpacha contributes to
family bliss, and actually taharas ha'mishpacha
accomplishes the miracle that the whole married life is one long
honeymoon. This is exactly what the Rambam meant should not be done.
You don't accomplish anything by it. You don't achieve anything by
it. Educated people, intelligent people, scientific minds, they
cannot be so easily fooled. (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the
Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar, pp.
155-6)
So
while we may inquire as to reasons for chukim,
we must proceed carefully and not fabricate reasons that actually
lead to ridicule of them either by their very logic or by how far we
push that logic.
R'
Soloveitchik explained elsewhere that the halakha is driven by
technical constructs something like that of sophisticated scientific
thought. In a conversation with students on parshas Korach,
he noted that Aristotle's
simplistic approach to science was built strictly on observation. In
Aristotle's view, gravitational pull was the result of the weight of
objects as that is what appears to the eye. Modern science, starting
with Galileo and continuing through Newton and unto today, concludes
the opposite, that weight is the result of gravitational pull. The
former view is empirical and commonsense, the latter conceptual. Says
R' Soloveitchik, “Newton discarded commonsense and approached the
matter from the viewpoint of the esoteric, abstract, creative,
conceptualizing logos.” He continues:
This method of quantification was
part of the greatest discovery in the annals of mankind. Of course,
if we had been satisfied - not we, the seventeenth century - with
Aristotlean physics, we couldn't climb now to the moon. Don't you
think that halachah is also entitled to such a theoretical basis? We
have, as I stated above, our unique logical and epidemiological
approach to halachah. Torah sheh b' al peh is not just a compilation
of laws. It's more than that. Mathematics is more than just a corpus
of equations. Ask any mathematician who is intelligent, what is math?
He wouldn't tell you a corpus of equations. No physicist who
understands physics will tell you that physics is a collection of
natural laws or equations. Basically, science is a method.
Mathematics is a method. It's a method of thinking, a unique logos.
So is the Torah sheh-b' al peh. The laws and statutes are of utmost
significance. However, if you discard the view that Torah sheh-b' al
peh is a system of thought structures and unique logical categories
which are accessible to the human mind only if the latter is willing
to subject itself to a rigid and tough training, then you open up the
floodgates and any ignoramus may claim authority the way Korach did.
(The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar,
pp. 140-2)
According to R' Soloveitchik, this
understanding of the Talmudic method helps us to understand the
reason that women are disqualified from serving as witnesses. The
disqualification is not a matter of lack of qualification in the
axiological sense, ie. it says nothing about the value of women. It
is the result of technical constructs. A melech
or Jewish king is also disqualified from giving testimony. Says R'
Soloveitchik:
If the melech ha'Moshiach
were present at the wedding I also wouldn't invite him, because he is
also disqualified to bear witness. Would we say all Jews are superior
the the melech ha'Moshiach?
A king is disqualified to bear witnesses mi'd'oraisa,
like an isha. The king
Messiah, or King David, or King Solomon, or Moshe Rabbeinu himself
are disqualified to bear witness. And a wood-chopper, an ignorant
person, a bor
mi'd'oraisa is kashur
l'eidus. (The Rav
Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer Bamidbar,
p. 141)
R' Soloveitchik asked if anyone
would conclude that the Messiah is inferior by virtue of his
disqualification. He said, “If you operate with commonsense
categories - yes. Korach operated with commonsense categories, and
he was right with his conclusion that if the whole robe is made of
purple material it certainly should be exempt from tzitzis.
But from the viewpoint of the exact, precise, unique halachic
categories psul l'eidus
is not indicative at all of the station of the woman in society, in
the halachic community.” In other words, just as Aristotle was
incorrect to use plain thinking to evaluate gravity, we would be
incorrect to use such thinking to evaluate the disqualification of
kings and women from giving testimony. It is not what it seems.
So what is the station of the
woman? Like R’ Feinstein and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R’
Soloveitchik stressed the differences in the roles for men and women
and the general equality in their spiritual worthiness. Basing his
comments on the creation of the first man and woman in God’s image,
he says:
The foremost distinguishing characteristic bestowed upon man is his
Divine image, his tzelem Elohim, which denotes particular qualitative
endowments, such as a moral sense, free will, and intellect. Man
partakes of these attributes within human limitations, while God's
representation of these qualities is absolute. Maimonides embodied
man's likeness to God primarily in terms of his intellect (Guide 1:
1). This Divine gift was given to both men and women. "And God
created man with His image. In the image of God, He created him; male
and female He created them" (Gen. 1:27). In their spiritual
natures, they were equally worthy.
(Man of Faith in the Modern World,
p. 84).
He said in his discussion of women and
testimony, “The Chumash
in Bereishis says that
when God created man בצלם
אלקים ברא אתם .
Man and woman were created in
the Image of God. Equality was taken for granted. If two personae
were created in the image of God, you cannot say one is superior to
the other.” (The Rav Thinking Aloud on the Parsha, Sefer
Bamidbar, pp. 142-3)
R’
Soloveitchik finds equality as well in the potential for either sex
to achieve prophecy.
The mere fact that among our prophets we find women to whom God has
addressed Himself is clear proof that we never differentiated between
the sexes axiologically. (Family Redeemed, p. 72; Axiology =
Philosophical theory of value)
Equality is the key word. I'll repeat
his words, “you cannot say one is
superior to the other.” This means that men are not better
than women but it also means that women are not better than men. This
is a direct contradiction of what many of his students teach. To use the
exemption as an indication that women are superior is to make a
mockery of it. It's just too simplistic and doesn't explain why the
Kohen Gadol has the most mitzvos. Plus it makes mitzvos look
one-dimensional, like steps in a program for alcoholics. I know one person who often
gives the Gemara of bina yesayra as proof of the thesis that women
are superior – an open Gemara he says. We will presume that the Rav
also knew that Gemara, yet argues that men and women are equal. He
argues from an open posuk. Perhaps equality is less exciting and
crowd pleasing but it seems to me it will lead to much healthier
relationship between husbands and wives. Women don't want to be
superior anyway. They just want respect. Men have the desire to
conquer and be superior. Telling women they are superior actually
makes them uncomfortable. It's what men think women want to hear. It
actually unnerves them because then who can they rely on?
