23 May CHUMRA & KULLAH WITHIN A NATIONAL EXPERIENCE

Parshat Naso showcases the phenomenon of a Nazir as the symbol of “Chumra” or Halachik stringency. By abstaining from drinking wine and from overindulgence in personal etiquette he guards himself against the perils of vanity and the dangers of intoxication. Though halacha doesn’t demand these measures it recognizes the value of a well-designed and implemented Chumra. The Nazir section is textually juxtaposed to the story of an adulterous woman; Rashi assumes that a Nazir’s decision to adopt a Chumra is in response to the revulsion he senses by witnessing adultery. Repulsed by the moral degeneracy of a marital betrayal and worried about his own human weaknesses, a Nazir constructs a “wall of stringencies” to avoid dissolute behavior and protect against emotional pressures which could invite similar religious failure.

Chzal were well aware of the impact and benefits of a Chumra . Pirkei Avot urges “Asu Seyag LaTorah” employing the term seyag or wall to describe a Chumra as a defensive measure meant to guard our precious moral identities. Just the same, Chazal were acutely sensitive to the varied dangers of misapplied chumrot noting many risks of of a Chumra-dominated religious experience which doesnt differentiate between actual halachik restriction and additive stringencies.

If the calibration of Chumra is challenging and complex within personal experience it become more complicated at a communal level. Often the broader social needs of a collective overrides the value of a Chumra. Often – within the Halachik system, we witness chumrot being retracted based on communal factors such as tircha dtzibura (length of public ceremonies), or hefsed merubah (disproportionate financial loss due to halachik restrictions). Furthermore, a Beit Din must calculate public feasibility before enacting a decree – ein gozrin gezeira al hazibbur el aim kein yecholim la’amod bo (literally decrees which cannot be practically adhered to cannot be legislated). In fact, the Halachik tradition is filled with instances in which privately stringencies were not broadly applied to the larger society.

This discrepancy between the feasibility of Chumra at a personal level and the impracticality of these stringencies at a communal level is even more pronounced at a national level. Life is israel isn’t merely collective – in that larger groups of people form societies which create demands which compete with Chumra. Life in a Jewish State creates concerns and values which recast the entire conversation of Chumra.

One area – which often confuses Jews visiting from overseas – is the experience of Kashrut in Israel. Visitors are surprised to find that kashrut standards back home are more straightforward rigorous and often more reliable. Hoping to ‘eat freely’ in Israel, tourists are surprised by the entangled kashrut experience. Indeed, kashrut in Israel is complicated by many factors which don’t apply overseas. Outside of Israel kashrut supervision is offered if strict requirements are adhered to. If those standards aren’t met kashrut supervision will not be issued and interested kashrut consumers will patronize different businesses and establishments. By contrast, in israel we aspire to national kashrut coverage to enable even non-interested Jews to conveniently eat kosher. An Orthodox jew in Israel isn’t merely concerned with the Kashrut level of his own “plate of food” but aims to enable reasonable kashrut adherence across the entire population. Given this need to establish national kashrut coverage, supervising kashrut agencies have little negotiating leverage and cannot always demand rigorous standards. National carriers such as Tenuva cant be held to surpassing standards as they are well aware that kashrut supervising organizations need national suppliers to be kosher. This diminishes the leverage of kashrut agencies and necessarily limits the type of standards which can be demanded. Private kashrut organizations such as Badatz aren’t “saddled” with national responsibilities and can maintain stricter standards. The national kashrut agenda in Israel creates complexities which warrant the suspension of certain chumros which might otherwise be desirable in a personal setting independent of national concerns

If Kashrut in general poses challenges, it becomes even more thorny every seven years during Shemittah. Full Shemittah compliance has always been elusive. Sadly, in the First Temple Era Shemittah was completely disregarded; in the Second Temple Era it only applied at a Rabbinic level. In the Modern Era we face two complicating factors. The first concern is similar to general Kashrut dilemmas: We desire a national Shemittah compliance and aspire to a condition in which every Jew- Orthodox or not- consumes Shemittah-approved food. Providing this volume of food is likely incongruent with classic Shemittah observance. Secondly, agriculture entails a significant part of our national infrastructure and economic viability. A national cessation of agricultural activity every seven years would be harmful to our economy and at some point even dangerous to our national security. Of course we are promised Divine assistance during Shemittah compliance but do we have the right to rely upon miraculous intervention? Wouldn’t a complete suspension of agriculture and consequent reliance on Divine intervention betray the instructions of ein somchin al haness- not to rely on miraculous intervention? Hence, Rav Kook spearheaded the arrangement of Heter Mechirah – selling Israeli lands to non-Jews to permit continued agricultural development. This arrangement isn’t merely a suspension of an constraining Chumra; it implements an extremely dubious kulah for national needs. In the absence of such significant national cause this type of adjustment would be spurious; applied in the context of the Modern State however, it is absolutely vital for national sustainability and Halachikally sanctionable. Outside of Israel this leniency would reflect halachik recklessness and irresponsibility; In the State of Israel it is an irreplaceable element of the national reconstitution of our land and our sovereignty.

Through the prism of a Nazir the Torah projects the complicated experience of Chumra. Life in the modern State of Israel adds layers of complication in trying to balance halachik adherence with national needs.