We need to talk about Ka’eileh. I know people like it, it’s fun. It’s the highlight of the Torah reading. But it isn’t benign–and I’m not talking about whether it’s a bizayon or if it’s fantastic because it makes people enjoy shul. I’m talking about something more serious and longer term. Allow me to explain. Judaism in every generation rests on the foundation of the generations that came before–and especially on the one that comes immediately before. This is true even in the text-based world in which we currently live. Despite the unchanging nature of text, Judaism remains dynamic because the arguments and pesakim that we find in the Gemara, Rishonim, Acharonim, teshuvos, and halachic works are shaped by the way halacha is practiced and Judaism is lived in each and every generation. The old is viewed in light of the current. The strong trend in halacha to try, however much possible, to justify a widespread action halachically reflects this dynamism. While sometimes we cannot justify a custom, which forces us to reject it, our first choice is always to subsume it within the pre-existing halachic system. New halachic categories are created, prior concepts are expanded upon, and precedents are set. Old piskei halacha and positions are understood in new ways. Why is this acceptable? Why are we ok with altering halacha based off of what people are doing? Shouldn’t halacha be pristine and untouched? Yes and no. While fealty to halacha is paramount, we view common practice not as an external force but an internal halachic one. It is considered another way to determine the true halacha. Why? Firstly, we assume that widespread adoption of a custom signifies acceptance of it by the rabbinic authorities of the time in which it began/spread. Additionally, the gemara grants legitimacy to common custom to clarify unclear laws (Pesachim 66a) or to determine laws that depend on people’s perceptions (such as in regards to some kinyanim). There is no doubt that this new practice has become widespread. Given its diametric opposition to the decorum we normally expect in shul and during krias hatorah, justifications will need to be given (and some already have been). And these new halachic ideas will function as precedents. But does this practice rest upon the strong supports that we noted above? Does it deserve to force halachic modifications? I don’t think so. Does “minhag ka’eileh”‘s widespread nature truly signify rabbinic acceptance? Unfortunately, in today’s world, making a general assumption like that about any new common practices wouldn’t be safe except in very specific communities. Regarding ka’eileh, the opposite is usually known to be true–it is usually viewed unfavorably even by those Rabbanim who feel they cannot directly confront it in their shuls. If a number of Rabbanim have come out in support of it, I’d be interested in hearing about it–I have generally heard it referred to only negatively. Similarly, the halachic/hashkafic preference vis-a-vis decorum in shul and during krias hatorah is hardly unclear. The general preference of how to act during krias hatorah is well established in general and, up until a few years ago, for the word ka’eileh as well. I know that there can be nice explanations for this new minhag. It can be presented with very real-sounding and inspiring vortlach. We can invent distinctions between […]