Naval B'rshut Hatorah

mali

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 3:45 am

shalhevet wrote:

Who says they are 'entitled'? In Torah we don't think like the modern Western world, that people are 'entitled' to do whatever they feel like doing. We have a Torah to guide us. Throughout this whole discussion people have assumed AI is halachically acceptable for someone single. The one rabbi we saw who permitted it is known for his lenient decisions across the board, and he even only permitted it for extreme cases. I imagine the prevalent halachic opinion is to forbid it.

I'm quoting shalhevet's post from the AI thread. there seems to be a prevalent attitude on this board that if something is permitted, then we should be liberal enough to accept what the other person is doing.

נבל ברשות התורה is a concept in halacha when someone does something that indeed there's no straight forward issur to, but it's still not in line with halacha, or not 'in the spirit of the law'.

Naval means scoundrel or vile person. That is not how we want Hashem to look at us. True, we can find Heterim to almost anything, but our goal in life is to follow the Torah and not look for loopholes in order so that our actions should be considered halachically correct.

Tzippora

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 7:25 am

Naval b'rshut Hatorah refers to doing something physical to excess. As in eating. As in excessive amounts of material goods to the point it becomes disgusting (naval)

It does not include a way to make what is permitted impermissable. If something is permissible, it is something we are "entitled" to do - yes, by Hashem! Because he gave us the TITLE to do it by not assuring it.

Does Hashem give us the right to do stupid things? Certainly. But that means they are stupid, not assur. (Although to quote Rav Soleveitchik, "Whatever is stupid is assur" - tongue in cheek)

But the Torah is a legal system, and we need to treat it as such to a large extent - because Hashem didn't make laws against making you unhappy with my choices, you should accept them, as long as I'm following what he DID make laws against. Otherwise, the Torah becomes an exercise in not making other people unhappy.

Before anyone jumps, yes I'm aware of the concept of "vheyisem nekiim" and other ways that we are not supposed to get too radical. And there is a balance, but suffice it to say that those are also referring to different circumstances than the ones I think you're talking about.

Motek

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 1:10 pm

Tzippora wrote:

It does not include a way to make what is permitted impermissable.

Rabbis certainly pasken that things should not be done even if according to the letter of the law, they are permissible, because when rabbis with yiras shomayim (fear of Heaven) pasken, the letter of the law is not their only concern. A rabbi who would pasken only according the level would not be a highly regarded posek.

Quote:

If something is permissible, it is something we are "entitled" to do - yes, by Hashem! Because he gave us the TITLE to do it by not assuring it.

How are you differentiating between "permissible" "entitled" and "allowed"?

There is the concept that "matir asurim" - permitting that which was "bound", I.e. off-limits, has its positive aspect in that when something is declared "mutar" (permissible), it can be used for G-dly purposes.

A story to illustrate this idea was about some tzaddik (name?) who refrained from eating dairy (I think) until another tzaddik asked him by what right he deprived himself of it, better he should eat it and "elevate the sparks of holiness" within. So yes, wanton forbidding is not acceptable or desirable, but presumably, reputable poskim are not frivolously forbidding anything.

Quote:

But the Torah is a legal system, and we need to treat it as such to a large extent

Meaning? A legal system versus what? And what do you mean by we need to treat it that way? If the posek is G-d fearing, he knows how to "treat" the halacha.

mali

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 1:17 pm

I'm copying a paragraph from AskMoses.com regarding a Naval B'rshut Hatorah:

Quote:

The Torah states: “Kedoshim Tiyu, be holy!” The great commentator Ramban explains that this requires us not to just obey the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law. A person can be 100 percent observant, and yet be a “Naval B’rshut HaTorah” a repulsive, disgusting individual within the confines of the law. We must go beyond the law and embrace the ethical imperatives within that legal structure.

Tzippora, the idea of not overeating, or not giving into other Tayvos falls into this category as well, but it's not only that. Amother above brought a perfect example of pilagshim in our day and age. I also heard about a fleishig restaurant in NY that had someone come every hour during the nine days to do a siyum in order to enable people to eat meat as usual. That's a Naval B'rshut Hatorah! AI before marriage falls into that category. True, you can't find an Issur, but it's not at all in the spirit of the law. (Mikva for the purpose of premarital relations is NOT a Naval B'rshut Hatorah. It's a Naval plain, without the Torah's reshus).

grin

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 1:30 pm

mali wrote:

Mikva for the purpose of premarital relations is NOT a Naval B'rshut Hatorah. It's a Naval plain, without the Torah's reshus.

I think you're wrong on that one - it would actually be another perfect example. and no posek allows Naval B'rshut Hatorah.

grin

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 1:37 pm

Mali, I'm afraid you're wrong on that one. What's assur is relations with a nida or with eishes ish. there's no Torah issur on relations with a pnuya who's not nida. There are unfortunately yeshiva graduates who choose to capitalize on this and request their g-friends to go to the mikva first. the only way to prevent it is for the rav in charge of the mikva to forbid it in that particular mikva.

mali

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 2:08 pm

sources:
The Rambam writes that non-marital intercourse falls under the Biblical prohibition of “there shall not be any promiscuous men among the Jewish people; nor shall there be any promiscuous women among the Jewish people” (Deut. 23:18.)

The Ramban disagrees with this derivation, maintaining that the prohibition is implicit in the Biblical injunction “And the earth shall not be filled with immorality” (Lev. 19; 29).

The Raavad, according to most authorities, deduces it directly from the command to marry. Implicit in the command to marry, he says, is a prohibition of all nonmarital intercourse. This is technichally referred to as an "Issur assei."

It seems clear that all authorities forbid nonmarital intercourse; the only dispute revolves about the precise biblical source.

mali

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 2:41 pm

I actually took that off askmoses, and they have one source too:
Maimonidies laws of Marriage (Ishut) 1:4
The Ramban's perush appears right there, in the chumash! (read the entire thing)
I don't know where you can find the Raavad and dh isn't home now. I might have an exact source later.

freidasima

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 2:46 pm

The problem doesn't seem to be what one defines as "naval Birshus hatorah" but rather what one defines as a responsible posek.

The frum, orthodox world today is greatly divided. One group will not acknoweldge that the psikos of the rabbinical authorities of another group are rabbinical authorities.
It's a one directional thing and we all know who and what we are talking about.
Hence there is no place for any discussion between the two groups on this or many other matters. What one group considers Naval Birshus hatorah is not considered such by another group, first because such behavior is not considered ossur by the poskim of that group and second because such behavior is not considered out of the ordinary by that group. And I am not talking about issues such as AI for singles or the issue of premarital relations, but lots of other issues. If you want to see some check out Rav Aaron Lichtenstein's writings on the subject of Jewish ethics for one...

mali

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 2:53 pm

a naval will look for Heterim left and right. he might even find a rav who will give him one. the restaurant example is an excellent one. there's not one rav who thinks that eating meat is okay in the nine days and there isn't one rav who will tell you not to serve meat at a siyum during the nine days. the idea at hand is - who is asking the question and what his motives are. the discussion here isn't about rabbanim who are more machmir or more mekil, but about the person approaching the rav!

cassandra

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 3:10 pm

mali wrote:

I actually took that off askmoses, and they have one source too:
Maimonidies laws of Marriage (Ishut) 1:4

This Rambam is far from simple. I don't have time to parse everything carefully now, but it seems from my perusal that many of the meforshim are bothered by this halacha, not the least of which because it negates the entire concept of pilagshus, which as we know from Tanach was a reality. It would seem that what is frowned upon is, like Grin said, a woman being promiscuous which in halacha's view would make her like a harlot, but it isn't about kidushin itself. It may be possible for a man and a woman to engage in a long term "common law" relationship type thing and this would be ok according to the letter of the law.

mali

Tue, Aug 12 2008, 3:28 pm

355:
המצוה השנ"ה: האזהרה שהזהרנו מלבעול בלא כתובה וקידושין, והוא אמרויתעלה "לא תהיה קדשה מבנות ישראל" (דברים כג, יח), וכבר כפל האזהרה בענין זה בלשון אחר והוא אמרו יתעלה: "אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה" (ויקרא יט, כט). ולשון ספרא (פרשת קדושים): "אל תחלל את בתך" - זה המוסר בתו פנויה שלא לשם אישות, וכן המוסרת עצמה שלא לשם אישות.

and the rambam continues there that since there's a fine in the torah for one who raped or talked a girl into being intimate with him, and the law that he must marry her, one can think that the torah doesn't forbid it, and that he has the right to have premarital relations and then pay her father and marry her!

Therefor the torah warns this person לא תחלל בתך להזנותה. and the reason for it: "ולא תזנה הארץ ומלאה הארץ זמה" - if it would be done with the torah's permission it would be widespread, and the world would be immoral (as we know it today Sad

).

The punishment for this lav is malkus.