Like I said, I live in a world where chicken isn’t pareve…
(Even though it meets criteria - does not lactate, does not eat meat, has feathers, and it’s a bird.)
The ban on chicken is not needed anymore. But that’s ok - it’s not hurting anyone.
Yes. But the thing is… there are plenty of mitzvot d’rabbanan – laws instituted by the rabbis as opposed to laws directly found in the Torah. You won’t find any mention of Hanukkah in Torah, of course… so naturally the mitzvah to light candles is entirely a mitzvah d’rabbanan. (This is a category of mitzvot d’rabbanan called takkanah, a mitzvah created to serve the Jewish people, as opposed to the chicken=meat gezeirah, the “fence around the commandments” we discussed above.
You’re free to decide just how you want to observe Torah, of course, and free to reject any particular mitzvah. But if the overall discussion is about Orthodox practice, then the mitzvot are the mitzvot, and while there can be (and is!) lively discussion about many topics in the Orthodox world, chicken’s status as fleishik is not in any real dispute.
Of course. And if you look at the mitzvah d’rabanan rules that concern Hanukkah, you’ll see a curious wash of the political aspect and more of a general “light the candles” emphasis. Hanukkah was effectively de-nationalized. But! I like examining the thought process behind law.
Chicken is not of concern; no. I wouldn’t support such a claim. But for me, well, I eat certain things on Passover because I have allergies and I’m tired of being malnourished for a week. My son actually eats the rice, but refuses any other chometz on religious grounds.
I didn’t see why I should follow the traditions of Ashkenazic Jews. He thinks I’m treif, anyway. He’s six!
edit* he thinks he refuses chometz. kid doesn’t make his own matzo or anything.
In his 1972 book “To Be a Jew: A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life,” Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin says:
He goes on to say that determining the difference between right and wrong; true from false; good from bad; sacred from profane; pure from impure; and clean from unclean is at the heart of the personal sanctity, and that the practice in adhering to mitzvot strengthens that kind of control and discernment, and thus has value even apart from the intrinsic value of any given mitzvah.
I think he has a point, but I don’t have that covenant with G-d, so my view is one of an outsider looking in. (I’d like to think I’m a tad more hip to halakha than your average outsider, but still…)
Thank you. I just thought “of course chicken isn’t pareve” was unnecessarily strong, because it isn’t an “of course” (and there are many people for whom it is pareve, depending on how they engage with halacha).
Hello!
Having trouble finding those texts?
The reason you’re not coming up with anything is that there’s a vast weight of Talmudic reasoning having to do with contracts, and your idea that the ketubah is voidable by the future act of (a) getting a civil divorce but (b) refusing to deliver a get simply finds no strong support in the rest of Talmudic law.
Even rabbis that have sought to solve the problem of agunah have not gone this route, but rather have suggested it be solved by carving out cases where a get is simply not required. Conservative rabbis have accepted this solution, allowing a rabbinical ruling to replace the requirement of a get. But the Orthodox have not – see Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 1:2b; also Teshuvot Melamed L’hoil E.H.3:22.
If you want o just drop this, let me know – but if you really are looking for texts, this is why you haven’t found any.