The issue of chumrot – knowing in which cases to take stringent approaches in halakha — breeds much confusion among those who are newly religious, often leading to imbalance in their development. This has been born out by our experience in educating ba’alei teshuva at Darche Noam for over twenty years. The mainstream Orthodox community’s own uncertainty over this issue during the last decade or two (frequently breaking loose from their own tradition) has only made the ba’al tshuva’s situation – with no clear tradition to follow — more difficult.
Rav Shlomo Volbe, shlita, in a chapter entitled “Frumkeit” (Alei Shur, V.II, page 152) raises a number of points that can inform a discussion about chumrot, as well as other related issues. A summary is presented below.
Frumkeit
Rav Volbe writes that “Frumkeit” (a Yiddish word implying a high level of piety) is an instinctive drive to relate to the Creator. It is found even among animals (see Tehilim 104:21, 147:9). While this instinct makes the very difficult job of serving G-d somewhat easier for us, as an instinctual drive, it is, as are all instincts, rooted in egocentrism; it motivates us to act conditional to our ability to perceive some personal benefit in the action. Even though the benefit we are seeking is laudable, an action motivated by the quest for one’s own welfare cannot be a source for true “bein adam l’chaveiro” (interpersonal mitzvot) nor for true “lishma,” doing mitzvot for a purpose that transcends one’s own well being.
[Note: I believe that even if one is doing a mitzvah in order to earn Olam HaBah, the motivation can be rooted in egocentrism. Our culture has perfected the attitude of always looking for the payoff: “What’s in it for me?” Sometimes the payoff can be more money, sometimes it can be prestige, sometimes power or fame. And we, as Torah Jews, recognize (hopefully) that there can be even bigger and better payoffs. Better than winning the lottery or the Super Bowl is Olam HaBah, with all the images we have absorbed of the absolutely most fantastic and pleasurable experience imaginable. But if we are doing what we do – our mitzvot – motivated by the quest for the payoff, it is rooted in our egocentrism. After all is said and done, we are still looking out for number one. Although we have a more elevated picture of what serves as a payoff, the ultimate motivation is to attain that payoff. Even with a more sophisticated appreciation than your non-religious/ non-Jewish neighbor of what constitutes a valuable payoff, it is that payoff that you are after.]
True “lishma” means we are doing a mitzvah to serve the Creator, in appreciation of what He has given us, and/or in fulfillment of the mission for which we were created. We are doing it for HIM, motivated from within by the drive to fulfill our responsibilities, which is the true definition of lishma. The reward, Olam Habah, happens to be a reality which we should be aware of, but it is not supposed to be the motivating factor.
Da’at
Rav Volbe continues. Proper service of G-d has to be built on “da’at” – an accurate, deep understanding of what G-d wants from us, acquired through clear thinking and a deep understanding of Torah. The Talmud (T.B. Sotah 21b; Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 3:4) illustrates the concept of “chasid shoteh” (a pious fool) with the following two examples: A woman is drowning, and a man with the ability to save her does not do so because it is improper to look at women. A little child is drowning and a person delays saving him until he removes his tefillin (since jumping into the water while wearing tefillin is disrespectful towards them). By the time he has removed the tefillin, the baby has drowned. The common denominator of these examples, explains Rav Volbe, is a lack of da’at, a clear investigation and understanding of what is required of a person (in this situation, saving lives, rather than modesty or protecting tefillin).
The result of actions which are not rooted in da’at could easily be to distance one from G-d, rather than bringing one closer to Him. Any desire to become closer to G-d must be based on a deep understanding of where man really stands in relation to Him, rather than imaginary notions of spiritual accomplishments. This demands clarity about what G-d really demands of a person in every situation. This intellectual clarity requires that we have our feet planted firmly on the ground, operating in reality rather than in some self-generated fantasy world. When service of G-d is built on “frumkeit” — the instinctual drive to get closer to G-d — and not on “da’at” — a clear understanding of how G-d teaches us to get closer to Him — we can unfortunately end up distanced from G-d and not closer to Him. When frumkeit becomes the focus instead of da’at, it can be an enticing tool of the yetzer hara and lead to going against G-d’s Will. Through Da’at based on Torah we learn how G-d actually wants us to live in the real, physical world and actually become closer to Him.
Humility is a necessary requirement for true closeness to G-d. “The humble are elevated by G-d to dwell with Him” (Sotah 5a). But deep humility is, ironically, an outgrowth of our recognition of the distance between us and G-d and not necessarily a by-product of frumkeit, that instinctive drive for closeness to Him. True humility also goes hand in hand with a deep commitment to service. We recognize that our role is to apply our da’at (achieved through knowledge of Torah) and faithfully implement the responsibilities placed upon us by G-d (and not to earn more brownie points, and not to get a better seat for the performance).
Egocentric motivations based on the drive to be “frum” can be especially misleading. Rav Volbe quotes the famous story of Rav Yisrael Salanter who didn’t show up one Yom Kippur night for Kol Nidrei. On the way home, the towns-people found him in a house rocking a crying baby whose mother had gone to Kol Nidrei, rather than staying home to take care of her infant. She was in search of her personal feelings of spiritual elevation, rather than focusing on doing what G-d wanted her to do at that moment and under those circumstances, her halakhic responsibility to care for her infant. Rav Yisrael couldn’t pass by the crying baby, even to go to Kol Nidrei. He was sending a message to the mother that our spiritual priorities are determined by responsibilities of service – which is a mitzvah – rather than by what makes us “feel frum” – which can very well be an aveirah.
This is caused by “frumkeit” without “da’at,” piety without intellect, “Grabbing Angels,” in Rav Volbe’s terminology. True closeness to G-d is attained by honest submission and deference to the will of G-d, coupled with clarity and deep understanding.
Chumrot: What are our Motivations?
This chapter in Alei Shur has a lot to teach us about how chumrot fit into our service of G-d.
If I pursue chumrot as a way to earn more reward, then it has nothing to do with service, but is simply another way for me to fulfill my personal goals, as lofty as they may be. One frequent explanation of the value of chumrot given to children is that while a certain activity or stringency isn’t required, and people who don’t fulfill it are not transgressing anything, “G-d will like us more if we go beyond what is requested of us.” This attitude contains an undertone of being motivated by personal gain, i.e. if G-d likes us more, he will give us a greater reward. The alternative “G-d expects this level of observance/service from us” is better.
But if we are properly motivated by the desire to provide G-d with the highest level of service we can give, why should our stringencies be limited to certain concrete areas of bein adam laMakom? We must ask ourselves why He would only expect that premium level of service in our “chalav Yisrael” milk, “glatt Kosher” meat, or “negel-vasser near our bed,” and not expect the same level of premium service in our level of charitable giving, true love and support of other Jews (even those with views that differ from ours), meticulous care to go beyond the letter of the law in our business dealings and monetary interactions, critical standards in determining what are necessities and what are luxuries, or in the commitment to the quantity and quality of our Torah study.
We must question our motives. Why do we want to avoid relying on (possibly lenient) opinions that served the Jewish community well for decades? Is it because we want to be “frummer” than our grandparents? Or is it because we realize that G-d has given us greater resources than in generations past, and as such the level of our ability and responsibility to serve Him have also increased? If it is truly the latter (as I would like to hope) then how hard are we working to identify, to clarify, to understand the scope of those responsibilities? How careful are we about discharging all of them, not just the relatively easy or highly visible ones? Is there a consistency in our level of chumrot? Inconsistent chumrot can leave us with an artificial feeling of piety. Rav Volbe makes the point very sharply: Chumrot, stringencies, are not a “risk free” endeavor. A chumra in one area of our observance has the very strong potential to enable us to rationalize laxity in another area. That is not true service.
This leads us to back to the issue of humility. The fact that chumrot cause one-upmanship, strife, and social discomfort almost guarantees that they are being performed with a feeling of superiority. This takes us in the opposite direction of the road that brings us closer to G-d. Why do we find people who broadcast their own level of chumrot and investigate those of their neighbors’?
A Time to be Lenient
There are often serious reasons for following leniencies. In Halacha we have a concept of “yesh al mi lismoch,” there are valid opinions which can serve as a basis for following a certain approach. There is also a concept of “hefsed merubeh,” great loss, which can be grounds to follow certain Halachic leniencies. Sometimes following a leniency in one area of halakha is necessary in order to avoid serious damage in another. Why is the embarrassment or discomfort of another Jew (seriously violating one area of Halacha) sometimes considered so dispensable in order to follow a strict opinion in another area? This in no way should suggest, (chas v’chalila) eating something which is not Kosher simply to avoid embarrassing someone. But finding a way to avoid the embarrassment has to be as high on our agenda as avoiding the un-Kosher food. And if there are accepted opinions on the lenient side, then “da’at,” a deep and proper understanding of the Halacha and the tradeoffs, may absolutely require relying on the more lenient opinion in those circumstances. This should definitely not be viewed as a p’sak for any situation. But it should raise the question, which requires careful consideration in each case by a very competent Rabbinic authority familiar with all the relevant details.
Increasing chumrot is seen by many as an easy way to avoid the need to really know and understand Halacha — “When in doubt, do without.” This slogan might come out of communities that have the problematic combination of many chumrot along with much “am aratzut” (ignorance of Halacha and an understanding of Torah). But it would not be very encouraging in assessing the true spiritual level of our communities. Chumrot bred of am aratzut can end up in the problem we mentioned above — being stringent in one area of Halacha while being lax in another. This indicates a lack of da’at – an understanding of the purpose of Torah and of man’s responsibilities in serving G-d. Man is an integrated whole. His spiritual growth must reflect that.
