[Avodah] May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a

[Chana Luntz]

RRW writes:

> Rav Sachter's article seems to imply to me that one may NOT 
> exploit certain heteirim when those heiteirim lack a 
> tradition for doing so. That avoiding exploiting a certain 
> heter is proof that one SHOULD not exploit that heter.

Actually, to be fair to RHS, I think this may be slightly overstating
his case.  Rather RHS really seems to be arguing that where there is a
masorah not to use a certain heter, one should not use it, rather than
that their needs to necessarily be a tradition to use the heter (a
subtle difference but significant difference).  The real target of RHS's
article is the giving of aliyot to women.   Now that is a case where not
only is there a tradition of not giving aliyot even though it is mutar,
this particular tradition not to give aliyot is written up in the gemora
as kovod hatzibbur - so there is a positive articulation in the gemora
of a masorah not to use the heter.  His second example is of cohanim
going to medical school and doing dissection.  A certain Rav appears to
have argued that cohanim today could go to medical school, in part on
the basis that since they are all tamei meis anyway it does not make any
difference if they become even more tamei.  And Rav Moshe's response to
that was that we have a masorah that cohanim have avoided meisim
throughout the last couple of thousand years, despite it being true that
they are tamei meis anyway, so nothing has changed now.

Now that does seem a bit different to me to kohen boxes.  Cohanim have
asked over the years many many shilas in order to avoid being exposed to
a meis, despite being tamei meis anyway, all of which shialas would have
been unnecessary if this Rav was correct - in that sense there was a
postive, active masorah to preserve the cohanic status.  Similarly with
regard to aliyot for women, there is a postive, active statement
regarding not giving aliyot to women.  While with regard to boxes, we
have no positive tradition that cohanim were avoiding them - it just may
have all been too difficult to construct, and the circumstances in which
they were needed and wanted were too few.  So it is not clear that RHS
would have any problem with kohen boxes.

However couple more cases from our recent Avodah/Areivim threads might
tease out the question of RHS's position a bit more:

A) how about women coming to shul regularly?  As has been made clear
from the various discussions, it would appear that women did not come to
shul regularly historically (and to even strengthen that, there are some
sources regarding women coming when they are in nidah, at least during
the bleeding days).  Is it now assur, according to RHS for women to come
to shul at all [it would appear not, because why have a discussion about
women having aliyot if they cannot be in shul in the first place, unless
you say he was trying to deal with the most dangerous aspect first.  But
if not, on what basis is this masorah different from that masorah?].
It is possible that they did not come because, like the kohen boxes, it
was all too difficult, and it is easier to do so now, but on the other
hand, given the issues about building mechitzos in shuls for women there
is arguably a positive active masorah to exclude them by not building
for them.

B) A follow on question - think about the parshas zachor discussion.  We
clearly seem to have a masorah that women did not come to shul for
parshas zachor.  Maybe those shuls that encourage it and facilitate it
are being over on an issur?   

C) And another - think about the discussion about beating of children to
make them learn and put fear of heaven into them (even if they are
learning well).  We have a very strong masorah to do this, and anybody
from the old country (any old country, from Ashkenaz to Mizrach) will
tell you that it was a masorah that was extensively followed.  Is it
required for us to continue to beat our children - even if, as RMB has
claimed, our paradigms have shifted and nobody can quite believe that
this will in fact result in better learning?  Can we use our
understanding of modern human psychology to overrule a masorah rooted
firmly in the gemora, rishonim and achronim?  Once you start bringing
modern psychological thinking into such things, where on the slippery
slope is this going to end?  And if in past generations they did not
rely on heterim not to beat based in psychological analyses (some of
which are found in the gemora, as you have identified) on what basis can
we do so now?

> 
> -- 
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com

Regards

Chana