TRADITION QUESTIONS: Ghost Mitzvot

Click here to read about this series. Read a reply to this post here.

What is it?

At times, economic and social forces necessitate the abridging of halakha. The exigencies of Jewish history have forced the abandonment of certain practices. Memory of these “ghost mitzvot” in rabbinic literature haunts Jewish life in highlighting the gap between the Torah’s ideals and lived reality.

Some examples:

• Tekhelet is the blue dye used to color the clothing of the High Priest, the tapestries in the mishkan, and tzitzit. The Talmud explains that the dye was derived from the Hillazon—a marine animal (Menahot 44a). The method for tekhelet production was lost perhaps around the 7th century, leading to the omission of tekhelet from tzitzit for centuries. Beginning in the nineteenth century, Rabbi Gershon Henoch Leiner (1839–1891), Israeli Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog (1888–1959), and others have attempted to rediscover the Hilazon, recover the process of manufacturing the dye, and renew the use of tekhelet. While tekhelet-wearing is far from universal, the Ptil Tekhelet organization has been the leader in these efforts, and most readers will have seen the blue strings on tallitot in their own synagogues (if not in their own tallit bags).
• Zeroa, keiva. and lehayayim are the obligations for those who slaughter cattle or sheep to give the foreleg, abomasum (or, maw), and jaw cheeks of the animal to a kohen (Deuteronomy 18:3). The Mishna records that this applies to non-sacred animals both inside and outside Israel, in the presence and absence of the Temple (Hullin 10:1). Tur quotes Rashi and Maharam that this practice does not apply today. Yet, Rambam and Shulhan Arukh both rule that it does. Historically, due to the value of the actual gifts, leniency was sought in order to alleviate the high cost of beef. The practice has thus been largely abandoned. A New York based educational organization, Igud HaKohanim has advocated for the renewal of this law.
• Hadash is the prohibition to eat from the new wheat crop (or that of the other four primary grains) until after the 16th of Nisan (after the plant has taken root). The Mishna and Talmud record disputes among the Sages about the applicability of this biblical law outside the Land of Israel. The majority of Rishonim rule that hadash is applicable outside of Israel. Shulhan Arukh and Rama (Y.D. 193) codify this prohibition (although the Rama cautions against instructing communities to observe this law when the majority of the food supply comes from such crops). For centuries, most communities in the Diaspora did not observe the laws of hadash. Greater awareness and observance of this halakha has spread in recent generations, including the creation of resource guides and websites like yoshon.com to share date-code information about products.

These examples reflect a common theme: Modernity’s economic prosperity and increased Torah learning have prompted efforts to revive these ghost mitzvot. Yet, not all these efforts have found the same degree of acceptance. Why is that?

Why does it matter?

Traditional Torah study prides itself upon seeking practical and innovative applications for the law (Avot 4:5; Hagiga 3a). At the same time, traditional communities persevere because of a deeply rooted conservatism. Famously, Haym Soloveitchik, in “Rupture and Reconstruction,” distinguished between the normative written word and the mimetic transmission regularly observed in home and street, synagogue and school. He argued that texts play a new and controlling role in contemporary religious life. This insight may explain the desire to resuscitate ghost mitzvot – yet it does not explain the headwinds that such efforts have met.

The desire to live the Judaism of one’s grandparents is, thank God, strong. The costs and effort in renewing practices long-forgotten might lead to different rates of success. The ability of texts to influence nuances within mitzva observance may be different from reviving long fallow halakhic ground. The social currency of religious stringencies within a pre-existing religious practice might be greater than a “new” mitzva to the mimetic community.

What questions remain?

Are certain corners of the religious world more amenable to the reviving of ghost mitzvot than others? For example, why does the Haredi community take greater care with hadash while the Modern Orthodox seem to have more ardently embraced tekhelet?

Might the metaphor of tehiyat ha-metim for mitzvot find a parallel in the revival of the Jewish people itself in its return to Israel? To what degree are mitzvot ha-teluyot ba’aretz similar to the ghost mitzvot listed above?

Can insights from ghost mitzvot be applied to other elements of Jewish life? How might political and social customs be changed in light of new challenges and opportunities?

Chaim Strauchler, an associate editor of TRADITION, is rabbi of Cong. Rinat Yisrael in Teaneck.