TRADITION Questions: Jewish Practices Independent of Halakha

Click here to read about this series.

Does Judaism Recognize Jewish Practices Independent of Halakha?

What is it?

For decades after the Holocaust, many Jews would not purchase German automobiles. In a 2014 essay, The Atlantic’s editor Jeffrey Goldberg, in reflecting on why he is ending his particular boycott, notes the popularity of this practice. No organization representing American Jewry formally adopted such a prohibition, yet it gained wide acceptance in both Orthodox and non-Orthodox society. What is the significance of such implicit, unlegislated and extra-halakhic Jewish practice?

In a 1975 essay published in Marvin Fox’s Modern Jewish Ethics, R. Aharon Lichtenstein asked “Does Jewish Tradition Recognize and Ethic Independent of the Halakha?,” and responded to a similar question concerning ethics. His thesis: “Traditional halakhic Judaism demands of the Jew both adherence to Halakha and commitment to an ethical moment that, though different from Halakha, is nevertheless of a piece with it and in its own way fully imperative.” Might the boycott of German cars and other Jewish practices that lie outside the domain of halakha form a code different from halakha, which is “nevertheless of a piece with it and in its own way fully imperative”?

Whereas there are many classic discussions regarding the line between minhag and halakha, both categories imply actions imbued with religious meaning. The German automobile boycott reflects an ethnic self-regard that does not require religious significance. Are there new practices in this Jewish moment that are replacing the Holocaust in terms of their relevance to Jewish identity? If the Prime Minister and former Defense Minister of Israel cannot enter a country due to the threat of unjust and prejudiced arrest, should any Jew visit that country for reasons of “pleasure”? What of positive actions like wearing a yellow ribbon or a piece of masking tape with a number on it? Perhaps, some of those actions should be more than symbols but protests and advocacy.

Why does it matter?

Ramban famously explains that halakha cannot encompass all moral demands in specific detail: “Now this is a great principle, for it is impossible to mention in the Torah all aspects of man’s conduct with his neighbors and friends, and all his various transactions, and the ordinances of all societies and countries” (Commentary to Deuteronomy 6:18). He argued that the Torah therefore creates broad general expectations to be holy and to act justly. Might such holiness and justice demand practices to oppose those who would attack our national identity?

Philosopher Emil Fackenheim created the concept of a “614th commandment,” a moral imperative that Jews not give up on God, on Judaism, or on the continuing survival of the Jewish people, thereby giving Hitler a “posthumous victory.” While framed in the context of mitzvot, the principle obviously stands outside any normative concept of revelation or rabbinic edict. Taking up Fackenheim’s baton, might we make use of an extra-halakhic commandment paradigm to defend Jewish interests through history? What might those common interests demand of us after 1948 and after October 7, 2023?

What questions remain?

To the suggestion that new prohibitions or norms are required by new antisemitism, might a humble Jew reply, “Enough already. 613 commandments are enough. Why do we need more?”

How does the use of economic boycotts during the Nazi rise to power and as part of decades- long Arab policy toward Israel affect Jewish refusal to purchase German cars?

Chaim Strauchler, rabbi of Rinat Yisrael in Teaneck, is an Associate Editor of TRADITION.