Is Thanksgiving kosher?

[magid]

Tonight I went to the first session of the new community beit midrash program at Hebrew College. The topic was about Jews celebrating Thanksgiving, and the discussion was led by R. Micha'el Rosenberg, who is an awesome teacher.

We started out talking about the possible reasons one might consider Thanksgiving, Halloween, and Xmas trees (ie, not the overtly religious practices such as mass or nativity scenes) to be not acceptable for Jews to do/participate in. Possible reasons included them being not acceptable for not being part of Jewish tradition, or for being a slippery slope towards non-Jewish practices or religion, non-Jewish practice being cooler (which he grouped in with insecurity about one's own religion, feeling like one has to follow the dominant norms to fit in), and having a basis in another religion's practice. (::sigh::) There was some discussion on this, about how Xmas trees may or may not be seen as secular, whether Thanksgiving has religious roots or not (apparently there are Wikipedia battles being waged on this), and so on.

Then we looked at the source materials he provided, going over them in chevruta. Once we'd had a chance to talk them through, we came back together, and he took us through some of the highlights of the readings.

The sources (I'm typing in the English translations; the Hebrew was given as well, and there are likely nuances missed due to translation, but I'm just not going to type the Hebrew in as well):

1. Leviticus 18, 1-6, about not doing things like the Egyptians or the Canaanites, nor following their paths, but keeping the Divine rules. (Of note, these introduce the chapter on forbidden sexual relations.)
   
   
2. Tosefta Shabbat, excerpts from chapters 7 and 8.
   7:1 What matters count as the practices of the Amorites? One who gets a mohawk, or a mullet, or shaves one's hair for [non-Jewish god of some sort], or who drags her child between the dead, or who ties a pendulum to one's thigh (?!), or a red ribbon on one's finger, and one who counts and throws stones to the sea or to the river; these things are the practices of the Amorites.
   [Apparently there is a much longer list, of which this is an excerpt. Other than the hair-related things, apparently these are all practices that have to do with particular superstitions.]
   8:7 One may mark a tree with a red stripe, and one may weight it down with stones, and one need not worry about the sabbatical year or about the practices of the Amorites.
   8:8 One may draw wine andoil through pipes in front of brides and grooms, and it is not of the practices of the Amorites. It in fact happened that Hillel and Yehudah, the sons of Rabban Gamliel, entered into the city of Cabul, and the people of the city drew wine and oil through pipes before them.
   8:9 We burn for kinds, and there is no concern regarding this of "the practices of the Amorites," as it says (Jer 34): You shall die in peace, and like the [funeral] fires of your ancestors...".
   [Which is a reference to burning the things owned by a king after his death, not to burning his body.]
   - So things that have a scriptural basis are obviously fine, and things that are about non-Jewish superstitions are obviously not.
   
   
3. Commentary of the Ran (Rabbeinu Nissim, Spain, 1320 - c. 1380) on the Rif, Avodah Zara 2b.
   This is not an example of practices of the Amorites, such that we must worry about the prohibition on [doing] in accordance with their actions, for the Torah forbade only hukkot [note: an ambiguous word in Hebrew, which may refer to Jewish laws that don't have an obvious reason, or to non-Jewish law in general, or a couple of other flavors in that range, which is part of why there can be so much discussion about it, since the original Lev. text said not to follow the hukkot of those non-Jewish groups, but instead follow the Jewish hukkot.] of idolatry, i.e. those things that are silliness and nonsense, and which accustom one to idolatry. But things that are sensible are permitted. And regarding the burning for kings, there is sense in burning for their honor their things, to declare that no other person is fit to use what was used by him.
   - Here the discussion was how the Ran permits things that are 'sensible', making sense to all, part of the common experience, while forbidding those that are 'silly,' which is not necessarily an absolute term, but relative, about something being inappropriate when out of context. So, 'silly' for a follower of one faith to participate in the rituals of another, since they are not having the same meaning.
   
   
4. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin 52b
   Mishnah: The performance of those subject to decapitation: they would cut off his head with a sword, as the [secular] government does it. R. Yehudah says: that is degrading to him. Rather, they place his head on the chopping block and chop it off with an axe. They said to him: there is no more degrading death than this.
   Gemara: It was taught: R. Yehudah responded to the Sages: I know that this is a truly degrading death, but what can I do, for the Torah says: "Do not follow in their paths?!" But the sages [say] since decapitatation is discussed in our Torah, we are not learning it from them. For you if you do not reason thusly, that which we have learned: "We burn for kinds, and there is no concern regarding this of "the practices of the Amorites," how could we engage in burning, seeing as it says "Do not follow in their paths?!" Rather, since burning is mentioned in the Torah, as it says, "Like the fires of your ancestors..." we are not learning it from them. Here too, since decapitation is mentioned in the Torah, we are not learning it from them.
   - Which is to say, proof-texts from Torah trump all.
   
   
5. Talmud Bavli Avodah Zarah 2a, 8a, 11a
   Mishnah: For three days prior to non-Jewish festivals, it is forbidden to engage in commerce with them... What are considered "non-Jewish festivals?"... The birthdays and death-days [of their kings], so says R. Meir. But the Sages say that a death that is accompanied by burning is idolatrous, but those which are not accompanied by burning are not idolatrous.
   Gemara: Can we therefore deduce that R. Meir believes that whether the death is accompanied by burning or not, they perform idolatrous religious service on those days? If so, then burning is not a hukkah [singular of hukkot]. Can we therefore deduce that the Sages belive that burning is a hukkah? But have we not learned: "We burn for kings," and there is no concern regarding this of "the practices of the Amorites?" Rather, all must agree that burning is not a hukkah, but rather, it is [a sign of] importance, and what they are actually arguing about : R. Meir believes that whether or not the death is accompanied by burning, they engage in idolatrous religious practice, and the sages believe that a death that is accompanied by burning is important to them, and they perform idolatrous religious service with it, but one that is not accompanied by burning is not important, and they do not perform religious service with it.
   
   
6. Tosafot Sanhedrin 52b s.v. ela
   "But since burning is mentioned." This is difficult, because here it implies that even though [burning] is a hukkah, since it is mentioned in the Torah, it is permitted. But in the first chapter of Tractate Avodah Zara, they object: "Is burning a hukkah? Is it not written 'Do not follow in their paths?" And they [therefore conclude that it is not a hukkah.
   But we can say that there [when it says that burning is not a hukkah], it means that it is not an idolatrous religious practice, for if it were an idolatrous religious practice, even if it were mentioned in the Torah it would not matter. But here, we are discussing practices of idolaters that are not religious, like the use of the sword [for execution], which, since it is mentioned in the Torah, [it is clear that] we are not learning it from them, and it is [therefore] permitted.
   - Which is interesting in that it differentiates between non-Jewish spaces: some is religious, while some is secular. Though the Tosafot wrote in medieval France, where even the nominally secular was default Christian, unlike the Ran, who was writing in Spain, where the secular spaces were a bit less default religious (which may have influenced their views, of course). So the Tosafot permits things that are secular, especially if there's some Jewish basis, while forbidding things involved in non-Jewish religion. Um, some of this may be from what we talked about after the next source.
   
   
7. Tosafot Avodah Zarah 11a s.v. ve-i
   "And if it is a hukkah, how could we engage in burning"... Rabbeinu Yitzhak explained that there are two kinds of hukkah: on which is what they do as idolatrous religious practice, and one which they do as mere silliness and nonsense. Here in our sugya [passage, section of discussion], it is dealing with an idolatrous religious practice. And this is the meaning of our sugya: "R. Meir believes that it is not a hukkah," i.e. an idolatrous religious practice. They therefore object: "And if it were an idolatrous religious practice, how could we engage in burning, seeing as it is written 'Do not follow in their paths." And even though it is mentioned in the Torah, there is still reason to forbid it, since for them it is a religious practice, as was the case with monuments: when the patriarchs offered upon them, it was beloved to God. But once the Amorites made it a part of their idolatrous religious practice, God despised it and forbade it, as it is written, "Do not set up a monument." The sugya thus concludes: "Rather, all agree that it is not a hukkah i.e. a religious practice. However, it is still a practice of silliness and nonsense.
   
   
8. Shulchan Arukh Yoreh Deiah 178:1
   It is forbidden to follow the paths of the non-Jews... or to wear clothing distinctive of them... Rema: Rather, one should be distinct from them in one's dress and in all of one's actions. But all of this is forbidden only regarding something that they do that is licentious... or something that they have has a practice for which there is no reason, because in such a case one should be concerned on account of Amorite practices; perhaps there is a taint of idolatry from their ancestors. But regarding something that they do that is beneficial, such as their practice that anyone who is a doctor wears specific clothes that mark that person as a doctor, this is permissible to wear....
   
   
9. Iggerot Moshe Orach Hayyim 5:12, Yoreh Deiah 4:12
   [R. Moshe Feinstein was a hugely respected rabbi in 20th century Judaism. The first of these responsa is from 1953, while the second is from 1980.]
   A. Regarding Thanksgiving, I have already written to someone in a response... that it is not legally forbidden to set it as a date for a celebration, such as a bar mitzvah or a wedding, but that particularly pious people should be stringent. However, to have a celebration and a meal in honor of Thanksgiving, this is certainly forbidden on legal grounds. And no because there is concern that doing so is similar to rejoicing on their festival days like the non-Jews. For this is not a holiday that their clergy invented, but rather, they themselves created this festivity. And even though perhaps the non-Jews who invented this practice were themselves idolaters [which is to say, non-Jews], and they gave praise to their false god in their observance, this is not relevant to recent times, when others have begun to have feasts on this day, and they are not connected to any religion... but rather, the prohibition on observing this day is on account of "Do not follow in their paths," even though this is not an idolatrous religious practice, but rather mere silliness and nonsense...
   And even regarding this prohibition, it is not entirely clear, and it requires more investigation...
   [So it's forbidden, except maybe not, since he has to consider more.]
   
   B. ...In another response to anothe rscholar, I wrote that in fact we do not find any prohibition regarding it, not in the making of a festive meal nor in the eating of turkey. But it is certainly forbidden to establish it as an obligation and a commandment, but rather as an optional festival sometimes observed and sometimes not.... And I concluded that in any event, in my humble opinion, to fix a day in the year for this observance... And I also wrote that there is a problem here of "Do not add..." And that which you objected, that according to the Rema... there is not a prohibition in this sort of case. And what you meant is that there is sense in this practice... It is clear that the Rema does not mean that [only] where there is no sense whatsoever [behind a practice is it forbidden], for certainly it is also [forbidden] even if there is some sense to it, but it is not sufficient sense that one would create on its basis any particular actions to be done...
   [So in the end, R. Moshe is of the opinion that Jews can 'do' Thanksgiving, as long as they don't consider it an obligation like those on Jewish holidays. Which actually describes how I tend to feel about the day: a chance to enjoy particular foods I like, but without the halachic restrictions of a real holiday. Of note: R. Rosenberg said that in his prep for this, this opinion made him rethink his approach to Thanksgiving, and has decided that since it is a purely USian holiday, and one which shouldn't become to the level of Jewish holidays, when he is not in the country for the holiday, he won't celebrate then, which he used to make a point of doing.]

And I'm sure there's much discussion I am not adequately summarizing, but I'm tired. It was an excellent learning session, and I highly recommend R. Rosenberg as a teacher, if anyone has a chance to learn with him.


Tangential architecture note: I hadn't realized just how large the one Hebrew College building is, partly because of how it faces the street, and partly because it's got another level underground. There are lots of windows, and it fascinated me how there were I-don't-know-what-to-call-them features angling around the ceiling that swooped in a way that both reminded me of an awning and gave the feeling of much more motion than I usually feel from static spaces.

I decided to walk to Hebrew College from my house. It's a 6.7 mile walk, and I got to go on some streets I hadn't been on before. I left the house later than I'd planned, so I had more impetus to push the pace. Which meant that when I arrived, 15 minutes early, I was the first one there. I'd made the walk (which includes some decent-for-here hills) in an hour and 50 minutes, which is almost a 3.7 mi/hr pace (and that includes waiting for lights and such). I wimped out from my original plan to walk home, however. So it was only 1.4 miles walked on the way back, an hour and 10 minutes total in transit, and $2.50 to the MBTA. Oh, plus the opportunity for more crocheting. Still, I rather wish I'd been up for the walk home, even if not at quite the same pace.