Q&A: The Maharshal’s View on Autonomous Halakhic Ruling
The Maharshal’s View on Autonomous Halakhic Ruling
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In his article on autonomy in Jewish law, the Rabbi, may he live long, quotes the Maharshal as saying that although in a case where the Talmud explicitly says “let it stand unresolved,” we cannot decide the matter, nevertheless in a case where it does not say “let it stand unresolved,” we do have the power to decide.
Seemingly, the very possibility of deciding in a case where it was not said “let it stand unresolved” implies that the Talmud can make a mistake, and that a proof from which the issue could be decided may have escaped it. If so, it needs explanation why one cannot say the same even in a case where it does say “let it stand unresolved.” Just because the Talmud said “let it stand unresolved,” does that make its error no longer an error? Unless we say that the Maharshal’s view is like that of the Kesef Mishneh (regarding Amoraim in relation to Tannaim), that we accepted upon ourselves not to disagree with the medieval authorities even if they are mistaken, and then say that this acceptance applied only where “let it stand unresolved” was stated.
Incidentally, I have always found the main point of the Kesef Mishneh difficult. Granted, it is possible to accept that we will not disagree with the medieval authorities so as to rule leniently against them. But from where do we derive that we should be lenient in accordance with their words when it seems to us that they are mistaken? After all, it may be that we are violating a prohibition solely because of our own humility, all the more so if it is a Torah prohibition.
May the Rabbi explain this to us, and thank you in advance.
Answer
The first passage explained everything that requires explanation.
Your question about the Kesef Mishneh is the Ran’s question in his homilies about the authority of the Sanhedrin. He argues that just as a transgression causes spiritual harm, so too disobeying the sages causes spiritual harm as well, since that too is a transgression. The public’s acceptance gives the Talmud the authority of the Sanhedrin, and now it is clear that one must obey even if there is an error there.
Discussion on Answer
You can say anything. The question is whether it’s true. Even if mishaps would result, that doesn’t mean they have authority, only that it would be proper to give them authority. But if that authority was not given to them, then even if it would be proper to give it, they do not have it.
So maybe we should say the same regarding the medieval authorities too, because otherwise each person’s halakhic ruling would be left in his own hands, and many mishaps would result?