Q&A: Is Disagreement an Ideal Thing?
Is Disagreement an Ideal Thing?
Question
Hello and blessings,
I seem to remember that I once read an article of yours asking whether the ideal is that all disputes should be decided once and for all (as seems to follow from Maimonides, Laws of Rebels, chapter 1), or whether only questions that reach the Sanhedrin need to be decided, while there is no problem with there being different Jewish laws in different places (as one might perhaps understand from the passage about "do not form separate factions"—unless that law only comes to regulate the post facto situation of dispute).
I would be happy for a reference to your article, and also if you have any new insights on the matter since then.
Thank you very much.
Answer
I don't remember having written this in an orderly way. I said it in lectures. My claim is that the Sanhedrin is not supposed to close off all disputes, since there is value in autonomy (that a person should act in accordance with his own conclusions). They are supposed to settle only disputes that interfere with our public functioning.
Discussion on Answer
In cemeteries there are no disagreements
You don't have to agree on everything, and it's natural to disagree and argue. Rabbi Michi's claim is that even on the practical level there is room for autonomy, and there is no obligation for a uniform ruling on questions that do not reach the religious court.
A. How would you explain Maimonides' words in Laws of Rebels 1:4, that when the Sanhedrin existed there was no dispute in Israel?
B. Likewise, how would you explain the words of the Talmud in Sanhedrin: "When the disciples of Hillel and Shammai increased, who had not sufficiently served their teachers, dispute increased." That implies that dispute is a post facto situation that stems from lack of knowledge. True, unlike Maimonides, there it stems from lack of authority to decide. But in any case, disagreement is not ideal.
C. What is the proof that autonomy in halakhic ruling is an ideal thing in deciding Jewish law?
I understand that it is an ideal thing in thought and philosophy.
And I also understand that as long as there is no deciding authority, it is also ideal in halakhic ruling.
But if there is someone who can decide—how do we know that there is autonomy in halakhic ruling?