Q&A: A More Extensive Response to the Discussion Between Rabbi Alaluf and Yadan
A More Extensive Response to the Discussion Between Rabbi Alaluf and Yadan
Question
Hello,
I saw that you briefly commented that Rabbi Alaluf did not answer Yadan’s questions.
I would appreciate it if you could answer two questions:
A. How do the Shulchan Arukh and its commentaries rule something that is sometimes not in accordance with the Talmud, or even the opposite of it?
B. What is the meaning of rulings in the Shulchan Arukh (or in the Talmud) if in the end a rabbi decides to rule the opposite?
For example, like the case Yadan gave—the Shulchan Arukh is a practical book of Jewish law, and if it says that it is forbidden to desecrate the Sabbath in order to save a non-Jew, then what is the point if in the end all the rabbis (according to Rabbi Alaluf) rule the opposite in almost every situation? What is the practical significance of the Shulchan Arukh or the Talmud? And what does it mean if what is written there is sometimes not practical in day-to-day life because a rabbi rules exactly the opposite?
Answer
How are your questions related to the opening?
A. Give an example and then we can discuss it. This is too general a question.
B. Why shouldn’t a rabbi disagree with the Shulchan Arukh? Saving a non-Jew is not a ruling against the Talmud. See my article, “Is There an ‘Enlightened’ Idolatry?”