Halacha
Peace and blessings
Why does the Rabbi believe that if the whole of Israel accepted the Talmud, then from now on we are bound by it? If, from the perspective of halakhic law, only the Sanhedrin is binding, then all the laws in the General Assembly that were ruled by the Sanhedrin will be binding and nothing more. And apparently, how is this different from all kinds of customs that the people of Israel decided on and the Rabbis disagreed on, and in particular, according to the Rabbi’s view, there is an interest in autonomous rulings? So what did the Rashba hate about Rabbi Akiva?
thanks.
This question comes up here again and again. I will address it briefly. Every person is bound by a system of laws accepted by the society in which they live. As far as I know, the Jewish people have not decided on anything that I disagree with. A custom is not similar to our case, since a custom is not a law but a practice, and therefore its validity is lower and the attitude towards it is more flexible. And when it simply contradicts a law, it is null and void. Can the autonomous ruling also take me against Moses or God? The autonomous ruling is within an existing framework. If you do not accept the framework, then of course you do not act according to it and you do not need permission from it to do so.
So according to the rabbi, if I am in a Hasidic community and everyone there practices the prohibition of legumes on Passover, then am I also obligated because of society?
No, because a person does not have to adhere to every whim of a community in which he happens to live. The people of Israel are not a random community. Beyond that, it is at most a custom and not a law. What's more, it is a foolish custom. And finally, it is not a custom but a concern. See column 2.
And what will the Rabbi say about Kabbalah? Delphi, your words are that everything that Israel received is due to him, and today everyone acknowledges Kabbalah except the Rabbi?
Is there a primary reason why I accept the system of laws? Can I just as easily not accept it, like my secular brothers?
No,
It is not true that everyone accepts it. Certainly not the laws derived from it. And I also accept it as a relevant source (even if not absolutely binding).
Aaron,
There has already been acceptance by the general public and you cannot now declare that you do not accept it. You can of course not accept it and suffer the consequences. If you think it is not binding then of course do not observe it. But it may turn out that you were wrong or mistaken.
If the rabbi were one of those rabbis whose considerations in ruling [as explained in Nadav Shnerb's article] are what will happen if we rule in this way from a sociological perspective, then it is up to the public to decide what will happen if we change the decision. But according to the rabbi's method, which is to rule autonomously, the public should not be of interest to the rabbi, at least in cases where the rabbi disagrees with the G.M., and there is no fear that he will disagree with Moses, our Lord, because there is no disagreement about what is forbidden, and in order not to disagree with the G.M., one must invent strange ideas of public acceptance that are not mentioned in the written Torah and are not hallelujah, and therefore there is no reason to give them such a special status.
It has nothing to do with consequential considerations. Acceptance by the audience is binding in itself.
The rabbi taught that when there is no rational explanation, one goes to a psychologist for help. The rabbi is afraid to say such a thing because it would be out of line.
The next step is for you to prescribe me medication based on your learned diagnosis.
I am dust under your feet, Rabbi.
Right now I'm stepping on grass.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
