Rules of jurisdiction and methods of adjudication
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask you about the methods of ruling on halakhic law:
There is a well-known rule that rabbinic doubt is a word, and that from the Torah it is a matter of doubt.
In addition, there is a rule: after plurals, inflect.
But the Beit Yosef, in its halachic rulings, goes against the two rules above. The Beit Yosef does not consider most of the poskim, but only considers the three pillars of the teaching (the Rif, the Rosh, and the Rambam). In addition, when it has a reasonable doubt between these three pillars (say, one permits, one prohibits, and one did not rule), it usually (from what I have seen) does not use the rules of doubt from the Torah to the rabbinate/rabbinate to the rabbinate, but rather incorporates the opinions of other poskim and even its own judgment at times. Therefore, the question is, how and when is it appropriate to use the two rules above, and why the Beit Yosef did not use them.
In addition, is it correct to take into account the greatness of a particular rabbi when ruling on a halakhic issue between several systems, and if so, how should this be expressed in practice?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer