Autonomy in Halacha
Hello.
Yesterday I went through your article “Autonomy and Authority in Halacha Ruling” and I was very impressed.
Since I have been pondering these matters for many years, I have come to some observations while studying them and I hope to unfold some of them in this framework as time permits.
[Out of curiosity, I’m wondering if this is an old article of yours, because it’s a bit different in style from other articles of yours that I’ve read].
In note 3, you stated that on the one hand, the Maharshal in his book Yesh opposes ruling based on precedents, and on the other hand, in his Responsa, he frequently discusses precedents.
It is interesting to note that with Maran we see the opposite phenomenon: in the book Beit Yosef he rules almost exclusively based on precedents, while in his responsa he sometimes rules directly on Shas issues (for example, Si’ Lev).
I think the answer to both is that there is something desirable and something found. Although the Chief Justice believed that the autonomous ruling was more correct, he did not rule out the ruling based on precedents, and therefore when it was necessary to answer a halakha on a website (Responsa), he was forced to rely on precedents.
Whereas Maran, although he thought that ruling based on precedents was more correct (the truth is that I am not sure about this, perhaps from his perspective it is just more practical, and so it is implied in the introduction to Beit Yosef), in the actual case, MM was forced to instruct based on his research because searching the books takes more time.
I think that for the same reason, what you proved in the body of the article (page 82) from the concept of ‘plugta darbu’ta’, that we are unable to decide between the poskim (first-rate judges), is not accurate, because it is possible that this concept refers to a situation in which we do not have time (or another reason) to decide, and then the dispute is defined as plugta darbu’ta, but this does not rule out the possibility of deciding when we have time to study properly.
Finally, I looked for Rabbi Elisha Aviner’s article on arbitrary rulings in “Ma’aliyot” and did not find it. You mentioned it in note 2. It is possible that you attributed it to an excerpt from his article on the rules of teaching, but I did not find a separate article.
I benefit greatly from corresponding with you, if things bother you please let me know.
What you wrote is what I said. Indeed, in a rabbinical debate, we can and should decide for ourselves. If you don’t have time to decide, then it is reasonable to follow the laws of spikot (although since this is a doubt that may and may not be clarified, there is no permission to be lenient even in the rabbinate).
By the way, the explanation you offered is pressing on the B.I. and also a bit on the M.A.R.S.L. Was he pressed for time in all his answers? So when did he clarify things himself? And especially since searching precedents doesn’t take less time than clarifying things yourself.
Things are not a hassle at all. That’s what the site exists for.
If my memory serves me correctly, there is indeed a Radb”z who believes that in the Plugta Darbuta, they did not say the Sder.
Some recent writers write this. But this is an argument within the framework of the laws of spikot. My argument is that the laws of spikot should not be applied here, but rather one must decide on one's own.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
