Q&A: Sanhedrin or a Mistake?
Sanhedrin or a Mistake?
Question
Honorable Rabbi, greetings and blessings. I would like to ask about the confusion among those who tend to be strict in matters of modesty because of the words of the Mishnah Berurah in Section 75, paragraph 1, subparagraph 2 regarding the law of the “thigh/shank.” On the one hand, the well-known words of the Chazon Ish in Kovetz Iggerot, part 2, letter 41 are: “In the end, the ruling handed down from our rabbis, by whose word we live, such as the Beit Yosef, Magen Avraham, and Mishnah Berurah… is an established ruling, as if from the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone…”; how then is it that, when faced with a halakhic conclusion not to their liking, they dismiss the words of the Mishnah Berurah with a wave of the hand by claiming it was an error or a typo, instead of trying at least to reconcile his words? This is very troubling to me. I would appreciate a prompt response. With the blessing of Torah,
Answer
It is well known that the Haredi approach to these words of the Chazon Ish is to take them literally. But that is absurd, because if the Mishnah Berurah is like the Chamber of Hewn Stone, then the Chazon Ish, who disagreed with him, is a rebellious elder liable for death. He only meant to say that they should be taken seriously; he was not giving them the authority of the Sanhedrin.
In the final analysis, none of these halakhic decisors has authority, and matters are determined by common sense and by the place and the time. This is especially true in the laws of modesty.
Discussion on Answer
I do not understand the question.
The Mishnah Berurah is not the Chamber of Hewn Stone and has no authority whatsoever. Even if he writes something or means something, that does not obligate anyone. The only thing that obligates is the law of the Torah or an enactment of the Sages. The Mishnah Berurah can at most argue that something is included in a Torah law or in some enactment, and only then would it be binding. The fact that he thinks something does not obligate anyone. Therefore, this whole discussion and close parsing of his wording—why he wrote what he wrote and what he meant—seems exaggerated to me.
And from this it follows that, in principle, one need not present reasons in order to disagree with him. Still, because he is an important halakhic decisor, it is proper to weigh his words when formulating a position on a given topic. But if common practice is not that way, then we need not be concerned with it. This is especially so in the laws of modesty, which depend on local custom and accepted social norms.
Even when the Chafetz Chaim writes that it does not depend on custom, even that is only because he understood the thigh/shank as something essential. But in circumstances where that perception changes (and it is not merely that people happen to act differently), the law changes, and the matter is entrusted to the sages and to the people in the place and time under discussion.
I know that people are accustomed to pilpul over his words—what he meant and why—and to seeing this book as a kind of second Talmud, but I want no part in that.
I would ask for further clarification regarding the proper attitude toward the words of the Mishnah Berurah. Did he mean his words as you wrote? Was he aware of the difficulties and nevertheless ruled as he did? (I would be glad for a specific response regarding the law mentioned above.) Can one seriously entertain the possibility that the Mishnah Berurah would leave room for error in his wording, when his work was intended from the outset for people who cannot delve deeply into Jewish law (according to what he writes in the introduction)? Is it possible to disagree in Jewish law without claiming that the opposing authority is definitely mistaken, and thus uphold both views? (At this stage I am unable to send this through the system; I will ask experts in the field for help later. My apologies in advance.)