Q&A: On the Meaning of ‘A Decree the Public Cannot Uphold’
On the Meaning of ‘A Decree the Public Cannot Uphold’
Question
It is common to distinguish the concept of a law in the scientific context from the legal context.
Whereas in law, even if people do not obey the law, the law still exists, in the scientific context, if bodies do not act in accordance with the law, then the law is nullified—it was a mistake.
Is it the same with decrees as well? Can one say that the meaning of the rule, ‘a decree that the public cannot uphold is nullified,’ is like the scientific context—that it becomes clear that the decree is simply not correct, and therefore in principle it should also become nullified?
Answer
To my mind, that is a somewhat odd formulation. The more precise distinction is that a law of nature is a given that cannot be changed in any way at all (and not only depending on whether it is observed or not. It is also not the result of any legislation). By contrast, a legal law is the result of legislation. It indeed exists even if people violate it, but it is not embedded in nature; rather, it is the result of a human decision, which can also repeal it.
As for the rule regarding decrees, it does not need to be repealed; rather, it is nullified on its own. And indeed, I have explained this in several places. The rule is not a compromise with reality, but receiving feedback from the public as to whether the decree is correct or not. See, for example, here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%98-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-62/
And in more detail here:
http://iyun.org.il/article/%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%93%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA/
Discussion on Answer
As for the substance of the matter, does the Rabbi have a source for this explanation (besides reasoning)?
I haven’t checked. Why do I need a verse? The reasoning itself is enough, isn’t it?!
Even so, the reasoning isn’t trivial; I’d prefer some kind of consensus.
Thanks. As for the “odd,” I would point to Ruach Mishpat, p. 351.