Q&A: On the Authority of the Sages in Jewish Law
On the Authority of the Sages in Jewish Law
Question
I would like to clarify how you arrived at the conclusion that the Talmud has formal authority to establish norms of conduct. After all, that very claim is itself written in the Talmud, so how do we know it is true?
And especially in light of what seems to emerge from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh): for judicial needs they did not consult Torah scholars [if such people even existed], but rather the judges who, through their valor, succeeded in saving Israel became the judges of the people—and among them were ordinary, lowly people, and even women were appointed as judges over the people, even though they are generally forbidden to study Torah. Likewise, the request for monarchy was so that “he may judge us like all the nations,” etc.; and Solomon asked for “wisdom” to judge the people, being endowed with a high IQ, not that knowledge of Torah descended upon him overnight. In general, the institution of the Sanhedrin is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) [and if anything, the “priests” were the ones giving rulings, which itself is puzzling: from when and how does Torah get passed down through priestly genes?].
And in fact, in the very generation in which rabbinic authority began, the rebellious movement also arose that did not recognize this authority. So why exactly did you choose to adopt specifically the approach of the rabbinic Pharisees, against what seems to emerge from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) itself?
Answer
There is agreement among all halakhic decisors and among the public faithful to Jewish law that the Talmud has authority. That itself is a consensus, similar to the status of Mount Sinai. It is not because it is written in the Talmud—if only because it is not written in the Talmud.
I am not very expert in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), but “judges” in biblical terminology does not mean judges in the legal sense, but leaders. The institution of the Sanhedrin is mentioned in the Torah (the seventy elders, and “do not deviate”).
There is no prohibition on women studying Torah. They are not obligated in Torah study. In fact they did study, and in later generations as well there were women who studied. Tosafot’s view in one place is that women are even qualified to judge.
Discussion on Answer
In the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), halakhic matters and halakhic frameworks in general are not mentioned. One can say either that they did not exist then, or that for some reason the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) does not address them.
Why shouldn’t they accept being judged not according to Torah law? If there is a wise woman, they go to her. As I said above, according to one answer in Tosafot, they went to her to be judged under ordinary Torah law, because women are qualified to judge. Especially since at that time there was no king in Israel, so the law of a king applied to a judge, and it is no surprise that he can judge as a king judges (as in Ran, Homily 11).
The Jewish people never agreed to accept the Torah and denied it from the very beginning. Halakhic literature is the result of denying the Torah.
The Skeptic,
that is an interesting claim.
How do you support it?
“That itself is a consensus, similar to the status of Mount Sinai” — ???
Obviously, in the Torah it is written. The surprising thing is how an institution that is supposed to be so central and determinative is not mentioned at all from the time of Joshua onward; that makes me suspicious.
Tosafot write in several places that they went to Deborah for judgment because they “accepted her upon themselves” to judge according to her ruling. The question is: how did it happen that they accepted upon themselves to be judged not according to Torah law? And what is the connection between a prophet or savior and a “judge”—as happens in the period of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh).