Q&A: Kesef Mishneh, Laws of Rebels 2:1
Kesef Mishneh, Laws of Rebels 2:1
Question
Hello Rabbi,
The Kesef Mishneh explains that the reason we cannot disagree with the rulings of the Talmud is that we upheld and accepted them upon ourselves, an acceptance from below.
How can such an acceptance have binding force? After all, these are God’s laws, and if I reach the conclusion that God’s command is different from what they said, what authority do I / does the public have to accept a different Jewish law? Granted, with regard to the laws of the Knesset, the decision concerns only us; there is no true or false, only what I decide to accept upon myself to do. But with God’s command, doesn’t truth apply?
Thank you
Answer
A good question.
Something like this was asked by the Ran in his derashot: how can we require a rebellious elder to obey the Sanhedrin if he knows they are mistaken, and the mistake is in fact harmful (to the body, the spirit, or the world)? He answers that disobeying the Sanhedrin is also harmful.
Something similar can perhaps be said here as well. Once we accepted the authority of the Talmud, that is the Jewish law for us, and now God Himself expects us to act accordingly, even if in terms of the truth it is a mistake. The acceptance of the public constitutes a collective decision (as with the acceptance of the Torah). There is logic in saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, wants us, when we have disagreements, to have a way to make uniform decisions as a community (when necessary), and therefore the determination of Jewish law can also be made through acceptance from below.
Note that if this were not so, then according to your approach it would be impossible to issue any halakhic ruling at all, not only with respect to the Talmud. The same would apply to following the majority in the Sanhedrin or even ordinary disputes between sages. After all, each person should do what is true in his own view, so what good does any determination do?
Discussion on Answer
In principle, yes. It’s hard to get into here the topic of an inadvertent transgression in the commandment to heed the words of the sages.
Is it really forbidden for a person to eat forbidden fat even if the Great Court ruled that it is permitted, so long as he is sure they made a mistake? It’s just that he may not give rulings against their opinion. And if he ate while knowing it was forbidden, he is liable to bring an offering.
So the obedience is in public—for the sake of preventing anarchy?