Q&A: Medieval and Later Authorities
Medieval and Later Authorities
Question
Dear Rabbi,
In the scholarly-analytic columns, after presenting the analysis, the Rabbi goes on to present different approaches of medieval authorities (Rishonim) and later authorities (Acharonim), and discusses them in light of the analytic framework. Seemingly, in light of the Rabbi's own approach, that discussion is unnecessary. Contrary to the traditional approach, the medieval and later authorities have no authority in the Rabbi's view—only the Talmud, and the learner's own understanding. So why discuss all those approaches? It should be enough to study the Talmud and make an analytic study of the topic.
A related question comes up in halakhic responsa, where the Rabbi sometimes refers to the Shulchan Arukh and its commentators, or to different approaches among medieval and later authorities. There too, seemingly, this is unnecessary—that the Rabbi should simply give his own reasoning without taking those approaches into account. So why mention them?
Answer
They do not have mandatory authority, but their positions certainly carry weight. When I have no good reason otherwise, I am definitely willing to adopt the ruling of one halakhic decisor or another. Beyond that, the questioner usually wants to rely on sources.
As for conceptual clarification, even in philosophy, where those thinkers or others have no binding authority, we still examine the different positions. That is the way to clarify a Talmudic or philosophical topic.
And after the clarification, if we want, we also decide what the conclusion is. For example, in my recent columns I explain why I favor globalism.