Question

Hello,
Following listening to the lectures on the topic of “changes in Jewish law” and other lectures, there is one point in your view that is still not sufficiently clear to me.
What is your attitude toward the tradition of halakhic rulings? It is clear to me that, in your opinion, technically no authority after the Talmud has binding authority (and even the Talmud only because we accepted it upon ourselves as such), but does the chain of Jewish law down to our own day not carry significance? Is there not some obligation to continue in the path of our forefathers?
For example, regarding calculating the size of an “olive-bulk” for commandments involving eating: it is clear to me (and if memory serves, the Rabbi also thinks so) that the obligating olive-bulk is the size of an actual olive as people see it, and not some calculated volume measurement (certainly not weight). But is there not some weight to the opinion of the sages and the custom of the public in recent generations at least to eat an olive-bulk according to the calculated measure—for example on Passover, to eat a third of a machine-made matzah as an olive-bulk, even though it is clear that an olive is half that size or less?
Isn’t the statement, “I do what I think,” somewhat dismissive of previous generations, when it is not at all certain that I am wiser than they were (I certainly am not)?
In addition, is there not importance in having unified practice as much as possible? If everyone does what he thinks, there will be no uniformity and anarchy will result (there is something of Kant’s “categorical imperative” here). At least from that angle, is there not an advantage to saying that one should not change what previous generations did—at least not too much, since there are always changes? (Personally, I already find the split in customs among the different communities difficult enough, and “we already lament the earlier ones…”).
In addition, changing Jewish law in a private way (at least in the public sphere) will create a situation of “standing among those who sit, and sitting among those who stand,” which is halakhically problematic in itself.
Is there not a need to distinguish between study and practice (“Just because we draw analogies, should we act on them?”)?
[Almost all the rabbis I know and have spoken with—even though they are not at all conservative or Hardal—when they think Jewish law should change, are still very cautious about change, if only because of the problematic nature of change itself and the slur it casts on the earlier authorities.]
 
As for me, I think changes in Jewish law should be “evolutionary”—that is, somewhat slow (even though I would be happy with faster changes, that does not seem right to me from a broader perspective).
Thank you very much, and Sabbath peace.