Q&A: Halakhic Expertise
Halakhic Expertise
Question
I asked in connection with a lesson from the series The Way of Jewish Law that you gave in the Yeruham hesder yeshiva in the past.
There you said in the lesson on “halakhic expertise” that there is no halakhic authority in factual matters, and you gave as an example that one cannot issue a halakhic ruling that oranges are dangerous (and therefore forbidden to eat?) because there is no halakhic authority in factual matters.
But Jewish law does operate in those areas too, for example: wearing a shirt inside out is forbidden because it causes forgetfulness, “one who regularly eats olives,” sleeping with your garment under your head as a pillow, and so on.
In other contexts, if I remember correctly, it is stated in the Talmud that it is forbidden to eat an onion that was left overnight because of danger (is that a determination of Jewish law?), and therefore it is forbidden.
Answer
I discuss this at greater length in the third book of my trilogy.
In all the laws you mentioned, even if they contain a factual component, there is really no authority regarding that component. If it turns out scientifically that it is incorrect, then the law based on it is null and void, like the dust of the earth.
Discussion on Answer
I’ve explained more than once that this claim appears plainly unreasonable for many reasons. First, where would one get such an idea from? Second, even if we have a doubt that perhaps there are hidden reasons, by the same token it is possible that there are no such additional reasons, and therefore doubt cannot override certainty. One should remember that if the circumstances require a change in the law, then the changed law is the truth, and therefore preserving the previous law is a deviation from Jewish law. Anyone who claims otherwise bears the burden of proof.
Good evening!
And what about the Vilna Gaon’s statement that even when the custom is canceled, the reason is not canceled, because every law had additional hidden reasons?