Q&A: Ruling on Jewish Law
Ruling on Jewish Law
Question
1. If someone who has not reached the level of issuing rulings, has not finished the entire Talmud, and is not well-versed in the halakhic decisors, etc., studied a certain topic and sees that in the final halakhic conclusion there is a dispute among later authorities, and from his study of the topic one of them seems right to him—may he conduct himself according to that view? Or, since he has not reached the level of issuing rulings, does the matter remain in the category of doubt, such that he must act according to the rule that in a Torah-level doubt one rules stringently, and in a rabbinic-level doubt one rules leniently?
2. What, according to your view that there is almost absolute autonomy and that each person should study and arrive at the Jewish law through analysis according to his own understanding, is the meaning of the rules of halakhic ruling? What does the rule “the Jewish law follows Rabbi Meir,” “the Jewish law follows the later authorities,” “the Jewish law follows an anonymous Mishnah,” “the Jewish law follows Maimonides or the Rif,” “the Jewish law follows the local rabbinic authority,” and so on and so on, mean to me, if in the end I have to reach my own conclusion?
Answer
1. I don’t know what exactly “has reached the level of issuing rulings” means. If he feels he is capable of it, then he should act as he understands.
2. Rules found in the Talmud itself are binding, like everything else in the Talmud. Though one must take into account that these rules are not really sweeping, but only generally directive. One does not derive from generalizations, even where it says “except.” And so we find that Maimonides ruled like Abaye in additional topics beyond the mnemonic Ya’al Kegam, and the like.
Rules from after the Talmud are merely an invention and should not be paid attention to.