Q&A: Independent Halakhic Ruling
Independent Halakhic Ruling
Question
To Rabbi Michael Abraham,
Hello,
I occasionally read things you write, and your words are always grounded in sound common sense and always thought-provoking. I especially want to mention Column 507, “A Current Article on Repentance,” in which you explain the logic of the Haredi speakers in a deep way that only a Haredi person can understand how precise it is. In other cases as well, I find myself identifying with things you write and finding in them an accurate and successful formulation of things I think and feel but do not always manage to formulate.
A characteristic that runs like a thread throughout your thought is intellectual independence not only in theory but also in practice. If you arrive at a halakhic conclusion different from what is commonly accepted, you would not hesitate to act according to your own view even if it were contrary to the opinion of all the accepted halakhic decisors. For example, in principle you do not reject the proposal to permit building a sukkah under a roof, if only a halakhic mechanism acceptable to you could be found, even though it is clear that it would not be accepted by the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Judaism.
In this context, I am troubled by the thought of Judaism’s ability to survive if every person relies on his own private reasoning, since Judaism cannot exist without a community with a significant shared basis that acts and conducts itself according to agreed rules. Sefer HaChinukh explains the commandment to follow the majority this way: “We were commanded in this in order to strengthen the endurance of our religion, for if we had been commanded to uphold the Torah according to whatever understanding of its true intent each of us could attain, every single Jew would say, ‘My reasoning dictates that the truth of this matter is such-and-such,’ and even if the whole world said the opposite, he would have no permission to act contrary to what he sees as the truth. The result would be destruction, for the Torah would become many Torahs, since each person would judge according to the poverty of his own understanding. But now that we have been explicitly commanded to accept in it the view of the majority of the sages, there is one Torah for all of us, and our endurance through this is great, and we must not depart from their opinion no matter what. Thus, when we fulfill their instructions, we thereby fulfill God’s commandment, and even if at times the sages should, Heaven forbid, fail to reach the truth, the sin will rest upon them and not upon us.”
Today there is no Sanhedrin, and there is also no obligation of following the majority, but the need by which the Chinukh explains the commandment applies and is vital at all times. There are issues that are not core, like the size of an olive-bulk or the latest time for reciting the Shema. But there are core issues in which disagreement may cause a significant split in Judaism.
Do you agree with this insight, that Judaism cannot exist without a community with a significant common denominator of beliefs, opinions, and practices, as the Chinukh says? If you agree with the principle, then what, in your opinion, is that minimal common denominator? How is that common denominator created, formed, and preserved? Who is supposed to chart the way?
Happy festival,
Gershon Prush
Answer
Greetings.
I am glad that my words are helpful.
I have written more than once that I hope and believe that when the Sanhedrin is reestablished, it will not decide all disputes, but only those that require a decision for the sake of shared functioning. All the other disputes can remain “each river following its own course.” The same applies to personal autonomy in Jewish law. Except that when there is no Sanhedrin, there is no way to avoid this, because even if I wanted to forbid what is permitted in order to create uniformity, I am not allowed to do so. That would be falsehood, and an addition to the Torah, and so on. Only an authorized institution is allowed to do that. Therefore, in my view one should always say the truth, and if we do not survive, then so be it. That is the price of truth. Like the story about secular studies in Volozhin, where (it turned out to be a fictional myth) the heads of the yeshiva said they were returning the keys to Heaven and the yeshiva should close.
But even your very assumption that Judaism cannot exist without uniformity is not acceptable to me. On the contrary, it cannot exist if there is too much uniformity. I have explained more than once the strange character of the Jewish codex, the Talmud, which is not written in the logical form of definitive halakhic rulings organized by topic, but rather like open, associative give-and-take without decisions. That kind of framework is what enabled us to survive and make it this far, because a free discourse developed within that framework, one that can contain many approaches and opinions. Freedom and autonomy are not a threat to survival; they make survival possible.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t see a problem with any of this. But even if I did, there would be nothing to do. A person acts, and should act, according to his understanding, certainly when there is no Sanhedrin. You can lie and say that he is deviating from Jewish law, but that would be a lie. Disputes are part of Jewish law.
Judaism does not fall apart because of changes in rulings and in Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and Yemenite customs. There is no need to go into hysteria over these fears.
Seemingly, there should be a distinction between studying these issues and acting in practice, which indeed should follow the path of the majority of the sages of the generation.
The important word here is “responsibility.”
There are people of truth who follow their truth, and their love of truth is so great that they see it almost as a sole value and are prepared, consciously or unconsciously, to risk a great deal for its sake.
But leaders cannot cling only to pure truth. That is possible only in an ideal and utopian world. They must weigh profit and loss, assess trends, and sometimes sacrifice certain values for the sake of Judaism’s core values. That is how we know the concept of a temporary emergency ruling, and “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah.” That is also why the Sages criticize Zechariah ben Avkulas, who refused to kill the man who ultimately caused the destruction of the Temple because that was not the Jewish law, and they said about him that his excessive humility destroyed the Temple. So too today, there is no stream in Judaism that is perfect, but there are streams whose chances of preserving Judaism’s core values are greater than others, even if they do not always follow the path of truth in every area.
This compromise is, in my opinion, a necessity of reality, but it can blur the truth too much, which indeed unfortunately happens in many cases. It is good that there are people like Rabbi Michael Abraham who give us a light tap on the wing and remind us of the truth, but a community cannot survive with an approach that gives exclusivity to pure truth.
Thank you for the quick and detailed answer.
You write that in your view there is no need for uniformity, and of course I agree. There is no room for absolute uniformity, but I still ask myself whether there is not a need for a minimal common denominator.
Suppose an Orthodox rabbi were to arise (I am not talking about the Reform, who do not see themselves as bound by Jewish law but only by the spirit of Judaism), serious and capable, and reach the conclusion that there is no problem using electricity on the Sabbath; that women can participate equally in all religious rituals; that prayer does not have to be with a congregation; that there is no need today for the second festival day in the Diaspora; that wearing a kippah is a separating and divisive factor that should be abolished; that a woman’s head covering is not relevant today at all; that after brushing one’s teeth one does not need to wait between meat and milk; that nowadays utensils absorb nothing at all and therefore there is no need whatsoever for separate dairy and meat utensils; that the slight inaccuracy in the Jewish calendar has accumulated into a whole day and therefore it should be changed; and other rulings of that kind. And he would not only rule that way, but also establish around himself a community that acts accordingly in actual practice.
Should I still relate to that community as Orthodox Judaism? Or perhaps has it already crossed the legitimate boundary, so that it should be considered a younger sister of Reform? One can ask what practical difference it makes, but I think that from an educational standpoint, both toward our children and toward ourselves, there is a need for definitions and boundaries of legitimacy.