Q&A: Rules of Halakhic Ruling
Rules of Halakhic Ruling
Question
Hello and blessings,
Rabbi Michael Abraham explains in his book on Jewish law [Processes Among the Standing] that rules such as the rules of halakhic ruling that appear in the Talmud are not autonomous in themselves; rather, they grow out of the cases, and therefore there are exceptions to them… and therefore the rules are not binding.
Question:
A. If we have accepted the Talmud upon ourselves, aren’t we also obligated regarding these rules—for example, that the Jewish law follows a certain rabbi in a certain context—even if I understand it the opposite way?
B. Why did the Gemara write these rules, that the Jewish law follows a certain rabbi rather than another rabbi, if according to the Rabbi’s approach in every dispute one must examine the matter on its own merits according to the learner’s understanding? So why does the Gemara want us to rule in a wholesale way?
Thank you.
Answer
A. The meaning of the rule is that it is not absolute. Therefore, commitment to the rules has to take into account that this is what the rules mean. I brought examples there, such as Maimonides ruling like Abaye in the cases of “you shall not form factions” and “if one acted, it is ineffective.”
B. I explained this there as well. These are default rules. If you do not have a clear position, or you have not clarified the Talmudic passage, this is what you should do.