Q&A: Citing Sources in a Sensitive Debate
Citing Sources in a Sensitive Debate
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael,
In light of the issue of drafting the Haredim that has come up recently, and all the discussions that this issue has brought with it, a question occurred to me: what is the proper attitude toward sources when discussing such a topic? Usually it seems quite clear that the other side’s position does not come from a pure analysis of the sources—from the Talmud / Talmudic text and midrashim down to contemporary responsa—but rather that the other side already has a position and is only looking to anchor it in one source or another (the famous example of Maimonides’ tribe of Levi, and so on).
To put the question more precisely: if I want to deal with the other side’s position, is there any point at all in addressing the sources they brought, so that I would need to show why those sources are not relevant to the discussion in the first place (as in the example of Maimonides’ tribe of Levi, where I would argue that he was bringing aggadic literature, as is his way at the end of the Jewish law code, and was not actually coming to issue a halakhic ruling)? Or do the sources function as a kind of “particular discussion format,” making a substantive discussion of them unnecessary, and what really needs to be addressed is the outlook itself behind all the sources they brought? (That is, to show why the position they take is not value-based / moral, or is not consistent, etc.)
I hope I phrased the question well. If so, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts.
Answer
You phrased it excellently, and you are absolutely right. In a discussion like this, the sources have no real significance. Beyond the question of how far Maimonides actually intended to issue a halakhic ruling, the difference between the various situations is so great that applying the sources will always depend on your worldview. So leave the sources out of it. I addressed this in Column 609; see there.
And of course there is another question: do we in fact rule in accordance with Maimonides? Other innovations of his, based on his own reasoning, do not really receive such close adherence. For example: the renewal of ordination, the status of laws derived from the interpretive expositions, one who makes his living from Torah study (“he has desecrated the Name and disgraced the religion,” etc.), which also seemingly contradicts what he says at the end of the laws of the Sabbatical year. For some reason, these rulings receive a more skeptical attitude.