Q&A: On Interpreting the Torah
On Interpreting the Torah
Question
In the weekly lesson we learned in section 318 about the “some say… and some say…” that the Shulchan Arukh brings regarding cooking after roasting. For example, this leads to the dispute between Rabbi Ben Zion Abba Shaul and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef about preparing black coffee on the Sabbath—whether only in a second vessel, or even by pouring from the hot-water urn. It seems to me that the view of the Yere’im is to be stringent. Because I don’t really have the tools, it’s a bit hard for me to formulate the question.
Basically, we have a situation here where two Jews go up to heaven: one follows the view of the Yere’im and the other follows the Shulchan Arukh. According to one approach, if you prepare black coffee by pouring from a first vessel your status is liable to karet and stoning, while according to the other opinion, “the humble shall eat and be satisfied.”
How can it be that with one Torah, two Jews act differently? How will God judge in heaven? (I know I’m not formulating the question well enough because I lack knowledge and details on the subject.)
And another question: what should one do? After all, there is a possible Torah-level prohibition in preparing coffee this way, but on the other hand, according to the one who holds it is permitted, it is permitted. What is the proper “practical conduct”? Should one adopt the stringent opinion when there is doubt about a Torah prohibition? Especially when there is such a dispute among halakhic decisors? Or if it is permitted, then it is permitted with no concern, and in heaven they won’t “hold me accountable” for it.
Thank you, Rabbi.
Answer
In principle, you are supposed to make decisions for yourself, if you are capable of doing so. You should enter into the topics and decide what seems more reasonable. If you are not capable of that, you turn to a rabbi you have chosen, and he will decide. And if you do not have a rabbi, there are the laws of doubt: in Torah-level matters one rules stringently, and in rabbinic matters one may be lenient.
The assumption is that someone who acted in this way has no claims against him. He acted according to the best of his understanding, and even if he erred, he was under compulsion. True, I have no idea what happens in the heavenly court, and nobody else does either, but logic says that in principle a person is judged according to his own approach.