Q&A: Studying Responsa
Studying Responsa
Question
Hello Rabbi Michael,
Is it worthwhile, when studying a Talmudic passage analytically, to also look at halakhic responsa, despite the concern that they are not always aimed at the true meaning of the Talmudic passage? After all, sometimes a very complex case comes before the halakhic decisor, requiring him to take practical and social needs into account, such that if he does not find a way to rule leniently, a major problem could result. So even if he analyzes the passage together with the medieval authorities (Rishonim), he obviously will not do so in a purely analytical way but with a certain agenda in mind, even if justified.
It is not always clear from the context of the question whether there really was a strong need at that moment to permit, or whether the decisor truly interprets the passage that way as a matter of understanding. So when you study a passage in depth, do you also look at the responsa literature to see how they analyzed the passage, or is there no point?
Answer
Certainly it is worthwhile. I do not understand what the problem is. You study their analysis and then decide what of it you accept and what you do not. What practical difference does it make if the decisor was biased? You are examining his words, not him.
Discussion on Answer
I do not see where this discussion is going. I said that there is value in reading responsa, and the author’s method does not matter for that. So why should I care whether he intended it or not? Fine distinctions are not relevant either, unless the conclusion seems correct to you.
And in general, how do you expect a general answer to such a question? Obviously each responsum and each context has to be judged on its own merits. You need to use common sense, not accumulate rules about when to infer carefully and when not to. The assumption is that if someone writes something, he means it. He is not lying. You can argue that the fact that he holds that view stemmed from some need or difficulty. So what?
Is there also room to try to infer things precisely from the responsum itself? For example, if I am reading a responsum by some medieval authority, do you think it should be read as carefully as if I were reading his novellae on the Talmud? To try to prove from his responsum one side of an analytical question I raised? It could be that he himself did not mean that interpretation, but what can you do, a question came before him and he had to interpret it that way. Even if we grant that a certain interpretation seems plausible to me in the responsum, can one really develop lines of argument from it beyond what is explicitly written?
And besides, surely there are times when you are in fact evaluating the decisor himself. Not him personally, of course, but if I read a responsum of the Rashba, I can infer from it that his own position in the passage is such-and-such. And if he really was biased, then there is no proof regarding him that he in fact holds that view systematically, nor necessarily that he would disagree with another medieval authority.