Q&A: The Periphery of Jewish Law
The Periphery of Jewish Law
Question
I just finished listening to this series of lectures. At the end, you attack those who bring halakhic peripheries into halakhic rulings, such as: it’s obviously forbidden, but there’s no source for it, so it’s rabbinic, and the like. In the end, all the halakhic peripheries you mentioned are lenient, whereas the ones you argued against are peripheries that are stringent. I’d be glad to understand: in your opinion, is there room to bring peripheries into Jewish law also in order to be stringent? And if so, could you give examples?
Answer
Neither to be lenient nor to be stringent. Jewish law is Jewish law, and what lies outside it is not Jewish law. Beyond that, there is no clear definition of what counts as a lenient ruling and what counts as a stringent one. Usually every ruling has two sides: it is lenient in one respect and stringent in another.
Discussion on Answer
I answered the question.
I don’t agree with your claim here, but as stated, it isn’t relevant to the discussion.
In that lecture you gave a definition of what makes something lenient or stringent: whether it allows more options or fewer. According to that rule, seemingly all the examples are lenient, whereas all the examples you argued against are stringent.