Q&A: Combining Other Halakhic Decisors
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Combining Other Halakhic Decisors
Question
Hello, honored Rabbi.
1) What is the logic behind the fact that in halakhic rulings in responsa it is common for halakhic decisors, in cases of doubt, to combine the reasoning of other decisors with whom they themselves do not agree?
They write: “And if not, then perhaps the Jewish law follows so-and-so…” and sometimes they even combine opinions that nobody actually rules in accordance with.
2) And what is meant by “perhaps the Jewish law is like…”? Does it mean that perhaps that decisor arrived at the one unique truth? Is there one halakhic truth and everyone else is mistaken? (And every dispute is really a doubt.)
Thank you very much.
Answer
- These are subsidiary considerations that combine to create additional doubts. The assumption is that even if I myself have no doubt, the questioner has no firm position, and therefore from his perspective this can be treated as a doubt. After all, he is not obligated to ask דווקא me.
- I did not understand the question.