Q&A: Slander
Slander
Question
Do you think there can be formal authority in a specific area of Jewish law, such as whether the Chafetz Chaim has formal authority in the laws of slander because his rulings have been fairly widely accepted (at least in the Haredi world)?
Answer
In principle, definitely yes. But I do not think his words were actually accepted as binding in the sense that one may not disagree with him. He is the central authority on the topic because he gathered the material together, but this is not a matter of formal authority.
Beyond that, I think that even if we were to see this as an authoritative acceptance, there is an aspect here of acceptance based on error. The Chafetz Chaim turned recommendations and guidance into binding Jewish law. If we reach the conclusion that he was mistaken about this, there is no obligation to follow him, except in those matters where we also agree that it is Jewish law, but disagree with him about the specific ruling.
Discussion on Answer
I discussed this at length in the past. One does not disagree with the Talmud because it was accepted. It is true, and not by accident, that it is packed with disputes and that a great many views can be read into it. Still, it is the framework of the discussion, and if there is a difficulty against your view from the Talmud, your opinion is rejected. Proofs for every view are brought from the Talmud. So accepting the Talmud as the framework definitely has significance despite the disputes.
As for things that entered the Talmud that are not Jewish law, they truly have no authority.
In the case of the Chafetz Chaim, he cannot decide that something which is not Jewish law is Jewish law. And if he did decide that, that decision has no validity. And as I said, he also was not accepted as an absolute formal authority.
Thank you for the clarification regarding the authoritative framework.
The sages of the Talmud also could not decide that something which is not Jewish law is Jewish law. But after the closing of the Talmud and its acceptance as an authority, that was accepted and became Jewish law. Am I mistaken?
The Talmud was given the authority of the Sanhedrin, and they can enact decrees (but not determine arbitrarily that something is Jewish law if it is not. This is the topic of one who errs regarding the commandment to heed the words of the sages). That does not exist in the case of the Chafetz Chaim.
The Talmud too is a compilation of laws and recommendations.
The reason one perhaps does not disagree with the Talmud is that the entire text is packed with disputes on almost every law and every line of reasoning, so whatever we think, we can almost always somehow fit it into that sea of text. I did not understand how authority can come from disagreement. Unless the Rabbi means only where the Talmud writes, “and the law is,” but in most places the law was ruled only in a later period.
The question here is actually interesting precisely because the Chafetz Chaim wrote a book that presented the law and was accepted by the general public. From that it would seem that the public granted him authority for several generations already, even if today someone might want to disagree about which rules count as law.