Elu Va-elu Divre Elokim Hayyim

ELU VA-ELU DIVRE ELOKIM HAYYIM:

HALAKHIC PLURALISM AND THEORIES OF CONTROVERSY

By Michael Rosensweig

This article originally appeared in TRADITION 26:3, 1992.

I.

The theme of Pluralism, as it relates to the value of controversy and to the legitimacy and precise

status of conflicting opinions, is fundamental to law and obviously constitutes a crucial conceptual

and pragmatic challenge for any legal system. With respect to halakha, however, there are

additional elements and dimensions to consider which further complicate an already elaborate

issue. Halakha is, after all, a uniquely divine system of law predicated on the interaction of two

superficially dissonant motifs -- an ontologically independent devar haShem, on the one hand,

and the almost autonomous human capacity and obligation to interpret that devar haShem,

accompanied by the responsibility that this measure of autonomy entails, on the other. Thus, the

topic of halakhic controversy and pluralism assumes even greater prominence than one might

have anticipated in reflecting the essential character of Halakha as an effective legal system.

From one perspective, an analysis of this topic is important because it enables us to

formulate the halakhic attitude and policy toward the issue of dissent and the dissenting, even

rejected, minority view. It affords us the opportunity to evaluate its role, and to assess the

dimension it contributes to the overall system, as well as to define the necessary parameters

which limit its centrality, without which halakha as a unifying and authoritative legal system

would be jeopardized.

There is, however, an additional contemporary dimension to this issue which increases the

urgency for its proper investigation. We live in an era in which extravagant claims march under

the banner of religious pluralism. In part, this is due to the present connotation of the term which

conjures the image of standards watered down by unrestricted and uncritical flexibility. Primarily,

however, this phenomenon can be traced to the bold assertions of the Conservative and Reform

movements, whose justification of halakhic deviation on the basis of a pluralistic perspective

constitutes the perversion of a concept that in its authentic form accents the depth and intensity

of a maximally demanding Halakha as the embodiment of devar haShem.

The enterprise of investigating this topic is plagued by both methodological and substantive

difficulties. There is no clear locus classicus in terms of the central issues. Even the Talmudic

passages in Hagiga (3b) and Eruvin (13b), which we shall demonstrate to be the most significant

texts, are ambiguous in terms of their real implication. At the same time, the broad issues that

are central to this theme pervade the philosophy of halakha and therefore encompass many

subtopics. Issues such as lo bashamayim hi (the Torah is not in heaven), the independence of a

posek from previous authority and perhaps even from divine authority, and complex questions of

procedure and methodology of pesak vis-à-vis the pursuit of halakhic truth border and sometimes

Page 1 of 17Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig

22/07/2012http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm

overlap our theme and thus complicate the picture considerably.

The philosophical and epistemological difficulties suggested by the very concept of multiple

truths—an apparent oxymoron—constitutes another dimension of the problem. This can be

illustrated by what I believe to be a fundamental misconception—the association of our concept of

elu-va-elu divre Elokim hayyim (both positions of a debate represent the word of the living God)

with the so-called medieval Double Truth Doctrine of the Averroist school with respect to conflicts

of Faith and Reason. Firstly, it should be noted that there is considerable doubt that such a theory

ever existed. Etienne Gilson and others have pointed out that such an attribution first appears in

1277 in the introduction to a church document authored by Bishop Etienne Tempier of Paris which

condemned heterodox ideologies. It is likely that rather than representing a true and justifiable

doctrine, this view was attributed to the Averroists by their religious critics who suspected them of

covering up their heresy by cynically and insincerely clinging to Belief while truly being committed

to Reason. In fact, Averroists merely asserted that despite their authentic belief in the teachings

of Faith, they could not but acknowledge that Reason revealed a different set of conclusions, and

they were unwilling to brand logical philosophical analysis a waste of time in spite of this

dilemma1. Be it as it may, this theory of Double Truths fundamentally acknowledges the absolute

dichotomy between two distinct spheres—Religion and Reason. This approach cannot serve as a

model for the concept of eilu va-eilu which refers to multiple truths all of which are legitimate

expressions of the Divine Spiritual domain2.

Moreover, in attempting to evaluate the overall topic of halakhic pluralism, confusion is likely

to stem from a lack of clear differentiation between different phases of the issue—each

characterized by its own dynamics and range of options. These include: a) biblical exegesis and

Jewish philosophy; b) the process of Talmud Torah and the theoretical status of hefzah shel Torah

(an essence of Torah); c) pesak halakha and the relationship between procedure and its de facto

conclusions, and the pursuit of objective halakhic truth.

I shall endeavor to outline some of the possible approaches and parameters of this problem

without making any attempt to achieve the kind of comprehensive treatment that would demand

much more extensive elaboration on issues of authority, procedure and methodology of pesak

than the scope of this paper permits.

II.

In the realm of biblical exegesis (parshanut) and Jewish thought (hashkafa), diversity of

opinion and interpretation is pervasive and the perception of its legitimacy is widely

acknowledged. Pluralism in these contexts poses no real difficulty inasmuch as the fundamental

guidelines which regulate these disciplines and provide their religious sanction are quite clear.

Several additional factors contribute to this as well.

The primary focus of pluralism in these contexts is not contradictory views, but multiple layers

of meaning since generally no absolute mutually, exclusive values or determinations are at stake.

It is not only possible but even compellingly logical that events, institutions and mizvot which are



perceived to be Divinely inspired and spiritually invested should have the capacity to

accomplish many functions and to symbolically represent more than one single theme. Moreover,

inasmuch as the primary sources of these enterprises are usually biblical-divine texts rather than

human rabbinic texts, multiple meanings consequent on a divine text are possible. Even when

relevant, rabbinic texts do not exert the same measure of binding authority in areas of parshanut

and hashkafa as they do in halakhic discussions. The midrash and aggadot of the Talmud are

open to allegorical interpretation and according to some halakhists even to rejection.3 While one

must seriously consider the message of aggadot, they certainly do not have the force and

normative weight of halakha.

On the social-communal level, too, there is not the same kind of urgency for uniformity in the

sphere of hashkafa as there is in halakha, where concrete performances, mutual obligations and

objective procedures are central. With respect to the notion of a subjective inner life of the spirit,

a pluralistic ideology addressing itself to individual inclinations and intuitions potentially

constitutes a more valuable and effective approach to religious life.

And yet, the broad parameters of even this pluralism should not be misconstrued as

unrestricted as some would have us believe. Moses Mendelsohn's dogma of the "dogmalessness

of Judaism" is clearly an unacceptable exaggeration, explicitly rejected by Rishonim who

articulated Articles of Faith (Ikarrim) in whatever form, pattern or number. Obviously, there can

be no Orthodox Judaism without an absolute affirmation of certain basic concepts of God, of the

commitment to a binding halakha based on the concept of Torah miSinai, and of the notion of

human responsibility and accountability in the form of Divine Providence, reward and punishment,

etc. Moreover, beyond adherence to official Ikarrim, it is evident that to be acceptable as a

legitimate expression of Judaism, a perspective must establish itself by meeting additional basic

criteria. It should, for example, have visible roots in authoritative texts or in Rabbinic tradition

(mesora), and it should be advocated by a religious personality of some stature.

These qualifications notwithstanding, the diversity and range of perspective in parshanut and

hashkafa is impressive and wholly acceptable to Hazal. Statements like "shiv'im panim la-Torah

(there are 70 dimensions to the Torah")4

and "u-kepatish yefozez sela—ma patish zeh mithalek

le-kama nizozot, af mikra ehad yoze le-kama te'amim (and like a hammer that breaks the rock in

pieces—just as [the rock] is split into many splinters so also may one biblical verse convey many

teachings)" (Sanhedrin 34a), and the view expressed by Ramban in the preamble to his

commentary in the Torah (where he formulates the notion of Torah as a Divine text formed by the

infinite combinations of Divine names, allowing it to serve as a creative exegetical source of all

types of knowledge simultaneously), provide the conceptual underpinning for this reality.

We are witness to diversity of opinion not only on every page of the Mikraot Gedolot and

Midrash Rabba, but within the schemes of particular parshanim as well, with each suggestion

advanced, claiming for itself a measure of truth. Ramban moves with facility from derekh

hapeshat to derekh ha'emet and Rabbenu Bahyah from peshat to derash to sekhel, etc.

Weencounter the same phenomenon with regard to ta'amei hamizvot. Rambam and Ramban



represent diverse approaches to this discipline and certainly to specific mizvot. Within

individual schemes, such as that promulgated by Sefer haHinukh, we are witness to the assertion

of multiple purposes and truths.5

This approach characterizes discussions of Jewish philosophy even when positions that are

developed are mutually exclusive. Debates rage on such fundamentals as the eternity of the

universe, free choice, knowledge of particulars, the role of the intellect for prophecy and

generally. Passionate argumentation regarding the very legitimacy of such basic orientations as

Philosophy, kabbala, hasidut, and musar highlights this theme asdoes the integration into some

personalities of multiple disciplines. The projection by some Jewish historians of an absolute

demarcation between Jewish philosophers and kabbalists, for example, represents a distortion as

Gershon Scholem has demonstrated.6 This misreading of Jewish intellectual history derives at

least in part from a failure to fully appreciate the wide-ranging hashkafic pluralism of Judaism.

To be sure, a basic consensus and hierarchy of values and perspectives has emerged from the

historical process of generations of debate—acceptance, rejection, refinement etc. In this sense,

hashkafa is self-regulating as it must be. At the same time, it is evident that there is a great deal

of flexibility and latitude in establishing legitimacy in this area. Clearly, diversity of opinion and

multiplicity of meaning are not only acceptable but contribute to and are consistent with the

attainment of the religious ideal in Judaism.

III

Halakhic controversy, though it too is obviously very prevalent, represents a different kind of

problem. The ultimate goal of an halakhic analysis is to arrive at a specific, single solution and

halakhic debates generally revolve around mutually exclusive responses, only one of which is

purported to represent absolute truth. From this perspective, one should only be able to account

for reward for sincere, if failed, effort and for a measure of respect accorded to an opinion that

may possibly reflect the authentic view, but no more. Yet, several Talmudic sources indicate

otherwise. They project a notion of inherent value of dissenting views and possibly even of

multiple truths. Thus, the Talmud (Eruvin 13b) relates the following: R. Abba stated in the name

of Shmuel:

For three years there was a dispute between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel, the former asserting, "The halakha is in agreement with our views," and the latter contending, "The halakha is in agreement with our views." Then a bat kol issued announcing, "The utterances of both are the words of the living God, but the

halakha is in agreement with the ruling of Bet Hillel."

It is particularly noteworthy that this apparent advocacy of multiple truths appears in a

context whose primary concern is to establish the halakhic decision according to one particular

view.

Another Talmudic passage attributes the legitimate diversity of halakhic perspectives to a

single act of revelation despite the obvious logical irony that this entails. The Talmud (Hagiga 3b)

explains:

Page & of 17Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig


"The masters of assemblies": these are the disciples of the wise, who sit in manifold assemblies and occupy themselves with the Torah, some pronouncing unclean and others pronouncing clean, some prohibiting and others permitting, some disqualifying and others declaring fit.

Should a man say: How in these circumstances shall I learn Torah? Therefore the text says: "All of them are given from one Shepherd." One God gave them; one leader uttered them from the mouth of the Lord of all creation, blessed be He; for it is written: "And God spoke all these words." Also do thou make thine ear like the hopper and get thee a perceptive heart to understand the words of those who pronounce unclean and the words of those who pronounce clean, the words of those who prohibit and the words of those who permit, the words of those who disqualify and the words of those who declare fit.

How, then, is one to evaluate this concept and these sources?

One approach might be to view statements such as these as referring to the inherent

significance of the process of talmud Torah which necessarily includes an exchange of conflicting

opinions. The author of Netivot haMishpat articulates the view that there is considerable value in

halakhic debate which contributes to the process of talmud Torah by identifying misconceptions,

refining authentic views and honing and sensitizing halakhic intuition. He argues:

Though halakhic errors are inherently false, they nonetheless serve an important didactic function. Indeed, one cannot successfully establish halakhic truth without some measure of initial failure. The early stages of halakhic analysis bear a similarity to a diver who is not yet capable of distinguishing worthless stones from the treasure he wishes to retrieve. More often than not, he surfaces with the former rather than the latter. However, once he has analyzed his error he emerges with an enhanced capacity to discern. The very process of failure increases his sensitivity to the nuances that distinguish precious jewels from stones, enhancing his future prospects for success. When he dives again many of the worthless stones that were initially responsible for his confusion are no longer present, having already been discarded. Those that remain are unlikely to generate further confusion inasmuch as the diver has learned to identify the differences between precious and worthless

stones. Thus his initial failure contributes to his ultimate success. As the Rabbis indicate—if he had not drawn worthless objects, we would not have discovered the valuable item which they camouflaged. For this entire process there is a heavenly

reward7.

These sentiments accurately reflect an ambitious view of talmud Torah not simply as a means

of attaining pesak—la-asukei shma'ata aliba dehilkheta—but as constituting the vehicle for

dialogue and encounter with devar haShem—an intrinsically significant spiritual process and

religious experience. As important as this theme is, however, it does not adequately ,justify the

striking language and dramatic formulations that these sources convey.

One might assess the concept of elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim against the background of the

overall scheme developed by Neziv in his introduction to the Sheilot, Kidmat haEmek, though

Neziv himself does not fully explicate his position with respect to this concept specifically8. Neziv

develops two distinct categories of halakhic decisions. One means of halakhic resolution is rooted

primarily in intuition. Objectively, the issue remains unresolved despite the fact that a practically

binding normative conduct has been established. The historical model of this kind of pesak—

classified by Neziv as hora'a—can be traced to the methodology of the kohen in his function as

posek. From this point of view, dissenting opinions retain an absolute status as hefzah shel Torah

with respect to which one could justifiably declare elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim. The second

Page ' of 17Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig


m e th od of pesak ' ch a ra ct e ri( e d ) * + e ( iv a s hakhra'ah ledorot ' d e rive s from e , h a u s t ive a n d

u lt im a te l* con clu s ive log ica l a n a l* s is - a n d is t h e s p e cia l d om a in o f t h e shofet-mehokek . / u d g e -

le g is la tor 0 wh os e h is tor ica l p ro to t * p e wa s 1 e h u d a h . 2 h e n a h a la kh ic is s u e is re s olve d in th is

m a n n e r a t a p a rt icu la r p o in t in h is tor * - t h e d is s e n t in g a p os it ion los e s a t le a s t it s e 3 u a l s t a tu s a s a

le g it im a te e , p re s s ion o f 4 o ra h . 4 h is fo rm of pesak wa s re ve a le d to Mos h e a t 5 in a i a s th e p rod u ct

o f a s p e cific in d ividu a l6 s d e fin it ive a n a l* s is ' 7 kol ma she-talmid vatik atid le- horot ne'emar

leMoshe miSinai . h a la kh ic d e cis ion s th a t will ) e fo rm u la t e d in th e fu tu re ) * 3 u a lifie d s ch o la rs

we re a lre a d * - in fa ct - a r t icu la t e d ) * Mos e s a t 5 in a i0 7 ' a n d is e ve n occa s ion a ll* d e s ig n a te d a s

hilkheta gemire - re fle ct in g : it s a ) s o lu t e a u th orit * . 4 h u s - + e ( iv a s s e rt s a lim it e d h is to rica l d ou ) le

t ru th th e or * e ffe ct ive on l* u n t il t h e p oin t o f a ) s olu t e log ica l re s o lu t ion .

8 owe ve r - + e ( iv d oe s p os it th a t e ve n with in h is s e con d m ot if o f d e cis ive pesak - t h e re e , is t two

) a s ic ca te g orie s o f re / e ct e d op in ion s . Em p lo * in g h om ile t ica l lice n s e - h e like n s th e s t a tu s of

m in orit * op in ion s to th e s u g g e s t ive con n ota t ion s o f t h e te rm s nizozot . s pa rks 0 a n d netu’im

. ) r a n ch e s 0 u s e d re s p e ct ive l* in 5 a n h e drin . 9 & a 0 a n d 8 a g iga . 9 ) 0 . Ju s t a s on e ca n n ot s p e a k a ) ou t

s p a rks or ) ra n ch e s with ou t a ckn owle dg in g th e ir d ive rs it * o f s i( e - s ig n ifica n ce - fu n ct ion a n d

p u rpos e - on e ca n n ot s p e a k a ) ou t d is pu te d h a la kh ic op in ion s in u n ifo rm t e rm s e ith e r. 2 h ile th e

re s o lu t ion o f m a n * h a la kh ic d e ) a te s s t rip th e re / e ct e d p os it ion o f a n * re d e e m in g va lu e - t h e re a re

s om e m in orit * op in ion s wh ich re t a in a m e a s u re o f or 4 o ra h . ligh t of 4 o ra h 0 t h ou g h th e * a re in

th e ir s t a t e d fo rm o ) / e ct ive l* in a ccu ra t e . 4 h u s - fo r e , a m p le - th e vie w th a t a fe m a le : m m on it e is

in clu d e d in th e p roh i) it ion of lo yavo amoni u-mo'avi bi-kehal haShem . : m m on it e s a n d Moa ) it e s

a re p roh i) it e d from m a rr * in g Je ws 0 - is va lu e le s s if it is in corre ct . 8 owe ve r - R Elie ( e r 6 s a s s e r t ion

th a t on e m u s t fu lfill t h e m i( va h o f keriyat shema ) e fore th e firs t t h ird of t h e n ig h t h a s pa s s e d - ad

sof ashmora rishona9

- re t a in s th e s t a tu re of o r 4 o ra h in a s m u ch a s it con ta in s a n d h ig h lig h ts

va lu a ) le ke rn e ls o f con ce p tu a l if n ot p ra ct ica l t ru th . ; t e s t a ) lis h e s th a t a s h m ora ris h on a m a * ) e a

s ig n ifica n t h a la kh ic t im e fra m e . More s ig n ifica n t l* - R. Elie ( e r d ra m a t i( e s t h rou g h h is ra d ica l

a p p lica t ion th a t be-shokhbekha u-vekumekha—wh ich d e fin e s th e o ) lig a t ion ' m a * re fe r t o th e

t im e p e riod wh e n p e op le g o to s le e p ra th e r t h a n th e t im e in wh ich th e * a re a s le e p . 4 h is t h e or *

p os s i) l* s e rve s a s th e ) a s is o f t h e p os it ion of t h e hakhamim wh o e , t e n d th e o ) lig a t ion u n t il

m id n ig h t - t h ou g h th e * d is p u te R. Elie ( e r 6 s t e ch n ica l re s t rict ion o f t h is con ce p t t o th e p e riod of

ashmora rishonah. 4 h is t h e m e ' t h a t ra d ica l m in orit * vie ws h a ve con s id e ra ) le con ce p tu a l a n d

d id a ct ic va lu e ' is a com m on th e m e in h a la kh a a n d is e s p e cia ll* ce n t ra l to th e m e th od olog * of

con ce p tu a l 4 o ra h s tu d * . < rom th is p e rs p e ct ive - t h e n ot ion th a t t h e re is va lu e in h a la kh ic d e ) a t e

a n d m ore th a n on e a ) s o lu t e t ru th re pre s e n t s a lim ite d ) u t s t ill m e a n in gfu l p rin cip le .

; t is con ce iva ) le th a t t h is vie w of th e va lu e of re / e ct e d op in ion s in t e rm s of t h e ir p o te n t ia l

con t ri) u t ion to a m ore a ccu ra te a n d s op h is t ica t e d con ce p tu a l u n d e rs t a n d in g of h a la kh a u n d e rlie s

Re m a 6 s com p re h e n s ion o f * e t a n o th e r p ro ) le m a t ic 4 a lm u d ic t e , t . 4 h e 4 a lm u d (Sanhedrin 17a)

e vid e n t l* e s t a ) lis h e s th e ca pa cit * fo r in a ccu ra te m e n ta l g * m n a s t ics a s a p re re 3 u is it e for / u d icia l

a p p o in tm e n t to th e Sanhedrin. 4 h u s we a re in form e d: "ein moshivin be-sanhedrin ela mi she-

yode’a le-taher et hasherez min ha-Torah" (th e a ) ilit * t o a rg u e con vin cin g l* t h a t a n in s e ct is n o t



r it u a ll* im pu re is p re re 3 u is it e fo r / u d icia l a p p oin tm e n t 0 . 7 4 h e 4 os a fis t s a cce n t t h e a p p a re n t

d ifficu lt * a n d com m e n t on th e du ) iou s va lu e of t h is ch a ra ct e r is t ic: 7 R. 4 a m 3 u e r ie d - 2 h a t is th e

p u rpos e o f s u ch m e a n in g le s s m e n ta l g * m n a s t ics =1 0

Re m a - in re s p on s u m - e , p la in s a s fo llows :1 1

; f on e is ca p a ) le of log ica ll* d e m on s t ra t in g th e rit u a l p u rit * o f t h e s e a n im a ls - on e

will p e rce ive th e 4 o ra h 6 s ru lin g a s a h id u s h . re ve a le d - ) u t ra d ica l d oct rin e 0 . 4 h is is

s ign ifica n t ) e ca u s e it d ict a t e s th a t we s h ou ld lim it it s a p p lica t ion a s m u ch a s

p os s i) le . 4 h u s - wh ile t h e ) lood of a s h e re ( is a s s ig n e d th e s t a tu s of im p u rit * a s is

it s ) od * - it is con ce iva ) le t h a t t h e m in im a l m e a s u re th a t g e n e ra t e s im p u rit * with

re s p e ct t o th e ) od * o f t h e s h e re ( . ke - a da s h a 0 d oe s n o t a p p l* t o it s ) lood . 4 h e

p u rp os e of t h is m e n ta l g * m n a s t ic t h e n - is t o re ve a l t o u s th e in n ova t ive ch a ra ct e r of

t h e 4 o ra h 6 s ru lin g a n d th e re fore it * ie ld s im p ort a n t s u ) s ta n t ive re s u lt s in t e rm s of

t h e lim it in g o f t h a t ru lin g .

Re m a th u s a rg u e s th a t t h is s t a t e m e n t d oe s n o t re fe r t o th e m e a n in g le s s ca p a cit * for

in t e lle ctu a l g a m e s m a n s h ip n or d oe s it s e e k on l* t o in s u re th e a p p oin tm e n t o f / u dg e s with a n

im p re s s ive g ra s p of a g re a t d e a l of kn owle d g e . ; n fa ct - it e s t a ) lis h e s th a t a m e a s u re of a d d it ion a l

s op h is t ica t ion re g a rd in g th e in n e r workin g s o f t h e h a la kh ic p roce s s - in clu d in g th e a ) ilit * t o a s s e s s

th e im p lica t ion s o f n on -n orm a t ive p os s i) ilit ie s a n d to u t ili( e h a la kh ic d e ) a t e to s h e d ligh t on th e

n u a n ce s of a t op ic wh ich m igh t h a ve s om e n orm a t ive im p a ct is a n e ce s s a r * p re - con d it ion to

/ u d icia l a p p oin tm e n t wh e re th e s t a ke s a re s o h ig h .

: t t h e s a m e t im e - if we a cce p t t h e g e n e ra l s ch e m e de ve lop e d ) * + e ( iv - it is con ce iva ) le t h a t

e ve n th e mizvah of talmud 4 o ra h wou ld e , t e n d on l* t o t h a t cla s s of m in orit * vie wp oin t s t h a t

re ta in th e s t a tu s o f or 4 o ra h d u e to s om e n orm a t ive or a t le a s t con ce p tu a l ) e n e fit t h a t t h e * m a *

* e t p rovid e . 4 h is s t a n ce is ce rt a in l* op e n to d e ) a t e . ; n t h e twe n t ie th ce n tu r * - for e , a m p le - R.

Mos h e < e in s t e in in on e of h is re s p on s a e lo 3 u e n t l* a rg u e s on th e ) a s is o f elu ve-elu divre Elokim

hayyim t h a t in th e re a lm of talmud 4 o ra h a n d for p u rp os e s of birkat ha-Torah, m in orit * pos it ion s

are a ) s o lu t e l* e 3 u iva le n t t o n orm a t ive halakhot. 8 e g oe s s o fa r a s t o s u g g e s t t h a t e ve n > od a n d

h is h e a ve n l* re t in u e (metivta de-rekia) s p e n d t im e d is cou rs in g a n d s tu d * in g th e s e d oct rin e s in

th e con te , t of talmud 4 o ra h1 2

.

4 h e p os s i) ilit * o f re a l m u lt ip le h a la kh ic t ru th s doe s n o t re a ll* e m e rg e from + e ( iv 6 s s ch e m e .

4 h is a p p roa ch is - h owe ve r - im p lie d ) * o th e r s ou rce s - Ra s h i for e , a m p le - s e e m s to a ffirm th is

d oct r in e1 9

:

2 h e n a d e ) a te re vo lve s a rou n d th e a t t ri) u t ion o f a d oct r in e to a p a rt icu la r

in d ivid u a l- t h e re is on l* room for on e t ru th . 8 owe ve r - wh e n two : m ora irn e n te r in to

a h a la kh ic d is p u te - e a ch a rg u in g th e h a la kh ic m e rit s of h is v ie w - e a ch d ra win g u p on

com p a ris on s to e s t a ) lis h th e a u th e n t icit * of h is p e rs p e ct ive - t h e re is n o a ) s o lu t e

t ru th a n d fa ls e h ood . : ) ou t s u ch is s u e s on e ca n d e cla re th a t ) o th re p re s e n t t h e

vie w of th e livin g > od . ? n s om e occa s ion s on e p e rs p e ct ive will p rove m ore

a u th e n t ic - a n d u n d e r oth e r circu m s ta n ce s th e oth e r vie w will a p p e a r to ) e m ore

com p e llin g . 4 h e e ffe ct ive n e s s of p a rt icu la r ra t ion a le s s h ift a s con d it ion s of t h e ir

a p p lica t ion ch a n g e e ve n if on l* s u ) t l* .

4 h is m ore a m ) it iou s a p p roa ch to ou r top ic is e , p lica t e d ) * Ritva - Ma h a ra l a n d Ma h a rs h a l'

e a ch p rovid in g th e ir own n u a n ce s a n d s u ) t le t ie s of fo rm u la t ion - e a ch re 3 u irin g a con ce p tu a l

u n d e rp in in g to / u s t if* t h is d ifficu lt con ce p t .

Ritva (Eruvin 1 9 ) 0 cit e s th e in h e re n t p a ra d o , of t h is t h e m e a s ra is e d ) * th e 4 os a fis t s1 &

: 4 h e



Ra ) ) is o f < ra n ce a s ke d : 8 ow is it p os s i) le fo r con flict in g vie ws to ) o th re p re s e n t t h e t ru th =

4 h e * re s p on d e d a s fo llows :

2 h e n Mos h e a s ce n de d to re ce ive th e 4 o ra h - it wa s d e m on s t ra t e d to h im th a t e ve r *

m a t t e r wa s s u ) / e ct t o fo rt * - n in e le n ie n t a n d for t * - n in e s t r in g e n t a p p roa ch e s . 2 h e n

h e 3 u e r ie d a ) ou t t h is - > od re s pon d e d th a t t h e s ch ola rs o f e a ch g e n e ra t ion we re

g ive n th e a u th orit * to d e cid e a m on g th e s e pe rs p e ct ive s in o rd e r t o e s t a ) lis h th e

n orm a t ive h a la kh a .

8 is re s p on s e p os it s t h a t a fu ll ra n g e o f h a la kh ic op t ion s ' p os s i) l* e ve n of e 3 u a l s t a tu s ' wa s

re ve a le d to Mos h e a n d s a n ct ion e d a s hefza shel Torah. Lice n s e wa s p rovid e d to th e s ch ola rs of

e ve r * g e n e ra t ion to p u rs u e wh a t th e * de e m e d to ) e t h e m os t a ccu ra t e pesak on the basis of

a cce p te d h a la kh ic m e th od olog *1 @

. 4 h e cle a r im p lica t ion o f t h is form u la t ion is t h a t for th os e

s ch ola rs h a la kh ic con clu s ion s a re n o t a r ) it ra r * ) u t ) a s e d on r igorou s a n a l* s is a n d - con s e 3 u e n t l* -

t h e d e cis ion s ) e com e n orm a t ive for t h a t g e n e ra t ion1 A

.

: s im ila r p e rs p e ct ive wou ld e m e rg e if on e we re to a d op t t h e p os it ion th a t t h e p r im a r * th ru s t

o f th e 5 in a it ic mesora wa s n o t a d e t a ile d re ve la t ion o f th e m u lt ip le p e rm u ta t ion s o f h a la kh a - ) u t a

re ve la t ion o f g e n e ra l p rin cip le s1 7

. Ma n 6 s o ) lig a t ion o f a p p l* in g h a la kh ic p rin cip le s ) * m e a n s o f th e

m e th od olog * of h e rm e n e u t ic p r in cip le s - e tc. - wou ld th e n a ccou n t fo r t h e p o te n t ia l e , is t e n ce of

m a n * va lid * e t t e ch n ica ll* m u tu a ll* e , clu s ive s olu t ion s to th e s a m e p ro ) le m .

Ma h a rs h a l a ffirm s th e e , is t e n ce o f m u lt ip le t ru th s - p os s i) l* o f e 3 u a l va lu e - a n d con t r i) u t e s a

m * s t ica l-h is tor ica l e , p la n a t ion fo r it . 8 e s t a t e s :

? n e s h ou ld n ot ) e a s ton is h e d ) * t h e ra n ge of de ) a t e a n d a rg u m e n ta t ion in m a t t e rs

o f 8 a la kh a B . : ll t h e s e vie ws a re in th e ca te g or * o f divre Elokim h a * * im a s if e a ch

wa s re ce ive d d ire ct l* from 5 in a i th rou g h Mos h e . 4 h is is s o de s p it e t h e fa ct t h a t

Mos h e n e ve r p ro / e cte d op p os in g p e rs p e ct ive s with re s pe ct t o a n * on e is s u e . 4 h e

ka ) ) a lis t s e , p la in e d th a t t h e ) a s is for t h is is t h a t e a ch in d ivid u a l s ou l wa s p re s e n t

a t 5 in a i a n d re ce ive d th e 4 o ra h ) * m e a n s o f t h e fo rt * - n in e p a th s . ( in o rot 0 . Ea ch

p e rce ive d th e 4 o ra h from h is own p e rs p e ct ive in a ccord a n ce with h is in t e lle ctu a l

ca p a cit * a s we ll a s t h e s t a tu re a n d u n i3 u e ch a ra ct e r o f h is p a r t icu la r s ou l. 4 h is

a ccou n t s fo r t h e d is cre p a n c * in p e rce p t ion in a s m u ch a s on e con clu d e d th a t a n

o ) / e ct wa s t a m e in th e e , t re m e - a n o th e r p e rce ive d it to ) e a ) s o lu t e l* tahor - a n d

* e t a t h ird in d ivid u a l a rg u e s th e a m ) iva le n t s ta t e o f t h e o ) / e ct in 3 u e s t ion . : ll

t h e s e a re t ru e a n d s e n s i) le vie ws . 4 h u s - t h e wis e m e n d e cla re d th a t in a d e ) a t e

) e twe e n t ru e s ch ola rs - a ll p os it ion s a r t icu la te d re p re s e n t a form of t ru th1 C

.

4 h e Je ws wh o s tood a t 5 in a i e vid e n t l* we re n o t m e re l* t h e p a s s ive re cip ie n ts o f th e 4 o ra h .

4 h e ir p re s e n ce a n d th e ir a cce p ta n ce a s in d ivid u a ls s h a p e d th e ve r * con te n t o f t h e 4 o ra h a t th e

crit ica l h is tor ica l m om e n t it t ook e ffe ct . 4 h is fo rm u la t ion d ra m a t i( e s t h e s p irit u a l s ig n ifica n ce th a t

h a la ka a s cri) e s t o h u m a n s in g u la r it * ) * re ve a lin g th a t t h e s u ) / e ct ive in clin a t ion s of in d ivid u a ls

in ve s t e d th e ir p e rs p e ct ive of 4 o ra h with in t rin s ic. 2 h ile th is a p p roa ch s h a re s m u ch in com m on

with Ritva in te rm s of h u m a n in p u t a n d th e focu s on ) roa d p r in cip le s ra th e r t h a n d e ta ils - it

s ig n ifica n t l* d e p a rt s from Ritva 6 s p e rs p e ct ive in it s a cce n t on th e h is to rica l m om e n t of 5 in a it ic

re ve la t ion a n d with re s p e ct t o th e ro le o f t h e re cip ie n ts of th e 4 o ra h in fo rm in g th is p lu ra lis t ic

4 o ra h a n d in e s t a ) lis h in g it s con tou rs .

Ma h a ra l re p re s e n ts * e t a n o th e r fo rm u la t ion o f t h e le g it im a c * o f m u lt ip le 8 a la kh ic t ru th s1 D

. 8 e

a d voca te s a doct r in e o f u n e 3 u a l * e t in t r in s ic t ru th s . 8 is com p a ris on o f h a la kh ic ca te g orie s a n d

in s t it u t ion s to th e h u m a n p e rs on a lit * a n d it s m a n ifo ld com p le , ch a ra cte r is t ics s u g ge s t s a kin d of



Pla ton ic m od e l wh ich p re s u p p os e s th e e , is t e n ce o f a n id e a l h a la kh ic s t a tu s wh ich p re ce d e s

a n d s u p e rs e d e s th e s u m of it s com p on e n t s . 4 h e re is oft e n n o on e d e cis ive re s p on s e to th e is s u e

o f tahara or tuma, for e , a m p le - s in ce ove ra ll p ro , im it * t o th e ide a l fo rm re p re s e n te d ) * th e

cla s s ic ca s e ra th e r t h a n a s p e cific com ) in a t ion o f com p on e n t s d e t e rm in e s th is s t a tu s . 4 h u s - on e

m a * s p e a k of a p p ro , im a t in g th e id e a l s u fficie n t l* ) u t n ot fu ll* - a n d th e s a m e toke n s u ) s t a n t ia ll*

) u t n o t s u fficie n t l* - a n d con s e 3 u e n t l* - a wh ole h ie ra rch * of t ru th s wou ld e m e rg e . E ilu t ion of s om e

com p on e n t s a n d com ) in a t ion with com p e t in g a n d u n d e rm in in g ch a ra ct e r is t ics m a * a ls o con t r i) u t e

t o th e cre a t ion o f a 3 u a s i- s t a tu s - wh os e u lt im a te fa t e in th e re a lm of p ra ct ica l h a la kh a is like l* t o

) e d e ) a t e d . Ma h a ra l6 s u n d e rs t a n d in g o f t h e s t a t e m e n t in Sanhedrin . 1 7 a 0 cit e d e a rlie r flows from

th is p e rs p e ct ive . Eve n t e ch n ica ll* in a ccu ra t e or fla we d h a la kh ic op in ion s d o con t ri) u t e t o a m ore

s op h is t ica t e d a p p re cia t ion o f t h e d e p th o f con te n t of 4 o ra h wh ich m a ke s th e a ) ilit * t o / u s t if* a ll

a n g le s o f a h a la kh ic p ro ) le m a p rop e r con d it ion for / u d icia l a p po in tm e n t .

; F .

8 a vin g e s ta ) lis h e d s e ve ra l fo rm u la t ion s a n d th e orie s u n d e rl* in g elu va-elu divre Elokim

hayyim re g a rd in g th e s t a tu s o f d is s e n t in g m in orit * vie ws a s hefza shel Torah, it is n ow in cu m ) e n t

u p on u s to e , a m in e th e im p a ct o f t h e s e pe rs p e ct ive s a n d th e role of re / e ct e d m in orit * op in ion s

g e n e ra ll* on th e in s t it u t ion of pesak.

2 h a t e ve r p os it ion on e a d op t s on th e va lu e o f d e ) a t e t o th e ore t ica l s tu d * - t h e re cle a r l* is a n

o ) liga t ion to a rrive a t on e p ra ct ica l s o lu t ion ) a s e d on th e s in ce re con vict ion of it s a ccu ra c * . 4 h e

re la t ion s h ip o f pesak a s a n e n te rp r is e de d ica t e d to th e g oa l of a s in g le u n iform l* ) in d in g

con clu s ion - a n d th e a m ) it iou s form u la t ion s of t h e th e or * o f h a la kh ic p lu ra lis m is com p le , a n d

e ve n d ou ) le - e d g e d . ; f on e a d va n ce s th e p os it ion th a t t h e re is on l* on e a u th e n t ic - o r a t le a s t

p re fe rre d h a la kh ic t ru th - t h e n th e s t a ke s of pesak a re h igh in d e e d . 8 a la kh ic d e cis ion ) e com e s a

h it - or-m is s e , e rcis e in wh ich th e d is s e n t in g vie w s t a n d s in cle a r op p os it ion to t ru th . ; f on e h a s

fa ith in th e p roce s s wh ich a s p ire s to p rod u ce th a t t ru th - on e ca n n ot con s id e r d is s e n t in g op in ion s

a s le g it im a te fa ll) a ck p os it ion s to ) e p os s i) l* re h a ) ilita t e d or re lie d u p on e ve n u n d e r

e , t ra ord in a r * circu m s ta n ce s . 4 o d o s o wou ld ) e t a n ta m ou n t to e , p re s s in g a s e riou s la ck o f fa ith

in th e e ffe ct ive n e s s o f th e d e cis ion - re a ch in g p roce s s . : t t h e s a m e t im e - if on e a d voca te s th e

o ) / e ct ive va lid it * of a lt e rn a t ive pesakim, t h e n e ve n a s th e * a re m ore pa la t a ) le a s de va r haShem,

t h e * a re iron ica ll* p e rh a p s le s s le g a ll* s ig n ifica n t a s p ra ct ica ) le a lte rn a t ive s on ce th e * h a ve ) e e n

re / e ct e d ) * t h e p roce s s o f pesak, fo r u n d e r th e s e circu m s ta n ce s th e form a l a n d p roce du ra l a s p e ct

o f h a la kh ic re s o lu t ion d om in a te s . Pesak, a ccord in g to th is vie w - n e e d n o t con ce rn it s e lf with th e

r is k * u n ce r t a in a n d fa lli) le t a s k o f re ve a lin g th e on e a u th e n t ic t ru th - ) u t in s t e a d focu s e s on

e s t a ) lis h in g th e ) e s t t ru th con s is te n t with it s own p rin cip le s o f re s o lu t ion . ; n t h is s e n s e - th e

con clu s ion s re a ch e d a re a ) s o lu te l* ) in d in g in th e re a lm of n orm a t ive con d u ct in a s m u ch a s th is

v ie w e s t a ) lis h e s pesak as a din vadai—a n a ) s o lu t e s u re t * . 4 h is a s p e ct o f t h e re la t ion s h ip ) e twe e n

pesak a n d th e th e ore t ica l va lu e o f a lte rn a t ive p e rs p e ct ive s h a s ) e e n la rg e l* ig n ore d ) * th os e wh o

p e rce ive of e lu va-elu in s t r ict l* m od e rn - li) e ra l t e rm s - ig n orin g th e con com ita n t a s ce n d a n c * of

p u re form a l p roce d u re in th e s e s ch e m e s2 0

.



8 ow th e n d oe s h a la kh a vie w th e rig h t t o d is s e n t from m a / o rit * pesak - a n d h ow d oe s it e va lu a te

th e o ) / e ct ive s t a tu s o f d is s e n t in g vie ws = : g a in th e 3 u e s t ion is a com ple , on e s in ce ) e * on d th e

s t a tu s o f t h e m in orit * op in ion ' h ith e r to a n a l* ( e d ' t h e re s olu t ion of th e s e 3 u e s t ion s tu rn s on th e

in t e ra ct ion ) e twe e n two com pe t in g va lu e s a n d t ra n s ce n d in g a s p ira t ion s of halakha: t h e p u rs u it of

t ru th a n d tole ra t ion of m u lt ip le p e rs p e ct ive s on one h a n d - a n d th e p ra g m a t ic n e e d to e s t a ) lis h

u n ifo rm it * - d is cip lin e a n d ord e r ' shelo yiheyu kishte torot . n o t t o fra g m e n t th e 4 o ra h 02 1

' t o

in s u re e ffe ct ive n e s s - on th e o th e r . 4 h e ve r * n e e d for pesak d e s p it e elu va-elu d ivre Elokim

hayyim is d u e to th is fa cto r a ccord in g to Ma h a rs h a l- Arukh haShulhan a n d o th e rs2 2

.

4 h e s ta tu s o f Zaken Mamre . h e n ce for th G .M. 0 - th e re ) e lliou s e ld e r wh o d is p u te s th e pesak of

th e > re a t 5 a n h e d rin - is on e o f th e ) e s t e , a m p le s of t h is t h e m e of a u th orit * . Ra m ) a n e , p la in s

th a t t h e n e e d to pu ) lici( e th e p u n is h m e n t of th e G .M. ( 5 a n h e d rin C D a 0 is d u e to th e fa ct th a t h e is

n o t e , e cu te d ) e ca u s e o f t h e s e ve rit * o f h is o ffe n s e pe r s e ) u t ) e ca u s e o f h is d e s t ru ct ive

im p a ct2 9

. 8 e is a fte r a ll e n t it le d to e , p re s s h is s in ce re l* h e ld h a la kh ic con vict ion s - ) u t is p u t t o

d e a th a n * wa * ) e ca u s e h is re fu s a l t o a c 3 u ie s ce th re a t e n s to u n d e rm in e th e ve r * con ce p t of

u n ifo rm n orm a t ive ) e h a vior wh ich is cru cia l t o a n * le g a l s * s t e m . 4 h e fa ct t h a t G .M. is o ) lig a t e d to

a cce p t ra ) ) in ic a u th orit * a n d it s p roce d u re s e ve n wh e n th e * a p p e a r to ) e ) la t a n t l* in a ccu ra t e '

7 a f al yemin shehu semol, ve'al semol shehu yemin . e ve n if t h e * de cla re r ig h t t o ) e le ft a n d vice

ve rs a 0 7 ' fu rth e r a cce n t s t h e s ig n ifica n ce of form a l p roce d u re a n d p rin cip le s o f pesak e ve n a t th e

e , p e n s e of o ) / e ct ive h a la kh ic t ru th2 &

.

: ccord in g to + e ( iv th e p rin cip le of G .M. a p p lie s n o t on l* t o t h e hakhra'ah ledorot . d e fin it ive

d e cis ion 0 o f t h e shofet-mehokek - ) u t a ls o to th e in tu it ive h ora 6 a t koh e n - s in ce corros ive im p a ct on

u n ifo rm con d u ct a n d re s p e ct for ra ) ) in ic a u th orit * a re t h e cru cia l com p on e n ts . 4 h u s - h e

e m p h a s i( e s t h e re fe re n ce to ) o th kohen a n d shofet in th is con te , t : "haish asher ya’aseh be-zadon

lebilti shemo'a el ha-kohen ve-el ha-shofet . h e wh o in t e n t ion a ll* d e fie s th e kohen a n d th e

shofet).25

4 h e re a re in d ica t ion s that the ) a s ic t h e m e of G .M. a ls o e , t e n d s to le s s 3 u a lifie d d is p u ta n t s a n d

le s s im p re s s ive s ou rce s o f a u th orit * . Derashot h a -Ra n2 A

a n d Sefer haHinukh27

a rg u e th a t th e

) a s ic p roh i) it ion of lo tasur ap p lie s to a n * in d ivid u a l wh o re / e ct s ra ) ) in ic d e cis ion s . : ccord in g to

Ma h a ra m i) n 8 a ) i) - t h is n ot ion of a p a ra lle l t o G .M. a p p lie s a t le a s t t o a n * / u dg e - a n d is

re s p on s i) le fo r a n o ) lig a t ion o f a m in orit * / u d g e to s u rre n de r h is will a n d a c 3 u ie s e to th e m a / or it *

wh os e ru lin g wou ld oth e rwis e ) e in e ffe ct ive d u e to th e p r in cip le of en holkhin be'mamon ahar ha-

rov (ma / o rit * o r p ro ) a ) ilit * d oe s n o t d icta t e in m on e ta r * m a t t e rs 0 wh ich a p p e a rs to e , clu d e

m a / o rit * ru le in m on e ta r * d is p u te s2 C

.

R. Ja co ) Em d e n re / e ct s t h e id e a th a t a n in d ivid u a l m a * con t in u e to a d h e re to h is own h a la kh ic

con vict ion s a ft e r th e p rin cip le s th a t re g u la t e p e sak h a ve re / e ct e d th e m2 D

. 8 e t oo - p oin t s t o th e

G .M. p a ra lle l a s th e fou n d a t ion of t h is p os it ion . 8 owe ve r o th e rs d is p u te th e e , is t e n ce o f s u ch

p a ra lle ls a n d lim it th e m ot if o f a u th orit * in fa vor of g re a t e r fle , i) ilit * in t h e p u rs u it o f t ru th .

4 h e te n s ion ) e twe e n th e p u rs u it o f h a la kh ic t ru th a n d th e in t e g r it * o f h a la kh ic p roce d u re th a t

in s u re s e ffe ct ive n e s s a s a s * s t e m p e rva d e s a n u m ) e r of t op ics . 4 h e s e ra n g e from a p rop e r



e va lu a t ion of th e s tor ' o f tanur shel Akhnai ( ) a * a Me t + ia , 9 * . a n d it s clim a / of lo

bashamayim hi 0 t o a n is s u e o f 1 u d icia l d e ce p t ion d is cu s s e d * ' Pit 2 h e 3 e s h u va 4 if a m in orit ' 1 u d g e

is p e rm it t e d to fa ls e l' d e cla re h im s e lf t o * e u n d e cid e d in ord e r t h a t h e m a ' d e la ' a n d p os s i* l' la '

t h e g rou n d work for u lt im a te l' re ve rs in g th e m a 1 or it ' d e cis ion * ' u n d e rm in in g th e s e lf- s u fficie n c '

o f th e e / is t in g cou rt5 0

.

3 h e com p le / s ta tu s of m in orit ' op in ion s is fu r th e r re fle ct e d in s e ve ra l h a la kh ic con te / t s . 6 s

a llu d e d to e a rlie r 0 t h e 3 o s a fis t s a n d oth e rs we re d is tu r * e d * ' th e a p p a re n t cla s h * e twe e n th e

p r in cip le s o f e n holkin bemamon a h a r h a - rov a n d 1 u d icia l m a 1 o rit ' ru le . 7 a r iou s s olu t ion s we re

p rop os e d to re s olve th is d is cre p a n c ' . 3 wo of t h e s e u n d e rs core op p os in g p e rs p e ct ive s with re s p e ct

t o th e con ce p t s of pesak a n d o * 1 e ct ive h a la kh ic t ru th .

R. 8 on a t a n Ei* s ch it + d is t in g u is h e s in h is Tumim * e twe e n m os t m a 1 or it ie s wh ich a re n o t

m u tu a ll' e / clu s ive o f t h e m in orit ' 0 wh ile is s u e s o f h a la kh a h a ve on l' on e a * s o lu te re s o lu t ion5 1

.

3 h u s 0 in h is vie w 0 t h e m in orit ' p e rs p e ct ive in h a la kh a is t o t a ll' n e g a te d * ' t h e m a 1 o rit ' d e cis ion

a n d con s e 9 u e n t l' p os e s n o ch a lle n g e to it e ve n in th e m on e ta r ' re a lm . 3 h is e / p la n a t ion p ro * a * l'

re p re s e n t s a d e - e m p h a s is of h a la kh ic p lu ra lis m .

R. Ja co * Em d e n in a s lig h t l' d iffe re n t con te / t p ropos e s a d iffe re n t a p p roa ch5 2

. : e a rg u e s th a t

1 u d icia l p roce d u re e / clu d e s a n ' re a l d ou * t ( safek . s in ce th e m a 1 or it ' h a s th e ca p a cit ' t o

e s t a * lis h 4 n o t 1 u s t re ve a l4 t h e la w. ; * v iou s l' in t h e a * s e n ce o f re a l d ou * t on e ca n n ot * e

con ce rn e d with th e we igh t o f p re s u m p t ive m on e ta r ' r ig h ts (hezkat mamon . t h a t d e t e rm in e en

holkhin be-mamon ahar ha-rov. < n t h is form u la t ion we witn e s s th e n ot ion th a t pesak 0 d e void of

t h e * u rd e n o f re ve a lin g t ru th wh ich ca rrie s with it t h e p o te n t ia l for e rror 0 is a n in d e p e n d e n t a n d

s t rict l' fo rm a l p roce s s . 3 h is vie w is con s is t e n t with a th e or ' o f h a la kh ic p lu ra lis m .

3 h e in s igh t of Kli Hemdah t h a t a 1 u d g e wh o is ove rru le d * ' t h e m a 1 o r it ' h a s a r ig h t of a p p e a l

t o th e = re a t > a n h e d rin on l' in t e rm s of th e th e ore t ica l is s u e a n d it s fu tu re a p p lica t ion 0 * u t is

d e n ie d a n ' p os s i* ilit ' o f a ctu a ll' ch a lle n g in g a n d ove rtu rn in g th e p re viou s a pp lica t ion o f t h a t

pesak 0 re p re s e n t s a n a lm os t ide a l * a la n ce5 5

. < t s a fe g u a rd s th e in te g rit ' o f h a la kh ic p roce s s e s * '

d e n ' in g a n a p p e a l on th e on e h a n d 0 a n d a t t h e s a m e t im e it e n cou ra ge s a n d re in force s th e

p u rs u it of m a / im a l h a la kh ic p e rfe ct ion * ' a llowin g fo r t h e ore t ica l a n d fu tu re re - e va lu a t ion .

: a la kh is t s d is cu s s e d a s im ila r is s u e ou t s id e th e s t r ict con fin e s o f cou rt d e cis ion . ? oe s a n

in d ivid u a l h a ve th e r ig h t t o in s is t t h a t h e is con vin ce d of th e va lid it ' o f a m in orit ' h a la kh ic

p os it ion a n d th u s 0 re fu s e s to com p l' with th e m a 1 o rit ' h e ld ru lin g @ 3 h is 9 u e s t ion wa s d e * a t e d * '

m a 1 o r h a la kh is ts a n d p os s i* l' re p re s e n t s a d is p u te * e twe e n s ch ola rs o f A ra n co- = e rm a n ' a n d

> p a in . < t t oo re fle cts s e ve ra l of t h e th e m e s th a t a re cru cia l t o ou r e va lu a t ion o f m u lt ip le t ru th s in

halakha a n d o f t h e ch a ra ct e r o f h a la kh ic d e cis ion -m a kin g . Ma h a rik a n d oth e rs wh o d is t in g u is h

* e twe e n th e m on e ta r ' a n d o th e r re a lm s d u e to th e fa ctor o f hezkat mamon 0 ce rt a in l' a p p e a r to

vie w pesak a s a m e a n s o f re s o lvin g d ou * t ra th e r th a n e s t a * lis h in g con d u ct irre s p e ct ive of h a la kh ic

t ru th5 B

. ; t h e r h a la kh is t s re 1 e ct s u ch d is t in ct ion s p os s i* l' * e ca u s e o f th e s e im p lica t ion s .

3 h e p os s i* ilit ' th a t on e m ig h t re h a * ilit a t e a p re viou s l' re 1 e ct e d m in orit ' op in ion or re l' u pon

on e in a * s e n ce of d e fin it ive e vid e n ce to th e con t ra r ' is o * v iou s l' lin ke d to ou r top ic. 3 h e



Mishnayot in Edoyot ( 1 : , 0 6 . p rovid e u s with a m * ig u ou s in form a t ion5 ,

:

6 n d wh ' d o we m e n t ion a n in d ivid u a l op in ion a lon g with th e m a 1 or it ' 0 t h ou g h th e

h a la kh a fo llows th e m a 1 o rit ' @ 3 h a t a Cou rt m a ' a p p rove a n in d ividu a l v ie w a n d re l'

on h im : for a Cou rt ca n n ot g a in s a ' a d e cis ion of it s fe llow Cou rt u n le s s it is g re a te r

in wis d om a n d n u m * e r D .

R. 8 e h u d a h s a id 0 < f s o wh ' d o we m e n t ion a n in d ivid u a l v ie w a lon g with th e

m a 1 o rit ' u n n e ce s s a r il' @ 3 h a t if a pe rs on s a ' s 0 > o < h a ve a t ra d it ion 4 h e will s a ' t o

h im 0 8 ou h e a rd it a s t h e op in ion o f s o- a n d - s o .

Tosafot Sens in t e rp re t s t h e m is h n a a s fo llows5 6

:

6 lt h ou g h th e m in orit ' v ie w wa s n o t a cce p te d wh e n in it ia ll' p rop os e d 0 if a m a 1 o r it '

o f t h e s ch o la rs o f t h e n e / t g e n e ra t ion a g re e to th e ra t ion a le th a t u n d e rlie s t h is

p os it ion 0 it is e s t a * lis h e d a s th e n orm a t ive h a la kha . 3 h e e n t ire 3 o ra h wa s re ve a le d

to Mos h e with a ra n g e of p e rs p e ct ive s ' ie ld in g op p os in g con clu s ion s . : e wa s to ld

th a t t h e m a 1 or it ' p os it ion p re va ils 0 * u t t h a t * o th vie ws re t a in th e ir s t a tu s a s divre Elokim hayyim.

6 ccord in g to th is in t e rp re t a t ion th e m is h n a re fe rs t o a p re viou s l' m in orit ' op in ion wh ich h a s

n ow a ch ie ve d m a 1 or it ' * a ckin g a n d wh os e im p le m e n ta t ion is 0 in fa ct 0 * a s e d on th e p rin cip le of

m a 1 o rit ' ru le . 3 h e is s u e is s im p l' h ow to 1 u s t if' th e ove r tu rn in g o f a p re viou s l' e s ta * lis h e d t ru th .

Tosafot Sens' re s p on s e p ro 1 e ct s elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim a s a re a l m u lt ip le t ru th th e or '

wh ich re le g a te s h a la kh ic d e cis ion m a kin g to le g a l p roce d u re a lon e 0 wh ich 1 u s t ifie s t h e p o te n t ia l for

it t o * e ove rtu rn e d in m a n n e r con s is t e n t with it s own p rin cip le s . 3 h is p e rs p e ct ive e ffe ct ive l'

a d d re s s e s * o th th e m ot if of m u lt ip le t ru th s a n d th e s ig n ifica n ce o f h a la kh ic p roce s s a n d

p roce d u re .

3 h e t h e m e of h a la kh ic p lu ra lis m is a ls o ce n t ra l t o a n is s u e o f cod ifica t ion p o lic ' t h a t wa s th e

s u * 1 e ct o f h e a te d d e * a t e in ra * * in ic circle s p a rt icu la r l' t h e a ft e rm a th of t h e a pp e a ra n ce of

Ra m * a m 2 s Mishneh Torah in th e twe lfth ce n tu r ' a n d th e Shulhan Arukh in the s i/ t e e n th ce n tu r ' .

3 h e om is s ion o f m in orit ' op in ion s in th e s e works p rovoke d a cr it ica l re a ct ion in s om e circle s . 3 h e

* ro th e r o f Ma h a ra l o f Pra g u e 0 R. : a ' ' im 0 1 u s t ifie d h is crit i9 u e o f Shulhan Arukh on th e * a s is of

t h e in h e re n t s p irit u a l va lu e o f e ve n re 1 e ct e d d oct rin e s a s re fle ct e d * ' th e con ce p t o f elu va-elu

divre Elokim hayyim.5 7

6 p a s s a g e in Massekhet Soferim ( 1 6 : , . a ccu ra te l' con ve ' s t h e s ig n ifica n ce o f th e con t ri* u t ion

th a t m in orit ' op in ion s m a ' offe r t o th e h a la kh ic p roce s s :

R. 3 a n h u m * . : a n ila i s a id : < f th e 3 o ra h h a d * e e n g ive n a s a cle a r-cu t cod e 0 n o

1 u d ge wou ld h a ve a locus standi in la ' in g d own a ru lin g E * u t n ow a 1 u d g e h a s a

locus standi, for if h e d e cla re s a t h in g to * e cle a n th e re a re F a u th orit ie s G wh o

d e cla re a t h in g in a s im ila r con d it ion to * e u n cle a n 0 a n d if h e d e cid e s th a t it is

u n cle a n th e re a re F a u th orit ie s G wh o d e cla re a t h in g in a s im ila r con d it ion to * e

cle a n .

3 h e 1 u / t a p os it ion * e twe e n th is s t a t e m e n t a n d th e ve r ' n e / t s e ct ion ( 1 6 : 6 . - H R. Ja n n a i s a id :

3 h e 3 o ra h wh ich th e : o l' ; n e 0 * le s s e d * e : e 0 g a ve to Mos e s wa s d e live re d to h im in for t ' - n in e

a s p e ct s o f u n cle a n n e s s a n d for t ' - n in e a s p e ct s of cle a n n e s s H 4 wh ich a s s e r t s t h a t t h e in it ia l

re ve la t ion e n ta ile d m u lt ip le h a la kh ic a p p roa ch e s a n d op t ion s 0 p rovide s th e 1 u s t ifica t ion fo r t h is

id e a l o f fle / i* ilit ' in pesak38

.

3 h e 3 a lm u d ic d is t in ct ion * e twe e n two ca t e g orie s o f 1 u d icia l e rror re p re s e n ts a n o th e r

in t e re s t in g fa ce t o f h a la kh ic p lu ra lis m . 6 fu n d a m e n ta l 1 u d icia l e rror * rou g h t a * ou t * ' ig n ora n ce or



m is re a d in g of * a s ic cru cia l s ou rce s ( ta'ut bi-devar mishna. in va lid a t e s th e pesak. : owe ve r 0

ru lin g s th a t s t e m from 9 u e s t ion a * le e va lu a t ion s o r im p rop e r a d h e re n ce to p roce du re s d e s ig n e d to

e s t a * lis h th e h ie ra rch ' o f d iffe re n t op in ion s a n d s ou rce s ( ta’ut be-shikul ha-da'at . s t a n d 0 t h ou g h

th e 1 u d g e m a ' * e lia * le a n d m u s t com p e n s a te th e vict im of h is m is ca lcu la t ion . ; n e m ig h t

p rop os e 0 a t le a s t a ccord in g to s om e Rishonim 0 t h a t t h e p olic ' of a m * iva le n ce wh ich ch a ra ct e r i+ e s

ou r a p p roa ch to th e ca t e g or ' o f ta'ut be-shikul ha-da'at4 in wh ich th e ru lin g is va lid a n d ' e t on e

ca n s p e a k of lia * ilit ' 4 d e r ive s from it s s t a tu s a s a p os s i* l' le g it im a te e / p re s s ion of 3 o ra h wh ich

h a s * e e n p roce d u ra ll' d is ca rd e d in t e rm s of con d u ct . A rom th is p e rs p e ct ive 0 t h e de t a ils t h a t

g ove rn a n d d e fin e th e two ca t e g orie s o f e rro r a re in s t ru ct ive in d e e d .

: ow we d e fin e ta'ut be-devar mishna0 for e / a m p le 0 s h ou ld h e lp to d e t e rm in e th e * ou n d a rie s

o f le g it im a te h a la kh ic de * a t e . 3 h u s 0 th e d is cu s s ion a m on g poskim if a cce p te d ru lin g s o f Geonim or

Rishonim s h ou ld * e cla s s ifie d a s devar mishna o r a s shikul ha-da'at is ve r ' s ig n ifica n t . 3 h e

d is t in ct ion a dva n ce d * ' s om e * e twe e n th os e = e on ic pos it ion s wh ich wh e n re ve a le d a re a cce p te d

a n d th os e th a t g e n e ra t e d opp os it ion 0 is a ls o s t r ikin g . 6 t t h e s a m e t im e 0 t h e p os it ion o f Ros h th a t

kn owle d ge of a n e rro r o f shikul ha-da'at p r ior t o th e im p le m e n ta t ion o f t h e ru lin g wou ld s t ill n o t

re n d e r pesak in va lid 0 pe rh a p s a t t e s t s to a n ot ion of le g it im a te p lu ra lis m a t le a s t o f t h is va r ie t '5 9

.

More ove r 0 t h e op in ion 9 u ot e d in Or Zarua t h a t a ta’ut be-shikul ha-da'at t h a t is m ot iva te d n ot * '

in corre ct a p p lica t ion o f h a la kh ic ru le s of re s olu t ion 0 * u t * ' a la ck o f in form a t ion of t h e p os it ion s of

s om e poskim d oe s n ot cre a t e a n ' kin d o f lia * ilit ' 0 s e e m s to p o in t t o im p rop e r p roce d u re a lon e a s

re s p on s i* le fo r t h is s t a tu s 0 n ot a n ' fla w in th e p u rs u it o f o * 1 e ct ive h a la kh ic t ru thB 0

.

3 h e re a re o f cou rs e s ig n ifica n t lim it a t ion s e ve n to a p lu ra lis m grou n d e d in e 9 u a l t ru th s . 3 h is is

cle a r l' m a n ife s t * ' t h e d is t in ct ion o f ta'ut be-devar mishnah a n d ta'ut be-shikul ha-da'at a s we

h a ve 1 u s t d e m on s t ra te d 0 a n d in o th e r con te / t s a s we ll. 3 h e p a ra m e te rs of kim le 0 fo r e / a m p le 0

a t t e s t t o th is . Eve n th os e wh o a cce p t t h e a ffe ct ive n e s s of t h e cla im of kim le im p os e d e fin it e

lim it a t ion s . Ma h a rik * e lie ve s th a t on e ca n on l' re s ort t o th is cla im wh e n th e m in orit ' op in ion ' ou

s e e k to re l' u p on is on e o f de fin it e p rom in e n ce a n d s t a tu re 4 t h e op in ion of a Ra s h i o r R. 3 a m 0

e t cB 1

. 3 h e re a re Aharonim wh o re 9 u ire t h a t s u ch a p os it ion * e cit e d * ' th e Shulhan Arukh or

Re m a . > om e Rishonim d e m a n d th a t a t le a s t two p os kim a d op t a p os it ion * e fore on e ca n d e cla re

kim le. 6 p os it ion a d voca te d * ' on l' on e a u th orit ' is too id ios ' n cra t ic t o * e t a ke n a s a s e riou s

e / p re s s ion o f 3 o ra h . Kuntres ha-Sefekot ch a ra ct e r i+ e s s u ch p os it ion s a s mi'uta de-mi'uta e / t re m e

m in orit ' . 4 a n u n like l' ca n d id a te fo r h a la kh ic t ru th e ve n of t h e p lu ra lis t ic va rie t ' . ; t h e rs con clu d e

th a t t h e p re cis e p a ra m e te rs o f le g it im a c ' s h ou ld * e le ft t o th e in tu it ion of th e h a la kh ic a u th orit ie s

in vo lve d in th e p a rt icu la r ca s e s in ce it is d ifficu lt to 9 u a n t if' s u ch a con ce p t . 3 h e * roa d g u id e lin e s

o f re s t rict ion a re in a n ' ca s e a pp a re n tB 2

.

I e a ls o e n cou n te r d e fin ite lim ita t ion s with re g a rd to th e p os s i* le pe rm is s i* ilit ' o f a m in orit '

1 u d g e to fa ls e l' cla im in d e cis ion in ord e r t o * lock wh a t h e * e lie ve s to * e a n in corre ct m a 1 or it '

ru lin gB 5

. 3 h e s e 0 too 0 s e rve a * roa d e r fu n ct ion a s m od e ls of t h e p a ra m e te rs o f le g it im a te d is p u te

a n d d is s e n t .

Cle a r l' 0 p lu ra lis m is n ot a * la n k ch e ck. 3 h e re a re o * 1 e ct ive lim it s t o a s in ce re in t e rp re t a t ion of



s ou rce s . 3 h e a u th or o f Arukh haShulhan ( in h is in t rod u ct ion to Hoshen Mishpat . e m p h a s i+ e s

t h a t m os t h a la kh ic de * a t e s re vo lve a rou n d d e ta ils a n d a p p lica t ion o f p rin cip le s 0 n ot t h e p r in cip le s

th e m s e lve s . 3 h is is p a r t icu la r l' t ru e 0 h e a rg u e s 0 a * ou t t h os e d e * a t e s t h a t a re ch a ra ct e r i+ e d a s elu

va-elu divre Elokim hayyim. R. Mos h e A e in s t e in in th e in t rod u ct ion to h is Iggerot Moshe ca u t ion s

a * ou t t h e n e e d for yir'at shamayim ( fe a r of = od 0 p ie t ' . a n d in t e lle ctu a l r ig or to in s u re va lid

con clu s ion s .

6 t t h e s a m e t im e 0 in t e rm s of t h e th e m e s of t o le ra nce a n d re s p e ct for t h e le g it im a te l' a rr ive d

a t con clu s ion s o f o th e rs with wh om we m a ' d is a g re e 0 t h e im p lica t ion s o f elu va-elu divre Elokim

hayyim a re cru cia l. 3 h e g e m a ra ( ) a * a ) a t ra 1 5 0 * . in form s u s th a t e ve n a pesak t h a t we re 1 e ct

s h ou ld n ot * e s h re d d e d in a s m u ch a s it m a ' * e a va lid a p p roa ch :

I h e n a le g a l d e cis ion of m in e com e s * e fore ' ou ( in a writ te n fo rm . 0 a n d ' ou s e e

a n ' o * 1 e ct ion to it 0 d o n ot t e a r it u p * e fo re ' ou h a ve s e e n m e . < f < h a ve a ( va lid .

re a s on ( for m ' de cis ion . < will te ll ( it t o . ' ou E a n d if n o t 0 < will with d ra w. 6 ft e r m '

d e a th 0 ' ou s h a ll n e ith e r t e a r it u p n or in fe r ( a n ' la w . from it . H 8 ou s h a ll n e ith e r te a r

it u p H s in ce 0 h a d < * e e n th e re 0 it is pos s i* le t h a t < m ig h t h a ve to ld ' ou th e re a s on E

( 1 5 1 a . H n o r e n te r ( a n ' la w . from it H 4 * e ca u s e a 1 u d ge m u s t * e g u id e d on l' * ' t h a t

wh ich h is e ' e s s e e .

R. A e in s t e in s u g g e s ts t h a t t h e u n de rl' in g p rin cip le of elu va-elu divreElokim hayyim wou ld

d e m a n d th a t we t re a t a re 1 e ct e d op in ion re la t in g to a h a la kh ic con ce p t 4 a s op p os e d to th e p e s a k

re fe rre d to in th e 3 a lm u d ic p a s s a g e 4 with a fu ll m e a s u re o f re ve re n ce e ve n if we we re fa m ilia r

with a n d s t ill n o t con vin ce d * ' it s a rg u m e n t . 3 h e clim a te of d e * a t e * e twe e n ) e t > h a m a i a n d ) e t

: ille l a s re la t e d in 8 e va m ot ( 1 5 * - 1 B * . e lo 9 u e n t l' e / p re s s e s th is t h e m e :

3 h ou g h th e s e fo r * a d e wh a t t h e o th e rs p e rm it t e d 0 a n d th e s e re g a rd e d a s in e lig i* le

wh a t t h e oth e rs d e cla re d e lig i* le 0 ) e t > h a m m a i0 n e ve r th e le s s 0 d id n ot re fra in from

m a rr ' in g wom e n from ( t h e fa m ilie s of. ) e t : ille l. J o r d id ) e t : ille l ( re fra in from

m a rr ' in g wom e n . from ( t h e fa m ilie s o f. ) e t > h a m m a i. . . .

3 h is is t o te a ch ' ou th a t t h e ' s h owe d love a n d fr ie n d s h ip towa rd s on e a n o th e r 0 t h u s

p u t t in g in to p ra ct ice th e s crip tu ra l t e / t 0 H Love ' e t ru th a n d p e a ce . H

3 h e g e m a ra in Eruvin ( 1 5 * . 0 t h e ve r ' s ou rce of elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim, con clu d e s th a t

t h e halakha is in a ccorda n ce with ) e t : ille l p re cis e l' * e ca u s e th e ' d is p la ' e d g re a t e r fid e lit ' t h a n

) e t > h a m m a i to th is t h e m e of re s p e ct :

> in ce 0 h owe ve r 0 H * o t h a re th e word s of t h e livin g = od H 0 wh a t wa s it t h a t e n t it le d

) e t : ille l t o h a ve th e h a la kh a fi/ e d in a g re e m e n t with th e ir ru lin g s @ ) e ca u s e th e '

we re kin d l' a n d m od e s t 0 th e ' s tu d ie d th e ir own ru lin g s a n d th os e of ) e t > h a m m a i0

a n d we re e ve n s o ( h u m * le . a s t o m e n t ion th e a ct ion s of ) e t > h a m m a i * e fore

th e irs .

3 h is is a m ot if wh ich s h ou ld g u id e u s in re la t in g to o th e r com m u n it ie s a n d th e ir d is t in ct ive

cu s tom s a n d pesakim.

A in a ll' 0 it s h ou ld * e s t a t e d e m p h a t ica ll' t h a t e lu va - e lu divre Elokim hayyim s h ou ld n e ve r * e

u s e d a s a n e / cu s e for com p la ce n c ' o r m e d iocrit ' . Eve n a s we e n cou n te r e 9 u a l t ru th s we m u s t

a s p ire to p u rs u e ou r own con vict ion o f id e a l t ru th cu lle d from a n d on th e * a s is of in s ig h t s t h a t we

form from th e we a lth o f le g it im a te p e rs p e ct ive s th a t we con fron t . ; u r p u rs u it s h ou ld * e

in t e n s ifie d a n d e n h a n ce d * ' t h e s e e / p os u re s . < n th is wa ' we will h op e fu ll' e m e rg e with th e

con ce p t o f p lu ra lis m * e a u t ifu ll' de p ict e d * ' t h e Arakh ha-Shulhan in h is in t rod u ct ion to Hoshen

Page 1& of 17Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig


Mishpat:

3 h e d e * a t e s of 3 a n a im a n d 6 m ora im a n d = e on im in fa ct re p re s e n t t h e t ru th of t h e

liv in g = od . 6 ll o f t h e ir vie ws h a ve m e rit from a h a la kh ic p e rs p e ct ive . < n fa ct 0 t h is

d ive rs it ' a n d ra n g e con s t it u te th e * e a u t ' a n d s p le nd or o f ou r h ol' 3 o ra h . 3 h e e n t ire

3 o ra h is ca lle d a s on g wh os e * e a u t ' d e rive s from th e in t e ra ct ive d ive rs it ' of it s voice s

a n d in s t ru m e n t s . ; n e wh o im m e rs e s h im s e lf in th e s e a o f 3 a lm u d will e / p e rie n ce th e

1 o ' t h a t re s u lt s from s u ch r ich va r ie t ' .

3 o ra h 0 t h e n 0 is t o * e pe rce ive d a s a h a rm on iou s s ' m p h on ' e n r ich e d * ' th e d ive rs it ' o f it s

in s t ru m e n t s a n d va ria t ion s a n d * e a r in g th e s in g u la r m e s s a g e of devar haShem.

' ( ) E *

1 6 con ve n ie n t s u m m a r ' of d iffe re n t a p p roa ch e s a n d orie n ta t ion s re g a rd in g th e ? ou * le 3 ru th th e or '

ca n * e fou n d in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy ( J 8 1 9 6 7 . 0 vo l. < 0 p p 2 2 5 - 2 2 6 . > e e a ls o Et ie n n e

= ils on 0 History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages ( J e w 8 o rk 0 1 9 , , . 0 a n d C. 3 ou a t i0 H 7 e r it e

p h ilos op h i9 u e e t ve rit e p rop h e t i9 u e ch e + < s a a c 6 l* a la g 0 H REJ 7 1 ( 1 9 6 2 . 0 p p 5 , - B 7 .

2 J o rm a n La m m h a s p rop os e d th a t J ie ls ) oh r 2 s 3 h e or ' o f Com p le m e n ta r it ' in n u cle a r p h ' s ics m a ' * e

a m ore a ccu ra te a n a logu e to th e n o t ion of le g it im a te e p is te m olog ica l a n d on tolog ica l p lu ra lis m . 3 h is

s u g g e s t ion is a rt icu la t e d in h is re ce n t l' p u * lis h e d Torah Umadda. The Encounter of Religious Learning

and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition ( J e w Je rs e ' : Ja s on 6 ron s on < n c. 0 1 9 9 0 . 0 pp . 2 5 2 -2 5 6 .

5 ; * v iou s l' t h e p re cis e s ta tu s of a g g a d ot a n d m id ra s h im con s t it u t e s a com p le / is s u e a n d on e wh ich

is ve r ' m u ch re fle ct ive o f t h e ove ra ll o rie n ta t ion s of t h e va riou s th e oris t s t h e m s e lve s . 3 h u s 0 a n '

s e r iou s a n a l' s is o f th e top ic wou ld re 9 u ire a n e la * o ra t e a n d com p re h e n s ive in d e p e n d e n t t re a tm e n t of

t h e s ou rce s . > e e Ma rc > a p e rs t e in 0 Decoding of the Rabbis ( ) o s ton : : a rva rd K . Pre s s 0 1 9 8 0 . 0 p p .1 -2 0

fo r a s u m m a r ' o f * a s ic ra * * in ic p e rs pe ct ive s on a g ga d a h . A o r ou r s p e cific p u rp os e in th is con te / t 0 on e

s h ou ld s e e th e fa m ou s form u la t ion s o f Ra v > h e r ira = a on a n d Ra v : a i = a on a s th e ' a re re cord e d in > .

6 l* e ck 0 Sefer haEshkol (Je ru s a le m 0 1 9 8 B . 0 vo l. < 0 Hilkhot > e fe r Torah, pp . 1 , 7 -1 , 8 a n d in ) . Le vin 0

Ozar haGeonim 0 Hagiga ( Je ru s a le m 0 1 9 5 2 . 0 n o . 6 6 -6 9 0 p p , 9 - 6 0 . ; n e s h ou ld n o te in p a r t icu la r t h e

in t r ig u in g p os s i* ilit ' a d va n ce d * ' R. : a i = a on th a t t h e s t a tu re o f 3 a lm u d ic a g g a d ot e / ce e d s th a t o f

a g g a d ot wh os e o rig in is e / clu s ive l' m id ra s h ic. J e ve rth e le s s 0 e ve n 3 a lm u d ic a g g a d ot will n ot * e

* in d in g 0 if t h e ' d o n o t con form to log ic a n d in tu it ion * a s e d on th e p r in cip le of הדגא לע ןיכמוס ןיא ( s e e

a ls o Yerushalmi, Peah 2 : 6 . . > e e a ls o th e ce le * ra t e d p a s s a ge s in Ma im on id e s 2 Introduction to Perek

Helek ( 8 . L a fin 0 Perush haMishnayot laRambam (Je ru s a le m 0 Mos a d h a Ra v L ook 0 1 9 6 , . 0 vol. < < 0 p p .

1 5 6 -1 5 7 . wh e re Ra m * a m d e s cr i* e s t h re e * a s ic a pp roa ch e s to ra * * in ic a g g a d a h 0 a s s ocia t in g h im s e lf

with th e m ore fle / i* le in t e rp re t ive p os tu re . > om e of th e lit e ra tu re o f t h e Ma im on id e a n con t rove rs ie s

( o f 1 2 5 2 a n d 1 5 0 , . re volve d a rou n d th e le g it im a c ' o f th is vie w. ( > e e a ls o Yoreh De'a F 1 7 9 : 1 2 G for a n

e / a m p le of a n e m ph a t ic cr it i9 u e of Ra m * a m 2 s p h ilos op h ic p os tu re . .

3 h e con t rove rs ia l fo rm u la t ion s o f J a h m a n id e s in h is p ole m ic with Pa * lo Ch ris t ia n i ( ) a rce lon a 0 1 2 6 5 . 0

in wh ich h e s h a rp l' d own g ra d e s th e s ig n ifica n ce of m id ra s h im 0 is a ls o re le va n t t o th is top ic. : e

d e cla re s fo r e / a m p le : קיזי אל וב ןימאי אלש ימו 0בוט וב ןימאיש ימ רפסה הזו 0 a n d e ve n m ore s t rikin g l' : ןירוק ונא דועו

ורבחל דיגמ םדאש םירבד אלא ןניאש דמול הצור 0הדגה ותוא F 7 iku a h h a Ra m * a n in C. Ch a ve l0 Kitve haRamban

( Je ru s a le m 0 1 9 6 5 . 0 p . 5 0 8 G 3 h e re is a wh ole lit e ra tu re wh ich d e * a te s t h e e / t e n t t o wh ich th e s e

com m e n t s s h ou ld * e p e rce ive d a s a ccu ra t e l' re fle ct in g Ra m * a n 2 s a u th orit a t ive p os it ion 0 o r

a lt e rn a t ive l' s h ou ld * e vie we d a s a n in s in ce re * u t s t ra t e g ic re s p on s e m ot iva te d * ' t h e circu m s ta n ce s

o f Je wis h -Ch ris t ia n d is p u ta t ion s in wh ich a g g a dot wh e re o ft e n u s e d * ' Ch ris t ia n a d voca te s to

e s t a * lis h th e a u th e n t icit ' o f th e ir cla im s . > e e 0 fo r e / a m p le 0 t h e com m e n t s of Ra * * i Ch a ve l a d loc. 0 8 .

) a e r in H Le ) ikore t h a 7 iku h im s h e l R. 8 e h ie l m iPa ris ve s h e l h a Ra m * a n 0 H Tarbiz 2 : 2 ( 1 9 5 . 0 a n d > .

Lie * e rm a n in > h e ki2 in ( Je ru s a le m 0 1 9 7 0 . 0 p p . 8 1 -8 5 .

BBemidbar Ra * * a 1 5 : 1 , . Cf. Responsa of Ra d va + ( 7 e n ice 0 1 7 B 9 . 5 : 6 B 5 . Ra d va + p os it s th a t t h e

m u lt ip licit ' of le g it im a te m e a n in g s o f 3 o ra h is re sp on s i* le for t h e te / t * e in g u n e n cu m * e re d * '



n e ku d ot and te ' a m ' im which would inhibit many possible readings, though these symbols signal the

proper method of public reading kr i( a t h a ) o ra h and are of Sinaitic origin.

5Introduction to * e fe r h a + ' in u k and mizvot 95, 98.

6R. Shatz, ed., + a , a - a lla h - e Prove n ce : Lectures of Gershon Scholem- 1963 (Jerusalem: Akadamon,

1979), pp. 5-21.

7Introduction to . e t ' ivo t h a Mis h p a t on + o s h e n Mis h p a t .

8, id m a t h a Em k the introduction to Neziv's commentary on * h e ' ilt o t de Ra v / h a i 0 a on (Jerusalem,

1961), pp. 18-19.

91 e ra kh ot 2a, 3a, 4b.

10) o s a fot 2 * a n h e d rin 17a, s.v. ץרשה תא רהטל עדויש

11R. Moses Isserles, Re s p on s a of Re m a (Jerusalem, 1977), no. 107.

12R. Moshe Feinstein, lgg e ro t Mos h e (New York, 1982), 4:9, 24.

13Rashi, , e t u - o t 57a, s.v. ל"מק .

14This view is apparently based on the formulation in Ma s s e kh e t * o fe rim (16:6). See Talmud

Yerushalmi * a n h e drin (4:2) where an important aspect of this theme is expressed in a slightly

different context.

15For an interesting discussion of this basic perspective see the article by Rabbi Yechiel Michal Katz,

“ הפ לעבש הרות וז-ונכותב עטנ םלוע ייחו ” * e fe r 3 e vu l + a 3 ovlo t (New York, 1986), pp. 346-360 and the

sources cited therein.

16This view combined with the notion of exclusive human responsibility for the halakhic process as

reflected by the principle of lo - a s h a m a 4 im h i (see 1 a - a Me 5 ia h 59b) represents the conceptual

underpinning for the somewhat radical view of halakhic autonomy that is manifest in its independence

from even Divine interpretation and interference. This doctrine is articulated by 6 e ra s h ot h a Ra n 2 (ed.

L. Feldman), and in the famous introduction to the , e t 5 o t h a + o s h e n on + o s h e n Mis h p a t in his

analysis of the concept of halakhic h id d u s h

17See, for example, * h e m ot Ra - - a 41:6 [on * h e m ot 31:12]: והדמל םיללכ אלא ?השמ הדמל הרותה לכ יכו

ותא רבדל ותלככ ...השמל ה"בקה . This position is very clearly formulated by R. Yosef Albo in his Sefer

h a lka rim 3:2 and may represent Rambam's view as well. See Responsa of Havot Yair (Jerusalem,

1973), 481 (Cf. Maharatz Hayot, ) o ra t h a . e vi( im 2 ch. 4, Ma ' a m a r ) o ra h * h e - e ' a l Pe h .)

18Introduction to 3 a m s h e l * h lom o on 1 a - a , a m a .

19Maharal of Prague, 1 e ' e r h a 0 o la h (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 19-20. See my article, "Personal

Initiative and Creativity in Avodat Hashem" in ) o ra h 7 -Ma d d a Jou rn a l2 ed. Jacob J. Schacter, vol. I

(1989), pp. 79-83.

20See s u p ra 2 note 16.

21* a n h e d rin 88b.

22 Introduction to 3 a m s h e l * h lom o on Baba Kama; Introduction to / r u kh h a * h u lh a n on + o s h e n

Mis h p a t .

23Ra m - a n a l h a ) o ra h 2 6 e va rim 21:18. Cf. Pe ru s h h a Ra d va 5 on Rambam, Mis h n e h ) o ra h , + ilkh ot

Ma m rim 3:8.

24* ifre and Ra m - a n a l h a ) o ra h 2 6 e va r im 17:11. This theme is, of course, both crucial and

controversial in terms of its precise parameters and therefore its wider implications. It requires

extensive clarification. I have cited one formulation in this context in order to highlight a particular

perspective, but it is by no means the only approach to this topic. See also 3 e ru s h a lm i + o ra 4 o t (1:1)

and Rabbi Elhanan Wasserman, , u n t re s 6 ivre * o frim 2 no. 4, in , o - e t 5 * h i' u rim 2 vol. 2 (Tel Aviv,

1963), pp. 106-109. One should also contrast Ramban's position with that of Abravanel, Devarim

17:8 and the rationale provided by * e fe r h a + ' in u kh 2 no. 508. , li 3 a ka r 8 a d loc. 9 directly links the

* ifre ' s doctrine with the principle of e lu va ' e lu d ivre Elokim h a 4 4 im . Professor Menachem Elon points

to the stark contrast between halakha's view of rabbinic license of interpretation and sixteenth and

seventeenth-century English Law which in theory severely limited such flexibility (Menachem Elon,

+ a m is h p a t h a : vri [Jerusalem, 1978] vol. I, p. 229, n. 24).

25, id m a t h a Em e k 2 pp. 6-7.

266 e ra s h o t h a Ra n 2 Derush 12, pp. 212-213. He projects the principle of a h a re ra - im le -h a to t as the



basis for this, rather than lo t a s u r. See also Abravanel on 6 e va r im 17:8.

27Sefer h a + in u kh 2 no. 508. He perceives this as an extension of lo t a s u r.

28This position is also recorded by , u n t re s h a * e fe kot (6:2). [This work was authored by the brother

of the , e t 5 o t h a + os h e n and is printed in many editions of the standard + o s h e n Mis h p a t or , e t 5 o t

h a + o s h e n .

29R. Jacob Emden, She'elat Ya’avetz (Lemberg, 1884), no. 153.

30Pith e ) e s h u va 2 + o s h e n Mis h p a t 18:4, 8. The background to this issue is the sugya in Sanhedrin

5b.

31) o s a fot 2 1 . , . 27b s.v. ל"מק Tosafot, * a n h e d rin 3b, "תונוממ ינידב" , + id u s h e h a 0 ra a t h a * h a s 2 1 . , .

27b, "בורה רחא ןיממב ןיכלוה ןיא ןינעב" , u n t re s h a * e fe kot 6:2.

32Rabbi Jacob Emden, * h e ( e la t 3 a ( a ve t 5 , no. 157. Compare this view to the positions regarding

majority rule outlined in Rabbi R. Margaliot, Ma rg a l4 o t h a 3 a m a l * a n h e d rin (Jerusalem, 1977).

* a n h e d rin 40a, no. 22, pp. 163-164

33, e li + e m d a a l ha ) o ra h 2 6 e va r im 17:8, pp. 106-109. C.f. Ma rg a li4 o t h a 3 a m , * a n h e drin 2a,

no. 51.

34Joseph Colon, Re s p on s a of Ma h a rik (Jerusalem, 1973), no. 14.

35See also the interpretation of Or Zarua (Bnei-Brak, 1958), I, + ilkh o t * h e vi- it ve - + a da s h 2 no. 328,

and * h e ilt o t d e -Ra v / h a i 0 a on * h e m ot no. 36.

36) o s a fot * e n s , Edu 4 o t (1:4).

37Rabbi Hayyim b. Bezalel, ; iku a h Ma 4 im + a 4 4 im (Amsterdam, 1712), 5b. For a further

discussion of this position see my article in ) o ra h 7 -Ma dd a Journal (cited in n. 19), pp. 84-85.

38Cf. Yerushalmi, * a n h e d rin 4:2.

39This position is disputed by Ramah, see ) u r, + o s h e n Mis h p a t no. 25. A comprehensive analysis is

required of the full range of perspectives regarding the subtle criteria that differentiate t a ( u t - i- d e va r

m is h n a from t a ' u t - e - s h iku l h a -d a ' a t and of the implications for the relationship of the twin themes of

authority and autonomy in p e s a k that issue from these perspectives. I hope to address this topic

elsewhere.

40< r = a ru ' a 2 * a n h e d rin 5a.

41Re s p on s a of Ma h a rik 2 no. 94:6.

42See , u n t re s h a * e fe kot 6:6 for a review of some of the major positions on this issue.

43Pit -h e ) e s h u va 2 + o s h e n Mis h p a t 18:4, 8.

link to lookstein.org



Documents

Elu Va-elu Divre Elokim Hayyim