ACUTE ANGLES Halachic Uniformity or Diversity – Which Is The Ideal?

Dear Rabbi.  I have seen some rabbis and yeshiva students get singularly animated when discussing makhlokeses (differences of opinion) in the Gemara or among Poskim (halachic authorities). But shouldn’t we be grieving the fact that there are these differences which have arisen due to the uncertainty over what was taught to Moshe on Mount Sinai?  Meir P. 

Dear Meir,

In yeshivishe-speak that is a moredike kasheh (a tremendous question)! It really deserves a whole book in response, but there are many already written on the development of Torah she-be’al Peh (the oral Torah) by scholars far more equipped than I, so I shall attempt a mere overview before answering your direct question.

Rambam (1138-1204) in his introduction to his magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, outlines with precision the chain of oral tradition from Moses who received the Torah at Sinai (2448AM = 1312BCE) to Rav Ashi (c. 4260AM = 500CE) who compiled the (Babylonian) Talmud, a unique unbroken chain of which we can be justly proud. He goes on to write about the further Jewish dispersion throughout the then known world that occurred subsequently, and the emergence of divergent practices that ensued. His aim in writing Mishneh Torah was, in his words, “to compose a work …in clear and concise term so that the entire Oral Torah could be presented in ordered fashion …without questions or objections”. His intent was that “a person will not need any other text at all with regard to any Jewish law”.

As we know, this didn’t happen. Rambam failed to cite his sources – or, perhaps, the citations were lost.  It is a tribute to the magnificence of the work and the clarity and comprehensiveness of its scope (covering the entire body of Talmud) that despite this massive flaw (no doctoral thesis would be accepted sans source citations),  it remains as a titanic work of halacha, its rulings, along with those of  Rif (1013-1103) and Rosh (d.1327), determining the final rulings of our most authoritative halachic work the Shulchan Arukh of R’ Yosef Karo (1488-1575).

The chain of oral tradition was protected in its early stages by the Torah principle of akharei ha-rabim, that in cases of dispute we follow the majority of Sages.  The Talmud declares (Temura 16a) that during the days of mourning for Moses, no fewer than 3,000 – a subsequent passage says 1,700 –   laws were forgotten! This is assuredly one of the Talmud’s famous hyperboles. They were limited to details derived from hermeneutical rules including whether one should lean on a korban (sacrifice) on a festival. The Biblical judge Otniel ben Kenaz is said to have restored these halakhot through his keen powers of rational analysis. We know from the Book of Ruth (4:1-12) that Boaz clarifies the law regarding a female Moabite being able to marry into Am Yisrael, a halakha which had not been exercised hitherto.  Even when we come to Hillel and Shammai and their ‘rival’ Torah academies, their differences of opinion essentially concerned halachic minutiae.

So, the pattern of halachic development appears to be, simplistically put: clarity (Moses) followed by some uncertainty and dispute in minor matters followed by redaction (Mishna, compiled c.200CE) followed by disputes brought in baraitot and toseftot (extra-Mishnaic sources) followed by Talmud compilation which, inasmuch as the Talmud is largely a semi-chaotic stream-of-consciousness, gave way to more and more questions resulting eventually in halachic codes culminating in the Shulchan Arukh and the glosses of the Remo (1530-1572) for Ashkenazim, as by this time there was a wide divergence of minhag (custom) between Sephardim and Ashkenazim.  Of course, the Shulkhan Arukh was hardly the last word, as commentaries by the Shakh (1622-1663) and the Taz (1586-1667) often conflict and many new questions have arisen since the seventeenth century.  Today we are in a period similar to the she’elot uteshuvot (‘question-and-answer’) era following the Talmud’s redaction when responsa flowed from the Babylonian academies of Sura and Pumpedita, except that whereas then authoritative responses could take a year or more to be forthcoming via land and sea, now they are available at the touch of a button from sources such as the Bar-Ilan Database as well as, of course, the major halachic authorities of our day.

The only problem is that due to the reality of yeridat ha-dorot, the intellectual and spiritual weakening of the generations since Sinai, halachic diversity is greater than ever and in cases of halachic doubt (which are many) faithful Jews tend to follow the opinion of their rabbi who will follow the derekh of the contemporary posek (halachic decisor) with whom s/he feels most at home.  Of late, some Jews seeking halachic enlightenment have even been known to consult the newest kid on the block whose initials are A.I. – not at all advisable for complex questions although OK if you want to clarify queries like which berakha should be said on blueberries! (It’s Ha-Ets – that is according to most halachic opinions! ????)

Is, then, halachic diversity a problem?  You wouldn’t think so at all, listening to many of today’s Torah scholars flex their intellectual muscles by dissecting different halachic opinions and deriving great delight in their sharp-witted casuistry even when no practical conclusions derive therefrom.

Herein lies one of the great secrets of Jewish continued existence. We Jews find the positives in every situation that befalls us! Even though we are like grasshoppers groping in the dark compared to the Torah giants of past generations, we rejoice in the fact that, like grasshoppers, we can actually see in the dark even though we don’t have the spiritual and intellectual stature to rise to the heights of our lionide forebears.

In a nutshell, Meir, we long for Eliahu to arrive and clarify all our doubts so that there will be halachic uniformity and clarity again just as there was at Mount Sinai.

As for the rainbow colours of our diverse minhagim – like plaited challot versus pitot on Shabbat – maybe they will remain!  Let Eliahu come and decide – and let him do it soon!