The mid fourth century was a devastating time for Judaism. The last Sanhedrin died off (well, was actually killed off by the Byzantines). The authentic chain of smichah (ordination) going back to Moses, was likewise, quite literally, killed off. This was supposed to be Christianity's final victory over Judaism. Perhaps even more devastating than the destruction of the Temple, Judaism was now without any Torah based authority. True, teachings of the classical sages were still being recorded. But nobody could claim to speak with authority. To be sure, there were wise men, who were often placed as the heads of communities, but their rulings were opinion, rather than being spoken with the authority of the Torah. RAMBAM writes that all sages after the late fourth century, had to be taken as voicing opinions, based on earlier texts. Except for those who were officially chosen to lead a community, within the confines of that community, their words had no legal power. It was up to the learned men to plow through the various opinions, seeking views that both fit the sources, and stood the test of logic. As to custom, it has no power if the custom came later than the last Sanhedrin, except as a local standard. This is generally the Sepharadic approach, except to the extent that Ashkenazic views have penetrated some Sepharadic areas.. RASHI, and the Tosafists, codified the Ashkenazi approach, that each recognized Torah Great did have authority over Jewish law and tradition. This continues to be a main feature of the Ashkenazi/Sephaardi divide. Moreover, Ashkenazim, following the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud, that custom has halachic power, even to the point of trumping sources. The two approaches drifted further and further apart. Now you can understand why, when I write something, and one of our members will say "but you have negated the view of Rabbi So and So!", that means zero to me, unless I am given a written analysis of his arguments from sources, that I may judge the veracity and value of that opinion. Nobody can speak definitively. This is one of the many things that I love about the Sepharadic approach. When we have a valid Sanhedrin, Judaism will return to the way the Torah intended it to be, and we will again be unified. As it stands now, a Sepharadic sage will attempt to show legitimate sources for a view, while most Ashkenazi sages will speak from their subjective feeling of what is right, based on their knowledge and experience. Ashkenazi halachah is then more personality based. (Charismatic, if you will). One's ruling cannot be seen as final, for perhaps he is missing the view of a noted scholar. One frequently hears "he would not have said or ruled as he did, had he seen the view of Rabbi So and So". Every time a prominent Ashkenazic sage issues a ruling, it becomes part of the halachic system. This goes for stringencies that must be heavily taken into account, as well as leniencies. A typical Ashkenazi approach, since the late nineteenth century, would be to list every known posek's (halachic deciser's) view on a subject, declare the wide consensus to be the halachah, while stating that a truly pious Jew should act like the minority stricter opinion. But, in an emergency, he will be allowed to rely on a minority more lenient opinion. The Sepharadic sage would examine the basis for all opinions, and rule like the one that seems to fit the sources, whether it is lenient or strict, whether it is a majority or a minority opinion, providing it makes sense."Majority rules" only applies to a Sanhedrin taking a vote. Beyond all this, a new factor has come into play within the last century. The Orthodox "street" has come to demand the adoption of stricter and stricter views. In the area of Kashrut, for example, things that were considered kosher ten years ago, are often not acceptable today. Usually, this is not because there was a genuine problem, but because the Orthodox public demanded more stringencies. If a rabbi can come up with a new stringency, no matter how far fetched, he will become famous. If a Kashrut agency adopts a new stringency, it will have an advantage in the market over others. A few decades ago, a rabbi in Israel came up with the idea that eggplant and peppers are not kosher (!!!). He rose to celebrity status, receiving lucrative positions in a number of agencies. On the other hand, a rabbi arguing on behalf of a leniency will often be condemned and maligned, rather than accepting or rejecting that view based on its merits. When it comes to the conversion crisis, it all goes back to Rabbi Yitzchak Shmelkes (1828-1904). That will be my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment