Our previous post, Rambam and Decline of the Generations, introduced the Meshech Chochmah’s suggestion that our parashah warns of a loss of Torah wisdom in its tochachah-punishments. This suggestion was then developed and led to an exploration of the notion of ‘generational decline’ from a Maimonidean perspective. This post will look at another dimension of this loss of Torah knowledge which Judaism Reclaimed examines: the consequent rigidity of the halachic system and proliferation of dispute.
Our chapter cites Talmudic examples of this previous halachic flexibility, such as frequent changes to rules of muktzeh and havdallah,which were based on the circumstances of the generation, and lenient rulings in matters of Torah law where the community was unable to afford required sacrifices. Rabbi David Nieto (Mateh Dan) writes that the persecution and exile also caused the oral tradition to fix numerous laws – such as order of prayers – which had previously been governed by individual autonomy or local custom. Significant variation in Talmudic accounts of tefillin and tzitzit– as well as unearthed ancient specimens – would appear to support this proposition.
A further phenomenon which Rambam attributes to the Roman persecution at the end of the Second Temple period is the proliferation of halachic disputes. This manifested itself in two ways. First, by limiting or at times totally preventing the effective functioning of the Sanhedrin (the supreme legal body charged with resolving halachic disputes as soon as they arose), the persecution led to differences of opinion between Sages both becoming more entrenched and to their being transmitted to students in their unresolved form. Secondly, the oppression and anti-religious decrees severely inhibited the teaching of Torah. As well as causing direct loss of Torah knowledge and expertise, generations of students with limited exposure to their Rabbinic teachers increasingly argued as to the details of transmitted halachic teachings.
Our attention then turns to the difficult question of how we are to relate, in today’s generation, to a Torah and religion which contains so many apparently contradictory and irreconcilable concepts, approaches, and opinions. In halachah and aggadah we are guided by the axiom of “eilu va’eilu divrei Elokim chayim”—all parties to a dispute represent equally the word of God. But at first sight, this merely deepens the problem: How can clearly conflicting viewpoints all be said to emanate from a single Divine source?
This question of how we are to understand the notion of how God can be taken to have endorsed both parties to a dispute is posed by a Gemara in the context of a debate over the cause of strife between a Benjaminite man and his concubine in the Book of Judges. The Gemara describes Eliyahu HaNavi reporting to one of the disputants, R’ Evyatar, that God was “busy studying the portion of pilegesh b’Give’ah,” and had approved both opinions, since eilu va’eilu divrei Elokim chayim. Probed further by R’ Evyatar as to how God could be in doubt with regard to the true nature of a historical event, Eliyahu explained that both factors cited in the debate were indeed contributing factors to the strife, and together could produce an accurate account of the episode.
A similar explanation is offered by Rashi elsewhere to explain how eilu va’eilu can be applied to a halachic debate. Rashi writes that both parties to the dispute are using their logic to determine how the case in question can be related most precisely to existing halachic principles and precedent. Both positions can therefore be assumed to represent equally valid applications of halachic methodology. Therefore, with sufficient scholarship, we could potentially subdivide the question into multiple scenarios, allowing each party’s argument to be adopted where more appropriate.
Further lengthy discussions include speculation as to how this technique might be applied to the rationalist and mystical traditions within Judaism (both of which accuse the other of having been infiltrated by external influences as a result of exile) as well as a detailed analysis of other aspects of Tannaic dispute such as the role of ethics in determining halachahand the origin of the oral tradition’s hermeneutical principles for interpreting the Torah. We also examine the potential obstacles that stand in the way of reintroducing flexibility into the current halachic system.
First posted to Facebook 14 May 2020, here.
