1. Rabbis Nathan Lopes Cardozo and Francis Nataf

2. Zechariah Frankel and Heinrich Graetz of Das Jüdisch-Theologische Seminar (The Jewish Theological Seminary) of Breslau (19th century).

The formula the Rambam uses to describe the what gave the Talmud Bavli its binding nature is that it was accepted by “all of Israel”. Not in every one of its rulings, but as the point of origin for further study. And today, across the gamut, semichah studies center around the Shulchan Arukh (with the exception of Bal’adi Teimanim who center their pisqa on the Rambam). The same concept which gives the gemara the authority R’ Angel attributes to it gives the Shulchan Arukh its authority.

I also find an interesting point of commonality between the two positions. R’ Marc Angel questions the binding nature of evolution to halakhah since the gemara. R’ Gidon Rothstein questions the significance of the evolution of aggadita since the rishonim. Both are therefore
calling for some sort of roll back to an earlier state that was more to their likely.

All this said, I am afraid that R’ Angel, by going further than most of his audience would be willing to, loses that audience with respect to the primary problem. Orthodox Jews today are under the impression that the job of religion is to provide answers; and moreso, easy-to-understand answers that can resolve life’s dilemmas in one sitting — all tied up with a nice bow.

In reality, life’s problems are hard. Let me give a story from personal experience. Someone close to me is a baalas teshuvah. The only one in her family in a few generations to embrace observance. And she, like most baalei teshuvah, was presented a worldview in which, if you just believe enough, the only airplane one would miss is the one that was going to crash. (Many of you are familiar with this genre of story that I’m trying to portray.) But she, alone among all her siblings and cousins, went through the crashing pain of losing a daughter. So, where is the “better life” the kiruv professionals led her to expect? Life is not simple, and we do ourselves a disservice pretending it is.

Religion’s job isn’t to resolve life’s struggles, but to give us a meaningful way to grapple with them. Whether we’re talking about our perspective on life, or about pesaq halakhah.

Quick and cut-and-dry one-size-fits-all rulings isn’t how halakhah is supposed to work. While I’m arguing that a ruling that “all of Israel” accepts is binding, we have gone well beyond that with the current proliferation of English halachic guides. There is a feel to the give-and-take of halakhah, to its responses to the costs to the individual, to their personal talents and emotional proclivities, where they stand spiritually and how they view life, that one really not only needs a human halachic decisor, but preferably one who knows the asker and can help them coordinate a spiritual journey through life.

-micha

You wrote: “…to find which beliefs and practices are absolutely necessary according to all opinions (such as the belief in God), which leave room for tolerating other opinions we see as wrong (such as when Sephardim and Ashkenazim follow different readings of a Talmudic discussion), and some that leave room for true pluralism, where each of the choices is recognized by all as fully plausible and equally correct.”

On the one hand you are trying to say that pluralism exists in halacha, on the other hand, you gave examples for the first two types of practices but not for the third which is the most pluralistic type. I’m curious, do you have examples for the third? I admit that the lack of examples made me wonder if there are any!

Second question:

You wrote: “I believe the sources of tradition show that the move to ***legislation*** was always a concession to human weakness, not a function of God’s interest in being specific about how we are supposed to worship. While we cannot turn back the clock, I believe the sources of tradition show us that Judaism as ***codified*** today still leaves ample if not voluminous room for personal input into the shape of one’s relationship with God.

You seem to mention legislation as a negative thing (it is a concession to human weakness) and codification as a good thing (it leaves ample room for personalized religious practice). What is the difference between these two words?

Thanks for the article! I greatly struggle with some of the halacha so I am very interested in this topic.

I agree with the need for diversity of opinion, although I’m not sure that Surowiecki insists on decentralization– a market is centralized, in that all come together to buy there; I think he just means that people don’t just follow the pack at some point, lose their independence. In any case, Surowiecki does seem to agree that there are standards for who the crowd is– in his example of the lost nuclear sub, e.g., the person who got the wisdom of the crowd picked people who had some relevant knowledge, not just a million people off the street. So, in halachah, we would want diversity of opinion (although, as in that case, we’d also want a mechanism that puts it all together to a conclusion as well), but only diversity of opinion from those with some kind of relevance and expertise that qualifies them to be part of the conversation.