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--vis the pursuit of halakhic truth border and sometimes
Page 1 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
overlap our theme and thus complicate the picture considerably.
The philosophical and epistemological difficulties suggested by the very concept of multiple
truthsan apparent oxymoronconstitutes another dimension of the problem. This can be
illustrated by what I believe to be a fundamental misconceptionthe 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
dilemma
1
. Be it as it may, this theory of Double Truths fundamentally acknowledges the absolute
dichotomy between two distinct spheresReligion 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 domain
2
.
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 issueeach
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
Page 2 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
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 selama patish zeh mithalek
le-kama nizozot, af mikra ehad yoze le-kama te'amim (and like a hammer that breaks the rock in
piecesjust 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
Page 3 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
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 debateacceptance, 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 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
"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
indicateif 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
reward
7
.
These sentiments accurately reflect an ambitious view of talmud Torah not simply as a means
of attaining pesakla-asukei shma'ata aliba dehilkhetabut as constituting the vehicle for
dialogue and encounter with devar haSheman 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 specifically
8
. 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'acan 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 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
me t hod oI pesak cha r a ct e ri e d e iv a s hakhra'ah ledorot de rive s Ir om e ha us t ive a nd
ult ima t e l conclus ive logica l a na l s is a nd is t he s pe cia l doma in oI t he shofet-mehokek udge -
le gis la t or whos e his t or ica l pr ot ot pe wa s e huda h. he n a ha la khic is s ue is r e s olve d in t his
ma nne r a t a pa rt icula r point in his t or t he dis s e nt ing a pos it ion los e s a t le a s t it s e ua l s t a t us a s a
le git ima t e e pre s s ion oI or a h. his Iorm oI pesak wa s r e ve a le d t o Mos he a t ina i a s t he product
oI a s pe ciIic individua l s de Iinit ive a na l s is kol ma she-talmid vatik atid le- horot ne'emar
leMoshe miSinai ha la khic de cis ions t ha t will e Iormula t e d in t he Iut ure ua liIie d s chola rs
we r e a lre a d in Ia ct a r t icula t e d Mos e s a t ina i a nd is e ve n occa s iona ll de s igna t e d a s
hilkheta gemire r e Ile ct ing: it s a s olut e a ut hor it . hus e iv a s s e rt s a limit e d his t orica l dou le
t r ut h t he or e IIe ct ive onl unt il t he point oI a s olut e logica l r e s olut ion.
owe ve r e iv doe s pos it t ha t e ve n wit hin his s e cond mot iI oI de cis ive pesak t he re e is t t wo
a s ic ca t e gorie s oI r e e ct e d opinions . Emplo ing homile t ica l lice ns e he like ns t he s t a t us oI
minorit opinions t o t he s ugge s t ive connot a t ions oI t he t e r ms nizozot s pa r ks a nd netuim
r a nche s us e d re s pe ct ive l in a nhe dr in a a nd a giga . Jus t a s one ca nnot s pe a k a out
s pa rks or r a nche s wit hout a cknowle dging t he ir dive r s it oI s i e s igniIica nce Iunct ion a nd
pur pos e one ca nnot s pe a k a out dis put e d ha la khic opinions in uniIorm t e r ms e it he r. hile t he
r e s olut ion oI ma n ha la khic de a t e s s t rip t he re e ct e d pos it ion oI a n re de e ming va lue t he r e a re
s ome minor it opinions which re t a in a me a s ur e oI or ora h light oI or a h t hough t he a r e in
t he ir s t a t e d Iorm o e ct ive l ina ccura t e . hus Ior e a mple t he vie w t ha t a Ie ma le mmonit e is
include d in t he pr ohi it ion oI lo yavo amoni u-mo'avi bi-kehal haShem mmonit e s a nd Moa it e s
a r e pr ohi it e d Ir om ma r r ing Je ws is va lue le s s iI it is incor r e ct . owe ve r R Elie e r s a s s e r t ion
t ha t one mus t IulIill t he mi va h oI keriyat shema e Ior e t he Iir s t t hird oI t he night ha s pa s s e d - ad
sof ashmora rishona
9
- re t a ins t he s t a t ur e oI or ora h ina s much a s it cont a ins a nd highlight s
va lua le ke rne ls oI conce pt ua l iI not pr a ct ica l t r ut h. t e s t a lis he s t ha t a s hmor a ris hona ma e a
s igniIica nt ha la khic t ime Ir a me . More s igniIica nt l R. Elie e r dra ma t i e s t hr ough his r a dica l
a pplica t ion t ha t be-shokhbekha u-vekumekhawhich de Iine s t he o liga t ion ma r e Ie r t o t he
t ime pe riod whe n pe ople go t o s le e p ra t he r t ha n t he t ime in which t he a re a s le e p. his t he or
pos s i l s e r ve s a s t he a s is oI t he pos it ion oI t he hakhamim who e t e nd t he o liga t ion unt il
midnight t hough t he dis put e R. Elie e r s t e chnica l r e s t rict ion oI t his conce pt t o t he pe riod oI
ashmora rishonah. his t he me t ha t ra dica l minorit vie ws ha ve cons ide ra le conce pt ua l a nd
dida ct ic va lue is a common t he me in ha la kha a nd is e s pe cia ll ce nt r a l t o t he me t hodolog oI
conce pt ua l or a h s t ud . r om t his pe rs pe ct ive t he not ion t ha t t he r e is va lue in ha la khic de a t e
a nd more t ha n one a s olut e t r ut h r e pr e s e nt s a limit e d ut s t ill me a ningIul principle .
t is conce iva le t ha t t his vie w oI t he va lue oI r e e ct e d opinions in t e r ms oI t he ir pot e nt ia l
cont ri ut ion t o a more a ccur a t e a nd s ophis t ica t e d conce pt ua l unde r s t a nding oI ha la kha unde r lie s
Re ma s compre he ns ion oI e t a not he r pr o le ma t ic a lmudic t e t . he a lmud (Sanhedrin 17a)
e vide nt l e s t a lis he s t he ca pa cit Ior ina ccur a t e me nt a l g mna s t ics a s a pre r e uis it e Ior udicia l
a ppoint me nt t o t he Sanhedrin. hus we a r e inIor me d: "ein moshivin be-sanhedrin ela mi she-
yodea le-taher et hasherez min ha-Torah" (t he a ilit t o a r gue convincingl t ha t a n ins e ct is not
Page 6 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
r it ua ll impur e is pre r e uis it e Ior udicia l a ppoint me nt . he os a Iis t s a cce nt t he a ppa r e nt
diIIicult a nd comme nt on t he du ious va lue oI t his cha ra ct e r is t ic: R. a m ue r ie d ha t is t he
pur pos e oI s uch me a ningle s s me nt a l g mna s t ics
10
Re ma in re s pons um e pla ins a s Iollows :
11
I one is ca pa le oI logica ll de mons t ra t ing t he rit ua l purit oI t he s e a nima ls one
will pe rce ive t he ora h s ruling a s a hidus h re ve a le d ut r a dica l doct rine . his is
s igniIica nt e ca us e it dict a t e s t ha t we s hould limit it s a pplica t ion a s much a s
pos s i le . hus while t he lood oI a s he re is a s s igne d t he s t a t us oI impur it a s is
it s od it is conce iva le t ha t t he minima l me a s ure t ha t ge ne r a t e s impur it wit h
r e s pe ct t o t he od oI t he s he re ke - a da s ha doe s not a ppl t o it s lood. he
purpos e oI t his me nt a l g mna s t ic t he n is t o re ve a l t o us t he innova t ive cha r a ct e r oI
t he or a h s ruling a nd t he r e Iore it ie lds impor t a nt s u s t a nt ive re s ult s in t e rms oI
t he limit ing oI t ha t ruling.
Re ma t hus a r gue s t ha t t his s t a t e me nt doe s not r e Ie r t o t he me a ningle s s ca pa cit Ior
int e lle ct ua l ga me s ma ns hip nor doe s it s e e k onl t o ins ur e t he a ppoint me nt oI udge s wit h a n
impr e s s ive gr a s p oI a gr e a t de a l oI knowle dge . n Ia ct it e s t a lis he s t ha t a me a s ur e oI a ddit iona l
s ophis t ica t ion re ga rding t he inne r wor kings oI t he ha la khic proce s s including t he a ilit t o a s s e s s
t he implica t ions oI non- nor ma t ive pos s i ilit ie s a nd t o ut ili e ha la khic de a t e t o s he d light on t he
nua nce s oI a t opic which might ha ve s ome nor ma t ive impa ct is a ne ce s s a r pr e - condit ion t o
udicia l a ppoint me nt whe re t he s t a ke s a re s o high.
t t he s a me t ime iI we a cce pt t he ge ne r a l s che me de ve lope d e iv it is conce iva le t ha t
e ve n t he mizvah oI talmud ora h would e t e nd onl t o t ha t cla s s oI minor it vie wpoint s t ha t
r e t a in t he s t a t us oI or ora h due t o s ome nor ma t ive or a t le a s t conce pt ua l e ne Iit t ha t t he ma
e t pr ovide . his s t a nce is ce rt a inl ope n t o de a t e . n t he t we nt ie t h ce nt ur Ior e a mple R.
Mos he e ins t e in in one oI his r e s pons a e lo ue nt l a r gue s on t he a s is oI elu ve-elu divre Elokim
hayyim t ha t in t he r e a lm oI talmud ora h a nd Ior pur pos e s oI birkat ha-Torah, minor it pos it ions
are a s olut e l e uiva le nt t o norma t ive halakhot. e goe s s o Ia r a s t o s ugge s t t ha t e ve n od a nd
his he a ve nl re t inue (metivta de-rekia) s pe nd t ime dis cours ing a nd s t ud ing t he s e doct rine s in
t he cont e t of talmud or a h
12
.
he pos s i ilit oI re a l mult iple ha la khic t r ut hs doe s not re a ll e me rge Ir om e iv s s che me .
his a ppr oa ch is howe ve r implie d ot he r s ource s Ra s hi Ior e a mple s e e ms t o a IIirm t his
doct r ine
1
:
he n a de a t e re volve s a round t he a t t ri ut ion oI a doct r ine t o a pa rt icula r
individua l t he r e is onl room Ior one t r ut h. owe ve r whe n t wo mor a irn e nt e r int o
a ha la khic dis put e e a ch a rguing t he ha la khic me r it s oI his vie w e a ch dra wing upon
compa r is ons t o e s t a lis h t he a ut he nt icit oI his pe rs pe ct ive t he re is no a s olut e
t r ut h a nd Ia ls e hood. out s uch is s ue s one ca n de cla r e t ha t ot h re pre s e nt t he
vie w oI t he living od. n s ome occa s ions one pe rs pe ct ive will pr ove mor e
a ut he nt ic a nd unde r ot he r cir cums t a nce s t he ot he r vie w will a ppe a r t o e mor e
compe lling. he e IIe ct ive ne s s oI pa rt icula r r a t iona le s s hiIt a s condit ions oI t he ir
a pplica t ion cha nge e ve n iI onl s u t l .
his mor e a m it ious a pproa ch t o our t opic is e plica t e d Rit va Ma ha r a l a nd Ma ha rs ha l
e a ch pr oviding t he ir own nua nce s a nd s u t le t ie s oI Ior mula t ion e a ch r e uiring a conce pt ua l
unde r pining t o us t iI t his diIIicult conce pt .
Rit va (Eruvin 1 cit e s t he inhe r e nt pa ra do oI t his t he me a s ra is e d t he os a Iis t s
1
: he
Page 7 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
Ra is oI r a nce a s ke d: ow is it pos s i le Ior conIlict ing vie ws t o ot h re pre s e nt t he t r ut h
he re s ponde d a s Iollows :
he n Mos he a s ce nde d t o r e ce ive t he ora h it wa s de mons t ra t e d t o him t ha t e ve r
ma t t e r wa s s u e ct t o Iort - nine le nie nt a nd Ior t - nine s t r inge nt a pproa che s . he n
he ue r ie d a out t his od re s ponde d t ha t t he s chola r s oI e a ch ge ne ra t ion we r e
give n t he a ut hor it t o de cide a mong t he s e pe r s pe ct ive s in orde r t o e s t a lis h t he
norma t ive ha la kha .
is re s pons e pos it s t ha t a Iull r a nge oI ha la khic opt ions pos s i l e ve n oI e ua l s t a t us wa s
r e ve a le d t o Mos he a nd s a nct ione d a s hefza shel Torah. Lice ns e wa s pr ovide d t o t he s chola r s oI
e ve r ge ne r a t ion t o purs ue wha t t he de e me d t o e t he mos t a ccura t e pesak on the basis oI
a cce pt e d ha la khic me t hodolog
1
. he cle a r implica t ion oI t his Ior mula t ion is t ha t Ior t hos e
s chola r s ha la khic conclus ions a re not a r it r a r ut a s e d on r igor ous a na l s is a nd cons e ue nt l
t he de cis ions e come norma t ive Ior t ha t ge ne r a t ion
1
.
s imila r pe rs pe ct ive would e me r ge iI one we re t o a dopt t he pos it ion t ha t t he pr ima r t hr us t
oI t he ina it ic mesora wa s not a de t a ile d r e ve la t ion oI t he mult iple pe rmut a t ions oI ha la kha ut a
r e ve la t ion oI ge ne ra l principle s
17
. Ma n s o liga t ion oI a ppl ing ha la khic principle s me a ns oI t he
me t hodolog oI he r me ne ut ic pr inciple s e t c. would t he n a ccount Ior t he pot e nt ia l e is t e nce oI
ma n va lid e t t e chnica ll mut ua ll e clus ive s olut ions t o t he s a me pro le m.
Ma ha r s ha l a IIir ms t he e is t e nce oI mult iple t rut hs pos s i l oI e ua l va lue a nd cont r i ut e s a
m s t ica l- his t or ica l e pla na t ion Ior it . e s t a t e s :
ne s hould not e a s t onis he d t he r a nge oI de a t e a nd a rgume nt a t ion in ma t t e rs
oI a la kha . ll t he s e vie ws a r e in t he ca t e gor oI divre Elokim ha im a s iI e a ch
wa s r e ce ive d dir e ct l Ir om ina i t hr ough Mos he . his is s o de s pit e t he Ia ct t ha t
Mos he ne ve r pro e ct e d oppos ing pe r s pe ct ive s wit h r e s pe ct t o a n one is s ue . he
ka a lis t s e pla ine d t ha t t he a s is Ior t his is t ha t e a ch individua l s oul wa s pre s e nt
a t ina i a nd r e ce ive d t he ora h me a ns oI t he Iort - nine pa t hs inor ot . Ea ch
pe rce ive d t he or a h Ir om his own pe rs pe ct ive in a ccor da nce wit h his int e lle ct ua l
ca pa cit a s we ll a s t he s t a t ure a nd uni ue cha r a ct e r oI his pa r t icula r s oul. his
a ccount s Ior t he dis cr e pa nc in pe rce pt ion ina s much a s one conclude d t ha t a n
o e ct wa s t a me in t he e t r e me a not he r pe r ce ive d it t o e a s olut e l tahor a nd
e t a t hird individua l a r gue s t he a m iva le nt s t a t e oI t he o e ct in ue s t ion. ll
t he s e a r e t r ue a nd s e ns i le vie ws . hus t he wis e me n de cla r e d t ha t in a de a t e
e t we e n t rue s chola r s a ll pos it ions a r t icula t e d r e pr e s e nt a Ior m oI t r ut h
1
.
he Je ws who s t ood a t ina i e vide nt l we re not me r e l t he pa s s ive re cipie nt s oI t he or a h.
he ir pr e s e nce a nd t he ir a cce pt a nce a s individua ls s ha pe d t he ve r cont e nt oI t he ora h a t t he
crit ica l his t or ica l mome nt it t ook e IIe ct . his Iormula t ion dra ma t i e s t he s pirit ua l s igniIica nce t ha t
ha la ka a s cri e s t o huma n s ingula r it r e ve a ling t ha t t he s u e ct ive inclina t ions oI individua ls
inve s t e d t he ir pe rs pe ct ive oI or a h wit h int rins ic. hile t his a pproa ch s ha re s much in common
wit h Rit va in t e r ms oI huma n input a nd t he Iocus on r oa d pr inciple s ra t he r t ha n de t a ils it
s igniIica nt l de pa rt s Ir om Rit va s pe r s pe ct ive in it s a cce nt on t he his t orica l mome nt oI ina it ic
r e ve la t ion a nd wit h re s pe ct t o t he r ole oI t he re cipie nt s oI t he ora h in Iorming t his plura lis t ic
or a h a nd in e s t a lis hing it s cont our s .
Ma ha r a l re pre s e nt s e t a not he r Ior mula t ion oI t he le git ima c oI mult iple a la khic t r ut hs
1
. e
a dvoca t e s a doct r ine oI une ua l e t int r ins ic t rut hs . is compa r is on oI ha la khic ca t e gorie s a nd
ins t it ut ions t o t he huma n pe r s ona lit a nd it s ma niIold comple cha ra ct e r is t ics s ugge s t s a kind oI
Page 8 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
Pla t onic mode l which pr e s uppos e s t he e is t e nce oI a n ide a l ha la khic s t a t us which pre ce de s
a nd s upe r s e de s t he s um oI it s compone nt s . he re is oIt e n no one de cis ive r e s pons e t o t he is s ue
oI tahara or tuma, Ior e a mple s ince ove ra ll pro imit t o t he ide a l Iorm r e pr e s e nt e d t he
cla s s ic ca s e ra t he r t ha n a s pe ciIic com ina t ion oI compone nt s de t e r mine s t his s t a t us . hus one
ma s pe a k oI a ppro ima t ing t he ide a l s uIIicie nt l ut not Iull a nd t he s a me t oke n s u s t a nt ia ll
ut not s uIIicie nt l a nd cons e ue nt l a whole hie r a rch oI t r ut hs would e me r ge . ilut ion oI s ome
compone nt s a nd com ina t ion wit h compe t ing a nd unde rmining cha ra ct e r is t ics ma a ls o cont r i ut e
t o t he cre a t ion oI a ua s i- s t a t us whos e ult ima t e Ia t e in t he r e a lm oI pra ct ica l ha la kha is like l t o
e de a t e d. Ma ha r a l s unde r s t a nding oI t he s t a t e me nt in Sanhedrin 17a cit e d e a rlie r Ilows Irom
t his pe r s pe ct ive . Eve n t e chnica ll ina ccur a t e or Ila we d ha la khic opinions do cont ri ut e t o a more
s ophis t ica t e d a ppre cia t ion oI t he de pt h oI cont e nt oI ora h which ma ke s t he a ilit t o us t iI a ll
a ngle s oI a ha la khic pro le m a pr ope r condit ion Ior udicia l a ppoint me nt .
.
a ving e s t a lis he d s e ve ra l Iormula t ions a nd t he or ie s unde rl ing elu va-elu divre Elokim
hayyim re ga rding t he s t a t us oI dis s e nt ing minor it vie ws a s hefza shel Torah, it is now incum e nt
upon us t o e a mine t he impa ct oI t he s e pe r s pe ct ive s a nd t he r ole oI re e ct e d minor it opinions
ge ne r a ll on t he ins t it ut ion oI pesak.
ha t e ve r pos it ion one a dopt s on t he va lue oI de a t e t o t he or e t ica l s t ud t he re cle a r l is a n
o liga t ion t o a r rive a t one pra ct ica l s olut ion a s e d on t he s ince r e convict ion oI it s a ccur a c . he
r e la t ions hip oI pesak a s a n e nt e rpr is e de dica t e d t o t he goa l oI a s ingle uniIor ml inding
conclus ion a nd t he a m it ious Ior mula t ions oI t he t he or oI ha la khic plura lis m is comple a nd
e ve n dou le - e dge d. I one a dva nce s t he pos it ion t ha t t he re is onl one a ut he nt ic or a t le a s t
pr e Ie r re d ha la khic t rut h t he n t he s t a ke s oI pesak a r e high inde e d. a la khic de cis ion e come s a
hit - or - mis s e e r cis e in which t he dis s e nt ing vie w s t a nds in cle a r oppos it ion t o t r ut h. I one ha s
Ia it h in t he proce s s which a s pire s t o pr oduce t ha t t rut h one ca nnot cons ide r dis s e nt ing opinions
a s le git ima t e Ia ll a ck pos it ions t o e pos s i l r e ha ilit a t e d or r e lie d upon e ve n unde r
e t r a or dina r cir cums t a nce s . o do s o would e t a nt a mount t o e pr e s s ing a s e rious la ck oI Ia it h
in t he e IIe ct ive ne s s oI t he de cis ion- r e a ching pr oce s s . t t he s a me t ime iI one a dvoca t e s t he
o e ct ive va lidit oI a lt e r na t ive pesakim, t he n e ve n a s t he a r e mor e pa la t a le a s de va r haShem,
t he a r e ir onica ll pe r ha ps le s s le ga ll s igniIica nt a s pra ct ica le a lt e r na t ive s once t he ha ve e e n
r e e ct e d t he proce s s oI pesak, Ior unde r t he s e cir cums t a nce s t he Ior ma l a nd pr oce dura l a s pe ct
oI ha la khic re s olut ion domina t e s . Pesak, a ccor ding t o t his vie w ne e d not conce r n it s e lI wit h t he
r is k unce r t a in a nd Ia lli le t a s k oI re ve a ling t he one a ut he nt ic t rut h ut ins t e a d Iocus e s on
e s t a lis hing t he e s t t r ut h cons is t e nt wit h it s own principle s oI re s olut ion. n t his s e ns e t he
conclus ions r e a che d a re a s olut e l inding in t he re a lm oI nor ma t ive conduct ina s much a s t his
vie w e s t a lis he s pesak as a din vadaia n a s olut e s ure t . his a s pe ct oI t he r e la t ions hip e t we e n
pesak a nd t he t he or e t ica l va lue oI a lt e r na t ive pe r s pe ct ive s ha s e e n la r ge l ignor e d t hos e who
pe rce ive oI e lu va-elu in s t r ict l mode r n- li e ra l t e r ms ignor ing t he concomit a nt a s ce nda nc oI
pur e Ior ma l pr oce dure in t he s e s che me s
20
.
Page 9 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
ow t he n doe s ha la kha vie w t he right t o dis s e nt Irom ma orit pesak a nd how doe s it e va lua t e
t he o e ct ive s t a t us oI dis s e nt ing vie ws ga in t he ue s t ion is a comple one s ince e ond t he
s t a t us oI t he minor it opinion hit he r t o a na l e d t he r e s olut ion oI t he s e ue s t ions t urns on t he
int e r a ct ion e t we e n t wo compe t ing va lue s a nd t ra ns ce nding a s pira t ions oI halakha: t he pur s uit oI
t r ut h a nd t ole ra t ion oI mult iple pe r s pe ct ive s on one ha nd a nd t he pra gma t ic ne e d t o e s t a lis h
uniIormit dis cipline a nd orde r shelo yiheyu kishte torot not t o Ir a gme nt t he or a h
21
t o
ins ur e e IIe ct ive ne s s on t he ot he r . he ve r ne e d Ior pesak de s pit e elu va-elu divre Elokim
hayyim is due t o t his Ia ct or a ccor ding t o Ma ha r s ha l Arukh haShulhan a nd ot he rs
22
.
he s t a t us oI Zaken Mamre he nce Ior t h . M. t he re e llious e lde r who dis put e s t he pesak oI
t he re a t a nhe dr in is one oI t he e s t e a mple s oI t his t he me oI a ut horit . Ra m a n e pla ins
t ha t t he ne e d t o pu lici e t he punis hme nt oI t he . M. ( a nhe drin a is due t o t he Ia ct t ha t he is
not e e cut e d e ca us e oI t he s e ve rit oI his oIIe ns e pe r s e ut e ca us e oI his de s t r uct ive
impa ct
2
. e is a It e r a ll e nt it le d t o e pre s s his s ince re l he ld ha la khic convict ions ut is put t o
de a t h a n wa e ca us e his re Ius a l t o a c uie s ce t hr e a t e ns t o unde rmine t he ve r conce pt oI
uniIorm nor ma t ive e ha vior which is crucia l t o a n le ga l s s t e m. he Ia ct t ha t . M. is o liga t e d t o
a cce pt r a inic a ut hor it a nd it s pr oce dure s e ve n whe n t he a ppe a r t o e la t a nt l ina ccur a t e
a I al yemin shehu semol, ve'al semol shehu yemin e ve n iI t he de cla r e r ight t o e le It a nd vice
ve r s a Iurt he r a cce nt s t he s igniIica nce oI Ior ma l proce dur e a nd principle s oI pesak e ve n a t t he
e pe ns e oI o e ct ive ha la khic t r ut h
2
.
ccording t o e iv t he principle oI . M. a pplie s not onl t o t he hakhra'ah ledorot de Iinit ive
de cis ion oI t he shofet-mehokek ut a ls o t o t he int uit ive hor a a t kohe n s ince corr os ive impa ct on
uniIorm conduct a nd r e s pe ct Ior ra inic a ut horit a r e t he crucia l compone nt s . hus he
e mpha s i e s t he re Ie re nce t o ot h kohen a nd shofet in t his cont e t : "haish asher yaaseh be-zadon
lebilti shemo'a el ha-kohen ve-el ha-shofet he who int e nt iona ll de Iie s t he kohen a nd t he
shofet).
25
he r e a re indica t ions that the a s ic t he me oI . M. a ls o e t e nds t o le s s ua liIie d dis put a nt s a nd
le s s impre s s ive s ource s oI a ut hor it . Derashot ha - Ra n
2
a nd Sefer haHinukh
27
a rgue t ha t t he
a s ic pr ohi it ion oI lo tasur applie s t o a n individua l who r e e ct s ra inic de cis ions . ccording t o
Ma ha r a m i n a i t his not ion oI a pa r a lle l t o . M. a pplie s a t le a s t t o a n udge a nd is
r e s pons i le Ior a n o liga t ion oI a minor it udge t o s ur re nde r his will a nd a c uie s e t o t he ma or it
whos e ruling would ot he rwis e e ine IIe ct ive due t o t he pr inciple oI en holkhin be'mamon ahar ha-
rov (ma orit or pro a ilit doe s not dict a t e in mone t a r ma t t e rs which a ppe a r s t o e clude
ma orit rule in mone t a r dis put e s
2
.
R. Ja co Emde n r e e ct s t he ide a t ha t a n individua l ma cont inue t o a dhe r e t o his own ha la khic
convict ions a It e r t he principle s t ha t r e gula t e pe s ak ha ve r e e ct e d t he m
2
. e t oo point s t o t he
. M. pa ra lle l a s t he Iounda t ion oI t his pos it ion. owe ve r ot he r s dis put e t he e is t e nce oI s uch
pa r a lle ls a nd limit t he mot iI oI a ut hor it in Ia vor oI gre a t e r Ile i ilit in t he pur s uit oI t r ut h.
he t e ns ion e t we e n t he pur s uit oI ha la khic t rut h a nd t he int e gr it oI ha la khic proce dure t ha t
ins ur e s e IIe ct ive ne s s a s a s s t e m pe r va de s a num e r oI t opics . he s e r a nge Ir om a prope r
Page 10 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
e va lua t ion oI t he s t or oI tanur shel Akhnai a a Me t ia a nd it s clima oI lo
bashamayim hi t o a n is s ue oI udicia l de ce pt ion dis cus s e d Pit he e s huva iI a minor it udge
is pe r mit t e d t o Ia ls e l de cla re hims e lI t o e unde cide d in or de r t ha t he ma de la a nd pos s i l la
t he groundwor k Ior ult ima t e l r e ve r s ing t he ma or it de cis ion unde r mining t he s e lI- s uIIicie nc
oI t he e is t ing court
0
.
he comple s t a t us oI minor it opinions is Iur t he r re Ile ct e d in s e ve r a l ha la khic cont e t s . s
a llude d t o e a rlie r t he os a Iis t s a nd ot he r s we r e dis t ur e d t he a ppa re nt cla s h e t we e n t he
pr inciple s oI e n holkin bemamon a ha r ha - rov a nd udicia l ma orit rule . a rious s olut ions we re
pr opos e d t o r e s olve t his dis cre pa nc . wo oI t he s e unde rs cor e oppos ing pe r s pe ct ive s wit h r e s pe ct
t o t he conce pt s oI pesak a nd o e ct ive ha la khic t r ut h.
R. ona t a n Ei s chit dis t inguis he s in his Tumim e t we e n mos t ma or it ie s which a re not
mut ua ll e clus ive oI t he minorit while is s ue s oI ha la kha ha ve onl one a s olut e re s olut ion
1
.
hus in his vie w t he minorit pe rs pe ct ive in ha la kha is t ot a ll ne ga t e d t he ma orit de cis ion
a nd cons e ue nt l pos e s no cha lle nge t o it e ve n in t he mone t a r re a lm. his e pla na t ion pro a l
r e pr e s e nt s a de - e mpha s is oI ha la khic plura lis m.
R. Ja co Emde n in a s light l diIIe re nt cont e t propos e s a diIIe re nt a pproa ch
2
. e a rgue s t ha t
udicia l pr oce dure e clude s a n r e a l dou t safek s ince t he ma or it ha s t he ca pa cit t o
e s t a lis h not us t r e ve a l t he la w. vious l in t he a s e nce oI re a l dou t one ca nnot e
conce r ne d wit h t he we ight oI pre s umpt ive mone t a r right s (hezkat mamon t ha t de t e r mine en
holkhin be-mamon ahar ha-rov. n t his Ior mula t ion we wit ne s s t he not ion t ha t pesak de void oI
t he ur de n oI r e ve a ling t rut h which ca r rie s wit h it t he pot e nt ia l Ior e rr or is a n inde pe nde nt a nd
s t rict l Iorma l pr oce s s . his vie w is cons is t e nt wit h a t he or oI ha la khic plur a lis m.
he ins ight oI Kli Hemdah t ha t a udge who is ove r rule d t he ma or it ha s a r ight oI a ppe a l
t o t he r e a t a nhe drin onl in t e rms oI t he t he or e t ica l is s ue a nd it s Iut ur e a pplica t ion ut is
de nie d a n pos s i ilit oI a ct ua ll cha lle nging a nd ove rt urning t he pr e vious a pplica t ion oI t ha t
pesak r e pr e s e nt s a n a lmos t ide a l a la nce

. t s a Ie gua r ds t he int e grit oI ha la khic proce s s e s
de n ing a n a ppe a l on t he one ha nd a nd a t t he s a me t ime it e ncour a ge s a nd r e inIorce s t he
pur s uit oI ma ima l ha la khic pe r Ie ct ion a llowing Ior t he ore t ica l a nd Iut ure r e - e va lua t ion.
a la khis t s dis cus s e d a s imila r is s ue out s ide t he s t r ict conIine s oI court de cis ion. oe s a n
individua l ha ve t he r ight t o ins is t t ha t he is convince d oI t he va lidit oI a minor it ha la khic
pos it ion a nd t hus r e Ius e s t o compl wit h t he ma orit he ld ruling his ue s t ion wa s de a t e d
ma or ha la khis t s a nd pos s i l r e pr e s e nt s a dis put e e t we e n s chola r s oI ra nco- e r ma n a nd
pa in. t t oo r e Ile ct s s e ve r a l oI t he t he me s t ha t a r e cr ucia l t o our e va lua t ion oI mult iple t r ut hs in
halakha a nd oI t he cha r a ct e r oI ha la khic de cis ion- ma king. Ma ha rik a nd ot he r s who dis t inguis h
e t we e n t he mone t a r a nd ot he r r e a lms due t o t he Ia ct or oI hezkat mamon ce rt a inl a ppe a r t o
vie w pesak a s a me a ns oI re s olving dou t r a t he r t ha n e s t a lis hing conduct irr e s pe ct ive oI ha la khic
t r ut h

. t he r ha la khis t s re e ct s uch dis t inct ions pos s i l e ca us e oI t he s e implica t ions .
he pos s i ilit t ha t one might re ha ilit a t e a pr e vious l r e e ct e d minor it opinion or re l upon
one in a s e nce oI de Iinit ive e vide nce t o t he cont r a r is o vious l linke d t o our t opic. he
Page 11 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
Mishnayot in Edoyot 1: pr ovide us wit h a m iguous inIorma t ion

:
nd wh do we me nt ion a n individua l opinion a long wit h t he ma or it t hough t he
ha la kha Iollows t he ma orit ha t a Court ma a pprove a n individua l vie w a nd r e l
on him: Ior a Cour t ca nnot ga ins a a de cis ion oI it s Ie llow Cour t unle s s it is gr e a t e r
in wis dom a nd num e r .
R. e huda h s a id I s o wh do we me nt ion a n individua l vie w a long wit h t he
ma orit unne ce s s a r il ha t iI a pe r s on s a s o ha ve a t ra dit ion he will s a t o
him ou he a rd it a s t he opinion oI s o- a nd- s o.
Tosafot Sens int e rpr e t s t he mis hna a s Iollows

:
lt hough t he minorit vie w wa s not a cce pt e d whe n init ia ll pr opos e d iI a ma or it
oI t he s chola rs oI t he ne t ge ne r a t ion a gr e e t o t he r a t iona le t ha t unde r lie s t his
pos it ion it is e s t a lis he d a s t he nor ma t ive ha la kha . he e nt ir e ora h wa s r e ve a le d
t o Mos he wit h a ra nge oI pe r s pe ct ive s ie lding oppos ing conclus ions . e wa s t old
t ha t t he ma or it pos it ion pr e va ils ut t ha t ot h vie ws r e t a in t he ir s t a t us a s divre
Elokim hayyim.
ccording t o t his int e r pre t a t ion t he mis hna r e Ie r s t o a pre vious l minor it opinion which ha s
now a chie ve d ma or it a cking a nd whos e imple me nt a t ion is in Ia ct a s e d on t he principle oI
ma orit r ule . he is s ue is s impl how t o us t iI t he ove r t ur ning oI a pr e vious l e s t a lis he d t rut h.
Tosafot Sens' r e s pons e pr o e ct s elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim a s a re a l mult iple t r ut h t he or
which r e le ga t e s ha la khic de cis ion ma king t o le ga l proce dure a lone which us t iIie s t he pot e nt ia l Ior
it t o e ove rt urne d in ma nne r cons is t e nt wit h it s own principle s . his pe rs pe ct ive e IIe ct ive l
a ddr e s s e s ot h t he mot iI oI mult iple t r ut hs a nd t he s igniIica nce oI ha la khic pr oce s s a nd
pr oce dur e .
he t he me oI ha la khic plura lis m is a ls o ce nt r a l t o a n is s ue oI codiIica t ion polic t ha t wa s t he
s u e ct oI he a t e d de a t e in ra inic circle s pa rt icula r l t he a It e rma t h oI t he a ppe a r a nce oI
Ra m a m s Mishneh Torah in t he t we lIt h ce nt ur a nd t he Shulhan Arukh in the s i t e e nt h ce nt ur .
he omis s ion oI minorit opinions in t he s e wor ks provoke d a cr it ica l r e a ct ion in s ome circle s . he
r ot he r oI Ma ha r a l oI Pr a gue R. a im us t iIie d his crit i ue oI Shulhan Arukh on t he a s is oI
t he inhe r e nt s pirit ua l va lue oI e ve n r e e ct e d doct rine s a s re Ile ct e d t he conce pt oI elu va-elu
divre Elokim hayyim.
7
pa s s a ge in Massekhet Soferim 1 : a ccur a t e l conve s t he s igniIica nce oI t he cont ri ut ion
t ha t minor it opinions ma oIIe r t o t he ha la khic proce s s :
R. a nhum . a nila i s a id: I t he ora h ha d e e n give n a s a cle a r - cut code no
udge would ha ve a locus standi in la ing down a ruling ut now a udge ha s a
locus standi, Ior iI he de cla r e s a t hing t o e cle a n t he r e a r e a ut hor it ie s who
de cla r e a t hing in a s imila r condit ion t o e uncle a n a nd iI he de cide s t ha t it is
uncle a n t he r e a r e a ut hor it ie s who de cla r e a t hing in a s imila r condit ion t o e
cle a n.
he u t a pos it ion e t we e n t his s t a t e me nt a nd t he ve r ne t s e ct ion 1 : - R. Ja nna i s a id:
he or a h which t he ol ne le s s e d e e ga ve t o Mos e s wa s de live r e d t o him in Ior t - nine
a s pe ct s oI uncle a nne s s a nd Ior t - nine a s pe ct s oI cle a nne s s which a s s e r t s t ha t t he init ia l
r e ve la t ion e nt a ile d mult iple ha la khic a ppr oa che s a nd opt ions pr ovide s t he us t iIica t ion Ior t his
ide a l oI Ile i ilit in pesak
38
.
he a lmudic dis t inct ion e t we e n t wo ca t e gorie s oI udicia l e rr or re pre s e nt s a not he r
int e r e s t ing Ia ce t oI ha la khic plura lis m. Iunda me nt a l udicia l e r r or rought a out ignor a nce or
Page 12 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
mis re a ding oI a s ic crucia l s our ce s ta'ut bi-devar mishna inva lida t e s t he pesak. owe ve r
r ulings t ha t s t e m Ir om ue s t iona le e va lua t ions or imprope r a dhe r e nce t o pr oce dur e s de s igne d t o
e s t a lis h t he hie ra r ch oI diIIe re nt opinions a nd s ource s taut be-shikul ha-da'at s t a nd t hough
t he udge ma e lia le a nd mus t compe ns a t e t he vict im oI his mis ca lcula t ion. ne might
pr opos e a t le a s t a ccor ding t o s ome Rishonim t ha t t he polic oI a m iva le nce which cha r a ct e r i e s
our a ppr oa ch t o t he ca t e gor oI ta'ut be-shikul ha-da'at in which t he r uling is va lid a nd e t one
ca n s pe a k oI lia ilit de r ive s Ir om it s s t a t us a s a pos s i l le git ima t e e pr e s s ion oI or a h which
ha s e e n proce dura ll dis ca r de d in t e rms oI conduct . r om t his pe r s pe ct ive t he de t a ils t ha t
gove rn a nd de Iine t he t wo ca t e gor ie s oI e rr or a r e ins t ruct ive inde e d.
ow we de Iine ta'ut be-devar mishna Ior e a mple s hould he lp t o de t e r mine t he ounda rie s
oI le git ima t e ha la khic de a t e . hus t he dis cus s ion a mong poskim iI a cce pt e d r ulings oI Geonim or
Rishonim s hould e cla s s iIie d a s devar mishna or a s shikul ha-da'at is ve r s igniIica nt . he
dis t inct ion a dva nce d s ome e t we e n t hos e e onic pos it ions which whe n r e ve a le d a re a cce pt e d
a nd t hos e t ha t ge ne ra t e d oppos it ion is a ls o s t r iking. t t he s a me t ime t he pos it ion oI Ros h t ha t
knowle dge oI a n e r ror oI shikul ha-da'at pr ior t o t he imple me nt a t ion oI t he ruling would s t ill not
r e nde r pesak inva lid pe r ha ps a t t e s t s t o a not ion oI le git ima t e plura lis m a t le a s t oI t his va r ie t

.
Mor e ove r t he opinion uot e d in Or Zarua t ha t a taut be-shikul ha-da'at t ha t is mot iva t e d not
incor re ct a pplica t ion oI ha la khic rule s oI r e s olut ion ut a la ck oI inIor ma t ion oI t he pos it ions oI
s ome poskim doe s not cr e a t e a n kind oI lia ilit s e e ms t o point t o imprope r proce dure a lone a s
r e s pons i le Ior t his s t a t us not a n Ila w in t he pur s uit oI o e ct ive ha la khic t r ut h
0
.
he r e a re oI cour s e s igniIica nt limit a t ions e ve n t o a plur a lis m gr ounde d in e ua l t r ut hs . his is
cle a r l ma niIe s t t he dis t inct ion oI ta'ut be-devar mishnah a nd ta'ut be-shikul ha-da'at a s we
ha ve us t de mons t r a t e d a nd in ot he r cont e t s a s we ll. he pa r a me t e r s oI kim le Ior e a mple
a t t e s t t o t his . Eve n t hos e who a cce pt t he a IIe ct ive ne s s oI t he cla im oI kim le impos e de Iinit e
limit a t ions . Ma ha rik e lie ve s t ha t one ca n onl re s ort t o t his cla im whe n t he minorit opinion ou
s e e k t o r e l upon is one oI de Iinit e pr omine nce a nd s t a t ur e t he opinion oI a Ra s hi or R. a m
e t c
1
. he re a r e Aharonim who r e uir e t ha t s uch a pos it ion e cit e d t he Shulhan Arukh or
Re ma . ome Rishonim de ma nd t ha t a t le a s t t wo pos kim a dopt a pos it ion e Ior e one ca n de cla re
kim le. pos it ion a dvoca t e d onl one a ut hor it is t oo idios ncra t ic t o e t a ke n a s a s e rious
e pr e s s ion oI or a h. Kuntres ha-Sefekot cha ra ct e r i e s s uch pos it ions a s mi'uta de-mi'uta e t re me
minorit a n unlike l ca ndida t e Ior ha la khic t r ut h e ve n oI t he plura lis t ic va rie t . t he rs conclude
t ha t t he pre cis e pa r a me t e r s oI le git ima c s hould e le It t o t he int uit ion oI t he ha la khic a ut horit ie s
involve d in t he pa rt icula r ca s e s ince it is diIIicult t o ua nt iI s uch a conce pt . he roa d guide line s
oI re s t rict ion a r e in a n ca s e a ppa r e nt
2
.
e a ls o e ncount e r de Iinit e limit a t ions wit h re ga r d t o t he pos s i le pe r mis s i ilit oI a minor it
udge t o Ia ls e l cla im inde cis ion in or de r t o lock wha t he e lie ve s t o e a n incorr e ct ma or it
r uling

. he s e t oo s e r ve a r oa de r Iunct ion a s mode ls oI t he pa ra me t e r s oI le git ima t e dis put e
a nd dis s e nt .
Cle a r l plura lis m is not a la nk che ck. he r e a r e o e ct ive limit s t o a s ince r e int e r pre t a t ion oI
Page 13 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
s our ce s . he a ut hor oI Arukh haShulhan in his int roduct ion t o Hoshen Mishpat e mpha s i e s
t ha t mos t ha la khic de a t e s r e volve a r ound de t a ils a nd a pplica t ion oI principle s not t he pr inciple s
t he ms e lve s . his is pa r t icula r l t rue he a rgue s a out t hos e de a t e s t ha t a r e cha ra ct e r i e d a s elu
va-elu divre Elokim hayyim. R. Mos he e ins t e in in t he int r oduct ion t o his Iggerot Moshe ca ut ions
a out t he ne e d Ior yir'at shamayim Ie a r oI od pie t a nd int e lle ct ua l r igor t o ins ur e va lid
conclus ions .
t t he s a me t ime in t e rms oI t he t he me s oI t ole r a nce a nd re s pe ct Ior t he le git ima t e l a rr ive d
a t conclus ions oI ot he rs wit h whom we ma dis a gr e e t he implica t ions oI elu va-elu divre Elokim
hayyim a re cr ucia l. he ge ma r a a a a t ra 1 0 inIor ms us t ha t e ve n a pesak t ha t we r e e ct
s hould not e s hr e dde d ina s much a s it ma e a va lid a pproa ch:
he n a le ga l de cis ion oI mine come s e Ior e ou in a wr it t e n Ior m a nd ou s e e
a n o e ct ion t o it do not t e a r it up e Iore ou ha ve s e e n me . I ha ve a va lid
r e a s on Ior m de cis ion will t e ll it t o ou a nd iI not will wit hdra w. It e r m
de a t h ou s ha ll ne it he r t e a r it up nor inIe r a n la w Ir om it . ou s ha ll ne it he r t e a r
it up s ince ha d e e n t he r e it is pos s i le t ha t might ha ve t old ou t he re a s on
1 1a nor e nt e r a n la w Ir om it e ca us e a udge mus t e guide d onl t ha t
which his e e s s e e .
R. e ins t e in s ugge s t s t ha t t he unde r l ing principle oI elu va-elu divreElokim hayyim would
de ma nd t ha t we t r e a t a r e e ct e d opinion r e la t ing t o a ha la khic conce pt a s oppos e d t o t he pe s a k
r e Ie r r e d t o in t he a lmudic pa s s a ge wit h a Iull me a s ur e oI re ve re nce e ve n iI we we r e Ia milia r
wit h a nd s t ill not convince d it s a rgume nt . he clima t e oI de a t e e t we e n e t ha ma i a nd e t
ille l a s r e la t e d in e va mot 1 - 1 e lo ue nt l e pr e s s e s t his t he me :
hough t he s e Ior a de wha t t he ot he rs pe r mit t e d a nd t he s e re ga rde d a s ine ligi le
wha t t he ot he r s de cla r e d e ligi le e t ha mma i ne ve r t he le s s did not r e Ira in Ir om
ma r r ing wome n Ir om t he Ia milie s oI e t ille l. or did e t ille l r e Ira in Ir om
ma r r ing wome n Ir om t he Ia milie s oI e t ha mma i. . . .
his is t o t e a ch ou t ha t t he s howe d love a nd Ir ie nds hip t owa rds one a not he r t hus
put t ing int o pra ct ice t he s cript ura l t e t Love e t r ut h a nd pe a ce .
he ge ma ra in Eruvin 1 t he ve r s our ce oI elu va-elu divre Elokim hayyim, conclude s t ha t
t he halakha is in a ccor da nce wit h e t ille l pr e cis e l e ca us e t he dis pla e d gr e a t e r Iide lit t ha n
e t ha mma i t o t his t he me oI r e s pe ct :
ince howe ve r ot h a r e t he words oI t he living od wha t wa s it t ha t e nt it le d
e t ille l t o ha ve t he ha la kha Ii e d in a gr e e me nt wit h t he ir r ulings e ca us e t he
we r e kindl a nd mode s t t he s t udie d t he ir own r ulings a nd t hos e oI e t ha mma i
a nd we re e ve n s o hum le a s t o me nt ion t he a ct ions oI e t ha mma i e Ior e
t he ir s .
his is a mot iI which s hould guide us in r e la t ing t o ot he r communit ie s a nd t he ir dis t inct ive
cus t oms a nd pesakim.
ina ll it s hould e s t a t e d e mpha t ica ll t ha t e lu va - e lu divre Elokim hayyim s hould ne ve r e
us e d a s a n e cus e Ior compla ce nc or me diocrit . Eve n a s we e ncount e r e ua l t r ut hs we mus t
a s pire t o pur s ue our own convict ion oI ide a l t r ut h culle d Ir om a nd on t he a s is oI ins ight s t ha t we
Ior m Ir om t he we a lt h oI le git ima t e pe r s pe ct ive s t ha t we conIront . ur pur s uit s hould e
int e ns iIie d a nd e nha nce d t he s e e pos ur e s . n t his wa we will hope Iull e me r ge wit h t he
conce pt oI plura lis m e a ut iIull de pict e d t he Arakh ha-Shulhan in his int roduct ion t o Hoshen
Page 1 oI 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/eluveelu.htm
Mishpat:
he de a t e s oI a na im a nd mor a im a nd e onim in Ia ct r e pr e s e nt t he t r ut h oI t he
living od. ll oI t he ir vie ws ha ve me rit Ir om a ha la khic pe r s pe ct ive . n Ia ct t his
dive r s it a nd ra nge cons t it ut e t he e a ut a nd s ple ndor oI our hol or a h. he e nt ir e
or a h is ca lle d a s ong whos e e a ut de rive s Ir om t he int e r a ct ive dive rs it oI it s voice s
a nd ins t rume nt s . ne who imme rs e s hims e lI in t he s e a oI a lmud will e pe rie nce t he
o t ha t r e s ult s Ir om s uch r ich va r ie t .
or a h t he n is t o e pe r ce ive d a s a ha rmonious s mphon e nr iche d t he dive rs it oI it s
ins t r ume nt s a nd va ria t ions a nd e a r ing t he s ingula r me s s a ge oI devar haShem.
1 2 7 E6
1
conve nie nt s umma r oI diIIe re nt a pproa che s a nd orie nt a t ions r e ga r ding t he ou le r ut h t he or
ca n e Iound in The Encyclopedia oI Philosophy 1 7 vol. pp 22 - 22 . e e a ls o Et ie nne
ils on History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages e w or k 1 a nd C. oua t i e r it e
philos ophi ue e t ve rit e prophe t i ue che s a a c l a la g REJ 71 1 2 pp - 7.
2
or ma n La mm ha s pr opos e d t ha t ie ls ohr s he or oI Comple me nt a r it in nucle a r ph s ics ma e
a mor e a ccur a t e a na logue t o t he not ion oI le git ima t e e pis t e mologica l a nd ont ologica l plura lis m. his
s ugge s t ion is a rt icula t e d in his r e ce nt l pu lis he d Torah Umadda. The Encounter of Religious Learning
and Worldly Knowledge in the Jewish Tradition e w Je r s e : Ja s on rons on nc. 1 0 pp. 2 2- 2 .

vious l t he pr e cis e s t a t us oI a gga dot a nd midr a s him cons t it ut e s a comple is s ue a nd one which
is ve r much re Ile ct ive oI t he ove r a ll orie nt a t ions oI t he va rious t he or is t s t he ms e lve s . hus a n
s e r ious a na l s is oI t he t opic would re uir e a n e la ora t e a nd compre he ns ive inde pe nde nt t r e a t me nt oI
t he s our ce s . e e Ma rc a pe r s t e in Decoding of the Rabbis ( os t on: a rva r d . Pr e s s 1 80 pp. 1- 20
Ior a s umma r oI a s ic ra inic pe rs pe ct ive s on a gga da h. or our s pe ciIic purpos e in t his cont e t one
s hould s e e t he Ia mous Ior mula t ions oI Ra v he r ira a on a nd Ra v a i a on a s t he a re r e cor de d in .
l e ck Sefer haEshkol (Je rus a le m 1 8 vol. Hilkhot e Ie r Torah, pp. 1 7- 1 8 a nd in . Le vin
Ozar haGeonim Hagiga Je rus a le m 1 2 no. - pp - 0. ne s hould not e in pa r t icula r t he
int r iguing pos s i ilit a dva nce d R. a i a on t ha t t he s t a t ure oI a lmudic a gga dot e ce e ds t ha t oI
a gga dot whos e origin is e clus ive l midr a s hic. e ve rt he le s s e ve n a lmudic a gga dot will not e
inding iI t he do not conIorm t o logic a nd int uit ion a s e d on t he pr inciple oI s e e
a ls o Yerushalmi, Peah 2: . e e a ls o t he ce le ra t e d pa s s a ge s in Ma imonide s Introduction to Perek
Helek . a Iin Perush haMishnayot laRambam (Je rus a le m Mos a d ha Ra v ook 1 vol. pp.
1 - 1 7 whe r e Ra m a m de s cr i e s t hr e e a s ic a ppr oa che s t o ra inic a gga da h a s s ocia t ing hims e lI
wit h t he mor e Ile i le int e r pre t ive pos t ur e . ome oI t he lit e r a t ur e oI t he Ma imonide a n cont r ove r s ie s
oI 12 2 a nd 1 0 r e volve d a r ound t he le git ima c oI t his vie w. e e a ls o Yoreh De'a 17 : 12 Ior a n
e a mple oI a n e mpha t ic cr it i ue oI Ra m a m s philos ophic pos t ur e .
he cont rove rs ia l Iormula t ions oI a hma nide s in his pole mic wit h Pa lo Chr is t ia ni a rce lona 12
in which he s ha r pl downgr a de s t he s igniIica nce oI midra s him is a ls o re le va nt t o t his t opic. e
de cla re s Ior e a mple : a nd e ve n mor e s t rikingl :
ikua h ha Ra m a n in C. Cha ve l Kitve haRamban
Je r us a le m 1 p. 08 he r e is a whole lit e r a t ur e which de a t e s t he e t e nt t o which t he s e
comme nt s s hould e pe rce ive d a s a ccura t e l r e Ile ct ing Ra m a n s a ut horit a t ive pos it ion or
a lt e r na t ive l s hould e vie we d a s a n ins ince r e ut s t ra t e gic r e s pons e mot iva t e d t he circums t a nce s
oI Je wis h- Chris t ia n dis put a t ions in which a gga dot whe re oIt e n us e d Chris t ia n a dvoca t e s t o
e s t a lis h t he a ut he nt icit oI t he ir cla ims . e e Ior e a mple t he comme nt s oI Ra i Cha ve l a d loc. .
a e r in Le ikore t ha ikuhim s he l R. e hie l miPa ris ve s he l ha Ra m a n Tarbiz 2: 2 1 a nd .
Lie e r ma n in he ki in Je r us a le m 1 70 pp. 81- 8 .

Bemidbar Ra a 1 : 1 . CI. Responsa of Ra dva e nice 17 : . Ra dva pos it s t ha t t he

mult iplicit oI le git ima t e me a nings oI or a h is re s pons i le Ior t he t e t e ing une ncum e r e d
Page 15 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
n e ku d ot and t e 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 r a h and are of Sinaitic origin.
5
Introduction to e Ie r h a in u k and mizvot 95, 98.
6
R. Shatz, ed., a a a lla h e Pr ove n ce : Lectures of Gershon Scholem- 1963 (Jerusalem: Akadamon,
1979), pp. 5-21.
7
Introduction 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 ot d e Ra v h a i a o n (Jerusalem,
1961), pp. 18-19.
9
e r a kh ot 2a, 3a, 4b.
10
os a Iot a n h e d rin 17a, s.v.
11
R. Moses Isserles, Re s p on s a oI Re m a (Jerusalem, 1977), no. 107.
12
R. Moshe Feinstein, lg g e ro t Mo s h e (New York, 1982), 4:9, 24.
13
Rashi, e t u ot 57a, s.v. " .
14
This view is apparently based on the formulation in Ma s s e kh e t o Ie rim (16:6). See Talmud
Yerushalmi a n h e d r in (4:2) where an important aspect of this theme is expressed in a slightly
different context.
15
For an interesting discussion of this basic perspective see the article by Rabbi Yechiel Michal Katz,
- e Ie r e vu l a ovlo t (New York, 1986), pp. 346-360 and the
sources cited therein.
16
This 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 im h i (see a a Me 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 e r a s h ot h a Ra n (ed.
L. Feldman), and in the famous introduction to the e t o t h a o s h e n on os h e n Mis h p a t in his
analysis of the concept of halakhic h id d u s h
17
See, for example, h e m o t Ra a 41:6 [on h e m ot 31:12]: ?
" . . . . 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 ch. 4, Ma a m a r o ra h h e e a l Pe h.)
18
Introduction to a m s h e l h lo m o on a a a m a .
19
Maharal of Prague, e e r h a ola h (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 19-20. See my article, "Personal
Initiative and Creativity in Avodat Hashem" in o ra h - Ma d d a Jo u r n a l ed. Jacob J. Schacter, vol. I
(1989), pp. 79-83.
20
See s u p ra note 16.
21
a n h e d r in 88b.
22
Introduction to a m s h e l h lo m o on Baba Kama; Introduction to r u kh h a h u lh a n on os h e n
Mis h p a t .
23
Ra m a n a l h a o r a h e va rim 21:18. Cf. Pe ru s h h a Ra d va on Rambam, Mis h n e h o r a h, ilkh ot
Ma m r im 3:8.
24
iIr e and Ra m a n a l h a o ra h 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 e r u s h a lm i or a ot (1:1)
and Rabbi Elhanan Wasserman, u n t re s ivre o Irim no. 4, in o e t h i u rim 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 Ie r h a in u kh no. 508. li a ka r a d lo c. directly links the
iIr e s doctrine with the principle of e lu va e lu d ivr e Elo kim h a 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 pp. 6-7.
26
e ra s h o t h a Ra n Derush 12, pp. 212-213. He projects the principle of a h a r e r a im le - h a t o t as the
Page 16 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm
basis for this, rather than lo t a s u r . See also Abravanel on e va r im 17:8.
27
Sefer h a in u kh no. 508. He perceives this as an extension of lo t a s u r.
28
This position is also recorded by u n t re s h a e Ie kot (6:2). [This work was authored by the brother
of the e t ot h a os h e n and is printed in many editions of the standard os h e n Mis h p a t or e t o t
h a o s h e n .
29
R. Jacob Emden, She'elat Yaavetz (Lemberg, 1884), no. 153.
30
Pit h e e s h u va 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
os a Iot . . 27b s.v. " Tosafot, a n h e d r in 3b, " " , id u s h e h a r a a t h a h a s . .
27b, " " u n t re s h a e Ie kot 6:2.
32
Rabbi Jacob Emden, h e e la t a a ve t , no. 157. Compare this view to the positions regarding
majority rule outlined in Rabbi R. Margaliot, Ma rg a l o t h a a m a l a n h e d rin (Jerusalem, 1977).
a n h e d r in 40a, no. 22, pp. 163-164
33
e li e m d a a l ha o ra h e va r im 17:8, pp. 106-109. C.f. Ma rg a li o t h a a m, a n h e d r in 2a,
no. 51.
34
Joseph Colon, Re s p o n s a o I Ma h a r ik (Jerusalem, 1973), no. 14.
35
See also the interpretation of Or Zarua (Bnei-Brak, 1958), I, ilkh o t h e vi- it ve - a d a s h no. 328,
and h e ilt ot d e - Ra v h a i a on h e m ot no. 36.
36
os a Iot e n s , Ed u o t (1:4).
37
Rabbi Hayyim b. Bezalel, iku a h Ma im a im (Amsterdam, 1712), 5b. For a further
discussion of this position see my article in o ra h - Ma d d a Journal (cited in n. 19), pp. 84-85.
38
Cf. Yerushalmi, a n h e d r in 4:2.
39
This position is disputed by Ramah, see u r, os 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 a n h e d r in 5a.
41
Re s p o n s a o I Ma h a r ik no. 94:6.
42
See u n t re s h a e Ie kot 6:6 for a review of some of the major positions on this issue.
43
Pit - h e e s h u va o s h e n Mis h p a t 18:4, 8.
link to lookstein.org
Page 17 of 17 Jewish Education at the Lookstein Center - Michael Rosensweig
22/07/2012 http://www.lookstein.org/articles/elu_ve_elu.htm