In the previous article, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-tao-of-karadoxy.html we saw that there is a common space where
Rabbinic Law and Karaite approaches to halacha
overlap. There are indeed
further examples of this phenomenon.
Maimonides – The Rambam –
makes a rhetorical claim about the power of the Pharisee Sanhedrin, and the
irreversibility of some of their decrees. However, this is followed up by a
lesser known statement, which virtually contradicts all of rabbanism.
Before I explore this, I am
reminded of my chemistry classes back in school. We were taught that whilst some chemical
reactions are irreversible (as the Rambam claims for rabbinical law), many others are reversible. To reverse some reactions, we may need to
change the conditions , eg temperature , pressure, or even use a catalyst,
which will favour the reversal of the reaction which has taken place. Hence, Rambam provides such a catalyst in the
2nd chapter of Mamrim.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181853/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-2.htm
Halacha 5
When a
court sees it necessary to issue a decree, institute an edict, or establish a
custom, they must first contemplate the matter and see whether or not the
majority of the community can uphold the practice. We never issue a decree on
the community unless the majority of the community can uphold the practice.
Halacha 6
If a
court issued a decree, thinking that the majority of the community could uphold
it and after the decree was issued, the majority of the community raised
contentions and the practice did not spread throughout the majority of the
community, the decree is nullified. The court cannot compel the people to
accept it.
Halacha 7
Sages
issued a decree and thought that it spread among the entire Jewish people and
the situation remained unchanged for many years. After a long duration of time,
another court arose and checked throughout the Jewish community and saw that
the observance of this decree had not spread throughout the Jewish community,
it has the authority to negate the decree even if it is of lesser stature than
the original court in wisdom and in number of adherents.
The rabbinic halachot above
are really quite astounding, considering the seriousness with which the rabbis
generally impose on their own rules.
#5 is saying that the majority of the community has
to accept a rabbinic addition, in order for it to be acceptable. This raises 2 points: first what if a
community , such as the Karaites, or others simply reject the rabbis and their decrees? Second, even if the majority of an orthodox
or otherwise community accept the addition, what logical bearing does this have
on the minority? An individual has no
religious obligation to follow the majority, and if a particular law can be
practiced by some, that doesn’t mean the minority are also able to follow it. Maimonides does in fact address the first
point I raise (He does this in the following halachot), but not the second.
#6 Is very interesting, since it states that the
court cannot impose its law on an unwilling population. Again, this is predicated on the idea of a
majority, but this is a self serving argument. Which community and which
majority? And of course, so what if the
majority in Bnei Brak accepts an addition? Why should I limit my freedom for
others?
#7 This adds an additional
element of reversibility to the equation.
If after a long time a new court carries out a survey, and finds that a law is not
practiced as once though, the law can be
reversed, regardless of the status of the court! This may be very rare in terms of actual
practice, for a Rabbinic Bet Din to reverse a Talmudic addition. However, in
principle, it means anyone can reverse a law, once the practice is not accepted
by the current majority of Jews. Since
today there is no longer an orthodox majority, then rabbinic law is not valid,
or at least can be reversed, using this catalyst of the Rambam.
