Reply To: Rabbi Professor Broyde's response

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Rabbi Professor Broyde's response Reply To: Rabbi Professor Broyde's response

#825620
yitayningwut
Participant

RSRH –

Your point is taken about the ship having sailed. I can hear that from a historical perspective. Personally I do not think that it is an acceptable notion, as the Gemara says: ???? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ????. But I can understand the social dynamics and that this is how it is not inherently hypocritical to look at the CJLS as beyond the pale while looking past questionable p’sakim of an Orthodox group. Thank you.

However, I do not agree with your assertion of there being many truths. There is one truth and one halacha. “?’ ???? ?????” is an esoteric concept that is not relevant (I will elaborate in the forthcoming paragraph). The proof is in the fact that anyone ever argued over a halacha. How is it possible to argue when there are no premises? Obviously there is a shared premise, when arguing, that we both accept that reason will carry the day, and that reason will yield one answer. Otherwise everyone should always just agree to disagree, which I think is ludicrous.*

There is a concept in halacha that ??? ???? ???? ??-??? ????. It does not contradict what I am saying. There are indeed many ways to interpret the Torah and this statement says that when Hashem gave the Torah he intended all of these interpretations. Therefore when R’ Eliezer says one thing and R’ Yehoshua says another, they are both true, because they are both possible ways of interpreting the Torah. However, it is the hands of the Sanhedrin to pass one interpretation into law and reject another one, and the accepted one becomes – by default – the only halachic truth. This was the point of the Chachamim in the famous story of ???? ?? ?????. At any rate, the statement ??? ???? ???? ??-??? ???? does not, in my opinion, vindicate what seems to be your idea of pluralism in any way. It only says that on the level of ???? ????? ??? various interpretations can be “true.” But we have one halacha, as ???? ?? ????? ???. And as such, if someone today were to pasken like R’ Eliezer in the above situation, we would scream and yell and call him a liar and a ????? ?? ?????.

There is no such thing as halachic pluralism. When there is a machlokes Rashi and Tosafos; Rambam and Ra’avad; Shach and Taz; or R’ Moshe and R’ Yaakov, one is right and one is wrong. End of story. You have a right to consistently follow someone who is a big person, and if he made a mistake – ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????. But the fact remains – in my opinion – there is only one true halacha.

[By the way, I happen to believe that a few of the things you seem to hold as a davar pashut to be assur, are not, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.]

*You are in a sticky situation here. Because if you do not agree with me you cannot prove your point. If you attempt to prove your point, you will be demonstrating that you agree that there is one truth, because if not, any “proof” is moot.