Is Rabbinic Law Binding?

Overview: Exploring the authority of the rabbis and Halacha from a rational perspective. Addressing civil law, religious law, making Torah Law practical, and why the rabbis hesitate to make changes to Halacha.

Over the years, rabbinic law has evolved to a lifestyle almost unrecognizable to biblical Judaism. There is little doubt that Moses or King David wouldn’t have recognized most of rabbinic law practiced today. Sure, there was an initial Oral Law given alongside the Written Torah as discussed here, but that was likely very small in comparison to the Shulchan Aruch that now comprises the bulk of contemporary rabbinic Judaism. Is it God’s will that we follow this rabbinic law? Is it authoritative and binding?

Civil Law

To get some clarity on these issues, a few points must be made. First is that civil issues were certainly handed to the hands of the judges of the time, to enable a safe Jewish society. Deuteronomy 17:8-12 clearly gives civil jurisdiction to the courts. Moses sets up seventy judges to deal with the civil and religious questions of the people.^[i] The sages have utilized their authority in civil law to even override laws that were established in biblical times (see here). This makes perfect sense since the circumstances constantly change as society evolves. There needs to a block of authority that determines the Law so that our personal interests don’t collide with another’s until we begin to rob and kill each other.Since our exile from the Land of Israel, Halacha has mostly given civil jurisdiction to the local authorities, exclaiming “the Law of the land [we are residing in] is Law.”^[ii]

Religious Law

But should their authority extend to religious law as well? Why should the rabbis have a say on how to perform the biblical Mitzvos and a say on how we should serve God nowadays? The answer to this is rather ambiguous and less clear than we might have imagined. We will provide different approaches for why we should have an overall respect and overall commitment to rabbinic Halacha as it provides the best complementary to biblical Torah Law and service of God. Before proceeding, it is best to have a basic knowledge of the three main categories within the Oral Law: Laws from Sinai, rabbinic interpretation of Torah Law, and rabbinic legislation.

Authority from God

Some suggest that the authority was given to the sages at Sinai for them to apply religious law and add thereon when they find necessary. But being that the Sinai event was over 3,000 years ago, with a very shadowy history prior to mid-Second Temple era period, we can never know for sure. We do see that the Torah provides the authority to the sages, as discussed earlier, but it’s not clear if it is limited to civil law alone or if includes religious law as well. A few hundred years after Sinai, we do already see that the authority extended into religious Law as well – see II Chronicles 19:10 – but whether or not this is legitimate is the question. There’s also the question of whether they can merely interpret the Torah Law or they can add legislation of their own (e.g. takanot and gezerot).

Practical Law

As discussed here, much – if not most – of Torah Law is not practical to keep without a supplement to the written text that describes how to perform those Mitzvos. There seems to have been an oral law that accompanied the written text of Torah – an oral law that makes up much of the rabbinic halacha we have today. Only a minority of Halacha stems from Sinai (see here) but it’s almost impossible to discern exactly which laws are from Sinai and which were later added as rabbinic legislation. So on a practical level, if one is truly committed to keeping Torah Law, they will quickly come to realize how Torah Law is unattainable without the rabbinic law that fills in the gaps and details not provided in the written text of Torah.

Survival of Judaism

Further on a practical level, Judaism as a whole seems to best survive in a Halachic climate. Many strains of Judaism have come and gone throughout the millennia. When rabbinic law fully developed can be up for discussion, but one thing is certain: from when rabbinic Judaism took the stage, it alone survived throughout the almost un-survivable conditions the Jews have endured throughout exile. There is something about rabbinic Judaism that provides an immunity from assimilation and the disappearance of the Jewish people. So if one is truly committed to Torah Law and is of the will and desire that it continue for generations to come, then Halachic Judaism is their best option.

An expression of our commitment to God

Perhaps the reason for the survival of the Halachic-following communities throughout exile is the special level of commitment that Halacha encourages. Halacha puts emphasis on the details of the all the Mitzvos and, as a result, Judaism and God play a key role in the Halachic-following communities. Whether or not these details added to the Torah Mitzvos added by the rabbis have autorotative merit on their own is up for discussion – but one thing is certain: by keeping these details in Halacha, we end up serving God much more vigorously. We end up being much more committed to Torah and Judaism. This point is highlighted when comparing Halachic-following communities with less Halachic-following communities. Practically speaking, there is no good, long-lasting alternative to Halachic Judaism. So if one is truly committed to God and is willing to dedicate a nice amount of their day to the service of God, then Halachic Judaism offers that very ability.

Authoritative or beneficial?

So are rabbinic legislations (i.e. takanot, g’zerot, and minhag) authoritative or merely beneficial? If we come to think of it, there’s a very fine line distinguishing the words “autorotative” and “beneficial.” If something is beneficial, shouldn’t we consider it the right thing to do? If it isn’t beyond our communities reach, shouldn’t we expect them to do what’s beneficial? In the technical sense, most of Halacha isn’t “authoritative” for if it were, it would likely have been written in Torah and wouldn’t have needed to be legislated by the rabbis. Most of rabbinic law is human initiative to pursue a greater relationship with God. When a husband loves his wife, he will put much emphasis on the details of her birthday party. The color theme would be her favorite color; the details on the birthday cake will be precisely formed. Much time and effort would be put into the party. Over the generations we have become more and more religious, adding more and more to the sophistication of our commitment to God (see here). So instead of getting caught up in the technicalities of whether or not rabbinic legislation is “authoritative” or not, it is best that we decide if we want to pursue a great, sophisticated relationship with God. We must bear in mind that it’s usually not the specific detail of the act of the Mitzvah that is significant of its own. Rather it is the psychological effect this has on the performer of the act, who, by putting such emphasis on the act realizes the importance of the Mitzvah and of serving God.

If I were to try to put this into simpler words, I think Torah Law (along with its oral interpretations and parts of Halacha) is the authority of the American Constitution whereas much of Halacha (i.e. the less mandatory add-ons) is the culture of American patriotism. Do we “have” to put an American flag with 50 stars instead of 25 stars on your front lawn? Do we “have” to eat turkey on Thanksgiving? Do we “have” to sing the American National Anthem on Independence Day? All these customs are not set in stone, but they are a part of American culture and American patriotism. Halacha features the culture for God fearing Jews committed to serving God, a culture accumulated over many centuries.

The various levels within Halacha

Halacha is the ideal standard; not everyone is up to that level. We each have our journey and our own ways of expressing our commitment to God. The main thing is our relationship with God and keeping Torah Law. But Halacha was formulated for the religious community as a whole. We see that over time as the communities became more and more religious, so did Halacha. Halacha is almost a mirroring reflection of the level of commitment within the religious community by and large. Even within Halacha, there is takana (legislation), din (law), halacha (the way to do things), minhag (custom), and yesh nohagin (some people’s custom) – each giving leeway to different levels of commitment for different people within the religious community. But not everyone can be held to the standard of Halacha and within Halacha, there are different levels as said. Some people will keep some of Halacha and not other parts, as a matter of convenience. We are of no merit to judge them and perhaps they, with their minimal Halacha observance, have a better relationship with God than the Orthodox Jew who is caught-up in the details of Halacha but is missing the main point: love for God. We must remember the point without getting side-tracked by the secondary point. This shouldn’t negate the importance of Halacha, but it should put things into perspective.

Why contemporary rabbis hesitate to change Halacha

It is important to note the reasons why current rabbis are reluctant to make any changes to the Law, even though they have the authority to do so. The reasons are threefold, the first two make sense while the third seems to be just a misunderstanding. The first reason they opt to keep the status quo is a counter measure to the Enlightenment culture which advocates erasing “primitive” tradition. The Reform movement in Judaism took this approach as well and began to “reform” Judaism, ultimately reforming the irreformable (i.e. biblical laws that apply for eternity). As a counter measure, the Orthodox leaders began stressing the importance of keeping tradition as a hallmark of Halacha.

The second reason to keep the status quo is the geographical considerations of the Jews now. In ancient Israel, the High Court in Jerusalem had the sole banner of authority and all Jews would, at least in theory, subject themselves to the central authority in Jerusalem. With such legal power, the Sanhedrin was able to make sweeping changes as they found necessary. Nowadays, however, there is no central authority and changes made by one local rabbi may be rejected by the rabbi of another province. As a result, if every rabbi were to make changes to the accepted Law, the Law would be different for each locale. This, in fact, is the very reason why the Shulchan Aruch was written. In his introduction to the beis Yosef commentary of his, the Mechaber (the author of the Shulchan Aruch) writes his agenda in writing the legendary work of his. He says that Torah has become into a thousand Torahs, with each community adapting their own laws and customs. He therefore will codify the Law into a single work so that all Jews can once again follow one unified Law. With the great stature that he possessed, his endeavor was successful and his work became the Code of Jewish Law. If each rabbi were to veer from accepted laws and customs, the Law would be different for each Jewish community and there would less of a united Torah.

The third reason is a because many rabbis are scared to change what their “superior” predecessors have established. Indeed, this notion that previous sages and rabbis were superior to contemporary ones is rooted in the idea of yeridas hadoros, a concept that we a have debunked here.