Modern Rabbis Are Not Chazal!

Becoming Meqori – The Lawyer and the Lawmaker

Posted on

In a previous post, I mentioned that in our times – as regards halakhah – there is only the authority of the lawyer and not that of the lawmaker. A “lawmaker” is one who has the legislative capability to make new laws or alter existing ones, whereas the “lawyer” has no such legal capacity. Instead, he is merely qualified to apply the laws as they exist and to work within them. And this is precisely our situation today.

The Rambam, in his haqdamah to the Mishneh Torah, describes the development and institution of the halakhah up until his own time. The demarcation between the rabbinic authorities of talmudic times and those subsequent to them which is made by the Rambam is clear and unambiguous. After the court of Ravina and Rav Ashi – described by the Gemara (Bava Messia 86a) as being “sof hora’ah – the end of halakhic instruction” – what we know of today as “talmudh” was officially closed. The term “talmudh,” as it is used by the Rambam, is not usually an exclusive term for the Babylonian Talmud. It is many times used as a collective term for all of the literature produced by Hazal, which includes both the Bavli and Yerushalmi, Mishnah, Tosefta, Sifra, Sifrei, and several others. So, in the view of the Rambam, the “talmudh” (i.e. the official body of authoritative halakhic literature authored by Hazal) has now become the standard of religious law for subsequent generations that do not have the benefit of a Sanhedrin.

The Rambam explains the statement from Bava Messia regarding Ravina and Rav Ashi as follows:

“Ravina wa-Rav Ashi hem sof hakhmei ha-talmudh – Ravina and Rav Ashi are the end of the Sages of the talmudh” (Mishneh Torah, Haqdamah i:23 – “talmudh” here being used in the general sense)

He then goes on to say:

“…And the purpose of the talmudhin is an explanation of the words of the Mishnah and a clarification of its depths, and also of those things which were originated by each and every beth din from the days of Rabbenu HaQadhosh [i.e. Rabbi Yehudhah HaNassi] until the composition of the talmudh. And from the two talmuds, and from the Tosefta, and from the Sifra and Sifrei, and from the Toseftoth – from all of them – is clarified what is forbidden and what is permitted, what is tamei and what is tahor, who is liable to punishment and who is exempt, the kasher and the pasul, just as it was repeated from person to person all the way back to Mosheh Rabbenu at Sinai…”

So, according to the Rambam, the halakhah is no longer determined in our times from the Sanhedrin, universal courts, etc., but is determined from the works of Hazal taken in aggregate. This aggregation is a complicated matter that has many interpretive rules, but this is the basic principle. And it is not just according to the Rambam, others also affirm this. For instance, Rav Sa`adyah Gaon states in his siddur that the “ba`alei mesorah – possessors of authoritative halakhic tradition” are those whose words are written in “the Mishnah and the Talmud” (pp. 11-12). And these are the bounds that every subsequent rabbi must work within.

The Rambam states this explicitly:

“…And every beth din that arose after the talmudh in every city that issued a decree (gezerah), or issued a, ordinance (taqqanah), or instituted a custom (minhagh) for the inhabitants of the city, or several cities, their practical rulings did not spread to all of Israel [i.e. from a central authority] because of the distance between the places of their dwelling and the disruption of unrestricted travel on the roads. Also, such a beth din is comprised of a few individuals and the beth din ha-gadhol [i.e. the Sanhedrin] comprised of seventy was disbanded several years before the composition of the talmudh. Therefore the men of one city cannot force those of another city to abide by its local custom, and they cannot say to another beth din that they should make the same decree as another beth din in his city. And also if one of the Geonim taught that the proper ruling (derekh ha-mishpat) was a certain way and it was clear to another beth din that arose after him that such a ruling was not the proper ruling (derekh ha-mishpat) as it is written in the talmudh – we do not listen to the first opinion, rather we listen to the one whose opinion makes the best logical sense, whether he came first or came later…”

There are several points to note here:

  • What is written in the “talmudh” (the works of Hazal) is the supreme source ofhalakhah since the disbanding of the Sanhedrin. The only arguments that can be acceptable are those made in effort to correctly interpret the talmudh. Rambam makes this explicit statement in his Pirush HaMishnayoth: “”The legal activity of all who arose after Ravina and Rav Ashi is confined to the understanding of the work they composed, to which it is forbidden to add and from which it is forbidden to detract.” (Haqdamah i:46, Qafih Edition).
  • The principle of halakhah ke-bathra’ei does not apply to anyone who comes after thetalmudh is closed – including the Geonim.
  • The standard for all subsequent legal positions is their cogency when compared to the text of the talmudh.

So, the position of all rabbinic persons today is that of an interpreter of the existing laws as bequeathed to the Jewish world by Hazal. They can apply what is there, but they are halakhically disallowed from adding or subtracting as they see fit. Anyone familiar with the works of the Rambam (and various other rishonim) knows that he frequently denies the authority of the Geonim to change the law, make new legal institutions, compose newberakhoth, etc. Instead, he rules according to the Gemara and dismisses their innovations as baseless (as did many other rishonim). However, when the Geonim write in effort to rightly apply the law as recorded in the talmudh, the Rambam carefully considers their words.

Lawyers are those who have gone to law school, studied the legal system and legal precedent, graduated, passed an exam, and are technically qualified to practice law. This is essentially the lot of “rabbis” today; they have attended yeshivah, been tested on certain legal subjects, and have received a certificate of their academic training. However, though technically qualified – and perhaps graduates of the top, most prestigious law schools – many lawyers are brutish and vile, have their own agendas, seek to circumvent the rules of the legal system, appeal to popular public sentiment, and generally lack personal integrity and moral clarity. So, who ultimately decides who is qualified? The people who hire them.

If someone needs the services of a lawyer (and it is the wise thing to do so when considering any complex legal decision or action), he seeks out an honest person concerned with justice. We generally steer clear of “scheister” lawyers unless we also have a crooked personal agenda we would like them to carry out on our behalf. The search for a rabbi is basically the same. There are those who are honest and true, loving their fellow Jews, and seeking to do the will of God, but there are also those who have their own agendas, are hateful, and seek to only bring honor to themselves. The decision of which to follow is a personal choice based on the morality of the individual.

Lawmakers do not exist in our times. All we have is a legal library containing the minutes of meetings, trial transcripts, and the dossiers of various judges that were left after the disbanding of the Sanhedrin. We have no judges today and the “jury” (following the metaphor, there is no such concept in halakhah) is comprised of the Jewish laity. Lawmakers can demand allegiance and obedience, but lawyers cannot. Lawyers must be convincing in their arguments, able to display their competence when handling the law, and have a good reputation. Otherwise, they are not hired. And admittedly, sometimes in a pinch a bad lawyer is better than no lawyer, but overall we seek out good lawyers and ignore the rest.

More on this later. Love and blessings to all of you.

-YBI

From Forthodoxy, here.

Haman Hanged on His Own Gallows

Shelli Yechimovich Caught Between The State and a Hard Place

I love it when the State goes after its own. I see on my homepage, which is MSN in Hebrew because I’m too lazy to change it, that Bozhi Herzog (I forget the menuval’s real name) head of the Labor Party, is being investigated for receiving “illegal donations” to his campaign for head of the labor party back in 2013.

Shelli Yechimovich, the other menuvelet who was running against him, had this gem to say about the affair:

חברת הכנסת שלי יחימוביץ’ (המחנה הציוני) התייחסה היום (שבת) לראשונה לבדיקה המשטרתית נגד יו”ר מפלגתה ויו”ר האופוזיציה יצחק הרצוג, ואמרה כי היא “סומכת, כמו תמיד, על המשטרה, הפרקליטות ועל כל מוסדות השלטון ומייחלת שהמפלגה שלנו לא תשלם מחיר כבד מדי

Knesset Member Shelli Yechimovich commented this morning on the police investigation against the chairman of her party and the head of the opposition Yitzchak (ah, that’s it) Herzog, and said that she “relies, as always, on the police, the prosecution, and all the institutions of state and hopes that her party will not pay too heavy a price.”

Whenever the state goes after itself, politicians have to still praise the state so as not to incite rebellion against it. She relies on the police, the prosecution and all the institutions of state because those are the weapons she is always fighting to control with her political aspirations. She is caught between the State and a hard place. It’s the same reason politicians always profusely thank the “first responders” in any disaster situation because the first responders are always police and firemen, services monopolized by the state.

I, for one, do not rely on the police, the prosecution, or any institution of state to do anything except what is in their best interest. I say the same thing about all private businesses as well, which always only do what is in their best interest. However, the difference between a private business and the state is that people voluntarily pay private business for their services, whatever they are, which means it is always in the best interest of businesses to comply with the wishes of their customers and clients. The State, however, doesn’t have to comply with the wishes of anyone because they get their money at the barrel of a gun.

If a private business screws you over, they will lose business. If the state screws you over, there ain’t nothin’ you can do about it, except go to the state itself to complain and scream at the wall. Or in the best case scenario, to the “Judges” of the “Supreme Court” who are wonderful and fair. And are paid by the State.

Also interesting to note, the crimes that state officials get punished for, almost always, are crimes against the State, which in this case would be accepting money not according to state laws. This isn’t actually a real crime, since accepting money is perfectly fine. They are never charged with actual crimes against people, even though they commit these every second of their lives. They only get in trouble for breaking the artificial laws the state makes up for itself.

From The Jewish Libertarian, here.

Ben Sorer Biology

My Biochemistry Made Me Do It: Confessions of a Genetic Subroutine

By

April 2, 2016

Ages ago I read Hare and Cleckley on psychopaths, they then being canonical on the matter. Psychopathy tended to be somewhat vaguely defined but usually included lack of empathy, remorse, conscience, and the like. Today, it seems to be detectable. For example, say, researchers, if you put a normal person on a polygraph and read him words like bread, tree, mountain, torture, dogs, and sidewalk, there will be a sharp response to “torture” but not to the neutral words. Psychopaths don’t have that response. This would seem to tie in with a lack of empathy.

Recent years have seen vast amounts of research into physical correlates of psychopathy as well as non-pathological traits of mind such as conservatism and liberalism. (Actually, I’m inclined to regard both as pathological, but the demands of columnistic solemnity here prevent me from saying so.) One random example from the multitude, here. Further, men’s and women’s brains proved different. The differences are both anatomical, in the size of different parts of the brain, and functional, as shown by fMRI scans.

Supporting the view, though hardly scientifically, is that in some four decades of writing columns of one sort and another, I  remember only two or three readers who said that I had changed their minds on a matter of fundamental importance (the righteousness of America’s wars, for example). Columnists are often called “opinion leaders,” but actually our function seems to be to tell our readers what they already believe in stirring prose. Opinions generally are fixed, impervious to fact.

If brain scans can detect psychopathy, or if crazed mass-murderers have distinctive patterns of neural activity, what should we do when we detect such traits? Should we detect them?

Should we routinely screen, say, students in high school?  It might prevent some baffled Ritalin-head from shooting half the school. But what do we do with the kid? Put him preemptively in jail? He hasn’t done anything wrong. He might never do anything wrong.

Psychopaths do enormous harm, only occasionally by outbursts of violence, but prophylactic incarceration does not fit well with our notions of how society should be run.

What if research shows that certain people have certain probabilities of antisocial behavior? Little Johnny, age thirteen, has a twenty-five percent chance, or fifty percent, or ninety percent chance of violent criminality. Do we jail him, tattoo his forehead, make him report to a parole officer? If his nature becomes public, it will keep him from being hired or, probably, get married. If the condition is heritable, do we forbid him, or her, to reproduce?

Our legal system relies on the fallacious notion that if a man commits armed robbery, but serves his prison sentence, he is now a normal citizen. To those in law enforcement, it is well known that career criminals are exactly that, and will continue offending until perhaps their late thirties. They commit wildly disproportionate amounts of crime, usually starting around puberty. This underlies the badly-applied three-strikes-and-you-are-out laws.

But if brain scans reveal that some prisoners are highly likely to offend again, and perhaps kill someone, what do we then do? Should we base a life sentence on what a man might do rather than on anything he has actually done? On something that he may not do?

Knowing that a person is disposed to behave undesirably and that the condition is heritable, as twin studies so often suggest, would inevitably lead to thoughts of eugenics. The idea is in bad odor nowadays but might be less so in the case of preventing the production of multiple Teds Bundy.

The implications of genetic determinism for normal people, whatever exactly that means, are considerable. I like to think that I reach my political conclusions through godlike intelligence, unimpeachable logic, and exact information,  all bathed in a rich syrup of peerless virtue. Now it turns out that I am just some mutt running a genetic program, probably written in Dartmouth Basic, not under my control. I am no autonomously enlightened than one of those lugubrious twerps at Salon.

The implications for commentators are grim. If we learn that our passionate support for capitalism, or passionate lack of support for it, is no more the product of thought than having blond hair? There go the book royalties. Webmasters could replace us with software.

Genetic determinism, or at any rate predisposition, can have detonative consequences.  If the conservative’s tendency toward paranoia and truculent tribalism (as distinguished from the liberal’s characteristic googooing inattention to realty) are innate, we will have wars as long as we have generals. (It would be interesting to do brain scans of four-star generals. I recommend Xanax and a double Scotch before looking at the results.)

The Pentagon is notorious for finding existential threats to the United States everywhere: In Ukraine, in the South China Sea, in Syria, under the bed. Commies, terrorists, Chinamen, Islam, Russia and, off the record, Jews. Since their expressions of concern usually precede the cry, “Send money,” it is easy to dismiss their alarums as budgetary pretexts. But if soldiers are hard-wired to seek wars, what then? Their military decisions will be no more rational than a pit bull’s to bite.

And of course, under brain-scan determinism, there would be fruitful fields for abuse. A Democratic congress would find all Republicans to be potential serial killers and institutionalize them to promote public safety, probably after a forethoughtful sterilization.  (Pondering the Senate Armed Services Committee, I can see the attraction of the idea. But that way lies fascism.) (Still….)

I need a Xanax. And a double Scotch.

From Lewrockwell.com, here.

מדוע היי טק מצליח יותר מענפים אחרים?

תחילת הסוף של תעשיית ההייטק הישראלית?

באמצע שנות השמונים נולד כוכב בשמי קליפורניה – המחשב האישי. החל עידן ההייטק. “הרך הנולד” תפס את הממסד הפוליטי הישראלי לא-מוכן. אף אחד מהמגזרים המסורתיים בכלכלה, או לובי אינטרסנטי קיים, לא ראה בהייטק, שזה עתה נולד, איום קיומי על מיקומו בסמוך לפטמות הכסף של משרדי הממשלה. אילו היה עולה רעיון להקמת מפעל שטיחים או צמיגים נוסף, הייתה מתרחשת “מלחמת עולם” – בידי מי תיפול השליטה – ההסתדרות וחברת העובדים, סקטור אחר, או אולי סתם “משקיע פרטי” שמקורב לשר… אבל בהייטק למזלנו הם לא הבינו ולא ראו בו איום על קבוצות האינטרס הקיימות. 

 

הענף החדש לא היווה חזקה מסורתית של שום קבוצה ותיקה ולא איים על אף סקטור. לכן, לא נוצר לובי של ותיקים שעלול היה ללחוץ על הממסד לחקיקה להגנת הותיקים. העדר חזקה מסורתית, יחד עם חדשנות הענף וגילם הצעיר של מועסקיו – מנעו יצירת תמריץ להשתלטות הממסד. לא התפתחו לחצים ל”הסדרת הענף”, ל”הגנה על האזרח”, או להסכמי עבודה “קיבוציים”. הפוליטיקאים בממשלה, בכנסת ובהסתדרות נרדמו. כך ניתנה הזדמנות לענף ההי-טק להתפתח כמעט באין מפריע. 

ענף ההיי טק אינו מאופיין בהשקעות כבדות בקרקע, ציוד, מבנים. מכונות, תשתיות חשמל ומים כבדות. בדרך כלל לא נדרשה “הקצעת קרקע” ממנהל מקרקעי ישראל. הענף גם לא נדרש לרישיון ייבוא לתשומות וגם לא לרישיון תפעול מיוחד. אופי הענף עזר להתחמקות מהביורוקרטיה הממשלתית-מפלגתית. 

לא קשה לתאר היכן היינו היום, אילו כבר בשנות השמונים כל מתכנת היה צריך להצטייד ב”תעודת מתכנת מורשה” מטעם משרד המדע, כל בית תוכנה וחברת סטארט-אפ היו נזקקים לרישיון ולרישום במשרדי “רשם התוכנה והמחשוב” הממשלתי. שיווק תוכנה ומוצרי הייטק לחו”ל היה נתון בידיה הבלעדיות של “מועצת המחשוב הלאומית”. כל השקעה בהייטק הייתה צריכה אישור של המועצה (כדי למנוע כפילויות וכדי לדאוג ל”שיוויוניות”…) ובמליאת המועצה היו יושבים נציגי מפלגות ו”נציגי ציבור”… 

בזמן קצר יחסית, תוך כ-15 שנים, הפך הענף ל”קטר המוביל” של הכלכלה הישראלית. 

לא אלמן ישראל… עו”ד חנינא ברנדס יזם חקיקה להקמת “רשות לאומית להייטק” (גלובס 4.9.2007). הנושא גם הועלה על ידי ח”כ מודי זנדברג, אך לשמחתנו העניין נתקע (בינתיים…).

הרעיון ל”רשות לאומית להייטק” נשמע מאד הגיוני למוח הסוציאל-דמוקראטי ואפילו נכתבה טיוטת חוק. וכך נאמר שם: “יש להכפיף את כל הגורמים העוסקים בתחום אל הרשות המוצעת…” אלמלא פורסם שמו של יוזם ההצעה, אחד מעורכי הדין המובילים בישראל, היינו משערים שהיוזם הוא פוליטיקאי שבאמתחתו מונחת כבר הצעה לאיוש יו”ר הרשות החדשה וחברי מועצת הרשות… על כך כבר נאמר שהדרך לגיהינום רצופה בכוונות טובות… אם אכן נקבל כתמימות את כוונותיו של עורך הדין המלומד.

הווירוס מכה שוב

בשנת 2014 חל מפנה היסטורי מדאיג בענף ההייטק: הווירוס הסוציאליסטי חדר לגוף בהצלחה והתמקם לתמיד –  ההסתדרות. עובדי הייטק בחסות ההסתדרות, התאגדו והקימו וועדי עובדים בחברות כמו נס, קומברס, SAP. גם אחרות בדרך. הפליאה היא כיצד הענף החזיק מעמד ללא ההסתדרות במשך למעלה מ-25 שנים.

הנזק לא יהיה מיידי, אבל הוא בלתי נמנע. זו רק שאלה של זמן שפעילי הוועד יפסיקו לעבוד בהייטק, יקבלו שכר מלא ויעסקו “פול-טיים” בהגנה על “זכויות העובדים”. נזכה לראות במהרה בימינו בשביתות מלאות ושביתות האטה בחברות הייטק. פיטורים של מתכנת יהיו בלתי אפשריים ואבטלה סמויה תתרחב. מנהלים יחששו לגייס עובדים נוספים ויעדיפו “מתכנתי קבלן”. אחרים יעדיפו מיקור חוץ בהודו.

לא רחוק היום שהוועדים ידרשו ש”נציגיהם” ישבו בדירקטוריון החברה כמו “בנאורות שבמדינות אירופה”. גם “הסכמים קיבוציים” יגיעו – שכר אחיד ללא קשר ליוזמה ותרומה לחברה. מינוי ראש צוות תוכנה יהיה באישור הוועד. ולבסוף – עובדים זועמים על “פגיעה בזכויותיהם” יכלאו את המנכ”ל במשרדו.

זה טבעם של “חוקי עבודה מתקדמים”.

מוטי היינריך

מאתר קו ישר, כאן.