Sanhedrin 130

1:
Our mishnah takes a surprising turn. It states that if a sage gives voice to an opinion that seeks to abrogate a mitzvah [commandment] clearly indicated in the Written Torah he is not to be judged as an insubordinate sage: he is to be ignored completely, for thereby he clearly indicates that he is no true sage – and if he is not a sage at all he cannot be an insubordinate sage!

2:
Let us illustrate, using the example given by our mishnah. In RMSG of 15th November 1996 I wrote:

The mitzvah of Tefillin was never in dispute: the details of how this mitzvah was to be carried out certainly could be. Thus, as we have already said, any person who claimed that the verses from the Shema did not require the wearing of Tefillin at all could be safely ignored as a "crackpot". But a sage who differed from the majority view as regards the details of the mitzvah of Tefillin and insisted on teaching his view in defiance of the majority – such a sage was truly dangerous to the halakhic unity of Israel. For example, the Tefillah-shel-Rosh [phylactery that is placed on the head] contains four compartments each of which contains a small piece of parchment on which is written one of the four passages in the Torah which contain this command – Exodus 13:1-10, Exodus 13:11-16, Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21 (these last two passages form the first two parashot of Keri'at Shema). The Tefillah-shel-Yad [phylactery that is placed on the arm] contains these same four passages, but written on one piece of parchment. Both Tefillot (shel-Rosh and shel-Yad) are to be bound upon each person every workday; the universal custom is to perform this mitzvah while attending morning worship, though some very pious sages to this day wear them throughout the daylight hours.

3:
Tefillin belonging to soldiers in the army of Bar-Kokhba, during the height of the Mishnaïc period, have been excavated by archeologists in Israel. Thus we have Tefillin which are some nineteen hundred years old, The texts on the parchments are exactly the same as those found in our Tefillin today and the boxes that house them seem the same as ours today – though they are much smaller than we are used to today. Tefillin must have boxes that are cubic, straps that are black, texts written on parchment and so forth. Should any sage claim that the containers can be round, or that the straps can be red, or that the texts could be inscribed on paper – and should he insist and persist in his claim – then he may be indicted as an 'insubordinate sage'.

4:
The sages in the Gemara [Sanhedrin 89a] note that our mishnah gives Tefillin as an example, and seek to ascertain the parameters they describe. The solution is that Tefillin are a mitzvah which is stated explicitly in the Torah but all of whose details are of rabbinic origin. Another example discussed by the Gemara are Tzitzit. These are tassels that the Torah orders are to be attached to our clothes. Here is the translation of the passage in the Torah which ordains Tzitzit [Numbers 15:37-41] in that same translation by a non-Jew made some seventy years ago:-

Now this translation does not reflect several of the details that the sages attached to the biblical command. The sages required the tassels to be attached to any garment, not just a robe; the sages required the tassels to be attached only to a garment that has four corners (i.e. a square or an oblong piece of cloth); the sages required the attached thread to be blue in colour, not violet. And there are other non-biblical requirements. The dye for making the one white thread into a blue one was extracted from a sea creature and the technique was gradually lost; thus the tzitzi'ot gradually became white only. (In modern times several scholars believe that they have identified the creature and the technique of extracting its dye. Probably the most prominent among them was Rabbi Isaac Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Ireland and then of Eretz-Israel, and the father of Israel's late President Chaim Herzog. Here and there one can see tzitzi'ot with a blue thread entwined round the white ones, but the overwhelming majority of people have not taken up this option. The rabbis also required that the threads be attached to the cloth by being pulled through a hole made a little way from the corner, doubled over and knotted. If a sage were to come along who claimed that tzitzit should be attached to any garment or that they should be attached by sewing them on rather than pulling them through a hole in the cloth – that sage going directly against rabbinically added details to a mitzvah whose origin is in the Torah.

5:
Another example brought by the Gemara is the Arba-Minim, the four species that are used during the autumn festival of Sukkot. The Torah [Leviticus 23:40] stipulates (using the same translation as before):-

It is rabbinic interpretation that stipulates that "what fine trees bear" refers to the citron [etrog], that the 'boughs of leafy trees' are stalks of myrtle, that the three 'leafy' items must be bound together (and not just held together). If someone comes along and teaches that an orange is as good as a citron or not myrtle leaves but some other leaf should be used they are going directly against rabbinically added details to a mitzvah whose origin is in the Torah.

6:
I think that it is one of the tragedies of modern Judaism that the overwhelming majority of Jews (say, 90%) do not wear Tefillin every workday, do not wear tzitzit all the daylight hours and probably do not provide for themselves a set of the Four Species for Sukkot.

Alfred Sporer has written to me:

In response to Naomi's inquiry regarding the basis of rabbinic authority you introduce your response to the obvious corollary, "…the question must arise as to how we have 'deteriorated' from such halakhic unanimity to our modern halakhic pluralism…" You then quote Rambam's analysis. But today, when communications, especially via the internet, is vastly improved compared with Rambam's time this rule is ignored. Even within a specific branch of Jewish life, e.g., Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, there is no acceptance of the rule of the majority of "experts" on Halakhah. The JTS, in fact, has ignored rulings of their "Halachic experts" in favor of the "majority" rule of the people. Haven't we now, by default, changed the basic principle of Halachic authority to the rule of "Mora' d'atra" (the "local" rabbinic authority is supreme)? What is the talmudic basis for this modern rabbinic authority?

I respond:

I disagree with some of Alfred's examples, but that is unimportant compared with the main thrust of his question. What Alfred is actually saying is that modern communications have made possible the recreation of the Great Sanhedrin from which "the law proceeds to all Israel". He may well be right that it would be technically feasible to reconstitute the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one sages, an institution that has been defunct now for 1585 years. But I also think that it will not happen for two reasons: people and people.

Rambam, in Mishneh Torah, describes the methodology of reconstituting the Great Sanhedrin. All the sages of Eretz-Israel must choose one of their number to be the President; they must invest him with true rabbinic authority by the imposition of hands (true semikhah); he, then, in his turn, would invest seventy of them with similar true rabbinic authority. Simple? Only a simpleton would think so! Some four hundred years ago such an attempt was actually made. All the great sages of Safed, including Rabbi Yosef Karo, the compiler of the Shulĥan Arukh, decided to select Rabbi Ya'akov Berab as the President, as being the most worthy. They then sent an emissary to the community of sages in Jerusalem, inviting them to join in the venture to make it possible. The sages of Jerusalem were really enthusiastic and intimated that they would gladly join in. Except for one detail: "We have a better candidate for President," they said – at that's where the venture ground to a halt.

Alfred, can you imagine Satmar accepting a Lubavitch president? Can you see Ashkenazi rabbis accepting a Sefardi president? Who would the rabbis of Israel select as their pre-eminent sage: Ovadya Yosef? Avraham Shapira? Even more to the point, do you see us Masorti-Conservative Jews accepting either of them?

Judaism has become far too partisan for such an experiment to succeed – but it was nice dreaming about it for a moment.