[Avodah] Nowadays there is no 'pope' in Jewish life.

[Prof. Levine]

The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash:

Vayikra 19:10

And thou shalt not glean thy kerem (vineyard), neither shalt thou 
gather every grape of thy kerem; thou shalt leave them for the oni 
(poor) and ger (stranger); I am Hashem Eloheichem.

If ninety-nine poor people want one thing and one young man wants 
another because
he can move quickly and grab the most produce, why do we defer to him? Why
don't we follow the general rule of follow the majority?

The Toras Kohanim is telling us that even when it is permissible to override a
halachah, we do not do so based on a majority. All of the parties 
must agree to the
compromise. Any individual in the dispute can insist that the letter 
of the law be
carried out, even though he may be demonstrating bad character and 
bad judgment.

This sheds light on the incident of Kamtza and Bar Kamtza, on which the
destruction of the Beis Hamikdash is blamed. The Gemara (Gittin 56a) 
relates that
Bar Kamtza blemished an animal sent by the Roman emperor Nero to be brought as
a korban. He did this as an act of revenge for the public humiliation 
he had suffered
in the presence of many great rabbis, who didn't bother to come to 
his defense. As
a result, he incited the emperor against the Jews, proving to him 
that they wouldn't
even accept his animal for a sacrifice in their Temple.

Though it is a Torah violation to sacrifice a blemished animal, most 
of the Sages
held that this would have to be done, as refusing the emperor's gift 
would endanger
Klal Yisrael. Rabbi Zecharya ben Avkilas, however, insisted that this 
korban not be
brought, lest people conclude that a blemished animal is permitted as 
a sacrifice.
The Sages then suggested that perhaps they should kill Bar Kamtza so that he
would not return to Nero and report that the Jews had refused to 
bring his animal
as a korban. Again, Rabbi Zecharya hen Avkilas protested, saying that 
people might
conclude that one who blemishes a sacrificial animal is liable for 
the death penalty.

Rabbi Yochanan comments that, ultimately, the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed
and we were exiled from our Land because of Rabbi Zecharya hen 
Avkilas's insistence
on this position. One wonders why the Sages heeded Rabbi Zecharya instead of
following the majority opinion. On the other hand, if the other Sages 
agreed with
Rabbi Zecharya, why does Rabbi Yochanan blame him for the destruction of the
Beis Hamikdash?

In truth, with the entire Jewish People in danger at that time, the 
Sages agreed
that, in order to avert a tragedy, it was necessary to either 
sacrifice the blemished
animal or kill Bar Kamtza. Either of those options would have been halachically
permissible had all of the Sages agreed. However, Rabbi Zecharya's position
prevented his peers on the Sanhedrin from taking either of these 
actions. As the
Toras Kohanim says, in order to override a halachah, only unanimous agreement
will suffice.

Nevertheless, we see that the lone dissenter is blamed for whatever damage is
caused by his insistence that the letter of the law be followed. Rabbi Yochanan
therefore claims that Rabbi Zecharya was to blame for the Beis Hamikdash's
destruction and Klal Yisrael's exile. Rabbi Zecharya had a right to 
insist that the
halachah be obeyed. Nevertheless, since all of the other Sages 
determined that this
was a special situation, requiring a temporary dispensation, he was
held responsible for the tragic consequences.

The Rav would point out how true this has been throughout the ages,
and how it has played out so many times in history. He used to say,
"Nowadays, there is no 'pope' in Jewish life. There is no one posek who
can impose his opinion on all of Klal Yisrael without the agreement of
other gedolei Torah."

He gave two examples: It was well known that the Chafetz Chaim
came out with a psak that all yeshivah bachurim should have beards.
He even wrote a sefer on this topic. He held that a yeshivah bachur
should identify himself as a ben Torah by growing a beard. The roshei
yeshivas at that time were opposed to this position. They felt that if it
were required, the yeshivas would lose bachurim. History shows that as
great as the Chafetz Chaim was, his opinion did not prevail, since it did
not have the support of other gedolei Torah at that time.

As another example, the Rav cited Rav Chaim Ozer's heter for gelatin
from non-kosher animals. Most poskim disagreed with this psak. When
Rav Schwab met the Chazon lsh, he asked him about this.

(It was Rav Chaim Ozer who had made the Jewish public aware of the
Chazon lsh's greatness. Before the Chazon lsh moved from Lithuania to
Eretz Yisrael, Rav Chaim Ozer sent letters extolling his virtues, paving
the way for him to become the leader of his generation.)

When Rav Schwab mentioned to the Chazon lsh that Rav Chaim Ozer
discusses, in his sefer Achiezer, the rationale for permitting gelatin, the
Chazon lsh answered tersely, "S'iz fort assur [It is still forbidden]." Unless
there is acceptance by other gedolem, the greatest gadol's opinion is still
only one opinion.

YL