[Avodah] The Axaronim

[Jay F. Shachter]

>
>> ... It is astonishing, then, that this practice is so entrenched,
>> especially since it has no basis in Chazal or the
>> Rishonim.  According to strict Talmudic law, ...
>
> This is not the first time I've seen this sentiment.  Why do I see a
> disdain for the Acharonim so often?
>
> There are many practices that are not discussed in the Gemara and
> Rishonim, and did not surface until the days of the Acharonim, just
> as there are many practices that are not discussed in the Gemara and
> did not surface until the days of the Rishonim.  Why do some people
> have the attitude that there is a cutoff point beyond which halacha
> can no longer develop?
>

I agree with you, about practices about which the Rishonim are
completely silent (but see the qualification below).  I hope that you
agree with me, with respect to new interpretations of Talmudic topics
about which the Rishonim are not silent.  Because that's the
definition of the word.  That's what "the Axaronim" means.

If a Shakespearean scholar, even a brilliant one, were to propose
today, in the year 2021, that "a bare bodkin" means "a pastrami
sandwich", he would not be believed, or even seriously considered.
The response would be: A lot of smart people have been studying
Shakespear over the past four hundred years; large numbers of them
have made the study of Shakespear, their life's work.  None of them
has suggested that "a bare bodkin" means "a pastrami sandwich".  Even
if you are smarter than all the Shakespearean scholars who have come
before you -- and we are not saying that you are not -- if "a bare
bodkin" means "a pastrami sandwich", it is implausible that none of
the scholars who preceded you, thought of that.

The transition from the period of the Rishonim, to the period of the
Axaronim, is when we began saying that to scholars of the Talmud.
Rishonim were allowed to propose interpretations of the Talmud that no
one else had previously thought of ("were allowed to" means "were
taken seriously when they did").  Axaronim are not.  You can still be
`oqer a din in the Shulxan `Arukh, but only if you find a Rishon on
whom to base your psaq.

Of course, none of this applies, if you have access to evidence that
the people who preceded you did not have access to.  Thus, if
archaeologists unearth a previously-unknown kosher deli in the
vicinity of the Globe Theatre, owned and operated by Shlomo Bodkin,
that specialized in pastrami sandwiches, you are allowed to propose
that Shakespear's audience called a pastrami sandwich a "Bodkin", and
that bodkins were normally prepared with mustard, or coleslaw, or
special sauce, and that a pastrami sandwich prepared without any of
these things, was called a "bare bodkin".  "Allowed to" again means
"taken seriously if you do" -- but only because none of the
Sheakespearean scholars who preceded you, had access to the evidence
that makes your theory plausible.  And the same applies (or, I should
say more precisely, should apply, among people who have intellectual
integrity) if you have access to evidence that none of the Rishonim
had access to -- but only because they did not have access to the
evidence that makes your psaq plausible.

With respect to things about which the Rishonim are completely silent,
then you are allowed to propose new pisqei din -- but only if it is
plausible that the Rishonim were completely silent about the halakha
that you are proposing.  Thus, if there are no ancient sources that
say that men and women have to sit separately in synagog, and you are
now proposing that men and women have to sit separately in synagog,
you should probably address the question: Why are there no ancient
sources that say so?  And then you have to plausibly say, It was so
much taken for granted, that no one thought there was a need to say
so.  Thus, in my edition of Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of
Etiquette, by which I live my life, there is much talk about what fork
to put out for various foods, and what spoon, and what knife, but in
the entire book she does not say anywhere that you have to eat with a
fork and a spoon and a knife, that you cannot eat with your fingers.
If you then wish to pasqn, for people who wish to live their lives
according to Amy Vanderbilt's Complete Book of Etiquette, that it is
assur to eat with your fingers, you should address the question, Why
did Amy Vanderbilt never say so?  You can then say, Because it was so
taken for granted, that she saw no need to say so; but you may be
legitimately challenged by other Vanderbilt scholars who say, No, she
was telling you what fork to use, if you chose to use a fork at all,
but there is no issur to use no fork at all, and to eat with your
fingers.  You may win the controversy, or you may not win the
controversy; but even if you win the controversy, and it becomes
generally accepted that it is assur to eat with your fingers, a
hundred years after you die, someone may propose that although it is
assur to eat with your fingers, Amy Vanderbilt never intended that it
should be assur to eat with your toes.

The last paragraph may seem humorous to you, but times change, manners
change, and Axaronim -- and we are the Axaronim -- must bear in mind,
that just as there may be some things that earlier generations thought
were obviously assur, whereas it is not obvious to us that they are,
there may be other things that we think are obviously assur, that
earlier generations never imagined would be thought assur, and
therefore, saw no need to explicitly permit.  Thus, I know some people
-- and there seem to be more of them every year -- who think that men
and women have to sit separately at weddings.  There are even some,
r"l, who think that there has to be a mxitzah between them.

                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                jay at m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"