Page 14 - Judaic Logic

8 JUDAIC LOGIC

open to challenge, and serving as top premises in the inference of further Halakhah.
Although the Mishnah provided more practical detail than the Torah, it was written very
telegraphically, and therefore could itself give rise to misunderstandings or disagreements.
Furthermore, historical events - namely, Roman wars and persecutions, which caused the
death of many major Rabbis of the time (known as Tanaim - sing. Tana) - created serious
gaps in the collective memory, as to the Halakhah concerning many issues; and a fear that
the still-oral portions of the tradition might be lost.
Such considerations motivated the next generations of Rabbis (known as Amoraim
- sing. Amora), some still in Palestine, but many in Babylonian exile - to compare notes
and memories, and debate outstanding issues, and report their collective findings and
decisions in writing, in what became known as the Gemara. This was based, then, on an
interplay of Torah and Mishnah - as well as, to some extent, on the living memories of
eyewitnesses and the unwritten pronouncements of earlier teachers remembered by their
later disciples, known as the Tosefta (additional material) and Baraitot (sing. Baraita -
material left out of the Mishnah). The latter included lists of hermeneutic principles. Using
these three sources, the Rabbis developed the Gemara.
Again, the clear decisions in the Gemara, once made, became binding on all future
generations. They in turn became unassailable first principles in the system of inference of
Jewish law. The reason for this privilege of earlier authorities is that they were closer to the
source (the Revelation at Sinai), in touch with a relatively unbroken chain of tradition,
compared to succeeding Rabbis. The latter were still left with work to do, however; some
questions had been left unanswered, some answers were open to conflicting interpretations,
and also new situations arose which required Halakhic decision.
Thus it is that the law developed, layer upon layer; there were the Savoraim (6th-
7th centuries CE), the Gaonim (to the mid-11th century), the Rishonim (to the mid-15th
century), the Acharonim (since the mid-15th century). Each era’s Rabbis basing
themselves on the decisions and suggestions of their predecessors, as deductively as they
could, refined and developed the Halakhah. And almost always, the work of previous
authorities acquired the status of well-nigh incontrovertible major premises for those that
came after them. The latter could only comment or codify, or at best fill in gaps left by the
former.
However, it should be noted parenthetically that when we today encounter an
apparent contradiction between an earlier authority and a later one, we as a rule take the
more recent as the more authoritative. It is taken for granted that the latter made his ruling
with full awareness of the former’s positions. Thus, while in principle the earlier
personality has more prestige, in practice the later personality once established as an
authority is more to be relied on. The status of authority is not of course acquired
arbitrarily, but is a function of proven scholarship.

There have been attempts by some Jewish thinkers, at various times, to challenge many of
the principles presented above, and try to liberalize the law. Especially of interest to us are the
efforts made in this respect over the past couple of centuries, under the influence no doubt of the
surrounding European culture of Enlightenment. The authors were generally free-thinking laymen,
and there is no denying that most of them eventually gave up many religious observances, if they
did not end up totally indifferent to religion. Such philosophers of religion were behind non-
Orthodox Jewish movements, including Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and the non-
17
religious Haskalah.

17
Some of those who ventured to look at Judaism critically ended up converting to other
religions.