I was recently asked a question about my thoughts on contemporary rabbinic authority. It is one of my favorite topics, and so, while trying to answer it, the gears started turning, and what was supposed to be a short response turned into a 5,000 stream-of-conscience essay. I post the question, and Part I of my response here, with the rest to follow in separate posts.

As always, I post interested in your feedback.

So the answer needs to come form somewhere that allows him to feel unthreatened, and yet give him a conceptual foundation, as well as tools for dealing with the issues today. Not a simple task, and I am not asking you to come up with a magical solution. I would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions, as I am building a comprehensive response.

So the answer needs to come form somewhere that allows him to feel unthreatened, and yet give him a conceptual foundation, as well as tools for dealing with the issues today. Not a simple task, and I am not asking you to come up with a magical solution. I would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions, as I am building a comprehensive response.

The person asking is in an environment which is both modern-orthodox, and conservative. My feelings are that in order to be effective, I cannot rely on describing סמיכה, the סנהדרין and how it has been discontinued – as being enough.

The person asking is in an environment which is both modern-orthodox, and conservative. My feelings are that in order to be effective, I cannot rely on describing סמיכה, the סנהדרין and how it has been discontinued – as being enough.

Dear R’ . . .,

What a wonderful, fascinating question! The fact that this student has raised this issue illustrates what I have thought for quite some time – that questions about the bases and parameters of rabbinic authority in the contemporary world is an important concern for many millennial Jews. We (and I include myself in that grouping) live in a largely post-modern, pluralistic, and anti-structuralist world. We tend to strain against formal claims to normative authority, and seek to maintain our personal autonomy to determine our own sense of the good. As a result, we find ourselves often skeptical, cynical, and suspicious of others’ claims to have authority over us to determine what is right – whether in matters of halakha or otherwise.

I think that this is due to many different factors.

One cause is the democratization of information in the internet age, which has given “laypeople” (not a word I like to use in the context of Judaism) increased access to halakhic information, materials, and rabbinic (or other knowledgeable) personalities. Another factor may be the breakdown of traditional community structures, and the relative ease with which people can enter and leave associations and communities. Once upon a time, Jews were tied largely to their synagogue and its rabbi, and rabbinic authority was a relatively easier issue. Now, however, Jews have numerous overlapping affiliations to synagogues, schools, post-high school yeshivos, specific rabbeim and moros, ideological movements, and other leaders (chassidic rebbes, etc.), which greatly complicates and confuses the question of rabbinic authority.

Relatedly, we increasingly recognize the widespread disagreement that exists between various rabbinic personalities and between different movements and schools of Jewish law and thought. While this often leaves us unsure about who we should follow, it also suggests that, as R. Yosef Karo wrote in his Introduction to the Beis Yosef, not only has the Torah become like two Torahs, but it has been split into hundreds of different Torahs. For many, the most obvious and sensible explanation for such disagreement is that rabbinic opinions merely reflect the different subjective proclivities and viewpoints of individual rabbis. Rabbinic subjectivism, moreover, is sometimes taken to suggest that rabbinic opinions are unprincipled; that they are expressions of rabbis’ personal preferences rather than genuine reflections of God’s will. This has led many to increasingly take the view first articulated by Blu Greenberg that “where there is a rabbinic will, there is a halakhic way.” As if to say that Jewish normativity is a mere plaything of the rabbis to bend and mold as they see fit.

The idea that rabbinic opinions are essentially exercises in rabbinic power seems to be reinforced by numerous rabbinic scandals, which demonstrate respected rabbis behaving badly, often abusing their positions as expositors of Torah and halakha to take advantage of others for their own personal gain. This may also be tied to – what we perceive at least – to be attempts to buttress and expand the notion of “daas Torah,” the idea that owing to their complete and exclusive immersion in the rabbinic tradition, Torah scholars and rabbis have some special ability to make reliable judgments about not only halakha and hashkafa, but also politics, business, family life, parenting, and numerous other concerns. As rabbinic authority seems to intrude into ever more areas of life, and as many of us apprehend that such rabbinic judgments are often uninformed, wrong, and harmful, we increasingly wonder about the legitimate bases and parameters for such authority.

Whatever the reasons, I think that very many people are grappling with the question of rabbinic authority. What is it? Where does it come from? Who has it? What justifies it? How far does it extend? A full treatment of these questions (even just from my own perspective; and surely there are many, many others that are far more worthwhile) would require far more time and space than this email exchange permits. There are many fine books, articles, and lectures – both traditional and more academic – on the topic. However, since you asked I will try to provide a few of my own thoughts, poorly structured and undeveloped as they may be.