Hey im new here - im 17 and frum orthodox - this past year in 12th grade i have found a new love for learning - i plan on making a Siyum on Mesechtas Kiddushin in June and have become a much better person becuase of learning.One thing bothers me though - If the Talmud is basically a discussion in everything about Jewish Life - mainly halachos and the like - we have many codified law books such as the Shulchan Aruch and Mishan berurah and Minsheneh Torah - why do we still learn the talmud if we have all these set halachos - i know it discusses many other things but Why?Why do we learn the Talmud if we have set Halachos? -I hope i dont sound like Apikorsos - Thanks,Menachem

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Mitterhoff,

Welcome! This is an excellent question. Let me ask you another question. Why didn't we receive a codified law book at Sinai instead of the Talmud? We could have revived the Shuchal Aruch or the Rambam? Wouldn't it been much simpler to just receive the clear case and the law?

In order to understand what HaShem wants from us we need to understand the concepts of the Torah and this can only be done through the dialectic process of learning Gemara. The Sifri in Devarim 32: states, Rav Yehuda said "a man always has to enter into the learning of Torah by understanding the rules (concepts), because if he only understands the details he will not know what to do".

The back and forth in understanding, what we would have thought, (the havamina), and what we conclude, (the maskana), is the only way to get a true understanding of Hashems will and to see the beauty and wonders of Hashem's Torah. The original understanding in the Talmud sheds light and defines the conclusion of in the Talmud. And don't forget, the original understanding is also True! To receive a flat Torah (so to speak) with every detail of every new halacha which would ever apply throughout history would have been absurd. Hashem gave us the Talmud which teaches us both the information and the method through which we can develop and arrive at the truth. Wisdom (chochma) is not just the information but the way you look at the information and that can only be gained by spending many hard, yet enjoyable hours in learning the Talmud. I hope that answers a bit. May your new love of learning take you to the depths of the Torah. This is a big and deep subject which we can continue.

talmud and the codes
The talmud is the halachah. The codes always came out with an apology. The first code, the Rambam's mishneh torah, was written in response to the karaites claim that the jews didn't agree on the halacha so why should they. He also stated that due to a lack of torah centers in the world, it was necessary to write the halacha down in a orderly fashion. The tosephot in France sent him a letter the equivalent of was "who are we? gefilte fish?. The next code was that of the Tur which was a rewrite of the mishneh torah. My reading from the responsa of the rishonim is that his opinions were not given any special weight (as opposed to the Rambam, which already had acheived special status. The Shulchan Aruch was greeted with chorus of critics. Mainly they said, we are perfectly capable of poskining from the gemara and we don't need anyone limiting our options. However after a hundred years of fierce debate, it was finally accepted as the major arbitrator, i.e. if you want to go against the shulchan aruch, you have to make your argument very clear.
In the late 19th century, there appeared a number of popular summaries for the use of the layman. The Kitzer Shulchan Aruch was the most popular but had a bad habit of mixing local custom with halacha. Starting the in 1950's the mishneh brurah began to become popular. This book was written for polish jewry but in our time has even influenced the sephardic communities. However it is not on the status of the three codes and one can disagree with the mishneh brurah against any other opinion.
As for learning talmud for the halacha, this is a complicated matter. However, certainly for new questions like cloning, transgenic plants, electricity, etc. which are not covered in the codes, we go to the talmud for our sources.

Aryeh Shore

Thank You very much - but i still have a coupla more questions - why would hashem give moshe the first mishnah in Asarah Yochsin by Har Sinai - for what purpose - also many times the Halacha is not sorted out by the gemara and it is left unanswered - how do we go about checking the final pshat?
Thanks, Menachem

quote:

Originally posted by Menachem:
Thank You very much - but i still have a coupla more questions - why would hashem give moshe the first mishnah in Asarah Yochsin by Har Sinai - for what purpose - also many times the Halacha is not sorted out by the gemara and it is left unanswered - how do we go about checking the final pshat?
Thanks, Menachem

You can't take the statement that all of the oral law we have is literally what moshe gave at sinai. Something like the torah existed before the world was created but the actual words are determined by history. The oral law has the authority as traditions received from Moshe rabbainu. As you can see from any mishneh, the core tradition was lost (presumably because the chachamin didn't study hard enough) and we have several traditions by different tanaaim. We have the concept that all of them are the oral tradition but we just follow one. The Rambam tried to show that everyone agrees on the oral tradition of halacha and the only debate is what sentence in the torah you learn it from.

As for determination the halacha from the gemara (the final pshat, that is what the gemara means, will keep us busy till the meshiach shows up), the rishonim used various rules like the halacha is like Tanai aleph against his colleagues except where tanai bet agrees with the others; the last opinion is the halacha; if there is no final opinion we go with the more strict if the law is from the torah or the less strict if the law is rabbinical, etc. The Shulchan Aruch then took the three major rishonim, the Rambam, Rif and Rosh, and took the majority opinion. However, each individual has his own circumstances which is why we have Rabbis to decide each case individually. (It is perfectly correct for a Rabbi to give different answers to different people.)

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Originally posted by laurence shore:

1. i.e. if you want to go against the shulchan aruch, you have to make your argument very clear.

2. You can't take the statement that all of the oral law we have is literally what moshe gave at sinai. Something like the torah existed before the world was created but the actual words are determined by history.The oral law has the authority as traditions received from Moshe rabbainu. As you can see from any mishneh, the core tradition was lost (presumably because the chachamin didn't study hard enough)

Aryeh Shore

1. I assume you were referring to the Rabbis at the time of the Shuchan Aruch as we cannot poskin against the Shuchan Aruch now.

2. It is ridicules to say the chachamin didn't study hard enough. I am assuming it is a joke, and where do you see the core tradition was lost.

The Hakuzari Hameforash states:
Anyone who will scrutinize the Mishnah, with it's terseness of language and the beauty of composition and editing, and its incorporation of opinions with decisions, will come to the inevitable conclusion that mortal man could not compose {a work of}this kind without Divine assistance. Only a person who does not understand the Mishnah, does not read it and is not occupied with its study, will hear the homiletics of the Sages [and deem them strange]; he will disdain the Mishnah and judge it unfairly. He will decide that those who made these statements did so out of ignorance and without sufficient preparation and study, just like one who meets a person the extent of whose knowledge is not known to him, if he hears something strange from him and decides that the speaker is in error.
Translated into English by Kalman Steinberg

And the Leshem (2:4:19) states
The critical point is that every Jew is obligated to belief with perfect faith that all which is found in the words of our Sages-both in halacha, Talmudic agada and medrashim-are in their entirety the words of the living G-d. That is because everything that they say is with ruach hakodesh (Sanhedrin 48b) This includes even that which isn't relevant to halacha and deed ... Also all their decrees and statutes are not the product of human intellect at all but rather are the result of ruach hakodesh in which G-d has expressed Himself through them. This is the great sound that doesn't end (Devarim 5:19) of the giving of the Torah at Sinai and it expresses itself in the Oral Torah.... Thus, the Sages are just like messengers in what they say.... This is why the Bal Halachos Gedolos includes the Rabbinic mitzvos with the Torah mitzvos since all of them were given by G-d (Chagiga 3b) ... We can conclude from all this that anyone who tries to analyze the words of the Sages in order to establish the nature of their truth places himself in great danger. That is because man's intellect cannot properly comprehend this matter and thus a person can come to heresy from the endeavor. This is what Koheles (7:16) states: "Don't make yourself too wise-why destroy yourself?" A person who gets involved in this matter will find it very difficult to resist following his human understanding. He will end up going back and forth between the view of the Torah and that of his own understanding.... The righteous person lives by his faith because that is the foundation of the entire Torah....
Translated into English by Daniel Eidensohn

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rabbi Mitterhoff,

quote:

1. I assume you were referring to the Rabbis at the time of the Shuchan Aruch as we cannot poskin against the Shuchan Aruch now.

Dear R" Mitterhoff,

With all due respect for the Tradition, what are the reasons of this rule that we cannot poskin against Shulchan Aruch now? I really do not know.

Alex

Only the Gadol Hador of our generation could poskin against the Shulchan Aruch because he is in the position to lead the generation according to it's needs. We do not have the same breath and depth of understanding as the earlier generations so only the greatest of the generation can poskin against them.

I see. Thank you very much, Rabbi.

The question was if there is only one oral law given at sinai, why do we have different opinions in the mishneh? This is may be considered a technical question and is not directly related to supremacy of the Oral tradition.
The gemara says because the students did not serve their masters carefully enough or something like thousands of interpetations were lost when Moshe died and need to be reconstructed using legal principles. The Karaites attacked the Jews on this point saying the varying opinions show that the Rabbis have no true tradition. The Rambam wrote the Mishneh Torah to show that their is only one tradition (that is why he doesn't bring very many alternative opinions) and everyone agreed on what tefilin, mezuzah and the four species on sucot were but some of the details weren't clear. One could also say this is the method of the gemara and explains why some sugiahs seem to discuss very remote possibilities to explain differences. The discussions in the gemara are trying to show that the disagreements in the mishneh are very slight.
As for gadol hador, we are now entering the world of haskapha, one's approach to Judiasm which to say the least differs radically among religious jews. Each generation, usually one in each geographical area, who was the posek for that generation. Who was the primary posek was only known retroactively. The posek was not necessary the greatest talmudic scholar but the person to whom most questions were addressed. In our time we have great confusion do to the massive upheavals in the twentieth century. People in my area of Judiasm think that their should be only a few people who poskin and that they should document their response. The logic of the response is what determines how accepted the pesak not the fact the someone is the leader of certain group. This is another difference among religious jews. Dati jews think a gadol hador is one who wrote or taught extensively and his writings gained widespread acceptance among his peers and the people, e.g. R. Ovadiah Yoseph. Charedi jews tend to think that the leader of their group is automatically the gadol hador everthough he never published anything and his pesak din is more of fiat than a reasoned argument. They also tend to be insulted if anyone disagrees with this premise.
As for how many of the laws in the Shulchan Aruch have been modified and by which generation is a technical matter beyond the scope of this forum. In any event, two important areas which require pesak dins in our time, the laws of the land of Israel and the role of a Jewish government, are not covered in the Shulchan Aruch.

Aryeh Shore

I thought this was the question:

quote:

Originally posted by Menachem:
why do we still learn the talmud if we have all these set halachos - i know it discusses many other things but Why?Why do we learn the Talmud if we have set Halachos? -I hope i dont sound like Apikorsos - Thanks,Menachem

Menachem, can you please restate the question?

Why,is there something that you dont understand?

Laurence thought the question was:

"The question was if there is only one oral law given at sinai, why do we have different opinions in the mishneh?"

But I thought the question was:
Why do we need to learn the Talmud if we have the halacha?

Rabbi Mitterhoff - you are right - that was my question.
Laurence was answering my second question which i asked after u answered my first

quote:

Originally posted by Rabbi Mitterhoff:
Only the Gadol Hador of our generation could poskin against the Shulchan Aruch because he is in the position to lead the generation according to it's needs. We do not have the same breath and depth of understanding as the earlier generations so only the greatest of the generation can poskin against them.

Which brings to mind, "who is considered the Gedolei Hador?" I mean, with so many different opinions, wouldn't there be some that clash with each other?

Dear menachem,

You really are young. In case you have noticed yet, Jews tend to be very argumentative. Our willingness to question anyone and everything is probably one of the reasons we survived this long. Yes, Rabbis are constantly debating various aspects of Jewish law. As professionals obligated to treat talmedei chachamim with honor, they try to keep the discussion civil, but being human, things get out of hand from time to time, especially here in Israel, where Rabbi's are involved in actual politics. Bottom line: One man's gadol hador today is not everyones elses selection. Who will emerge as the authority with the greatest impact will be determined by the next generation, not ours.

Aryeh Shore

quote:

Why do we learn the Talmud if we have set Halachos? -I hope i dont sound like Apikorsos - Thanks,Menachem

There is no one answer to this question. In fact, many people say that we do not have to learn Talmud. Only religious Jews say this, and their reasons vary.

Orthodox Judaism regards the Talmud as the primary document through which Judaism in general, and Halakha in particular, is to be understood. Orthodox Jews study the Talmud in depth, but rarely use Talmudic legal methodology to alter Jewish law as codified in later compendia. Orthodox Jews study the Talmud for its own sake, as Jewish tradition teaches us that this is a great mitzvah, Talmud Torah.

Conservative Jews also consider Halakha as binding, but do not always accept modern (post-1500) legal codes as absolutely binding. As a brief reading of this forum will demonstrate, non-Orthodox Jews have a different understanding of halakha in some cases, which sometimes leads them to conclusions that vary from those reached in Orthodoxy. Like the Orthodox, some Conservatives study the Talmud for its own sake. However, the percent of Conservative Jews who regularly engage in such study is small. The big difference is that Conservatives use the Talmud in the same way that pre-1500 rabbis used it, as a way to make and interpret halakha today. This is theoretically still an option in the Orthodox community, but in practice is used very rarely.

Reform and Reconstructionist Jews usually do not teach much Talmud in their Hebrew schools, but they do teach it in their rabbinical seminaries; The world view of liberal Judaism rejects the idea of binding Jewish law, and only uses the Talmud as a source of inspiration and moral instruction.


Rob

quote:

I assume you were referring to the Rabbis at the time of the Shuchan Aruch as we cannot poskin against the Shuchan Aruch now.

I don't understand why anyone would say this. The Shulkhan Arukh isn't even a code of Jewish law! The Shulkhan Arukh is just student notes on the real code of Jewish law, the Beis Yosef. And the Beis Ysef offers a much wider array of viewpoints than is presented within the Shulkhan Arukh.

If someone says that we are obligated to follow the Shulkhan Arukh, then aren't they disrespecting the very author of the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Yosef Karo himself?

The position you cite was not the position of Orthodox Judaism when the Shulkhan Arukh was made, and in fact even today many Orthodox rabbis reject this view. For instance, Orthodox Rabbi Isidore Twersky writes:

"The Shulkhan Arukh is not a revealed canon, nor is it a hypostasis of the law. In the long creative history of the Oral Law it is one more link connecting Rav Hai Gaon, Maimonides, Nahmonides...with Rabbi Elijah Gaon of Vilna...and Rabbi Joseph Rosen. It is a significant work which, for a variety of reasons, became a repository and a stimulus, a treasure and an inspiration for Halakha, both practice and study".
[Isidore Twersky, _Judaism_, Spring 1967, p.142]

In fact, the traditional Orthodox position was to criticise the dominance of the Shulkhan Arukh, and I don't understand why traditional, old-fashioned Orthodox view is not being represented on this forum. I hope that readers will allow me to quote from the works of Orthodox rabbis Menachem Elon and Mendell Lewittes, and they describe the traditional Orthodox view of the Shulkhan Arukh:

(See my next letter.)

RobNE

The following is not an original work, nor my own personal opinion. It is quoted from the writings of Orthodox rabbi Menachem Elon in "The Principles of Jewish Law", (Keter Publishing), and also of Orthodox rabbi Mendell Lewittes.

The Shulkhan Arukh ("Set table") has been used as a guide to Jewish law and tradition since the 16th century. However, among many people there is a belief that the Shulkhan Arukh is more than an authoritative guide to Jewish law; they believe that one must accept the Shulkhan Arukh as an absolutely binding law code.

In preparing the Shulkhan Arukh, it had been Rabbi Karo's intention to provide a handy, yet comprehensive digest of Jewish law which could serve even the layman. However, the Shulkhan Arukh, which emphasized Sephardic scholars and customs, would not serve Ashkenazic Jews very well, for Ashkenazim were obligated to follow the rulings of their own authorities. Once R. Karo published the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Moshe ben Yisrael Isserles (1530-1572), better known as the Rama, decided to add to it his notes based on the rulings of Ashkenazic authorities.
[Taken from Lewittes, p.152-153]

He called these notes a _mappah_ (tablecloth) covering the Shulkhan Arukh (_set table_) of R. Karo. Together, the Shulkhan Arukh and the Rama's mappah constitute the authoritative code of Jewish practice Sephardim follow the decisions by Karo, and Ashkenazim follow the decisions of the Rama. There are substantial differences between the Ashkenazim and Sephardim in halakhic decision making. Ashkenazic comminutes were heavily influenced by a teaching system developed by rabbi Yaakov Polack (1460-1530), who developed pilpul. This was a method of legal argument by means of which scholars could display their intellectual prowess in constructing speculative systems of interpretation, and could make hair splitting distinctions without ever reaching a psak Halakha (practical decision.). Although many rabbis decried this system, it persisted and flourished.
[Adapted from Lewittes, p.153]

Because of the system of pilpul, which dominated in Ashkenazi schools, there was great hesitancy among those in making clear cut decisions where earlier authorities had expressed contradictory opinions. The rule adopted was to follow the more stringent opinion. Force of law was given to many minhagim (customs) which added restrictions in marital relations or to those in mourning, and a dire warning was issued that 'anyone who breaches the fence in such matters where the custom is to be strict will be bitten by a serpent." [Rama to Yoreh De'ah, sec. 30, part 2.]

However the Rama ruled in many cases that lenient rulings could indeed be adopted. Rama spoke out against those who declare something forbidden where sanction could be found for permitting it. Well known is Rama's decision to permit a wedding ceremony on Friday night (Shabbat), though forbidden by the Talmud, in order to spare embarrassment for the bride. (Responsum 125, Cf Shulkhan Arukh, Orah Hayim, 339:4).

[Taken from Elon, The Principles of Jewish Law]

The Rama strongly criticized the system of pilpul that was so prevalent in his day. He wrote "in these times the chief quality of a rabbi is not in teaching pilpul...but in teaching the pesak Halakha and in setting before the pupil the truth." (Rama to Yoreh De'ah, 242:30)

[Adapted from Lewittes, p,154]

Many other important rabbis spoke out against the system of pilpul. R. Shlomo ben Yehiel Luria, better known as the Marhashal, (1510-1584) found much to criticize in 16th century Jewish learning. Rabbi Yehudah Loewy ben Bezalel (1520-1609) and Rabbi Mordechai ben Avraham Yaffe also issued criticism. Despite the sharp criticism, the pilpul method learning persisted, and is still adhered to today in many traditional yeshivot of the 20th century.

[Adapted from Lewittes, p.155-156]

The promulgation of the Shulkhan Arukh was greeted with the same objections that greeted previous codes. The Maharal of Prague wrote:

"To decide halakhic questions from the codes [Mishneh Torah,
Tur, Shulkhan Arukh, etc.] without knowing the source of
the ruling was not the intent of these authors. Had they
known that their works would lead to the abandonment of
Talmud, they would not have written them. It is better
for one to decide on the basis of the Talmud even though
he might err, for a scholar _must_ depend solely on his
understanding. As such, he is beloved of God, and
preferable to the one who rules from a code but does not
know the reason for the ruling; such a one walks like a
blind person.
[Quoted from the Maharal's Netivot Olam, by A. Siev, "Rema", p.360, n.2).

Other prominent critics of the Shulkhan Arukh included Rabbi Yoel ben Shmuel Sirkis and Rabbi Meir ben Gedaliah. [Adapted from Lewittes, [p.157-158]

So I am wondering why none of the other posts on this forum mention any of these traditional Orthodox points of view?

RobNE

In my previous letter I mentioned that prominent critics of the Shulkhan Arukh included Rabbi Yoel ben Shmuel Sirkis and Rabbi Meir ben Gedaliah. [Adapted from Mendell Lewittes, Introduction to Jewish Law, p.157-158

Here is Rabbi Menachem Elon's main point, and it is Orthodox halakha (or at leats it used to be!) Accepting any code of Jewish law as absolutely binding violates the precept of Hilkheta Ke-Vatra'ei, that is, the law is according to the _later_ scholars. This rule dates from the Geonic period.

This rule laid down that until the time of Rabbis Abbaye and Rava (4th century) the Halakha was to be decided according to the views of the earlier scholars, but from that time onward, the halakhic opinions of post-talmudic scholars would prevail over the contrary opinions of a previous generation. Elon says that we should confirm this view by reading Piskei Ha'Rosh, Bava Metzia 3:10, 4:21, Shabbat 23:1
[Taken from Elon]

The Rosh wrote:
"If one does not find their statements correct [rulings
of a previous authority] and sustain his own views with
evidence that is acceptable to his contemporaries...he may
contradict the earlier statements, since all matters that
are not clarified in the Babylonian Talmud may be
questioned and restated by any person, and even the
statements of the Geonim may be differed from him...just
as the statements of the Amoraim differed from the
earlier ones. On the contrary, we regard the statements
of later scholars to be more authoritative because they
knew the reasoning of the earlier scholars as well as
their own, and took it into consideration in making their
decision. [Piskei Ha'Rosh, Sanhedrin 4:6, respons. Rosh 55:9]
[See Elon, p.55-56]


Rabbi Elon writes "The fact of halakhic difference of opinion is regarded as not only legitimate, but also desirable and indicative of the vitality of the Halakha and of the possibility of different approaches. The decisive yardstick in a halakhic dispute is only the correctness of each opinion in accordance only with the Talmud" (primarily the Bavli, but also the Yerushalmi).
[Elon asks us to see Piskei ha'Rosh, Sanhedrin 4:6 and Solomon ben Yehiel Luria, Yam Shel Shelomo, intro to Bava Kamma]

Criticism against codifications of Jewish law is ancient. Consider Maimonides' "Mishneh Torah". This code of Jewish law has won universal acclaim in all sectors as perhaps the most elegant and systematic compilation of halakha ever produced. It allows rabbis and educated lay people to ascertain the general halakhic guidelines in every category of halakha. Even so, Maimonides contention that this work should be used as a binding legal guide provoked a massive outcry. His sharpest critic in his own lifetime was Abraham ben David (the Rabad) who feared that the use of the Mishneh Torah would inhibit study of Talmudic sources and deprive the dayyan (halakhic decision maker) of a choice between different decisions in making his opinion. [Taken from Elon]

Rabbi Asher Ben Yehiel, The Rosh, later sharply criticized Maimonides's basic notion concerning the place of any book of pesakim (any Jewish code of law) in the system of Jewish law. The Rosh wrote that "all teachers err if they instruct from the statements of Maimonides without being sufficiently familiar with the Gemara so as to know where they are taken from...therefore no person should be relied upon to judge and instruct on the strength of his book without finding supporting evidence in the Gemara. (Rosh, Resp. 31:9). Of course, this criticism applies to any code of law, including the Shulkhan Arukh. The Rosh taught that one should have the freedom to decide , and that one should have the authority to dissent from any rule not originating in the Talmud itself, provided that this could be established in a clear and convincing manner. [Piskei Ha'Rosh, Sanhedrin 4:6).
[Quoted from Elon, p.131-132]

Let us consider the view of Rabbi Shalom Sakhna, the teacher of R. Isserles. He was opposed to the idea of codifying the halakha, as he believed that the decision of the dayyan mus_ be made on an individual study of the halakhic sources, and the very fact of the law's redaction sufficed to deprive him of his decisory discretion in any concrete case before him. [Adapted from Elon, p.139]

Rabbi Isserles's goal was never to make a binding law code that would constrain the decision making abilities of any other Jew. Rather, he first sought to compiled his first great book of Jewish law, Darkhei Moshe, to follow the basic outline of the Tur. His goal was merely to assemble all the halakhic material from then until the present time in a brief and synoptic form, for the sole purpose of making it easier for one to find the material. [See the introduction to Darkhei Moshe].
[From Elon]

Upon seeing the Shulkhan Arukh, Rabbi Isserles reacted sharply against the way it was presented as a binding law code. R. Isserles disputed R. Karo's main canon, namely that Alfasi, Maimonides and the Rosh were the "pillars of halakhic decision" since this principle conflicted with the principle of Hilkheta ke-Vatra'ei (the law is to be decided in accordance with the rulings of the later scholars). R. Isserles wrote that it would be permissible for one to differ not only with the Shulkhan Arukh, but even from his own work, since "he must act _only_ in accordance with what he sees with his own eyes". (Intro. To Darkhei Moshe].
[Elon, p.139,140]

When the Shulkhan Arukh came to hand, R. Isserles added his own glosses to it, which he spread "like a cloth" (mappah) around R. Karo's "set table" (Shulkhan Arukh). He quoted different Ashkenazi customs in order to decide between them. His purpose was not to create a binding law code, but in fact wrote that "the students shall not follow hereafter to drink from it without dispute" but rather that one should know of the existence of differing opinions and then decide according to the rule of Hilkheta ke-Vatra'ei and "what he sees with his own eyes". [Rama, Respon. Numbers 35 and 131].
[Elon, p.140]

In Poland and Germany criticism of the Shulkhan Arukh was far more severe. The very concept of codifying halakha was rejected by many leading rabbis. Rabbi Judah Loeb ben Bezalel wrote that once an already decided law could be ascertained from a code without any mental effort, such effort would invariable be channeled in the undesirable direction of pilpul for its own sake. Moreover, study and understanding of the law were prerequisites for deciding it; making decisions from the study of the Talmud and responsa, even if error were occasionally to result, was preferable to a "decision based on a single work without the knowledge of the underlying reasoning, in a blind manner." (Derekh Hayim, Avot 6;6, and his Netivot Olam, Netiv ha-Torah, 15).
[Taken from Elon, p.141]

Rabbi Loeb's brother, Hayim ben Bezalel (another great spiritual leader of Polish Jewry) was opposed to the creation of halakhic summaries, as he fundamentally rejected the idea of reducing the halakha to uniformity, since "it may be believed that just as it the nature of creation for the faces of mankind to differ, so wisdom remains divided in the heart". He goes so far as to write that it is _wrong_ to call lack of uniformity a shortcoming, rendering our one Torah into two, "heaven Forbid!" we should say such a thing! On the contrary, we should say that "this is the way of the Torah, and both these statements and those represent the words of the living God". In other words, dispute was vital to the substance of Halakha.
[Elon, p.141]

The eminent Rabbi Solomon Luria indeed raised his voice against the proliferation of halakhic dispute in his time, yet he vigorously opposed R. Karo's method of deciding the law. R. Luria ruled that a decision had to be made after examining all opinions against a background of Talmudic sources only, for "ever since the days of Ravina and Rav Ashi it has not been customary to decide according to one of the Geonim or Aharonim, but...according to Talmud Bavli... [and where applicable] Talmud Yerushalmi and the Tosefta". [See intro to Yam shel Shelomo, Bava Kama].

Indeed, even stronger criticism can be made. Rabbi Samuel Eliezer Edel (17th century Poland) said that those who laid down the halakha without Talmudic study of the rule were in fact deserving of censure. (See his Hiddushei Halakhot ve-Aggadot, Sotah, 22a).
[Elon, p.142]


So how come no one on this forum mentions any of these Orthodox views? I could understand someone disagreeing with them, but they are being treated as if they do not exist!

Please read these referencesL

"Darkhei Moshe", Moshe Isserles. The version of this book printed with most editions of the 'Tur', called 'Darkhei Moshe Katzar', is apparently an abridged version of the fuller 'Darkhei Moshe ha-Arokh'.

"Jewish Law: An Introduction", Mendell Lewittes, Jaon Aronson Inc., 1994

"The Principals of Jewish Law" Menachem Elon, Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishers, Jerusalem, Israel.