The Halakhic Process: A Systematic Analysis

by Joel Roth

In his enlightening discussion of one of the most important topics in Jewish thought today, Prof. Roth presents and analyzes the primary Talmudic and rabbinic sources relating to the legal and extralegal factors that go into the process of halakhic decision-making. He leads the reader through the entire process, step by step. The concepts of Biblical versus rabinnic legislation, the role of precedent and custom, extra legal factors (science, technology, medicine, sociology, economics, ethics and psychology) the scope of rabbinic authority, the qualifications for halakhic decision-making authority-all these are taken up and placed in context of the question of legitimacy and illegitimacy, authenticity and in authenticity. All the pressing and controversial questions of our time-women's rights and obligations: the ordination of women, their inclusion into a minyan, prenuptial agreements regarding divorce, the abolition of the second day of the festivals-are bound up with the issues discussed in this book. Anyone concerned with these and similar matters will gain a far broader and deeper appreciation for the real issues involved.

Genres: Judaism, Jewish, Judaica

412 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1986

Reviews

[Lea · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are books we encounter in our learning journeys that unlock a new level of understanding, and this was such a book for me. Reading halakhic literature from the Talmud over medieval responsa to contemporary conservative decisions on zoom minyanim post Covid-19, my biggest obstacle was my lack of a systemic grasp, that İ might understand the arguments, but not why they were weighed in this or that manner. This book offers a very helpful introduction to reading halakhic literature critically by the rules inherent to the system.

[Alan Rosenthal · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an exposition and justification of Conservative policy in psak halakha. It was immediately apparent to me that reading the book with understanding requires at least basic familiarity with Rabbinic literature. That immediately raised the question in my mind: who was Joel Roth’s target audience? In 1986 interest in the topic at hand would have been confined almost entirely to Orthodox Jews and Conservative Jews. Orthodox Jews would have ignored the book out of hand on the grounds that Conservative Judaism is heretical. Conservative laypeople would have lacked the background to understand the book. That leaves Conservative Rabbis, which suggests that the book was intended as an apologia for future generations.
Then on pages 309-313 he defines his target audience explicitly and it’s not just Conservative Rabbis. If you are reading this review then most likely you too are a member of the target audience. Sociologically, with the rise of “partnership minyanim” and the increasing number of Conservative Jews with Jewish day school education, the future generation has arrived.
Unfortunately, Orthodox Jews are likely to continue to ignore the book, which is a shame, because if they actually read the book they might conclude that Conservative Judaism is not heretical after all. Not that such a conclusion would be automatic, especially in light of an obstacle that the author has placed in their path. On page 151 he rejects acceptance of the documentary hypothesis as a disqualification for being a posek halakha. I suppose that he did that as part of his apologia because most likely there are many colleagues of his in the Conservative Rabbinate who accept the documentary hypothesis, but before an Orthodox reader shuts the book and burns it at that point s/he should consider that the grounds that s/he uses to deem Joel Roth a heretic probably would also make heretics out of Rishonim such as Ibn Ezra and Rabbi Yehuda HaHasid, and might even make a heretic out of the Tanna R. Yehuda Bar Ilai (Bava Batra 15a).
That is not to say that there are no mistakes in the book. The author is so erudite that it would take intensive analysis to find all of them, but two jumped out because they are annoyingly common. On page 67 he mistranslates “amud hashahar” as “the morning star”. Philip Blackman (Mishnayoth, Judaica Press, 1965) translated it correctly as “dawn”. On page 211 he mistranslates “yevamah” as “childless widow”. A yevamah is the widow of a childless man. Then his characterization on page 262 of the position of the Hatam Sofer regarding mayim she-ein lahem sof seemed remarkably progressive for the Hatam Sofer so I checked it at hebrewbooks.org. The case in the cited responsum is that of a man who fell off a river ferry and the body that was found on the river bank nine days later most likely is his. The Hatam Sofer didn’t abolish mayim she-ein lahem sof as a criterion for not allowing a woman to remarry. He just changed it from an absolute criterion to a relative criterion.
But that just shows, as anyone who is inclined to read this book probably already knows, that nothing that any Rabbi says should be accepted blindly. Trust but verify.

[P. Es · Rating 2 out of 5]

same curiosity reasons as stated for 'halakha for our time'