Ido Pachter’s Introduction to Jewish Law as Rebellion – Conclusion

“From this perspective, Rabbi Cardozo critiques the major codifications of halakha, such as Rabbi Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. While monumental, these works brought misfortune to halakha by reducing it to a fixed, closed list of obligations, cutting off the dynamic and lively discourse surrounding it. According to Rabbi Cardozo, the flourishing of halakha is rooted in the Talmudic dictum “These and these are the words of the living God,” which recognizes the value of disagreement and dissent. In Rabbi Cardozo’s vision, the halakhic beit midrash (study hall) should resemble that of the Talmudic era, where students challenged one another and applied critical thinking not only to their peers but also to the teachings of their rabbis and mentors. Disagreement, he argues, is key to fostering a rebellious spirit in learning.

Rabbi Cardozo does not aim to diminish the authority of the great works of halakha; rather, his goal is to counteract the paralysis they can impose on halakhic thought. Indeed, we know that no single book of halakha has ever encapsulated the entirety of Jewish law without contention. Disputes can be found in every area, and nearly every law in the Shulchan Aruch has been debated in extensive detail by later commentators. As major halakhic authorities, such as Rabbi Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, have emphasized, no halakhic text has ever been accepted as the ultimate authority. Later halakhic literature has been synthesized, encompassing a spectrum of disputes and various approaches. Rabbi Cardozo urges students of halakha to immerse themselves in these worlds of disagreement, to be enriched by them rather than leaving their rulings as mere unquestioned facts.”

The chief flaw of Rabbeinu Tam’s criticism of Rashi’s Talmudic commentary, that Rashi common law p’shat on the Chumash did not transfer to the Ibn Ezra like dikduk p’shat of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud. Ibn Ezra’s son converted to Islam. Non the less while Rabbeinu Tam searched off the dof to bring a precedent בנין אב from some outside source from a particular mesechta of Gemarah, Rabbeinu Tam, like Rashi, equally failed to make a משנה תורה/common law “re-interpretation” of that Gemarah sugya back to make a משנה תורה “legislative review” of the original language k’vanna of the home Mishna!! Why did both father and grand son make the identical errors?

Answer: Both Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam feared to expose how to study the Talmud as a common law legal system which stands upon the Oral Torah 13 middot spirits as defined through the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva פרדס logic system. Where דרוש ופשט affixed to the warp of Aggaditah and רמז וסוד affixed to the woof of Halacha. The latter makes a דרוש to discern prophetic mussar. This k’vanna of prophetic mussar defines the p’shat of aggadic and midrashic stories. Through the woof of רמז וסוד this p’shat of prophetic mussar – the k’vanna of aggadah – weaves itself into halachic Talmudic discussion with the purpose to elevate positive and negative halachot unto tohor time oriented commandments דאורייתא. Herein explains the reasoning of the B’hag’s rulings which made rabbinic time oriented commandments into דאורייתא time oriented commandments!