If the Shulchan Aruch primarily rules based on a majority based on the Rif, Rambam and the Rosh, who each (I'm assuming) are usually philosophically internally consistent, then wouldn't the Shulchan Aruch be philosophically internally inconsistent?

  • "primarily" "usually" All that could get you is that the ShA is generally consistent.
    – Double AA
    Sep 28 '17 at 13:39
  • Wouldn't that mean the Shulchan Aruch is "internally consistent" with regards to ruling like the majority of the three works? Sep 28 '17 at 13:51
  • 1
    @SophArch I didn't say that was ok, and the OP didn't assume the works it is based on are fully internally philosophically consistent. (In any event if the Shulchan Arukh was just meant as cliff notes for the Beit Yosef and he intended you to just use it as a study aid, then bringing contradictory opinions in some places wouldn't be surprising since you are expected to go back and know the Sugya and make a decision.)
    – Double AA
    Sep 28 '17 at 14:18
  • 1
    @DannySchoemann Examples of what?
    – Double AA
    Sep 28 '17 at 15:57
  • 2
    This is not a question about Jewish philosophy, but about jurisprudence. The hashkafa tag is inappropriate.
    – mevaqesh
    Sep 28 '17 at 18:27

No. The philosophy is that majority rules; in that philosophy it is generally consistent.

You could ask the same question about any multi-member court or a legislature. Is it philosophically inconsistent because the majority which rules consists of different individuals each time there is a vote? No, because the philosophy that matters is not the philosophy of each individual, who is not himself the court or legislature anymore than the mailman or janitor is. The relevant philosophy is that of the court itself, which is nothing except the procedures that govern it.

  • Does this work out statistically? If we assume that each of the three are always philosophically consistent then there can never be a philosophical inconsistency in a work that always chooses the majority position. If the Shulchan Aruch endorses philosophy A that means that (at least) 2/3 held of philosophy A. For the Shulchan Aruch to be philosophically inconsistent it would have to reject philosophy A somewhere else, which means that 2/3 had to reject philosophy A elsewhere, so at least 1/3 dchange. Thus, if all 3 are philosophically consistent, the Shulchan Aruch would have to be as well.
    – Alex
    Mar 30 '18 at 16:01
  • This is not to say that the Shulchan Aruch has no exceptions where it does not follow the majority, and that the Rif, Rambam, and Rosh have no exceptions where they philosophically contradict themselves. But to whatever extent those two rules are followed, the result will also be consistent.
    – Alex
    Mar 30 '18 at 16:03
  • I don't understand what you are asking. My point is that each individual's philosophy is irrelevant to the philosophy of the SA as a whole, which is simply that majority should rule.
    – Dov F
    Mar 30 '18 at 16:05
  • It is true that the Shulchan Aruch does not have an independent philosophy (aside from "follow the majority") but my point is that it will be statistically impossible for two places in the Shulchan Aruch to be philosophically inconsistent, because in order for there to be an inconsistency while still following the majority in both places, one of the three sources must be inconsistent. If we are operating under the premise that the three sources are always self-consistent then the Shulchan Aruch will also be. Not for a philosophical reason, but because it's mathematically impossible not to be.
    – Alex
    Mar 30 '18 at 16:08
  • It sounds to me like you are debating the question, not the answer. I understand the question to be asking as follows. Assume A's philosophy of legal interpretation is Intentionalism, B's is Textualism, and C's is Something Else. If the SA follows AB on one occasion, that ruling is unjustified according to Something Else. When he follows AC, it is unjustified according to Textualism, and when he follows BC it is unjustified according to Intentionalism. It follows that the SA is not internally consistent with any individual's interpretive philosophy, because he'll ignore any. Hence my answer.
    – Dov F
    Mar 30 '18 at 16:22

Let us set up the following steps:

  1. The Shulchan Aruch always follows the majority of Rif, Rambam, and Rosh.
  2. Each of the three (Rif, Rambam, and Rosh) are philosophically consistent.
  3. If none of the three ever changed position on a philosophical matter, then the majority view on the philosophical matter can never have changed either.
  4. If the Shulchan Aruch always follows the majority and the majority can never change, ergo the Shulchan Aruch can never change.

Thus, assuming the premises to be true, it should be mathematically impossible for the Shulchan Aruch to be philosophically inconsistent. Any philosophical inconsistencies that do exist would have to be exceptions to one of the premises – either one of the three sources was inconsistent, or the Shulchan Aruch did not follow the majority in (at least one) of the cases.

  • Unfortunately, the premises are not always true... Apr 2 '18 at 13:11
  • @רבותמחשבות Hence my last sentence.
    – Alex
    Apr 2 '18 at 13:39
  • it wasn't a critique, it was an expression of agreement ;) Apr 2 '18 at 13:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .