Dynamic Duos: Part 1: Intro

By Jonathan Seidel

This essay introduces the debating pairs from a variety of authority positions.   

                                                             Leveled Controversy 

In my essay on legal innovation, I conveyed the contrasts between R’ Kook and R’ Uziel and R’ Weinberg. I have chosen to bring the latter arguments’ back, despite the former having the same rationales. There are two other duo examples. R’ Kagen vs R’ Epstein (Mishnah Berurah vs Aruch HaShulchan) and R’ Yosef vs R’ Goren (Sefardi Chief Rabbi vs Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi) I wish to discuss. I chose not to use the first mentioned controversy because it mirrors the same status as the last duo—chief rabbis of Israel. Instead, the second duo is regarding major adjudicators. We have three layers in chronological order: famed codifiers, respected adjudicators and chief rabbis. 

Firstly, the codifications are different in style but also in work. R’ Kagen only wrote on Orach Chaim (daily issues) while R’ Epstein wrote on the entirety of the Shulchan Aruch. His work was a modernised version of the old. The former is a commentary, the latter a stand-alone book. Structurally and teleologically they vary, but I wish to focus on their divergent conclusions and exploit the underpinnings. It is clear for each of these couples that one is taking more of a traditional/meta-historical side and the other a historical view. R’ Kook and R’ Weinberg were also presenting to different communities altering the trajectory of their oscillation. In some categories more lenient because of the community and timing. Lastly, the chief rabbis were of different backgrounds despite the same representation. Their competing heritages differed in their implementation.