Editing Halakha (section)

=== Denominational approaches ===
==== Orthodox Judaism ====
{{also|Semikhah#Concept|Yeshiva#Jewish law}}
[[File:Haredim allant a la synagogue.jpg|thumb|Hasidim walk to the synagogue, [[Rehovot]], Israel.]]
Orthodox Jews believe that ''halakha'' is a religious system whose core represents the [[Revelation|revealed]] will of God. Although Orthodox Judaism acknowledges that rabbis have made many decisions and decrees regarding Jewish Law where the written Torah itself is nonspecific, they did so only in accordance with regulations received by [[Moses]] on [[Mount Sinai, Egypt|Mount Sinai]] (see {{bibleverse|Deuteronomy|5:8–13}}). These regulations were transmitted orally until shortly after the destruction of the [[Second Temple]]. They were then recorded in the Mishnah, and explained in the Talmud and commentaries throughout history up until the present day. Orthodox Judaism believes that subsequent interpretations have been derived with the utmost accuracy and care. The most widely accepted codes of Jewish law are known as [[Mishneh Torah]] and the ''[[Shulchan Aruch]]''.<ref name="JillJacobs">Jacobs, Jill. "[https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-shulhan-arukh/ The Shulchan Aruch] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181225195931/https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-shulhan-arukh/ |date=2018-12-25 }}." ''My Jewish Learning''. 8 April 2019.</ref>

Orthodox Judaism has a range of opinions on the circumstances and extent to which change is permissible. [[Haredi Judaism|Haredi]] Jews generally hold that even ''minhagim'' (customs) must be retained, and existing precedents cannot be reconsidered. [[Modern Orthodox]] authorities are more inclined to permit limited changes in customs and some reconsideration of precedent.<ref>Sokol, Sam. [https://www.jta.org/2019/02/07/culture/can-a-journals-new-editor-keep-orthodox-debate-relevant-in-the-21st-century "A journal’s new editor wants to steer the Modern Orthodox debate into the 21st century."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331231728/https://www.jta.org/2019/02/07/culture/can-a-journals-new-editor-keep-orthodox-debate-relevant-in-the-21st-century |date=2019-03-31 }} ''Jewish Telegraphic Agency''. 7 February 2019. 8 April 2019.</ref>

Despite the Orthodox views that ''halakha'' was given at Sinai, Orthodox thought (and especially modern Orthodox thought) encourages debate, allows for disagreement, and encourages rabbis to enact decisions based on contemporary needs. [[Rabbi Moshe Feinstein]] says in his introduction to his collection of [[responsa]] that a rabbi who studies the texts carefully is required to provide a halakhic decision. That decision is considered to be a true teaching, even if it is not the true teaching in according to the heavens.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Feinstein |first1=Rabbi Moshe |title=Iggrot Moshe |chapter=Introduction to Orach Chayim Chelek Aleph |url=https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=916&st=&pgnum=3|language=he|quote={{Rtl-para|he| [...] אבל האמת להוראה כבר נאמר לא בשמים היא אלא כפי שנראה להחכם אחרי שעיין כראוי לברר ההלכה בש"ס ובפוסקים כפי כחו בכובד ראש וביראה מהשי"ת ונראה לו שכן הוא פסק הדין הוא האמת להוראה ומחוייב להורות כן אף אם בעצם גליא כלפי שמיא שאינו כן הפירוש, ועל כזה נאמר שגם דבריו דברי אלקים חיים מאחר שלו נראה הפירוש כמו שפסק ולא היה סתירה לדבריו. ויקבל שכר על הוראתו אף שהאמת אינו כפירוש.}}}}</ref> For instance, [[Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik]] believes that the job of a halakhic [[wikt:decisor#English|decisor]] is to apply ''halakha'' − which exists in an ideal realm−to people's lived experiences.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kaplan |first1=Lawrence |title=The Religious Philosophy of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik |journal=Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought |date=1973 |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=43–64 |jstor=23257361 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23257361}}</ref> [[Moshe Shmuel Glasner]], the chief rabbi of [[Cluj]] (''Klausenberg'' in German or ''קלויזנבורג'' in Yiddish) stated that the Oral Torah was an oral tradition by design, to allow for the creative application of halakha to each time period, and even enabling halakha to evolve. He writes:

{{blockquote | Thus, whoever has due regard for the truth will conclude that the reason the [proper] interpretation of the Torah was transmitted orally and forbidden to be written down was not to make [the Torah] unchanging and not to tie the hands of the sages of every generation from interpreting Scripture according to their understanding. Only in this way can the eternity of Torah be understood [properly], for the changes in the generations and their opinions, situation and material and moral condition requires changes in their laws, decrees and improvements.<ref>{{citation |last1=Glasner |first1=Moshe Shmuel |title=Introduction to the דור רביעי |translator=Yaakov Elman |url=http://wwwarchive.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html |orig-date=Spring 1991 |access-date=2023-05-09 |archive-date=2023-04-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230417142026/http://wwwarchive.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4/elman.html |url-status=dead }}</ref>}}

==== Conservative Judaism ====
{{Further|Conservative halakha}}
[[File:Kotel masorti.JPG|thumb|upright=1.2|A mixed-gender, egalitarian [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] service at [[Robinson's Arch]], [[Western Wall]]]]
The view held by [[Conservative Judaism]] is that the Torah is not the word of God in a literal sense. However, the Torah is still held as mankind's record of its understanding of God's revelation, and thus still has divine authority. Therefore, ''halakha'' is still seen as binding. Conservative Jews use modern methods of historical study to learn how Jewish law has changed over time, and are, in some cases, willing to change Jewish law in the present.<ref>[https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/halakhah-in-conservative-judaism/ "Halakhah in Conservative Judaism."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224105534/https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/halakhah-in-conservative-judaism/ |date=2019-12-24 }} ''My Jewish Learning''. 8 April 2019.</ref>

A key practical difference between Conservative and Orthodox approaches is that Conservative Judaism holds that its rabbinical body's powers are not limited to reconsidering later precedents based on earlier sources, but the [[Committee on Jewish Law and Standards]] (CJLS) is empowered to override Biblical and Taanitic prohibitions by ''takkanah'' (decree) when perceived to be inconsistent with modern requirements or views of ethics. The CJLS has used this power on a number of occasions, most famously in the "driving teshuva", which says that if someone is unable to walk to any synagogue on the Sabbath, and their commitment to observance is so loose that not attending synagogue may lead them to drop it altogether, their rabbi may give them a dispensation to drive there and back; and more recently in its decision prohibiting the taking of evidence on ''[[mamzer]]'' status on the grounds that implementing such a status is immoral. The CJLS has also held that the Talmudic concept of ''[[Kavod HaBriyot]]'' permits lifting rabbinic decrees (as distinct from carving narrow exceptions) on grounds of human dignity, and used this principle in a December 2006 opinion lifting all rabbinic prohibitions on [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] conduct (the opinion held that only male-male anal sex was forbidden by the [[the Bible and homosexuality|Bible]] and that this remained prohibited). Conservative Judaism also made a number of changes to the [[role of women in Judaism]] including counting women in a [[minyan]],<ref>Fine, David J. [https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/oh_55_1_2002.pdf "Women and the Minyan."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200617191359/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/oh_55_1_2002.pdf |date=2020-06-17 }} ''Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly''. OH 55:1.2002. p. 23.</ref> permitting women to chant from the Torah,<ref>[https://masortiolami.org/frequently-asked-questions-masorti/ "Frequently Asked Questions about Masorti."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190619004724/http://masortiolami.org/frequently-asked-questions-masorti/ |date=2019-06-19 }} ''Masorti Olami''. 25 March 2014. 8 April 2019.</ref> and ordaining women as [[rabbi]]s.<ref>Goldman, Ari. [https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/14/nyregion/conservative-assembly-votes-to-admit-women-as-rabbis.html "Conservative Assembly ...."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191231121949/https://www.nytimes.com/1985/02/14/nyregion/conservative-assembly-votes-to-admit-women-as-rabbis.html |date=2019-12-31 }} ''New York Times''. 14 February 1985. 8 April 2019.</ref>

The Conservative approach to halakhic interpretation can be seen in the CJLS's acceptance of Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz's responsum decreeing the biblical category of ''[[mamzer]]'' as "inoperative."<ref name="KaplanSpitz">Kaplan Spitz, Elie. [http://www.cwj.org.il/sites/default/files/Mamzerut%20-%20Spitz.pdf "Mamzerut."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191227104443/http://www.cwj.org.il/sites/default/files/Mamzerut%20-%20Spitz.pdf |date=2019-12-27 }} ''Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly''. EH 4.2000a. p. 586.</ref> The CJLS adopted the responsum's view that the "morality which we learn through the larger, unfolding narrative of our tradition" informs the application of Mosaic law.<ref name="KaplanSpitz" /> The responsum cited several examples of how the rabbinic sages declined to enforce punishments explicitly mandated by Torah law. The examples include the trial of the accused adulteress (''sotah''), the "law of breaking the neck of the heifer," and the application of the death penalty for the "rebellious child."<ref>Kaplan Spitz, p. 577-584.</ref> Kaplan Spitz argues that the punishment of the ''mamzer'' has been effectively inoperative for nearly two thousand years due to deliberate rabbinic inaction. Further he suggested that the rabbis have long regarded the punishment declared by the Torah as immoral, and came to the conclusion that no court should agree to hear testimony on ''mamzerut''.