16 Mark Washofsky

does not fulfill other mitzvot.”® The second explanation is that the term refers to a scholar that reaches a decision in a case by relying on(i.e., toke a,“nailing himself to”) his own power of analogy rather than consulting a more knowledgeable scholar. This is contrasted to the dictum of R. Yonatan:“A judge should always imagine that a sword is pointed at his loins and that Hell lies open below him.” The judge must approach the task of halakhic decision in a spirit of the utmost seriousness, and he who decides on the basis of his own analogical reasoning without seeking the help of a more competent scholar fails in this task. Both Maimonides ® and the Shulchan Arukh®' cite this passage as authoritative halakhah: one must not decide a case on the basis of an analogy that one has drawn if one can consult a more knowledgeable judge(“if there is a more knowledgeable judge in the city”). R. Menachem HaMe’iri(13th—14th century Provence ) expresses this idea in stronger terms:**“Whoever is able to clarify a matter with his teacher or a competent scholar but chooses instead to rely upon his own knowledge, drawing analogies and ruling on the basis of his own logic, deserves the curse of the sages(kelelat chakhamim)® and the severest condemnation, for he does not approach the task of halakhic decision with the proper reverence.”

None of these talmudic and halakhic statements, of course, criticize analogical reasoning per se. Their concern is that an unqualified or mediocre scholar can easily abuse that method of thought. His decision, based upon improper analogies, may well be incorrect; moreover, his determination to rule on his own in this way is an improper arrogation of authority in the presence of his teacher® or of a more competent scholar. From this it would follow that there is no objection to the use of analogy(1) by a truly competent scholar,(2) by a lesser scholar when no greater authority is available for consultation, or(3) by a student who has received permission (reshut) from his teacher to rule on matters of halakhah.® Still, these passages, which underscore the risks inherent with analogy, hardly constitute a ringing rabbinical endorsement of that method