Against Method 63

also, it seems, had some ethical and practical objections of his own to imposing this particular din torah upon a modern society. He believed, too, that legislation might be the only effective halakhic means for responding to some of the complex social and economic problems faced by a modern state. In early 1949 Herzog circulated among the Israeli rabbinate a monograph containing his arguments for a takanah granting inheritance rights to daughters. Yet this exception also proves the rule I discuss in the text: the rabbinical community showed little interest in altering the established halakhah in such a direct fashion. See volume two of Herzog’s Techukah leyisrael, and especially the introduction by Itimar Warhaftig, the volume’s editor(11-37). Warhaftig cites the indifference of government legal authorities as an additional factor that contributed to the failure of Herzog’s effort. See also the article by Ben Tzion Greenberger in Jackson, ed., Jewish Law Association Studies V: The Halakhic Thought of R. Isaac Herzog(note 16, above).

28. On the following, see Washofsky, note 15, above.

29. See Ket. 110b-111a for the oaths that God administered to Israel . The most detailed halakhic discussion of this tradition, which figures prominently in much Orthodox anti-Zionist polemic, is that of the Satmarer rebbe, R. Yoel Teitelbaum , in Vayo‘el moshe(Brooklyn , 1959). It is, moreover, a tradition with considerable staying power: R. Ovadyah Yosef uses it to great effect in his ruling permitting the return of the territories occupied by Israel during the Six Day War

as part of a lasting peace treaty with the Palestinians . Yosef’s point is that the oaths render inoperative the commandment to seize and to possess the land of Israel ; that mitzvah will resume its obligatory force only upon the cancellation of the oaths, which will come along with the Messiah. For R. Yosef’s responsum and a rejoinder by R. Shaul Yisraeli, see Techumin 10 (1989), 34-61

30. See the response of R. Yitzchak Halevy Herzog, printed posthumously in Techumin 4 (1983), 13-23, and in his Techukah Leyisrael, 1:121-133.

The hidush is found in Kook’s responsum Mishpat Kohen, no.144, section 14. 32. Yisraeli builds upon these ideas in his Amud Hayemini(note 19, above), chapters 7-9.

33. Ouziel refers to a baraita in Sotah 22a, which declares:“tanaim are destroyers of the world.” The amora Ravina applies this saying to those who specialized in the memorization of Tanaitic literature so that they might“recite” it for the benefit of the scholars in the Babylonian yeshivot(hence the title tanaim, which means, literally,“those who recite from memory”). Why are these tanaim called“destroyers?” Because, says Ravina,“they issue halakhic rulings directly from their mishnah.” by rote citation of the sources they have memorized. In so doing, they“err, because they do not know the reason behind that mishnah” or that the later tradition has interpreted it in a particular way; see Rashi, Sotah 22a, s.v. shemorin halakhah mitokh

mishnatan.