Is establishing a central rabbinic authority a mitzvah?
(ג) כַּמָּה בָּתֵּי דִּינִין קְבוּעִין יִהְיוּ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְכַמָּה יִהְיֶה מִנְיָנָן. קוֹבְעִין בַּתְּחִלָּה בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ...
(3) How many regular courts of law are to be in Israel, and how many members should each include? To begin with, a supreme court named Great Sanhedrin is established in the Temple...
(א) בֵּית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם הֵם עִקַּר תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. וְהֵם עַמּוּדֵי הַהוֹרָאָה וּמֵהֶם חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט יוֹצֵא לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וַעֲלֵיהֶן הִבְטִיחָה תּוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז יא) "עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ" זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. וְכָל הַמַּאֲמִין בְּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ חַיָּב לִסְמֹךְ מַעֲשֵׂה הַדָּת עֲלֵיהֶן וְלִשָּׁעֵן עֲלֵיהֶן:
(1) The Supreme Court in Jerusalem represents the essence of the Oral Torah. Its members are the pillars of direction; law and order emanate from them to all of Israel. Concerning them the Torah assures us, as it is written: "You shall act in accordance with the directions they give you" (Deuteronomy 17:11). This is a positive command. Anyone who believes in Moses, our teacher, and in his Torah, must relate religious practices to them and lean upon them.
Is a beit din like a Sanhedrin?
רב פפא אמר אפילו תימא מומחין כגון בי דינא דרב הונא ודרב חסדא דקאמר ליה מי קא מטרחנא לך
Rav Pappa said: You may even say that the mishna is referring to courts of experts in the same city, such as the courts of Rav Huna and of Rav Ḥisda. As in that case, each litigant can say to the other: Am I burdening you by requesting that you be judged by a different court?
Is the establishment of a central rabbinic authority desirable? And of the Rabbanut in particular?
Pros:
-Authority helps people be/feel "in-bounds"
-Good for functioning society
-Standardizing kashrut standards
-Representation of institutions
-Standardization of professions (e.g. Rabbi)
- Record keeping-(e.g. Marriage/divorce)
Ambiguous:
Less controversy: more unity but less growth/progress/diversity:
Debate is productive! (but conclusions are nice too)
Cons:
Can't guarantee integrity
Might have to deal with the more "inhumane" (by today's standards) punishments
-Beaurocracy: worse because the populace doesnt endorse its basis
-Politics: (you can figure that one out)
-Self delusion: They claim more authority than people give
Rav Aharon Lichtenstien: The Israeli Chief Rabbinate
It is not for naught that the Torah postulated that judges are to be posted bi'shearekha—in Eretz Israel, in virtually every hamlet. Presumably, this insistence was not intended solely to afford easy access to judicial redress. It likewise ensures spiritual leadership which is organically related to its ambient society, aware of its problems, and sensitive to its needs; which can communicate effectively with its constituency in light of direct knowledge of its existential milieu; which can, intelligently, assign priorities and impose demands while yet aware of limitations; which can serve as a transcending spiritual mentor even as, like the Shunamite Woman, "amongst my people I dwell"
וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו בית הלל לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי בית שמאי ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי בית שמאי לדבריהן
The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.
משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות
From the time that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, and they were disciples who did not attend to their masters to the requisite degree, dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs. Two disparate systems of halakha developed, and there was no longer a halakhic consensus with regard to every matter.
תניא אמר רבי יוסי מתחילה לא היו מרבין מחלוקת בישראל אלא בית דין של שבעים ואחד יושבין בלשכת הגזית ושני בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה יושבין בכל עיירות ישראל
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei said: Initially, discord would not proliferate among Israel. Rather, the court of seventy-one judges would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And there were two additional courts each consisting of twenty-three judges; one would convene at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one would convene at the entrance to the Temple courtyard. And all the other courts consisting of twenty-three judges would convene in all cities inhabited by the Jewish people.
Individualists of course bridle at this prospect. Bristling over both possible personal constraint and public atrophy, they regard the concentra tion of authority as a potential threat—all the more so, if they have cause to be circumspect or even suspect with regard to those in whose hands it might be concentrated. Sanhedrin they often regard as a unique institution, effectively relegated to a remote ideal past or envisioned as part of a Utopian future but of little relevance, even as a model, to the present. Rav Haym's refusal, early in this century, to join—and implicitly be subordinated to— a nascent Mo'ezet Gedolei Hatorah is typical. Electricity having then been recently introduced to Brisk, he observed that it presumably represented real progress. Yet, he noted, one could not ignore a disturbing factor. Previously, if a kerosene lamp was extinguished in one location, no other was adversely affected. Henceforth, however, if a failure were to occur at the power station, the whole of Brisk would be plunged into darkness.
In reality... how much should we care about the Rabbanut?
There is little doubt that the Chief Rabbinate is not presently master of what it regards as its own domain. To its proponents, it is a proto-Messianic precursor. To many, however, it is either anachronistic or premature...
Haaretz
The monopoly of the Orthodox Chief Rabbinate does not represent the will of the people but the political compromises our system of government encourages. Poll after poll has demonstrated that a significant percentage of Israelis favor the recognition of non-Orthodox streams and non-Orthodox rabbis in Israel. Most Israelis want the freedom to choose their own rabbis and to have marriages performed by the rabbi of their choice.
Rav Kook's dream related to the specifically national aspect of the Chief Rabbinate—to the dimension of mamlakhtiyut so prized by religious Zionism. That dimension entails, however, a presumed relation to a broad social spectrum and the ability to speak for and to divergent cultural and ideological sectors. Within the highly charged atmosphere of Israeli religious life, that ability has proved very elusive,—and for obvious reasons. Sociopolitically, very few can presently remain firmly anchored within the Torah and yeshiva world—to whom, to some extent, the rabbanut looks for credentials and legitimization—on the one hand, while developing genuine rapport with the general secular community, on the other. The majestic stature of Rav Kook, combined with his very special background, enabled him to come close, but, of his successors, no one else has done so consistent