 |
| Can an Ashkenazi rely on legal pluralism to drink reheated tea in a Yemenite home on Shabbat? |
Introduction
This article – based extensively on the research by Professor Richard Hidary from Yeshiva University[1] – looks at the possibility that the Talmud was open to the idea that two conflicting rabbinic views could often both be correct.
Some[2] argue that in a Talmudic matter, there can only essentially be one correct answer. This view emphasises the notion of an overarching Talmudic truth. Hidary, on the other hand, rejects this legal monistic approach and, instead, brings textual support for legal pluralism – where the Talmud adopts the position that conflicting views can coexist and be equally valid.
