Don’t Tread On Me
‘If One Consulted A Sage, He May Not Consult Another’
(Avodah Zara 7a)
Our Gemara teaches that if one consulted a sage about the permissibility of a certain item and the sage forbade that item, he may not seek the opinion of another sage in that matter. His obvious reason for so doing would be to possibly secure a more lenient ruling.
Understanding The Law
Numerous reasons are suggested for this halacha: Rashi (Niddah 20b, s.v. me’ikara, s.v. ag’merei) indicates that the second sage’s contradictory ruling will dishonor the first sage. Ran (to our Gemara), while agreeing with Rashi, offers yet another reason: It should not appear as if there are two Torahs – two sets of laws. Ritva (ad loc.) explains that an item forbidden by one authority assumes a prohibitory status. The sage’s mere pronouncement renders the item forbidden. This prohibition remains in force and can only be overturned in the event it is found to be in direct contradiction to an explicit halacha found in either a Mishna or a Gemara.
Specific Halachic Differences
Ritva’s rule that the item assumes a prohibitory status on the word of sage implies that if the first sage ruled leniently, a second sage may dispute his lenient ruling. On the other hand, according to Rashi, it makes no difference whether the first sage ruled strictly or leniently – any subsequent ruling by another is disrespectful and dishonors the sage.
Similar Question
Ritva, however, limits his ruling to that particular item. However, if a similar question presents itself, we will not forbid that item based on this ruling, and other sages may issue a lenient ruling. Rashi, who considers it a matter of respect, would forbid a contrary ruling even in another similar but separate case.
Post Facto
Rashi, too, would limit his ruling and make the following exception: If the second sage disobeyed the protocol and permitted an item that was already forbidden by his colleague, his ruling would stand, post-facto, providing that he has greater in scholarship than his colleague or he disproves the original ruling through logical arguments. Ritva would seem to offer no “wiggle room” here, as it is a matter of respect, and as such the second scholar’s ruling in the matter has no legal standing.
Overturning One’s Own Ruling
According to Ritva, since an item prohibited by a sage assumes a forbidden status, that sage himself may not even reverse the ruling, for he too lacks the authority to remove the item’s forbidden status. However, according to Rashi, who holds it is only a matter of disrespect, a sage can hardly be seen as disrespecting himself. As such, he may overturn his own ruling.
