Rabbi Nathaniel Helfgot’s response to Rabbi Ezra Schwartz’s piece in your April 29 edition, both articles originally published in The Lehrhaus, begins with R’ Helfgot’s summary of the original article:
In his recent thoughtful essay, R. Ezra Schwartz notes a paradox: While shul life during COVID lockdowns became more decentralized, halachic decision-making became more and more centralized. In the second part of his article, he pointed to the use of WhatsApp groups where rabbis shared best practices and most significantly turned to selected poskim for guidance on a myriad of issues. The written response to those queries were then communicated to hundreds, if not thousands, of rabbis throughout the country. R. Schwartz clearly supports this phenomenon, as he writes, “The pandemic has brought forth a degree of centralization that has for too long been lacking or perhaps never before attained in Modern Orthodox communities
R’ Helfgot continues to outline a real and valid concern that the emergence of the recognized top-level posek in the Modern Orthodox community should not diminish or eliminate the development of the second- and third-tier level of poskim who may be more attuned to the needs of individual communities. However, this concern seems to be overstated and unwarranted for a number of reasons.
The phenomenon, as described in detail by R’ Schwartz, is novel and only a work in progress; furthermore, it seems to have occurred organically—from bottom up and not top down, not meant to impose halachic authority but to respond to requests for guidance and answers. In fact, this reflects the traditional shu”t, question and answer format, of the last millennium.
The Modern Orthodox community in its broadest definition has needed to recognize and have available first-rank poskim for a long time so as to address its unique needs just as hasidim and mitnagdim, Sefaradim and Ashkenazim have their own poskim for their own unique reasons. This acknowledgement by the Modern Orthodox community is a welcome occurrence. R’ Helfgot may have confused the “availability” of halachic guidance, which R’ Schwartz was describing, with its imposition from above.
It would seem obvious that the first step in setting up and recognizing a more centralized, but also multi-tiered, process to address halachic issues begins with the top-rank poskim in place. When Yitro advised Moshe Rabbeinu, Moshe as the top-tier posek was already in place and then the sarei alafim, sarei mei’ot… (the district courts) followed in descending order.
It is also important to recognize the context within which this new welcome phenomenon is occurring; namely, Rabbi Google and the oft-heard claim in some parts of the broad Modern Orthodox community, “Who needs the authority of the rabbi; we only need his fund of information.”
R’ Helfgot’s presentation alludes to some other points that should be of concern but are not further investigated or developed. While he concedes that some questions should definitely be posed to the top-tier posek, the determination of which questions, who makes this determination and what criteria are used needs to be fleshed out. The question of triage related to limited ventilator availability seems obvious and is an example mentioned by R’ Helfgot. More complicated may be decisions that change millennia-old customs and standards with profound consequences, and if miscalculated, will degrade the ability to pass on the mesorah to succeeding generations. For the Baby Boomer generation that first witnessed significant changes occurring every 20 years, to the current period when changes can occur every 12 months, radical changes, despite being made with the best of intentions, are of great concern. What level posek can make the decision of “halacha ve’ein morin kein,” the technical halacha may be such but we do not pasken (decide) accordingly.
Inter alia, R’ Helfgot mentions the incompatible juxtaposition of the Yekum Purkon question with the one about ventilator triage. Permit me to share an example of how much is learned even from the “sichat chullin” of gedolim. I found that one of the most interesting responsa (Piskei Corona #46) offered by Rav Schachter during the initial pandemic lockdown related to his musings on Hilchot Tefillah and how to navigate situations where the individual cannot maintain the pace of the tzibbur davening. As mentioned above, the second part of R’ Schwartz’s observations concern the decentralization of shul life and the current challenge of bringing the masses back into shul.When the initial lengthy lockdown disrupted routines across the board, private davening changed individual habits, for better or for worse. There were some who found that being alone with their siddur and HaKodosh Boruch Hu was an opportunity to elevate their davening beyond where it had been in the shul environment. In our neighborhood, the backyard minyan that began after Shavuot last year brought together a group that transitioned their positive lockdown experiences in davening to the tzibbur. We learned through Rav Schachter’s suggestions mentioned above and incorporated those ideas into the tzibbur davening. Thanks to R’ Zahtz of CBY, we further transitioned our minyan as last winter began, which resulted in the official “slow-paced” minyan that is also live streamed every weekday morning from CBY.
The challenge of setting guidelines to determine which questions should be posed to the first-tier poskim is not simple. Hopefully, in light of this past year’s experience, it may develop organically. At the risk of using a worn cliché, the way the broad Modern Orothodox community has addressed this past year indicates that there is more that unites us than divides us. Of course, a shoutout must go to our own RCBC rabbanim for leading the way.
VaYichan Yisrael… and Israel, the people, were as one person with one heart as they received the Torah.
Rabbi Tuly Polak has been privileged to offer shiurim in different venues in Teaneck, including following the daily slow-paced minyan at CBY.
