yitayningwut:
I am so enjoying this thread. it’s a shame there aren’t more people interested in getting into this, but thank you for a stimulating exchange.
You said, “Tolerance is not relevant here.” I think we may be talking past each other, since, as I see it, tolerance is exactly the crux of the issue. Or to put it more precisely, halachic monism vs. halachic pluralism is the keystone to the discussion.
I take from you last post that you think that there is a single “right” answer to halachic questions (you refer to accepting the legitimacy of more meikil psakim as “compromising on the truth”). On reflection, I think you would have to agree that this is not the case. Every halachic question has many possible correct answers; “shivim panim l’Torah” does not only apply to hashkafa. This does not mean that WE or I need to accapt every legitimate psak halacha; I do not. What I and what we all need to do is accept that every psak halacha properly grounded in sources and appropriate halachic reasoning, and arrived at with appropriate yiraas horaah and recognition of the ol malchus shamayim is a legitimate halachic approach, even if we, I and all of klal yisrael reject it in practice.
Electricity on shabbos and yom tov is a prime example. We all know that in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the question of whether it is assur to use electricity on shabbos is assur or not was a major issue. Very prominent poskim, poskim who’s views we have come to accept on other matters, held that it was muttar to use electricity on yom tov. We (all of kal yisrael that recognizes an obligation to follow halacha) ultimately rejected that approach; we do not use electricity on shabbos or yom tov, and indeed, for some, refraining from electricity has become the hallmark of shabbos and yom tov observance. The fact that after the dust of the debate settled one view was rejected in practice does not mean it was beyond the pale or outside the camp at the time, or even that those who followed it while the debate raged were not orthodox (I hate that word – use instead, Torah-observant). The view that electricity could be used on yom tov was legitimate – it was grounded in sources and proper halachic reasoning, and was forwarded by people who recognized their obligation to the Torah. Nevertheless it was ultimately rejected, and the mere suggestion that it may be okay to use electricity on shabbos or yom tov would immediately condemn the speaker as conservative (or worse).
The point of that illustration is this: For the MO (the knowledgeable MO who learn and know Torah and take their obligation to follow halacha seriously – I’m not talking about the MO lite, that are culturally orthodox, but really pick and choose things like swimming on shabbos, yichud, shomer negiah,covering hair, eating in vegetarian restaurants without hechsheirim, ect.), tolerance of competing halachic views is key. MO can accept that some poskim issue non-mainstream rulings fot their communities, even if those same MO would never do or rule the same for their own kehillos, and even though those same MO will write articles and teshuvos arguing against the appropriateness of such psakim. Some MO rabbanim – grounded in halachic sources and reasoning – that women may have their own minyanim (that do not say devarim shebikidusha); that women may receive a heter horaah; that women should say sheasani isha; and many other changes that the rest of the Torah-obsevrant world may find distateful and outrageous. But for the MO, tolerance and pluralism is the order of the day. As the MO see it, these matter are not settled yet; the issues of feminism and current social and cultural realities are just now emerging and how they are to be dealt with halachicly has not yet been debated and decided by the klal one way or the other. Since these things are still “up in the air,” so to speak, these LWMO “innovations” are not outside the camp; they legitimate (albeit perhaps wrong)halachic positions; they are one side of a debate in halacha – a debate that must be had, and a debate in which both sides must battle within the “daled amos of halacha.”
I think this in part explains the conservative issue that you seem so bothered by. You are correct to point out that if the MO are so willing to be accepting of different positions as long as those positions have a halachic basis, why not be tolerant of the rulings of the CJLS whose rulings, as you point out, are always also grounded in the sources. The answer I think is as follows: That ship has sailed. The conservatives tore down the mechitzas backed by halachic sources, but they did so after the matter had been settled in the early to mid 1800s. The debate over mechitzas had already taken place and had been resolved, obviously, in favor of the mechitza being an essential element to a Torah-observant shul. The CJLS could not revisit the issue and rule against what the Torah-observant world had determined was to be the accepted halachic approach. So to with driving on shabbos, and other issues. Once the CJLS tainted itself with these rulings that were beyond the pale, as well as other rulings doing away with elements of kashrus, ect., even there otherwise halachicly grounded decisions are “outside the camp;” they are not legitimate because they stem from a source that has already lost its halachic legitimacy.
This is not the case with the LWMO. Yet, at least. The halachic debate over women’s issues is not yet fully engaged, and certainly not resolved. Until it is, the MO will accept the legitimacy (though not the correctness) of halachic views properly grounded in sources and reasoning and which stem from people who, aside from these innovative psakim, are certainly within the camp.
I apologize for the length; this is just a complex philosophy to work out and explain, and I am SO enjoying the conversation.