Q&A: Accepting a Ruling Without Reasoning
Accepting a Ruling Without Reasoning
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I recently read: “They tell about Rabbi Chaim of Brisk that he sent a certain question in Jewish law to Rabbi Yitzhak Elchanan Spektor. He asked him to answer by telegram, because if he wrote out reasons in a long letter, Rabbi Chaim would reject them with his own reasoning. But if he gave him a clear-cut answer, as the leading halakhic decisor of the generation, one could rely on him.” (In the book Those Who Seek Your Presence, p. 265). Two questions:
- If I hear a ruling from a serious halakhic decisor, but I do not agree with his reasoning, can I nevertheless rely on him?
- Assuming the answer to the first question is no, is it permitted for me to hear the ruling and consciously decide not to look into the reasoning, because I am afraid I will reject it?
More generally, I have seen in several places that you came out against “converting texts,” that is, giving a text added value because of who wrote it and not because of its content. What do you think in general about accepting the ruling of a serious halakhic decisor without getting into the reasoning?
Thank you, and have a good week
Answer
In principle, a person is supposed to aspire to rule for himself. As long as he is not capable of that, of course it is neither serious nor responsible, but when he reaches that point he should rule for himself. Until then, he can and should appoint a rabbi for himself.
In a case where he has no decision of his own (he is at a standstill), the laws of doubt apply to him. In such a situation, there is room for the claim that he may ask for a yes-or-no ruling from a recognized and qualified halakhic decisor. One must consider why, in such a case, he should not act according to the laws of doubt. But there are unusual cases of doubt (for example, leniency in a pressing situation, and the like).
Are you saying from your own reasoning that a person is supposed to rule for himself, or do you have a source for that?
And what about the concern that the person has a personal stake in the matter?