Q&A: Halakhic Changes — Do They Exist by the Very Definition of the Concept?
Halakhic Changes — Do They Exist by the Very Definition of the Concept?
Question
I read your article about the role of laypeople, and also Nadav Shnerb’s article about how the halakhic decisor (at least nowadays, whether that’s good or not) does not create a halakhic reality but only presents it to the questioner. If so, what does it mean that the role of the layman is to change Jewish law? After all, Jewish law does not change. What changes is the way it is presented (how accurately the rabbi’s presentation of Jewish law hits the truth). To the extent that I know that, for example, there is no need to observe negiah restrictions when I’m a single guy for a zillion years, what difference does it make to me whether the rabbi gives me a leniency or not? If he permitted it because of me — the situation remains the same from my perspective, and if not — he doesn’t change the halakhic truth.
Answer
Obviously he does not change Jewish law; rather, he brings the halakhic decisors to recognize that Jewish law has changed. By the way, observing negiah restrictions is not an example of something permitted in my opinion. It’s only an example of a common laxity in the religious public.
Discussion on Answer
Who said anything about touch that isn’t affectionate?
Okay, so now everything is clear. For some reason I thought we were talking about “ordinary touch.” My mistake.
I just gave the negiah example as an optional example; I didn’t mean that it was actually relevant to this…
And again, what difference does it make whether the halakhic decisor recognized that Jewish law changed? If I recognize it, that’s what matters, and I’ll convince whoever wants to listen. Or maybe I’m simply presenting it to him in order to maybe get a refutation of my claim, and I’m using him only as a kind of peer review on myself?
Correct and correct.
What is the source for the prohibition of touch that is not affectionate?