Moshe Benovitz has a review of two “Modern Orthodox” Niddah handbooks, by Deena Zimmerman and E. Knohl, in Nashim 12 (2006) 309-329. He notes in both cases how minhagim get…upgraded?, to “takana” or “gezera”, while rabbinical enactments (or prohibitions whose strength is a matter of medieval dispute) are treated as Biblical prohibitions. (Specifically regarding 7 Clean Days and ‘Negiah’ – on the former, see Simche Emanuel’s “שבעה נקיים :פרק בתולדות ההלכה” תרביץ עו, א-ב (תשסז) 233-254 et al).

Also, I have never seen written the fact that a man and single woman may touch, provided that she is tehorah (admittedly a rare state of affairs, with a yihud prohibition as well), but which I learned from my YD rabbi at RIETS.

I thank you for this most wonderful post.

I’m curious to know what areas you’re thinking of.

R. Moshe himself applies this logic regarding korea- in the Iggerot Moshe itself. While fundamentally R. Moshe takes a very lenient stand on opening packages, ruling that most packages are “chotlot” and therefore may be ripped open, he warned not to do so because we life in a “weak” generation. R. Moshe also alludes to such an approach regarding turning off gas stoves on Yom Tov.

In general, I certainly believe that when writing for a broader public, one is more likely to either mainstream the more stringent opinion, which often occurs in Shmirat Shabbat Ke-hilchata, for example, and other compendiums, or simply be less inclined to rule leniently, even though personally, one may find more merit and may even follow a more lenient ruling. I find this countless times in my research, and I grapple with these issues constantly in my own classroom, and in my written halacha shiurim. I think it is an inherent problem in teaching halacha to the greater public, and I would also warn against the common cynicism associated with this issue by some. I wonder whether the Rema, and Mishna Berura, demonstrate similar tendencies.

I think there are other issues worth raising regarding halachik compendiums:

1- I find that often, once one person does the research and presents his opinion regarding a certain issue, all future compendiums are working off the research of the first one, seeing the topic through his lenses, and often intuitively concur with the rulings of the first author, without a fresh look at the issue. Incidentally, one can make the same observation regarding the research of R. Ovadya Yosef, as well as R. Henkin, in certain areas.

2- Many compendiums are a function of which “Gadol” the author consults, and indirectly a certain rabbinic figure’s influence can extend beyond his “natural boundaries”. Suddenly, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, or R. Elyashiv, or even R. Shternbach or R. Scheinberg, etc. etc. becomes my address for all mukse , berakhot , shabbat, etc. questions, and consequently their opinions regarding other matters become authoritative. The authority of local rabbinic figures is indirectly diminished. For many of these questions, one might be better off consulting someone who lives in the same country, or same society, or one who shares a similar outlook, as opposed to consulting with someone whose world is so radically different than ones’ own. Of course, each question is different, and whether to make a beracha on salad during the meal is certainly different then questions relating to family life, gender issues, adoption, marriage issues, etc.

3- Similarly, the choice of an author’s rulings and how they are presented indirectly affects thousands, as many shul rabbis, teachers, rebbes etc. prepare from these works. The rulings of these book, in short time, become the “norm”, and those who act differently, often based upon older “mesorot”, are viewed as adhering to minority opinions. I believe, for example, that the psakim of R. Moshe Feinstein have been pushed aside for the “Eretz Yisrael” gedolim. Making tea in a keli shelishi, for example (I believe there are many) , which was a classic American psak, based upon R. Moshe Feinstein, barely makes a footnote in some compendiums!

It goes without saying that the obvious comments about this genre, like the disproportionate weight given to certain issues, or even given to practices which aren’t observed (or never were!), are also worth discussing.

These all generate clear “changes in pesikat halacha”. Needless to say, I do not deny the enormous value and contribution made by many of these works. As you wrote, “it behooves us to examine the costs and benefits of this genre.”

I look forward to reading more interesting posts.
David Brofsky
Alon Shevut

HTH.