November 28, 2025|ח' כסלו ה' אלפים תשפ"ו Depth, Independence… and Humility: What Responsible Psak Really Requires By Rabbi Jonathan Muskat

Rav Yoni Rosensweig recently wrote a thought-provoking post about a question he received: may one drink wine poured by a non-religious Jew? After analyzing the halachic sources, he told the caller that it was permissible. The caller then pushed back: “But isn’t this a minority opinion? Aren’t you being lenient compared to most rabbis?”

Rav Yoni rejected the assumption behind the question. Yes, many rabbis rule stringently – but that does not mean they reached that conclusion after thoroughly studying the sugya. Many rely on inherited stringencies, communal instinct, or simply the “safe” position rather than on a fresh, source-based analysis. That is not the same as learning the issue from the ground up. When he ruled permissively, he argued, he was not embracing a minority view; he was simply following what emerges from a close reading of the Rishonim and Acharonim. The number of rabbis who agree or disagree is secondary. What matters is the integrity of the halachic process.

To illustrate this, Rav Yoni invoked his rebbe, Rav Nachum Rabinovitch zt”l – a first-rate posek who often reached conclusions that were not widely accepted, yet were grounded deeply in classical Torah sources. Rav Rabinovitch did not seek to be bold; he sought to be honest to the sugya. Rav Yoni concludes that genuine psak comes from rigorous, independent learning – not from following trends or defaulting to caution.

I found Rav Yoni’s post compelling. He captures an essential aspect of psak halacha: responsible decision-making requires mastery of the material and the courage to rule according to one’s understanding, even when others disagree. Many rabbanim, as he notes, may never have examined all facets of a topic; their bottom line may reflect instinct or communal caution rather than robust halachic analysis.

And yet – this is only part of the story. To fully understand psak, two additional dimensions must be highlighted: humility and consensus.

Halachic humility begins with recognizing that even after serious study, one may still be wrong. The Gemara (Eruvin 13b) teaches that we follow Beit Hillel over Beit Shammai because Beit Hillel listened carefully to Beit Shammai’s arguments before formulating their own. Hearing the opposing view deeply and respectfully is not courtesy – it is a halachic value.

Moreover, one important approach within halacha is the principle of shiv’im panim la-Torah: there is not only one correct understanding or singular truth, but multiple legitimate interpretive pathways, as the Ritva explains in Eruvin 13b. Especially in complex or multilayered issues, there may not be a single absolutely “correct” answer. Different poskim may weigh competing considerations differently and still remain fully within the bounds of halachic legitimacy. This means that even when one is convinced that his position is well-supported, he must remain open to the possibility that other views are equally legitimate – and sometimes more compelling – than his own.

There is, however, another form of halachic humility that is often overlooked:

Even if one’s careful learning points to a certain conclusion, if the minhag of Klal Yisrael runs counter to that conclusion, a posek must acknowledge it.
Mastering a sugya (halachic topic) means not only knowing the written sources but also knowing how the halacha has been lived – how communities have practiced, how the rulings of major poskim have been absorbed, and how norms have evolved.

Zemanim (halachic times) provide a striking example. For generations in Europe, many communities followed Rabbeinu Tam’s calculation of shkiya ("sunset") for the end of Shabbat, for zemanei tefillah, and even for the onset of Shabbat. One could see people doing work that is forbidden on Shabbat after what we today call “sunset.” A careful analysis of the sugya might well lead a Torah scholar to conclude that Rabbeinu Tam’s position remains viable and historically well-supported.

And yet – that is not the practice of any mainstream community today.
The accepted psak of Klal Yisrael has shifted dramatically, and no posek today would tell congregants that they may perform melacha after sunset. A posek must therefore tell a questioner not only what emerges from the texts but what the Jewish people have accepted as binding practice. Humility means recognizing that minhag Yisrael itself carries halachic weight.

Additionally, if one’s well-reasoned analysis finds no support among first-rate poskim, that itself demands an added measure of humility. Leading poskim possess not only command of sources but also halachic instinct – a seasoned intuition for the inner logic, boundaries, and texture of Torah that transcends purely technical argumentation. If all the great poskim reject a position, the absence of support is halachically meaningful.

For this reason, I have generally refrained from staking out halachic or meta-halachic positions that lack endorsement from at least one “halachic supreme court justice” – a posek of Rav Rabinovitch’s caliber, whose depth and intuition command deference. When such poskim uniformly reject a position, humility demands taking their instincts seriously.

Humility also operates on the communal plane. Psak is not only an intellectual exercise; it also shapes the unity and stability of the community. Some rulings carry implications so broad that acting without consensus can lead to confusion, delegitimization, or even schism.

This awareness has guided poskim throughout history.
Rav Yaakov Ettlinger, in his responsum Binyan Tzion (23), argued forcefully that many Shabbat violators in 19th-century Germany should be regarded as tinokot shenishbu (children who were taken captive and raised without knowledge of Judaism). Yet he refrained from implementing that ruling without broader agreement, recognizing that such a dramatic shift required communal buy-in to prevent upheaval.

A modern example is Rabbi Mordechai Willig’s halachic prenup. Even though he was confident in its halachic validity, he secured endorsement from major poskim before advancing it publicly. A far-reaching innovation demands consensus not for political reasons but for the integrity and cohesion of the halachic system.

In weightier matters, then, halachic humility means acknowledging that certain decisions – even if theoretically correct – should be introduced only with broad rabbinic support.

I am not disputing Rav Yoni’s core point. He is absolutely right that serious learning and independent thinking are indispensable foundations of psak. But if we aim to describe how psak actually works, we must also acknowledge the other pillars.

Psak requires not only depth but humility – the humility to listen carefully to dissenting views, to recognize multiple legitimate pathways within halacha, to honor minhag Yisrael, to defer when necessary to the instincts of the greatest poskim, and to appreciate the risks of unilateral rulings on weightier matters.

Depth and independence ensure intellectual honesty.
Humility and consensus ensure communal responsibility.

Only when all of these values work together do we achieve a halachic process that is responsible, enduring, and worthy of Klal Yisrael.