Humrah Society III

Not all modern humros (stringencies) are the same. Yes, there are people out there who look for every possible stringency. There are people out there who try to fulfill every halakhic view rather than merely following one. But some humros reflect a very different phenomenon and it is important to recognize that distinction.

We live in a world of burgeoning technology in which we have tools that were unheard of decades ago. When I was growing up, home computers were rare (although we had one). Who would have thought that computers could be programmed to accurately check Torah scrolls? But now they can. What do we do with that? What do we do with the information that the overwhelming majority of Torah scrolls are missing at least one crucial letter, thereby rendering them unfit for use? Do we ignore this information?

Some, whom I call "anti-progressive halakhists," don't like change and want to ignore this information. If Torah scrolls that were not checked by computers were good enough for my parents and grandparents then they are good enough for me. When "progressive halakhists," those who want to use all of the tools and information available, incorporate these into normative behavior they are labeled as mahmirim (strict ones) when, in my mind, they are doing the only reasonable thing. We now know, through modern technology, that the vast majority of Torah scrolls are unfit for use. Do we ignore this information out of some mystical/nostalgic confidence that our parents could not have done anything wrong or do we utilize all of the information that we have? I see no option but the latter. We now have tools that were previously unavailable and to ignore them is to be anti-progressive.

This is distinct from the checking with microscopes in vegetables for bugs or measuring the squareness of tefillin with ultra-precise tools, because in those cases we were never commanded to be that exact. But when it comes to using computers to avoid human error, the more tools the better. (See Responsa Shevet Ha-Levi, vol. 7 no. 2 on this; and vol. 8 no. 10 for the logical results of this conclusion regarding Torah scrolls.)

The same goes for the copepods in the water. If there is a real infestation problem, and all the scientific evidence indicates that there is, then we have to rule based on the information that we currently have. We cannot simply say that such-and-such rabbi drank it so it must be OK when it is clear that he did not have all of the information that we now have. There might be other reasons to be lenient, but those reasons must fully take into account all of the information that we now have.

I was trying to think of examples in which we use modern technology for leniencies. One is the ending of Shabbos. We can now calculate the exact time that Shabbos ends (each according to his view) and utilize atomic clocks to know the correct time within a second. Atomic clock technology is now so cheap that I have a fairly inexpensive watch that is set twice a day via radio waves to an atomic clock in Colorado. I know exactly when Shabbos is over. Of course, I can add on a few minutes to extend Shabbos, but I do not have to look outside at the sky like people had to do in olden times (or like we used to do in summer camp). That inevitably leads to a later end for Shabbos. (Please add more examples in the comments section.)

My point: Not every humrah is the same. Some are crazy; some are the result of being indecisive; and some are due to new technologies and information. It is a mistake to label "progressive halakhists" as mahmirim simply because they arrive at a different conclusion than was previously held. They have new information and technologies that informed their decision.