3

If a person has one Rabbi to whom they ask all of their questions, and that person is unreachable, for whatever reason, and an urgent, time-sensitive question arises, what should their course of action be? Are there any criteria for determining who to ask in that situation?

Assuming they do ask someone else, and receive a psak, should they ask their Rabbi when he returns to know what to do in the future, or is the psak they received now binding for them?

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
Y     e     z
  • 58,536
  • 3
  • 109
  • 249
  • 2
    Is this a community/shul rabbi? Often a pulpit rabbi will, before he goes away, establish a list of other rabbeim to ask. – rosends Aug 25 '14 at 16:38
  • 1
    Most shuls have an assistant rabbi who is there, exactly for this purpose. Additionally, good caring rabbis never take a complete vacation. They are always available for emergencies even if they are not physically in the neighborhood. It's not unheard of that some rabbis who were on their way to Israel got an emergency en flight call from one of their congregant's relatives that the congregant had died. They booked the next available flight upon arriving in Israel, and returned. Point is, nowadays, almost every rabbi has a cell phone, so he can always be reached, somehow. – DanF Aug 25 '14 at 16:55
  • 2
    related http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/29148/759 – Double AA Aug 25 '14 at 19:10
  • 2
    @Danno Let's pretend the asker lived in 16th century Europe, before the advent of assistant Rabbis and phone lines to just go down the list. – Y     e     z Aug 25 '14 at 20:11
  • @YEZ - not sure what "ping" means here, but I guess I'll respond "pong". I see your point in your comment. But, then again, not to ruin the fun, seems the questioner isn't referring to the past, either. In case of life-and-death, seems the answer is clear - get a quick response from the most reliable rav you can find; if you can't find any rav at all, you have to use your best judgement, b/c there's just no time to dawdle. – DanF Aug 25 '14 at 20:20
  • @DanF and to respond to your point, the questioner (me) was not referring to or excluding any specific time period, but was rather asking about the principle. Therefore, you cannot circumvent the question with "certain situations" in which the question wouldn't apply, as the question was not limited to the particular situation with which you would like to dismiss the question. – Y     e     z Aug 25 '14 at 20:36
  • @YEZ - No intention to dismiss, but thanks for clarifying. Several solutions - 1) Find the rav, wherever he is; 2) Send a shaliach w/ ur Q; 3) Have the exec. director force the rav to return from vacation; 4) Prevent the rav from vacationing anywhere he can't be reached; 5) Fire the rav and hire a new one, in which case, he's no longer "your" rav ... Now that u read all that, don't take me so seriously on any or all these answers :-) SOME might be valid. – DanF Aug 25 '14 at 20:50
  • @YEZ In the past, there would usually be someone in the community that the rav would appoint to take his place in emergencies. However, people would often write to the great rabbonim over long distances to get a psak when they could wait. Consider the Jewish garrison at Elephantine who wrote to Yerushalayim or the community in Yemen who wrote the Rambam in Egypt. In any case, the principle is the same. The rav would always leave someone who could answer when he was not available. – sabbahillel Aug 25 '14 at 22:18
  • @YEZ even with the current psak being binding, they should still speak with the rav when he gets back. In any case, if it is someone the rav left in his place, that person will usually call the rav in any event. – sabbahillel Aug 25 '14 at 22:20
  • @sabbahillel You know for a fact that when R' Akiva Eiger went to a chasuna he had a substitute? And in every small shtetl where there were only 20 Jews, there was a backup Rav? – Y     e     z Aug 26 '14 at 00:48
  • DoubleAA answered your question. see the link. – eramm Aug 26 '14 at 10:15
  • @eramm He at best addressed the second question, and even that is tenuous. I agreed it is related (and upvoted his comment) but it doesn't really address what happens in my case, where one person is who you have accepted, and you ask another with valid reason to do so. But the first question it doesn't address at all. But thanks. – Y     e     z Aug 26 '14 at 15:34

0 Answers0