[Avodah] WTG

[Stadlan, Noam]

If a posek decides that the motivation of a shoel is wrong, he can decide
all the halachic issues to the side of denying the shoel permission to do
the act.  The decision regarding the motivation can be a result of
historical circumstances, and those circumstances can change.  Motivations
can change.  If the motivation was thought to be acceptable, and perhaps
even admirable, the halachic balance can change.  Rav Gil Student, in his
review of Rav Herschel Schachter's view's on WTG basically admits that RHS
consistently rules l'chumra on all the issues precisely because RHS was
against the WTG.  The rulings on the halachic issues were a result of a
prior decision regarding the WTG, not the other way around.  To quote Rav
Gil, in his intro to RHS's position:

"When a question is posed before a posek, there are a whole host of
considerations for him to take into account. This is particularly true when
the underlying issues are subject to dispute and can go either way. The
posek, then, has the right to rule according to whichever opinions he
believes to be appropriate. If a posek believes that the contemporary
context requires stringency then he may certainly rule strictly on any
questionable matter. Furthermore, if he believes that there is a general
laxity in an area of practice he may even prohibit something that is
techincally permissible. For example, the Amora Rav found that people were
insufficiently careful regarding forbidden mixtures of meat and milk so he
went even further and prohibited the consumption of an animal's udder
(Hullin 110a). An overly strict approach does not not make a posek's ruling
illegitimate and, indeed, in many cases is the most responsible and
traditional halakhic approach."

In other words, RHS decided that WTG was wrong, and ruled accordingly on the
halachic issues in question.  The obvious flip side is that if one thought
that WTG was good, one could also rule accordingly on the halachic issues.

Noam Stadlan