Thought for the Day: How/Why "Great Monetary Loss" and "Pressing Circumstances" Is a Thing in Halacha

I am a physicist by predilection and training. I made a living programming computers for decades. I feel I can make the following statement as a domain expert in the area of reality: There is no physical law, nor is there any computer instruction that ends with "except in cases of great monetary loss or pressing circumstances." When I had cancer, not a single doctor—and I was very fortunate to have had two Jewish, Torah-observant doctors managing my case—said that I needed chemotherapy... unless that would cause me to incur a great monetary loss or if it was just too much pressure. (It was, in fact, both; in spades.)

This has nothing to do with anything, but my grammar checker didn't like that last parenthetical statement. So I asked Gemini about it, and I got the following response:

This statement is an idiomatic construction used to confirm that something possesses two distinct qualities or characteristics simultaneously, and to an extreme or significant degree.

• "It was, in fact, both": This confirms that two previously mentioned possibilities or descriptions are both true.

• "In spades": This idiom originated from bridge (the card game), where spades is the highest-ranking suit. In common usage, it means "in large amounts," "to a high degree," or "very much so."

When combined, the speaker is emphasizing that not only are both conditions met, but they are met emphatically or abundantly.

Dueling AI; go figure. I would feel exonerated, but I knew I was right.

Back to the topic at hand.

Of course, I asked the dayan. The clarity one observes in R' Fuerst is truly inspiring. The dayan led immediately with, "Unless there are שִׁיטָות/approaches that are מֵקֵל/lenient, then there is nothing to talk about; it is אָסוּר/forbidden." Ah, so what is going on? We can sometimes use mitigating factors when there are שִׁיטָות/approaches that are מֵקֵל/lenient. They are שִׁיטָות/approaches that are valid, but in the final analysis, the halacha does not follow them. That is, in "all things being equal" situations, the halacha does not align with those approaches.

I very much like using "approach" or "method" for שִׁיטָה, rather than "opinion." Halacha is a process and this translation emphasizes that point.

So now, when all things are not equal, such as "great monetary loss" or "stressful situation," then the halachic process allows for these שִׁיטָות/approaches to be given more weight, which can affect the final p'sak halacha. Given this explanation, it is quite clear how the other factors can weigh in to change the p'sak halacha in a given situation. Of course it goes without saying (which means, of course, it must be emphasized) that one cannot give himself a leniency. This requires a rav -- preferably one who knows you and your situation well -- to apply.

This may be likened to one visiting the Grand Canyon. Much of the southern rim visitor area has fences to prevent one from accidentally walking off the edge. When strolling along the pathway, you don't even notice the fences. If you want to get up close, then of course you need to be cognizant of the barriers. The barriers along the walking path are not much more than a railing. After all, you usually aren't that close, and you just need a gentle reminder to not get too close to the edge. There are some areas designated for walking out on a platform over the canyon. Those have much more substantial fences, basically a solid screen from the ground to (my) waist level.

Then there are some areas that are essentially big rock outcroppings that have no fence at all. If you are closer to the edge, don't you need a much more substantial fence? No, because since you are out on that rock outcropping, you are watching every step. The risk is mitigated by the fact that you are being so careful. The solid screens were placed where people are milling around and not paying so much attention.

In stressful situations—because of money, it is erev Shabbos, or hundreds of other pressures—you are naturally more alert. Your rav can determine how much we can rely on those שִׁיטָות/approaches that are מֵקֵל/lenient, your extra diligence, and the risks vs. the benefits. Obviously, (1) only a competent rav can make that determination; and (2) this whole approach is only available when there are valid שִׁיטָות/approaches for leniency. Without those, you are just walking off the edge of a fatal precipice.