Their is (and I suspect will be) a constant tension between “changing” halacha to “fit the times” vesus interpreting halacha in the context of the times. Some have analogized the debate to the parallel legal arguments about constitutional jurisprudence and a literal versus textual versus originalist approach. Not that we ever should equate the issues associated with analyzing what the framers in the constitution meant in 1776 versus what chazal had in mind hundreds of years ago but there are some analogies. If we accept the invariant “correctness” of a core set of principles and rules, than we will always need a mechanism to resolve questions on how to apply those as times change. In simple terms, the lawyers have SCOTUS and we have gadolim. For some reason, BOTH seen to work in the large percentage of instances although there always seem to be those dissatisfied by the outcomes.
Menu