By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for 5tjt.com

Rav Gershon Ribner shlita is an outstanding Torah scholar who has authored brilliant seforim on Shas.  The seforim are Talmudic masterpieces that reflect great depth and originality.  Rav Ribner is also a prestigious member of the faculty of Beis Midrash Gavoha in Lakewood.  “Consequential Choices” (295 pp) is an English language sefer about 25 contemporary dilemmas and the hashkafic resolutions to these dilemmas of Rav Gershon Ribner.The background stories on each of the dilemmas are very well written, and they are based on true stories.

Interestingly enough, however, his resolutions often engender a two-phase reaction on the part of the reader.  The first phase is that of shock, disbelief, and disagreement.  But then phase two kicks in.  The reader begins to see Rav Ribner’s point.

This two-phase reaction has been the experience of many people who have read the dilemmas presented in the book.  This reviewer would like to identify four possible reactions to the Rav Ribner Dilemmas.  One must also be aware that it is possible to disagree with his view on, say, dilemma #1m but have a different reaction to one of the different dilemma.

Below are the four categories of reactions:  1] Some end up changing their minds in the shift between phase one and phase two and agreeing entirely with Rav Ribner.  2] A second reaction is to still hold on to our phase one gut reaction and vehemently disagree with Rav Ribner’s take.  3] A third reaction is to still disagree with his conclusion but to understand Rav Ribner’s perspective.  4] A fourth reaction is still not to have the dilemma resolved.

One thing is certainly true.  It is hard to imagine anyone being bored by its content.

The first dilemma deals with a frum family in the late 1920’s that took in a child who later became a murderous Nazi – but saved a the frum person, his wife and daughter.  Do you testify to the fact that he saved your family?  Our first reaction?  One must have hakaras haTov!  You do testify.  Rav Ribner’s take?  He was a murderous Nazi!  Don’t you dare testify!  Rav Ribner writes, “That he risked his life to save Joseph (the Jew) is meaningless.”

As frum Jews we look to the Torah, the Rashis, the meforshim and the shmuessim that we have learned in Yeshiva for guidance.  We look at the mussar seforim that we have learned for answers.  When Klal Yisroel faced Og Melech haBashan in battle – Moshe Rabbeinu was concerned.  What was he concerned about? Rashi tells us that Moshe Rabbeinu was concerned about Og’s merit in that he informed Avrohom Avinu that his nephew was kidnapped.

But wait!  His intention was tainted!  He wanted Avrohom Avinu to get killed in battles so that he could take Sara Imeinu!  The Gedolei HaMussar say – even still that is a zchus, tainted though it is, that could very well tip the balance.  That puts this reviewer’s reaction at reaction number two or three.

***Why not subscribe to a weekly parsha newsletter about Emes – written by Rabbi Yair Hoffman.  Each week there are four columns having to do with Everyday Emes.  Send an email to [email protected] with the word “subscribe” in the subject line.***

Next dilemma.  Ben and his wife Elaine are left-wing Modox.  But Ben started learning Torah and has gone full-blown yeshivesh – moving to Lakewood, chareidi schools, and there is great, great tension in the family.  “Keep your extreme ideas away from my children” is her thinking.  The dilemma?  Should Ben divorce?  Rav Ribner’s reaction? Chas v’Shalom – stay married.  How would most readers react?  In full agreement with Rav Ribner.  Score a point for reaction #1.

We now skip to a later dilemma entitled “Shidduch Disaster.”  Here, the father checked out a boy that was ret to his daughter by a shadchan.  The problem was that the father had checked out the wrong boy – only to discover the error after the young man rang the doorbell. The father had checked out his cousin inadvertently.  The dilemma?  Should the father allow the date to happen anyway?

Rav Ribner’s response?  This is a blind date. It is pritzusdik and inappropriate.  Rav Ribner’s reaction is an absolute no.  He writes that it is not an insult to the boy if one explains the reason.  So what is the reader’s reaction?  My personal reaction, initially, was to disagree with Rav Ribner and go with reaction #1.  We do not hurt people, and this was the father’s mistake.  Besides, it may be one of the bashert errors that we hear about all of the time.

But then, in between the reading of the Sefer and the writing of this review, I happened to bump into one young man who had misrepresented himself purposefully with deep-seated and premeditated falsehoods.  Then my daughter-in-law told the story of yet another young man who carries two other cell phones where he pretends to be his own shadchan and his own Rabbi who speaks very highly about himself.  Enter reaction number two or reaction number three.

But then, I met with an internationally known Posaik and gadol.  I posed the question.  He responded with reaction #1.  All of this now leaves the reviewer with reaction #4.

Rav Yisroel Salanter zatzal once said that when we deal and wrestle with mussar issues, the mere thinking about and wrestling with the underlying issues is enough to cause us to grow.  There is no question that this would apply here in regard to all of these twenty five dilemmas.  And we are here on earth to grow and to become better people.  The sefer, no question, is a must-read.

The reviewer can be reached at [email protected]