Don't Just Preach, Practice. Part II: Principled Halachic Kulas

I though I might delve into a very touchy subject that is often the bane of discussions of MO - halachic laxity and what is perceived to be laxity. Who hasn't heard the accusation that MO Jews follow "Rav Noach" (roughly: Rav whatever's comfortable) or that Mizrochnikim don't take halacha seriously? That we don't really learn Torah or have yirat shamayim?

Like any accusation, this one has a (small) grain of truth. As Rabbi Harry Maryles points out, many MO Jews, and RZ Jews as well, are MO-lite or at least not makpid on what they consider to be non-essential. Some of us don't make it to davening during the week, or even on Shabbat morning. Others may not always manage to keep the "lesser" fast days or learn Torah all that often. These and other cases are indeed usually due of laxness born of convenience.

However, many on the right mistakenly then make the logical leap that all or nearly all of the halachic kulas emanating from MO or RZ circles are due to laxness, rather than principled halachic hachra'ot. This is a false assumption. There are many psakim and positions which I believe principled MO Jews should keep even if and when they are mitchazek. These include the attitude towards secular studies, the attitude towards women (no excessive tzni'ut witch hunts, positive attitude towards women learning) and a welcoming attitude towards non-Orthodox Jews. Allow me give a small example from my own experience:

I work at a legal firm that is populated mostly by secular Jews. Every year at Chanukah time, they light candles in the lobby, and I have participated as the madlik. Now, if I were to consider this act from a strictly formal halachic viewpoint (i.e. the best way to do the mitzva), I would ostensibly be standing on shaky ground. The mitzva of hadlakat nerot is at home - even lighting in the shul was a dicey proposition, as it first appeared as an issue during the time of the Rishonim.

Rav Re'em HaCohen of Otniel Yeshiva was asked a similiar question, and decided based on the position of the Ritva and others, that since the main purpose of the mitzva is pisumei nisa, then lighting in a public place is a kiyum that requires a bracha. Granted, im kvar, it's preferable to do so in a shul, but one can rely on this shitta to be yotze. This is a clear-cut case of a principled halachic ruling, grounded in sources, to enable what is nothing less than a massive Kiddush Hashem among many Jews who might otherwise not participate at all in the mitzva. I am sure other people could point to other examples of this.

This is not "laxity" or "finding favor", but a principled stand in favor of kula in the name of a higher Jewish ideal. The time has long since past that we stop apologizing for these positions, and understand the "laxity" charge for the insidious half-truth that it is. If we are called on such a position, we should stand tall and say, "Yes, I am mekel in this because I am machmir in [fill in the principle]".