Although we usually give clear guidelines, we acknowledge the truth of your observation and will take this opportunity to explain our thinking on how to present halacha to the public.
Just as in most fields of scholarship, matters are not always clear cut, so too the answers to pertinent halachic issues classically fall into different categories. Some cases are clearly forbidden. Some cases are clearly permitted. There is almost always a gray area where it is difficult to give an unequivocal answer. This can occur, mainly, for two reasons. First, the various opinions may be very similar in strength, making the options almost equivalent in the eyes of the respondent. Additionally, a myriad of subjective factors can affect the advisability of various approaches in subtle, complex and sometimes unanticipated ways.
Almost all of our responses include elements that fall into each of these categories, and we try to briefly explain the underpinnings of the topic and the logic behind the different approaches within the gray areas. By doing so, we hope to present a clearer picture of the issue as a whole, which we could not do if we rendered guidelines in the form of ABC.
What is one to do in those cases where no conclusion is given? Firstly, it is important for everyone to have a personal halachic authority with whom to discuss such questions. Such a rav will be aware of some of the subjective factors that relate to the person and his circumstances and will be able to inquire about additional factors that he needs in order to pasken.[1] There have been times when we gave the questioner a more specific answer, based on information specific to him, but published the question in a more general form with a more general answer. Furthermore, there are times when the person who receives the halachic information has to choose for himself. We try to describe the gray areas carefully because they contain different shades of gray. We often use carefully chosen language to indicate that we lean in a certain direction but don’t close the door on another approach. Whether one wants to take the more lenient or stricter approach can legitimately be the reader’s decision. The wise decision may depend on factors that change according to one’s setting or circumstances. (How many times does the Rama end off that something is permitted only in a case of significant loss, and who can give an absolute dollar sum for such a loss?) If we would always give a clear decision, we would deprive the serious reader of the legitimacy of sometimes deciding for himself.
We also are well aware that those who read our publications comprise a broad spectrum of society, varying one from another in regard to community, personal background and/or philosophy. This makes it prudent to, at times, report the various legitimate approaches taken. Why should someone who is legitimately lenient feel deficient because the respondent favors the more stringent opinion? Why should we tempt a member of a family or a community where the approach is stricter or just different to change to the minhag that we think is slightly more justified? Let him ask his personal rav what he should do with his new understanding of the matter.
One of our main purposes in bringing contradictory opinions and approaches as (equally) viable options is to promote harmony within and between communities. Human nature causes some to look down upon those who are more lenient than they are. Others are hostile to those who are stricter. Most of us have a tendency to do both, depending on the issue. We hope to educate as many people as possible that often “these and those are the words of the living God”.[2] We are unrepentant but apologize for any frustration this at times may cause.