A few years ago, R. Matisyahu Salomon stated that sometimes the best response to a theological challenge is that we don’t yet know — “teiku.” Some bloggers and other commentators harshly criticized him for advocating this non-answer. However, sometimes this is the best answer. Intellectual trends take time settle and tides come in and out. Sometimes we need to acknowledge that the problem is our own limitations. Rambam’s answer in Moreh Nevukhim to some of the most difficult philosophical problems of his age was that man’s intellect is incapable of understanding.
R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik adopted this approach as well, as recorded in R. Aaron Rakeffet ed., The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, vol. 1 p. 62:
I remember that once I was studying Talmud with my father. I asked him why the Talmud did not resolve the problem under discussion in so many cases. Instead the Talmud concludes with the phrase teiku [“stalemate”]. Why was no conclusion reached by the talmudic sages? My father explained to me that a Jew must apprehend that he cannot understand and comprehend everything. When a Jew learns that there are halakhot which are ambiguous, then he will also come to the realization that there are other areas that are also not clear-cut. In matters of faith, teiku will also be encountered. The greatness of Abraham, our forefather, was that he knew how to say “Here I am” [Genesis 22:1] even though he did not understand the request that God made of him. The basis of faith is teiku. If a Jew does not master the concept of teiku, then he cannot be a true believer. It would not hurt if the rabbi possessed the courage and resoluteness to admit to teiku. The rabbi must not be ashamed to declare that he must refer the question to greater experts on the topic.