There has been much puzzlement concerning the teshuva of the Tzemach Tzedak that I posted recently. A clear act of sexual abuse was dismissed based on an amasla which simply isn't convincing. Various suggestions have been offered such as 1) child abuse was unknown in the 1800's and in that context the amasla made sense 2) TT was viewing it as a normal person
I just spoke with a Chabad rav [who does not want his name revealed] - one who is intimately knowledgeable with Chabad chassidus. He offered the following which he said I could post "in the name of a Lubavitcher rav".
I just spoke with a Chabad rav [who does not want his name revealed] - one who is intimately knowledgeable with Chabad chassidus. He offered the following which he said I could post "in the name of a Lubavitcher rav".
"You have to understand that it was Purim. During Purim a person's fantasies and thoughts which he keeps in check the whole year get released. There are many homosexual pedophiles out there who don't act on their desires. This rav expressed his repressed sexual desires. The question the Tzemach Tzedak faced was how to respond to this clear breach of halacha by someone who was a major talmid chacham. The major consideration was whether this was a one time event because of Purim or whether he represented a danger in the future. As a **Rebbe** the Tzemach Tzedek knew that this was a one time aberration and it would not happen again. Therefore the amasla is acceptable as representing his repressed fantasies that were temporarily released by Purim. Only a Rebbe could make such an evaluation. Without this explanation that it was as a Rebbe that the Tzemach Tzedek poskened - the teshuva makes no sense."
Then why would he write a supposedly absurd-sounding and misleading Halachic Teshuva? He could just say or write that as a Rebbe he is certain "that this was a one time aberration and it would not happen again" and we wouldn't have to guess.
ReplyDeleteAnd how is "the amasla .. acceptable as representing his repressed fantasies"? What connection do the two have?
And עד דאתינן להכי and we have to assume that there is a Metzius of Rav who is a one-time pedophile (and we won't assume that once he starts he automatically can't stop), then what's wrong in the first place? we may just as well believe the Rav if the act occurred just once and this is the explanation he provides. In hebrew, it's called an אמתלא!.
good questions.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem that no matter how you present this teshuva there are glaring problems.
If a "Rebbe" can tell such a thing as whether or not a person will once again fall to a Yetzer HaRa, I have to ask is a "Rebbe" on a higher spiritual level than the Tannaim or Amoraim, who have said repeatedly that we cannot judge a man until his death. A detailed discussion of this is given in at the end of the 4th Perek of Berachos. There we are told that even people known to be Tzadikim, on them we have to worry that they could go astray. Proof is then brought about R'Yannai who entered the Holy of Holies for 80yrs as Kohen HaGadol and then went astray. So please tell me how a "Rebbe" an Acharon at best is on such an exalted state as to be able to discern a person's nature when even the Tanaim and Amoraim, spiritual giants we have not seen the likes of in over 1500yrs, could not.?
ReplyDeleteOr look to the fifth Perek of Berachos where Eli a Navi and Kohen HaGadol so misjudges Channah and the ensuing discussion between them. If even a Navi cannot get it right, I do not see how we can be expected to believe that a "Rebbe" did.
Another problem with explanation - if it was Purim that caused this man's "tendencies" to emerge, that doesn't mean he will not do it again. It means that he will do it again every year on Purim.
ReplyDeleteHow is that ok?
Another problem with explanation - if it was Purim that caused this man's "tendencies" to emerge, that doesn't mean he will not do it again. It means that he will do it again every year on Purim.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Rebbe is ok with that?
One caveat to my earlier comment. I mean no disrespect whatever to the Tzemak Tzedek, he was without question a great Torah Sage and a Gadol in his generation. However, that does not preclude him from inaccuracies, or error based on lack of knowledge. Take for Example Maran Yosef Karo, without doubt a Gadol HaDor, and a Torah sage like no other. I remember hearing R' Eliashiv speak on a piece that R' Karo wrote, it was 60 Chiddushim on a single Amud of Gemmara that he wrote in a single day. R' Eliashiv said that if we gathered all of the Gedolim of our generation he didn't think they would be able to reproduce that sort of work in a decade, let alone a day.
ReplyDeleteAll that to be said, we find in Yalkut Yosef, R' Yosef writes, OH 328, "If Maran had the information that we have today, he would not have ruled this way, he would have ruled like this..."
We must take into account that there was simply information that even the greatest Rabbanim were lacking about the nature of such things, especially in a generation as lowly as our own, and with modern developments in psychology and medical science, we need to update some opinions. This certainly is a work that is being carried out by the Gedolim of our generation.
Therefore I take issue not with the Tzemach Tzedek, but rather with the mentality that wishes to make a human, no matter how holy, completely infallible, and then pass it off as, "well he is a "Rebbe" therefore of course he was right and the rest of us cannot understand it."
He was beyond doubt a Holy man, a great Tzadik, a Talmid Chacham. Therefore his opinion needs to be weighed carefully and considered from every angle. In the end it may prove that he erred, that halacha is not the way he ruled, and if that is case it will not be the end of the world. Thus it has been with many other great sages. As I stated in my early post, Amoraim, Tannaim, and even Neviim were not always right in their rulings. That is why we have the system that we have, in which other sages consider and weigh their rulings against others, and the vast body of halacha. Personally I fear that if we start considering great sages as infallible, we will ultimately depart from Torah true Judaism.
With all due respect, most of the 'experts' here seem to have totally missed the point, and in the process, conveniently created a 'straw man'...
ReplyDeleteAs for the 'Chabad Rav' who gave you this bizarre 'explanation', one can only hope he's not involved in practical psak on any level.
A few relevant observations first:
1. Although you wrote that "The Tzemach Tzedek - the third Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote one of the first teshuvos regarding child abuse." - this is simply not true. The tshuva of the TT is about whether an 'av beis din' who caused a chillul hashem must be fired, or whether he could remain in his position. This responsa is clearly NOT ABOUT CHILD ABUSE - unlike the responsa of the Shoel Umashiv that you cite, which very clearly IS. (The fact that the chilul-hashem this particular rav caused was by sticking his hands down somebody's pants is not directly relevant - for purposes of this question, he may as well have been caught eating treif.) As anybody even remotely familiar with the style of the TT in his responsa will attest, this tshuva is in the TT's typical style. The TT addresses the issue at hand, cites the relevant precedent, and concludes with his decision. He doesn't attempt to deal with any of the peripheral or historical details, only the sources necessary to derive the psak, in this case the Rosh, Rambam, etc.
2. Since the TT only mentions the point he is addressing le'halocho, any and all theories regarding the age, recidivism rates, likelihood of social impact, and all the other hypothesis filling the comments here, are simply speculation. Speculating about facts we cannot possibly know, and which perhaps the TT himself wasn't fully aware (remember- this question was sent from another city which may well have been very far away), is absolutely pointless.
3. There is no need for a 'Chabad' response or explanation of a psak by the TT, any more than say, one would seek a 'Sanzer' explanation for a responsa of the Divrei Chaim. The TT was universally renowned as one of the leading poskim of his generation, but his rulings have nothing to do with chassidus, as clearly evidenced by the sources he provides in his halachic responsa. Since we don't pasken based on ruach-hakodesh, nevuah, etc, this 'Chabad Rav's' explanation is ludicrous.