Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Refusal of talmid chachom to go to beis din


Regarding the discussion on this post regarding whether a talmid chachom needs to appear before a beis din. All I have been able to find is the following halacha

שולחן ערוך חושן משפט ז סעיף ו - מי שתובעין אותו לדון לפני דיין שקטן ממנו, אין הדיין יכול לכופו לילך לפניו, אלא מכנפי מאן דאיכא התם מחכימי ומעיינים בינייהו.

ערוך השולחן חושן משפט סימן ז סעיף ח
אם תובעים ת"ח לדין לפני דיין שקטן ממנו בחכמה אין הדיין יכול לכופו שיבא לדון לפניו וכיצד עושים אוספים כל החכמים שבעיר ודנים ביניהם דכיון דמתאספים כל החכמים ליכא זילותא כשידין בפניהם [או"ת] ואף אם הת"ח גדול מכולם ואם רצון הת"ח לבא לפני הדיין הרשות בידו דחכם שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול ואם יש זילותא להת"ח לעמוד ביחד עם הבע"ד שלו שולחים הדיינים סופריהם ומקבלים הטענות בכתב ודנים ע"פ הטענות שבכתב [סמ"ע] ועי' מ"ש בסימן קכ"ד:


This is based on Kiddushin (70a):A certain man from Nehardea entered a butcher's shop in Pumbeditha and demanded, ‘Give me meat!’ ‘Wait until Rab Judah b. Ezekiel's attendant takes his,’ was the reply: ‘and then we will serve you.’ ‘Who is Judah b. Shewiskel,18 he exclaimed: ‘to take precedence over me and be served before me!’ When they went and told Rab Judah, he pronounced the ban against him. Said they to him, ‘He is wont to call people slaves,’ whereupon he had him proclaimed a slave. Thereupon that man went and summoned him to a lawsuit before R. Nahman. When the writ of summons was brought, he [Rab Judah] went before R. Huna [and] asked him, ‘Shall I go or not?’19 ‘Actually,’ he replied: ‘you need not go, being a great man; yet in honour of the Nasi's house,20 arise and go.’

8 comments :

  1. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 22, 2009 at 5:05 AM

    In the discussion earlier it was alleged that there is some kind of mystical pardoning "Halacha" that a "Yeshiva" need not appear for a Din torah.

    There still does not appear to be such a Halacha because the only way out might be to say that a Rosh Yeshiva presumably as a great Talmid Chochem could invoke the Halacha you cite now as an individual who is great in Torah, but still and all as you see, the Halacha is that the Talmid Chacham who is refusing to appear for the Din Torah can be treated with respect, when enough Dayanim and other Chachomim come together and come up with a way to avoid embarrasment for the Talmid Chochem and send a delegation to take written testimony from him.

    And in this case, none of this has happened in spite of multiple requests for Rav Shechter to appear so that subsequently when Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler tried to take another yeshiva (Veretsky) to a Din Torah, they were successfully rebuffed and turned down because they had not answered to the earlier Carlebach Din Torah involving them. They were not allowed to have it both ways -- to (a) refuse to attend a Din Torah against them but (b) to try to force another yeshiva to come to a Din Torah that they initiated. It's known that Rav Eliashiv was asked about this, and he agreed with this latter view and not with the Chaim Berlin claims, that people who don't answer Dinei Torah cannot subsequently force another person or group to come to a later Din Torah.

    When Rav Moshe Feinstein, sitting as a Dayan on a Bais Din, summons another talmid chochem to appear for a Din Torah, it becomes complicated for someone like Rav Aron Shechter to have turned him down. Notice how Rav Feinstein did not summon Rav Hutner who was still the around at that time, but focused on Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler.

    Finally, in the instance of Mr. A. Fruchandler as the other party asked to appear for the Din Torah in front of Rav Moshe Feinstein, what is his excuse? He is the one who fired Rav Carlebach as well and after promising to give him severance pay, and later went back on his promises. He is therefore a liar to Rav Carlebach, and is certainly not a Gadol, just a very rich man who knows how to throw his weight around and get what he wants.

    At best, it is up in the air if Rav Shechter had the right to act as if he was an equal of Rav Feinstein (who would judge such a thing objectively and truthfully?) and refuse to appear before him, but what is Mr. Fruchandler's excuse?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Isn't the issue in Kiddushin between a Rav and a layman, when the issue in the Beis Din affair of Chaim Berlin between 2 rabbanim? Why is it comparable?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Isn't this se'if of the Sh"A about a person being called to beis din to face a judge of *lesser* stature? At the very least, R' Moshe Feinstein would have been equal to R' Aharon Schechter. Therefore, this halacha doesn't seem to be sufficient to give R' Schechter a halachic "out" for not appearing at the beis din. And, as R&P mentioned, it wouldn't help Mr. Fruchthandler.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Surprise, surprise. After RAP called the idea that a Talmid Chochom may be exempt from appearing before a Beis din "legal fiction" and that "it does not exist, except in your knee-jerk willingness to be an apologist" and further commenting "Let's get this straight, you are saying that a Gadol Hador does NOT have to appear for a Din Torah if he is summoned to one? Is there a different Shulchan Oruch for a Gadol Hador than for ordinary yerei shomayim Jews?" Rav Eidensohn found the SHULCHAN ARUCH that refutes the above referenced comments of RAP.

    So after being refuted, RAP is now stuck on the lame retraction of "it is up in the air if Rav Shechter had the right to act." Well, well, well. I'm sure glad to hear RAP's holy opinion of whether or not Rav Ahron Schecter acted correctly.

    And btw, Rav Hutner (as you noticed) was alive at the time and in full control of the situation, and approved of the Yeshiva's (which as you know he was the Rosh Yeshiva of) actions in this case. So everything done, had the signature of Rav Hutner ZTV'L.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 25, 2009 at 9:17 AM

    Joseph says a few illogical things, like "Rav Eidensohn found the SHULCHAN ARUCH that refutes the above referenced comments of RAP."

    Joseph, get this, there is still no citation of a din that a "Yeshiva" is pattur (exempt) from appearing for a Din Torah. That is your imagination, until you can come up with something. In any case, to repeat, the case here is about people, rabbonim. As for Rav Yitschak Hutner, his role in the Carlebach affair is very ambivalent because he was also the one who appointed Rav Carlebach, gave him powers in the yeshiva and appointed him as a full member of the ruling Chaim Berlin hanhalla, so that Rav Carlebach also had rights to act and speak in the name of the Chaim Berlin yeshiva (and he did speak his mind on many issues, it was always known he was not a yes-man) and gave him his mandate and powers in the first place, knowing that appointments to such positions create Halachic realities of chazakas and that removing appointees without due process, even in defiance of other Batei Din, would create the nightmare scenario that followed. He took the risks and the the world has seen the consequences since then. At any rate, Rav Hutner just being there is still not a "petur" (exemption) for either Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler to ignore the calls of Batei Din at their own peril.

    Rabbi Eidensohn has cited a quote that allows an INDIVIDUAL great Talmid Chochem some leeway to retain his prestige and Rav Shechter is indeed entitled to that consideraion and courtesy, but if you carefully read the words Rabbi eidnensohn cites, it specifically says that ways should be found to receive the testimony of the Talmid Chochem and that other Talmidei Chachomim should come together to create conditions that the Talmid Chochem should be induced to give his testimy, even if it be that they take written statements from him at his location, without any loss to his prestige.

    So yes, at BEST, Rav Shechter may be given the benefit of the doubt BUT according to the sources here ways could have been found for him to appear or he should have seen the negative consequences of not appearing in from of several Batie Din. By having ignored this, Rav Shechter and the Chaim Berlin yeshiva subsequently paid dearly because their own attempts to initiate a Din Torah against a rival yeshiva (Veretzky) to stop them from building another yeshiva on Chaim Berlin's doorstep was easily rejected by ALL Batie Din UNANIMOUSLY and the Veretsky yeshiva as wable to proceed freely with its purchase of land adjoining the Chaim Berlin yeshiva and building their own rival institution side by side without any fear of Halachic action by the Chaim Berlin yeshiva having any power against them all based on the simple fact and reality that Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler were mesarev ledin and until such time that they setlled the claims of the still-to-this-day-open Carlebach Din Torah against them, they were barred from any future actions or appeals to any Bateri Din via any sort of Dinei Torah concerning any matter.

    At no point has Rabbi Eidensohn or his sources said anything like you claim.

    ReplyDelete
  6. RAP,

    Repeating the same silly stuff, will not make it any more true.

    At least you are starting to admit that there is a basis for Talmid Chochom to decline to appear before Beis Din.

    Rav Hutner ZTV'L approved of all the actions Rav Ahron Schechter Shlita and the Yeshiva (which Rav Hutner was the Rosh Yeshiva of) took vis-a-vis Rav Carelbach and the issue with Beis Din.

    I rest my case. You can hock in chinik all you want now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Recipients and PublicityJanuary 26, 2009 at 4:28 AM

    Joseph: The fact remains that Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler ignored and defied Rav Moshe Feinstein's call for them to appear for a Din Torah, as well as ignoring and defying four earlier Hazmonas to appear before the Satmar CRC Bais Din in Brooklyn.

    They have chosen not to respond, whatever they claim about themselves and however you rationalize it, much of the Torah world does not see it that way and both Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler are blocked from any and all Batei Din anywhere in the world since they refuse to settle the Carlebach Din Torah against them, they therefore placed themselves into the status of Mesarvim Ledin for being Lo Tzayis Din, a state of Cherem for them in effect.

    Rabbi Eidensohn did not cite sources that exempt Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler from appearing for a Din Torah called for by no less that Rav Moshe Feinsten. On the contrary, Rabbi Eidensohn cited sources that showed that even if someone is a great Torah scholar above that of the Bais Din

    It is debatable, and maybe even Chutzpadik to say that Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler are greater than Rav Moshe Feinstein. At best, Rav Shechter may perhaps get the benefit of the doubt, it's a safek if he as equal to or greater than Rav Moshe Feinstein, something that greater minds neeed to decide. Even if Rav Hutner is looming in the backround of all this, Rav Moshe Feinstein said that when he called Rav Aron KOTLER to a Din Torah he came running, but what is he to do when Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler refuse.

    That, at their own peril, Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler chose to ignore Rav Moshe Feinstein as well as the four Hazmonaes from the CRC, whether with Rav Hutner's "blessings" or not, has cost them a lot, destroyed their credibility, and made it impossible for them to pursue their own Dinei Torah when their needs are at stake.

    This is all very serious stuff, regardless if Rav Shechter sits on the Moetzes and Mr. Fruchandler is on various boards, they were powerless and their Din Torah fizzled out and they could not get any Bais Din to accpet them to stop the Veretzky yeshiva from outbidding them and building a rival yeshiva on the same block as the Chaim Berlin yeshiva because Veretzky successfully proved that Rav Shechter and Mr. Fruchandler were still in defiance of Rav Moshe Feinstein's Bais Din and had not answred the earlier Hazmonas of the Satmar CRC.

    This is not hacking in chaynik, it's just the facts, and nothing Rabbi Eidensohn has cited has either ameliorated or relieved Rav Shechter's and Mr. Fruchandler's plight that they chose to create for themselves, and if Rav Hutner was in some ways responsible for this, he has not had to live with the consequences since his passing in 1980.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Never mind that in a later letter [hazmana?] RMF explicitly demands R'Schechters appearance, and says "I twice called R'Aron Kotler, and he came immediately". Asserting this type of status vis-a-vis RMF, by a (halachically/in psak) relative nobody like RAS is chutzpah that defies belief. RMF was the posek hador, RAS is a Rosh Yeshiva whose rulings mean relatively little. Does he even have shimush ?!!!
    Wake up, and see how absurd this discussion is...

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.