The Unholy Trinity – From Rav Goren to Dayan Sherman, and Rav Kamenetsky

Eddie – Guest Post   [I requested this post to see how Eddie would justify his repeated condemnation of Rav Sherman. This post doesn't describe what the halachic issues were but focuses on what Eddie sees as similarly in situations and variations in psak. The problem with Eddies analysis is that the situations are not similar nor are the halachic rulings and thus I think the comparisons are not valid. In short I disagree with this analysis and Eddie's conclusions]

Controversies in halacha can be legitimate l’shem Shamayim,  but also can be  gladiatorial, or ideological. For the layperson, it is sometimes difficult to know whether to take sides, and which one at that.

In the history of the past few decades, several areas have been the most bitter: these include the “who is a Jew” debate, the Aguna debate, and the problems of mamzeirut.   Some of these problems  often come in combinations of several of these.  Any agunah release which is not fully accepted by all poskim, can be accused of leading to mamzeirim, ch’v’shalom.

One of the most divisive figures in recent memory was Rav Shlomo Goren.  For the Modern and Tzioni world he remains a major Gadol and figure of almost Biblical proportions, whilst for most of the Hareidi world, an ilui who went terribly off the derech and had to be stopped. The most controversial of all his piskei halacha involved his freeing of 2 siblings who were declared mamzeirim by a Beit Din comprised of major Gedolei Yisrael.  His strategy was to cast doubt on the giur of the father, and hence declare that the mother was never technically married to him.    This was attacked by the vast majority of Gedolim in the Hareidi world, and defended by a number of Modern and Tzioni figures.  The purpose of this vort is not to prove he was right or wrong but to show the problems involved and similarities with other cases.

The 3 principal accusations I had heard about Rav Goren were the Langer case; the Dakar submarine (also involving agunot)  and his opposition to land for peace, especially in the Rav Shach era.  2 of these were solved when a) the fragments of the Dakar and the remains of lost sailors were found under sea, and b) when Rav Shach himself opposed the Oslo agreement and said that it is assur to return holy land won by miracle to terrorists, thus adopting his onetime colleague’s position.

The 3^rd problem, ie the Langer case, was solved, IMHO, when only a few years ago, Dayan Sherman of the rabbanut (together with a Rav Attias) annulled giurim of thousands of geirim, allowing some of them to walk free from marriages without a get.  These were geirim who had been converted by known Rabbis, Roshei Yeshiva and dayanim, and immersed in mikveh etc.  Contrast this to the figure in the Langer case who had no evidence of having had a giur, nor recollection of the name of the rabbi, no knowledge of the Posuk “Shema Yisroel” etc, but was considered a Jew in every way by major Gedolei Yisroel.  What is immediately clear is that the Hareidi powers have no clear or consistent standards for what makes a valid conversion. 

Again, my purpose is not to prove Rav Goren right or Rav Sherman wrong, although I may personally have a bias in the matter.  My argument is that Rav Goren had more grounds for his annulment than Dayan Sherman did in his. And since Dayan Sherman had support from major Gedolim in his generation, his actions raised the ire of the DL world and not the Hareidi world. In an interview, Rav Shachter of YU said he had read R’ Sherman’s psak and said it could not have been Rav Sherman who wrote it, because it was so riddled  full of errors (Sherman studied at YU). Rav Dichovsky wrote a scathing critique of Sherman’s psak in Techumim, citing Rav Chaim Ozer, Rav Moshe  Feinstein,  Rav Kook and others who opposed the annulment of giur.

[Incidentally, Rav Yosef had a machloket with the Chazon Ish on whether we can disregard rulings of the Shulchan Aruch if they have been questioned  by Gedolim through the generations.   Ironically, the CI takes a more rationalist approach, whereas ROY is fundamentally a follower of Rav Karo].

One of the supporters of Rav Sherman’s psak was a then still favoured Rabbi Tropper of the EJF. http://www.vosizneias.com/15705/2008/05/08/new-york-rabbinic-committee-on-giyur-rabbi-drukmans-conversions-worthless/

Tropper had claimed that the Tzioni Rav Druckman’s conversions were worthless.  It later transpired that Rabbi Tropper was also performing conversions, in exchange for gilui arayos with his candidates for conversion.

However, the problem has evolved from the Langer controversy, when there was an ultra-meikel view towards giur by the Hareidi powers, whereas it is now ultra-machmir.  On the other hand, Rav Goren took a machmir view in that case, whereas R’ Druckman has been meikel.  The only consistent position was ROY, who maintained his position between the two controversies.

This leads us to the current problem of the Agunah, Tamar E., who was allowed to remarry without a Get , by a group of American Rabbonim, who until now had very good standing in the Agudah and Torah world.  It seems the tide is turning against RSK, who was praised immensely by RHS only a few years ago, but today has very few people to defend him.  Some comparisons have been made between RSK and Rav Goren.  This might be true when it comes to isolation and disapprobation.  However, the cases were very different.  If anything, RSK would be closer to Rabbi Rackman’s  solution for agunot, which was a disaster for both the MO world and the Hareidi world.

In terms of halacha,  I have no authority to say what is correct or who to follow. This is purely for the individual to rely on a posek. However, it seems that some people can get away with “murder”, whilst others cannot.  Thus Rav Sherman had the support of Rav Elyashiv, and did a “Goren” on an industrial scale; whilst Rav Dov Kook (married to daughter of Rav Zilbershtein, and granddaughter of Rav Elyashiv) issued many flawed gittin creating havoc, but is still considered a great Mekubal. (He did apologise for his errors, and vowed not to get involved in gittin again).

It seems that what was once a divide between the modern and hareidi world is no longer so clearly labelled. The problems now appear in the most respected hareidi circles, and the pressure is taken away from the modern world.  IN many of these controversies, some have suggested a Hillel and Shammai type debate, whilst others claim it is falsification of halacha. What we must avoid, is falling into the disaster that befell Beit Shammai, which Chazal said was akin to the Golden Calf – the use of force and violence to impose one’s viewpoint.  It is easy to point to the modern and feminist world as being the source of evil, but without these factors, even inside the Hareidi world, we have seen tragic controversies.

The Ritva teaches that one only has to follow the rov when dayanim sit together; if they do not sit together then an individual can maintain his halachic position.   There are genuine halachic positions and false ones.  The rov – majority – can try to persuade the minority to retract their position. Failure to do so can be costly, as we see in the case of Akavya ben Mehalel – who had a valid tradition for his position.   Akavya was a Gadol haDor who was offered the position of Rosh Beit Din if he retracted. [Incidentally, Rav Goren was approached by Rav Shach in the ‘60s to set up a Yeshiva together, since he was still accepted as an Ilui at that time].

These controversies have always been, and will continue, perhaps even when we have a Sanhedrin. The greatest tragedy is the fate of the mamzer, who suffers for things he was not responsible.