I was recently asked to publicize some astounding information regarding a talmid chachom who it is claimed is not only not Jewish but in fact is a missionary.
This happened to me once before regarding someone who I knew from yeshiva and had started his own kiruv yeshiva and who made a deathbed confession that he was not Jewish but merely pretended to be one
What is my obligation regarding revealing these charges?
The missionary is a danger, a meisit, so show him no mercy.
ReplyDeleteIf a yeshiva boy who was able to open his own yeshiva is not Jewish. Why did he not convert?
He thought it was funny to pretend to be Jewish or a big challenge to see if he could get away with his deception.
ReplyDeleteWe need to remember that these are merely ALLEGATIONS.
ReplyDeleteBefore going public with such a story, a Beis Din needs to be convened to assess the validity of the claims, and to give the person a chance to confront those spreading the potentially malicious stories about him.
The person’s entire life is dependent on the outcome of such a hearing; including their social status, family status, and life’s work. That is a case like “Dinei Nefashos”, which needs to be evaluated in a Beis Din, not in the court of public opinion.
Personally, I’m skeptical about the truth of such a story. Becoming a Talmid Chacham isn’t easy, and requires years of diligence in Torah studies. To pull off such a fraud, a person would need to invest a significant part of his life, in order to achieve the requisite status and credibility, without ever revealing that he’s not really what he presents himself to be. It’s possible, but unlikely.
Missionary are indeed a grave danger to the Jewish community.
ReplyDeleteHowever we must not be hasty in passing judgment on people, and labeling them “missionaries”, and in this, case labeling them as “non-Jews”, when there is a presumption of innocence (“chezkas kashrus”), and there are no external reasons to cause us to suspect that the person isn’t genuine.
Who is asking this question?
ReplyDeleteWhere is this talmid chochom missionizing christianity? Why isn't this seen by others?
ReplyDeleteIt happened in Lakewood recently. The man was on the run from the law and being deep in BMG was a great cover up.
ReplyDeleteThat sounds far-fetched to me. People do not appear as prominent talmidei chachamim unless they act the part for a long time. Some goy dressed up and acted like a rosh yeshiva for ten years just for kicks?
ReplyDeleteNow if there is some monetary angle to it, maybe.
As for being a missionary, so what does he do? Send bochurim to a church? Preach to them that J--- is the Messiah between teaching them Tosfos? And no one noticed?
Not saying it is impossible, but the story has to have a lot more detail and verification before I believe it.
Do I look like a posek to you?
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to the story from THIRTEEN years ago?
ReplyDeleteLakewood Community Rocked By Non-Jewish Man Posing As Jew!
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/16018/ywn-exclusive-lakewood-community-rocked-by-non-jewish-man-posing-as-jew.html
The Ted Riley, Natan Levy, Lakewood Fiasco Continues
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/16236/the-ted-riley-natan-levy-lakewood-fiasco-continues.html
The person referenced in this article was NOT known to be running from the law. He merely broke the law, by doing identity theft. He also was NOT known to be anything in BMG. He merely lived in one of the local Yeshivish developments.
"The person’s entire life is dependent on the outcome of such a hearing; including their social status, family status, and life’s work. That is a case like “Dinei Nefashos”, which needs to be evaluated in a Beis Din, not in the courtroom of public opinion."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely 💯percent!!
At what point would a Jew be considered a missionary according to Halacha?
ReplyDeleteIs Deuteronomy Chapter 13, the parameters?
If he's a missionary, how is he not in some type of rodef category that would need to be publicized? Is the concern here that you can't verify whether it's true or not? Or you are certain the info is true, but you still don't know if you can report it? (The latter makes no sense to me)
ReplyDeleteIf it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
ReplyDeleteThank you most kindly, IR!
ReplyDeleteIt is always very much appreciated.
We use this phrase in the legal field, all of the time.
Sorry, I was simply addressing someone having trouble believing that anyone would be interested/ able to fake being religious. It seems I must have a hit a nerve with my less than accurate memory of the facts. Thank you for clarifying.
ReplyDeleteYour point was valid. It really is irrelevant how many years ago this incident took place. It proves the point that there are corrupt people like this in the world and they can be hiding in our midst within our so-holy communities.
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the French Hill Sofer story that broke today??
ReplyDeleteYes it was your obligation to reveal those charges,because you could have verified them easily, since the person in question was already thrown out of Nahar shalom in 2014 because of his christian missionary activities.
ReplyDeleteAlso: Why do you feel such a need to inform the public so broadly about the anullment of a mariage you deem invalid, which utlimately is just the private question of this person, and on the other hand you shy away from informing your readers about the christian missionary activities of a person who was very active on your blog, under the title of "Rabbi".
I think you have different weights and different measures.
You should have exposed this christian missionary on your blog, because you gave him a huge space on your blog and allowed him to alienate many readers and commentators of your blog. Not because he was a christian missionary, but because he was very arrogant and abrasive towards others.
ReplyDeleteYet, you protected him, even banned commentators because of him.
Your silence now is deafening.
All the more so because you have no compunctions publishing negative information about others, where the case is much less clear-cut than here.