Five Towns Jewish Times “How could you have voted against renewing the Rabbi’s contract? He
visited my mother when she was in the hospital and took such good care
of her! She adored him. He buried your father! He Bar Mitzvahed all
three of the kids. Husband, have you no shame?”
“Yes dear, but the other shul is growing more and more popular. If
our shul will continue to survive we need to bring in someone younger,
and more dynamic.”
Invariably, the above conversation has taken place in one form or
another all over the country, throughout the centuries, and across
continents. Jews, however, have always turned to Halacha for guidance
in all matters. Is there then halachic guidance about renewing the
contracts of our providers of halachic guidance? [...]
THE ARUCH HASHULCHAN
But things are not always what they seem.
The Aruch HaShulchan writes (YD 245:29) that even though the Rabbi
was only hired by the town for a certain number of years, nonetheless,
they may never fire him.
There are some Poskim (Ohel Moshe CM 26) who understand that this is
the intent of the Ramah, since Part II B of the Ramah seems to
contradict Part II A. How so? Part B seems to clearly be addressing a
city where the custom is to allow hiring for specific periods of time.
If so, what is this further qualification?
These Poskim state that the new Rabbi may not take over the
income-producing aspects of the job that the previous person had. He
may, however, take new ones (see Ohel Moshe). [...]
THREE COUNTER ARGUMENTS
But does he have no leg to stand on whatsoever? Aside from some
untoward or unseemly activity on the part of the pulpit Rabbi, is there
no other manner in which he can be dismissed?
There may be an alternative method to resolving the seemingly
contradicting clauses in the Ramah. It could be that the Ramah is
saying in Part IIB that even though the congregation has accepted upon
themselves this lower status of a Rav, one with only a set time – do not
think that this can give others license to come into town and compete
with the Rav in any manner. He is still considered to be a full-fledged
Rabbi – notwithstanding the fact that there is a set limit to his
term. Thus far, however, this author has not found any of the Achronim
that read the Ramah in this manner.
One can also make an argument that the Aruch HaShulchan and the
position of the other Achronim were discussing the situation in Europe
where the prevailing Minhag may have been never to discontinue with a
Rav even if one had contracted for a set period of years. Here in
America, one can perhaps argue that the prevailing custom is to follow
contract law and, sometimes to not renew the contract. So it could very
well be that things are different in America.
Finally, we find that Rav Shternbuch (Teshuvos v’Hanhagos Vol. II
#722) does make a qualitative distinction between a Rabbi who takes the
mantle of Psak Halacha on his shoulders and teaches Torah to the masses
(as has been the role of a Rav in Israel from generation to generation)
and a Rabbi whose main purpose is to speak at funerals, weddings, Bar
Mitzvahs and in shul on the Shabbos and holidays. Rav Shternbuch writes
that it should be comparable to the citation of the Yerushalmi “Av Beis Din she’sarach ain moridin oso
– An Av Bais Din who stumbled – we do not forcibly remove him.” He
writes that the Rabbi must be somewhat comparable to an Av Bais Din in
terms of his ability to rule.
Nonetheless, he concludes that even in the case of someone who does
not fit into that definition per se, should be treated with respect and
not be dismissed until he finds some other suitable and respectable
position.
Whatever the case may be, they should come to a mutually acceptable
accord, for all three reasons mentioned above – that leadership should
continue in Israel, that it is something belonging to another that
cannot be taken away and that we only lift up things in matters of
Kedusha and we do not lower. a
