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
3rd 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].
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.
