Invalidating a Beit Din

Over on CrossCurrents Rabbi Gordimer continues to accuse Rabbi Zev Farber of heresy. (To be honest, I'm not sure that he is wrong - it seems to me that Rav Farber has crossed some unwritten line, but that may be the topic of another post). However, in his latest post Rabbi Gordimer goes a step further. He writes:

The beliefs of a rabbi are no small issue. They can impact the validity of geirus, gittin and kiddushin performed under the rabbi’s review or that hinge upon his testimony, and the halachic integrity of those institutions that affiliate with a rabbi whose beliefs are unacceptable becomes suspect.

In other words, not only would any conversions, divorces or marriages performed by Rav Farber be invalid, but by association, any of those performed by anyone affiliated with YCT (Yeshivat Chovevei Torah - Rabbi Farber's alma mater) would also be invalid. I find this claim very disturbing.

Firstly, and obviously, I don't know why a marriage would be invalid, even if performed by a heretic. One does not require a Rabbi to perform a wedding.

But aside from that, to invalidate an entire institution based on the writings or thought of one individual sounds like a very dangerous precedent (not to mention that YCT have distanced themselves from Rabbi Farber's views, and stated openly that his views do not represent those of the school).

The kinds of sins which invalidate dayanim are (according to Shulchan Aruch) those that invalidate witnesses.
In Choshen Mishpat, siman 32 se'if 22 it states:

המוסרים לאנסים, והאפיקורסים והמומרים לעבודת כוכבים, פחותים מהעובדי כוכבים ופסולים לעדות.

those who hand over [Jews] to the secular authorities, and apikorsim (heretics) and those who are known to worship idols, are less valid than idolators, and are invalid as witnesses.

If it were to be decided that Rav Farber was an apikoros, he would be invalid as a judge (and witness) based on this halacha.

But if we look earlier in the siman, and the much longer discussion of other kinds of sins which invalidate judges (and witnesses) we find:

גנב, וכן גזלן, פסולים לעדות מעת שגנב או גזל, ואע"פ שהחזירו, עד שיעשו תשובה.

A thief or a robber are invalide for testimony from the moment they stole or robbed. Even if they return [the money they are still invalide] until they repent

Imagine, hypothetically, that a chief Rabbi of Israel would be indicted for fraud, bribery, money laundering and theft. If he were to be convicted, would that invalidate not only any beit din that he personally had sat on, but also every beit din under his jurisdiction? Were he to be found guilty, even if he repaid the money, would every divorce performed in Israel for the past several years be invalid? And how about every conversion? It would undermine the very fabric of society. (I'm not accusing anyone, nor do I think that anyone is guilty. This is a hypothetical question based on Rabbi Gordimer's assumption that any Beit Din associated with an individual Rabbi should be tarred with the same brush as an individual. This case would be worse, because the accused is the head of the organisation).

Or, Rambam writes in Hilchot Eidut, chapter 17 halacha 1

יז,א מי שהעידו לו אנשים רבים וגדולים בחכמה וביראה, שהם ראו פלוני שעבר עבירה פלונית, או שלווה מפלוני--אף על פי שהוא מאמין הדבר בליבו כאילו ראהו--לא יעיד, עד שיראה הדבר בעיניו, או יודה לו הלווה מפיו ויאמר לו, היה עליי עד: שנאמר "או ראה או ידע" (ויקרא ה,א). ואין לך עדות שמתקיימת בראייה או בידיעה, אלא עדות ממון. וכל המעיד מפי אחרים--הרי זה עד שקר, ועובר בלא תעשה: שנאמר "לא תענה בריעך עד שקר" (שמות כ,יב).

Someone to whom many people who are great in wisdom and fear of G-d, have testified that they saw someone transgress a sin... may not testify unless he sees it with his own eyes... Anyone who testifies based on the testimony of others is a false witness and transgresses the negative prohibition of "do not bear false witness agsinst your neighbour

Now imagine, hypothetically, that the head of a very large Rabbinic organisation in America was defending a convicted criminal based on evidence he had heard from others, and his own 'investigation' (this is not exactly the same as Rambam's halacha but pretty similar). Imagine if the Rabbi continued to insist on his innocence even after the criminal had confessed and pled guilty and been sentenced to jail. Furthermore, this Rabbi accused someone else of perpetrating the crime, with no evidence. And he continued to insist that he is correct and refused to retract either his claim of innocence on the confessed perpetrator, nor his unfounded allegations against an innocent party. (I am not saying that this is what happened - I have no evidence apart from what I've read and heard from others, but I am suggesting a hypothetical case).

Would Rabbi Gordimer then invalidate any gittin or geirus done under the auspices of this organisation?

These are two hypothetical examples that come to mind. There are (unfortunately) many cases of financial crimes, or other sins which would brand someone a 'rasha' which have been perpetrated by Rabbis and Dayanim. If we were to follow Rabbi Gordimer's lead and invalidate any action performed by any Beit Din associated with them it would be extremely difficult to find any Beit Din in the world that is kosher.

To repeat: I am not accusing anyone of guilt (or innocence). I do not know whether Rabbi Farber is a heretic or not (nor is my opinion relevant). And I do not know whether Rabbi Farber actually sits on a Beit Din or not, and what the status of that Beit Din will be in the future. I am simply pointing out that if Rabbi Gordimer is correct (and I haven't claimed that he is wrong) we will need to review the entire system of Beit Din within every Jewish community and every country, to ensure it meets the rigorous (minimum) standards of not being in any way associated with anyone who is invalid as a judge or witness. Not that is a tall order!

Redefining Heresy

I was always puzzled by the Gemara which speaks of Yochanan the High Priest becoming a heretic after 80 years in the job:

Believe not in thyself until the day of thy death? For lo, Johanan the High Priest officiated as High Priest for eighty years and in the end he became a Min?

He must have been at least 100 when he gave up being a frum Jew and became a Christian instead! Most people don't make such a switch at that time of life.

Rabbi Haber once explained the Gemara to me in a slightly different way (I don't remember if he was quoting someone else or if it was his own chidush). He said that Cohanim were always conservative traditionalists. When the "Jewish Spring" came about, towards the end of the Second Beit HaMikdash period, they were the last ones to embrace "modern Judaism". It was not that Yochanan himself gave up his beliefs. Rather, the definition of what is "kosher" and what is "heresy" changed during Yochanan's lifetime, so that by the end of his life he was a relic from a bygone era, and the modern Jews considered him a heretic.

We have seen many examples of this throughout history, and many more recently. People who were once considered acceptable sources of Jewish hashkafa (Rambam, Abarbanel, Hirsch and many others) have become "heretical" (or at least some of what they wrote is heretical) according to some modern Rabbis. Rabbi Slifkin's books and ideas, which were used by the entire spectrum of English speaking, kiruv Judaism, from Aish HaTorah to Artscroll, became heretical retroactivel. There are many other examples of the "Jochanan" syndrome.

One case, which is unfolding this week is regarding the book Torah from Heaven: The Reconstruction of Faith by Rabbi Norman Solomon. Rabbi Solomon is an Orthodox Rabbi who served as a communal Rabbi in several cities in England. He was under the auspices of the United Syngagogues and the Chief Rabbi. It is true that not every United Syngagogues Rabbi has identical hashkafa to talmidim in Lakewood or Gateshead or Bnei Brak, but they are all Orthodox Jews with Orthodox smicha from a recognised Orthodox Rabbi/institution (in Rabbi Solomon's case I believe his smicha is from Jews College - but I may be wrong on that).

His book grapples with the apparent contradiction between the axiom of Jewish faith that all of Torah came from Sinai, and the historical/archeological/textual evidence that seems to refute that axiom. I have not (yet) read the entire book, but he deals with the issues in a mature and intelligent fashion. His conclusion will be difficult for some to accept (and I'm not sure that I agree with him, or with his choice of terminology), and is probably on the fringe of Orthodoxy, but it is not incompatible with any of Rambam's 13 principles, and I suspect that many Rishonim would not reject his approach (I may also be wrong - it makes no difference for the purposes of this blog post).

Professor Martin Lockshin reviewed the book. He quoted exerpts from it, such as this:

Rabbi Solomon’s thesis is straightforward: “The classical doctrine of ‘Torah from heaven’… with its erroneous historical claims and occasionally questionable moral consequences, cannot be upheld by the serious historian, scientist or philosopher.” And yet the claims that “Torah is from heaven” and that Moses wrote the Torah are, in a certain sense “true,” as they are Judaism’s “foundational myth.”

Rabbi Solomon rushes to explain that he uses the word “myth” not in the sense of something untrue. “Myths are among the most important symbols of our life; they say what cannot be reduced to nameable facts.” Furthermore, “a story can be at one and the same time both myth and history, and it is certainly more persuasive if it is both; but even without the support of history it can function effectively as myth.”

Professor Lockshin admits that this will be difficult for some Orthodox Jews to accept, and that it will be rejected by many.

Of course, the usual suspects wasted no time rejecting the book without reading it, based on the review.

Rabbi Daniel Korobkin, a Rabbi of a Shul in Toronto (all of the players in this story - apart from Rabbi Solomon himself - are Canadian for some reason) not only rejected the entire thesis of the book and of the review (it is difficult to know whether he has read the book, and whether he dislikes the book more, or the review), but goes further and claims that Rabbi Solomon is now a Reform Jew and non longer Orthodox.

Then (though I may have got the timeline backwards - this may have happened before the Korobkin review*) the Toronto Beit Din issued a cherem on the ideas presented in the book. They ruled that:

Halacha rules, unequivocally, that the denial of the G-dly origin of "even a single word" in the Torah, or its interpretation as transmitted by tradition (in "Torah shebaal peh), contravenes this principle and constitutes "kefirah baTorah". The practical Halachic implications of this ruling are far reaching.

(All the quotation marks are theirs - I don't know "why" they feel the "need" to use them "so much").

They don't mention him by name, but they refer to "a recently published article", so they are threatening Martin Lockshin with "far reaching implications" for what he wrote.

I don't really have an opinion on the correctness or validity of the book (I need to spend more time reading it), nor am I surprised that Professor Lockshin is trying to push the envelope in Orthodox Judaism. Furthermore, I'm not sure that Solomon does deny the G-dly origin of a single word of the Torah (again, I need to spend more time with the book). I think he was only questioning the literal historicity of Mount Sinai as described by the Torah/Gemara and Rishonim (all of whom seem to have different opinions about what happened). In the same way that the halacha is Divine (even though "it is not in Heaven") I imagine that Rabbi Solomon could consider every single word of the Torah to be of G-dly orogin (He may not - I don't yet know).

BUT the Rabbis of the Vaad have (probably) not read his book, and possibly not the article. Instead of dealing with the issues raised, they make a new halacha that someone who denies the G-dly origin of even a "single word in the Torah" (apparently a single letter would not make one a kofer) is a denier of Torah and should watch out for the consequences.

This is a completely untennable position, which nobody who has ever learnt Shas or Rishonim could agree with. There are times when Chazal clearly felt that the Torah we have today is not the same one that Moshe received. There is the famous Tosefot on Shabbat 55b (and Rabbi Akiva Eiger there) who say that our Torahs do not agree with the mesorah - the list is endless.

But now, all of that has become heretical. So just like Yochanan the High Priest, after 2000 years, some of the Tannaim and Amoraim have become heretics. Along with most of the Rishonim.

Apparently "they could say it, we can not".

(Note - I am not in any way comparing Rabbi Solomon and his opinions (or Martin Lockshin and his) with Chazal/Rishonim and their opinions. But both would be considered heretical by the new halacha of the Toronto Beit Din).

This whole story was even covered by the Huffington Post



* I have been informed by reliable sources that Rabbi Korobkin is in no way associated with the ban of the Vaad. My apologies to him for connecting his review to their ban.