Throughout the study of Halacha, one idea that is constantly stressed in the recognition that what may be a stringent position in one case may also result in a lenient position in another case. This recognition is deemed to be most important in halachic analysis for it warns the one doing the analysis not to simply go with the safest position but to strive for the truth -- for the safe position in one case, i.e. the stringent position, may reflect a halachic concept that will result in a most dangerous and risky conclusion in another case, the lenient position. This warning has significance beyond its practical import. The nature of Halacha always demands a full analysis of the case and the concepts involved. There are no such things as easy or safe answers, in the long run. One must always strive to understand an issue to the best of his(/her) abilities and if the only conclusion one can reach still must recognize divergent views on a subject between leading Torah scholars, one, to be safe, must consider all possibilities. This type of analysis demands of us to go beyond agendas -- to determine the halacha according to the truth.
It is with this caveat in mind that I find myself troubled by the recent case of 29-year-old Yossi Fackenheim who was recently declared not to be Jewish by some individuals in Israel. It seems that Yossi, the son of noted Jewish philosopher Emil Fackenheim, wished to give a get to his wife but when he appeared before the beit din to do this, the beit din asked him about his Jewish identity. He informed them that he was adopted and converted as a baby in an Orthodox beit din in Toronto. He, though, also admitted to not abiding by a halachic lifestyle which resulted in this beit din declaring him not to be Jewish. His conversion, since he did not live a Torah lifestyle, was declared null and void.
The truth is that I have difficulties with that conclusion in strict halachic terms, so I am inherently biased against the beit din's conclusion. Yet, even if there are opinions that may come to the conclusion that the non-observance of a halachic lifestyle may challenge a gerut katan, to act upon this view in this case where there are clearly opinions to the contrary in this case, is a clear violation of the above noted principle. While this court and rabbis may feel that they are being stringent in "protecting" the essence of Jewish identity -- and there clearly is value in connecting Jewish identity to Halacha and Torah -- there are also many possible leniencies, or worse, that must also arise from such a decision. My first concern was that Yossi's wife may, if you take the position that he is a Jew, be left without a get. That would be clearly unacceptable. I then heard that this beit din was instructed by a higher court to arrange the get. So the principle prevailed in this important context. But that was only one of my concerns. Do we not encourage Yossi to still do mitzvot? We also find many places in the gemara a concern for how a halachic decision may affect the definition of marital intercourse and, while this is not an absolute overriding concern, there is a a predisposition not to apply a halachic stance that would define an act of marital intercourse into an act of promiscuity, i.e. not marital intercourse, in this case an act of intercourse between a Jew and a non-Jew. It would seem to me that these rabbis and this beit din came to their conclusion so swiftly that they did not even consider these matters. They let their chumra result in kullahs without considering this issue. This does not say that they would not have came to a similar conclusion even if they would have considered all the differing halachic views. As Rav Moshe Feinstein constantly declared -- the posek must act according to his view of the truth. This result, as much as I may disagree, may have been these rabbis' and this beit din's view of the truth. But if that was so, it would have clearly been shown to be the result of contemplation and consideration. That, from what I have heard, does not seem to be the case. It therefore emerged from agenda. Agenda in Halacha must be approached very gingerly.
Of course, the whole issue of how Israel should deal with conversion given the true nature of Jewishness in our time and the multi-faceted way that people look at being a Jew nowadays, is a most complex issue. What does an Orthodox beit din if someone of the stature of an Emil Fackenheim wishes to convert his newly adopted baby through an Orthodox beit din even though the baby will not be brought up within an observant home? It is a real dilemma. Rabbi Reuven Bulka has a book entitled The Coming Cataclysm which argues for what use to be the norm -- that the Orthodox beit din should convert this baby in order to maintain a level of Jewish unity and unity in Identity. The trend in the Orthodox world, today, though is to be more stringent in the laws of conversion and truly demand, especially in the case of an adult, full observance even though that will result in complexity and confusion in Jewish identity. This, though, is the way the law actually seems to read. There is an issue but beyond the actual issue, if our personal agendas become the overriding consideration than Halacha itself -- there is an even greater problem. That is my concern, beyond the normal problems, with this case.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
2 comments:
In my post, I did not even deal with the problem of lack of respect for another beit din. This beit din declared Yossi not Jewish even though a previous beit din declared him Jewish through a conversion procedure supervised by this beit din. In addition, another beit din upheld his status in marrying him to a Jewish woman. It is not the province of every beit din to, applying the language of the secular world, pierce the veil. Once a beit din renders a decision, any subsequent discussion must assume to be based upon this decision as a given. I am not saying that one never pierces the veil but it must be done with consideration and trepidation. This is why, in the case of gittin, the actual get, the actual divorce document, is given back to the beit din that executed it to be held. We don't want someone subsequently to challenge the get, placing a woman's marital status as divorced in jeopardy through declaring the get unacceptable and her still married. Relate to the Psak and din. A Torah beit din declared her divorced; that's all you need to know. This whole case disrespects the whole beit din system, as well
Rabbi Ben Hecht
My first thoughts on this case was that indeed, by being strict on giyur, they were being lenient on eishet ish.
They claim they are being strict on giyur because they are going for "higher standards". But that they are so lenient on eishet ish shows that this is all smoke and ashes; they simply have a political agenda against anyone or anything that is not Haredi.
You raise a good point that if his giyur is a safek, then not only is a safek gentile, but he is also a safek Jew (the safek cuts both ways), so he should be told to keep keeping mitzvot. That he was not told so, is more evidence that the beit din is being political, and that yirat shamayim and doing ratzon hashem yitbarach plays NO role in any of this.
Post a Comment