Much has been made of two recent events that have stirred up the Orthodox world if not the entire Jewish world. One is the case of Yossi Fackenheim and his gerut kattan, conversion as a child, which has been challenged by a bet din in Israel. The other is the attendance of Rabbi Haskel Lookstein at an interfaith prayer service, in a church, marking the inauguration of Presiden Obama. The truth is that each matter should initiate Torah debate and discussion. That is actually the way of limud haTorah. And the differing sides should be adament in their positions, fighting it out in the ring of halachic analysis, as they advocate for their respective positions. The problem is, though, that halachic machloket is, also, supposed to leave room for acceptable dissent, for the acceptance of a divergent opinion, with which one may still vehemently disagree, as part of the realm of Torah.
That is not what seems to be occurring in either of these cases. Rabbi Lookstein's position seems not to be accepted as a position -- with which one may still vehemently disagree, presenting numerous halachic arguments against it -- that is still considered part of Torah. This can be identified in the way that Rabbi Lookstein's view is being approached. If Rabbi Lookstein believed that he was acting pursuant to Halacha, we should still be relating to his behaviour as an action al pi Torah, even as we feel that decision is wrong. This is a subtle point within the Halacha. Even as we may feel, and decide, that a certain piece of meat is not kosher, if another competently determines that this piece of meat is kosher and then eats it, even as we disagree with this conclusion, we must see this person as following the law and not transgressing it -- for the person was not rejecting Torah but defining it in a different manner (we are , of course, assuming that this person has competancy in making such decisions). This is even more so in the case of a bet din. Piercing the veil on another bet din's decision is highly controversial. Yet in this case this is precisely what was done. The view with which this bet din in Israel disagreed was not perceived as part of Torah yet a position with which they disagreed. It was defined as outside of Torah. This problem is not, with each day, coming to a critical point.
Yet, we may now have the opportunity to see what the root of this problem is and what we truly have to challenge, and for what we must truly advocate. Rabbi Avi Shafran is quoted as saying, in response to the Israeli bet din's decision to negate the conversion of Yossi Fackenheim, that:
"“It indicates that the single standard of Halachah – which is the sole true unifier of the Jewish people – is being taken seriously by Israel’s rabbinate.”
(See http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16221&Itemid=86)
So, therein, lies the problem -- the mistaken belief that Torah unity is based upon a "single standard of Halachah." Adamency in a narrow range of halachic understanding actually can yield disunity and worse. The famed last Rosh Yeshiva of the great yeshiva of Volozhin, Rabbi Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, the Ntziv, wrote in numerous places that such narrowmindedness was the basis for the sinat chinum, the free hatred, that led to the destruction of the Temple. The "sole true unifier of the Jewish people" is the concept of eilu v'eilu -- of course, applied correctly within the directions of the halachic spectrum -- and the true source of dissension and animosity, unfortunately, arises from statements such as this.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
2 comments:
In theroy, there is an advantage to having single standard. Davening in Hebrew but having the Qaddish in Aramaic, for example.
But as Homer Simpson notes, in theory communism works.
Rav Shafran would love for there to be a single standard for conversion because it would be his "gedolim" who would create the standard and then impose it on the rest of Torah Jewry. If there was any danger of the RCA triumphing over the Israeli rabbinate, you can be sure he'd be waxing poetically about the value of diversity in halachic opinion. One need not seek substantial thoughts from paid bag men.
But conversion is not like kashrus. In kashrus, whether or not I hold by a particular chumrah or kullah and you don't, we both agree that the leniency and stringencies exist and on the halachic methodologies that produced them. In other words, we agree on 99% and the final 1% of disagreement doesn't make one of us traif.
Conversion, on the other hand, involves the entire person's identity. If his conversion meets one group's standards and not the other's, then the agreement that both leniencies and stringencies exist does NOT apply. In this case, my leniency might lead you to conclude that the person is traif whereas with kashrus you wouldn't eat at my house because you don't hold by the stringency but you wouldn't tell people I don't keep kosher.
There is, though, an interesting other side to the issue that achieves the opposite effect. In regard to kashrut, my ruling in regard to a piece of meat has no independent status. I am simply giving my view on the facts -- but the facts still remain. If another rabbi comes around and declares that piece of meat treif while I already declared it kosher, that is fine. I'll eat the meat, he will not. But in the case of gerut, the bet din is not simply informing us of the effects of the facts but rather is creating a new identity based upon their determination of the evidence. Once this new status is created, that becomes the new fact, not the facts upon which the decision was made. As such, even I would have decided the matter on the facts differently, the new reality I have to deal with is this new ruling of the bet din. To challenge a gerut thus means you are challenging the bet din. You are not simply saying that they decided the matter on different understandings of the halacha, but rather you have to challenge their very authority to render such a ruling and/or their very determination of a law as within the spectrum. To challenge a gerut means to challenge the authority and competance of the bet din that rendered this ruling.
Rabbi Ben Hecht
Post a Comment