by Guest Blogger
Rabbi Philip Lefkowitz
--------------------------------
In the spring edition of Tradition, Dr. Norman Lamm attempts to fathom the motivation of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman z'l who, as an octogenarian, took the radical and generally unaccepted step of establishing his controversial Bet Din to assist Agunot by utilizing the vehicle of annulment to wrest the Agunah from her tragic life in limbo. In his article entitled, "Rabbi Emanuel Rackman z'l, A Critical Appreciation,", Rabbi Lamm concludes, "In sum, Rabbi Rackman cut a dynamic figure who over seventy eight years of activity developed into a prominent Rabbi, Jewish thinker, communal leader, beloved Rabbi, and social activist, whose rush to beat the inexorable dead line of advancing age led him to be undone by the calendar." While holding Dr. Lamm in great esteem I would like to posit a slightly different analysis.
It is reputed the world renowned Posek, HaGaon Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt"l, upon his talmidim receiving Smicha would write his phone number on the back side of the Smicha saying, "Don't forget to call." The reality of the pulpit Rabbinate, the Jewish Ministry of the twenty first century, is that the duties of the pulpit Rabbi have expanded far beyond those of his predecessor in the nineteenth century. At the same time the world of Halacha is being challenged as never before. Radical social change, the bio-ethical dilemmas brought forward by ever escalating discovery, the immediacy of communication, places before the contemporary Posek challenges which require a vast amount of knowledge of Halachic material both traditional and contemporary coupled with a perpetual need to understand scientific advances as well as develop a sophisticated understanding of societal change. Humankind's technical advances, its growing knowledge of the world we live in and the evolving human condition, require the departmentalization of the Orthodox Rabbinate. Hence the title of this article, "Minister or Posek?"
When I served in a Senior Ministerial posting in Manchester, U.K., I was confronted with a very different approach to the Rabbinate. The U.K at the time still boasted several significant congregational Jewish spiritual leaders who proudly bore the title Reverend. It was the Reverend Sir, the unordained Jewish spiritual leader, who for many decades kept the spiritual life and religious commitment of English Jewry alive and well. The word Minister, in English terms, denotes a dynamic individual who is devoted to his flock – sustaining them, guiding them, teaching them, nurturing them and inspiring them. Much more than a religious functionary the Reverend Sir served as the spiritual dynamic in English Jewry.
Supporting his efforts in an understood and mutually respected partnership was the ever-dependable Bet Din with its learned Dayanim. The Bet Din provided the Jewish Minister with Halachic guidance and direction. Posed a formal religious inquiry, the Jewish Minister placed it before his colleague, his partner in serving his congregation, the Dayan, for a clear and decisive answer.
Historically English Jewry understands this departmentalism in their Rabbinate. It made for valued and inspiring religious leadership. And while it is true that under the tenure of the late Chief Rabbi, Lord Immanuel Jacobovits z'l, the Reverend Sir became but a footnote in the historical record of English Jewry, the departmentalization of the English Rabbinate is still very much a part of the life of British Jewry.
I recall attending one of my first meetings at the cRc. A religious matter was brought forward by one of our colleagues. Rav Schwartz shlit"a, the Av Bet Din, stated his opinion. Immediately Chaverim began giving their own Halachic opinions on the subject at hand. When I stated that, given the Av Bet Din had expressed his viewpoint the matter was closed, others at the meeting seemed bewildered by my comment. After the meeting Rav Schwartz said to me, "Phil, you're not in England anymore."
Perhaps, just perhaps, the tragedy of Rabbi Rackman's later years could have been avoided were we in the American Rabbinate to have adopted the British formulation. With that formulation as a guide, I'm confident Rabbi Rackman would never have taken the steps he did.
The problem of Agunot is real. It is tragic. For the congregational Rabbi on the front lines it poses a tremendous challenge. Keeping the Agunah spiritually committed while confronted by an obstacle that encumbers her very future, her happiness, borne of the very Faith she is to honor and uphold is a daunting mission. This is the vital task of the Jewish Minister. The pulpit Rabbi should as well confront the Posek even to the extent of offering scenarios he feels might fit Halachic parameters.
He should at every opportunity available urge the Posek, given the enormity of the problem, to use every tool Halacha provides to develop a workable remedy to wrest the Agunah from her intolerable status in Jewish life. Yet he must, in accordance with the British formulation, be ever mindful of his important role in the provision of religious leadership to our People never crossing the line dividing the Jewish Minister from his partner and colleague, the Posek.
Mutual understanding and respect for the key roles played by the pulpit Rabbi (Jewish Minister), the Posek and the Rosh HaYeshiva would, I believe, enhance the Jewish life experience of American Jewry. I do not believe as Rabbi Lamm suggests that it was "the inexorable dead line of advancing age" that prompted Rabbi Rackman's actions in his later years. It was the nature of the American Rabbinate that influenced his decision. As Rabbi Lamm describes him, Rabbi Rackman personified the significant role of the Jewish Minister. He should ever be remembered for his life long commitment to Jewry.
Best Regards,
RRW
No comments:
Post a Comment