Friday, February 28, 2014

Some thoughts on the Semicha "scandal"

See the Jewish Week, and then the Forward... Also the actual letter at the Jewish Channel.

Some thoughts, now that it is over and resolved.

1) As I wrote on Facebook:
I looked it up in the dictionary, and surprisingly, "scandal" was not defined as "someone's principled decision that I happen to disagree with".  
Interesting...
Yes, some people used "Semicha Scandal" to describe it. But even without using such words, I think that this is how this was framed in the news articles, etc., covering the story.

2) When trying to set legal precedent, it is common to find the most appealing, heart-wrenching case.

And I am sorry that Shalom's wife had been ill. But that doesn't make it "Your Semicha Or Your Wife".
The RIETS student in question, who asked to remain anonymous at this point, told The Jewish Week that his intention had been to have a one-time partnership minyan in his home so that his wife, who had been ill, could be called to the Torah and recite a blessing of gratitude after her recovery.
I may be reading it wrong, but it seems like he was working on the assumption that she could only say birchas hagomel if she herself was called to the Torah for an aliyah. Meanwhile, in my local shul, a woman said hagomel without receiving an aliyah.

And if she was not yet healthy enough to attend shul, or his local shul did not allow women to make this blessing, he could have had a normal minyan in his house, rather than a partnership minyan.

Did he not know this? Was he looking for a pretext? Or was the being called to the Torah also an important aspect of what she wished to do?

Then there is this:
In the meantime, the rabbinic student in question said that while his intent had been to host the partnership minyan just once, at the request of his wife, he is now is unwelcome in his community’s Orthodox synagogue, and he has held subsequent services in his home. Compounding the situation: “The people who came like it,” he said.
In the comment section, some "Anonymous coward" claims to be from his community and says he is indeed welcome in the shul. I don't know that we can trust Anonymous about this. But then again, the entire article is populated with anonymous sources.

Professor Lawrence Kaplan also in the comment section, writes how the student has what to base himself on, because:
If, as the story indicates, the student organized a one-time partnership minyan in his house to enable his wife to receive an aliyah and bentch Gomel, then Rabbi Penner's statement that no recognized posek allows such a services simply is NOT true. Rav Yehudah Herzl Henkin, the author of Bnai Banim and a recognized posek, in a response to to the original essay of Rabbi Mendel Shapiro allowing partnership minyanim, clearly states that while regular partnership minyanim in a synagogue or other public venue are not permitted an ad hoc partnership minyan held in a home or private venue may be permitted
But that assumption that it is just a "one-time partnership minyan" seems somewhat unwarranted. He has held other services (presumably partnership minyanim) in his home, and if he claims that is not welcome in the community's Orthodox synagogue, then these seem to be regular services. (Though it was left unclear where this lies, as it is not really a public venue, but it is regular and not ad-hoc.)

That "the people who came like it" should not "compound[] the situation". A leader does not follow the crowd's desire.

3) I wonder if this letter was leaked as a means to apply pressure to YU to cave. I hope not. They were already in discussion with him.

4) RIETS has a right to insist, if they are honestly professing their belief and imprimatur, that a student is מהתלתים שהגיעו להוראה, that the student will work within a certain framework of halacha.

And if this was before the rabbinical student received the semicha and he was already operating out of (what they believed is) that framework, then they should not grant him semicha. (That is not the same as revoking semicha for those who have already received it.)

5) A few points regarding Rabbi Josh Yuter's comment to the Forward:
Rabbi Josh Yuter, who received ordination from Y.U. in 2003 and now serves as the rabbi of Manhattan’s Stanton Street Synagogue, took issue with the assumptions underlying Penner’s letter, particularly that Y.U.-ordained rabbis do not have the authority to make Jewish legal decisions and are instead expected to defer to more recognized arbiters. 
“That’s not what semikha is,” Yuter told the Forward by phone. “That actually contradicts what it says on the semikha certificate.” He explained that the certificate’s wording makes clear that he has the authority to render decisions about what is forbidden and what is permitted according to Jewish law.

Rabbi Menachem Penner wrote (among other things, read the letter in full):
Ordination is a “stamp of approval” through which an institution asserts that its graduates represent the principles of its Yeshiva. The language written upon the klaf of each musmakh – “Yoreh Yoreh” does not imply unlimited permission to guide others in matters of Jewish law; it assumes that the musmakh will provide such hora’ah in keeping with the principles of the granting institution. Semikha is a “leaning upon” – a transfer of authority for Jewish law passed from one generation to the next, conferred upon the graduates of RIETS as they take their place in the Jewish community.
He might well be deriving that from what it says on the semicha certificate: וסמכנו אותו בסמיכת חכמים להורות לבני ישראל. With the leaning on the chachamim. (One can of course disagree with that diyuk, but it need not contradict, at least on this point.)

There were a number of assertions in the letter, so read the whole thing. I want to expand on some of the points.

A) When some rabbinical students receive semicha, even though the klaf says they were הגיעו להוראה, they weren't really.

I think that this is true, not just about Y.U. ordained rabbis but about rabbis in general, from a swath of other institutions, on both the right and the left. The text of semicha is fixed, but that doesn't mean that it is literally true in every case.

What do you call a rabbinical student who scored a 65 on all his semicha bechinos? "Rabbi."

Sometimes it is just time for a student to move on. Sometimes they will have a fulfilling career as an elementary school rebbe, or a high-school administrator, and they need and should receive the degree. And this is what the klaf happens to say. But they have no business paskening, despite what the klaf says.

B) There is a time and place to recognize when you are out of your element, and such humility is critical. So for relatively "minor" matters within the accredited fields, sure, you have the ability and granted authority to pasken. But not necessarily for the really big issues.

I will present a source or two which appears to demonstrate this idea, along the lines of וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת-הָעָם, בְּכָל-עֵת:  אֶת-הַדָּבָר הַקָּשֶׁה יְבִיאוּן אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, וְכָל-הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם.

Sanhedrin 86b, the Mishna:

זקן ממרא על פי ב"ד שנאמר (דברים יז) כי יפלא ממך דבר למשפט שלשה בתי דינין היו שם אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ואחד יושב בלשכת הגזית באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך לימדתי וכך לימדו חבירי אם שמעו אמר להם ואם לאו באין להן לאותן שעל פתח עזרה ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך לימדתי וכך לימדו חבירי אם שמעו אמר להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין לב"ד הגדול שבלשכת הגזית שממנו יוצא תורה לכל ישראל שנאמר (דברים יז) מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ה' חזר לעירו שנה ולמד בדרך שהיה למד פטור ואם הורה לעשות חייב שנאמר (דברים יז) והאיש אשר יעשה בזדון אינו חייב עד שיורה לעשות תלמיד שהורה לעשות פטור נמצא חומרו קולו:
AN ELDER REBELLING AGAINST THE RULING OF BETH DIN' [IS STRANGLED],17  FOR IT IS WRITTEN IF THERE ARISE A MATTER TOO HARD FOR THEE FOR JUDGEMENT [etc.].18  THREE COURTS OF LAW WERE THERE,19  ONE SITUATE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT,20  ANOTHER AT THE DOOR OF THE [TEMPLE] COURT,21  AND THE THIRD IN THE HALL OF HEWN STONES.22  THEY23  [FIRST] WENT TO THE BETH DINWHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT, AND HE [THE REBELLIOUS ELDER] STATED, THUS HAVE I EXPOUNDED AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES EXPOUNDED; THUS HAVE I TAUGHT, AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES TAUGHT. IF [THIS FIRST BETH DIN] HAD HEARD [A RULING ON THE MATTER], THEY STATE IT. IF NOT, THEY GO TO THE [SECOND BETH DIN] WHICH IS AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND HE DECLARES, THUS HAVE I EXPOUNDED AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES EXPOUNDED; THUS HAVE I TAUGHT AND THUS HAVE MY COLLEAGUES TAUGHT. IF [THIS SECOND BETH DIN] HAD HEARD [A RULING ON THE MATTER]. THEY STATE IT; IF NOT, THEY ALL PROCEED TO THE GREAT BETH DIN OF THE HALL OF HEWN STONES WHENCE INSTRUCTION ISSUED TO ALL ISRAEL, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, [WHICH THEY] OF THAT PLACE WHICH THE LORD SHALL CHOOSE [SHALL SHEW THEE].24  IF HE RETURNED TO HIS TOWN AND TAUGHT AGAIN AS HERETOFORE, HE IS NOT LIABLE. BUT IF HE GAVE A PRACTICAL DECISION, HE IS GUILTY, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, AND THE MAN THAT WILL DO PRESUMPTUOUSLY,25  [SHEWING] THAT HE IS LIABLE ONLY FOR A PRACTICAL RULING. BUT IF A DISCIPLE26  GAVE A PRACTICAL DECISION [OPPOSED TO THE BETH DIN], HE IS EXEMPT:27  THUS THE VERY STRINGENCY OF HIS [ORDINATION] IS [A SOURCE OF] LENIENCY FOR HIM.28

It was possible for members of a Bet Din (who had received real semicha, and were higiu lehoraah) to not know the matter of law. And so they would consult with a greater Bet Din, and then an even greater Bet Din, and then an even greater Bet Din.

Because they had the humility and sense of responsibility to know that they are out of their element, and to consult with their rabo muvhak, or some other acknowledged expect, on the big questions. And that to act otherwise, even though they might have the certificate, would be rabbinic malpractice.

(Yes, we don't technically have a Sanhedrin nowadays. But the ethos is there and could be readily applied to present day situations.)

And there are issues (resolvable) of a student, even competent to rule, not ruling in the place of his Rav. E.g. Sanhedrin 5a:
Tanhum son of R. Ammi happened to be at Hatar, and in expounding the law to its inhabitants, taught them that they might soak the grain before grinding for Passover.10  But they said to him: Does not R. Mani of Tyre live here, and has it not been taught that a disciple should not give an halachic decision in the place where his teacher resides, unless there is a distance of three parasangs — the space occupied by the camp of Israel — between them? He answered: The point did not occur to me.
And Eruvin 62b:
Said Abaye to R. Joseph: We have a tradition, that ‘the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob is small in quantity20 but well sifted’;21 and Rab Judah also laid down in the name of Samuel, ‘The halachah is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob;22 is it then permitted23 to a disciple24 to give a ruling accordingly25 in a district that is under the jurisdiction of his Master? — ‘Even’,the other replied, on the question of the permissibility of eating an egg26 with kutha,27 which I28 have been asking him29 throughout the lifetime of R. Huna,30 R. Hisda gave me31 no decision’.32
 R. Jacob b. Abba asked Abaye: Is it permitted to a disciple in a district under his Master's jurisdiction to give a ruling that was as authoritative as those contained in the Scroll of Fast-Days,33 which is a written and generally accepted document?34 — Thus, the other replied, said R. Joseph: Even on the question of the permissibility of eating an egg26 with kutha,27 which I28 have been asking him29 throughout the lifetime of R. Huna,30 R. Hisda gave me30 no decision.
 R. Hisda decided legal questions at Kafri35 in the lifetime of R. Huna.36 [Josh: This place wasn't in Rav Huna's direct jurisdiction]
R. Hamnuna decided legal points at Harta1 di Argiz2 during the lifetime of R. Hisda.3 Rabina examined the slaughterer's knife4 in Babylon.5 Said R. Ashi to him, ‘Why does the Master act in this manner?’ ‘Did not,’ the other replied: ‘R. Hamnuna decide legal points at Harta di Argiz during the lifetime of R. Hisda?’6 — ‘It was stated’, the first retorted: ‘that he did not decide legal points’. ‘The fact is’, the other replied: ‘that one statement was made that he did decide legal points while another was that he did not do so, and the explanation is that only during the lifetime of his Master R. Huna did he decide no legal points but during the lifetime of R. Hisda, who was both his colleague and disciple, he did decide legal points, and I too am the Master's colleague as well as disciple’
I would assume that these Amoraim were higiu lehoraah, and yet they did not decide matters of halacha -- even minor matters, it seems, within their rebbe's lifetime, when in the same vicinity. It was assumed that they would consult with and indeed defer to their teachers.

I wonder, if Rabbi Yuter had lived back then, if he would have objected to the assumption that
[Sura and Pumpedita]-ordained rabbis do not have the authority to make Jewish legal decisions and are instead expected to defer to more recognized arbiters. 
Presumably, Rabbi Yuter has a valid response and competing system of halacha, and an explanation of how this present-day situation is different. And also how deferring that these Amoraim did towards their teachers is not symptomatic of a "vertically-organized, pagan society", to cite one prominent Hakham.

But my point is that there is surely room for others (such as perhaps some roshei yeshiva in RIETS) to legitimately disagree, and there are plenty of Talmudic sources to lend their position credence.

And the Forward and their readership are not interested in, or capable of, providing such a nuanced picture. As such, giving them ammo to criticize YU is not something I would advise.

9 comments:

yaak said...

In many Sephardic synagogues, women say Hagomel all the time from behind the Mehitza on Shabbat after traveling. If they have a husband who also traveled, it's preferred to have the husband make it and have her in mind.

It is also very common at a Berit Mila when the mother of the baby does so. When there is a traditional gathering at the home the night before the Berit, and there are 10 men present, the mother can say it then instead.

Hillel said...

R' Waxman,
I totally agree there's no reason to think this was anything but a principled disagreement with both sides trying their best to act l'sheim shamayim.

But there IS a scandal here, and I think it's a very big one.

REITS' official position is that "not all individuals given the title of “rabbi” are entitled to serve as decisors of Jewish law."

Yet numerous REITS musmachim are saying 'that's not true. Indeed, that's why I entered the program, to become a decisor of Jewish law; in four years no one ever said otherwise, and I've got a klaf to prove it!'

As best I can tell, this means that either REITS silently adopted a fairly radical change in philosophy and began enforcing it without any forewarning, or that this has been REITS' policy all along and they have communicated it so poorly that numerous smart and honest Rabbis who completed the four-year program had no idea this philosophy existed at all, much less was normative practice.

Either way, that is a scandal.

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

Meh. Firstly, numerous? Most of the sources were anonymous. And how many are they? Hundreds? One named source in the article acknowledges that he is operating under a different methodology than the mainstream standard approach. (And had a preexisting bone to pick.) Let the remaining folks engage in discussion and see if they really understand that part of the statement and what it means.

You don't know why the vast majority of people entered the semicha program, nor whether those who did in order to become decisors by and large did absorb this philosophy. Our if those who went on to be halachic decisors are the type of rabbi who is qualified. "Not all individuals" doesn't mean there are no individuals.

One can always manufacture "scandals". But ask yourself if you are predisposed to find such scandals because of a disagreement with the core philosophy.

Hillel said...

Rabbi,

Fair enough. It's not a scandal. It's a potential scandal. If there are dozens, or hundreds, of Rabbis, who did not know this was RIETS policy, then surely it is a scandal, right? Based on the articles you linked to, there are at least three. Now the only question is the scope; are we dealing with a couple of Rabbis who just didn't get the message, or is this a major unpleasant surprise to a whole lot of RIETS graduates. My impression (based on a very limited sample size) is that this is big news to RIETS graduates, who took it as a matter of course that they would consult their rebbeim before paskening tricky issues, but not that they were bound by their rebbeim or - most importantly - that they were not deemed rauy lehora'ah by YU upon graduation.

I don't have a core philosophy on this matter, and I am not qualified to formulate one. I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages, and danged if I know which is more legitimate based on the sources or in the best interests on klal yisroel.

But, if I need to ask myself if I am predisposed to find scandals because I disagreed with the core philosophy, surely you also need to ask yourself if you are predisposed to not finding a scandal because you agree with the core philosophy, right?

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

so we don't know the scope. and one of the named rabbis involved has repeatedly criticized rav schachter in the past, and this is a continuation of his attack, and probably knew that this was a typical approach of rabbeim of REITS (though not necessarily his own rabbis).

Meanwhile, maybe those "who took it as a matter of course that they would consult their rebbeim before paskening tricky issues, but not that they were bound by their rebbeim" are among those who ARE deemed as rauy lehora'ah, certainly in the non-tricky cases. About tricky issues, I would have to speak with them personally with examples to see if they really believed that they were qualified IMMEDIATELY upon graduation, still wet behind the ears, without any shimush in pesak and how pesak is made, to decide issues that have great sociological impact upon the Jewish community. (e.g. not toothbrushing on Shabbos, but whether to engage in interfaith dialogue, criteria for accepting geirim without kabbalat ol mitzvot.) I'd be surprised. One needs shimush in e.g. seeing mar'ot dam. See here for an expansion on this idea of shimush in pesak.

http://pitputim.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/shimush-in-our-time/

By core philosophy I meant one that I derived from previous comments you've made on related issues. But let us drop that.

Sure, maybe I'm biased to not see scandal. but I do think that the Jewish Week and the Forward have an interest in scandal and in delegitimizing Rav Schachter and RIETS, and anything deemed to far to the right.

joshwaxman said...

update: on Facebook, Rabbi Asher Lopatin writes:

"Rabbi Love, our main posek at YCT, spends over a dozen hours a week answering sophisticated questions from YCT musmachim - on building mikvaot, establishing Eruvs, kashrut etc. Of course not every Musmach is a posek. But we be leave [sic] in "aseh lecha Rav" and we trust our musmachim in that effort. More right-wing Yeshivot have rejected this most basic halachic right, and has limited the choice to a few Rabbanim - leaving off the list critical Torah authorities. Chaval for their Talmidim..."

So it seems that even in YCT, not every rabbi is a posek. Scandal! :)

Hillel said...

Rabbi Waxman,
If YCT (or YU, or anyone else) told its graduates - or led them to believe - that they would be poskim after graduation, and only after completion of the program told them they weren't, it absolutely would be a scandal. If they told them ahead of time, it wouldn't be.

However, at this point, I'm just confused about REITS' position. I thought it was 'recent musmachim aren't permitted to pasken difficult questions; we expect them to ask their Rebbeim any such questions and follow their Rebbe's p'sak.' (In Rabbi Penner's words, recent musmachim are “expected to defer, in matters of normative practice, to the opinions of recognized poskim.”)

Now, REITS' stated position is 'recent musmachim are permitted to pasken, but we expect them to consult with an experienced Rabbi, whether or not at or from YU, about any difficult questions before making a p'sak.' (In REITS' words "all of our graduates, including this young man, are trained and equipped to respond to halakhic questions. At the same time, we maintain that some questions require consultation with more experienced authorities, whether within or beyond the walls of our yeshiva.")

That's a totally fair and reasonable position. It's just not what Rabbi Penner wrote. There's a very big difference between consulting with someone and deferring to them. (There's also a big difference between "recognized poskim" and "experienced authorities" but that's a different kettle of fish entirely.)

It also means, assuming [soon-to-be] Rabbi Shalom consulted with a more experienced authority, and rendered a p'sak in accordance with the principles and traditions of YU as he understood them, there should never have been a problem to begin with. It will be interesting to learn (if it ever comes out) if he did so, and, if so, with whom he consulted.

Re my core philosophy, I believe in asking questions of people who -as best I can determine - have knowledge and intellectual honesty, and then seriously considering their responses. I do this in every aspect of my life. It has been my experience that the people being asked often take these questions as an attack or a sign I reject their viewpoint and am trying to deride it, when in fact I am merely trying to find out more about it. That's presumably a flaw in my personality, but I do what I can to be polite and respectful.

KT,
Hillel

joshwaxman said...

According to a comment on one of the stories, shalom did consult and discuss with his rather left wing Rebbe in yu, who told him not to do it. And then he did it anyway, deviating from what is generally considered normative practice on the basis of opinions that apparently they don't consider mainstream enough.
I can't vouch for the veracity of that report, but there you have it.

I can't see the context at the moment, but your first quote doesn't specify exclusively yu folks and includes the words normative practice. One might defer to recognized authorities within the recognized bet midrash and not go outside and then on that basis violate normative practice.

The second quote seems to have to do with consultation in general.

This is off the cuff especially since right now I don't have access to either full letter, but it does seem to correspond to two separate issues which certain folks were conflating. One, that not every graduate is equipped to pasken, and especially tough questions, without consultation. The other, that there is a normative halachic process of pesak among recognized "legitimate" posekim, and ignoring your own rabbis working within that methodology of pesak and going to a different methodology (maybe, to pick my own flavor, mechkar; or maybe a historical reanalysis of sociological influences of Rishonim to reject what has been the accepted opinion) and then land on a non normative practice with wide impact is not something you should do.

Hillel said...

Rabbi Waxman,
Agree that conflation of the issues is a problem here, but the first issue you raised - consultation - seems like a bit of a red herring. Everyone - including Rabbi Yuter and evidently Rabbi* Shalom - agree that consulting experts on complex issues is a good and important (and, likely, necessary) thing. There's no indication Rabbi* Shalom didn't consult with an expert before making his decision, and at least some evidence (albeit an anonymous comment) saying he did. So consultation is not the issue here.

The second issue you raised - deference - is a different matter entirely. It creates a big can of worms; for starters, the notion of "recognized "legitimate" posekim" you mentioned. Is there a list? An organization? How does one get added or struck off? Is it universal or communal? R' Schachter has indicated it goes by popular opinion in klal yisael (although you have far more expertise in his views than I do, so feel free to correct me if this is wrong.) If so, is Rabbi A. Weiss a "recognized legitimate posek"? What about R' YT Weiss? Does it matter if I live in Riverdale or Lakewood or B'nei Brak? I've read articles and heard shiurim on this approach, but no one ever seems to get down to these brass tacks. (If you have recommended reading/listening, I'm all ears.)

Other problems include defining 'normative practice.' How common does something need to be before it's normative? How many Rabbis must matir it before it's normative? Not to mention that in today's world of connectivity, defining a community for a practice to be normative in becomes nearly impossible.

My point is not that these issues make the approach you described incorrect; as I've stated before, I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that, and I also think there are significant problems with the alternate approaches I've encountered.

The point I'm making is that YU and REITS do not seem to have done a very good job fleshing out the details of the policies they expect their musmachim to adhere to, and that strikes me as a big problem. The fact that at least some of their musmachim believe this isn't/wasn't RETITS' policy to begin with makes the matter worse.

KT,
Hillel

LinkWithin

Blog Widget by LinkWithin