העורך Editor

I don’t know the source for this, but I hear the Gra said the warning of Kesubos 111a of “Choma” refers to building the Holy Temple, not mass immigration to Israel at all! So says Wikipedia.

A reminder:

שלושה שבועות הללו למה אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את העובדי כוכבים שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי

Whether these oaths are still binding is a separate matter. No oaths, but I hope to investigate this further on this site.

And this strengthens my case that Rabbi Yoel erred in his opus by not attacking the positive commandment of rebuilding the Holy Temple. If you want to destroy Judaism, undermining the Jewish tongue, Jewish sovereignty, and the Jewish land are a good start, yet insufficient. He should have realized: the next frontier will be the Jewish Temple, and he will have had no credit in trying to prevent it. But of course, Rabbi Yoel was anything but prescient.

(On second thought, see this.)

The Mishna in Avos 2:3 states:

הוו זהירין ברשות, שאין מקרבין לו לאדם אלא לצרך עצמן. נראין כאוהבין בשעת הנאתן. ואין עומדין לו לאדם בשעת דחקו

My translation:

Beware the authorities, for they embrace a man solely for own benefit. They appear friendly to him when it suits their purposes, but do not save him in his hour of distress.

I haven’t read it, but this book seems to illustrate this Mishna: “The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State” by Benjamin Ginsberg (among related insights!).

See this:

In 2010 I wrote Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlita a letter asking if he really signed on a letter supporting an indicted child abuser. He replied that he signs on whatever his own Rabbis sign on. His handwritten response can be seen on this blog here. I subsequently sent Rav Chaim a letter respectfully challenging his reliance on his Rav and his issuing decisions based on incomplete knowledge of the situation. I quoted Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky as saying: “דעת תורה אהין דעת תורה אהער דער פאקטס מוז מין העב’ן”, and the following from Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, the Seredei Aish, who wrote:

יודעים אנו על פי הניסיון כי מסביב לכיסאו של אדם גדול שורצים ורבים בריות שפלות, מין רמשים קטנים, אשר קטנותן תהיה להן למבטח כי לא תֵראנה ולא תִמצאנה, ועל כן יכולות הן, בהאפילן על עצמן בטליתו של ה”גדול”, לעשות כמעשה הרמש, ולרדוף אחרי כל אדם ישר באין כל סכנה לנפשן. ויש לפעמים אשר אנשים ישרים נפגעים על ידי גאון מפורסם מבלי הבין את חטאתם ופשעם, כסבורים הם שזאת היא “עקיצת עקרב” ומתמרמרים על הגאון, בעוד שבעיקר הדבר אין זאת אלא “נשיכה של שועל” היוצא מבית קודשי הקודשים של גאון, או לחישת נחש המתחמם בחיקו…” (מתוך ספר לפרקים)

…

The worldwide crusade to ban the pesticide DDT is a classic example. This crusade was begun by the much revered Rachel Carson, whose best-selling book “Silent Spring” was based on the premise that DDT’s adverse effects on the eggs of song birds would end up wiping out these species. After that, springtime would no longer be marked by birds singing; hence the silent spring.

Rachel Carson and the environmentalists she inspired have succeeded in getting DDT banned in country after country, for which they have received the accolades of many, not least their own accolades. But, in terms of the actual consequences of that crusade, there has not been a mass murderer executed in the past half-century who has been responsible for as many deaths of human beings as the sainted Rachel Carson. The banning of DDT has led to a huge resurgence of malaria in the Third World, with deaths rising into the millions.

An excerpt of Thomas Sowell from Town Hall, here.

Confirmation can be found in J. Gordon Edwards’, DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004.

May one learn the Torah books and pamphlets of disgraced Rabbis, such as Shlomo Aviner and Meir Pogrow?

There’s an overview from OU.org on this question, here.

Excerpt:

Before addressing the permissibility of learning Torah from a disgraced rabbi, we must first emphasize that this entire discussion refers to a rabbi whose misconduct has been confirmed.  Unfortunately, in today’s age of digital communication, unsubstantiated rumors contrived and disseminated by agenda-driven parties fly through the news and, especially, social media, before the facts are sorted out and verified.  And, knowing the impatience of media consumers, many of whom do not generally read past article titles, news websites run irresponsible, sensationalist headlines that misrepresent the facts and can lead to baseless suspicions.  The “juicy” nature of rabbinic scandals, along with the anti-Orthodox agenda of many media outlets, make rabbis prime targets of unverified rumors and allegations.  Common sense, common decency, and the obligation to respect Torah scholars all dictate that we avoid reaching conclusions based on hearsay or melodramatic headlines, and reserve judgment until allegations brought against Torah scholars are confirmed.

This warning was issued already by the Rambam, in one of his published responsa (Shu”t Ha’Rambam, 111), where he addresses the situation of a well-respected scholar who served as his congregation’s cantor, and about whom rumors spread of serious misdeeds.  The Rambam devotes the bulk of his responsum to emphasizing that nobody should be demoted from his post based on rumors, particularly if that individual has adversaries with a motive to sully his reputation.  Drawing upon the Gemara’s discussion in Maseches Moed Katan (17a), the Rambam writes that a Torah scholar who is suspected of wrongdoing should be privately reprimanded, and if he mends his ways, then he may retain his post.  It is only if the wrongdoing is committed publicly that he must be demoted.

Likewise, the Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos, O.C. 1:175) addresses the case of a גבאי צדקה – director of a charity fund – about whom rumors spread of an inappropriate relationship with a certain non-Jewish woman.  In the wake of these rumors, community members pressured the rabbi to remove him from his post, but the rabbi refused.  The Chasam Sofer emphatically supported the rabbi’s decision, asserting that nobody should be deposed based on rumors and hearsay:

אין לפסול איש על רינון וקול בעלמא, ואין להחזיק הקול אלא בעדים ברורים.

One should not disqualify a person based on murmurings and mere rumors, and the rumors should be verified only with reliable witnesses.

The Chasam Sofer writes that in the end, the person confessed to his wrongdoing, and was promptly dismissed from his position.

Another example appears in a responsum of Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (13), who was asked about a certain shochet who was imprisoned by a non-Jewish court for an alleged crime.  Rav Meir Simcha ruled that the court’s guilty verdict did not suffice as grounds for removing this shochet from his post, as the courts at that time could not be trusted.

Of particular relevance to our discussion is a responsum by Rav Aharon Walkin of Pinsk in his Zekan Aharon (30), addressing the question posed to him by Rav Zalman Sorotzkin concerning a shochetwho was rumored to have had occasionally visited the home of a woman suspected of prostitution.  Rav Walkin writes that sexual impropriety does not, strictly speaking, disqualify somebody from serving as shochet, but additionally, the shochet in question should not be dismissed solely on the basis of rumors.  Writing with particular passion and vehemence, Rav Walkin says that as disturbing as these rumors were, and notwithstanding the fact that a person filling such a distinguished role must have an unimpeachable record, it is forbidden to remove a person from a post based on mere hearsay:

גם אני מרחוק הנני נרעש ונפחד לשמוע כזה על משרת בקודש שנצרך להיות מצויין ביר”ש שכם אחד יותר על סתם בני אדם, אבל בכ”ז בבואי לחתוך עליו דין תורה, את האלקים אני ירא לשפוך עליו כל חמתי ולירד לחייו לקפח פרנסתו דההוא גברא דתלי ביה טפלי. וכל גופא מרתע בי להיות שוחט ולשחוט אב לבנים ובעל לאשה על יסוד שמועות קלושות כאלה… השתא שו”ב ששוחט בהמות אם ידיו מרתתות בו שחיטתו פסולה, כ”ש אני שבאתי לשחוט נפשות אדם, ולא רק ידי אלא כל גופי מרתת, היאך אוכל לשחטו בשעה שעפ”י דין תורה אין יסוד לזה? האם אפשר להתחסד יותר מהתורה עצמה?

I, too, even from afar, am shaken and horrified to hear such things about somebody serving in a sacred post, who is supposed to be outstanding in fear of God, on a level above most people.  But nevertheless, as I come to decide Torah law with regard to him, I am too fearful of God to pour my wrath upon him, to disrupt the livelihood and deny the sustenance of that person accused of wrongdoing.  My entire body shudders [at the thought of] being a slaughterer and slaughtering a father of children and husband of a wife on the basis of weak rumors such as these… A shochet who slaughters animals – if his hands tremble, his slaughtering is invalid; all the more so, then, as I come to slaughter people’s lives, and not only my hands, but my entire body trembles – how can I slaughter him when I know that according to Torah law there is no basis for this?  Is it possible to be more pious than the Torah itself?

Rav Walkin advised Rav Sorotzkin to have the shochet make a formal promise to avoid going anywhere near the house in question, and, as a precaution, to inspect his knife twice each week for a year.

This responsum underscores the extreme caution that is needed before acting upon rumors of misconduct, even as it points to the need for prudent and discreet measures in response to such rumors to ensure that the alleged misconduct does not continue.

Moreover, we must bear in mind the Gemara’s instruction in Maseches Berachos (19a), “If you saw a Torah scholar who committed a transgression at night, do not suspect him the next day because…he definitely repented.”  In other words, not every wrongful act committed by a religious leader warrants public condemnation and a public outcry.  Rabbis, like all people, are flawed and plagued by weaknesses and occasional lapses in judgment.  A person with a reputation of piety who is seen acting wrongly on one occasion must be given the benefit of the doubt that he has acknowledged his wrongdoing and has repented.  Accordingly, the Chafetz Chayim writes (Hilchos Lashon Ha’ra, 4:14):

וכל שכן אם הוא איש תלמיד חכם וירא חטא, אך עתה גבר יצרו עליו, בודאי עון גדול הוא לפרסם חטאו ואסור אפילו להרהר אחריו כי בודאי עשה תשובה, ואף אם יצרו נתחזק עליו פעם אחת, נפשו מרה לו אחר כך על זה ולבבו ירא וחרד מאד על אשמתו…

Certainly, if the person is a Torah scholar and God-fearing, but now his evil inclination overcame him, it is definitely a grievous sin to publicize his wrongdoing, and it is forbidden even to suspect him, because he definitely repented, and although his evil inclination overpowered him on one occasion, his soul is distressed over this afterward, and his heart fears and trembles greatly out of guilt…

Our discussion, then, relates to the unfortunate situations of Torah scholars who have been determined to regularly engage in improper behavior, and the question then arises as to whether people may continue learning from them or making use of their inherently valuable Torah resources.