Rabbi Lichtenstein to Zionist rabbis: “Some humility, please”

By Motti Levi, Walla! Editorial / News
Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 7:30 am
Translated by Susann Codish
Original Hebrew article can be found here.
The translation has not been reviewed by Rav Lichtenstein

A conversation with Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein, one of the senior/leading rabbis of the religious Zionist stream, who harshly criticizes rabbis trying to explain current events as being the will of God: “I don’t have God’s phone number, the way some others seem to have”

This time, Walla! News’ weekly discussion with a rabbi was with Rabbi Dr. Aaron Lichtenstein, one of the heads of the hesder yeshiva in Alon Shvut, and one of the senior rabbis of the religious Zionist movement. Rabbi Lichtenstein was born in 1933 in France, and in 1940 fled with his parents from the Nazi occupation to the United States. He received his rabbinic education at Yeshiva University in New York, where he was ordained as a rabbi by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, one of the leading Modern Orthodox figures in the United States and a leader of the Mizrachi Movement of religious Zionism, who would later become Rabbi Lichtenstein’s father-in-law. As befits someone who was raised on the principle of “Torah umada” – Torah combined with general knowledge – Rabbi Lichtenstein completed a doctorate in English literature at Harvard, and briefly taught English at YU. In 1971, Rabbi Lichtenstein immigrated to Israel with his family in order to serve as the head of the Har Etzion yeshiva, and has since then served as its leader along with the yeshiva’s founder, Rabbi Yehuda Amital ob”m. R. Lichtenstein is considered a moderate among Zionist rabbis.

Unlike many Zionist rabbis, you refrained from expressing an opinion on the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Why?
“To express a position is a fine thing when you have a position, when things are clear, unequivocal, when you have the sense that you understand not just the intricacies of the political moves but also what God would want. I didn’t feel I had the tools or ability to express a position. I don’t have God’s phone number, the way some others seem to have. I was raised on the words of the Talmud about Balaam: he claimed having knowledge of ‘the will of the Supreme.’ He couldn’t even tell what his own beast wanted, and he claimed to know the will of the Supreme?!
“Please, have a little humility. Not the fake kind, but the kind that rises from a person’s understanding of who the Almighty is and who man is – a base, ignominious creature. I understand there were people for whom it was clear where the disengagement was leading and what God wanted. That’s not how I grew up. Humility is not only an expression of religious awe bit also an expression of wisdom.”

Are you insinuating criticism of the rabbis who opposed the disengagement?
“I don’t have to insinuate anything. It’s no secret that there are large, self-confident segments of the public, that have the sense that you can take a chapter of the book of Isaiah or Malachi and find a perfect match between the text and what’s happening before our eyes. I’m not comfortable with that; I’m uncomfortable with that also from a religious perspective. It’s true: those of us within the religious Zionism camp have for years continued to march forward spiritually, economically and socially, with trust in God. Without that belief, it is doubtful that the religious Zionist stream would have come into existence to begin with. It began out of belief and hope, out of the feeling that mankind has a role to play in history. But the difference between that and the sense that I can explain exactly why a bus explodes and kills 22 children is enormous. It is religious arrogance. It also smacks of people over-stepping their limitations.

Lately, the separation of religion and state has again become a subject of public debate. Many feel that religion is destroying the state and vice versa. Is it time for such a separation?
“I think that would represent a tremendous risk. I’m not sure that ‘riches endure forever.’ I’m not sure we can continue to suspend public transportation on the Sabbath in the long term, but if, God forbid, public transportation becomes available on the Sabbath I’d view it as a change for the worse and a significant defeat in terms of Israel’s religious landscape. Similarly, with civil marriage, it’s not only a problem in the sense of the religious prohibition people would be transgressing as a result of making it available, but also in terms of what this would do to the nature of Jewish society in general. If, as a result, there would be a huge increase in the number of mamzerim it would be a dreadful tragedy. On the other hand, we’re also liable to see a situation in which the possibility of getting married solely through the rabbinate creates friction and divisions; as it is, a growing segment of the population is not getting married the traditional, halakhic way. If we get to a point where continuing the current state of affairs is no longer possible, unless we outright make it impossible for people to get married, we’d obviously have to rethink the issue. I hope that day never comes. Even in the current situation where we have no civil marriage, and there is no concern about mamzerut or about destroying the fabric of life here by creating the need for separate books of marriageability for religiously observant folk, I still feel we’d have to think twice before manning the barricades.”

You came out against the rabbinic open letter forbidding Jews to sell or rent housing to Arabs. You wrote, “The wisdom seems flawed.” If Jewish religious law does, in fact, determine that it is prohibited to sell or rent to non-Jews, why oppose the letter?
“Here I take the position of Rabbi Eliyashiv. There may be things we want that are unattainable. Wisdom includes the ability to apply principles, of having desires encounter reality. In this case, even if discussing the issue from the halakhic point of view, it’s not so simple or clear. So, are we supposed to hurry to publish an open letter on an issue that cannot be implemented and that furthermore stains our reputation, both internationally and internally within the larger community in Israel? You have to know how to choose your battles and that choice involves wisdom: people have to understand where their choices lead them, and here, unfortunately, ‘the wisdom of their wise shall perish,’ quote the prophet Isaiah, and we’re paying a price for that.”

You recently signed an open letter of protest opposing the rabbis who announced their support for President Katzav. What was the basis for your position?
“I approach this issue not out of a sense that I know if he [former President Katzav; ML] is guilty or not. I didn’t read the material and I don’t have the tools to make a determination on the issue itself. But that’s not the point. The point is, and was, the attitude we, as citizens of the State of Israel, have to a civilized system of justice. Here were some rabbis who wrote an open letter that dismissed, with the stroke of a pen, the entire legal system and its many layers, saying in effect that the whole system is either stupid or evil. I know the verses the rabbis cited from the book of Isaiah just as well as they do. But what do they want? To have no legal system whatsoever? To live in total social anarchy?
“I think we find ourselves in an odd position here. I’m considered illegitimate by many in the religious Zionist camp. I’m not Zionistic enough. I grew up in the Diaspora, I came to Israel at a relatively late age, and some argue that I carry my Diaspora education like a hump on my back. I think I’m a super-Zionist compared to those who would delegitimize the entire legal system and its institutions here in Israel. Would I like to see the vision of ‘Restore our judges as of old’ realized? Of course I would. But for now, there needs to be some kind of system of justice.”

What would you like to tell the readers of Walla! News?
“That they should construct their lives on the basis of holiness and purity [kedusha v’tahara] – on the basis of moral and Torah-inspired ideals. That’s the general direction. As for the details, well, that’s up to each one of us: who one is, where one lives, to which world one belongs. But the general directions must be devotion to the past of the Jewish people coupled with the good and beautiful elements one can find also in general culture, though the center of gravity must lean to devotion to the Torah.”

Ruling of Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Shlomo Amar on Conversions

Shlomo Moshe Amar
Rishon Lezion Chief Rabbi of Israel
President of the Great Rabbinical Court

[Translation by Elli Fischer. Original Hebrew appears here. Interpretation and analysis appear here.]

This is the Law that Emerges from the Three Aforementioned Court Rulings:

Conversion (geirut) is a purely halakhic concept. It is not subject to substitution or punditry (parshanut). It is thus mandatory that geirut be in accordance with the halakha as explained by Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh


a. A convert who was circumcised and immersed but did not accept the commandments (mitzvot) of the Torah in the presence of three who are qualified to judge, is not a convert at all. Even if he accepted the mitzvot upon himself, if it was not in the presence of three who are qualified to judge, it is meaningless.

b. The rabbinical conversion court (beit din) must adequately examine whether the prospective convert has studied and knows the rudiments of faith, and also has studied the basic halakhot of Judaism (as practiced in Israeli rabbinical courts).

c. Similarly, they will examine his motives and objectives for conversion. They will examine whether he is sincere in saying that he accepts the Torah and mitzvot upon himself, and is not deceiving the rabbinical court.

d. If their assessment is that he will certainly not uphold the mitzvot, they should not accept him as a convert.

e. A convert who was circumcised and immersed and accepted the mitzvot of the Torah in the presence of three who are qualified to judge, and everythings was done properly and halakhically, and he then reverted to his mistaken ways and violates the mitzvot of the Torah, he is like an apostate Jew: his wine is forbidden, but his marriage and divorce are valid, as is stated explicitly in the Talmud, the code of Maimonides, and the Shulchan Arukh.

[Handwritten portion:]
The aforementioned statements are the conclusions of responsa that I wrote regarding matters of conversion. I have already made it clear that according to Maimonides, of blessed memory, acceptance of mitzvot in the presence of three who are qualified to judge is indispensable (le-ikuva). I explained in detail his [=Maimonides’s] statements in Chapter 12 of the Laws of Forbidden Relations, in a responsum from 5764 which was printed in Responsa Shema Shlomo VI (Yoreh De’ah 12). I have now clarified the matter again, and these words were viewed by the decisor (poseik) of our generation, our master, the Rishon Lezion, the prince of Israel’s sages, the author of Yabia Omer [=Rav Ovadia Yosef] shlita. He agreed and signed with his own hand and even added, in his own handwriting, that this is the truth of the Torah and that it is a law that must not be violated (chok ve-lo ya’avor. I have also sent all of this to the [secular] Supreme Court, to negate the opinion of those who were mistaken on this matter.
Regarding army conversions, it is clear that in addition to the circumcision and immersion being in the presence of a lawful rabbinical court of three, each convert accepts the yoke of Torah and the yoke of the mitzvot upon himself in the presence of a rabbinical court of three. This is after they are taught the rudiments of the mitzvot, as is known, are tested, and spend time with Torah- and mitzva-observant families who have even recommended them.
I grab the coattails of our master [=Rav Ovadia Yosef], shlita, and sign,
S. M. Amar

All of the aforesaid is the truest truth (emet le-amitah) of the Torah
The obvious needs no proof,
Ovadia Yosef

Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein's Response to the Letter Banning Sale of Homes to Gentiles in Israel

Response to the Esteemed Rabbis, Signatories of the Letter Forbidding the Sale of Homes to Gentiles in the Land of Israel

 

Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein

6 Tevet, 5771

[Translated from the Hebrew by Elli Fischer; the translation has not been reviewed by R. Lichtenstein]

I have read the document that you have disseminated throughout the country. As I read your words, I was impressed enough by the dogged determination inherent in your love of the land and your love of the nation that dwells therein to advance your approach. However, I am concerned that in this instance your love has affected your judgment. To say the least, it must be asked whether this is a battle worth fighting. Aside from the judgment, the wisdom of it seems faulty as well.

Indeed, almost the entire unfolding of events that resulted from the dissemination of this letter was foreseeable and, to a large extent, obvious. The public furor, both social and ideological, the rift that has opened among the citizens of the state—between camps and within camps, the op-eds in the various media outlets, the various positions, often impassioned and overheated, the attack on the religious-Zionist rabbinate from the right and from the left, even from Torah giants—it was all foreseeable. One reads it and wonders what happened to the wisdom of those who are enjoined to consider future ramifications?

It has been particularly painful for those faithful to the Torah and mitzvot who fear for the stature and character of the state; it has upset the spiritual leaders who work hard to make the Torah and adherence to halakha beloved and who strive to set the State of Israel on the pillars of tradition and ancestral heritage. This pain stems from the shortcomings that the document manifests in precisely those areas that should have been its strong point. The document speaks in the name Halakha, and its signatories see themselves as its envoys and propagators.

But therein lies the problem; the prohibition of selling homes to gentiles is presented as the exclusive halakhic position in the manner at hand, and the voice that bursts forth from the throats of the signatories is made to sound like the single unequivocal word of God, that is, halakha. Here one asks, is that indeed so? Without a doubt, the position expressed in the letter is based on rabbinic sources and a long halakhic tradition. Yet taken as a whole, the document leaves one with the impression that its conclusions are based on presumptions that characterize a particular—but not exclusive—halakhic approach. This impression is generated in part by what the document states, and no less by what the document omits. For example:

A. The first paragraph of the letter gives the impression that Rambam linked intermarriage, selling a parcel of land to gentiles, and the desecration of God’s name. It further implies that there is no escaping the conjunction of these elements, and there is no way to minimize or neutralize their linkage. However, there is no such formulation in the writings of Maimonides.

B. The concluding paragraph states that one who sells a residence to a gentile must be excommunicated. This ruling is patently erroneous. The excommunication discussed by the Talmud and Rishonim addresses harm to Jewish neighbors in context of the issue of a neighbor’s right of first refusal (dina de-bar metzra)—unrelated to the questions of lo techanem or lo yeshvu be-artzekha, the prohibitions that set the tone of the letter.

C. Regarding that which was not said: any position or opinion that could have been relied upon to moderate the stance taken in the letter simply does not exist. There is no mention of Ra’avad’s position that limits the prohibition to the seven aboriginal nations of Canaan. For some reason, the opinion of the Tosafists—that if the gentile is willing to pay a higher price than a Jew for the property, there is no prohibition against selling it him—has been ignored. At the same time, the letter never addresses the position among the Rishonim, based on Bava Batra 21a, that the prohibition against leasing is limited to craftsmen who wish to set up shop in the neighborhood—indicating that they were concerned about the neighbors fleeing, not about the sanctity of the land and all it entails. The opinion of Ramban and his disciples, that the prohibition of lo techanem does not apply to transactions rooted in the grantor’s interests—which admittedly relates to the granting of a gift or a favor, but may also be applicable to the granting of a tract of land—directly contradicts the position expressed in the letter.

D. In addition, the document is based almost exclusively on Rambam’s position, which, as it approximates the perspectives discussed in the Talmud, left its mark on the Shulchan Arukh. Yet every school child knows that for whatever reason there is a wide gap between Rambam’s position and the approach of the Tosafists. It is sufficient to leaf through the first pages of the talmudic Tractate Avoda Zara with an eye on the prohibitions discussed there, or through the end of the first chapter of that tractate, to see the degree to which the Tosafists exploited every loophole and leniency with regard to these prohibitions. For example, several Tosafists maintained that the prohibition to lease a home to a gentile was limited to an instance in which the gentile is expected to bring foreign gods inside. I certainly do not wish insert myself into a dispute among giants or presume to decide between Rambam and the Tosafists; I merely note that the required willingness to examine approaches that would limit the prohibitions associated with this issue, given that there are tools and materials that enable such limitations, is completely absent from the letter.

I conclude with what should be self-evident. At stake are key questions that involve meta-halakhic considerations. The willingness and ability to consider and assign appropriate weight to wide-ranging components related to halakhic content and its connection to both historical and social realities mandates a much wider discussion. We, who dwell in the beit midrash, remain committed to our belief and desire “to proclaim that God is upright, my rock in whom there is no wrong.”