We were given this to post,-Teves 5785 To the Rabbonim of the Beis HaVaad. [Note: we'll fix up the hebrew iy"h next week]

Teves 5785 To the Rabbonim of the Beis HaVaad. 

I am reaching out once again to express my deepest concerns over recent events surrounding the heter-nisuin of a kohein and giyores, and its aftermath. It has been about nine months since my previous letter.

1 During this time, the tumult surrounding the saga of the heter-nesuin, given and then officially retracted by a Beis Din of the Beis HaVaad, had mostly quieted down, at least in the public sphere. 

What remained in its place was the sad chillul Hashem of a heter given without any reality-based explanation to support it, leaving the public with the perception that the heter was given only because its recipient was wealthy enough to pay for it. Recently this saga returned to the public sphere with the release of Rav Gorelick’s kunteres, “Kesser Kehuna” volume one, which traces the kehuna of the Laskin family, making them, ironically, from the best documented kehuna families in Klal Yisrael today. 

 This kunteres also introduces us to a letter, written in Russian and dated September 10, 1915, which the Beis Din recently produced in an attempt to justify the doubt cast on the kehuna of the Laskin family. This letter seems to have been written by the Laskin’s great grandfather Avraham Lashinsky, and happens to mention details about Avraham Lashinsky’s life, which would force us to conclude that the Laskin’s great grandfather Avraham Lashinsky, is actually not the person whose kever in queens says “Avraham Yitzchak HaKohein Lashinsky,” but rather a different person with an amazingly similar life. The issue with this letter is that it’s a forgery. 

Rav Gorelick demonstrates this clearly in his kunteres, and includes letters from several additional Rabbonim who call out this forgery as well. After the release of Rav Gorelick’s kunteres, the mood of the many yungerleit who have been paying attention to the developments of this saga, became cautiously optimistic. Surely now, the Beis Din would respond with something of substance. Perhaps they would explain the basis of their heter, or alternatively, perhaps the Beis Din would explain that they paskened only based on information presented to them, and now that their information has turned out to be inaccurate or unreliable the psak is withdrawn…

 Regrettably, the Beis Din chose instead to release a compilation of letters insisting that their psak is valid, claiming support from well-known Rabbonim, and threatening divine punishment to those who question the authenticity of an unexplained heter allowing a wealthy kohein to marry a giyores. What was missing from these letters was the one thing desperately needed - a reality-based explanation of why this marriage is permitted. Not only did these letters fail to reassure us that an explanation for the heter actually exists, but they also actually had the opposite effect, as several of the statements made in these letters were quite alarming, exasperating concerns over Beis HaVaad’s credibility and integrity instead of quieting them. 

 1 Disclaimer: It has come to my attention that some have used my letter (and others like it) to accuse the Laskin family of misconduct. It is silly that I need to say this but allow me to state plainly that I do not represent the Laskin family or Rav Gorelick in any way. These are simply the thoughts of one horrified yungerman, and should be accepted or discarded as such.

 " ב " For starters, one letter, signed by all three Beis Din members, declares that the explanation for this heter, given by הראב םיקסופה ילודג ", is being kept a secret as instructed by " רודה ילודג ". Absolutely astounding! After the facts stubbornly refused to cooperate with every single previous attempt at defending their heter – Rabbi Dershowitz did use a microphone on Shabbos, which he used to preach kefirah to his congregation (videos available on YouTube). 

The kalla’s mother’s geirus was truly worthless, having been performed by three conservative rabbis, one who was a woman, happened when the kalah’s mother was already expecting, and was irrelevant either way because the kallah’s father is a kohein; And the Laskin mishpacha are kohanei chazaka, as per their mesorah, now with documentation to back it, as shown in Kunteres Kesser Kehuna; – the Beis Din’s new explanation for their heter, is that the reason is a secret! How incredibly convenient… 

 Of course, the Beis Din officially withdrew from the case. Never fear, the Beis Din informs us that there is still a heter, given not by the recused Beis Din, but by anonymous " ב who were apparently told to keep the explanation a secret by anonymous " " הראב םיקסופה ילודג " רודה ילודג ", So, there we have it folks, nothing to see here, just an ordinary heter based on secret reasons, given by secret Rabbonim, with the backing of secret Gedolei Hador. On the other hand, we know exactly which Rabbonim instructed that the explanation of the heter should not be kept a secret. That was Rav Malkiel Kotler, Rav Dovid Schustal, Rav Yeruchem Olshin, Rav Yisrael Neuman and Rav Moshe Heinemann, in the letter dated Adar Alef, פשת ד ". 

 A second concern involved two other letters in this compilation, which include a complaint against recent Rabbonim (Rav Binyamin Cohen and others) who signed that the Laskin family are kohanim. The writers seem quite horrified that such a letter would be written after hearing only one side of the story. Which does seem like a reasonable complaint… The problem here is that Rav Binyamin Cohen reached out individually to all three members of the Beis Din, asking them to explain their side of the story; he was ignored. 

So, it seems that Beis HaVaad wants to have it both ways. The game plan seems to be refusing to meet with Rabbonim, and then blasting them for only hearing one side. Which brings us back to the delicate topic of the Russian letter hoax. This letter, recently produced by the Beis Din in a new attempt at defending their heter, is a forgery. It is such a clear forgery, that it seemed obvious that after it was called out in Kunteres Keser Kehuna, the Beis Din would either deny the existence of the letter or at least deny having believed it was authentic. Instead, in a breathtaking move, two of the letters released by Beis HaVaad maintain that the letter’s reliability is impeccable, having been received from an unquestionably reliable source. 

We are not told who or what this source is, apparently that too is a secret. But the letter is an obvious forgery, and the fact that the Beis Din took it seriously is startling, even for the Beis Din that called Rabbi Dershowitz a chareidi. The first and most obvious issue with the letter, which should have immediately prompted careful investigation, is that the letter is written in Russian. A letter written by a Jewish person from Russia to his son, in 1915, would almost certainly be written in Yiddish, regardless of his level of religious observance. Perhaps not reason enough to jump and call it a forgery, but it is certainly quite strange. As well, this letter contains nothing noteworthy and should have been discarded shortly after its recipient read it, back in 1915. 

The fact that this letter still exists, in excellent condition, one hundred and ten years later, is strange. The letter is dated September 10, 1915, which is Friday, the second day of Rosh Hashanah. Between the fact the letter writer not only wrote the letter on either Rosh Hashana or Leil Shabbos, but even unabashedly dated it as such, together with the fact that the letter is written in Russian instead of Yiddish, we must assume that the writer was very far from Yidishkeit, most likely completely secular. 

We would expect his name to be something like “Abraham” perhaps, and his son might be “Nathen”. The fact that the letter writer addresses his son “Nachim,” discusses Nachim’s wife “Chaya,” and signs his name “Avrum”, is strange. Speaking of signatures, the overwhelming majority of fathers writing a letter to their son, would not sign their name at all, and would simply write “your loving father,” or “with love, tatty”, or the like. Occasionally, on a more formal letter, they might sign their full name. The fact that the letter writer signs his first name, and only his first name (“Your father, Avrum”), on a letter written to his own son, is strange. 

 Strange becomes bizarre when we consider the translation of the letter provided by Beis HaVaad. The translation is mostly accurate for the second and third pages, but in the first page of the letter, the translation adds entire paragraphs with very specific details not found in the original Russian letter. As well, several words are deleted from the Russian, and several sentences are moved around, in order to accommodate these changes. This is clearly a later draft of the letter than the one provided in Russian, updated to casually mention that Avram Lashinsky has been in the United States for 15 years, a seemingly innocent point that just happens to be precisely what Bais HaVaad would love to be able to prove. 

 Another bizarre issue with the letter is in the sentence “When Chaya was here, she often brought the children to visit, but since she took them to her parents-in-law, they have come to our apartment many times. We miss them very much.” Clearly, this was meant to say “they have not come” but instead uses the Russian “не раз” – many times – the very opposite of the writer's intention. The issue here is that translated literally, “не раз” means “not once” but is used to say “once”, never to say, “not even once”. This mistake, based on literal translation from English, is the Russian equivalent of walking into an Israeli makolet and asking for a “kelev cham”, and could never had happened to a native Russian writer who understands what his writing is supposed to say. 

It could happen only with a non-native Russian speaker, or with a Russian speaker who misunderstood the intention of the letter he was translating. And, just to round it all off, the letter is written in post-revolution Russian,2 a writing dialect that simply did not yet exist in 1915! 2 This is aside from the fact that the natural changes in language over time enable anyone fluent in a language to tell the difference between a letter written recently and a letter written a century ago. In this case, many Russian speakers have said that this letter was clearly written recently. For an English example, you can see letters written between Rockefeller and his son at www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/rockefellers-son. 

These letters were written a century ago (some written in Lakewood!), and the difference in writing style is immediately apparent. Considering all these points, the chain of events becomes obvious. This letter was originally drafted in English, and then later updated. The wrong draft was mistakenly sent to the forger, a mistake which the writers never noticed simply because they don’t read Russian. And when this forgery was pointed out, rather than learning from their mistakes and questioning which information sources should no longer be trusted, Beis HaVaad responds instead by doubling down and calling the reliability of this letter “impeccable”. Again, we are not discussing Beis HaVaad being fooled by a well-done forgery, something that regrettably could happen to any Beis Din. In this case, the only thing necessary for Beis HaVaad to do was to compare the provided translation to the actual letter. Was even this not done? And once it was pointed out, how could Beis HaVaad think that denying reality would help rehabilitate Beis HaVaad’s credibility? Also included in Beis HaVaad’s compilation of letters, are two letters which claim that Rav Forchheimer was part of the “givias eidus” for this psak for many hours.

 This is an obvious attempt to pull rank instead of discussing substance, an attempt inconvenienced only by the fact that Rav Forchheimer categorically denies this. Never fear, Beis HaVaad has an explanation. It is true that Rav Forchheimer never joined a Beis Din to listen to the testimony of witnesses for the purpose of issuing a psak halacha, as a reader might have innocently assumed. However, the Beis Din came (uninvited) to Rav Forchheimer to discuss the case, and Rav Forchheimer listened politely, so they felt comfortable writing that Rav Forchheimer “joined for givias eidus for many hours.” And, this is not a lie, because there is evidence from the divrei haposkim, that the term “givias eidus” can include even such a scenario. 

 This may not be a lie, but it is quite misleading, and purposefully so, as becomes completely clear in the next letter of the compilation. This next letter is a personal psak allowing this marriage, apparently signed by Rav Forchheimer himself! Regrettably, this too is a smoke and mirrors trick. Rav Forchheimer never issued any personal psak in this case. The letter he signed, when this story was first developing, stated only that the chason was allowed to rely on other rabbonim who were matir. Several key words were carefully cut from the letter, to leave the reader with the curated impression that Rav Forchheimer was personally matir, after hours of the aforementioned “giviyas eidus,” when in truth he had not personally investigated this shaila. 

If all this wasn’t scandalous enough, the date on the letter was also changed, to give the impression that Rav Forchheimer wrote this letter after – and in response to – the printing of Kunteres Kesser Kehuna, and that Rav Forchheimer continues to back the Beis Din, despite all the information about the family brought to light, and despite all of the concerns about the Beis Din’s conduct that have been raised in the interim, something which Rav Forchheimer has since clarified is not true. In summary: Beis HaVaad’s response to Kunteres Keser Kehuna is all about smoke and mirrors, and never chas vshalom to discuss substance. There is good reason for this: Beis HaVaad knows that an honest discussion of substance would be suicide for all involved. Instead, smoke and mirrors are being used to push off having to answer hard questions, while forgers work overtime to change history and preserve the kavod of Beis HaVaad, at the expense of Kvoid Shamayim and also of Mishpachas Laskin. At this point it seems clear that this situation was not caused merely by sloppy research as we had originally hoped. 

Unfortunately, at this point we must conclude that our system of psak halacha has been corrupted. Someone has successfully gamed the system to allow a kohein to marry a giyores, and is now using a combination of lies, threats,3 and forgeries to cover it up. In light of this corruption, I have no doubt that some Russian professors will soon be paid off to vouch for this letter. This will not help, as anyone curious about the truth can simply show the letter to their own Russian speaking friends or relatives. Unfortunately, Beis HaVaad’s and the Beis Din’s insistence on “secrets” and continued refusal to discuss substance indicates that some of this corruption is coming from within Beis HaVaad itself. Beis HaVaad was one of Lakewood’s finest institutions, and our community wants the ability to be confident in Beis HaVaad’s reliability and integrity going forward. At this point it is up to Beis HaVaad to demonstrate that we can do so. Stop with the secrets. Stop with the smoke and mirrors. Investigate who forged the Russian letter. Who wrote it, and in what other ways did this individual influence the Beis Din? Tell the community clearly that the individual or individuals are no longer part of Beis HaVaad. If Beis HaVaad was fooled by an outsider, explain what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence. 

 Explain what the Beis Din was thinking in the heter-nisuin. If they were fooled or manipulated, explain what Beis HaVaad is doing to prevent a recurrence. If there was corruption, ensure that the corrupt parties are shown the door. Above all: Follow the instructions of Rav Forchheimer and Rav Shlomo Miller and submit to a third-party Beis Din that is agreed to by all parties. Allow that Beis Din to see all your information, and the family's information, and allow Klal Yisrael to finally have clarity whether your actions represent a legitimate act of Beis Din, or a scandalous breach of halachah and libel against an innocent family. If you believe your behavior was proper, then you have nothing to lose… In closing, I am once again mispallel to Hakodosh Baruch Hu that my words be accepted with ahavah by the Rabbonim of the Beis HaVaad, and that we merit together to soon see the fruition of the words of the Navi Yeshaya: " הלחתבכ ךיצעיו הנשארבכ ךיטפש הבישאו , הנמאנ הירק קדצה ריע ךל ארקי ןכ ירחא 

" Yosef Weisenfeld YosefWeisenfeld@gmail.com 

 P.S. Attached is a copy of the three pages of the Russian letter. On the top of the second page is an accurate translation, followed underneath by Beis HaVaad’s version of the translation, color coded to show edits and additions. It can be clearly seen that the translation provided by Beis HaVaad is the finished draft, released accidently with a Russian forgery based on an earlier draft. 

 3 Special shout-out to: ygross442@gmail.com, PinchasBenElazar12@gmail.com, KanaiLidvarHashem @gmail.com, bzrotberg@gmail.com, and sternyanky0@gmail.com! It’s always great hearing from you!