Update: The Bais Havaad challenges

 Dear Rabbi ……….,

 In response to your request for clarification of the issues at play in the recent psak by leading Gedolim and Roshei Beis Din on the status of the Bais Havaad (BHV), I will attempt to summarize the Bais Havaad’s various justifications and defenses and address them individually, with my responses:

 

1.  “This was not a Bais Havaad case.”

 

This appears to be a de lection. The Bais Havaad has historically been flexible in defining its associations— referring to various projects, Rabbonim, and psakim as BHV-affiliated. Are we now to believe that a diyun held at 290 River Avenue, with regular BHV dayanim, invoiced under BHV's name, does not qualify as a BHV matter? 

 

2.  “The BHV dayanim were not matir.”

 

While technically accurate, it is misleading. The dayanim initially issued a heter. When faced with opposition, they formally withdrew—but continued to promote the heter in the shadows, with intermittent visibility. They (a) shared their portfolio of evidence and research with other Rabbonim who relied on it l’halacha as factual findings established by a beis din; (b) reportedly signed the (confidential) heter; (c) defended it publicly and privately; (d) compiled supportive letters as late as a year after the wedding; and (e) when calls for a diyun were voiced, canvassed the globe to solicit further halachic backing for it. 

Can the architects of a heter’s foundation and its most active promoters reasonably claim exemption from responsibility by mere official withdrawal? 

 

3.  “The details of the case are too sensitive to share with the family.”

 

This explanation does not withstand scrutiny. The same dayanim who cite concern for the family’s dignity threatened to publish the very same information publicly if pressured—via a newly created blog. This contradiction suggests the concern is more about shielding themselves than protecting the family. 

Moreover, if they truly possess sensitive information that justifies their conclusions, there is a straightforward solution: present it to a credible, neutral third party in the presence of a knowledgeable family representative who can properly assess and challenge the claims. Had there been anything substantive, this process would have resolved the matter last year, six months ago, or even yesterday. The refusal to take this obvious and reasonable step—one that could conclusively resolve the controversy—lacks any coherent justification. 

The claim of secrecy appears more likely to be a tactic to avoid the embarrassment of being proven wrong.

 

 “Opposition to the heter is politically motivated by the BHV’s opponents.”

 

This is demonstrably false. The active opposition to the marriage predated the BHV’s involvement by several months. If we are to attribute motives for involvement to petty politics, it would be more plausible to question the motives behind the BHV’s heter, given the dayanim's known acrimonious history with the Rosh Beis Din (Rabbi ______h _____z shlita) who was leading the opposition to the marriage at the time that they got involved. But why go there? Rather than dismissing critics as politically driven, it would be more productive— and honest—to engage with the substantive halachic and factual issues raised.

4.  “Revealing details would arm the BHV’s enemies.”

 

This defensive posture is outdated. In today’s climate, secrecy breeds suspicion. Following public resignations and strong criticism from multiple batei din, BHV’s ongoing silence and evasion of scrutiny only further harmed its credibility, leading it to total denunciation by leading poskim.

 

5.  “The reasoning is available to sincere Rabbonim, not those with agendas.”

 

A circular policy. The BHV smokescreen can easily fool unsuspecting Rabbonim with only a mild interest in the case, while Rabbonim familiar with the details of the case or skeptical of the integrity of the process are easily dismissed as "agenda-driven," leaving little room for meaningful oversight.

 

6.“This is not a Choshen Mishpat issue. A beis din gave a psak to an individual and they are not answerable to anyone.”

 

Irrelevant point, even if correct. The BHV published letters alleging dishonesty by the family and its supporters; the family alleges that it is the side of the matirim that has been infiltrated by forgers and liars. When accusations of forgery and misconduct arise, they must be addressed in a transparent setting. If a mashgiach accused a storeowner of selling treif, and the storeowner claims the mashgiach has a personal vendetta against him, would we clarify this with a hearing, or would we say it’s a Yoreh De’ah issue?  Halachic categorizations cannot be used to evade responsibility.  

 

 “A kuntres will soon explain everything.”    That was said six months ago. We are still waiting.

 

7.       “There is no one to talk to on the other side.”

 

Entirely unfounded. Have they tried? The BHV dayanim have repeatedly refused to engage in dialogue with the family or their representatives, despite numerous invitations. Notably, one of the family's most prominent advocates is a former longtime colleague of the dayanim at the Bais Havaad, further underscoring the baselessness of the alleged unfeasibility of dialogue. Finally, are we to be convinced that dayanim who pride themselves on their skill at negotiating and settling the most contentious disputes have found themselves unable to establish dialogue with reputable talmidei chachomim and a family of erliche bnei Torah?   This claim is another component in the strategy of the cover-up.

 

8.       “A Rav reviewed both sides and agreed with the heter.”

 

Initially promising, but inconclusive. After one Rav originally agreed with the family, the BHV dayanim came to show him their side. The family cooperated in good faith, hoping for a transparent exchange. However, they were not given access to the BHV’s claims before the Rav, making a true response impossible. The Rav eventually withdrew due to the lack of full information. What resulted was not a diyun, but a lesson in the necessity of transparency in a diyun.

9.       “The Russian letter was certified as authentic.”

 

The alleged certification must be scrutinized in the diyun. A private opinion, from unnamed experts with dubious credentials, funded by one side of a dispute, cannot carry weight unless it’s open to review, especially when multiple independent experts have declared the letter to be a fabrication, and practically every native Russian consulted has echoed this view. No expert is even claimed to have authenticated the letter after being shown the complete array of angles that prove the letter to be fraudulent, including the historical impossibility of two people with so many matching details, the DNA tests, the usage of post-reform Russian in the pre-reform era, and the insertion of extra paragraphs in the translation.  

 

 “A beis din met the source of the Russian letter.”

 

This has all the markings of a forgery backstory. A newly discovered granddaughter of a previously unknown (to anyone in the extended family for 80 years) family branch appears once, presents a pristinely preserved 1915 letter and refuses to ever appear again, as she is a very private person. Her elderly grandmother, the supposed original source, is unavailable for comment. The letter, translated by someone who inserted oddly convenient paragraphs, contains exactly the points the matirim needed. Only desperation would lead intelligent people to uncritically accept this concocted bubbe-meise produced by an amateur noch-macher of Shloime Yehuda Friedlander.

This story further underscores the need for transparency. 

 

 “The Russian letter was never used for the psak.”

 

Untrue and irrelevant. The letter was used to try to convince the Rav mentioned above, after he failed to be convinced by all other arguments. Besides, if the forger managed to dupe the Rabbonim, he likely deceived them with other lies, which is why the forged letter proves that an independent transparent review of all the evidence is in order.

 

 10.“If you are not convinced about our history of the alternate Avraham Lashinsky, BHV will share with you a secret about the family it cannot disclose publicly.”

 

Bring the secret, too, to the diyun, where all alleged “secrets” will be easily proven utterly laughable to anybody familiar with the family's history. Coming from figures already accused of historical distortions, such claims only deepen the skepticism. Moreover, once BHV have shifted from asserting an alternative family lineage involving a second Avraham Lashinsky to relying on vague claims of undisclosed information, it is only reasonable to pause and ask: who, then, forged the letter allegedly written by the alternative Avraham Lashinsky—whose very existence you now implicitly deny?

 

10.   “BHV agreed to a diyun, but it collapsed when the panel resigned.”

 

The record is more complicated. For over a year, BHV refused any form of diyun, despite resignations and pressure from multiple batei din. Only under an overwhelming threat did they agree to negotiate terms. The family accepted every condition of the BHV, including that the panel be selected exclusively from BHV’s preapproved list of 12 Rabbonim (of which many were connected to the BHV or the dayanim). After finalizing arrangements, a third-party individual, acting expressly against the family's wishes, distributed material about the case. A member of the panel “somehow” found out about this, and used it to withdraw, due to his discomfort with the surrounding atmosphere. As the members of the panel have recently clarified, this was not a rejection of the opposition’s arguments or credibility. In the aftermath of their resignation, calls to continue toward a diyun went unanswered (to this day).

 

11.   “Why are we being persecuted?”

 

All the actions the BHV characterizes as "redifos" are based on a single, widely-accepted principle: individuals who are unelected and lack experience cannot reasonably expect to be granted autonomy by Klal Yisrael to issue secretive psakim without oversight or accountability. Once this is fully understood, it becomes clear that the heter’s critics have, if anything, treated the individuals involved with greater patience than the situation warranted.

 

12.   “During the WZO tumult, this issue went to sleep, because the tumult makers were too busy.”

 

Why does a fair question deserve a cynical answer? During the WZO tumult, the two sides were negotiating over the makeup of the diyun (see above). There was no need to campaign for something while it was being given a chance.

 

13.   “The leaders of the opposition are kana’im who seek to silence anyone who disagrees with them.”

 

Unfounded spin. Typically, those intent on “canceling” others avoid calls for transparency and instead rely on public outcry to rally support for their stance. Contrast that with this case, where the opposition to the BHV since the marriage—primarily a concerned family—has consistently requested a fair and transparent hearing, while BHV appears to be doing everything possible to avoid transparency. Rather than framing the issue as a conflict between kana’im and rationalists, it is far more truthful to describe it as scrutiny chasing a cover-up. 

 

14.   "Matters of this nature are best addressed privately, not in the public arena."

 

Every effort was made to resolve this matter discreetly; however, the BHV demonstrated no willingness to engage in a sincere or constructive manner. 

Furthermore, where rabbinic reputations are established in the beis hamedrash, discussions of rabbinic reliability ideally should be con ined to those hallowed halls. But in an age where a beis din relies on glossy brochures and magazine columns to establish its reputation, and rabbinic positions are awarded to self-promoters, one must ask: what alternative remains besides public accountability to restrain unworthy rabbinic contenders and to root out halachic corruption?

 

What is the path forward?

 

The Bais Havaad at its core is inarguably a respectable mosad, that has done and has the potential to do much good for Klal Yisrael, in Lakewood and beyond. The beginnings of the Bais Havaad were filled with idealism, honest dialogue, and aspirations for transparency and credibility in the beis din system. 

But with its material success, ideology is no longer its guiding force and its idealistic vision is being eroded.  Good and reputable institutions are always vulnerable to being hijacked by those who know how to exploit their structural weaknesses, often accompanied by a projection of irreplaceability and invincibility. Over time, unchecked behavior by such individuals tarnishes not only their own reputations, but that of the mosad as a whole.

 

Today, the issue is not a halachic disagreement over איסור והיתר alone. It is chiefly about the integrity of facts. There are credible, evidence-backed allegations of forgery and manipulation, and many honest, serious, unbiased people are deeply concerned.

 

Which has brought our gedolim to conclude that the only way to restore trust is through openness: either via full information sharing with those who’ve studied the case in depth, or through a proper, mutually agreed upon diyun, with fair representation on both sides and שמוע בין אחיכם guiding the process.

Through such a process, the Rabbonim and gedolim will be able to diagnose where the virus in the Bais Havaad is and treat it appropriately, so that once again the Bais Havaad can continue to serve Klal Yisrael with trust and reputability.

 ואשיבה שופטיך כבראשונ ה  – אחרי כ ן יקרא לך עיר הצדק קריה נאמנה בכבוד ובידידו ת