Re: Bais Havaad's response to claims made against some of their Pisokim

 Harav Fuerst שליט״א,

I am writing in response to your recent letter dated י"ג תמוז תשפ"ה.

It is not my place to offer criticism to a Rav of your stature, and I do so with the deepest respect. However, I feel compelled to express my profound concern regarding the tone and content of your letter, particularly in how it characterizes a public statement signed by several of the foremost poskim and Gedolei Torah of our generation. To summarily dismiss their position as having no halachic weight and stating it should be completely disregarded is, I believe, a regrettable misjudgment that diminishes the honor due to such preeminent Torah authorities, some of whom are foremost Einei Haeida.

With regard to your citation of a psak you heard from Rav Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל and its application to the current case, I do not presume to comment. The ability to compare cases accurately—dimui milsa l’milsa—requires deep Torah insight developed through years of amelus baTorah and shimush talmidei chachamim. I leave that judgment to those far greater than myself. (As an aside, I will note that this paragraph describing your rationale behind the psak represents a welcome break from the hitherto policy of the mattirim not to put nimukim on record. Hopefully, this will spark the long-awaited scrutiny of the heter and allow a more wholesome evaluation of its merits.)

However, I must address your commentary on the background and context of the aforementioned letter from Gedolei Yisrael. Frankly, it reads more like the rhetoric of a blogger than the measured tone expected from a Rav of your distinction. Terms such as “deceptive tactics” and “destructive work” are deeply troubling. As someone personally familiar with the outstanding talmidei chachamim of note you refer to as “agenda-driven,” I can say that their actions have consistently reflected a sincere bikush ha’emes and a commitment to halachic integrity. But how would you know if you refused to engage with them?

It is certainly understandable that you rely on those whom you trust for information, given the many demands on your time. But with all due respect, I struggle to comprehend the confidence with which you assert that nine leading poskim and gedolim were deceived, while you alone were able to discern the truth. Does it not warrant a measure of humility to consider the possibility that you, too, might have been misled? Is it inconceivable that others may have provided you with inaccurate or deceptive information?

You cite two specific points as examples of falsehood in the letter issued by the Gedolim. Permit me to address them briefly:

1. The claim that the Bais Havaad had, in fact, agreed to the demands for a diyun.

The behavior of the Beis Din over the course of more than a year strongly suggested a reluctance to engage in a diyun. Despite the public resignation of three of their dayanim and requests for a diyun by multiple batei din, there was no movement toward a hearing. Only when a significant overwhelming threat to their standing emerged did they reluctantly begin negotiations. Once that threat subsided, all attempts to resume discussion were ignored.

Furthermore, the Gedolim’s letter does not claim that the Bais Havaad outright refused to attend a diyun. Rather, it states that a herkev of dayanim was requested to present evidence before an agreed-upon beis din, and that such a hearing had yet to occur. The language was measured and factual. In the absence of a diyun, the Gedolim offered a halachic assessment of the status of the beis din based on the current status quo.

2. The assertion that Bunim’s heter was not issued by, or based on the information provided by, dayanim of Bais Havaad.

It is a matter of record that the initial heter was issued by dayanim of Bais Havaad before your involvement. Although the original herkev later withdrew formally, they continued to promote the heter informally and were instrumental in transferring the case to other figures, including Rabbis Bess and Sherwinter. When Rav Farbstein ruled against the marriage, the heter-shopping continued until the heter was ultimately issued by you.

The claim that the heter was not influenced by the Bais Havaad dayanim's information is difficult to reconcile with the facts. In your initial letter dated ה' ויצא תשפ"ד, you explicitly referenced information—such as the attribution of a kever to the chasan's ancestor—which was later completely reversed in your subsequent letter dated חשון תשפ"ה. That revision was based on information you received through the Bais Havaad’s involvement, as you have stated on multiple occasions. To deny that the heter was based, at least in part, on information from them, is inconsistent with the record.

Moreover, following the issuance of the heter, a comprehensive historical study of the family's history—portions of which were published under the title Keser Kehuna—was made available, which potentially undermines the heter. You chose not to engage with that material, relying instead on the baseless assertion of one party that the work was “full of lies,” despite widespread recognition of its value by numerous talmidei chachamim and experts. Again, this reliance appears to have shaped your position without a full and balanced review of all relevant information.

In light of this, one must ask: If Keser Kehuna is dismissed based on what you were told, and a psak signed by nine Gedolim and poskim is similarly rejected on the same basis, might it not be more honest to question the objectivity of the sources you rely upon, rather than accuse so many others of having been duped?

Additional Considerations

You express grave concern about the precedent of undermining the Bais Havaad (whose importance you measured by the yardstick of being "mesader most of the gittin in Lakewood," as if numerical success is a measure of halachic reliability), suggesting it is “dangerous and destructive.” But is it not more dangerous to dismiss the halachic conclusions of nine leading Gedolim and poskim as baseless and deceptive? And is the expectation that a new Beis Din respond to serious public allegations of misconduct by participating in an impartial hearing truly so unreasonable?

You further write that “there is no precedent for others about whom the psak was not specifically applied to and enforced on to demand that the shaila be decided by Rabbanim of their choosing.” Yet had you reviewed the content of the letter you criticized, you would have seen a clear reference to a precedent established by none other than Rav Elyashiv זצ"ל, who insisted (based on the רשב"ש) that a Rav who issued a controversial heter involving mamzerim appear before a beis din to explain his ruling. This precedent directly refutes your claim.

In conclusion, I write not to argue halacha but to urge humility, integrity, and careful deliberation in the face of serious questions. Disagreement in halacha is part of our mesorah, but it must be conducted with respect, accuracy, and full recognition of the stature and sincerity of all involved.