The Anatomy of a PR Campaign: What the Bais Havaad Controversy Reveals About Transparency in Halachic Process
In recent weeks, the leadership of Bais Havaad – famous for its now-discontinued beis din column in Ami Magazine – has launched a carefully coordinated media campaign. This initiative appears aimed at discrediting a psak halacha issued by nine highly respected roshei beis din and Gedolei Torah, which raises serious concerns about the conduct of Bais Havaad’s beis din.
When the psak halacha was first issued, Bais Havaad’s initial response was to quietly attempt to persuade individual signatories to withdraw their support. These efforts failed. The signatories, it turns out, were unwavering in their convictions. With private persuasion unsuccessful, the organization turned to more public tactics: rolling out a calculated series of letters and statements from various figures aimed at casting doubt on the legitimacy and integrity of the psak.
This campaign, however, does not appear to be a response to theological or halachic disagreement. Rather, it seems to be an effort to avoid a public diyun (hearing) regarding potential misconduct in the granting of a controversial heter to marry. The nine signatories have not sought to shut down Bais Havaad or impose uniform rulings on other rabbis. They have simply called for transparency: a hearing in which serious concerns can be reviewed and evaluated in an open and accountable forum.
Why This Matters
In halachic life, secrecy can be dangerous. When suspicion of impropriety arises—especially in sensitive areas like yuchasin—a responsible beis din should welcome, not resist, scrutiny. In this case, Bais Havaad’s leadership, possibly due to close relationships with involved parties, has instead resisted engaging willingly in such examination.
The public narrative now being promoted is troubling. It frames the nine rabbanim and Gedolim – figures known for their independence and venerated for their integrity – as having been manipulated or misled. This line of reasoning not only dismisses the seriousness of the original concerns, but implicitly undermines public trust in our most revered halachic authorities.
Let’s examine the facts that underlie the psak halacha and consider why the efforts to discredit it do not withstand scrutiny.
Timeline of Involvement: Bais Havaad and the Controversial Heter
-
Origin of the Heter: The initial heter was issued by a panel of dayanim strongly affiliated with the Bais Havaad beis din. Though the panel later stepped back due to a conflict of interest, they continued to support and promote the ruling informally.
-
Responsibility for Subsequent Involvement: Rabbis Bess and Sherwinter relied on the findings and documentation of the original panel, supplementing it with a smattering of additional testimony before seeking a ruling from Rabbi Farbstein—who opposed the marriage. The case was then taken to Rabbi Fuerst, who recently stated he was the one who ultimately permitted the marriage.
-
Post-Heter Response: Attempts to explain the reasoning behind the heter, particularly before the marriage took place, and attacks on it, were consistently deflected or handled by members of the original panel.
-
Reluctance to Submit Willingly to a Diyun: Over the course of more than a year, despite public resignations by three Bais Havaad dayanim and repeated requests for a hearing by prominent rabbanim such as Rav Forcheimer, the leadership took no steps toward establishing a formal diyun. The letter that Rabbi Grossman claimed to have written in response to the request of Rav Forcheimer was never shared with the family, giving the appearance of an insincere public statement.
-
Pressure and Delay: Only after facing the possibility of losing one of their most senior dayanim did Bais Havaad begin to negotiate toward a diyun. Even then, the conflicts of interest and uselessness of most of the names submitted by Bais Havaad left a pre-selected panel almost predictable. That panel later withdrew under vague circumstances. Post their withdrawal, with the immediate threat diminished, efforts to reestablish the diyun went unanswered.
Were the Gedolim Misled?
One of the central claims of Bais Havaad’s campaign is that the nine Gedolim were misled into issuing their psak. The argument rests largely on technicalities, such as who formally issued the heter, and on a letter from the withdrawn panel stating that neither side was to blame for its dissolution.
But this misses the point.
The language of the psak halacha is measured and precise. It does not accuse Bais Havaad of refusing a diyun outright. Instead, it notes that a request for a hearing was made, and that no hearing took place. This is both accurate and relevant.
Regarding the Bais Havaad dayanim’s responsibility for the heter, the psak speaks of those who “permitted (or misled others to permit)”—a formulation that reflects the complex sequence of events in which members of the original panel laid the foundation on which others relied and dealt with its aftermath.
The suggestion that such seasoned poskim were tricked into making a grave public ruling stretches credulity. In fact, when an earlier draft of the psak included a detail not personally verified by Rav Shlomo Miller shlita, it was removed at his request. That’s the level of care involved.
Who is This Campaign For?
If the public campaign is intended to convince those with strong emunas chachamim, it is unlikely to succeed. Those who trust in the integrity of senior Torah authorities will not be easily swayed by attempts to portray them as naïve or easily manipulated.
If, on the other hand, the campaign targets the skeptical or cynical, the strategy is self-defeating. If one is willing to believe that nine roshei beis din can be deceived, why should one not also believe that two or three other rabbis might be similarly misled—particularly when their accounts rely on the same disputed chain of events?
A Simple Solution: A Transparent Diyun
Ultimately, this is not about who “won” or “lost” in the court of public opinion. It’s about whether serious allegations regarding the halachic integrity of a disputed psak will be addressed responsibly.
When rabbanim disagree not merely on halachic principles, but on the integrity of each other’s sources of facts, the only meaningful way forward is to submit the matter to a mutually agreed-upon panel. This is not just proper—it’s necessary.
Avoiding such a process in favor of PR statements and open letters undermines the credibility of the institutions involved and erodes public confidence in the beis din system as a whole.
Final Note
While this article was written with rabbinic guidance, the author has chosen to remain anonymous due to the personal nature of their prior involvement and the risk of retaliatory attacks, which have unfortunately occurred in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment