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.
