Scathing Letter Against Rov

By COLlive reporter

Rabbi Menachem Mendel Shafran, a member of the Beis Din of Bnei Brak and a leading posek in Israel, recently weighed in on the ongoing controversy surrounding the membership of Rabbi Yosef Braun in the Crown Heights Beis Din.

Here are excerpts and key points from his letter (translated from Hebrew):

Monday, 8th of Av, 5771

Rav Avrohom Osdoba:

A.
1. I’d like to preface, I’m responding to the issues based on the details that you have given me.

2. Regarding the newly elected Rav, who – in your opinion and the opinion of many community elders and leaders – is not qualified to serve as a Rav. His ineligibility is due not only to his ignorance of practical Halacha ( that is to say, experience and practical training) in laws of Issur v’Heter, monetary laws and Even Haezer, but more so due to his character (as reported by some of his teachers who raised him).

3. Even more so, [Rabbi Braun’s qualifications are called into question due to] the suspicious nature of his smicha from his father. Beyond the serious suspicion of forgery , the [sordid] details behind its public ripping (itself a chilul hashem), raise further questions:

a. Was this event staged?
b. Who conspired to arrange this event?
c. Was [R’ Braun] involved?
d. Is this event an indication of his overall personality that he isn’t fit to be a Rav or as community leader, or was this a one-time affair? [(These questions are of the utmost importance, as) the Chasam Sofer is very strict on investigating the installation of a Rav by unscrupulous means].

B. I wrote to you some six months ago that you are not “obligated” to sit on a beis din with [R’ Braun] nor take part in any other matters of the rabbinate, so long as you have reasons to doubt his legitimacy (as mentioned above).

Now, however, that you are being intimidated by threatening your salary,

1. Not only are you not obligated to cooperate with him by giving into this pressure, but rather you are forbidden to participate with him, as by doing so you are legitimizing him as a valid rabbinic authority.

2. It is forbidden for the [Vaad Hakohel] to withhold payment from you in an attempt to coerce you to take actions you find objectionable. (It is interesting that the Vaad Hakohel found it necessary to ask me if they should pay the new Rav based on his election, but didn’t ask me if they can withhold the salaries of Rabbonim already serving.)

There is a Biblical prohibition in appointing a Rav who is not fit – be he lacking knowledge or unseemly in deed ( even if he has many other admirable qualities) [This based on the SM”E – according to the Maharam Schik it violates two prohibitions.] As well, those who assist this new Rav are equally culpable. Using pressure to appoint a rav is further prohibited, to the point that it may even be in the category of Yehoreig V’Al Yaavor!).

C. One should not rely on [R’ Braun] as a Rav until it’s clear:

1. That he is actually qualified to pasken in Isur & Heter.
2. That he is actually qualified to sit on Din Torahs.
3. That he is qualified to preside over a Get.

Until then, however, no one should ask him Shaalos in Isur & Heter under any circumstances.

VAAD HAKOHOL RESPONSE

Zaki Tamir, Chairman of the Vaad Hakohol of Crown Heights who has consulted with Rabbi Shafran in the past on this issue, sent COLlive.com the following statement:

The theme of Rabbi Scaffran’s message seems to be in contrast with what was previously communicated by the Rabbi to the Vaad in response to my inquiry regarding Rabbi Braun. In reality though, the current communication is based on inaccurate information. Namely the stated premise that the Vaad ever withheld salary from any of the three Badatz Rabbonim due to one political position or another. That assertion is flatly false.

Moreover, there has never been a threat to stop paying any of the Rabbonim based on a decision by the Vaad. Furthermore, the document that was released last week purported to be an agreement between myself and Sam Chanin is not signed and was never signed, it is merely a reflection of the earlier stages of the negotiations, in fact the executed version states clearly that (in sum and sub pertinent part) Salary may not be withheld from any of the 3 members of Badatz unless there is a finding by the Bais din zablo that said Rov is in contempt pursuant to the Order of the Zablo Psakai din.

Additionally, (emphasis added) notwithstanding the objections of some Bais Din funders, checks have been given to the Rabbonim equally in accordance with the pay grade. Each pay period checks were either distributed to all three Rabbonim or to none, depending on whether we had adequate funds in the account. It is the agreement between Chanin and the Vaad that allowed us to enforce payment to all three Rabbonim, it is therefore ironic that the same agreement is used to try and evidence the exact opposite.

It is important to recognize that undercurrent prevalent here, that being Kashrus. This comes at no personal loss to anyone individual, but rather to the community as a whole. Notwithstanding numerous attempts to inspect the books of kashrus and to assume control of its operations pursuant to the Psak Zablo, there has been absolutely no progress with respect to the transfer of kashrus to the community.

The most obvious connection hereto is that every pay period I must overcome a very difficult claim by funders and potential funders alike, that is, kashrus is intended to be a source of income towards payment of Badatz salaries, the financial portion of kashrus shall be in control of the Vaad Hakohol (see psak zablo art47). Therefore, if a party appropriates kashrus funds to one’s self, is a salary check on top of such payment required, and is it even permitted.

Again it is the agreement between Chanin and I that allows me and Chanin to force the funders to recognize that we are bound to an agreement that designates the Zablo bais din the authority to decide a Rov’s non-compliance. Therefore we can force the existing funds to be split accordingly, but we cannot force funders to continue giving if they are expressing what seem to be legitimate concerns regarding the use of the funds they are providing. Their chief complaint is that if a party collects money from kashrus that should (at the very least) be calculated towards salary. It is indeed a difficult claim to overcome.

Attached is the letter that Rabbi Schaffran sent me regarding Rabbi Braun’s placement on the Badatz, as you can tell from the tone, a lot can change in 180 days.