10396 —הבהרת פסק הרבנות הראשית ופרסום מכתבים על גיור

B"H, Lag BaOmer, 5732.

Brooklyn, NY.

Havavac"h iy"a nu"n involved in tzt"z etc. Harav Zerah (called Dr. Warhaftig)

Shalom u'Vrachah!

I acknowledge receipt of your letter from the 2nd of Nissan, with its attachment, which arrived after some delay, and I thank you for it. Regarding the content of your letter and its beginning—which refers to my previous letter where I stated that the main point and the legal and practical fact is that there is a clear ruling from the Chief Rabbinate—and in response you sent copies of letters, etc., it seems that by this you wish to clarify that the conduct regarding registration and participation in the coalition, etc., is proper and just.

I am unsure if your intention is to enter into an argument for its own sake; after all, the goal is to clarify matters truthfully—as above—the legal and practical fact in connection with a clear ruling from the Chief Rabbinate. Please forgive me for saying that adding these copies only increases confusion and difficulty—if I may speak delicately.

Let me explain: A) When you and your colleagues—as you wrote—the World Center of Mizrachi (i.e., Mafdal) publish these copies, it is a publication confirming that at its time there was a clear ruling from the Chief Rabbinate, and that this ruling reached the ministers concerned. This means they knew about this ruling—especially section D within it. The conclusion: all those who strongly denied (as emphasized by Mafdal's newspaper, as I recall) that such a ruling existed, or later claimed they never received it—that is, it never reached them—now Mafdal and all its representatives publicly admit they did not speak truthfully. Certainly every public activist (and his party) should draw conclusions from this—how much more so when dealing not with just any public but a religious one, where issues of sanctification or desecration of G‑d's name are involved.

And what are those conclusions? Surely Mr. Shakot in Knesset regarding the Foreign Minister—who was accused by someone of saying something in the name of an American who denied it—the only thing to consider was whether or not the accusation was substantiated.

B) The copies concern only section four of the ruling—that is, participation in the coalition. Meaning Mafdal and its representatives publish that all other sections remain valid—including a clear ruling: "B) It is forbidden according to Torah law for registrars of population records or their supervisors to register a non-Jew as a Jew unless he converted according to Halachah [whether in Israel or abroad]." The current practical reality—as has been reported many times in newspapers and even in Knesset—is that non-Jews are registered as Jews even though they have not converted according to Halachah [the question being whether this applies only abroad or also in Israel; officials are not authorized to investigate].

This means Mafdal publishes that anyone acting against section B of this ruling violates a clear decision by the Chief Rabbinate—and yet does so knowingly. In other words—a contradiction within itself. I emphasize again: publication means someone publishes that this section remains valid while continuing registration as before despite this ruling—and asks Mafdal branches in Israel and abroad to publicize his conduct as well.

C) The Chief Rabbinate's ruling was accepted unanimously by all council members. Certainly for your honor—as I have heard also from you—you have rabbinic ordination; there is no need to explain that no individual can annul such a ruling—not even interpret it fundamentally—unless those who issued it participate and express their opinion publicly as with the original decision. This is so obvious it needs no clarification from either rabbi or lawyer; it's simple logic: one partner or part cannot annul a unanimous decision—how much more so when unanimously accepted.

I do not wish to enter into debate about these letters themselves—they are not your letters nor are you responsible for them. Nevertheless—since you are among those publishing them and encouraging others—I will pause on one point regarding the copy dated 11 Nissan: "We expressed our opinion thus... because at that time an immediate decision was needed about recognizing conversions done improperly." But here is what section D says: "D) If by Nissan 15th (Pesach) the law is not amended as above, religious representatives must leave government since it's impossible to share responsibility as cabinet members." This is a clear-cut decision—the condition for maintaining or annulling it: one condition only—the amendment of law as above. Nowhere throughout does it mention an immediate decision; only amending law.

Note also that another letter copy from Nissan 6th emphasizes twice that everything depends solely on amending law—not any immediate decision at all.

I mention this only as an aside—for regarding a full-fledged decision by the Chief Rabbinate Council no individual—or even several individuals—can change it.

To summarize: The legal and practical fact now—as at time of my previous letter—is there remains a clear ruling by the Chief Rabbinate; now even Mafdal and its representatives admit this publicly—but add there are private letters concerning section four which contradict each other; but these are private letters whose content itself confirms again there exists an unequivocal Chief Rabbinate decision with their participation.

What must be added—with apologies—is anyone publishing these copies does not elevate respect for either Chief Rabbinate or religion generally—for all points above are self-evident to any observer. It’s well known how things developed until these letters were published.

To conclude your letter—which mentions rumors sometimes far from truth—I can assure you before speaking publicly about any rumor without first clarifying it's just hearsay—I thoroughly check every rumor by every possible means—and thank G‑d until now every rumor I've checked proved my investigation was proper.

Regarding this matter itself: when I said there was a clear ruling—and they strongly denied—it turned out as above; when I said rulings were sent to certain people—and they denied—it turned out likewise; etc., etc.

Summary

The Rebbe teaches here that communal decisions made unanimously by rabbinic authority cannot be overturned by individual opinions or private correspondence; clarity and integrity must guide public discourse on matters affecting Jewish identity and halachic standards.