There is a legal concept known as ‘Fruit of the Poisonous Tree’. If I understand it correctly, it means that any evidence illegally obtained cannot be presented in a court of law, no matter how true or beneficial to the case. And that seems to be the basis of a ban envoked by the Agudah Moetzes several years ago.
An article by Eytan Kobre in cross-currents references an event which I believe was one of the biggest blunders made by the Agudah Moetzes in recent times. It was their forcing Lakewood trained Rabbi Yosef Reinman to withdraw a book written in collaboration with Reform Rabbi Amiel Hirsch. And to withdraw from an accompanying book tour promoting it. Rabbi Reinman had one appearance before he was forced to do so. And by his own description, he found it a wonderful opportunity to meet and educate Reform Jews about the Torah.
The Agudah Moetzes argued that no matter what the benefits of such a tour, standing on the same stage with a Reform Rabbi was in effect a tacit endorsement of the Reform Movement. Any good resulting from it was ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’. The ‘poison’ was legitimizing in any way a heretical movement in Judaism. And they invoked a long standing ban on co-operating with heretical Jewish movements in any way.
I argued at the time that since Rabbi Rineman clearly stated in the book and on the tour that he did not recognize Reform Judaism, it could not be misconstrued that he did and the ban shouldn’t apply.
As an adherent of the Charedi version of Daas Torah, which they define as ‘listening to the Gedolim’ he gracefully and contritely withdrew from promoting the book and from the book tour. But he did have one regret. He had seen the interest in Torah by a population of Jews with which he would otherwise never come into contact, if not for the tour. He was connecting with them in an unprecedented way. And this would be a missed opportunity.
I agree with his assessment that it was a missed opportunity. It was forever lost. I also disagree with the assessment of the Agudah Moetzes. They carried the ban of avoiding interactions with other movements too far. Their insistence on Rabbi Reinman withdrawing was not in the true spirit of the original ban on such activities. Nor does the original ban have the same meaning today that it did then.
When the ban was made many decades ago, the Reform (and Conservative) movements were not clearly understood by most people as heretical. People just thought the three streams were equally legitmate and it was just a matter of how religious one wanted to be. It had to be pointed out that they were not legitimate and in fact heretical. The dangers of appearing to endorse them then were far greater than they are today.
So, I was sorry to see Rabbi Reinman withdraw and lose such a wonderful opportunity. One that he will not likely see again.
In his statement of contrition, Rabbi Reinman said that he saw the wisdom of the Agudah Moetzes. He saw that there are always strings attached and that indeed they were right that along with the Kiruv opportunities came a sort of tacit recognition:
“So why did I withdraw? And even more important, why was this opportunity for an Orthodox rabbi to meet non-Orthodox people such a rare phenomenon? Ammi offers the answer: “The Jewish world needs you . . . . We should see ourselves as allies in our common struggle to sustain and ensure Jewish continuity.”
“You see? There are strings attached to these wonderful opportunities. So Reform laypeople want to hear and learn from Orthodox rabbis? Fine, but only if those Orthodox rabbis acknowledge Reform rabbis as allies. It is like a parent using the children as pawns in a marital struggle. If the Orthodox rabbi stands on a stage side by side with a Reform rabbi, then he can speak to the people. Otherwise, no visitation.”
I’m sorry. I have to strongly disagree. There was no string at all attached to this book and tour. It was merely the Metzius… the way things were. The book was a collaboration. Rabbi Hirsch’s appearance on the stage was not a pre-condition.. And it was that ‘Metzius’ that enabled any contact at all.
There was no debate about religion. There was nothing from Rabbi Hirsch that countered Rabbi Reinman’s interaction with these people. There was only warm support. When Rabbi Hirsch said that they should be allies, he meant it exactly how he said it… in the ‘common struggle to sustain and ensure Jewish continuity’. In no way can this be construed as an endorsement of Reform… even a tacit one. Nor was there any endorsement of Reform as a precondition.
So a wonderful opportunity was lost. And Rabbi Reinman in his desire to understand exactly why the Agudah Moetzes made him withdraw ‘spun’ a positive situation into a negative one that ‘proved’ the Agudah Moetzes to be right.
With all the problems of both children and adults dropping out of observance, it would be nice to see the other side of the spectrum… those wanting ‘in’ …to be given greater opportunity to do so And not reducing those opportunities with bans that are possibly outdated and in any case not applicable to cases like rabbi Reinman’s book and tour.
Is the Agudah Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah the sole source of Daas Torah? Isn’t it just possible to say they are not the sole source? Isn’t it possible to say… even if you are Charedi… they might just be wrong this time?
Had this tour gone on as scheduled, the Torah would not have been undermined. But a better understanding of it would have been transmitted to hundreds if not thousands of Reform Jews. Respect for it would have been enhanced tremendously. Who knows what fruit would have been born of that.
