Rav Kanievsky, Abutbol and the New Generation of Mamzers

This week, a letter made the news (see an English article here) written by the "Committee for Purity of Communications," stating the following:
On the 5th of Tevet, 5774, I was by the great teacher, the sage, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, in the presence of his grandson, Rav Aryeh Kanievsky, shlita, and he said that anyone who has an iPhone, licentious internet and the like, is invalid as a witness for a wedding and a divorce. If such a person was a witness, even after the fact one has to perform the wedding or give the get (divorce document) once again.

Similarly, he said that one who certifies the validity of a mikveh for women's immersion, and similarly for a woman who immerses others [i.e. a balanit], they are invalid in their job if they have such devices; and even after the fact - if a woman already immersed - they cannot be deemed trustworthy.

With blessings,

Aharon Feinhandler,
Head of the Committee for Purity of Communications

p.s. And one should be especially careful regarding a mikveh, where even in Jerusalem and other concentrations of Haredim, most of the management of religious councils, and those responsible there do not ask and are not scrupulous in the above issue. And similarly regarding divorce and marriage, which are done by the religious courts of the Rabbanut, and a portion of the religious courts of Haredi communities. And one who guards his soul will not rely on them if he didn't first clarify regarding the above issue.

First off, I want to point out that I don't know how reliable this letter is. It's not a pronouncement from Rav Kanievsky himself. We don't know exactly what was said or whether Rav Kanievsky would agree as to the wording of the letter. We also don't know whether Rav Kanievsky wanted this to be publicized as a universal psak (rabbinic decree) in his name. But let's assume for a moment that he would sign off on the letter as if it was his own words, and that he wanted to issue it as a decree.

Would people who otherwise take Rav Kanievsky's rulings seriously actually follow such a decree? Would they get remarried? Give divorce papers again? Re-immerse in the mikveh? And imagine the following scenario: A woman gets married with "kosher" witnesses. She later gets divorced in the presence of internet-bearing and thus invalid witnesses, and as such (according to this psak) is still technically "married." If she remarries, any subsequent child she has will have the status of mamzer (meaning they are forbidden to marry anyone born Jewish, aside from another mamzer).

Point being, the decree is ridiculous if only because if people took it seriously it would lead to impossible complications. Of course, the witch hunt against internet users is ridiculous in its own right, but that's another story.

What I want to ask is the following: If you normally follow Rav Kanievsky's psak, will you also follow this one (again, assuming he would call it his psak)? And more specifically, if you voted for a candidate because you didn't want to go against the word of a Torah sage, what will you do now?

Leading up to the recent Beit Shemesh elections, Rav Kanievsky was approached by Moshe Abutbol (and others from the "Chen" party) to get his endorsement. Not only did they procure the rav's endorsement, but it was billed as a quasi-"mitzvah" to vote for Abutbol - a religious act which was to be done with an accompanying prayer. So if you voted for Moshe Abutbol because Torah sages such as Rav Kanievsky said to vote for him, will you also follow Rav Kanievsky here, and - if need be - get remarried, re-divorced, re-immersed, or declare your children to be mamzerim (Heaven forbid)? Or even worse, dare I say it - will you actually give up your smartphones and internet?

These are of course rhetorical questions. No one except for a few of the most "devout" would possibly adhere to such a decree which renders half the Orthodox world pasul for eidut (invalid as witnesses). Which then makes me want to point out our very selective use of the Gedolim (Sages). And I say "use" specifically. Because although people will say that they "follow" the Gedolim because it's required by the Torah command, "Do not turn from the word that they will tell you, right or left," the fact that the same people will completely disregard other rulings of the same Gedolim seems to imply that they do not follow the Gedolim because it's a Torah command, but rather only when it puts a religious rubber stamp on what they want to do anyway. So de-facto, it's not we who follow the Sages but the Sages who follow us. By using Torah sages only when it's politically, socially or psychologically expedient, we in effect get them to do our bidding.

Now to be clear, I'm not someone who would want everyone to follow lock-step with every psak which came out of the mouths of the Sages. Even aside from the question of who is really doing the talking, the rabbis or their askanim (assistants), I tend to err on the side of personal autonomy, and aside from halachic questions about dairy spoons being used in meat pots and the like, I prefer to make my own choices in life. The question is for those of you who see the role of the Sages as also deciding the way you should vote or making other choices for you, and who are presumably reading this blog post via the internet: How do you resolve that tension?


  1. Ironic t say, David, but I am speechless. (iphones)

  2. I believe this Feinhandler guy is the same loon that made a public spectacle a few years ago smashing laptops in Jerusalem. (And subsequently himself the target of demonstrations because he was bringing mixed groups of American BT's to his Meah shearim home.

  3. You left out the most important tidbit:

    Rabbi Aaron Feinhandler and his Committee for Clean Communications have been trying to develop the Kosher iPhone (limited Internet filtered by them, no SMS and no Social Apps ) for over a year now.

    So far they haven't succeeded - but their PR campaign is in full swing - so that they can hit the market running.

    A brilliant business man, it seems.

  4. Danny, where did you hear this? If true, that's certainly a creative way to get rid of the competition!

    Well, it's a few days later and I haven't heard a retraction or clarification issued in the name of Rav Kanievsky. I did see Harry Maryles' brief article contending that the rav was clearly misled, that assuming he even issued a psak he was no doubt working from an incomplete and skewed version of the facts. That's a reasonable assessment, but if so, doesn't that mean that *any* rulings from Rav Kanievsky have to be taken with a major grain of salt? After all, how do we know if the psak in question is coming from a full appraisal of the facts, or whether it's merely based on the information given to him by one specific individual or group, who may well be biased and agenda-driven?

    And doesn't that PRECISELY resemble what happened when Moshe Abutbol and close political associates Shmuel Greenberg and Moshe Montag visited Rav Kanievsky and came away with the rav's full endorsement, declaring it to be a mitzvah - a religious obligation - to vote for Abutbol and not for Eli Cohen? Abutbol and Co., like Feinhandler, can hardly be termed "objective" here, and unless Rav Kanievsky ALSO met with Eli Cohen and Co. (which I'm not aware of happening), then his "psak" to vote for Abutbol should be viewed with equal suspicion, since he was "misled" by people with a clear bias and wasn't fully informed.

    So my "kashya" remains - How do you reject the iPhone psak and yet accept the Abutbol psak?

    And actually, the question is much bigger - What do we do when we discover that one of the greatest Torah sages of the generation is issuing rulings without first ensuring that he's been apprised of all the facts?


Post a Comment

Not sure how to leave a comment? By "Comment as", either choose your Google ID, OR select "Name/URL". Type your name and leave URL blank (if you don't have a web address). Then hit "Publish", type in the letters/number shown, and again "Publish". I don't mind anonymous comments, but please use a pseudonym.