ANNULLING RABBI’S ORDINATION

QUESTION:

Is it possible to have a rabbi’s semicha taken away from him for reasons of moral turpitude? Have there been such cases in Jewish history? (Asked in a class of Rabbi J. B. Goldburg, Des Moines, Iowa.)

ANSWER:

THE QUESTION OF whether a rabbi can be “defrocked” is a complicated one because the meaning of ordination and the status of the rabbi have drastically changed in Jewish history. As for ordination, originally it was a mystical or spiritual transfer of sanctity by the laying on of hands. It was a process presumed to have begun by Moses, and carried on uninterrupted from ordainer to ordainee. This process ceased in the third century (although Maimonides hoped to restore it). It was, however, taken up by the Christian Church and greatly treasured as an evidence of the special sanctity of the sacraments by an ordained priest. Hence the dispute in the Church about “unbroken apostolic succession.” As for us, in place of the mystical ordination, we have hataras ho’roah. This is popularly, but erroneously, called semicha, although no laying on of hands (semicha) is involved. Our modern hataras ho’roah is merely a teacher’s certificate, a statement by one or a number of scholars that this person has studied and now has permission to serve as teacher, or rabbi.

It is clear that the two types of ordination differ as to their permanence inherent in the person ordained. It is hard to see how a sacred status, once bestowed, can ever be removed; but a teacher’s certificate may certainly be retracted if subsequent events, for example, prove that it was given by mistake. Maimonides, in his responsum cited by David ibn Zimri (his successor in the rabbinate of Cairo), says that no one may be removed from the historic Sanhedrin once he has been appointed there. The reason for this inviolability of status in the Sanhedrin was due to the fact that no one could serve as a member of the Sanhedrin unless he had the true ordination. On the other hand, in his Code (Sanhedrin 17:9) he says that the head of a Yeshiva who has sinned is removed and is not restored to his position. David ibn Zimri explains it by saying that the members of the high Sanhedrin in Jerusalem could not be removed, but a teacher of the Torah may be removed.

However, there was great hesitation about the removal of a teacher or, as we would say, a rabbi. The Talmud states in two places (Moed Katan 17a and Menachos 99b) that if a teacher has sinned or has to be put under the ban, this must not be done publicly, but secretly. Resh Lakish bases this caution on the verse in Hosea 4:5, which says: “Therefore shalt thou stumble in the day, and the prophet shall also stumble with thee in the night.” In other words, the disgrace that comes to the prophet is also a disgrace which comes to the people; both of them stumble together. Then Resh Lakish emphasizes the phrase “in the night” and says: “Keep the disgrace as dark as the night.”

Thus, whenever it was necessary to rebuke or to punish a leader of the community, it was important to keep it quiet and so avoid public shame. Aside from the question of public shame involved, we must note that while the rabbinate is a profession, and a rabbinical position is based upon the choice of the congregation, the rabbi is considered to have a special status which gives him almost automatic tenure in his position. Note the following in the responsum on tenure in Contemporary Reform Responsa:

To sum up: The general principle that “we do not degrade in holiness” (En Moriddin Bakodesh) stands against removal of any appointee of a congregation for sacred work. Such removal was possible, however, in the early days when the rabbinate was not a profession. After it became a profession it is unheard of that a rabbi be removed after the formal term of three or five years mentioned in the rabbinical contract has passed.

Of course that does not mean that they were insensitive to an unworthy person functioning as a leader in public service. The Talmud (Berachos 32b) says that a priest who has killed somebody should not lift up his hand to bless the people, and the proof verse that is cited is from Isaiah 1:15: “When you lift up your hands, I will hide my face from you. Your hands are filled with blood.” The Shulchan Aruch (Orah Hayyim 128:35), giving this as a law, says that even if the priest killed a man by accident, and even if he has made full repentance, he shall not publicly stand up to bless the people. (However, Isserles is more lenient to the repentant priest.) Thus we see that the law is, indeed, sensitive to ethical purity on the part of leadership, but it is hesitant in taking drastic steps because of the public shame involved.

The specific question asked here is whether any such cases have actually arisen. We may say theoretically that such cases must indeed have arisen, considering the complaints that are found in the literature about men who have received their rabbinate through the influence of the secular authorities. In other words, there is an awareness in the literature of unworthy men occupying the position. As to actual incidents, there are some discussions in the responsa literature. The great Hungarian authority Moses Sofer, in his responsa (Choshen Mishpot 162), discusses the case of a rabbi against whom pious members of the community made a series of complaints. The first complaint was that the rabbi was not observant about hand-washing, grace after meals, etc.; the second, that he was too lenient in his decisions about Kosher and Trefe; and the third was that he gave divorce documents (gittin) in a city where no divorce documents should be issued. (There is an objection in Jewish legal practice to giving a get in a city where no legal get had been given before because the various spellings of the names and the status of the city on rivers were never settled, and the wording of a get must be precise. In the case discussed here, a well-known rabbi forbade any get to be written in the city where the accused rabbi lived.) As for the first two objections, Moses Sofer is doubtful whether the rabbi should be removed; but as for the third, with regard to the get, he states clearly that this cannot be forgiven. He says, therefore, that they should take away from him the hataras ho’roah because it was given to him by rabbis before they could have known the evil that he has committed (in other words, his ordination was an ex post facto mistake), and he says specifically: “They shall take from him completely the crown of the name of Rabbi.”

On the other hand, a later responsum by the great Galician authority Sholom Mordecai Schwadron (II, # 5 6) comes to a different conclusion (because the case was different). But it has its special interest: A rabbi of Rumanian origin was established as a rabbi in Manchester, England. He then moved to London. The Chief Rabbi, Adler, wanted to have him removed from the rabbinate, but the Sephardic Rabbi Gaster (who was also a Rumanian) came to his defense. Schwadron discusses all the material cited above and comes to the defense of the rabbi.

In summary we may say that the rabbinate today is a profession and does not have the mystical holiness of the old ordination. Nevertheless, the rabbi’s status is involved in the honor of the whole community, and therefore public disgrace is to be avoided. However, it is clear that cases came up in which scholars recommended that a rabbi be deposed. But even so, many scholars (cited by Moses Sofer, ibid.) said that the members of his community are not always to be trusted as witnesses against him because they may be motivated by hostility that has grown up between the rabbi and them. In brief, a rabbi can be deposed, as Moses Sofer says, and the title “rabbi” should not be used by such a man. Yet the cases are rare, and for the sake of the public good, they are handled with caution.