Citation of Non-Orthodox Scholars

21 Citation of Non-Orthodox Scholars Rabbi Gil Student I. Quoting by Name We live in an era of “cancel culture,” in which someone who offends current cultural sensitivities is subject to reprimand, social ostracism, and sometimes even termination of employment. There is a fundamental need to respect others despite their differences and personal flaws. Of those with different practices, we say, “Each river and river has its course.”1 We must make room for all the different people with varying traits and inclinations.2 Particularly within the Torah world, we are not quick to excommunicate someone,3 which would be an extreme cancellation. However, there might be lesser consequences for someone who violates normative halachic behavior or beliefs. In this article, we will explore one possible impact of semi-cancellation within the realm of Torah study. Orthodox Jewish academics frequently cite non-Orthodox and gentile scholars in their publications. On some occasions, traditional rabbis might see a need to quote a non-Orthodox scholar or even an Orthodox scholar who, unfortunately, fails to meet the religious standards normally expected of a Torah scholar.4 May they do this? 1. Chullin 18b, 57a. 2. Berachos 58b. 3. Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 334:42. 4. In this article, it is taken as a given that, in addition to someone Orthodox who violates normative behavior or beliefs, someone non-Orthodox by definition does not reach the required standard of religious practice and/or belief. There is room to discuss whether this Rabbi Gil Student is the editor of TorahMusings.com and the Director of the Halacha Commission at the Rabbinical Alliance of America. 22 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA Is there anything wrong with quoting a Reform professor on a Torah matter? Does the forum of citation make a difference? It says in the beraisa of Kinyan Torah:5 “Whoever says something in the name of he who said it brings redemption to the world.” The Midrash Tanchuma6 condemns the inverse: “Whoever does not say something in the name of he who said it, about him the Torah says, ‘Do not steal from someone poor because he is poor.’”7 There is spiritual value for a teacher whose words are repeated in his name.8 The Gemara9 says: “Any scholar in whose name a teaching is said in this world, his lips move in the grave.” We see from these statements of Chazal how important it is to quote a teaching in the name of the person who originally taught it. Even after his death, there is reason to quote a teaching in a scholar’s name, and we will later explore what that reason may be. For now, we will note that unless we have a contraindication, our default assumption should be that we should quote a non-Orthodox scholar by name. II. A Lost Responsum There is a rabbinic prohibition against eating a gentile’s homebaked bread. The exact details and historical observance of this prohibition are complex, with a number of distinctions.10 The Gemara11 relates that Aivu was known to go outside of the town’s borders and eat bread baked by a gentile. Because of that, Rava (or R. Nachman bar Yitzchak) told people: “Do not quote from (or: speak with) Aivu, because he eats the bread of gentiles.” There are two versions of this text. In one (“mineih”), Rava told people not to is the case, but for the purpose of this article, we will continue with that assumption. Even though the term “Orthodox” is relatively recent, the concept is not. See also Igros Moshe Y.D. 2:108. Additionally, this article will not discuss the propriety of quoting gentile scholars. On that, see Teshuvos HaRama 7. 5. Avos 6:6, quoted in Megillah 15a and Chullin 104b. 6. Bamidbar 22. 7. Mishlei 22:22. 8. See also Sanhedrin 106b regarding Do’eig . 9. Yevamos 97a, Sanhedrin 90b, and Bechoros 30b. 10. See Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 112. 11. Avodah Zarah 35b. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 23 quote Aivu. In the other (“bahadeih”), Rava told people not to speak with him. Both versions are well attested among Rishonim. Rava’s statement, assuming the “mineih” version, is that one may not quote Aivu, because he acted improperly. The implication is that it is wrong to quote someone whose behavior is substandard. This conclusion is stated explicitly by R. Amram Gaon in a responsum.12 He writes: “We do not whip (i.e. punish) one who eats the bread of gentiles, but rather rebuke him. And it is forbidden to quote something from him in the beis midrash.” This responsum of R. Amram Gaon seems to have been lost to history for centuries. It is not quoted in any pre-Modern Ashkenazic source, and even early Sephardic texts do not refer to it. It seems to have been found by R. Avraham Hayarchi in his travels throughout Europe, and his record of this responsum in his Sefer Hamanhig13 brought it to the attention of commentators and legal scholars. Subsequent to the Sefer Hamanhig, the next mention of the responsum is in the Ramban,14 who approvingly cites this responsum from “the Ge'onim.” He adds a significant detail in his discussion of this responsum that we will analyze shortly. III. The Rashba-Ra’ah Dispute After the Ramban’s citation of this responsum, we find it in other Sephardic sources, notably (and unsurprisingly) within the Ramban’s school in the late-13th and early-14th centuries. The Rashba and Ra’ah15 heatedly debate the implications of the Aivu incident, a discussion the Ra’ah continues in his commentary to Avodah Zarah. The debate is significant in that the parties discussed, among other things, whether or not Aivu violated a rabbinic prohibition. According to the Rashba, whose position is followed by the Ritva,16 12. Halachos Pesukos Min Hageonim, NY: 1959, no. 26. 13. Sefer Hamanhig, Din Issur Pas Shel Goyim, no. 130, vol. 2, p. 655. Note that Sefer Hamanhig does not identify the author as R. Amram Gaon; we know that from other sources. 14. Avodah Zarah 35b s.v. mah. 15. Toras Habayis 3:7, p. 184 in the commonly reproduced 1882 Jozefow edition, with the Bedek Habayis and Mishemres Habayis ad loc. 16. Avodah Zarah 35b s.v. lo. THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA 24 Aivu violated a rabbinic prohibition and, therefore, was punished by not having his name quoted with his insights. This is referred to as a “middah k’negged middah” – a punishment corresponding to his transgression. He did not value the words (i.e. the prohibition) of the Sages, so in response, we do not consider him a sage, whose words would be valued. According to the Ra’ah, however, Aivu did not violate any prohibition, but simply failed to meet the high standards expected of a rabbinic scholar. The Ramban seems to agree, writing that we may not quote Aivu because “He is not among the chaveirim (Torah scholars).”17 It is not a punishment meted out to sinners, but merely the natural consequences of someone who does not meet the standards of admission into rabbinic discourse. The upshot of this disagreement is that according to the Rashba and Ritva, a scholar who is not fully observant should not be quoted. According to the Ramban and Ra’ah, even a scholar who is fully observant but does not meet the extra religious and ethical standards expected of a scholar may not be quoted by name. Torah discourse is for scholars; only those who act the part may take part.18 IV. The Rambam’s Approach The Rambam takes a unique approach to this subject that implies a different understanding of the Aivu passage. In the beginning of his introduction to his commentary on Avos, the Rambam writes:19 It is important to know, though, that I did not originate the ideas expressed or the explanations offered either in these chapters or in my commentary, but they are collected from the words of the Sages in Midrashim, the Talmud, and in their other works, as well as from the words of earlier and later philosophers [Jewish 17. The Me’iri (Avodah Zarah 35b) follows the Ramban’s approach. 18. The Ran (Commentary to the Rif, Avodah Zarah 14b s.v. lo) quotes the responsum of R. Amram Gaon. However, it is not clear from his language whether he sides with the Ra’ah or Rashba. 19. Translation from R. Yaakov Feldman, The 8 Chapters of the Rambam, p. 23. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 25 and non-Jewish], and from the works of many others. Accept the truth from whoever utters it… I also will not say, ‘So-and-so said this’ or ‘So-andso said that’ because that would be unnecessarily wordy. Furthermore, it might make a reader who does not accept the author concerned think that what he said is harmful or has an untoward meaning that he is unaware of. Therefore, I decided to leave out the author’s name, for my aim is to help the reader and explain what is hidden away in this tractate.” The Rambam’s first reason for omitting his sources is that quoting his sources is too unwieldy and, really, unnecessary. His second reason is that including names might discourage readers from seriously considering the ideas based on the identity of the person who said it.20 This seems to contradict Chazal’s statements mentioned above about the importance of quoting a teaching in the name of the person who said it. Indeed, it is astounding that the Rambam explicitly says that he will not name his sources for various reasons but omits any mention of Chazal’s statements encouraging the naming of sources. Perhaps we can explain the Rambam’s approach by contrasting it with the views of the Ra’ah and others. The Ra’ah believes that we omit the name of a wayward scholar because he is not worthy of inclusion in a Torah discussion, and the Rashba believes it is a formal punishment for improper behavior. Either way, it is a function of the scholar, a rule relating to the person. The Rambam seems to believe that it is not a function of the scholar, but rather a function of the teaching. An original insight will be accepted more widely if it is quoted in the name of the important scholar who first said it. We quote the teaching in the name of the person who said it in order to strengthen it. According to this line of thinking, when quoting the source of the teaching will fail to add to its credibility, there is no value in mentioning the source. And when 20. See also Rambam’s letter to R. Pinchas Hadayan in R. Y. Shilat ed., Igros HaRambam, vol. 2, p. 441. 26 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA the source’s name will detract from the teaching’s acceptance, we should omit the name altogether. Presumably, the Rambam omits almost all names to avoid stigmatizing a teaching that originated from someone potentially controversial. V. The Teacher and the Teaching A similar approach is suggested in a responsum of the Geonim,21 which says: “If you recognize that a teaching is correct but is not accepted, you may say it in the name of your rabbinic mentor so that people accept it from you. But if you are not certain that the teaching is correct, do not attribute it to your mentor.” The Magen Avraham22 rules likewise. A Talmudic source for this surprising ruling can be found in the Gemara:23 He (Rabbah) only taught it from R. Yossi so that he (R. Yosef and others) would accept it from him. In other words, Rabbah inaccurately attributed a teaching to R. Yossi so that people would accept the teaching.24 If the rule to quote a teaching in the name of the person who said it is to strengthen that teaching, this additional ruling takes a further step in that direction - one may even quote it in the name of someone who did not say it if that likewise serves to strengthen the teaching. We find a similar debate between eighteenth-century scholars. In the introduction to the first volume of Panim Me’iros, R. Meir Eisenstadt notes that a number of medieval Torah scholars published their writings anonymously. If their souls receive value from people repeating their teachings in their names, are they not wrong to publish anonymously? R. Eisenstadt argues that Hashem would not withhold reward from a Torah scholar with long-lasting influence merely because someone chooses not to mention the original scholar’s name; that seems arbitrary and capricious. Rather, 21. 22. 23. 24. Quoted in Birkei Yosef Y.D. 242:24. 156:2. Eruvin 51a. See also Shabbos 115a; Pesachim 112a and Rashi ad loc. s.v. hitaleh b’ilan gadol. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 27 a Torah scholar is rewarded when people benefit from his teachings regardless of whether his name is mentioned. The name only serves to strengthen the effect of the teachings on the recipients. If using a famous scholar’s name helps people accept his teachings, then one should use his name. If it will make no difference, then there is no reason not to publish anonymously. As we explained the Rambam, R. Eisenstadt seems to see the idea of citing the source of a teaching as a function of the Torah teaching itself. However, the Chida25 disagrees with R. Eisenstadt, arguing that one must mention the Torah scholar’s name in order for him to fully benefit from the study of his teachings. He explains this process in a kabbalistic way. When someone quotes a scholar’s name in connection to a Torah teaching that he said, this arouses mercy for the scholar and generates intercessors (meilitzim) to plead on his behalf before the Heavenly court. According to the Chida, then, the idea of citing someone by name is a function of the individual who taught the Torah sayings and who benefits from them being repeated in his name. VI. Ashkenazic Approaches The lively debate between the Ra’ah and the Rashba (and others) seems to have been entirely lost on Ashkenazic scholars. There is no indication that the Talmudic passage about Aivu was taken as a directive not to quote non-observant scholars. In fact, even though this passage is quoted in the discussions of the laws of gentile bread, there is no mention of the implication regarding whom one may quote and whom one may not. This is despite the fact that the Sefer Chasidim raised this issue from a different angle (as we shall see shortly). For some reason, this passage in Avodah Zarah was left unplumbed in this respect. One might suggest that this is due to the prominence of the textual variant that prohibits speaking with Aivu, not necessarily quoting him. However, a search through 25. Sheim Hagedolim part 2, os zayin, no. 26. 28 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA early Ashkenazic Rishonim demonstrates both variants with almost equal frequency. Subsequent to the Ran, the connection between the Aivu passage and the citation of problematic scholars seems to have been severed. There does not seem to be any mention of the responsum of R. Amram Gaon or the implication of the Aivu passage until the 19th-century battle against the haskalah (Enlightenment). With the exception of the Beis Yosef,26 halachic sources such as the Tur and standard Shulchan Aruch commentaries omit the discussion between the Ra’ah, Rashba, et al. on this issue. We have already seen how the responsum of R. Amram Gaon brought this matter, and its source in Avodah Zarah, to the attention of Sephardic scholars. Apparently, Ashkenazic scholars never saw this responsum. However, while they did not utilize the passage in Avodah Zarah for this purpose, there is evidence that the concept was not foreign to them. For example, Rashi27 states that the sons of a particular man named Rochel would not be quoted in the beis midrash because they were wicked. Similarly, Tosafos28 quote a source29 which says that the Tanna, R. Meir, would quote teachings from his wayward mentor Elisha ben Avuyah in the name of “Acheirim.” One explanation of this practice is that he or the other Sages intentionally refrained from quoting Torah in the name of someone who had left Torah observance.30 Elsewhere, Tosafos31 ask how the Gemara could quote an apostate by name, since the verse says, “The name of the wicked will rot.”32 All this indicates that the Ashkenazim believed that it is forbidden to mention the name of someone who has significantly deviated from mainstream practices and beliefs, even to quote Torah that he taught. 26. Y.D. 112:2 s.v. v'kasav od harashba. 27. Gittin 15a s.v. tikbereim imam. 28. Sotah 12a s.v. acheirim. 29. Perhaps the Geonic work Toldos Tanna’im V’amora’im 2:3. 30. See R. Reuven Margoliyos (Mekor Chesed to Sefer Chasidim 938:1), who cites this Tosafos in reference to R. Yehudah Hachassid’s statement not to quote Torah from an apostate. 31. Megillah 23a s.v. amar ya’akov. 32. R. Reuven Margoliyos (Nitzotzei Ohr, Megillah 23a) suggests that it is permissible to mention an apostate by name in order to show that he refused to listen to the Sages’ rebuke. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 29 Similarly, the Sefer Chasidim writes: “We do not quote by name a good Torah explanation from someone who subsequently became an apostate,”33 and “A man who heard a good explanation or answer from an idolater, apostate, or enticer to sin should not repeat it in his name.”34 It is noteworthy that the early Sephardic Acharon the Radvaz does not discuss the matter explicitly even though, as an heir of the Spanish tradition (albeit in sixteenth-century Egypt), he was certainly aware of the Ramban and his circle’s discussion. In one responsum,35 the Radbaz states in passing that one may not quote by name someone who has the halachic status of a heretic. Here ends our discussion of the matter from a pre-modern perspective. From the Ramban through the Ran, the matter revolves around the Aivu passage. According to some, one may not quote by name from a scholar who does not act according to his station, while according to others, one must only refrain from quoting by name from a scholar who violates a prohibition, even of rabbinic origin. On the Ashkenazic side, there exists a similar recognition that it is improper to quote by name someone outside the community of believers. This seems to be the position of the Radvaz as well. All seem to agree, however, that one may quote teachings of even wicked scholars if one does not mention their names.36 VII. The Bi’ur Controversy One of the earliest modern discussions on this subject is in a responsum of R. Shlomo Kluger regarding the permissibility of utilizing the German translation of the Torah by Moses Mendelssohn and its accompanying Bi’ur commentary. Mendelssohn’s personal religiosity and the propriety of his Torah translation and commentary were the subject of much discussion. 33. Section 938. 34. Section 977. 35. Vol. 4 no. 187. 36. Presumably, one may not take credit for the teachings, but rather should say, “I heard it explained” or something similar. 30 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA For our purposes, we will assume that he falls outside the community of mainstream practice and belief and that his Torah translation and the associated commentary contain religiously questionable content, as that is the assumption in some of the halachic discussions we will examine.37 R. Kluger was contacted by a community in which a group had begun gathering regularly to study Mendelssohn’s writings. The local religious community responded by excommunicating the members of this gathering and burning Mendelssohn’s books. They then turned to R. Kluger to justify their actions after the fact.38 R. Kluger responds that he is not personally familiar with Mendelssohn or his writings, but given the widespread controversy, he and his writings must be religiously problematic. R. Kluger then quotes R. Yechezkel Landau, author of the Noda B’yehudah, who discusses Mendelssohn’s Bi’ur in his commentary to Berachos.39 R. Landau says that these matters depend greatly on the time and place. In his time and place, the study of Mendelssohn’s Bi’ur and related material draws people in the direction of religious decline and therefore is prohibited.40 R. Kluger applies this to the case of Aivu. In the time of Aivu, it was necessary to punish his relatively minor transgression and forbid quoting him in order to prevent a weakening of the general religious fabric of the community. So too, he argues, in our times, it is necessary to avoid certain intellectual pursuits, as well as Mendelssohn’s German translation of the Torah, because they threaten the religious community. To restate his point and extrapolate a bit more, it is wrong to cite problematic scholars and texts to those who might be tempted to study those sources further and question their own religious beliefs. In such circumstances, it is 37. On an evaluation of Moses Mendelssohn, see R. Avi Shafran, “The Enigma of Moses Mendelssohn” in Jewish Observer, 19:9 December 1986/Kislev 5747 and the “Editorial Statement” by the magazine’s editorial board and the statement by R. Yaakov Perlow in the subsequent issue, 19:10 January 1987/Teves 5747. 38. Ha’elef Lecha Shlomo Y.D. 257. 39. Tzelach, Berachos 28b s.v. Rashi s.v. meihahigayon. 40. For a more comprehensive look at R. Yechezkel Landau’s view on the Bi’ur, see R. David Katz’s 2004 doctoral dissertation, “A Case Study in the Formation of a Super-rabbi: The Early Years of Rabbi Ezekiel Landau, 1713-1754,” pp. 535-548. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 31 forbidden to quote Mendelssohn or anyone whose reference might weaken religious commitment. However, to people for whom those sources pose no temptation, there is no problem with quoting him or his writings. R. Chizkiyahu de Medini wrote and compiled the magisterial encyclopedia of Jewish law entitled Sdei Chemed in the 19th century. In this work, he includes not only his own original writings, but also some correspondence in which he engaged with great rabbis around the world. One of these rabbis was R. Yosef Zechariah Stern, the nineteenth-century Lithuanian rabbi and poseik, author of Zeicher Yehosef. R. Stern wrote a private letter to R. de Medini in which he quoted Moses Mendelssohn. R. Stern quoted an editorial gloss of Mendelssohn in the Bi’ur’s Torah commentary, in which, as the editor, Mendelssohn disagreed with the author’s comment.41 R. Stern added Rishonim who said similar ideas, showing that this particular comment by Mendelssohn was quite traditional.42 To R. Stern’s surprise, this letter was published in Sdei Chemed,43 which led to him receiving many letters reprimanding him for citing such an impure source. In his defense, he composed a long letter which R. de Medini published in the addenda to Sdei Chemed (after a brief letter of objection from R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, known as the Maharsham).44 In this letter, R. Stern offers a broad defense of the study of heretical sources as well as their citation. R. Stern argues that one is only prohibited from learning directly from a heretic, but one is permitted to learn from his writings. One is better able to weigh a person’s words objectively and not be swayed 41. The commentary in the Bi’ur on Vayikra was written by R. Naftali Hertz Wessely, for whom R. Yosef Zechariah Stern had great respect. Mendelssohn edited that commentary and occasionally left editorial notes. R. Stern quoted one of Mendelssohn’s notes and supported it with other traditional sources. 42. See also the 1983 expanded edition of Chiddushei R. Akiva Eiger Al Hashas, Megillah 17a, in which R. Akiva Eiger quotes Mendelssohn (R. Moshe of Dessau). This passage is taken from a letter R. Eiger sent that was only published long after his passing. 43. Sdei Chemed, vol. 1, letter Alef, no. 69. See Teshuvos Zeicher Yehosef Y.D. 173 for a slightly different text of this letter of defense. For a similar case of a private letter containing Torah insights being published without the author’s knowledge or permission, see Techumin, vol. 4 for R. Shaul Yisraeli’s objections and a response to him. 44. Sdei Chemed, Pe’as Hasadeh, vol. 1, Letter Alef, no. 64. 32 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA by his charisma or personal persuasiveness when the words are in writing.45 He also quotes the passage in R. Yechezkel Landau’s Tzelach that R. Kluger quotes, noting that in R. Stern’s time, it had been censored out of the published editions of Tzelach, but R. Stern’s son had copied it from an earlier edition.46 The implication of all this, which he does not state explicitly, is that he is justified in citing heretical sources, because those who find them valuable will look up the references in a book, which is permissible. VIII. Benefiting From a Heretic In the same era, R. Chaim Sofer, an unrelated student of R. Moshe Sofer (the Chasam Sofer), was asked whether one may quote a Torah insight that one happened to hear from or in the name of a heretic.47 He responded that at first he thought it was permissible, but he was convinced by the discussion of the Ramban, Rashba, et al. regarding Aivu that one may not quote the heretic. Rather, one should say that he heard it from or in the name of “someone,” without stating the name, so as not to take credit for someone else’s insight. Much more recently, R. Moshe Stern48 addressed the matter of whether a student may use books written by Zionists or someone associated with Yeshiva University.49 He concludes that one may not, based on the discussion of the Aivu passage and, additionally, because one may not learn Torah from even the writings of a teacher who does not follow the proper path. In 1940, Prof. Samuel Atlas of Hebrew Union College published from manuscript the Chiddushei HaRa’avad on Bava Kamma with his critical notes, along with some notes from his friend R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, author of Seridei Eish. In 1963, it was reprinted in Jerusalem and New York. In 1971, the question was posed to R. 45. See also Maharal, Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Hatorah, ch. 14. 46. It is included in the 1981 Jerusalem edition of Tzelach Hashaleim Al Hashas. 47. Machaneh Chaim 3:11. 48. Teshuvos Be’er Moshe 8:3. 49. R. Stern considers both of these beyond the pale. In the interests of disclosure, this writer is both a Yeshiva University graduate and a Religious Zionist. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 33 Menasheh Klein whether one may utilize this commentary that was published and annotated by a non-Orthodox Jew.50 R. Klein quotes R. Yaakov Reischer, who explains the Gemara in Avodah Zarah51 as saying that R. Eliezer was punished for receiving pleasure from the halachic insight of a heretic.52 Evidently, one may not do so, which should preclude the utilization of the Torah insights of non-traditional Jews. Presumably, if one may not benefit from the Torah insight of a heretic, one also may not quote it to others, whether verbally or in writing. R. Klein quotes a debate between two halachists of the 19th century – R. Moshe Schick and R. Chaim Halberstam’s father-inlaw53 – about Bibles with translation and commentary by heretics (presumably, Mendlessohn’s Bi’ur).54 According to R. Schick, one may use the Hebrew text of the Bible and Rashi, but not the commentary. R. Schick quotes R. Halberstam’s father-in-law, who holds that one must put the books in genizah (burial).55 R. Klein rules that the books should be put in genizah but that one who wishes to be lenient may follow R. Schick and use the books without looking into the commentary (or, even better, one should cut off or blot the commentary). Interestingly, at no point does R. Klein point out that the commentary in question was published with the notes and support of R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, who presumably disagreed with this entire ruling. Perhaps R. Weinberg followed the view of the Rambam and R. Yosef Zechariah Stern. Regardless of what R. Weinberg held, the Rambam must explain R. Eliezer’s punishment for hearing a heretic’s Torah insight. 50. Teshuvos Mishneh Halachos 12:212-213. Earlier in his life, Prof. Atlas studied in classical Lithuanian yeshivas before going to university and changing his life path. R. Klein refers to him as an apostate, presumably in the sense of someone who is no longer fully believing or observant. 51. 17a. 52. Iyun Ya’akov on Avodah Zarah 17a. 53. Presumably, he is referring to R. Baruch Frankel Te’omim, author of the Baruch Ta’am. 54. Teshuvos Maharam Schick O.C. 66. See, however, R. Shnayer Leiman, “R. Moses Schick: The Hatam Sofer’s Attitude Toward Mendelssohn’s Biur” in Tradition 24:3, Spring 1989. 55. R. Halberstam (Divrei Chaim Y.D. no. 60) disagrees with both and rules that one should burn the books. 34 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA In reality, the Gemara itself is puzzling, because it quotes the heretic by name and tells us his Torah insight. That forces everyone who learns this Talmudic passage to violate the very same prohibition for which R. Eliezer was punished! Additionally, the Dikdukei Sofrim56 brings a textual variant in which this Torah insight is said in the name of a student of Yeshu Hanotzri (founder of Christianity). The Gemara itself quotes a Torah insight from a student of Yeshu! Perhaps we can explain that R. Eliezer was not punished for the act of benefitting from the Torah insight, but rather for the fact that his pleasure in the Torah insight strengthened the heretic’s position in the community. The prohibition is not because of the benefit per se, but rather due to its outcome, namely, strengthening the hand of heretics,57 which depends heavily on the time and the place. IX. Conclusion Let us return to the question of whether one may quote a nonOrthodox scholar in a Torah publication. According to the Rashba and the Ritva, it is forbidden to quote by name a Torah insight from a scholar who violates even a rabbinic law. According to the Ramban and the Ra’ah, it is forbidden to quote a Torah insight from a scholar who does not act according to the standards expected of a scholar, even if he does not violate any technical prohibition. According to Tosafos, one may not quote a sectarian. According to R. Yehudah Hachassid, one may not quote an apostate. According to the Radvaz, one may not quote a heretic. If we accept that someone who is not Orthodox fits into all those categories,58 then according to the views just listed, it is forbidden to quote a Torah insight from a non-Orthodox scholar. However, it seems that according to the Rambam, it is permissible to quote a non-Orthodox scholar, but one should not do so if it detracts from the reception of the Torah insight. 56. Ad loc., no. 40. 57. See the Mishnah and Gemara Chullin 41a-b. 58. See above, note 4. CITATION OF NON-ORTHODOX SCHOLARS 35 R. Yosef Zechariah Stern rules more leniently and permits quoting a non-Orthodox scholar if others will study his teachings only in writing. However, R. Chaim Sofer, R. Moshe Stern, and R. Menasheh Klein rule strictly about quoting a non-Orthodox scholar. R. Shlomo Kluger follows R. Yechezkel Landau, who does not see the act of quotation as forbidden in and of itself. Rather, he focuses on the outcome. In a time and place where this will lead people religiously astray, it is forbidden. Otherwise, it seems to be permissible. Based on these distinctions, we can see differences regarding how this rule against quoting someone of substandard religiosity applies to some Orthodox scholars who generally follow mainstream Orthodox beliefs and practices. The Rashba and Ritva apply this issue to someone who violated a prohibition, even only a rabbinic prohibition. This would preclude quoting an Orthodox scholar who unrepentantly violates certain halachic rules.59 The Ramban and Ra’ah include any scholar who does not meet the behavioral standards expected of a Torah scholar. That could include even Orthodox rabbis who act in an insufficiently refined manner. Tosafos, R. Yehudah Hachassid, and the Radvaz indicate only that this applies to those who have left the community in a significant way – apostate, sectarian, or heretic. This would mean that the rule applies only to non-Orthodox scholars. The Rambam might cast the broadest net by including within this concern anyone who might detract from the positive reception of a Torah insight to the broader public. Even someone who has not done anything wrong but is perceived as tainted would be included. Somewhat similarly, R. Landau and R. Kluger would include anyone whose name might lead people in a religiously problematic direction. Let us take a step back and consider what happens if this apparent prohibition is not observed and someone inappropriate is quoted by name in a Torah discussion. According to the Rashba and Ritva, it seems that the transgressor (i.e. the scholar being cited), who is 59. It is not clear exactly where to draw the line. Can one who personally is stringent quote someone who is lenient to eat chalav stam or chadash outside of Israel? Different people may reach different conclusions on these types of questions. That is part of the halachic process. 36 THE JOURNAL OF HALACHA supposed to be punished by having his name omitted, is hurt, because he is not receiving the punishment he needs.60 According to the Ramban and Ra’ah, it is the Torah itself that is hurt, because its honor is violated. According to the Rambam, the listeners are hurt, because they might not accept Torah insights that are worthy. Somewhat similarly, according to R. Landau and R. Kluger, the listeners are hurt, because they may be drawn to improper behaviors or beliefs. According to R. Klein, it is also the listener who is hurt, because he receives pleasure from the insight of someone unworthy, something for which R. Eliezer was punished. To summarize the different views cited above, according to the authorities who are lenient on this issue,61 the applicability of the prohibition against quoting a non-Orthodox scholar depends on the circumstances. Will it detract from the Torah insight? Will it lead someone religiously astray? Among those who rule more strictly on this issue,62 there is a consensus that one may not quote a Torah insight from a non-Orthodox scholar. There are different views about quoting an Orthodox scholar who behaves improperly. It is interesting, though, that the responsum of R. Amram Gaon that is the basis of a large portion of the strict camp only refers to quoting a wayward scholar in the beis midrash. It is possible that in other places, such as in the college classroom, there is no implicit respect given to the wayward scholar by quoting him; the venue is key. Torah study in a beis midrash is a religious exercise, while academic study is not. Perhaps the citation of wayward scholars is entirely permissible, even according to the strictest authorities, in a non-religious atmosphere.63 60. See She’eilas Ya’avetz 2:29 about the need for punishment. 61. The Rambam, R. Yosef Zechariah Stern, R. Shlomo Kluger, and R. Yechezkel Landau. 62. The Ramban, Rashba, Ra’ah, Ritva, R. Yehudah Hachassid, Radvaz, R. Chaim Sofer, R. Moshe Stern, and R. Menasheh Klein. 63. Except for R. Menasheh Klein, who forbids receiving pleasure from the Torah insight of a non-Orthodox scholar.