2021/5781
Introduction
One of the most influential and controversial laws in Israel’s history is the “Status Quo” agreement at the foundation of the state. In order to convince the Orthodox parties to agree to join the newly formed state, religious Jews were given four promises. They were promised that Shabbat would be the day of rest of the newly formed state. They were promised Kosher food in government kitchens. They were given autonomy over their own schools. And perhaps most controversially, the government ceded that marriage and divorce would be run according to Halachah. This part of the agreement was put to the test during one of the most controversial cases in the history of the State of Israel and the case’s far-reaching aftermath.
The Case
Chava Ginsburg was born in a small town in Poland in the early 1920s. At around 14 years old, she met and eloped with a Polish Christian man, who, after converting, took the name Avraham Borokovsky. After living for a few months in Poland, the Borokovskys made Aliyah along with Chava’s parents sometime in the 1930’s.
Soon after they arrived in Israel, Chava and Avrohom’s marriage fell apart and they separated without obtaining a Get. This became problematic when Chava did not disclose this fact to the Beit Din that issued a license for her to marry her second husband, Otto Langer, in 1944. Otto and Chava went on to have two children, Chanoch and Miriam. In 1951, Avraham Borokovsky and Chava Langer went to the Tel Aviv Beit Din in order to execute a Get before Borokovsky’s second wedding. The Beit Din, while investigating the facts of the case, discovered Chava’s second marriage, and subsequently banned Otto and Chava from living together. When Chava seeked to remarry, the status of her children became known, and they were declared Mamzerim by the Beit Din. This status was upheld until 1966, when Chanoch Langer, then a soldier in the IDF, approached Beit Din to get married. When the Beit Din ruled he was a Mamzer, he brought the case to the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeals. He argued that Avraham Borokovsky did not undergo a valid conversion and that he was still a practicing Christian. Borokovky’s rabbi, however, testified he was a regular attendee in Shul on Shabbat, and Borokovsky was able to answer some basic questions about Yahadut while unable to answer some others. After multiple hearings, the high Beit Din, composed of leading Torah authorities Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Sha'ul Israeli and Rav Ovadiah Yosef concurred that the Langer children were, unfortunately, Mamzerim, based on the fact that Avraham Borokovsky was assumed to have had a Kosher Geirut since he had been witnessed performing Mitzvot. [1]
Rav Shlomo Goren’s Controversial Ruling
This ruling created tremendous controversy in the Israeli public. Government figures such as Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan were upset at the ruling that banned Chanoch Langer, an IDF soldier who represented what they saw as the ideal young citizen of the state, from marrying through the state. The Israeli government was hopeful that the 1972 election for the Chief Rabbinate, between the incumbent Rav Isser Yehuda Unterman, and Rabbi Shlomo Goren, who had previously ruled leniently on Geirut questions, [2] would bring change to the status of the Langer children. [3]
Upon election, Rav Goren approached his Sephardic counterpart Rav Ovadiah Yosef to join a Beit Din to review the Langer case. Rav Ovadiah, who had sat on the original hearing, refused to hear the case again as he felt the matter had been resolved. As a result, Rav Goren took matters into his own hand, and formed a Beit Din that reversed the ruling of the past Batei Din who had ruled on the case. However, in order to maintain confidentiality, Rav Goren did not disclose the fellow members of his Beit Din.
Rav J. David Bleich [4] summarized Rav Goren’s arguments in his article on the case. Some of Rav Goren’s arguments that Rav Bleich quoted include:
1) There exists no admissible evidence attesting to Avraham Borokovsky's conversion to Judaism.
2) If he did convert, the conversion was nullified since Borokovsky continued to live as a practicing Christian. Rav Goren cites the Tzofnat Paneach, who interpreted Rambam as maintaining that subsequent idolatry on the part of a convert is tantamount to proof that the original conversion was insincere and hence invalid.
3) There is no evidence that they were married in accordance with the law of Israel.
4) The conversion of Avraham Borokovsky, if it indeed did take place, was the result of coercion on the part of Chava Ginsburg's father and hence is null and void.
Reaction to Rav Goren’s Controversial Ruling
Many Poskim, including Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, [5] agreed that Rav Goren seemed to make reasonable Halachic arguments that the Langers should not be Mamzerim, but disapproved of the process by which he arrived at his decision. Indeed, Rav Goren experienced severe backlash regarding the secrecy and perceived abuse of power he displayed. [6]
Rav Goren later faced severe criticism in light of his ruling. Rav Elyashiv, who had ruled in the original case, left the Rabbinate Beit Din system after Rav Goren’s decision, as he felt that his ruling violated Halachic norms. A group of top tier Rabbanim including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, Rav Yaakov Kanievsky, Rav Eliezer Menachem Man Shach and Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz condemned the decision as consisting of “lies and deception” and that the Psak “endangers the survival of the nation.” [7] The Lubavitcher Rebbe also called for Rabbi Goren’s resignation. [8]
Conclusion
The Langer case left a lasting impact on the state of Israel. The case created friction between the segments of the Torah world who admired Rav Goren (especially due to his excellent work as the Chief Rabbi of Tzahal), and those who doubted his competency to make Halachic decisions. The Rabbinate’s loss of Rav Elyashiv also diminished the prestige of the Rabbinate’s Beit Din system. The largest impact, arguably, is the legacy of Rav Shlomo Goren, who is viewed as a controversial figure in parts of the Torah world.
[1] Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 268:10
[2] Helen Zeidman case- A POLITICAL CRISIS IN ISRAEL AVERTED - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
[3] Next Chief Rabbi a Vital Issue for Israel - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
[4] Contemporary Halakhic Problems Volume I.
[5] As reported by Rabbi Chaim Jachter.
[6] For example, Jerusalem’s Chief Rabbi Rav Bezalel Zolty composed a strong critique of Rabbi Goren’s approach.
[7] "המערכה הראשונה" • מאבק גדולי ישראל נגד הרה"ר לישראל שלמה גורן • 40 שנה | JDN - חדשות
[8] https://agudathisrael.org/wp-content/uploads/1972/12/JO1972-V8-N09.compressed.pdf