Halachic Musings
By Rabbi Yair Hoffman
Recently, Rabbi Edgar Gluck, his son Rabbi Zvi Gluck, Rav Dov Ber Pinson, and a number of other prominent Orthodox rabbis and individuals met with Pope Francis to discuss a number of issues important to the Jewish community. These included arranging proper kevurah for some victims of the Holocaust who have not yet been buried.
The meeting caused turmoil among some who believe that this was a misguided effort and that it is forbidden to meet with the pope. To back up their point, some referenced various writings and responsa from both the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ob’m, and Rav Moshe Feinstein, ob’m. Nowhere in the responsa that were quoted was there any indication that there is a prohibition in meeting with the pope for a legitimate concern. The animadversions of Rav Feinstein were referring to a question of gathering Jews and Catholics together in some sort of joint religious venture.
Subsequently, members of the Lubavitch community showed me transcripts of conversations with the Rebbe that indicated his position that meeting with the pope may be equivalent to avodah zarah—although this may be difficult to understand exactly.
What follows is an analysis of this topic.
Mitzvos Involved
Meeting with the pope for matters of shtadlanus has been accepted practice in the Chassidic world, in the Litvish world, and in the Sephardic world since the times of the early popes. But first we will discuss the various Torah mitzvos that are fulfilled in this type of shtadlanus.
Hashavas aveidah. One basic mitzvah is that of saving lives. As we will see, this was the major motivation in meetings with past popes. The verse in Parashas Ki Seitzei (Devarim 22:2) discusses the mitzvah of hashavas aveidah—returning an object—with the words, “Va’hasheivoso lo—and you shall return it to him.” The Gemara in Sanhedrin (73a) includes within its understanding of these words the obligation of returning “his own life to him as well.” For example, if thieves are threatening to pounce upon him, there is an obligation of “Va’hasheivoso lo.” In other words, this verse is the source for the mitzvah of saving someone’s life. It is highly probable that it is to this general mitzvah that the Shulchan Aruch refers in Orech Chaim 325.
Lo sa’amod al dam rei’acha. There is a negative mitzvah of not standing idly by your brother’s blood as well. This is mentioned both in Shulchan Aruch (CM 426:1) and in the Rambam. Clearly, in the post-Crusades world and after World War II, this was the motivation.
Lo suchal l’hisaleim. There is yet another negative commandment associated with the positive commandment of hashavas aveidah, and that is the verse in Devarim (22:3), “You cannot shut your eyes to it.” This verse comes directly after the mitzvah of hashavas aveidah. The Netziv (HeEmek She’eilah) refers to this mitzvah as well.
V’chai achicha imach. The Sheiltos (Sheilta #37), based upon the Gemara in Bava Metzia 62a, understands the words “V’chai achicha imach” to indicate an obligation to save others with you. The Netziv in his HeEmek She’eilah understands it as a full-fledged obligation according to all opinions. He writes that one must exert every effort to save his friend’s life—until it becomes pikuach nefesh for himself. This was clearly the motivation to meet with the pope throughout our history.
V’ahavta l’rei’acha ka’mocha. The Ramban, Toras haAdam Shaar HaSakanah (pp. 42–43), understands the verse “And love thy neighbor as yourself” as a directive to save him from danger as well. Although he discusses the issue of medical danger, it is clear that this is an example, and it would apply to danger from physical enemies as well. Even without the Ramban’s elucidation, however, it is clear that defending and protecting someone from danger is a fulfillment of this mitzvah.
Past Meetings
The Baal Shem Tov is cited in Chassidic works, in an incident with R’ Koppel, as encouraging the practice (see Niflaos HaRebbi #387). The ma’aseh is cited in numerous places. (See, for example, Talpios Vol. VII p. 189, Toldos Rav Yitzchok MiKemarnah p. 26.)
Rabbi Abba Zions, z’l, a brilliant talmid chacham, an exceptional scholar, and an alter Mirrer whom I was close with, had written an introduction and biographical sketch to the latest edition of the Paneach Raza, by the Rishon Rabbeinu Yitzchok bar Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi. He writes how it was Reb Tzaddok HaKohen’s view that Rabbi Nosson Officialo had met and debated with Pope Gregory X in 1273.
Jewish leaders have been meeting with the pope long before then. After the First Crusade massacres, there were continued threats of violence against European Jewish communities. Jewish leaders met with Pope Calixtus II, who consequently issued the Sicut Judaeis charter in about 1123. In this document, Pope Calixtus II urged all European communities to protect their Jews.
Rabbi Dovid Rofeh D’Pumis, author of Tzemach Dovid and a descendant of the Aruch, met with Pope Paul IV and succeeded in convincing him to rescind decrees against the Jews. Indeed, he dedicated his sefer to Pope Sixtus V.
Moses Montefiore, apparently with full rabbinic approval, attempted to meet with the pope to remove the blame on the Jews on the tombstone of Thomas. He was not allowed entry.
In June 1944, Rav Yitzchok Herzog attempted to meet with the pope to prevent further Jewish casualties, but the pope refused to meet with him. After World War II, in Adar I of 1946, Rav Herzog left the Lod airport to meet eventually with Pope Pius XII. He was accompanied to the airport on his mission to rescue the Jewish children who survived the war but were found in Catholic orphanages and missions. Rav Herzog met with the pope in the Vatican in order to arrange their freedom. Otherwise, no Catholic institution would have released them. Unfortunately, the response was a rather cynical one. Pope Pius XII asked Rav Herzog to provide him with a list of names of the children.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe in Toras Menachem, Sichah Vol. XI p. 161 seems to cite approvingly the story of Rav Shlomo Molcho, who refused to return to the Catholic Church and died a martyr’s death al Kiddush Hashem. He had met with the pope, which the Lubavitcher Rebbe does not seem to view negatively. However, we do see other conversations in which he held strongly that Lord Jakobovits should not have met with the pope in Manchester in 1982.
Rav Yisroel Meir Lau, as chief rabbi of Israel, also met with the pope in an attempt to retrieve the keilim of the Beis HaMikdash. Rav Ovadiah Yosef met with the pope as well, as did his son Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef, the current chief rabbi of Israel.
This author posed the question to several gedolei Torah in regard to whether the rabbis in the late 1950s and 1960s were correct in their efforts to get the Catholic Church to abandon anti-Semitic attitudes and teachings in what became known as Vatican Council II. The unequivocal answer was yes.
Questions About
The Recent Meeting
The people who met with the pope recently should be applauded for their efforts on behalf of Klal Yisrael in terms of discussing with him urgent matters. But there are other questions regarding this meeting.
- Is the pope’s shesi v’erev considered to be avodah zarah?
- Was it appropriate to sing the pasuk “Orech yamim asbi’eihu?”
- Was the singing and dancing appropriate, and what about during sefirah?
Is It Avodah Zarah?
The Catholic Church believes in and promulgated the doctrine of the Trinity, which would fit into the technical definition of avodah zarah. They teach that G‑d is simultaneously three distinct hypostases or persons who are coeternal, coequal, and indivisibly united in One Being.
In his classic work, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Professor Harry Austryn Wolfson, the first to head the Department of Judaic Studies at Harvard University and a former student of the Slabodka Yeshiva, went through every explanation of the Church fathers’ understanding of the Trinity—and each of these explanations, according to this author’s understanding, still would clearly be considered avodah zarah. The Rambam (Hilchos Maachalos Asuros 11:7 and in Peirush HaMishnayos) states that it is considered avodah zarah (see Frankel uncensored edition). And while there are those who read a more moderate view in Tosfos Sanhedrin (63b), the majority view of scholars who have studied this Tosfos is not in accordance with this reading.
This does not, however, mean that the particular cross under discussion is avodah zarah per se. The matter seems to be a debate. The Rema in Yoreh De’ah (141:1) cites a ruling of the Trumas HaDeshen (Siman 196) that a cross around the neck is not considered avodah zarah to forbid one from benefiting. This is based on a Mordechai, citing the Raavyah in the third chapter of Tractate Avodah Zarah.
Nonetheless, the Shach (141:6) writes that the Rema’s view is only when one is absolutely sure that the cross was not actually worshipped. The Shach concludes with a most stringent view.
Yet the Chochmas Adam 85:1 also states that a cross that is hung around the neck is not considered avodah zarah and is only a zikaron—a commemoration. He extends it to others that are not necessarily hung on the neck. It is not just the Chochmas Adam’s view. The Kinyan Torah (Vol. I 54:5) rules the same way.
The Klausenberger Rebbe (Divrei Yatziv, YD #45) at first questions the Shach but at the end forbids matters in accordance with the Shach’s view.
Singing And Dancing
The pasuk and song under discussion, implemented in this context and with the comments of the Rishonim, indicate a veritable approbation extended here—beyond mere berachah. There is no question that the current pope is certainly one of the friendliest popes to the Jewish people and community that we can recall, but the issue of theologically negating the absolute achdus of Hashem is not something that one can give approbation toward. Indeed, the conclusion that one would derive from the responsa of Har Tzvi (OC 85) and the Chelkas Yaakov (YD 54) in regard to theological hesitations involving avodah zarah would seem that one should not go to such distances.
Aside from the issues mentioned above, there is another issue of it being sefirah—a time of mourning. True, we do permit haircuts when visiting dignitaries, but playing live music and dancing is not something that is generally done in papal audiences. The language of the Magen Avraham 493:1 indicates that it is a minhag to refrain from doing so, unless it is a seudas mitzvah. Had it been a meeting with President Trump, one could conceivably find grounds to go against the minhag cited in the Magen Avraham —particularly, since Sephardic poskim do not recognize this minhag.
Conclusion
Meeting with the pope and developing goodwill with the pontiff is certainly something worthwhile to pursue. The song and dance was, in this author’s opinion, not something that should have been tacked on. It is likely that the askanim posed the questions to their rabbinic authorities and poskim, who may have felt that under the circumstances of the issues being discussed with the pope, it was warranted. Reb Zvi Gluck’s work is so important and is a matter of pikuach nefesh that it may trump many of these other issues in order to get the message out. On the other hand, it could be that the message could have been made without the song and dance.
The author can be reached at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com.