- This topic has 20 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
All this news of anti-nepotism laws has got me thinking, what are your thoughts on nepotism within Judaism? Should a son take over the yeshiva or shule after his father?
Do you agree with the secular anti-nepotism laws?
“Should a son take over the yeshiva or shule after his father?”
It should be up to the congregants. Assuming they’re paying membership, no one else should decide for them who their Rov is going to be.
Halacha gives the son the right to inherit his father’s rabbanus, if I recall correctly.
Joseph, that is a discussion that centers on whether or not it is a ????. In any case, is only if he is Gd-fearing like his father and the tzibbor wants him. There was one kehilla that had a by-law that no relative of a member could be the rav. When the rav passed away his son-in-law claimed the position but it turned out that he had a relative in the community. If I remember correctly the Chatam Sofer ruled that he could not become the rav.
“Halacha gives the son the right to inherit his father’s rabbanus, if I recall correctly.”
Does Halacha give congregants the right to switch shuls? Because if it does, then it would be foolish to have a son inherit his father’s rabbanus in a case where people don’t want it.
Avi K, ?’ ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ???? ?”? ?????? ????? ??. It seems that the Rav’s son in fact has preference for the position (provided that he is fit). The ??”? speaks of a case where the Tzibbur did not want the Chazan’s son, and nevertheless awards him the position.
I’d like to see the Chasam Sofer inside, if you can provide the reference. It seems like the case of the following ????, where the Mechaber says that a Minhag of the Tzibbur is tantamount to an explicit stipulation. Of course, a Tzibbur can stipulate in the Rav’s contract that his son does not enjoy automatic preference for the job, and this by-law would serve as such a stipulation.
Halacha does give preference for the son to inherit the fathers position, but not the right to get it
I assume there would be a difference between a shul opened and owned by the rav (i.e. shtieble style), and one where the shul board hires the rav and pays him a salary?
WTP
If the father is a contract employee of the synagogue there is nothing to inherent. Personal services contracts dies with the person. In fact it is quite common for the rabbi’s employment contract to have a set term. The synagogue is not forced to renew the contract unless life tenure has been granted.
This is far different than shtieblach that may operate in the home of the rabbi. There the son may well take over, but congregants are free to leave and not support the son.
The aforementioned halacha regarding the son being entitled to inherit his father’s position is certainly applicable in a Kehila.
I assume there would be a difference between a shul opened and owned by the rav (i.e. shtieble style), and one where the shul board hires the rav and pays him a salary?
If it is owned by the rav, it’s not even a discussion. The discussion in the poskim is about a hired rav.
It seems the halachah as generally practiced is to give precedence to the son as long as he is worthy.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51975&st=&pgnum=414&hilite=
tantali, as you see from the halachic discussion herein, “nepotism” is not only acceptable within Judaism but it is often preferred.
On the subject of a congregant being free to leave the shul if he doesn’t like the Rav; We have to understand the history of this halocha. When the poskim discuss appointing a Rav, or a kehilla appointing the son of the previous Rav, It was the Rav of a town. Historically, a town had a Beis Haknesses. And the Rav was the town Rabbi, who was therefore the Rav of the shul by default. This situation hardly exists nowadays.
As an example, Gateshead is a town, with a Rav and, until recently, a single shul. Of course there are many minyonim in the town, Boarding School, the yeshivos and kollelim, but all are under the auspices of the Town Rav. And regarding membership, all shomrei shabbos residents of the town are automatically members of the kehilla, and therefore obligated to pay membership.
The modern day, sha’alo is about appointing the son of the previous Rabbi of the shtiebel, and if I don’t like him, I’ll daven in the shtiebel on the next corner. Or as the situation is in many places in the US, where the Rav is called the Mara D’Asra of a single shul, and of the members of his shul.
And regarding membership, all shomrei shabbos residents of the town are automatically members of the kehilla, and therefore obligated to pay membership.
In the US nobody can force you to pay anything. There really isnt such a thing as a “Kehila” in the US (Except maybe Kiryat Joel or maybe Lakewood, but that is it) Brooklyn for sure is NOT a kehila
ZD, correct. Maybe it wasn’t clear. My point is that the original guidelines were based on this type of scenario. And NOT the type that exists in the typical heimishe shul nowadays.
If the rabbi works at the shul, his son learned under him, and the son is a capable man with a suitable personality to fit the congregation, then wouldn’t the son have an advantage over his father’s hashkafah over even an unrelated student?
In this case, the son was raised at home.
I say this because:
The son may know answers to sheilot, according to his father’s hashkafah, and how the father would posken for members of his congregation.
The son would have seen his father interacting at home. Maybe he would have overheard conversations between his mother and father. Maybe he would have had access to teshuvot.
Also, he has life experience. Someone can come up and ask him what to do if such and such happens in the kitchen. Well, according to his father, when such and such also happened at home. Or, his father had access to numerous shailot and the son was exposed to so much.
The congregation may not realize just how qualified the son is. It is possible that it would not be modest if the son told This congregant and That congregant what he knows. So instead he looks like he is being favored without reason. While, the guy in the interview room from the next town over is new and different, and can add something to the community. He looks like a good catch.
At the same time, maybe the rabbi’s son is what the community needs to stay consistent and keep the balance and peace?
Those are some thoughts.
Gateshead would be classic.
The family felt on of their sons should inherit the position, but the Town machers refused,thereby leaving the position vacant for several years
R’Sherer had a policy against nepotism in the Agudah.Even his own sons and daughters were forbidden to have positions/jobs in the Agudah as long as he was alive.
edited
IITFT, “The family felt on (sic) of their sons should inherit the position, but the Town machers refused,thereby leaving the position vacant for several years”
The town machers? I assume you mean the Parness and the kehilla leadership.
I lived through that sorry period in Gateshead’s history, and sure things could have done differently, but the kehilla acted with instructions from the gedolim every step of the way.
Today, Gateshead has a wonderful Rov and it was worth the wait, (Did you know that Pressburg was without a Rav for 5 years before the Chasam Sofer was appointed to the post?)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.