Rabbi Henkin and The First Heter Agunot in America
By Adam Mintz

The tragedy of the agunah, the woman who is unable to receive a get from her husband, has plagued the Jewish people since time immemorial. Rabbis and scholars throughout the centuries have contended with this issue in an attempt to free agunot to remarry. In the United States this issue was first formally addressed following World War I. European Jews soldiers, fighting on both sides of the war, were among those killed in battle. As soldiers are generally young, they often left childless widows who required a halitzah from the dead husband’s brother in order to remarry. A number of these brothers had immigrated to the United States where visas were difficult to acquire. Therefore, the Agudath HaRabbanim sent a letter to its membership in 1922 alerting them to this situation and offering assistance in helping these women acquire temporary visas to the United States thereby allowing these women to obtain a halitzah and to remarry.

With the growth of the American Jewish community in the early part of the twentieth century, Jews began to assimilate and the predicament of the Jewish wife whose husband had abandoned her to live with a non-Jewish woman became an ever increasing phenomenon.[1] Many rabbis attempted to free the Jewish wife to remarry, even though she was unable to find the husband and receive a get. Some of the solutions were based on broad institutional enactments, while others dealt with the problem on a case-by-case analysis. One of the principles underlying the foundation of much of this discussion is the halakhic status of civil marriages and of weddings performed by Reform rabbis. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed about the status of these marriages and this disagreement played an important role in their view of the agunah problem. Understanding their particular views is vital for the understanding of the agunah issue and for the appreciation of the important roles that these two American rabbinic giants played on this issue.

Rabbi Henkin discussed this issue in a number of articles and teshuvot. His earliest treatment of civil marriage appears in a series of articles in Hapardes in 1934, where Rabbi Henkin argued that a civil marriage is considered a marriage according to Jewish law and that a get would be required to terminate such a marriage.[2] He explained that a couple is considered halakhically married even though they did not have a Jewish ceremony and do not intend to be married according to Jewish law. According to Rabbi Henkin, the validity of the marriage is achieved by the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife. He added that the Jews who see them together as a couple satisfy the requirement of witnesses in establishing the halakhic status of the marriage. In an article in his book, Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained the rational for his position through the comparison to a similar historical situation.[3] He quoted a fascinating responsum of Rivash, Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326-1408), communal rabbi in Algeria who had fled Spain following the anti-Jewish riots of 1391.[4] Rivash described that he was approached by a woman who had been a converso in Majorca. After she had escaped to North Africa she asked whether she could remarry even though she did not have a get from her first husband. She explained that she had been married by a priest after both she and her husband had been forced to convert to Christianity. After the marriage they had lived together as a married couple. The husband was not available to give her a get. Rivash decided in this case that the woman could remarry and did not require a get. Rabbi Henkin argued that Rivash’s case is unique as this couple was married by a priest and no longer lived among Jews. This situation, argued Rabbi Henkin, cannot be compared to the American situation where a man and woman are married by a civil authority and live together among Jews.

Rabbi Feinstein responded to Rabbi Henkin’s decision in a number of teshuvot in Iggerot Moshe. In the earliest teshuvah, dated June 28, 1959, Rabbi Feinstein argued that a civil marriage does not require termination via a get.[5] Rather, the couple can remarry even without a get. He explained that in the United States where people easily move in and out of relationships, the fact that a couple gets married in a civil ceremony and then lives together is not considered proof that they are married according to the halakhah. He relied on the precedent of Rivash and argued that American civil marriages can be equated to that situation of the fifteenth century. Interestingly, he wrote that even though the halakhah does not require a get, if it is possible for the wife to obtain a get she should follow the opinion of Rabbi Henkin and terminate the marriage through a get. It would appear that Rabbi Feinstein would agree that in a situation where the wife received a get she would not be able to marry a kohen.

Concerning a couple that was married by a Reform rabbi, Rabbi Feinstein wrote in a number of teshuvot that this wedding is not recognized according to the halakhah and a get is not required to terminate this marriage.[6] He explained that the only time the wedding would be valid is in a situation where there are two observant Jew who witness the ceremony. However, he claimed that even in that case the Reform rabbi often does not perform the marriage ceremony properly so the wedding would not be valid. Concerning the question of whether the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife is a factor, Rabbi Feinstein wrote that a Reform ceremony is worse than a civil ceremony. A couple that gets married in a civil ceremony understands that this ceremony is not a Jewish one and that the fact that they live together binds them as a Jewish couple. However, a couple that is married in a Reform ceremony believes that this ceremony is a religious one and do not have the necessary intention of consummating the marriage when they live together. Nevertheless, he believed that if possible the woman should arrange to receive a get.[7]

In 1964, Rabbi Henkin wrote a letter to an unnamed rabbi who had ruled that a get is not needed to terminate a marriage when the ceremony had been performed by a Reform rabbi. Rabbi Henkin explained:

And the wonder of wonders, which makes one’s hair stand on edge, is that you are lenient regarding a marriage performed by a Reform rabbi. Is there really a need for an officiating rabbi? If a Jewish man says to a Jewish woman “you are mine” in front of witnesses, then she becomes his wife. And, if there are no witnesses at the ceremony, the fact that they live together as a married couple for many years is considered acceptable testimony. What difference does it make if the witnesses were Reform?[8]

Rabbi Henkin admonishes this unnamed rabbi that he must not allow other rabbis to rely on this incorrect lenient opinion.

Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed regarding both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies. While the issues are connected, they revolve around different considerations. Rabbi Feinstein looked at American society as a promiscuous one in which a man and woman living together did not reflect a relationship of commitment while Rabbi Henkin saw a more traditional society where relationships reflected commitment. It is fascinating that two Torah scholars who lived several blocks from one another could see American society so differently. The generation of rabbis and scholars who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe were forced to reconcile their recollections of the past with the realities of the present. That reconciliation took different forms for different rabbis.

It would appear that with regard to a couple married in a Reform ceremony, the differing rulings of these two Torah giants were based on their understanding of the Reform movement. Rabbi Feinstein believed that Reform rabbis were attempting to undermine halakhic Judaism and anything that they did was problematic and needed to be avoided. On the other hand, Rabbi Henkin, while rejecting the religious positions of the Reform movement, did not feel that the Reform rabbis were a threat to the Orthodox. Consequently he felt that whether a wedding was conducted by a Reform rabbi was immaterial. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed as to the extent to which the Reform movement created a risk to the Orthodox movement.[9]

The positions of Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin had critical implications for the issue of agunah. According to Rabbi Feinstein, if a couple was married civilly or by a Reform rabbi and then the husband refused to give a get, the wife may remarry as this marriage is not considered halakhically valid. According to Rabbi Henkin, in such a situation, the woman would require a get. It would appear that Rabbi Henkin’s understanding of civil and Reform marriages stands as a serious impediment to the resolution of the agunah problem. However, in an article written in 1928, Rabbi Henkin alerted the community to the fact that he was very much concerned with the problem of the agunah and began by describing the current situation:

In the past few years the problem of the agunah has increased in Europe and here in America. This is a question that burns in the entire world as to what we can do for our sisters to save them from the chains of agunah when their husbands disappear…For this reason there have been leniencies suggested here [the termination of civil marriages without a get]. However, since we have proven that these leniencies have no basis in halakhah, these leniencies are really stringencies to destroy lives and such should not be done in Israel.[10]

According to Rabbi Henkin, since civil marriages require a get, to allow women to remarry without a get creates illegitimate children from the second marriage.

While Rabbi Henkin felt that this approach of terminating civil marriages without a get was not a legitimate one, he was deeply committed to trying to find an acceptable solution to the agunah problem. Accordingly, Rabbi Henkin was the first American rabbi to offer a proposal to solve the Agunah problem. This proposal was suggested in the above article written in 1928 soon after his arrival in the United States. Henkin noted that the problem of agunah, experienced by women whose husbands had disappeared or by women who were unable to receive the necessary halitzah, was “a daily occurrence,” and he made the following suggestion: at the time of the wedding the husband must authorize that a get may be written and delivered in the future. He must allow the get to be written to cover a number of situations including one in which the husband refuses to provide a get to his wife for three years. At that time, the claim would be brought to a central beit din (in the original proposal, he wrote that this should be the Jerusalem beit din) and, if the beit din agrees, then a get would be written even if the husband opposes the writing at that time. Rabbi Henkin called for this proposal to be discussed and voted upon in a meeting of rabbis and that if approved, it would remain the standard practice for fifty years.[11]

However, in 1930 a development impacted on Rabbi Henkin’s proposal before it had the chance to be acted upon. Rabbi Louis Epstein, a leading Conservative rabbi from Boston and the president of the Rabbinical Assembly and its Committee on Jewish Law, suggested that prior to every marriage, the husband should appoint his wife as an agent to execute a divorce on his behalf. Thus, if the husband disappears or refuses to grant the get, the wife can, in effect, divorce herself. In that same year, Rabbi Epstein published a volume entitled Hatza’ah Lemaan Takanat Agunot that attempted to prove the halakhic foundation for this proposal. In 1935, the Rabbinical Assembly, the rabbinic body of the Conservative movement, initially voted to accept this proposal.

In his volume, Rabbi Epstein described how he sent copies of his book to close to 1,000 rabbis asking for their opinions on his proposal. He explained that he received very few responses. While one of the letters was critical of his work, most of the letters were complimentary but argued that he could not proceed without the consensus of the leading halakhic authorities. He seemed encouraged by the nature of these responses inasmuch as they were not critical of his halakhic reasoning.[12] Among the letters that he received was a letter from Rabbi Henkin dated February 18, 1931. In this letter, Rabbi Henkin apologized for not having the time to study the book carefully. While Rabbi Henkin proceeded to make certain halakhic suggestions to Rabbi Epstein, the letter was in no way dismissive of his efforts. He even concluded the letter with the practical advice that if he wanted to send copies to all the rabbis of Europe as he proposed, it would become a very expensive undertaking.[13]

The Orthodox rabbinate responded to Rabbi Epstein’s proposal with disapproval and the Agudath HaRabbanim convened a meeting of rabbis during which various halakhic presentations were made arguing that Rabbi Epstein’s proposal was both impractical and halakhically unsound. In 1937, a volume was published by the Agudath HaRabbanim entitled Le’Dor Aharon which included correspondence from leading rabbis around the world opposing Rabbi Epstein’s proposal. In 1940, Rabbi Epstein published Le’Sheelat Ha-Agunah in which he attempted to support his view in light of the strong rabbinic opposition. The Orthodox rabbinate did not respond to this second volume and Rabbi Epstein’s proposal was never actually adopted in practice by the Conservative movement.[14]

Rabbi Henkin wrote an article that was included in Le’Dor Aharon.[15] In his lengthy essay, he explained his halakhic opposition to Rabbi Epstein’s proposal. Among other considerations, he concluded that it is nonsensical for the husband to appoint his wife to serve as the agent to write the get as she is the one who will be receiving the divorce.

Then he added:

“And I have already written that the reason that I have become involved in this battle is due to the fact that he [Rabbi Epstein] mentioned my proposal for the freeing of agunot … and I must escape from this comparison…My proposal was merely a suggestion and not meant as a halakhic decision…and when the volume Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin was published, I retracted from my position for even the greatest scholar has to follow the majority view.”[16]

Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin is a volume published in Vilna in 1930 by Judah Lubetsky, an Eastern European rabbinic scholar who served for many years as a rabbi in Paris. The volume was published in response to a decision by the Agudat Rabbanei Tzarfat in 1908 to allow a Jewish woman to remarry after a civil divorce based on a condition made at the time of the wedding that if the couple where to be divorced by the civil authorities then retroactively the original marriage would be nullified.[17] Rabbi Lubetsky collected letters from rabbinic scholars from around the world condemning this opinion and explaining that such a condition at the time of the marriage would not be valid and that the couple would still need a get.

Indeed, it would seem probable that in 1931 when Rabbi Henkin had written his initial letter to Rabbi Epstein he had not yet seen Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin and therefore did not reject Rabbi Epstein’s proposal at that time. By 1937, he had read Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin and felt compelled to both reject Rabbi Epstein’s proposal and to retract his own view. In the reprinted edition of Perushei Ibra, the pages that contain his initial proposal are bracketed with the words “hadru be” (I have retracted) written in the margin. While it is not clear whether this remarkable editorial decision was made by Rabbi Henkin or the editor of the later reprinted volume, it reflects both the seriousness and the sensitivity with which this issue was taken.

In the Iggerot Moshe, Rabbi Feinstein never made any reference to Rabbi Henkin’s proposal regarding agunot. While Rabbi Feinstein did not arrive in America until 1936 and may not have been aware of Rabbi Henkin’s proposal before it was retracted in 1937, Rabbi Henkin was well-known among Eastern European rabbis and his decisions would have been available to Rabbi Feinstein even before his arrival in New York.[18] However, there is another variable that must be considered to explain Rabbi Feinstein’s lack of reference to this proposal. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin took different approaches to the attempt to solve the agunah problem. Rabbi Feinstein tried to free individual agunot as they approached him with their unique situations. As a posek, Rabbi Feinstein responded to individuals on a case by case basis and did not look for institutional policies. As a communal rabbi, Rabbi Henkin dealt both with individual cases and broad policies. His position concerning civil and Reform marriages was important for American Jewish life but did not impact on his institutional proposal for the resolution of the agunah problem. His agunah proposal was never enacted but nevertheless reflects the rabbinic approach that Rabbi Henkin embodied.

Rabbi Henkin’s proposal, although “officially” retracted, has been cited in halakhic literature since 1937. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, the foremost disciple of Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg and a leading Jewish philosopher of the American Orthodox community, offered a resolution to the agunah problem in 1967 in a volume entitled Tnai Be-Nisuin u-ve-Get. In this volume he reviewed the history of halakhic literature concerning the validity of a conditional marriage and argued for the introduction of a conditional marriage to prevent the tragedy of agunah. At the end of the book, he referred to Rabbi Henkin’s retraction of his proposal in 1937. Rabbi Berkovits wrote “We revere Rabbi Henkin’s greatness and piety. Yet, one is not permitted to sway from the truth as it appears to him.”[19] Rabbi Menachem Kasher, in his critique of Rabbi Berkovits’ thesis, relied on the fact that Rabbi Henkin had rejected conditional marriages.[20] Rabbi Henkin, thirty years after he retracted his proposal, is still being utilized for both sides of this argument.

Finally, in an article in The Edah Journal in 2005, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, an Atlanta-area rabbi, professor of law at the Emory University Law School and dayan in the Beth Din of America, offered a theoretical proposal to help free agunot. He explained that for the proposal to have any chance of acceptance among the rabbinic community it would need to combine three mechanisms into a single document:

“The three elements would be: conditions applied to the marriage (tenai be-kiddushin), authorization to give a get (harsha’ah), and broad communal ordinance to void a marriage (taqqanat ha-qahal)… Indeed, in the twentieth century alone, one can cite a list of luminary rabbinic authorities who have validated such agreements in one form or another, including Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin…”[21]

While this proposal is still only in the theoretical phase, Rabbi Henkin’s argument plays an important role in its formulation.

In the introduction to Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained that he wrote this volume to correct the mistakes that have arisen in America in the area of marriage and divorce and to restore “the law to its proper foundations.”[22]

Rabbi Henkin’s innovation and courage continue to set a model in this difficult yet critical area.

Sources:
[1] One rabbi who tirelessly dealt with issues of husband desertion was Rabbi Shaul Yedidyah Shochet, author of the Responsa volumes Sefer Tiferet Yedidyah (St. Louis, 1920), where nearly two-thirds of the first volume relates to agunot and gittin. See Jeremy Bressman, “‘Hurled into a World of Freedom’: Marital Breakdown in the American Jewish Immigrant Community,” (unpublished seminar thesis, Columbia University, 2006), 18. I thank Menachem Butler for providing this source.
[2] Hapardes 8:6 (September, 1934): 3-4; Hapardes 8:7 (October, 1934): 7-10 and Hapardes 8:8 (November, 1934): 10-12, reprinted in Lev Ivra (New York, 1956), 12-20. For an extensive and well-researched analysis of the disagreement between Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin concerning both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies, see Norman Frimer and Dov Frimer, “Reform Marriages in Contemporary Halakhic Responsa,” Tradition 21:3 (Fall 1984): 7-39.
[3] Perushei Ibra (New York, 1943) pp. 87-117. Perushei Ibra was reprinted as the first volume of Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin (New York, 1981).
[4] Rivash, no. 4; For a brief discussion of this period, see Philippe Wolff, “The 1391 Pogrom in Spain: Social Crisis or Not?” Past & Present 50 (1971): 4-18.
[5] Iggerot Moshe (New York, 1961), Even Haezer I, no. 74.
[6] Iggerot Moshe Even Haezer I, no. 76.
[7] Iggerot Moshe, Even Haezer IV, no. 75.
[8] Hapardes 38:7 (October, 1964): 5-6 and reprinted in Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin vol. 2, pp. 123-125.
[9] Neither Rabbi Feinstein nor Rabbi Henkin discussed whether their decisions would be extended to a ceremony officiated by a Conservative rabbi. According to Rabbi Henkin there should be no difference. However, the question remains whether Rabbi Feinstein would have required a get to terminate a wedding officiated by a Conservative rabbi.
[10] Perushei Ibra, p. 110
[11] Perushei Ibra, pp. 110-117.
[12] Le-She’elat Ha-Agunot (New York, 1940), p. 16
[13] This letter can be found in Tzvi Gertner and Bezalel Karlinsky, “Ain Tnai Be’Nisuin,” Yeshurun 9 (2001): 888.
[14] See Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Women in Jewish Law (New York, 1978), 105-107, and Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (University of Scranton Press, 2006), 11-13, for various descriptions (and full documentation [!] in the latter source) of the events surrounding — and the Orthodox responses to — the Epstein proposal.
[15] Le’Dor Aharon (Brooklyn, NY, 1937), pp. 105-110.
[16] Le’Dor Aharon, p. 109
[17] The events leading to the writing of this volume are described in the introduction to Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin (Vilna, 1930), 11-15. According to a letter in the London Jewish Chronicle written by a longtime rabbinical judge on the London Beth Din, Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin first appeared in 1928. The reissued 1930 edition appeared in an enlarged edition with a new forward by Rabbi Hayyim Ozer Grodzensky. See Dayan Harris M. Lazarus, “Liberalism and Orthodoxy: The Problem of the Aguna,” London Jewish Chronicle (November 1, 1946), 11.
[18] Rabbi Aharon Kotler, who did not arrive in the United States until 1941, was aware and sharply critical of Rabbi Henkin’s proposal. See Mishnat Rabbi Aharon, vol 2 (Lakewood, NJ, 1985), no. 60. It is possible that Rabbi Kotler’s criticism influenced Rabbi Henkin’s decision to retract.
[19] Eliezer Berkovits, Tnai Be-Nisuin u-ve-Get (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 170.
[20] “Be-Inyan Tnai be-Nisuin,” Noam 12 (1970): 148. For a plethora of meticulous citations and a lucid description of the debate between Rabbis Berkovits and Kasher, see Marc B. Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg 1884-1966 (Littman Library, 1999), 190-192, especially the extensively researched footnote 83.
[21] Michael J. Broyde, “Review Essay: An Unsuccessful Defense of the Bet Din of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman: The Tears of the Oppressed,” The Edah Journal 4:2 (Winter, 2005): 17, available here.
[22] Perushei Ibra, p. 16.

In a previous contribution to the Seforim blog, Rabbi Adam Mintz discussed the significant roles of Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in the development of a unique halakhic response to the issue of the mehitzah in the American synagogue, based on a previous lecture delivered as part of his “History of American Poskim” series at Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The following historical and halakhic overview of the issues surrounding the Manhattan eruv is based on Rabbi Mintz’s doctoral dissertation, “The Evolution of the American Orthodox Community: The History of the Communal Eruv” (New York University, forthcoming).

The first Manhattan eruv was created in 1905 by Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel who was one of the most notable rabbinic scholars of the time. He was born in Poland and served as a rabbi in Sherps before immigrating to the Unites States. He maintained the title Sherpser Rav in America and quickly became the leader of the Polish community in New York. He described the eruv and his impetus for creating it in his volume Eruv ve-Hotza’ah (New York, 1907).[1] Rabbi Seigel’s eruv only encompassed the Lower East Side, utilizing the natural riverbanks of Manhattan on three sides and on the fourth side, the Third Avenue El. There was rabbinic opposition to Rabbi Seigel’s eruv. This view is elaborated upon by Rabbi Yehudah David Bernstein in Hilkhata Rabta le-Shabbata (Brooklyn, 1910). Rabbi Bernstein, who studied at Slabodka, was one of the founders and early teachers at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva in New York.[2] This eruv was utilized by many within the Polish and Galician communities throughout the first half of the twentieth century.

Rabbi Henkin’s first encounter with the rulings on the eruv related to Rabbi Seigel’s eruv. In his volume Edut Le-Yisrael published in 1949, he wrote, “There are many observant Jews and especially those Hasidim from Poland who carry here on the street on Shabbat relying on the permission of Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel of Sherps.”[3] He went on to explain that this eruv is no longer valid due to changes that have been in the waterfront and in the Third Ave El. In addition, Rabbi Henkin explained that one of the requirements of the eruv is that the city be rented from the local authorities and that Rabbi Seigel had rented the city for only ten years which had long since expired.

The rejection of Rabbi Seigel’s eruv by the Lithuanian community and the gradual relocation of the Orthodox community to the Upper East and West Sides led to an attempt to create an eruv around the entire borough. In 1949, the Amshinover Rebbe, Rabbi Shimon Shalom Kalish, asked Rabbi Tzvi Eisenstadt to explore the possibility of creating a Manhattan eruv. Rabbi Eisenstadt, who had studied at Slabodka and was recognized as a rabbinic scholar in both the Lithuanian and Hasidic communities, investigating the Manhattan waterfront and concluded that it was enclosed by man-made walls and that an eruv could be established. The eruv came into existence in the Spring of 1962 under the leadership of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher, a well-known rabbinic scholar and author who lived on the Upper West Side.[4] The long duration between the introduction of the concept and its realization was due in part to the fact that several adjustments had to be made to these man-made boundaries. However, it was largely caused by the opposition and uncertainty within the New York rabbinic community to the creation of a community eruv. While there had been eruvin in the large cities in Europe before World War II, there were very few, if any, functioning community eruvin at the time in North America.[5] The rabbinic community was confronting an issue that would shape Shabbat observance to this day.

The first extensive treatment of this issue is found in Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 1, nos. 138-140. In these teshuvot, written in 1952 and addressed to Rabbi Eisenstadt, Rabbi Feinstein outlined his belief that an eruv cannot be built around Manhattan. His arguments in these teshuvot were legal and elaborated upon in great detail and it is clear from them that he had a high regard for Rabbi Eisenstadt.

Rabbi Yosef David Moskowitz, the Shatzer Rav, was one of the strongest proponents of the Manhattan eruv. In 1954, he had taken over the leadership of the project following the passing of the Amshinover Rebbe. Five years later, in 1959, Rabbi Moskowitz published a volume entitled Tikkun Eruvim (New York, 1959) in which explained the halakhic reasons for the viability of an eruv around Manhattan. Both Rabbi Henkin and Rabbi Feinstein wrote haskamot for this volume. Rabbi Henkin began by praising Rabbi Moskowitz’s scholarship and commenting on the pleasure he received knowing that there are great rabbinic scholars in America. He continued as follows: “I do not feel that we can criticize the lenient ones merely as a precaution.”[6] However, he does state that he remained uncertain as to whether the bridges and tunnels create a breach in the eruv. Rabbi Feinstein also complimented Rabbi Moskowitz on his work and wrote:[7]

Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin continued their communications regarding the Manhattan eruv in the years preceding the completion of the project. Rabbi Feinstein wrote two letters in which he stated that while he would not join with those who permitted the Manhattan eruv, he believed that there was significant basis on which those who permit it could rely. In a letter published in Hapardes 33:9 (June, 1959) Rabbi Feinstein elaborated on this theme and explained that in America where there is indoor plumbing and the shuls are well stocked with books, there is no need for a community eruv. However, he concluded, “If there are those who still believe that there is need for an eruv for the sake of the children and for those who violate Shabbat unintentionally, I do not object, but I do not participate.”[8] In a letter to Rabbi Leo Jung, rabbi of the Jewish Center on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, dated December 16, 1960, Rabbi Feinstein reiterated his refusal to condemn those who supported the eruv even though he would not participate in the project. In this letter he explained his reasons for not participating. “Even though there would be an advantage for those who are carrying on Shabbat… there would be a disadvantage for those who want to conduct themselves according to the halakhah and not carry in Manhattan who might now be inclined to carry.”[9] The eruv was completed in May 1962. In June 1962, the Agudath HaRabbanim distributed a letter which reported on a meeting that took place on June 20, 1962. The letter read:[10]

This letter was reprinted in Hapardes 40:7 (April, 1966) announcing that a meeting of the Agudath HaRabbanim had taken place on the first day of Chol Hamoed Pesach of that year (April 7, 1966) under the leadership of Rabbi Feinstein at which time the decision was made to confirm the decision of 1962 and to call upon the rabbis to urge their communities not to rely on the Manhattan eruv.[11]

Rabbi Feinstein mentioned his participation in this communication of the Agudath HaRabbanim in two places in his Iggerot Moshe. In an addendum to his responsum to Rabbi Jung, Rabbi Feinstein reviewed his earlier letter comparing the situation in Manhattan with the eruv in Brooklyn and Kew Gardens Hills. He concluded this addendum as follows:[12]

Rabbi Feinstein also referenced this decision of the Agudath HaRabbanim in his responsum to Rabbi Peretz Steinberg regarding the eruv in Kew Gardens Hills. In this letter dated April 1, 1974, Rabbi Feinstein supported the establishment of an eruv in Kew Gardens Hills and distinguished this area from Manhattan where he stated, “This is not to be compared to New York which was done against our will and the will of Rabbi Aharon Kotler and other Torah giants from the Agudath HaRabbanim.”[13] In both these references, Rabbi Feinstein placed Rabbi Kotler as the chief spokesman of the Agudath HaRabbanim on this matter. It is uncertain whether Rabbi Kotler’s influence convinced Rabbi Feinstein to change his mind vis-a-vis the Manhattan eruv.[14]

Rabbi Henkin also remained involved with the eruv project. Rabbi Kasher described that on March 25, 1959, the rabbis who were involved with the creation of the eruv met in Rabbi Henkin’s home. At that meeting Rabbi Eisenstadt reviewed his findings and discussed the bridges and tunnels explaining how each one could be incorporated into the eruv. Rabbi Henkin’s position at this meeting is not discussed by Rabbi Kasher but the fact that he hosted the meeting suggests, at the very least, a strong interest in creating a halakhically permissible eruv.[15]

On March 15, 1960, Rabbi Henkin signed as a member of the “Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv” on a letter written to the rabbis of Manhattan. In this letter, the committee reviewed the history of the eruv project and explained that the committee was ready to complete the project. They called on any rabbi or lay person with a comment either in favor or opposed to the eruv to respond within a month’s time. In this communication, it is clear that Rabbi Henkin supported the creation and completion of the eruv.[16]

Rabbi Kasher included two letters that Rabbi Henkin wrote to him. In the first letter, dated November 1, 1960, Rabbi Henkin expressed his support for the eruv while expressing some reservations especially about the bridges and the potential break they created in the eruv. At the conclusion of the letter, Rabbi Henkin wrote that he did not feel that he was the ultimate authority concerning this eruv as there were many worthy rabbis who were working on the project.[17] In the next letter to Rabbi Kasher which is undated and which appears in the original at the conclusion of the eruv section of Divrei Menachem, Rabbi Henkin wrote that “I hang on the coattails of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who does not criticize those who support the eruv even though he will not participate in this project.”[18] In this letter Rabbi Henkin seemed to retreat slightly from his previous view.

However, Rabbi Henkin wrote a final letter to the “Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv” which clarified his opinion. In a letter dated July 12, 1961, Rabbi Henkin outlined his position. He wrote that it is crucial to complete the eruv in Manhattan and that Manhattan is not worse than other cities where an eruv has been established. He explained that the committee was waiting for approbations from other rabbis and then would convene a conference of rabbis to finalize the eruv project. Rabbi Henkin disapproved of waiting for a rabbinic conference as he wrote, “For I know from experience that it takes much time to gather the rabbis. Rather, make the necessary repairs and then announce that the repairs have been made and that the rabbis are supervising the eruv.” He noted that until the committee received the approbation of the majority of the rabbis, the eruv remained one that can only be relied upon in times “of great need.” He then listed the situations he considered to be “of great need.”

He explained that New York is an exceptional city as there are many rabbis so that the eruv cannot be considered acceptable in all cases until the majority of the rabbis agree to its creation. Finally, he wrote that there is a need to publicize the fact that the eruv extends only to Manhattan and not the other boroughs.[19]

Rabbi Henkin never clarified whether he believed that this eruv had received the approbation of the majority of rabbis that he had felt was necessary. Due to lack of evidence, one can only conclude that he continued to believe that the eruv could only be relied upon in the situations he described in the July 12, 1961 letter. There was at least one Orthodox rabbi in Manhattan who advised his congregants that they could rely on the eruv as per the limitations in Rabbi Henkin’s letter. However, these limitations allow us to understand Rabbi Henkin’s view concerning the eruv. If the creation of an eruv was unacceptable, then carrying would not be permitted even in a situation of great need. The fact that he allowed carrying on Shabbat in a situation of great need showed that he was satisfied with the acceptability of the eruv. His problem revolved around rabbinic acceptance of the eruv and not its fundamental status. Given this consideration, it is understandable why Rabbi Henkin did not sign the letter of the Agudath HaRabbanim in 1962.[20]

In conclusion, both Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin took active roles in the history of the establishment of the Manhattan eruv. While during the process they each expressed their approval of the project with certain hesitations, in the final analysis, Rabbi Feinstein opposed the eruv while Rabbi Henkin approved it with reservations. Neither of these great Torah sages explained what led them to follow the paths that they did. Why did Rabbi Feinstein follow Rabbi Kotler and the decision of the Agudath HaRabbanim and what was Rabbi Feinstein’s role in that deliberation? Why did Rabbi Henkin ultimately sign with the members of the “Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv” and why did he not write a final conclusion concerning whether this eruv has received the necessary approbation?

The history of halakhah does not provide all the answers but it gives us a window into a fascinating and important process.

Sources:
[1] The entire volume can be accessed here. His biography can be found in Moshe D. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (Westport, CT., 1996), pp. 193-94.

[2] Sherman, pp. 30-31

[3] Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Edut Le-Yisrael (NY, 1949), p. 151

[4] Rabbi Kasher described the entire eruv project in great detail in the second half of the second volume of his Divrei Menachem (Jerusalem, 1980). All subsequent references will refer to this section of his work. In 1986, a short thirty page pamphlet appeared in English edited by Shalom Carmy, entitled The Manhattan Eruv: From the Writings of Rav Menachem M. Kasher (Ktav Pub. House, 1986).

[5] For an extensive discussion of the history of city eruvin, see here (courtesy of EruvOnline).

[6] Divrei Menachem vol. 2, pp. 7-9.

[7] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 9

[8] Hapardes 33:9 (June, 1959) reprinted in Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 31.

[9] Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 4, no. 89.

[10] This letter can be found here (courtesy of EruvOnline).

[11] Hapardes 40:8 (May, 1966)

[12] Iggerot Moshe, final volume, p. 428. It is interesting that in this responsum, Rabbi Feinstein omitted the final line of the Agudath HaRabbanim declaration calling all who rely on the eruv Shabbat violators.

[13] Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, vol. 4, no. 86.

[14] For a discussion of Rabbi Kotler’s view on city eruvin, see here courtesy of EruvOnline).

[15] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 38.

[16] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, pp.10-11

[17] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 14

[18] Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 135

[19] This letter was printed originally in Hapardes 36:4 (January, 1962), and reprinted in Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, pp. 14-15; and Kitvei Hagriah Henkin, pp. 32-33.

[20] For a discussion of the erroneous claim that Rabbi Henkin signed on the 1962 letter of the Agudath Harabonim, see here (courtesy of EruvOnline).

Rabbi Adam Mintz is a visiting professor of Jewish History at Queens College and the immediate past president of the New York Board of Rabbis. He lectures widely on a variety of topics in Jewish History and his weekly streaming video entitled “This Week in Jewish History” is featured on the internet at www.rayimahuvim.org. Rabbi Mintz served in the pulpit rabbinate for over twenty years and is one of the founders of Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He has recently published a book entitled Jewish Spirituality and Divine Law (Ktav, 2005) and is completing his dissertation “The Evolution of the American Orthodox Community: The History of the Communal Eruv” (New York University, forthcoming). Rabbi Mintz serves on the advisory committee of Sh’ma and is a member of the Board of Directors of The Orthodox Caucus, Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim and Plaza Memorial Chapel.

The post below on Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin was previously delivered as part of his lecture series “History of American Poskim.” We hope that Rabbi Mintz will contribute several posts, based on this fantastic series, to the Seforim blog.

–Dan Rabinowitz

Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin died in his apartment on the Lower East Side of Manhattan on Shabbat Nachamu, August 12, 1973. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky delivered eulogies at his funeral and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik attended the funeral but did not speak. Rabbi Henkin was born in White Russia in 1881. He studied, primarily, in the yeshiva in Slutzk and spent ten years as a rabbi and rosh yeshiva in Georgia on the Black Sea. Rabbi Henkin emigrated to America in 1923 and was appointed the rabbi of Congregation Anshei Shtutsen on the Lower East Side. In 1925, he became secretary and then director of Ezras Torah, a rabbinic organization founded in 1915 to assist Torah scholars imperiled by the turmoil of World War I. The organization was later expanded to assist rabbis and their students who attempted to flee Europe during the dark years surrounding World War II. Rabbi Henkin remained at the helm of Ezras Torah for the next forty-eight years. He served as a posek for rabbis and laymen throughout America and wrote numerous articles for a variety of Torah journals. Many of his essays and teshuvot are reprinted in a two-volume work entitled Kitvei ha-Gaon Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (New York, 1980).

In spite of Rabbi Henkin’s illustrious rabbinic career, we live today amidst a Torah and scholarly community “who knew not Yosef.” When poskim from the Lower East Side are considered, it is Rabbi Feinstein whose name and works are still authoritative twenty years after his passing. Yet, the first volume of Iggerot Moshe was published in 1959, when Rabbi Henkin was almost 80 years old and had spent a lifetime answering rabbinic questions and recording them for others.

The reasons for the popularity of a posek depend on the culture of the contemporary Orthodox community as much as on the quality of the p’sak. Rabbi Feinstein lived for thirteen years after Rabbi Henkin’s passing. Those years, from 1973-1986, were critical years in the growth of the Torah community of America. Many of Rabbi Feinstein’s teshuvot date from that period and many more teshuvot became known during the last years of his life. Most of Rabbi Henkin’s teshuvot date to an era when interest in the intricate questions of halakhah in America was limited to the scholarly rabbis of the time. Yet, these teshuvot remain relevant for all students of halakhah and of the history of American Orthodoxy. The richness and originality of those teshuvot give us insight into the challenges of that generation of American Orthodoxy and into the pivotal role played by Rabbi Henkin during this period.

I would like to address three issues in which Rabbi Henkin and Rabbi Feinstein reached different halakhic conclusions concerning areas of grave importance to American Orthodoxy.

While Orthodox leaders have always defined mixed seating in synagogue as the great divide between the Orthodox and the non-Orthodox, the 1950’s and 1960’s saw a growing number of Orthodox synagogues which introduced mixed seating. One source claims that in 1961 there existed “perhaps 250 Orthodox synagogues where family seating is practiced.” While it is difficult to verify the accuracy of this report, it is certain that rabbis serving in mixed-seating synagogues continued to belong to the Rabbinical Council of America without fear of expulsion.[1] The tide began to turn in the late 1950’s as many Orthodox leaders declared their opposition to congregations with mixed-seating. A major step in this direction was introduced by Baruch Litvin, a businessman who belonged to Beth Tefilas Moshe, an Orthodox congregation in Mt. Clemens, Michigan which voted to introduce mixed-seating in 1955. Litvin took up the battle against this ruling based on an established American legal principle that a religious congregation cannot introduce a practice opposed to the doctrine of the congregation against the wishes of even a minority of the congregation. His attorneys, supported by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (OU), introduced a significant amount of evidence to support the claim that mixed-seating was “clearly violative of the established Orthodox Jewish law and practice.” The lower courts sided with the congregation and refused to become involved. However, the Michigan Supreme Court unanimously reversed the decision and accepted the minority’s claim.[2]

Litvin gathered the evidence that he had collected and published it, in 1962, in a volume entitled The Sanctity of the Synagogue. Included in this book are letters from rabbis and roshei yeshiva on the necessity of a mehitzah in an Orthodox synagogue. Litvin incorporated an article by Rabbi Feinstein on the background and requirements of a Mehitzah. Rabbi Feinstein’s opinion is summarized by a personal communication to Litvin dated June 17, 1957 and printed at the conclusion of the article.[3] The correspondence states:

Dear Mr. Litvin,

In reference to what is written in my name, that “the prohibition of mixed pews is Biblical law,” it would be better to change the words to read: “the prohibition against praying in a synagogue without a mechitzah of at least eighteen tefachim (handbreadths) or sixty-five inches high is a Biblical law.” Stronger emphasis should be put on the point that it is prohibited to pray in a synagogue without a proper mechitzah, even though there is separate seating.

Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein

This view of the necessity for a mehitzah is shared by Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and Rabbi Aharon Kotler whose letters are also included in Litvin’s volume.

Rabbi Henkin’s view is not recorded in Litvin’s volume. Rabbi Henkin does, however, take a stand on the issue of mehitzah in a responsum dated 1961 which is included in the second volume of his collected writings.[4] The teshuvah addresses the question whether a Shabbat violator can receive an aliyah. He responds that in our generation in which the Reform movement has “cast its net upon the Jewish people to ensnarl them in their ways” it is incumbent upon the Orthodox community to welcome all Jews without reservation into our synagogues and our communities. In this way many have returned to Orthodoxy and hopefully many will continue to return.

He continues in the following way:

Every individual should live in a place of observant Jews if possible. However, if this is not possible, we should not be strict concerning these matters because it will lead to a potential catastrophe.

However, if the place itself is corrupt in that it has mixed-seating, it has already been established that it is preferable to pray by yourself at home. But, if this is the only synagogue in the area and you will always have to pray at home, you must examine the situation and evaluate the corruption versus the hope that through the involvement of the observant in this congregation, the community will become Orthodox. Yet, in all situations you must reprimand them if you pray in their midst.

While the details of the question addressed to Rabbbi Henkin differ from the issue directed by Mr. Litvin to Rabbi Feinstein, these two great poskim take two very different approaches to the mehitzah issue. Rabbi Feinstein defends the principle of mehitzah and argues that it is a Biblical requirement with no room for compromise or flexibility. Rabbi Henkin, on the other hand, while arguing in favor of the importance of mehitzah and the risks inherent in the movement toward mixed-seating in the synagogue, clearly understands the complexity of the social situation and the possibility that prohibiting someone from praying in a non-mehitzah synagogue may ultimately force that person out of the organized Jewish community and prevent him or her from influencing the community toward observance. Rabbi Henkin argued that the principle of mehitzah must be balanced with an appreciation of the social complexities of the situation and the potential for religious outreach while Rabbi Feinstein contended that the principle is so critical that it cannot be influenced even by the difficult practical problems that may arise.

Sources:

[1] Jonathan D. Sarna, “The Debate over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue,” in The American Synagogue: A Sanctuary Transformed, ed. Jack Wertheimer (Cambridge, 1987), 380-81; For a recent overview of the mehitzah within historical context, see Gil Student, “The Mehitzah Controversy: Fifty Years Later,” Bekhol Derakhekha Daehu/BaDaD 17 (September 2006): 7-43.
[2] Jonathan D. Sarna, “The Debate over Mixed Seating in the American Synagogue,” 384.
[3] Baruch Litvin, The Sanctity of the Synagogue (New York, 1962), 125.
[4] Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin (New York, 1989), II: 11.