B'chasdei Hashem, over the past almost 20 years, Beis Mevakesh Lev has produced over 13,300 audio shiurim and over 31,000 written posts, unmatched by any one-person website - all completely free of charge. There are no paywalls or anything else. Now we are turning to you for help so we can continue - any amount will help. Even 99 cents! Thank you to my sweetest and most beloved friends!!!:-)!!
alchehrm@gmail.com
---
Last time, we wrote here about the historic meeting between Abraham Joshua Heschel and the Pope. There is no doubt that from a political and historical point of view, this meeting bore fruit: in 1965, the "Nostra Aetate" declaration was approved, in which the Catholic Church for the first time cleared the Jewish people of the accusation of "killing אותו האיש", condemned anti-Semitism, and recognized Judaism as a religion of value - after two thousand years, thanks indeed.
Heschel believed that the role of Judaism after the Holocaust is not limited to survival or self-defense alone. While Zionism focused on establishing a national home as a solution, Heschel believed that the real challenge is changing the moral approach of the West. Western culture, with all its science, literature, and excellent education, is what caused the Holocaust. According to him, Western humanism failed because it is based on an "abstraction" of the concept of "human."
He claimed that only the Jews could stop a second Holocaust, and they need to contribute to the West something it doesn't know, how to be "better people" - to save all of humanity from the situation it has deteriorated to. Heschel set out for the Vatican. And succeeded.
However, the description of these achievements does not constitute a halachic ruling that this is how one should act in the first place.
The answer, as we will see immediately, is far from simple. While the modern world applauded the dialogue, fierce and decisive opposition arose within the world of Torah. It was the genius of halachic rulings, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who came out against the new trend and determined that there are boundaries that must not be crossed, even at the cost of "world peace."
During that turbulent period, Rabbi Feinstein sent a sharp letter to Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, in response to initiatives for interfaith meetings in Boston and other places. Rabbi Feinstein did not see these meetings as a bridge of peace, but as a dangerous spiritual trap.
In his famous response (Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De'ah III, Siman 43), he describes these meetings in harsh words and warns against approaching priests:
"Regarding which some young rabbis were caught in the trap of the head of the priests in the Vatican... whose intention is to convert all the Jews to their faith... and they succeeded in misleading some rabbis without knowledge... to participate with them."
Rabbi Feinstein did not settle for a general warning, but used severe images to clarify that this is a change in the strategy of Christianity - from physical persecution to an attempt at spiritual conversion through smiles and meetings:
"The work of Satan succeeded in making successful in the advice of the wicked... this is a complete and clear prohibition to make groups together with priests... even not for mere words that are not matters of faith."
According to him, the participation of rabbis in such meetings is no less than assisting a "seducer and instigator," since it gives legitimacy to the Church and may lead innocent Jews to err and listen to Christian propaganda. For Rabbi Feinstein, even if the meeting seems to yield external benefit, it remains a "severe prohibition of approaching idolatry."
As is well known, this was also the opinion of the Rebbe of Chabad, of blessed memory, who forbade these meetings completely, and there is no need to elaborate.
So we have seen how, in contrast to Heschel and his supporters, who, although he was a Torah-observant Jew all his life, leaned heavily towards the Conservative movement, and presumably the halachic words of a contemporary posek did not really stop him, especially since he succeeded in his mission vis-à-vis the Vatican. Yet, the words of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, live and exist forever.
The most famous example of an interfaith meeting is the "Barcelona Debate" in 1263. Ramban was called by Jaime I, King of Aragon, to confront the convert Pablo Christiani, a Dominican monk called in the book of the debate "Fray Paul" (Brother Paul). He was a student of Raymundus Martini and served as a representative of the Catholic Church and the Kingdom of Aragon in the royal palace. Unlike modern dialogical meetings, for Ramban this was a situation of real mortal danger and saving the Jews of Spain from the decrees of the mission.
Ramban agreed to participate only on the condition that he be given full freedom of expression, and he indeed replied decisively and with Jewish pride. In the book of the debate he wrote afterwards, he documented his sharp answers. The meeting ended with an intellectual victory for Ramban, but he was eventually forced to go into exile from his country and immigrate to the Land of Israel.
Over the generations, we have found additional rabbis who maintained ties with Christian clergymen out of a desire to increase understanding and prevent hatred. The best known of them are Rabbi Moshe Hagiz, Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, who spoke at length with priests on matters of religion and morality and even formed friendships with them. For them, the meeting was not a threat, but a tool for promoting shared moral values and establishing peace. And as some point out, everything was done only when the Christians had a strong hand over Israel.
In the 20th century, American Jewry found itself divided between two camps on this issue. However, those who permit are not recognized 'only' as halachic authorities like Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, of blessed memory, but it is worth bringing their opinion here.
Those who were lenient to meet with Christian clergymen, albeit with many reservations, were the "Rabbinical Council of America" (RCA), inspired by Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik. In his seminal article "Confrontation," Rabbi Soloveitchik presented a complex position: he strongly rejected theological dialogue, fearing the blurring of the uniqueness of the Jewish faith and compromise on internal religious matters. On the other hand, he permitted and even saw a duty in cooperation on secular and moral issues such as the fight against anti-Semitism and social justice. According to him, the meetings should be based on mutual respect and clarification of our "otherness."
Alongside Rabbi Soloveitchik, other prominent rabbis supported these meetings. Students of Rabbi Nahum Eliezer Rabinovich (including Rabbi Jonathan Sacks) testified that this was his opinion, and even students of Rabbi Weinberg (author of 'Seridei Esh' from the Torah im Derech Eretz school) participated in such meetings in London.
The struggle between these opinions shaped the character of Orthodox Judaism in the West: one camp sees the meeting as an opportunity to be a "light unto the nations" and to defend Jewish interests, and the other camp sees it as an existential and spiritual threat that must be guarded against at all costs, and especially a halachic prohibition.
After reviewing the fundamental dispute in Diaspora Jewry, we come to center stage - the Land of Israel.
Here, the meetings between rabbis and Christian clergymen took on an official and political character, with a constant attempt to balance respect for the Torah with the need to establish diplomatic relations and "ways of peace" in the modern world.
The roots of the approach that allows dialogue in the Land of Israel are rooted in the days of Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook. Rabbi Kook used to meet with respect with priests and heads of churches. His view was that when the goal is to increase understanding and respect between nations and prevent hatred, these meetings even have merit. Rabbi Kook saw these meetings as part of the role of the rabbinate in an era of revival, which requires respectful dialogue with world leaders.
In March 1946, in the era after the destruction of European Jewry, Rabbi Yitzchak Herzog, the Chief Rabbi of the Land of Israel, stood at the entrance to the Vatican as an impressive Jewish figure, a Polish native with a thick beard, who carried on his shoulders the pain of an entire people seeking to return its children. His mission was sacred and paramount: locating thousands of Jewish orphans whose parents were murdered in the Holocaust, and who remained hidden in Catholic institutions and in the homes of Christian families throughout Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France.
In his meeting with Pope Pius XII on March 10, the rabbi raised a simple but fateful request: he implored the Pope to issue a public call to priests in Europe, instructing them to reveal the location of the hidden Jewish children. Rabbi Herzog believed with all his heart that such a step by the head of the Church would "greatly facilitate" the work of returning the children to the bosom of their people and community.
The Pope expressed sympathy for the disaster that befell the Jewish people, but contented himself with promising to look into the matter and asked the rabbi to submit a detailed memorandum on the subject.
Two days later, on March 12, Rabbi Herzog returned to the Vatican with the requested memorandum and was referred to a meeting with Monsignor Angelo Dell'Acqua, who was considered the expert of the Vatican's Secretariat of State on "Jewish questions."
Behind the scenes, the rabbi's hope was met with a wall of suspicion; Dell'Acqua reported on their meeting in a memorandum in which he advised the Pope not to issue any public statement and not even to respond to Rabbi Herzog in writing, for fear that it would be exploited for "Jewish propaganda."
The Pope adopted the skeptical approach and ordered that only a verbal response be conveyed to the rabbi through the Vatican representative in Jerusalem. He was told that each case should be examined on its merits, while avoiding a sweeping statement that would help return the children - a decision that reflected the Vatican's position in those days, according to which children who had been baptized into Christianity now belonged to the Church and should not be returned to a Jewish environment.
In late 1963, on the eve of Pope Paul VI's historic visit to the Holy Land, unprecedented diplomatic excitement prevailed in young Israel. But within the festive preparations, one clear and uncompromising voice stood out: the Rishon LeZion, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Nissim.
On December 24, his office announced that he would not take part in the welcoming ceremonies - neither in Megiddo, the Pope's point of entry into Israel, nor in Jerusalem on his way back to Jordan.
The root of the refusal was not a religious conflict, but a principle of honor and reciprocity. Rabbi Nissim clarified that he could meet the Pope only if he would deign to pay an official visit to Heichal Shlomo - the seat of the Chief Rabbinate. However, the Pope, who emphasized that his journey was "religious only," insisted that the heads of religions come to him, and refused any reciprocal visit.
Precisely because he was an open and approachable rabbi, known for his dialogue with the secular public and for his recognition of distant Jewish communities, Rabbi Nissim saw the issue as a principled test: recognition of the status of the Chief Rabbinate and the honor of the State of Israel. In a quiet but decisive protest, he chose to be absent not out of alienation, but to preserve the honor of the institution he headed.
In 1993, a historic moment was recorded that changed the face of relations between the Jewish people and the Catholic Church: for the first time since the establishment of the State, a Pope met with a Chief Rabbi of Israel. It was Rabbi Israel Meir Lau and the Rishon LeZion Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, of blessed memory, who met with John Paul II at his private summer residence in Castel Gandolfo.
The choice of the meeting place was not accidental; Rabbi Lau, who strongly opposed official trips to the Vatican due to the presence of statues and crosses, agreed to the meeting only after he was assured that the place would be cleared of any Christian religious symbols. The Pope, who grew up in Poland and knew Jews closely, broke the ice when he told Rabbi Lau: "I remember your grandfather," who was a respected rabbi in Krakow near his hometown. Rabbi Lau mentioned that the Pope was a man who refused to baptize Jewish children after the war and often called the Jews "our elder brothers."
Alongside Rabbi Lau, the Rishon LeZion Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi Doron acted, who brought with him a well-established halachic approach to these meetings. Rabbi Bakshi Doron gave validity to these meetings and determined that they have great value for the sake of establishing peace and reducing violence in the world.
According to him, these meetings do not constitute recognition of another religion as equal to Judaism, but are intended to enhance and establish the moral agreements between nations and religions. Rabbi Bakshi Doron proposed establishing a permanent and trilateral dialogue between the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - out of a belief that this is essential for preventing bloodshed.
While Rabbi Bakshi Doron emphasized the value of peace, Rabbi Lau presented a pragmatic and cautious approach. His view was clear: "You don't have to bend down and fawn," but you must hold the meetings to prevent "a foothold" for the haters of Israel.
Rabbi Lau explained that the fact that millions of Jews live in Catholic countries requires the Chief Rabbinate to greet the Pope, so as not to harm the security of any Jew in the Diaspora.
The first meeting in 1993 paved the way for a much larger official meeting held in 2000 in Jerusalem. At this event, Rabbi Lau presented the Pope with a Torah scroll wrapped in leather.
On the Torah scroll was engraved the verse from the Book of Micah: "For all the nations will walk each in the name of his god, but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever." The choice of the verse was intentional and constituted a "double entendre": a declaration of absolute loyalty of the Jews to their religion, alongside a respectful appeal to other religious traditions. In a private meeting held afterwards, Rabbi Lau reminded the Pope that we must condemn not only the murderers, but also those "who stood by our blood without doing or saying anything to save our lives."
One of the most significant meetings took place years later in January 2004, when the Chief Rabbis, the Rishon LeZion Rabbi Shlomo Amar and Rabbi Yona Metzger, arrived at the Vatican for a meeting with Pope John Paul II. It is important to note that this meeting was not done in a vacuum; the rabbis consulted in advance with Maran the Poskim, the Gaon Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and the Gaon Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who gave their blessing to the move.
During the meeting, which lasted about half an hour, critical issues of the fight against anti-Semitism and terror and the sanctity of life were raised. Rabbi Amar defined the meeting as "the beginning of a new path" and paving the way for unity, while Rabbi Metzger asked for the Vatican's help on the issue of Israel's prisoners and missing persons.
A decade later, in May 2014, a fascinating meeting took place at "Heichal Shlomo" in Jerusalem between Pope Francis and the then Chief Rabbis, the Rishon LeZion Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef and Rabbi David Lau.
In this meeting, a symbolic and moving detail stood out: Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef wore on his garment the "Tablets of the Covenant," which he received from his father, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, on the day of his coronation. Rabbi Ovadia instructed him to wear this in meetings with religious leaders as a visual response to the cross worn by the Pope. The Pope, for his part, opened the meeting with the verse "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity."
However, the position was not uniform. Even within the Chief Rabbinate, other voices were heard. In 2014, four members of the Council, including Rabbi Shimon Elitov and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, boycotted the meeting with the Pope. Rabbi Elitov explained that "it is impossible to erase the history of blood" and emphasized that the meetings should be done out of "the pride of Jacob" and without flattery.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's approach was a model of complexity: on the one hand, he authorized the Chief Rabbis to meet with the Pope for the purpose of lobbying and the security of Israel. On the other hand, in 2009, he instructed Shas ministers to be absent from the welcoming ceremonies for Pope Benedict XVI, as a protest against the Pope's past and the Vatican's demands for sovereignty in holy places. He instructed to do this "quietly and without causing a stir."
In historical perspective, the rabbis of the Land of Israel have managed to use these meetings as a diplomatic tool of the first order. They did not see this as recognition, God forbid, of Christianity, but as fulfilling a Jewish duty of "ways of peace" and protecting the people and the land.
The meetings, which began in the days of Ramban as a necessity of mortal danger, have become in the hands of the Chief Rabbinate a tool for establishing the status of the Jewish people as a leading partner in the world and in the fight against hatred against Jews.
Towards the historic meeting with Pope John Paul II at his summer residence in Castel Gandolfo in 1993, Rabbi Lau and his wife looked for a gift that would carry a deep and symbolic meaning. Since the meeting was held in the days before Rosh Hashanah, and was intended to deal, among other things, with painful issues such as the fate of Ron Arad and the missing soldiers of the Battle of Sultan Yacoub, the rabbi chose to give the Pope a shofar.
On the base of the shofar, the rabbi asked to engrave the verse expressing the longing for freedom: "Blow the great shofar for our freedom." The task was entrusted to a goldsmith in Rome through the Israeli embassy, and the shofar was returned to the rabbi wrapped in fancy paper.
However, on the evening before the meeting, an internal instinct pushed the rabbi to open the package and examine the gift. To his horror, he discovered that the goldsmith, who was not Jewish, had made a mistake in one small letter that turned the meaning upside down: instead of the word "great," the shofar was engraved with: "Blow the stolen shofar for our freedom."
Fortunately, the artist was still in his shop, and the mistake was corrected overnight.
May we hear the great shofar of Moshiach speedily in our days!!
כיכר שבת
