Chapter 10: The Big Lie – Rabbi Fischer’s Refusal to Have a Din Torah
“… the sword (war) comes to the world for the delay of justice, for the perverslon of justice and for rendering a Torah decision not in accordance with halacha” (Pirkei Avos 5:8)
According to the Shulchan Aruch if a Jew receives a hazmonah to a Din Torah he is allowed to request that his Din Torah be in the form of a Zablah. This is for many reasons as stated in mefroshim of the Shulchan Aruch. Rabbi Fischer, after having experienced a “fixed trial” with the Rabbonim once before, did not want to go before them again to decide his disputes with the Vaad.
It was so clear that this Beis Din was biased against him, that even a non-Jew could see it. While in court one day, the day after the Rebbe Shlita took ill (may he have a speedy and complete recovery), Rabbi Fischer sat in the courtroom with the judge and a few bystanders waiting for the court proceedings to begin. The judge asked him, “Rabbi Fischer please explain something to me. You are an Orthodox Jew and the other side in this litigation are also Orthodox Jews. Why then don’t you settle this dispute in a Rabbinical court?”
“I want to, your honor, but not in their Rabbinical court. They want that I should only go to their Rabbis and I want to go to another Rabbinical court. I am ready to go to a Rabbinical court but not to the Rabbis of Crown Heights,” answered Rabbi Fischer.
“You certainly could never get a fair trial in their Rabbinical court. Anyone can see that they are prejudiced against you!” the judge replied.
Then the judge called in the lawyer for the Vaad and requested that he take this case before a Rabbinical court. The attorney said that he must consult with his client Rabbi Squealman and asked him his answer to this question. “Rabbi Fischer is not allowed to go to any other Rabbinical court other than to ours,” was Rabbi Squealman’s reply.
Then in front of an entire courtroom filled with courtroom clerks, bystanders, and both parties involved in the litigation, the judge said for everyone to hear, “Rabbi Fischer could never go to these people for a Rabbinical court and expect to get a fair trial. Of course not, it’s a stacked deck!”
Even a non-Jewish judge could see the hatred and bias that the community leaders had for Rabbi Fischer.
In view of such a situation, was Rabbi Fischer not correct in requesting that his case be settled by a Beis Din other than the Rabbonim of Crown Heights? Rabbi Fischer requested what is known as a Zablah. This is the acronym for “zeh bore 10 echad.” The sages wrote that it was preferable to other types of Battei Dinim in later generations like ours when people are weaker and can be more easily swayed by one particular side.
In a Zablah each side brings his own Rav who is already familiar with his side of the case. Then there is a neutral Rav who is hearing the case for the first time during the Din Torah. Rabbi Fischer felt that a Zablah would allow him to have an impartial Din Torah. Even in the non-Jewish velt there is something called a ‘change of venue.’ This is when a case is tried in another city or state where the facts of the case are unknown and the people are less biased.
Rabbi Fischer consulted with other Rabbis who agreed that he had a right to have a Zablah. He was not obligated by halacha to go to the Crown Heights Beis Din. Rabbi Fischer was even willing to use a different Rabbi for his Zablah if they so requested, since they were afraid of the first one he picked. The Rabbonim thought Rabbi Fischer’s Rabbi was too professional for their task of deciding against him.
Rabbi Fischer was not allowed to have a Zablah. He was even accused of attempting to postpone and avoid a Din Torah (See documents pages 49-58).
Rabbi Fischer also had papers from the Agudas haRabbonim stating that he was correct on this issue and he posted these letters on the wall of his shul. Along with that he posted a letter stating that he was ready to go to a Zablah and that the Rabbonim were biased against him.
The most important question of the entire saga of the “holy war” waged against Rabbi Fischer is this: Why was a nidui imposed on Rabbi Fischer for refusing to go before a Beis Din when this was in fact not the case?
Could it be that the halachically illegal nidui imposed on him was a way to get him out of the community so that people would not be able to talk to him to hear his side of the story? In this way his enemies could continue to scapegoat him. Scapegoating could now be even more effective with the “phantom enemy” far away in Israel, supposedly manipulating and pulling strings from behind the scenes.
A nidui, we are told in many seforim, is something to be avoided at all costs. Throughout Jewish history it was rarely used at all. It is not a good thing for a community to have a nidui on a Yid, especially an illegal one.
The Gemorah teaches us that if a nidui is imposed illegallv then it has no value on the person it is imposed upon. Not only that, the nidui is reverted onto those who imposed it upon him! It would then follow that since our community leaders imposed an illegal nidui on someone, then this illegal nidui reverts onto us!
In all the history of Lubavitch a nidui has never been placed on anyone before.
People have been warned with threats of a nidui if they continued to sin, but one was never actually imposed. In the days of the Alter Rebbe a nidui was placed upon one of the talmidim of the Magid of Mezeritch that the Alter Rebbe refused to participate in on any level.
The following episode illustrates the Vaad’s desire that Rabbi Fischer never be granted his Zablah:
An elderly, venerated Rabbi was asked by Rabbi Fischer orally if he had the full right to a Zablah and he answered him in the affirmative. A few years later this venerated Rabbi (we’ll call him Rabbi B) wrote a sefer which included this response to Rabbi Fischer. One of the teshuvahs in this sefer included this answer with mekoros and reasons stating why Rabbi Fischer had a full right to a Zablah. When the Vaad saw this sefer they became outraged and began to coerce Rabbi B day and night to withdraw this teshuvah.
Rabbi B had decades upon decades of Rabbinical experience. The Vaad sent balabatim, not Rabbis, to come to him and demand the sefer be withdrawn. It says that the Daas of balabatim is in contradiction to Daas Torah. How could they send balabatim to discuss these halachic issues with a venerated Rabbi like Rabbi B? They subjected him to terror tactics to try to break him down. Rabbi B would not give in and his only concession after constant harassment was that he stated that he did not know that he was answering a private individual.
The Vaad was intent on having this sefer banned because it stated that Rabbi Fischer had a full right to a Zablah. They spread the lie that Rabbi Fischer refused to appear with them before a Beis Din. As one of the private individuals involved in the present Rico case recently told someone, “I did research and I found out that if Rabbi Fischer gets a Zablah then he can’t be put into nidui. That’s why he can’t be given a Zablah.”
If we in Lubavitch, can teach the entire world about Ahavas Yisroel, then why do we have an halachically illegal nidui imposed on a fellow chosid? Is this going to make the Rebbe Shlita gezunt and bring Moshiach any sooner?
The time is now for us to stand up and in one resounding voice ask, “Mei heichan dantuni? From what premise in Torah was this nidui based on?”
Historical Document # 12
This letter was from Rabbi Rottenberg of Boro Park to Rabbi Fischer. It is dated Thursday, Parshas Shmos, 5747/1987. (See page 50)
To paraphrase:
This is to let Rabbi Fischer know that he is not obligated to go to the Beis Din of Crown Heights as it is explained in the Shulchan Aruch.
Also, being that they are biased against him, he therefore has permission to go to a Din Torah, a Zablah, where there is a neutral party who is not from Crown Heights, as it explains in Mishnah Sanhedrin and in the Shulchan Aruch.
Historical Document # 13
This is a letter from the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U. S. and Canada to Rabbi Fischer dated 11 Shevat, 5747/1987. (See page 54)
To paraphrase:
Anyone involved in a Din Torah can request a Zablah. If a person wants to come to a Beis Din and he wants this Beis Din to be a Zablah then he cannot be forced to come to a Beis Din without a Zablah. Therefore according to halacha he has the right to choose a Zablah as the type of Din Torah he wants to have himself judged by. It is impossible in such a case to force him to go to a Din Torah other than a Zablah
Mei heichan dantuni?
Historical Document # 14
This is a letter from the Beis Din of Crown heights to Rabbi Fischer dated 14 Shevat, 5747/1987. (See page 56)
To paraphrase:
In answer to the sources cited by Rabbi Fischer, according to our understanding, he is obligated to come to the Beis Din here, especially according to how the judges perceive it. There is an issue of attempting to postpone and avoid a Din Torah … and therefore we are appointing a time when Rabbi Fischer must come before us.
Mei heichan dantuni?
Historical Document # 15
This is a letter from the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U. S. and Canada to the Chairman of the Vaad HaShechunah. (See page 59)
According to the requests of Rabbi David Fischer, the Vaad is invited to stand with him in judgment before the Beis Din of Agudas HaRabbonim with a Zablah within ten days from today.
Why was Rabbi Fischer not granted the Zablah he requested from the Beis Din of Crown Heights? Why was a nidui imposed on him instead?
Historical Document # 16
This is a letter from the Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the U. S. and Canada to the Chairman of the Vaad HaShechunah. (See page 59)
According to the requests of Rabbi David Fischer, the Vaad is invited to stand with him in judgment before the Beis Din of Agudas HaRabbonim with a Zablah within ten days from today.
Why was Rabbi Fischer not granted the Zablah he requested from the Beis Din of Crown Heights? Why was a nidui imposed on him instead?
Historical Document #17
A Crown Heights Story 