Old posts that cite a since-disgraced rabbi

Question

We have about a dozen posts that cite, as a contemporary authority¹, a prominent Rabbi who was a respected posek at the time the posts were written, and who has since been convicted of abusing his rabbinic position to hurt many people and is now incontrovertibly (to my knowledge) a subject of disgrace in the Jewish world. Should we do anything to these posts, or those that cite other authorities who have similarly fallen from grace?

Some possibilities:

• Delete the post.

• Edit out any parts of the post that rely on this rabbi's authority.

• Edit out any parts of the post that rely on this rabbi's arguments or citations, too.

• Edit the post to include a link to the rabbi's Wikipedia page.

• Edit the post to include a footnote saying that this Rabbi has since been disgraced.

• Add a comment encouraging the author to rewrite the post.

• Nothing.

Does it matter if the post is about a subject matter related to the rabbi's crime?

Does it matter whether the fact and interpretation of the rabbi's misdeeds are controversial? What standard of certainty/proof would warrant taking such actions?

What level of severity of misdeeds would warrant taking such actions?

---

^{1. I'm not averse to naming him and discussing his case here, to whatever degree necessary. However, I think I've described the case well enough for the purpose of this question, and I'm hoping that this post will generate guidance for both dealing with this case in particular and for evaluating any similar cases.}

Answer 1

Don't edit or delete. We are not in the business of deciding who is a legitimate rabbi. Cite your sources and let others evaluate their value. After all any source is better than no source.

If you want to comment suggesting an improvement, go ahead.

Answer 2

I can see this situation turning into a hot political issue. Let's keep Mi Yodeya a neutral community where people of all persuasions can safely ask and answer questions.

I also see little gain from spreading further the disgrace of an already disgraced Rabbi. Mi Yodeya is an open forum, and we reach out to Jews and non-Jews from all over the world and of all persuasions. Further publicizing this unfortunate situation is pure Chillul Hashem, and I wonder if the benefits outweigh the gains. Posting links to a tragic Wikipedia page in multiple locations all over the site may well cause more harm then good.

Answer 3

I would add to DoubleAA's answer, that although the MY community is "not in the business of deciding who is a legitimate rabbi", the poster may want to edit the post so it doesn't say/imply anything unintended. From the poster's perspective, this may no longer be a legitimate source at all.

I think a comment would be appropriate.

"[E]ncouraging the author to rewrite the post" (from the question) might be a little strong; perhaps something like "X is no longer considered a reliable posek by many; you may want to consider this in your post." with a link to relevant information, and maybe a link to this question.

Answer 4

I mostly agree with DoubleAA's answer. I think that we should not be in the business of deciding who is a legitimate rabbi.

I would propose an exception to DoubleAA's rule of doing nothing for the case where the cause of disgrace is relevant to the answer or the rabbi's authority on the topic of the answer. Since the disgrace was not known at the time, the original poster did not include that qualifying information. Now that the information is known, it should be added to the post. For example, if a rabbi was later discovered to have encouraged the consumption of non-kosher food, a sentence should be added to any answer citing the rabbi on the topic of kashrut explaining that the rabbi was later found to be an unreliable source on this topic after the post was published. If the original poster is still active on the site, a comment could be added asking him/her to update the post. Otherwise, another user may use his/her discretion to edit the post unilaterally.

Answer 5

It is an important question. Many write one cannot learn the Torah of such a rabbi (see e.g., here).

At a minimum going forward one could have a policy that such rabbis' Torah cannot be quoted here. The same way we don't quote heretics. There would need to be some official criteria, e.g., rabbis which official associations of rabbis have criticised or excluded, or who have been condemned for their actions.

But I wouldn't engage in backwards editing. It can easily become a slippery slope.

Answer 6

I don't think there is a need to do anything with posts that cite such rabbis. Consider that there are two possibilities: Either the correct answer to a question changes because the rabbi was disgraced, or the correct answer does not change.

If the correct answer does not change, then the post is just as fine as it was before — if it was correct before then it's still correct now, and if it was incorrect before it's still incorrect now. If the correct answer does change because of the rabbi's disgrace, then the post would simply be an example of an incorrect answer. We don't modify posts that contain incorrect answers; we downvote them, comment on the wrongness, and post more correct answers.

If the second possibility is true, and the correct answer changes because of the rabbi's disgrace, you may want to note in a comment that the answer became incorrect due to the rabbi's disgrace.