The Question
of Rabbinic Appointments - Nothing Ever Changes!
The appointment of
unsuitable candidates to rabbinical posts also influenced the rabbi’s ability to
function as an independent force in Jewish life. Acquiring a rabbinical post, then, was often more a function of a candidate’s personal (or familial) wealth than of his level of knowledge or character (though the two did not necessarily exclude each other).
Complaints about trade
in rabbinic posts are known from as early as 1587. By the eighteenth century, it
seems to have become quite common for wealthy families to acquire rabbinic posts
for offspring regardless of age, experience, or learning. Eventually a small
number of rabbinic families (among others,
Landau, Gintsburg
[Günzberg], Te’omim, Horowitz, and
Halperin) divided many of the major posts among
themselves. The incomes that these positions brought were often increased to
offset the heavy investment made in purchasing them, which led to
discontent...
The appointment of a rabbi was
a two-tiered process involving both the community’s lay leadership and
non-Jewish authorities. In order to fill a vacant rabbinic position, the kahal would summon a large-scale committee,
often made up of all those who had sat on the council in previous years. To
prevent corruption, it was often stipulated that candidates should have no
family connections with members of the community. Once a name was chosen, the
relevant non-Jewish authorities would be approached, and upon payment of a
suitable fee, would grant the candidate a license—in Polish, a
konsens—to take up the post. At this point, the community would
issue a formal letter of invitation together with a contract (usually for three
years) specifying the rabbi’s duties and income.
In practice, this system led to a great deal of corruption and a decline in rabbinical status. A particular problem involved the system of payments made to non-Jewish authorities. Communities often demanded that the chosen candidate pay the license fee himself and sometimes required that he make a personal contribution to the community coffers as well. If the committee choosing the rabbi was divided, each faction would use its connections with the non-Jewish authorities to ensure that their candidate received the konsens—sometimes even offering to increase the fee paid. Finally, the non-Jewish authorities themselves would sometimes intervene to choose a candidate whom they felt would act as a direct conduit enabling them to intervene in the running of Jewish communal life.
Acquiring a rabbinical post, then, was often more a function of a candidate’s personal (or familial) wealth than of his level of knowledge or character (though the two did not necessarily exclude each other). Complaints about trade in rabbinic posts are known from as early as 1587. By the eighteenth century, it seems to have become quite common for wealthy families to acquire rabbinic posts for offspring regardless of age, experience, or learning. Eventually a small number of rabbinic families (among others, Landau, Gintsburg [Günzberg], Te’omim, Horowitz, and Halperin) divided many of the major posts among themselves. The incomes that these positions brought were often increased to offset the heavy investment made in purchasing them, which led to discontent, especially among the poorer elements in society. Disputes over the choice of rabbi and division of incomes became ever more heated and led to a series of bitter legal cases in the eighteenth century, especially in Przemyśl, Lwów, Wilno, and Pinsk.
The appointment of unsuitable candidates to rabbinical posts also influenced the rabbi’s ability to function as an independent force in Jewish life. On the one hand, the rabbi was often considered to be dependent on—and so biased toward—the faction within the community that had secured his appointment. At the same time, he could also be regarded as the agent within Jewish society of the non-Jewish authorities who had, ultimately, appointed him. This impression was strengthened by the fact that, particularly in the eighteenth century, the authorities did sometimes make use of rabbis as means of administering Jewish society by issuing them direct orders that were expected to be fulfilled.
Finally, the honorific nature of rabbinic appointments meant that the chosen candidate often did not even move to the community he was supposed to be serving. Perhaps to put an end to this practice, in the later eighteenth century some communities abandoned fixed-term contracts in favor of life appointments. In addition, the title of rabbi of a certain community, once held for a term, could be retained for life, even if the individual in question had long since ceased to act as a rabbi and was now a businessman.