Rav Shternbuch: Does an Aidem Inherit a Shteller?


rav-moshe-shternbuchWith regard to sons-in-law inheriting a rabbinic position from a father-in-law, Rav Moshe Shternbuch (3:460) quotes the Rama in his teshuvos who says that a son-in-law has the same halacha as a son.

The Avodas HaGershuni argues and says that since the daughter can never inherit the position, the son-in-law has no claim.

Rav Shternbuch holds that the inheriting a position is not based on the real din of “yerushah” like regarding money, but is just a way to honor the previous rov by having his descendants continue to hold his position. Therefore, sons-in-law should have the rights to the position over others if they are qualified, because this will also honor the previous rov.

He distinguishes between a rov who is the boss of a shul and a rov hired by a committee. The prior has a din of a rov regarding this issue, while the latter is simply an employee.

Another distinction Rav Shternbuch makes is between a rov who paskens shailos and is a talmid shochom versus a pulpitrRabbi whose main purpose is to deliver interesting speeches. In the latter case, the congregation has the right to decide whose speeches they would like to hear and is not be bound by inheritance laws.

{Revach.net/Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. I find it odd that you find it odd that Matzav cannot report on something that Rav Sternbuch said. Nobody is disputing anythng yet.At least this is an issue that is relevant to us and not some secular thing that does not pertain to a yiddish website.

  2. I find it odd, that anonymous finds it odd, that clarification finds it odd, that this issue can be reported on a website.

  3. Most of these halachos are clearly discussed in shulchan oruch and the poskim

    In addition if this relates to a particular case, You can bet there are facts involved that you have not discusssed.

  4. #3:

    Um, no, that’s NOT why/how Dovid Hamelech became king. Actually, one of Shaul’s sons WAS king for a couple of years before Dovid.

  5. I find it odd that you did not place my comment stating that I found it odd that anonymous finds it odd that clarification found it odd that such a discussion would take place on a website. And I will also find it odd, if you reject this comment, which touches upon the oddity of the previous rejection, which itself found it odd that anonymous found it odd that clarification found it odd that the article would appear online.

  6. It is odd that you rejected my comment which found it odd that you had rejected my earlier comment, which was commenting that I found it odd that anonymous found it odd that clarification found it odd that this piece of news was on Matzav.com.