The Disgraced Rabbi - part 1
One of the most tragic and harmful ills of contemporary Jewish life is the seemingly endless stream of scandals involving prominent rabbis and Torah educators. Shamefully, hardly a month goes by without the media reporting salacious allegations of corruption, abuse or sexual impropriety involving a rabbi. These damning reports have caused and continue to cause a great deal of shame and embarrassment to Orthodox Jewry worldwide, as erstwhile role models and educators are exposed as criminals or sexual deviants.
As the Orthodox community engages in much-needed soul-searching and explores ways to purge this dreadful phenomenon from its midst, among the questions that have arisen relates to the status of Torah material produced by rabbis accused of inappropriate conduct. This question became relevant in February 2010 after the news broke of allegations of sexual misconduct perpetrated by Rav Mordechai Elon, a prominent figure in Israel’s religious Zionist community. Rav Elon had been a highly popular lecturer, and recordings and transcriptions of his discourses were widely disseminated and recognized for their ingenuity and depth. Many of the rabbi’s former students and admirers were left wondering whether or not they may continue reading and listening to this material. More recently, in the summer of 2015, Rav Ezra Scheinberg, the esteemed founding Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ha’Ari in Safed, and author of an acclaimed series of books entitled Ha’meir La’aretz, was arrested on serious charges of rape and molestation. News outlets reported that after the news broke, students in Rav Scheinberg’s yeshiva discarded all copies of his books on the premises.
Less than a year later, in June 2016, two letters were signed by prominent rabbis and dayanim in Israel and the United States warning women to keep a distance from Rabbi Meir Pogrow, an accomplished Torah scholar and educator. The signatories affirmed that they received credible testimonies from numerous girls and women of his sexual misconduct, and urged all women to avoid any sort of contact with Rabbi Pogrow. Rabbi Pogrow had previously launched and maintained the popular “Master Torah” website, which features thousands of Torah classes on a variety of subjects, delivered with exceptional clarity and breadth. Given the immense scholarly value of this material, many wondered whether they may still access and benefit from the resources on the rabbi’s website, even after he was discovered to be guilty of some of the most severe Torah violations.
This essay will deal with three questions relevant to the unfortunate situation of a disgraced rabbi: 1) Is it permissible to continue studying Torah from him, despite the grave misconduct of which he is allegedly guilty? 2) Even if halacha forbids studying from him in the present, may one learn material produced before the allegations surfaced? 3) May a disgraced rabbi resume his Torah educational activities after repenting?
Unsubstantiated Rumors
Before addressing the permissibility of learning Torah from a disgraced rabbi, we must first emphasize that this entire discussion refers to a rabbi whose misconduct has been confirmed. Unfortunately, in today’s age of digital communication, unsubstantiated rumors contrived and disseminated by agenda-driven parties fly through the news and, especially, social media, before the facts are sorted out and verified. And, knowing the impatience of media consumers, many of whom do not generally read past article titles, news websites run irresponsible, sensationalist headlines that misrepresent the facts and can lead to baseless suspicions. The “juicy” nature of rabbinic scandals, along with the anti-Orthodox agenda of many media outlets, make rabbis prime targets of unverified rumors and allegations. Common sense, common decency, and the obligation to respect Torah scholars all dictate that we avoid reaching conclusions based on hearsay or melodramatic headlines, and reserve judgment until allegations brought against Torah scholars are confirmed.
This warning was issued already by the Rambam, in one of his published responsa (Shu”t Ha’Rambam, 111), where he addresses the situation of a well-respected scholar who served as his congregation’s cantor, and about whom rumors spread of serious misdeeds. The Rambam devotes the bulk of his responsum to emphasizing that nobody should be demoted from his post based on rumors, particularly if that individual has adversaries with a motive to sully his reputation. Drawing upon the Gemara’s discussion in Maseches Moed Katan (17a), the Rambam writes that a Torah scholar who is suspected of wrongdoing should be privately reprimanded, and if he mends his ways, then he may retain his post. It is only if the wrongdoing is committed publicly that he must be demoted.
Likewise, the Chasam Sofer (Teshuvos, O.C. 1:175) addresses the case of a גבאי צדקה – director of a charity fund – about whom rumors spread of an inappropriate relationship with a certain non-Jewish woman. In the wake of these rumors, community members pressured the rabbi to remove him from his post, but the rabbi refused. The Chasam Sofer emphatically supported the rabbi’s decision, asserting that nobody should be deposed based on rumors and hearsay:
אין לפסול איש על רינון וקול בעלמא, ואין להחזיק הקול אלא בעדים ברורים.
One should not disqualify a person based on murmurings and mere rumors, and the rumors should be verified only with reliable witnesses.
The Chasam Sofer writes that in the end, the person confessed to his wrongdoing, and was promptly dismissed from his position.
Another example appears in a responsum of Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (13), who was asked about a certain shochet who was imprisoned by a non-Jewish court for an alleged crime. Rav Meir Simcha ruled that the court’s guilty verdict did not suffice as grounds for removing this shochet from his post, as the courts at that time could not be trusted.
Of particular relevance to our discussion is a responsum by Rav Aharon Walkin of Pinsk in his Zekan Aharon (30), addressing the question posed to him by Rav Zalman Sorotzkin concerning a shochet who was rumored to have had occasionally visited the home of a woman suspected of prostitution. Rav Walkin writes that sexual impropriety does not, strictly speaking, disqualify somebody from serving as shochet, but additionally, the shochet in question should not be dismissed solely on the basis of rumors. Writing with particular passion and vehemence, Rav Walkin says that as disturbing as these rumors were, and notwithstanding the fact that a person filling such a distinguished role must have an unimpeachable record, it is forbidden to remove a person from a post based on mere hearsay:
גם אני מרחוק הנני נרעש ונפחד לשמוע כזה על משרת בקודש שנצרך להיות מצויין ביר"ש שכם אחד יותר על סתם בני אדם, אבל בכ"ז בבואי לחתוך עליו דין תורה, את האלקים אני ירא לשפוך עליו כל חמתי ולירד לחייו לקפח פרנסתו דההוא גברא דתלי ביה טפלי. וכל גופא מרתע בי להיות שוחט ולשחוט אב לבנים ובעל לאשה על יסוד שמועות קלושות כאלה... השתא שו"ב ששוחט בהמות אם ידיו מרתתות בו שחיטתו פסולה, כ"ש אני שבאתי לשחוט נפשות אדם, ולא רק ידי אלא כל גופי מרתת, היאך אוכל לשחטו בשעה שעפ"י דין תורה אין יסוד לזה? האם אפשר להתחסד יותר מהתורה עצמה?
I, too, even from afar, am shaken and horrified to hear such things about somebody serving in a sacred post, who is supposed to be outstanding in fear of God, on a level above most people. But nevertheless, as I come to decide Torah law with regard to him, I am too fearful of God to pour my wrath upon him, to disrupt the livelihood and deny the sustenance of that person accused of wrongdoing. My entire body shudders [at the thought of] being a slaughterer and slaughtering a father of children and husband of a wife on the basis of weak rumors such as these… A shochet who slaughters animals – if his hands tremble, his slaughtering is invalid; all the more so, then, as I come to slaughter people’s lives, and not only my hands, but my entire body trembles – how can I slaughter him when I know that according to Torah law there is no basis for this? Is it possible to be more pious than the Torah itself?
Rav Walkin advised Rav Sorotzkin to have the shochet make a formal promise to avoid going anywhere near the house in question, and, as a precaution, to inspect his knife twice each week for a year.
This responsum underscores the extreme caution that is needed before acting upon rumors of misconduct, even as it points to the need for prudent and discreet measures in response to such rumors to ensure that the alleged misconduct does not continue.
Moreover, we must bear in mind the Gemara’s instruction in Maseches Berachos (19a), “If you saw a Torah scholar who committed a transgression at night, do not suspect him the next day because…he definitely repented.” In other words, not every wrongful act committed by a religious leader warrants public condemnation and a public outcry. Rabbis, like all people, are flawed and plagued by weaknesses and occasional lapses in judgment. A person with a reputation of piety who is seen acting wrongly on one occasion must be given the benefit of the doubt that he has acknowledged his wrongdoing and has repented. Accordingly, the Chafetz Chayim writes (Hilchos Lashon Ha’ra, 4:14):
וכל שכן אם הוא איש תלמיד חכם וירא חטא, אך עתה גבר יצרו עליו, בודאי עון גדול הוא לפרסם חטאו ואסור אפילו להרהר אחריו כי בודאי עשה תשובה, ואף אם יצרו נתחזק עליו פעם אחת, נפשו מרה לו אחר כך על זה ולבבו ירא וחרד מאד על אשמתו…
Certainly, if the person is a Torah scholar and God-fearing, but now his evil inclination overcame him, it is definitely a grievous sin to publicize his wrongdoing, and it is forbidden even to suspect him, because he definitely repented, and although his evil inclination overpowered him on one occasion, his soul is distressed over this afterward, and his heart fears and trembles greatly out of guilt…
Our discussion, then, relates to the unfortunate situations of Torah scholars who have been determined to regularly engage in improper behavior, and the question then arises as to whether people may continue learning from them or making use of their inherently valuable Torah resources.
Rabbi Meir and Elisha ben Avuya
The most famous example of a student learning Torah from a disgraced rabbi is Rabbi Meir, who continued studying under his teacher, Elisha ben Avuya, even after Elisha abandoned Jewish faith and become a heretic, whereupon the rabbis began derisively calling him Acher (“The Other”). The Gemara in Maseches Chagiga (15b) questions Rabbi Meir’s practice to learn from Acher, on the basis of a verse in Sefer Malachi (2:7): כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דעת ותורה יבקשו מפיהו כי מלאך ה' צבאות הוא – “For the lips of a kohen shall preserve knowledge, and they shall seek Torah from his mouth, because he is an angel of the Lord of Hosts.” The verse here urges us to “seek Torah” from a teacher who can be described as “an angel of the Lord of Hosts,” and thus Rabbi Yochanan, as the Gemara cites, established that one may not study Torah from a teacher who conducts himself improperly and thus does not resemble an “angel.” How, then, was Rabbi Meir permitted to learn Torah from an apostate?
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir based himself on other verses, which indicate that one may learn Torah wisdom even from sinful people.[1] To reconcile the seeming contradiction between these verses and Malachi’s admonition to study only from rabbis who resemble an “angel,” the Gemara distinguishes between a גדול and a קטן – meaning, between great scholars like Rabbi Meir, and people of lesser stature. Exceptional scholars, who are capable of absorbing the valuable wisdom of a wayward rabbi without coming under his negative influence, may do so, but others must avoid such rabbis and not learn from them.[2]
The Gemara then proceeds to cite an aphorism that was reportedly spoken by the Jews of Eretz Yisrael: “Rabbi Meir ate the fig and discarded the peel.” He had the ability to distinguish between the “fig” – the genius of Elisha ben Avuya’s Torah wisdom – and the “peel” – his heretical beliefs. This statement is likely brought to explain the distinction drawn between קטן and גדול, noting that only those who reached a level where they are capable of discarding the “peel” may study under a Torah scholar who acts improperly.
Does Halacha Accept Rabbi Meir’s View?
Tosfos, in Maseches Ta’anis (7a), apply this distinction in reference to the Gemara’s comment (there in Ta’anis) permitting studying only from a תלמיד חכם הגון – “upstanding Torah scholar.” Noting the Gemara’s discussion in Chagiga regarding Rabbi Meir and Elisha ben Avuya, Tosfos explain that Rabbi Meir was exceptional due to his special stature, and thus he was permitted to study under Elisha ben Avuya despite the general prohibition against learning under sinful scholars.
Among later poskim, however, we find different views as to whether this distinction is accepted as normative halacha. The Rambam, in Hilchos Talmud Torah (4:1), codifies the prohibition against learning from a rabbi who acts improperly, without making an exception for people of special stature:
הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה אף על פי שחכם גדול הוא וכל העם צריכים לו, אין מתלמדים ממנו עד שובו למוטב.
A rabbi who does not follow the proper path, even if he is a great scholar and everybody needs him – people should not learn from him until he returns to proper conduct.
The Rambam’s ruling is cited by the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 246:8).
The Shach raises the question of why the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch do not make an exception for a גדול, and instead appear to forbid all students from studying under a sinful rabbi. He suggests that the Rambam perhaps felt that in his time, all people were considered קטנים and should not be permitted to study under a wayward teacher. In a somewhat similar vein, the Chida, in Birkei Yosef (Y.D. 246:9), suggests that the Rambam viewed the exception made for a גדול as applicable only in the very rare case of an extraordinary and unique scholar, such as a Rabbi Meir. For this reason, the Rambam did not codify this exception in presenting the prohibition against studying from a sinner, even though, as some have speculated, the Rambam relied on this distinction as the basis for his study of the works of Aristotle and other non-Jewish philosophers.[3] Although in principle a גדול is permitted to study from a wayward rabbi, the Rambam chose not to codify this provision, because, in the Chida’s words, לא רבים יחכמו כרבי מאיר, ואם כה יאמר דגדול שרי, כל אחד ידמה בדעתו כי גדול הוא וילכד בפח – “Not everybody is as wise as Rabbi Meir, and if he [the Rambam] would say that it is permissible for a גדול, everybody would consider himself a גדול in his mind, and then fall into the trap.” The Chida similarly writes in his Sha’ar Yosef (Horiyos 12a):
כל אחד מחזיק עצמו לגדול הדור שניתנה לו בינה יתירה ואין באחיו גדול ממנו, ומשום הכי לא רצה לכתוב חילוק זה.
Everybody considers himself the leading sage of the generation to whom special wisdom has been granted, and [thinks] there is none greater than him among his peers. Therefore, [the Rambam] did not wish to write this distinction.
On the basis of this approach, several authorities concluded that as a practical matter, it is forbidden nowadays to learn Torah from a sinner. This is the view taken by the Sha’arei Dei’a (Y.D. 246:3), and, more recently, by Rav Ovadya Yosef (Yabia Omer, Y.D. 7:19).
The Shach also cites a second possibility in the name of his father, suggesting that although the Gemara justified Rabbi Meir’s practice by distinguishing between a קטן and a גדול, this represents a minority view which is not accepted as halacha. The accepted position is that studying under an iniquitous rabbi is forbidden across the board, without any exceptions. This answer is also given by the Lechem Mishneh. Similarly, the Ein Yaakov cites those who observe that in Maseches Moed Katan (17a), the Gemara forbids learning from a rabbi who is suspected of inappropriate conduct, without distinguishing between different kinds of students. Apparently, the Gemara there in Moed Katan does not accept the distinction drawn by the Gemara in Chagiga, and maintains that it is never permissible to learn from a wayward rabbi. Moreover, as some writers[4] have noted, the Gemara in Moed Katan forbids studying from a sinful teacher even if צריכין ליה רבנן – “the rabbis need him” for Torah knowledge and instruction. The Gemara appears to refer to a rabbi who is needed even by the scholarly elite, and yet it forbids even these outstanding students to learn from him, indicating that the distinction between גדול and קטן is not accepted as normative halacha.[5]
If, indeed, this question, of whether an exceptional student may study under a sinful rabbi, is subject to debate, it might depend upon the general question as to the reason why halacha forbids learning Torah from a sinner. The distinction between a קטן and a גדול is likely predicated on the assumption that the prohibition stems from the concern that the teacher will negatively influence the student, and it therefore allows for exceptions for those unique individuals who can be assured to withstand such influence. One could suggest, however, that studying from a sinner is inherently problematic, and not merely because of the potential repercussions. Rav Simcha Zissel Ziv Broida (the “Saba of Kelm”), in his Chochma U’mussar, writes, based on the teachings of Rav Yisrael Salanter, that if a rabbi with an unrefined character teaches Torah, אין תורתו תורה כלל – his words of Torah do not qualify as valuable Torah at all. A sinful rabbi, Rav Broida writes, is incapable of arriving at the truth of Torah, and for this reason the Gemara requires studying only from a rabbi who “resembles an angel,” as only such a rabbi’s Torah knowledge and wisdom can be regarded as “Torah.”[6] According to this approach, it is unlikely that exceptions should be made for anybody, since irrespective of any concerns of negative influence, the material that is taught has no value. This outlook thus perhaps underlies the position taken by the aforementioned poskim that studying from sinners is forbidden for all people, regardless of their stature of scholarship and piety.[7]
Public and Private Study
A different approach to explaining the Rambam’s view is suggested by Rav Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch, in his Yad Peshuta commentary to Mishneh Torah. Rav Rabinovitch observes that the Rambam links this prohibition with the prohibition against teaching a תלמיד שאינו הגון – a student who conducts himself improperly. The Rambam establishes that one should not teach Torah to a student who “follows an improper path,” but should rather guide such a student towards appropriate behavior, after which מכניסין אותו לבית המדרש ומלמדין אותו – “he is brought into the study hall and then taught.” Meaning, a wayward student should be taught privately until his behavior improves, at which point he may be allowed to join the beis midrash and learn with the other students. The Rambam then writes, וכן הרב שאינו הולך בדרך טובה...אין מתלמדין ממנו – “Similarly, a rabbi who does not follow the proper path…people should not learn from him.” The word וכן suggests a degree of parity between these two halachos – the prohibition against teaching a wayward student, and the prohibition against learning from a wayward teacher. Accordingly, Rav Rabinovitch suggests, the second prohibition parallels the first, and thus we must distinguish between public lecturing and private study. Just as a wayward student is not allowed into the beis midrash to study with other students, a wayward teacher is not permitted to serve in any sort of public capacity, and this is the Rambam’s intent when he writes, אין מתלמדין ממנו – he may not be allowed to teach groups of students. Exceptional individuals, however, the likes of Rabbi Meir, are permitted to study from a wayward rabbi, just as a wayward student should be taught privately until he is deemed worthy of joining the beis midrash to participate in public Torah study.
According to this approach, the Rambam accepts Rabbi Meir’s position, that a גדול may study from a wayward teacher, but this is permissible only on an individual basis, as the teacher may not be allowed to fill any sort of public educational role.
In any event, it is clear that studying Torah from a confirmed sinner is, as a general rule, forbidden, even if different views exist as to whether an exception may be made for especially pious and talented students.
Who is a “Wayward Teacher”?
The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch define the prohibition as forbidding studying from a teacher שאינו הולך בדרך טובה – “who does not follow the proper path.” The question that must be addressed is, exactly to whom does this refer? After all, even the greatest rabbis and tzadikim are far from perfect, and the Tanach tells of the mistakes made even by Moshe Rabbenu and King David. Undoubtedly, then, when the Gemara requires studying only from a teacher who “resembles an angel,” it does not refer to a person of moral and spiritual perfection, as such people do not exist. Who, then, is considered to fail to “follow the proper path” and thus loses his halachic eligibility to teach Torah?
The answer might perhaps be found in the commentaries of the Rishonim to Maseches Moed Katan (17a), in reference to the story told there of a Torah scholar דהוו סנו שומעניה – whose reputation was disgraced. Rav Yehuda, the Gemara relates, debated as to whether he should act upon the damning reports, until he was told of Rabbi Yochanan’s statement that one must not learn from a rabbi who does not “resemble an angel.” At that point, he excommunicated the disgraced rabbi. The Gemara does not specify the precise nature of the rabbi’s misconduct, informing us only that he traveled to a remote place, where nobody knew him, to commit his wrongdoing so as to avoid public disgrace. We are not told in what kind of wayward behavior he engaged.
Several different explanations appear in the Rishonim. The Talmid Rabbenu Yechiel (cited in Kovetz Shitos Kamai) explains that the rabbi committed adultery. According to this interpretation, we might be compelled to limit the prohibition against learning from a wayward rabbi to cases of a rabbi who committed a grave capital offense, such as adultery. The Ritva, however, writes that the scholar in this story was פרוץ קצת בזימה – “somewhat licentious,” in that היה מתייחד עם הפנויות והיה כיעור גדול לצורבא מרבנן – “he would seclude himself with single women, which is a great disgrace for a Torah scholar.” According to this reading, we should seemingly apply this law to any rabbi who commits an act which constitutes כיעור גדול לצורבא מרבנן – a disgrace for a Torah scholar. Even if the act did not violate a capital Biblical offense, it nevertheless renders the rabbi ineligible to teach Torah if it is deemed grossly inappropriate for a person serving this lofty role.
A different formulation appears in the commentary of Rabbenu Chananel, who interprets דהוו סנו שומעניה to mean שהיה שם שמיים מתחלל על ידו – his conduct resulted in a חילול ה' (defamation of God’s Name). Rabbenu Chananel elaborates further by citing the Gemara’s discussion in Maseches Yoma (86a) concerning the definition of חילול ה'. One of the definitions given is כל שחביריו מתביישין מחמת שמועתו – “anyone whose colleagues are ashamed because of what is told about him.” According to Rabbenu Chananel, this is the kind of Torah scholar from whom the Gemara in Moed Katan forbids learning, and who deserves excommunication. As examples of this kind of behavior, Rabbenu Chananel mentions the case of a Torah scholar who engages in the study of heresy or in frivolous drinking. This definition is accepted by the Rosh and the Tur (Y.D. 334), and based on these sources, the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 334:42) rules:
אי סני שומעניה, כגון שמתעסק בספרי אפיקורוס ושותה במיני זמר או שחביריו מתביישין ממנו ושם שמיים מתחלל על ידו – משמתינן ליה..
If [a scholar’s] reputation is disgraced, such as if he engages in books of heresy or drinks amid all kinds of song, or if his colleagues are ashamed of him, and he causes the Name of God to be defamed – he is excommunicated.
As mentioned, Rav Yehuda reached this conclusion – that the scholar in question deserved excommunication – because of the prohibition against studying Torah from a teacher who acts inappropriately. We might thus infer that this prohibition applies to any rabbi whose “colleagues are ashamed of him” and who “causes the Name of God to be defamed.”
If so, then the category of סנו שומעניה is quite broad, and may also depend on time and place. Conceivably, any kind of behavior which brings shame to the rabbinate and to Torah, even if it does not entail any specific halachic violation, would fall under this category and render a rabbi unfit for Torah education and leadership. Therefore, even if a rabbi engages in conduct which was deemed acceptable in the past but is now considered inappropriate, such that he embarrasses his colleagues and arouses contempt for Torah, it would, seemingly, be forbidden to learn Torah from him.[8]
[1] The verses are הט אזנך ושמע דברי חכמים ולבך תשית לדעתי (Mishlei 22:17), and שמעי בת וראי והטי אזנך ושכחי עמך ובית אביך (Tehillim 45:11), both of which are interpreted by the Gemara as referring to studying Torah from one who conducts himself improperly (see Rashi).
[2] This is how Rashi explained the rationale underlying the Gemara’s distinction between a גדול and a קטן. For a different explanation, see Maharal, Nesivos Olam (Nesiv Ha’Torah, chapter 8).
[3] See also the Chida’s comments in Devarim Achadim, p. 174, and Or Ha’chayim to Devarim 12:28.
Several Acharonim noted that the Rambam, at the beginning of his Guide for the Perplexed, cites one of the two verses that were suggested as bases for Rabbi Meir’s decision to continue studying from Elisha ben Avuya (הט אזנך ושמע דברי חכמים ולבך תשית לדעתי). The reason, some have conjectured, is that the Rambam sought to justify his intensive engagement in the works of gentile philosophers, whom he cites extensively in the Guide. See Yad Shaul, Y.D. 246:5.
[4] See for example, Rav Menachem Krakowsky’s Avodas Ha’melech (Hilchos Talmud Torah).
[5] One might question this approach, however, in light of the Gemara’s comments in Maseches Makkos (10a) concerning the case of a rabbi or student who accidentally kills and must therefore relocate in an עיר מקלט (city of refuge). The Gemara cites a ruling that in the case of a student, his rabbi must go with him to the עיר מקלט, so he may continue learning. Commenting on this halacha, the Gemara warns that a rabbi should not teach a תלמיד שאינו הגון – a student who does not act properly – as such a student is prone to accidentally killing, and this would require the rabbi to relocate in an עיר מקלט. However, the Gemara also instructs that when a rabbi relocates in an עיר מקלט, his students must join him, but we do not find any parallel comment warning against learning from a רב שאינו הגון. The Maharsha explains that the Gemara could not issue this kind of blanket warning, because a גדול is allowed to learn from a teacher who acts improperly. Clearly, the Maharsha assumed that the distinction between a קטן and a גדול is accepted as authoritative, as perhaps implied by the Gemara there in Makkos.
[6] In a similar vein, Rav Yaakov Dovid Willowsky (the “Ridbaz”), in Nimukei Ridbaz (Parshas Teruma), cites Rav Chaim of Volozhin as commenting that a person with heretical ideas is incapable of arriving at correct Torah conclusions: מי שיש בן מינות לא יזכה לכוון לאמיתה של תורה. Rav Willowsky explains that correct understanding of Torah must be received from the Almighty, and thus only those who fully believe in God are capable of grasping the truth of any Torah concept.
[7] Interestingly, Rav Chaim Steinberg, in his Mishnas Chayim (Parshas Toldos, 96), suggests that this might be the reason why the Rambam needed to mention that one may not learn from a sinful rabbi עד שובו למוטב – until he returns to the proper mode of conduct. One might have thought that since a rabbi’s Torah loses all validity if he acts improperly, one may not study his Torah even after he repents and abandons the path of sin. The Rambam therefore noted that once the rabbi has repented, students may again learn from him and gain from his knowledge and wisdom.
[8] We might also wonder how this halacha might apply to a rabbi who expresses his views in an especially harsh and offensive tone. In today’s media culture, there is great sensitivity to the way opinions are formulated, and an especially high standard of dignity and courtesy is expected from religious leaders. Possibly, then, a rabbi or teacher who expresses himself in a manner deemed by today’s standards inappropriately coarse and unbecoming, which brings disgrace to the rabbinate, would fall under the category ofחביריו מתביישין ממנו ושם שמיים מתחלל על ידו.