The Conversion Psak: Some Comments and One Observation
I am at a loss to explain how much of the much-touted recent psak was lost on so many who have taken vocal positions about it. Let no one construe this piece as taking a stand one way or another. Reading the psak and gaining some additional context from others, suffice it to say that I was rather disturbed by aspects on both sides. The evidence regarding shoddy (to put it mildly) standards by the “special conversion courts” is persuasive; on the other hand, some of the arguments used by Rabbi Shirman seemed to me to require greater support than was offered in the psak, given the gravity of the consequences. Certain elements of the case, however, are much clearer than the general public seems to think:
1) It is a real stretch to see this as part of a haredi war against the dati-leumi camp. The whistleblower did not hail from Bnei Brak. He is Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, former head of the special conversion court, editor of Techumin, a leader of Tzohar, and very identified with the dati-leumi world. He was the one who in 2000 discovered that gerus documents were signed by people who were not even in the country when they said they witnessed the conversion. He did the necessary investigation and found a pattern of abuse. He confronted the perpetrator and received no explanation. He wrote to both Chief Rabbis asking them what to do. Are conversions suspect if they are attested to by fraudulent documents? Are the two rabbis who affixed their signatures (in over two hundred cases) fit to oversee conversions in the future? Unfortunately, the psak does not let us know what response, if any, Rabbi Rozen got.
2) On the other hand, even though two of the three signatures on many documents were fraudulent, there were three dayanim present at the conversions wrongly attested to. The validity of those conversions will draw from those three dayanim and their procedures, not from the signatories on the false documents. Rabbi Shirman says as much. (Of course, even those conversions will now be subject to scrutiny, case by case. Since the cat is out of the bag that the “Special Conversion Court” stands accused of accepting converts who would make a pro forma declaration of intent to observe the mitzvos, even when it was never accompanied by real intent, the majority of the Torah world – haredi and centrist – that does not accept such conversions will question all converts coming from that court. No statement by Rav Amar shlit”a repudiating Rabbi Shirman’s psak will change that in the slightest.)
3) The roles of both Rabbi Attiya and Rabbi Shirman have been overstated. Neither invalidated twenty years worth of converts – although the arguments they raise do have that potential. That is not what either set out to do. Rabbi Attiya decided on the validity of a single get that came before him. He argued that the get had no standing, because the woman was not Jewish, having converted without intent to observe mitzvos. The case was appealed to a higher rabbinical court. Rabbi Shirman’s job was to uphold or overrule on review. To that end, he amassed evidence to sustain Rabbi Attiya’s decision. It was not his job to try the case de novo, but simply to pass on Rabbi Attiya’s sources and judgment. He cannot be faulted for failing to try the case from the ground up
4) Rabbi Shirman has a reputation for being a fine talmid chacham, of temperate and modest disposition. He spent some months of a sabbatical at YU. His decision was not his alone, but shared with two other dayanim of his court, one of whom learned in Kerem B’Yavneh
5) Rabbi Druckman was indeed called a vile name. This, however, as not part of a plot to defame him, but to consider whether he should be consigned to a long-recognized halachic category. The question was whether the evidence of wrongdoing rose to the bar of invalidating him from courtroom testimony and sitting on a judicial panel. One who violates one through deed one of the Torah’s proscriptions becomes a rasha halachically who can no longer testify. Part of Rabbi Shirman’s court’s job was to determine whether any alleged wrongdoing on the part of Rabbi Druckman placed him in that category. That was his job. Calling Rabbi Shirman names amounts to shooting the messenger. Those who wish to defend Rabbi Druckman can and should do so by countering Rabbi Shirman’s halachic arguments.
6) The argument raised by so many that this psak wreaks havoc with the lives of thousands of people and their children and future generations, etc. – and therefore cannot be valid – is entirely specious. I am not aware of any legal system in which errors cannot be discovered and decisions overturned, contracts voided, etc. (A Gemara in Bava Basra 31B cites an opinion that an erroneous psak is sometimes not overturned to protect the reputation of the beis din. The gemara rejects this opinion. Moreover, even had it been accepted, it would not work in a case in which the original, erroneous psak would lead to an issur d’orayso. See Pnei Yehoshua, Kesubos 22B). A famous perek at the end of Yevamos deals with the heartbreaking consequences of a psak that needs to be reversed, in the case of a woman who was allowed to remarry on the assumption that her husband perished, and it is later discovered that he was alive. If the conversions – one or a thousand – were indeed invalid, the consequences will be far-reaching but inevitable. In such situations, oker hadin es hehar. Poskim should, and hopefully will, do whatever they can in a bad situation, but there are situations that cannot be remedied. No one who knows anything about halacha believes that “where there is a rabbinic will there is a rabbinic way.” (Even the author of those words later repudiated them.)
7) I was disturbed that Rabbi Shirman described the position that a conversion without proper intent is still valid as running counter “to all poskim.” I don’t know why he did not mention the psak, discussed here some months ago, of Rav Uziel zt”l, who does make a case for allowing such conversions. Although there do not seem to be any other important names associated with this position, it does potentially have a bearing on the status of those who choose to follow him.
8 ) Many have been vocally proclaiming that courts take into account only what is expressed to them, and not what thoughts people secretly harbor. They are missing the boat. That very point is what is contested, and what Rabbi Shirman argues (I believe correctly) is almost universally rejected by talmidei chachamim, based especially on the Ritva in Yevamos. In the case of conversion, intent is everything, argue contemporary poskim, basing themselves on rishonim.
If and when the dust settles, one consequence will remain. The status of every convert over the last decades is potentially in jeopardy. No one can change this – not after the passing of Rav Moshe zt”l and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, when we lost the last figures whose piskei halacha would be accepted by all parts of the Torah world. Today, what one authority says will be rejected by another. This is what makes gerus different from a psak in hilchos muktzah or giving a hechsher on a restaurant. If someone disagrees with the muktzah psak or finds the resturant’s standards wanting, he doesn’t have to move the object or patronize the eatery. If the decision is objectionable, the consequences are mostly local and circumscribed. Gerus is different. Its effects are felt for all time, and in a plethora of applications. It doesn’t matter if objections are valid or not. If there is room to question a gerus, it will be questioned, and there is no objective way to quiet the questioners. Some – many – people will treat the conversion with suspicion.
The only way to safeguard against this is to operate conversion courts according to standards acceptable to all. Many will strain against this. It is not fair, they say, to limit the discretion of the rav who follows some different standard. Perhaps. But it is less fair and exceedingly cruel to imply to a conversion candidate that his/her gerus is in order, knowing that many people will question it. It is foolish and naïve to think that a court employing the standard of some daas yachid will somehow “get away with it” unnoticed.
For decades, all of us in the Orthodox community pointed fingers at the other denominations. We castigated the Reform for accepting a patrilineal definition of Jewishness. We argued that to keep our people together, there was no choice but to follow a definition agreeable to all. We accused Conservative rabbis of compromising the well being of their congregants, because they converted people without letting them know that their conversion would be held as meaningless by the Orthodox, that their weddings and divorces would be held by the Orthodox to be of no effect. (They claimed that they were just as halachic as the Orthodox, and that the objections to their procedures were merely “political.” In doing so, they either showed woeful ignorance of halachah, or deliberately misled people.) We indeed saw much heartache as the children of many of those people faced huge obstacles regarding their personal status when they became halachically observant.
Ironically, it develops that many in the Orthodox were guilty of the same. They accepted converts based on a minority (to be generous) understanding of halachah, without coming clean about the acceptability of their assumptions to others. There are no state-run rabbinic courts in America, and yet the fall-out is the same. People are beginning to panic, to seek reaffirmation of their gerus, after finding out that the rabbi who converted them used assumptions not accepted by other parts of the community. Twenty years later, they find themselves insecure, worried about shidduchim for their kids, clamoring to be “redunked” in a mikvah. All it takes is for a rabbi’s conversions to be questionable in 10% of the cases he presided over, and the other 90% are rushing to be “reconverted,” to avoid all questions.
Halachic decisions whose consequences ramify into the broader community and into the future cannot be left to a free for all.
The RCA deserves much credit for swallowing the pride of some of its members, and worrying about the good of the many. It is working hard to develop protocols that will be above reproach. Rabbis on the left who talk about starting their own rabbinic organization may make their egos feel better, but one day will have to deal with their consciences, as the converts they convert will live in limbo, no longer non-Jewish, but not accepted as Jewish by the center and right. They will succeed in creating two tiers of Jews, exactly what we told the Reform not to do.
The rest of us have a role in this as well. In many locations, multiple batei din function without oversight or restraint. I know of kiruv rabbis who, when they feel that the “better” beis din takes too long, will send the significant other of a kiruv candidate to a court that deals more expeditiously, so as not to impose too much of a burden on the candidate. They are not doing anyone a favor, if down the line people will question the scholarship, integrity, and procedures of that beis din.
If you needed to find a surgeon for a friend, you would not recommend the one closest to home, or the one with the most attractive pricing schedule. You would choose the surgeon who could do the best job for the patient. Gerus is no different.
Choosing the independent operator may seem attractive at the moment, but heartache lurks ahead. Before recommending a beis din, make sure that its standards are beyond cavil.
Unless one has read the Psak/Opinion from the beginning to the end, one really should withhold comment on the same. Having fulfilled that opinion, I am initially reminded of a story involving RYBs. When microphones were becoming acceptable within CJ and even in some MO shuls, CJ’s RA issued a “responsum” permitting the same. The Agudas HaRabbonim issued either a Teshuvah or Kok Koreh condemning the same. RYBS stated openly that while the RA did not understand Halacha, the Agudas HaRabbonim, of which he was a member, did not understand the scientific principles at work.
IMO, the Psak/Opinion raised the important issue of whether Kabalas Ol Mitzvos and Hilcos Gerus should be watered down to solve Israeli demographic woes, but did so in a way that cast suspicion on many fine Batei Dinim and invited second guessing of their modus operandi based upon the alleged transgressions of R Druckman and engaged in what can be called rhetorical overkill vis a vis R Druckman,as opposed to simply restating the elements of Kabalas Ol Mitzvos as understood by the Riv Binyan UMinyan of Rishonim, Acharonim and Poskim. IMO, it is far better to dissect and critique the message in circumstances of this nature, as opposed to essentially shooting the messenger, of which the Psak/Opinion does so in excess.
Comment by Steve Brizel — May 16, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
You are obviously unaware of Rabbi Rosen’s most recent article where he says that this is indeed an attack on the dati-leumi by the haredim. See
http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=160&ArticleID=4004
Comment by SS — May 16, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
While it might very well be true that, “Much of the much-touted recent psak was lost on so many who have taken vocal positions about it,” this does not account for the fact that the most vocal position of all was taken by great, highly respected Talmid Chacham who would seem to be very much informed, both as to the halachic logic and as to what is behind that halachic logic.
His name is Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein.
He said:
“How much hatred, animosity and demonization comes through in this awful and terrible ruling… The Conversion Authority has God-fearing and scholarly judges who have devoted their energy and their lives to the Torah. One cannot simply push them aside and throw them into the street. On this point we must be firm: We must not come to terms with this kind of approach… Where did we ever hear or see that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing heretic? Woe to the ears that hear such a thing and woe to the biased court that has expressed itself in such a way!”
Eighty Rabbonim in Eretz Yisrael, including Rabbi Rozen, signed a petition rejecting the psak of Rabbi Shirman’s Beis Din in a very forceful manner.
Is it possible that these Rabbonim understand the situation better than we do?
Given this blog’s often-touted insistence that we subordinate our judgment to that of the great Rabbonim (and be careful in our criticism of them), I was wondering why this would not be the case as well as regards to the judgment of Rav Lichtenstein et al that, no matter what the pedigree of Rabbi Sherman’s Beis Din, that there was more to this psak than meets OUR eye.
(I’m not voting here as to which side is “right.” I’m only questioning how Rabbi Adlerstein could be so self-assured that politics were not involved when those closest to the situation (and Talmidei Chachamim themselves) would seem to disagree.)
Comment by Dovid Shlomo — May 16, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
“Before recommending a beis din, make sure that its standards are beyond cavil.”
Cavil, nice word. Couldn’t find that in BB 31 B.
Regardless, what is “beyond cavil” keeps changing and presently growing ever more stringent.By current standards, 30 year old or more for example, conversions look no better than Reform
Comment by mb — May 16, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
You wrote
“The only way to safeguard against this is to operate conversion courts according to standards acceptable to all”
That means that the RCA and the Dati Leumi must now adopt the standards of Satmar and Brisk! What sense does that make? Maybe the Haredim should adopt the more liberal standards, and make that the “Orthodox” position. Why does the most machmir position always get a veto over other positions?
I have a better suggestion. Let each beit din operate in accordance with its own understanding. If someone from the dati community becomes haredi and it turns out that his mother was a convert, perhaps he will then have to convert le-chumra, but until then, why should halachic communities have to give up their autonomy to satisfy outsiders, especially when these outsiders couldn’t care less about the dati halakhic authorities.
I am really surprised at you Rabbi Adlerstein. Could it be that you don’t realize that the haredim in Israel don’t think that datiim are valid religious communities? And kal ve-chomer their rabbis are not reliable? If I converted under R. Herschel Schachter and then wanted to marry into a Bnei Brak family they would make me do another conversion, because he is pasul also. That is what we are up against.
Comment by Yosef — May 16, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
#
“While it might very well be true that, “Much of the much-touted recent psak was lost on so many who have taken vocal positions about it,” this does not account for the fact that the most vocal position of all was taken by great, highly respected Talmid Chacham who would seem to be very much informed, both as to the halachic logic and as to what is behind that halachic logic.
His name is Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein”.
But his vocal position cannot silence the vocal position of Posskim in the statue of RAv KOOk, Rav HEertzog, Rav Chayim Ozer, Rav Moshe F, RYBS, Lubavitcher REbbe, Satmar REbbe, Minchat YItchak, Rav Shlomo Zalman, RAv OVadya, that conversion iwthout KAbalat Hamitavots is null and void. A Conversion where it is known from the outset that prospective convert does intend to to commit to observe is null and void. THey voiced their opinion since the past 100 years in great alarming concerns and we see that in their responsa. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein with all due respect, is not yet in their caliber to counter the force of their rulings.
But moreover, let us analyze what Rav Aharon himself writes in your own word
“He said ( I’ll only quote the part that is relevant to this post) :
“… Where did we ever hear or see that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing heretic?…”
He is acknolwedging that we have at stakee here is one RAbbi ruling according to miunority opinion agaisnt the majority opinion. Is his koach Hapssak strong enough to be machria like one minority versus the majority? Furthermore: WE are not talknig about issues that could perhaps affect his own camp only; the issues which is undertook to perform was something immediately afects klal yisroel, as the convert will try to marry a bas yisroel, which according to RAL himself is not going to be considered Jewish by the MAJOORITYOF POSSKIM! How can one (not in the caliber of any of the above) take upon himself to perform such a procedure which will be contested by the majority of klal yisroel which follows the majority of the posskim?
“Is it possible that these Rabbonim understand the situation better than we do?”
IS it possible that Rav Kook, Rav Hertzog, Reb MOshe, REb CO, RYBS, LR, SR, RSZa, etc. understood better that RD? And RAL who knows that, did not voice his staunch position to ask RD to change his procedures? Why don’t we hear RAL requrest from those RAbbis who perform as RD that they too follow the majority position in matters that will one or another affect majority of jews?
Let us hope that we could sort all these issues to find the truth and at the same time to bridge all all of us with Ahavat YIsroel.
Comment by Shalem — May 16, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Since Yitzchok Adlerstein mentions the RCA as having a responsible attitude towards conversion, it would only be fair to quote what the RCA said about R’ Sherman’s ruling:
“Having reviewed the ruling of the Bet Din Elyon in detail, and being fully mindful of the respect due the rulings of duly constituted rabbinical courts in their respective jurisdictions, the RCA finds it necessary to state for the record that in our view the ruling itself, as well as the language and tone thereof, are entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice, violate numerous Torah laws regarding converts and their families, create a massive desecration of God’s name, insult outstanding rabbinic leaders and halachic scholars in Israel, and are a reprehensible cause of widespread conflict and animosity within the Jewish people in Israel and beyond. The RCA is appalled that such a ruling has been issued by that court.”
(from http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105297)
Comment by Shlomo — May 17, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
R’ Shirman’s ruling calls R’ Druckman an “apikoros bemezid”. Regardless of whether R’ Druckman’s conversion procedures are flawed or not, there is no excuse for the lack of respect shown to him. I have not heard a single charedi person express the slightest unease about using this language regarding a rosh yeshiva and talmid chacham. Since he’s dati leumi, apparently everything is permitted! Especially that for which chazal say you lose your share in olam haba! Is it any wonder why so many dati leumi people (NOT just converts) feel that they are being run out of the Jewish people, and why they are reacting so angrily?
“shalem” calls on us to suck it up and deal with it, because of “ahavat yisroel”. But you can’t insult and slander someone and then tell them not to respond because of “ahavat yisroel”. First YOU have to stop the delegitimization and apologize to the people you have hurt. Only then can the reconciliation, and the discussion of legitimate halachic disagreements, begin.
Comment by Eric — May 17, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
The only way to safeguard against this is to operate conversion courts according to standards acceptable to all.
===============================
A RABBINICAL PROCLAMATION Adar 5695 (February 1935)
We have observed the conditions prevailing in the general Jewish comrnunity, where some youth have left the haven of their faith and have assimilated with non-Jews; in certain cases they have made efforts to marry gentiles, sometimes without any effort to convert them, and other times an effort is made for conversion to our faith, .m action which is absolutely invalid and worthless in the eyes of the law of our Torah. We have therefore bestirred ourselves to build and establish an iron wall to protect our identity and religious integrity and to bolster the strong foundations of our faith and religious purity which we have maintained for many centuries going back to our country of origin, Syria.
We, the undersigned rabbis, constituting the Religious Court, together with the Executive Committee of the Magen David Congregation and the outstanding laymen of the community, do hereby decree, with the authority of our Holy Torah, that no male or female member of our community has the right to intermarry with non. Jews; this law covers conversions, which we consider to be fictitious and valueless. We further decree that no future rabbinic court of the community should have the right or authority to convert male Or female non-Jews who seek to marry into our community. We have followed the example of the community in Argentina, which main. tains a rabbinic ban on any of the marital arrangements enumerated above, an edict which has received the wholehearted and unqualified endorsement of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel. This responsa is discussed in detail in Devar Sha ‘ul, Yoreh Deah, Part II to Part VI. In the event that any member of our community should ignore our ruling and marry, their issue will have to suffer the consequences. Announcements to this effect will be made advising the community not to allow any marriage with children of such converts. We are confident that the Jewish People are a holy people and they will adhere to the decision of their rabbis and will not conceive of doing otherwise.
Chief Rabbi Haim Tawil
Rabbi Jacob Kassin
Rabbi Murad Masalton
Rabbi Moshe Gindi
Rabbi Moshe Dweck Kassab
KT
Comment by joel rich — May 17, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
First of all, (and I’m working from memory because my seforim are 70 km away) I seem to remember the mishnah in Eduyos noting that the reason dissenting opinions are mentioned throughout the gemara despite the halachah not following them is because sometimes exceptional circumstances arise in which the accepted norm isn’t the best way to respond and it’s always nice to have a backup opinion if that’s the case.
I’m not declaring that the current situation in Israel vis a vis a large number of non-Jews wanting to convert pro forma is definitely such a situation. But the question can be asked: Is it possible that this is so? Here we have people living in a Jewish state, living the same lives as millions of Chilonim, who serve in the army, pay their taxes and speak Hebrew fluently and who, for better or worse, have cast their lot with the Jewish people. Yes, ab initio one cannot argue that kabalas ol mitzvos is necessary for a conversion to take place. One cannot take in a geir who declares that he has no interested in accepting the Torah’s rules upon him. But there are minority opinions which differ. Is it possible that these exceptional times allow for use of those minority opinions? Is it possible that this is what Rav Druckman was relying on?
In addition, the real shanda of all this hasn’t been the psak itself. It has been the publicity, the outpouring of perceived sinas chinam that has resulted from the goings on. That’s what is really concerning. Yes, Rav Adlerstein is correct that there should be one universally held conversion standard to avoid messes like this in the future. But as Yosef (5) wrote, that will lead to the extreme right wing of the Chareidi community dictating terms to the rest for what is to be the bare acceptable minimum in standards. I hardly thing that such a thing will be acceptable to most Orthodox Jews.
Comment by Garnel Ironheart — May 18, 2008 @ 12:04 am
It would be nice if the same generosity of spirit imputed to Rav Shirman et al (in Rabbi Adlerstein’s assertion that it is “a real stretch” to view this psak as part of a war of delegitimization) was also applied to those on the left, rather than the unkind and untrue claim that their actions are undertaken “to make their egos feel better”.
Comment by Moishe Potemkin — May 18, 2008 @ 10:33 am
I think everyone can see the danger in having each group of Rabbonim offer its own take on gerus, incompatible with the others. Unless common ground can be found that is rooted in Halacha, marriages involving gerim or their descendants will be very difficult to arrange outside the group that the rabbi(s) who originally converted the ger belonged to.
Comment by Bob Miller — May 18, 2008 @ 10:54 am
The intent of my comment was only to question Rabbi Adlerstein’s confident assertion that the psak was apolitical despite the view of those fully informed, who say otherwise.
Comment by Dovid Shlomo — May 18, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Excellent post, Rabbi Adlerstein: well thought-out, cool-calm-and collected, without tring to grind personal ax and impose individual ideology. Fully deservant of serious contemplation. Thank you.
Comment by Yaakov — May 18, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Until this morning, I was completely unaware of this entire story. I only got a vague sense of what is going on from the person I fist heard it from, and now get a much clearer accounting of it thanks to Rabbi Adlerstein’s account above. Because I am just an amateur, I am afraid I would only confuse myself if I first read the comments to Rabbi Adlerstein’s article, before I make my own comments. So I will give my response, then read what everybody else wrote.
My first reaction has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but may be a larger question, and that is, why isn’t there a Rabbi Moshe Feinstein with us today? I find it hard to believe that Jews as a whole are any less religious then we were twenty years ago; on the contrary, there has been a significant whole return to Torah Judaism since then. Since Rav Eliashev is the name I constantly hear in Orthodox circles as the greatest living Rabbi today, why isn’t his rulings considered universally authoritative?
My other reaction is to recount a conversation I recently had with a mother who was very proud of her son, who happens to be the author of a very important book on the modern political scene. I will resist the temptation to mention his name, but it is an extremely Jewish one. Furthemore, this author has a Jewish father, he is brilliant in the way that many Jews tend to be, he was brought up Jewish, he had his bar mitzvah, and strongly identifies with his Jewishness.
The problem is, is that his mother, who is also a famous celebrity, is definitely not Jewish. When I pointed out to her that her son is therefore not Jewish, she was terribly insulted. My dialog with her came to a quick end.
I was puzzled by her reaction. If her son truly identifies with the Jewish part of his lineage, then why would he object to undergoing a proper Orthodox conversion to Judaism? Such an action should be painless to him, like removing a hair from a cup of milk. It is precisely her objection to him doing such a thing, that convinces me that he is not as identified with his Jewishness as his proud mother would like to believe.
While I do not know all the specifics of the current conversion controversy, it strikes me that if these people who thought they were Jews but are really not Jews due to an improper conversion, yet truly and strongly identified with being Jewish, then they would respect Jewish law, and undergo a proper conversion this time. Such an action should be as painless and routine as walking out to one’s lawn on a Sunday morning to pick up the daily newspaper.
Comment by Raymond — May 18, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
Okay, I just read most of the other comments made, and now wish to make a comment or two in response.
I am not religious, but even if I were, I would probably be a religious Zionist and modern Orthodox, the way my twelve years of formal Jewish education was during my childhood and teenage years. Nevertheless, even a semi-heretic like me, recognizes that there is a certain authority that the ultra-Orthodox have that no other kind of Torah Judaism has: it follows the strictest, most uncompromising approach to Jewish law, Torah study, and Judaism in general. It is no accident that the last universally recognized Jewish legal authority, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, was definitely in the ultra-Orthodox camp. I have no doubt that if Moses himself were alive today, that he would be ultra-Orthodox.
While my nature is too restless and rebellious to live that way, it just seems like basic logic, that when issues as serious as the legitimacy of a conversion is at stake, that we should follow the most stringent of approaches. This would insure that the conversions are valid to all groups loyal to the Torah.
I do not understand why this issue has to be any more complicated than that. Maybe those who are making it more complicated, have a not-so-hidden political agenda.
Comment by Raymond — May 18, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
“The RCA deserves much credit for swallowing the pride of some of its members, and worrying about the good of the many.”
The RCA does not deserve any credit. they are not backing up conversions that were done using the procedures that the RCA followed atthe time and which the CR accepted atthe time. Too much has been written about kavod of one Rav or another Rav-a Ravs kavod should be secondary to oppressing gerim. The RCA has raised questions about decades of gerim.
I would add that the standards of people being megayer were much higher than those in Israel which were being done to solve a demographic problem. It frankly smells as examples of vayakam melech chadash-every generation likes to make themselves seem better than their predecessors. One finds this atitude in many other Jewish contexts-how often have we read that community x might have been a midbar before some came their. Normally no big deal-so current occupants of positions wish to make themselves look better-but the gerus situation is scandalous one is affecting generations when they were led to believe that chazakah after decades woulod be enough to prove their geirus.
Comment by mycroft — May 18, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
I will reiterate what I have said before. I was not interested in siding with or apologizing for either side. The more I read, the more uncomfortable I am with both sides! I stand behind my main thesis – gerus is unlike muktzah or an eruv. Adopting a kula rejected by rov minyan v’rov banyan of decisors is worse than playing with fire. I sit on a gerus beis din. I have seen what started as a trickle, and has grown to a stream, of people caught in a limbo not of Rav Shirman’s making. These people seek a redoing of their conversions, because their (or their parent’s) conversions were overseen by rabbis whose track record for producing observant converts was problematic. It did not take Rabbi Shirman to create the buzz – especially about conversions here in the States. These people are either encountering, or worried about encountering, suspicions and difficulties with shidduchim, because people will wonder whether their gerus was really up to snuff. Whoever converted them did them no favor when they allowed their reputations to be sullied by embracing standards different from the consensus. It is utterly presumptuous to suppose that a rav who follows the overwhelming majority of important decisors is going to bite his lip and affirm the kashrus of another court that doesn’t. All the sympathy in the world for the convert caught in the middle, all the kavod for another group of rabbonim cannot get him to say “kosher” to what he believes is treif. (Do our readers expect that other groups respect and approve Orthodox shuls that give aliyos to women based on the psak of a single contemporary rabbi?) That is not the way Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai got along. They helped each other maintain their standards – but refrained from marrying into the other group. Do we want that for Klal Yisrael? All Rabbi Shirman did was bring the issue to a head, and add an official stamp to an attitude that has been out there for years.
I will address some of the comments, one by one.
I had not seen Rabbi Rozen’s remarks. I now have, and find them just as disturbing as Rabbi Shirman’s. He speaks of a halachic imperialism, of battle lines drawn. His words are at least as acrimonious, accusatory, and divisive. They may be entirely justified and correct, but the reader will never know. He tells us that there are many halachic reasons to justify a different stance towards gerus – but offers us none. There is no way for us to evaluate them. He says nothing about his own role as the discoverer of the fraudulent signatures. He describes the stance of his “halachic universe” as encouraging the production of kulos. Truth be told, my personal attitudes towards the State are likely closer to Rabbi Rozen’s than to Rabbi Shirman’s, but I don’t find an announced program of looking for kulos (and I understand why we might want to do so!) heart-warming or encouraging. We do so where Chazal tell us so: aveilus, agunah. We can only do the same for gerus if there is a host of supporting halachic evidence. Without it, the residents of such a halachic universe should not be surprised when others look at them askance. (Note: I am not suggesting that part or all of Rabbi Shirman’s intention was to nail the guys in the competing camp. I have no way of knowing. I am only suggesting that if you strip all the political stuff from the discussion, there is a very real problem that remains.)
I don’t know why Dovid Shlomo thinks I am self-assured. I am far from it. I have great regard for Rav Aharon Lichtenstein shlit”a. His anguished words don’t help me, because he doesn’t tell us what this minority opinion is. I know of none other that has to be reckoned with other than a single teshuva of Rabbi Uziel which we’ve discussed before. I wish he wrote something to explain more to the rest of us. I will admit that (as I alluded in my post) I found it disturbing that Rabbi Shirman went beyond the very teshuvos he cited, and insisted that dayanim who held a different opinion in order to do what in their eyes was a mitzvah, need to be termed halachic “reshaim.” I emphasize once again, however, that the real issue is thrusting a kula upon the whole community and expecting them to accept it as valid. When Rabbi Rozen invokes (just as I had) the specter of Reform patrilineal descent, I still think he has it backwards. Those who are introducing a new standard are the ones introducing the division. Despite what all the charedim-haters who write in believe, conventional halachic thought would put the default configuration with those who reject gerus without accpeptance of mitzvos.
MB, if you can’t find evidence of the word “cavil” in Bava Basra 31B, you better review the amud.
I think Yosef exaggerates. Among serious halacha people, no one would cast aspersions on the gerus presided over by R Hershel Schachter. To be sure, they will murmur about him behind his back, but begrudgingly have to concede that he knows halacha.
Either the RCA knows much more about the background than we mortals, or they rushed to judgment. I hope to find out more at the RCA convention, where I will be speaking.
I do not remember Rabbi Shirman calling Rabbi Druckman an apikorus. If he did, I find it contemptible.
Joel Rich’s contribution is clever, but not relevant. The position of the Syrian community is not one that derives from halachah, but from a takanah to protect the Syrian community from certain problems. When it comes to acknowledging the validity of the gerus itself, the Syrian community uses the same standards of halachah. I would be very surprised indeed to learn that Rabbi BenZion Abba Shaul would accept bedieved a gerus demonstrated to have taken place without kabbalas hamitzvos
Comment by Yitzchok Adlerstein — May 19, 2008 @ 2:29 am
Raymond -
Thank You for admitting that you are an amateur, when you describe this situation as a mere walk in the park for those involved.
Let me point out to you that the professionals, Rav Yaakov Ariel, for instance, who is probably the most significant posek in the Religious Zionist community and known as a moderate, considers this an earthquake.
If you’d like to know just how widely-respected and highly-regarded Rav Ariel is, you could read up on what was done to block his ascension to Chief Rabbi. The reason: Since the goal was to delegitimize the Rabbanut and consolidate control over Shemittah, hashgachos, and the court system, the last thing they wanted was to have a Chief Rabbi who is a highly-regarded talmid chacham and posek who affiliates with Religious Zionism.
Whatever the merits of this particular psak of Rav Shirman, this is one more step in the continuum of politics at its most brutal, a war for control of the Rabbanut.
Comment by Dovid Shlomo — May 19, 2008 @ 2:34 am
Does the Haredi community not agree with the concept of Bdieved?
That there is a preferred way to do things (i.e. the opinion of the poskim mentioned above who do not accept Gerut without a real KOM) and there are situations which are not preferable- such as the gerut situation that exists in Israel after the influx of refugees from the FSU and Ethiopia?
In these situations, there is plenty of halakhic backing for relying on minority opinions.
Comment by Jerry — May 19, 2008 @ 2:56 am
I’m sure it’s incredibly interesting to debate this entire issue from the perspective of being a rav or otherwise learned person.
I’m just as sure that in addition to it being interesting, it’s incredibly frustrating to the hundreds or thousands of gerim who did, in fact, accept the mitzvot at the time of their conversions and are now terrified on many levels.
I speak of this as one whose teudat giyur has the rubber stamp of R’Druckman on it, and whose giyur is now under suspicion.
Something I have yet to see any mention of is what happens to the people who did accept the mitzvot? As in, if their conversions are under suspicion, are they, or are they not Jewish? My rav says I am, which is fine for now within my community. However, I am fully aware that when I, please G-d, should get married in the State of Israel and have children, issues may arise casting doubt on my Jewishness.
Meanwhile, for anyone casting doubt — does it mean that all of the wine I’ve touched and all of the Jews I’ve fed will have unknowingly had their neshamas damaged? Or is my lifestyle of keeping mitzvot going to be enough to protect my status? Whose word will be good enough to witness my commitment to mitzvot?
The vast majority of people converted under the Beit Din Giyur are people coming from Jewish backgrounds. Many of us were raised as Jews, rightly or wrongly, and decided to follow the true path. But because of the ties between the rabbinic establishment and the government, we were told that it was necessary to convert under the auspices of the government in order to be sure our conversions would be considered valid by the State. For any of us who are coming from a Zionist perspective, this is important.
I appreciate that this issue is being taken on and discussed — I just wish someone would come out with at least a few words of comfort for those of us who took our vows at the mikveh seriously.
Comment by Yehudit bat Avraham — May 19, 2008 @ 6:15 am
Why do you keep saying that the conversion took place without kabbalat ha-mitzvot? This is adamantly denied by Rabbi Druckman and his followers. The fact that the person today does not observe all the mitzvot does not mean that was no kabbalat mitzvot 15 years ago.
Comment by Yosef — May 19, 2008 @ 6:40 am
My first reaction has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but may be a larger question, and that is, why isn’t there a Rabbi Moshe Feinstein with us today? I find it hard to believe that Jews as a whole are any less religious then we were twenty years ago; on the contrary, there has been a significant whole return to Torah Judaism since then. Since Rav Eliashev is the name I constantly hear in Orthodox circles as the greatest living Rabbi today, why isn’t his rulings considered universally authoritative?
WADR this statement reminds me of the famous drasha on the parshiyot of acharei mot/ kedoshim. R’MF was in my lifetime and trust me, his psak was not always universally (or even always locally) accepted. Eruvim and artificial insemination come to mind for starters. In fact, I wonder whether all the agunot cases after the holocaust should now be revisited to see if R’MF and others factual decisions pass muster by today’s seemingly new standards. I’m not expressing an opinion on if this is good or not, just the facts before historical revisionism sets in.
KT
Comment by joel rich — May 19, 2008 @ 7:58 am
Joel Rich’s contribution is clever, but not relevant. The position of the Syrian community is not one that derives from halachah, but from a takanah to protect the Syrian community from certain problems. When it comes to acknowledging the validity of the gerus itself, the Syrian community uses the same standards of halachah. I would be very surprised indeed to learn that Rabbi BenZion Abba Shaul would accept bedieved a gerus demonstrated to have taken place without kabbalas hamitzvos
Ouch, I guess I can’t take credit for the cleverness if I disagree on the relevance (unless we hold palginan deburai but that’s a different subject).
The relevance issue is imho a general and specific one. The general one (which one might argue is not applicable here if geirut is considered a unique case - but imho we see this approach elsewhere) is that a system which includes high in its rules of operation a rule that we always yield to the stricter opinion, will quickly converge to the strictest opinion ever posited on each subject. Kach mkublani mbeit avi abba vrabotai this was not the process promulgated by chazal and it has the added disadvantage of losing the underlying reasons for psak (at least for the vast majority of people.
In the specific case, as the world becomes a global village, will you track all descendants of geirim to ensure this community retains its rules? Would they accept a geirus done not in accordance with their rules? Thus if one wants those who have a different definition of kabbalat mitzvot to accept their definition, why would the syrian community be any different (would they accept a R’ shirman convert who was in love with a syrian?)
KT
Comment by joel rich — May 19, 2008 @ 8:14 am
Despite what all the charedim-haters who write in believe, conventional halachic thought would put the default configuration with those who reject gerus without accpeptance of mitzvos.
Can you please, please stop doing this? People can be wrong without being charedim-haters, and it is far beneath your dignity to write this way.
Comment by Moishe Potemkin — May 19, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Raymond (#14): Thank you for your well thought out comment!
Comment by Joseph — May 19, 2008 @ 10:21 am
Some comments on this issue (based on comments I made on a different blog website):
When I first heard about this episode I was inclined to think that R’ Sherman’s beis din had overstepped, perhaps egregiously. I do know of a pattern of some activists (based in Israel) to establish an excessively stringent standard for conversions. As one whose occupation requires him to occasionally research conversions (and being the son of a convert, as well), the issues involved are not foreign to me at all.
However, after seeing the defenses for R’ Druckman coming out from the Modern Orthodox rabbinate, I have become increasingly inclined to believe that R’ Sherman’s beis din acted correctly.
It is clear, from statements attributed to both R’ Druckman and his defenders, that R’ Druckman had a clear goal of dramatically increasing the numbers of conversions, and was willing to forgo many of the traditional safeguards built into the conversion process.
The idea that it is acceptable to, l’chatchila, establish a minimal threshhold for conversion (for entire populations, thousands of people!), because it serves the interests of one’s religious ideology, seems to me to be unprecedented in halacha.
I feel that the references to the issur of onaas hager by the RCA and others are disengenuos. A beis din’s function is to hear testimony and issue halachic decisions. This, by definition, involves activities that, in any other context, would be assur as lashon hara and onaas devarim (among other things). The issue of onaas hager can only arise after you have determined that the beis din has fundamentally overstepped its legitimate role. It is hard to see how that case can be made.
Outside of ideological bias, there appears to be no reason why we should give more benefit of the doubt to the beis din of R’ Druckman over the beis din of R’ Sherman. If R’ Sherman’s beis din had confirmed the geirus at issue, no one would have claimed that they overstepped their role. If so, they have the same right to pasken the opposite.
Moreover, given that it is widely acknowledged, at this point, that, in the past, R’ Druckman signed false ‘b’mosav tlasa’ conversion documents, it is legitimate to question his truthfulness in other aspects of conversion activities.
The fact that these documents are “administrationial” and that the conversions are not dependent on them, doesn’t change that they are halachic statements of eidus, and are used to provide halachic proof that a valid conversion was performed. Marriages are performed based on such “administrationial” documents. To falsify such documents is not a minor issue!
Some of the left-wing defenders of these conversions seem to feel that they need not be concerned about the Chareidi/right-wing rejection of these conversions. After all, the argument goes, Chareidim would never marry the children of these families anyways.
This is an extraordinarily shortsighted view. As Jews, we have a responsibility to think in terms of generations, not just 20 to 30 years down the road.
Five or six generations from now (probably sooner), the Jewish people will probably look back on the Religious Zionism/Modern Orthodoxy debate in a manner similar to the way we view the Maimonidean controversy or the dispute over Chassidus. It will be a matter of interest, it may inform some contemporary issues, but the debate itself will no longer be that important. The various communities of Ultra-Orthodox and Modern Orthodox will have merged for the most part, intermarriage will be commonplace, and both sides of the debate will be studied with great interest. This scenario may not seem plausible today, with the intensity of emotions invested in this debate, but history shows that this is what usually happens with such debates in the Torah world.
HOWEVER, this can only happen when neither side takes steps that place irreconcilable halachic obstacles between the groups. Such obstacles include establishing significant divergences in the way we determine personal halachic status. Areas such as conversion, divorce, descent, etc. It is vital that we maintain as unified a standard as possible in these areas (even if, “chas v’shalom”, it has to be a more stringent standard, which is how these things tend to work), to prevent generating not just different communities today, but fundamentally different nations 200 years from now.
The claim that chareidim wouldn’t marry the children of these converts “anyways” (asides for being an mischaracterization of chareidi society) is not relevant for the great-grandchildren of those converts, who will be fully inegrated into Jewish society, assuming their is no reason to question their halachic status. But if it becomes general wisdom that the MO world is heavily intermarried with a large group of non-Jews whose conversions were considered invalid by the majority of major authorities of the previous centuries, then this will affect the status of ALL descendants of ALL Modern Orthodox Jews, long after the entire ideological debate will have been relegated to history.
I would also like to make a separate point about the basic premise of these conversions. Some left-wing Modern Orthodox defenders of R’ Druckman have been arguing, among other things, that these converts are committed to the (political) State of Israel (as demonstrated by army service and similar) and that the political benefit to the State is of religious value. In fact, many of these defenders seem to feel that this, alone, is enough to justify these conversions and that it is precisely the Chareidi rejection of the State of Israel’s theological significance that has caused them to reject these conversions.
I want to point out that even if such a argument could be valid halachically, it is stil a short-sighted and dangerous path to follow. The Jewish nation has suffered in the past from mass conversions that were performed irresponsibly. This happened in the days of the Hasmoneans, when the Idumean population was converted for reasons that were seen as serving a political benefit. It was from this population that the destructive King Herod descended. Now, it seems that the Idumean mass conversion, while heavily criticized, was NOT found to be invalid. Nevertheless, in the end, that error, while halachicly acceptable, caused great suffering, ultimately leading, in part, the destruction of the Second Jewish Commonwealth.
Are we creating a new population of Herods? Are we creating an entire population of Jews who, although perhaps halachicly valid according to some authorities, are not truly committed to the goals of the Jewish people? Whose basic cultural values are, and remain, non-Jewish? Who exist as a largely distinct subculture and whose committment to Judaism, the Jewish people, AND the Jewish state, is essentially one of convenience? Could this policy, done for the short term benefit of the Jewish state, ultimately contribute to its downfall?
We need to start looking at the long-term big picture.
Comment by LazerA — May 19, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
Rabbi Adlerstein: It is true that Rabbi Sherman himself does not refer to Rabbi Druckman as an apikoros. But in the origianl pesak of Rabbi Attiya, cited by Rabbi Sherman we find the folowing:
Rabbi Druckman and his Bet Din are invalid because they contemptuously disregard (mezalzelim) the halakhah as it has been decided by the Shulhan Aruk and all the poskim. Therefore they are to be viewed as kalei daat and mezidim (deliberate transgressors) and “apikorsim.” All these things make them into invalid judges.
It should be noted that R. Attiyah puts quotes around “apikorsim.” So R. Druckman and his rabbinic associates are, in R. Attiyah’s view, just metaphorical apikorsim. (One, I suppose, should be grateful for small favors.) In his defense of the pesak of R. Attiya, R. Sherman does not himself refer to R. Druckman and his Bet Din as apikorsim, even with qoutes around the phrase, but he does accuse them of willfully disregarding the standard halakhah, forgery, deliberately violating lifnei iver, and a host of other sins, all of which completely disqualify R. Druckman and his collleagues as valid rabbinic judges. Is it so difficult for Rabbi Adlerstein to understand why those who respect R. Druckman, even if they may take issue with his halakhc views and halakhic procedures, were so outraged by R. Sherman’s pesak?
Comment by LAWRENCE KAPLAN — May 19, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Rav Rozen made known the response he received from Rav Avraham Elkana Kahana Shapira z”l and Rav Mordechai Tzemah Eliyahu yibadel l’haim. They told him the problems were *administrative* only, and how no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the gerut. They also instructed Rav Drukman shlit’a to change the manner in which signing documents was handled. That was it. To all evidence available, two giants such as Rav Shapira and Rav Eliyahu saw fit to lend at least tacit support to the halachic validity of Rav Drukman’s work. Rav Rozen felt that his involvement was somewhat misused by Rav Sherman.
Comment by Mordechai Y. Scher — May 20, 2008 @ 12:01 am
As for the comment “Chareidim haters” in Rav Adlerstein’s rebuttal a few comments back:
It’s a well known technique in debating to inflate your opponents moderate position into one of extremism. Then, having redefined him as a fanatic, yo can easily dispose of his position and win the debate. For example, if I take a pro-abortion position, I can easily villify my pro-life opponent by accusing him of wanting pregnant women put in jail and beaten if they even think of aborting. By the time he’s done trying to refute my position, I’ll have won the debate.
In this case, the term “chareidim hater” appears to be a similar tactic. Rav Adlerstein, those of us who are critical of your position are not Chareidim haters. Those of us who routinely write in to point out obvious weaknesses in certain assertions on this blog are not Chareidim haters. When I was younger, my sister and I had fights that made the neighbours wonder if it was time to call in the SWAT team. Did I hate her? Of course not. One can be angry, one can disagree, one can criticize, without hating.
Unless one’s view of the world is so black and white that all disagreement is equivalent to hatred.
In this case, what people are concerned about does not relate to hatred of Rav Shirman, Rav Attiya or Chareidim in general. It is an emotional response born of a concern that there are political changes, not religious ones, that are redefining the Torah world around us and leaving many who believe themselves to be observant on the outside. Dismissal of that concern as baseless does not alleviate it, nor does justification of indefensible positions.
And once again, just to be clear, it is not out of hatred that people criticize on this blog. Rather I would posit that it is out of love for the Jewish people in general and a very real fear that our limited Achdus will be further broken that people write in so strenuously.
Comment by Garnel Ironheart — May 20, 2008 @ 8:09 am
Because this issue, perhaps more so than many others we have lived through recently is likely to cause an eartjquake in Klal Yisrael, Rabbi Adlerstein is clearly correct in trying to defusa the political/communal/halachic implications, and making it look more like the average halachic disagreement. The problem is that we have been witness in the last few years to the phenomenon of an increasing number of Talmidei Chachomim from the Dati Leumi camp, and a simultaneous, effort to discredit them from some Chareidi elements. It is pointless to deny this, because all of us have witnessed elements of it. Without going into specifics, this type of attack clearly bore spolied fruit when it was done in Europe, and there is no reason to think that it will not happen again. In fact, the times in whis we live are very dangerous , and we don’t need this.
There is alot more that needs to ber said. In the interests of allowing people to make their own decisions however, I think we should be careful when making arguments which are probably correct, but which leave the maker open to a scurrilous attack on his Yiddishkeit, made for any number of reasons, of which kovod Shomayim is usually not one.
Comment by michoel halberstam — May 20, 2008 @ 9:32 am
Does anyone titled “rabbi” who has a folowing and government funding have the legitimate last word on halacha? Could it be that some such people, with the best of intentions, promote an essentially non-halachic agenda?
Comment by Bob Miller — May 20, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Jerry,
“Does the Haredi community not agree with the concept of Bdieved?
That there is a preferred way to do things (i.e. the opinion of the poskim mentioned above who do not accept Gerut without a real KOM) and there are situations which are not preferable- such as the gerut situation that exists in Israel after the influx of refugees from the FSU and Ethiopia?
In these situations, there is plenty of halakhic backing for relying on”:
Of course the HC agrees that there is a bedieved, for instance, when there is gerus leshem ishut which is not lechatchila but is kosher bedeived. So too, there may be many examples where there is no ideal observance of mitzvot but the HC does not negate all these kind of gerut bedieved. What is discussed here is when there is no kabbolas hamitvot whatsoever (for a verbal declaration without intent is mmeaningless and void according to the rubah derubah of posskim) where it leaves no room for “bedieved” (like if the mikvah was passul even bedievad).
Comment by Shalem — May 20, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
After how many generations is there “chazaka” that somebody is Jewish, without having to inquire into that person’s maternal ancestors?
Comment by Ori — May 21, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
Can someone please send me a copy of Rabbi Shirman’s psak (either Hebrew or English)?
I am sure that everyone here, who has commented on it, has read the original psak - not someone’s else’s take on it.
Please send it to: jacklweinberg@yahoo.com
Thanks in advance.
Comment by Jack Weinberg — May 21, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Partially related to this thread, there was an interview a few weeks ago on “Around the Dining Room Table”, about the background of the RCA’s GPS protocol, and its agreement with the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (particularly 31 through 38 minutes and 44 minutes into the interview, basically elaborating on the March 11, 2008 RCA statement of “The RCA Supports all Valid Past Conversions by its Members”).
http://www.ouradio.org/ouradio/channel/C271
Comment by Baruch Horowitz — May 21, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
To L. Kaplan #26:
I have difficulty understanding how one can have any respect for R. Druckman after knowing the facts. Do you respect professors who plaigerize? Lawyers who suborn perjury? Accountants who falsify audits?
Halachikally speaking; There is a vast difference between a minority opinion and a lone opinion. I’m referring to Rav Uziel. Many poskim would call his psak a mistake. Bdieved we don’t rely on any lone opinion.
To the admirer of R. Ariel: Why is it politics when some people don’t want the dati-leumi candidate, but it’s not politics to object to the chareidi candidate?
Yasher Koach to R. Adlerstein for cogently presenting the core issues without resorting to rancor. I’m still wating for the RCA to do the same.
Comment by Ben Tzion — May 22, 2008 @ 11:54 am
I was in Atlanta, Georgia yesterday in one of the fine kosher eateries and there were 3 individuals having lunch, wom I knew casually. They saw me sitting alone and invited me to join them , as is customary in the Deep South. I want to describe the three men. They all have beards, one has chasidishe payos, two have their tzitzis out. Two are geirim and the third is in the process of converting. They all had big black kipot on their heads. This phenomenon is not rare “out of town”. many orthodox communities have a significant number of converts, who are baaleit teshuva since first converting or who originally converted strictlyu orthodox. I hope we can absorb this needed additon to our ranks without chasing them away.
Comment by L Oberstein — May 22, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Jack L Weinberg -
You can find the original Hebrew here.
I have posted an English digest of the psak here.
Be well,
Mordechai
Comment by Mordechai Torczyner — May 22, 2008 @ 5:14 pm
Ben Tzion: See Mordecai Scher’s comment # 27, the one right after mine. To compare R. Rabbi Druckman’s addmittedly improper actions to falsifying the books or plagiarism is a gross exaggeration. There are different degrees of impropriety, some very serious, some very mild, most in between.
Comment by LAWRENCE KAPLAN — May 22, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Rabbi Alderstein, with all due respect you have committed a terrible act with this post. It reveals neither honesty nor an attempt to deal openly with the issues, but rather an attempt to cloud them.
You repeat, once again, the cliche that Rav Uzziel is a solitary opinion. Forgetting what must be well known to you: Rav Unterman, Rav Haim David Halevi, Rav Goren and others. Rav Z Drori and Rav Druckman in our day, along with Rav Shear-Yashuv Cohen who went so far as to publically castigate the dati-leumi courts for being too *strict* and not relying on Rav Uzziel entirely! Now, these people may or may not be “gedolim” in your eyes, but in the eyes of religious Zionism they are more significant than Rav Elyashiv.
Furthermore, Rav Uzziel’s is a matter of majority/minority amongst rishonim, but a claim about simple pshat in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. There are other ways of reading the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, e.g. the Ritva and the Beit Yitzchak, but that is a matter of interpretation. The fact that the Beit Yitzchak’s reading was accepted by most acharonim is certainly not enough to disqualify Rav Uzziel as a daas yachid, and along with him the entire world of religious Zionism. Especially when the religious Zionist courts themselves don’t rely on him in practice, but rather try to make sure converts keep mitzvot! Please drop the cliche, Rabbi Alderstein. This *is* an open attempt to delegitimize an entire Torah world. And you have lent your hand to that evil.
Rav Rozen, according to you, is “acrimonious” while Rav Lichtenstein is “anguished” (but you don’t understand him). Only Rav Sherman’s vicious attack is a perfectly reasonable example of halakhic debate for you. It is “reasonable” to disqualify Rav Druckman, dozens of his colleagues on other courts, and thousands of gerim, for a procedural flaw that was already called to the attention of the relevant authorities many years ago and dealt with. It is “reasonable” to disqualify Rav Druckman and the others as dayyanim for relying on a shitah that you don’t think should be relied upon (though you have failed to convince others of this just as they have failed to convince you). But nothing Rav Rozen or Rav Lichtenstein wrote is reasonable or understandable according to you.
The most terrible thing you write is of the people coming to you to be “reconverted” because doubt has been cast upon the rabbis who once converted them. You write that you do it with a heavy heart, and that it proves the need for universal standards.
No, Rabbi Alderstein. There is nothing heroic about what you are doing doing, but rather the opposite: If a rabbi devoted to Torah converted those people, then your moral responsibility as a dayyan is to tell them so firmly, and to rule that they need no “reconversion.” Anything else is a lack of respect for Torah. The problem is not a lack of universal standards, but a lack of respect for other rabbis and Torah scholars. Exactly as with Rav Shirman.
“Universal standards” is cover for ammunition in an ideological war, not a way to help people. You claim not to see this war, but many of us do. The cannon is the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, and what it shoots are attempts at “universal standards”: Sometimes aimed at the RCA (two years ago) and sometimes at the religious Zionists (now). It is never aimed at the charedi world, because all sides are content to allow that world to continue to go to its own dayyanim. But they are not content to let us go to ours.
Gerut is exactly like kashrut and eruv. If a specific community wants to act like Beit Shammai, that is their choice.
You write that you will speak at the RCA convention. I hope that you will reconsider your words, and not say what you wrote here. But thank God that you at least have a right to speak, because the RCA is a place where all Torah viewpoints can be heard, where the disqualifications and silence of opposing viewpoints typical of the world of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Sherman are not to be found. You will have your say at the RCA, but others will as well.
Comment by Amram — May 22, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Why do you keep saying that the conversion took place without kabbalat ha-mitzvot? This is adamantly denied by Rabbi Druckman and his followers. The fact that the person today does not observe all the mitzvot does not mean that was no kabbalat mitzvot 15 years ago.
It certainly doesn’t. But there are others who just as adamantly insist that many people were converted despite their obvious intention not to observe. As I have said repeatedly, I have no knowledge, and no bias in this case. I found plenty to complain about in R Shirman’s psak. That does not lessen the need to clarify the halachic issues.
Why would the syrian community be any different (would they accept a R’ shirman convert who was in love with a syrian?)
The answer is simple. They would not accept him/her as a spouse for a member of the Syrian community, because of their takanah not to do so. But they would not regard said convert as a non-Jew. On the other hand, I would have no compunctions selling my chametz to someone who converted before a Conservative beis din that told people that keeping 613 mitzvos was too difficult, and that they should pick a few they are committed to. I actually did sell my chametz to one such person years ago. According to all the major players in the world of halacha that I know, with the sole exception of R. Daikovski, if a convert in front of an Orthodox beis din showed no difference in behavior immediately after the tevilah, one could hold them to be vadai – not safek!- non-Jews, and indeed sell them your chametz.
In his defense of the pesak of R. Attiya, R. Sherman does not himself refer to R. Druckman and his Bet Din as apikorsim, even with qoutes around the phrase, but he does accuse them of willfully disregarding the standard halakhah, forgery, deliberately violating lifnei iver, and a host of other sins, all of which completely disqualify R. Druckman and his collleagues as valid rabbinic judges. Is it so difficult for Rabbi Adlerstein to understand why those who respect R. Druckman, even if they may take issue with his halakhc views and halakhic procedures, were so outraged by R. Sherman’s pesak?
It is not difficult for me to understand the pain, and to be more than suspicious about the timing and motives for the launching of the missive. However, no one is serving R Druckman well by rallying around a flag, rather than addressing the halachic issues. I was looking for something resembling a defense in Rabbi Rozen’s statement on the Zomet site, but found nothing. Among my own friends, I have offered counterarguments to each of the three main arguments offered by Rabbi Shirman – but I am not a posek, so would prefer to find confirmation of my arguments in the careful analysis of baalei halacha. Rather than outrage, R Shirman’s contentions should be met with halachic answers. Please remember that R Shirman did not term R Druckman a rasha because he sees him as a morally deficient person. He refers to a specific halachic category. If in fact R Druckman has no one at all to rely upon for his standards, then he may be a nice person, but he would in fact be a rasha in terms of validity of courtroom testimony, in the same way that R Aharon Soloveitchik insisted on witnesses who were careful about the prohibition of chadash – holding that all others fit into the halachic category of reshaim.
Rav Rozen made known the response he received from Rav Avraham Elkana Kahana Shapira z”l and Rav Mordechai Tzemah Eliyahu yibadel l’haim. They told him the problems were *administrative* only, and how no relevance whatsoever to the validity of the gerut. They also instructed Rav Drukman shlit’a to change the manner in which signing documents was handled. That was it. To all evidence available, two giants such as Rav Shapira and Rav Eliyahu saw fit to lend at least tacit support to the halachic validity of Rav Drukman’s work. Rav Rozen felt that his involvement was somewhat misused by Rav Sherman.
I did not know this. It is encouraging.
In this case, what people are concerned about does not relate to hatred of Rav Shirman, Rav Attiya or Chareidim in general. It is an emotional response born of a concern that there are political changes, not religious ones, that are redefining the Torah world around us and leaving many who believe themselves to be observant on the outside. Dismissal of that concern as baseless does not alleviate it, nor does justification of indefensible positions
The concern is real, and impacts on lots of us in different ways, whether in going to concerts, or believing in an old universe, etc. None of that changes my essential point, which remains that gerus requires a different standard than a psak about borer or kashrus.
Now, these people may or may not be “gedolim” in your eyes, but in the eyes of religious Zionism they are more significant than Rav Elyashiv.
This is not the forum to discuss this. I’m not sure that there is one, without violating laws of lashon hora. Suffice it to say that many people who have absolutely no animus to anyone on that list would so completely disagree with your statement, that they would find it difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent and respectful conversation with anyone who could utter that line. As I have observed many times in this forum, the key issue is who is in the “major league” of halacha, and who is a respected spiritual leader. You don’t make it into the majors by public acclamation. There are performance criteria.
A Ram in Skokie pointed out to me the irony of those lambasting R Attiyah by arguing that a gerus once performed can never be questioned ( R Shirman’s psak attributes this position to his predecessor, R Daikovski.) In effect, they are reopening the wounds of the Langer case, and calling for invalidating Rav Goren’s zt”l psak that the first marriage was of no effect because his gerus was invalidated retroactively for lack of kabbolas mitzvos!
Furthermore, Rav Uzziel’s is a matter of majority/minority amongst rishonim, but a claim about simple pshat in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. There are other ways of reading the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, e.g. the Ritva and the Beit Yitzchak, but that is a matter of interpretation. The fact that the Beit Yitzchak’s reading was accepted by most acharonim is certainly not enough to disqualify Rav Uzziel as a daas yachid, and along with him the entire world of religious Zionism.
Again, I reject that contention utterly and entirely. And in the last week, I had a chance to speak to major halachic figures who are NOT in the haredi camp. I asked each one whether there was anyone of major import besides R Uziel who held the same position and needed to be factored into a halachic analysis. They separately but emphatically said that there was no one.
No, Rabbi Alderstein. There is nothing heroic about what you are doing doing, but rather the opposite: If a rabbi devoted to Torah converted those people, then your moral responsibility as a dayyan is to tell them so firmly, and to rule that they need no “reconversion.”
We decidedly do – when there is a tzad in halacha to rely upon. When they insist that they want to clear the cloud of suspicion hovering over them, we are in a real bind, not wishing to impugn the reputation to others, living and deceased. The convert then winds up at the disadvantage, dealing with shadchanim and the like.
Anything else is a lack of respect for Torah. The problem is not a lack of universal standards, but a lack of respect for other rabbis and Torah scholars. Exactly as with Rav Shirman.
I cannot agree. Disagreeing when you feel than another halachic opinion is dead wrong – not just a bit off – is something that must be done, is part of the milchamta shel Torah, and has been going on since the time of the Talmud
“Gerut is exactly like kashrut and eruv. If a specific community wants to act like Beit Shammai, that is their choice.
We will disagree about that one as well. I once heard from Rav Bick zt”l that in Europe, the practice in many places was to avoid a “machlokes eruv.” Although there is a huge disparity of opinions about key matters in eruvin, rabbanim in Europe would try to achieve consensus before building an eruv, simply because a psak affected the entire community. This is all the more so regarding issues of personal status.
You write that you will speak at the RCA convention. I hope that you will reconsider your words, and not say what you wrote here. But thank God that you at least have a right to speak, because the RCA is a place where all Torah viewpoints can be heard, where the disqualifications and silence of opposing viewpoints typical of the world of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Sherman are not to be found. You will have your say at the RCA, but others will as well.
Having returned from said convention (where I spoke about a different topic entirely), I can only say that I did not meet a single rav there who had read the psak who was not concerned about the halachic issues to the same degree I was!
Comment by Yitzchok Adlerstein — May 23, 2008 @ 3:33 am
I once heard from Rav Bick zt”l that in Europe, the practice in many places was to avoid a “machlokes eruv.” Although there is a huge disparity of opinions about key matters in eruvin, rabbanim in Europe would try to achieve consensus before building an eruv, simply because a psak affected the entire community. This is all the more so regarding issues of personal status
Since it is not realistically possible to build an eruv according to the viewpoint of the Rambam and the followers of Brisk-clearly there were not consensus eruvim. It is just not possible to follow everyone-Chadash in America was the doing of RAS. It has clearly bot been followed by many others-including BTW as a requirement by his more famous brother.
“As I have observed many times in this forum, the key issue is who is in the “major league” of halacha, and who is a respected spiritual leader. You don’t make it into the majors by public acclamation. There are performance criteria.”
Gdolim make into the majors by public acclamation and by general acceptance of their performance-it is not based on any examination of their knowledge-it is based on public acceptance. BTW-that is why the Schulchan Aruch is acceted not because R Yoseph Karo and R. Moshe Isserles were necessarily the greatest gdolim-but their work was accepted by Klal Israel. Certainly-the gdolim have much knowledge-but others do too-it is by acclamation that they are accepted. To the extent some are accepted and others are not-that is not based on knowledge. Does anyone doubt that RYBS was certainly a world class talmid chacham-but does anyone doubt that in general the “Yeshiva World” did not accept him as an authority.
Comment by mycroft — May 23, 2008 @ 6:25 am
Rabbi Alderstein wrote:
“Suffice it to say that many people who have absolutely no animus to anyone on that list would so completely disagree with your statement, that they would find it difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent and respectful conversation with anyone who could utter that line. As I have observed many times in this forum, the key issue is who is in the “major league” of halacha, and who is a respected spiritual leader. You don’t make it into the majors by public acclamation. There are performance criteria.”
I think this really is the crux of the matter. The Religious Zionist gedolim mentioned (especially those current like Rav SY Cohen, Rav Druckman and Rav Drori) meet the performance criteria by any definition, and are considered such by an entire world of Torah. But that world of Torah is less familiar to you, perhaps even a little bit foreign and unusual in your eyes, as opposed to the Litvishe charedi world that you know very well, even if you don’t always agree with it.
If the people you know can’t even have a respectful and intelligent conversation just because we don’t see eye-to-eye about which names are in the “major leagues” of halakhah, that is a very sad thing. And it fits in precisely to an atmosphere of delegitimization.
The campaign of delegitimization going on is exactly for this reason: To disqualify major gedolim and poskim as not being gedolim and poskim. To claim that they don’t meet the “perfomance criteria.” The striking thing is that this campaign has succeeded so much for so long (several generations) that you don’t even realize you have done *exactly* the opposite of what you declare, namely: You have decided who makes into the “majors” by public acclamation. The public acclamation being the chorus of the charedi world.
The Torah world of Religious Zionism will accept this no longer, the current smear campaign with huge social consequences being a truly watershed event. For some perspective see here: http://myobiterdicta.blogspot.com/. The likely result will ultimately be the dismantling of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, which may be a positive thing from a Torah perspective.
Comment by Amram — May 23, 2008 @ 6:35 am
“Gerut is exactly like kashrut and eruv. If a specific community wants to act like Beit Shammai, that is their choice.”
This is exactly where many of the defenders of the Conversion Beis Din fall off the track. This is not the beis din of a “specific community.” This is the beis din set up by the State of Israel, supposedly so that its converts would be accepted by all of klal yisroel!
Then, however, it turns out that it was relying on what may chartiably be called a minority opinion. (From my recall of the sugya, admittedly some years ago, R. Adlerstein is more accurate — it is a da’as yachid.)
Everyone likes to reference Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, but they conveniently forget the part about each telling the other if the potential shidduch was posul. Let’s not mince words — acc. to Beis Hillel, the product of a union permitted by shittas Beis Shammai (re tsaras ervah) is a Mamzer! The respect shown by Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai to each other did not mean that they gave up their shittos in halakha — to the contrary, Beis Hillel treated as mamzerim Jews who acc. to Beis Shammai were perfectly kosher! And Beis Shammai told them about it! Imagine such a thing today — I can already hear the RCA complaining about a Chillul Hashem, and others complaining about onaas ha almanah.
If the Conversion Beis Din were honest, it would announce openly that it’s conversions are only acc. to a minority view, and that most of the Orthodox world won’t accept them. Then they would indeed be acting like Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel, and be due the same mutual respect.
Comment by Tal Benschar — May 23, 2008 @ 9:22 am
To Ben Zion,
The notion that it is merely politics whether or not we want a Dati Leuni candidated as opposed to someone clearly less qualified, who will follow instructions from the Chareid camp is not nearly as simple as you describe it. In most of the countries from which our ancestors hail, major Rabbonim of important Keehilos belonged to the Mizrahi. Even after the rise of Agudas Yisroel, and the preeeminence of Gedolim like Rav Chaim Ozer, it was never the case that Rabbonim of stature would have their opinions cast into doubt becuse of politicalkconsiderations like this. There is of course the exception of those countries where the kehilos wre split, but that was a special case. Moreover, not everyone was happy with that situation.
The fact is that we cannot demand kovod hatorah when we at the same time denigrate rabbonim we don’t like because of theIR party or camp Affiliation. THIS IS A MAJOR PREOBLEM AND WE MUST DEAL WITH IT HONESTLY.
Comment by michoel halberstam — May 23, 2008 @ 9:50 am
This is the beis din set up by the State of Israel, supposedly so that its converts would be accepted by all of klal yisroel!
Perhaps this is the point of disagreement between Religious Zionists and Charedim in this regard. Even if one eschews the belief that “where there is a rabbinic will there is a halachic way,” it is undeniable that issues that affect klal yisrael have to be evaluated differently. I think Charedim and Religious Zionists differ in their evaluations of the significance of challenges facing Medinat Yisrael.
I know less than nothing about the halachos involved, but isn’t it possible that Rav Druckman and his colleagues see the sociological challenge facing klal yisrael in Eretz Yisrael as one that warrants the reliance on a da’as yachid/minority opinion? (This was clearly R’ Eliezer Berkovits’ view, for whatever that observation is worth.)
Also, this may just be yet another byproduct of my ignorance, but I don’t understand how Rabbi Adlerstein can oppose kulos in geirus because geirus affects the klal, while still accepting kulos in agunah, which have very similar implications.
Comment by Moishe Potemkin — May 23, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Tal Benschar: This is the beis din set up by the State of Israel, supposedly so that its converts would be accepted by all of klal yisroel!
Ori: Since when are religious authorities in Israel accepted by all Jews, or even all Jews living in Israel? The beit din was set up by the State of Israel because the state has to officially know who is Jewish and who isn’t to administer its laws. Not because any of the organs of the State of Israel is accepted as valid by klal yisroel.
Comment by Ori — May 23, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
“Rav Unterman”,
Can you please cite a source for him holding that one is a ger even when he does not intend to keep any mitzvot and we this in advance?
” not relying on Rav Uzziel entirely!”
I would make an interesting point: If one looks inside the respnsa by RAv UZziel one sees that *part* of the rationale he employs for the permission for such conversions is the thought that the converts will later observe mitzvot after the conversion after we wil mekarev them etc. It would be very intereresting to know if Hhis position would change had he seen that the vast majority of the converts that are performed in conditions and situations where the outcome is known ahead of the game ended up with an unsuccessful result (contrary to his assessment), would he still continue to rule the same as he did in the past.
yashiv.
“Furthermore, Rav Uzziel’s is a matter of majority/minority amongst rishonim”,
What do you mean by this? The literal reading of most rishonim seems to be like the “majroity” today!
” but a claim about simple pshat in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch”.
I fail to understand these words. “simple pshat” of Rambam and Shluchan ORuch clearly state that kabbalat hamitzvot and sicnerity to observe are of the utmost necessity in any conversion. Rambam places this in the essential meaning of gerut “sheyirtzeh lehikaness labrit, lehistofef tachas kanfey hashchinah, lekabel ohl torah”. SO states that kabbalat hamtizvot is meakev to be done in front BEis Din during the day! IT is mishpat! What else is it if not a serious court ascertaining that there was sincere acceptance to observe mitzvot?
“There are other ways of reading the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch, e.g. the Ritva and the Beit Yitzchak, but that is a matter of interpretation”.
What are you talking about? What are ways than the simple meaning that one has to commit to observ emitzvot!?
” The fact that the Beit Yitzchak’s reading was accepted by most acharonim is”
The reading is the simple reading by sagesprior to BEys Yitzchak and unrelated to Beys YItchak and frankly i do not understand why everyone gangs on the Bays Yitchak?
” certainly not enough to disqualify Rav Uzziel as a daas yachid”,
Please present a earleir sage that explains the ltieral reading of the rambam in the same manner sd he does!
“ather the opposite: If a rabbi devoted to Torah converted those people, then your moral responsibility as a dayyan is to tell them so firmly, and to rule that they need no “reconversion.””
How can you state that a dayan who follows majority opinion should not voice his honest opinion that the convert is not considered a convert according to the majority opinion?
“Gerut is exactly like kashrut and eruv. If a specific community wants to act like Beit Shammai, that is their choice’.
No, because gerut is where the beis hillel opinion (according to your perspective which I do bnot agree with) will atetmpt to marry a boy from BEyt Shamay descendants and vice versa and your position! In addition it divides not only jewish practices but JEWISHPEOPLE!!
Comment by Shalem — May 23, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
The Religious Zionist gedolim mentioned (especially those current like Rav SY Cohen, Rav Druckman and Rav Drori) meet the performance criteria by any definition, and are considered such by an entire world of Torah.
This is just false. Not just “the entire world of Torah”, but by anyone.
Take a Sefer like “Mikraei Kodesh” by R’ Moshe Harari of Mercaz Harav. You’ll find P’sakim by - R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, R’ Chaim Kanievsky, R’ Moshe Feinstein, R’ Avigdor Neventzahl, R’ Shaul Yisraeli, R’ Ovadia Yosef, R’ Mordechai Eliyahu, maybe R’ Ben Tzion Abba Shaul. [Maybe R' Dov Lior (?)]. Rav Elyashiv is perhaps not cited there (though maybe he is), but he is certainly of that caliber and in countless Sefarim is cited as a Bar Pelugta of RSZA or RMF in every area of Shulchan Aruch.
There are NO Sefarim at all, even RZ, that I am aware of, that cite R’ Druckman as a Halachic authority with a particular Shita on anything at all. R’ Tzefania Drori is a capable Rav, but, again, is there ANY area of Halachah that one can say - “R’ Moshe/RSZA holds X, but R’ Tzefania holds Y”? I would be surprised if there is even one Talmid in the Kiryat Shmonah Yeshiva (!)who has ever said that in say, Hilchos Shabbos, or Niddah, or Kashrus, or Pesach, or anything at all. And the same would apply to RSY Kohen.
Comment by Binyomin Eckstein — May 25, 2008 @ 6:09 am
To M Halberstam -44: You make it sound as if the Mizrachi was around for years without any opposition. true they were founded before the Agudah, but they were always a minority. Also, many gedolim used extremely sharp terms when dealing with them.
But let’s talk about “political considerations.” R. Druckman and friends are converting people FOR that very reason. They admit it. That deserves the strongest condemnation possible. (BTW, last Friday’s Yated Neman (Heb.) included scathing criticism from some 10 of the leading gedolim. They also published letters written some 20 years ago from the gedolim of that dor.)
You speak of kavod haTorah, but it’s hard to have kavod for these geirus rabbis. #43 is correct: The Druckman Bet Din should have told everyone that many people won’t accept their geirus. The few people I know personally who converted through that bet din were sickened by what goes on. Therefore, they did another conversion that would be accepted. They know what the word sincere means.
Someone mentioned R. S.Y. Cohen of Haifa. I heard him speak in the early ’90s on the east coast. It was sickening. He admitted to all that he has an agenda to convert all the ethiopians. This is not based on halachik considerations. I would have publically protested during his speech, but I was a guest in this shul and felt it would be counterprouctive. Remember that Rav Moshe F. paskened they were goyim and needed real, proper geirus.
Comment by Ben Tzion — May 25, 2008 @ 8:23 am
>It was sickening. He admitted to all that he has an agenda to convert all the ethiopians.<
Why is this improper??? First, according to Rav Ovadia, the ethiopians don’t even need a conversion (Yabia Omer Vol. 8, Section E”H #11)! Second, why is this an impropper consideration for a communal leader to have? I understand Rav Adlerstein’s post, he is expressing an overriding meta-halachic concern regarding there being a conversion track not acceptable to a wide segment of mainstream Jewry (and make no mistake, there are many in the RZ world who are very concerned about conversions without kabalat haMitzvot as well). What I don’t understand is why a similar meta-halachic concern such as that of Rav Sha’ar Yeshuv shlit”a is “sickening”. Let us not pretend that meta-halachic concerns are not part of halachic decision making (and also that such concerns are often the result of an hashkafic/political disposition of the posek). This is true whether one is discussing metzitzah bePeh, heter mechira, sheirut leumi or a whole bunch of other issues which are of great importance to a great many people.
Regarding the ever unproductive discussion of “who is a REAL gadol” (which I have often been a part of), keep in mind that one can be a great halachic authority without publishing shu”t literature. Rav Sha’ar Yeshuv, Rav Dov Lior, Rav Yaakov Ariel and others in the RZ camp can go toe to toe in learning and psak with the chareidi rabbinic leadership, but they do not serve the public through publication of the types of sefarim that give gedolim credibility in the chareidi world.
Comment by Chareidi Leumi — May 26, 2008 @ 1:48 am
Regarding the Comment by Chareidi Leumi — May 26, 2008 @ 1:48 am;
I would have much more confidence in the psak halacha of the highly learned Mizrachi-affiliated Gedolim if they showed a willingness to publically repudiate politically motivated decisions originating from less learned Rabbonim within their own camp. However, such decisions taken at the behest of the State are seemingly shielded from their reproach. This blind spot can’t be brushed aside rhetorically.
Comment by Bob Miller — May 26, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
keep in mind that one can be a great halachic authority without publishing shu”t literature
No, one cannot be considered a great Halachic authority without extensive shu”t or Piskei Halachah, either B’ksav or B’al Peh, which have been subject to scrutiny and review by other leading Poskim.
Comment by Binyomin Eckstein — May 26, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
Only because there are so many comments made above, I read only a few of them. So I will only comment on those that I read.
As for the statement that it is historical revisionism to claim that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein’s halachic rulings were ever universally accepted, I beg to differ. I am old enough to remember very clearly that even back in the day when it was actually happening, his word was considered the final ruling on the matter. There were some disagreements among some Chassidim, but not among mainstream, normative Orthodox Jews.
As for this whole conversion controversy being some kind of grab for religious power in Israel between the ultra-Orthodox and the Modern Orthodox, my attitude is this: the ultra-Orthodox have set and must continue to set the standard for what it means to follow G-d’s Torah. Please recall that I am saying this in spite of the fact that I am not religious, and even if I were, I would be some combination of Modern Orthodox and a Religious Zionist.
But I also believe in standards. On the increasingly rare occasions that I go to shul, I almost always go to an ultra-Orthodox one, because I know that they are carrying out the prayer services in as authentic of a way as possible. I know that Rabbi Bess will give over Torah thoughts that are the product of classic Torah scholars, rather than some New Age mumbo jumbo with a few Yiddish words thrown in to fool the audience.
While my personal kosher habits are not always ideal, when I attend some Jewish event, I am relieved when the food being served is Glatt Kosher, rather than just regular kosher. I am a very passionate Zionist, yet I am appalled at how much its government and its courts deviate from Torah True Judaism. Again, my attitude is that while I fall far short of what G-d expects of us Jews, I want our Jewish institutions to remain as loyal to the Torah’s original teachings as possible. Modern Orthodoxy appeals to me because it fits my personality more, but that does not make it as authentic as ultra-Orthodox Judaism.
And finally, to Joseph (comment #25), thank you for your kind words. It is gratifying to know that somebody reads my comments, and even likes them.
Comment by Raymond — May 26, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
“Rav Sha’ar Yeshuv, Rav Dov Lior, Rav Yaakov Ariel and others in the RZ camp can go toe to toe in learning and psak with the chareidi rabbinic leadership, but they do not serve the public through publication of the types of sefarim that give gedolim credibility in the chareidi world.”
Yes, that is the central problem here. They can and they do. Although the lack of recognition of their stature, I think, has less to do with the kinds of sefarim that they do or don’t publish, and much more to do with the conscious adversion mentioned by Rabbi Alderstein to recognize them as gedolim and poskim in the same breath as those who are “recognized” in the Litvishe world.
Actually, while for the Israeli charedim it is conscious adversion, for the Americans I think it is sometimes simply a matter of ignorance. For instance, how many American talmidei chachamim have even heard of Rav Yaakov Ariel shlit”a, let alone know the high regard he is held as a posek? Yes, in the RZ Torah world he is considered far more relevant source of psak than Rav Elyashiv. (Rabbi Alderstein was shocked that I wrote that earlier, but in Israel it is common knowledge.) And Rav Ariel is fully supportive of the Conversion Courts and of Rav Druckman (see the Tzohar statement which he signed and his personal comments on it).
Comment by Amram — May 26, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
>I would have much more confidence in the psak halacha of the highly learned Mizrachi-affiliated Gedolim if they showed a willingness to publically repudiate politically motivated decisions originating from less learned Rabbonim within their own camp. However, such decisions taken at the behest of the State are seemingly shielded from their reproach. This blind spot can’t be brushed aside rhetorically.No, one cannot be considered a great Halachic authority without extensive shu”t or Piskei Halachah, either B’ksav or B’al Peh, which have been subject to scrutiny and review by other leading Poskim.<
They have extensive Piskei Halacha beAl Peh and b’Ksav that are subject to scrutiny and review by other leading Poskim who are not in the chareidi camp. That being the case, I don’t really think you are right. An halachic authority gets his legitimacy from the fact that a community accepts his authority - not through being “knighted” by some undefined group of gedolim from a previous generation. In fact, this is precicly how Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l described his own status as a posek - people simply continued to ask him questions so he became an authority.
Comment by Chareidi Leumi — May 27, 2008 @ 3:44 am
>No, one cannot be considered a great Halachic authority without extensive shu”t or Piskei Halachah, either B’ksav or B’al Peh, which have been subject to scrutiny and review by other leading Poskim.
They have extensive Piskei Halacha beAl Peh and b’Ksav that are subject to scrutiny and review by other leading Poskim who are not in the chareidi camp. That being the case, I don’t really think you are right. An halachic authority gets his legitimacy from the fact that a community accepts his authority - not through being “knighted” by some undefined group of gedolim from a previous generation. In fact, this is precicly how Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l described his own status as a posek - people simply continued to ask him questions so he became an authority.
Comment by Chareidi Leumi — May 27, 2008 @ 3:44 am
To Binyomin Eckstein:
> No, one cannot be considered a great Halachic authority without extensive shu”t or Piskei Halachah, either B’ksav or B’al Peh, which have been subject to scrutiny and review by other leading Poskim.
Really? So Rav Schach, z”l, wasn’t a great halachic authority?
Comment by Garnel Ironheart — May 27, 2008 @ 8:57 am
To #54-
Is R. Y. Ariel or his brother, (or both) the “learned posek” who permits Jews going to Har habayis? This is something that has been known for hundreds (really thousands) of years that we don’t go there. Yes I know they have their “proofs” and can tell you which areas are allowed and which are not. Do they think all the poskim of previous generations didn’t know these things? I don’t have much respect for those people (and this includes many of the other rabbis from your “RZ” camp) regarding anything they posken. I wouldn’t ask R. Druckman et al the simplest question in basar bechalav!! It hurts me to write this, but it’s true.
Comment by Ben Tzion — May 27, 2008 @ 9:05 am
To #56: No, Rav Yaakov Ariel is not the Machon Hamikdash person; that is his brother and the two are very different. I don’t see what this has to do with anything.
You have every right to choose who you go to for psak, and I would never dream of interfering. Just as I have every right to choose who I go to for psak.
You posted that you “don’t have much respect for those people, and… many of the other rabbis from your “RZ” camp.” You wouldn’t even ask Rav Druckman for Basar ve-Chalav. Sad sentiments, but that is your choice and I have no quarrel with you. As for myself, I would never go to Rav Elyashiv for any psak.
Let each Torah Jew freely choose whom he goes to for psak. That is exactly what this whole conversion war is about.
Comment by Amram — May 27, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
An halachic authority gets his legitimacy from the fact that a community accepts his authority - not through being “knighted” by some undefined group of gedolim from a previous generation. In fact, this is precicly how Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l described his own status as a posek - people simply continued to ask him questions so he became an authority.
If the community accepts the authority of an ignorant Apikores, that doesn’t make him an Halachic authority. What Rav Moshe said in an interview to the NY Times is a model of his humility. There is no question that R’ Moshe would not have been recognized as a giant in Halachah without the acclaim of the previous generation and his contemporaries as such.
So Rav Schach, z”l, wasn’t a great halachic authority?
No. He was a tremendous Rosh Yeshiva, perhaps the last one whose Lomdus Sefarim (Avi Ezri) can be considered as written by one of the Acharonim, and an expert on the fifth section of the Shulchan Aruch. But he was not renowned as a great Halachic authority.
But, that said, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach said that had Rav Schach focused his energies on Psak, he would have been the greatest Posek of the generation, and added that when Rav Schach did clarify Halachic matters, he (RSZA) considered Rav Schach the greatest of the Poskim. [This is what R' Shlomo Lorincz says in his recently published Sefer about Harav Schach.]
Comment by Binyomin Eckstein — May 27, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
>Is R. Y. Ariel or his brother, (or both) the “learned posek” who permits Jews going to Har habayis?
R. Y. Ariel does not permit it. His brother R. Yisrael Ariel does as do many others.
>This is something that has been known for hundreds (really thousands) of years that we don’t go there.
Not well known at all. There is actually evidence that Jews used to go up there often. The Rambam permits it explicitly (בית הבחירה פרק ז’ הל’ טו-יח). Further, the areas where people go up are ones that are not part of the Azara according to all opinions, both textual and archeological. There are reasons to avoid going up to Har HaBayit but they are almost all related to public policy considerations. Those who go – have on whom to rely.
>Yes I know they have their “proofs” and can tell you which areas are allowed and which are not.
Why put proofs in quotes? If you don’t like the arguments then answer them with your own arguments - no need to mock.
>Do they think all the poskim of previous generations didn’t know these things?