Comments on: The Conversion Psak: Some Comments and One Observation

By: Chareidi Leumi

Chareidi Leumi — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:55:47 +0000

>Quote?

Open the pardes back issues from that era and take a look.

>I’m sure you’re not alone. But dem’s the facts. Can you tell me one classic area of Halachah where Rabbi Kook contibuted to the Halachic literature?

He was the final address to dozens and dozens of yeshuv rabbis and neighborhood rabbis all over Israel. He was asked to decide dificult questions in almost every area of halacha by his students and had the full respect of gedolim who did publish their responsa such as Rav Shaul Yisraeli, Rav Avraham Shapiro, and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu.

>Did he put his name on it?

No. but he successfully defended the psak, which was indeed a difficult one … as are many piskei halacha in this area. Difference is, this one became political.

>All of this goes both ways.

And therefore…

Over Shabbat, I talked to one the talmidei chachamim in my community about the psak. He told me that when he was in yeshiva, many people took to saying things about Rav Goren. The rosh yeshiva got up and said that if someone wants to take on the psak with an halachic response, then fine … but if anyone takes a personal attack on the motives or person of Rav Goren, then it’s an eitzat haYetzer.

>Making a comparison between Chezkas Gimmel Shanim and Chazakah D’MeIkara in terms of requiring a Taanah, based on a totally irrelevant comparison in the Yerushalmi about Tit Hanarok

That is ONE seif out of about 26 that does not make the psak stand or fall (as Rav Shapiro pointed out). Futher, Rav Goren gives several justifications for his postion on this. One is a sevara that you can take of leave (on page 96 of the psak). Next he points out that the Netivot (ח”מ סי’ ע”ח סעיף א) apples this property of chezkat gimel shanim to all chazakot that exist. He of course brings other achronim as support. Some are stronger, some weaker. Point is, that to get from what you may legitimatly call a bogus pshat or sevarah to accusing R’ Goren of paskening in order to become chief rabbi is a long rode. One I would not take.

By: Binyomin Eckstein

Binyomin Eckstein — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:45:58 +0000

“I am glad to see someone still uses Yated as an actual source of information.”

Actually, I used Rav Moshe Feinstein’s statements quoted in Hapardes.

“The article in Pardes, and some of the other anonymous articles now known to have been authored by Rav Zolti were very personal in nature.”

Quote?

“I have nothing but disdain for this comment.”

I’m sure you’re not alone. But dem’s the facts. Can you tell me one classic area of Halachah where Rabbi Kook contibuted to the Halachic literature?

“No, he defended the psak in haTzofeh.”

Did he put his name on it? If not, then I guess he was the one who was reduced to saying that while Rabbi Zolty hit on a number of points in the Psak that were indeed unsupportable, he hadn’t knocked down the foundation of the Psak - which Rabbi Zolty ably showed was incorrect.

“basest of motives”

All of this goes both ways.

“Sorry, don’t buy this, I have gone through the psak carefully, there is nothing which I found which is more “out there” than the normal stuff I have seen in teshuvas which deal with things such as agunot and mamzerut.”

Making a comparison between Chezkas Gimmel Shanim and Chazakah D’MeIkara in terms of requiring a Taanah, based on a totally irrelevant comparison in the Yerushalmi about Tit Hanarok, is but one example of where many Poskim on both sides of the aisle were reduced jaw dropping incredulity.

By: Chareidi Leumi

Chareidi Leumi — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:24:22 +0000

>That he became involved in the Psak and advocated finding a solution does not equal virtually guaranteeing that he would find one

I am glad to see someone still uses Yated as an actual source of information.

>I don’t think that is true if one reads his initial rejection of the Psak, which was harsh, particularly about certain very dubious Halachic analogies, but not personal.

The article in Pardes, and some of the other anonymous articles now known to have been authored by Rav Zolti were very personal in nature.

>Based on criteria I mentioned earlier, Rabbi Kook does not qualify as a Gadol Horaah,

I have nothing but disdain for this comment.

>and I believe Rabbi Shapiro opposed the overall disqualification of RSG’s ability as a Posek, not that he supported the points raised in the Psak.

No, he defended the psak in haTzofeh. Regardless, he would have been disgusted by your assertion regarding Rav Kook as well of your accusing Rav Goren of producing a psak to get into office. The same goes for Rav Henkin. The problem is not your disagreement with the psak, but rather your willingness to accuse R’ Goren of the basest of motives. He was scencere. All his private correspondence from that era shows his sincerity.

>There are, though, sufficient grounds for blinking a number of times and rubbing one’s eyes when perusing some of the bases for RSG’s Psak

Sorry, don’t buy this, I have gone through the psak carefully, there is nothing which I found which is more “out there” than the normal stuff I have seen in teshuvas which deal with things such as agunot and mamzerut.

By: Edmond

Edmond — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:40:34 +0000

Another very interesting about face in the Druckman case, also quoted in Yated, is that Rav Moshe Feinstein z.t.l criticized Rav Goren on procedural grounds, especially that if he has any new evidence, it should be presented to the Beth Din that originally heard the case, and not to take over the case. Guess what Rabbis Attias and Sherman did? They denied the validity of the Beth Din that made the conversions, and started their own judgements on the conversions, without even speaking to the original Dayanim!

By: Binyomin Eckstein

Binyomin Eckstein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:48:37 +0000

Charedi Leumi,

“There is revisionism here, but it is not from Edmond”

You have not explained what I revised. Your carefully worded, and very misleading, response, actually exposes the depth of the problem. That he became involved in the Psak and advocated finding a solution does not equal virtually guaranteeing that he would find one, prior to actually sitting on a Beis Din and hearing the evidence, and receiving the support of Meir and Dayan on that basis.

“Further, Rav Zolty did not just appose the psak, he led what can only be described as a smear campaign against the very persona of Rav Goren.”

I don’t think that is true if one reads his initial rejection of the Psak, which was harsh, particularly about certain very dubious Halachic analogies, but not personal. But regardless, there is no question that RSG turned to the Attorney-General to review whether RBZ’s opposition to the Psak was in consonance with his being able to sit on the Jerusalem court.

“but I do consider Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook and Rav Avraham Shapiro gedolim of the highest order, and they both supported the psak”

Based on criteria I mentioned earlier, Rabbi Kook does not qualify as a Gadol Horaah, and I believe Rabbi Shapiro opposed the overall disqualification of RSG’s ability as a Posek, not that he supported the points raised in the Psak.

“And while we can not possibly accuse the chareidi side of the conflict with having less than noble motivations in smearing a gadol baTorah, we can of course accuse Rav Ovadia and Rav Yisraeli of being driven by fear of the all powerful Rav Goren!”

Perhaps you have not been following the discussion closely enough, but the point here was that there is no objective reason to paint RSG as the great saviour and all the Haredi Gedolim as satanic. Any claim can be spun any way at all.

There is absolutely nothing on the record of many of those who vehemently opposed and discredited RSG that would suggest that it was political.

There are, though, sufficient grounds for blinking a number of times and rubbing one’s eyes when perusing some of the bases for RSG’s Psak - and this sense does not at all run along party lines.

By: Chareidi Leumi

Chareidi Leumi — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:10:31 +0000

>And since it was decisively clear that Burkovsky was a Jew in every respect, it was also important to help this ger tzedek in his fight.”

oy vey! Does a Jew in every respect attend church?? Does he eat pork?? Does he cross himself often and in public?

Hashem Yerachem from such “journalism”! “decisively clear” - it was not even decisively clear the the dayanim who first heard the case, but to Yated it is.

By: Edmond

Edmond — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:05:15 +0000

#91

“That is not the case. There was no question that he was not ‘always’ frum. It was that he had spent time living as what might be termed a religious lifestyle by the standards around him.”
What kind of fudgy statement is “he had spent time living as what might be termed a religious lifestyle by the standards around him”? If I asked you for a measure of matzo to fulfill a mitzvo, you would have an ultra halachic measure down to the last mm. Yet, in this case (and that only applies to Borokovsky) you come up with a wishy-washy statement that is meaningless! And what exactly was “a religious lifestyle by the standards around him”? The standards in Bnei Brak where he joined a rally and claimed to be a Jew? Or secular tel aviv, where eating sufganiot on Hanuka is considered traditional? And is it ok to eat pork, if the people around u also do? And why cant R. Druckman’s people use your same elastic measures?

“They certainly don’t know that and can’t claim to. But due to the great number of people who we know for sure acted in the exact same way both immediately before and immediately after they ‘accepted Mitzvos’ all of them are called into question”
Oh, but didn’t they live a religious lifestyle by the standards around them? I would be the first to agree that any “convert” who eats pork on the way home from the mikve is a fraud, and should have his conversion annulled. The error you are making is that many of the converts are frum, shomer mitzvoth, and I am personally acquainted with some of them. Others are what would be classed as traditional, eg keeping kashrut and holidays , while not yet strictly observant of certain other mitzvoth.

“This is total revisionism. RSG said openly before his appointment that he would find a Heter, and received the support of Meir and Dayan on those grounds.Read the newspapers put out during the period. I also wonder why you think Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein didn’t do the same to Rabbis Herzog and Unterman if they had such lust for Chief Rabbinate blood.”
Having a manifesto for an election, is not the same as a bribe. He said it is possible to implement a heter which he believed was within the realms of halacha. The bulk of the argumentation was that no such heter existed, but today it is being applied wholesale. Far be it for be to say anything about Gedolim mentioned. I do know that Rav Eliyashiv was a talmid of Rav Herzog in his Zionist days. And recently , a “chief rabbi” was elected , who has a string of allegations of various sins against him, and is not even a noted Talmid hacham, whereas the power that be opposed the election of a pure and righteous Rav, who is one of the greatest Torah scholars in Israel. Now, the great irony in what you are saying, is that the 2 cases are pretty much identical, RSG and R Attias/Sherman. The difference is their political siding. I am not convinced by any of the arguments on the subject, that there is any halachic substance to the dispute. If there was, then the Haredi world would have bashed Sherman et al, in the same way they did Goren. The reason they didn’t is that it is politico-ideological. One definition of Hypocrisy I read is the refusal to“..apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others”. There may be other reasons for the timing of these decisions. The haredi world is in deep trouble, since many of its great institutions now face civil war. This is not only in Satmar and Lubavitch, but also Ponovetch. The violence taking place in these arenas, eg the placing of a bomb on the doorstep of one of the nominee Ponovetcher Roshei Yeshivot, is unheard of since the battle between Beit Shammai and Beit Hilel. Sometimes a civil war can be forgotten if you start a war with a convenient enemy, and religious Zionism always is the convenient enemy of the Haredi world. The campaign against Slifkin only backfired, so attacking Druckman is a more viable strategy.

“I also would call your attention to the public campaign of Rabbi Goren to have Rabbi Zolty removed from the Jerusalem Rabbinate for the sin of opposing RSG’s Psak.”
Noone is denying that Rav Goren ruled with an iron fist. I mentioned Rav Zolty for reasons which seem to elude you. If , as you imply, Rav Zolty’s position was correct, then it is equally correct today, ie in favour of Rav Druckman, and in opposition to dayanim Attias and Sherman. It is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it, and not say Mezonos.
“No Gadol Horaah, not one, publicly supported his Psak. This is virtually unprecedented.”
Well, have you heard of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy? Yours is simply a variation of this. There is another version touting around, where the Haredim say there are no Gedolim in the Zionist or MO camp. When we mention a list of about 10 Gedolei Torah, each one is disqualified, because of x,y and z.
“Who exactly claimed this - and since when do we say that someone who is Mattir a woman on insufficient grounds (I’m not saying that it was the case here necessarily) becomes vindicated when the husband is found dead?” My Talmud teacher inOhr Sameach made such a statement. This is hardly the place to go into detail about the Dakar case. The point is he was proven correct, ie his estimation.

“Land for peace .”
“I am sure you realize how subjective your judgement on this is. There have been numerous governments who have been willing to give it all away negotiating out of a position of weakness after a loss of thousands of lives, not to mention the present actual destruction of the entire Gaza Strip enterprise, which could have been avoided had the Haredim been listened to then.”
Had the haredim been listened to in the 1930s and 40s, perhaps even more would have been killed in the Shoah.
But your statement is really useless, in that Rav Shach himself spent a quarter century vilifying the National Religious, spearheading a campaign against the Settlers, calling for talks with the PLO – and at the last moment, when the Oslo talks took place, he retracted, and took the identical position of Rav Goren – forbidding the ceding of Holy Land liberated by divine miracle! This took so many Haredim by surprise, that they felt let down by Rav Shach. A great man can admit to the truth. But many mediocre men cannot do so.
And what exactly do you mean by “There have been numerous governments who have been willing to give it all away negotiating out of a position of weakness after a loss of thousands of lives”. Does a secular Prime Minister also have daas Torah in your topsy turvy world? You are implying that it is OK for a Haredi leader to make a mistake, because anyway Olmert or Sharon would have made the same mistake. So, if a Haredi leader would permit fire on Shabbat, would that be ok, because “There have been numerous governments who have been willing to?”
Again, regarding my statement on land for peace, I don’t see the figures as being subjective – since Rabin’s Oslo, the number of Israelis being killed by terrorists is far higher than the preceding 15 years. If a Sanhedrin had made such a blunder, there would be many many sacrifices necessary. However, since Daas Torah means being infallible, then the shogegot are not necessary, and their defenders need to fudge and talk in circular arguments, so as to deny their part in this tragedy.
We really should be focusing on the Druckman case. My point is still the same, and it remains unchallenged. The many venerable Rabbis who opposed the Goren psak, had arguments which support Druckman. If the reverse had happened, eg Druckman had cancelled conversions in the way that Goren (and Attias and Sherman did), then there would again be a big furore as there was in ’72.

By: M. Gardner

M. Gardner — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:13:56 +0000

No one seems to be touching on the root of the problem concerning the “major league” status of the religious Zionist rabbis and why they are rejected by the chareidim rabbonim and even chareidi rank and file.
Look at the huge difference between how the chareidim produce their major league rabbonim, and how the religious Zionists do.
For the chareidim, there is an exhausting, lengthy process involved, requiring the chareidim rabbonim to be involved in a dedicated learning environment for a minimum of 30-40 years. As soon as they finish high school (and in Israel, after 8th grade), they are involved in a learning program that goes on from early morning until late at night and often includes Shabbosim. They study in yeshivos and kolels where they are taught and do shimush by rabbeim who are acknowledged leaders in the previous generation and who are passing on the mesores that they themselves learned from their teachers. They begin as junior poskim or roshei yeshivos, and with the years, having proven their prowess, and having received the approval of their previous generation’s poskim and their colleagues, they eventually move up into major league, usually around the age of 50 or 60.
Of premier importance are two main issues: the fact that the chareidi community sees its ultimate hero in the premier Torah scholar, and their belief in emunas chachamim. This creates a powerful milchama shel Torah that spurs scholars to achieve excellence.
They fulfill the dictum of the Talmud that a thousand enter chumash, and less go into mishna and even less to Talmud, until finally the best reaches the top. In their community, tens of thousands are studying in chedorim and yeshivos, and only the very best will make it through the system to reach the top. While only a few make it to the top, there are hundreds who are respected poskim and rabbonim and thousands who are proficient scholars who can write chiddushim and meforshim.
Moreover, there is tremendous motivation to maintain standards and resist pressures for leniencies or sell-outs because of the thousands of first-tier and second-tier Torah scholars who fill kolels and batei midrash and will call foul.
The fact that halachic scandals periodically roil the community is due to the fact that the chareidim care about a psak emes. Fidelity to Torah is sacrosanct in their eyes and anyone who is seen as deviating is tarred and feathered.
Finally, the chareidim have no political agenda other than maintaining the community’s Torah lifestyle as it was handed down throughout all the generations. Because of this they are largely impervious to the political pressures of the kind that causes the RZ rabbis to buckle.
Compare this to the religious Zionist community: They don’t even believe in emunas chachamim. Rabbanim are not viewed as the ultimate hero in their community; those who fight politically for settling the land are. Moreover, they have heroes of all kinds — Herzl, Etzelniks, Sharon (until the Disengagement), etc. received equal rating among the RZs.
RZ Kids typically finish yeshiva high school and then at best spend a year in beis midrash; most go to Hesder or military prep schools, followed by university. The amount who sit in full-time Torah learning for 10 years are not more than several dozen, if even that. When rabbis are not looked up to as the community’s most important resource, the community’s best talents will not be directed to the rabbinate.
Another point: The total dedication to Torah studies that is found throughout the chareidi community is non-existent in the RZ community. The majority of the RZ rabbis also attend university and get decrees.
The few times where the RZ rabbis tried to take a Torah position against the State (such as Rav Shapira’s stance against the Disengagement) they were basically ignored by their own community.
Consider this point: The chareidim have 25,000 youths studying in yeshiva gedolos and another 20,000 in kolels. Their leading yeshivos like Ponevezh, Chevron, Orchos Hatorah, Tifrach, Ohr Yisroel, etc. have thousands learning there. What do the religious Zionists have in comparison? Even making the generous assumption that all the RZ yeshivos have attained a level of serious scholarship, how many students are studying in them?
The chareidim are mistrustful of the RZ rabbis not because of political brinkmanship but because of their mediocrity, emphasis on secular education and political agenda. That is why the chareidim simply do not trust these rabbis or their psakim.

By: Chareidi Leumi

Chareidi Leumi — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:40:34 +0000

>That would have been politically very unwise due to their Rabbinate positions at the time. RSG might have worked to have them fired too.

LOL. This is rich! what a conspiracy theory! Rav Goren must have been an all powerful rabbinic autocrat who had all the rabbanut rabbis living in fear! And while we can not possibly accuse the chareidi side of the conflict with having less than noble motivations in smearing a gadol baTorah, we can of course accuse Rav Ovadia and Rav Yisraeli of being driven by fear of the all powerful Rav Goren!

(Next you will reveal to me that the Pnei Yehoshua supported Rav Emden because he was afraid of being labeled a Sabbatean by him. Actually, that must also be the reason the Gra opposed the chassidim, he was also afraid of Rav Emden.)

By: Chareidi Leumi

Chareidi Leumi — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:33:11 +0000

>This is total revisionism. RSG said openly before his appointment that he would find a Heter, and received the support of Meir and Dayan on those grounds

There is revisionism here, but it is not from Edmond. Rav Goren became involved in the psak WELL before there was any talk of the chief rabbinate position opening up. He was an advocate of finding a solution for the Langers for a long time. Meir and Dayan would have supported anyone who took the position Rav Goren did, this does not mean that their support caused Rav Goren’s position c”V!

>I also would call your attention to the public campaign of Rabbi Goren to have Rabbi Zolty removed from the Jerusalem Rabbinate for the sin of opposing RSG’s Psak.

I am sorry but with all due respect, the “feud” between Rav Zolty and Rav Goren goes all the way back to their days at Hevron. Further, Rav Zolty did not just appose the psak, he led what can only be described as a smear campaign against the very persona of Rav Goren. I don’t see, however, how bringing up rabbinic fueds brings any kavod to the Torah. I can also start listing inner-chareidi fueds which often turn very ugly (in both the chassidic and litvish worlds).

>No Gadol Horaah, not one, publicly supported his Psak. This is virtually unprecedented.

Maybe according to you, but I do consider Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook and Rav Avraham Shapiro gedolim of the highest order, and they both supported the psak. Further, there were other gedolim who did not support the psak but were against the smear campaign against Rav Goren. Rav Henkin said explicitly that no one has the right to question Rav Goren’s competance as a posek (while still not supporting the psak).

By: nachum klafter, md

nachum klafter, md — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:33:56 +0000

Rabbi Adlerstein writes: “What we are not hearing is a serious response to the substantive halachic issues raised by Rabbi Sherman…”

There are two main halakhic issues raised by Rav Sherman as I understand his arguments:

1) A conversion process which relies on the ruling of Rav Uziel and fails to carefully scrutinizing potential converts for their kabbalat ol mitzvot

AND

2) Dayanim who preside over converesions and sign a certificate along with Rav Druckman which makes it appear as if he were present.

As far responses to Issue #1, they are following the pesak of Rav Uziel. Relying on a da’at yachid of the stature of Rav Uziel should not undo a dayan’s or a beit din’s chezkat kashrut. Even those authorities such as Rav Sherman who vigorously reject the ruling of Rav Uziel (though why he does not mention it is clear) have no basis to invalidate the status of courts or judges who accept this ruling. Therefore, regarding converts from the special beit din, those converts who are observant should retain the chezkat kashrut of their ger tzedek status. (It seems unavoidable to me that converts who are not observant cannot be presumed to have originally made a kabalt ol mitzvot because this court did not require one.) So, it seems to me that the observant coverts should be acceptable, and the unobservant should not. I see no reason that issue #1 would invalidate the conversions of those conversts who have been observant since the time of their conversion.

Issue 2: First of all, let me clarify that it seems to me that the fact Rav Druckman signed documents when in fact he was not present should in itself be irrelevant to the actual conversion. According to Rav Sheerman’s argument, what IS problematic is that the dayanim who were in fact present colluded with Rav Druckman by allowing him to sign this document along with them. In other words, whether Rav Druckman can be fairly designated as a transgressor based on this behavior is irrelevant to these cases. What IS relevant is whether the dayanim who WERE present can be designated as transgressors and whether they should therefore be invalidated as proper judges. It would seem to me that their intent needs to be considered. I wonder if the following scenario should be mitigating: If the judges believed (even erroneously) that Rav Druckman as the administrative head of this special court would be entitled to sign on the basis of his knowledge of the judges who did preside, then they did not knowingly transgress any laws and therefore are not deliberate transgressors. If these dayanim would learn that allowing Rav Druckman is unacceptable, and they now refrain from allowing Rav Druckman or any other dayan who was not present to sign the certiricate, wouldn’t that be a clear demonstration that this was an inadvertant error? If so, each conversion would still have been presided over by 3 legitimate dayanim, and their mistake in allowing Rav Druckman to sign would not render them rashayim or invalid judges.

I believe that these are reasoned, non-political, legal responses to Rav Sherman’s objections as I understand them.

By: Raymond

Raymond — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:19:36 +0000

How about if we temper this long argument with some related humor?

Shimon makes a comment, to which Reuven says, “Shimon, you are right.” Then Levi makes a comment that completely contradicts what Shimon said, to which Reuven says, “Levi, you are right, too.” To which Yehuda says, “But Reuven, Shimon and Levi can’t both be right.” To which Reuven says, “Yehuda, you are right, too.”

By: Edmond

Edmond — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:43:02 +0000

This is a particularly funny and sad quote from the ShmaYisrael site:

“First and foremost the petition was intended to obtain all of the documents and Goren’s psak, a task initiated by gedolei Yisroel. There was also another necessity: to malign the psak, which was entirely based on [the claim] that Burkovsky was not Jewish, contending he was a ger who had returned to his former ways, and therefore his entire marriage with Langer was annulled. And since it was decisively clear that Burkovsky was a Jew in every respect, it was also important to help this ger tzedek in his fight.”

So, eating Pork , according to the world of Yated, is being a Jew in every respect?

Reading this article, one is astonished why there is silence regarding the “psak” of Attias and Sherman, since they are doing exactly what Gedolei Torah accused Rav Goren of doing!

By: Binyomin Eckstein

Binyomin Eckstein — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:27:53 +0000

“The emphasis in the Langer case was to prove that Borokovsky was always a frum Yid”

That is not the case. There was no question that he was not ‘always’ frum. It was that he had spent time living as what might be termed a religious lifestyle by the standards around him.

“whereas today the same detractors are trying to claim that all 15,000 were all insincere and never observed anything.”

They certainly don’t know that and can’t claim to. But due to the great number of people who we know for sure acted in the exact same way both immediately before and immediately after they ‘accepted Mitzvos’ all of them are called into question

#88 a) “You presume that removing the stain of mamzerut is noble, whereas his detractors claims that RSG was increasing mamzerut eetc.”

You raised the possibilty, not me.
“In order to “sell” the propaganda against RSG to the masses, they had to make claims that it was a bribe, ie the job of being Chief Rabbi. He actually stood against Rav Unterman in around 1964, and lost only by a few votes. After the 6 day war, having been Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, and rav Unterman’s old age, Rav Goren was the most likely candidate for this job, regardless of the heter.”

This is total revisionism. RSG said openly before his appointment that he would find a Heter, and received the support of Meir and Dayan on those grounds.Read the newspapers put out during the period. I also wonder why you think Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe Feinstein didn’t do the same to Rabbis Herzog and Unterman if they had such lust for Chief Rabbinate blood.

I also would call your attention to the public campaign of Rabbi Goren to have Rabbi Zolty removed from the Jerusalem Rabbinate for the sin of opposing RSG’s Psak.

No Gadol Horaah, not one, publicly supported his Psak. This is virtually unprecedented.

“History proved RSG correct, since the remains of the ship were found at the bottom of the meditaerranean. It wasn’t swallowed up by some Russian spaceship, which some rabbis claimed.”

Who exactly claimed this - and since when do we say that someone who is Mattir a woman on insufficient grounds (I’m not saying that it was the case here necessarily) becomes vindicated when the husband is found dead?

“Land for peace:… I don’t need to cite what has happened since Oslo, but I can say that history has proven the Haredim wrong and RSG right.”

I am sure you realize how subjective your judgement on this is. There have been numerous governments who have been willing to give it all away negotiating out of a position of weakness after a loss of thousands of lives, not to mention the present actual destruction of the entire Gaza Strip enterprise, which could have been avoided had the Haredim been listened to then. But that discussion is well off topic.

“As far as I know, Rav Yisraeli and Rav Ovadia, whilst opposed on Halachic grounds to RSG , did not call him Mr Goren, and did not use vile terms and make all his Halacha void.”

That would have been politically very unwise due to their Rabbinate positions at the time. RSG might have worked to have them fired too.

By: Edmond

Edmond — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:25:16 +0000

Binyomin, thank you for your comments:

#87 - According to the essay by R JD Bleich shlita, in his CHP, RSG made several arguments together, ie if there ever was a conversion, it was not with proper intention; they married in a church, no record they remarried in a Kosher place; and he never adhered to Torah , he lived upstairs with his inlaws, but cooked chazir in the bathroom etc.
Rav Zolti ztl’s argument is poignant today, because it can be applied to perhasp the vast majority of the converts of the special court of Rav Druckman. If 15 years on, Rabbis Attias and Sherman see people who are no longer Torah observant, that is no proof that they were never observant. The emphasis in the Langer case was to prove that Borokovsky was always a frum Yid, whereas today the same detractors are trying to claim that all 15,000 were all insincere and never observed anything. I am sure that the overall standard kept by the 15,000 I far higher than B – who could not even complete the first line of Shema Yisrael!

#88 a) You presume that removing the stain of mamzerut is noble, whereas his detractors claims that RSG was increasing mamzerut eetc.
b) In order to “sell” the propaganda against RSG to the masses, they had to make claims that it was a bribe, ie the job of being Chief Rabbi. He actually stood against Rav Unterman in around 1964, and lost only by a few votes. After the 6 day war, having been Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, and rav Unterman’s old age, Rav Goren was the most likely candidate for this job, regardless of the heter.
c) My skeptical view of the attacks on Rav Goren looks at the major points where he was attacked, and how history has proven him correct. i) The Dakar submarine – he was attacked because he paskened that the submarine sank, and the sailors had no chance of survival. This was a Torah Giant and military giant – a position that no other Torah gedolim could fill. History proved RSG correct, since the remains of the ship were found at the bottom of the meditaerranean. It wasn’t swallowed up by some Russian spaceship, which some rabbis claimed.
ii) Land for peace: The Haredi leadership made a campaign soon after the 6 day war against keeping the liberated lands of Yehuda and Shomron. The dati-leumi camp were mocked, called warmongers, and the quasi-halchic notion of land for peace was used against rav Goren’s issur to give land back to the arabs. I don’t need to cite what has happened since Oslo, but I can say that history has proven the Haredim wrong and RSG right.
I had been waiting some time for the final piece of evidence , ie a vindication of RSG in the Langer case. Ironically, the same Haredi leadership which attacked him for his actions are now using his very methods , 15,000 fold, in a wholesale manner, with untold consequences.

d) As far as I know, Rav Yisraeli and Rav Ovadia, whilst opposed on Halachic grounds to RSG , did not call him Mr Goren, and did not use vile terms and make all his Halacha void. Rav Ovadia Yosef still attends RSG’s azkara, and is on good terms with the Goren family. One simply has to look at the terminology used against R Druckman to see that the intentions are not noble, and that the argumentation is circular. R Druckman is a heretic, hence none of his conversions are valid. Why is he a heretic? He follows a minority opinion. If so, then even if all his converts are frum, their conversions would still not be valid? And what if he were a great tzadik, but some of his converts lapsed?
The greatest support for R Druckman is the opposition to Rav Goren!

By: norm

norm — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:59:56 +0000

In the Langer case Rav Eliashiv himself contends that even if in the past someone who was otherwise fully observant wolud weaken his chazoka of being a ger by violating a Rabbinic transgression, today he would not if he was living among others who were also not careful. The question is how far can you extend this argumanet.

By: Binyomin Eckstein

Binyomin Eckstein — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:59:33 +0000

“Rav Goren had an agenda to clean the Langers of mamzerut (this may be a noble and halachic agenda, I do not judge). The Hareid side had and have the same agenda – to discredit Rav Goren”

Why do you ascribe the most noble agenda to RSG and the more pernicious to all the Gedolei Hador (including Rav Shaul Yisraeli). Perhaps RSG had an agenda of becoming the Chief Rabbi?

By: Binyomin Eckstein

Binyomin Eckstein — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:57:28 +0000

Edmond -

You are merging the issue of an insincere conversion from the start, and the issue of a Ger Shechazar L’Suro retroactively annuling the Gerus - which RSG was willing to rely on in his Heter. It is the second point that RBZ was disputing.

By: Edmond

Edmond — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:24:25 +0000

Of course both sides face the same contradiction – if those who are in the Druckman camp are claiming solely that no conversion can be annulled, then they cannot really defend Rav Goren’s psak. However, Goren was arguing that Borokovsky was never observant, and there was evidence that he ate treif etc, even at the time of his alleged conversion. If “appearing at a rally in Bnei Brak and proclaiming one’s Jewishness” is a proof, then many people would be Jewish, even those who didn’t go through a conversion. All of the Druckman converts claim they are Jewish. Is there a source that by attending a political rally , one is confirmed of his Jewishness? Ironically, this kind of argument is also used by the Zionist camp, eg that these people serve in the IDF, yet this is mocked by the Charedi world as being irrelevant or even a disqualifier!
But, there are a string of contradictions faced by the Haredim in the current controversy.
HaRAv Zolti ztl, who was a sharp critic of HaRav Goren Ztl in the Langer case, brings the Zofnat Paneach on the Rambam Issurei Biah 13:17, that a convert who conducts himself even briefly as a Jew, and then reverts to his old ways, the conversion is valid.

Remember, this was Rav Zolti’s argument against Rav Goren. Today, Rav Eliashiv’s followers are using Rav Goren’s argumentation against Rav Druckman, and Rav Druckman’s camp are or at least should be using Rav Zolti’s argumentation against Dayans Sherman and Attias!

So there is a complete role reversal and contradiction on both sides!

One last point: It is clear that both sides have an agenda. Rav Goren had an agenda to clean the Langers of mamzerut (this may be a noble and halachic agenda, I do not judge). The Hareid side had and have the same agenda – to discredit Rav Goren, and today to deligitimise Rav Druckman, as is painfully clear from the language used.

By: Yitzchok Adlerstein

Yitzchok Adlerstein — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 07:20:18 +0000

I agree there should be a halachic response from the Druckman side. my main purpose was to point out that the very same people who even today do not recognize rav Goren’s Halacha, are using the exact methodology that they themselves so viciously attacked Goren for! It is like saying that anyone who consumes Cholov Akum is a goy, and then officially giving a Badatz hechser to the same Cholov Akum.

I see your point, but believe that the problem weighs far more heavily upon the other camp. In the Langer affair, those who took sharp issue with R. Goren did NOT question the notion of retroactive undoing of a gerus. They challenged R. Goren’s evidence that Berokovsky had never accepted mitzvos in the first place. Berokovsky had converted under unknown circumstances in Poland. His ex-wife maintained that he had never accepted mitzvos; he disputed this. (At one point, he tearfully appeared before a rally in Bnei Brak and proclaimed that he lived as a Jew, and would die like one.) Claims in both directions suffered from lack of halachic credibility, but he had a chazakah of being Jewish, having been assumed as such for many years by neighbors. Contradictory claims would have to be seen in the context of such a chazakah.

In the Ashdod case, R Attiyah claimed that the evidence all pointed in a single direction, and that it upheld the previous chazakah of the woman prior to her conversion, which was non-Jewish. Those attacking R Attiyah and R Sherman are arguing that gerus can NEVER be invalidated, because we can never be sure that the candidate was insincere for the single moment it takes to submit to the immersion in a mikvah. This position (as articulated by R Daikovski) would make Berokovski Jewish regardless of which evidence was accepted, and leave the Langer twins mamzerim. There, to me, lies the real contradiction.

By: MYCROFT

MYCROFT — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:05:11 +0000

Lawrence Reisman re your 80 comment-I attempted to respond to your comment 80 with much detail-which really is not germane to the basic topic of the Conversion topic. Apparently, the moderators of this blog for frankly understandable reasons may not wish the topic that you and I are discussing to be the center of this blog. Suffice it to put for the record my apparent silence is not shtika kehodaa

By: mycroft

mycroft — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:58:51 +0000

Mycroft:

“You write that “Rav Kotler initiated the “issur” against participation in the SCA.” Please bear in mind that Rav Kotler did not “initiate” the “issur.” It started with a shayloh from members of the Rabbinical Alliance (which was basically a Torah VoDaath alumni association at the time) to Rav Kaminetzky and Rav Schorr about joining in activites with the RCA (basically a YU alumni assocation at the time)in view of the RCA’s participation in the SCA and the NY Board of Rabbis. In view of the gravity of the issue, Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Schorr asked the other nine roshei yeshiva (which included two from YU: Rav David Lipchutz and Rav Menachem Zachs)to join them in issuing a psak.

The “issur,” as you refer to it, was an psak in answer to a specific question. It was not issued in a vacuum.

Comment by Lawrence M. Reisman — May 30, 2008 ”

Of historical interest is that :”Some of these refugees reached the United States in 1941, including six famous rabbis: Aaron Kotler and Reuven Grazowsky (Kamenetz yeshivah); Mendel Zacks (Radin yeshivah); Abraham Yaphin (Belt Yoseph yeshivah of Bialystok); David Lifschutz (head of the Suwalki rabbinical court); and Moses Schatzkes (head of the Lomza rabbinical court”
Thus Rav Kotler and the 2 names you mentioned from YU came to the US the same time period. BTW Rav Mendel Zacks was a bochen of mine at one time and Rav Lifshutz was a mecgutan to Rav Yakov-Rav Nason Kamenetsky was and is married to the daughter of R. D. Lifshitz=one can see a picture of RYBS and his brother for the Sheva vrachas they attended for Rav Noson in R. Rakefets book on RYBS.
The issurs fame was because of Rav Kotler-note the vamous retort to Rav Kotler by Rav Eleiezer Silver who refuised to sign the issur despite his Rav Silvers opposition to the SCA-he told Rav Kotler your students do not belong to the SCA-they are relying on their Rebbe and thus the issur is not one intended for Rav Kotlers students but those of RYBS.BTW that statement would be true for the both the students of the Ohr Gedalayahu and Emes leYaakov=they also were not belonging to the SCA/
A posak that is truly attended as a psak gets answered to those who ask the psak not used as issurim. If for a talmid of RGS or RYK they could answer their talmidim after consulting with whom they wanted to. Why ask RY of RIETS/YU if thats their intention.

“in view of the RCA’s participation in the SCA and the NY Board of Rabbis”
I note that the RCA did not participate in the NY Board of Rabbis-no Rabbinical group did. RYBS was in favor of belonging to the SCA but NOT the NY Board of Rabbis. Thus, there were close talmidim of RYBS who belonged to and were active and leadership roles in the SCA-I am not aware of close talmid of RYBS belonging to the NY Board of Rabbis.

By: Edmond

Edmond — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:37:15 +0000

Shalom Rav Adlerstein,
There were a number of points on which Rav Goren was attacked for his psak. Since I have only heard and read about them in retrospect, at the time I was a young child, there are only the few articles on the matter that one can read. Nevertheless, one of the accusations against him was that he allowed “mamzerim” into the Kehilla of Israel. This was one single case of a Ger who he invalidated, and the offspring of his ex-wife. Yet, the Dayanim in today’s case have invalidated Rav Druckman (no coincidence, a Talmid of Rav Goren) as a Kosher Dayan, and pay no attention to 15,000 Geirim, many of whom may be shomer mitzvot, and if they remarry without need for gittin, could well be producing illegitimate offspring, if they are still halachically Jewish.
Rav Attias said openly to the lady in Ashdod, that she did not need a Get. That is Precisely what Rav Goren said to Mrs Langer, and the acusations piled upon him. You correctly mention this is not the forum to discuss who is Major League Gadol, and I am not qualified to make such statements. However, some “minor league” writers claimed that Borokovsky (the Ger in the Langer case) was a Ger Tzedek, even though the evidence for his conversion was virtually non existent. IN the 15 years which have passed, thousands have taken courses, studied Torah, had documented immersions with dayanim instructing them. Yet they have all been dismissed, without lookign at their own evidence of conversion or intent, based only on the ideological differences with Rav Druckman.
I agree there should be a halachic response from the Druckman side. my main purpose was to point out that the very same people who even today do not recognize rav Goren’s Halacha, are using the exact methodology that they themselves so viciously attacked Goren for! It is like saying that anyone who consumes Cholov Akum is a goy, and then officially giving a Badatz hechser to the same Cholov Akum.

By: norm

norm — Fri, 30 May 2008 20:48:45 +0000

Shalem,
You missed my point. The question (and I think the big chidush in Rav Sherman’s psak) is not only invalidating the geirus but the dayanim as well (m’din rasha)therby invalidating any geirus even those where full kabalos mitzvos was clear. Rav Sherman bases himself on Teshuvs V’Hanhagos. I think this point is contradicted by the teshuva I cited. Rav Moshe ZT”L was asked about the validity of a get. I think it would follow from Rav Sherman’s psak that a get signed by and delivered in front of Rav Druckman as a witness would be posul.
As for your distinction between complete insincerity and “shelo bedikduk”, from reading the psak it sounds to me like, at least this specific case, was a question of “shelo bedikduk”. Regardless, Rav Moshe ZT”L is talking about the validity of the geirus not the dayan. In halacha less than hedyotos is not the same as pasul or rasha. The former being a classification specific to geirus while the latter having far reaching implications in other areas of halcha.

By: Lawrence M. Reisman

Lawrence M. Reisman — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:18:38 +0000

Mycroft:

You write that “Rav Kotler initiated the “issur” against participation in the SCA.” Please bear in mind that Rav Kotler did not “initiate” the “issur.” It started with a shayloh from members of the Rabbinical Alliance (which was basically a Torah VoDaath alumni association at the time) to Rav Kaminetzky and Rav Schorr about joining in activites with the RCA (basically a YU alumni assocation at the time)in view of the RCA’s participation in the SCA and the NY Board of Rabbis. In view of the gravity of the issue, Rav Kaminetsky and Rav Schorr asked the other nine roshei yeshiva (which included two from YU: Rav David Lipchutz and Rav Menachem Zachs)to join them in issuing a psak.

The “issur,” as you refer to it, was an psak in answer to a specific question. It was not issued in a vacuum.