I am raising an issue of great importance for the future of the Jewish people. There seems to have been a major revolution in the last few years in the approach to dealing with both intermarriage and the non-Jewish children of intermarriage - and yet very few rabbonim seem aware of it. My purpose in writing the following is to provide intelligent discussion of these issues as well as to establish a literature that can be utilized by others. As Rav Sternbuch has noted - halacha depends upon accurate written discussions of issues that can be analyzed and debated. A statement by a rav - no matter how big - which doesn't provide the critical issue of context and sources is very problematic for use by others.
The issue was raised one Shabbos when I received some guests sent by a well known kiruv organization. In the course of discussing how each one of our guests had come to be interested in this particular program - the guest who was most interested in Yiddishkeit stated. "I was raised as a Methodist because my mother is a Methodist - but I am Jewish because my father is Jewish." To put it mildly I was shocked - how could this obvious fact not have been checked prior to admitting this young man into the program. The program is involved in bringing Jews with no Jewish education to Israel where there have a great time - and also learn about Yiddishkeit. The expenses of the participants are heavily subsidized by wealthy benefactors. I said nothing but after Shabbos I called the director to inform him of the problem. His response was, "We know that he is not Jewish but we were told to accept him since he has a Jewish identity."
In the subsequent months I have mentioned this to various rabbonim - who have all expressed shock that this is officially sanctioned. No one knew any teshuvos written on the subject which justify this approach. However I have found that this is not simply a quirk with one kiruv organization - it represents a major conflict between different kiruv organizations. The big money seems to be going in the direction of kiruv for non-Jews (with some kind of Jewish identity) with the hope of converting them. A friend of mine told me that on three separate occasions he was sent guests for Shabbos from a Russian kiruv program here in Jerusalem and found out that they were all non-Jews. When he complained, the program simply stopped sending him guests.
Similarly there has been a major effort to actively pursue intermarried couples and using various techniques - representive of the best American marketing techniques - convince the non-Jewish spouse to convert. This latter approach is spearheaded by R' Leib Tropper of Yeshiva Kol Yaakov in Monsey. See his website [Eternal Jewish Family - Convert to Judaism, Jewish Conversion, Universally Accepted Halachic Conversions for Intermarried Couples
I mentioned this information to Rav Moshe Sternbuch who found my revelations disturbing and he wrote a letter which he asked me to translate and distribute. He personally read and approved the translation. The original letter and its translation can be found at the following links.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/RSternbuch_KiruvNonJew_Aug07_heb.pdf
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/RSternbuch_KiruvNonJew_Aug07_eng.pdf
Some of the discussion aroused already can be found at the following link
http://rabbisedley.blogspot.com/2007/08/kiruv-for-non-jews.html
http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2007/08/patrilineal-descent-and-conversion.html
One of the assertions being made is that Rav Moshe Feinstein has approved kiruv for non-Jews who have a Jewish identify. This assertion has been made by one of America's most widely respected poskim who was a very close talmid of Rav Moshe who said it was an oral psak that he received. I have combed the Igros Moshe and there is no support for this in the Igros Moshe. However recently I was challenged by a certain rosh yeshiva who asserted that what the hetar for this type of kiruv is inherent in the clearly stated teshuva of Reb Moshe regarding the Falashas. I rechecked this teshuva and - contrary to my challenger - it seems clear that this teshuva not only does not support this assertion but seems to directly contradict it. My translation of the teshuva is as follows:
Igros Moshe Y.D. IV. #41 page 271
After much investigation it appears that if the Falashas are not given a Jewish education they will deteriorate even more and will refuse to convert and this can possibly cause – G‑d forbid! –intermarriage between Jews and the Falashas. Therefore l’maaseh they should be given a Jewish education and be influenced through this education to convert as they need to do - as I have written to your brother R’ Mordechai Tendler. One should not be concerned by the fact that we are teaching Torah to people whose status as Jews is in doubt. Since it is actually possible that they are Jews and since there is a reason for this education - it would appear there is no prohibition to teach them Torah. But you should not teach them false halachos - an act which itself is prohibited. In other words, don’t tell them that we in fact view them as definitely Jewish.Instead tell them that while in fact there is a doubt about their status as Jews nevertheless we are prepared to educate them in G‑d’s Torah and His mitzvos. Please note that until they are actually converted they are not to be considered as definitely Jewish even in regards to counting them as part of a minyan or to receive an aliya to the Torah. They are not to be shamed or embarrassed but on the other hand they should not be deceived with false flattery. On the other hand l’chumra they are required to keep all the mitzvos because maybe they are in fact genuine Jews.
Reb Moshe is acknowledging the danger of intermarriage from a non-Jew who views himself as Jewish. However he allows the teaching of Torah only because the person is a "questionable Jew". It follows that if the person is definitely not Jewish he would not have given this heter. Otherwise Reb Moshe would have simply said "any non-Jew who has a Jewish identity should be educated in Torah and converted".
R' Yaakov Kaminetsky was of the opinion that one should bring closer someone born of a Jewish father who shows any level of interest in Yiddishkeit. If I'm not mistaken, you have a kesher with R' Shalom Kaminetsky - speak to him about it.
ReplyDeleteThis is not the same thing as accepting a non-Jew as Jewish in a Jewish kiruv program. I am in fact trying to clarify Reb Yaakov's views on this matter.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I see the difference. R' Yaakov's position was, as I understand it, regarding just such a case - the child of a Jewish father and nonJewish mother vis-a-vis outreach eforts and drawing him closer to Yiddishkeit.
ReplyDeleteRav Shmuel Kaminetsky was asked this week whether he had given approval for a non-Jew with a Jewish father to joining a kiruv program since he already had a Jewish identity. [The director of the kiruv program that sent me the non-Jew claimed that he had received a heter from Rav Kaminetsky] Rav Kaminetsky vehemently denied giving such a heter and said that all he had said was not to turn away a non-Jew with a Jewish father. He was not saying this in reference with participation in a kiruv organization. He said he is against allowing a non-Jew with a Jewish identity joining a kiruv program - especially if it is co-ed.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I see the difference. R' Yaakov's position was, as I understand it, regarding just such a case - the child of a Jewish father and nonJewish mother vis-a-vis outreach eforts and drawing him closer to Yiddishkeit
----------
Note my comment regarding R' Shmuel Kaminetsky. I have not heard any evidence that R' Yaakov's permitted a non-Jew to be admitted into a kiruv program. Until I receive some specific evidence from some verifiable source, I'll assume that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky is in agreement with his father when he specifically rejects admitting them into a kiruv program at the same time not pushing them away.
1. How is preventing them from following their interest and joing a kiruv program *not* "pushing them away?
ReplyDelete2. I belive R' Shmuel is at odds with his father on this issue. According to R' Shalom, R' Yaakov maintained that one should actively bring such individuals closer. This isn't the same as "not pushing them away".
Hi. The shitah that children of non-Jewish fathers should be encouraged to convert has backing in the sefardic and religious Zionist worlds, but not so much in the chariedi litvish world that you seem most comfortable in.
ReplyDeleteSee especially Piskei Uziel be-she'elos hazman (R. Ben Zion Chai Uziel). This was also the opinion of R. Azriel Hildesheimer and much later Rav Goren. It is today accepted by most of the dati-leumi rabbinic world, most especially championed today by R. Zephania Drori (Kiryat Shemonah) and R. Chaim Druckman (Rosh yeshivos Bnei Akiva). R. Shear Yashuv Cohen, the rav of Haifa, recently asserted this view quite forcefully as well.
If you are not comfortable with this view, then the kiruv organization was right not to send you more candidates for Shabbos. You are entitled to your view and they to theirs, and there is no reason for you to step on each others' toes.
A.A. asked
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone expect to find a Psak that Rav Moshe gave orally, in the Igros Moshe?
"This assertion has been made by one of America's most widely respected poskim who was a very close talmid of Rav Moshe who said it was an oral psak that he received. I have combed the Igros Moshe and there is no support for this in the Igros Moshe."
-------------------
An excellent question. Anyone who was familiar with Rav Moshe was impressed by his empasis on sevora and conceptual consistency. Therefore when someone finds an apparent inconsistency between two written teshuvos it is an indication that something is being misunderstood. For example he permitted commerical milk in America and said it had the status of chalav yisroel milk. On the other hand he said that schools and camps should use what is universally called chalav yisroel. He also advised the Toronto commuity to continue using universally accepted chalav yisroel even though it was a financial burden. Another example is that he empathically prohibited translations and kitzur dinim of the Igros Moshe - yet he gave a haskoma to a sefer on hilchos Shabbos which was a kitzur dinim of the Igros Moshe. Another example is that he permits using paper towels to wipe up spills on Shabbos but he told a bachur at Yeshiva of Staten Island that it was prohibited. All of the above have been explained by clarification of context.
It is reasonable to assume that there should be no inconsistency between that which is found in the Igros Moshe and what he stated orally. Thus I not only have not been able to find any indication that Reb Moshe would have supported accepting non-Jews into kiruv programs because they have a Jewish identity but his teshuva concerning Falashas seems to contradict it. I would be very pleased to be informed that I missed something - but so far it hasn't happened. Obviously there is some missing information here.
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete1. How is preventing them from following their interest and joing a kiruv program *not* "pushing them away?
2. I belive R' Shmuel is at odds with his father on this issue. According to R' Shalom, R' Yaakov maintained that one should actively bring such individuals closer. This isn't the same as "not pushing them away".
August 25, 2007 8:02 PM
There is a major difference between an individual rav encouraging the conversion of an interested individual and placing this individual in a kiruv program without informing him that he needs to be converted. Are you asserting that Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky told organizations such as NCSY that they should admit all non-Jews with Jewish fathers? Or perhaps he said that while traditionally a potential convert is to be discouraged when he comes to a rav - in this case one should encourage conversion?
Anonymous wrote:
ReplyDelete"Hi. The shitah that children of non-Jewish fathers should be encouraged to convert has backing in the sefardic and religious Zionist worlds, but not so much in the chariedi litvish world that you seem most comfortable in."
As I have noted repeatedly there is a difference between encouraging an individual to convert by a rav and placing him in a kiruv program without informing him or anyone else that the is not Jewish. Do these Sefardic and Religious Zionist rabbis include these non-Jews in their schools or kiruv programs - or do they deal with them individually or in special groups? Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky apparently encouraged conversion - but I have not heard any assertion that he said to mainstream them into regular kiruv programs. If you have information to the contrary it would be greatly appreciated.
R’ Daniel,
ReplyDeleteThank you for disseminating the letters of rav Moshe shternbuch on the subject it is truly a mess and there is tons of disinformation. FYI in November Rabbi tropper is convening a conference of “Gedolim” in Washinton DC to address the Halachic issues I believe that it would be valuable if a contingemnt of naysayers could participate in the discussion.
>> Do these Sefardic and Religious Zionist rabbis include these non-Jews in their schools or kiruv programs
ReplyDeleteFor dati-leumi programs, the answer is an overwhelming yes. This has become the norm over the past decade.
PS In addition to my previous comment, note that the Shuvu schools for russian immigrants sponsored by the litvish community also employ this policy, similar to the dati-leumi programs.
ReplyDeleteI wrote:
ReplyDeleteIt is reasonable to assume that there should be no inconsistency between
that which is found in the Igros Moshe and what he stated orally. Thus I
not only have not been able to find any indication that Reb Moshe would
have supported accepting non-Jews into kiruv programs because they have
a Jewish identity but his teshuva concerning Falashas seems to
contradict it. I would be very pleased to be informed that I missed
something - but so far it hasn't happened. Obviously there is some
missing information here."
A.A. wrote:
"I agree. Anyone who is familiar with Igros Moshe knows that an oral Psak is more reliable than a published Tshuva. The only thing you can question is the integrity of the Talmid to be saying over what his rebbe said accurately. If that's what you're doing, then say so."
I replied:
R' Moshe Heinemann told me that the written record takes precedence over an oral psak. What is your source? Why are you making it a question of the integrity of the talmid? When I first compiled the Yad Moshe one of Rav Moshe's closest talmidim - who is today recognized as a major posek in America - told me that Rav Moshe was against the making of an index and that he had even written this in the Igros Moshe. He cited the teshuva prohibiting the summarizing and translation of the Igros Moshe. When I objected that they were not the same thing he said it is clear that is what Rav Moshe meant. Fortunately I was advised to speak to Rav Shmuel Fuerst who informed me that Rav Moshe could not have intended to prohibit indexing the Igros Moshe since he had himself been working on an index and when Rav Moshe found out about it he had encouraged him to finish.
There can in fact be legitimate disagreements as to the meaning of a teshuva as well as oral psak. Asking for clarification does not mean questioning the integrity of the posek. I don't know why you insist on twisting this matter into something that it is not. The anger in your comments is uncalled for.
Good for you! It is completely out of control.
ReplyDeleteDear Rabbi Eidensohn,
ReplyDeleteI do not want to post this publicly, but you may post it anonymously.
I believe that posters' reactions have conflated several issues:
1) reaching out to non Jews of Jewish fathers as part of the general qiruv
mission of a program (we search them),
2) reaching out to non Jews of Jewish fathers in programs specially conceived
for them (we search them),
3) dealing with non-Jews of Jewish fathers who desire Judaism (they come to
us),
4) dealing with non Jews who already comingle with Jews on account of their
self perceived Jewish identity, perhaps because some onstitutions legitimized
their inclusion, possibly against rabbinic agreement.
I believe Rav Sternbuch to really prohibit the first case, and such opposition
is uncontroversial.
Regarding the last case, we have a teshuvah of RMF on pupils in a school that
includes non Jewish children of Jewish fathers: we should teach them Torah
and the will convert. We may debate in which manner the situation with non
Jewish Russians is similar to RMF's case.
The second case may also be objectionable, but I don't think that is what Rav
Sternbuch spoke about. That is an area where lots of money is being invested,
both in Israel (for the Russians) and in North America.
Regarding the third case and regarding borderline cases where conversion of
the non-Jewish spouse in an intermarriage will be taken seriously by the
whole family and is necessary for the succesful qiruv of the Jewish partner
and/or children, and/or borderline cases spilling over in the fourth case,
where non-action will lead to future intermarriage, there are verbal pisqei
halochoh from both RSZA and RYSE, quoted and followed by the Eternal Jewish
Family, the rabbis of the Conference of the European Rabbis and more, that
one should do qiruv to the non-Jews in question, WHERE APPROPRIATE. However,
without making matters worse by mainstreaming them in qiruv programs for
Jews.
What I believe Rav Sternbuch really attacks is reaching out to single non-Jews
because they somehow belong (oy vay), and generally mainstreaming these
people into regular qiruv programs, ignoring for the while the lack of a
valid giyur, thus lessening the sense of qedushas Yisroel, rather than
enhancing it.
The whole question of Russians in Israel is further complicated by their
presence in the general population and the political pressures that threaten
to force some rabbis to accept Bagatz as the arbiter of Shul'hon 'Orukhm
haShem yishemereinu.
Rabbi A. N. wrote:
ReplyDelete"4) dealing with non Jews who already comingle with Jews on account of their
self perceived Jewish identity, perhaps because some onstitutions legitimized
their inclusion, possibly against rabbinic agreement.
...
Regarding the last case, we have a teshuvah of RMF on pupils in a school that
includes non Jewish children of Jewish fathers: we should teach them Torah
and the will convert. We may debate in which manner the situation with non
Jewish Russians is similar to RMF's case."
While I basically agree with your analysis why don't you distinguish between ger koton and the proselytizing of adults? Rav Moshe's case of mass conversion in a school E.H. IV. 26.3 was specially dealing with children.
Was the school in question an elementary school? I thought the kids where 15-17
ReplyDeleteyears old, IOW, in HS.
Furthermore, how would RMF be so happy converting them as ketanim if their
parents weren't going to be able to give them a kosher home?
Teshuva E.H.IV 26.3 is dealing with the case of a teacher in a religious day school who discovers that many of the students are not Jewish. He was not dealing with the case of admitting them - they were already there. The question is whether the teacher has to quit rather than teach Torah to non-Jews. Rav Moshe offers various possible heterim but then he concludes:
ReplyDelete"It is possible to correct the matter by converting the children (kotonim) because they do not need to accept the mitzvos and they are converted according to the daas of beis din. It is a merit for them since they are learning in a religious school from teachers who are G-d fearing. Thus it is reasonable that they will grow up to be Torah observant. And even if this is only a sofek it is still a definite zechus. And even if they don't grow up to be Torah observant it is still reasonable that it is a merit for them because even the Jewish sinners have the sanctity of Israel and those mitzvos which they do will be mitzvos while their sins can be viewed as shogeg. Thus they are better off then being goyim.... And even those who are older than 13 you should also say to them they they need to convert and also the girls who are older than 12. Surely they will agree. You need to try to explain this matter to them in a good and pleasant way that they will want to accept this."
Thus even those students who are no longer children are to be told that they need to convert. They are to be notified in as nice and pleasant a way as possible that they need to undergo conversion.This scenario is not addressed by Rav Sternbuch.
Dear sir,
ReplyDeleteIn quoting the teshuvah of Rabbi M. Fienstien you draw attention to the fact that he imputes his hetter on the ambiguous status of the falashas. While this is certainly stated by Rabbi Fienstien as a factor, I believe you overlooked the relevance of the entire sentence, as traslated by yourself: "Since it is actually possible that they are Jews and
since there is a reason for this education." It is, I think, safe to assume that the "reason for this education" intended here is the aforementioned concern for an "intermarriage between Jews and the Falashas." Indeed this very concern seems to be the impetus driving the kiruv organizations that engage in this kind of outreach. On what grounds are you so certain that R. Fienstien would not defer to this factor on its own? And given your formula for when and when not to give credence to an orally relayed psak in the name of R. Fienstien, it would seem that the issue at hand is immediately whether or not the written teshuvah overtly contravenes the former.
Respectfully,
Lippy
citing part of my translation of EH.IV 26.3
ReplyDelete"Since it is actually possible that they are Jews and since there is a reason for this education."
Lippy wrote:
"It is, I think, safe to assume that the "reason for this education" intended here is the aforementioned concern for an "intermarriage between Jews and the Falashas." Indeed this very concern seems to be the impetus driving the kiruv organizations that engage in this kind of outreach. On what grounds are you so certain that R. Fienstien would not defer to this factor on its own?"
-----------
We both agree that Rav Moshe cited two reasons in this citation for teaching Torah to Falashas. One is that they are possibly Jews. Secondly that this Torah education and possible conversion serves to minimize intermarriage. You argue that only one reason was sufficient and that this is also the factor which is cited to justify accepting non-Jews into kiruv programs.
In order for your assertions to be reasonable we would have to explain why Rav Moshe bothered mentioning and repeatedly mentioning this factor that they were possibly Jews if in fact this is irrelevant. Taking this teshuva at face value there is simply no way of understanding it to mean that Rav Moshe would have given permission even if they were definitely non-Jews because it resolves a problem.
In essence you are reading Rav Moshe to say where there is a halachic will there is a halachic way.
According to your reading of the Igros Moshe - there is absolutely no
justification for generalizing from what he says in any teshuva to a new
situation. Thus despite Reb Moshe's assertion in the introduction to the
Igros Moshe that he is primarily concerned with presenting servoras -
you want to view it as simply a historical record of psakim that he had
given. Consequently you are invalidating the universally accepted use of
the Igros Moshe - why? However if you are just trying to say that only
in the teshuva dealing with the Falashas he wrote in an imprecise manner
which precludes generalization - why should this teshuva be different
than the rest of the Igros Moshe?