Response to AmicusEJF's criticisms of my blog and defense of EJF

AmicusEJF wrote:

”… I disagree with your decision to allow the carmella corleone post. I was also very disappointed with your decision to post that negative piece on Dr. Kaplan. I was very turned off from that and you may have noticed that I have barely commented since then. I believe that once you allow such supermarket tabloid style discussion, you have lowered the level of the blog to where many Jewish blogs are: in the gutter.”

I am sorry that the comments on this blog offend you. As I have alluded to before – there are basically two types of posting – one which records facts or opinions which purport to describe reality. As you yourself note this is an accurate description of most of what is posted on this blog. On the other hand there are postings here which convey the emotional reality or visceral substrate. I think that this has to be sampled also – though in only in limited quantities. This point is relevant to your subsequent comments.

You say: Why does EJF rely on anonymous spokesmen? ... In other words are these individuals actual spokesmen who are in fact representing Rabbi Tropper - but he doesn't want their identity revealed?

Speaking for myself, while I am a friend of EJF, and a volunteer who tries to help out with some things, R' Tropper has not sent me as a spokesman. Quite the opposite, he has questioned the usefulness of commenting on blogs and trying to correct errors and misimpressions on a blog. Since I have followed your [R' Eidensohn's] work over some years [Yad Moshe, Yad Yisroel, Daas Torah, many Avodah forum postings], I have a great respect for you. I thought that, even though this is a blog, it is different: It is R' Eidensohn's blog. It may be a house in a slummy neighborhood, but it is a talmid chacham's house. But then I saw that long innuendo-filled post against Dr. Kaplan, and I said to myself: Maybe, R' Tropper was right. And as I type these words in the "Leave your comment" box just to the left of carmella corleone's miasmic jeers, I don't know if I will comment here too much longer. And that is a shame, because I think there is value in answering sincere questions about EJF and in learning from valid criticisms.

While you seem to debate by the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules – Rabbi Tropper does not. While you speak in righteous indignation about the mud being slung at Rabbi Tropper and company – you don’t seem to be bothered by the mud he slings. Your defensive reading of his slur against me regarding my citation of the Abarbanel in my sefer Daas Torah – was a creative reading – but patently missed the point. I also sent you a copy of the correspondence I had with him. It was surely cut of the same cloth as those posts you found offensive when directed at Eternal Jewish Family. Yet you haven’t expressed any concern about them. You might also note in the correspondence that I informed Rabbi Tropper that he had written an inappropriate letter to Rav Sternbuch. He said he would send an apology. Last time I checked Rav Sternbuch had not received it. Perhaps you might remind him. Or are you saying that slinging mud is permitted in emails but not on blogs?

In sum – Rabbi Tropper is a tough political fighter and sometimes the offense he causes can best be dealt with by responses in kind. I personally do not question his motivation and sincerity – but other sincere individuals clearly do.

So let's return, in the meantime, to your post. You write: Or are they self-appointed representatives because Rabbi Tropper doesn't feel the need to explain the true nature of his operations... why doesn't Rabbi Tropper want to clarify and justify what he is doing? Well, clarify and justify to whom? To this blog? As explained above, he questions the utility of that, and with carmella on my screen, I can't say he's wrong. To the Bedatz? There I think you have a good point. If he were seeking the Bedatz's haskomah, then it would be incumbent upon him to clarify and justify his operations to their satisfaction. [I have no idea if that was ever attempted, but judging from what you have written, I would assume not.] On the other hand, if the Bedatz wants to publish an opinion on the EJF, I would suggest that, as part of their derishah and chakira, they or their people would call up talmidei chachamim who are heavily involved with EJF's operations, such as Rav Reuven Feinstein or Rav Shmiel Eliezer Stern of Rav Wosner's Beis Din, to understand what the clarifications and justifications are. This may have happened, I don't know. They may have not been satisfied with these and decided to oppose EJF. That is their prerogative.

I find it rather strange that EJF feels the burden of proof is on those who question them. When a major innovation is introduced into a mesora based society – the obligation is on the innovator to justify it. Why is it only necessary to respectfully communicate when seeking a haskomah? EJF’s widely trumpeted goal is universally accepted conversion.” The Bedatz represents an important group – whether you agree with them or not – whose acceptance or rejection clearly impacts the degree that the slogan “universal acceptance” is true. EJF can’t claim universal standards and then say to any part of the Jewish world - “I don’t have to justify myself to you because I really don’t care what you think – and I don’t care if you accept my conversions.” Universal standards which are only accepted by a part of the Orthodox world – are not universal standards! Isn’t that obvious?

To clarify and justify to the public at large? Well, that's exactly what I am trying to do here unofficially. Officially, they have printed a two-page spread in Hamodia and reprinted it in the Jewish Press. Also, they are working on redoing their website. My hope is that, one day, you should be able to find the clarifications and justifications you seek over there. But that two page spread was important. I suggest that you make a pdf file of it and make it available here.

Why is a public relations campaign in the Jewish Press considered a desirable part of EJF’s public relations – but satisfying the Bedatz’s legitimate concerns is not? If you have a pdf of the ad I would like to see it and maybe would even put it on this blog – but I would like it even more if there was a delegation sent to the Bedatz to calmly discuss what is going on.

You write about: to pursue or activiely persuade someone to convert and spending millions of dollars to persuade the nonJewish spouse to convert.

This is old ground. I have already written that these are moot points since EJF is not the first contact for gerus candidates. EJF deals only with referrals. Call them up and pretend to be a goy wishing to convert. They will send you to a local Rav. It is the local Rav or kiruv worker who must deal with the issues of rebuffing, admitting or pursuing a candidate for gerus. There is a lot to be said on that, but it's all moot as far as EJF's own programs.

This is indeed old ground and unfortunately your answers have not satisfactorily answered these questions. As has been pointed out there is an significant dissonance between what Rabbi Tropper claims he is doing and what other evidence describes.

On that point, I must add that although you write I was also given the astonishing response of "Why is it prohibited", you wrote above that you agreed that there was no prohibition!

Here it is:

In a recent intensive exchange of e-mails, I asked Rav Tropper the halachic rulings of Rav Moshe Feinstein he claims as the basis for EJF’s activities. His response was, “Why do you think it is prohibited?” This is an astounding justification for a radical break with the past. While in fact it is not explicitly prohibited – this radical innovation of spending millions of dollars to convince non‑Jews to convert presents serious dangers to the Jewish people. It requires acceptance or rejection through scholarly discussion in peer-reviewed responsa - as innovations have been justified in the past.

Daniel Eidensohn Ph.D.

Now, I agree with your point that those who reach out to gentiles in intermarriages spouses [not EJF, not EJF] need to explain what seems to be a radical innovation. But you yourself admit that they are not doing away with an explicit prohibition. That is a valid subject for discussion. Is an intermarried gentile better than a stam goy in this respect, or perhaps worse, as I suspect the Bedatz holds. Please call Rav Reuven Feinstein to discuss this [and other matters] with him. Please don't answer that you demand a written teshuvah and until he sends one out, you will not go to him. Please don't let it be a situation of "Hatziree ein biGilad, im rofei ein sham."

I can’t believe a yeshiva educated Orthodox Jew would be making the above statement. Since when are major changes in conversion so lightly justified? I cited Rav Chaim Ozer and Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Menashe Klein strongly disapproving of this procedure – even though there is no explicit issur. Similarly there are other poskim such as the Tzitz Eliezar who object to it. Again your insistence that EJF is not proselytizing is belied by the material I have collected on my blog as well as the interview Rabbi Tropper gave to Mishpacha magazine. I don’t see that it is appropriate for me to be the intermediate between Rav Reuven Feinstein and the Bedatz. Why can’t Rav Reuven Feinstein – who is the official director of EJF – simply write a response and send it to the Bedatz?

Now, you have an excellent point in that quote in Hebrew Mishpocha. Could you please provide the Hebrew original before I pursue that further? I have covered several points here, directly or indirectly, and I hope that helps you and others understand EJF's stance, at least to the degree that I understand it.

Kol tuv, amicusEJF

I am surprised that you can’t get a copy from Rabbi Tropper. Again I do not find your explanation – and it is just your explanation not that of Rabbi Tropper – satisfactory. If R’ Tropper can’t provide the text I will – bli neder- scan the material.