Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:26.4):… Because of this reason it appears that Rav Posen is concerned about conversion these cases because they won’t observe the laws properly. However according to what I have explained there is no concern for this since they have accepted to observe all the mitzvos – even though it is true that they have in mind to transgress certain mitzvos later out of lust. However this intention does not disqualify their acceptance of mitzvos. It is only where they specifically refused to accept mitzvos that their acceptance of the mitzvos is disqualified. However where is clear that after conversion they will definitely transgress the Torah prohibitions against violating Shabbos and eating improperly slaughtered meat and we know clearly that their conversion was only for appearance sake without inner sincerity – it is an umdena demukach [a proven assessment] that this that he said he was accepting the mitzvos was totally meaningless. Consequently their acceptance of mitzvos is invalid [and they are not valid converts].
Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:28): Concerning the common practice of converting women who are married to Jews - according to the straight halacha it is not corrrect to convert them. That is because they are converting for the sake of marriage. Therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him as is clear from the Rashba (#1205). While previously I had written to be lenient in these cases and I based myself on the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor 132) and Rav Shlomo Kluger also paskened leniently in an actual case. Nevertheless the fact is that there is not genuine acceptance of mitzvos in these cases. It is quite obvious that their hearts are not with the Jewish people since they do not observe Shabbos or niddah and they eat unkosher food as I wrote in the previous letter. This problem has already been noted by by the Beis Yitzchok who concluded that a proper beis din would not be involved in this. And regarding the issue of governing the non‑Jewish children…However the writer is correct that a good beis din should not be involved in this type of conversion. Nevertheless I don’t see that it is proper that the rabbis of the generation should make an open protest against conversion. That is because in the eyes of the masses it would be viewed as a chilul HaShem to prevent the women to convert and in particular their children since according to the straight halacha it is possible to convert them.
Igros Moshe(Y.D. 3:106): A candidate for conversion who does not want to accept a certain mitzva is he a ger bedieved?… Concerning the subject of conversion, the vast majority of them want to convert because of marriage and therefore should inherently not be accepted. However if they were accepted anyway - they are in fact valid gerim. This reservation about accepting converts for the sake of marriage is true even if they accept all the mitzvos since they did not decide to convert for the sake of Heaven. Therefore it is obvious that there is suspicion that despite the fact they stated before the beis din that they are accepting to do the mitzvos – that they are not telling the truth and they need to be examined further. This in fact is the intent of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12): When it is known that they converted for ulterior motivation, they should be treated with suspicion until that their righteous is established. That is because since they converted for ulterior motivation, they should be suspected that even though they have verbally accepted the mitzvos but not in their heart. Since there is clear reason to suspect their lack of sincerity, it is not considered a merely a possible mental reservation which has no halachic significance (devarim sheb’lev). See Tosfos (Gittin 32a) and Tosfos (Kiddushin 49b)…Therefore they are to be viewed as doubtful gerim until their righteousness is establish and then they are viewed as definite gerim. Most of the time and perhaps all of the time when a Jew wants a non‑Jew, that the Jew himself is not observant. Therefore it is not logical that the non‑Jew who is converting for the sake of a Jew will be more observant. It is as if we are witnesses that the non‑Jew is not definitely accepting the mitzvos. Therefore it requires a great deal of deliberation in the acceptance of gerim. Unfortunately due to our many sins the situation has degenerated in many places that they accept these type of gerim – even G‑d fearing rabbis – because of the pressure of congregants on them. Therefore it is very critical to fix and create protective measures to stop this great breakdown of the system. It is certain because of these problems that the rabbis of Holland made a decree that gerim would not be accepted unless all of the rabbis agreed. This type of decree is a legitimate approach to protect the Torah and mitzvos against that which can not be permitted as is stated in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 228:28). Concerning the present case where the candidate for conversion wants to accept all the laws of the Torah but does not want to accept wearing modest clothing. She wants to wear the clothing that are worn – due to our many sins – by the average woman of this degenerate generation. The question is whether to accept her as a valid ger and if the answer is negative - what is her status if she is accepted anyway? This requires careful thought. Bechoros (30b) states that a non‑Jew who comes to accept the entire Torah except for one thing is not to be accepted. R’ Yose says that he isn’t accepted even if rejects one detail of a rabbinic halacha. The question is whether this gemora is only concerning initially whether to accept the candidate as seems from the language of the gemora or that even if he accepted – he is not a valid ger? It is certain that gerim are accepted even though they don’t know most of the laws of the Torah - because we instruct them only in some of the mitzvos. It is certain that we don’t even teach them most of the laws of Shabbos. Furthermore we find an even more extreme situation in that even if the ger doesn’t know any mitzvos he is still a valid ger. This is stated in Shabbos (68b) that a ger who converts amongst non‑Jews is liable for one chatas for all the violations on every Shabbos and prohibited blood and fat and idolatry. Thus we see that even if he isn’t instructed in a single mitzva or even the foundations of religious belief he is still a valid ger. That is because the case in the gemora concerns a person who has accepted upon himself to do all that a Jew is required to do – and that is sufficient for valid conversion. We are not concerned with the possibility that if he knew this particular mitzva he would not accept it. That is because even if it were so it is only a mental reservation which has no halachic significance. Thus informing a candidate for conversion of the nature of mitzvos is only something that is desirable, but has no halachic consequence if not done. Therefore we must say that the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:3) “all matters of conversion have to be in the presence of 3 fit to judge whether it is to instruct him about mitzvos or for his acceptance of mitzvos” – is not to be understood literally. That is because the point of the Shulchan Aruch is that the acceptance of mitzvos has to be in the presence of 3 but instructing him about mitzvos is not required for the validity of the conversion. The reason the Shulchan Aruch mentions instructing him in mitzvos is because that is what the beis din does concerning some of the mitzvos when he accepts the obligation to do mitzvos. That is in fact the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12) “and even if he is not informed of the reward and punishment of mitzvos he is still a valid ger.” This wording of the Shulchan Aruch here is also not precise because even if the candidate is not instructed at all concerning any mitzvos – as long as he accepts the obligation to do all the mitzvos that Jews are required to do – he is still a valid ger. It is only because it is typically not forgotten to instruct him in some mitzvos that the Shulchan Aruch mentions that they forgot to instruct him regarding the reward and punishment of mitzvos – because it is possible to forget this occasionally. However if they do tell him a particular mitzva or he knows about it himself since he sees Jews observing it and he says that he doesn’t accept it – that is the case that Bechoros (30b) says that he is not accepted as a ger. Therefore it is possible that in this case even if he was accepted as a ger – despite his rejection of a particular mitzva – bedieved he would still not be a valid ger. However Bechoros (30b) says that he is not to be accepted - which seems to be that he is only not accepted initially if he rejects any mitzva. Furthermore it would seem from the statement of R’ Yose in Bechoros (30b) that even if rejects a single detail of a rabbinic law he is not accepted – it would seem that since he has accepted every Torah mitzva including not to deviate from the rabbinic teachings – but at least he would be a ger according to the Torah. That is because it doesn’t make sense that the Sages would uproot the Torah level conversion - which is relevant to the validity of marriage and other matters – and to create a leniency and that this would not be mentioned openly in the gemora. Therefore we can conclude that even according to R’ Yose he is only saying not to accept them initially but if they were accepted – even if they had rejected a rabbinic law – they are still valid gerim. Furthermore they would be obligated to keep even the mitzva that they had rejected. That is because this that they did not accept it has no halachic significance to exempt them because they are make a condition against that which is written in the Torah – and therefore the condition is nullified... Therefore this woman who doesn’t want to accept to wear only modest clothing should definitely not be accepted initially. However whether she should be accepted bedieved depends on this doubt and it would seem more likely that bedieved if she was accepted that she would be a valid convert. Furthermore concerning whether to accept her initially – any conversion which is because of marriage even if she accepted the entire Torah – she should not be accepted. If so it is certainly is a major justification for the requirement that all the rabbis of Holland agree to accept her conversion – even if she accepted all the Torah laws. Nevertheless it is good that all the rabbis did not agree to accept her because of her refusal to wear modest clothing. That is because accepting her with two issues against her is much more serious than if she only had one. However there is another consideration since because of our many sins we find that Jewish women also are not careful about wearing only modest clothing – even those who are Torah observant. Therefore a non‑Jewish woman who comes to convert might think that modest clothing in only an act of piety that the rabbis are trying to impose on her more than is actually required – because she knows women who are observant and yet wear immodest clothing. And even if the rabbis tell her that it is actually prohibited and not just an act of piety – she doesn’t believe them. If so perhaps she should be viewed as converting without knowing the laws of the Torah and would be considered a valid ger according to Shabbos (68b)? This seems logical – even though I don’t have a proof for this presently. Nevertheless with all things considered it is better not to accept her because she should not be accepted anyway since the conversion is for the sake of marriage. Therefore even though people are lenient to accept converts for the sake of marriage it is not correct to be lenient in additional factors. Consequently the decree is correct and she should not be accepted.
Igros Moshe (Even ha-Ezer 4:78): Concerning a woman who was married by a Conservative rabbi - in Houston who is known to openly violate Shabbos - to a man who was born in San Salvador to a non‑Jewish woman. The Conservative rabbi there claimed that he converted her together with two local men who were open Shabbos violators because he said that no one observes Shabbos in El Salvador. It is clear that the conversion is of no significance so that even if this couple were married by an Orthodox rabbi according to the halacha it still would have no significance because he is a full non‑Jew for whom kiddushin has no halachic significance. Furthermore even if he were converted by a Torah observant beis din – since he has not observed Torah mitzvos even for a moment he has not accepted the obligation of mitzvos - this is not considered conversion. However if he was a valid ger or was a Jew from birth, the marriage by a Conservative rabbi – who is presumed to deny the foundation principles of Judaism even though we don’t actually know the person and surely here where it is known for certain that he openly violates Shabbos –has no halachic significance. Consequently we have two clear factors why the marriage has no significance and therefore she is permitted to marry another man – but not a cohen since she has had sexual relations with a non‑Jew which disqualifiers her from marrying a cohen.
Rabbi Eidensohn, noone is disputing what you quote here and your citation is therefore pointless since it is redundant.
ReplyDeleteThere is a more fundamental question of WHO is doing the negation of another's conversion, and therefore who is to say or accept that Bais Din X or Posek X has the "power" or authority to negate the conversions of Bais Din Y approved by Posek Y.
Making generalized public declarations, or even the issuance of statements and rulings by Israeli governmental-appointed committees have NO bearing on the totality and complexity and ELASTICITY of the Halachic process, so that while Committee X or even Bais Din X can arrive at a ruling or statement or "Takana" that the conversions of Dait Din Y are invalid, it is also true and applicable that Posek Z and Bais Din Z can arise and say that the actions of Committee X or Bais Din X can be disregarded based on the authority that Posek Z is inherenetly endowed with by virtue of his status as a Moreh Hora'ah with Da'as Torah.
At any rate, your examples are all true, and only reveal what needs to be done on a case by case evaluation of each and every case because just as essentially there cannot be "mass conversions" there cannot also be mass "un-conversions" where entire groups of people are delegitimatized and told to "go home because 'we' have decided that you are no longer Jews" without recourse to having their cases examined individually because noone can claim to know what a mass of people is thinking at the time that each one was converted.
Rulse by decree is not what the Halachah is about. That is more like the way a dictatorship functions and people will not take well to being treated like garbage even for the most noble of spiritual reasons.
If the ability to annul a conversion once it has occurred is removed, would this then imply that the concept of Hataras Nedarim would cease to be halachically valid?
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, how would this then impact Jewish life? (I am guessing more mamzerim, agunot, etc. trading one set of terrible problems for problems that are much more terrible).
Someone posted to VIN 5/04/2008 in response to the news article:
To allow any giyur from a rov who has demonstrated a lack of verification that the meGayair is true, opens a worse can of worms......
We can't just sweep this terrible mistake under the carpet because it will cause pain. ...
But, much worse would happen if a generation of non-Jewish kids continued to believe they were Jewish. The fact that is it painful does not change the halacha. It is clear. If a person is magayair for some reason, like to get married, and is NOT fully committed to being observant, especially Shabbos, the giyur NEVER TOOK PLACE! We already have the tragedy of all the people whose mothers or grandmothers were "converted" by Conservative or Reform rabbis, and never expected to be shomer Shabbos. All of those kids and grandkids who think they are Jewish ARE NOT. Our kids meet them, form shidduchim with them, later find out when the mesader kiddushin does a chakira (if he knows enough to do it), and their hearts are broken. This may be very painful, but it will save many, many future broken hearts.
To Jersey Girl of May 5, 2008 3:58 PM: For a "Rebbetzin" you sure do get very lomdish. Which yeshiva did you learn in and who gave you semicha?
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, you are an expert at what the older generations of grandmothers used to call "changing the subject" as well as of throwing in Red Herring arguments and tossing in misleading facts to suit your own tendentious goals, which now we know is all about making the Syrian Takana of forbidding gerim look like the equivalant of Einsteins' dicovery of E=Mc2 and that all the the rest of the Orthodox world yet is going to pot for not seeing it and doing it your way.
Anyhow, as an example, you state that: "We already have the tragedy of all the people whose mothers or grandmothers were "converted" by Conservative or Reform rabbis, and never expected to be shomer Shabbos" but what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Once and for all, are you going to look at things in a rational way of trying to understand the Halacha, and its variant applications where it applies, or will you persist in veering into Bubba-meises when it suits you to twist and fabricate arguments to make your pre-determined tendetious points? Otherwise debating you is a waste of time.
Get this through your head: What Conservative and Reform rabbis do or did has ZERO Halachic meaning as far as any ORTHODOX rabbis are concerned. This is a fact accepted and established and affirmed by all poskim, and most notably it was Rav Moshe Feinstein ztk"l who enunciuated and clarified this many times in his teshuvas. Rav Moshe lived in America and therefore had to deal with and rule upon questions relating to Reform and Conservative rabbis and their actions. Therefore for you to cite the Reform and Conservatives and what came from them, whether what came from them was deliberate or not, as "examples" or "lessons" or equate them with the actions of ORTHODOX rabbis, no matter how liberal they may be or how much you may not like them of their Batei Din, is a total outrage and just a shtus and just shows how way off the mark you are and that you have your own agenda in your brain living in your own truly paranoid world, just sorry that Rabbi Eidensohn only sees me as paranoid, but I guess being paranoid, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder too.
Kindly control yourself and your false and ridiculous comparisons that insuklt boith logic and Halachah.Thank you.
to RaP
ReplyDeleteIn your reply to Jersey Girl you said :
"Get this through your head: What Conservative and Reform rabbis do or did has ZERO Halachic meaning as far as any ORTHODOX rabbis are concerned."
My response would be to challenge you to define Orthodox. If an "Orthodox" Rabbi permits and performs actions which are clearly against Halacha, can we call them Orthodox?
I'll give you a very specific example: I know of an Orthodox Rabbi who told a congregation that it is permitted to drive on Shabbos as long as you are driving to the Shul. 400 people witnessed this. This particular Rabbi is a well known Rosh Kehilla.
Would you classify him as Orthodox?
I know of another Orthodox Rabbi, an extremely well known head of a Kashrus certification agency, who permits gentiles to cook on Shabbos for Jews because the gentiles are doing it for money and are not doing it for the Jews who are eating their food.
Would you classify him as Orthodox?
I know of another Orthodox Rabbi who signed conversion certificates for people he never met (clearly against all known Halachos related to conversion).
Would you classify him as Orthodox?
Halacha is elastic, but not infinitely so. A conversion that is not a conversion is not a conversion.
Rule by decree IS exactly what Halacha is all about. We do not get to pick and choose what we like to do and what we don't like to do. Our Gedolim make these decisions for us. If you want to join a pluralistic religion, Judaism is not for you.
RaPs:
ReplyDelete"Once and for all, are you going to look at things in a rational way of trying to understand the Halacha, and its variant applications where it applies, or will you persist in veering into Bubba-meises when it suits you to twist and fabricate arguments to make your pre-determined tendetious points? Otherwise debating you is a waste of time."
I ask you respectfully to please re-educate me:
What IS the specific HALACHIC basis for NOT PASSULING a giyur that is performed without kabbalat mitzvot, that is performed outside of halacha, that is an oath sworn and accepted under fraudulent conditions?
And when one or more giyor supervised by the same Rabbi are found to be outside of the halacha, what is the halachic basis for NOT passuling all of them?
I have only read the first few pages of the Sherman Psak, but its seems that the Rabbis make a fairly bullet proof case for their decisions.
You on the other hand seem to lack any written Psak to support your judgments that a Beit Din Hagadol is mistaken in its halachic decisions.
Judaism is not a popularity contest nor is it a democracy. Right and wrong is determined by halacha, by Daat Torah, by the Psak Halacha of the Gedolim.
This is vastly different from Christianity which defines "right" as whatever the Church and its leaders do and "wrong" as whatever impedes the goals of the Church and its leaders.
You and I are not having a "debate", we are both seeking an education. Since as you claim mine is based upon "Bubba-meises" (My mother IS a Bubba many times over now), please enlighten me as to the halachic sources that support YOUR belief that :
The Beit Din Hagadol of Rav Sherman cannot make halachic determinations regarding giyur done by a Rabbi whose giyur have been shown to be invalid.
Recipients and Publicity said...
ReplyDeleteRabbi Eidensohn, noone is disputing what you quote here and your citation is therefore pointless since it is redundant.
===============
Rabbi Druckman was quoted on YNET 05.28.07
http://www.ynetnews.com
/articles
/0,7340,L-3405573,00.html
Every convert remains a Jew'
Druckman also referred to Atiya's claim that the woman confessed she had never been observant, saying, "I don't trust this man who says she admitted it." Druckman explained that while every convert must accept the burden of mitzvot, according to the Halacha even a convert who failed to do so remains Jewish, and will be punished for his actions.
"Nowhere in the Halacha does it say that the converts should be followed in order to check if they practice the mitzvot. They study 10 months for the conversion, the teachers know them well, they are later assigned an adoptive religious family, and the rabbinical judges themselves examine them. Was this honorable judge with the converts in the mikvah?," Druckman rhetorically asked.
Boy you guys are really getting testy aren't you?
ReplyDeleteJersey Girl is sounding more like a "Jersey Lamden" by the hour. She wants written and published shailos and teshuvas for everything down to the last shred of evidence.
Jersey Girl on May 5, 2008 3:58 PM:
Jersey Girl says: If the ability to annul a conversion once it has occurred is removed, would this then imply that the concept of Hataras Nedarim would cease to be halachically valid? If that is the case, how would this then impact Jewish life? (I am guessing more mamzerim, agunot, etc. trading one set of terrible problems for problems that are much more terrible).
Response: I fail to see the connection between geirus and nedarim. The Ger does NOT make any "neder" to be Jew! It's an entirely different notion and requirement that must be met, of a different order and scale: Kabbolas Ol Mitzvos and this is the core of the entire issue under debate because it is not "quantifiable" on the spot and can only be judged by the way the ger undertakes to abide by the Halacha as much as they know of it at the time of the giyur. Thus, for example, they must show a willingness to keep Shabbos and Kashrus and as many of the mitzvot that they are taught. If they don't know many of the details or are ignorant of them then if they are sincere they will ask and be taught even more. Noone expects a ger to be an overnight "Sara Shenirer" or a "Chofetz Chaim" in one day. Nedarim do not come into the picture at all and you should avoid inserting that subject into the discussion. Hataros nedarim is to be matir a neder of Jew who may have taken it upon himself even by error. You are too focused on the role of the Beth Din here, something which Rabbi Eidensohn is causing by focusing on that aspect, when in a case of geirus it's a complex interplay between the Beth Din and what is going on in the HEART and MIND and hence the NEW Jewish SOUL of the ger, and while the ger must satisfy the Beth Din that he/she has indeed done kabbolas ol mitzvos it can only be known for sure if in life that is indeed what can be shown. But with a neder it is an entirely different halachic ramificataion of SAYING something or doing something that has nothing to do with kabbolas ol mitzvas as such. So, again, you are tripping over yourself by hanging too tight to this analogy.
Jersey Girl says: Someone posted to VIN 5/04/2008 in response to the news article: To allow any giyur from a rov who has demonstrated a lack of verification that the meGayair is true, opens a worse can of worms...... We can't just sweep this terrible mistake under the carpet because it will cause pain. ... But, much worse would happen if a generation of non-Jewish kids continued to believe they were Jewish. The fact that is it painful does not change the halacha. It is clear. If a person is magayair for some reason, like to get married, and is NOT fully committed to being observant, especially Shabbos, the giyur NEVER TOOK PLACE!
Response: Stop being repetative about "the giyur NEVER TOOK PLACE" because it shows a lack of grasp of reality. If there was an event that took place in front of a Bais Din then something DID take place, the question is does it have subsequent validity or is it not valid. Perhaps one can say that the conversion was retroactively not valid, but you CANNOT say that it "never took place" when indeed it did take place. Let's not slip into magical thinking please just because we are troubled by a subject and cannot find a good framework to deal with it in life and in Halachah. So therefore the question is a questionof "What took place" or "Who were the dayanim" who decided to accept this ger" who later dropped out of observance. Try to narrow the question down rather than distorting the entire picture into an untruth. Again, be very careful with language and words.
Jersey Girl says: We already have the tragedy of all the people whose mothers or grandmothers were "converted" by Conservative or Reform rabbis, and never expected to be shomer Shabbos.
Response: Again you are repeating your lines. These are standard KIRUV shailos and can be dealt with. And when it comes to Reform and Conservative "rabbis" it's simple, their acts have no validity so that if they "converted" someone they are not converts halachicaly and it would be easy to find out, most seasoned Kiruv workers are able to snoop these things out very quickly and come up with the true picture. But I know it's one of your great fears. But many wonderful Baalei teshuva are turning out great in spite of these challenges and please try to control yourself from veering into inducing mass hysteria.
Jersey Girl says: All of those kids and grandkids who think they are Jewish ARE NOT. Our kids meet them, form shidduchim with them, later find out when the mesader kiddushin does a chakira (if he knows enough to do it), and their hearts are broken.
Response: You list a string of "what ifs" that sound ever so fatalistic like you expect the worst to happen, and you know, if that is what you expect it will happen. Why don't you try some chashiva chiyuvit from Rebbetzin Yosef in Israel when she comes to America she helps so many women feel more confident and positive about life.
Jersey Girl says: This may be very painful, but it will save many, many future broken hearts.
Response: What will save broken hearts? Nothing is really going to change here. As the saying goes, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer. The world of Charedi Judaism will not be effected by all this stuff because they have a great system of checking people out and it works as best it can (yeah, I know you will tell me that their are conspiratorial geirim lurking in every nook and cranny waiting to deceive nice people like you) but for most Orthodox Jews and Charedi communities life will go on and flourish with or without Takanos and rulings, and among those who reject a Torah lifestyle all this talk will not matter to them, and in the middle will be either a bunch of Israeli citizens who cannot figure out why the Iisraeli rabbis are playing ping-pong on their cheshbon and don't be surprized if they tell all the rabbanim to go to hell someday soon for all the trouble they are causing people.
----
And now my good friend the lawyer "Bright Eyes" who is more of a "Bright Spark", in his post of May 5, 2008 5:00 PM:
Bright Eyes says: In your reply to Jersey Girl you said: "Get this through your head: What Conservative and Reform rabbis do or did has ZERO Halachic meaning as far as any ORTHODOX rabbis are concerned."
Response: Yes. At least you see where I stand on Reform and Conservative rabbis. Give me some credit at least and don't be such a farbissineh.
Bright Eyes says: My response would be to challenge you to define Orthodox.
Response: Oh, very funny, it's now MY "job" to do that? Give me a break. Go to Wikipedia or some talk group if you want to debate those kind of questions ad nauseum.
Bright Eyes says: If an "Orthodox" Rabbi permits and performs actions which are clearly against Halacha, can we call them Orthodox?
Response: So now you are in "Inquistion" mode? Not very funny. You would have made a nice commissar in the communist state of the USSR.
Bright Eyes says: I'll give you a very specific example: I know of an Orthodox Rabbi who told a congregation that it is permitted to drive on Shabbos as long as you are driving to the Shul. 400 people witnessed this. This particular Rabbi is a well known Rosh Kehilla.
Response: This is not uncommon in shulls that are "officially" Orthodox, the congregants are am ha'aretzim and the rabbi is definetly Orthodox or has a semicha from an Orthodx yeshiva or Bais Din. The question is not as you want to frame it as some kind of terrible renegade rabbi, because quite often he is a rabbi who has taken such a position with the consultaion of his Rosh Yeshiva or Rebbe and it is on the tnai that he will try to mekarev them and bring back to Orthodox, even if very slowly. It cannot be done overnight, so he has to find diferent inducements to do so. While what he is doing may sound strange or even "anti" the pure Halacha to very holier-than-thou yeshivishe frumaks, it is standarad procedure in kiruv. You do not and cannot make people frum overnight, especially in America! In Israel they have Amnon Yitchak who runs mass events and can call upon some mesmerised Israeli in the audience to have a sudden epiphany and become a one minute kiruv wonder, but that is wishful thinking as a solution for most non-frum Jews.
Bright Eyes says: Would you classify him as Orthodox?
Response: Yes he is Orthodox, why not? Unless one can prove that he is an outright liar and rasha gamur.
Bright Eyes says: I know of another Orthodox Rabbi, an extremely well known head of a Kashrus certification agency, who permits gentiles to cook on Shabbos for Jews because the gentiles are doing it for money and are not doing it for the Jews who are eating their food.
Response: This one is more complicated. The shailos of bishul akum are complex and one needs to consult a rov who understands both the Halacha of hilchos Shabbos, Bishul Akum, Amira Le'akum, and what the human situation is here. Mi VaMi Haholchim? Are these people who are makpid and very nizhar in shmiras shabbos, kashrus and bishul akum or is this a group of non-frum Jews who couldn't care if they ate pork? This is a case for a posek familiar with thse kind of scenarios and I am not one by any measure.
Bright Eyes says: Would you classify him as Orthodox?
Response: Yes he is, I can't see why not unless you know the whole picture, from soup to nuts (I couldn't resist the pun) and unless you tell me the man is a total ganev and is delibrately causing Jews to transgress, which as I said I cannot judge from this bare-bones description, and I daresay if you were to consult a posek who deals with such situations (and by that I mean NOT Rav Shternbuch as he is VERY strict in Halacha!) you would get a better reply than you are from me. And it IS unfair to ask me, but give me credit for being patient with you when I should have written you off a long time ago!
Bright Eyes says: I know of another Orthodox Rabbi who signed conversion certificates for people he never met (clearly against all known Halachos related to conversion).
Response: This one is tricky, but while he may be a dishonest man, why do you question his "Orthodoxy"? -- There are tens of thousands of outwardly frum looking Charedi Jews who are transgressing far worse than this, and they remain Chasidim and Charedim in good stanidng. I do not wish to cite examples to prove my point but there are plenty of other Blogs, that document and comment upon the multitudinous grievous failings of well known Charedim who are protected by their Rosh Yeshivas and Rebbes yet are still called Charedi and Chasidic, so let's quit trying to see if people can be failures, because we all know they can very easily be (remember "al tadun es chavercha ad shetagiya limkomo"?), and try to focus on how to build people up and not tear them down to shreds. Ok?
Bright Eyes says: Would you classify him as Orthodox?
Response: Why not? Am I in place of G-d to judge such a man for his wrongdoings. That is why we have Yom Kippur and Yom Hamisa for REAL sins and not for imagined sins of OTHERS.
Bright Eyes says: Halacha is elastic, but not infinitely so. A conversion that is not a conversion is not a conversion.
Response: Whatvere. You are starting to sound like a zombie and it's hard to reason with a person who acts brain dead and refuses to be rational and logical ALL THE TIME.
Bright Eyes says: Rule by decree IS exactly what Halacha is all about.
Response: Nope! You have got it all wrong. Noone practices this kind of "Halachah" -- and methinks you are confusing the notion that H-shem gave the Jews the Mitzvos without reasons so that they could rationalize them into not doing them. But go into any Bais Medrash, or Yeshiva and Kollel and you will see that Halachah, meaning the nurturings and culimination of PESAK grows out of the shakla vetarya of learning Talmud and Meforshim and Seforim and being Mefalpel with Chaverim and learning from Rebbeim and then over time, sometimes over centurues and even millenia the true Halacha emerges. It is most certainly NOT about "decrees and Takanos" that are just emergency meausures like martial law that should be used VERY sparingly and then withdrawn if the situation is not dangerous.
Bright Eyes says: We do not get to pick and choose what we like to do and what we don't like to do. Our Gedolim make these decisions for us. If you want to join a pluralistic religion, Judaism is not for you.
Response: Pure rubbish. Who is picking and choosing here? We are talking about which Bais Din or Posek to follow. So that while some people follow the RCA and Rabbanut others follow the BADATZ and Chasidishe Batei Din. There are opinions and mehalochim that are lekula and some lechumra and NOT everyone has to follow one Gadol. Everyone has their own Rov, and the Mishna says all you need to do is "asei lecha rav" not more, one is good enough. Noone is arguing that Gedolim are important but so far we have NOT been discussing them. Most Gedolim are Rebbes and Rosh Yeshivas and they don't usually get involved in Pesak Halacha. They leave that to Poskim and Dayanim mumchim who are beki'im in the application of Halacha. You have a very dim view of Yiddishkeit if you think that someone who disagrees with you should follow Pluratsic Judaism, whatever that is. There is plenty of variety and problems in Orthodoxy and Charedi Judaism without the need to be insulting about joining outside non-Orthodox groups.
-----
Jersey Girl returns in posting of May 5, 2008 8:36 PM:
Jersey Girl says: I ask you respectfully to please re-educate me: What IS the specific HALACHIC basis for NOT PASSULING a giyur that is performed without kabbalat mitzvot, that is performed outside of halacha, that is an oath sworn and accepted under fraudulent conditions?
Response: I am not sure what you want of me here, a shiur? Sorry, I am not giving shiurim here, I am exercisng my right of freedom of speech, if that is ok with you and "Bright Eyes". You know you are very funny. I met a guy who owns racehorses. When I asked him if he has ever ridden a horse, he looked at me as if I was crazy, and said that he only loves the sport of horseracing but is not interested in riding horses. So here you are so interested what the basis is for this or that position of a Rov or Bais Din to do what they did yet you don't go to the source. If theese questions really give you sleepless nights then I am sure there is a way to contact Rabbi Druckman or the Bais Din that performed the first now-controversial conversions in Israel or Rabbi Amar and ask THEM why and what and who they did what they did and why and ask them to send you their written responses. What do you want from me? I am only DESCRIBING what happened and all I see is the results. I am not like Rabbi Eidensohn (he is not a posek himself so he just being the good academic that he is by training) who jumps to come with quotes from books most of which are out of context because they do not deal with the question at hand and those who wrote them are not the ones struggling with the questions. In any case, I doubt very much that I could "re-educate" you to the point that you would become somewhat less shrill and more laid back about the whole scene. Take comfort that H-shem is running the world and that all will turn out for the best in the end.
Jersey Girl says: And when one or more giyor supervised by the same Rabbi are found to be outside of the halacha, what is the halachic basis for NOT passuling all of them?
Response: Again, I say go ask the rabbis concerned. All I see is that you are hell-bent on passuling and negating, very little kashering and accepting. Try a little love, like ahavas Yisroel it can make for a better take on the whole situation. As one of my rabbis said many years ago, and he is still a noted Dayan, when he was aksed what if a Ger fools a Bais Din to accept him as a being a "Jew" and he (the Dayan) said that even the best and strictest Bais Din can be fooled and there is no fool-proof formula to prevent a ger from "tricking" the Dayanim, but that really it only makes it tougher for the Ger because it only means that it is G-d Himself who has been challenged and the Ger cannot fool G-d, and it will be in the hands of H-shem what will happne to that Ger. So the moral is, like the Twelve Step Programs advise: Let go and let G-d! And THAT is my advice to YOU: LET GO AND LET G-D !!! And do not be such a kuchel lefel and yenta.
Jersey Girl says: I have only read the first few pages of the Sherman Psak, but its seems that the Rabbis make a fairly bullet proof case for their decisions.
Response: And that is what YOU read, wow, I find that just reading Rabbi Eidensohn's Blog is a full time job. I dunno, at my age if I can get through Ashrei and Shemonei Esrei or bentching without skipping words it is a major feat and you are reading entire Halachic treatises. Carry on mate, maybe Rabbi Shternbuch will have an opening on his Bais Din for someone like you soon.
Jersey Girl says: You on the other hand seem to lack any written Psak to support your judgments that a Beit Din Hagadol is mistaken in its halachic decisions.
Response: I am not "mistaken" I merely said that Rav Amar is entitled to his Halachic opinion that Rabbi Sherman's ruling should be over-ruled. And that Rabbi Druckman or the Bais Din that performed the initial conversions cannot be negated with one wave of the proverbial Halachic hand. Why is that so radical? Ask Rabbi Amar and Rabbi Druckman to write up responses and responsa for you, it's not my job.
Jersey Girl says: Judaism is not a popularity contest nor is it a democracy. Right and wrong is determined by halacha, by Daat Torah, by the Psak Halacha of the Gedolim.
Response: You are reading me "the party line" (with which I do not disagree) but it is very tiring and sounds very robotic almost as if you are on some of mind-control drug. And you then start to sound like "Bright Eyes" which is even more boring.
Jersey Girl says: This is vastly different from Christianity which defines "right" as whatever the Church and its leaders do and "wrong" as whatever impedes the goals of the Church and its leaders.
Response: I never knew we were talking about the Church here but when you invoke "Gedolim" as if they were some sort of elite infallible "Cardinals" and "Popes" who rule by decree and the catechism lehavdil it makes me think that you should direct this message to yourself and while you are about it to "Bright Eyes" as well who has now also started invoking the Gedolim instread of being rational and expressing himself in humanoid terms and not like a frum droid.
Jersey Girl says: You and I are not having a "debate", we are both seeking an education.
Response: Jersey Girl says that I am in school now and I/we are getting an "education"...so when do we get a toilet break?
Jersey Girl says: Since as you claim mine is based upon "Bubba-meises" (My mother IS a Bubba many times over now), please enlighten me as to the halachic sources that support YOUR belief that : The Beit Din Hagadol of Rav Sherman cannot make halachic determinations regarding giyur done by a Rabbi whose giyur have been shown to be invalid.
Response: I did not say that Rabbi Sherman can or cannot do anything. What I did say was that while any Bais Din is free to say or rule whatever it likes, it does not automatically mean that another Bais Din or Posek has to jump and accept what it is says. Nothing more and nothing less. That is why Rav Amar feels he has the authority to negate the rulings of Rav Sherman. These kind of things go on all the time and I don't know why you feel that you have to "represent" the side that wants to destroy the possibility of leniently performd conversions at all costs, when there are enough rabbis and paid functionaraies who are involved with this. We are, unlike what you say, only tourists in this crazy world of ours, and it's going to go through a lot more upheaval until the arrival of Mashiach, so "let go and let G-d" is the best re-education I can offer you at this time.
"I fail to see the connection between geirus and nedarim. The Ger does NOT make any "neder" to be Jew!"
ReplyDeleteThis is from:
http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/GPSprotocol.pdf
There is a very nice outline of the standard procedures by which Giyur is done. I am surprised that you would not be familiar with this.
"The prospective convert should make a declaration (in his or her own words) embracing the G-d of Israel as the one and exclusive Deity, accepting the Divine origin of the Torah and indicating that he or she commits to observance of halachah which includes both the oral and written laws (alternatively or additionally: the Biblical and Rabbinic laws)."
This "neder"/oath is taken in front of the Beis Din L'Giyur and is part of the process by which a Gentile becomes a Jew.
If that oath was taken under fraudulent circumstances (ie. the candidate lies to the Beis Din about her intent to observe Shabbos or her involvement with a Jewish man), then the Geirus never happened.
Its a fundamental principle of both Jewish and civil law. For example, I bought a house a few years ago and 1000 sq ft of it was illegally constructed and the city wanted to tear it down. A judge offered to rescind the purchase because it had been made under fraudulent terms. We chose instead to accept the difference in value between the house we were sold and the actual house which was much smaller.
Another example is my cousin (when you come from a huge family, you have lots of examples) who had Chuppah and Kiddushin with a young man who was unable to consummate the marriage. After a week and much Rabbinical counseling, the marriage was declared invalid because the chassan had entered into his marital Oaths without being able to fulfill his marital obligations. This was a terrible heartbreak of course, but it would have been much worse if the halacha did not allow for a "loosening of vows" that could not be fulfilled and her marriage was not be annulled. (ie. he could have left her an agunah etc).
RaP- "I don't know why you feel that you have to "represent" the side that wants to destroy the possibility of leniently performd conversions at all costs,"
JG- I will quote my father: "If we do not stand up for the halacha and defend every last inch of it with a fury, then we will find ourselves slipping into Christianity; if not in our generation,, then our children or our grandchildren, chas v'shalom". Sadly this has been the case among American Jewish communities that have become "lenient" with the halacha, ESPECIALLY regarding conversions.
Halacha is the "way to go", there is no other way.
I must agree that these citations are irrelevent.
ReplyDeleteThey are cases where a solid beis din thought they were converting someone, but the person didn't really accept the mitzvos.
Here, it's a case of saying a conversion because of the beis din used was found to be iffy. AFAIK, you would have to actually check each case to see if that particular convert did or did not accept mitzvos. (Assuming the forms were followed correctly.)
The whole thing was first brought to my attention on an email list for Orthodox adoptive parents. A number of parents were worried about the conversion of their child. Even though the whole subject of accepting the yoke of mitzvos is entirely different from that of adults, these conversions should be declared invalid as well? Or, should the observance of the adoptive parents be assessed, and the conversions evaluated casewise?
I actually think there is no way to avoid the latter.
This is different than the case of the C or R conversion board, since here there is a real chance the convert intended to follow halakhah as the Torah actually defines the term.
-Micha
to RaP
ReplyDeleteYou are an exceptionally gifted communicator, and while you are strong on argument, philosophy and rhetoric, you still do not cite the specifics, and this causes some of your arguments to be in conflict with themselves.
For example, you are perfectly comfortable with the concept that Beis Din Z can say Beis Din X is unreliable, but you are uncomfortable with the concept that Beis Din Z might say that nobody's Beis Din is reliable except their own.
You seem to believe that it is an acceptable state of affairs if Converts of Beis Din X are rejected by some communities.
How can a Convert function if this is the case? Because of the very human element of this question, it is very rare when one Beis Din rejects the Conversions of another.
But then this creates the situation where nearly every Beis Din feels compelled to accept conversion done by every collection of 3 Jews.
This lowering of standards enables some groups to conduct large scale conversions because it suits their desires.
While some groups have emerged which recognize that there must be a universal minimum standard of acceptance, everyone agrees that the minimum standards must be based on the Halachos that relate to conversion and not on something new (aka outside of Judaism).
In other words, there is no need for a 'new standard' because the old standards would be the basis anyway.
So, what do we do when the old standards aren't being followed?
For example, it is a fact that Rabbi Schwartz in Chicago signed conversions for people he never met. Although these people may have conversion certificates, they are not Jewish because they cannot be considered Jewish by even the most lenient standards.
This is not "frum droid", this is simply the truth. There does not exist in any copy of any code of Jewish Law a single sentence that would indicate that a Judge/court can convert someone who they have never met. If I am incorrect, show me.
We can look at this one case and probably agree that such a person is not Jewish. Would you agree that someone who has been 'converted' by someone who never met them has not been converted?
Whether your answer is "yes" or "no", what happens when this story is repeated with variations on the theme 50,000 times?
THIS is THE question of today. The question is not whether Beis Din A can or should or can't or shouldn't accept the Converts of Beis Din B.
The question is what to do when you have possibly 50,000 or more 'conversions' which have been performed in ways that do not even closely conform to Jewish law.
The question is "Do we change Jewish law to permit the forbidden because of the scale of this problem?" or "Do we enforce and respect Halacha regardless of how many people and families are involved?"
I am of the belief that there is no more basic question than "who is a Jew" and if we change that fundamental definition at this time it will irrevocably alter the course of our religion. On the other hand, if we reject the converts of these careless Rabbis, we'll have some problems in the short run, but in the long run our religion will be as recognizably Jewish 200 years from now as it was 200 years ago.
To Micha of May 6, 2008 4:43 AM: Your comments are refreshing. BUT PlEASE indicate to whom you were or are specifically referring to when you make staments like "I must agree that these citations are irrelevent." Thank you so much!
ReplyDelete-----
Jersey Girl says of May 6, 2008 2:37 says: "This "neder"/oath is taken in front of the Beis Din L'Giyur and is part of the process by which a Gentile becomes a Jew."
Response: This is NOT a NEDER in the classical sense of NEDER and Masechta Nedarim is not a required adjunct of geirus which is more related to the POWER of a Bais Din as a miniature Sanhedrin, based on HUMAN FACTS and STATEMENTS and what is sees and understands as the Dayanim use their BRAINS and their TORAH KNOWLEDGE and insights into the UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE ("psychology") to accept or reject geirim and there is absolutely NO standard "pledge of allegiance to Judaism and to God" that is required by all and sundry Batei Din. Indeed the Bais Din may satisfy itself on any number of criteria that may not involve the Ger saying all that much in front of it, there is no standard formula, certainly not one with compulsory "nedarim" adorning it, period, that all Batei Din throughout all of history have used, so quit throwing in those Red Herring arguments again and just because you read it in one "rabbi's manual" does not make it into new coda of the Shulchan Aruch for the entire Halachic universe!
Thus the Ger makes a a verbal declaration, a statement of intent, some may want to view as an "oath", ok, so that as far as I know, if a ger let's say drops in a level of observance, if for example they started out being converted by a Satmar Bais Din IMPLYING that they would keep by all the chumras of that Bais Din and community, and then a while later that Ger becomes Modern Orthodox and distances themselves entirely from Satmar and its standards, it is NOT a breaking of any "neder" and no hatoras nedarim is formally required. Sure, some rabbonim may frame it in those terms, but making a statement in front of a Bais Din is EIDUS/testimony and not a "neder" as far as the Bais Din is concerned.
In any case, if a ger stops being a ger and decides to be a goy again does that mean that they would somehow be required to do "hatoras nedarim" since they made a "neder" (say they were in an autocratic theocracy runs by Syrian Jews who would control everyone, Jews AND gentiles) -- not at all. The word "vow" is used very loosely in this context and again you show that you are not taking care with the reading and meaning of words.
To Bright Eyes of May 6, 2008 4:48 AM:
ReplyDeleteBright Eyes says: You are an exceptionally gifted communicator, and while you are strong on argument, philosophy and rhetoric, you still do not cite the specifics, and this causes some of your arguments to be in conflict with themselves.
Response: Thank you for the compliments, I sense a good measure of sincerity in this one, but why do you have to begrudge it with a qualification? I am not sure what "specifics" you want when the case we have been discussing, at least I thought I was discussing, was simple, that Rabbi Druckman and the Batei Din who did the first conversions are entitled to their positions. They are rabbonim with semicha and they are talmidei chachamim. Then along comes Rabbi Sherman and his Bais Din and negates what Rabbi Druckman and earlier Batei Din have ruled about accepting some geirim. Rabbi Amar intervenes and says that he will negate Rabbi Sherman's ruling. Ok, so what more specifics are needed? All I am saying is that I am not big enough and wise and smart enough (as you feel about yourself) to jump into this picture and take one side over the other. I say that they all have a valid view and if a ger were to come to me from this situation I would advise them to seek out the ORTHODOX rabbi who guided them and stick with his advice and not worry what other Batei Din said because Batei Din and rabbis are fighting with each other all the time, and this will go on until the coming of Mashiach. Thus if someone has BOTHERED to get a geirus from a reliable BETH DIN, especially one in Israel where the rabbis are much more learned, (and we are not talking about an organization that has no Halachic status like EJF) then it is dangerous and foolhardy for outsiders to to chime in and choose sides and decide who is right and who is not right in this Titanic rabbinical machlokes.
Bright Eyes says: For example, you are perfectly comfortable with the concept that Beis Din Z can say Beis Din X is unreliable, but you are uncomfortable with the concept that Beis Din Z might say that nobody's Beis Din is reliable except their own.
Response: Beis Din Z has a right to say what it wishes and it can indeed negate the entire world, but the AVERAGE YID on the street is not "obligated" to follow Beis Din Z, and this is where some people then play the card by resorting to bring in the cavalry and say that we must follow the Gedolim, who while they may favor Beis Din Z, do not always have the power to destroy the what Beis Din X said in the first that would be accpted by every last Orthodox Jew on Earth. The Religious Zionists would not accept what Charedi Gedolim ruled, and the Sefardi Moetzet Chchmei HaTorah would also not have to accept the rulings of the BADATZ and so on and so forth, These are just facts of life in frum/Orthodox/Charedi/Chasidic life.
Bright Eyes says: You seem to believe that it is an acceptable state of affairs if Converts of Beis Din X are rejected by some communities.
Response: So? Satmar, for example, rejects not just all the converts of almost any other Bais Din but its own, but even rejects the kashurus certification and gittin of other Batei Din. So what else is new? I don't get what YOU are getting at.
Bright Eyes says: How can a Convert function if this is the case? Because of the very human element of this question, it is very rare when one Beis Din rejects the Conversions of another.
Respsonse: A convert faces all sorts of difficulties, not least of which is the kind of attitude you and Jersey Girl display of discriminating against them (remember the mitzva of ve'ahavtem es hager?), so please quit shedding crocodile tears on their behalf when you couldn't give a darn about converts, you are only out to self-preserve your own Jewish skin as Jersey Girl wants to protect her "Sefardi racia purity" (the notion of Sefaradi tahor gone haywire) in the name of keeping Halacha. What a sad and pathetic joke.
Bright Eyes says: But then this creates the situation where nearly every Beis Din feels compelled to accept conversion done by every collection of 3 Jews.
Response; Now you are making a jump, where in the heck did you see that I said that any collection of three Jews will now become anything? I believe it was poster Micha who mentioned something about any three Jews being able to be a Beth Din as a theoretical constrcuct but I never said such a thing nor do I think that it has any real value or would be taken for real. It is just a Red Herring argument that you trying to use as a curve ball, and it's wasting my time.
Bright Eyes says: This lowering of standards enables some groups to conduct large scale conversions because it suits their desires.
Response: Sure, it can happen. Fraud happens all the time in all areas by all groups, and it's not just in geirus, so you are not saying anything real here. Eventually the fraudsters are caught and the scam is uncovered but I am not talking about cases of delibaret fraud, I am trying to see if we can focus on good faith scenarios. Try not to be paranoid.
Bright Eyes says: While some groups have emerged which recognize that there must be a universal minimum standard of acceptance, everyone agrees that the minimum standards must be based on the Halachos that relate to conversion and not on something new (aka outside of Judaism).
Response: Don't sound holier-than-thou. We are talking ONLY about ORTHODOX rabbis here, and they are not trying to do something "outside Judaism" a very snide remark. And yes, the situation Klal Yisroel faces is NEW in history, because ONLY since 1948 do now six million Jews about half the world's total, live in the physiacl land of Israel proper, and among them as we unfortunately see, have come many questionabale people especially from the former USSR, and the question before the honorable rabbis and Batei Din in Israel is how to deal with this NEW situation before them and I think there is a healthy tug of war going on between the Religious Zioints and Haredi rabbis and inevitably there will be a solution. No doubt many Haredim would love to enact a Syrian type "Takana" for all of Israel, but the Religious Zionists and moderates are trying their best to avoid that and see to it that other means can be found to be megayer these people trapped in limbo.
Bright Eyes says: In other words, there is no need for a 'new standard' because the old standards would be the basis anyway.
Response: Fine by me, but as you see there are things called Modern Orthodox Judaism, Religious Zionism, the RCA, the Rabbanut and the modern state of Israel that confront the Charedi, Chasidic, Aguda and Sefardi Shas worlds with alternate views of Orthodoxy. That is not "your" or "my" view, it is REALITY and we cannot fight it and run away from it or wish it away or call it names and and then hope it will not be there tomorrow.
Bright Eyes says: So, what do we do when the old standards aren't being followed?
Respsonse: Solution: Join Satmar, you will be happy there! They hold that chadash assur min haTorah is the aseres hadibrus.
Bright Eyes says: For example, it is a fact that Rabbi Schwartz in Chicago signed conversions for people he never met. Although these people may have conversion certificates, they are not Jewish because they cannot be considered Jewish by even the most lenient standards.
Response: So now Rabbi Shwartz from Chicago, the chief dayan of the RCA is no good according to you. While you may feel to be qualified to speak about this, I know nothing about him and his deeds except that I have always assumed that he was an honest and reliable man and that he could be trusted as a Dayan and what you have said has not convinced me otherwise without known public proof. Have there even been newsreports or Blogs or public complaints lodged in other Batei Din about this that can validate this allegation? It would help to form an opinion.
Bright Eyes says: This is not "frum droid", this is simply the truth. There does not exist in any copy of any code of Jewish Law a single sentence that would indicate that a Judge/court can convert someone who they have never met. If I am incorrect, show me.
Response; As I have said your ALLEGATIONS need to be proven first before not just I but anyone could respond intelligently. And you know, while I am not obligated to "defend" all and sundry neither are you free to attack all and sundry. There is a concept that a kosher yid, especially a rov has a chezkas kashrus, and indeed as the mussar seforim say, if you see a Talmid Chochem commit an aveira at night then assume that he has done teshuva by the morning, and I cannot be as rash as you to act like an automated "stamping machine" actually more like a "guillotine" screaming "off with their heads" every time you hear of a rov or bais din that does meet up with teh standard. You have been brainwashed and miseducated into assuming that yours is the "one and only" "true way" -- are you able to think independently?
Bright Eyes says: We can look at this one case and probably agree that such a person is not Jewish. Would you agree that someone who has been 'converted' by someone who never met them has not been converted?
Response: I have never met you and I sure don't know your mother, how do I know you are even Jewish?
Bright Eyes says: Whether your answer is "yes" or "no", what happens when this story is repeated with variations on the theme 50,000 times?
Response: Who cares?! You and I are not running the world, some things must be left up to the Eibishter. Trust in G-d that he will guide the world to safe haven and that the nitzchiyus of Am Yisroel is gauranteed ad biyas go'el.
Bright Eyes says: THIS is THE question of today. The question is not whether Beis Din A can or should or can't or shouldn't accept the Converts of Beis Din B.
Response; Now you are getting melodramatic on me so cut it out. The questions of today are far worse than this. We have been faced with the Holocaust and now we are faced by a possible nucleur Holocaust from Islamic terror. Six million Jews in America are being lost to assimilation in a Silent Holocaust of assimilation and intermarriage. In the frum and Orthodeox world there is a singles crisis, youth at risk crisis, a divorce crisis, a population explosion in Charedi kehilas. All sorts of catastrophes in the making involving millions of Jews and potentially billions of people and the fate of the planet, so don't flatter yourself what you decided your crisis is "the" world's crisis when it's not.
Bright Eyes says: The question is what to do when you have possibly 50,000 or more 'conversions' which have been performed in ways that do not even closely conform to Jewish law.
Response: Ask Jersey Girl, she would enact a Nazi-like Takana to keep fake geirim out.
Bright Eyes says: The question is "Do we change Jewish law to permit the forbidden because of the scale of this problem?" or "Do we enforce and respect Halacha regardless of how many people and families are involved?"
Response: Noone who respects Jewish law wants to change it, so don't be insuting and even dumb, but Jewish law is both flexible and elastic enough, contrary to what you may think, to allow for a variety of solutions within ORTHODOXY. Them's the facts.
Bright Eyes says: I am of the belief that there is no more basic question than "who is a Jew" and if we change that fundamental definition at this time it will irrevocably alter the course of our religion. On the other hand, if we reject the converts of these careless Rabbis, we'll have some problems in the short run, but in the long run our religion will be as recognizably Jewish 200 years from now as it was 200 years ago.
Response: Now you are sounding like a prophet and it's not appreciated. It is all very well and easy for you to reject "the converts of these careless Rabbis" and showing your hate of honorable rabbis. Your arrogant and inhuman side is showing and it's not pretty.
RaPs answer to "What happens when this story is repeated with variations on the theme 50,000 times?" was
ReplyDelete"Response: Who cares?!"
RaPs then observes that "Six million Jews in America are being lost to assimilation in a Silent Holocaust of assimilation and intermarriage."
The reason is because the answer to the question above was "who cares?"
You are twisting words on this to the point that I actually hesitate to use the term "family purity" (Taharas HaMishpocha)for fear you will label this as a Nazi or Syrian belief.
If YOU don't really think that it matters whether or not 50,000 non-Jews have been wrongly accepted as part of the fold, why would you consider assimilation and intermarriage to be problems?
Rabbi Schwartz's deeds are a matter of well known public record. You can google it. Here is one link that mentions it http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-10218.html
Your horrendous bigotry shows through again when you state
"youth at risk crisis, a divorce crisis, a population explosion in Charedi kehilas. All sorts of catastrophes in the making involving millions of Jews"
You consider a population explosion amongst a group of Jews to be a catastrophe!?! Is that really how your mother raised you? It makes me wonder if you're even Jewish. Any rational thing you may have said previously comes into question when the depth of your hatred toward "frum" or "Charedi" people is that clear. And to think you called JerseyGirl a Nazi!
Also, I don't think anyone who has posted has said anywhere that they do not love the convert. It is not unreasonable to try to understand exactly who and what a Convert is.
Regarding my mother, there are still living people who remember my mother's-mother's-mother's-mother and know that she was definitely Jewish.
To Bright Eyes of May 7, 2008 3:16 AM:
ReplyDeleteBoy, now you are really getting hot under the collar and flying off in all sorts of directions that have nothing to do with anything. I should really leave you alone because you sound too excitable but since we have already gone this far, I will respond, especially since you are now spendng your time attacking me personally full force rather than debating the issues or to ask for clarification of what I stated or meant instead of twisting it and and coming up with nonsense that I neither said nor meant or implied in any way. So here goes:
Bright Eyes says: RaPs answer to "What happens when this story is repeated with variations on the theme 50,000 times?" was "Response: Who cares?!" RaPs then observes that "Six million Jews in America are being lost to assimilation in a Silent Holocaust of assimilation and intermarriage." The reason is because the answer to the question above was "who cares?"
Response: No. I am not saying that. You are lawyering again and connecting things in a way that I neither stated nor meant. Firstly, get some perspective, there are trillions of things going on in the world and as humans we can worry only about a limited number of tragedies and problems, not just about "50,000" or "50,000,000" conversions because there are so many other tragedies and problems we can sit down on the floor and cry about. If your thing is worrying about conversions then good for you, but please don't assume that you or anyone must now take on G-d's roles to carry all of the worries and problems in the world on our shoulders. And so therefore: Secondly, I cited a few other examples of communal tragedies and even POSITIVE problems, like a huge Charedi population explosion that is a crisis of Tzedaka and where did you see I say it's bad that Charedim are having lots of children, please don't act nuts, even though you may want to depict me as such.
Bright Eyes says: You are twisting words on this to the point that I actually hesitate to use the term "family purity" (Taharas HaMishpocha)for fear you will label this as a Nazi or Syrian belief.
Response: The pot calling the kettle black. I wonder who does more twisting of words around here? As far as I know, the phrase "family purity" are the words that are used to translate the practice of the holy mitzva of Taharat HaMishpacha, the practice of those rituals and mitzvot that require a Jewish woman to prepare and then go to the mikva after she has had her monthly period. I have not heard any Torah books, not in ArtScroll or Feldheim, try to use the term as applying to "racial" purity of the Jewish people in any way. I know the SYs think that they are something special that most of their ladies go skinny-dipping in mikvas, but don't get so arrogant please because all Orthodox wommen do this mitzva. So why do you wish to goad me or anyone to be as silly as you are now determined to be?
Bright Eyes says: If YOU don't really think that it matters whether or not 50,000 non-Jews have been wrongly accepted as part of the fold, why would you consider assimilation and intermarriage to be problems?
Response: Everyone worries about what they wish to worry about. We are not all the same. Some people worry that the poor should have what they need and there are many, many needy Jewish people. They do not worry about assimilation. Other people worry about Bikur Cholim helping the unfortunately many, many sich and dying people who need help. Others worry about helping poor brides and grooms because many, many people need help with Hachnasat Kallah, some people want to help yeshivot and kollelim, and there are many such institutions that need help. Some thinkers worry about the influence of secular education in yeshivot, Lubavitchers worry that not enough Jews have accepted their Rebbe as Moshiach, and the list goes on and on, and so that your question here, for what it is, makes no sense. One can worry and and try to analyze what the nature and causes of assimilation are about or, if one wishes, one can worry that the Halachic standards are not good in BUSINESS ETHICS, coversions, divorces, marriages, kashrut, shatnez, sexual misconduct against Halacha of all types, and so on and so forth. So again, quit jumping around and jumbling up points that have nothing to do with the price of tea in China and coming up with arrows to fire at me just for the heck of it.
Bright Eyes says: Rabbi Schwartz's deeds are a matter of well known public record. You can google it. Here is one link that mentions it http://www.israelforum.com/board/archive/index.php/t-10218.html
Response: I am sure that lashon hara is easy to spread. If you want to go after Rabbi Shwartz you are welcome to do so but you cannot expect me or anyone to spend their time keeping track of every last alleged misdeed of every last noted Orthodox rabbi in America. Maybe if Rabbi Eidensohn would start some lead posts on this I could take a closer look, and others with a cooler head than yours could also have a chance to chime in, but I will not do so on your hearsay and sayso. You know, there are some webistes run by antisemites and Islamists that list so-called "criminal rabbis" and they cite plenty of media sources that may even be true, but it is not my job, it's certainly not my pleasure, and I am not in the place of G-d either to act like the Great Beis Din in Shamayim, to read up on every last case of misdeeds. So if Rabbi Shwartz is on your hit list, that is your affair, but keep me out of that for now.
Bright Eyes says: Your horrendous bigotry shows through again when you state "youth at risk crisis, a divorce crisis, a population explosion in Charedi kehilas. All sorts of catastrophes in the making involving millions of Jews" You consider a population explosion amongst a group of Jews to be a catastrophe!?! Is that really how your mother raised you? It makes me wonder if you're even Jewish.
Response: Now, now watch your language. Just see how you have twisted my words, I did NOT say that the population explosion was a "catastrophe" you klotz, I said that there are all sorts of problems and I listed them, and they are problems. The sentence "All sorts of catastrophes in the making involving millions of Jews" is referring to all sorts of OTHER things going on, like nuclear threats by Iran against Israel, Zero Population Growth for many Jewish communities all over the world, rising antisemitism in many countries, just go through the news in an average Jewish newspaper to catch up, I don't have to list them all. As I already pointed out to you that there are many problems in the world that one can worry about and the population explosion among Charedim is one of them. I did not say it's a "catastrophe" -- that is YOU playing around very CYNICALLY with my words when it suits you to figure out a way to throw a personal insult at me, shame on you. I am very proud that ALL Jews are growing in number and Charedim lead the way. So quit being such a poor debater that instead of asking for clarification, you assume the worst and then concoct your diabolical conclusion to attack and insult me.
Bright Eyes says: Any rational thing you may have said previously comes into question when the depth of your hatred toward "frum" or "Charedi" people is that clear.
Response: I wonder hwho is spewing hatred in this discussion? I will let the readers decide because you are figuratively foaming at the mouth as you vent and rant at me. If you read and re-read all my words you will NOT see hatred hatred of any kind, on the contrary I spend hours thinking and worrying about these issues and please refrain from telling me more about me than I have said or done. You do not know me so you should not make personal judgments about me. But you have proven beyond a doubt that you are prone to twisting my words to suit yourself, and that is no way to argue. I do not enjoy a debate where I have to attack my opponent. You should go to Wikipedia and read up their policy about No Personal Attacks in a communtity where many different editors from all walks of life come together and must debate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks "This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor" and try to be Civil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility "This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting people wherever possible."
Bright Eyes says: And to think you called JerseyGirl a Nazi!
Response; Nope. I don't care what or who Jersey Girl is. She may be the biggest Tzadekes in the world. What I DID say is that the Takana enacted by the Syrian rabbis in the 1930s looks and sounds and feels a lot like a Nazi era edict worthy of their worst raciallly discriminating Nurembourg Laws. Don't flatter yourself or Jersey Girl so much in trying to make yourselves into the embodiment of the Syrian Takana that bans the acceptance of all converts into Syrian Jewish communities because it is not so. While the Takana is an egregious anti-Halachic mistake, the Syrian Jews and others like Jersey Girl and perhaps you are nice people and I do NOT think that you are Nazis in any way and if that is what you thought or asssumed then I apologize to you because I was not talking or directing my commenst to either Jesrey Girl or you.
Bright Eyes says: Also, I don't think anyone who has posted has said anywhere that they do not love the convert. It is not unreasonable to try to understand exactly who and what a Convert is.
Response: Sure.
Bright Eyes says: Regarding my mother, there are still living people who remember my mother's-mother's-mother's-mother and know that she was definitely Jewish.
Response: Response. And all of my mother's family have number tattoes on their arms from Auschwitz, so does that make me a better Jew than anyone? Oh, by the way, I know you must be very upset by the recent press release from the RCA condeming Rav Sherman's ruling and requesting that Rav Amar see to it that the attacks and rulings against Rabbi Druckman be rescinded ASAP, but please do not take out your anger at me because I neither work for, nor represent any of the above disputing parties. Thank you for taking note of this.
to RaPs,
ReplyDeleteI apologize that you felt attacked. I interpreted your words as a general attack on the Charedi and Syrians and was admittedly outraged.
No doubt about it, you and I approach todays problems from different points of view. I guess that's good because in world full of problems, maybe you'll solve different ones than I will and together we might make the world a better place.
BTW, I am not a lawyer....I am an engineer and physicist by education.
One of the things that always attracted me to the study of Halacha is that it is elastic within certain boundaries, and so many things are possible as long as you remain within those boundaries.
Your posts often upset me because there are three impressions I get which I feel are very very wrong:
1)that there really are no limits to the elasticity of Halacha and
2) people who say there are boundaries to Halacha and they should be enforced are heartless, narrow, shallow, ignorant and racist, and
3) communities that you perceive to be highly segregated from the rest of Jewish society, and who have policies and pracices that you misunderstand, such as the Satmar, Syrians, and Charedi in general, are all reminiscent of Nazi era cruelties.
Judaism is chock full of laws, rights, privileges, and obligationd that are "Jews only."
To the uninformed, these would seem to be like the Nuremberg laws.
I don't feel immoral for knowing that there are rules than only pertain to Jews.
Our rules are segregationalist for sure, but not racist. I was personally at a Syrian synagogue where a Convert who happened to have been black was called to the Torah for an Aliyah. 100 men, no protest.
Plenty of people will misuse religion to justify their immoral behavior. Surely you have known Jews who use a line from the Talmud to justify stealing from gentiles, or cheating on their wife, or abusing their wife or children, or being prejudiced against a Jew who is too dark, or mistreating gentiles in general etc.... Jews do it, Christians do it, and Muslims do it.
It has nothing to do with which community you affiliate with, and I encourage you to please stop referring to these communities and there rulings in such unforgiving terms.
Meanwhile I guess we'll just agree to disagree...hopefully with mutual respect.
R&P asked me with whom I agree that the citations are irrelevent. At this point, I don't remember. And it makes little difference -- the citations in the original blog entry aren't relevent to the case at hand, since they're about someone you know doesn't believe at least part of the system. Not someone who wasn't sufficiently checked.
ReplyDeleteIn the latter case, the Rambam (Issurei Bi'ah 13:7) tells you to watch them closely, but not drum him out until/unless you have evidence that they on principle aren't keeping at least one of the mitzvos. No?
My apologies for not giving credit by name to whomever objected to the original post's use of citations. A known disbelieving convert (the cited cases) is different than an imperfect beis din with no evidence the convert (other than the one whose conversion started this brouhaha) really didn't believe.
-Micha
micha said...
ReplyDelete-- the citations in the original blog entry aren't relevent to the case at hand, since they're about someone you know doesn't believe at least part of the system. Not someone who wasn't sufficiently checked.
In the latter case, the Rambam (Issurei Bi'ah 13:7) tells you to watch them closely, but not drum him out until/unless you have evidence that they on principle aren't keeping at least one of the mitzvos. No? ...A known disbelieving convert (the cited cases) is different than an imperfect beis din with no evidence the convert (other than the one whose conversion started this brouhaha) really didn't believe.
=====================
First of all the citation to Rambam is (Hilchos Issurei Biah 3:17): not 3:7
Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 13:17): A convert who was not careful examined concerning his motivation or was not instructed concerning the commandments and punishments for sin - and yet nevertheless was circumcised and immersed himself in a mikveh before 3 Jews - is still a valid convert. Even if it is known that he convert for ulterior motives, but since he has been circumcised and gone to mikveh he has left the status of non-Jew. Nevertheless we are suspicious of him until it is ascertained that he is righteous. Moreover even if he returns back to idolatry he is still considered a Jew who has sinned who marriage is still valid and it is still a mitzva to return his lost objects since he has immersed in the mikveh he has become a Jew. Therefore Shimshon and Shlomo kept their wives even though it was revealed that they were still idolaters.
The Rambam is dealing with a person who is suspected of converting solely for the sake of benefit and not at all for the sake of heaven. We suspect him. If it can be established that he deceived the beis din he is not Jewish. If he had ulterior motivation in addition to desire to convert he is Jewish even if he sins later.
This and the other citations plus I just added another citation of Igros Moshe indicate that a person who went through the conversion process - but never intended to convert at all - is not a Jew. The Achiezer clearly states if he does not keep Shabbos or kashrus - he was never a Jew. Rav Moshe says that if he never kept mitzvos at all - so he is not a Jew.
There is a significant burden of strong proof that he was never sincere. However if it can be demonstrated that the beis din was deceived - the person is not Jewish.
There is a presumption that if he went to a kosher beis din that he must have had a moment of being Jewish - and then he is Jewish for ever. However if we can prove that he deceived the beis din or that the beis din was not careful in examining him - he is not a Jew even after conversion.
I just wish to protest in particular to the segment in the "Bright Eyes" post of May 8, 2008 3:01 AM that says:
ReplyDelete"3) communities that you perceive to be highly segregated from the rest of Jewish society, and who have policies and pracices that you misunderstand, such as the Satmar, Syrians, and Charedi in general, are all reminiscent of Nazi era cruelties."
That this is not accurate and it's is not what I said and it borders on a lie and it just shows the degree to which "Bright Eyes" cannot resist twisting and distorting and casting aspersion upon the words of a fellow debater even when he is generously "agreeing to disagre" -- and I say again shame on him.
Nowhere did I say that "Satmar, Syrians, and Charedi" communities are doing things that "are all reminiscent of Nazi era cruelties"! There is no connection between the Syrian Jews and Satmar and there is little connection between Syrian Jews and most Charedi Jews.
I have made a simple point, among others, that the Syrian Takana forbidding the acceptance of gerim looks looks like a Nazi-era Nuremburg racial purity decree to keep out outsiders by law. Not a single Orthodox or Charedi or Chasidic community has ever done this. Even Satmar with all its strictness in Halacha, has never ever enacted a "takana" like the Syrian one that formally forbids the acceptance of gerim! Why? Simply because they do not need to since their (Satmar's) observance and application of Halacha is so strong that they do not feel the need to add even more laws like this to "protect themselves" and similarly not a single Charedi community has ever seen fit to add such law, so that "Bright Eyes" "reply" is just not an "answer" to anything I said, it borders on a lie, and he is just trying to create self-serving scenarios, like a lawyer, and put words in my mouth that I never said or intended.
Furthermore, what I have stated, is that I was alarmed that Rabbi Eidensohn was either knowingly or unknowingly MAYBE pushing a line on his BLOG, as MAYBE reflective of the BADATZ's attitude, not far-fetched if one consider's Rav Shternbuch's earlier letters of warning in these matters to other rabbis and to the general Oilam HaToireh, that seems to indicate that there are those in the Charedi world who would very much like to do now what the Syrians did in the 1930s forbidding the acceptance of all gerim and what I stated (and for which he called me "paranoid") was that such a move would create a huge storm and it would be a great chilul H-shem because the Modern Orthodox and Mizrachi and the RCA would never heed such a call, and that people out there in the world, be it the general media or secular Jews and Israelis, would regard such a move as racist.
The events of the last few days have already shown how dangerous this matter is and it is headed for a major discussion in the Knesset, and the Charedi leaders are about to get the kind of "result" that they were not counting on from Rabbi Sherman's ruling and that is that the secular Israeli majority is now going to stick its nose into this affair and take a closer look and they will come down once and for all on the Religious Zionist side, which would be a RELATIVELY good conclusion because they could decide to follow the Reform and Conservative views instead, and it may chas veshalom even open the door fully to the Reform and Conservatives even more in Israel to get "religious" power in the state of Israel.
Thus, in the Charedi rush to crush the legitimate Halachic rulings of Religious Zionist rabbis and Batei Din, they will end up with a far worse nightmare on their doorstep, the secular Israelis and the Reform and Conservative movements will gang up on ALL Orthodox and Charedi Jews and create a total mess and upheaval that will make it even harder to solve the "mihu yehudi" question that has been in the Halachic doldrums until now, but is now turning into a nightmare zone in front of our very eyes.
I hope you enjoy what you have unleashed, it is not going to pleasant.
I shall not be commenting that much now because "the battle has been joined" now that the ENTIRE Mizrachi&Modern Orthodox&RCA world has gone to war with the Charedi&BADATZ view of this matter.
Let us pray to H-shem that it will be a "machlokes leshem shomayim" and that we can come out as a better and stronger Am Yisroel from this catastrophe of brother vs. brother.
RaP said "I have made a simple point, among others, that the Syrian Takana forbidding the acceptance of gerim looks looks like a Nazi-era Nuremburg racial purity decree to keep out outsiders by law. Not a single Orthodox or Charedi or Chasidic community has ever done this."
ReplyDeleteThis is totally false and he can visit other posts on this blog to see a thorough history of communities who have done the same throughout Jewish history.
Anonymous of May 12, 2008 4:01 PM says: "...he can visit other posts on this blog to see a thorough history of communities who have done the same throughout Jewish history."
ReplyDeleteHmm, I have been reading the posts here and all I have seen is that various Syrian Jewish communities have all done the same thing, like those in Panama and Mexico and Argentina and Brooklyn, but it's one little group of Syrian Jews who are basically on the periphary of the Jewish world and who have had zero contact with and input into the Torah world doing the same thing. So could you please just remind us of the non-Syrian communities you know about here for the record. Thanks.
There is a range of views. Rav Kook said it is virtually impossible to annul after the fact (and rav Bleich mentions this in his critique of Rav Goren).
ReplyDeleteThe Rogatchover Gaon says that it can be annulled if there is arversion of idolatry later on, and Rav Goren relied on this in hsi most controversial psak ever.
The CHazon Ish, as claimed by Rav Zholty in his critique of rav Goren, said that 30 days of being from after the tevilah is a sufficient shiur to maintain the covnersion as valid. Any reversion after that does not affect the giur.