EJF surrogate Roni keeps pounding certain points over and over in his defense of R' Tropper. 1) He claims that EJF is an improvement of the previous situation in that EJF makes sure that there is a genuine commitment to mitzvos 2) He claims that the proselytizing is a chet kal which is permitted in order to improve the situation. 3) He claims that EJF is not bringing in goyim - as the other rabbis do.
This is an example of his defense.
Roni wrote
1) As Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Chaim Ozer and many other gedolim has stated - the sincerity of most converts is questionable. Rav Moshe states pointedly that even when they say they are going to keep mitzvos - most of them are lying. Rav Chaim Ozer - who initially took a lenient view changed his mind and said that no respectable beis din should be involved in converting intermarried couples. Thus it really isn't' as critical to point out how much money was charged for the conversion - but to see how permanent and committed the geirim are. What are the statistics for EJF of how many gerim stay observant? How many of their children keep Shabbos after they leave day school - or even in day school? BTW I know of one major rav associated with EJF who has been accused by a prominent rabbi of doing conversion for the sake of money.
2) It is interesting to note that R' Tropper claims to be following the psakim of Rav Moshe Feinstein. In regards to this issue of a beis din sinning in order to convert an intermarried couple - Rav Moshe categorically prohibits it. So does Rav Eliashiv in the teshuva I published. Which one of the poskim has stated - in writing - that it is permitted to sin (chet kal) in order to convert intermarried couples. I asked R' Tropper point blank and he refused to answer. This attitude of chet kal in fact is associated with the left wing views - which have been solidly rejected by contemporary poskim. While it is true that there are rulings such as freeing a slave to make a minyan, which contemporary posek has is stated that the public need is served by EJF proselytizing operation? Loudly screaming "we insist on acceptance of mitzvos" is simple nonsense - unless you can show that the majority of converts are permanent - and stay religious even if they divorce their Jewish spouse. Otherwise you are simply bringing goyim into Klall Yisroel the same what you claim that as the so called fake rabbis - you constantly denounce. - are doing We had a EJF participant commenting on this blog a year ago - he proudly announced that he had strongly pressured his wife to convert. That is what you call sincere acceptance of mitzvos?
3) There is no evidence that R' Tropper is doing a service to klal Yisroel by taking off the stigma of intermarriage. There is no evidence that his conversions - though possibly cheaper than other rabbis - are more sincere converts. After all if you have to wine and dine a couple to get them to pay attention - it doesn't bode well for the sincerity of the conversion. There is no question that R' Bomzer has produced some genuine converts. Where is the head to head comparison to show that EJF converts are superior to his?
Bottom line 1) chet kal is rejected by Rav Moshe Feinstein 2) No evidence that EJF converts are superior to other conversion programs 3) There is no evidence that Klall Yisroel is benefiting from encouraging intermarried couples to convert instead of following Rav Eliashiv's view that they should be ostracized.
This is an example of his defense.
Roni wrote
Most importantly: Bomze'rs actions (and actually there are MANY such fake dayanim who convert for a business or at least do not require the convert to commit to observe torah and mtizvot)is one of the main reasons that EJf was created: to establish a STANDARD of conversion that up till now was neglected by the general public. The magnitude of the crime by the fake dayanim and the tragedy of bringing goyim into klal yisroel is a "Chet chamur" (very severe sin) and our Rabbis establish in our tradition, that at times it is permissible and at times commanded to make a "shet kal" to prevent and stop a chet chamur! SO, if what is needed to prevent the prospective converts not to turn to the fake rabbis but to turn to the kosher ones' and to the kosher standard is a chet kal, of seeking those sincere one to follow the right path and maknug sure that those who are not aware of the right path at least know that the wrong path does not fulfill their desire to become jewish, so be it. Our illustirous rabbis in the past centuries have ruled that one may perhaps violate some of the rabbinical prohibitions (like for instance: not to convert someone for the sake of marriage) as long as the person would commit himself to live a jewish life, ie. a life dictated by the code of jewish law!
1) As Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Chaim Ozer and many other gedolim has stated - the sincerity of most converts is questionable. Rav Moshe states pointedly that even when they say they are going to keep mitzvos - most of them are lying. Rav Chaim Ozer - who initially took a lenient view changed his mind and said that no respectable beis din should be involved in converting intermarried couples. Thus it really isn't' as critical to point out how much money was charged for the conversion - but to see how permanent and committed the geirim are. What are the statistics for EJF of how many gerim stay observant? How many of their children keep Shabbos after they leave day school - or even in day school? BTW I know of one major rav associated with EJF who has been accused by a prominent rabbi of doing conversion for the sake of money.
2) It is interesting to note that R' Tropper claims to be following the psakim of Rav Moshe Feinstein. In regards to this issue of a beis din sinning in order to convert an intermarried couple - Rav Moshe categorically prohibits it. So does Rav Eliashiv in the teshuva I published. Which one of the poskim has stated - in writing - that it is permitted to sin (chet kal) in order to convert intermarried couples. I asked R' Tropper point blank and he refused to answer. This attitude of chet kal in fact is associated with the left wing views - which have been solidly rejected by contemporary poskim. While it is true that there are rulings such as freeing a slave to make a minyan, which contemporary posek has is stated that the public need is served by EJF proselytizing operation? Loudly screaming "we insist on acceptance of mitzvos" is simple nonsense - unless you can show that the majority of converts are permanent - and stay religious even if they divorce their Jewish spouse. Otherwise you are simply bringing goyim into Klall Yisroel the same what you claim that as the so called fake rabbis - you constantly denounce. - are doing We had a EJF participant commenting on this blog a year ago - he proudly announced that he had strongly pressured his wife to convert. That is what you call sincere acceptance of mitzvos?
3) There is no evidence that R' Tropper is doing a service to klal Yisroel by taking off the stigma of intermarriage. There is no evidence that his conversions - though possibly cheaper than other rabbis - are more sincere converts. After all if you have to wine and dine a couple to get them to pay attention - it doesn't bode well for the sincerity of the conversion. There is no question that R' Bomzer has produced some genuine converts. Where is the head to head comparison to show that EJF converts are superior to his?
Bottom line 1) chet kal is rejected by Rav Moshe Feinstein 2) No evidence that EJF converts are superior to other conversion programs 3) There is no evidence that Klall Yisroel is benefiting from encouraging intermarried couples to convert instead of following Rav Eliashiv's view that they should be ostracized.
Dear Daas Torah,
ReplyDelete"As Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Chaim Ozer and many other gedolim has stated - the sincerity of most converts is questionable".
They do not deny though that the gerut is chal bediavad if the sincerity is validated. They actually stte that if the fellow observes torah for a while (I beleive Rav MOshe states somewhere "zman chashuv") it is valid even if he reverts to his former ways.
" Rav Moshe states pointedly that even when they say they are going to keep mitzvos - most of them are lying".
Yet, he didn't declare that those who do keep for a while are converts!
Let me quote you one of them:
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קס
ולכן בעצם יש לפקפק על הגרות שיש רבנים שמקבלין הא אנן סהדי ברובן שאין מקבלות המצות כדהוכיח סופן וגם שלא תהא עדיפא מבעלה היהודי שנתגיירה בשבילו שהיא רואה שגם הוא מחלל שבת ומופקר להרבה איסורין. אך עכ"ז יש מקום לומר שהוא גרות בדיעבד מאחר שאמרה לפני הבית דין שמקבלת מצות התורה ואירע גם כזו שמקבלת באמת
He states clealry that bedieved if she stated that she commits and she actually accepted them it is valid bedieved!
If you will see this and other teshuvos you will see that at the bottom the main thing that bothers him: is the person a ger bediavad or not?
"Rav Chaim Ozer - who initially took a lenient view changed his mind"
Where is this printed? Furthermore: I want you site me a place where he states that the gerut is not chal bedieved! which is my point: that Ejf's gerut is chal bedieved, ie. they are not goyim! and Bomzer's are goyim for they are not chal even bediavad!
Actaully the achiezer was the PIONEER FOR formulating a formula of the greatest leninecy that even if we know that the guy will succumb to averos for teavon the gerut is chal bediavad!
ומה"ט נראה מה שחשש הרה"ג מהר"י פאזען לגייר לפי שלא ישמור דיני ישראל כהלכה, אפ"ל דאין לחוש לזה כיון דמקבל עליו כל המצות אף שחושב לעבור על איזה מהמצות אח"כ לתיאבון, מ"מ אין זה מניעה לקבלת המצות,
" Thus it really isn't' as critical to point out how much money was charged for the conversion -"
These are two separate independent pssulim bediavad.
" but to see how permanent and committed the geirim are. What are the statistics for EJF of how many gerim stay observant? How many of their children keep Shabbos after they leave day school - or even in day school?"
In terms of bediavad: It is clear in ShulchanOruch that once here was kabbalt hamitzvot and LATER they reverted to their former pracatices they are "yisroel mumar".
I do not recall now the exact location in Rav Moshe. He states that if the ger observed for a while he is a ger bediavad.
"BTW I know of one major rav associated with EJF who has been accused by a prominent rabbi of doing conversion for the sake of money'.
Listen: I'm not stating no wrong can happen at EJf! I actually support a silent criticsm of them to put brakes in thier "visions". But there is a difference between an ogoing practice and a lone occurrnece!
'2) It is interesting to note that R' Tropper claims to be following the psakim of Rav Moshe Feinstein. In regards to this issue of a beis din sinning in order to convert an intermarried couple - Rav Moshe categorically prohibits it'.
Please provide the source where he "PROHIBITS" IT as opposed to he refrains, he feels it is improper. Remember there is a difference between a clear prohibition and also the level of prohibition and a non reccomendation or something of the sort.
"So does Rav Eliashiv in the teshuva I published"
The teshuva that you cite does not seem to deal with the current issue head on. It seems to be spoken in general terms. So, that the reasoning given, can certainly be said that it is not applicable to many cases, like for instance, where the jewish spouse is a tinok shenishbah.
In addition: We have RAv Eisenstein which is one of the three people who go in daily to Rav ELyashiv and discusses THESE issues with him! (in this sense he discusses them more than Rav Efrati). Rav Eisenstein has clearly supported EJf in general and stated tht he contacted Rav ELyashiv in these matters. He has for four years attended most of the conventions. Even if disagrees with Lt in some issues; he does not in the prinicple: of helping intermarried couples to convert halachikally.
IN addition: Rav Zilberstein states in the name of Rav ELyashiv that he permits converting intermaried couples to bring them (the jewish spouse) to judaism once they are already married providing they will observe torah and mtizvot. (He seems to encourage it).
" Which one of the poskim has stated - in writing - that it is permitted to sin (chet kal) in order to convert intermarried couples".
See letter of Rav zilberstein in name of Rav ELyashiv. It is printed in Netzach YIsrael!
' I asked R' Tropper point blank and he refused to answer. This attitude of chet kal in fact is associated with the left wing views - which have been solidly rejected by contemporary poskim'.
That does not mean that it NEVER exist! THe posskim who support it (Rav Reuven, Rav Shechter, Rav ELyashiv etc.) obviously feel that such an approach is legitimate in this instance.
' Loudly screaming "we insist on acceptance of mitzvos" is simple nonsense - unless you can show that the majority of converts are permanent - and stay religious even if they divorce their Jewish spouse'.
I'm sorry, but you are wrong! They have to prove that they observe for a zman choshuv (or similar loshon by Rav Moshe). They indeed do not convert the person only after a lnog time of trial and practice and they ensure that the person lives a life of torah and mitzvot. They will refrain from converting if the person is not in a place close to where he can live a jewish life in the most basic requirements for shabbat kashrut and taharat hamishpcha. I actually know that they took a long time to convert someone in the distant places in the Usa until they were satisfied tht the person observes shabbat kashrut and taharat hamishpacha.
Look here in achiezer that states the opposite of what you write:
והנה להלכה דקיי"ל דכלם גרים הם מבואר בראשונים ובריטב"א בשם הרמב"ן דטעם הדבר דכיון דנתגיירו וקבלו עליהם חזקה דאגב אונסייהו גמרי וקבלי, ובפשוטו נראה דאע"פ דאומדנא דמוכח דכונתו לשם אישות, מ"מ משום אונס הרצון גמר ומקני וקבל הגירות בלב שלם, ואיכא אומדנא שגמר ומקבל בלב שלם, והנה בדין זה מבואר בראשונים ובשו"ע דאפילו נודע שבשביל דבר הוא מתגייר הואיל ומל וטבל יצא מכלל הנכרים וחוששים לו עד שתתברר צדקתו כיון דאין כאן אומדנא שאינו מקבל בלב שלם, לו יהי שבאמת אינו מקבל בלב שלם מה בכך, הרי דברים שבלב אינם דברים ואומדנא דמוכח אין כאן, אדרבא הרי אומדנא שכונתו בלב שלם דמשום אונסייהו גמר ומקבל.
" Otherwise you are simply bringing goyim into Klall Yisroel the same what you claim that as the so called fake rabbis - you constantly denounce. - are doing "
Not the same at all. If they observe Torah and mitzvot for a zman chashuv. So that they are gerim and if they revert to their old ways they are "yisroel mumar".
"We had a EJF participant commenting on this blog a year ago - he proudly announced that he had strongly pressured his wife to convert. That is what you call sincere acceptance of mitzvos?"
Rav Eidensohn: With all due respect, look at the teshuvot and you will see them discussing that this does not take away from the validity of the gerut bediavad! Look at Ritva Yebamot 24b where he states that even if the acceptance was under duress, nevertheless,אגב אונס גמר ומקני , the posskim, including Achiezer discuss this concept.
"3) There is no evidence that R' Tropper is doing a service to klal Yisroel by taking off the stigma of intermarriage".
He is doing a service if he brings gerim whose gerut take effect bediavad as opposed to the THOUSANDS of gerim which do not take effect bediavad! Those are goyim gemurim; his are geim which at worse are like yisrael mumar!
"There is no evidence that his conversions - though possibly cheaper than other rabbis - are more sincere converts".
Yes they are! They have to stop working and driving and cooking on shbbat for a long time; they do not dine in tref restaurants. They go to mikveh. And kasher their houses. Thhey live a transformed life for a long time with hardships. This is "kabbalah", even though it comes through "oness" "agav oness gamar umaknee".
" After all if you have to wine and dine a couple to get them to pay attention - it doesn't bode well for the sincerity of the conversion".
Not at all! They have to be helped to change their lives. And most of them do. ALl of them for a sman chashhuv.
There is no question that R' "Bomzer has produced some genuine converts."
A large number, perhaps a majority does not! He does not seek kabblat hamitsvot where the candidate is not interested!
" Where is the head to head comparison to show that EJF cnverts are superior to his?"
THe difference between day and night: BOmzer does not ask for kabbalat hamitzvot, sincere one,s where the covnert is not sincere; EJf will NOT go through the process if their not that level of commitment to change.
"Bottom line 1) chet kal is rejected by Rav Moshe Feinstein "
No source for this! as written above!
"2) No evidence that EJF converts are superior to other conversion programs "
They demand kabbalat hamitzvot; and they actually do not convert unless there is a minimal level of that; he HB does not not!
"3) There is no evidence that Klall Yisroel is benefiting from encouraging intermarried couples to convert instead of following Rav Eliashiv's view that they should be ostracized".
If he converts only through Kabbalt hamitzvot as explained above he immnsely benefits klal yisroel with those number of less goyim in klal yisroel!
Time is short and we will iy"H cite you from Achiezer implying the permissiblity of "chatey issur kal " in some instances similar to ours!
I am familiar with a small Orthodox Community in San Francisco where the rabbi there, rabbi Shlomo Zarchi sent intermarried couples to Rabbi Tropper and to rabbi Bomzer.
ReplyDeleteThe 3 couples who converted by rabbi Bomzer are still observant, the two couples who converted by the EJF are not observant anymore and at least one of them left Judaism altogether, probably after EJF tried to control their life. Rabbi Zarchi is in the phone book and he might be willing to provide more information.
Roni you have a lot of questions - which indicate you are not familiar with the literature. Let me start with some answers and eventually I will get to all the sources you are not familar with.
ReplyDelete=============
DT'2) It is interesting to note that R' Tropper claims to be following the psakim of Rav Moshe Feinstein. In regards to this issue of a beis din sinning in order to convert an intermarried couple - Rav Moshe categorically prohibits it'.
Roni: Please provide the source where he "PROHIBITS" IT as opposed to he refrains, he feels it is improper. Remember there is a difference between a clear prohibition and also the level of prohibition and a non reccomendation or something of the sort.
==============================
שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ב סימן ד
אבל הא צריך לגרות שיזדקקו ב"ד לזה והם אין להם לחטא אף חטא קטן שהוא לסייע שישא כהן גיורת בשביל שלא ישתמד דהא אין אומרים לאדם חטא בשביל שיזכה חברו שלא יעשה איסור חמור כשפשע כדאיתא בתוס' שבת דף ג' ונפסק כן במג"א סימן רנ"ד ס"ק כ"א עיי"ש. ורק בישראל שמותר לישא גיורת יש להקל לב"ד לגייר אף שהוא לשם אישות משום שאין זה איסור ברור
" Rav Moshe states pointedly that even when they say they are going to keep mitzvos - most of them are lying".
ReplyDeleteYet, he didn't declare that those who do keep for a while are converts!
Let me quote you one of them:
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קס
ולכן בעצם יש לפקפק על הגרות שיש רבנים שמקבלין הא אנן סהדי ברובן שאין מקבלות המצות כדהוכיח סופן וגם שלא תהא עדיפא מבעלה היהודי שנתגיירה בשבילו שהיא רואה שגם הוא מחלל שבת ומופקר להרבה איסורין. אך עכ"ז יש מקום לומר שהוא גרות בדיעבד מאחר שאמרה לפני הבית דין שמקבלת מצות התורה ואירע גם כזו שמקבלת באמת
==============
Roni I am surprised at your misreading of this teshuva. Rav Moshe is trying to be melamed zechus on rabbis who do things that they shouldn't. In other words he is faced with rabbis who you have been repeatedly criticizing.
If you go through the Igros Moshe you will see that while it is true that he says that a sincere convert who observes the mitzvos for a while after conversion is a Jew. He also says that those converts that we can reasonably assume were not since - were never converts.
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קנז
בגר שאין סהדי שלא קבל מצות אף שאמר בפיו שמקבל ז' דעשי"ת תרפ"ט ליובאן. מע"כ ידידי הרב הגאון המפורסם מהר"ר שמעון טרעבניק שליט"א הגאב"ד האדיאץ.
במה שנסתפק כתר"ה אם גר שלא קבל עליו מצות אם נחשב גר, פשוט וברור שאינו גר כלל אף בדיעבד וכן הורה אבא מארי הגאון זצלה"ה הלכה למעשה בסטראבין בעובדא כזו שאינו גר כלל בין לקולא בין לחומרא שקבלת מצות בגר מעכב כדאיתא ביו"ד סי' רס"ח סעי' ג'. ואף אם אמר בפיו שמקבל מצות אם אנן סהדי שאינו מקבל עליו באמת אינו כלום. וגר שמהני לשם אישות בדיעבד, איירי שבשביל האישות קבל עליו מצות באמת והוא ברור ופשוט וכל זה אמר אבא מארי הגאון בפירוש אז כשהורה. ובכלל איני יודע טעם הרבנים הטועים בזה דאף לדידהו עכ"פ איזה תועלת הם מביאין בזה לכלל ישראל שמקבלין גרים כאלו דודאי לא ניחא ליה להקב"ה ולעם ישראל שיתערבו גרים כאלו בישראל. ולדינא פשוט שאין זה גר כלל. ידידו, משה פיינשטיין
Furthermore Rav Moshe says if there is sincere acceptance of mitzvos - even though there is not full observance of mitzvos immediately after conversion - the conversion is still good. But if we are convinced that the conversion was not done sincerely - then there never was a conversion
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קח
שנית אף אם האמת שחשבה בלבה שתלך למלאכתה בשביעי ואחרון של פסח הא הוא דברים שבלב שאינם דברים לבטל מה שאמרה להב"ד שמקבלת כל מצות התורה, דל"ד כלל למה ששמעתי מאבא הגאון זצ"ל על אלו דמתגיירין כדי שיתרצו הורי הבן או הבת להנישואין שהנושא או הנישאת לא היו מקפידין על זה שאינם שומרי תורה, ורק בשביל רצון ההורים הוא הגרות שהוא כאנן סהדי שהוא לרמות את ההורים ואינה קבלה, אבל זו שגיירה בעצמה בלא שום עילה אלא לשם שמים שהיא קבלה גמורה אינה כלום מחשבתה בלב שאינה מקבלת איזה מצוה שלכן היא קבלה גמורה והיה גרותה גרות גמורה. ואף שעברה אח"כ אותו הדבר שחשבה לא מתבטלת הגרות, דליכא מזה אף לא הוכחה קצת שגם מתחלה לא קבלה אף כשנזדמן שראוה היודעין שנתגיירה מאחר דבעצם רואין אותה שהיא שומרת תורה שלכן יאמרו שאף שקבלה תחלה עברה עתה מצד פחד היצר להפסיד משרתה, וכ"ש כשלא ראוה שום אחד מן היודעים מגרותה כפי שהיה משמע מדבריה וכפי שרואין שמחזיקין אותה כל המכירין אותה לאשה צנועה וחסודה שאינו כלום.
DT "Rav Chaim Ozer - who initially took a lenient view changed his mind"
ReplyDeleteRoni Where is this printed? Furthermore: I want you site me a place where he states that the gerut is not chal bedieved! which is my point: that Ejf's gerut is chal bedieved, ie. they are not goyim! and Bomzer's are goyim for they are not chal even bediavad!
==============
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.
=================
Thus we have two cases 1) if a convert sincerely accepted the mitzvos - even if was motivated for the sake of marriage to be sincere and he observed mitzvos after conversion - he is still a Jew even if he stops observing mitzvos.
2)If we are convinced that the conversion was not sincere - then there was no conversion. The observance or non-observance is irrelevant if we are convinced that they were not sincere in their acceptance of mitzvos.
The issue dividing us is what type of evidence would convince us that that there was no acceptance of mitzvos even if the person said he was accepting and he observed mitzvos for a period of time afterwards?
Is it possible to search this blog via search engine?
ReplyDeleteThen Roni would be able to see that you have already covered this. I actually use google to search it.
Shmuely said...
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to search this blog via search engine?
Then Roni would be able to see that you have already covered this. I actually use google to search it.
==============
there is a search engine window at the top of the page
Roni you have a lot of questions - which indicate you are not familiar with the literature. Let me start with some answers and eventually I will get to all the sources you are not familar with.
ReplyDelete=============
DT'2) It is interesting to note that R' Tropper claims to be following the psakim of Rav Moshe Feinstein. In regards to this issue of a beis din sinning in order to convert an intermarried couple - Rav Moshe categorically prohibits it'.
Roni: Please provide the source where he "PROHIBITS" IT as opposed to he refrains, he feels it is improper. Remember there is a difference between a clear prohibition and also the level of prohibition and a non reccomendation or something of the sort.
==============================
שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ב סימן ד
אבל הא צריך לגרות שיזדקקו ב"ד לזה והם אין להם לחטא אף חטא קטן שהוא לסייע שישא כהן גיורת בשביל שלא ישתמד דהא אין אומרים לאדם חטא בשביל שיזכה חברו שלא יעשה איסור חמור כשפשע כדאיתא בתוס' שבת דף ג' ונפסק כן במג"א סימן רנ"ד ס"ק כ"א עיי"ש. ורק בישראל שמותר לישא גיורת יש להקל לב"ד לגייר אף שהוא לשם אישות משום שאין זה איסור ברור
I'm surprised that you feel that this is a source for *our* issue!
WE are discussing converting an intermarried couple for some benfits (that we explained earlier); NOT converting a giyoret to a kohen which is a issur DEORAYSSOH and we are talking about converting a conversion that does NOT carry an issur deoryassoh.
Furthermore: How can you not see that he writes in teshuva itself that regarding converting leshem ishut!ורק בישראל שמותר לישא גיורת יש להקל לב"ד לגייר אף שהוא לשם אישות משום שאין זה איסור ברור
A Yisroel who converts leshem ishut a Bet Din could be meikil to convert even leshem ishut because there is no issur barur! (oviously when there is a benefit; for otherwise what is the heter even for an issur that is not borur?).
roni wrote
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that you feel that this is a source for *our* issue!
WE are discussing converting an intermarried couple for some benfits (that we explained earlier); NOT converting a giyoret to a kohen which is a issur DEORAYSSOH and we are talking about converting a conversion that does NOT carry an issur deoryassoh.
===============
The issue was whether one can do a chet kal. Rav Moshe says no.
The additional issue is whether leshem ishus is a clear issur - Rav Moshe says no. Where it is a clear issur he says beis din can't do it.
There is a distinction between a goy who comes and says that they want to convert in order to marry a Jew and and couple who has been living in sin.
Why don't you understand that the two cases are not the same? Traditionally the intermarried couple has been rejected. Which poskek has said that we no longer push away intermarried couples? Which posek has said that you can run after them?
" Rav Moshe states pointedly that even when they say they are going to keep mitzvos - most of them are lying".
ReplyDeleteAgreed never argued on this point. Actually this is the point I stress regarding the fake gerus of RHB and the like Rabbis.
Yet, he didn't declare that those who do keep for a while are converts!
I do not have the exact location in mind. But i do remember him saying in one of the places. Nevertheless what he writes in the following quote does not contradict that.
"Let me quote you one of them:
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קס
ולכן בעצם יש לפקפק על הגרות שיש רבנים שמקבלין הא אנן סהדי ברובן שאין מקבלות המצות כדהוכיח סופן וגם שלא תהא עדיפא מבעלה היהודי שנתגיירה בשבילו שהיא רואה שגם הוא מחלל שבת ומופקר להרבה איסורין. אך עכ"ז יש מקום לומר שהוא גרות בדיעבד מאחר שאמרה לפני הבית דין שמקבלת מצות התורה ואירע גם כזו שמקבלת באמת"
==============
"Roni I am surprised at your misreading of this teshuva. Rav Moshe is trying to be melamed zechus on rabbis who do things that they shouldn't".
most of these rabbis gerus is in a way that they do NOT observe later. For them he is melamed zchuss, that maybe maybe it is chal if they said they commit and some of those people commit beemess therefore it is not in the geder of "undenoh demucach" in the level of "belev kol adam" so that the dvorim sheblev do not cancel the gerut. He is not talking if they *actually* keep torah and mtizvot for a while. He isNOT DISCUSSING *this* point here.
" In other words he is faced with rabbis who you have been repeatedly criticizing."
Exactly! This and other IM is exactly the source for which Iclaimed that in Rav MOshe's opinion those conversions do not take place even bediavad being that there is certainly no kabbalat hamitzvot in the way the Rabbis perform them.
He didn't state though that it is impossible for rabbis to make kosher gerut where they would ensure that both parties observe torh and mtizvot. He wasn't discussing that in any of teshuvot that you mention. In that case there would kabbalt hamitzvot and even if they G-d forbid revert to their older practices they would be yisroel mumar.
" If you go through the Igros Moshe you will see that while it is true that he says that a sincere convert who observes the mitzvos for a while after conversion is a Jew. He also says that those converts that we can reasonably assume were not since - were never converts".
Exactly what I claimed about Bomzer's conversions! HOwever, we are discussing a conversion that is followed by batey dinim who would *not* convert the couple if they are not ready to commit to observe; if they are not living in conditions that makes it possible for them to live the life of torah and mitzvot; if they have not the determination to keep shabbat kashrut and taharat hamishpachah.
Like wise:" שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קנז
בגר שאין סהדי שלא קבל מצות אף שאמר בפיו שמקבל ז' דעשי"ת תרפ"ט ליובאן. מע"כ ידידי הרב הגאון המפורסם מהר"ר שמעון טרעבניק שליט"א הגאב"ד האדיאץ.
במה שנסתפק כתר"ה אם גר שלא קבל עליו מצות אם נחשב גר, פשוט וברור שאינו גר כלל אף בדיעבד וכן הורה אבא מארי הגאון זצלה"ה הלכה למעשה בסטראבין בעובדא כזו שאינו גר כלל בין לקולא בין לחומרא שקבלת מצות בגר מעכב כדאיתא ביו"ד סי' רס"ח סעי' ג'. ואף אם אמר בפיו שמקבל מצות אם אנן סהדי שאינו מקבל עליו באמת אינו כלום. "
Exactly what I have been saying the conversions of Rabbis of people who are not interested in the least bit to keep torah and mitzvot then the verbal declaration is meaningless.
HOwever as he proceeeds in this teshuva: "וגר שמהני לשם אישות בדיעבד, איירי שבשביל האישות קבל עליו מצות באמת והוא ברור ופשוט וכל זה אמר אבא מארי הגאון בפירוש אז כשהורה."
Which is exactly what LT is doing! He does gerut leshem ishut! and Rav MOshe PERMITS IT! if there is kabbalt hamitvot! which is what EJF's batey dinim do!
"ובכלל איני יודע טעם הרבנים הטועים בזה דאף לדידהו עכ"פ איזה תועלת הם מביאין בזה לכלל ישראל שמקבלין גרים כאלו דודאי לא ניחא ליה להקב"ה ולעם ישראל שיתערבו גרים כאלו בישראל. ולדינא פשוט שאין זה גר כלל. ידידו, משה פיינשטיין'
Again talking about someone who does *not* accept torah and mitzvot; but about those who accept he stated earlier that it is chal!
Furthermore Rav Moshe says if there is sincere acceptance of mitzvos - even though there is not full observance of mitzvos immediately after conversion - the conversion is still good. But if we are convinced that the conversion was not done sincerely - then there never was a conversion
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קח
שנית אף אם האמת שחשבה בלבה שתלך למלאכתה בשביעי ואחרון של פסח הא הוא דברים שבלב שאינם דברים לבטל מה שאמרה להב"ד שמקבלת כל מצות התורה, דל"ד כלל למה ששמעתי מאבא הגאון זצ"ל על אלו דמתגיירין כדי שיתרצו הורי הבן או הבת להנישואין שהנושא או הנישאת לא היו מקפידין על זה שאינם שומרי תורה, ורק בשביל רצון ההורים הוא הגרות שהוא כאנן סהדי שהוא לרמות את ההורים ואינה קבלה, אבל זו שגיירה בעצמה בלא שום עילה אלא לשם שמים שהיא קבלה גמורה אינה כלום מחשבתה בלב שאינה מקבלת איזה מצוה שלכן היא קבלה גמורה והיה גרותה גרות גמורה. ואף שעברה אח"כ אותו הדבר שחשבה לא מתבטלת הגרות, דליכא מזה אף לא הוכחה קצת שגם מתחלה לא קבלה אף כשנזדמן שראוה היודעין שנתגיירה מאחר דבעצם רואין אותה שהיא שומרת תורה שלכן יאמרו שאף שקבלה תחלה עברה עתה מצד פחד היצר להפסיד משרתה, וכ"ש כשלא ראוה שום אחד מן היודעים מגרותה כפי שהיה משמע מדבריה וכפי שרואין שמחזיקין אותה כל המכירין אותה לאשה צנועה וחסודה שאינו כלום.
January 16, 2009 1:36 AM
DT "Rav Chaim Ozer - who initially took a lenient view changed his mind"
ReplyDeleteRoni Where is this printed? Furthermore: I want you site me a place where he states that the gerut is not chal bedieved! which is my point: that Ejf's gerut is chal bedieved, ie. they are not goyim! and Bomzer's are goyim for they are not chal even bediavad!
==============
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.
=================
Daas Torah
Thus we have two cases 1) if a convert sincerely accepted the mitzvos - even if was motivated for the sake of marriage to be sincere and he observed mitzvos after conversion - he is still a Jew even if he stops observing mitzvos.
2)If we are convinced that the conversion was not sincere - then there was no conversion. The observance or non-observance is irrelevant if we are convinced that they were not sincere in their acceptance of mitzvos.
The issue dividing us is what type of evidence would convince us that that there was no acceptance of mitzvos even if the person said he was accepting and he observed mitzvos for a period of time afterwards?
Roni: I am and was awar eof this and other teshuvot of Aciezer! And it is exactly reiterating thepoints under discussion: Achiezer prohibits conversion leshem ishut (issur derabbanan/issur sheynoh borur) if there would be no kabbalat hamitzvot (Even if there is verbal declaration but umdenoh demuchach that it is menaingless). therefore RHB's gerut may possibly not be kosher even bediavad!
He permits when there is a sincere kabbalat hamitzvot. Someone who changes his life for a while and is seen to take it seriously but later cannot succumb to his temptations; this is what he covered in teshuva 26! and he permitted it! and was the pioneer for making these guideliness!
שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו
מה"ט נראה מה שחשש הרה"ג מהר"י פאזען לגייר לפי שלא ישמור דיני ישראל כהלכה, אפ"ל דאין לחוש לזה כיון דמקבל עליו כל המצות אף שחושב לעבור על איזה מהמצות אח"כ לתיאבון, מ"מ אין זה מניעה לקבלת המצות,
This is a chidush even it happens during the kabbalah itself! But once there was kabblah and they underwent difficult changes in their lifestyle, it does not seem that then it is under the "umdenah dmuchach" tht there was no kabbalah whatsoever! IT appears that there was a kbbalah but "cohzar lessuroy"!
roni wrote
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised that you feel that this is a source for *our* issue!
WE are discussing converting an intermarried couple for some benfits (that we explained earlier); NOT converting a giyoret to a kohen which is a issur DEORAYSSOH and we are talking about converting a conversion that does NOT carry an issur deoryassoh.
===============
The issue was whether one can do a chet kal. Rav Moshe says no.
Ok! The *original* issue was/is if one can do chet kal to prevent issur chomur by gerut leshem ishut!
I said yes. You quote Rav Moshe to say that he says no! The quote that you quote: states that an "issur sheynoh borur" one can do toprevent issur chomur. I am modeh that he does not stte that one can do issur borur to prevent issur chomur when "posha"! But i still contend that he permits leshem ishut to prevent issurim chamurim (if there is kabbalat mitzvot).
"The additional issue is whether leshem ishus is a clear issur - Rav Moshe says no. Where it is a clear issur he says beis din can't do it".
Roni:But leshem ishut he permits!
DT:"There is a distinction between a goy who comes and says that they want to convert in order to marry a Jew and and couple who has been living in sin".
Where did youfind this distinction in Rav Moshe's words? Where does he in any of these discussions state about this distinction? In fact, many of the teshuvot suggest otherwise: For when they convert in order to marry! and the spouse int observant then it appears that there is no sincerity in commititng to live jewishly! (for they need the approval to get married, they need to remove the guilt in their parents vekayotzey bazeh!)but when they have already intermarried and now come to convert there is more room that they intend to live jewish from now on, so there is actually more room to permit the conversion (in terms of kabbalat hamitzvot).
Actually I saw dozens of teshuvot in these issues over the years and they certainly make the distinction the way i presented at least regarding the issur derabanan of "nitan al hanochrit" to live with a lady whom one has lived when she was a non jewess and now she has converted.
"Why don't you understand that the two cases are not the same?'
I actually understand that they are not the same in the opposite direction that you are taking!
"Traditionally the intermarried couple has been rejected. Which poskek has said that we no longer push away intermarried couples?"
Where did Rav Moshe state that we "should push away intermarried couples" in all the teshuvot you mentioned, not one word is mentioned about this! "
Now the Rav Moshe tht you quote in this teshuva states that one should not make an issur kal to remove from issur chomur when the person was POSHA! was negligent! Tell me: Do you think that all intermarried couples nowdays are "negligent" when they intermarried? I grant you that many are. and I tend to agree with you that those who knew about the issue; i mean the severity of the issue we should not do issurim to prevent them from doing other sins. And I agree that we should not honour such a person as role model. But should one push away a person tht had no jewish education and married a non jew because he did not know what it means. Does someone address this issue directly? No one that I"m aware off addressed this issue outright.
Rav Efrati's statement in the nameof Rav Elyashiv does not address this either.
Now, more with regards to "chatey kedey sheyizkeh": See the words of Achiezer in that teshvua:
שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו
"וגם אין לצדד להתיר איסורא זוטא כדי שלא לעבור ע"ה איסור חמור, וכמו שאמרו בעירובין ל"ב, וכמש"כ המהרשד"ם לצדד בכה"ג וכמש"כ ג"כ בשו"ת מוהר"ח צאנז, וה"נ נאמר דנעבור לכתחלה איד"ר =איסור דרבנן= כדי שלא יעבור על איסור דבא על הנכרית דע"י נשואין הוי בפרהסיא ואסור מה"ת, דהא בנ"ד דיש לחוש בזה בודאי שלא תשמור פתחי נדה וטבילה ויהי' בועל נדה בכרת ... ולפ"ז י"ל דמה"ת הוה נכרית ואין בזה איסור נדה וכרת .., ובנכרית אין איסור נדה ועי' תוס' שבת דף ד' החילוקים בדין אם אומרים חטא כדי שיזכה חבירך ולפי החילוקים שם נמי יש לומר דלא שייך בנ"ד אומרים לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חברך וגם מוהר"ח צאנז בדין הנטען מן האשה מסיק שאין מורים להיתר".
So here we have the term being used, and it is not "reform" chas vesholom. The question is there will be benefits or the other way around. He was metzaded leheter, brining a similar tzidud by MaHarashdam that perhaps it is perferable the issur hanitan al hanochris over the issur of noshrit befarhessya! Note that he did not say that one cannot do issur derabbanan toprevent issur deorayto! He declines this possibility only because at the end there is no benefit: while he is not boel nochrit; he is boel nidah (and by nochrit there is no niddah).
But if there would be benefit there would be room for a possek, to permit it.
(He sttes though that Divrey Chayim concluded not to be matir).
He then concludes similar to Rav Moshe: that it does not fit the paramters of ttossefot for the permission to say chatey.
Now le's see: Tossefot offer a few parameters when not permitted: 1) the issur was done chomur was done already; one cannot make beyodayim to prevent the outcome of issur.
2) mitzvah derabbim is different.
3) If theperson was poshea one cannot do issur kal to prevent issur chomur.
Now, and it seems that Rav Moshe took number three terutz in his pssak. If one many jews today who have intermarried have not received the education that this is a severe issue and many have not heard about the issue at all, how can they be "ppshea"? If they are not poshea, there is certainly ample room for a great Possek like Rav ELyashiv, or Rav Shechter or Rav Revuven to decide that in many cases this is exactly the issue!
Which posek has said that you can run after them?
In addition:
ReplyDeleteIf Rav MOshe calls "leshem ishut" issur sheynoh borur! that allows one one to be ovair this issur (which is not barur) to prevent issur chamur, how much more so, the issue of "not proseltyizng" or not "encouraging converts" which is even LESS BARUR! than leshhem ishut which is a clear halacha that "Eyn mekablim leshem ishut"! so for sure at the end of the day Rav Moshe's words allow for one to be ovair issur sheynah barur of "not encouraging" in order to prevent issur chamur!(and it would appear that this even if "posha"!)!
Here you have lashon of Rav Moshe that if the convert kept torah and mtizvot for "zman gadol" it then is not "umdenoh demuchach" in the level of ANA SAHADI to invalidate the gerus and it remains dvorim sheblev and therefore the gerut stays bedieved (Even if one says that it still seems that she did it to deceive).
ReplyDeleteשו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קח
דהרי התם שנתגיירו בשביל רצון בעליהן שלא היו נושאין אותן אם לא היו שומרות תורה הרי זמן גדול שמרו התורה בידען שלא יחזיקו אותן לנשים כשלא ישמרו התורה, ורק אחר זמן גדול תקפה יצר ע"ז עלייהו עד שלא היה איכפת להן אם יגרשום, ולכן לא נבטל גרותן מצד דברים שבלב אף שלפי האומדנא הוא הוכחה אף שעבר זמן גדול גם על תחלתן שלא קבלו המצות עלייהו אלא אמרו בפיהם לרמות בעליהן זאת הב"ד דלבטל הגרות בעינן אומדנא ברורה כאנן סהדי שזה ליכא בעבר זמן גדול אלא ענין השערות לכן קיימו נשותיהם דהא לא נבטל גרותן ולא נאסרו אף שנעשו מומרות. הרי חזינן מכ"ש בעובדא זו שמחשבתה אינה כלום לבטל הגרות מטעם שהוא דברים שבלב.
Tropper/rony tries to bring pilpul from the land of pipulim to show that rmf supports him even if he succeeds to twist rmf words he still will be naval birshus hatora.
ReplyDeleteTropper should wise to remember that rmf did not hate MO he even married his daughter to one.
Tropper hatred to everything semi modern makes him use his chushvus in the conversion business to fight Modern Orthodoxy and revoking and threating to revoke conversion because the woman wants to go to touro or wore pants.
Summary of points made recently
ReplyDeleteWE would like to clarify and summarize the points made so far in this exchange regarding1) Kabbalat Hamitzvot in Gerut in general, 2) some details and parameters of it, (to contract the “standards” of a certain dayan to the standards of another group) 3) The pertinence of the prinicple “omrim leodom chatey kedey sheyizkeh chaveroy”, at times one is permitted to sin to prevent the friend from making a worse sin to the issue of converting intermarried couples.
The points here are according to the opinion of Rav Moshe Feinstein of Blessed memory and Rav Chayim Ozer Grodzenski of blessed memory. Maybe we will be adding some new points and try to point out the text where these two rabbis stated these points.
Kabbalat mitzvot
1- It is a crucial element in the conversion process. Lack thereoff renders the gerut NULL AND VOID.
One must accept oneself to commit to live a life according to the Jewish Law. (Both RMF and RCO)>
2- The commitment must be genuine. If it is insincere, it is null and void. (Both RCO and RMF).
3- Even though the person makes a verbal declaration that he will commit to Torah and Mitzvot, if it undeniably clear to all that the person is insincere, as we can judge from the way he lives his life at the present and the fact that he/she has a spouse that is non observant makes it undeniably clear that the acceptance was insincere and therefore NULL AND VOID. RCO and RMF).
4- If there could be room to think that the person would commit to torah and mitzvot, as we hav seen some crucial change in the person's behaviour prior to the conversion and made special transformations in his/her lifestyle then it is not undeniably clealr to all that at the time of the acceptance it was insincere therefore there is room for us to say that if the convert conduceted himself for a “zman gadol” for a long period of time according to Jewish law, that the acceptance at the time was sincere. Rav Moshe adds: Even if G-d forbid the person erverts after the “zman gadol” to his/her old lifestyle, then: Although it seems now that the initial declaration was meant to deceive us, and was not sincere, nevertheless, since at the time of the acceptance it was not clearl to all his/her intentions, the conversion takes place “Bediavad”. (RMF).
5- IF at the time of conversion the person accepts the Torah and mitzvot, but thinks he will succumb to some averos due to the inability to overcome his “taava” temptations, the conversion still holds “Bediavad. (RCO).
I”m not sure if RMF agrees with this if the person held such thoughts at the time of conversion. I hae to study better IM YD 108. It may appear that he may disagree with RCO in this regard.
6- RCO seems to be put great emphasis that the kabbalat hamitvot entail clear counciouss aceptance that the person keeps shabbat, kashrut and taharat hamishpacha. If at the time of conversion it is clearl that the person does not intend to keep these mitzvot, even if he afirms to the contrary, it is NULL AND VOID: שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו
אולם היכא שברור הדבר שבודאי יעבור אחרי כן על איסורי תורה חלול שבת ואכילת טריפות ואנו יודעים בבירור כונתו שאינו מתגייר רק לפנים ולבו בל עמו, הרי אומדנא דמוכח שמה שאומר שמקבל עליו המצות לאו כלום הוא א"כ זהו חסרון בקבלת המצות דמעכב.
שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כח
אולם דא עקא שאין קבלת מצוות אחרי שהוא אומדנא דמוכח שלבם בל עמם ויתנהגו בחלול שבת, באסור נדה נבלות וטרפות, כמו שכתבתי במכתבי הקודם.
7- We must delve in IM YD 160 to find out if there are some parameters there that may bring leneincy bediavad/limud zchut so that the conversion is good bediavad and the rabbis are not passul bediavad (that they are not worse than hedyotot).
8- This is a crucial point that may invalidate many conversions and also some judges as not being kosher and being worse than hedyitoss since they persistently convert without any kabbalat hamitzvot and we have to study where the “limud zchut” of Rav Moshe fits and where it does not.
Certainly a Beit Din that attempts to convert with full Kabbalat hamitzvot and put's lots of effort into it and takes it time before conversion, and makes sure that the converts live in a placce where they can have jewish day school to send their kids to that school and they ensure that the convert kashered their homes; they require the female convert to cover her hair (as she is married) and to dress according to Jewish law, is considered a kosher Beit Din. Even if they do not succeed at the end and the convert fooled and deceived them; it does not put them in the bracket of “less than hedyotot” since they acted accordng to the norm and actually demanded standards and did not act in haste. IF the convert managed to deceive them doess not invalidate the Beit Din.
CONVERTING AN INTERMARRIED PERSON
AND ENCOURAGING CONVERSION OR PROHIBTION TO PERFORM SUCH CONVERSIONS
1)Talmud and Shulchan Aruch state and rule that one should not convert “leshem ishut” for the sake of marriage. IT would appear that this relates primarily to people who intend to marry
2)One may perhaps claim that if the couple is already married, and they would remain married even if the candidate would not convert, that this is not considered “keshem ishut”. RCO states this here: שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו מ"מ נראה לדין כיון דגם אם לא תתגייר הרי תשאר אצלו בגיותה א"כ אין כאן לשם אישות,
Maybe Rav Moshe does not hold this. From the “stimat” lashon of Rav mOshe, where he states his utmost displeasure of the practice and does not differentiate between before and after the marriage, it may appear that he would consider even conversion after they are married to be “leshem ishut. One must analyze these and other palces.
3)Qestion if in principle of “chatey dekey sheyiskeh chaveroy” may be applicable here is that Bet Din be permitted to perform gerut to save the person from doing an even greater sin:
Rav Moshe states that regarding the prohibition of converting “leshem ishut” (for the sake of marriage) there is room to be leninent and , a Bet Din has the power to make this “sin” in order to save from a greater sin (probably the prohibition of living with a gentile).
ורק בישראל שמותר לישא גיורת יש להקל לב"ד לגייר אף שהוא לשם אישות משום שאין זה איסור ברור.
It may appear from from RCO that he may not agree with this point.: שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו
ולענין הלכה, בפשוטו נראה שאין לב"ד כשר לקבלה לגירות, כיון שכונתה לשם אישות ......ומה שחשש מעכ"ת שמא תבוא לפני רעפארמער אמת הדבר שזהו חשש גדול שאצל רעפארמער לא תהי' הגירות כדת,...וגם אין לצדד להתיר איסורא זוטא כדי שלא לעבור ע"ה איסור חמור,
, IT appears that he does qualify eyn mekablim leshem ishut” as an issur kal.
4)if the person who would sin a greater sin, would so as a result of negligence, it appears from both of them (RMF and RCO) that no one can do an issur kal to remove the person from issur chamur.
5) It appears from both of them that if they would not be negligence then according to RMF there would be room for leniency (but we need to lok closely maybe he stringent in other places about this ). From RCOG it appears that one maybe lenient because of this in case where it appears that the couple would not keep taharat hamishpcha. שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו
דהא בנ"ד דיש לחוש בזה בודאי שלא תשמור פתחי נדה וטבילה ויהי' בועל נדה בכרת
If however, they would keep taharat hamishpcha it would appear from both that they allow room for keniency (again one must see in other works what they write about tehse matters).
ACHIEZER'S YESSOD GODOL
BASED ON TESHUVOT HARAMBAM
שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כו
ורצונה להתגייר ולהנשא בחופה וקדושין, באמרם שרצונם לגדל את בניהם ע"פ דת ישראל, וגם אומרים שאם הב"ד לא יקבלו לגירות ישתמד הבעל, אם יש להתיר לכתחלה, ...ומצאתי יסוד לזה מתשובת הרמב"ם פאר הדור סי' קל"ב שנשאל בבחור אחד שקנה שפחה והיא יושבת בביתו אם חייבים בי"ד להוציאה מביתו משום שנאמר והייתם נקיים כו' ויחוד בגויה באיזה דין נאסור ישיבתה בביתו והשיב על זה הרמב"ם וזה לשונו ודאי מדין תורה צריך לגרשה משם ואפילו בגיותה, כי לא דברה תורה אלא נגד היצר,... מחויבין בית דין אחר שמועה זו אשר לא טובה שישתדלו בכל עז ותעצומות לגרש האמה הזאת או שישחררנה וישאנה, ואף כי הנטען על השפחה ונשתחרה אינו יכול לישאנה לכתחלה, אכן כאשר פסקנו בדברים כאלו שיגרש וישא ופסקנו כך מפני תקנת השבים ואמרנו מוטב שיאכל רוטב ולא שומן עצמו וסמכנו על אומרם ז"ל עת לעשות לד' הפרו תורתך, ויכול לישאנה והא' ברחמיו יכפר עונינו כאשר דבר לנו ואסירה כל בדיליך עכ"ל הטהור, ... וד' הרמב"ם יסוד גדול. “
Achiezer (RCOG) then concludes his teshuva by claiming that in situations where the person wants to raise the children Jewish and claim that if the Beis Din WILL NOT ACCEPT FOR GERUT the person will “shmad” turn away from any yiddishkeyt there is room to be lenient so that the person would do the “bossor temutot shechutot” (“slaughtered meat from animal that is not in the best state of health and messukenet lamut”) and not “temutot nevelot”.
He concludes in this teshuva that there is room to be lenient because of this principle if the woman states that she intends “leshem shamayim” and there is no undeniable evidence to the contrary, one could rely on this leniency and follow the lenient ruling of Rav Shlomoh Kluger ובפרט למש"כ להסתפק כי באומרת שכונתה לשם גירות לש"ש ואין אומדנא דמוכח להיפוך מקבלים אותה, וע"כ נראה דלפי ראות עיני ב"ד יש מקום להקל ולסמוך על הוראת הגאון מוהר"ש קלוגער ז"ל.
However in a later teshuva RCOG backed down from this leniency due to the fact that there is an undeniable assumption to all that the candidates do not intend to keep shabbat taharat hamishpacha, and kashrut. שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כח
וע"ד הגירות בכלל שנהגו לגייר את הנשים הנכריות שנשאו לישראל, אשר באמת מצד הדין אין ראוי לגיירן, כיון שכוונתן לשם אישות וגם אחרי הנשואין אסורה לו כמבואר בתשו' הרשב"א סי' אלף ר"ה, במקום אחר צדדתי להקל ומצאתי יסוד לזה בתשו' הרמב"ם פאר הדור סי' קל"ב, וכן פסק בתשו' טוב טעם ודעת מהגאון ר' שלמה קלוגר הלכה למעשה, אולם דא עקא שאין קבלת מצוות אחרי שהוא אומדנא דמוכח שלבם בל עמם ויתנהגו בחלול שבת, באסור נדה נבלות וטרפות, כמו שכתבתי במכתבי הקודם. וכבר התעורר בזה הגאון מוה"ר יצחק שמעלקיש בספרו בית יצחק חיו"ד והעלה להלכה שאין לבי"ד כשר להזדקק בזה.
It would appear though that if the situation is that the Batei Dinim that make these conversions deal with situations where there is no undeniable evidence that they will not observe torah and mitzvot and especially where there is a probasbility that they will observe, after a lengthy trial and experience as living jewish and after undergoing some difificult changes in life to make this happen it would appear that the ruling of Rav Shlomoh Kluger would have the backing of Rav Chayim Oyzer G!
There is certainly more to discuss...but....
Mt,
ReplyDeleteIT is not "pilpul"; it is pirush hamilos!
BOttom line: 1) RMF states that one can be mekil converting leshem ishut ?(if that is only issur),
2) Regards conversion where there is undeniable evidence that the candidate does not care a bit to observe yidishkeyt the conversion is NULL AND VOID,
3) The Rabbis that perform the conversion discussed in number 2 are less than "yedyotos" and their conversion is not accepted even bedieved.
Therefore, RLT who asks the woman that he converts to dress according to halacha (cover their hair and not wear pants) will render the conversion take effect whereas RHB's conversions as they are done like in number 2 (converting people where there is undeniable evidence that they will not keep torah and mitzvot) will have his "conversions" NULL AND VOID!
If it's hard to read without nekudot ask for help! The above is pirush hamilos!