Sunday, June 28, 2009

EJF - attracting non-Jews to proselytize - is permitted


The self (?) appointed spokesman for R' Tropper - Roni has left a new comment on "EJF - Halachic justification/ / Roni": I am making it into a post because of what it reveals about the true nature of Eternal Jewish Family. What Roni is asserting here - and I received a letter from R' Tropper to the same effect - There is nothing wrong with proselytizing as long as one does not walk up to a non-Jew and try and convert him. However putting out come-on notices on the internet, ads in the newspapers, or offering all-expenses paid vacations in swank resorts to listen to top speakers promoting conversion is allowed since the non-Jew is attracted to come and you don't go to him. Furthermore it is asserted that Rav Reuven Feinstein - the posek for Eternal Jewish Family - permits this. They also insist that this is not proselytizing but merely kiruv. (You might also notice Roni's liberal use of ad hominem arguments - something which R' Tropper vehemently protests when they come from his critics). In sum the position of Eternal Jewish Family (with the apparent backing of Rav Reuven Feinstein ) is that encouraging non-Jew (especially intermarried couples) to convert is not halachically prohibited - as long as they accept the obligation to keep all the mitzvos in the chareidi way. Thus attracting non-Jews and then pressuring them to convert is not problematic - as long as in the end they agree to keep all the mitzvos as a chareidi Jew. It is also clear from their advertisements that they don't restrict their activities to intermarried couples. I would suggest R' Tropper find a less embarrassing defender.

RAp, talking like a real am hooretz, can you start answering the question "Where in Shulchan Oruch is there aN ISSUR to encourage an intermarried person to convert",

You are unable to start any conversation. You and Dt (and the third stooge) cannot even begin to have a rational discussion over this matter, you do not know where to being so you start with the new testament of

"You are not Rav Yosef Karo writing the Shulchan Oruch and interpreting it definitively nor are you the only one who says "where does it say in the shulchan oruch this and that" like a beginner. Some things are so pushut that the shulchan oruch doesn't have to spell them out,",

like a real am hooretz....you and your colleagues shout from the top of your longues for years about this terrible tragedy and issur and after your introduction of false sources (like a real ignoramus that you are) you now state that this is "so poshut the the SO does not have to spell it out", yet the SO does not find it so poshut to spell out that you are not allowed to convert for the sake of marriage?!?!

All your questions do NOT HAVE ONE HALACHIK SOURCE, BUT YOUR NEW TESTAMENT! You are such a boor that you cannot even begin to bring some halachik points mentioned by Rav Sternbuchwhose points were STRONGLY REJECTED BY RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN, RAV HENKIN, RAV SZ AURBACH, RAV Y KAMENETZKY AND MORE!

yOU SHOTEH OTZUM "NEW TESTAMENT" IS SOMEONE WHO CHANGES THE LAWS OF YIDDISHKEYT! AND FOR THE UMPEENTH TIME YOU CAN REPEAT LIEK THE BROKEN RECORD, BUT RT DIDN'T BEGIN TO MAKE THE MISSIONARY CONVERSIONS THAT YOUR FRIEND BOMZER MADE...YOUR KRUMMER BROKEN RECORD AND THE SOUR CHOLLENTS ARE GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY YOU DON'T QUALIFY EVEN FOR A "MEGALEH PONIM BETORAH" AS YOUR KRUMKEYT HAS GOT NOTHING WITH TORAH...

So that people do not forgeth the content: The question posed to RAP. DT and the third stooge was: Where is the source in HALACHA that it is ossur to encourage intermarried cpules to covnert???

THese fellow twist and turn but are unable to talk about the issue...

65 comments :

  1. Recipients and PublicityJune 28, 2009 at 12:24 PM

    First off, note how Roni/Tropper NEVER answers questions in the course of a dialogue but instead resorts to insults and distractions.

    Note also that even when Roni/Tropper is provided with Torah and Talmudic sources in the BROAD CONTEXT of the issues under discussion even after specific links were given to all of this blog's quotes and citations, let alone the direct letters from Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS against Tropper's and EJF's wrong actions, be it quoting the RI from a Tosfos in Yevamos, or the MAHARSHA in Chulin, or the RAMBAM from Hilchos Melachim who descsribes what the true moshiach will do and that only he (and not EJF) should be doing it, or even a simple fact from the Torah like Moshe Rabbeinu not recruiting the Eruv Rav unlike EJF does with recruting millions and billions of gentiles online, Roni does not interact like a mentsch and answer politely and stick to the point but he goes nuts and resorts to childish name calling and grobkeit.

    When Roni/Tropper rants like this he is hilarious and hysterical to watch, like a tank stuck in the mud letting off a smokescreen to try to hide its position to no avail, and he asks his silly beginners question of "where in Shulchan Oruch does it forbid this or that" it reminds us of those krumme people who claim they know "how to learn" and then "justify it with self-serving tendentious mare'eh mekomos" when they ask similar questions like:

    Where does it say in Shulchan Oruch that you are not allowed to sell, or help deliver, marijuana or ecstasy pills for a living?

    or

    Where does it say in Shulchan Oruch that a man cannot have a pilegesh (concubine) as long she is willing and goes to the mikvah?

    or for that matter:

    If I am a Sefardi where does it say in Shulchan Oruch, or in the Torah, that a Sefardi, maybe any Jew, since the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom supposedly has already expired according to some authorities, that I cannot have more than one wife?

    or

    Where does it say in the Shulchan Oruch that it is ossur to launder money for the Mafia or any crime organization as long as you keep it quiet, you are sure you won't be caught and it's "safe", and there will be no chillul Hashem?

    or

    Where does it say in Shulchan Oruch that having sex with a goya is not allowed since only a Jewish woman can be a nidda, and many frum men even married ones do rely on this "heter" so it must have validity in the sources as well?

    And so on and so forth, we have all heard these kinds of "kashyos" and the krumme "terutzim" that come even from very learned yeshiva and chasidish people,[...] they are about as far from the Shulchan Oruch as the "New Testament" that Roni/Tropper is now quoting is from the truth of the Torah and normative Yiddishkeit as it has been practiced for thousands of years by bnai Torah [...]Roni/Tropper are now fully displaying making them 100% guilty of being poretz geder to bring in potentially millions and billions of goyim under the guise of "strict conversions", [...]

    ReplyDelete
  2. Roni,

    Y"D 268:2
    We are instructed to discourage a potential Ger.

    If we are supposed to discourage them, Kal V'Chomer we do not encourage them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mekubal aka dt,
    \
    Finally wrote a short answer. i was awaiting an answer as "OSSUR to encourage gerim...". Instead I find him amking a "kal vechomer". So his Kal Vechomer allows him to make an internet war for years? A kal vechomer that has ateshuva!. For the question that I am asking for months and over a year was not if it is *proper* or *improper* to encourage gerim to be megayer; the question was iA) IS IT *ASSUR* , B) WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE *ISSUR*, C) IF SO, IS IT STILL *ASSUR* IN CASE WHERE WE DEAL WITH AN INTERMARRIED COUPLE, D) WHO IS A TINOK SHENISHBAH?

    your answer mekubal DOES NOT satisfy anyone! for if you find that the SO says by passing a procedure that may not be *likuvah* and not stated as ion issur, I'll make you a better Kal Vachomer: If when SA poses an 8ISSUR* "not to accept gerut leshem ishut", YET THIS IS PERMITTED IN CERTAIN CASES LIKE DIAVAD, HOW MUCH MORE SO IN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EVEN WORDED IN SHULCHAN ARUCH AS AN *ISSUR* certainly is not prohibited in cases of DIAVAD? CAPICHE,

    NOW TRY AGAIN: WHERE IN SHULCHAN ARUCH OR ANY SEFER OF HALACHA IS IT WORDED THAT IT IS PROHIBITED AS AN *ISSUR* TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT, B) ESPCIALLY SOMEONE ALREADY INTERMARRIED?

    AFTER OVER A YEAR YOU HAVEN'T FOUND!

    ReplyDelete
  4. rap,

    FROM DAY TO DAY YOUR ANSWERS GET MORE CHOLLENTY AND LUDICROUS:

    i WILL NOT LET THE PUBLIC FORGET, THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU IS: WHAERE IS THERE RECORDED AN *ISSUR* TO ECNOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT? AND LEIDACH: WHERRE IS YOUR HETER TO ENABLE A GOY TO ENTER KLAL YISROEL.

    eVERY DAY YOU COME UP WITH MORE NAD MORE NONSESNSE LET'S AGAIN QUOTE SHORTLY THE NON ANSWERS:


    rap:"Note also that even when Roni/Tropper is provided with Torah and Talmudic sources in the BROAD CONTEXT of the issues under discussion":

    roNI: they are not an ISSUR OVER A SPECIFIC QUESTION,


    RAp:" even after specific links were given to all of this blog's quotes and citations, "

    Roni: All of them do not STATE AN ISSUR TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT!

    RAP: "let alone the direct letters from Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS against Tropper's and EJF's wrong actions,":

    hiS IS rejected by RAV MOSHE, RAV HENKIN, RAV Y KAMENETSKY, RAV SZ AURBACH AND MANY MORE! i POSTED EXTENSIVELY HOW HE IS OPPOSED BY THEM AND REJECTED BY THEM!

    RAp: "be it quoting the RI from a Tosfos in Yevamos, or the MAHARSHA in Chulin, or the RAMBAM from Hilchos Melachim who descsribes what the true moshiach will do and that only he (and not EJF) should be doing it":

    rONI: lUDICROUS FROM AN HOORETZ WHO NEVER LEARNED A BLATT GEMOROH! RAMBAM THERE DOES NOT STATE THAT SOMEONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT


    Roni:"or even a simple fact from the Torah like Moshe Rabbeinu not recruiting the Eruv Rav",

    RAP: This is NOT AN ISSUR WRITTEN IN SHULCHAN ORUCH, B) EJF DOES NOT CONVERT THOUSANDS OF EREV RAV AS YOU DO ENABLED THROUGH BOMZER. YOU BROUGHT MORE EREV TO KLAL YISROEL OVER THE YEARS THAN THE FEW CONVERTS THAT *HALACHIK* CONVERTS EJF BROUGHT. YOU CALLING A HALACHIK CONVERT AS "eREV RAV" IS AGAINST THE *HALACHIK ISSUR* OF TORAH NOT TO HUMILIATE A GER WHICH GOES TO A HALACHIK CONVERT AND NOT TO A NON HALACHIK CONVERT THEY ARE THE EREV RAV YOU TALK ABOUT GO AHEAD AND TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU REGRET OVER ALL THE EREV RAV THAT YOU BROUGHT THROUGH BOMZER...

    Where does it say in Shulchan Oruch that you are not allowed to sell, or help deliver, marijuana or ecstasy pills for a living?

    And yes, unlike the "new testament" of RAP, if you are to go over an internet war against "pilgesh" you must bring *halachik* sources to fight them. and therer *are* Halachik Posskim who spoke abouut it! You boor and krummer am hooretz!!

    and likewise the discussion for a sephardi to marry another wife there are *halachik* posskim that deal with *halachikally*,


    ansf likewise, the krummer am hooretz thinks that there are nto *halachik* sources that forbid money laundering
    even when you keep it qiet, and yes, halachik sources deal with having intercourse with a goya ...

    It is only the krummer am hooretz who has a new testament that holds that there are issues that are not covered by halacha and he can wage war based on his instincts this is the new religion that comes from someone who never torah she baal peh and eats from money that corrupts one's mind, money frrom brining goyim into klal yisroel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Roni/R Tropper;

    i want to ask you , can you tell me with the full truth ,that all the Rabonim associated with the EJF including the beautiful dais that was shown at the confrence last week,are aware that the purpose of EJF is to be megayer these goyim in an intermarried couple? I have strong reason to beleive that they are being told one thing and the EJF is doing something else?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dt/Mekubal,

    In addition to the request for you to find a source for the *issur* DO NOT LIE AND TWIST THAT I SAID IT IS PERMITTED TO PROSETYZE IN *GENERAL*! I NEVER SAID IT! YOU CAN ALSO READ YOUR COPY OF WHAT I WROTE (THE PART THAT YOU PASTED) IT NEVER WORDS THAT WAY! STOP LYING TO MAKE YOUR POINT!

    TO THE POINT: 1) FIND A SOURCE THAT SAYS IS IS *OSSUR* TO PROSETYIZE. (NOTE THAT I ADVOCATE AND SAY THAT IN *GENERAL* IT SHOULD BE DONE), B) THAT IS IMPROPER TO DO SO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAKANAT HASHAVIM IN GENERAL (INTERMARRIED COUPLES), C) THAT WERE "TINKOK SHENISHBAH".

    HOPE THAT YOU WILL FIND SOME SOURCES FOR THESE QUESTIONS (AND NOT FOR A QUESTION WHETHER IT IS "PROPER" TO PROSETYZE *IN GENERAL*).

    ReplyDelete
  7. And while you are this post the teshuva of Rav Elyashiv kovetz tshuvot 3 yeshuva 140 and translate for the olam.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Roni,

    Prove the Tinok HaNishbah first. You claim this heter(which derives from the Chazon Ish) as a klall when he gave it as a prat, dealing with certain very specific issues.

    While admittedly Rabbanim all the way back to the Rambam permitted the conversion of an intermarried spouse. You will find none that permit the seeking out of those intermarrieds to convert them!

    We have a halacha from the Gemmarra Yevamot 47a-b to discourage. The same language that the above quoted Sh"A.

    The Torah tells us specifically to discourage them. Your argument is that it never tells us we can't encourage them so it is ok.

    In similar logic the Torah tells us to put on tefillin. It never tells us not to neglect to put on tefillin. So if we neglect to do so its OK?

    That is stupidity.

    You have yet to show a single Teshuva that says that we should "encourage" people to convert. Allowing and accepting B'Diavad is a completely different matter.

    Simple understanding of halacha and the halachic process will tell you that you can't do something that is only acceptible B'diavad l'chatchila.

    For example YD 198 says that a woman can toivel with any number chatitzas and even wearing clothing and b'diavad this is acceptable. Send your wife to mikva sometime armed with this argument and see it if achieves any success. You cannot make what is acceptable b'diavad into l'chatchila.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AAron (Dt, Mekubal etc.)

    1) I am not a spokesman for EJF (for the umpeenth time, 2) From what I understand the Rabbonim are told exactly what it is known to all, that EJf will convert some of the intermarried couples that come to them, 3) and WANT to be converted.

    After all the website of the EJf is clear that EJF provides amongst other things ": mentoring for intermarried couples who are fully committed to building genuine Torah homes; support for sponsoring rabbanim who are assisting them in their process; daily contact with leading gedolei Torah regarding halachic standards in conversion; continual networking with batei din regarding conversion standards; educational seminars for couples; conferences that bring together leading rabbanim and dayanim from across the Orthodox spectrum, allowing them to deliberate together on intermarriage and conversion issues".

    and on top of that the many other activites of the organization is to "as well as sincere non-Jewish spouses who wish to correct previous questionable conversions or seek an initial halachic conversion that is universally accepted throughout the world".

    IOw, the Rabbis know: 1) that there thousands of qquestionable gerut that EJf is able to raise the councioussness to them that they are not accepted and that they can be fixed; 2) that sincere want to be gerim can find the proper standard for conversion, 3) resources that help those from the intermarried couples who wish to convert to make it happen.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mekubal,

    "Prove the Tinok HaNishbah first. You claim this heter(which derives from the Chazon Ish) as a klall when he gave it as a prat, dealing with certain very specific issues'.

    Chochom, on this issue, we have from Rav Shlomoh Kluger and Rav chayim Oyzer from TEshuvot HaRambam that there is "takanat hashavim" to *everyone* who wants to do teshuva. So in this *prat* it is much easier to *add* that such a person deserves more the *preexisting* heter of "takanat hashavim?" to all the others who deseve Takanat Hashavim!


    Mekubal: "While admittedly Rabbanim all the way back to the Rambam permitted the conversion of an intermarried spouse. You will find none that permit the seeking out of those intermarrieds to convert them!",

    Roni: They did permitted evenin something that there is an "issur sheynoh barur" like "leshem ishut" (language of RAvMoshe EH 2/4) for the sake of preventing issur chamur. This is *the reason* RAv Moshe explains why it is "permitted" despite being more of an *ISSUR* (though "Sheynoh barur). HOw much more regarding "seeking out those to ENCOURAGE SO THAT THEY WANT TO CONVERT" (which is the proper wording in the discussion) where there is even less of lashon of *ISSUR*! for sure it will be permitted to prevent issur chamur!


    Mekubal then writes: "We have a halacha from the Gemmarra Yevamot 47a-b to discourage. The same language that the above quoted Sh"A.

    The Torah tells us specifically to discourage them. Your argument is that it never tells us we can't encourage them so it is ok."

    ROni: chochom, i really beleive than you simply are unable todiscuss it rationally; you never learnt gemoroh in depth! Chochom, I do not say that it is "OK" to encourage! I said that there is no "ISSUR BARUR" IT IS NEVER WORDED IN A TERMINOLOGY THAT IT IS OSSUR. RAV MOSHE STATES THE *SAME* REGARDING "GERUT LESHEM ISHUT" WHERE IT IS WORDDED MORE IN TERMS OF "ISSUR" YET RAV MSOHE SAYS THAT IT IS NOT "ISSUR BARUR". THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF NOT ENCOURAGING/DISCOURAGING IS CERTAINLY LESS OF "ISSUR BARUR",. THEREFORE IT MAY BE PERMITTTED IN SITUATIONS WHERE IT IS GONIG TOPREVENT ISSUR CHAMUR!

    Mekubal writes: "You have yet to show a single Teshuva that says that we should "encourage" people to convert. Allowing and accepting B'Diavad is a completely different matter."

    roni: For the thousandth time, I never wrote that *in general* "we should encourage people to covnert"; I said that in cases of intermarried people who might want to sincerely covnert there is the permission/zchus to encurage *them* for it is a case of "diavad"! since it's "takant hashavim" that otherwise would not do teshuva! Since it is not "issur barur" (in the language of Igrot Moshe) we are permitted *in cases* of preventing issur chamur and of takanat hashavim!

    Your example of the chatzitas are ludicrous: Tell me aain are you allowed "lechatchila" to be megayer oneleshem ishut in cases where you are going to prevent him from doing an issur chamur? Tell me : In cases where one is allowed to do issur kal toprevent issur chamur (in cases established by posskim that it coincides with Shbbat 4a) iss permissible "lechatchila" or not? Of course the ideal would be not to have to prevent the issur chamur but if the only way to prevent the issur chamur is by doing the issur kal, then in certain cases (As theposskim have to establish then it is permitted "lechatchila"! Rav MOshe states that gerut leshem ishut is a case which is an "issur kal" ( thatis eynoh borur) and is permitted to be done to prevent from intermarrying. How much more so, the practice of not encouraging someone to covnert, which less of "issur barur" is permitted according to Rav MOshe to prevent issur chamur!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mekubal (dt etc.)

    and btw, "You have yet to show a single Teshuva that says that we should "encourage" people to convert...":

    Btw, I brought you numerous times that HaRav ELyashiv printed in Kovets TEshvuot 3/140 that while he holds that in general it is FORBIDDEN to teach torah extensively to someone whois the process of gerut (because of the safek that maybe halacha is like Rav Akiva Eyger), nevertheless he permits it and encourages it in a case of an intermarried couple: The rationale that he gives black on white is: So that we will encourage him so that he decide and "yassim el liboy" to covnert!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I just noticed that finally Rabbi Tropper got the message about Rabbi Sternbuch not objecting to his psakim against the EJF being brought on the internet. On Rabbi troppers blog he has removed the piece regarding Rabbi Sternbuchs supposed objection!

    ReplyDelete
  13. the Monsey TzadikJune 28, 2009 at 8:40 PM

    RAP said

    "Where does it say in Shulchan Oruch that having sex with a goya is not allowed since only a Jewish woman can be a nidda, and many frum men even married ones do rely on this "heter" so it must have validity in the sources as well? "

    Actually one of Tropper innovative hidhishim with he shared with people in one of the conferences is that A Jewish male in intermarriage is on higher madrega than a non observant Jewish male married to a Jewish woman. Tropper reasoning on that issue is that the punishment of having sex with a gentile woman is malkus but the punishment for having sex with a nidah is a kares.

    ReplyDelete
  14. the Monsey TzadikJune 28, 2009 at 10:14 PM

    Tropper said

    Btw, I brought you numerous times that HaRav ELyashiv printed in Kovets TEshvuot 3/140 that while he holds that in general it is FORBIDDEN to teach torah extensively to someone whois the process of gerut (because of the safek that maybe halacha is like Rav Akiva Eyger), nevertheless he permits it and encourages it in a case of an intermarried couple:

    Tropper,

    For a rosh yeshiva with multiple semichas your havanat hanikra is lacking..

    I cannot see where in the teshuva rav Elyashive is encouraging it, That teshuva is taking about classes to gentiles not about about feeding them dining them, serving wines to them, showing them the joy of being haredi, all in sunny California beach resort.

    Then Rav vElyashiv concludes: "...מכל זה נראה דרק דנישואי תערובת שעי"ז שהצד הנכרי משתתף בשיעורים יש סיכויים סבירים שיתן אל לבו להתגייר, ועל ידי זה מצילין את היהודי או היהודיה לשוב בתשובה יש לראות במצבם כאילו בדיעבד ויש לתפוס הדיעה המתרת ללמוד תורה לגוי אם דעתו להתגייר...אבל במקום דלא שייך הטעם הזה. אין מקום להתיר, דהרי איכא תרי איסורא....":

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mt (BSN)


    Look who is talking about "havanat hanikra" (someone who does not beyn yeminoy lissmloy); the one who thinks (with the other stooges over here, that I invented a concept of "chateh bishvil sheuyizkeh chaveyroy":

    Listen I wrote that HaRav ELyashiv printed in Kovets TEshvuot 3/140 that while he holds that in general it is FORBIDDEN to teach torah extensively to someone whois the process of gerut (because of the safek that maybe halacha is like Rav Akiva Eyger), nevertheless he permits it and encourages it in a case of an intermarried couple:

    MT calims that? "I cannot see where in the teshuva rav Elyashive is encouraging it", so let's try again:

    He writes מכל זה נראה דרק דנישואי תערובת שעי"ז שהצד הנכרי משתתף בשיעורים יש סיכויים סבירים שיתן אל לבו להתגייר, ועל ידי זה מצילין את היהודי או היהודיה לשוב בתשובה

    EVEN THOUGH HE RAV ELYASHIV HOLDS THAT IF IT IS *NOT* FROM AN INTERMARRIED COUPLE, THE WOULD BE GER IS *PROHIBITED* TO BE TAUGHT TORAH! THE ONLY REASON HE ALLOWS IT *TO ENCOURAGE* THE NON JEW TO CONVERT. THEREFORE WE SHOULD SEE THIS AS A *BEDIAVAD* AND TEACH HIM HIM TO TORAH "SHEYITEN EL LIBOY LEHISGAYER" TO GET HIM TO CONVERT!!!

    If one can encourage him (and should encourage) by donig something that OTHERWISE WOULD BE ASSUR! *in order to encourage him to covnert* why would other methods that do not involve issurim be worse?!?! atmehooh (lacking havanat hanikara and any havanah at all! amoratzim gmurim).

    ReplyDelete
  16. Btw, Mekubal/Dt (in addition to the abovev)

    Rav ELyashiv writes in kovetz teshuvot 3/140 that in the case of itnermarried we should be tofess like "diavad"! (so your analogies of "chatzitas"" are way off).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rabbi Tropper/Roni should see a competent neurologist for a thorough evaluation. I do not know what medications he is taking, but I am seeing serious and increasing signs in both behavior and writing.

    Please take this seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Roni,

    First a translationitallics are my own comments in the translation:
    From all of this it seemsobviously we are missing parts already please provide those Ronithat a mixed marriage, by means of this the non-Jewish spouse takes partliterally they join themselves to or within shiurim there is a good probability that it will enter into their hear to convert, and by means of this it causes the Jewish man or woman to be saved to return in repentance, there is to see in this b'diavad circumstance that there is to take hold of the understanding that it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert. But in a situation that that this reason is not relevant, there is no place for a heter, this is Ossur.

    Let us enumerate the conditions of the above heter:
    1) Intermarriage

    2) The Non-Jew seeks out and joins shiurim

    3) It is permitted to allow them to take part b'diavad

    4) Since there is a heter to teach torah to a non-Jew who is converting we can extend that to this case.

    To be clear, R' Eliashiv makes a chumra(that one should not teach a person in the the process of Geirut Torah), as this opposes what is written in the Sh"A, but that is OK one can be Chumradik.

    Then he removes his own Chumra in the case of an intermarried couple. If the non-Jewish spouse seeks out Jewish learning. His reason for this is that they may be convinced to convert, and thus in a round about way cause the Teshuva of their Jewish spouse.

    What this leaves out is any mention of encouraging. Nowhere does R' Elishiv say לאמץ להתגייר he simply says that by them deciding to take part in Jewish learning there is a good chance that they will decide to convert, and we should not stop them.

    To sum up. You brought an incomplete Teshuva, and presumably only the part that you thought supported your opinion. Examination of the language and grammar shows that this clearly does not support your position of actively seeking out or encouraging conversion. This is a heter to allow non-Jews in intermarriages who wonder into shiurim, to sit those shiurim, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I added Mekubal's above translation to the post of Rav Reuven Feinstein teshuva - since it servely undermines Ron's assertion that Rav Reuven was justifying proselytization.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 10:27 AM

    Tropper/Roni goes on and on with his own krumkeit and distortions and putting words in people's mouths, so a few responses are in order.

    Roni asks: "WHERE IN SHULCHAN ARUCH OR ANY SEFER OF HALACHA IS IT WORDED THAT IT IS PROHIBITED AS AN *ISSUR* TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT, B) ESPCIALLY SOMEONE ALREADY INTERMARRIED?" and it's such a shocking question does not say many things obvious to Yiddishkeit because the Shulchan Oruch was compiled by Rav Yosef Karo 500 years ago at a time when all Jews were almost all married to Jews, the notion of mass intermarriage and the dor shel shmad (mass apostasy by the majority of Jews who are mostly all secular) that is 90% prevalent now (while about 10% are Orthodox and Haredi) is not what the Shulchan Oruch is for and therefore there are no rulings for today's situation of literal mass shmad and near 90% intermarriage situation, just general principles and halachos of geirus, with no anticipation of a time like today when provably the majority of Jews outside Israel are already intermarried (as in Russia and in in most modern American marriages.)

    The Shulchan Oruch was written for a tekufah when the majority of Jews were frum and yerei shomayim and it does not anticipate a time like ours today in the 21st century of the dor shel shmad that we live in. So Roni's question as always is just a red herring. There is no justification to try to save every last Jew who is intermarried if they do not want to be reached if that means that the minority of true Bnai Torah will be neglected and put at risk.

    Then Roni/Tropper asks tendentiously: "WHAERE IS THERE RECORDED AN *ISSUR* TO ECNOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT? AND LEIDACH: WHERRE IS YOUR HETER TO ENABLE A GOY TO ENTER KLAL YISROEL."

    Obviously there is no issur to sell Yiddishkeit to the universe. Yiddishkeit is not a "restricted" or copy-righted religion. Feel free to market it to any Jews and beyond, like Chabad-Lubavitch, if that is what you think Yiddishskeit should do.

    Go ahead, and be megayer a few million goyim married to the Jews they live with nowadays or even feret out the two billion people that EJF ads say are descnded from Jews. Act messianic, there is no law in the the United Nations or even in the Torah that says you can't, if that is what you want, Yiddishkeit is available to all.

    The whole woerld, except Amelek, is free to convert to Torah Judaism. What is it exactly that you want to accomplish with your klotz kashyes and staw man arguments?

    And, there is obviously no "heter" to bring goyim into klal yisroel, but Tropper and EJF invarioubly will if they bring the planned millions of not billions of new gerim. Who will moniter them and and how ill traditional Yiddishkeit be preserved if Tropper and EJF have their way and every last one of the millions of gentiles hitched to Jews is made into an ultra-haredi convert?

    Isn't that an extreme delusional false messianist objective? that it's hard to imagine that any normative gadol, especially the ones Roni/Tropper keeps on citing would ever allow in his wildest dreams...

    And get this through your head, your approach is worse than Bomzer's because his approach can be shot down easily especially on a case by case look at what he's done, while yours/Tropper's/EJf's ultra-frum gerim, many of whom have already proven to be very shevach inthe end, and gotten rid of, even though Tropper thinks he can do so when he hears that one of his EJF converts puts on pants and yanks off her sheitel, which them increaes the rounds of chilul Hashem that EJF and TRopper set in motion with their mass proseltyzations based on his notorious bait and switch tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 11:07 AM

    Roni/Tropper keeps up his klotz kashyes when he asks: "YET THIS IS PERMITTED IN CERTAIN CASES LIKE DIAVAD, HOW MUCH MORE SO IN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT EVEN WORDED IN SHULCHAN ARUCH AS AN *ISSUR* certainly is not prohibited in cases of DIAVAD? CAPICHE,"


    To Roni/Tropper: You fail to understand the time, place and function of the Shulchan Oruch. The Shulchan Oruch was not written for a time when the majority of Jews would be totally secular and not just removed from Yiddishkeit and be a dor shel shmad as in our times, the dor before the coming of Mashiach.

    Therefore, there is obviously nothing in the Shulchan Oruch that addresses today's modern matzav where, in the case of many lands, like in the USA the Jewish population surveys of 1990 and 2000 prove that the the old notion of a traditional two parent Jewish family is history in America with assimilation now running as high as 90% in most American cities, it is rare that one Jew marries another when they do decide to finally get married and if they are not homosexual (and the gay community is heavily populated with secular and even religious Jews as you know.)

    Thus not everythinbg in the Shulchan Oruch has to be worded as an issur because the Shulchan Oruch was rooted in a different time and place when almost all Jews were religious and married to other Jews unlike the matzav today when almost ALL Jews are intermarried, certainly in America and Russia, and close to half a million Russian goyim in Israel, and it is dishonest and unfair to claim that the Shulchan Oruch treats generations of 500 years ago when all were frum with today's terrible matzav of mass shmad and assimilation and intermarriage, and it is ludicrous to claim and assume that the Shulchan oruch would be as welcoming of millions of interfaith couples 500 years later when noone is frum.

    What you are really trying to do is to create a "shulchan oruch for the acharis hayomim and ikvese demeshica" but it does not exist.

    Perhaps in mysticism there is "Toraso shel moshiach" based on kabbalah and nistar and perhaps you may think that EJF is doing the work of the geulah by gathering in all the mitzotzos of neshamos, but that mean you are taking on the roles of acting like G-d, but you cannot do that by pretending that normative Halacha allows this or that EJF progrma by twisting the words of the deacesed poskim who never dealt with today's mass assimilation and never meant to bring in millions of gerim based on their marraige to JEws (THAT IS WHY EJF HAS NO HASKOMA FROM ANYONE FOR THIS ASPECT OF THIR GOALS) yet you have your own version of a "heter" for a "divine right of kings" based on multiple pilpulim shel hevel.

    But as long as EJF is being ultra-frum can it do as it pleases? No! Even Tropper and Kaplan and EJF must learn their limits and the gedraim involved without pulling the wool over the world's eyes!...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 11:08 AM

    Roni/Tropper asks: "NOW TRY AGAIN: WHERE IN SHULCHAN ARUCH OR ANY SEFER OF HALACHA IS IT WORDED THAT IT IS PROHIBITED AS AN *ISSUR* TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT, B) ESPCIALLY SOMEONE ALREADY INTERMARRIED?"

    To Roni/Tropper; Guess what it doesn't have to say that because the Shulchan Oruch was written 500 years ago at a time when 99% of the Jewish people were fully observant, and when not in Rav Yosef Karo's wildest nightmares would he have thought that over 90% of the Jews would be secular, intermarried, and anti-religios and that they would follow false religious movements like Reform Judaism, secular ideologies like the false idols of Liberalism, Heathenism, Materialism, Atheism, Socialism and Communism, or become secular Zionists, Socialists and Liberals by the tens of millions.

    So yes, you are right, as far as the Shulchan Oruch is concerned if tomorrow two billion goyim decide that they have had an epiphany and want to join Yiddishkeit then as long as the true Moshiach has not come they can theoretically all become Halachic gerim, even if they are not hitched to Jews.

    But remember, one of the features and halachos of the Yemos HaMoshiach is that KLAL YISROEL WILL NO LONGER ACCEPT ANY SORT OF GERIM UNDER ANY CIRCAMSTANCES, and instead of fighting what Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS are paskening, see it in the light of the Acharis HaYomim when the halacha is that Klal Yisroel will no longer accept gerim (altho obviously the BADATS and Rav Shternbuch today do allow genuine geirei tzedek).

    Sadly Tropper and EJF show more zeal to recruit gerim than Bomzer ever did and that is the worrying and alarming part, to say the least.

    "AFTER OVER A YEAR YOU HAVEN'T FOUND!"

    Some things are so obvious that the Shulchan Oruch of 500 years ago when the overwhelming majority of Yidden were Shomer Torah Umtzvos, and just could NOT have imagined today's matzav whereby the vast majority of Jews would be hitched to goyim or the children of these unions as is the case today and that the main issue would be what to do with those goyim rather than what the Jews should do as normal Torah Jews married to other Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Concerning R' Reuven Feinstein's psak given below,

    אודות השאלה אם מותר לקרב זוג מעורב המתקרבים לתורה ולמצוות, כשצד הגויה רוצה להתגייר ומוכנים לקבל עליהם תורה ומצוות כיאות.
    Concerning the question if it is permitted to m’kareiv a mixed couple who are comming backlit. are drawing themselves close to Torah and Mitzvot, when the non-Jew wants to convert and they are prepared to accept upon themselves Torah and Mitzvot properly.

    I have not yet written a full translation of his most interesting psak, however, his Teshuvah, like all Teshuvot, deal with the specifics of the Question. In the Torah world we know this as the equation case + factor = law

    Here we have the case:
    An intermarried couple

    The factors:
    1) They are under their own power and own volition attempting to draw close to Torah and Mitzvot
    2) The non-Jewish partner wants to convert
    3) Both parties are ready to fully accept Torah and Mitzvot

    What is missing is the law which makes this a question. The question being:
    Are we permitted to help them, to draw them near?

    Where this fails to aid Roni/Tropper/EJF is that this Teshuva only applies to those specific factors. It is not giving us permission to seek out these intermarrieds and convince them to return to Torah. In fact it is really not even dealing with that question. The only permission that it is granting us is to aid those intermarried, who realizing the depravity of their state on their own, on their own are trying to come to Torah and Mitzvot.

    We have yet to see a single Posek or Teshuva that allows EJF to go about its outreach campaign.

    We have seen a lot of Roni SCREAMING that these Teshuvot are the magic wand granting EJF's wishes for legitimacy. However when examined they are rather deficient.

    In fact the very nature of these Teshuvot point to the deficiencies that R' Sternbuch and the BaDaTz first found and criticized with EJF. The only B'Diavad leniencies that we have been able to find are for the couples that have come 99% of the way themselves. The question has to this point(in these Teshuvot) been when the intermarried couple is pounding on the door of Yiddishkeit begging to enter, can we let them. Here we are told, by these two Gedolim, B'diavad, yes.

    Kal V'Chomer there is no way we can go out in search of them, and bribe them through expensive parties, concerts, five star resorts, steak dinners and fabulous wine to come in. EJF wants to go out into the highway and drag them in, and try to convince them that all along this is what the really wanted.

    There is nothing in these Teshuvot that permit such behavior. In fact the very nature of the questions and the carefully weighed responses, arriving only at B'diavad positions shows that what EJF is doing is outside the bounds of halakha.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM

    Part One of 4: (My responses to Roni start with "RaP").

    "Roni said... rap, FROM DAY TO DAY YOUR ANSWERS GET MORE CHOLLENTY AND LUDICROUS:"

    RaP: And from day to day you get cruder and ruder, it is amazing that the owner of this blog is so kind and generous to you, for sure Tropper would never allow this kind of language and behavior on his new "blog" whereby he talks to himself.

    "i WILL NOT LET THE PUBLIC FORGET,"

    RaP: Don't worry, you are unforgettable.

    "THE QUESTION POSED TO YOU IS: WHAERE IS THERE RECORDED AN *ISSUR* TO ECNOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT?"

    RaP: There does not have to be an issur as such. Some things are just "sef-evident truths" as they say in Yiddish "es farshteyt zich fun zich alein" meaning self-evident truths that are accepted as near axioms, but that obviously you have chosen to cast off and forget, crush and make fun of that only shows how much of an aparatchik you are, too bad.

    The Shulchan Oruch was dealing with a normative situation where almost 100% of all Jews wanted to follow Halacha, whereas today the matzav farkert, that over 90% of all Jews, and in some places it is also 100%, are secular or very mildly religious and do NOT follow Yiddishkeit let alone Halacha, so in a sense it's like asking, why the Shulchan Oruch, which was written 500 years ago at a time when almost 100% were Torah-observant does not come from a context of an opposite situation (among Jews) where in today's time it's the opposite and about 90% of Jews are secular, assimilated and intermarried, and don't even know what the Shulchan Oruch is.

    So 500 years ago, when basically 100% of all Jews were Mitzva-observant and were kept out of goyish society, the Shulchan Oruch did not need to make any conditions to discourage conversion, which was mostly rare and unheard of, often forbidden by the Chrsitians and Muslims on pain of death, while now, 500 years later when Western society accepts Jews as equals in everything, and the majority of Jews today who are happen to be secular as well, have never heard of the Shulchan Oruch and they are the ones who have assimilated to the point of having married millions of gentiles and in fact today it's a matzav that it's the kids of assimilation and intermarriage who are the "new Jews" and it is that crowd of a new mixed-multitude that the Shulchan Oruch did NOT address and that you/Tropper want to find krumme heterim and do all the acrobatics with twisting the words of meforshim, poskim and gedolim who never meant to allow millions of goyim-hitched-to-Jews to enter klal yisroel ("Kerem Bais Yisroel" as Rav Eisenstien calls it) via ultra-Haredi my-way-or-the-highway EJF-style conversions that nobody needs and nobody asked for except Tom Kaplan and Tropper who thought up this entire EJF bobba-maise scheme on one steamy night when they were shooting the breeze (it's actually written up somehwre online) when they had nothing better to do it seems. Now we are all suffering for this literal meshugas gone wild!..

    ReplyDelete
  25. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 1:08 PM

    Part Two of 4:

    "AND LEIDACH: WHERRE IS YOUR HETER TO ENABLE A GOY TO ENTER KLAL YISROEL.

    RaP: There is none. Stupid question. Oh, and funny you should mention this, where is EJF's heter, even a one line measly one on an official letter head, from even one gadol to proselytize like EJF does to millions of gentiles hitched to Jews and billions of goyim on the Internet? Guess what? There is none!

    "eVERY DAY YOU COME UP WITH MORE NAD MORE NONSESNSE"

    RaP: Insult is not a subsitute for genuine debating.

    "LET'S AGAIN QUOTE SHORTLY THE NON ANSWERS: rap:"Note also that even when Roni/Tropper is provided with Torah and Talmudic sources in the BROAD CONTEXT of the issues under discussion": roNI: they are not an ISSUR OVER A SPECIFIC QUESTION,"

    RaP: So? Who said everybody has to come at a subject your way. Debate the logic, not your straw man one-sided opinionated tendentious diatribes.

    "RAp:" even after specific links were given to all of this blog's quotes and citations, "Roni: All of them do not STATE AN ISSUR TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT!"

    RaP: Indeed, Yiddishkeit is not opposed to conversions, not even to mass conversion done Halachically, after all the Khazars converted en masse, also the Eruv Rav at Yetzias Mitrayim converted, but you are overlooking one small point, that as far as is known, and certainly for the last 2,000 years that the Jews have been in golus they were discouraged by virtually all their chachomim and manhigim (not by Tropper of course) from seeking out geirim and certainly mass geirus was not encouraged.

    If, as the Kuzari says, an entire nation came forth and wanted to be megayer, nothing in the Torah and in life could stop them, but where are they now? They have disappeared. And so too would the millions of Jews hitched to goyim that EJF now want to drag back to Yiddisshkeit whether they want to or not, Tropper and EJF want to feed them conversions like forced medicine and it won't work in the long run, because Yiddishskeit is too serious an undertaking for even Tropper's/EJF's gerim to make it.

    "hiS IS rejected by RAV MOSHE, RAV HENKIN, RAV Y KAMENETSKY, RAV SZ AURBACH AND MANY MORE!"

    RaP: NONE of these were alive and asked in person if they would agree to the notion and plans of Tropper and EJF! They would all turn in their graves if they would know how Tropper and EJF is using them to launch and justify mass proselytization to millions of gentiles hitched to Jews using the Internet based on twisting their words to suit Tropper's and Kaplan's mass conversionary agendas...

    ReplyDelete
  26. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 1:15 PM

    Part Three of 4:

    "i POSTED EXTENSIVELY HOW HE IS OPPOSED BY THEM AND REJECTED BY THEM!"

    RaP: Sure, and none of them were alive when Tropper decided to twist their words, and few wish to engage Tropper in stale debate over this because they fear losing potential money and donations from EJF largesse.

    "RAp: "be it quoting the RI from a Tosfos in Yevamos, or the MAHARSHA in Chulin, or the RAMBAM from Hilchos Melachim who descsribes what the true moshiach will do and that only he (and not EJF) should be doing it": rONI: lUDICROUS FROM AN HOORETZ WHO NEVER LEARNED A BLATT GEMOROH! RAMBAM THERE DOES NOT STATE THAT SOMEONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO ENCOURAGE SOMEONE TO CONVERT"

    RaP: Again with insults who deems that only he has the "true yediah" and that how dare anyone state something that he has not heard or dislikes. Where is there a RAMBAM that allows what EJF is doing to advertise and seek limitless numbers of goyim to convert? Would the RAMBAM say it's ok? (Sure Roni will say wow, we have only converted a few, but so what, look at your own advertising you want to convert millions if not billions of goyim.)

    So EJF is not just aimed at "SOMEONE" but potentially at EVRYone and that is something the RAMBAM or any posek would ever allow.

    Further, seeking out every last Jew who may not wish to have a connection with Yiddishkeit is not permitted and may be a violation of the Divine Hashgocha in this time of the acharis hayomim, when maybe it's the Divine Hashgocha that now wishes to cast that Jew off since he may have earned all his rewards in this world and may be be a member of the Eruv Rav that has come to its alloted time in this world and no more and should be cast off in the ikvese demeshicha, as explained by the MAHARSHA in Masechta Chulin.

    "Roni:"or even a simple fact from the Torah like Moshe Rabbeinu not recruiting the Eruv Rav", RAP: This is NOT AN ISSUR WRITTEN IN SHULCHAN ORUCH,"

    RaP: The Torah is more heilig that the Shulchan Oruch, and the Shulchan Oruch does not deal with every aspect of possible pesak, that is why there are ONGOING shaylos and teshuvos and poskim who grapple with the shaylos. But sure, go ahead and proselytize to as many goyim as you want to join EJF and let's see where that takes everyone. It will not be pleasant as many already are learning once they fall victim to Tropper's known bait and switch tactics.

    "B) EJF DOES NOT CONVERT THOUSANDS OF EREV RAV"

    RaP: But it hopes too and some of its converts have slacked off according to Tropper himself who has pulled the plug on them mercilessly!

    "AS YOU DO ENABLED THROUGH BOMZER."

    RaP: I have never met Bomzer in my life and have zero to do with him!

    "YOU BROUGHT MORE EREV TO KLAL YISROEL OVER THE YEARS THAN THE FEW CONVERTS THAT *HALACHIK* CONVERTS EJF BROUGHT."

    RaP: Bomzer will answer for his crimes and Tropper will answer for his crimes, one has nothing to do with the other, and additionaly, two wrongs do NOT make a right, so the entire logic and premise of Roni/Tropper is busted here.

    "YOU CALLING A HALACHIK CONVERT AS "eREV RAV" IS AGAINST THE"

    RaP: Kashim gerim leYisroel kesapachas, there are many chazals that describe the problems of even the best gerim. In any case, to Moshe Rabbeinu, the Eruv Rav were his EJF and he had to pay the price for that in the end too, the Torah does not hide that while you/Tropper never admit that you make mistakes.

    "*HALACHIK ISSUR* OF TORAH NOT TO HUMILIATE A GER WHICH GOES TO A HALACHIK CONVERT AND NOT TO A NON HALACHIK CONVERT THEY ARE THE EREV RAV YOU TALK ABOUT GO AHEAD AND TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU REGRET OVER ALL THE EREV RAV THAT YOU BROUGHT THROUGH BOMZER..."

    RaP: More hyperbole baloney from Roni/Tropper. I have never converted anyone in my life, mercifully and I do not give a darn about Tropper OR Bomzer, they are both involved with minefields and they deserve each other!..

    ReplyDelete
  27. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 1:17 PM

    Part Four of 4:

    "Where does it say in Shulchan Oruch that you are not allowed to sell, or help deliver, marijuana or ecstasy pills for a living? And yes, unlike the "new testament" of RAP, if you are to go over an internet war against "pilgesh" you must bring *halachik* sources to fight them. and therer *are* Halachik Posskim who spoke abouut it! You boor and krummer am hooretz!!

    RaP: Roni/Tropper only knows the ways of insults rather than have a menschlihdikke discussion. All that was being pointed out to him was that there are many "blind spots" in halacha where the issurim are not evident BUT that does NOT mean that there is a "heter" and that is precisely what Tropper does with EJF, he alleges that because there is no specific issur to be megayer sincere gerim that "therefore" he has a "heter" for EJF to seek out such people by the millions (see all his ads) who are intermarried to Jews and thereby help "solve" a huge Jewish and halachik social problem not realizing that his "solutions" are worse than the problems because they would chalila allow limitless amounts of gentiles to convert to Judaism simply because they are married to Jews by the millions, and rather than casting off these Jews caught in bad marriages who do not wish to be "saved" by EJF, or at least severely winowing and limiting them, he not only welcomes them but runs after them all over the Internet and using full media advertising to underatke proselytization against the norms and practices of Judaism as it has been practiced the last 2,000 years in golus or more!

    Tropper wishes to turn the clock back on 2,000 years of Jewish and Halachik RETICENCE and practical prohibitions to do mass conversions and create a new era whereby Judaism is once again a fully missionary religion (no different to the Jews for J. just it will be Jews for EJF instead) starting with: (a) Jews hitched to gentiles get sought out and missionized, then (b) about two BILLION people who may be of Jewish anscestry are advertized too staring on the Internet, and (c) open the doors to any limitless numbers of any gentiles who may wish to convert to Judaism (after all, megalomania and delusions of grandeur have no bounds), all under the banner of ultra-Haredism thereby creating a new wave in Judaism that has not been seen since the times of Moses & The Exodus or beyond!

    "and likewise the discussion for a sephardi to marry another wife there are *halachik* posskim that deal with *halachikally*,"

    RaP: Please elaborate, what are you saying? that a Sefardi may have more than one wife? which was the case as long as Sefardim lived among Arabs who are fully polygomous as allowed by Islam to this day. No chidush here.

    "ansf likewise, the krummer am hooretz thinks that there are nto *halachik* sources that forbid money laundering even when you keep it qiet,"

    RaP: No comment. Hamevin yavin...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Recipients and PublicityJune 29, 2009 at 1:18 PM

    Part Five:

    "and yes, halachik sources deal with having intercourse with a goya ..."

    RaP: Indeed, tell that to the many Haredim who flauntingly violate this (in America with anyone willing to fall for this clap-trap, and in Israel with many of the loose Russian women from the over 300,000 non-Halachic Jews from Russia.)

    "It is only the krummer am hooretz who has a new testament that holds that there are issues that are not covered by halacha"

    RaP: Sure, only Tropper understands and can interpret Halacha, to him Halacha now allows Tropper and EJF to launch mass advertisements to recruit and proselytize millions and even billions of people to join Yiddishkeit? How is that different to Evangelical Christianity in principle?

    "and he can wage war based on his instincts"

    RaP: Very funny! this is exactly what Tropper is doing! While he hides his missionary and proselytizing agenda under the covers of "universal standards" and attacking other rabbonim he hates when they get in his way, jihad style.

    "this is the new religion"

    RaP: Fascinating that this charge should come from the defender of the new EJF cult that is imploding as we debate here.

    "that comes from someone who never torah she baal peh"

    RaP: Why resort to name calling, when Tropper's personal record is far from sterling! Vehameivin yavin.

    "and eats from money that corrupts one's mind, money frrom brining goyim into klal yisroel."

    RaP: Wrong! I am actually dirt poor! Never got a penny for doing the conversions that Tropper and EJF constantly encourage from the Tom Kaplans of the world as they recruit gentiles to become Jews that goes against the Halacha and normative Yiddishkeit as he obsitinately and bull-headedly tries to create a new EJF-missionary religion worthy of a false messiah suffering from delusions of grandeur and a messianic complex.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ROni: Again not saying it straight (as usual):

    DT: "Let us enumerate the conditions of the above heter:

    2) The Non-Jew seeks out and joins shiurim",

    Roni: Rav Elyashiv goes further, you may go ahead and do something (for instance teach him torah), in order that so that the non jew should look for conversion (Kt 3/140),

    DT/M:"3) It is permitted to allow them to take part b'diavad",

    ROni: It is permitted to teach them lechatchila for halachikally it is has a status of diavad! (RE in KT 3/140),

    "4) Since there is a heter to teach torah to a non-Jew who is converting we can extend that to this case."

    ROni: It is not a *new* heter; it the *same* heter RE writes for *this* same case in KT 3/140.


    M/Dt writes: "To be clear, R' Eliashiv makes a chumra(that one should not teach a person in the the process of Geirut Torah), as this opposes what is written in the Sh"A, but that is OK one can be Chumradik

    Roni: this guy is really on a roll. He now thinks that RAv AKiva Eyger is against Shulchan Oruch. RAE certainly knew Shulchan Oruch and would not make uyp his own chumrah. Obviously RAE is talking about teaching torah extensively that which is not necessary for his immediate conversion. But as usual Dt/M unable to have havanah at A point (that a talmid that passed messivta would not make such asilly comment that Rav Ae makes his own "chumrah").

    Another flaw in Dt/M's formulation as he attempts to mzke this "just" a "chumrah". BUT he forget's that we are a) analyzing how *RAv ELyashiv* understood the "issur" so to understand that he (RSE)was matir an issur that was assur in his perspective in order to make to encourage the non jew (who is already intermarried) to convert. And mind you, we're talking about a sofek in an ISSUR (DERABBANAN) TO TEACH TO TO NON JEWS, ie a CLEAR ISSUR "ISSUR BARUR" that brings the non jew to a chiyuv missoh and yet he waives this issur *in order* to encourage him to convert, how much so when we are dealing with something lesser in nature (for the issue of not encouraging to covnert is not even formulated as an "issur sheynoh barur" as gerut leshem ishut is formulated; it is only that there is a formulation that gerut is to be discouraged but there is no wording that we should not or it is prohibited to encourage), for sure RE should hold that this is waived in order that he be encourages himself to covnert!
    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  30. DT/M: "Then he removes his own Chumra in the case of an intermarried couple. If the non-Jewish spouse seeks out Jewish learning".

    Wrong formulation! HE rules that one should change the halachik practice of a issur (teaching torah to non jews) in order to ENCOURAGE THE NON JEW TO WANT TO CONVERT

    DT:"His reason for this is that they may be convinced to convert, and thus in a round about way cause the Teshuva of their Jewish spouse".

    Roni: Actually his wording is that "sheal yedey shehu mishtatef beshiurim..SHEYITEN EL LIBOY LEHITGAYER", it is actually a DIRECT intention that the non JEws should decide in his heart to convert,

    DT/M writes: "What this leaves out is any mention of encouraging".

    ROni: The whole *content* of this ruling is to cause that he "yiten el liboy" to conert. What else is it, what we WAIVE AND IssUR *IN ORDER* "SHEYITEN" that he should decide (different than what he thought before the participation in this shiur) to convert. In fact it is much more than "encourage" which would mean that the fellow has already this idea in the back of his mind and we are only "encouraging" him; here the wording of RE is "sheyiten el liboh" that he make this start thinking and reflecting in his heart about this idea. Eyn lecho "Encouraging gedoyloh mizeh"!


    DT/M writes: "Nowhere does R' Elishiv say לאמץ להתגייר",

    What would this statement mean?! that we we "push him" (mentally) to convert? that we tell him that this is what he should do? That is obviously not what RE wants and what the method of GErut (which has to come from the decision of the convert himself), but he is nonetheless clear that we can/should do something that will arouse in his heart the desire to convert, this is MUCH STRONGER THAN ENCOURAGING!

    dt/M: "he simply says that by them deciding to take part in Jewish learning there is a good chance that they will decide to convert, and we should not stop them".

    rONI: hOW MUCH TWISTING CAN YOU DO??? hE does NOT write "and we should not stop them"; he actually writes that we should teach them (despite the issur derabanan) IN ORDER THAT HE AROUSE HIS HEART TO CONVERT!

    DT/M: "To sum up. You brought an incomplete Teshuva,"

    It is pretty COMPLETE ON THIS ISSUE LOOK IT UP! IT'S 3/140 BY RAV ELYASHIV HIMSELF (NOT BY SOMEONE WHO RULES SOMETHING IN HIS NAME AND THE RULING DOES NOT ADDRESS THE PRESENT SITUATION -WHAT YOU QUOTE BESHEM RAV EFRATI BESHEM RSE),

    "dt/M:" and presumably only the part that you thought supported your opinion".

    ROni: kishkushim beolmoh from a begginner. Adderabbah bring thepart of the teshuvah that does not support me!

    dt/m writes: "Examination of the language and grammar shows that this clearly does not support your position of actively seeking out or encouraging conversion".

    Roni: simple analysis of the language and the CONTENT of the ruling clearly supports the permission/positive attitude that one should actively do activites (Even things that would otherwise be FORBIDDEN!) IN ORDER THAT NON jeW arouse in his heart the thought to convert!

    in SUM: FOR OVER TWO YEARS YOU ARE HAVING AN INTERNET war OVER SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT THE NATURE OF IT'S HALACHIK STATUS AND YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE SLIGHTEST HOMEWORK TO UNDERSTAND THEM; TO SEE HOW YOUR OPPONENT HAS BASIS TO HIS POSITION and YOU don't FOR YOUR POSITION; YOU ARE EVEN NOW UNABLE TO CONGENTLY UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES; YOU CONTINUE TO TWIST THEM!

    aND IN SUM:A) THERE IS NO "ISSUR BARUR" IN CHAZAL THAT IS WORDED: "DON'T ENCOURAGE CONVERSIONS", B) THERE IS PERMISSION AND MITZVA ACCORDING TO RAV ELYASHIV THAT AN INTERMARRIED NON JEW AROUSE TO CONVERT. C) ACCORDING TO RAV MOSHE: ONE IS ALLOWED TO VIOLATE THE ISSUR SHEYNOH BARUR OF "GERUT LESHEM DAVA" TO PREVENT THE JEW FROM ISSUR CHAMUR, HOW MUCH MORE SO, THE IMPROPRIETY OF "NOT ENCOURAGING" TO CONVERT WHICH IS LESS FORMULATED AS AN ISSUR THAN "GERUT LESHEM DAVAR".

    ReplyDelete
  31. MEkubal/DAAs Torah writes:

    "...Here we have the case:
    An intermarried couple

    The factors:
    1) They are under their own power and own volition attempting to draw close to Torah and Mitzvot
    2) The non-Jewish partner wants to convert
    3) Both parties are ready to fully accept Torah and Mitzvot

    What is missing is the law which makes this a question. The question being:
    Are we permitted to help them, to draw them near?"

    ROni: LEt us hear very clearly, Rav Reuven deals with the question whether or not it ispermitted to be MEKAREV THEM? Kiruv means activities to DRAW THEM NEAR. It does not only mean that we do not reject them; it means that we are allowed/ought to do activiites that we bring them closer.

    THis position is CONTRARY TO WHAT DT/MEKUBAL vekol sheymos shenikreu loy waged an internet over two years with pssokim of Rav Sternbuch and attempted to sell a bill of goods that even KIRUV of such people is prohibited. He attempted to claim that this is the ruling also the ruling of Rav ELyashiv.

    He WAS AND IS WRONG about this. Rav REuven states that rav Moshe, Rav henkin, Rav Aurbach, Rav YKamenetsky all held that one is permitted to be MEKAREV someone who is intermarried but wishes to convert. "Kiruv" means that there needs something more in order to make the conversion happen. If we would be talking about someone ready to convert we would not have to word and state "to be mekarev them"; we would sate "we should meghgayer them". Obviously Rav reuven is talking about someone who still needs help to reach the actual giyur. Yes, he would like to do thing the right thing in pricinple but we are not sure if he would know the details he might want to take that path. WE are mekarev him to steer him in the right path.

    THIS IS CONTRAY TO THE WARS AND THE STATEMENTS THAT DT/MEKUBAL VEKOL SHEMOYSSOV HAKDOSHIM had us to believe! to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  32. Where this fails to aid Roni/Tropper/EJF is that this Teshuva only applies to those specific factors. It is not giving us permission to seek out these intermarrieds and convince them to return to Torah. In fact it is really not even dealing with that question. The only permission that it is granting us is to aid those intermarried, who realizing the depravity of their state on their own, on their own are trying to come to Torah and Mitzvot.

    DT writes: "Where this fails to aid Roni/Tropper/EJF is that this Teshuva only applies to those specific factors. It is not giving us permission to seek out these intermarrieds and convince them to return to Torah. In fact it is really not even dealing with that question'.

    ROni: what Dt/Mekubal wants you to forget, that while that Rav REuven did not rule dirextly on some specific factors; he quoted a Teshuva of Rav ELyashiv THAT DOES!

    This is the teshuva 3/140 where Rav ELyashiv takes one step further and says that one may/should go out in the path of kiruv to attempt the non jew to convert and to an activity that otherwise would be prohibited! TEACH TORAH TO NON JEWS (where to Rav Elyashiv this entails anissur even to a someone in the process of giyur) IN ORDER TO AROUSE IN HIS HEART THE DESIRE TO CONVERT! THIS IS EVEN STRONGER THAN "ENCOURAGING" SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO COVNERT FROM BEFORE BUT NEEDS CONVINCING; WE ARE DEALING WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT PUT SERIOUS THOUGHT AN DHEART TO CONVERT AND WE ARE ALLOWED/SHOULD GO OUT OF OUR HALACHIK WAY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NON JEW WANT TO CONVERT!

    dt/mEKUBAL WRITES: "In fact the very nature of these Teshuvot point to the deficiencies that R' Sternbuch and the BaDaTz first found and criticized with EJF.",
    Roni: In fact the core of this TESHUVA CONTRADICTS AND REJECTS ALL THE POINTS OF THE LETTER BY RAV STERNBUCH! IF THEY AGREED WITH HIS POIINTS IT WOULD BE PROHIBITED EVEN TO BE MEKAREV SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO CONVERT BUT IS INTERMARRIED AS RAVV SHTERNBUCH WRITES!

    and they do not raise any of the chashashot raised by Rav Sternbuch and on the contrary reject them by permitting to be mekrrev them!


    Dt writes: "The only B'Diavad leniencies that we have been able to find are for the couples that have come 99% of the way themselves".

    Roni: what a stretch! He decided 99% maybe 51%?

    Dt writes: "Here we are told, by these two Gedolim, B'diavad, yes.",

    Roni: again distortions. there is no "diavad"; there is a lechatchila to enable TESHUVA TAKANAT HASHAVIM (THAT RAV REUVENQUOTES FROM EARLIER POSSKIM),

    DT/mekubal:"Kal V'Chomer there is no way we can go out in search of them, and bribe them through expensive parties, concerts, five star resorts, steak dinners and fabulous wine to come in".

    Roni: Making hyperbole does not a point make1 RAV ELYASHIV ALLOWS AND STATES THAT IT IS PROPER TO DO AN 8ISSUR* (OF TEACHING TORAH) IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NON JEW MAKE A NEW DECISION TO CONVERT, LIKE AN "INCITEMENT"!, HOW MUCH MORE SO THAN "EXPENSIVE PARTIES" ARE NOT AN ISSUR, "FIVE STAR RESORTS" ARE NOT IN ISSUR; "FABULOUS WINES" IS NOT AN "ISSUR".

    In fact NOTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THESE "FIVE STAR HOTELS" HAS ABEARING IN THE ACTUAL "GERUT! ejF DOES NOT BEGIN THE "CONVERSION" PROCESS! aLL THESE ACTIVITES ARE DONE prior to any beit Din involvement. EJf is neither TELLING THEM THAT THEY *SHOULD* CONVERT. these reorts and all are directed to TEACH THEM (PER RAV ELYASHIV'S RULING) TORAH (SOMETHING WHICH IS ASSUR ACCORDING TO RAV ELYASHIV) IN ORDER TO ENTICE THEM THAT THEY DECIDE ON THEIR OWN TO CONVERT.

    HE HAS A CLEAR RULING OF RAV ELYASHIV TO PERMIT HIM IN HIS ACTIVITES AND RAV STERNBUCH'S RULING IS REJECTED BY RAV MOSHE, RAV HENKIN, RAV YAAKOV KAMENETSKY ETC.

    ReplyDelete
  33. All of the above is *even* if Dt/Mekubl would be correct in their assessment in the activities of eJf
    that the involve themselves in "....bribe them through expensive parties, concerts, five star resorts, steak dinners and fabulous wine to come in...." ; when in actuality he twists the scenarios. Most of the scenarios are: Seminars to intermarried couples that are already hooked up with kiruv organizations and they connect them with EJF which teaches them the beauty of yiddishkeyt and Torah. This is the content of their events. This is exactly what Rav ELyashiv rules that one could/should teach torah to an intermarried npon-jew even though it entails an issur so as that will incite the non jew to arouse his heart to convert!

    I'll again reiterate: Even if the activities of EJf WOULD HAVE BEEN the way DT/Mekkubal describes it would at most have been not an "ISSUR" but a) not the proper procedure in the general halacha of how gerut isperformed, b) whose reason is so that the ger shows real sincerity by come on his own afterour discouraging him. Rav ELyashiv ruled that by an intermarried couple we do not need leikuvoh the "discouraging" part; on the contrary we may entice him so that he to arouse on his own to convert.

    One more important aspect on this whole matter: The reason for the procuedureof discouraging/ not encouraging in general is to bring the real sincerity n in kabblat hamitzvot. EJF is actually in this AREA THE MOST MACHMIR AMONGST AL BATEY DINIM! THEY WILL NOT ACTUAL CONVERT UNLESS THE SEE REAL SINCERITY AND THE BATEY DINIM THAT WORK WITH CONJUNCTION WITH EJF (NOT EJFF ITSELF) WLL NOT MAKE COMPROMISES IN KABBALAT HAMITAVOT. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY EJF'S STANDARDS OF KBBALAT HAMITZVOT AND SICNERITY IN COMMIMTMENT WILL BE MUCH HIGHER THANOTHER GERUT RABBIS ESPECIALLY THE GERUT FRAUDS WHO COMPROMISE IN EVERYTHING AND DEAMND NOTHING AND GET 40,000$ FOR CERTAIN CONVERSIONS AND WE HEAR NOTHING OF DT/MEKUBAL ABOUT THESE FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE THE REAL CONCERNS OF GERUT WHERE GOYIM MX INTO KLAL YISROEL; NOT ONLY THAT SOME OF THE COMMENTERS ON MEKUBAL'S/DT BLOG ACTUALLY STATE THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE REAL COMMITMENT AND THE ENABLE EREV RAV TO COME INTO KLAL YISROEL WHILE THEY ARE GOYIM GMURIM. EJF PROTECTS THE KEDUSHAH OF AM YISROEL BY ACTUALLY STEMMING THESE ELEMNTS INTO KLAL YISROEL!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Roni,

    You show that you have horrible reading comprehension and that you don't know Hebrew. So let's go through the Teshuva of R' Eliashiv line by line.

    From all of this it seems obviously we are missing parts already which makes understanding the Teshuva that much more difficult that a mixed marriage, by means of this the non-Jewish spouse takes partliterally they join themselves to or with, so far nothing about attracting them or reaching out to them, they come on their own in shiurim there is a good probability that it will enter into their hear to convertthis is where Roni shows his lack of Hebrew. שיתן אל לבו does not mean as Roni wants to suggest that we cause the person to do or feel something. Rather it means that they come of their own accord to do so. Don't simply take my word for it. The Reuven Alcalay dictionary(which is the one that Aish, Ohr, Dvar Yerushalayim, Bircas HaTorah, Shtern, the Mir and any other number of Yeshivot tell their students to use says, "to enter into the heart, to pay attention, to take heed, to take to heart"p 1710. Unless R' Eliashiv is using language that he intentionally wants to be misunderstood, Roni is simply wrong on this point. The language indicates something that happens naturally without encouragement. and by means of this it causes the Jewish man or woman to be saved to return in repentance, there is to see in this b'diavad circumstanceAgain we are dealing with a B'diavad case. This is not a l'chatchilla, nor is the Rav suggesting that this become a l'chatchilla, rather we are dealing with a case that after the fact we try to salvage it as best as possible that there is to take hold of the understanding that it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert. But in a situation that that this reason is not relevant, there is no place for a heter, this is Ossur. in other words if the person is not seeking to convert, it is still ossur.

    Now Roni can try and say that I am a beginner, even though the Yeshivot I learn in don't take beginners, but that aside that is his claim. However R' Efrati in a letter, where he explains various clarifications he recieved from R' Eliashiv, quotes the Teshuva thus,
    בדברו אודות נישוי תערובת רח''ל כאשר מבקשים להציל את היהודי או היהודיה לשוב בתשובה והתברר שהנכרי מוכן להתגייר והדברים נעשים בהכוונת ת"ח כהלכה , ציין מרן שהמאירי בסנהדרין(נ"ט) מבואר להתיר.

    Concerning the matters of a mixed marriage, heaven forbid, when they are seeking to save the Jew or Jewish woman to return in repentance, and it has become clear that the non-Jew is ready to convert and the matters are done under the direction of a Talmid Chacham according to Halacha, MaRan indicates that the Meiri in Sanhendrin 59 exlpained to permit.

    We see Roni's position even further weakened. Here R' Efrati claims that the clarification he recieved from R' Eliashiv concerning his Teshuva in Kovetz Teshuvot only applies when the non-Jew is already ready to convert. Any seeking them out or trying to convince them is thus obviously forbidden. Given the choice between R' Efrati's understanding of R' Eliashiv or Roni's, I am afraid that I choose R' Efrati.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just added Rav Efrati's clarification of Rav Eliashiv's teshuva 3:140.

    It is obviously referring to somone who is already interested in converting and not someone who needs to be inspired.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dt/Mekubal:"From all of this it seems obviously we are missing parts already which makes understanding the Teshuva that much more difficult",

    Roni: From the teshuva itself it seems clear that we are NOT missing anything relating to Rav ELyashiv's opinion regarding the permission/importance/mitzva of teaching a non jew intermarried to a jew torah, inorder that he decide to convert!!


    DT/Mekubal contniues: "that a mixed marriage, by means of this the non-Jewish spouse takes partliterally they join themselves to or with, so far nothing about attracting them or reaching out to them, they come on their own in shiurim there is a good probability that it will enter into their hear to convert",

    DESPITE THE FACT THAT ACCORDING TO RAV ELYASHIV WE ARE A) DEALING WITH AN ISSUR TO TEACH TORAH TO A NON JEW, B) AND WE INTEND TO ENTICE HIM TO WANT TO COVNERT (SOMETHIBNG THATIS ANATHEMA TO RAV STERNBUCH AND TO DT UNTIL THESE TESHUVAS), SOMETHING THAT IN YOUR DICTIONARY WAS CALLED UNTIL RECENTLY "PROSELTYIZING" (EVEN IF ONE DID NOT CALL HIM DIRECTLY TO CONVERT; THE MERE ACTION TO AROUSE IN HIM THE WILL TO COVNERT IS IN YOUR OPINION FOR THE PAST TWO WAR YEARS CALLED THE DIRTY WORD "PROSETYZING")

    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  37. DT/MEKUBAK WRITES: "they come on their own in shiurim there is a good probability that it will enter into their hear to convertthis is where Roni shows his lack of Hebrew.",

    Roni: chochom, you are the one lacking any reading comprehension ubeikar any havana in anything relating to torah shebaal peh in a level past messivta! I don't think that I wrote that Rav eLyashiv said that we should seek him out and you haven't been able to post this from my post. What I did say is that again (open your ...head) that a) he permits an ISSUR (in his opinion, b) with the intetion to influence and incite the non jew to decide to convert! (something that Rav Sternbuch and yourself showed ttremdnous opposition for the past two years!). cpaiche?!


    DT/MEkubalcontinues: "לבו does not mean as Roni wants to suggest that we cause the person to do or feel something. Rather it means that they come of their own accord to do so".

    Rn: chochom from the...! "sheyiten el liboy" means that what is happening (in this teshuva: A) PERMISSION TO DO SOMETHING THAT OTHERWISE ASSUR B) WITH A INTENTION THAT HE BE INCITED TO) HIS PARTICIPATION AT THE SHIURIM (SOMETHING USUALLY assur AACC. TO rse) WILLL "SHE" THAT HE SHOULD PLACE IN HIS HEART THE WILL AND DESIRE TO CONVERT "YITEN" MEANS "TO GIVE" IN OUR CONTEXT IT MEANS THAT THE NON JEW BRING IN IN HIS HEART AND PLACE IN HIS HEART THE DESIRE TO CONVERT, WE ARE INTERESTED IN ENTICING HIM TO HAVE A DESIRE TO CONVERT! = "PROSETYZING"! I don't need "dictionary, chochom, I learn *torah* and for instance, "vehachay YITEN EL LIBOY" MEANS A PROACTIVE THOUGHFUL CONTEMPLATIVE INITITIVE BY THE PERSON TO PAY ATTENTION AND TO HAVE HIS HEART LISTEN TO AN IDEA THAT UNTIL NOW HE WAS NOT INTERESTED OR WAS NOT INVOLVED IN! IN OUR CONTEXT: RAV ELYASHIV RULES THAT A ISSUR MAY BE PERMITTED WITH THE SPECIFIC INTENTION SO THAT THE NON JEW BRING INTO HIS ATTTENTION ANIDEA THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED UNTIL NOW! THE IDEA THAT HE CONVERT! =PROSETYZING!
    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  38. Then the MEkubal make sacrobatic jumps: " The language indicates something that happens naturally without encouragement.",

    "Sheyitren el liboy lehitgayer" is STORNGER THAN "ENCOURAGING"; encouraging means that he thought of the idea on his own and we encourage him and "meoded him" in the thoguht that he had on his own; "YITEN EL LIBOY LEHITGAYER" MEANS THAT WE WANT THAT HE SHOULD BRING TO HIS HEART A THOUGHT THAT HE DIDN'T THINK OF UNTRIL NOW, IT WAS NOT IN "HIS HEWART" IN HIS AGENDA AND WE WANT HIM TO BRING IN HIS HEART THIS IDEA. AND IT COMES ABOUT THROUGH THE BEAUTY OF TORAH AND IT'S TEACHINGS WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT EXPERINCE UNTIL NOW, WE WANT HIM TO FEEL A NEW EXPERIENCE SO THAT HE WILL DECIDE A NEW IDEA FROM SCRATCH "I WANT TO CONVERT (NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM HIMSELF, BUT FROM OUR CONVEYING TO HIM A MESSAGE THAT WILL ENTICE HIM WITH THE NEW WILL AND HEART TO COVNERT!), THESE ARE DVORIM PSHUTIM; ONLY SOMEONE WHO (TO BORROW THE OTHER STOOGE) WHO DOES NOT KNOW "HAVANAT HANIKRA" AND HAVANAH BICHLAL CAN MAKE THESE ACROBATIC SUMMARSAULTS!

    DT/MEkubal: "and by means of this it causes the Jewish man or woman to be saved to return in repentance, there is to see in this b'diavad circumstanceAgain we are dealing with a B'diavad case. This is not a l'chatchilla, nor is the Rav suggesting that this become a l'chatchilla, rather we are dealing with a case that after the fact we try to salvage it as best as possible",

    ROni: How can this chochom not know how to read? RAv ELyashiv specifically ALLOWS/RECOMMENDS *LECHATCHILA* THAT THE FELLOW SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN SHIURIM! SO THAT HE WILL DECIDE BECUASE OF THE SHIURIM TO CONVERT. HE CALLS THIS "LECHATCHILA" IN THE LEVEL OF *BEDIAVAD*. ONLY SOMEONE WHO DID NOT PASS MESSIVTA IS NOT AWARE THAT SOME CASES ARE *ALREADY* "DIAVAD" SO THAT WE GIVE PERMISSION TO ACT LECHATCHILA BECUAUSE IT REACHED ALREADY THE STATUS OF "DIAVAD". THIS IS WHAT HE WRITES "YESH LIROS BEMATZVOH KEILU BEDIAVAD" THE GUY IS ALREADY INTERMRRIED SO WE SHOULD SEE THIS AS AN "EXPOST FACTO" ANDTHEREFORE PERMIT LECHATCHILA THAT HE ATTEND SHIURIM IN ORDER THAT HE HAVE THE NEW HEART TO CONVERT!

    ReplyDelete
  39. THEN HE SIMPLY DISTORTS THE LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THE WORDS: HE WRITES "it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert", WHERE DID YOU SEE RSE SAYING THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TEACH IF HE *ALREADY* HAS IN "HIS MIND TO CONVERT", WHEN HE STATES THE CONTRARY, THAT *AFTER* PARITICPATION AT THE SHIURIM HE WILL HAVE HEART TO CONVERT! SO WHEN YOU WRITE TOCH KDEY DIBBUR "in other words if the person is not seeking to convert, it is still ossur", is false and OPPOSITE TO WHAT RSE WRITES, FOR HE CLEARLY IS TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS NOT YET SEEKING TO CONVERT!

    "However R' Efrati in a letter, where he explains various clarifications he recieved from R' Eliashiv, quotes the Teshuva thus,
    בדברו אודות נישוי תערובת רח''ל כאשר מבקשים להציל את היהודי או היהודיה לשוב בתשובה והתברר שהנכרי מוכן להתגייר והדברים נעשים בהכוונת ת"ח כהלכה , ציין מרן שהמאירי בסנהדרין(נ"ט) מבואר להתיר"..

    I CITE YOU SOMETHING THAT IS PRINTED BY RAV ELYASHIV'S PEN HIMSELF AND YOU CITE ME HEARSAYS BESHEM UBESHEM...

    IF YOU WANT SOME HEARSAY TAKE RAV SILBERSTEIN LETTER AND SEE HOW RSE PERMITTED TO TEACH SMALL GOYIM SO THAT THROUGH THERM THEY WILL OVERTURN THE HOUSE AND CAUSE THE PARENTS TO CONVERT! THE OPPOSITE OF RAV EFRATI...BUT I DON'T NEED NETIHER'S HEARSAY I GO TO THE SOURCE PRINTED IN KOVETS TESHUVOT BLACK ON WHITE: THA THE PERMITS EVEN BEFORE THE GOY IS ITNERESTED TO COVNERT IN ORDER THAT HE CONVERT!

    ReplyDelete
  40. AND BTW, ABOUT KNOWING HO WTO READ: HOW CAN YOU BICHLAL THINK BETOR HAVA AMINA THAT RSE MEANT AFTER THE GUY WANTS TO CONVERT WHEN HE WRITES ,יש סיכויים סבירים שיתן אל לבו להתגייר":

    in english it means: "THAT THERE ARE REASONABLE POSSIBILITIES THAT HE MAY WANT TO AROUSE HIS HEART TO CONVERT" IF WE ARE TALKING LIKE THE "CLARFICATION" THAT HE MEANS AFTER HE DECIDED TO CONVERT AND READY TO IT, WHY "REASONABLE POSSIBILITY"; IT IS CERTAINTY! IT IS CLEAR THAT YOU ARE MISREADING RE (PLUS: IF THE CLARIFICATION WAS TO THI SLETTER THEY SHOULD PLACED AN ADDENDUM IN THE PRINTING AND THEY SHOULD HAVE OMMITTED THIS FROM THE PRITING!).

    IN SUM: DT/MEKUBAL'S WAR FOR TWO YEARS HAS NO FOUNDATION: HIS ONLY SOURCE IS RAV STERNBUCH WHO IS HIGHLY REJECTED BY RAV MOSHE, RAV KAMENTZKY, RAV AURBACH, RAV HENKIN RAV ELYASHIV. AND NOW AFTER SEEING BLACK ON WHITE HOW RAV ELYASHIV IS MATIR TO CREATE A NEW HEART FOR THE PERSON TO COVNERT =PROSETYZING HE POSHUT MSREADS WHAT IS WRITTEN AND SHOWS LACK OF HAVANAH THAT EXIST IN AANY TALMID WHO PASSES MESSIVTA AND THINKS HE IS ENTITLED TO "WAGE THE INTERNET WARS"!

    ReplyDelete
  41. the Monsey TzadikJune 30, 2009 at 6:08 AM

    Tropper Said

    ROni: How can this chochom not know how to read? RAv ELyashiv specifically ALLOWS/RECOMMENDS *LECHATCHILA* THAT THE FELLOW SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN SHIURIM! SO THAT HE WILL DECIDE BECUASE OF THE SHIURIM TO CONVERT. HE CALLS THIS "LECHATCHILA" IN THE LEVEL OF *BEDIAVAD*. ONLY SOMEONE WHO DID NOT PASS MESSIVTA IS NOT AWARE THAT SOME CASES ARE *ALREADY* "DIAVAD" SO THAT WE GIVE PERMISSION TO ACT LECHATCHILA BECUAUSE IT REACHED ALREADY THE STATUS OF "DIAVAD". THIS IS WHAT HE WRITES "YESH LIROS BEMATZVOH KEILU BEDIAVAD" THE GUY IS ALREADY INTERMRRIED SO WE SHOULD SEE THIS AS AN "EXPOST FACTO" ANDTHEREFORE PERMIT LECHATCHILA THAT HE ATTEND SHIURIM IN ORDER THAT HE HAVE THE NEW HEART TO CONVERT!



    If not for yeridan hadorot you should be in cherem for advocating ( and misrepresenting r’ Elyashiv) that the diavad in this case creates lechatchila.

    The next logical step is that guys who are dating gentile girls would not try to convert her and then marry her, they should marry her first and then try to convert her so now the situation is bediavd and you can do everything you want.

    You should be a rosh yeshiva in Chelem.

    ReplyDelete
  42. AND IT COMES ABOUT THROUGH THE BEAUTY OF TORAH AND IT'S TEACHINGS WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT EXPERINCE UNTIL NOW, WE WANT HIM TO FEEL A NEW EXPERIENCE SO THAT HE WILL DECIDE A NEW IDEA FROM SCRATCH "I WANT TO CONVERT (NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM HIMSELF, BUT FROM OUR CONVEYING TO HIM A MESSAGE THAT WILL ENTICE HIM WITH THE NEW WILL AND HEART TO COVNERT!), THESE ARE DVORIM PSHUTIM; ONLY SOMEONE WHO (TO BORROW THE OTHER STOOGE) WHO DOES NOT KNOW "HAVANAT HANIKRA" AND HAVANAH BICHLAL CAN MAKE THESE ACROBATIC SUMMARSAULTS!
    ======================================

    Hate to break your bubbles but those girls who you say got a new heart and now see clearly the beauty of Judaism are really doing it for their boyfriends/husbands.

    You are also naively or stubbornly believe that a person who is dating or marrying non Jewish girl is going to become haredi and live in Lakewood. It is not going to happen.

    Your best chance is to have them practicing Modern Orthodoxy but hey, you hate them so much and you even revoked the conversion of a woman who wore pants and threaten another woman convert who wanted to be a nurse.

    I am not sure why people will go to convert with the EJF if they can have more normal and more accepted conversion with the RCA even if it costs more.

    ReplyDelete
  43. while you at it twisting as usual fix the heading where you mislead the people by saying that I claim that "Attract non jews to prseltyze is permitted" fix it to stop your LIES, for I never said it is "permitted" in all instances; i'm talking about "intermarried couples"! (What i'm arguing with you is that there is no "issur barur" over it; no formulation in the form of a issur but certainly it is not to be done in general.

    but what can yyou expect from someone who wages an internet war without learning the issues or the ability to learn the issues?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dt/MekubAL WRITES: "just added Rav Efrati's clarification of Rav Eliashiv's teshuva 3:140.

    It is obviously referring to somone who is already interested in converting and not someone who needs to be inspired.

    June 2",

    TO BORROW YOUR PHRASE: you are embarassing rav efrati by stating that he claims that his "clarification" is the meaning of the tesvhua: it is clear that he is talking about someone who is not interested in conversion, for someone who wants to convert he would not say that the permission rests on the "reasonable possibilities" that he will convert, when THEN THE WORDING WOULD BE "MOST PROABLY" OR "CERTAINLY" HE WOULD CONVERT!

    it IS CLEAR THAT HE CLAIMS THAT THE ATTENDANCE AT THE SHIURIM IS THE CATALYSTS THAT WILL MIGHT BE A REASONABLE POSSIBILITY THAT HE MIGHT PALCE HIS HEART TO CONVERT!

    WHY DO YOU EMBARASS RAV EFRATI WITH JUST TWISTED "CLARFICATION" FOR SOMEOTHING SO OPEN THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE "CLARIFICATION"?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Also his "clarification" did not make it in the printed book!

    Which means that even if what you say is true (being that you have achazakah to misundertand what is said) the fact remains that the motziey leor of the sefer did not "hold" of the "clarification" and it reads kipshutoy the way it is written: which he speaks about soemone who is not yet interested to convert and we need to bring him so that he will varouse his heart to want to convert and the shiurim might be a possible reasonable medium that he might arouse his heart through those shiurim!

    ReplyDelete
  46. First and foremost it is becoming increasingly clear that Roni is finding himself on the loosing end of this argument. First primary indicator is his heavy reliance on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem attacks. This is a tactic only employed by those lacking a substantial counter argument. I for one would like to see Roni formulate a response without the need to rely upon insults and deprications.

    Second is his apparent need to spam post and us ALL CAPS WHICH SIGNIFIES YELLING AND SCREAMING instead of respectfully dealing the issues at hand in a clear and concise manner.

    Finally here are five errors that Roni has made(whether intentionally or unawares is only for him to say)

    1) His insistance on thinking that שיתן אל לבו means something stronger than encouraging. He simply does not know Hebrew. For those of us to spend our leaves in Hebrew speaking society and Yeshivot. Roni's error here is clear. For those that do not, the Reuven Alcalay citation proves him wrong.

    2)Thinking that Kovetz Teshuvot was written first person by R' Eliashiv. When in fact it was cobbled together by his grandson. Most of the Teshuvot found in it are truncated from what he originally wrote thus making them hard to understand.

    3) Dismissing R' Efrati's letter of clarification. Quite simply R' Efrati is and has for quite sometime been R' Eliashiv's right hand man. If he writes, as there is evidence that he did, and D"T even posted the letter http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/06/rav-reuven-feinnstein-kiruv-and.html. However Roni wants to claim that this signed letter of R' Efrati is hearsay. The truth that the letter exists, and can be viewed. R' Eliashiv obviously felt the need for clarifications over what was printed in Kovetz Teshuvot, as R' Efrati explains in his letter.

    4) Roni mistakenly assumes that R' Eliashiv's letter says that it is l'chatchila to encourage a person to convert. I challenge Roni to find the word l'chatchila or encourage anywhere in the text of the Teshuva. Rather he choses to LIE about the meaning of שיתן אל לבו hoping to mislead people.

    5) He rejects the straightforward meaning of the text. Especially the words אם דעתו להתגייר. With Roni's current understanding these words do not fit. However if we understand that the text the way R' Efrati clarifies it, these words make perfect sense.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Mt (MR),

    you should be last to talk about these things (in addition that you don't begin to understand these issues) you ARE MATIR TO TAKE E$$$NAN ZONAH LECHATCHILAH TO ADD EREV RAV BEYISROEL!

    ReplyDelete
  48. Roni has been unable or unwilling to provide the full text of the disputed Teshuva. Therefore I am posting it here for the sake of clarity. Simply reading this Teshuva in its entirety shows the truncated nature of the text. The presence of an ellipsis in the printed text itself is a sign that even in the sefer we are not reading(as is often the case with this sefer and the reason that R' Eliashiv and those closest to him have felt the need to issue numerous clarifications) the full teshuva that was penned by R' Eliashiv, but rather the parts that were included by his grandson in the final formulation. It should be noted that the same issues occured within the Yalkut Yosef, which as lead to different editions and at times estrangement between R' Ovadiah and his son R' Yaakov.


    קובץ תושבות חלק ג'
    סימן קם - האופנים בו מותר ללמד בן נח תורה
    רעק"א בתשובותיו סימן מ"א דן בגוי שהחליט להתגיר ומכיון שבמקום שהוא נמצא אי אפשר לגיירו בגלל חוק המלכות לכן הוא מבקש שעל כל פנים ילמדו לו מקרא וסדר תפילה ואחרי כן ילך למקום אחר ושם יתגייר. ומסקנתו 'יאין בכחי להתיר".
    אמנם במאירי בפרק זי מסנהדוין כתב "אם עסק בתורה שלא לכוונת קיום עקרי מצוותיה אלא שלבו חפץ לירד לידיעת תורתינו הקדושה ותלמודינו ראוי ליענש - מכל מקום כל שהוא עוסק בעקרי ז' מצוות ובפרטיהם - מכבדין אותו אפילו - וכל שכן אם חקירתו לדעת לבא עד תכלית שלימות תורתינו עד שאם ימצאנה שלימה יחזור ויתגייר - כל שכן אם עוסק ומקיים עקרי מצוותיה לשמה אף בשאר חלקים שבה שלא משבע מצוות עכ"ל.
    וברד"ל שפירושו על מדרש רבה פרשת נשא פרשה י"ג אות ט"ו כתב דכוונת המדרש שם כמה שאמרו "עכו"ם המתגייר ועוסק בתורה הריהו ככהן גדול דמכיון דבא לההגייר רשאי לעסוק בכל התורה נוסף על ז' מצוות בני נח ע"ש.
    ...מכל זה נראה דרק בנשואי תערובת, שעל ידי זה ,שהצד הנכרי משתתף בשיעורים יש סיכויים סבירים שיתן אל לבו להתגייר, ועל ידי זה מצילין את היהודי או היהודיה לשוב בתשובה יש לראות במצבם כאילו בדיעבד, ויש לתפוס הדעה המתרת ללמוד תורה לגוי אם דעתו להתגייר.
    אבל באופן דלא שייך הטעם זה, אין מקום להתיר דהרי איכא תרי איסורא, חדא, האיסור המוטל על הגוי, עכו"ם העוסק כתורה חייב מיתה, ולפי זה היהודי הלומד תורה אתו עובר משום לפני עוור. ועוד מה שאמרו חז"ל בחגיגה דף י"ח אין מוסרין דברי תורה לעכו"ם משום דכתיב ומשפטים בל ידעום.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Roni,

    To put the Bomzer thing to bed, as it is a constant red-herring that you throw out. I think that false conversions done by him or anyone else are disgusting. Reducing our standards on geirut only damages klal Yisrael, and klal Yisrael is already in enough trouble.

    I cannot speak for the blog owner R' Eidensohn, as to why he does not address that specific issue more. However, my guess would be that the reason is that R' Bomzer, unlike R' Tropper, does not publicize his doings and post advertisements on the web and in newspapers. Also he is not trying to coax other Rabbis into doing it with him.

    So while what he is doing is a problem, and damages klal Yisrael. In my mind it is not the same level of threat that we have from the problematic actions of R' Tropper.

    For further clarification, R' Eidensohn and myself are two different people, with different views. If you take the time to notice, I have my own blog that deals with vastly different issues. However I enjoy the, at times, intellectually stimulating conversation here. Also I need to find something to do so that I don't forget English, since the majority of my life is spent in Hebrew.

    ReplyDelete
  50. AND IT COMES ABOUT THROUGH THE BEAUTY OF TORAH AND IT'S TEACHINGS WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HE DID NOT EXPERINCE UNTIL NOW, WE WANT HIM TO FEEL A NEW EXPERIENCE SO THAT HE WILL DECIDE A NEW IDEA FROM SCRATCH "I WANT TO CONVERT (NOT SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM HIMSELF, BUT FROM OUR CONVEYING TO HIM A MESSAGE THAT WILL ENTICE HIM WITH THE NEW WILL AND HEART TO COVNERT!), THESE ARE DVORIM PSHUTIM; ONLY SOMEONE WHO (TO BORROW THE OTHER STOOGE) WHO DOES NOT KNOW "HAVANAT HANIKRA" AND HAVANAH BICHLAL CAN MAKE THESE ACROBATIC SUMMARSAULTS!
    ======================================
    LL COOl (dT, mEKUBAL, VEKOL HASHEMOS SHEKORREY ESS ATZMOY KDEY LEKLL EJF),


    'Hate to break your bubbles but those girls who you say got a new heart and now see clearly the beauty of Judaism are really doing it for their boyfriends/husbands.",

    rONI: FIrst of all we are not talking about unmarried "girls" that Bomzer/RAP and all their names are really doing for their boyfriedns or better the parent of the boyfriend plus an e$$$nan zonah fee to the shabbos goy! But EJf does NOT do these services to "grilfriends". Secondly, they actually have botey dinim of respected rabbis who are not involved in a mindset to give a stamp of approval to those who are not sincere. They only do it after they are convinced the propsect is really sincere to commit to Torah and mitzvot.

    LL COOL then tells us the of 180 degrees critic of the previous one (something so odd by the critc of this blog that he can complain from the three sides of his mouth: that tropper prozletyzes and that he would not convert unless they become haredi)

    "You are also naively or stubbornly believe that a person who is dating or marrying non Jewish girl is going to become haredi and live in Lakewood. It is not going to happen".

    Roni: Number sometimes it happens. Number most of the times when this does not happen we have couple that remains in theirorginal city and live a Jewish life of shmirat shabbat, kashrut and taharat hamishpcha and other practices of Jewish lifestyle that many in the MO community (like many inn the haredi community) are unable to provide, or better peole like HB don't even ask for anything in many cases and especially if there is an some $$$ attached!

    and the fact that so many do end up in the EJf shows how the criticism that is filled with sheer hatred of EJF does not reflect reality, so that many of them find thmselves converting to a lifestyle of Jewish observance and attachment to AM Hashem through the observanceof torah and itzvot and while they stil remain in their original practices and skill in life.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The first sign that Dt/Mekubal is losing his long stupid internet war for years is that is so despaired that he must LIE to make a point! FIx your heading before anything, I never said that "proselytizing" is permitted in *general*.

    number two: I guess the Baal HaHagaddah should have listened to you, and instead of "hakheh ess shinov" he should have adopted another method for DT/Mekubal would come running that this metrhod shows that we the position of the chochom is weakened so he has to resort to "hakheh shinov" (a little more than plain "ad hominom").

    NOw, after you have proven to make simple errors for years (starting with your misreading of Igrot Moshe EH 2/4 and your insistence on Rav Sternbuch's position to criticize Tropper when MOST OF HIS POINTS ARE REJECTED BY RAV MOSHE, RAV HENKIN, RAV Y KAMENETSKY, RAV AURBACH, RAV ELYASHIV) you now compoud your errors by stupidly insissting to things that every bar bey rav dechad yoma knows that you are mistaking!

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dt/Mekubal writes:") His insistance on thinking that שיתן אל לבו means something stronger than encouraging. He simply does not know Hebrew. For those of us to spend our leaves in Hebrew speaking society and Yeshivot. Roni's error here is clear. For those that do not, the Reuven Alcalay citation proves him wrong".

    ROn: it's a plain rachmonut on you that you must bring a REuven Alcalay to make your error so blatant.

    No matter how you will slice it the sentence: "שעל ידי זה שהצד הנכרי משתתתף בשיעורים יש סיכויים סבירים שיתן אל לבו להתגייר",

    means that we are dealing with someone who has not yet put in his heart the idea that he should convert and only through the participation at the shiurim he will get a new idea that he should covnert. This is far stronger than "Encouraging" someone who already thought about converting! Open and shut case. you can drey how much you want...but the sentence reads the way I read it (which was BTw that you need your false
    "clarification").

    ReplyDelete
  53. "2)Thinking that Kovetz Teshuvot was written first person by R' Eliashiv. When in fact it was cobbled together by his grandson. Most of the Teshuvot found in it are truncated from what he originally wrote thus making them hard to understand".

    While they do did not have the original kssav yad, and they may be missing a word and have shinuy leshonot, nevertheless it was written from what has been printed in sfrorim and kovtzim.

    This teshuva and the statment make it clear about the content and the idea thereoff, that leaves no room for the possibilityof the "clarification" as the teshuva is clear that we are dealing about someone who is not yet interested to convert and the shiurim might be reasonable possibilties that he will start thinking to convert by his attendance at the shiurim.

    ReplyDelete
  54. DT/Mekubal vekol shmoyssov write:

    "3) Dismissing R' Efrati's letter of clarification. Quite simply R' Efrati is and has for quite sometime been R' Eliashiv's right hand man. If he writes, as there is evidence that he did, and D"T even posted the letter http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/06/rav-reuven-feinnstein-kiruv-and.html. However Roni wants to claim that this signed letter of R' Efrati is hearsay. The truth that the letter exists, and can be viewed. R' Eliashiv obviously felt the need for clarifications over what was printed in Kovetz Teshuvot, as R' Efrati explains in his letter".

    A few errors: a) Rav Efrati is NOT his right man regarding GErut! b) his clarification in the name of Rav ELyashiv over this letter does not make any sense for any bar bey rav dchad yomeh that reads the letter as printed is OPPOSITE TO what Rav EFrati is writing!, 3) Especially that we have anothe r letter by Rav LEyashiv's son in Law (Rav silberstein) who says that his FIL rules that sometimes it is an inyan to be MEKAREV (PROLETYZE) the children of itermarried couples (who are goyim - their mother goya) (even though there is an issur gomur to teach goyishe children and EVEN THOUGH IT POSES A GREAT DANGER OF FORSTERING INTERMARRIAGE as the other children in school (who are not so much from frum origin) might think these children are JEwish) IN ORDER TO BE MEZAKEH THEIR PARENTS for if the children would live a Jewish life (by "proselytizing to them and teachings them the beauty of yiddishkeyt) these children will convert and SO TOO THEIR MOTHERS! SO not only is the "clarafication" of Rav ELyashiv fly in the face of the written printed teshuva; but it goes against another ruling by Rav ELyashiv recorded and written by Rav Zilberstein who is Rav Elyashiv's son in law.

    ReplyDelete
  55. DT/Mekubal writes: "4) Roni mistakenly assumes that R' Eliashiv's letter says that it is l'chatchila to encourage a person to convert. I challenge Roni to find the word l'chatchila or encourage anywhere in the text of the Teshuva. Rather he choses to LIE about the meaning of שיתן אל לבו hoping to mislead people".


    Roni: Look who is despaired and is losing his internrt wars! How pathetic...how ludicrous for a ben torah who passed the messivta level to make such a statement!

    He challenges me to find the word "lechtchila" or the word "Encourage".

    There is no need for anything but the PERMISSION from Rav Elyashiv that he attend the shiurim and we teach ity to them. Thisis number one "lechatchila"! Furthermore: Obviously we are not talknig about one shiur but about many shiurim as it is simple that he will not be persuaded by one shiur and it is simple the words of the teshuva "besshiurim". He says that there is a very awaited special outcome that allows us to over the issur. He says BLACK ON WHITE that we "מצבם כאילו בדיעבד": For anyone inpast messivta level knows that this is not a literal "diavad" (expost facto) because we ARE teaching him lechatchila, BUT DUE TO THE EXTENUATING CIRCUMNSTANCES we can see "THEIR SITUATION AS IF IT WOULD BE A SITUATION OF DIAVAD".

    Dt: Insead of wasting your time with these stupid internet wars go back to yeshiva and start learning! and you will see ho wludicours you sound on this claim you're making!

    ReplyDelete
  56. DT/mekubal furtehr writes:" ) He rejects the straightforward meaning of the text. Especially the words אם דעתו להתגייר. With Roni's current understanding these words do not fit. However if we understand that the text the way R' Efrati clarifies it, these words make perfect sense".

    Roni: AS we have shown before, the "claraification" makes no sense whatsoever in the entire sentence of "she al yedey zeh shemishtatef beshiurim, yesh sikuyim svirim sheyten el liboy lehissgayer", which cannot be read in any other way than, the fellow is NOT YET THOUGHT AND DECIDED TO CONVERT! AND WE NEED THE SHIURIM TO BRING OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE WILL THINK TO HIS HEART TO CONVERT,

    I'll explain to you how you can read the words "אם דעתו להתגייר" for it is not the whole sentence; it is part of a whole sentence!:

    It says the follwoing: "ויש לתפוס השעה המתרת ללמוד תורה לגוי אם דעתו להתגייר":

    These wrods are read: WE should hold like the opinion that holds that one is permitted to teach torah to non Jew if he has in mind to convert". This means that the opinion that is matir to teach to a prospective ger was talking practically about a prospective ger (so RYSE here quoed the way it was brought down). But that opinion didn't state that this is the only way which it is permitted. He thinks that the rationale for this permission does not lie on the *already* commitment to convert; for at the end is he still a non jew and a non jew is not allowed to study torah! so what is the permission for him to learn? SO Rav ELyashiv understands that the reason is: that when the teching of torah to a non jew is part of what helps him to get closer to the giyur, such a limud is not included in the issur. Iow, it's not that the *gvra* is already permitted to learn torah (As he is still a goy); but the type of *limud* that helps a goy come closer to giyur that type of limud is permitted. So, when we have a situation that giyur is ideal (to prevent issur chamur) that limud might lead to this ideal giyur then this issur is permitted.

    Rembmer: the whole sentnce of the teshuva does not begin to make sense by the "clarficiations" position.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mekubal/Dt

    the parts that are touching our situation (which clearly the paragraph that begins with "nissuey taarovet" is the the the first he talks about it as it understood from the teshuva) is quite strughtforward and is the opposite of your position icluding the "clarification".

    ReplyDelete
  58. Mekubal/DT

    I will not put the bomzer thing to bed, as it is relevant to the discussion. The more you and other shaymot shenikreu loy just ignore it and do not talk about it (at best) is because you know that this is the main reason why GEDOYLEY YISROEL support RT! because his acitivites underine the fake factories that exist and this danger is far graver than all the pseudo dangers you have created in your internet wars against tropper.

    Gedoyley Yisroel realize that Tropper is enhancing the stadnardss reduced by the factories that have the stamp of approval of so many peiple and has the tacit silence of other including those who find time and energy over stupid and minor issues in the area of gerut!

    Mekubal I can help but see that and Dt are one and the same person with the many sheimos shenikreu loy. you share the same obssession about tropper...you calimed things about Rav Eisenstein that I know are not accurate to put it mildly and on and on.

    Your guess does not help much for although he does not publicize in the internet the way T does, anyone in the know how of gerus knows about him and everyone who is a little bit involved in the issue knows about someone who has furnished $$$zonah money to make a fake gerut. So if someone like you is really intereestd in puting your energy to fight Tropper (although you claim to ahave no time ...and are busy learning dayanut) it simply baffles the mind that you do not really deal with the real worries and dangers...something fishy....


    So too, your bogus reaon that he is not trying to coach other rabbis does not help to answer the tmiha atzumah agains you/dt is astonisihng! for if you are about the *person* or ABOUT THE PROBLEM IT BRINGS KLAL YISROEL? If you were about the latter and you would understand that the numbers of this person's factories false gerim are staggering you would drop your limited time and energy about the minor infractions (in your mind of T) and you would really rail about the real danger to klal yisroel.
    So you would even dream to say that he is not doing the same danger as tropper. Only a person with an axe to grind would ever think that Tropper's doing is agreater danger than Bomzer. Even the statement that you/Dt stated that "both stibk" is pathetic and shows that there is an axe to grind!

    One is brigning GOYIM in klal yisroel and real intermarriage; the othe at worse is teh avera of "prosetyzing" but not actual goyim, for EJF only does conversion after real kabbalat hamitzvot.


    I cannot help it but seeing you and Dt the same person. there are some comments that mekubal cannot hide the DT within him! you can have twnty blogs and put different spins but one thing unifies you: the obssession and hatred at the person Tropper that places your time and energy to focus on him as if he is the evil scum of the earth!

    ReplyDelete
  59. DT,

    regarding the "ad hominom" remark, it is funny coming from one who over two years has not missed the opportunity to write in your open name or in the names (or at best allow "ohers") to vicously attack Rabbi Tropper with the most vile venomous hatred!

    ReplyDelete
  60. One of the obvious problem with Roni's assertion is that he is basing himself on a flawed work as it stated in the beginning of Kovetz Teshuvos

    קובץ זה נאסף ונלקט מספרים קובצים וכו'. וזאת למודעי כי ברוב התושבות לא היה גוף כתה"י לנגד עינינו, וסמכנו על הנדפס ויש מהם שבאו בחסר ושינויי לשון. כך שאין מקום כלל לקבוע דבר מהם. התשובות נלקטו ונסדרו ע"ד בלבד ואם שגינו אתנו תלין משוגתנו, ואנו תפלה להשי"ת שלא יצא דבר תקלה ח"ו מתח"י.

    With all your pilpul the text you are using is at best missing significant information and at worst is inaccurate. I cited Rav Efrati who explicity is explaining the meaning of 3:140 - and it is not what Roni/Tropper is claiming.

    Instead of making these analysis of a flawed text - why don't you simply ask Rav Eliashiv to write you a teshuva that justifies what you are doing. Absent that you have absolutely no valid justification.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Roni wrote:
    Dt: Insead of wasting your time with these stupid internet wars go back to yeshiva and start learning! and you will see ho wludicours you sound on this claim you're making!
    ====================
    I am simply astonished at the quality of your justification for proselytizing. You claim that the EJF has the backing of many gedolim - where is the explicit permission from any of them for EJF program?

    You could have ended this so called internet war two years ago by simply having Rav Eliashiv explicity write what you claim is is view. At least get Rav Eisenstein to explicity say that this teshuva means what you claim and that Rav Efrati is mistaken.

    The obvious answer is that there is no such heter and that you are ascribing to Rav Eliashiv a view he rejects. The weaker your justification is shown to be - the more abusive and loud you become.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Roni said...
    It says the follwoing: "ויש לתפוס השעה המתרת ללמוד תורה לגוי אם דעתו להתגייר":

    These wrods are read: WE should hold like the opinion that holds that one is permitted to teach torah to non Jew if he has in mind to convert".


    Once again Roni, you can read things anyway you like, but that is not what this says. This says, "And that there is to take hold of the understanding that it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert." I am convinced that either you do not know Hebrew or that you are intentionally misreading these statements.

    Your rejection of R' Efrati's letter of clarification is ridiculous. He is R' Eliashiv's right hand man. Is he lying? Is he woefully misinformed?

    At the request of R' Eidensohn I asked R' Eisenstein about R' Efrati's clarification. His statement was that he understood R' Eliashiv's position the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Mekubal wrote:

    Once again Roni, you can read things anyway you like, but that is not what this says. This says, "And that there is to take hold of the understanding that it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert." I am convinced that either you do not know Hebrew or that you are intentionally misreading these statements.

    Your rejection of R' Efrati's letter of clarification is ridiculous. He is R' Eliashiv's right hand man. Is he lying? Is he woefully misinformed?

    At the request of R' Eidensohn I asked R' Eisenstein about R' Efrati's clarification. His statement was that he understood R' Eliashiv's position the same way.
    ==================
    With the confirmation from both Rav Efrati and Rav Eisenstein that Rav Eliashiv's teshuva 3:140 is not talking about proselytizing or inspiring a nonJew to convert - I think it is time to end this thread.

    Roni - any more repetition of your distorted and abusive ad hominem comments will simply be rejected. Whether it is your problematic readings of Rav Eliashiv and other poskim or whether it is your reflex denunciation of R' Bomzer. Enough is enough. However you have served the valuable service of confirming for us the tenuous and problematic nature of R' Tropper's authority to do what he is doing.

    ReplyDelete
  64. [...]It's why no letters exist from Gedolim to openly support EJF and their methods. The most I have ever seen him produce were letters from Rabbis, before his methods and ideas were well known, who praised the concept of gathering in order to upgrade and unify conversion standards. They were praising upgrading and unifying conversion standards. They were not praising this phony's ideas of whitewashing intermarriage by converting the goya in a method that is clearly substandard according to Halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Aharon, (way up top)
    You are right they are not being told that the organization is there to convert intermarrieds. They are being told that they are trying to raise the standards of conversion. Last Shabbos, I was at someone's house and the husband told me three men in his kollel took some course to be on their baytai din. This is what they were told. Also, the RCA standards are actually higher. They know who is on their baytai din, real rabbis who have done conversions but, not the one before them. Whereas now we see about EJF.

    Roni,
    The EJF doesn't provide mentoring. They make you bring them your shul rabbi. They ask him to find you a mentor. They also ask him to "watch your attendance in shul." This is ridiculous. Anyone can go to shul and go home to watch TV. However, I've heard this from rabbis. They say, you have to live in my area so I can make sure you go to shul every week. Also, what about Brooklyn? In Brooklyn, a woman who goes to shul is like a prostitute that's how UNacceptable it is to go to shul.

    I have blogged about EJF and I will do it again. They are this organization that just formed itself and run around with their ego telling everyone they better and have higher standards. Actually, they don't.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.