Thursday, June 25, 2009

EJF - Halachic justification/ / Roni


After two years of repeated requests - our chaver Roni has succeeded in providing us with two critical pieces of information regarding Eternal Jewish Family. 1) The teshuva of Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlita - which provides the halachic rationale for EJF's kiruv (proselytization) of the non-Jewish spouse in mixed marriages 2) the explanation presented below of why there are no written haskomas from the many gedolei Torah who are actively associated with the organization or at least attend their conferences.

I would like to publicly thank Roni for his tenacity and desire to present the truth as he sees it and the countless hours he has spent trying to explain and defend R' Tropper's activies. It has obviously been an unpleasant experience for him to constantly face and explain to those of us who are less than sympathetic to what is going on. I will also reiterate what I have said a number of times before - I think that R' Tropper and his associates are working leshem Shamayim. However that doesn't preclude the possibility that their approach can be harmful and fail as Roni admits below. I will be transferring a number of comments from the previous posting that are relevant to this thread. Please keep your comments to the point, respectful and avoid personal attacks.

With these pieces of information I think it is possible to have a more productive discussion of these issues. I would like to note that Roni seems to feel Rav Reuven's interpretation of his father's position and other statement as Daas Torah. I apologize if I misunderstood this and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. I just want to reiterate a conversation I had with Rav Dovid Feinstein regarding this issue of his father's authority. He said, "I never heard my father justify his psak by saying that it was Daas Torah." Rav Moshe clearly states this in his introduction to Igros Moshe, the essence of his rulings are sevoras. His rulings are to be judged by the perceived validity of his sevoras. He also acknowledges that he is capable of error but that since he has put so much time and effort in arriving at the conclusion which he thinks is correct - one should not be hasty to dismiss it but to seriously analyze his opinion. I don't think that his son's views should be approached with a higher level of authority than that of his father.

[Roni asked that I add the following]
Before I respond to your recent post: I must reiterate and please post this as an addendum to your head post: That the*TESHUVA* IS Rav Reuven's; but the second issue the (the explanation why there are no written haskomos to the *organization* (not that there are not *halachik teshuvas* and discussions, BECAUSE THERE CERTAINLY ARE! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WHAT i SAID), ARE MINE ONLY AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE REAL REASONING BEHIND THAT! BUT MY FEELING IS THAT THESE (AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHERS) ARE THE REASONS WHY THEY WOULD NOT GIVE A *HASKAMAh* TO A INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION! (AS PROBABLY HAPPENS IN *SOME* OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT A DIFFERENT NATURE).

PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE THAT TO RAV REUVEN OR TO RAV TROPPER FOR I AM SAYING THIS ON MY OWN.

Roni wrote in response to Mekubal:
( I have made a number of corrections in to the original post)

4) the most important question: Why does he not get haskamot?

I'll give you possible answers which do not mean that they do not agree with him. a) Being that it is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if Chas Vesholom it does not succeeded to reach the hopeful goals.

b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these conversions without kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this public step to put his name on paper to that level.

c) and no Rabbi puts his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do something that is not correct and then people might mistake that this particular action had the approval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization.

But on the other hand Rav Reuven partakes himself as member of the Organization. He is involved in guiding them in the Halachik Shaylos and so on. You can see the Teshuva that I posted earlier (and I"ll try BLN to scan it to Dt) as the teshuva Rav Reuven wrote to EJF where he rules on the focal question of the blog to Rav Tropper and he cites that his father the Posek HaDor HaRAv Moshe Feinstein of B"m permitted the issue in certain conditions (which is exaclty what EJF attempts to follow).


75 comments :

  1. Roni wrote:

    4) the most important question: Why does he not get haskamot?

    I'll give you possible answers which do not mean that they do not agree with him. a) Being thatit is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if CHas Vesholom it does not uscceeded to recah the hopeful goals.

    b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these covnersions iwtout kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this ublic step to put his name on paper to that level.

    c) and no RAbbi put's his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do soemthing that is not correct and then people migh tmistake that this particular acation had the apporval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization.
    ==================
    I find this an astonishing analysis. You are admitting 1) R' Tropper's approach is a chidush 2) It might fail so therefore it is best not to discuss the halachic justification because really it is ais la'asos such as Beis Yaakov. 3) If it proves itself then discussion can be allowed as to the halachic basis 4) Thus because it represents a signifcant break from the past - any discussion will only prevent it from functioning. Since the perceived emergency situation calls out for something to be done the main issue is success not halachic correctness. 5) Because it is a major break from mesora - there is a decided danger that those who are not guided by gedolim will feel justified in other innovations that will be destuctive to the system.

    In sum, you are saying that my request for transparency in what you are doing can not be done and furthermore you must deny that you are not being transparent or innovative. This of course arouses suspicious and opposition to what you are doing by you need to bite the bullet and ignroe questions.

    That brings back my original question - by responding to my blog you seriously undermine your position. If what you say is true - it would have been better if 1) you had a private meeting with Rav Sternbuch 2) you ignored me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dt wrote: "I find this an astonishing analysis. You are admitting 1) R' Tropper's approach is a chidush",


    ROni: Dear Dt it does not take an Einstein to understand that this is an innovative way of working (within Halacha). For no responsible Halachik body has done it Halachikally (they have done for past 100 and more years the bomzer factories).


    DT:"2) It might fail so therefore it is best not to discuss the halachic justification because really it is ais la'asos such as Beis Yaakov. "

    Roni: Now you are falling back to the trap of non bney torah talk! (and i beg yor forgiveness for saying so but this is exactly the kind of non taljk). I never said it is best not discuss the halachik justifications; it is exactly what I'm doing and giving you the teshuva of Rav reuven and his opinion of his father. I i'm giving you a justification for not having a Rabbi give a particular written haskomoh for an *organization* that does it. Why can't you be mavchin the difference like a ben torah (sorry again)?


    DT:" 3) If it proves itself then discussion can be allowed as to the halachic basis":

    Again the non ben torah kind of talk! I'm NOT talking about lack of *discussion* and guidance and halachik backing; obviously Rav Tropper has aHalachik comittee and Rav REuven is the head of the comittee with other rabbis! and he (and so ANY organization) should not DO anything without halachik guidance; whAT i'm saying is that to give a haskomoh to a *particular* organization is still a little early in the game! But aain of course i'm for halachik discussion about it!

    DT:" 4) Thus because it represents a signifcant break from the past - any discussion will only prevent it from functioning. Since the perceived emergency situation calls out for something to be done the main issue is success not halachic correctness".

    ROni: It's very upsetting that you can infer this from I have said!? We are discussing and answering Mekubal why Rav Tropper does not have a written baking about his particualr organization. But of course, he has Halachik backing and discussion to everything he is doing. And of course if something is done wrong I"m sure Rav Reuven will call his attention or another Rabbi (and this is so [precisely because it is a new kind of organization) and they will discuss it and others can (and should) RESPCTFULLY DISCUSS or raise problems in particular applications thereoff. but this after the premise that he the halachik backing for the general approach WHICH HE HAS AS EVIDENCED BY THE CLEAR TESHUVA OF RAV REUVEN TO HIM BASED ON THE PSSOKIM OF THE POSSEK HADOR RAV MSOHE FEINSTEIN!

    dT:" 5) Because it is a major break from mesora - there is a decided danger that those who are not guided by gedolim will feel justified in other innovations that will be destuctive to the system".

    roNI: AGAIN A LEAP FROM A NON BEN TORAH TRAINING! i'M TALMKING ABOUT THE GIVVING OF A PARTICULAR HASKOMOH TO PARTICULAR MOSSAD AND THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT MAY ARISE FROM THIS PARTICULA R HASKOMOH. but of course, he must have backing for his approach by asking shaylos about policies and decisions if and how they should conform to the best hlaachik outcome.
    June 25, 2009 12:42 AM

    ReplyDelete
  3. DT:" In sum, you are saying that my request for transparency in what you are doing can not be done and furthermore you must deny that you are not being transparent or innovative":

    ROni: CHAS VESHOLOM CHAS VECHALILA! talks from origins of a non ben torah way of analysis! TRansparency has to be done! and discussions have to be made! but you cannot demand hashgocho for a particular organization in such kind of insitituion!

    And it does not arouse any opposition and suspicion from a honest person who is not intersted just to fight Rav GTropper at all costs, for when sees that Rav REvuen FEinstein is with him in the halachik committee and he they come at all conventions and DUSCUSS HALACHIK ISSUES ON HOW TO AMELIROATE AND TO FIX THE AND ENHANCE THE GERUT PROCESS (FOR IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE: DURING THOSE CONVENTIONS, BESIDES THE SPEECHES THAT GET TO THE PRESS, THEY DISCUSS HALACHIK ISSUES AND POLICIES ) then of course the person starts from the perspective that the organization is valid. And now, as you can see, Rav Tropper has the foundation ground backing in the general bone of the apporach of the organizatiuon which is the permission to mekarev intermarried couples to get to covnert if they are sincere and want to commit to rah and mitzvot then you can understand that he wha he does is discussed with the Rabbis and you can certainly and should raise questions. but this will only work if you begin with a premise that the guy has halachik backing as he does, but if you begin with perconceived notions that RT ...then nothing that I'll bring you from this or that Rov would not work.

    In sum: 1) Rav Tropper has Halachik backing for his general approach by Rabbonim like Rav Reuven which is a cornerstone piece in his organization, 2) One can and should raise questions if he finds halachik flaws. 3) He should give the benefit of the doubt (when he begins the criticism) that he has Rabbis backing in general so either: the probelm was addressed or that there was was a lapse or heeder simas lev about particular detail, 4) A particular *haskomoh* for a *particular* organization cannnot be demanded, 5) ALL THOSE WHO CLAIMED THAT HE HAS NO HALACHIK STANDING FOR HIS APPROACH AND THAT RAV REUVEN WAS GOING AGAINST FATHER SHOULD ASK MECHILA FOR THIS FALSE DISSEMINATION OF AND DEFAMATION! and tehn we can proceeed,

    It is obvious that I request and demand tha tthere be no flow of messages that contain zilzul at Rav REuven FEinstein Shlita, that goes without saying but things have gone out of hand in the past so i ask that they should not go out of hand now.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Roni said...

    excerpts of a RESPONSA by HARAV REUVEN FEINSTEIN ON THE ISSUE OF THE PERMISSIBLITY/DESIRABILITY OF MEKAREV COUPLES WHO ARE INTERMARRIED SO THAT THE NON JEWWISH PARTNER CONVERT AND THERE WILL BE "TAKANAT HASHAVIM" FOR THE JEWISH PARTNER!

    In a responsa by written by haRav REuven Feinstein Shlita to Netzach Yisrael (ETERNAL JEWISH FAMILY) WHERE HE WAS ASKED :

    "אם מותר לקרב זוג מעורב המתקרבים לתורה ולמצוות כשצד הגוי' רוצה להתגייר ומוכנים לקבל עליהם תורה ומצוות":

    The question relates to whether or not it is permissible to do"kiruv" to an intermarried couple when the non jewish partner wants to convert and is ready to accept torah and mitzvot.

    Rav REuven FEinstein respponds: הנה ידוע ומפורסם פסק הלכה של בשם אאמו"ר רשכבה"ג פוסק הדור הגר"מ פיינשטיין זצ"ל כי בנישואי תערובת משום תקנת השבים אפשר לקרב את הגוי או הגוי' בכה"ג שישמרו תורה ומצוות ויקבלו עליהם את כל דיני התורה ודקדוקיה":

    "IT IS KNOWN THE RULING OF MY FATHER THE REBBE OF KLAL YISROEL THE POSSEK OF GENERATION HAGAON RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN THAT BY INTERMARRIED COUPLES, FOR REASONS OF "TAKANAT HASHAVIM" (A TAKANA FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO RETURN AND TO ENTICE THEM TO RETURN -MY WORDS-) ONE MAY "MEKAREV" AND THOSE NON JEWS WHO ARE INERMARRIED, IN A WAY THAT THEY KEEP TORAH AND MITZVOT AND THEY ACCEPT ALL DETAILS OF THE TORAH WITH ALL IT'S DIKDUKIM".

    IT is clear from this ruling that Rav REuven claims that Rav Msohe held THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN FOR YEARS ON THIS BLOG IN rAV moSHE'S NAME. tHIS BLOG CLAIMED THAT rAV moSHE HELD THAT WE SHOULD NOT ENGAGE INTERMARRIED COUPLES SO THAT THE NON JEW ULTIMATELY CONVERT. RAV REVUEN CLAIMS RAV MOSHE HELD THAT ONE ACTUALLY *MAY* MEKAREV SO THAT THE NON JEW UNDERGO A FULL CONVERSION.

    But Rav REuven holds so so with one caveat: That accept full Torah and mitzvot to all it's dikdukim.
    to be continued..

    ReplyDelete
  5. He then proceeds to cite from Rav Chayim Oyzer Grodzenski. Then he cites from the Ohr Sameach. Then he cties from Mechaber Tevuot Hasadeh an Hungarian Rabbi.

    Then he states: וכן מפורסם בשם הגאון רבי יוסף אליהו הענקין זצ"ל, הגר"י קמנצקי זצ"ל, והרגרש"ז אורבאך זצ"ל, להתיר בכה"ג והוא על פי תשובות הרמב"ם....":

    Rav REuven claims that position is known to be the position of Possim haRav Henkin Ztl, HaRav Yaakov Kaminetzky Zt"l, HaRAv Shlomoh Zalman Aurbach zt"l, to permit kiruv to these couples (including the non Jew)!

    and again Rav Reuven repeats one caveat: "אמנם נכון שכל זה צריך שיהיה בלי פשרות וויתורים בקבלת המצוות כדבעי":

    There is one condition to all the above: there should be no COMPROMISES AND GIVING IN IN THE AREA OF KABBALAT MITZVOT!

    Iow, all the ways done by BOmzer and COmpany and all their enablers is ruled that it is disqualified by all these Posskim! Otoh: To engage in kiruv to these couples in a way that does not offer an inch of compromise is permissible! according to all the above Posskim!

    He then cites another ruling of his father Rav MOshe )IM 3ץ109( because "גם מפני תקנת השבים שאיכא בשביל בעלה איכא מצוה גדולה להזקק לזה": (Although there was a situation where the was asofefk gerut previously it appears that the reasoing given is a general reasoning as REuven understands it). Here the father held that for Takanat Hashavim (not only is it permissible. butit is also a ) Mitzvah! to engage in helping out the situation.

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Then he cites the ruling by Rav ELyashiv menioned yesterday where HaRAV ELyashiv permits teaching them TOrah (although it may prohibited otherwise) to intermarried couples so that through the teaching the are strong possibilities that he will "yassim el liboy" arouse his heart to covnert! ("prosetyze"?!?) and Rav REufven interprets that TEshuva to mean : "ומפורש בדבריו שבזוג מעורב שע"י הגרות יצילו את היהודי או היהודי' מעבירה חמורה נכון הדבר לקרבם, ומובן מאליו שכ"ז בגרות עם קבלת המצות כהלכה...":

    Rav REuven states that from HArav ELyashiv's teshuva it is clear that he holds that it is appropriate and proper to do kiruv to an intermarried couple if through that they will save the jewish person from a terrible sin! BUT AGAIN ONE CAVEAT: ALL THE ABOVE WITH A COVNERSION WITH KABALLAT MITZVOT KEHILCHATA! (EXCLUDING BOMZER'S AND ENABLERRS APPROACH MY WORDS VIN PARENTHESIS).
    He concludes: מסקנא דמילתא דבזוג מעורב הרוצים לקבל עליהם את שמירת התורה והמצוות לפרטיה, ישלקרבם מפני תקנת השבים ולא לדחותם":

    COnclusion: one should do kiruv to a intermarried couple who want to commit themslves the observance of torah mitzvot to it's details!


    And then Rav reuven put's his signature to this TESHUVA!

    So now, most of your arguments against Rav Tropper should be directed agsinst Rav REuven in the name of Rav MOshe! and "מי נדחה מפני מי" ...

    Shalom

    ReplyDelete
  7. Roni said:
    He then cites another ruling of his father Rav MOshe )IM 3ץ109( because "גם מפני תקנת השבים שאיכא בשביל בעלה איכא מצוה גדולה להזקק לזה": (Although there was a situation where the was asofefk gerut previously it appears that the reasoing given is a general reasoning as REuven understands it). Here the father held that for Takanat Hashavim (not only is it permissible. but it is also a ) Mitzvah! to engage in helping out the situation.

    =====================
    Your revealing some excerpts from the teshuva is greatly appreciated.

    שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קט

    הנה האשה שנתגיירה זה כחמש שנים אצל ב"ד וניסת במאנטריאל אבל לא התנהגה בדיני התורה מאחר שבעלה לא התנהג אז בדיני התורה, וזה קרוב לשנתיים ימים אשר בעלה נעשה בעל תשובה ממש והתחילה גם היא לקיים כל מצות התורה בדקדוק גדול, והביאם הרב ר' חיים יעקב בראדער שליט"א אשר כעת קבע דירתו ג"כ במאנטריאל, וחקרתי ודרשתי אותה על ידי שני אברכים מופלגים בתורה וביראת השם ונודע כי היא מאמינה בהשי"ת ובתורתו ומקיימת כל המצוות ומקבלת עליה גם להבא לקיים כל המצות, אשר על כן מפני שהוא ספק על גרות הראשון דשמא היה כדין והוו בנה ושתי בנותיה כבר בדין יהודים וגם מפני תקנת השבים שאיכא בשביל בעלה, איכא מצוה גדולה להזדקק לזה ולהטביל אותה עוד הפעם לפני שלשה אנשים כשרים ואחד מהם יהיה רב מומחה בדיני גרות, וגם להטביל את הילדים מספק על דעת ב"ד כי זכות ודאי הוא להם מאחר שמתחנכים בדרך התורה והילדה הקטנה ימתינו עד שתגדיל ערך שתי שנים ואז יטבילוה ג"כ לפני ב"ד על דעת ב"ד מספק, והבן כיון שאיכא ספק שמא היה גירות הראשונה גרות מדינא אין צורך להטפת דם ברית וסגי בטבילה לבדה. משה פיינשטיין.

    Not sure how this indicates that Rav Moshe would have supported R' Tropper's position.

    There are three places where Rav Moshe uses the term

    שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן מו

    בדבר המשפחה שהשפיע כתר"ה עליה שיאכלו כשר, ויש להם כלים יקרים מפארצעלאיין שלא שמשו בהם משך שנה והוא הפסד גדול, הנה מצד הפ"מ ויותר מזה בשביל תקנת השבים שמצינו שכמה דברים הקלו חכמים עיינתי ונראה לע"ד שיש להקל להתיר בהגעלה ג' פעמים.

    שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ב סימן מו

    וגם בכלים אלו הם ברוב הפעמים רק בתשמיש כלי שני ועכ"פ הוא רק ספק שמא השתמשו בעירוי ובדבר גוש חם שנמצא שאיכא עוד ספק. ולכן יש לסמוך בכה"ג על בעל העיטור שהביא הטור בסימן קכ"א להגעיל ג"פ כיון שהוא הפ"מ וגם צורך תקנת השבים ויהיו כשרים להשתמש בהם אח"כ ולקובעם או לבשר או לחלב.

    I am sure Rav Sternbuch would like to see it. Is there any reason that we can't see the whole teshuva? I would like to post it. Perhaps now we can have meaningful discussion of the issues.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rav REuven claims that Rav MOshe uses this as an additional reason why we should reconvert her so that there is takanat hashavim so her husband do teshvua it is a mitzvah to engage in it. Rav Reuven understands that conceptually Rav Moshe holds that there is inyan and mitzvah to help the jjewish partner by converting the jewish partner (ie. in addition to the first reason given in *that specifi case* where she anyway a safek giyoret) so that given the conditions it is an inyan to convert the non jewish partner so that the jewish partner do tesvhua (even if he initially intermarried her!) contrary to what was stated in Rav MOshe's opinion on this blog1

    what is your email so that I can try to scan it to you?

    (where is my last reply to mekubal?)

    ReplyDelete
  9. MT/Bomzer!

    Tropper!,

    Since you are very confused person it is very hard to clear out your confusion:

    1)RAbbi Tropper has the backing of dozens of Posskim and Rabbonim. He does not backing of all gedoyley Yisroel. And ertainly he does not need the backing of the internet blgos! and certainly not from MT/Bomzer! who has no backing whatsover from any Gedoyley Posskim; on the contrary they repudiate his conversions.

    He might be aware that Rav Sternbuch might not agree with his approach. A Godol is certainly entitled to his own opinion even if it differs with the vast majority of popinions of the posskim. But he feels that the owner of the blog has misused the Possek to fight the iwar over the internet with MT being his spokesman. It is not respectful neither to Rav Sternbuch or anyone by bringing him to areas where the message was not intended to be presented and misinterpreted.

    For some of the supporters of Rav Tropper you can see, for instnace, Rav REuven FEinstein Shlita that spports and actually wrote a responsa (whose excerpts i posted earler) that clearly allow Rav Tropper to do many of things that EJf does.

    While it is a step in the right direction that you do not state that Rav TRopper calls individua people to conert; he does not stand in the street corners missionizing and call them to sprinke water on them; nevertheless what you say that he icalls rabbis who are involved in kiruv who have contact with intermarried couples is actually something that is not prohibited according to Rav Moshe FEinstein according to REv Reuven FEinstein Shlita! It is permissible according to them to be mekarev intermarried couples, including the non jewish partner when they show interest in performing a sincere conversion ie. observing Torah and mitzvot! (unlike the fraudulent services performed by Bomzer who peforms gerus for these itnermarried couples when they do not want to observe plain shabbat, kashrut and taharat hamishpacha. Like driving on the Sabbath and th elike).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mekubal,

    I'll try again but try to be brief (sent you a longer message earlier):

    1) You cannot begin to compare rabbonim who say something nice about an individual ) to when they come and speak about an organization. that reuqires a much greater achrayut and responsibility. Especially when some critcize it. And especially speaking publicly about the important task it performs and that it benefits klal yisroel to proect kedushat Yisroel and prevent gerus sheker it would be disastrous if they do not mean what they say and irrespojnsible if they say these things publicly when hundrds of people attend and many more can get their tales if the truth would actually be the reverse,

    2) They do not come as "observers" only; they partake and partner sto it.
    Rav REuven is an active MEMBER of tghe organization. you cannot just ignore this and belittle it significance for what it actually really is.

    3) Rav Tropper does not waste his time on "internet wars"! ROni (who IS NOT rt) wastes his time and energy on it!

    4) the most important question: Why does he not get haskamot?

    I'll give you possible answers which do not mean that they do not agree with him. a) Being thatit is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if CHas Vesholom it does not uscceeded to recah the hopeful goals.

    b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these covnersions iwtout kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this ublic step to put his name on paper to that level.

    c) and no RAbbi put's his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do soemthing that is not correct and then people migh tmistake that this particular acation had the apporval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization.

    But on the other hand Rav REuven partakes himself as member of the Organization. He is involved in guiding them in the Halachik Shaylos and so on. You can see the TEshuva that I poosted erarlier (and I"ll try BLN to scan it to Dt) has the teshuva Rav Reuven wrote to EJF where he rules on the focal question of the blog to Rav Tropper and he cites that his father the Possek HaDor HaRAv MOshe Feinstein of B"m permitted the issue in certain conditions (which is exaclty what EJF attempts to follow).

    ReplyDelete
  11. roni said:
    DT:" In sum, you are saying that my request for transparency in what you are doing can not be done and furthermore you must deny that you are not being transparent or innovative":

    ROni: CHAS VESHOLOM CHAS VECHALILA! talks from origins of a non ben torah way of analysis! TRansparency has to be done! and discussions have to be made! but you cannot demand hashgocho for a particular organization in such kind of insitituion!
    ===============
    Here we go again! EJF is not being transparent if Rav Sternbuch can not get information about your halachic principles and goals. Your nonsense about non ben Torah way of analysis is just another smoke screen.

    You again are substituting rants for discussion.

    It is nice that after repeatedly asking for two years the EJF finally releases the teshuva of Rav Reuven. It is nice that after two years there is some acknowledgement that EJF's approach is a chidush.

    But that doesn't mean there can not be disagreement and criticsm from those outside the organiztion. Rav Moshe Feinstein himself did not demand such an attitude of docile subservience.

    Your concept of transparency seems to mean that it only applies within the closed circles of EJF. That is not what transparency has ever meant.

    BTW I hope you finally accept what Rav Sternbuch has told you - that he does not object to his views being presented and discussed on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oni: CHAS VESHOLOM CHAS VECHALILA! talks from origins of a non ben torah way of analysis! TRansparency has to be done! and discussions have to be made! but you cannot demand hashgocho for a particular organization in such kind of insitituion!
    ===============
    DT: Here we go again! EJF is not being transparent if Rav Sternbuch can not get information about your halachic principles and goals.

    ROni: Again the distortions! Can you stop distort?

    !) I NEVER said that there CAN BE NO DISCUSSIONS. Where did I write any such thing? I'm sorry: you demand transprency and any one can criticize; but you tihnk you are beyond criticsm? vyou are unable to analyze something straight! you aRE always twisting! LIKE A NON BEN TORAH! YES AM ALLLOOWED TO CRITICIZE YOU FOR TWISTRING AND NOT THINKING CLEAR!

    Listen: I never said you cannot criticize from the outside! Quote me where I said this! I said you cannot deamnd a *hashgocho* for a particular mossad of trhis sort. You could criticize and you could ask for the halachk principles that guide you. and WHEN GIVEN THE INFORMATION YOU SHOULD STOP CRITCIZING ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE!

    dt WROTE: "But that doesn't mean there can not be disagreement and criticsm from those outside the organiztion. Rav Moshe Feinstein himself did not demand such an attitude of docile subservience".

    roNI: oF COURSE YOU COULD respectfully disagree. But at the end you cannot raise "ERav Sternbuch said such and such" for RAV REUVEN IS ENTITLED TO ARGUE WITH HIM AND ESPCIALLY THAT RAV HE IS REPEATING RAV MSOHE'S OPINION; AND A LITTLE MORE OF *RESPECT* TOWARDS THAT POSITION CAN HELP THE DISCUSSION. AND AT THE END WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO HIS CRITICISM RAV TROPPER HAS THE BACKING OF RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN! AND YOU MAY ACKNOWLEGGE IT ALBEIT YOU GET THE INFO TWO YEARS LATER...NONETHELESS THE BACKING IS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT YOUR EYES! JUST THINK CLEAR AND STRAIGHT!


    dT" Your concept of transparency seems to mean that it only applies within the closed circles of EJF. That is not what transparency has ever meant".

    rOni: never said it! begin thinking straight. but transparency does not mean that your criticism is valid. And on the other hand once your criticism is no longer valid you should acknowledge that it is no longer valid! Even *You* are beyond transparency!

    ReplyDelete
  13. the Monsey TzadikJune 25, 2009 at 12:05 PM

    What is the chiddush ? we all know that giur leshem ishus is permitted. I am not sure what Tropper tries to point out.

    The problem with Tropper and Kaplan is their active proselytizng (chet kal according to Tropper) and we did not see that r’ Feinstein permit it. It also problem that a kanai like Tropper tries to force his version of frumkeit on the converts.

    In any case, why the letter does not have a date ? and what is the shayachus of rav mari story to conversion. The gemara there in Bava Batra talks about inheritance not giur leshen ishus. Sounds like one of Tropper’s pilpulim.

    And who know ? maybe we will be zoche to see a clarification to this letter as we saw before...

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here we go with the zilzulim on RAv REuven (DAAT Torah you are not beyond reporach...a rotzer making letzonus of the pssak and it is in YOUR BLOG)!

    ReplyDelete
  15. the previous commenter probably wants us that a majpr portion o fthe criticism was that we are not allowed to be mekarev him to convert! = PROSELYTIZNG in the parlance of DAATTOrah Blogspot. The criticism was: that we do not encourage conversion; we reject it!

    Btw: "leshem ishut" is NOT permitted lechatchila! It is only bediavad for "chet kal" to prevent "chet chamur". Go and learn!

    Your probelm of kannaut is bichlal a boboh taynoh and was not one of the official DT's taanos. It is a non started; it only comes from a bomzer/facory that allows geyur without kabbalat Hamitzvot that Rav Reuven states in the name of all these gedoyley haposskim that it is forbidden and meaningless!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Mt (and DT) You should know that the proof from Rav MAri is from the Ohr Sameach (I knew that Mt you can;t read...but please!!). This is a zilzul not on RT, not even on Raeuven but on the *Ohr Sameach*!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I wrote: "the previous commenter probably wants us that a majpr portion o fthe criticism was that we are not allowed to be mekarev him to convert! = PROSELYTIZNG in the parlance of DAATTOrah Blogspot. The criticism was: that we do not encourage conversion; we reject it!"

    LEt me rewrite: the previous commenter wants us to forget that a major portion of the criticism at EJF and at RT was thatkiruv = "proseltyizing" is forbidden even for intermarried couples. Rav Feinstein states that one is permitted to be mekarev = "proselytizing" (as Dt understands it) is permitted (and in some of the sources it appears that it should be encouraged in some cases). (Btw, Rav Feinstein cites that this was the opinion of his father HaRav Moshe, HaRav Henkin, HaRAv SZ Aurbach, HaRav ELyashiv Shlita. He also proves that is the opinion of Achiezer and other GEdoyley Haposskim).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Regarding what Rav Reuven writes - I don't see it addresses the point of contention - issue of proselytizing.

    There are two basic scenarios

    1) An intermarried couple realize that they want to live as full Jews and thus they go to a Rabbi for the husband to learn about Judaism and the non-Jew to convert. Thus the intitiave comes from them - the chidush is that they are not to turned away if the rabbi perceives them to be sincere and willing to fully accept mitzvos. Thus the leniency of takanas hashavim is employed to faciliate their desire and initiative to be fully shomer Torah and mitzvos.

    This is the scenario that Rav Fuerst said Rav Moshe would agree to and Rav Nosson Kaminetsky told me was his father's view also. It is also consistent with every example Rav Reuven cites. This is what R'Tropper claimed originally that that was all the EJF was doing. In fact EJF is following approach 2.

    2)Intermarried couples are solicited by newspaper articles and ads. Articles are circulated on the internet fishing for anyone who has the slightest curiousity about what an Orthodox Jew is. Non-Jews are invited to find out their possible roots in the distant past in the Jewish community and encouraged to convert. Conventions are held that invite anyone who is curious or will be willing to listen to speeches regarding the psycological, sociological benefits of being an observant Jewish couple. Or even finding those will be willing to listen to the speeches just because they will get a full paid vacation. These are people who at most are not strongly opposed to the idea of Judaism. The initiative thus comes from kiruv workers not from the couple. The justification is that they will eventually be persuaded (proselytized) to be fully observing.

    This is the controversial approach of EJF - and is not addressed in the teshuva.

    In essence seeking people out and convincing them - overcoming their objections regarding an observant Orthodox Jewish lifestyle is different than facilitating those who take the initiative to go to the rabbi because they want to know how to be observant Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Before I respond to your recent post: I must reiterate and please post this as an addendum to your head post: THat the*TESHUVA* IS Rav Reuven's; but the secondissue the (the explanation why there are no written haskomos to the *organization* (not that there are not *halachik teshuvas* and discussionns, BECAUSE THERE CERTAINLY ARE! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WHAT i SAID), ARE MINE ONLY AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE REAL REASOING BEHIND THAT! BUT MY FEELING IS THAT THESE (AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHERS) ARE THE REASONS WHY THEY OWULD NOT GIVE A *HASKAMAh* TO A INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION! (AS PORBABLY HAPPENS IN *SOME* OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT A DIFFERENT NATURE).

    PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE THAT TO RAV REUVEN OR TO RAV TROPPER FOR I AM SAYING THIS ON MY OWN.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Number twO: Whether or not Rav MOshe's opinion is THE DAAS Torah is not my purview and my issue here; HOWEVER THE FACT THAT RAV MOSHE WAS FROM THE LEADING POSSKIM IN OUR GENERQTION, AND BY SOME HE MAY BE PERCEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD AS THE "POSSEK HADOR" is a clear FACT! and therefore: at the very least his voice is a pssak that a) gives LEGITIMACY to someone to follow his pssak, b) those who argue with him must take more energy into account in their shikul haddaat to argue with him, c) to SOME/MANY his opinion is somehow "binding".

    Obviously, any human could err in areas of Halacha, but failing to prove BLACK ON WHITE that the person erred, his opinion REMAINS RAV MSOHE'S OPINION WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE POINTS!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Recipients and PublicityJune 25, 2009 at 4:16 PM

    TWO: Seven Questions for Rav Reuven Feinstein...

    6) Since when does a rosh yeshiva get involved in matters relating to highly controversial non-yeshiva affairs usually handled by other rabbinic bodies and authority? There is the AGUDAS YISROEL, there is TORAH UMESORAH there is even the RCA that deal with the ramifications of gerus problems and controversies, so why is Rav Reuven getting involved as a yachid here? What are his reasons for wanting to be on the bandwagon of EJF's mission to recruit limitless numbers of gentiles when he should logically be worrying about the welfare of his yeshiva and its talmidim first and foremost?

    7) Does Rav Reuven feinstein have a written haskoma for himself even such as from his elder brother Rav Dovid Feinstein who sits on the American Moetzes HaTorah or a letter from any member of the Moetzes or better yet from the ENTIRE Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah to be involved in a controversial project like EJF? that even now its spokesman here Tropper/Roni admits is a Jewishly dangerous, false, anti-Halachic, and riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions distortion of 2,000 years of Jewish law and normative Torahdikke history, see below, his own admissions:

    "a) Being thatit is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if CHas Vesholom it does not uscceeded to recah the hopeful goals.

    b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these covnersions iwtout kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this ublic step to put his name on paper to that level.

    c) and no RAbbi put's his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do soemthing that is not correct and then people migh tmistake that this particular acation had the apporval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization."

    ReplyDelete
  22. the Monsey TzadikJune 25, 2009 at 7:14 PM

    Roni/Tropper said

    Your probelm of kannaut is bichlal a boboh taynoh and was not one of the official DT's taanos. It is a non started; it only comes from a bomzer/facory that allows geyur without kabbalat Hamitzvot that Rav Reuven states in the name of all these gedoyley haposskim that it is forbidden and meaningless!


    Your kannaut is a concern to the family of Gideon Busch, to rav Slifkin, to the woman you revoked her conversion because she wore pants, to the Kentucky family you destroyed because they did not follow your diktats, to all the converts who want balanced Orthodox Judaism with some derech eretz and not your kind of frumkeit.

    Roni/Tropper said

    This is a zilzul not on RT, not even on Raeuven but on the *Ohr Sameach*!


    Chas veshalom, You maybe have a different version of the shas but in my version I could not find any mefaresh even not the Ohr Sameach which says that Rav Mari father was mekarav via ads in the newspapers, fancy conventions or that he was flown to a retreat in sunny California where he was dined and provided drinks while learning about the joy of being Orthodox Jew Tropper style.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Part one to be continued

    daat tORAH WRITES:"Regarding what Rav Reuven writes - I don't see it addresses the point of contention - issue of proselytizing".

    APPARENTLY HE does!

    For in reality I would characterize THREE scenarios. You covereed TWO SCENARIOS BUT THERE ARE *THREE*! and the middlr scenario may itself contain many scenarios!

    Before I go on i'll focus on the language of the the beginning and the end of the letter: the Question was posed if one is allowed to "be MEKAREV" intermarried couples to torah and mitzvot who are getting close to torah and mitzvot, when the non jewish partner would like to convert and are ready to observe the torah and mitzvot appropriately.

    The last paragraph states: That an intermarried couple who wants to accept torah and mitzvot in it's entirety ONE SHOULD mekarev them ("yesh lekarvom") and one should not push them away.

    NOw before we go on: If you think that this fits your first scenario then he should not rule and write that one should/can be "MEKAREV THEM"!; he should have written that one can/should be MEGAYER THEM! or that one should "FACILITATE THE GERUS" WHY "BE MEKAREV THEM"? It is obvious THAT WE ARE NOT ONLY ACCEPTING THEM TO BECOME GERIM WE ARE "MEKAREV" THEM TO MAKE IT HAPPEN (LIKE TEACHING THEM THE BEAUTY OF TORAH SO THAT IT WILL AROUSE THEIR HEARTS AS RAV ELYASHIV WRITES IN HIS TESHUVA) "that through the fact that the non jew PARTICIPATES IN SHIURIM THERE ARE STRONG POSSIBILITIES THAT HE WILL WILL DECIDE TO BE MEGAYER"! THAT BELONGS MUCH MORE TO THE MIDDLE AREA OF "CONVINCING" THAN TO "FACILITATE". and perhaps the language of rav Elyashiv could belong also to the area 3 as we will discuss ih"y later.

    In addition: what you placed in your analysis to place "convincing them" with scenario 2, may even belong to scenario of "mekarev them" (ESPECIALLY THAT HE BROUGHT DOWN rAV elYASHIV'S RULING)and maybe not.

    REgardless: While Rav Reuven might not have ruled DIRECTLY on this area he brought rAV ELYASHIV'S RULING INTO THE SHAYLOH WHERE RAV ELYASHIV RULES THAT ONE MAY ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES THAT MAY CAUSE THE PERSON TO WANT TO CONVERT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY WOULD OTHERWISE BE ASSUR, YET HE FEELS THAT IT IS BE CONSIDERED "BEDIEVED" EVEN TO PERMIT A KNOWN ISSUR (OF NON TEACHING NON JEWS TORAH) BECAUSE BY HIM ATENDING THE SHIURIM THERE ARE POSSIBILITIES THAT HE WILL WANT TO CONVERT SO WE OPT FOR THAT OPTION!.
    TO BE CONTINUED

    ReplyDelete
  24. mt/BOMZER,

    it is a non starter regarding the hilchot gerut! All his Batey dinim follow the guideliness by Rav REuven FEinstein, which are the guideliness of Rav MOshe and Rav Henkin Rav Kamenetzky, Rav Sz Aurbach, and also Rav Sternbuch who wrote that without kabbalat Hamitzvot where the person bdoes not observe the gerut is NOTHING!

    Rav Sternbuch even adds that we should check in the future every single ger that appears if he/she keeps torah and mitzvot! check it up!


    At least comeback from your original zilzul at Ohr Sameach. But in any event "mekarev" is a very wide word and see what all kiruv organizations do and you may see if it fits with the idea of kiruv.

    ReplyDelete
  25. With regards to the third scenario (your second scenario): While I understand your position and I personally may agree with you that it the ADS in the journals are unnecessary AND MAYBE THEY ARE NOT PROPER, and is maybe it is not covered under this teshuva of Rav reuven,


    But before we go on we must remove some possible false messages: a) You make it sound that they target anyone with a distant root to judaism. I am under the impression that those ads targeted only INTER MARRIED COUPLES.

    WE will try to come back to these ads later.

    b)The conventions: you wrote "...
    Conventions are held that invite anyone who is curious...". Just for accuracy do you write because you this to be a FACT by youself. BUt even assuming this to be true, and assuming " or will be willing to listen to speeches regarding the psycological, sociological benefits of being an observant Jewish couple. Or even finding those will be willing to listen to the speeches just because they will get a full paid vacation. These are people who at most are not strongly opposed to the idea of Judaism. The initiative thus comes from kiruv workers not from the couple. The justification is that they will eventually be persuaded (proselytized) to be fully observing".

    Assuming that this is the case, Rav Reuven quotes *Rav ELyashiv's* teshuva in his Teshuva and THAT COVERS THIS AS WELL, THAT RAV ELYASHIV HELD THIS TOO TO BE MUTAR:

    we WILL QUOTE IT AGAIN and walk through this inyan: (after writing that he feels that there is a mchlokess if one may teach torah extensively to a person studying to become a ger and it's a sfeiko dedinoh, that we should go lechumroh, he writes):

    "...מכל זה נראה דרק בנישואי תערובת, שעל ידי זה שהצד הנכרי משתתף בשיעורים , יש סיכויים שיתן אל לבו להתגייר, ועי"ז מצילין את היהודי או את היהודיה לשוב בתשובה, יש לראות במצבם כאילו בדיעבד ויש לתפוס הדיעה המתרת ללמוד תורה לגוי אם דעתו להתגייר":

    by cases of intermarried couples where if the bob jew attends SHIURIM there are sensile possibilities that theperson will decide in his heart to convert' we may see this case like a "bediavad", even in facec of possible issur and hold like the opinion that allows to teach torah to a goy who wants to convert. This means that the value of encouraging and enticing and convincing = each of them "proseltyizng" in your language (and in my language as we should discuss later we should emphasize that it is not from his own "initial initiative" and bl"n we should focus to discuss this appropriately) is so valuable and important that even though it is not certain, and there are only "possibilities" (sensible) one may even treat lekulah and teach him torah! (even though otherwise it would prohibited in the eyes of Rav ELyashiv!).
    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  26. He states that it is explicit in the words of Rav Elyashiv that if one could save the jewish partner from the avera "chamura" of intermarriage (remember "issur chamur") then one should be mekarev him/her , provided that it wllbe a gerut with kabblat hamitzvot kehilchata!

    so actually: 1) It is clear in the words of Rav ELyashiv tht he permits to teach torah (and literally means every venue that might entice him; for actually Teaching torah should be more prohivited than other "lectureS" "phychological" etc.) to ENTICE the non jew to convert! (prosetyzation!),
    2) Rav reuven quotes him and states that one should be mekarev such a person, 3) It stands to reaon that Rav Reuven's own ruling to be "mekarev" incorporates some of these kiruvim although he does not write so directly, butr quotes him and does not make a heoro against or about it, so Rav Tropper's approach in these conventions has clear backing from a clear teshuva of Rav ELyashiv! without opposition from Rav reuven and anyone that was quoted by Rav Reuven!

    (REmember: Im kloley Halacha when one applies a heter to a certain degree but did not say beferush "vesoo loh" and the other goes further and applies the heter further, it does not mean that the one who did not voice the heter further is *arguing* bepoel with the other to say that it iassur! espcially when you have Rav Reuven brining all of them together and he does not make a heoro that any of them assered. It is obvious that they did not asser it and Rav ELyashiv was matir! Rav Troppe ris clearly within his right to follow thepssakof Rav Elyashiv Shlita!

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  27. So when you write that "convincing" is different "facilitating" you may be right but nevertheless sRav Elyashiv still permits it.

    but i'll bl"n address one point that i think is very important that there has to be caution. And i think that Rt does overstep this point as well. this point has to do with the word "initiative" by the conert and I think this a key to the general discussion..
    to be continued..

    ReplyDelete
  28. I sent you recently another TEshuvaof Rav Elyashiv as it is written by his in law HaRav SIlberstein that relates to our issue. More on that later...

    ReplyDelete
  29. (i already lost again part of what i wrote -my fault- )

    Let's now focus to analyze the central point of discussion: You claim that there should be a difference between "facilitating" and between "convincing" or "encouraging". What would be the hecherech for this chiluk?

    Further let's go back to general question: Where is the issur of "not proselytizing" recorded? Where in Shluchan Oruch? Im' afraid NOWHERE. so what is bichlal the issur?

    Further: Rav Sternbuch claims that it is prohibited because: a) "If people with only a Jewish father are encouraged to participate in Jewish educational events it will convey the message that in some sense they are actually Jewish. That is because it is commonly accepted that only Jews are allowed to participate in these events".

    In addition that this is not a gezera that is mentioned in shas or shulchan oruch, and it seems his own chashash and perhaps others do not hold of such a chashash, especially when it is emphasized at the programs that they are not jewish, mikol makom: Rav REuven and his sources do not suggest to agree with such a reasoning and that such a reasoning should have a bearing on the halacha of "mekarev him". And it would appear mikal vochomer: madoch a issur mamosh (leshem ishut) is waived letakanat hashavim, al achas kamo vekamoh to create new chashashot. Uleidach: if there is such a concern then we should not be "mekarev" him even if they approach us, being that they might be perceived or think to themslves that they are yidden, So from all the above it is clear that all the Rabbonim quoted by Rav Reuven that permit mekarev at least once when approached: do not take that concern bichlal or at the very least it is overriden by the need for takanat hashavim (no less than "leshem ishut"),

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  30. Recipients and PublicityJune 25, 2009 at 9:26 PM

    For the sake of clarification, I leave it up to the owner of this blog to publish the first five of the "Seven Questions for Rav Reuven Feinstein Regarding EJF" if and when he sees fit. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. part two on "proseltyzing"

    Rav Sternbuch also adds another reason: "Typically the intermarried couple does not realize that they are constantly transgressing prohibitions which carry the punishment of kares [Rambam Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:6]. But at least they need to be aware that intermarriage cuts them off completely from the Jewish people. If we allow and even encourage their non‑Jewish offspring to participate in Jewish educational events, they will feel that they still have an intimate connection to the Jewish people – G‑d forbid!",


    This reason too does not seem to be viewed by Rav reuven and the Rabbonim he quoted to be a valid reason to stop mekarev him. Addrabboh, there is "takanat hashovim" by earlier posskim, and we do not say that they need to be aware that are cut off, and on...espcially so, by a tinok Shenishbah, that it was completely not his fault, anoness like "diavad" so for sure "takanat hashavim" is what seems to be the opinion of Rav Reuven and the Rabbonim he quotes! even for the one intermarried himself, !

    It appears from them that they did not accept this to a valid reasoning to asser mekarev them, for they all stess "takanat hashavim" (as Rav chayim OYzer and Rav Shlomh Kluger) evenfor the person who sinned!

    to be contniued

    ReplyDelete
  32. i made a terrible typo inthe post of 8:51 I wrote "RT does overstep thispoint as well" i meant " RT does NOT overstep this point as welll".

    ReplyDelete
  33. continued on issue of prosletyzing

    c) A third reason by Rav Sternbuch in his opinion why prosetyzing is assur is because "..Another basis of concern is that I see this as a violation of following non‑Jewish practices (chukas akum). These rabbis are showing mercy to the Jewish father by a de-facto acknowledgment of the non‑Jewish concept of patrilineal descent. According to the unanimously held Torah view - any person with a non‑Jewish mother is completely non‑Jewish....".

    In addition that I fail to see and understand how the i idea of attempting bring the child back to yiddishkeyt shows an "acknowledgment" of "patrilineal descent". It is obvious that all these rabbis consider the fellow to be a*halachikally* goy gamur, but since the biological father was jewish they want to bring him back to his biological origins,

    In addition to my lack of understanding in havanah, It is cler that Rav Reuven and all rabonim quoted are not concenred by this chashash at all. They do not mention any such chashash. and theyir concern is only "takanat hashavim" and "giyur " with real kabbalat hamitzvot!
    Leidoch: IF such a chashash would exist it would asser to acept him to be megayer even if they asked to be nisgayer, for the laymen (Who knows that usually a Beis Din rejects Gerim) and here sees a different approach might think that there is something to "patrilineal descent".

    His additional reasoning for this issur " Also the gratuitous granting of Jewish status and benefits to this non‑Jewish child violates the Torah prohibition of Lo Techanem". is also not mentioned anywhere, and one might say that since "baim keechad" he becomes jewish where the issur does not apply there is no loy techanem, and one might add: if his reasoning is right, then how come we have "ger koton" thatBeis din makes to the child, is there no issur of loy techname to goy koton?,

    but in addition to all the above, it appears clear from Rav Reuven's Teshuva and all the Rabbonim quoted there that they do not subscribe to this reasoning at all! or at the very least, the need for takanat hashavim is more important than the slight chashash that we give the non jewish partner a "gratutious gift".

    In Sum: (In addition that the reasonings of HaRav Sternbuch need additional biur on their own right), it is clear from Rav Reuven's Teshuva that his father and all rabbonim that are recorded there did not suscibe to those reasonings. So back to the question, what is the natureof the "issur" of prosetyzation (if it exists)??

    to be continued...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Before we go on I'll stress though, that in one thing Dt is right in his stressing that Rav reuven wasn't talking about us begging him to convert! And in one sense he is right that there should be an element of "initiative" by the convert himself! But that is NOT due to the chashashot mentioned earlier; but it seems that that is due to THE VERY NATURE OF GERUT CONVERSION1

    Conversion by definition means that person comes forward and at certain point says "I WANT TO CONVERT" (EXCEPT BY GER KOTON) this seems to be the procedure of gerut and moreover the to some degree the "Essence" of gerut!

    And therefore too, we find clear in shulchan Aruch (from the Talmud) that in general when someone comes to convert w try to push them away. Why? WE want that it be sincere AND FROM HIS OWN REAL VOLITION!

    Therefore, even if Rabbonim would permit to do activites to entice the fellow to WANT TO CONVERT; but at the end of the day, the conversion itself, ie. the moment when the person is going to the rabbi to convert and the moment the rabbi accepts the petition to convert, must begin by the initiative of the convert himself! WE can mekarev him, we can encourage him; we can teach him the value of the torah; BUT NEVER BEG HIM TO CONVERT! for tha t would be the antithesis of conversion!

    If this is the case: Then "proselytizing" is wrong when we tell him/her TO CONVERT! but when teach him torah, we tell him/her about the concept of conversion, we call people or alert them that there lectures that speak about becoming jewish, btu we do not address HIM/HER INDIVIDUALLY trhere is no issur to make activites that will make him come to us, and *HE/SHE* WILL DECIDE ON THEIR OWN WHETHER OR NOT IT IS GOOD FOR THEM, .

    all of the above is to give some divrey hessber to the pssak of HaRAv ELyashiv that he rules clearly that WE MAY TEACH A NON JEW WHO IS INTERMARRIED TO A NON JEW IN ORDER THAT HE BE ENTICED TO SEE THE BEAUSTY OF IT AND DECIDE ON HIS THAT HE/SHE WANTS TO CONVERT. (and as we stressed earlier: Rav REuven brings him and he does not argue with him and he does not state that anyone of the rabbonim he mentioned earlier argues with him on this!).

    ReplyDelete
  35. Now as to the excerpt of the teshuva by Rav ELyashiv (written by his SIL) that I sent you:

    He was asked whether we should push away children of a non jewish mother and jewish father from jewish schools (where the rest of the jewish kids are kids who we are to be mekarev, whose parents do not yet keep torah) or we should accept them IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE TROUGH THIS THAT THE WHOLE FAMILY CONVERT AND TURN TO A JEWISH FAMILY?

    Rav eLyashiv responded that it depends: Sometimes there is A INYAN to accept chldren who are NON JEWS HALACHIKALLY in order to be MEZAKEH THEIRPARENTS , FOR IS THE CHILDREN WILL GROW BY ATTACHING TO TORAH ' THEN THEY WILL CONVERT AND THE PARENTS WILL CONVERT (THE MOTHER) AND THEIR FATHER WILL NOT BE PUNISHED AND THERE IS NO GREATER SCHAR THAN THIS! AND THE ONE WHO TEACHES THIS CHILD TORAH IS THE MOST MERITORIOUS ONE! THAT THROUGH THIS THE ENTIRE FAMILY WAS " ZOCHEH,

    but if the study with the children is superficial and he will not take roots, and it is only a coverup for the father "guilt ttrip" , THEN THE ONE WHO TEACHES TORAH IS A PARTNER TO THE SIN AND THE TWISTING OF THE FATHER AND SHOULD NOT TEACH THEM TORAH, AND YOU NEED BEDIKAT CHACHAM TO KNOW IN EACH CASE IT'S SITUATION!

    It is clear that Rav Elyashiv RULES that one can/should entice the mother to reconvert to save the father froma severe sin! to the extent that we sohuld accept a non jewish child in school with other jewish children (and teach torah to a non Jew?). So Rav Elyashiv here is consistent that one ca/should teach others even if they did not say that they would LIKE TO CONVERT! BUT MERELY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LEARNING WILL ENTICE THE FAMILY TO CONVERT! "PROSELTYING" HAYITOCHEN? RAV ELYASHIV DOES NOT FEEL THA TTHIS IS WRONG! HE FEELS THAT THIS IS A MITZVAH!

    PROVIDED THAT IT DOES NOT SERVE TO EASE THE PANGS OF CONSISNCEOF THE FATHER. INCIDENTALLY THIS TOO SHOULD BE C CLEAR TO ANYONE WHO CONVERTS SOMEONE TO EASE THE GUILT OF HIS FATHER KNOWING THAT THE "GER" WILL NOT KEEP TORAH AND ITZVOT (AND HE DOES THEC ONVERSION BECAUSE THE BOY WILL MARRY THIS SHIKTZA AND HE HAS GUILT TRIPS) SHOULD KNOW THAT HE IS A "SHUTAF" A PARTNE TO THIS SHAM!

    ReplyDelete
  36. the Monsey TzadikJune 25, 2009 at 10:03 PM

    Tropper Said

    Further let's go back to general question: Where is the issur of "not proselytizing" recorded? Where in Shluchan Oruch? Im' afraid NOWHERE. so what is bichlal the issur?


    Good, now Tropper admits that he isproselytizing, after all those years where he lied ( I actually have at least one dvd from their recruiting promtinal stuff whre Tropper says “We are not proselytizing” ) and told everyone that he does not do it.

    So if it is not in prohibited in the Shluchan Oruch it is Automatically muttar? That opens the dooe to many possibilities...

    OK Tropper, now just get us haskama or teshuva which says that proselytizing" is permitted on massive scale as the EJF does.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dt,

    Please post the other parts of the post where i discuss how Rav reuven and in his opinion all the Posskim he quotes, do not agree with the reasonings Rav Sternbuch gave to the issur of "proseltyizing"?

    TORAH HEE AND IF TRANSPARENCY ALL THE WAY! I WROTE WITH DERECH ERETZ!

    ReplyDelete
  38. In short Rav Sternbuch wrote a few reasons for the the prohibtion to convince the intermarried jewish partner to be converted. I explained with derech eretz how the other Rabbonim do not hold that his reasoning are either valid or at least do not affect this case.

    "transparency" ALSO means that you allow ALL powers of evidence and shakloh vetaryo to take place!

    ReplyDelete
  39. where are the other parts of my post? play honestly! You skipped parts of them!

    ReplyDelete
  40. i sent you my heoros with derech erets to ALL FOUR REASONS of Rav sternbuch.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Recipients and PublicityJune 25, 2009 at 10:43 PM

    Part 1: Roni/Tropper seems to have amnesia, and is now flooding this blog with his own verbal diarhea, but for those who have been following this blog, there have been many points at which Roni/Tropper's latest assualts on the truth have already been answered in the past when he now asks incredulously, revealing his onw lack of sensibility as to how Yiddishkeit functions about its fundementals: "Where is the issur of "not proselytizing" recorded? Where in Shluchan Oruch? Im' afraid NOWHERE. so what is bichlal the issur?"

    So, again for the umpteenth time, this blog has long ago dealt with this in a scholarly and responsible fashion while one spokeman after another for EJF for the last two years have only been able to come up with grumpiness and bitterness for all the so-called krumme citations of this and that "source" which never in a thousand would have allowed the outright recruitment of gentiles hitched to Jews en masse by EJF in missionary proselyization style.

    Here are some of the sources and the discussions that were already cited on this blog by Rabbi Eidensohn/da'as torah forbidding the proselytization aspects of what EJF is doing, not to mention the letters against against EJF from Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS:

    *Proselytizing is problematic I - Aruch HaShulchan (Tuesday, January 8, 2008)

    *Proselytizing is problematic II - Yevamos 109b (Friday, January 11, 2008). A fundamental source from the Tosfos in the Gemora for the prohibition of proselytizing: "...Evil upon evil comes to those who accept converts – The Ri explained that that is only when the non‑Jews are proselytized to convert... תוספות יבמות קט: רעה אחר רעה תבא למקבלי גרים - אמר ר"י דהיינו היכא שמשיאין אותן להתגייר "

    *Proselytizing is problematic III - Obligation to convert is on ger - not beis din (Friday, January 18, 2008)

    *Why didn't Ezra convert intermarried couples? (Thursday, February 21, 2008) ...

    ReplyDelete
  42. Recipients and PublicityJune 25, 2009 at 10:52 PM

    Roni, if, as you are now claiming, you are not speaking for Rabbi Tropper and not for Rav Reuven Feinstein then who exactly do you represent?

    Your pilpulei shel hevel are just clogging up the aitwaves here because noone signed up to hear tendentious shiurim about gerus that read like elongated infomercials for EJF that are beginning to take on that fervor and flavor and tenor of those elongated treatises that the Jews for J sometimes flood the ignorant masses with in the hope that noone will notice that they are filled with twisting of the truth worthy of the worst sort of being megaleh panim baTorah shelo kehalacha for which you should be put in cherem not to mention that all your divrei hevel to justify the recruitment and proselytizaion of millions of goyim by EJF as if you were one of their paid PR people that we know by now they have lots of money to burn on.

    ReplyDelete
  43. rAP, LET ME SHOW YOU HOW YOUR "sOURCE" DOES NOT SAY THAT THERE IS AN "ISSUR" TO "PROSETYZE":

    LET ME QUOTE THE ARUCH HASHULCHAN:


    [1] ערוך השולחן (יורה דעה רסח:ו): אין להסית שום גוי לגייר את עצמו ואדרבא כך אמרו חז"ל ביבמות [מז.] כשבא עכו"ם לנו ומבקש שיגיירוהו אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגיי

    a) He does NOT SAY "אסור להסית שום גוי", he says "אין להסית". b) DT translated wrongly "lehosit" as "actively encourage", when "hasotoh" is stronger than "Actively encourage" it is like "inciting"!

    In any event: what the Ah is writing is the *procedure* of gerut lechatchila! He does not mean to state an "issur" like "eyn mekablim gerim leshem ishut" which is an issur. In fact Shulchan Oruch does NOT write such an issur!

    But as I know, you are *UNABLE* to argue these points; your expertise in learning is one that you were never critical at a piece of rashi and tossafot; you are good at writing (junk) but not at telling us what is written in Gemoroh, Shulchan Oruch!

    In short: Aruch Hashulchon is NOT a source that there is an "issur" to "prosetyze"; and certainly not a source that there is an issur to "Encourage" or to teach torah to a person to to encourage him to convert. It may not be the proper procedure lechatchila but this is NOT an "issur"!

    ReplyDelete
  44. RAP's second source: "יבמות (קט:): דא"ר יצחק, מאי דכתיב: (משלי יא:טו) רע ירוע כי ערב זר? רעה אחר רעה תבא למקבלי גרים, ... מקבלי גרים - כר' חלבו, דאמר ר' חלבו: קשים גרים לישראל כספחת בעור."
    "Tosfos[1] (Yevamos 109b): Evil upon evil comes to those who accept converts – The Ri explained that that is only when the non‑Jews are proselytized to convert or they are accepted prematurely before they are ready".

    MIND BOGGLING!? Is this what he calls an "issur" to proseltyze??? IS this something that a REbbi in MEsifta would a student to pass by as a source for an ISSUR? An Agadic statment that has it's meaning becomes an "issur"? And obviousy it was not accepted lehahalcha in it's literal terms as people accept Gerim in general (at least when they come to us). what does this have anything to do with encouraging aan intermarried person to be megayer to save him from issur chamur?

    ZILCH! You know how to write: The content ZERO! NOT EVEN "PILPULIM SHEL HEVEL"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rap's third source for an "ISSUR TO PROSETYZE"

    "Yevamos[1](48b): R’ Chanaiah son of Rabban Gamliel said: Why are converts in the present time oppressed and suffering? It is because they hadn’t fulfilled the Seven Mitzvos of Noach [before conversion - Rashi]. R’ Yose disagreed noting that one who converts is like a new born child [and thus is not punished for his past – Rashi]. So then why are they suffering? It is because they are not as knowledgeable of the details of mitzva observance as are those who are born Jewish. Abba Chanan said in the name of R’ Eleazar that they suffer because they do not do mitzvos out of love but from fear [of divine punishment – Rashi]. Other’s say because they delayed their conversion. R’ Abahu or R’ Chanina said what verse supports this understanding? Ruth (2:12) praised Ruth, “You came [quickly and didn’t delay - Rashi] to take refuge under His wings.”


    Roni: wHERE IS THE issur to prosetyze????? The more you write the more I see that there is nobody home by you. Are you not embarassed to write these things??? as an "answer" to my question?1

    for that matter you can say that this gemoroh is a source that one is AN ISSUR TO BE MEGAYER PERIOD! HOW UTTERLY RIDICULOUS?

    YOU NEVER LEARNED A BLATT GEMOROH IN YOUR LIFE!

    ReplyDelete
  46. rap's fifth source

    משנה הלכות (ז:רנ): והנה כתיב בעזרא
    קפיטל ט' י' כשהתפלל עזרא ויען שכני' בן יחיאל מבני עילם ויאמר לעזרא אנחנו מעלנו באלקינו ונשב נשים נכריות מעמי הארץ ועתה נכרת ברית לאלקינו להוציא כל נשים והנולד מהם בעצת ה' והחרדים במצות אלקינו וכתורה יעשה ויעשו כן בני הגולה וגו' ויכלו בכל אנשים ההשיבו נשים נכריות עד יום אחד לחדש הראשון ע"ש כל הענין. והנראה דחשב שם המשפחות שנשאו נשים נכריות והוציאו אותם ואת בניהם ותימה שלא מצינו שגיירו אותם לא הנשים ולא הבנים והושיבום תחתיהם או החזירום אח"כ וקשה לומר שלא רצו אף אחת מהם להתגייר, וראיתי לרבינו אברהם אבן עזרא [עזרא י:ג] שעמד בקושיא זו וכתב ז"ל וז"ל, ולא מצאנו שהקריבו אחד מהם ואולי הוציאום שלא היו גיורות כרות המואביה וחז"ל אמרו בנו הוא לכל דבר חוץ מן הנלד מן השפחה ומן הכותית והוציאו האמות והבנים עכל"ק ע"ש. נראה מזה דלא שהם לא רצו להתגייר אלא שעזרא ובית דינו לא רצו לקבלם להתגייר בכל שהם לא יתגיירו גירות אמיתית כרות המואביה שנתגיירה לה' לבדו ואף שהיו בני ישראל מועטים בזמן הזה בארץ ישראל ארבעים אלף איש וודאי רצו להרבות אוכלוסיהם שהרי היו חצים עושים במלאכה וחצים מחזיקים הרמחים והמגינים והקשתות והשריונים מ"מ לא רצו להתערב עמהם גוים אשר לא יתגיירו כהוגן כי אדרבה אלו יזיקו להם בבטחון. ובגמרא יבמות (כד:) אחד איש שנתגייר לשם אשה ואחד אשה שנתגיירה לשם איש וכן מי שנתגייר לשום שלחן מלכים וכו' אינן גרים דברי ר' נחמיה שהיה ר' נחמיה אומר אחד גירי אריות ואחד גירי חלומות ואחד גירי מרדכי ואסתר אינם גירים עד שיתגיירו כבזה"ז ואף שמסיק עלה הא אמר ר' יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב הלכה כדברי האומר כולם גרים הם וכן פסק הרמב"ם (הלכות איסורי ביאה יג:יד) ובש"ע יו"ד סי' רס"ח סי"ב צ"ל דכיון דלכתחילה אין מקבלין אותן לא רצו לקבלם עזרא ובית דינו אף דאם נתגיירו בדיעבד גרותם גירות. או יאמר דלא אמרו המתגייר לשום אישות בדיעבד הוה גר אלא כשמתגייר קודם שנשאו דאגב אונסי' שרצה לנשאה או להנשא גמר ומקבל על עצמו כל דיני התורה והגירות אבל לאחר שנשאו כבר הרי יודע שלא יעזוב אותה או אותו ואינו מקבל על עצמו באמת המצות אלא להראות להצד השני איזה חביבות מראה בעצמו כמתגייר ולכן לא רצו לקבלם כלל דכה"ג ל"ה גרות כלל בין כך ובין כך מבואר בקרא דלא קבלו אותם להתגייר. ומכאן נראה להביא ראיה מה שראיתי מלאכי אלקים עולים ויורדים בנדון מי שדר עם גוי' שהתחתן עמה בערכאות וילדה ממנו בנים ואח"כ רצתה להתגייר עם הבנים אי יש לקבלם או לא. ומרן כק"ז בבית שערים יו"ד סי' שס"א שס"ב כתב מהא דאמרינן בבכורות (ל:) עכו"ם שבא לקבל ד"ת חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפילו דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים ופסק כן הרמב"ם פי"ד מא"ב ה"ח ועי' מ"מ שם. וקשה להאמין שאיש אשר יחד לו גויה בזנות כמה שנים ונתקשר עמה ע"פ חוקי המדינה בנשואין ועדיין לא שב מטעותו ועולתו כי אפילו לא יקבלו אותה להתגייר ידור עמה כאיש ואשתו קשה להאמין שיניח אותה לקבל כל המצות אפילו אם תרצה היא לקבל על עצמה שהרי הוא בפרוצה ניחא ליה ולא באשה שתקבל על עצמה כל המצות ואפילו דקדוקי סופרים וכיון שלא תתקבל כן א"כ אין כאן גירות כלל ע"ש. ... ובאמת כי בשו"ת בית יצחק יו"ד סימן ק' ובשו"ת אחיעזר ח"ג סימן כ"ח ושו"ת מהרש"ג יו"ד סימן ל"ב ואמרי יושר סימן קע"ו ושו"ת אבן יקרה תליתאה סימן צ"ח ושו"ת באר חיים מרדכי סימן מ' ושו"ת ערוגת הבושם סימן רכ"ד יו"ד וספר רוח חיים להגר"ח פאלאגי סימן ט"ז ובשו"ת אגרות משה להגר"ם פיינשטיין א"ע סימן כ"ז כולם פסקו לאיסור כה"ג. וא"כ הגע עצמך אפילו היכא דרצו לקבל גירות אלא שיש בה פגמים אין לקבלם וכ"ש וק"ו אלף פעמים לדיד

    Roni: This says that these conversions may not bode well in the future, but DOES NOT SAY THAT THIS IS ASSUR! IN FACT, THE PART OF THE TESHVA THAT IS MORE DIFFICULT TO RAP IS THE PART BEFORE THE END WHERE HE STATES FROM ALL SOURCES THAT IF SHE DOES NOT REALLY COMMITS HER SHE IS A GOYA! THIS IS THE PROBLEM OF THE BOMZER GERUT, BUT THE OTHER GERUSSIM HE STATES AT THE END "MEKABLIM" WE MAY ACCEPT! THE CONTRARY OF AN ISSUR! WHILE THEY MAY BE "PROBLEMATIC" IN A SENSE THAT THEY ARE NOT WISE; THEY ARE NOT "ASSUR", GET IT?

    LUDICROUSIS NOT THE WORD! WHICH YESHIVA DID YOU LEARN?

    ReplyDelete
  47. The ONLY ONE who came stating that there is an issur is Rav shternbuch. He is the only source! i HAVE EXPLAINED AT LENGTH HOW OTHER RABBONIM, LIKE RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN, RAV SZ AURBACH. RAV HENKIN, RAV YAAKOV KAMENETSKY AND MANY MORE DO NOT HOLD OF HIS VIEW! (the probbly hold that gerut should be done when the ger accepts to become a ger on his own but they do not state THAT THERE IS AN A) ISSUR TO PROSETYZE, B) TO ENCOURAGE CONVERSION,

    If you want you ar freee to show me where I erred in the analysis but I wll not hold my breadth after so mcuh shtussim and poshut not learning at all that comes from your pen...

    ReplyDelete
  48. RAP,

    I can never compete with you in your long chollents that are not even hevel havolim. There is no torah whatsoever in your pieces.

    Are you able to relate to any point that is made?

    Again: The central question: a) Where is the *ISSUR* to prosetyze, b) to encourage conversion when they will not convert UNLESS THE PERSON IS SINCERE TO COMMIT TO TORAH AND MITZVOT BIPROTEHO! AND YES THEY WILL ACCEPT TO COVER THEIR HAIR,

    D) WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR YOU TO ALLOW TO SEND TO BOMZER, WHO IS A PASSUL DAYAN ACCORDING TO ALL THE POSSKIM, LIKE RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN, RAV ELYASHIV, RAV STERNBUCH, E) WHERE IS THE SOURCE THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO GET 40,000 TO TELL A GOYA THAT SHE IS JEWISH?

    BEFORE YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTION ALL YOUR BOBBEH MAYSSOS AER NOT WORTH LOTZUR AL PI TZOOLICHISSOY NOT EVEN TO MAKE ASHER YOTZAR ON THEM....

    ReplyDelete
  49. In the last letter by Rav sternbuch he states that Rav Moshe wrote that he never liked any conversion of nissuey taarovot as he wrote in EH 27. That is a legitimate source. but there is another piece of Rav moshe that we have been discussing eh 2/4 where he does state that one is allowed to convert her to "prevent from issur chamur"! that seems to be (while a painful thing, but ) it is not unworthy; on the contrary it is worthy to save one from an issur chamur and that is the reason why the lesser sin was permitted.

    ReplyDelete
  50. RAP,

    [...] Again: The central question: a) Where is the *ISSUR* to prosetyze, b) to encourage conversion when they will not convert UNLESS THE PERSON IS SINCERE TO COMMIT TO TORAH AND MITZVOT BIPROTEHO! AND YES THEY WILL ACCEPT TO COVER THEIR HAIR,[...]

    ReplyDelete
  51. the Monsey TzadikJune 26, 2009 at 4:57 AM

    Tropper said:


    “Further let's go back to general question: Where is the issur of "not proselytizing" recorded? Where in Shluchan Oruch? Im' afraid NOWHERE. so what is bichlal the issur?”


    At least now after all those years you admit you are proselytizing, so go back to r’ Reuven Feinstein and ask him to give you haskama/teshuva that permits it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. DT,

    Why not post the other posts? They are response to how RAp's "sources" ARE NO SOURCES FOR AN *ISsur" to prosetyze! or to sncourage conversion?

    LEt everyone see the sources. Just because there is some mussar there? there is not enough mussar for him [...] RAV REUVEN THE WAY HE DID! AND YOU AS THE OWENR OF THE BLOG ALLOWED IT!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Roni: "Where is the issur of "not proselytizing" recorded? Where in Shluchan Oruch? Im' afraid NOWHERE. so what is bichlal the issur?"

    RAP: "So, again for the umpteenth time, this blog has long ago dealt with this in a scholarly and responsible fashion "

    Talk about amnesia there was no "scholarly" response loy miboeey by you, who has a good pen but writes empty long pages but not even Dt was able to produce a Seif in Shulchan Oruch that states that it is forbidden and the nature of the issur! (The best you yp with was a distant aruch hashulchon).

    rap: "while one spokeman after another for EJF for the last two years have only been able to come up with grumpiness anand bitterness for all the so-called krumme citations of this and that "source" which never in a thousand would have allowed the outright recruitment of gentiles hitched to Jews en masse by EJF in missionary proselyization style".

    Roni: they have no need to explain a charge that claims that there is an "issur"! There is no "issur", You bring a proof that it is "ossur" and then EJf will respond to you why they think it is permitted in their case. Your expertise is repeat the same thing as a maaleh geyroh. You have a a chance to state briefly: WHAT IS THE ISSUR OF PROSLTYZING? UYOU COULD NOT THEN AND YOU CANNOT NOW AND YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE LATER!

    SAy briefly in your own words. do not send me to the mareh mekomos. I already saw them and debunked them when you made those claims in the past. Say them briefly now.

    Btw, the sources of Rav Sternbuch: I already explained now why according to Rav Reuven FEinstein, according to his father HaRav Moshe FEinstein, HaRav Yaakov Kamenetzky, HaRav SZ Aurbach and Harav Henkin, THE CONCERNS THAT rAV sTERNBUCH RAISES ARE NOT SHARED BY THOSE rABBIS. iN SIMPLE ENGLISH THEY DISAGREE WITH HIM! tRY TO EXPLAIN TO THE HEOROS i MADE WHY YOU THINK THEY ARE WRONG AND RAV STERNBUCH IS RIGHT, BUT VERBAL TZOOH DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT.

    AGAIN THE NEKUDOH: THERE IS NO "ISSUR" TO PROSELTYZE! ACCORDING TO THOSE RABBIS, YOUR SCREAMINGS NOTWITHSANDING DO NOT CHANGE THESE FACTS!

    THERE IS AN ISSUR IN BRIGNING GOYIM TO KLAL YISROEL THAT IS AN AREA WHERE YOU NEED A LOT OFXING TO DO!

    ReplyDelete
  54. Recipients and PublicityJune 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM

    Part TWO: Seven Questions for Roni...


    4) The Jewish communal infrastructure is stretched to the limits, Orthodox Jews are barely managing, and secular Jews are taxing the Orthodox educational system with demands upon manpower and money that goes to kiruv making things tough, is this the time to proselytize to millions and billions of gentiles, when Israel can barely absorb the over 300,000 known gentiles there that is causing so much bitterness, for example?

    5) The Gemara in Chulin in Gid HaNashe when Yaakov Avinu is injured by the malach in his gid hanashe (he was actually incapable of having more children, his doros were ended), the meforshim explain, such as the Maharsha that this episode is a ma'aseh avos siman lebanim for the acharis hayamim that Esav will damage Yaakov in his doros (as we see today with the mass assimilation, intermarriage and shmad) that in the acharis hayamim there will be DOROS SHEL SHMAD, AS WE HAVE NOW IN OUR TIMES but this is not all bad because it is HKB"H's way of getting rid of the remnants of the eruv rav who may have had zechusim to be within klal Yisroel for millenia but that now their time has come to be cast off, and EJF is now arising to do the hepech of the ratzon of the hashgocha and that is why it is doomed to absolute failure. I know, you will shout that this is a a "mere" chazal, but jurisprudence is the essence of the law. Hlacha is more eidel than you portray it to be as a mechanical accumulation of this and that sefer, when in truth the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and that applies to everything you say that ultimately falls flat on its face because you are so mechanistic and you miss the point that YIDDISHKEIT cannot be sovel what EJF is doing. Yes, our bobbas and zeidas (and many of them knew shas and tzene verana as well) would tear their hair out if they could get a glimpse of what Tropper says and how EJF wants to recruit billions of goyim and make them into super-duper "ultra-halachic converted robots" that listen only to one voice, that of Tropper's commands as if Yiddishkeit was some sort of Iranian Mullah state. ...

    ReplyDelete
  55. Recipients and PublicityJune 26, 2009 at 12:23 PM

    Part THREE: Seven Questions for Roni...

    6) Since when does anyone or any group dare to do the work that the RAMBAM describes that the true Jewish Moshiach will do in the acharis hayamim of doing the kibbutz galuyos and identifying who is a Jew mong the goyim? Tropper and EJF reveal their utter arrogance and contempt for the RAMBAM's modest vision for Jews in the golus, who must not do things that should be left for the Moshiach. When Tropper proseltyizes to millions and billions of gentiles as EJF does online and in the media he opens himself up to charges of false messianism and of even being a navi sheker. Thus if individuals want to be megayer that is fine, help them as the poskim admit, but to run after them like they were prizes in an adevertising hunt, is counter anything that is done in Yiddishkeit. There are enough secular Jews to run after for kiruv, even intermarried ones who may show up ON THEIR OWN and want to be helped, but to run after them like it was a free for all turkey shoot like a chicken without a head is not and has never been something that was done in normative Yiddishkeit by any group of rabbonim ever.

    7) Finally, you know, that in the Gemora there are instances whereby there is a safek about a din, and the chazel said let's go and hear what the tinokes shel bais raban are saying in the shuk. And my suggestion to you is, why don't you and Tropper go to ANY normal yeshiva you like anywhere in the world, and explain to them exactly what it is that you are doing (NOT the part of insisting on a "universal standard" for strict conversions, that any ben Torah can agree with) but the real controversial meshuga part of the EJF agenda, the one say that shulchan oruch does "not" forbid, to proselytize by the millions or billions and to recruit any old gentiles hitched to Jews and have them come for weekened concerts, all expenses paid by EJF, and describe in detail all the wacky lomdus you have spent a lot of time trying to break everyone's arm here to swallow, and ask the rosh yeshivas, the rebbeim and the talmidim if after they have heard your krumme lomdus if (a) they agree with you, if (b) they would be willing to go out and practice it, and if (c) it sounds in any way normal to them and what a ben Torah should be thinking, doing or wanting?

    You know as well as anyone that they will throw you out on your head for your perverted krumkeit and for being megaleh ponim baTorah shelo keHalacha and that they will slap a cherem on you quicker than you can say "John or Jane Doe want to convert" for your despicable defense of EJF's chazer fislach treif GOYISHE agenda!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Recipients and PublicityJune 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM

    Part ONE: Seven Questions for Roni why EJF's Proselytization is Anti-Yiddishkeit.


    Firstly, Roni, the links I provided were for the benefit of any new readers who may have been misled to think that the owner of this blog never did his homework, so yet again, I went to the bother of providing the links to the posts I found on this blog that deal with the issus of not proselytizing. Nothing more and nothing less.

    To claim that these posts that I linked to above were "mine" and that you then went ahead and "answred" them as if I was their originator, is a yet another grand deception and falsified distraction by you when the address for your answers and questions should be Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah who researched, composed and posted them, so that if you have any complaints, take it up with him, as he should be the one to defend his own posts.

    Now as for your question about "SAy briefly in your own words" what the problem and issur is in proselytizing to gentiles to become Jews, I am astounded that you even ask this question, as if it's a self-understood "assumption" that anyone who can cite verbiage like you must therefore also hold like you.

    You know, sometimes the most basic things in Yiddishkeit are NOT the result of great lomdus or of the amount of time spent in a yeshiva or how much you can talk in learning. Chesed, Emunah, Bitachon, Yashrus, Sechel, Chochmah, Ahavas Yisroel, Chavivus HaMitzvos, Gevurah, Anivus, being Modeh al HaEmes, being an Ohen Shalom and a Rodef Shalom, Hasmadah, Deveikis BaShem and much much more are not learned from a daf Gemora and sometimes the lamdan can be the worst baal gaava, baaal tava, shakran, rodef achar hakaavod, meisi umediach, ganev and rotzeach (just like an Esav!)

    That is why there arose the Mussar Movement to TRY TO shape up people who are suffering from a serious disconnect between their brains and their middos!

    The Maskilim of old knew how to learn better than you and look what happened to them. Noone but you on this blog seems to have any serious problems with the way I come at issues and try to analyze and solve them. You seem to think that you can pull the oldest bad stunt in the kiruv book, one of Tropper's favorite techniques, of beating down an opponent with charges of ignorance while throwing at him streams of random krumme Torah-sounding verbiage meant to intimidate the opponent into agreeing with fanaticismeven if its shtusim and in effect becoming brainwashed.

    Not this time though, because aside from the fact that the owner of this blog is a reliable Talmid Chochem, his posek and guide in the Tropper & EJF affair is none other than Rav Moshe Shternbuch backed up by the entire BADATS, and since you are not even shamefaced enough not to try to browbeat them and twist their words, why should anyone else below that level feel bad when you hurl your crazy insults at them?

    So I will answer your question in a Torah-dikke way, but my way, with some questions and reactions of my own, all from a Torah, Chazal and from pure Yiddishkeit perspective:

    1) Imagine that Tom Kaplan wants to be a new talmid, let alone a leader of Klal Yisroel isn't it fair to ask him and Tropper HOW MUCH was Tropper influenced by the former Christian Evangelical missionary ambitions and money of Uncle Tom Kaplan and his nephew?

    2) Can you/Tropper PROVE that the agenda and methods and game plan of EJF to proselytize are not the same as the Christian Evangelical methods that, for example, Kaplan's family were part of and practiced?

    3) What will be the BENEFIT if EJF has its way and (as based on proven EJF online infomercials) and one third of humanity (that's more than TWO billion gentiles) will become Jews based on EJF's plans? Which gadol, besides Tropper thinks that this is a great idea (not the part about "universal" strict conversions, but the issue of proselytizing to millions and billions of goyim en masse)? Give as many names as you can please! ..

    ReplyDelete
  57. After two years of countless pages of hype and hyyperbole, after being shown that he copies and pastes from others does not anissur make, the krummer am hooretz attempts to use his hyperbole to make it beleif that he finally proved and answered the question:

    The question is: where is Shuclahn Or another Halachik work does it state that there is a halachik issur to proseltyze = encourage intermarried cuples to convet?

    NEITHER HE NOR THE OWNER OF THE BLOG WERE ABLE TO FIND ANY ONE WHO SAYS THAT (EXCEPT FOR RAV STERNBUCH).

    Let's us see now how he attempts to provide a soruce for the issur:


    nts and Publicity said...

    RAP:" Part ONE: Seven Questions for Roni why EJF's Proselytization is Anti-Yiddishkeit."

    Roni: the QUESTION THAT YOU MUST ANSWER IS WHEREIS STATE THAT IT IS ASSUR? YET THE PEOPLE YOU SEND TO BE MEGAYER BY BOMZER YOU ARE OVAIR ANISSUR! YOU MISLEAD THEM AND KLAL YISROEL TO BRING GOYIM INTO KLAL YISROEL AS RULED BY ALL POSSKIM. HIS "gERIM" RECONVERT IF THEY WANT TO MARRY A FRUMMER PERSON! THNAKS TO YOUR EFFORTS.

    ReplyDelete
  58. rap:"Firstly, Roni, the links I provided were for the benefit of any new readers who may have been misled to think that the owner of this blog never did his homework, so yet again, I went to the bother of providing the links to the posts I found on this blog that deal with the issus of not proselytizing. Nothing more and nothing less".

    roNI: does not answer the question. Link shmink, you were asked to provide a source for an issur; you bring aggadiatic statements about the problems with gerim in general (and in your other side of the mouth you defend the honous of gerim and the acrobaatic exercise will come gushing from yout and other false critics of this blgo). Your exercise was merely to show off and to confuse the outsideer to be impressed by the "Sources" loy udbim veloyyaar: there is not one source. The links you gave from "others" were to answer the querrry: "where is THE ISSUR?

    Your astoniosmhent at my question does not make you a the owner of the truth; your long shtussim exegesis on the dangers of "prosetyzing" does not make SOURCE FOR THE ISSUR THAT YOU MAKE IT AS A DEFINITE CLAIM!

    rAP CONTINUES TO RAMBLE: " You know, sometimes the most basic things in Yiddishkeit are NOT the result of great lomdus or of the amount of time spent in a yeshiva or how much you can talk in learning":

    a halacha and "issur" though must have a source in halacha. You cannot come up with your new testament and say that it is assur because it says so. Your next statement ". Chesed, Emunah, Bitachon, Yashrus, Sechel, Chochmah, Ahavas Yisroel, Chavivus HaMitzvos, Gevurah, Anivus, being Modeh al HaEmes, being an Ohen Shalom and a Rodef Shalom, Hasmadah, Deveikis BaShem", are ACTUALLY PART OF HALACHA I CAN SHOW YOU IN HALACHA HOW MOST OF THESE ISSUES ARE MENTIONED IN HALACHA. BUT YOU COME UP WITH A NEW TESTAMENT AND MAKE A WAR WITH OTHERS BASED ON WHAT? ON YOUR NEW TESTAMENT THAT YOU CLAIM THAT THIS IS THE GREATES TDANGER! JEWS HAVE A SHULCHAN ORUCH FOR THESE THINGS!

    YOUR NEXT CHOLLENT TREATISE ABOUT MUSSAR AND MASKILIM AND PILPULEY HEVEL ABOUT THIS AND THAT DO NOT MAKE ASOURCE FOR YOUR HATRED AND OBSSESSION AT ANOTHER JEW. pROVE IT THAT WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE ASSUR IS STATED IN *HALACHA*.

    ReplyDelete
  59. YOUR NEXT CHOLLENT TREATISE ABOUT MUSSAR AND MASKILIM AND PILPULEY HEVEL ABOUT THIS AND THAT DO NOT MAKE ASOURCE FOR YOUR HATRED AND OBSSESSION AT ANOTHER JEW. pROVE IT THAT WHAT YOU CLAIM TO BE ASSUR IS STATED IN *HALACHA*.

    rap:" Not this time though, because aside from the fact that the owner of this blog is a reliable Talmid Chochem,":

    rONI: WHO HAS NOT managed to prove that this is an issur!!

    RAP:" his posek and guide in the Tropper & EJF affair is none other than Rav Moshe Shternbuch backed up by the entire BADATS,":

    ROni: who is opposed by all Posskim on this issue and they do not share his views on the issur as i have PROVEN FROM WHAT THEY WROTE AND FROM HE WROTE (KEDARKOH SHEL TORAH AND NOT KEDARKOH OF AMEY HOARATZIM WHO WRITE PAGES AND BOOKS FILLED WITH NOTHING),

    rap:" and since you are not even shamefaced enough not to try to browbeat them and twist their words, "

    rONI: prove how (not just write: "i am the owner of truth says so),

    RAP:"why should anyone else below that level feel bad when you hurl your crazy insults at them?"

    ROnI: JUST PROVE YOUR SOURCE SIMPLE AS THAT!

    rap:"So I will answer your question in a Torah-dikke way, but my way, with some questions and reactions of my own, all from a Torah, Chazal and from pure Yiddishkeit perspective:"

    roNI: a source that deals directly with the issue and states that this is assur!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Let's analyze the "SOURCES" of RAP that state thatproseltyzing is ASSUR

    RAP:””IMagine that Tom Kaplan wants to be a new talmid, let alone a leader of Klal Yisroel isn't it fair to ask him and Tropper HOW MUCH was Tropper influenced by the former Christian Evangelical missionary ambitions and money of Uncle Tom Kaplan and his nephew?"

    Roni: The question IS what is the halachik soruce that it is ossur to "prosetyze" intermarried cpules or to encourage them to convert?

    ANSWER ZERO AND BOBEH MASYSSOS!

    RAP:" 2) Can you/Tropper PROVE that the agenda and methods and game plan of EJF to proselytize are not the same as the Christian Evangelical methods that, for example, Kaplan's family were part of and practiced?"

    rONI: THE QUESTION IS AND WAS WHERE IS THE SOURCE IN HALACHA THAT IT ASSUR TO "PROSELTYZE AND TO ENCOURAGE INTERMARRIED COUPLES TO CONVERT? ANSWER NADA.

    RAP:" 3) What will be the BENEFIT if EJF has its way and (as based on proven EJF online infomercials) and one third of humanity (that's more than TWO billion gentiles) will become Jews based on EJF's plans? Which gadol, besides Tropper thinks that this is a great idea (not the part about "universal" strict conversions, but the issue of proselytizing to millions and billions of goyim en masse)? Give as many names as you can please! "

    roNI: tHE QUESTION IS AND WAS WHAT IS THE SOURCE THAT IT IS ASSUR TO "PROSETYZE" AND ENCOURAGE INTERMARRIED COUPLES?

    aNSWER GIVEN HERE: nada zilch!

    ReplyDelete
  61. The question was where is the halachik source that it is prohibited to prosetyze and encourage intermarried couples to convert

    RAP offers this as an answeer:") The Jewish communal infrastructure is stretched to the limits, Orthodox Jews are barely managing, and secular Jews are taxing the Orthodox educational system with demands upon manpower and money that goes to kiruv making things tough, is this the time to proselytize to millions and billions of gentiles, when Israel can barely absorb the over 300,000 known gentiles there that is causing so much bitterness, for example?"

    Roni NO ANSWER NO ANSWER KLUM!

    ReplyDelete
  62. thE QUESTION PRESENTED TO rap wHATIS THE hALACHIK SOURCE THAT IT IS FORBIDDEN TO PROSETYZE OR ENCOURAGE INTERMARRIED COUPLES TO COVNERT?

    RAP OFFERS THE FOLLWOING AS AN "ANSWER":

    "5) The Gemara in Chulin in Gid HaNashe when Yaakov Avinu is injured by the malach in his gid hanashe (he was actually incapable of having more children, his doros were ended), the meforshim explain, such as the Maharsha that this episode is a ma'aseh avos siman lebanim for the acharis hayamim that Esav will damage Yaakov in his doros (as we see today with the mass assimilation, intermarriage and shmad) that in the acharis hayamim there will be DOROS SHEL SHMAD, AS WE HAVE NOW IN OUR TIMES but this is not all bad because it is HKB"H's way of getting rid of the remnants of the eruv rav who may have had zechusim to be within klal Yisroel for millenia but that now their time has come to be cast off, and EJF is now arising to do the hepech of the ratzon of the hashgocha and that is why it is doomed to absolute failure. I know, you will shout that this is a a "mere" chazal, but jurisprudence is the essence of the law. Hlacha is more eidel than you portray it to be as a mechanical accumulation of this and that sefer, when in truth the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, and that applies to everything you say that ultimately falls flat on its face because you are so mechanistic and you miss the point that YIDDISHKEIT cannot be sovel what EJF is doing. Yes, our bobbas and zeidas (and many of them knew shas and tzene verana as well) would tear their hair out if they could get a glimpse of what Tropper says and how EJF wants to recruit billions of goyim and make them into super-duper "ultra-halachic converted robots" that listen only to one voice, that of Tropper's commands as if Yiddishkeit was some sort of Iranian Mullah state. ..."


    roni: AS USUAL ZILCH NADA

    J

    ReplyDelete
  63. rONI: THE QUESTION WAS POSED TO RAP WHAT IS THE SOURCE THAT IT IS PROHIBITED TO PROSETYZE OR ENCOURAGE INTERMARRIED COUPLES TO CONVERT

    HE OFFERED THIS AS AN ANSWER:

    "6) Since when does anyone or any group dare to do the work that the RAMBAM describes that the true Jewish Moshiach will do in the acharis hayamim of doing the kibbutz galuyos and identifying who is a Jew mong the goyim? Tropper and EJF reveal their utter arrogance and contempt for the RAMBAM's modest vision for Jews in the golus, who must not do things that should be left for the Moshiach. When Tropper proseltyizes to millions and billions of gentiles as EJF does online and in the media he opens himself up to charges of false messianism and of even being a navi sheker. Thus if individuals want to be megayer that is fine, help them as the poskim admit, but to run after them like they were prizes in an adevertising hunt, is counter anything that is done in Yiddishkeit. There are enough secular Jews to run after for kiruv, even intermarried ones who may show up ON THEIR OWN and want to be helped, but to run after them like it was a free for all turkey shoot like a chicken without a head is not and has never been something that was done in normative Yiddishkeit by any group of rabbonim ever.

    7) Finally, you know, that in the Gemora there are instances whereby there is a safek about a din, and the chazel said let's go and hear what the tinokes shel bais raban are saying in the shuk. And my suggestion to you is, why don't you and Tropper go to ANY normal yeshiva you like anywhere in the world, and explain to them exactly what it is that you are doing (NOT the part of insisting on a "universal standard" for strict conversions, that any ben Torah can agree with) but the real controversial meshuga part of the EJF agenda, the one say that shulchan oruch does "not" forbid, to proselytize by the millions or billions and to recruit any old gentiles hitched to Jews and have them come for weekened concerts, all expenses paid by EJF, and describe in detail all the wacky lomdus you have spent a lot of time trying to break everyone's arm here to swallow, and ask the rosh yeshivas, the rebbeim and the talmidim if after they have heard your krumme lomdus if (a) they agree with you, if (b) they would be willing to go out and practice it, and if (c) it sounds in any way normal to them and what a ben Torah should be thinking, doing or wanting?

    You know as well as anyone that they will throw you out on your head for your perverted krumkeit and for being megaleh ponim baTorah shelo keHalacha and that they will slap a cherem on you quicker than you can say "John or Jane Doe want to convert" for your despicable defense of EJF's chazer fislach treif GOYISHE agenda!"

    rONI: THANK YOU FOR PROVING THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER. THE WORSE IS THAT YOU ARE AM HOORETZ WHO DOES NOT EVEN KNOW THAT YOUR ANSWER IS NOT ANSWER.

    WHILE YOU ARE IT: FIND AN ANSWER WHY YOU TIHNK THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ENABLE GOYIM TO FAKELY CONVERT THROUGH 40,000 ESSNAN ZONAH MAYBE YOU WILL ALSO FIND THIS AN ANSWER FROM YOURR TINOKOT SHEL BAIS RABBAN OR FROM YOU "MUSSAR" MOVEMENT THEY CERTAINLY STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING A CLEAN WAY TO MAKE A LIVING!

    J

    ReplyDelete
  64. Roni Said...
    3) Rav Tropper does not waste his time on "internet wars"! ROni (who IS NOT rt) wastes his time and energy on it!

    4) the most important question: Why does he not get haskamot?

    I'll give you possible answers which do not mean that they do not agree with him. a) Being thatit is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if CHas Vesholom it does not uscceeded to recah the hopeful goals.

    b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these covnersions iwtout kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this ublic step to put his name on paper to that level.

    c) and no RAbbi put's his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do soemthing that is not correct and then people migh tmistake that this particular acation had the apporval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization.


    First I want to say that R' Tropper does engage in internet word wars. As has been demonstrated, he does have a blog, where he responds to criticism of D"T by criticizing him. So your statement that he does not is simply not true. You could argue the level to which he involves in them, but you cannot say that he does not.

    Secondly the haskamot are a major problem. The only one in fact that I have with R' Tropper. Here is why. First as has been noted R' Sternbuch has himself requested that R' Tropper produce them. As has BaDaTz. I personally find it troublesome that he is seemingly ignoring these authorities, whatever other backing he may have.

    Next the novelty of his approach is no reason for him to not have them. There is a a well respected internet based program to give semicha, and even dayanut(peope who will then be able to make converts) based entirely on internet learning. Yet despite the overwhelming hareidi aversion to the internet, and despite the novelty of training people to such a high level via the internet, they still have haskamot
    http://www.shemayisrael.com/smicha/approbations.htm
    There is nothing that you said about R' Tropper's approach that could not be equally said about the approach of this program. Considering the level of ultimate authority that will be granted to their prospective talmidim, I would thing that this has even more danger, especially in the areas that you mentioned.

    So the lack of Haskamot, is still a major issue. One must ask, if R' Tropper really does have the support of all of these Gedolim, does he fail to produce even a single haskama, even when requested and directed to do so by other Gedolim.

    To be clear Roni it is not my life purpose, nor is it my goal to smear R' Tropper or his organization. I simply want to see him produce the goods. I grow more concerned by the day that he does not.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "First I want to say that R' Tropper does engage in internet word wars. As has been demonstrated, he does have a blog, where he responds to criticism of D"T by criticizing him. So your statement that he does not is simply not true. You could argue the level to which he involves in them, but you cannot say that he does not".

    Roni: I am surprised that a civil response to criticism is called "internet wars". He mostly uses that blog to be "transparent" (something you deamnd in your blog) to answer the *sources* for position of the organization (something that is missing when asked in yuor blog).


    "Mekubal:" . First as has been noted R' Sternbuch has himself requested that R' Tropper produce them. As has BaDaTz. I personally find it troublesome that he is seemingly ignoring these authorities, whatever other backing he may have".

    Roni: It is suprsing that his WRITTEN TESHUVAS OF RAV ELYASHIV are not enough tfor *you* or for Rav Sternbuch. Btw, most of his objections to the issue are OPPOSED by Rav MOshe Feinstein, Rav Henkin, Rav AUrbach, Rav Kamenetsky. All the rationales mentioned by Rav Sternbuch are opposed by all tthe above rabbis.

    Why are written PSSOKIM that contradict Rav Sternbuch and back Rav Tropper not enough to you?

    Rav ELyashiv clearly staets that one can/should teach torah to an intermarried couple is one thinks that there is a possibility that this wil lencourage him to convert. Why is this good enough for you?

    ReplyDelete
  66. "First I want to say that R' Tropper does engage in internet word wars. As has been demonstrated, he does have a blog, where he responds to criticism of D"T by criticizing him. So your statement that he does not is simply not true. You could argue the level to which he involves in them, but you cannot say that he does not".

    Roni: I am surprised that a civil response to criticism is called "internet wars". He mostly uses that blog to be "transparent" (something you deamnd in your blog) to answer the *sources* for position of the organization (something that is missing when asked in yuor blog).


    "Mekubal:" . First as has been noted R' Sternbuch has himself requested that R' Tropper produce them. As has BaDaTz. I personally find it troublesome that he is seemingly ignoring these authorities, whatever other backing he may have".

    Roni: It is suprsing that his WRITTEN TESHUVAS OF RAV ELYASHIV are not enough tfor *you* or for Rav Sternbuch. Btw, most of his objections to the issue are OPPOSED by Rav MOshe Feinstein, Rav Henkin, Rav AUrbach, Rav Kamenetsky. All the rationales mentioned by Rav Sternbuch are opposed by all tthe above rabbis.

    Why are written PSSOKIM that contradict Rav Sternbuch and back Rav Tropper not enough to you?

    Rav ELyashiv clearly staets that one can/should teach torah to an intermarried couple is one thinks that there is a possibility that this wil lencourage him to convert. Why is this good enough for you?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Roni,

    First this isn't my bog! Actually my own blog does not deal with these issues. This is someone else's blog to which I comment. I have never demanded anything. I simply state that I am baffled by a certain lack. A lack which if corrected would in effect silence all of the critics he feels the need to criticize on his own blog. You cannot tell me that his words are polite, or even honest on that blog. His trying to tie this to Sifklin issue being a prime example of that. Sorry. Secondly I am competely certain that the Rabbanim of BaDaTz and R' Sternbuch both know the Teshuvot of R' Eliashiv far better than you do. However, they still feel that clarification is needed. Clarification which to date, despite obviously feeling attacked, R' Tropper has refused to put forth.

    The simple answer is that you are taking only parts of those Teshuvot, the parts that seem to agree with your position.

    If R' Eliashiv thought that his own Teshuvot backed EJF so strongly, why hasn't he simply given them a Haskama? Why does R' Eisenstein insist that such support, as would be implied by a Haskama not exist?

    Sorry you can throw out all the red-herrings that you want, however I still find it baffling and disturbing that R' Tropper has not produced a single haskama.

    That is my issue, my only issue.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Roni are you an employee of EJF like Rabbi Dovid Jacobs? Is Rabbi Tropper informed of what you say and does he approve it?

    In other words can your responses be taken as authoritative regarding the views of EJF?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Dt, no I'm not an "employee" of EJf or Rt. I am an employee of Hashem to fight FALSEHOOD AND TO PRESERVE TRUTH!

    ReplyDelete
  70. Mekubal writes: "A lack which if corrected would in effect silence all of the critics he feels the need to criticize on his own blog. You cannot tell me that his words are polite, or even honest on that blog. His trying to tie this to Sifklin issue being a prime example of that. Sorry".

    He does not engage though in "wars" that you claim that he does. He defends himself from criticism aimed at him (mostly false ones) and he explains AND GIVES SOURCES (UNLIKE...) TO THE HALACHIK STATEMENTS HE MAKES THERE! You seem to think that the entire blog is tied about "slifkin". Why are you obssessed and interpret a whole blog with myriad of issues to be meant as "internet WARS". he is much more polite than most here (including *YOU*). There are no asd hominom attacks on that blog. he is staright and to the point! lOOK AT YOUR MESSAGES AND SEE IN THE MIRROR WHO IS ENGAGED ON THE BLOG WITH "INTERNET WARS"!

    MEkubal writes: "\ Secondly I am competely certain that the Rabbanim of BaDaTz and R' Sternbuch both know the Teshuvot of R' Eliashiv far better than you do. However, they still feel that clarification is needed.",

    ROni: Fine or them!BUT Rav Troppe ris entitled to feel, and I see it as such and most gedoyley tyisroel who partake with him feel the same way, for the Teshuva is clear that Rav ELyashiv allows and commends the one who teaches a intermarried goy torah in order that he be convinced or aroused to convert! It is BLACK ON WHITE! If you feel you disagree it upon to you to PROVE that you are right! And Again all the reasons that Rav Sternbuch mentioned in his letter are OPPOSED and not acceptd by Rav Moshe FEinstein, Rav Kamentzsky, Rav Henkin, Rav Aurbach and more. Why should RAv Tropper need to justify to someone whose objections differ from all the above gedoyley yisroel.

    It is clear from seeing you and or Dt and others here that no "clarification" will suffice to you! no matter what he brings or says will be opposed by you. It is clear that at best you misunderstand Rav Eisenstein1 Please bring a letter from him that state his objections about RT. OTherwise it is clear that he SUPPORTS RT! no organization of this sort get's "haskamah". they cannot give "haskomoh" to something that is needed and they support but is not the lechatchila if there would be no problems to begin with. but sicne there are problems this organization is NEEDED. ALl you have to deal with is to state why a Pssak by Rav ELyashiv does not suffice to you. But it is enlough for RT. The PSsak contradicts the positions of Rav Sternbuch and Rt is not obliged to justify to him why he follows Rav ELyashiv's pssak.

    It is quite interesting that you borrow some other epithtets and slogans that some members of this blog are used to like "red herring" without dealing with the contents of the claims made.

    In sum:A) RAV TROPPER HAS BACKING FROM A CLEAR TESHUVA BY RAV ELYASHIV!, 2) RAV STERNBUCH'S POSITION IS OPPOSED BY THE OPINIONS OF RAV MOSHE, RAV HENKIN, RAV AURBACH, RAV ELYASHIV, RAV KAMENETSKY AND MORE AND RAV TROPPER DOES NOT NEED TO JUSTIFY TO HIM WHY HE FOOLOWS THE OTHER OPINIONS!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Roni said...
    Dt, no I'm not an "employee" of EJf or Rt. I am an employee of Hashem to fight FALSEHOOD AND TO PRESERVE TRUTH



    Anyone that knows Tropper know that he is Roni. There are three simanim in Tropper (at least):

    (1) Obsession with rav Bomzer
    (2) A strong conviction that anyone who object him is a follower of rav Slifkin.
    (3) Gets very angry when someone disagree with him.

    The reason that he is so obsessed with this blog is that for many years nobody stood up to him,[...] Now when he has hundreds of rabbis eating from his hand he cannot believe that there is a rav in Mea Shearin and a teacher in Har Nof who do not fear him and cannot be bought.

    As he says to mekorovav that the rabbi should mind what is happening in his city and the melamed should stick to teaching tinokos of bet raban.

    Two years ago there was a comment here that referred to R’Eidenshon as Nachshon because that time Tropper and the EJF seemed invincible and rav Eidenshon was kol kore bamidbar, now less people fear Tropper and the EJF, [...]

    ReplyDelete
  72. Recipients and PublicityJune 27, 2009 at 11:59 PM

    Roni, no one can have a civil discussion with you when you scream and shout and act like a total boor and ignore the questions put to you and you keep on throwing the words "Bomzer this and Bomzer that" as if it has anything to do with the discussion.

    When will you learn that a discussion cannot take place if you keep on throwing bombs in the way with your notorious red herring diversions?

    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, and that is why for starters I asked some basic questions of you, and all you can do is have temper tantrums and throw fits of anger that things are not going your way.[...]

    As for a "New Testament" it's funny you use that word because it is EJF and Tropper [...] desire, to become frabrente missionaries for a new religion to recruit limitless numbers of gentiles hitched to Jews and even half of the human race and "convert" to Tropper's new EJF religion that he has made up in his head with all the sources you cite making the rabbonim of those original sources toss and turn in their graves and wishing that their words had never reached you to be butchered and battered to support your krumme self-rationalizations to go on a mass EJF global proselytization rampage, rachmona litzlan.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Daas Torah said...

    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
  74. sadley most of this "fallen torah" comes from :
    1. Pegam Habris
    2. eating to many M&M's thinking its Colov Yisroel
    3.Being maschis the beard and Paqyos
    4. Studying Phylosophy

    ReplyDelete

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