JPost
Rabbis representing the Ashkenazi haredi rabbinical leadership were poised on Tuesday to send a letter to Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger demanding that he "clarify" his stance on city rabbis who refuse to recognize conversions performed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
"We want nothing less than a written statement from the chief rabbi detailing his position regarding conversions that a city rabbi deems to be invalid because the convert did not embrace an Orthodox lifestyle," said Rabbi Nahum Eisenstein, who has close ties with Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the preeminent halachic authority for Ashkenazi haredim.
"The chief rabbi needs to clarify that in no way was the letter [sent to the Knesset Immigration and Absorption committee] meant to convey a message that contradicts Halacha."[...]
Rabbis representing the Ashkenazi haredi rabbinical leadership were poised on Tuesday to send a letter to Chief Ashkenazi Rabbi Yona Metzger demanding that he "clarify" his stance on city rabbis who refuse to recognize conversions performed by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel.
"We want nothing less than a written statement from the chief rabbi detailing his position regarding conversions that a city rabbi deems to be invalid because the convert did not embrace an Orthodox lifestyle," said Rabbi Nahum Eisenstein, who has close ties with Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the preeminent halachic authority for Ashkenazi haredim.
"The chief rabbi needs to clarify that in no way was the letter [sent to the Knesset Immigration and Absorption committee] meant to convey a message that contradicts Halacha."[...]
It was a given that this action was to come back to back on R. Yona Metzger's statement.
ReplyDeleteRabbi Nochem Eisenstein has no credibility because he is on record as wanting to utterly destroy the Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionist rabbinate, including the North American RCA and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and he will never succeed with his bellicose and dangerous style of making threats and tantrumming that will impress no one (but Rabbi Tropper of course.)
ReplyDeleteCharedim are not forced to abide by the RCA or by the Israeli Rabbanut. Israel is not a theocracy last anyone heard, it is still a Western democratic state and not an Ayatola-run regime which is what Rabbi Eisenstein sounds like he wants to impose as he rants about demanding that documents be signed and speaks as if he is issuing "Fatwas" against his enemies.
Charedim and Chasidim do not rely on the RCA or on the Rabbanut because they have their own various batei din, Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, Rebbes, Dayanim, Poskim, and the BADATS.
Rabbi Metzger is the appointed and official Chief Rabbi of the STATE OF ISRAEL (and NOT of "the state of Eisenstein") and he has finally seen fit to take a stand to protect the middle ground rather than cave in the fanatics like R Eisenstein who have never heard of the word NEGOTIATION or the notions of "divrei chachomim benachas nishma'im" and "eilu ve'eilu divrei Elokim chaim" as he puts his foot in his mouth each time he opens it to scream at people who will laugh at him. This is surely not the way Rav Eliashiv ever spoke and it's false to claim that R Eisenstein "speaks" for anyone but his own dangerous demands that could spark civil war r"l between the religious and secular.
“We want a … statement from the chief rabbi … regarding conversions that a city rabbi deems to be invalid because the convert did not embrace an Orthodox lifestyle"
ReplyDeleteI am no fan of R. Metzger. But this is an incredible statement.
1. It implies a Chief Rabbi should cede his authority to a city Rabbi below him.
2. It implies that “lifestyle” trumps halachah.
3. “Embrace” fudges the question of timing. It makes no distinction between an utterly insincere convert and someone who is properly instructed, sincere in his commitment and faithful in his observance for a long time and then goes off the derech.
4. “Embrace” fudges a qualitative and quantitative question. Do they mean 100% of the lifestyle 100% of the time. Does the author concede the Jewish view that there isn’t even a Tzadik who…has never sinned.”
5. Nothing about the question concedes the distinction between l’chatchilah and b’dieved halachah for conversion.
This is a power play dressed up as a concern for halachah. What is at stake is the wish to make it possible for some chareidi rabbonim to continue to have the income and power of positions in the rabbinate while answering to a posek outside the system.
It is time for principled chareidim to quit the state rabinnate. It is also time for those who have historically recognized the authority of the chief rabbi to demand a chief rabbi of stature and independence.
Yerachmiel Lopin said...
ReplyDeleteThis is a power play dressed up as a concern for halachah. What is at stake is the wish to make it possible for some chareidi rabbonim to continue to have the income and power of positions in the rabbinate while answering to a posek outside the system.
================
nope you have misunderstood the issue or are misrepresenting it. It is a very solid halachic issue and not simply politics.
it is a question of which is more imortant - identity with the Jewish people or loyalty to halacha. Or alternatively does identity with the Jewish people have halachic significance?
"it is a question of which is more imortant - identity with the Jewish people or loyalty to halacha. Or alternatively does identity with the Jewish people have halachic significance?"
ReplyDeleteI always thought that loyalty to Halacha is what was always used to define identity with the Jewish people.
If someone swears to observe the Mitzvas in order become a Jew, and are then found violating that oath, it's a breach of contract. I do not understand how such a conversion should remain valid.
Still, there might be room for a middle ground that respects everyone. If a local city Rabbi questions the quality of a conversion in his town, why can't he simply request that the Chief Rabbinate review the circumstances and issue a ruling?
DT,
ReplyDeleteI stand by my statement that this is a power play. I absolutely recognize the solid halachic basis for saying that a conversion where there was no intent to become Jewishly observant is not a conversion. My objection to the the letter by Nahum Eisentein is that it made no distinctions between halachah and lifestyle, no distinctions between a sincere convert who later went off the derech vs one who never was observant, and no distinctions between valid conversions bidieved, even if one would not want them performed that way.
The blurring of those distinctions seems to me to be unhalachic and thus a power play rather than a matter of fidelity to halachah.
Certainly, I do not see someone like Leib Tropper to be superior in his judgement on these matters to established halachah as carried out in various orthodox communities.