Very sadly only 2 weeks ago, the great grandson of Rav Henkin was murdered by terrorists, together with his wife. Here is a maamar he had written regarding his great Grandfather's views on the above controversy: https://app.box.com/shared/alxtl7u0184eg8yyuh9q
Also, the cases were fundamentally different. The Langer case was "cracked" by R Goren via being machmir on the giur of the husband, whereas the Epstein case does not involve giur at all. Furthermore, Goren produced a published pamphlet explaining his rationale, whereas in the Epstein case it is all hearsay. The only similarity is the secrecy of the dayanim in Goren's court. However, in the Kamenetsky court, we don't even know who the lead posek was. Finally, Goren was totally outside of the Hareidi camp, and there were various scores to settle with him, whereas Kamenetsky is inside the same Agudah which 40 years ago was blasting Goren. One comical aspect of the Goren/Langer case is the involvement of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Here is someone who was part of an industry of ziuf of halacha, where clear halacha of the Rambam on the conditions that Moshiach needs to fulfill were falsified both for himself and his father in law. The lubavitch movement claimed that both the 6th and the 7th rebbes were Moshiach, even though they had not fulfilled any of the requirements for Melech Hamashiach. They did not fight war in Europe or in Israel. The lived in times when , despite their mitzvah campaigns, half of american jewry intermarried. ANd they opposed immigration to Israel. On the other hand, Rav Goren fought wars, liberated Jerusalem, and fought to make the army a kosher one.
Finally, Goren was totally outside of the Hareidi camp, and there were various scores to settle with him, whereas Kamenetsky is inside the same Agudah which 40 years ago was blasting Goren.
I really do not beive that Reb Yecheskel Abramski and Reb Moshe Feinstein would have consider this (as well as most/all others).
Rav Moshe was - as far as I recall - suggesting that R Goren was bribed, ie he made the psak in order to get votes for him to become Chief rav. This theory is unconvincing, since he also stood in 1966 against R' Unterman, and lost by only a few votes. By 72/73, R Unterman was too old, and R Goren had been Rav of Tzahal and of Tel aviv, so he was the most likely person to be elected. Consider the caliber of candidate nowadays, and how they are puppets of the Hareidi parties. It makes a mockery of the
Rav Goren explained quite clearly, and in great detail, what his basis was and only refused to name those who joined with him.
And, whether one agreed with him or not, Rav Goren was an established posek and moreh hora'ah, with hundreds of published teshuvos, serious seforim, and serious chiddushei Torah.
Besides the "screaming headline" of the title "Tamar Epstein: Rav Kaminetsky/Rav Goren It's deja vu all over again! When gedolim protested against adultery" why isn't there an explanatory post, beyond a link to an article from 1973 that is not related?
Sorry, but you are incorrect. Up until that time, the position of Chief Rabbi was a lifetime appointment, so there were not going to be elections at all in 72/73. Upon receiving assurances from R' Goren that he would find a heter, the Knesset changed the law and made it a temporary position, so that they could vote R' Goren (and, incidentally, Rav Ovadya) in.
Sir,you are mistaken. There were elections , I think in the mid 60s, when R Unterman and R Goren stood for the position. In fact, I have a photo of Rav Elyashiv with both of them, prior to the election.
The whole claim is false, since more recently, R' Metzger was the puppet of the Hareidi powers, and was not based on his standing as a Posek.
Of course, if there were halachic grounds to oppose R Goren's psak, then that is fine, it is part of the debate.
You misunderstand me. I agree that there were elections in the 1960's between Rabbi Unterman and Goren. I am taking issue with your assertion that R' Goren was the most likely candidate to succeed R' Unterman in 1972, thereby disproving the bribery allegations. My point is that there were not going to be elections in 1972 at all, as until that time, the position was until death. The purported bribery was an offer on the part of R' Goren to permit the people in question in exchange for a change in the law, limiting the office of Chief Rabbi to a term of limited duration, thereby paving the way for his election.
I am trying to follow your argumenation. Howeve, I am not convinced. Here is a JTA story from 1964. It mentions that the Sephardi Rav Nissim ztl will likely be reelected without opposition. http://www.jta.org/1964/03/10/archive/rabbi-unterman-agrees-to-run-for-office-of-chief-rabbi-in-israel
therefore, even during this period, the position was open to competition during the lifetime of the incumbent. Rav Unterman ztl was very old in the last campaign. It is true they keep changing the regulations. The point i am making is that the recent chief rabbis are puppets of the Hareidi parties, Shas and Degel. Hence, they are equally "bribed" , since they do nto act independently in determining halacha, but do what they are told by the politcal parties.
Further proof: http://www.jta.org/1964/03/18/archive/rabbi-unterman-of-tel-aviv-elected-chief-ashkenazi-rabbi-in-israel
Rav Nissim was re-lected over Rav Hodaya. Thus, it was possible to stand against a living Chief Rabbi in 1964. This is what R Goren did twice. He only lost by 3 votes in 1964.
"Also, the cases were fundamentally different... Furthermore, Goren produced a published pamphlet explaining his rationale, whereas in the Epstein case it is all hearsay".
I add another difference. In the Langer case, the subject in question (the first husband, whose geirus was being called into question) came to beis din himself to testify that he was in fact a Ger. (You can read about it in the "פסק הדין בענין האח והאחות". It is also described here: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97_%D7%95%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA
In the Epstein case, there was no hearing where Friedman was allowed to hear any testimony against him and to make any statement in his favor.
Not only in great detail but in a full sefer. Most significantly, he was not matir an eshes ish. it was a shailah of mamzerus, which is " only' a lav. But, as its been pointed mentioned. he was not a member of the club.
Rav Goren explained quite clearly, and in great detail. Not only in great detail but in a whole sefer. More significantly, he was not Matir an Eshes Ish ie adultery. It was "only" a sheila of mamzerut- a lav But...he was not a member of the "club". Hakol Taloi B'Mazal
I read pages and pages and pages of the above posted material from Hapardes until I got tired and gave up. Other than diatribes and name calling against Rav Goren, ZTL, there was not one single attempt made to list his reasoning and the objections to it. But please see below for a very bried summary of the case. Among the points mentioned were that according to some source(s?), the father did not know how to finish Shema Yisrael, was unfamiliar with the phrase Lcha Dodi, had run off with the mother-to-be of these children when she was 14, and was under pressure from her father to convert or be turned into the authorities for statutory rape. A conversion under pressure is invalid. We also know the halacha is mamzer vadai v'lo mamzer safek. Rav Goren ZTL, an adam gadol ad meod, certainly had grounds to be matzil these two nefashos.
Another way of looking at the controversy surrounding Shlomo Goren ztl is as follows: He was an Ilui and Gadol, and was wanted by everyone to join their camp. In his biography, it states that Rav Shach approached him after the Brisker Rav's petirah, to set up a new Kollel or Yeshiva. This is because they knew each other from the days of being talmidim of R' Isser Zalman Meltzer. R Goren declined this huge offer. He was involved in the army rabbanut. what he managed to do was build up a tipping point of resentment , especially in the Hareidi world, but not exclusively. Thus for example, prior to any talk of Langer, he was mattir agunot in the Dakar submarine disaster. He was able to do so because of his military expertise, something not shared by other poskim. Time has proven him to be right, as the remains have been found under the Mediterranean sea. But he made many controversial psakim, and made more and more enemies. Hence it was only a matter of time that the world would turn against him. And what better an opportunity than the Langer mamzerim case? Even today, he is reviled by Hareidim, who in this generation do not even know his greatness, and beloved by the DL and MO world. But Rav Kook was also marginalised by many groups as was Rav Soloveitchik, despite being giants in Torah. Rav Goren was the greatest gift to the Modern DL world , and also to the Hareidi world, as it helped them define themselves and unify, as a distraction from their own infighting.
"he was mattir agunot in the Dakar submarine disaster. He was able to do so because of his military expertise, something not shared by other poskim".
What "military expertise" in his experience as a chaplain in the Israeli army give him an advantage in "psak halacha", particularly to permit those agunot?
The reasons that the Gedolim ruled that they are mazerim are mentioned here: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97_%D7%95%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA
I see this as a clever move from the wife's side. If she has kidushin from another man, the halacha is that she must get divorced from both. By pulling this off she practically put aaron into a position that he must divorce her, halachically mandated.
Not so fast, first, his conditions still remain, he can get a heter meah rabbanim, in the mean time she cannot cohabit with anyone, not even with a momzer ben momzer. She can do better? A two time loser. At the end of the day, VehoElokim yevakesh et haNirdof. It applies all across the board and is called payback time. And did you also contenplate of what happens if C.V. Z... Tamar kalosecho vehineh horoh liz.....?
Reb Ehud, I guess that your comment is made tongue in cheek. Any privileged information that the Israeli government had, could have been revealed to the necessary poskim, who would have been given security clearance to have this information shared with them.
Furthermore, Eddie claims that this has to do with mysterious "military expertise", not with privileged information. So my question still stands...
On my last sweep of the tounge, I found it intact sitting in it's place, well and alive and kicking. As of today, there still are 87 pages of The Dakkar Report as privileged information (sod tsvai) and still not allowed to reveal to the public. Since Rav Goren was the official Rabbi and Posek for Zahal, it was relayed to him, and only the necessary parts e.g." haker na et haKtonet " pertinent for being able to matir the Agunos.
As for Eddie: There was no Military Expertise necessary personally for the Rav himself, only as far as the facts given to him by the Military Experts so as to be able to kovea that it is ~ bebchinat mayim she'ein lahem sof. Google up some history of events of Dakkar and see for yourself e.g. :
see this pic ==> 467 x 400 - submarines.dotan.net if you can locate it at this site but you must hover over the pic for the text to show
**
I couldn't help notice on the Tsariach = Turret that it is riddled with shrapnel holes entering from outside towards the inside, indicating an explosion such as a depth charge. When gathering such similar sufficient privileged details, only then can you pasken such a shayla. Although this pic has not been available at that time, but other info was.
אעיר רק במה שכתב מעכ"ת שיסוד ההיתר הוא מה שקבע המתיר שזה בחינת "מים שאין להם סוף".
לכאורה דוקא קביעה זו היא הצד החמור שבשאלה, כיון שאם רואים אדם שטבע במים *שאין* להם סוף, כגון בים הגדול, אינם יכולים להעיד שמת, דחוששים שמא הוא חי, ועלה ליבשה ממקום אחר, שאינו בתחום הראייה של הרואה.
ורק אם שנפל במים *שיש* להם סוף, כגון לבור או למערה, שהעומד בהם יכול לראות לכל הכוונים, ושהה שם פרק זמן שדי בו כדי שתצא נפשו, ולא עלה, רק אז מעידים שמת, ואשתו מותרת להינשא על סמך עדות זו.
אלא שיש מהלך באחרונים לסמוך על תרי רובי. [ועי' מה שכתב בזה בשו"ת אגרות משה (אבהע"ז ח"א, סי' מח) בנוגע לאשה שקיבלה מכתב מהערכאות שבעלה עלה באוירון ושהאוירון נפל בהים].
אלא שבנידון דידן לא ידוע לנו מה קרה באמת לצוללת, ולכאורה גרע מהנידון שבאגרות משה. ואולי המתיר היה לו מידע חסוי, עליו בנה יסודי ההיתר, ויש לעיין בפנים בדבריו, וכל זה לפילפולא בעלמא.
לסיום, אציין שבעוד כמה שנים יעברו 50 שנים מהאירוע, וכמדומני שלפי החוק אפשר לפרסם מסמכים חסויים שעברו עליהם 50 שנה, ואז נדע יותר פרטים.
Amongst the information disclosed, they removed and brought up the uniforms of 16 personnel, of which negates the possibily shemo oloh betsad achar at least for some of them. There are also those pockmarks of an explosion I have mentioned. If they recovered the tsariach of the tsolelet apart of the main unit, the explosion must have been of such a great magnitude where the rest of the fuselage was blown off and swept away, that is why only 16 of the crewmen's uniforms have been recovered, and the same fate must have happened to all. Maybe the whole group in the submarine can be considered rather as nafal letoch habor since they were confined to a finite space, vegoral echad lekulam. As military experts can establish that humans cannot survive under such circumstances to be considered shemo oloh. In any case I am neither a posek nor a Military expert, however, amongst the secrets I am sure there was enough evidence that they all perished, and Rav Goren could not reveal what they have might been in his shakla vetarya, so as not to give away what they were not willing to be disclosed. It did take many years until the heter came forward, probably after the determinant factors rolled in. Food for thought, I hope this helps.
He was a Brigadier General in the army. He also was inside the army and had access to more information. In Chabad, they often point out how the Rebbe had studied Engineering and hence had expertise in mechanical issues involved in hilchos Shabbat. Thus, they suggest he knew better than Rav Moshe on some such matters. Rav Moshe would also consult with his son in law , who is a Professor of Biology, on medical matters.
It is funny, how those who blindly hate Rav Goren, on the one hand say he was a great general but not a great Rav, and when it comes to his knowledge of military matters, they suddenly deny his military expertise as well!
Rav Goren was not involved in strategic military expertise only as far as it was regarding Yahadut and halachot. Brigadier General was only a Toar Kavod. R' Moshe had all the necessary technology of the Experts at his fingertips, Medical, Electrical or Electronical or whatever the case maybe, in order to pasken with a full deck. Even Rav Goren did not have free access to ALL the available information Zahal had gathered on the fate of Dakkar.
The first Husband - Borokovsky signed a letter that he had lapsed into christianity. Thsi letter i mentioned in the Hareidi Jewish Observer, and they try to find a way out of it (laughable). He coudl not complete Shema Yisrael. He could not name the Rabbi or BD that converted him. There was no record of him ever marrying lefi halacha. He had actually married Chava in a Church. her parents wanted him to covnert and forced/bribed him - which invaldiates any conversion. (Rav Elyashiv - interestingly - had a fast track career upgrade, as soon as he left the Rabbanut, he sat on Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah.) So isn't that suspicious?
Also, when he gave the "gett" to Mrs langer, ie his ex wife and mother of the safeik mamzerim, he signed it "Avraham ha ger" which means he was a mumar.
The change in the law was the Government employer - the Knesset. R Goren had no power to change the law.
For example, in England, the United Synagogue employs rabbis for a contrct,f or a number of years, and not for life. I'm assuming this was the case even when Dayan Abramsky was head of London Beis Din.
The alelgation was what- that R Goren wanted the job in 1972, wasn't prepared to wait, and thus agreed to falsify halacha in order for the the Government to prepare the positon for him? OK, that is a big lie - not one shred of evidence has ever been provided by any chareidim to support such a claim.It is just big lie - the same way the muslims blame the Jews for 9/11.
Lubavitcher Rebbe told this lie - because he saw that in pure halacha, R Goren had done more than he had, in terms of hilchot melachim. R Goren fought wars, made the arm Kosher for hundreds of thousands, liberated Jerusalem etc. the rebbe never even set foot in israel, and still thought he was moshiach! (Nobody is suggesting the r Goren was Moshiach, but he did fight the wars which are mentioned in the rambam. No chareidi (with the xception perhaps of Rav Chaim Kanievsky) fought in any of the wars.
As for the alleged bribes, Rav Ovadiah Yosef ztl also stood against Rav Nissim Ztl. Rav Nissim had also once quipped that ROY would take his job from him.
In any case, Rav Elyashiv appointed Metzger as a puppet, and would even stand for him - thus he accepted the 10 year rule - when it suited him.
If in fact, there is a letter that Borokovsky signed, attesting that he had lapsed into Christianity; that in effect would imply that at one time he had legitimately converted to Judaism, and only later lapsed back to his old ways.
The Halacha is clear in such a case. He has the status of a lapsed Jew, a Yisrael Mumar, who is nevertheless considered Jewish for all matters, including that his act of Kiddushin is a binding act, and his wife is considered an Eishes Ish (Rambam, Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 13:17, Shulchan Aruch YD 268:12).
It depends when, what his intentions were at time of said conversion. And proof of conversion. All of druckman's ulpan can name the Rav or beit Din that converted them. Borokovsky could not provide a name or evidence. Where does it say a person who claims he converted is ipso facto Jewish? (Despite them not knowing who converted them).
Rav Obadiah yosef greeted rav Goren, and was then threatened by hareidim. (despite him not agreeing to sit with rav Goren on the langer case.) Rav soloveitchik was threatened by rav Feinstein, because he reputedly agreed with much of the Goren psak.
Rav Goren was attacked by chareidi scum at a funeral, and his bodyguard was badly injured needing hospital treatment. Rav kook was physically attacked. Rav shteinman also.
So this is an ongoing sickness of the hareidim - either the gedolim do not know the consequences of their actions, or when they say violence is assur, they are lying and actually wish it to be used to enforce their power.
I am not aware of any modern o or DL ever physically beating a hareidi gadol or leader.
According to Yaacov Sasson: https://seforimblog.com/2021/02/rav-gorelick-the-rav-and-revision-by-omission/ Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik considered Goren’s heter to be illegitimate.
"The Rav addressed the Langer case in his well-known speech in 1975 on the topic of the Rabbi Rackman’s aguna plan.[24]:
However, if you think that the solution lies in the reformist philosophy, or in an extraneous interpretation of the Halacha, you are badly mistaken. It is self-evident; many problems are unsolvable, you can’t help it. For instance, the problem of these two mamzerim in Eretz Yisrael – you can’t help it. All we have is the institution of mamzer. No one can abandon it – neither the Rav HaRoshi, nor the Rosh HaGola. It cannot be abandoned. It is a pasuk in Chumash: “לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה‘”. It is very tragic; the midrash already spoke about it, “והנה דמעת העשוקים“, but it’s a reality, it’s a religious reality. If we say to our opponents or to the dissident Jews, “That is our stand” – they will dislike us, they will say that we are inflexible, we are ruthless, we are cruel, but they will respect us. But however, if you try to cooperate with them or even if certain halachic schemes are introduced from within, I don’t know, you would not command love, you would not get their love, and you will certainly lose their respect. That is exactly what happened in Eretz Yisrael! What can we do? This is Toras Moshe and this is surrender. This is קבלת עול מלכות שמים. We surrender. [25]
The Rav is clearly referring to the Langer case, and he considered Rav Goren’s heter to be illegitimate. He refers to the Langers as “two mamzerim”, and he uses the Langer case as an example of something “unsolvable” and that “you can’t help it.”
He seems to be using Rav Goren’s heter as an example of “an extraneous interpretation of the Halacha.” And according to the Rav, the more appropriate response would have been to surrender to halacha; that the attempted heter was a futile attempt to coax love out of dissident Jews. I have not seen this speech of the Rav mentioned in the context of the Langer case and I thought it appropriate to mention here."
You're now going into the technicalities of the particular case, (which I don't intend to debate about), whereas I merely commented on your reference to an alleged letter, which you intended to bear on the topic.
My point is, that the issue whether or not Borokovsky lapsed into Christianity is moot, since a Yisrael Mumar, is considered Jewish for matters such as Kiddushin.
whether that is a faithful text and whether Rav Soloveitchik said it was illegitimate is not clear. On the other hand, there are qute a few who say the opposite eg
https://www.yeshiva.co/ask/8772
R Soloveitchik was not stupid - he didn't want to make an enemy of Rav Moshe - who was going for total disapprobation of Rav Goren. I don't know where you stand , sometimes you are hareidi, sometimes a total RZ.
If you read rav Bleich's review in Tradition / Contemporary Halachic.. , you will notice that he regrets the fact that some even cut off R Goren's legitimacy - that means he did not, regardless of whether he found R Goren's arguements convincing.
Basically, the entire RZ world, and most of the MO world, hold Rav Goren in high respect, and consider his psak legitimate. There ae a few who have left the RZ world, so Rav Simcha Kook for example, who was a disciple of Rav Elyashiv. Rav Ovadia Yosef was accused and witchhunted , for allegedly being one of the Dayanim of R Goren's BD! R Yosef, even though he ruled the kids as mamzerim, patched up his friendship with R Goren, and did not abide by those Hareidim who blacklisted him. Rav Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg - even though he was son in law of RSZA, still respected RSG and taught inhis Yeshiva, and wrote a lovely hesped for him.
Rav Yosef Eliahu Henkin, of course, was the sole Hareidi to defend R Goren. But he also did not want to get into a spat with rav Moshe. Read Rav Eitam Henkin's essay on the whole maase.
R' Rackman told me that Rav Solovetichik still wanted him to be head of YU, and his son, Hay, wanted Norman Lamm. A compromise was offered, where rackman would lead for 5 years and then retire, handing it to Lamm, but Lamm did not accept.
R Goren was wlecomed to YU, and met with RJBS and Rav Belkin.
You mena in isolation, it does not prove anything? iot depends on when he lapsed. If he lapsed the day after an alelged giur, then it does nullify that giur.
without getting into the technicalities of the case, here is an article by Aviad Hollander, regarding acceptance of decisions of poskim by their peers.
He cites the above case, and contrasts it with a leniency proposed by RSZA, and then basically retracted or claimed that it was not to be halacha l'maaseh.
The psak by RSZA was about a woman unable to conceive during her clean time of the month and it was a solution that allowed her to conceive during niddah. It was rejected by his peers, the Gedolim of the Hareidi world. The author states that he asked Rav Nebenzahl (chavrusa of RSZA) why he retracted, and R' Nebenzahl told him (Hollander) that if RSZA had stood fast to his psak, he would have been ostracized by the hareidi world. (We know that R Goren did stand fast, and was ostracized).
why, did Rav Moshe , when he made a psak about artifical insemination for a married woman - not get ostracized (other than by Satmar and a couple more extremists)? Was his stature greater than RSZA in their respective circles? If Rav Moshe was accepted, so was RSZA, and he was one of the the greatest poskim in Israel.
Very sadly only 2 weeks ago, the great grandson of Rav Henkin was murdered by terrorists, together with his wife.
ReplyDeleteHere is a maamar he had written regarding his great Grandfather's views on the above controversy:
https://app.box.com/shared/alxtl7u0184eg8yyuh9q
Also, the cases were fundamentally different. The Langer case was "cracked" by R Goren via being machmir on the giur of the husband, whereas the Epstein case does not involve giur at all. Furthermore, Goren produced a published pamphlet explaining his rationale, whereas in the Epstein case it is all hearsay. The only similarity is the secrecy of the dayanim in Goren's court. However, in the Kamenetsky court, we don't even know who the lead posek was.
Finally, Goren was totally outside of the Hareidi camp, and there were various scores to settle with him, whereas Kamenetsky is inside the same Agudah which 40 years ago was blasting Goren.
One comical aspect of the Goren/Langer case is the involvement of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Here is someone who was part of an industry of ziuf of halacha, where clear halacha of the Rambam on the conditions that Moshiach needs to fulfill were falsified both for himself and his father in law. The lubavitch movement claimed that both the 6th and the 7th rebbes were Moshiach, even though they had not fulfilled any of the requirements for Melech Hamashiach. They did not fight war in Europe or in Israel. The lived in times when , despite their mitzvah campaigns, half of american jewry intermarried. ANd they opposed immigration to Israel. On the other hand, Rav Goren fought wars, liberated Jerusalem, and fought to make the army a kosher one.
Eddie, you are really confused,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that then everyone was united against Goren but today [nearly] everyone is united in keeping quiet. This is really worrying.
ReplyDeleteFinally, Goren was totally outside of the Hareidi camp, and there were
ReplyDeletevarious scores to settle with him, whereas Kamenetsky is inside the
same Agudah which 40 years ago was blasting Goren.
I really do not beive that Reb Yecheskel Abramski and Reb Moshe Feinstein would have consider this (as well as most/all others).
Rav Moshe was - as far as I recall - suggesting that R Goren was bribed, ie he made the psak in order to get votes for him to become Chief rav. This theory is unconvincing, since he also stood in 1966 against R' Unterman, and lost by only a few votes. By 72/73, R Unterman was too old, and R Goren had been Rav of Tzahal and of Tel aviv, so he was the most likely person to be elected. Consider the caliber of candidate nowadays, and how they are puppets of the Hareidi parties. It makes a mockery of the
ReplyDeleteallegations of bribery.
The two situations are totally different.
ReplyDeleteRav Goren explained quite clearly, and in great detail, what his basis was and only refused to name those who joined with him.
And, whether one agreed with him or not, Rav Goren was an established posek and moreh hora'ah, with hundreds of published teshuvos, serious seforim, and serious chiddushei Torah.
Mr. Goren was a politician.
ReplyDeleteBesides the "screaming headline" of the title "Tamar Epstein: Rav Kaminetsky/Rav Goren It's deja vu all over again! When gedolim protested against adultery" why isn't there an explanatory post, beyond a link to an article from 1973 that is not related?
ReplyDeleteSorry, but you are incorrect. Up until that time, the position of Chief Rabbi was a lifetime appointment, so there were not going to be elections at all in 72/73. Upon receiving assurances from R' Goren that he would find a heter, the Knesset changed the law and made it a temporary position, so that they could vote R' Goren (and, incidentally, Rav Ovadya) in.
ReplyDeleteMr. Shechter is also, even, a bigger politician.
ReplyDeletehttp://matzav.com/a-fledgling-issue/
ReplyDeleteSir,you are mistaken.
ReplyDeleteThere were elections , I think in the mid 60s, when R Unterman and R Goren stood for the position. In fact, I have a photo of Rav Elyashiv with both of them, prior to the election.
The whole claim is false, since more recently, R' Metzger was the puppet of the Hareidi powers, and was not based on his standing as a Posek.
Of course, if there were halachic grounds to oppose R Goren's psak, then that is fine, it is part of the debate.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yehuda_Unterman_and_Shlomo_Goren_1964.jpg
ReplyDeleteThis was in 1964 elections, with Rav Elyashiv overlooking the candidates!
You misunderstand me. I agree that there were elections in the 1960's between Rabbi Unterman and Goren. I am taking issue with your assertion that R' Goren was the most likely candidate to succeed R' Unterman in 1972, thereby disproving the bribery allegations. My point is that there were not going to be elections in 1972 at all, as until that time, the position was until death. The purported bribery was an offer on the part of R' Goren to permit the people in question in exchange for a change in the law, limiting the office of Chief Rabbi to a term of limited duration, thereby paving the way for his election.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to follow your argumenation. Howeve, I am not convinced. Here is a JTA story from 1964. It mentions that the Sephardi Rav Nissim ztl will likely be reelected without opposition.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jta.org/1964/03/10/archive/rabbi-unterman-agrees-to-run-for-office-of-chief-rabbi-in-israel
therefore, even during this period, the position was open to competition during the lifetime of the incumbent.
Rav Unterman ztl was very old in the last campaign. It is true they keep changing the regulations. The point i am making is that the recent chief rabbis are puppets of the Hareidi parties, Shas and Degel. Hence, they are equally "bribed" , since they do nto act independently in determining halacha, but do what they are told by the politcal parties.
Further proof:
http://www.jta.org/1964/03/18/archive/rabbi-unterman-of-tel-aviv-elected-chief-ashkenazi-rabbi-in-israel
Rav Nissim was re-lected over Rav Hodaya. Thus, it was possible to stand against a living Chief Rabbi in 1964. This is what R Goren did twice. He only lost by 3 votes in 1964.
"Also, the cases were fundamentally different... Furthermore,
ReplyDeleteGoren produced a published pamphlet explaining his rationale, whereas in
the Epstein case it is all hearsay".
I add another difference. In the Langer case, the subject in question (the first husband, whose geirus was being called into question) came to beis din himself to testify that he was in fact a Ger. (You can read about it in the "פסק הדין בענין האח והאחות". It is also described here:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97_%D7%95%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA
In the Epstein case, there was no hearing where Friedman was allowed to hear any testimony against him and to make any statement in his favor.
Not only in great detail but in a full sefer.
ReplyDeleteMost significantly, he was not matir an eshes ish. it was a shailah of mamzerus, which is " only' a lav.
But, as its been pointed mentioned. he was not a member of the club.
Hakol Taloy B'Mazal
No need to attack the Lubavitcher Rebbe Zichrono Lvrocha, who was a helige Tzadik far far above your measly understanding.
ReplyDeleteRav Goren explained quite clearly, and in great detail.
ReplyDeleteNot only in great detail but in a whole sefer.
More significantly, he was not Matir an Eshes Ish ie adultery.
It was "only" a sheila of mamzerut- a lav
But...he was not a member of the "club". Hakol Taloi B'Mazal
I read pages and pages and pages of the above posted material from Hapardes until I got tired and gave up. Other than diatribes and name calling against Rav Goren, ZTL, there was not one single attempt made to list his reasoning and the objections to it. But please see below for a very bried summary of the case. Among the points mentioned were that according to some source(s?), the father did not know how to finish Shema Yisrael, was unfamiliar with the phrase Lcha Dodi, had run off with the mother-to-be of these children when she was 14, and was under pressure from her father to convert or be turned into the authorities for statutory rape. A conversion under pressure is invalid. We also know the halacha is mamzer vadai v'lo mamzer safek. Rav Goren ZTL, an adam gadol ad meod, certainly had grounds to be matzil these two nefashos.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hakirah.org/Vol%2016%20Letters.pdf
Another way of looking at the controversy surrounding Shlomo Goren ztl is as follows: He was an Ilui and Gadol, and was wanted by everyone to join their camp. In his biography, it states that Rav Shach approached him after the Brisker Rav's petirah, to set up a new Kollel or Yeshiva. This is because they knew each other from the days of being talmidim of R' Isser Zalman Meltzer. R Goren declined this huge offer. He was involved in the army rabbanut. what he managed to do was build up a tipping point of resentment , especially in the Hareidi world, but not exclusively. Thus for example, prior to any talk of Langer, he was mattir agunot in the Dakar submarine disaster. He was able to do so because of his military expertise, something not shared by other poskim. Time has proven him to be right, as the remains have been found under the Mediterranean sea. But he made many controversial psakim, and made more and more enemies. Hence it was only a matter of time that the world would turn against him. And what better an opportunity than the Langer mamzerim case?
ReplyDeleteEven today, he is reviled by Hareidim, who in this generation do not even know his greatness, and beloved by the DL and MO world. But Rav Kook was also marginalised by many groups as was Rav Soloveitchik, despite being giants in Torah.
Rav Goren was the greatest gift to the Modern DL world , and also to the Hareidi world, as it helped them define themselves and unify, as a distraction from their own infighting.
Actually you are right - and even R Goren praises him in his books. But, the movement he was part of was highly problematic.
ReplyDelete"he was mattir agunot in the Dakar submarine disaster. He was able to
ReplyDeletedo so because of his military expertise, something not shared by other
poskim".
What "military expertise" in his experience as a chaplain in the Israeli army give him an advantage in "psak halacha", particularly to permit those agunot?
The reasons that the Gedolim ruled that they are mazerim are mentioned here:
ReplyDeletehttps://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%A7_%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97_%D7%95%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA
I see this as a clever move from the wife's side. If she has kidushin from another man, the halacha is that she must get divorced from both. By pulling this off she practically put aaron into a position that he must divorce her, halachically mandated.
ReplyDeleteNot so fast, first, his conditions still remain, he can get a heter meah rabbanim, in the mean time she cannot cohabit with anyone, not even with a momzer ben momzer. She can do better? A two time loser. At the end of the day, VehoElokim yevakesh et haNirdof. It applies all across the board and is called payback time. And did you also contenplate of what happens if C.V. Z... Tamar kalosecho vehineh horoh liz.....?
ReplyDeleteHe had privileged information either from Egypt or fanya ganev, as it was later located on the bottom of the ocean at the Strait of Gibraltar.
ReplyDeleteReb Ehud, I guess that your comment is made tongue in cheek. Any privileged information that the Israeli government had, could have been revealed to the necessary poskim, who would have been given security clearance to have this information shared with them.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Eddie claims that this has to do with mysterious "military expertise", not with privileged information. So my question still stands...
Shalom Rav IsrealReader,
ReplyDeleteOn my last sweep of the tounge, I found it intact sitting in it's place, well and alive and kicking. As of today, there still are 87 pages of The Dakkar Report as privileged information (sod tsvai) and still not allowed to reveal to the public. Since Rav Goren was the official Rabbi and Posek for Zahal, it was relayed to him, and only the necessary parts e.g." haker na et haKtonet " pertinent for being able to matir the Agunos.
As for Eddie:
There was no Military Expertise necessary personally for the Rav himself, only as far as the facts given to him by the Military Experts so as to be able to kovea that it is ~ bebchinat mayim she'ein lahem sof. Google up some history of events of Dakkar and see for yourself e.g. :
http://www.jta.org/1981/03/02/archive/all-crew-members-of-submarine-dakar-officially-declared-dead-chief-rabbi-says-wives-of-crew-members
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Documents-reveal-new-details-on-Dakar-si
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/how-did-israel-s-dakar-submarine-sink-45-years-ago.premium-1.508359
** q=Dakar+sank&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CDMQsARqFQoTCIPQjrfT2MgCFQM1Pgod9r4JbA&biw=1004&bih=684
see this pic ==> 467 x 400 - submarines.dotan.net
if you can locate it at this site
but you must hover over the pic for the text to show
**
I couldn't help notice on the Tsariach = Turret that it is riddled with shrapnel holes entering from outside towards the inside, indicating an explosion such as a depth charge. When gathering such similar sufficient privileged details, only then can you pasken such a shayla. Although this pic has not been available at that time, but other info was.
לא עברתי על תשובת המתיר, ומה הם יסודות ההיתר.
ReplyDeleteאעיר רק במה שכתב מעכ"ת שיסוד ההיתר הוא מה שקבע המתיר שזה בחינת "מים שאין להם סוף".
לכאורה דוקא קביעה זו היא הצד החמור שבשאלה, כיון שאם רואים אדם שטבע במים *שאין* להם סוף, כגון בים
הגדול, אינם יכולים להעיד שמת, דחוששים שמא הוא חי, ועלה ליבשה ממקום אחר, שאינו בתחום הראייה של הרואה.
ורק אם שנפל במים *שיש* להם סוף, כגון לבור
או למערה, שהעומד בהם יכול לראות לכל הכוונים, ושהה שם פרק זמן שדי בו כדי
שתצא נפשו, ולא עלה, רק אז מעידים שמת, ואשתו מותרת להינשא על סמך עדות זו.
אלא שיש מהלך באחרונים לסמוך על תרי רובי. [ועי' מה שכתב בזה בשו"ת אגרות משה (אבהע"ז ח"א, סי' מח) בנוגע לאשה שקיבלה מכתב מהערכאות שבעלה עלה באוירון ושהאוירון נפל בהים].
אלא שבנידון דידן לא ידוע לנו מה קרה באמת לצוללת, ולכאורה גרע מהנידון שבאגרות משה. ואולי המתיר היה לו מידע חסוי, עליו בנה יסודי ההיתר, ויש לעיין בפנים בדבריו, וכל זה לפילפולא בעלמא.
לסיום, אציין שבעוד כמה שנים יעברו 50 שנים מהאירוע, וכמדומני שלפי החוק אפשר לפרסם מסמכים חסויים שעברו עליהם 50 שנה, ואז נדע יותר פרטים.
Amongst the information disclosed, they removed and brought up the uniforms of 16 personnel, of which negates the possibily shemo oloh betsad achar at least for some of them. There are also those pockmarks of an explosion I have mentioned. If they recovered the tsariach of the tsolelet apart of the main unit, the explosion must have been of such a great magnitude where the rest of the fuselage was blown off and swept away, that is why only 16 of the crewmen's uniforms have been recovered, and the same fate must have happened to all. Maybe the whole group in the submarine can be considered rather as nafal letoch habor since they were confined to a finite space, vegoral echad lekulam. As military experts can establish that humans cannot survive under such circumstances to be considered shemo oloh. In any case I am neither a posek nor a Military expert, however, amongst the secrets I am sure there was enough evidence that they all perished, and Rav Goren could not reveal what they have might been in his shakla vetarya, so as not to give away what they were not willing to be disclosed. It did take many years until the heter came forward, probably after the determinant factors rolled in. Food for thought, I hope this helps.
ReplyDeleteHe was a Brigadier General in the army. He also was inside the army and had access to more information.
ReplyDeleteIn Chabad, they often point out how the Rebbe had studied Engineering and hence had expertise in mechanical issues involved in hilchos Shabbat. Thus, they suggest he knew better than Rav Moshe on some such matters.
Rav Moshe would also consult with his son in law , who is a Professor of Biology, on medical matters.
It is funny, how those who blindly hate Rav Goren, on the one hand say he was a great general but not a great Rav, and when it comes to his knowledge of military matters, they suddenly deny his military expertise as well!
Rav Goren was not involved in strategic military expertise only as far as it was regarding Yahadut and halachot. Brigadier General was only a Toar Kavod. R' Moshe had all the necessary technology of the Experts at his fingertips, Medical, Electrical or Electronical or whatever the case maybe, in order to pasken with a full deck. Even Rav Goren did not have free access to ALL the available information Zahal had gathered on the fate of Dakkar.
ReplyDeleteThe first Husband - Borokovsky signed a letter that he had lapsed into christianity. Thsi letter i mentioned in the Hareidi Jewish Observer, and they try to find a way out of it (laughable).
ReplyDeleteHe coudl not complete Shema Yisrael.
He could not name the Rabbi or BD that converted him. There was no record of him ever marrying lefi halacha. He had actually married Chava in a Church. her parents wanted him to covnert and forced/bribed him - which invaldiates any conversion.
(Rav Elyashiv - interestingly - had a fast track career upgrade, as soon as he left the Rabbanut, he sat on Moetzet Gedolei Hatorah.) So isn't that suspicious?
Also, when he gave the "gett" to Mrs langer, ie his ex wife and mother of the safeik mamzerim, he signed it "Avraham ha ger" which means he was a mumar.
The change in the law was the Government employer - the Knesset. R Goren had no power to change the law.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in England, the United Synagogue employs rabbis for a contrct,f or a number of years, and not for life. I'm assuming this was the case even when Dayan Abramsky was head of London Beis Din.
The alelgation was what- that R Goren wanted the job in 1972, wasn't prepared to wait, and thus agreed to falsify halacha in order for the the Government to prepare the positon for him? OK, that is a big lie - not one shred of evidence has ever been provided by any chareidim to support such a claim.It is just big lie - the same way the muslims blame the Jews for 9/11.
Lubavitcher Rebbe told this lie - because he saw that in pure halacha, R Goren had done more than he had, in terms of hilchot melachim. R Goren fought wars, made the arm Kosher for hundreds of thousands, liberated Jerusalem etc. the rebbe never even set foot in israel, and still thought he was moshiach! (Nobody is suggesting the r Goren was Moshiach, but he did fight the wars which are mentioned in the rambam. No chareidi (with the xception perhaps of Rav Chaim Kanievsky) fought in any of the wars.
As for the alleged bribes, Rav Ovadiah Yosef ztl also stood against Rav Nissim Ztl. Rav Nissim had also once quipped that ROY would take his job from him.
In any case, Rav Elyashiv appointed Metzger as a puppet, and would even stand for him - thus he accepted the 10 year rule - when it suited him.
If in fact, there is a letter that Borokovsky signed, attesting that he had lapsed into Christianity; that in effect would imply that at one time he had legitimately converted to Judaism, and only later lapsed back to his old ways.
ReplyDeleteThe Halacha is clear in such a case. He has the status of a lapsed Jew, a Yisrael Mumar, who is nevertheless considered Jewish for all matters, including that his act of Kiddushin is a binding act, and his wife is considered an Eishes Ish (Rambam, Yad, Issurei Bi’ah 13:17, Shulchan Aruch YD 268:12).
It depends when, what his intentions were at time of said conversion. And proof of conversion.
ReplyDeleteAll of druckman's ulpan can name the Rav or beit Din that converted them. Borokovsky could not provide a name or evidence.
Where does it say a person who claims he converted is ipso facto Jewish? (Despite them not knowing who converted them).
Rav Obadiah yosef greeted rav Goren, and was then threatened by hareidim. (despite him not agreeing to sit with rav Goren on the langer case.)
ReplyDeleteRav soloveitchik was threatened by rav Feinstein, because he reputedly agreed with much of the Goren psak.
Rav Goren was attacked by chareidi scum at a funeral, and his bodyguard was badly injured needing hospital treatment.
Rav kook was physically attacked.
Rav shteinman also.
So this is an ongoing sickness of the hareidim - either the gedolim do not know the consequences of their actions, or when they say violence is assur, they are lying and actually wish it to be used to enforce their power.
I am not aware of any modern o or DL ever physically beating a hareidi gadol or leader.
According to Yaacov Sasson:
ReplyDeletehttps://seforimblog.com/2021/02/rav-gorelick-the-rav-and-revision-by-omission/
Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik considered Goren’s heter to be illegitimate.
"The Rav addressed the Langer case in his well-known speech in 1975 on the topic of the Rabbi Rackman’s aguna plan.[24]:
However, if you think that the solution lies in the reformist philosophy, or in an extraneous interpretation of the Halacha, you are badly mistaken. It is self-evident; many problems are unsolvable, you can’t help it. For instance, the problem of these two mamzerim in Eretz Yisrael – you can’t help it. All we have is the institution of mamzer. No one can abandon it – neither the Rav HaRoshi, nor the Rosh HaGola. It cannot be abandoned. It is a pasuk in Chumash: “לא יבא ממזר בקהל ה‘”. It is very tragic; the midrash already spoke about it, “והנה דמעת העשוקים“, but it’s a reality, it’s a religious reality. If we say to our opponents or to the dissident Jews, “That is our stand” – they will dislike us, they will say that we are inflexible, we are ruthless, we are cruel, but they will respect us. But however, if you try to cooperate with them or even if certain halachic schemes are introduced from within, I don’t know, you would not command love, you would not get their love, and you will certainly lose their respect. That is exactly what happened in Eretz Yisrael! What can we do? This is Toras Moshe and this is surrender. This is קבלת עול מלכות שמים. We surrender. [25]
The Rav is clearly referring to the Langer case, and he considered Rav Goren’s heter to be illegitimate. He refers to the Langers as “two mamzerim”, and he uses the Langer case as an example of something “unsolvable” and that “you can’t help it.”
He seems to be using Rav Goren’s heter as an example of “an extraneous interpretation of the Halacha.” And according to the Rav, the more appropriate response would have been to surrender to halacha; that the attempted heter was a futile attempt to coax love out of dissident Jews. I have not seen this speech of the Rav mentioned in the context of the Langer case and I thought it appropriate to mention here."
You're now going into the technicalities of the particular case, (which I don't intend to debate about), whereas I merely commented on your reference to an alleged letter, which you intended to bear on the topic.
ReplyDeleteMy point is, that the issue whether or not Borokovsky lapsed into Christianity is moot, since a Yisrael Mumar, is considered Jewish for matters such as Kiddushin.
whether that is a faithful text and whether Rav Soloveitchik said it was illegitimate is not clear. On the other hand, there are qute a few who say the opposite eg
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yeshiva.co/ask/8772
R Soloveitchik was not stupid - he didn't want to make an enemy of Rav Moshe - who was going for total disapprobation of Rav Goren.
I don't know where you stand , sometimes you are hareidi, sometimes a total RZ.
If you read rav Bleich's review in Tradition / Contemporary Halachic.. , you will notice that he regrets the fact that some even cut off R Goren's legitimacy - that means he did not, regardless of whether he found R Goren's arguements convincing.
Basically, the entire RZ world, and most of the MO world, hold Rav Goren in high respect, and consider his psak legitimate. There ae a few who have left the RZ world, so Rav Simcha Kook for example, who was a disciple of Rav Elyashiv.
Rav Ovadia Yosef was accused and witchhunted , for allegedly being one of the Dayanim of R Goren's BD! R Yosef, even though he ruled the kids as mamzerim, patched up his friendship with R Goren, and did not abide by those Hareidim who blacklisted him.
Rav Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg - even though he was son in law of RSZA, still respected RSG and taught inhis Yeshiva, and wrote a lovely hesped for him.
Rav Yosef Eliahu Henkin, of course, was the sole Hareidi to defend R Goren. But he also did not want to get into a spat with rav Moshe. Read Rav Eitam Henkin's essay on the whole maase.
R' Rackman told me that Rav Solovetichik still wanted him to be head of YU, and his son, Hay, wanted Norman Lamm. A compromise was offered, where rackman would lead for 5 years and then retire, handing it to Lamm, but Lamm did not accept.
R Goren was wlecomed to YU, and met with RJBS and Rav Belkin.
Regarding Rack
You mena in isolation, it does not prove anything? iot depends on when he lapsed. If he lapsed the day after an alelged giur, then it does nullify that giur.
ReplyDeletewithout getting into the technicalities of the case, here is an article by Aviad Hollander, regarding acceptance of decisions of poskim by their peers.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.academia.edu/2344303/Aviad_Y_Hollander_The_Relationship_Between_Halakhic_Decisors_and_their_Peers_as_a_Determining_Factor_in_the_Acceptence_of_their_decisions?email_work_card=view-paper
He cites the above case, and contrasts it with a leniency proposed by RSZA, and then basically retracted or claimed that it was not to be halacha l'maaseh.
The psak by RSZA was about a woman unable to conceive during her clean time of the month and it was a solution that allowed her to conceive during niddah. It was rejected by his peers, the Gedolim of the Hareidi world. The author states that he asked Rav Nebenzahl (chavrusa of RSZA) why he retracted, and R' Nebenzahl told him (Hollander) that if RSZA had stood fast to his psak, he would have been ostracized by the hareidi world. (We know that R Goren did stand fast, and was ostracized).
why, did Rav Moshe , when he made a psak about artifical insemination for a married woman - not get ostracized (other than by Satmar and a couple more extremists)? Was his stature greater than RSZA in their respective circles? If Rav Moshe was accepted, so was RSZA, and he was one of the the greatest poskim in Israel.