https://www.etzion.org.il/en/acceptance-mitzvot-requirement-conversion
In any event, other Rishonim have explicitly ruled that acceptance of the mitzvot is indeed an indispensable requirement for conversion. Thus writes the Shulchan Arukh:
All matters pertaining to a proselyte - informing him of the mitzvot that he may accept them, circumcision, as well as immersion – must be [performed] in the presence of three who are fit to judge and during the day. This, however, is only lekhatchila, but bedi'eved, if [the proselyte] underwent circumcision or immersion in the presence of two or at night… he is a [valid] proselyte and may marry a Jewess. This is with the exception of accepting the mitzvot, which invalidates the conversion if not performed during the day and in the presence of three [judges]. (Shulkhan Arukh 268:3)[6]
In actual practice, more recent authorities have been inclined to rule that acceptance of the mitzvot is an indispensable requirement for conversion. Rav Goren relied on this ruling even when it led to a leniency. He ruled that a certain set of siblings were not to be considered mamzerim, because their father, who claimed to be a convert, had never properly accepted the mitzvot, and so he was not a Jew.
Halacha is not like geometry. Or is it?
ReplyDeleteIt is not for nonreligious academics or rabbis like Goren with political concerns
ReplyDeleteSo Halacha is only for a small community, but not the entire tzibbur, who don't approach the Badatz?
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant comment.
ReplyDeleteSo Pesach is only for those who sell Chometz!
not everyone takes your view
ReplyDeletelook at heter mechira - not everyone accepts it, but that doesn't make it false or fake or irrelevant. Before you start attacking the wrong people, R' Goren opposed it, saying it was only for the original period specified by Rav Kook, whilst Rav SZ Aurbach supported it.
In the past, in Europe and the middle east, each town had a community and a rav. Your people are not geared up for dealing with the issues a State has to face - in fact they don't want a State at all.
Look at Rav Shach's opposition to the Entebbe raid, or in fact his support for land for peace - with the PLO. It was based on his total lack of understanding of the situation, despite living in Israel.
My comment about geometry was that in the famous case, discussed ad nauseam, Rav Goren argued that full aceptance of Mitzvot was essential, whereas Rav Elyashiv said times have changed and nowadays we do not reject if they do not keep everything.
ReplyDeletePolitical concerns - some people see the bigger picture, and consider the entire Tzibbur (Tzaddii, Beinoni,Rasha) . Others are only concerned in dealing with tzaddikim, which makes life a lot easier, but they have no business with the rest of the Jewish people.
But invoking Rav Goren is a problem. He was pilloried for nullifying the twins' mamzer status by saying that their father's conversion was insincere. Yet only a few years ago, Rav Sherman nullified a woman's conversion in divorce court and pronounced her children non-Jewish and this was accepted by many who condemned Rav Goren. Explain.
ReplyDeleteWhere does Rav Eliashiv make this claim?
ReplyDeleteobviously the straw man choices you make are wrong
ReplyDeleteHe is quoted in here https://traditiononline.org/contemporary-ashkenazi-pesak-regarding-the-invalidation-of-conversion/
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, R. Elyashiv takes another approach in his comment
regarding R. Shlomo Goren’s famous “Brother and Sister Ruling” (Chief
Rabbinate 5733), in which R. Goren alleviated the status of mamzer from
two siblings. Their mother married a man while halakhically she was still
married to another man, who was a convert. R. Goren claimed that since
the first husband did not adhere to the rulings of the Sages, his conversion
was invalid. R. Elyashiv remarked that since today Jewish customs are different than what they once were, criteria for conversion should also be different: “Today there is reason to revisit the Jewish customs which determine
the criteria for conversion, since this has changed. If we see that a convert
acts like the Jews among whom he resides, attending synagogue on Shabbat
and Yom Tov, buying kosher meat, avoiding work on Shabbat, etc. – this is
sufficient to presume he is a convert, even if he transgresses one detail from
the words of the Sages.” "
Unfortunately the author has not provided a reference for this quote.
Rav Goren argued that full aceptance of Mitzvot was essential, whereas
ReplyDeleteRav Elyashiv said times have changed and nowadays we do not reject if
they do not keep everything
All he said was."sufficient to presume he is a convert"That is not what you claimed
nope,
ReplyDeleteobviously you are caught in a bit of a contradiction, so you have to build a wall of swiss cheese around you
"Today there is reason to revisit the Jewish customs which determine
ReplyDeletethe criteria for conversion, since this has changed."
it's not defensive,
ReplyDeletethe article I brought by Rav Rimon, which neglected one reference, has plenty of references on the issue of annulling geirus.
Garnel is bringing a good point. They are not straw man arguments.
There are differences in the FACTS of those individual cases. In the Goren Mamzer Case the fact was the husband legitimately converted AND kept the Mitzvos. Goren (and his unnamed "anonymous beit din") lied in order to achieve his political goal of making those two mamzers ois-mamzer.
ReplyDeleteIn the Dayan Sherman cases those Russian goyim Stickman "converted" never intended to keep a single Shabbos or kashrus -- and never did. So they remained forever goyim.
Nonsense
ReplyDeleteThe man, bolek Borkovsky was unable to provide evidence, witnesses, or names of the Rabbis who converted him. He was also unable to complete the verse "shema Yisrael.... "
Therefore, he could not prove his conversion. Too many other details to repeat.
Read Rav Rimon 's article about the Sherman claim. In any case, Rav Dichovsky, and rav Amar refuted him. Even rav Hershel shachter said his (Sherman's) psak was a joke. He didn't even believe he could have written such dreck.
source?
ReplyDeleteThe Shema bit was in rav bleich tradition piece.
ReplyDeleteThe haredi press all attacked haRav Goren, accusing him of not bringing any argument. They made a mistake of not checking what the other haredi press said, since each one gives something away.
BTW, rav shaul israeli, ztl who sat on the BD with rav Elyashiv ztl and rav Yosef ztl, was almost going to vote against the din of mamzerut.
Being seen in shul in itself is not proof of being a convert.
Anyone who gets involved in solving mamzerut is risking their position.
Rav moshe ztl was almost destroyed after his psak permitted artificial insemination donors. He was terrorised, late night calls to his house, attacks on his talmidim, broken windows. Source: Rakeffet
source: https://traditiononline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Survey-Of-Recent-Halakhic.pdf
ReplyDelete"Press reports have made much
of the fact that when Borokovsky
was asked by the Bet Din to conclude the, sentence "Shema Yisrael . . ." he was unable to do so
correctly. Borokovsky completed
"Shema Yisrael" wÍth the phrase
"H a-Shem Elokeinu melekh ha.
olam" which would have been the
proper response had he been asked
to give the formula used in the
various blessings"
also - counter arguments to the overall discsussion :
"Rabbi Goren cites numerous authorities in an effort to establish
that conduct and deportment are
insuffcient to establish presumption
of conversion, particularly when the
individual concerned is unable to
identify the rabbis who performed
the conversion. On the other hand,
Chazon Ish, Yareh De'ah 158:6-9,
unequivocally asserts that deport.
ment as a Jew extending over a
period of thirty days is suffcient in
and of itself to establish identity
as a Jew and requires no further
evidence or declaration on the part
of the convert. Rabbi Zolti demonstrates that this is the position of
Teshuvat R. Akiva Eger, no. 121,
as well. It is noteworthy that Rabbi
A. i. Kook, Ezrat Kohen, no. 13,
expresses an identical view.
Rabbi Zolti asserts that there is
ample evidence confirming the fact
that A vraham Borokovsky conducted himself as a Jew and was pub.
licly known as such. The documents
which he utilzed in immigrating to
what was then Palestine refer to
him as a proselyte. It is beyond dispute that, declaring himself to be a
convert, Borokovsky divorced his
wife in the presence of a Bet Din
and subsequently remarried as a
Jew"
30 days is sufficient? If so, how are the conversions of the Rabbanut courts (with proof of conversion) invalid?
Are you really making the absurd claim that the Chazon Ish asserted that 30 days is an absolute no matter what else is going on?!
ReplyDeleteThat's what r betzalel Zolfy said, in his charge against Goren.
ReplyDeleteIf you think it's absurd, shows that R Goren psak was not as bad as its cracked up to be.
I think you are the only person in the universe that thinks the issue is still undecided
ReplyDeleteIf that isn't a rhetorical statement, it is pretty naiive. In any case, you want to have your cake, and eat it, without Al hamichiya.
ReplyDeleteRav Zholty brought a critique against the psak - and its most salient points are in Rav bleich's survey.
His arguments were technical and procedural. One of them was the Chazon ish. If you are arguing against the Charon ish - or Rav zholty's citation, then fine.
If it is not valid now, it wasn't then.
Obviously since you are the expert on Rav Goren!
ReplyDeleteFalse.
ReplyDeleteYou base your claims on what? The yated online article?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you base your false claim that the husband of the mother of the two mamzers was anything other than a full fledged Ger Tzedek who remained an observant Jew until his dying breath?
ReplyDeleteOther than Goren's false claims that he didn't know Kriyas Shma and other lies he made, that is.
Rakeffet is unreliable.
ReplyDeleteThe shema was part of the original court findings, even before Goren got involved.
ReplyDeleteWho are you, do you give semicha?
He was found to be lacking basic Torah knowledge in the elyashiv-yosef-Israeli bet Din, such that Rav Israeli was inclined to rule against his conversion.
ReplyDeleteHareidi identity is based on vilifying others, hence your brainwashed response towards r Goren.
He had many named witnesses who knew the runaway bride, and they said it was a fake conversion.
No record of a conversion, only got married in a church.
Borkovsky , who married cchava Ginsburg in a church, lived with her parents. Visitors who came to the Ginsburg house would ask what that funny smell was, and they would say that the goy was cooking chazir in bathtub upstairs.
ReplyDeleteIf you read haredi brainwash papers like yated, unjewish observer, they conceal the facts. So for example, yated claimed that Rav Goren only had testimony of the social worker, and she heard it from chava langer.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there were several eidim who knew them back in the old country - and they testified that he was forced by the parents to convert , or he did not really convert, and continued to eat treif.
We have seen how Rav Shach hates anything to do with Zionism, his opposition to the entebbe operation. This was true for the 6 day war, when it was also Rav Goren who liberated the kotel.
Ponovezh was affected by Zionism, losing students to mercaz harav.
I guess since you are the only person in the world who was not brainwashed you are the only one to know the truth - Wow!
ReplyDeleteSo how can the rest of us deal with that - accept you as the sole source of truth?!
Oh, I thought truth is whatever the Ashkenazi gedolim say , based on what their gabbaim feed them.
ReplyDeleteLike the alleged letter attributed to the Chazon ish "why didn't anyone tell me about the holocaust, I would have stopped it by clicking my fingers".
What letter?
ReplyDeleteRead the following response by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, zt'l, regarding the holocaust:
"In his writings and discussions on the subject, the Rebbe rejected all theological explanations for the Holocaust. What greater conceit -- the Rebbe would say -- and what greater heartlessness, can there be than to give a "reason" for the death and torture of millions of innocent men, women and children? Can we presume to assume that an explanation small enough to fit inside the finite bounds of human reason can explain a horror of such magnitude? We can only concede that there are things that lie beyond the finite ken of the human mind. Echoing his father-in-law, the Rebbe would say: It is not my task to justify G-d on this. Only G-d Himself can answer for what He allowed to happen. And the only answer we will accept, said the Rebbe, is the immediate and complete Redemption that will forever banish evil from the face of the earth and bring to light the intrinsic goodness and perfection of G-d's creation."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/64888/jewish/The-Rebbe-on-the-Holocaust.htm
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/937091/rabbi-dr-jacob-j-schacter/historical-truth-and-the-holocaust-is-the-hazon-ish-s-letter-a-forgery-/
ReplyDeleteMust be Grylak's fertile imagination again
ReplyDeletehttps://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/01/chazon-ish-shielded-from-knowledge-of.html?m=1
I guess you didn't read the full quote
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly the Chazon Ish meant by this remark, I cannot presume to say. But at the least, it indicates the strength of the Jewish belief in what Torah study can effect in this world.
Note the following assertions 1) Chazon Ish did not know what was happening in Europe during the Holocaust. 2) He didn't know because he was shielded from information which was common knowledge by his family and students 3) Furthermore he was upset when he found out the truth - not because he was shielded - but because he apparently could have stopped the Holocaust had he been aware of it!
This is shows the power of Torah learning!?
I don't believe he said that.
ReplyDeletePlus, he also allegedly said that to claim human action could have reduced the casualties, is heretical!
So suddenly he could have done it?
It is obviously mythology -
ReplyDeleteWas he greater in learning than rabbi Akiva, the ramban, etc? Who were killed and /or exiled & couldn't prevent churban, inquisition...?
Your unsupported assertions are false.
ReplyDeleteSheker vchozov.
ReplyDeleteThe reason you have no source and proof for these false assertions is because none exists.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.google.co.il/url?sa=t&url=%68%74%74%70%3A%2F%2F%78%6E%2D%2D%31%30%30%2D%6C%64%64%39%61%2E%78%6E%2D%2D%70%31%61%69&usg=AOvVaw09cCqMLmvQGkpDOZQqbRtJ#ZpN1WfNlYtwa
ReplyDeleteI asked Dr. Benney Brown who wrote an amazing biography of the Chazon Ish which does not include this story
ReplyDeleteHe replied:
Stories about the HI should be presumed to be false unless otherwise proven - as he himself instructed.
This particular story is even less plausible than the average, because - as far as I know - the HI did not ascribe supernatural powers to himself
Let us look at the argument -
ReplyDeleteR' Goren brings new testimony - which undermines the conclusion of R' Elyashiv . that is not very good for business in the hareidi world. Nobody really dealt with his teshuva. Rav Shach didn't read it. Rav Zholty did make a few technical points, but ignored the main thrust of it. Now Rav Moshe is the most interesting - obviously, as he was the greatest poseq at the time. he said if you have new eidus, you have to take it to the BD who previously dealt with it. Guess what? R Elyashiv had walked out, and would not have anythign to do with R S.G. RSG did, however, go to R' Ovadia Yosef, who was part of the BD - but ROY also said he is not going to sit on a BD again, regarding this matter.
So, whilst Rav Moshe is technically correct, 2 of the 3 dayanim were not avaialble - that leaves Rav Shaul Yisraeli ztl - not much information on what happened, but in any case the original BD was now gone, finsihed, so RSG no longer is obliged to go to them or is not able, since they don't exist.
Now, what you are arguing is itself a pervrsion of halacha, and worse than what you accuse RSG of . RSG has new eidus, which was ignored by hareidi mouthpieces - and yo and your fellows are blocking that new eidus -which is totally contrary to halacha to do. So who was bribed and corrupt? Obviously the people who taught you.
so the 3 of us are in agreement?
ReplyDeletesource is RSG's teshuva, and Israeli BD records. That is based on Rav Rakeffet - i trust him - whether you do is not my concern, you do not give semicha to anyone.
ReplyDeleteno point arguing with you, you are a product of "Manchurian candidate" type brainwashing.
ReplyDeleteRav Eitam Henkin HY'D, who was the great grandson of Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, wrote this maamar on the entire Goren saga, and how Rav Y.E. Henkin ztl supported R Goren to some degree, and criticised those who attacked him.
ReplyDelete(in modern Hebrew)
https://www.scribd.com/doc/301695387/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%90%D7%97%D7%95%D7%AA#fullscreen&from_embed
Therefore that proves nothing of significance!
ReplyDelete