https://en.idi.org.il/articles/26963
The key question lies in defining the essence of conversion. Is it about adopting a new religion, or joining a new nation? If the former, it is perfectly natural to require a convert to observe the precepts of religion as a precondition for acceptance as a Jew. This was the opinion, for example, of Saadiah Gaon in the tenth century. He held that “our nation is a nation only by virtue of its religious laws”: Religion is the core component of the national identity. But there is also a halakhic tradition that Jewishness is a “people,” a primordial natural entity, and that a person is obligated to observe Jewish precepts only after joining the people. This is hinted at in the declaration by Ruth the Moabite, the paradigmatic convert whose descendants include King David and the messiah, “Your people shall be my people and your God my God”: First you join the Jewish people, and only after doing so—do you take on a religious commitment.
The debate continues to the present day. The ultra-Orthodox and most rabbis of the Religious Zionist movement hold to the stringent approach, making it difficult to realize the potential for conversion in Israel. On the other hand, a significant group of rabbis (including three who served as Israel’s Chief Rabbi—Bakshi-Doron, Goren, and Uziel) held the view that conversion means joining the Jewish people, and that observance of the Jewish precepts is not a precondition for conversion. The rabbinic courts in Israel should consider adopting this more lenient stance.
Ruth 's phrase suggests that both factors are relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe article below contrasts Rav Kook's view with that of Rav Uziel:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jewishideas.org/article/rabbi-kook-and-rabbi-uziel-two-posekim-two-approaches-0
"Rabbi Goren’s conversion requirements were not more lenient
ReplyDeletethan those of his predecessors in the previous two centuries. In a sense,
the study framework he created ensured that the process of preparation
for conversion would actually be more profound and meaningful. "
see comprehensive article:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331935491_Israeli_Halakha_The_Chief_Rabbinate's_Conversion-To-Judaism_Policy_1948-2018/download
there were already lenient approaches by other Chief rabbis, including R ' Unterman and rav Yosef ztl.
The position of Chief Rabbi of Israel is merely a political position. It is voted for by members of the Knesset, including their non-religious members, religion-hating members, the Arab MKs and other non-Jewish members of the Israeli parliament and other governmental bodies.
ReplyDeleteBeing a Chief Rabbi of Israel, or having been one in the past, in no way, shape or form indicates that position holder is upright or a talmid chochom or righteous in any way. If they coincidentally are any of that, it is happenstance; nothing to do with the position.
All holding that office of Chief Rabbi indicates is that they were a good politician.
You can't naturalize as a citizen of a nation and become that nationality without accepting and following its laws. You can't become British while disavowing the obligation and requirement to adhere to British law. And you can't become a member of the Jewish nation while disavowing the obligation and requirement to adhere to Jewish law.
ReplyDeleteArticle doesnt support you view!
ReplyDelete"Another solution for some of the candidates was conversion
through the army. Rabbi Shlomo Goren, serving at the time as the
Chief Rabbi of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), established special con-
version courses to enable non-Jewish soldiers to complete their conver-
sions during their army service. The military conversion process,
according to all the testimonies that I have encountered, was much
more welcoming and pleasant than the civilian conversion process"
Did any of the other points in the article register? Eg the under the table conversions going on ?
ReplyDeleteYou simply are ignoring the reality that he approved a lot of goyim becoming citizens without any intention of keeping mitzvos or being Jews!
ReplyDeleteNot ignoring anything. Yes , goyim. Generally goyim are the ones who convert.
ReplyDeleteBut he wasn't the only one.
Rav Yaakov toledano, rav ovadia yosef were doing conversions on the quiet.
The issue you cannot see is that chareidi rabbonim deal with a much smaller and narrower population. The rabbanut deal with the entire population.
So if you mass convert army recruits instead of dealing with the individual you consider it good?!
ReplyDeleteMass conversion conjures up the image of thousands immersing in the Jordan river.
ReplyDeleteThis was not mass conversion, it was an official program with no kefiya. Who am I to judge if it is better to do things formally or under the table?
So you need to modify your mistaken image!
ReplyDelete“Conversion: Joining a Religion or Joining a Nation? Rav Goren versus most rabbinical authorities” No. KA is strong here. I agree with KA.
ReplyDeleteMy theory. Goren was like Moses in accepting the erev rav. Moses’ reason? To bring the mashiach the גאולה שלמה. Goren wanted the mashiach now. Similar to Isaac wanting to bless Esau over Jacob. Why? To bring the גאולה שלמה. Similar to Abraham not wanting to send Hagar and Ishmael away. Similar to Jacob giving the cloak to Joseph, why? To bring the גאולה שלמה.
To change the subject, to Tamar Epstein’s marriage to her lover without a get. Was there deliberate fraud in the obviously fake/phony PhD psychology letter? The deliberately fraudulent letter was Rabbi Greenblatt’s basis for annulling Tamar and Aaron’s wedding. Rabbi Greenblatt married Tamar in a different state. Wow. DT, you ask: Question: Regarding my posts about the terrible perversion of Torah and halacha that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky has engineered with his prod...
Your whole article was written by secular academic. Which contradicts what you said anyway.
ReplyDeleteRav Goren didn't require observance of mitzvot? He did, but also took nationhood into consideration, as did Rav elyashib
Also, Rav Avraham Shapira continued with the geirus programme - he was considered a Gadol and Ilui in Jerusalem, and worldwide - rav Moshe said he was qualified to rule on all areas of halacha. And he did. Rav Shach didn't approve of his leniencies, but as far as I know, Rav shach did not mevatel those conversions. Perhaps because he saw the inherent contradiction if he had done.
ReplyDeleteSo you don't know and yet you use that ignorance as proof?!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/967160/rabbi-ally-ehrman/rav-shmuel-volk-vs-rav-shlomo-goren-geirus-without-keeping-mitzvos/
ReplyDeleteI haven't listened to it all, but it seems like a very knowledgeabla Rav giving a talk on this very subject
What we see in rav Eitan Henkin ztl's article, is that several Gedolim backed Rav Goren.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Rav Yitzhak Nissim , who was Sephardi Chief Rabbi beofre Ovadia Yosef - advised Rav Goren to write his piece on solving the case of the Brother and Sister problem. So it was not his own instigation.
Next, Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook ztl , whow s RY at Mercaz haRav , backed R Goren once hell had broken out - and said it was a correct psak.
The brother of Avraham Shapira, was also a Dayan in the Jerusalem BD, who responded to Rav Zholty's critique. He pointed out that RZ had pointed out a handful of techical points, but not the bulk of the psak and he argued, that the psak as a whole still works notwithstanding the few points raised by RZ.
Then we have the whole maase with Rav YE Henkin ztl - based on notes taken by his son, and research by his Grandson and great grandson, R YE Henkin supported Rav Goren long term, even prior to this affair whenhe was in the army, and said it is forbidden to attack him. And that the method he proposed needs widespread approval before it can be used in practice.
Rav j. B Soloveichik also supported the psak, but only privately. This is well known in YU circles. he didn't want to get involved in the uproar in America, so he kept it quiet.
Today, virtually the entire MO world accept Rav Goren, and the entire RZ world accept him as a Gadol hador.
A few years ago, a large number of chareidim would atatck Soloveitchik with at least the same amount of zeal as they had for Goren. The Brisker people in Israel called him the "Boston Sadducee" with the Berlin Reform PhD.
Today, most of the Agudah accept him as a major Gadol.
Revisionist history putting a spin on reality!
ReplyDeleteWow those are very impressive credentials!
ReplyDeleteDo you think the people cited in the essay didn't really say that?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting one is Rav Nissim's involvement.
That changes the equation.
So now, only approved by badatz can give shiur in YU?
ReplyDeleteNonsense!
ReplyDeleteAlleged involvement proves nothing nor does it change anything.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any direct proof what he actually felt about him?
Actually, it does, at least in terms of perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe hareidi view (which is claimed to be from Sinai), is that RSG was an outsider, for whom this was all a game, solely for the purpose of getting high office no matter the cost.
Also, the directive of disapprobation - that his decisions have no standing - only held in the hareidi world.
But the MO and RZ world rejected this.
What Rav nissim thought of him ? No. But Rav Obadiah who disagreed on the psak and had conflict in the first 5 years , actually developed a respectful friendship with RSG, and continued to go to his azkara every year for many years. Rav Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg taught in his yeshiva and gave a very long hesped.
Anything written by the henkins you reject?
The American gedolim who opposed Goren based it on knee jerk reactions to hearsay and rumors, not evidence. Rav Moshe was the greatest posek hador, but his grasp of metzius was not always correct. Marlboro and Winston are a good example.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the eidah simply cannot ever agree with or recognize anything with a Zionist stamp. If they did, they would no longer be the Eidah.
Wow what a distorted and incorrect explanation - explain everything as being hatred of Zionism and always assume that there can't be a rational explanation.
ReplyDeleteTry considering that Goren was wrong! but your knee jerk reaction to hatred of Zionism always wins.
These circumstantial allegations mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteShow me 3 positive things tge Eidah have said about the medinah since 1967?
ReplyDeleteThe basis of the claim but he was wrong changes depending on whom you ask.
ReplyDelete1) there was an existing chief rabbi who you shouldn't replace
2) he made promises in order to get elected
3) actual financial bribes
4) even receiving regular salary from the government to be a chief rabbi is a bribe in itself
5) he was a Nobody
6) he didn't take the new evidence to the original BD
7) no other single person support him
The main critique of the psak came from Bezalel zolty, so those are the arguments tgat are against actual psak.
Since the entire process began a few years before on the investigation of r Nissim, who was then the existing safardi chief rabbi, all the claims about bribes and wanting to get the job are irrelevant and false. Was rav Nissim offering the job, and sacrifing his own,? He lost his job to rav yosef.
So the entire bribery Strand of arguments is fake.
Henkin's article ends up saying nothing. Rav Henkin was blind did not read or know the facts of the case and did not believe in getting involved in the dispute but at same time had a high opinion of Goren and felt that it was critical to have the office of chief rabbi. Therefore there were no gedolim in America or Israel who defended the psak but only perhaps Goren and the office of chief Rabbi. No one has provided any evidence or support to the psak. You claim Rav Soloveitchik supported the psak in private but not publicly. What nonsense! You can't simply claim without any evidence that he was a liar and hypcrite. No one says Goren wasn't a genius and brilliant talmid chachom or that he wasn't chief rabbi or that he wasn't a brave person. The issue is whether he issued a psak that was accepted by most gedolim and not just Rackman. The clear answer is still no!
ReplyDeleteactually they do -
ReplyDeletethey show that the directive to unrecognize R Goren was not accepted by anyone outside of the hareidi world, and that even those who were close to the Hareidi world, such as Rav Yosef and R Goldberg simply ignored that. The truth hurts.
Your attempt to revive a long dead issue by slander, ad hominen attacks and dubious attributions has failed and changes nothing. You have filed to cite any relevant new information supporting the validity of Goren's psak
ReplyDeleteNeither Rav Henkin nor Rav Soloveitchik wanted to get involved. Soloveitchil obviously had more to lose.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that claim equivalent to calling him a liar and hypocrite?
Ask anyone who was in YU, and they will tell you. Rakeffet asked the older Rabbi Holzer (father of the "Thinking Aloud author) , and he confirmed it - Holzer was the shamash of Rav Soloveitchik . Also, we have public photos of him meeting and posing with Goren after this broouha -whcih means , to use Berel's language, that he was whistling at the Aguda, just like Rav Elyashiv was "whistling" at the brisker rav years earlier.
Your version changes nothing. Goren's psak was and is still today not viable no matter how many lines of nasty anti chareidi lines you write!
ReplyDeleteThe psak was most definitely not acepted by most gedolim. R Henkin also pointed this out. He opposed condemning R Goren.
ReplyDeleteSince something is not accepted by the majority, that does not make it heretical.
And something being accepted by the majority doesn't make it true. Look at the disasterous Agudat Yisroel decision against setting up a Jewish state. the worst disaster made by Jews since the temple was destroyed.
I am not saying it is viable or is majority halacha.
ReplyDeleteRav Yosef was hareidi, disagreed with the psak, and was never nasty , nor did he hate goren, they loved each other - eventually.
Validation by innuendo doesn't count for much neither does Rakeffet's claim's. Wow they were photographed together!
ReplyDeletePlease get me a signed letter or validated audio that Rav Soloveitchik supported Goren's psak
The best I could fin is this dubious statement which contains b\nonsense about Rav Henkin.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.yeshiva.co/ask/8772
Question
What did R’ Soloveitchik hold about the famous ruling from Rabbi Goren about the brother and sister that he ruled was not a Jew?
Were there any big Rabbi’s who agreed with Rabbi Goren’s ruling? If yes, where can I see it?
Why did the Chareidi Rabbi’s come out so strong against this ruing?
Answer
Rav Soloveichik agreed with Rav Goren that the children could be allowed to marry. In addition, I know that Rav Goren was honored by Rav Soloveitchik to give public lectures at Yeshiva University, at which Rav Soloveitchik himself listened and participated actively. There was a committee of top-level poskim of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel who affirmed Rav Goren’s decision there, but they explicitly didn’t publicize their names, so as to avoid the inevitable “shaming” which will come from haredi circles. Rav Yosef Eliahu Henkin, undoubtedly one of the leading poskim of his time in America, who was known for his honesty even when it caused him opposition, also agreed with Rav Goren and publicized his opinion at the time. There is a well-known obligation, carried out by just about all “front-line” poskim throughout history, to do anything to find a halachic way to allow mamzerim to marry. This often involves unique and/or original interpretations of halachic sources, which inevitably may often bring controversy.
https://hakirah.org/Vol15Hollander.pdf
ReplyDeleteRav Sherman, backed by rav elyashiv simply implemented annulment of conversions by the weak claim that the bd were heretics and rashaim. Thus they annulled conversions with certification, known dayanim, on a wholesale scale. That is more severe than Goren annulment of a single conversion, with no known bd, no certification, no witnesses, and the inability to complete a basic Jewish prayer.
ReplyDeleteThis is incorrect. Rav Henkin didn't publicize his view, and he didn't unequivocally support the psak. He said it needed wider acceptance to become an established method.
ReplyDeleteThank you, i will read it later bli neder.
ReplyDeleteNastiness is incorrect. That was precisely the position of rav Henkin - gadol hador.
ReplyDeleteIm saying that both zionist and anti zionists will have knee jerk reactions to support and reject the State respectively.
You misunderstood my strategy. It was to chip away at the fundamental claims made against the langer heter.
ReplyDeleteEitam Henkin ztl brings a lot of sources tgst we don't find elsewhere.
I will try in the near future to post his article on the Chazon ish.
there is no such document.
ReplyDeletePlease show me some positive statements by the Eidah about medinat Yisrael (with the exception of Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank ztl).
in a matter of life and death, slander is permitted. how many people do you think may have died from Rav Feinsteins heter for smoking?
ReplyDeletehow is Goren's psak about mamzerim life and death?
ReplyDeleteSo you claim you can lie and slander to defend Goren?!
Rav Moshe did not permit smoking he simply didn't prohibit it but he did discourage it.
But the fundamental issue of the validity of Goren's psak was not changed!
ReplyDeleteHe also didn't know the details of the psak
ReplyDeleteAnd since it was not accepted he obviously would also reject it!
Wow! So you think you are big enough to argue on your own against Rav Eliashiv and know how to compare them?!
ReplyDeleteWhat have you been consuming?
It clearly states Rav Soloveitchik denied supporting Goren. Was he lying?
ReplyDeleteNot prohibiting is a heter for those already endangering their lives.
ReplyDeleteNo lies or slander to support x, y, or z.
Can a shul with no mechitza for some time be allowed to continue?
Mechitza is at best rabbinic. Smoking is dinei nefashos, for which u can eat pork, break Shabbes to save lives.
Not tobacco
ReplyDeleteRav yosef disagreed, he doesn't need my support.
ReplyDeleteRav Dichovsky, rav amar disagreed.
Rav elyashiv didn't write a teshuva, just his name on a poster.
Supporting publicly and privately agreeing are very different.
ReplyDeleteHe didn't sign anything against Goren, and didn't nullify all his halacha. They continued to talk and learn in halacha.
On the other hand, rav Hershel shachter and rav Lichtenstein rejected Sherman's psak. Rav elyashiv wasn't on the beth din.
ReplyDeleteRav Dichovsky brought proof that in halacha there is no single authority we are forced to accept. So did rav moshe.
There is another element. In his community it is valid. Not in hareidi community. Rav moshe said the same about halacha and truth. His attack was not 100% successful.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe said its invalid because he was bribed. If in fact he was not bribed, then this claim falls away.
ReplyDeleteLubavitcher rebbe ztl (at that time was accepted gadol, and had frequent yechidos with Shlomo Goren) said similar things - he told Goren to resign- whether he was right or wrong.
Today, chabad have reclaimed Rav Goren.
It's important to clarify what I meant.
ReplyDeleteLies - what lies have I told?
Slander - if you allege what I said about Rav Moshe and scientific /medical facts are slander so be it.
Smoking is life and death and I couldn't care a monkeys whether anyone is offended. 100s, maybe 1000s of Jews have had illness and early death due to smoking. The alleged facts upon which Rav Moshe s psak was based upon are wrong, and not prohibiting are effectively permitting.
really so you think Rav Moshe by not prohibiting caused people to smoke ?!
ReplyDeletepeople don't smoke simply because it is not assur.
Rav Moshe prohibited the use of Shabbos clocks
but I don't know anyone who doesn't use one including myself
By not prohibiting it gave a false sense of security - unless one holds that the pesak is so powerful, it changes teva. Not sure where shabbas clocks come into it? The example of the mechitza is a better analogy - many shuls did not have mechitzas, so can you say it is not prohibited for a shul with an existing practice of no mechitzah to continue like that? Only new shuls cannot be built without mechitzas!
ReplyDelete"how many people would have left Yiddishkeit if he had prohibited it?" where would such a question come from? Some people would say it is a gezeira that the rov cannot adhere to - but it is not actually a gezeira in the rabbinical sense - it is a matter of sakkanat nefesh.
Sakkanat nefesh is not certain death, it is risk to life. Sadly some will die from what is preventable.
btw - smoking was a big phenomenon in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s etc. people would smoke , there was a perception in frum crowds that it was permitted - I know this because i spoke to a lot of rabbis in the late 80s and early 90s,. Even the totally brilliant R J. D Bleich the famous medical ethicist wrote a silly article arguing how it is not prohibited.
ReplyDeleteIn such matters, we have gedolim like the Tzitz Eliezer and R Goren to rely on, if not, one's own sechel.
It is well known that many talmidei chachomim smoked and were smoking when he issued his psak he even mentions that in the tshuva.
ReplyDeleteMany would have gotten upset either because gedolim were doing something wrong or could not stop their addiction to smoking and either would not become frum or would reject the authority of Torah. thus either way there were consequences. In addition the evidence at that time was not clear. You in hindsight see things differently than was true at that time. Many doctors also smoked.
In sum it is totally wrong to judge him according to current knowledge and not according to what was known then.
Again seichel was not not a clear guide at that time. Claiming that since a few people correctly considered it dangerous, ignores the reality that most did not.
ReplyDeleteA typical example was Rav Fisher who smoked alot and was hospitalized with lung disease. Told the doctor that he must have been wrong on his diagnosis since he only smoked 6 days a week while the goyim studied with lung disease smoked 7 days a week.
I had a Rebbe who smoked and when I asked him why he didn't stop he replied it was the fault of his yetzer harah.
Yes Goren permitted mamzerim to marry and Tzitz Eliezer allows abortion if mother wants it.
ReplyDeleteThe point is a posek is not a navi
chas' vshalom that a lowly one such as I should judge him - I am sayng that the teshuva was based on erroneous medical data.
ReplyDeleteOne of these Rabbis, it may have been Rabbi Fisher, wanted to publicly show how bad his illness was , to discourage people form smoking.
ReplyDeleteI was told in Lubavitch, that the Rebbe used to smoke, but gave up on his own accord, because he thought there was something bad about it.
They both forbade smoking.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone reject all of Tzitz Eliezer? Does anyone reject all of Rav Moshe's teshuvos since he permitted "adulterous" sperm donors (according to his critics) ?
the answer you can give is that halacha is not a philosophical or geometric exercise, and somehow the brazen Goren was evil, but everything , however weird it may sound that RMF wrote was true and righteous.
My view is different. They are all Gedolim , if they make 10,000 or 100,000 decisions in their lifetimes, 5 or 10 can be questionable or wrong.
You might one day realize that your thinking is not accepted by the overwhelming number of poskim and frum Jews and even in modern Orthodox circles.
ReplyDeleteAnd you know this how? Are you claiming he should have ignored the data he had and poskened it was assur because he should have known there was better d?
ReplyDeletefrom RCA article:
ReplyDelete"In a ( תשובהresponsum) dated ( חנוכה תשכ''דChanuka 1964), written within months
of the release of the famous Surgeon General’s report, Rav Moshe Feinstein ( זצ''לof
blessed memory) wrote10 that while it is certainly preferable not to smoke, he would not
say that smoking is strictly forbidden by ( הלכהhalachah). He cited two reasons why he
felt that it is not forbidden. Firstly, he explained that in cases like this the ( תלמודTalmud)
invoked the concept of '( שומר פתאים הthat G-d watches over the simple). This rule in its
simple formulation means that commonplace activities, even though they may involve
risks to health or safety, are permissible as we can rely on Divine protection. The very
fact that so many people are engaged in a certain activity and emerge unscathed is ipso
3
שבת קכט:
4
ר''ה ט''ז:, ורמ''א יו''ד סי' קט''ז סע' ה'
5
פסחים עו:, יו''ד סי' קט''ז סע' ב'
6
ב''ק מו.
7
יו''ד סי' קט''ז
8
חו''מ סי' תכ''ז
9
חו''מ סי' תכ''ז ס''ק צ'
10
אג''מ יו''ד ח''ב סי' מ''ט
3
facto proof that G-d must be protecting these people, even though prudence might tell us
to avoid that activity.
Secondly, Rav Moshe זצ''לadded, is the fact that many great ( תלמידי חכמיםTorah
scholars, both past and present) smoked, thus making it impossible for us to say that such
an activity is forbidden."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwinlK6nifzvAhV4gP0HHdMMBV4QFjADegQIDhAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rabbis.org%2Fpdfs%2FProhibition_Smoking_Full_Translation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2S9bGCPs96ZkOXEAeSn0we
"The U.S. Surgeon General’s first Smoking and Health report marked its 50-year anniversary Saturday.
Led by then Surgeon General Luther Terry with the help of an advisory
committee, the 1964 landmark report linked smoking cigarettes with
dangerous health effects, including lung cancer and heart disease. After consulting more than 7,000 articles
about cigarette smoking, the committee concluded smoking was a cause of
lung and laryngeal cancer in men, a probable cause of lung cancer in
women and the most important cause of chronic bronchitis."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/first-surgeon-general-report-on-smokings-health-effects-marks-50-year-anniversary
There is quite a big teshuva form the Surgeon General on this subject, and it is not good news for smokers.
. בלווייתו של הרב ישראל הלוי בארי, רבה של
ReplyDeleteנס ציונה, ארבעה צעירים תקפו את הרב גורן במכות, ונהגו אף נפגע בהגינו עליו
nice behavior of hareidi youth. They almost killed the rosh yeshiva in ponevezh a few years ago.
it is a very intersting point you make - that is why I tend to find Rabbis whose thinking is more rational - and of course are usually not accepted by majority of poskim - is that not why we have aseh l'cha rav? Is that not a logical extension of the Arizal's brilliant statement that there are in fact 600,000 panim to the Torah?
ReplyDeleteShortly afterwards, they started putting health warnings on cigarette boxes - a government anti-hechsher.
ReplyDeleteHow he gathered his data is not mentioned.
In Lubavitch, they tell a story about a psak he made about travelling on a ship on shabbat. Their rebbe, a trained engineer, undermined his psak based on his understanding of how engines work.
From Yated
ReplyDelete"
Along with the wave of remonstration in Israel, protests
spread abroad as well. In the US a demonstration drew
thousands of participants. A delegation of gedolei
Torah from the US headed by Maran HaRav Moshe Feinstein
zt'l met with Israeli President Zalman Shazar while he
was visiting New York, telling him, "The ruling on the
brother and sister is an incorrect psak and it is
impossible to change a psak without collaborating with
botei din that dealt with the case previously and
without presenting them with new evidence. A rov cannot be
appointed through bribery, and there is no greater form of
bribery than the bribes Goren gave in promising to be
lenient. This is the greatest form of bribery possible. We
have heard of instances of monetary bribes in the Rabbinate's
history, but this is the first time we have encountered an
instance of bribery by promising votes. This is the greatest
danger there can be for the Rabbinate and for Israel."
* * *
http://www.chareidi.org/archives5763/MSH63features.htm
In this quote , there are 2 claims against R Goren -
1) he needs to cooperate with previous Batei Din and bring new evidence to them
2) He gave and received bribes in order to get elected- promise of lenience for votes.
These so called promises are not cited anywhere, and what is quoted is his philosophy of halacha that Halacha needs to be flexible in order for the state to be run by halacha.
The first statement is interesting - because Rav Elyashiv, and also Rav Yisraeli resigned from the Rabbanut - and were not avaialble to Rav Goren anymore. The 3rd member of the court was Rav Yosef, who initially suggested he would form a BD, but then retracted. So on this count, R Goren did nothing wrong - he tried to talk to Rav Yosef , and ths failed. At which point he is freed from his obligation to cooperate witht he previous BD.
On the 2nd count, if there were bribes, we need to see explict evidence. There is no evidence that I have seen. There is actually a contradiction between these 2 points if you take the Hareidi position - his new evidence implies that he could find a heter - however he is obliged to take that evidence to one form of a BD or otther. The Chareidim are equating his evidence with the bribe , and are hence rejecting the evidence itself.
So there is plenty of room to argue tha it was in fact the hareidim who were perverting halacha, as stated by rav Moshe in the quote given in Yated neeman.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dab0e47731b845211b721b918b7059a839eba3829a3bff2f3b669ae9bf59aa17.jpg
ReplyDeleteRav Uziel and Rav Herzog , the young man speaking is Rav Goren, while still in the army Rabbanut
And your point is?
ReplyDeleteWow! In other words you should be accepted as Gadol Hador since you know better than everyone else?!
ReplyDeleteWow. Nope, I'm looking for evidence.
ReplyDeleteThere are gedolim in the rabbanut who were never taken too seriously in the shtetl.
ReplyDeleteEvidence of what?
ReplyDeleteBribery (heter in exchange for the job)
ReplyDeleteOr maybe it's there and I'm not seeing it?
Taking shochad
ReplyDeletehttps://baishavaad.org/do-me-a-favor/
"In other words you should be accepted as Gadol Hador since you know better than everyone else?"
ReplyDeleteHalacha must have a rationale, which is understandable - especially when statements are made. Presumably Rav Moshe never made statements just relying on his greatness or Daas, be rather would buttress them with sources and nimukim.