https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-putin-popov-partner-donald-trump-1693210
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/29/cawthorn-orgies-freedom-caucus-00021548
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/324752
Rosh(6:7): When a community agrees on some matter an individual has no right to protest. Concerning this the Torah states that one must follow the majority. If you don’t agree to this principle than the community would never have the ability to make binding rules because you will never get unanimity on an issue.
Shabbos (60b) R. Mattenah — others state, R. Ahadboi b. Mattenah in R. Mattenah's name — said: The halachah is not as R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. But that is obvious: [where] one disagrees with many, the halachah is as the majority? — You might argue, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon's view is logical here; hence we are informed [that we do not follow him].
Chazon Ish(150.8): In this letter he takes issue with the idea that in deciding what the halakha is poskim are bound to follow the majority opinion of previous poskim. The idea of a majority rule, he says, has no place outside of a beis din, and therefore the only place where a majority rule can determine the general psak halakha is in the Sanhedrin of 71. He points out that such a method is not found among any of the prior great poskim. Rather, he writes that in absence of a complete consensus on an issue among the early significant rishonim each posek is entitled to adopt any interpretation of the halakha that is supportable by the gemara and that has not been eliminated by a total consensus of prior poskim.
Chazon Ish Kelayim – beginning):It is well known that the requirement to follow the majority applies only to a beis din which is in session, but regarding scholars holding different views who lived at different times or in different places, the question of majority or minority is not relevant. In a particular area where most of the Torah derives from a particular rabbi and his disciples, and the disciples' disciples, it is correct to follow their rabbi even in a matter in which the majority (of authorities) hold a different opinion. In recent generations most of our Torah has come ot us through the specific sefarim in our own teachers like Rif, Rosh, Rambam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, Ran, Maggid Mishne, Mordechai, and the commentaries of Rashi and Tosfos, and however there is a difference of opinion (and as mentioned above, majority ruling does not enter) it is in the hands of every individual Torah scholar to decide whether to take a strict view or to select particular authorities to follow; likewise, in the case where no decision has been taken and the question is still open (safek). In addition to the fact that majority rule does not apply in the above situations, we do not even know what the majority view is, since many scholars did not put their views in writing, and many written views did not reach us. (Therefore Jewish law does not change when new manuscripts are printed which convert a minority into a majority. Despite this, the courage and insight needed to decide on a logical basis are sometimes lacking, and decisions are taken on the basis of numerical majority; but it would be better to rely on those authorities whose views have reached us in all branches of Torah. Even though we do not presume to decide between different Rishonim by conclusive logical arguments, nevertheless,the study of their arguments is a major factor in reaching a decision, and many times our master z"l (Rabbi Yosef Karo) decides in favor of one authroity because his argument is convincing and removes difficulties. Our Rabbis have taught us not to abandon the use of our own intellect, and we must place great weight on intellectual comparison which is the connecting link between Creator and created.
Chazon Ish (Choshen Mishpat Likutim #1 or Maaseros #13): halacha follow intellect and one must examine the decision of the achronim. If it is not clear what to do than it is accepted to follow the Shulchan Aruch/Rema
Rambam[1](Introduction to Mishna Torah)
רמב"ם יד החזקה - הקדמה לספר יד החזקה
נמצא, רבינא ורב אשי וחבריהם, סוף גדולי חכמי ישראל, המעתיקים תורה שבעל פה, ושגזרו גזירות, והתקינו התקנות, והנהיגו מנהגות, ופשטה גזירתם ותקנתם ומנהגותם בכל ישראל, בכל מקומות מושבותם. ואחר בית דין של רב אשי, שחיבר הגמרא, וגמרו בימי בנו, נתפזרו ישראל בכל הארצות פיזור יתר, והגיעו לקצוות ואיים הרחוקים, ורבתה קטטה בעולם, ונשתבשו הדרכים בגייסות, ונתמעט תלמוד תורה, ולא נכנסו ישראל ללמוד בישיבותיהם אלפים ורבבות, כמו שהיו מקודם, אלא מתקבצים יחידים השרידים, אשר ה' קורא, בכל עיר ועיר, ובכל מדינה ומדינה, ועוסקין בתורה, ומבינים בחיבורי החכמים כולם, ויודעים מהם דרך המשפט היאך הוא. וכל בית דין שעמד אחר הגמרא, בכל מדינה ומדינה, וגזר או התקין או הנהיג, לבני מדינתו, או לבני מדינות רבות, לא פשטו מעשיו בכל ישראל, מפני ריחוק מושבותיהם ושבוש הדרכים. והיות בית דין של אותה המדינה יחידים, ובית דין הגדול של שבעים ואחד בטל, מכמה שנים קודם חיבור הגמרא, לפיכך אין כופין אנשי מדינה זו לנהוג כמנהג מדינה האחרת, ואין אומרים לבית דין זה לגזור גזירה, שגזרה בית דין אחר במדינתו. וכן אם למד אחד מהגאונים, שדרך המשפט כך הוא, ונתבאר לבית דין אחר, שעמד אחריו, שאין זה דרך המשפט הכתוב בגמרא, אין שומעין לראשון, אלא למי שהדעת נוטה לדבריו, בין ראשון בין אחרון:
ודברים הללו, בדינים גזירות ותקנות ומנהגות, שנתחדשו אחר חיבור הגמרא. אבל כל הדברים שבגמרא הבבלי, חייבין כל ישראל ללכת בהם, וכופין כל עיר ועיר, וכל מדינה ומדינה, לנהוג בכל המנהגות, שנהגו חכמי הגמרא, ולגזור גזירותם, וללכת בתקנותם. הואיל וכל אותם הדברים שבגמרא, הסכימו עליהם כל ישראל. ואותם החכמים שהתקינו, או שגזרו, או שהנהיגו, או שדנו דין, ולמדו שהמשפט כך הוא, הם כל חכמי ישראל, או רובם, והם ששמעו הקבלה בעיקרי התורה כולה, דור אחר דור, עד משה רבינו עליו השלום:
After the tribunal of Rab Ashi, who compiled the Talmud, which was completed in the days of his son27 Mar. G., the extent of Israel's dispersion throughout the lands became more general, its extreme points reaching out to distant isles, in the midst of which universal unrest became alarming, making the highways unsafe on account of military operations, as a result of which the study of the Torah was neglected, and the sons of Israel ceased flocking to their schools in the thousands and in the tens of thousands as theretofore,
save only the gathering of a remnant few, who ever hear the call of God in each and every city and in each and every country and study the Torah and understand all the works of the scholars and learn to know therefrom the path of the law as it is.
Thus, every tribunal, founded during the post-Talmudic era in each and every country which issued edicts, or enacted statutes, or established customs, either for the inhabitants of its own country alone or for the inhabitants of many countries, did not have its authority extended throughout all Israel, because of the great distances between their habitations and the unsafe condition of the highways. Moreover, as the tribunal of a given state consisted of individual scholars only, for the Great Tribunal of seventy one had ceased to be many years before the compilation of the Talmud,
the people of one state could therefore, not be forced to inaugurate the custom of another state; neither could one tribunal be told to issue edicts similar to the edicts issued by another tribunal for its own state. Likewise, if one of the Gaonim instructed concerning a given law in a particular way, and it became clear to another tribunal which rose up after him, that such was not the way of the law according to the text of the Talmud, the first one is not supported but the one whose interpretation is based upon sound reasoning, whether he be the first one or the last one.
These rules apply only to laws, edicts, statutes and customs which were inaugurated during the post-Talmudic era; but all matters named in the Babylonian Talmud itself, are mandatory upon all Israel to follow, and each and every community and each and every state must be forced to inaugurate the customs which were promulgated by the Talmudic scholars, to proclaim their edicts and to obey their statutes,
because to all such matters so named in the Talmud, all Israel assented. Moreover, those scholars who enacted statutes, issued edicts, inaugurated customs or made judicial pronouncements and instructed that such was the law, constituted all, or a majority of the scholars in Israel, and they were the recipients of the traditional interpretation of the precepts of the whole Torah, generation after generation, even unto Moses our Master, peace be unto him!
All of the scholars who rose up after the compilation of the Talmud and builded upon it, thereby gaining fame for their scholarship, are called Gaonim. All the Gaonim who flourished in Eretz Yisrael, in the land of Shinar, in Spain and in France studied searchingly the path of the Talmud, and brought to light its hidden mysteries, and clarified its treatises, for its path is an extremely deep path, Moreover, being written in Aramaic, blended with other languages, a vernacular understood by the inhabitants of Shinar when the Talmud was compiled; whereas in other places, and even in Shinar during the period of the Gaonim, no man understood that language unless he received special instructions therein.
In addition the people of each and every city propounded many questions to their contemporary Gaonim for the elucidation of impenetrable texts in the Talmud, to whom the latter responded according to their wisdom, and such interrogators collected the responsa in book form, out of which they gained understanding.
The Gaonim in each and every generation compiled also exegetical works on the Talmud, some of among them interpreted particular laws; of among others particular chapters which had been the subject of inquiry in his days, and of among still others, whole Tractates and Orders.
They also compiled treatises on judicial decisions concerning that which is forbidden, or permitted, guilt or innocence, matters which were the need of the hour, so as to keep in touch with education, even he who is not capable of penetrating the depths of the Talmud. Of such was the Godly work of the Gaonim in Israel from the close of the Talmud even till this time, which is in the eighth year after the eleventh century since the destruction of the (Second) Temple, and which is also the year four thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven since the creation of the world.
https://www.hyehudi.org/a-taste-of-the-chazon-ish-torah-study-method/
https://www.halacha2go.com/php/h2go/home2.php?number=724
https://www.timesofisrael.com/68-us-senators-press-blinken-to-quash-open-ended-un-probe-into-israel/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/29/putin-trump-tucker-carlson-republican-party
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-putin-hunter-biden-business-russia-1693198
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-702682
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/politics/trump-putin-hunter-biden/index.html
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-702649
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-702599
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/trump-judge-felony-obstruction-insurrection-00020918
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/27/opinions/biden-putin-democracy-power-obeidallah/index.html
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/324732
https://www.newsweek.com/chris-wallace-says-no-longer-felt-comfortable-programming-fox-1692239
https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/article-702441
https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-lawsuit-against-clinton-dnc-slammed-legal-experts-garbage-1691814
https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-702271
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-702098
Conversion Authority head Rabbi Haim Druckman has received a letter from the Prime Minister's Office notifying him of his dismissal due to the fact that he has turned 75 and thus passed the age of retirement.
The dismissal comes at a particularly sensitive time, after a panel of rabbinical judges wrote a halachic ruling overturning a conversion by Druckman, and implied that all his conversions should be annulled.
The ruling, while not automatically revoking the hundreds of conversions Druckman performed, has still alarmed many converts who had gone through the process under Druckman's tutelage.
Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Legislation, and Law Committee, Menahem Ben Sasson (Kadima), asked the Prime Minister's Office Thursday to find a way to extend Druckman's position. According to Ben Sasson, Druckman's remaining in office is important "especially in these hard times, when there is a crisis regarding conversions."
During an emergency meeting of the committee, all MKs present expressed full confidence in Druckman.
According to Likud MK Yuri Edelstein, removing Druckman from office would seriously harm the little faith left with immigrants considering conversion.
"This will be seen as the government's surrender in face of a haredi attack against the conversion authority and the converts. This is another one of the government's poor attempts at survival by pleasing extreme orthodox circles, which anyway do not recognize the state's authority to convert. [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert should take an exceptional step and cancel [Druckman's] dismissal forthwith."
[...]
As mentioned in a previous post - the current dispute is not so much political as ideological. In other words it is not simply the result of people seeking out power over others for the sake of power. It is also not a conflict between those who are modern, moderate and involved in the world versus those who are reactionary and out of touch with reality. It is not even a dispute about halacha per se. The Religious Zionism poskim are fully aware of the halachic views and sources that concern the Chareidi poskim. [I am not concerning myself with the ignorant masses and politicians who have a distorted or no knowledge or interest in the halachic issues.]
The prime dispute is whether the halacha should be used to advance the goals of Zionism or not. I will be publishing a number of posts which illustrate these points by citing recognized Religious Zionist rabbis.
What follows is the conclusion of an article published in the mainstream Religious Zionist journal Techumin which is published by Tzomet. It appeared originally in Hebrew in Techumin #12 pp 81-97 (5751/1991). This is an English translation which was published by Tzomet in a compilation of Techumin articles known as "Crossroads"
============================================
Conversion of Russian Immigrants
by Rav Yigal Ariel
Conversion as a Catalyst of Spiritual Renewal
The problem of conversion of women intermarried with Jews was seen in previous generations as one of the battlefronts in the war against assimilation. The feeling that any concession in this area would be equivalent to surrender in the war underlies the sharp and bitter tone of those who disallowed these conversions. These responsa do not relate to the special problems of the present aliya.
We are not engaged here in a “war”, but in an attempt to redeem an entire community captured by the enemy. The question applies chiefly to the second generation, the children of intermarriage, where suspicions concerning their motivation evaporates and instead the major consideration is helping Jews to return to Judaism. The problem of free-willed assimilation in the western world is not comparable to the situation in the former Soviet Union, where Jews were faced with ignorance and duress. In any event, assimilation today has become a tidal wave, where refusal to accept converts has no deterrent value. There is no difficulty in today’s secular and permissive society to live with a non-Jew without Jewish marriage. This is surely true outside of Israel, and to a great extent in Israel as well.
Conversion is not a self-contained problem, but should be seen as part of the general spiritual problem of Russian aliya. The struggle over their spiritual absorption is the heart of the problem, and it will ultimately determine the character of Israeli society in the future. The immigrants, because of their spiritual estrangement, are not rushing to convert. They find that they can manage very well without the approval of the Rabbinate.
Conversion therefore, is not the problem of the immigrants, but the interest of the Rabbinate, desiring to prevent a calamity to Israeli society. In this situation, the initiative of those who desire to convert should be seen as more sincere. The motivation is “for the sake of heaven” and nothing else. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent on the bet din to help them, even if this would be a case of “sin, in order to benefit your fellow” (Git. 38; Tosafot 4lb, s.v. ‘kofin”; Shab. 4a, s.v. “v’chi”; cf. Melamed LeHoeal 2,83).
In these circumstances, it may turn out that conversion, rather than causing injury can be the instrument of spiritual renewal not only for the convert, but for the Jewish spouse as well. In cases where the family comes of its own initiative to convert, conversion can precede the initial state of absorption. The lack of prior education is not a problem, even if it will transpire that they will not fully fulfill the requirement to study Judaism subsequently. The conversion should, however, be conditional on their being sponsored and adopted by a religious community. That kind of bond can inspire a genuine dedication to Torah and Judaism, for the convert and his entire extended family
The following is an excerpt from an article which claims that the conversion controversy is really about whether the prime value is to proselytize as many non-Jews who identify with Israel as possible or to follow the halacha as traditionally understood. See the original for the full article. [Also See Rabbi Cardozo]
Conversion controversy boils down to bout over Zionism by Matthew Wagner
Jerusalem Post May 6, 2008 page 3
A nasty legalistic brawl that casts in doubt the Jewishness of hundreds of converts to Judaism is really a clash of political ideologies vis-à-vis Zionism, rabbis on both sides of the fray said Monday. The clash between rabbis who see the creation of the State of Israel as a positive sign from God signaling a step closer to final redemption and those who reject any religious implication resulting from the renewal of Jewish sovereignty comes as Israelis prepare to celebrate the 60th anniversary of their independence on Thursday.
[…]
Rabbi Avraham Sherman, the haredi rabbinic judge who wrote the decision, accused Druckman of forging documents to make it seem as if he were present at dozens of conversions when, in actuality, he was represented by proxy. But Sherman’s main thrust was an attack on Druckman and other judges in the Conversion Authority, the vast majority of whom are religious Zionists, who saw the endeavor of mass conversion as a “national goal.”
“All these rabbis have one thing in common,” Sherman wrote, referring to rabbis serving on state-run conversion courts. “They all see in conversion a sacred commandment as part of their national responsibility .., in other words, the conversion is not primarily the spiritual and religious need of the individual convert who wishes to join the Jewish people and accept upon himself all the commandments. Rather, conversion is a means of improving the spiritual situation of the entire Jewish nation living in Israel. It is a way of bringing Jews closer to their Judaism. “But, in reality, for dozens of years now the vast majority of converts via the Conversion Authority remain gentile in their behavior, . except for the performance of rituals, which remain for these converts empty of spirit. These converts see themselves as belonging to the Jewish people solely in a patriotic, nationalistic way, without any religiously significant feelings of belonging. Therefore, these [conversion court] rabbis should be seen as intentional transgressors of Jewish law.”
[…]
A senior member of the Conversion Authority, who preferred to remain anonymous, said conversions serve the national interest and are therefore, a mitzvah. “We are talking about a group of people who ended up in Israel because they have some sort of connection with the Jewish people,” the source said. “Their mother may not be Jewish, which makes them gentile according to Halacha. But their father is Jewish, or one of their grandparents is Jewish or they are married to a Jew. as a result, they are considered “of the seed of Israe1.” “In addition, they totally identify as Jews. They do not all see themselves as gentiles. They serve in the IDF, they are patriotic, they are Zionistic. We have a duty to bring them closer to the Jewish people.” The source also pointed out that if the approximately, 300,000 non-Jews who, immigrated to Israel under the Law of Return are not converted, there will be intermarriage and assimilation. “The haredim are not part of any of Israel’s national endeavors because they do not see any religious value in the creation of the State of Israel. That’s why they don’t serve in the IDF. And they a don’t identify with Zionism. They also don’t think their children, who are brought up in isolated communities, will ever marry non-Jewish immigrants or their offspring. But I think they are wrong. […]
The State Prosecutor's Officer has been ill at ease. An investigation conducted by reporter Eliezer Levine showed that efforts have been made to cover up Rabbi Druckman's acts because publicity could embarrass Attorney General Meni Mazuz, who decided to forego an investigation of the affair without offering any rational explanation. The State Prosecutor's Office is cooperating by keeping the extent of the affair under wraps and a series of potentially explosive documents that have been lying for weeks in the offices of the Chief Rabbinate, State Prosecutor Eran Shender and his assistant for criminal affairs, Shuki Lemberger.
The conduct of the judicial system and figures who identify with Rabbi Druckman, such as Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, who once served as head of the Conversion Authority, is highly suspect. In his letter the Attorney General lists numerous faults in Rabbi Druckman's conduct. Similarly letters by Rabbi Rosen indicate he viewed the matter in a very serious light and was debating whether Rabbi Druckman is worthy of sitting on the panel of a conversion beis din.
Yet surprisingly they recently chose to refer to the incriminating facts as a matter of little consequence. In an inexplicable move, various figures decided to back Rabbi Druckman and point a finger at the dayanim who stood up to him, merely doing their job by gathering the facts, particularly Rabbi Druckman's testimony, in order to issue a ruling.
From a legal angle the Attorney General views Rabbi Druckman's acts with great severity. Quoting a letter the Attorney General sent to Rabbi Druckman several months ago under the heading "Complaints Regarding Failures and Defects in Your Conduct," Mazuz writes, "I cannot accept your explanation as sufficient reason to sign an official document that does not properly reflect what is written in it. We are dealing with a conversion certificate, which according to the law in Israel has ramifications in terms of how the individual is registered and his or her status. As such those who sign these documents must list every detail meticulously."
Mazuz goes on to reproach Rabbi Druckman for his conduct. "Conversion dayanim representing the State should avoid performing conversions outside of Israel. The dayanim are supposed to perform conversions within the framework of the government system, which has guidelines and limitations on accepting conversion candidates, in part based on the legal situation in Israel which grants converts citizenship. In accordance with Interior Ministry directives, converts are not to undergo government conversion unless they are present in Israel." Mazuz cites a High Court ruling (Guzman vs. the State), which determined, "The beis din decision to stipulate the conversion conditions are only provided while the candidate is in Israel is a proper one."
Atty. Mazuz also discusses Rabbi Druckman's conflicting roles, i.e. serving as a government conversion dayan and at the same time as a private dayan. "A conversion dayan," writes Mazuz, "who in addition to his public work is involved in performing conversions outside of the government system, creates a conflict of interests and is liable to convert somebody who does not meet Interior Ministry guidelines."
Mazuz speculates that the case in question that he was referring to, in which Rabbi Druckman signed a certificate for a conversion that took place in Europe and falsely represented himself as having been present, may not be an isolated incident. "Material provided to me for review included additional complaints regarding conversions performed long ago and which allegedly included your signature on the conversion certificates relating to conversion cases in which you did not participate. It was also claimed that your beis din converted two tourists, in violation of the practice coordinated with the Interior Ministry."
Despite the serious flaws the Attorney General pointed to regarding Rabbi Druckman's conduct, Mazuz fails to reach any firm conclusion. The police have not received instructions to open a criminal investigation against him and the Civil Service Commissioner has not even been asked to hold a hearing for disciplinary infractions. In fact there has not even been a recommendation that Rabbi Druckman, who is directly subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office, resign from his post. "I've reached the conclusion that the combination of circumstances is not enough to justify opening either a criminal or disciplinary investigation," writes Mazuz. The Attorney General does acknowledge he found improprieties, saying therefore he chose to send the letter "to call his attention" to the matter.
It seems in this case that the Attorney General decided to switch from jurist to chastiser. Instead of doing his job and taking concrete measures he is acting like a retired judge, sending the unruly converter a lecture on proper conduct. Mazuz has not offered a single word of explanation why he opted not to launch a criminal investigation, leaving his motives shrouded in mystery.[...]