Religioius leaders demand cancellation of offensive gay parade

Letter written by religious MKs, rabbis asks ministers to cancel parade or move it from Jerusalem's center to outskirts of city, far from religious centers, holy sites, eyes of children. 'Freedom of speech doesn't include abominable acts,' they say

by Neta Sela YNET

The Shas Party and its chairman Eli Yishai, MK Uri Ariel (National Union-NRP), United Torah Judaism, and the leaders of the Rabbinate demanded on Thursday that the Pride Parade scheduled to take place in the capital next week be cancelled or transferred to an enclosed space on the city's outskirts.

A letter sent by Attorney Doron Shmueli to a number of government ministers said, "You are asked to order and act towards the cancellation of the 'Pride Parade' in the city of Jerusalem, or alternately you are asked to qualify its sexual content and not to allow the organizers of the event to do whatever they please. You are also asked to limit the parade to an enclosed area, to which entry will be prohibited to anyone under the age of 18."

The rabbis and religious MKs explained that "the acceptance of the parade as part of our lives does not oblige us not to defend ourselves against it or to defend those that require protection against it, especially children. The easy access to the sexual content of the parade exposes children to negative influences. The public interest is to defend the children." The letter further stated that "the unusual sights of the parade can do harm to the public order." Regarding freedom of speech, they claimed this right does not include "abominable acts".

Problematic location
The religious leaders also deemed the parade's location problematic. "The place designed to hold the parade is within close proximity of the Old City's walls and on the path leading to the Western Wall and the sites sacred to Christianity and the Islam.

Aside from this, the parade is scheduled to be held on a weekend, during which the ultra-Orthodox community tends to visit the Western Wall, a remnant of our holy temple. The holding of the parade as it has previously been seen on the path designated for it constitutes a heavy blow to public sensitivities, especially those of the Jewish (religious-Orthodox), Christian, and Muslim public residing within close proximity of the Old City."

The letter also dictates that the parade is to be banned from taking place "near religious neighborhoods, while exhibiting a lack of modesty harmful to religious sensitivities and beyond the limits of tolerance required for the remanding of freedom of expression and demonstration in our legal system."

The religious parties requested that the parade be moved to "a different place on the outskirts of the city and far from religious centers and underage bystanders, who are liable to be exposed to this wrongful content, and especially not to make use of public parks to which the public flocks during its free time."

Last year, despite last-minute efforts at cancellation, the Pride Parade was held in the center of Jerusalem with the participation of thousands of people. Meanwhile, the ultra-Orthodox community held a rally in which elegies were read. In November of 2006, the ultra-Orthodox community succeeded in its efforts and the parade was held inside a Jerusalem stadium.

Religion as foundation of democracy - Israel is not unique

Jun. 18, 2008
Haviv Rettig , Jerusalem Post

"The Jewish-Israeli case is often said to be unique," begins an article by Dr. Alexander Yakobson, a senior lecturer in Roman history at Hebrew University, in the summer 2008 edition of Israel Studies, an academic journal on Israeli society.

The country's strangeness comes from the "'extra-territorial' character of the Jewish people, Israel's ties with the Jewish Diaspora and the strong connection between the Jewish religion and the prevalent notion of Jewish peoplehood," explains the author. Some celebrate this uniqueness, "pointing to the uniqueness of Jewish history and culture," and some are critical of it as "inconsistent with modern civic democracy," but rarely is the "underlining premise of uniqueness" questioned, Yakobson believes.

Now he's out to change that, with an argument that examines the constitutions of other democracies to show that Israel is neither officially nor in practice alone in its, well, uniqueness.

"There are numerous other cases where national identity and religion are officially connected in some way, and where there are official bonds between a nation-state and an ethnocultural Diaspora," he writes.

The Greek constitution, for example, makes some surprising provisions. Though it promises, to quote from article 13, that "every known religion is free and the forms of worship thereof shall be practiced without any hindrance by the State and under protection of the law," its preamble nevertheless begins with: "In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity." In the constitution itself, article 3 asserts that "the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ" and takes pains to note that this church, "acknowledging as its head Our Lord Jesus Christ is indissolubly united in doctrine with the Great Church of Constantinople and every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine."

Yakobson's article, titled "Jewish Peoplehood and the Jewish State, How Unique? - A Comparative Survey," summarizes more extensive findings of a book he co-authored with Israeli constitutional thinker Amnon Rubinstein titled Israel Among the Nations. The idea presented in the book, and the newly-published article, is an important contribution to the international discussion surrounding the Jewish state.

It isn't merely that an Israeli scholar has located another freakish case - Greece - among contemporary democracies, but that religion-based ethnocultural identity is the social glue of a broad swath of the free West.

The preamble to the Irish constitution begins: "In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred." Norway's constitution decrees that "the Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State," that "more than half the number of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the official religion of the State," and even that "the inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same." Poland, Bulgaria, Armenia, Georgia and much of Scandinavia, but also the United States and Britain, all are revealed to be more committed to their cultural uniqueness - through religion - than one might think.

But the most fascinating and unexpected example cited in Yakobson's argument is not, in fact, Western: "The Tibetan Constitution adopted by the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies in 1991 begins, 'Whereas His Holiness the Dalai lama has offered a democratic system to Tibetans, in order that the Tibetan People in-Exile be able to preserve their ancient traditions of spiritual and temporal life, unique to the Tibetans…' It states that the '…future Tibetan polity shall uphold the principle of non-violence and shall endeavor to
be a Free Social Welfare State with its politics guided by the Dharma, a Federal Democratic Republic…' At the same time, the Dalai Lama is proclaimed as 'chief executive of the Tibetan people' and given considerable powers," Yakobson writes.

[...]

These examples, Yakobson notes, are hardly outmoded anachronisms, but real, resonant questions in the modern politics of living societies. The Greek state doesn't view Orthodox Christianity as an artifact of its past, but as an education program that serves to define national identity. When a Muslim parent in Italy petitioned a court in 2002 against the obligatory crucifixes present in every classroom in the largely secular country, he briefly won the court's agreement. But the decision was quickly overturned, and the episode solicited an outcry from Italy's public figures. In the words of the country's president, "the crucifix has always been considered not only as a distinctive sign of a particular religious credo, but above all as a symbol of the values that are at the base of our Italian identity."

What does his study mean for Israel? Yakobson explains: "There is nothing extraordinary about a nation-state of a people whose history and culture strongly connect it to a certain religion. This connection, apart from being a fact of cultural and social life, can also be enshrined in a country's constitution and embodied in its national symbols" - even, he adds, if the people who describe themselves by that identity do not, in fact, follow the
religion.

He relates the story of a visiting foreign professor who was asked, "Do you think that the Jewish people are unique?"

"Of course you are unique," he replied, "but you are not unique in being unique."

R' Shmuel Leibovitz, defends Rav Druckman against my criticism

Maybe I don't get it like you claim, Reb Shmuel. However this posting reminds me of the story of the 5 year old child who one day decides to run away from home because he is tired of being told what to do all the time. An hour later his mother meets him standing at the corner of their block and asks him what he is doing there. He replies defiantly, "I ran away from home because you are always telling me what to do.!"So why are you standing on our corner," asks his mother? "Because you don't let me cross the street by myself."
===================================================
R' Shmuel Leibovitz, Lod (Garin Torani near Tel-Aviv), Israel has left a new comment on your post "Conversion crisis - what are world wide consequenc...":

Daas Torah said: You can't have a major conversion program in Israel based on views that are rejected and then cry - but I am also a posek. If you are dealing with a single case then it might be relevant to pull out these views. But a massive in your face program which has been protested against from the beginning? Rav Druckman can not claim that he was unaware of the opposition to his program. He is saying - I already created the facts on the ground. I knew from the beginning what I am doing is not acceptable to most poskim. But I figured if I created enough of these gerim they would have to be accepted because of their sheer numbers.

DT, I really don't think you get it at all!

Yes, you can have such a program (it has been around for a long time). And the opposition was always well known to all of us and to Rav Druckman shlit"a and to the dozens of fine dayanim involved.

Nobody is "crying" that "I am also a posek." Rather, we at Tzohar are stating this truth with dignity and kavod hatorah.

Nobody is saying that our gerim SHOULD be accepted because they are "facts on the ground" in "massive numbers." Nobody is saying that our gerim SHOULD be accepted at all, because we don't expect the charedim to accept them. Ever. Nor do we care all that much. The numbers of charedim who would want to "intermarry" with the poeple we convert are next to zero anyhow.

Rather, we are saying that these gerim WILL be accepted, period. Because our Torah outlook and our Torah scholars and our poskei halacha all confirm that we are doing what is right according to the Torah. WE WILL accept our gerim and we WILL perform their weddings, period. We will marry them ourselves when be'ezrat hashem the zug works out, period. It WILL happen, period.

If it takes fighting within the Rabbanut to achieve this, then so be it. If it takes abolishing the rabbanut and setting up our own independent beis din to achieve this, then so be it. It WILL happen.

Nobody here is "crying" for your recognition. What is really happening is Torah people fighting for their rights to live and apply Torah truth as they see it in Israel. They WILL achieve those rights, period, whether you recognize it or not.

Shmuel Leibovitz, Lod (Garin Torani near Tel-Aviv), Israel

Non-Orthodox men less connected than women to Judaism

Matthew Wagner , THE JERUSALEM POST

After decades of women feeling disenfranchised from a male-dominated Jewish tradition, the tides are turning, with non-Orthodox men today becoming less and less connected to Judaism, according to a new study released Sunday by Brandeis University.

Non-Orthodox Jewish males, from school-age to adult, have fewer connections with Jews and Judaism than their female counterparts, the study showed.

"Men invest less of their human capital into Jewishness," said study co-author Sylvia Barack Fishman, a professor of contemporary Jewish life in the Near Eastern and Judaic Studies Department at Brandeis. "This is a matter of deep concern, because minority groups with high amounts of ethnic capital are much more successful at transmitting their culture to the next generation."

The study, entitled "Matrilineal Ascent/Patrilineal Descent: Gender Imbalance in American Jewish Life" and released by the Hadassah-Brandeis Institute and the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, found that women have been taking an increasingly more dominant role in Jewish rites. As a result, the phenomenon of "Ima on the bima" (mom on the podium) has become the rule rather than the exception in liberal Jewish settings.

"When it comes to gender equality or gender balance, contemporary American Jewish life is caught between a rock and a hard place," said co-author Daniel Parmer, a Brandeis graduate student. "Boys and men as a group are not attracted to feminized Jewish activities and environments."

In contrast, Orthodox Judaism, which has not integrated women into traditionally male roles such as rabbinical ordination and leading prayers, has managed to maintain the masculine connection to religious devotion.

In their conclusion, Fishman and Parmer suggested that the increasingly dominant role played by women in Jewish activities might be turning boys and men off. The authors suggested that initiatives more geared toward Jewish men and boys could help strengthen the frayed masculine Judaic connection.

"Without advocating single-sex education, it is critical to recognize that programs geared to Jewish boys and men - and to Jewish girls and women - create positive connections to Jews and Jewishness, beginning with the preschool years and extending over the life cycle of the individual," they wrote.

"Excellent coed and single sex programs and activities may be particularly important in the middle school and teen years, when boys in liberal Jewish settings often grow most impatient with female religious and educational leadership," they went on. "Ironically the women's movement - responding to great gaps in Jewish life - has often created successful materials and programming for female teens, while teenage boys have often been left behind."

Fishman and Parmer noted in their introduction to the study, which was based on 300 interviews, that outside the Orthodox world men are becoming less and less engaged in every aspect of Jewish life, from the home to the synagogue to communal organizations.

"In Fall 2005, women outnumbered men two to one in the entering rabbinical class in the Reform movement's Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR). Nationally, girls and women outnumber men in weekly non-Orthodox worship services, in adult education classes, in volunteer leadership positions, and in Jewish cultural events," they said.[...]

Conversion crisis - what are world wide consequences?

Bartley Kulp has left a new comment on your post "Conversion crisis - because Modern Orthodox are w...":

This is a request to Daas Torah. There should be a post on how the findings of Rav Sherman's committee will effect converts globally. Particularly in North America. I mean his usage as to what pasul's a dayan or beit din. Can these issues be used to torpedo any agreement between the RCA and the Israeli rabbinate? Also will there be a lot of controversy regarding passed conversions(I mean where the convert is observant) by Rabbanim and betei dinim that Rav Sherman's criterea would pasul the individuals and institutions thereof.

Also the fact that Rav Sherman has applied a precedent in which a beit din can look over another beit din's shoulder even when no new information has come to light on the issue or when there is not a question on the latter beit din's experties? Does this not turn the whole concept of chazaka on its head? Also will any converts or their descendants be able to feel safe from Judicial review even to the point of post mortem of the individuals who converted them?

This is the truly big story out of all of this. I am truly suprised that the RCA has not delt with this issue comprehensively outside of posting a letter of protest filled with rhetoric. These issues need to be discussed and nobody is talking about them. This is not just about the thousand or so conversions that are under question here. These psakim have global ramifications both for past, present and future issues of personal status. The Jewish community today is global by nature and Israel is its most significant location.

Ethiopian-Israeli MK calls for end of immigration of non-Jewish Ethiopians

_{By Anshel Pfeffer, Haaretz Correspondent}

Shas MK Mazor Bahyna has claimed that over 300,000 people remain in Ethiopia who are eligible to immigrate to Israel due to the forced conversion of Ethiopian Jews in the past.

"We have historical evidence and letters of Kessim [Ethiopian Jewish religious leaders] on the fact that forty years ago, there were more than 50,000 converts who were forced to change their religion," said Bahyna, an Ethiopian Israeli himself.

Another MK of Ethiopian origin, however, has called for an end to immigration of the Falashmura, the descendents of Jews who converted to Christianity in the past.

Ethiopian-born MK Shlomo Molla (Kadima) said this should occur in accordance with a 2005 government decision which ruled that the last of the community would come to Israel in the coming weeks.

"Because of mistakes made in the Interior Ministry, there are still 5,000 people in Ethiopia whose eligibility need to be checked - but after this, we need to finish the issue," Molla said.

The dispute between the two lawmakers reflects deep divisions of opinion within the Ethiopian Israeli community as a whole. While some call for the bringing to Israel of anyone who declares a connection to the Jewish people, others say that many of those in Ethiopia seeking to immigrate are simply lying about their origins.

"This is a political decision that the government needs to make. If we continue to drag our feet on the issue, the breach will be grow and limitless numbers of Ethiopians without any connection to the Jewish people will be able to come here," Molla added.

Conversion crisis - because Modern Orthodox are wimps! I

I have been meaning to post on this issue – of the awesome chasm separating the Chareidi world and that of the Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist – on one particular issue - compromising the truth to avoid hurt feelings. To use a broad but accurate brush, Chareidim ask the question – what is the halacha? while MO ask – how can we modify the halacha in order to avoid hurt feelings? Or to use the infamous words of Blu Greenberg – the MO hold by the doctrine – “Where there is a halachic will there is a halachic way” - but the Chareidim don’t.

Rabbi Adlerstein described the dichotomy in his recent article on the geirus crisis which I reported on this blog.

“Rabbi Druckman’s supporters have not responded to a single one of Rabbi Sherman’s charges in halachic language. They have thus added fuel to the fire of those who believe that the DL camp is incapable of dealing responsibly with sophisticated Torah thinking. Rabbi Sherman may or may not be right, but he raises important issues. Rav Druckman, to the best of my knowledge, is a fine gentleman, but not one of the halachic luminaries of the DL world. Professional politicians and MK’s – of any religious party – rarely are. The DL world suffers from no shortage of real bnei Torah and a group of authentic poskim who could and should be dealing with Rabbi Sherman’s point in halachic language.”

Characteristic of the non-halachic response of the MO/RZ is that of Rav Lichtenstein:

"How much hatred, grudge and demonization there is in this awful and terrible psak... The Conversion Authority has God-fearing and scholarly judges who have devoted their energy and their lives to the Torah. They cannot be pushed away and thrown into the street. We must be strong on this point: There is no giving into this kind of language and attitude... Where did we ever hear or see that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing apikorus? Woe to the ears that hear such a thing and woe to the biased court that has expressed itself in such a way!"

Similarly Rabbi Vinas has responded to criticism by in essence saying – you are hateful not nice people because you keep challenging my sincere efforts to help the Jewish people – and I am not going to talk to you anymore.

This was brought to a head on this blog by one of the intelligent and sensitive representatives of the MO/RZ world who has taken the time – up until now – to present his view and understanding on these issues. However he too has folded his tent and departed while firing these parting shots:

Itamar Ross has left a new comment on your post "Rabbi Vinas' reply - discussed and rejected I":

In response to this post, I too have decided no longer to post here. Rav Eidensohn writes: "As we see in the Talmud, understanding Torah requires making inquiries of our rabbis – even if they sometimes cause discomfort." When necessary and true, and when there is no alternative, of course. But when "inquiries" are made because of preconceived notions of "Daas Torah" (a non-Jewish idea itself) with no regard whatsoever to the harm they cause, that is using the quest for truth as a lame excuse for bashing ideological rivals. Given the current conversion controversy, you are in good company Rabbi Vinas. Take it as a badge of pride. You have been publically reviled along with the greatest dati-leumi Torah scholars in Israel. Many poskim, of whom I have no doubt Rav Eidensohn is fully aware, recognize the concept of "zera yisrael". The concept is accepted halachah le-maaseh today among most Torah scholars and dayanim today (at least outside the Ashkenazic charedi world). Rabbi Eidensohn and his rebbe are free to reject or accept this concept according to their Torah understanding, but not to bash those who do accept it. No Rav Eidensohn, you cannot claim that the burden of proof is on those who do accept it, who may then be reviled and shamed in public as you have done here to Rabbi Vidas. "Daas Torah" is no mandate for doing evil, though many of its proponents see it as exactly such. Along with Rabbi Vinas, my participation at this blog is has now ended.

Totally ignoring the fact that the concept of zera Yisroel does not justify what Rabbi Vinas is doing since not a single posek says it does.

One cannot work through the hard truth when people keep replying to sincere and realistic questions by saying “because you are not nice I won’t speak with you again.”

Realistically the world requires the right hand and the left hand working together. It is time for the MO/RZ to stop being such wimps when they are challenged by halachic questions. To use a Talmudic illustration, the first Mishna in Bava Metzia describes the halacha when two people both claim the same object. Two people found a talis and each one claims it is theirs. The halacha is that it is divided. What if each one claims the talis but one is a nice guy and says – “o.k. you can have half and I’ll have half.” The logic of the MO/RZ is that they are being a nice guy who is sensitive to the feelings of the other – by acknowledging that the talis should be divided. However the halacha is that the one who concedes that half belongs to the other person, ends up getting only a quarter of the talis while the guy who asserts that all it is his – gets three quarters! The halacha is simply that whatever is disputed is divided.

Similarly the MO have tried for years to educate students in moderation. Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm has insightfully lamented that the MO have succeeded in creating students who are moderate in their passion instead of passionate about their moderation.

The Chazon Ish writes about this.

Letters (3:61): Just as the unvarnished facts and truth are synonymous so are uncompromising perfectionism and greatness. Perfectionism means to develop something to the ultimate degree. One who advocates moderation and despises perfectionism—his lot is with the frauds or with those lacking understanding. Without perfectionism, there can be no completion and if there is no perfection, there is no beginning. The beginning is with constant questions and replies. The perfecter is the brilliant respondent who orders everything in its rightful place. We regularly hear announcements from well‑known groups that they have nothing to do with uncompromising perfectionists. They nevertheless describe themselves as being the true Jews with appropriate faith to Torah. We simply note, however, that just as there is no such thing amongst lovers of wisdom as love for minimum knowledge and hate for the very wise there is similarly no such thing as loving Torah and mitzvos moderately and hating the uncompromising perfectionists. All the foundations of emuna—the 13 principles and their derivatives—are inherently incompatible with the lightweight wisdom and superficial life that exists in this world. In contrast clear recognition, energetic involvement; high precision in emuna is the hallmark of the perfectionist. Those who proudly testify on themselves that they have not tasted the sweetness of uncompromising perfection are simultaneously testifying that they are missing emuna in the foundation of religion both intellectually and emotionally. Their attachment is only lukewarm. The perfectionists—who despite their genuine wish to have pity on these doctrinaire moderates—do not honor and respect their opponents. The yawning abyss that separates them is naturally only widened as the result of the disputes that occur when they interact with each other. The only true moderation that can exist is that which results naturally to those who love the perfection and strive towards it and educate their children to strive for the peak. In contrast how unfortunate are those “moderates” who cast aspersions on the perfectionists. The obligation of our education is to perfection. The only genuine protection of the educational system is to be contemptuous and to ridicule those who denigrate perfection. However given the burning spirit of youth it is not appropriate to strongly condemn specific individuals amongst the unfortunates. Instead, the youth should be developed to have true love of Torah that requires personal effort and heavenly pleasantness and they should not have obstacles placed on this road. Those schools that are labeled as moderate schools—they are not successful because of the fraud that is inherent in moderation…

Rabbi Vinas' reply - discussed and rejected I

This is a response to Rabbi Vinas' answer to my first question. If there is interest I will reply also to his other answers. Rabbi Vinas's statement is in italics.

====================

In this post I will attempt to respond one more time to your questions in an attempt to clarify my positions and to educate your readers regarding the return of the anusim to Judaism and the nature of my work with my synagogue community of Lincoln Park Jewish Center in Yonkers and with the Hispanic/Latino Anusim community.

I was unable to answer your posts earlier due to the fact that my mother was niftar the day before LagLaOmer (Baomer for the rest of you) and I was in Shiva and shloshim for her. I'm surprised that my "fan club" (stalkers) who purport to know me personally, did not notify you of this fact and the fact that she was buried by a large number of Rabbanim Hashuvim who lauded her as a true tzadeket. […]

I am truly sorry to hear about your mother’s passing. And I am also sorry that you view questions regarding your public activities as an act of hostility and hate. As we see in the Talmud, understanding Torah requires making inquiries of our rabbis – even if they sometimes cause discomfort.

Berachos (62a): It has been taught: R. Akiba said: Once I went in after R. Joshua to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not sit east and west but north and south; I learnt that one evacuates not standing but sitting; and I learnt that it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said Ben Azzai to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. It has been taught: Ben ‘Azzai said: Once I went in after R. Akiba to a privy, and I learnt from him three things. I learnt that one does not evacuate east and west but north and south. I also learnt that one evacuates sitting and not standing. I also learnt it is proper to wipe with the left hand and not with the right. Said R. Judah to him: Did you dare to take such liberties with your master? — He replied: It was a matter of Torah, and I required to learn. R. Kahana once went in and hid under Rab's bed. He heard him chatting [with his wife] and joking and doing what he required. He said to him: One would think that Abba's mouth had never sipped the dish before! He said to him: Kahana, are you here? Go out, because it is rude.1 He replied: It is a matter of Torah, and I require to learn.

Normally, I would not be posting questions and criticisms at such a time – however you yourself have taken the initiative – with great mesiras nefesh – to bring up these issues and therefore I will respond with my respectful disagreement.

Since you say you will not be posting again, I will try to summarize the issues and express how you defend your activities and reject the criticism. I will also say at the outset – that you have in fact not really answered any of my questions – except the issue of how a ger can be a rav of a shul – something which is clearly stated in the Igros Moshe and in the teshuvos of Rav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita.

[Regarding the criticism of Jersey Girl…] Those who know me and attend my shul would know right away that there are cases of giur that I have treated as exactly that Giur not anusim. Not all Latinos who have converted either through my auspices or others are claiming that they are anusim and I don’t treat all of them as such… Let me clarify to all of you what people who do know me already know. Not all gerim are anusim this includes Latinos or Hispanic Jews. All who seek giur are not treated as anusim. Stop the lies! This is an opportunity to clarify the fact that as I have explained before based on the teshuva of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik and Rav Mordechai Eliahu that anusim require some form of halachic “return” ceremony. Soloveitchik calls it a giur lechumra Rav Moredchai Eliahu calls it a return ceremony. Both require mila, tevila and kabbalat hamitzvot. Geneology, DNA or other pseudo scientific proofs are not sufficient. I have always recommended the process of return or giur for anusim in order to ensure that their Jewish status does not remain questionable and that they are fully living lives of Jewish content and status according to Orthodox halacha. Having giur according to halacha should remove all stigma of doubt regarding their ancestry if you would just leave them alone to live life as they want according to the Torah.

Now I will respond to Daniel Eidensohns questions by the numbers that he placed on them [….] I’m going to respond however because there is a chance that you might be an authentic seeker of truth and honesty.

1) Regarding what I wrote you about safek deoraita lehumra: I was referring to the practice of discouraging a potential convert of non-Jewish origin. What if this person is really Jewish just as he claims? What if it is true that the person has a tradition in his family that remained unbroken just as he said and I discouraged him from returning to Judaism. That would be an avera risk that I am not willing to take. Rather I continue to follow the Takana of Rabbenu Gershom and the work of Rav Aboab de Fonseca and Rav Menashe Ben Israel because I did not see any expiration date on their takanot. And even if you say that their work was situational in that they were working while the problem existed during that generation directly after the inquisition, I posit to you that the problem persists and that this exchange of blogs proves that it is all too real and that controversy exists around it and therefore some form of halachic response must be offered. Since there are earlier poskim such as those I mentioned that responded already to this question when it already arose all we need to do is apply the mechanisms that the poskim already created earlier. […] The important thing is that they [anusim] remained loyal to the Torah and at great personal risk have attempted to return to Jewish practice. Anusim will continue to return to Judaism whenever they want to. We will not subject ourselves to ridiculous questions like why not sooner? The answer is that we returned as soon as we saw that what we were living was Jewish customs – as soon as it became clear to us that we needed to return to our original identity. I don’t know why it takes generations for people to return to Torah, if it was in my ability I would have done it three generations ago but I wasn’t alive then I’m alive now and now is when I have chosen to live as a Jew and to help others do so as well. The return to Judaism is heroic in any generation it proves that “la sangre llama” the blood calls.

Rabbi Vinas asserts that there are two types of non-Jews. Those that are really non-Jews and those that there is a sofek doreissa that they are truly Jews. While he is asserting that the Anusim are a sofek doreissa however he regards the existence of a pattern of family minhag which bears a possible relationship to Judaism as prima facie evidence that these people are actually Jews. Therefore he feels that they should be encouraged to rejoin the Jewish people and go through a pro forma conversion ceremony – not because they need it to be Jews – but to avoid questions and inconvenience. Thus geirus l’chumra is only window dressing because in fact the anusim are already Jews and never stopped being Jews – no matter how many hundreds of years they lived as goyim. Thus he says bluntly regarding the Anusim – and including himself and his family

“Anusim will continue to return to Judaism whenever they want to. We will not subject ourselves to ridiculous questions like why not sooner? The answer is that we returned as soon as we saw that what we were living was Jewish customs – as soon as it became clear to us that we needed to return to our original identity.”

“I am not a Christian. My mother and father were not Christians, the only religion I have ever known was Orthodox Judaism.”

Thus since the purported descendants of anusim are really Jews – including Rabbi Vinas – there is really no need to do geirus. Therefore the question raised about why he sat shiva for his mother despite the clearly stated prohibition of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 374:5) is because he believes she was also a Jew – even without conversion. This also answers the questions raised concerning Rabbi Vinas’ own conversion.

The only problem with all of this is that as far as I have ascertained there is not a single posek who is on record agreeing with him! It is Rabbi Vinas – who is not a posek nor does he claim to be a posek – who has decided that the pesakim that were applied to those in the years immediately following forced conversions in Spain and Portugal when there was no doubt at all that these people had Jewish mothers and were themselves Jewish. He asserts on his own that all those who have unique family minhagim which might be Jewish - qualifies them for the same status of truly being Jewish! He states:

“The answer is that we returned as soon as we saw that what we were living was Jewish customs – as soon as it became clear to us that we needed to return to our original identity. I don’t know why it takes generations for people to return to Torah, if it was in my ability I would have done it three generations ago but I wasn’t alive then I’m alive now and now is when I have chosen to live as a Jew and to help others do so as well. The return to Judaism is heroic in any generation it proves that “la sangre llama” the blood calls.”

Thus regarding the first question – the answer is that Rabbi Vinas is relying on his own sevora which apparently no posek accepts. I would love to hear a major posek such as Rav Ovadiah Yosef or Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul state this sevora and then I would have no trouble acknowledging that is is legitimate. The letters that were written by Rav Aaron Soloveitchik and Rav Mordechai Eliyahu – did not state such a position. It also explains why Rabbi Vinas insists he is not proselytizing – he views himself as only doing kiruv!

Let me reiterate that I think that Rabbi Vinas is a wonderful human being who has dedicated his life to helping others with great mesiras nefesh. I am truly sorry about the loss of his mother. The issues I am raising are purely halachic issues - which are critical to being a Torah Jew. These are the type of questions that every observant Jew needs to raise to clarify the halacha. The issue of following halacha even if it hurts - something raised many times already - will be addressed in a separate posting.

Statistics: More American Jews are unmarried and unconnected to organized Judaism

Jerusalem Post reports:

Jun. 17, 2008
Michal Lando, Jerusalem Post corespondent , THE JERUSALEM POST

More US Jews today are "uncoupled" in two senses of the term -unmarried and unconnected to organized Jewry - according to the latest study by researchers Steven Cohen and Ari Kelman, who call this data "disturbing," though not for the reasons one might expect.

In 1990, 33 percent of non-Orthodox Jews aged 25-39 were single. By 2000-01, the number had grown to 50%. In fact "never in Jewish demographic history have we seen so many young adults unmarried, or 'uncoupled,'" the study says. That in itself is not surprising, because Americans as a whole are getting married much later.

The good news is that single Jews are as interested as ever in connecting Jewishly. The bad news is that they shy away from available Jewish institutions in part because synagogues, Jewish community centers and federations "remain geared to the conventional family unit," the study claims.

As many as 67 percent of non-Orthodox singles say they are "proud to be a Jew," slightly surpassing the 66% of in-married (Jews married to Jews) who agree.

Given the high level of Jewish interest and low rate of communal and ritual involvement among young adult, single Jews, this uncoupled population represents the "greatest opportunity and the greatest risk" of Judaism in the United States, the study claims. "Single Jews are akin to 'swing voters'- they can go either way," the two sociologists suggest. "How they 'vote,' how they make Jewish (or non-Jewish) choices, will determine the future of Jews, Judaism and Jewishness in the United States."

Important to note is that single Jews practice religion in lower numbers than in-married Jewish couples: Just 19% of singles belong to synagogues as opposed to 51% of the in-married, and only one-third of singles are "somewhat attached" to synagogues.

A total of 20% of singles visit Jewish community centers, as opposed to 44% of in-married; 15% of singles contribute to UJA/Federation campaigns compared to 32% of in-married; and 8% of singles volunteer with a Jewish organization compared to 28% of in-married.

On the surface, the unmarried appear "fairly distant" from Jewish life, the study suggests. But other markers point to single Jews still being connected.

Of single Jews aged 25-39, 42% claim that half or more of their friends are Jewish, and of those making that claim, 51% said they talk to their friends about "Jewish matters." They read Jewish-oriented books in higher numbers than the in-married, are more eager to learn more Jewishly, and more regularly read Jewish blogs.

When it comes to Israel, 79% agreed that "Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew," compared to 83% of the in-married. And 67% of singles said they feel "proud" of Israel, compared to 62% of in-married. [...]

DNA and the Jewishness of Ethiopians and purported Conversos

The following is an excerpt of an interview (published in the June 2008 Reform Judaism magazine) with Jon Entine concerning the latest DNA findings and conjecture about their meaning for the origin of the Jews. Please note that this is not halachic data - especially when the DNA shows patrilinear descent - which has no standing in being a Jew.

He says that so far, genetic detective work among Jews reveals:

• The majority of Jewish males shares a Middle East ancestry that dates back 4,000 years.
• Only about 50% of Jewish females are genetically linked to the Middle East; the others appear to be descended from gentiles.
• Some 30% of the Ashkenazi gene pool has genetic markers from a variety of local, non-Jewish populations among which Jews lived.
• Most Jewish men claiming to be kohanim (of priestly descent) carry markers that originated about 3,000 years ago.
• The African Lemba tribe carries Jewish markers, including a 53% frequency of kohanim markers among the tribe's priests, supporting the tribe's claim of Israelite descent.
• Markers among Asia's Indian Jews suggest that they descended from biblical Israelites.
• Despite their tradition of Solomonic descent, Ethiopian Jews carry no Jewish marker.
• Many Southwestern conversos and Hispanos descend from Sephardim on the male side.
• One in four Ashkenazi Jews carries genetic risk for diseases like Tay-Sachs, Familial Dysautonomia, and Cystic Fibrosis.
• Some forms of breast cancer are found only in Jews and their descendents.

================================

What does the genetic evidence show about the Jewish origins of Ethiopian Jewry?

The Black Jews of Ethiopia, who were airlifted to Israel in the mid 1980s as part of a massive Jewish rescue of what many believed was a mythical Lost Tribe, have steadfastly claimed a biblical royal pedigree tied to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. At the urging of many Orthodox Jews, Israel’s chief rabbis embraced this account and granted them official status as descendants of the lost tribe of Dan. But more recent DNA evidence is not so generous: Ethiopian Jews do not have the Jewish genetic markers seen in all other Jewish groups, which tells us that they don’t have genetic roots in ancient Israel. This finding is in line with historical evidence suggesting that in the 5th or 6th century C.E. a fairly sizable number of Ethiopians, including some of the royalty, converted to Judaism. Still, they have remained faithful to Judaism for 1,500 years—longer than the history of Ashkenazic Jewry.

For the groups that have received DNA confirmation of their Jewish ancestry, the news must be empowering.

Oh yes, having genetic witness to their ancestral Israelite roots has provided these communities with cultural cohesiveness, a sense of real pride—no one can take it away from them now—and a new level of respect from other Jews.

What does DNA evidence reveal about the conversos in the Southwest United States?

For years a host of anecdotal reports have appeared about people in the American Southwest and northern Mexico who practice Jewish rituals such as lighting candles on Friday evenings and covering the mirrors after a family member has died. Occasionally some claimed they were descendants of Jews, but few people took them very seriously. Cultural anthropologists tended to believe they had adopted the rituals from Jewish traders. Thanks to genetic research, however, we can now confirm that many of these individuals and pocket communities do, in fact, have Jewish roots. In my book I tell the story of William Sanchez from Albuquerque, New Mexico, who had always wondered about the Jewish-like rituals in his family. After he saw a story on genetic genealogy on PBS he sent in a DNA sample for testing. When the lab reached him on the phone and said, “Mr. Sanchez, we found some interesting results from your DNA; you may be descended from or closely related to priests,” Sanchez replied, “That makes perfect sense, because I am a priest.” There was stunned silence on the phone because William Sanchez was, in fact, a Catholic priest. He and many of his family members have since pieced together their family history and discovered that they—as well as many Hispanos in Sanchez’s congregation and in communities throughout the Southwest—are the descendants on their male side of Sephardic Jews who converted to Catholicism and then settled in the New World, where they took on Native American wives. Over time the descendants’ Jewish practices atrophied and they became Christian in belief. Nowadays, to celebrate their Jewish heri­tage alongside their Catholic beliefs, Sanchez and many of his parishioners wear a Star of David with a cross in the middle. Interestingly, too, a few of his family members have been touched so deeply by this revelation, they have converted to Judaism.

Rabbi Vinas replies to criticism II

Rabbivinas has left a new comment on your post "Rabbi Vinas - the unanswered questions???":

In this post I will attempt to respond one more time to your questions in an attempt to clarify my positions and to educate your readers regarding the return of the anusim to Judaism and the nature of my work with my synagogue community of Lincoln Park Jewish Center in Yonkers and with the Hispanic/Latino Anusim community.

I was unable to answer your posts earlier due to the fact that my mother was niftar the day before LagLaOmer (Baomer for the rest of you) and I was in Shiva and shloshim for her. I'm surprised that my "fan club" (stalkers) who purport to know me personally, did not notify you of this fact and the fact that she was buried by a large number of Rabbanim Hashuvim who lauded her as a true tzadeket. My parents worked very, very hard sacrificing so that I could learn Torah and live and promote a Jewish life. They raised me to believe in the Torah and the poskim regardless of how bitter or ignorant the comments of others against gerim were. My mother (obm) always taught me that the ways of the Torah are “darchei noam” ways of pleasantness and truth. Assuming that you also believe this I will attempt to respond one more time assuming (based on the idea of being dan lekat zechut) that perhaps some of you might be seeking the truth just as I have all of my life. Also I learned that “Talmidei Chachamim marbim shalom baolam.” Since Torah scholars increase Peace in the world - it must be that your true intent is to spread peace and truth not hateful conjecture and lashon hara or motzee shem rah - I will assume once again this is the case and will answer.

Before I respond however to your questions - I will address the distasteful, insulting and down right ignorant comments of the person who posts under the name "Jerseygirl." Specifically - it was already clarified to you on here that I do not have and never claimed to have smicha from RIETS. I find your comments regarding gerim and their ability to lead others closer to the Torah filled with prejudice and distrust that has no basis in the Torah and is in fact prohibited by the Torah in no uncertain terms. You will not oppress the ger, you will not remind him of his past and One law you will have both for the native born and also for the ger. Creating a scenario where gerim are distrusted and suggesting that the ger would lead other Jews towards some form of christianity and suggesting that this has happened at my synagogue is a ridiculous notion and is a clear violation of the Torah you should be ashamed of yourself! Perhaps Shmaya and Avtalyon Unkelos and Akiva etc should also be suspected just as you suggest that other gerim ought to be. If I were you I would hang my head in shame and attempt to do teshuva. But this is virtually impossible for people who think and convince themselves that they are the only ones right or the only ones who know the truth. What sign do you see of anything with a christian influence at my shul? Nothing! How do you dare to say such disgusting things about other Jews and especially about gerim who you are doubly commanded to love! Its unbelievable that you think this is acceptable and I'm surprised that other readers of this blog haven't "cried foul" to such a travesty. I love my shul and its members are made up of people seeking the right life, seeking to come close to the Torah and attempting to live Torah observant lives don’t speak lashon harah about a community of people!

The "gentleman" who names himself “Bright Eyes” obviously does not know me personally as he claims he does. Those who know me and attend my shul would know right away that there are cases of giur that I have treated as exactly that Giur not anusim. Not all Latinos who have converted either through my auspices or others are claiming that they are anusim and I don’t treat all of them as such. The question that keeps coming up in my mind is what your motivation for saying these kinds of lies would be. Let me clarify to all of you what people who do know me already know. Not all gerim are anusim this includes Latinos or Hispanic Jews. All who seek giur are not treated as anusim. Stop the lies!

This is an opportunity to clarify the fact that as I have explained before based on the teshuva of Rav Aharon Soloveitchik and Rav Mordechai Eliahu that anusim require some form of halachic “return” ceremony. Soloveitchik calls it a giur lechumra Rav Moredchai Eliahu calls it a return ceremony. Both require mila, tevila and kabbalat hamitzvot. Geneology, DNA or other pseudo scientific proofs are not sufficient. I have always recommended the process of return or giur for anusim in order to ensure that their Jewish status does not remain questionable and that they are fully living lives of Jewish content and status according to Orthodox halacha. Having giur according to halacha should remove all stigma of doubt regarding their ancestry if you would just leave them alone to live life as they want according to the Torah.

Now I will respond to Daniel Eidensohns questions by the numbers that he placed on them. But as I respond I invite my readers to ask themselves why a Rav of an Orthodox congregation should have to respond at all to this level of insult and innuendo. And a further question would be why answer to this blog – who died and made you the poskim? Maybe I am required to answer because I’m a ger according to your estimation and therefore suspect. Well there goes the idea of one way of life for both gerim and born Jews. I’m going to respond however because there is a chance that you might be an authentic seeker of truth and honesty.

1. Regarding what I wrote you about safek deoraita lehumra: I was referring to the practice of discouraging a potential convert of non-Jewish origin. What if this person is really Jewish just as he claims? What if it is true that the person has a tradition in his family that remained unbroken just as he said and I discouraged him from returning to Judaism. That would be an avera risk that I am not willing to take. Rather I continue to follow the Takana of Rabbenu Gershom and the work of Rav Aboab de Fonseca and Rav Menashe Ben Israel because I did not see any expiration date on their takanot. And even if you say that their work was situational in that they were working while the problem existed during that generation directly after the inquisition, I posit to you that the problem persists and that this exchange of blogs proves that it is all too real and that controversy exists around it and therefore some form of halachic response must be offered. Since there are earlier poskim such as those I mentioned that responded already to this question when it already arose all we need to do is apply the mechanisms that the poskim already created earlier. A point of clarification regarding the history that you quote regarding proving genealogy during the 16 century: This was the case for people who simply wanted to be recognized as born Jews through matrilineal descent without giur as in the case of Rav Menashe Ben Israel whose family had converted to Catholicism and later escaped Portugal and went to Holland. Others who had Jewish descent either patrilinealy or could not prove it under went giur to reestablish themselves as part of the “nacion” in Holland. If you study the history of the family of Rav Menashe Ben Israel the entire statements of “Jerseygirl” making it seem that there was something wrong with the people who stayed in Spain and Portugal because they did not exercise the option to leave is actually a criticism of Rav Menashe’s family who does not deserve this criticism. Hindsight is always 20/20 especially when tempered by 500 years. The important thing is that they remained loyal to the Torah and at great personal risk have attempted to return to Jewish practice. Anusim will continue to return to Judaism whenever they want to. We will not subject ourselves to ridiculous questions like why not sooner? The answer is that we returned as soon as we saw that what we were living was Jewish customs – as soon as it became clear to us that we needed to return to our original identity. I don’t know why it takes generations for people to return to Torah, if it was in my ability I would have done it three generations ago but I wasn’t alive then I’m alive now and now is when I have chosen to live as a Jew and to help others do so as well. The return to Judaism is heroic in any generation it proves that “la sangre llama” the blood calls.
2. The second question is really an excellent trap laid very carefully. If I answer that I would respond to the goyim (who I was talking to) that they should cease to worship according to their religion and that they should follow only the true God of Israel and the Torah which is the only truth and only true path to Hashem (which is what I believe in) – you will answer that I am a proselytizer. If I respond just as I did according to the Tosafot (because I was placed during the interview into a position that I was afraid would reflect badly on us by insulting the majority of the readers of that interview who are Catholic or Goyim) then I am accused of being somehow soft on Christianity or worse yet being a christian and promoting christian practice or belief among Jews. Excellently laid trap. Except for one problem – you and your readers see through it. I responded using the Tosafot regarding the idea of the shituf because I wanted to not make the Jewish people and our beliefs odious to others. Some of you who use these blogs appear never to take that into consideration by the way. Some who read this material use it against our people, unfortunately making it appear that this type of name calling and innuendo is part of our holy tradition when it is not! Your commenter “steg” was the only person fair enough to see what I was saying, thank you. I am not a Christian. My mother and father were not Christians, the only religion I have ever known was Orthodox Judaism. I went to yeshivot all my life. I reject chrisitanity, the saints, the man god, the trinity, the supposed messiahship of any man who has ever lived, I do not believe that mashaiach has come or came or will return. I do not believe in the New testament or any other religious books or beliefs other than Judaism and the holy writings of our sages. I believe in Torah shebiktav and Torah she baal peh. It is insulting and degrading to place a ger into the position where he has to make these statements in a public form because a small group of Jews have dedicated hours of their time to try to bait him and make him look like something he is not. I hope that Hashem will heed the words of tachanun “shuv mecharon apecha…” because if a ger were to cry out to Hashem about this type of avera on your part and he responded accordingly it would not be good for our people or for you. This is not intended as a threat but as mussar – do teshuva - Hashem does not appreciate mistreatment of the ger. All Jews are required to reprimand each other and encourage teshuva and additionally since I have had the blessing of learning Torah I tell you on that authority that this is unacceptable.
3. The Institute for Jewish and Communal Research is a prestigious academic institution. It includes experts in many areas including demographics and studies of large populations. I am interested in studying the number of people in the world that claim Anusim ancestry. The Institute is one of the few academic research institutes that would undertake this study. Additionally they are studying other populations including Mizrahi, Ashkenazi, African American Jews and other situations that may or may not be halachic. There are many who attend these meetings that are born Jews and Halachically Jewish bechol hadeot. Since they trust me and have a relationship with me of respect and collegiality, I was able to make recommendations to them that facilitated the observance of kashrut, Shabbat etc. I advocate the study of the anusim. I advocate knowing the practices of these populations, the history and everything I need to know to see if they are authentic so that I can assist them in their return to Judaism. This institute is the only program in the world that will help me do a serious respectable study of these populations it is an absolute necessity for me in my work ( for which I have never apologized). Attending academic meetings and participating in research of Jewish populations does not require any permission of gedolim beyond review with my personal Rabbeim and I have done so. I have stated my interest clearly at all meetings of the institute and I applaud their work in studying populations that until now have not been studied. Dr. Gary Tobin and his wife Diane are scholars, they may not be Orthodox but they are frum enough to respect and love gerim and the Jewish People and they see their work as dedicated to helping the Jewish people grow and prosper. It may not be the same opinion as yours but we must admit that there are dedicated to the study of the Jewish people and that their academic work is unparalleled and unequalled.
4. Regarding being the Rav of a shul. According to Rav J.B. Soloveitchik a ger may be given smicha based upon the Tosafot in Kiddushin 71a that quotes a position of Rav Avraham Hager – he notes that obviously he had been given the title of Rav even though he was a ger.
You are correct it does not require a major posek to rule that I can serve as the Rav of my shul. A clear answer to this question is presented in Teshuvot VeHanhagot (Vol. III:305) where the Gaon R. Moshe Sternbuch discusses whether a ger may be appointed as a rabbi or as dean of a yeshiva, a Rosh Yeshiva. At issue, as you noted, is that when the Torah directs us (Deuteronomy 17:15) to set upon ourselves a king from "amidst our brethren," meaning that the one chosen must be born a Jew, the Gemara (Kiddushin 76b) explains that this direction extends to all appointments of authority.

R. Sternbuch notes an inconsistency. Rambam, in his opening discussion to his Mishneh Torah, lists the mesora, the chain of those who ensured continuance of the oral traditions of the Torah from Moses at Mt. Sinai. Rambam includes in that chain Shemaya and Abtalyon who are referred to as gerei tzedek, righteous proselytes. The two sat at the head of the Beit Din, which seems odd since those who assume that position must be eligible to rule on capital offenses as well. As gerim they would be ineligible to do so, thus they actually were ineligible to assume leadership of the Sanhedrin. Yet we find in the Gemara (Chagiga 16a-b) that they were indeed in that chain: one was Nasi (prince, president) and the other was Av Beit Din (head judge).

Therefore R. Sternbuch explains that the rule that would exclude a ger from the Sanhedrin applies where there is a choice of candidates for the job. However, if we find that the ger is truly great in Torah unlike any other candidate, and all recognize this, he would be eligible to assume the role, provided he has mastered the oral tradition as well as the written one. R. Sternbuch cites Rivah's commentary on Parashat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 17:55), where we learn that when there is no better candidate for a position, a ger is certainly eligible to assume it, and thus he would also be eligible to rule on capital cases. Consequently, that ger
would be eligible to head the Beit Din or Sanhedrin. This is what happened with Shemaya and Abtalyon.

Regarding the original question posed to him about a ger serving as Rosh Mesivta (head of post-high school Torah study), R. Sternbuch seems to feel that this would be permitted, since the prohibition applies to the trappings or political aspects of the office. Also, as Rosh Mesivta ( or Rav of a shul) one is not considered to be holding an office that one may bequeath to one's children. Rather, such a person is chosen for his great Torah scholarship and fear of G-d. This position is unlike a king's position and other political appointments that include great displays of honor in society and are (at times) subsequently bequeathed to the children.

Even those halachic authorities who disagree with the ruling that a ger may serve as head or dean of a yeshiva would agree that a ger would be qualified as a Rosh Mesivta or Maggid Shiur (lecturer), should the choice of candidates include a ger who is a better choice than the others.


And by the way a ger may also serve as a dayan in cases of giur. This is clear from Rava in Yevamot 102a. He says that the pasuk you cite proves that a ger may serve other gerim since he is their brother. Rava says that if he has a Jewish Mother he may serve in cases where dinei mamonot are also involved. Rashi says that Rava must have been excluding gerim only in cases of dinei nefashot he cites Sanhedrin 32 a as proof of this. There the mishnah says that “all” are qualifies to serve as dayan in dinei mamonot the gemara Sanhedrin 36 b uses the word “all” to include gerim. Tosafot brings up a contradiction however, Yevamot 45b Rava allowed Rav Mari bar Rachel the son of a male convert to be appointed to a position of leadership only because his mother was a born Jewish, Tosafot resolves the conflict by saying that the gemara must be allowing gerim to be dayanim over other gerim in dinei mamonot as well. Tosafot disagrees with Rashi that gerim cannot be dayanim in dinei mamonot for born Jews but all agree according to him that he may serve other gerim. Nimukei Yosef holds the same way that a ger may only serve as a dayan in cases involving other gerim but he arrives at this conclusion based on the halachot of dayanut in halitza. Where the dayan must have both parents being born Jewish. The Tur in Yoreh Deah (269) holds that a ger may serve as a dayan if all concerned accept him as a dayan.

The work of being a shul Rabbi is hard work if you undertake to build the type of community that I am building. The shul was not Orthodox it was conservative. The members agreed to change to Orthodox as a condition of hiring me. No other Rav was able to achieve what I achieved until I got here. This certainly qualifies me for my position. I am not an “am haaretz” I know how to teach Torah and to persuade other Jews to observe the Torah. This qualifies me for my position. The community has accepted me as their teacher and leader and as their posek. Since this would even qualify me as a dayan it certainly qualifies me as a Rav of a shul.

Additionally my personal situation is not a clear cut case of giur. It is a situation of lashuv darchei avotav according to Rav Mordechai Eliahu. There is no valid reason to exclude me. Additionally I might clarify to you that I was in no way looking to become a shul Rabbi. I went to that shul (that I now love tremendously) to fix their sifrei Torah and they approached me. I accepted the position because I saw that I was suited to create progress here and that’s exactly what I have done. I agree with you Daniel if a better candidate were to emerge I would be happy to live my life out easily as a college professor which I could do without all this controversy and I’d give him the job. I’m not sure the community would accept that however, they don’t want to lose me and have expressed this to me in no uncertain terms. I will never ever cease my holy work with the anusim however. This is because I gave my word to my grandfather that I would do it and now I am even stronger due to the passing of my beloved mother who was from the anusim nad sought that all of us should come home. My background is no secret to the members of my shul or to anyone else. I told you I am not ashamed I am proud of my ancestors. My work with the anusim has been discussed throughout my time as Rabbi of the synagogue it is no secret. The fact that I am active in giur is no secret either and the fact that I am accepting of Jewish diversity racial and ethnic and that I welcome and affirm it is no secret either. No undercover work needs to be done here, nothing on our side is under cover if you want to visit with us let us know and we will host you for shabbos.

I will no longer respond to any of these blogs about me. They have created too much emotional pain for me. It hurts me to know that there is a group of individuals out there that would actively seek to put a Rav who has dedicated his life to Torah and the Jewish community into the bitter position of focusing negative attention on him because they consider him a ger that he must assert himself and clarify his beliefs. As I told you earlier its wrong to do this to gerim, to other people, to other Jews etc. It worries me that people reading this might think that your behavior is part of our holy Torah beliefs but it isn’t. Your path of doubt, distrust and innuendo is the one that is far from the path of Torah not ours. The path of Torah is Darchei Noam. Stop before you create a hillul Hashem. I hope that non-Jews and other Jews don't think this is "normal" Jewish behavior. The rest of us respect each other, respect other Jews observant or non, respect gentiles it is only an extreme fringe that behaves this way please don't judge the rest of us Orthodox Jews based upon these pages.

Abravanel has a wonderful comment on Sefer Devarim Perek Chapter 30 : "Hashem will return the Jews who are exiled and he will have mercy on them and He will return and gather you from among the nations." Abravanel explain that this double language is to state that the first group of returns will be the Jews who were openly Jewish. Since they suffered among the gentiles they will be brought back with mercy. The second time it says "return" he explains it is speaking about people who were forced away from Judaism against their will, he uses the term "anasam." This second group will also be gathered from among the nations and brought back - just as Hashem is keeping his promise to us right now. Some of us see it some don't.
Shalom lekulam

Hillel college organization vilifies those who hold Torah view of sexual orientation

What Would Hillel Say?

14 Sivan 5768, 17 June 08 02:17

by Rabbi Avi Shafran Arutz Sheva

Director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.

[...]

Absurd Reality

“Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life” maintains a presence at more than 500 campuses throughout the United States and Canada and aims to “inspire every Jewish student to make an enduring commitment to Jewish life.”

If that final phrase read “contemporary mores,” a recent Hillel publication entitled “LGBTQ Resource Guide” might make sense. It is intended, after all, in its own words, to make “all Jewish students, of all sexual orientations and gender identities” feel comfortable with their choice of lifestyle. But the term “Jewish life” is simply not sufficiently expansive to include behavior that has been unarguably condemned by Jewish sources throughout the ages.

The publication itself is in equal parts self-righteous and silly. Among its offering of “Selected Jewish Texts Useful for Creating Queer Jewish Ritual” are fun-house mirror versions of Biblical laws and narratives, all imaginatively engineered to erase disapproval of certain behaviors and to imply that great Jewish personages lived in, or emerged from, various closets. Wearing its ignorance brightly on its sleeve, the “Resource Guide” risibly mangles its references. It mistransliterates words (like “v’nigeid” for “v’nigein”) and invents others from whole cloth (“to’arish”). At one point, it identifies Chira, Judah’s father-in-law, as his wife.

Dirty Propaganda

The clumsy attempts at Biblical revisionism are bad enough. Even more disturbing is the propagandists’ next step: demonizing those who dare to uphold authentically Jewish values.

To that end, they refer to “religious conservatives” – presumably those who take Leviticus 18:22 and centuries of oral Jewish tradition seriously – as “purveyors of hate”; and offer up new liturgy, like a refurbished “Al Hanissim” (“On The Miracles”) prayer. The original Al Hanissim is recited on the Jewish holidays of Purim and Chanukah – the latter, as it happens, commemorates the refusal of Jews to capitulate to the mores of the dominant culture. The “LGBTQ Resource Guide” version of the prayer celebrates instead the “dignity and justice” due “lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.” And it goes on to deride those who “hate us in the name of [G-d]” and “rose up to victimize us, pathologize us, brutalize us, and erase us.”

The prayer-parody then thanks the Creator for having “fought alongside us, vindicated us,” and “[given] us the courage to stand together… the strength… to be who we are and to love whom we love…”

No Apologies

Jews committed to Jewish tradition (the original, not the “new-and-improved” version) do not hate those who violate the Torah out of carnal desire. And they certainly don’t “pathologize” or brutalize them. On the contrary, countless men and women challenged by predispositions to behavior condemned by the Torah have approached Orthodox rabbis and been treated with great concern and assisted in facing up to their special challenges. But no, we do not kowtow to the Zeitgeist, nor are we intimidated by its proponents. We do not apologize for our embrace of Judaism’s eternal truths.

That a major Jewish organization – one pledged, no less, to “inspire” Jewish students “to make an enduring commitment to Jewish life” – has chosen to vilify us, and to glorify what the Torah considers sinful, should deeply disturb all Jews who care about Judaism – and should make us think. [...]

Today, though, it seems that Hillel has changed. By sponsoring and distributing a document that actively celebrates what the Torah considers iniquitous and that demonizes those who stand up for Jewish truths, it has blatantly betrayed its trust.

All Jews who seek to discern G-d’s will from His Torah, not try to impose their own upon it, should let Hillel’s leaders know that the organization has gone too far, that it has insulted the memory and the admonition of the Talmudic sage it claims to revere, the great rabbi whose name it claims as its own.