Geirus - R' Eisenstein's observations

The item on the left is a transcript of R' Eisenstein's comments from the 2007 Washington convention as it appeared in the Yated magazine section.
================================================
Observations from an interview in Bakehila August 13, 2009 page 6 - (my translation)

1) "A large part of invalid geirim originate in Israel"

2) Regarding those who were converted by R' Druckman - "It is necessary to correct the statement that they were invalidated retroactively. There was no disqualification of the geirus. Does anyone really think the thousands of geirim from these special courts accepted to do mitzvos? Go and see that that the absolute majority continued to live as non-Jews immediately after the conversion. Even those converts who genuinely accepted to do mitzvos are in fact invalid because this beis din that they used was invalid. You will note that in the case that caused all the upset - the woman did not even observe the first Shabbos. Is this called conversion?"

3) It is only Reform and Conservative conversions which are not such a problem because everyone knows that they are not the paper they were written on. The real problem is the Orthodox rabbis..."

4) "It is not just once or twice but much more than that in yeshivos and Beis Yaakovs that it has been revealed cases of young people whose mother had an invalid conversion. The problem is revealed when they want to get married and they turn to us to examine the conversion. But how many cases are not revealed? From the time that kiruv organizations have done their holy work the numbers of these cases have constantly increased. This is also from baalei teshuva who come to marry with us and then it is discovered that they are not Jewish."

5) "In most cases where it is discovered that these people who mistakenly thought they were Jews we convert them secretly. However there have been cases of a young lady about to be married and it is discovered that her mother was not converted properly. So even though we convert them according to the halacha - but since the chasan was a cohen - the engagement is destroyed."

Circumstantial evidence & lashon harah

Shabbos (56a): But Samuel maintained: David did not pay heed to slander, [for] he saw self-evident things in him,22 For it is written, And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king; and he had neither dressed his feet, nor trimmed his beard, nor washed his clothes, etc.23

This gemora is used as the justification that if there is clear circumstantial evidence then it is not considered lashon harah to believe negative things about another.

Semag (Negative #10) :If a person sees in another aspects and circumstantial evidence which seems to validate the claim then it is proper to believe and accept that which is said as is stated in Shabbos (56b)…

Shulhan Arukh ha­Rav(O.C. 156:10): One who accepts lashon harah is punished more than the one who says it unelss he sees clear cirucmstantial evidence.

However the Chofetz Chaim(Hilchos Lashon Hara, kelaI 7:10-11): takes a much more stringent view

חפץ חיים (הלכות אסורי לשון הרע - כלל ז:י-יב): י. וְאִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו (כב) דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים, שֶׁנִּרְאֶה עַל יְדֵי זֶה, שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁמְּסַפְּרִין עָלָיו הוּא אֱמֶת, דִּינָא הָכֵי (הַדִּין כָּךְ), אִם יֵשׁ בָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, אֲפִלּוּ אִם הַדָּבָר אֱמֶת, (כג) לְשָׁפְטוֹ לְצַד זְכוּת, אוֹ בְּעִנְיְנֵי שְׁלִילַת הַמַּעֲלוֹת, אוֹ בְּכָל שְׁאָר הַפְּרָטִים, הַמְבֹאָרִים לְעֵיל בְּסָעִיף ז', לֹא שַׁיָּךְ בָּזֶה דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים, דְּוַדַּאי אָנוּ מְחֻיָּבִין לְדוּנוֹ לְכַף זְכוּת (כד) כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא אִישׁ בֵּינוֹנִי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְבַּזֶּה עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְּעֵינֵינוּ וְכַנַּ"ל, אֲבָל אִם הוּא דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֵין לִמְצֹא צַד זְכוּת עַל הָעוֹשְׁקוֹ, (כה) מֻתָּר לְהַאֲמִין וּלְקַבֵּל:

[הגה"ה - וּבְכָל זֹאת צְרִיכִין לְהִזָּהֵר מְאֹד וְלַחֲקֹר בְּשֶׁבַע חֲקִירוֹת, אִם הֵם בֶּאֱמֶת דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים, וְלִזָּהֵר בְּכָל הַתְּנָאִים שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לָזֶה וּכְדִלְקַמָּן, כִּי הַיֵּצֶר מַטְעֶה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּזֶה מְאֹד וּמַרְאֶה לוֹ כַּמָּה דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים שֶׁהֵם אֱמֶת, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּאֲמִין בָּזֶה וְיִלְכְּדֶנּוּ עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְּרֶשֶׁת שֶׁל עֲוֹן קַבָּלַת לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְעַל כֵּן אַל יְמַהֵר לְהָקֵל בָּזֶה]:

יא. וְדַוְקָא אִם הֵם נִכָּרִים מַמָּשׁ, דְּהַיְנוּ (כו) שֶׁהֵם מַגִּיעוֹת לְעִנְיַן הַסִּפּוּר, וְגַם רָאָה אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים בְּעַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵם רְחוֹקִין מִזֶּה רַק הוּא כְּעֵין דָּבָר הַנִּכָּר קְצָת, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים בְּעַצְמוֹ (כז) רַק שְׁמָעָן מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵין לוֹ בָּזֶה שׁוּם יִתְרוֹן כְּלָל:

יב. וְדַע, דַּאֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים מַמָּשׁ, אֵינוֹ מוֹעִיל רַק לְעִנְיַן, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִהְיֶה מֻתָּר לְהַאֲמִין בְּעַצְמוֹ אֶת הַדָּבָר שֶׁמְּסַפְּרִין לוֹ, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן לֵילֵךְ אַחַר כָּךְ וּלְסַפֵּר דָּבָר זֶה לַאֲחֵרִים, לֹא מְהַנֵּי (לֹא מוֹעִיל) דְּלֹא עָדִיף, מֵאִם רָאָה בְּעַצְמוֹ דְּבַר גְּנוּת עַל חֲבֵרוֹ, (כח) שֶׁאָסוּר לְסַפֵּר אַחַר כָּךְ לַאֲנָשִׁים, וּכְמוֹ שֶׁמְּבֹאָר לְעֵיל בִּכְלָל ד' סָעִיף ג' וְד'. וְדַע עוֹד (כט) דִּבְכָל אֹפֶן אָסוּר לִסְמֹךְ עַל הֶתֵּר זֶה שֶׁל דְּבָרִים הַנִּכָּרִים מַמָּשׁ (ל) לְהַפְסִידוֹ עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְּמָמוֹן (לא) אוֹ לְהַכּוֹתוֹ:

Rav Moshe Sternbuch - Elul

Elul

Obamacare & Death Counseling

Washington Post Charles Krauthammer

Let's see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling.

We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate.

We also have to tell the defenders of the notorious Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that it is not quite as benign as they pretend. To offer government reimbursement to any doctor who gives end-of-life counseling -- whether or not the patient asked for it -- is to create an incentive for such a chat.

What do you think such a chat would be like? Do you think the doctor will go on and on about the fantastic new million-dollar high-tech gizmo that can prolong the patient's otherwise hopeless condition for another six months? Or do you think he's going to talk about -- as the bill specifically spells out -- hospice care and palliative care and other ways of letting go of life? [...]

EJF - why are they desperate for praise?

R' Tropper's Blog - A strange comment which leaves out the essential point i.e., the Bedatz has severely condemned the EJF
==============

Question:

Rabbi Tropper, is it true that someone from the Badatz spoke with Hagaon Rav Dovid Feinstein, shlit"a regarding Eternal Jewish Family?

Yitzchok R. Philadelphia, Pa


Rabbi Leib Tropper Responds:

It was reported to me by this Rav from the Badatz that he spoke with Hagaon Rav Dovid, shlit"a and Hagaon Rav Dovid, shlit"a said positive things about Eternal Jewish Family. This same respected Rav from the Badatz spoke with Hagaon Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlit"a. This happened to my recollection, close to 2 years ago.

Another Rav in Flatbush called me who is very close to Rav Dovid, Shlit"a and told me that he also spoke with Rav Dovid, shlit"a and that only nice things were spoken.

This Rav in Flatbush also reported this conversation to Rav Nochum Eisenstein, shlit"a.

Harav Yom Tov Stern also heard the same from this Rav who is from the Badatz.

Doctors who deliver bad news

NYTimes

[...]Most doctors do not excel at delivering bad news, decades of studies show, if only because it goes against their training to save lives, not end them. But Dr. O'Mahony, who works at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, belongs to a class of doctors, known as palliative care specialists, who have made death their life's work. They study how to deliver bad news, and they do it again and again. They know secrets like who, as a rule, takes it better. They know who is more likely to suffer silently, and when is the best time to suggest a do-not-resuscitate order.

Palliative care has become a recognized subspecialty, with fellowships, hospital departments and medical school courses aimed at managing patients' last months. It has also become a focus of attacks on plans to overhaul the nation's medical system, with false but persistent rumors that the government will set up "death panels" to decide who deserves treatment. Many physicians dismiss these complaints as an absurd caricature of what palliative medicine is all about.

Still, as an aging population wrangles with how to gracefully face the certainty of death, the moral and economic questions presented by palliative care are unavoidable: How much do we want, and need, to know about the inevitable? Is the withholding of heroic treatment a blessing, a rationing of medical care or a step toward euthanasia?[...]

Lockerbie Bomber freed for compassion!

NYTimes

The Scottish government announced Thursday that it was freeing the only person convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, permitting Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, a 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence agent, to return home on compassionate grounds after serving 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence on charges of murdering 270 people in Britain's worst terrorist episode.

The decision to release him early on compassionate grounds was made against strenuous American opposition after Mr. Megrahi's lawyers said he had little time left to live because he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

The announcement at a news conference by Scotland's Justice Minister, Kenny MacAskill, came almost 21 years after a bomb smuggled onto Pan Am Flight 103 exploded at 31,000 feet over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on Dec. 21, 1988, killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.

Of the dead, 189 were Americans. The Scottish decision was certain to provoke anguished protest from American families of the victims who had demanded that he serve his full sentence. [...]