Sunday, January 16, 2022

The Unholy Trinity – From Rav Goren to Dayan Sherman, and Rav Kamenetsky

Eddie – Guest Post   [I requested this post to see how Eddie would justify his repeated condemnation of Rav Sherman. This post doesn't describe what the halachic issues were but focuses on what Eddie sees as similarly in situations and variations in psak. The problem with Eddies analysis is that the situations are not similar nor are the halachic rulings and thus I think the comparisons are not valid. In short I disagree with this analysis and Eddie's conclusions]

Controversies in halacha can be legitimate l’shem Shamayim,  but also can be  gladiatorial, or ideological. For the layperson, it is sometimes difficult to know whether to take sides, and which one at that.

In the history of the past few decades, several areas have been the most bitter: these include the “who is a Jew” debate, the Aguna debate, and the problems of mamzeirut.   Some of these problems  often come in combinations of several of these.  Any agunah release which is not fully accepted by all poskim, can be accused of leading to mamzeirim, ch’v’shalom.

One of the most divisive figures in recent memory was Rav Shlomo Goren.  For the Modern and Tzioni world he remains a major Gadol and figure of almost Biblical proportions, whilst for most of the Hareidi world, an ilui who went terribly off the derech and had to be stopped. The most controversial of all his piskei halacha involved his freeing of 2 siblings who were declared mamzeirim by a Beit Din comprised of major Gedolei Yisrael.  His strategy was to cast doubt on the giur of the father, and hence declare that the mother was never technically married to him.    This was attacked by the vast majority of Gedolim in the Hareidi world, and defended by a number of Modern and Tzioni figures.  The purpose of this vort is not to prove he was right or wrong but to show the problems involved and similarities with other cases.

The 3 principal accusations I had heard about Rav Goren were the Langer case; the Dakar submarine (also involving agunot)  and his opposition to land for peace, especially in the Rav Shach era.  2 of these were solved when a) the fragments of the Dakar and the remains of lost sailors were found under sea, and b) when Rav Shach himself opposed the Oslo agreement and said that it is assur to return holy land won by miracle to terrorists, thus adopting his onetime colleague’s position.

The 3rd problem, ie the Langer case, was solved, IMHO, when only a few years ago, Dayan Sherman of the rabbanut (together with a Rav Attias) annulled giurim of thousands of geirim, allowing some of them to walk free from marriages without a get.  These were geirim who had been converted by known Rabbis, Roshei Yeshiva and dayanim, and immersed in mikveh etc.  Contrast this to the figure in the Langer case who had no evidence of having had a giur, nor recollection of the name of the rabbi, no knowledge of the Posuk “Shema Yisroel” etc, but was considered a Jew in every way by major Gedolei Yisroel.  What is immediately clear is that the Hareidi powers have no clear or consistent standards for what makes a valid conversion. 

Again, my purpose is not to prove Rav Goren right or Rav Sherman wrong, although I may personally have a bias in the matter.  My argument is that Rav Goren had more grounds for his annulment than Dayan Sherman did in his. And since Dayan Sherman had support from major Gedolim in his generation, his actions raised the ire of the DL world and not the Hareidi world. In an interview, Rav Shachter of YU said he had read R’ Sherman’s psak and said it could not have been Rav Sherman who wrote it, because it was so riddled  full of errors (Sherman studied at YU). Rav Dichovsky wrote a scathing critique of Sherman’s psak in Techumim, citing Rav Chaim Ozer, Rav Moshe  Feinstein,  Rav Kook and others who opposed the annulment of giur.
[Incidentally, Rav Yosef had a machloket with the Chazon Ish on whether we can disregard rulings of the Shulchan Aruch if they have been questioned  by Gedolim through the generations.   Ironically, the CI takes a more rationalist approach, whereas ROY is fundamentally a follower of Rav Karo].
One of the supporters of Rav Sherman’s psak was a then still favoured Rabbi Tropper of the EJF. http://www.vosizneias.com/15705/2008/05/08/new-york-rabbinic-committee-on-giyur-rabbi-drukmans-conversions-worthless/
Tropper had claimed that the Tzioni Rav Druckman’s conversions were worthless.  It later transpired that Rabbi Tropper was also performing conversions, in exchange for gilui arayos with his candidates for conversion.
However, the problem has evolved from the Langer controversy, when there was an ultra-meikel view towards giur by the Hareidi powers, whereas it is now ultra-machmir.  On the other hand, Rav Goren took a machmir view in that case, whereas R’ Druckman has been meikel.  The only consistent position was ROY, who maintained his position between the two controversies.

This leads us to the current problem of the Agunah, Tamar E., who was allowed to remarry without a Get , by a group of American Rabbonim, who until now had very good standing in the Agudah and Torah world.  It seems the tide is turning against RSK, who was praised immensely by RHS only a few years ago, but today has very few people to defend him.  Some comparisons have been made between RSK and Rav Goren.  This might be true when it comes to isolation and disapprobation.  However, the cases were very different.  If anything, RSK would be closer to Rabbi Rackman’s  solution for agunot, which was a disaster for both the MO world and the Hareidi world.

In terms of halacha,  I have no authority to say what is correct or who to follow. This is purely for the individual to rely on a posek. However, it seems that some people can get away with “murder”, whilst others cannot.  Thus Rav Sherman had the support of Rav Elyashiv, and did a “Goren” on an industrial scale; whilst Rav Dov Kook (married to daughter of Rav Zilbershtein, and granddaughter of Rav Elyashiv) issued many flawed gittin creating havoc, but is still considered a great Mekubal. (He did apologise for his errors, and vowed not to get involved in gittin again).

It seems that what was once a divide between the modern and hareidi world is no longer so clearly labelled. The problems now appear in the most respected hareidi circles, and the pressure is taken away from the modern world.  IN many of these controversies, some have suggested a Hillel and Shammai type debate, whilst others claim it is falsification of halacha. What we must avoid, is falling into the disaster that befell Beit Shammai, which Chazal said was akin to the Golden Calf – the use of force and violence to impose one’s viewpoint.  It is easy to point to the modern and feminist world as being the source of evil, but without these factors, even inside the Hareidi world, we have seen tragic controversies.

The Ritva teaches that one only has to follow the rov when dayanim sit together; if they do not sit together then an individual can maintain his halachic position.   There are genuine halachic positions and false ones.  The rov – majority – can try to persuade the minority to retract their position. Failure to do so can be costly, as we see in the case of Akavya ben Mehalel – who had a valid tradition for his position.   Akavya was a Gadol haDor who was offered the position of Rosh Beit Din if he retracted. [Incidentally, Rav Goren was approached by Rav Shach in the ‘60s to set up a Yeshiva together, since he was still accepted as an Ilui at that time].

These controversies have always been, and will continue, perhaps even when we have a Sanhedrin. The greatest tragedy is the fate of the mamzer, who suffers for things he was not responsible.

68 comments:

  1. In the cases dealt with by Dayan HaGoan HaRav Sherman shlit"a, the reality of the facts on the ground in the cases were that the purported so-called conversions were never valid. In the Goren care the reality was the conversion was completely valid. I'm not going to regurgitate this argument with Eddie, as he's wont to repeat discredited assertions about the husband in the Goren case. But needless to say the husband there was a full fledged ger and Jew unlike the Russian chazir fressers who were mechallel Shabbos both immediately before and immediately after their farcical mass "conversions" by Druckman and company.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the Druckman case, there were thousands of geirim, and they were not looked at on a case by case basis, hence the annulment was an abuse of halacha.
    In the Goren case, there was one fellow, who was living with his in-laws and cooking chazir in the bathroom upstairs, couldn't complete Shema Yisroel, went to church etc. You are simply creating a fictional picture of what you claim are facts to fit in with what the position of the Gedolim you follow is. It is like saying that cigarettes do not cause harm, because RMF once claimed there is no proven link.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Eddie it would be helpful if you quoted the ruling of Rav Sherman.

    Did he in fact state that thousands of gerim were no longer Jews? I am sure you can find the psak.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I haven't seen Rav Sherman's psak inside. However, HaRav Yehuda Henkin has, and this is his response:

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwjz_4eJ9M7JAhXItxQKHTzECdoQFghIMAk&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hakirah.org%2FVol%25207%2520Henkin.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGyYgFS4EsyO4GIC27bGUB_DzcbWA&sig2=xNxbn_NQXjMGVnRWFALK3A&cad=rja


    he concurs that R' Sherman did annul all giur conduicted by R Druckman becasue "In his ruling, R. Sherman professes to disqualify R. Druckman from testimony and dayanut by categorizing him as a
    “rasha” and “apikorus.” This would nullify his conversions by dint of the technical-halachic reason of absence of a kosher court of three judges at the time of conversion."


    Rav Henkin goes on to destroy this argument as well.


    There is no use in simply calling a Rav as Rasha, and therefore mevateling all his psak. What if it were the other way around? That is really sloppy scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lakewood Yeshiva GuyDecember 9, 2015 at 4:02 PM

    Rabbi Eidenson,
    Your posting of this kind of talk, both factually false and perspectively crooked, undermines the credibility of this blog. Giving voice to opposing outlooks is indeed a noble endeavor but that does not include this drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Complete sheker. The first husband in the Langer/Goren case was a Shomrei Torah U'Mitzvos. He never ate treif after his geirus and knew Krias Shma by heart. The assertions otherwise are late inventions by supporters of Goren who have been trying very hard to unsuccessfully rehabilitate his shattered reputation as a mamzer maker.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dayan Sherman's ruling is available online. It is Israeli Court docket number 5489-64-1.

    Israeli Court docket number 5489-64-1
    Israeli Court docket number 5489-64-1
    Israeli Court docket number 5489-64-1

    ReplyDelete
  8. There was 'edut' that he went to church in tel aviv, ate chazir, etc. Even the chuppah was questionable, and even doubtful.

    Check your facts first.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wrong again moe, the husband In the the Langer case never observed even one shabat

    ReplyDelete
  10. late inventions? when were they invented? 1980?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The husband was religious. Kept Shabbos, Kashrus, and davened in shul. And he had been religious from when he converted until when he died.

    ReplyDelete
  12. He was never in a church in Israel. He was a regular mispallel in shul. He kept kashrus and Shabbos from the time he converted until the time he died. And he got married with eidem and kiddushin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Druckman did wholesale conversions of scores and scores of Russians. Druckman was even found (and reprimanded) to have signed conversion certificates certifying he converted many of these supposed-converts at a date at time in Israel when he had been travelling in Europe! The guy was an open fraudster. He was put into involuntary early retirement. There was no way to have thousands of new beit din cases to look into each of the thousands of fake-converts he created of people who did not keep even one of the 613 mitzvos. They effectively went into the mikva with a sheretz. No intent to follow Jewish law at the time they pretended to convert. They didn't follow halacha from the moment they dried themselves. Druckman felt if the Russian was serving in the IDF that was enough for him to convert even if he planned to eat pork as soon as he dried up from the mikva.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is Catskills where the Borscht belt is?



    These various claims are being made by both sides of the debate. But nobody alive today knows what the reality was 50 or 70 years ago. There is documentation from both sides, and they disagree on the facts of the case.


    How do you know he knew krias Shema by heart, for example? You read it somewhere, and I read the opposite somewhere.


    In any case, How does Rav Sherman know that the thousands of converts didn't know Shema or observe shabbat for say, 30 days? He doesn't know, therefore his claims are unacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David, where do you get this information from?
    I think even the claim about his marriage is false, where is this ever attested to? Even Rav Zolti does not make this claim. Where was the ketubah of this alleged marriage? he got married in a church.

    Let us suppose there is some basis to your claim in actual fact - the converts from the Druckman BD could all say the same things; they got married in the Rabbanut, since that is the only way to get married in Israel. They conducted themselves as Jews, went to shul, kept kosher etc. 40% of tel Avivians can make the same claim. In any case, there was some follow up in the BD that Sherman mevatels. So if you use Rav Zolti's arguments, they work agaisnt Dayan Sherman.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eddie I am still waiting for you to bring the actual decision of Dayan Sherman - why are you avoiding doing the obvious?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eddie what does Dayan Sherman say in his ruling?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am working on getting the document
    meanwhile, compare this to Mr Borokovsky
    https://www.jewishideas.org/susan-weiss/interrogation-convert-x-israeli-rabbinic-courts
    The convert who was annuled by R' Atiya was obviously more religious than Borokovsky, and according to the arguments raised against both

    R' Goren and now R' Kaminetsky, then R' Atiya is a mamzer maker .

    ReplyDelete
  19. There is ample evidence from the case that the husband was an observent Jew who regularly attended synagogue as well as that his marriage was done under Orthodox auspices with valid Jewish witnesses.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I quote from rav Henkin's critique of D' Sherman's psak:
    "I think that R. Sherman is inaccurate in his arguments. He wrote a number of times that “all the poskim” and “all the poskim, rishonim
    and achronim” agree that the lack of a sincere acceptance of the commandments
    invalidates a conversion by Torah law. Yet there are
    those who disagree. The Bach (Yoreh Deah 268, s. v. vechal inyanav, end) explained the Rambam’s opinion as being that a conversion is valid even if “no kabalat mitzvot took place at all.”
    Similarly, R. Shlomo Kluger in Resp. Tuv Ta’am vaDa’at (Telitaah,vol. 2, no. 111 in the second teshuvah) wrote that “kabalat hamitzvot is
    only a means [machshir]…if he [the convert] was circumcised and immersed
    for the sake of conversion, even if he didn’t first accept the commandments, he is a convert according to Torah law with certainty; accepting the commandments first is only rabbinical.” Support
    for such an opinion can be found in Keritot 9a, which is the source for the various components of the conversion process: “Our forefathers
    entered the covenant [at Sinai] via circumcision, immersion, and sprinkling of the blood [of the sacrifice]”—without mention of kabalat
    mitzvot."

    "According to the Gra, as well, deceit in acceptance of the commandments does not annul the conversion. On the words of the Shulchan Aruch (268:12) “and even if he returned and worshipped
    idols, he is like an apostatized Israelite whose kiddushin take effect,” the Gra commented, expanding on the language of the Rambam, that
    “they remained with their wives even though their [wives’] secret was revealed, and their behavior in the end proved what their intention had been from the beginning (hochiach sofan al techilatan).” Thus, the
    meaning of the “secret” was that they did not renounce idol worship at the time of conversion. Even in such circumstances, where their
    subsequent behavior proved what was their intention from the beginning—and in spite of the fact that prohibition of idol worship is a fundamental tenet of Judaism2—their conversions were not annulled.
    The fact that they were insincere falls under “matters of the heart” which are of no legal consequence (devarim shebaleiv einam devarim). "

    Sherman's inaccurate rendition of halacha claims that Druckman is an apikores becasue he alelgedly rejects all poskim. It seems Sherman
    himself is unaware of all poskim, as Rav Henkin demonstrates. To put it another way, Sherman is mocking or disagreeing with the Gra, the Bach, R' Kluger, and the Rambam. What does this say about R sherman according to his own formula?

    ReplyDelete
  21. David, I am not going to defend your allegations against R Druckman. The problem in your statement is that it is making generalizations about thousands of people you know zero about. hence it is pure sheker and loshon hara.
    Even Rabbi Sherman is not aware of these claims in factual substance, they are just generalizations. You cannot prove what their intent was when u don't even know who you are talking about. And even Rav Shach said that each person must be interviewed to see if they are frum, or were. See the quote from the Gra in my response to DT.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't have it, can someone give me a link?
    I am quoting from reliable studies on the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Eddie you are not getting anywhere relying on secondary sources who are ideological opponents of Dayan Sherman. I asked you to get an understanding of Dayan Sherman's views and all you do is cite from polemics against him. The sources you cited are by and large irrelevant according to the majority view of the contemporary poskim.


    There was a shift after the Jews were freed from ghettos. Previously anyone who identified as Jew need to conform to the community or he was basically dead - not accepted by the Jews and not by the non-Jews. Therefore these was no concern for whether his acceptance was genuine. However when Jews had freedom to live where they wanted - a public acceptance of mitzvos did not require keeping them. Therefore the majority of poskim demanded evidence that the conversion was sincere.

    Rabbi Riskin has a very interesting article in Tradition about this.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The argument you bring above may be historically accurate, but is one of those logically problematic arguments (no, i am not accusing you of those terrible things that you accused J of accusing).

    problem 1) If halacha changes with the times, which is what you are suggesting, then this again falls into the trap of "OO". As i have claimed previously, there is left wing OO and right wing OO. Whilst it is easy to call the left wing apikorsim, it may be difficult for you to accept that right wing OO is equally a departure from halacha.


    Problem 2) Even if we accept this argument, if you read my analysis above (which clearly you have , and disagree with it) then the problem still remains, since Goren - over 40 years ago - was using the same type of arguments (being more machmir on giur) and was blasted by the Hareidim becasue they viewed that conversion to be valid, with little evidence for it to have been a strict or even real one.

    But there is also a problem which I have.
    If i wish to defend Rav Goren's psak, then I would at very least need to defend part of Rav Sherman's psak, since they are essentially the same thing.
    As i have noted , only Rav Ovadiah was consistent throughout this period. He did not change his position, and his followers pointed out the apparent contradiction of Rav Eliashiv's position over the years.

    I am looking for a copy of Sherman psak, but have not sourced it yet.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I don't fully agree with Eddie's analysis, but overall I think it is reasonable and well reasoned. Some of the esteemed commenters on this blog may see that as a strike against Eddie. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is not ample evidence, there are claims from both sides, which are now assigned to the history books since there are probably no surviving witnesses.
    Yes, he went to shul, and he barmitzvah'd his son , who would have been Jewish. Even secular Jews have barmitzvahs in Israel, does that mean all secular Jews are frum?

    The marriage he had to his second wife in Israel was done under orthodox auspices, that is why he gave a get to Chana. However, he married Chana in a church, and his alleged giur was m'usa, and hence not valid.
    Rav Goren brings the formula from the Gemara of bringing many doubts. A mamzer vadai is forbidden from marrying into Israel but not a safek mamzer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. His marriage to Chana was done with kiddushin and valid orthodox witnesses with a mesader kiddushin at a orthodox venue.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I have the decision of D' Sherman, it is very poorly argued.

    He makes a big deal to claim that the B'D of R' Druckman is posul, becasue it is made up of apikorsim. what is his basis for this? he says they go against all the Poskim, hence they are heretics. However, as already cited by Rav Henkin, there are poskim who did show leniencies, on which they could rely 9eg the Bach, the Gra , R' Kluger etc).
    So this argument of R' Sherman is entirely false, and shows he has no knowledge of the breadth of poskim, or is simply being dishonest.
    The argument you bring below, is that these poskim are not relevant! This argument, if made by a OO person would get the accolade of "apikorus".
    It is also important to note that a lot of Sherman's citations are from Rav Shternbuch. With much respect to Rav Shternbuch and his followers, but this has not been mainstream orthodoxy, and is still not. the whole argumentation is essentially that anyone who disagrees with him (Sherman et al) is an apikorus. yet he is in denial of the sources himself!

    It is also relevant that he makes such a big hoo-ha about observing all the mitzvot as part of the validity of giur. This argument only proves what i have written above. According to R' Sherman's standards, and Rav Shternbuch's , this would support Rav Goren's psak, since Borokovsky was never fully shomer mitzvot. He lived with a secular wife, and the chazaka is she did no keep taharas mishpacha, or kashrut.

    A third fallacy is that he is relying on the view of the Eda. the Gadol of the Eda, the Brisker Rav, was one who said that the Rabbanut is avodah zarah, and entering it was akin to idol worship. Unfortunately, both Rav Elyashiv and rav sherman made careers in this rabbanut, and according, therefore, to the Brisker Rov,
    their work inside the Rabbanut would be posul.
    So it becomes very difficult to take this psak seriously.
    it is clear that he has a preconceived agenda, and is trying to twist the argumentation to fit that agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  29. there is no evidence for that, no names, no ketuba, no thing.
    Moe is famous for falsifying evidence, and this should come as no surprise. His NK friends went to Iran in the Holocaust denial conference, and they said that 6 million was a zionist figure, and in reality only 1 million were killed in the Holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Eddie I think your summary applies very well to yourself

    ReplyDelete
  31. Borokovsky was frum, kept kosher, went to shul and had a valid kiddushin marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Eddie, once again you're making up fiction out of the whole of cloth.

    ReplyDelete
  33. what I do find interesting in R' Sherman's report is that inside his various attacks on other rabbonim is revealed the real nature of the dispute.
    he mentions in passing that Tzionut sees in itself the fulfillment of the vision of ingathering of the exiles, and based on this certain leniencies have been applied in various areas of halacha. In other words, he 9and many other in the non Tzioni world) see that it is the ideology of Tzionut that is the telos of certain halachic innovations or leniencies.
    This has nothing to do with apikorsut or bribes etc. It is clearly an ideological divide. All these disputes with the DL world are ideological rather than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  34. did you know him Moe?
    As i said before, he married Chava in a church in the 1930s, and they came to israel in 1944. So we have no idea what actually took place, other than the conflicting reports. I have not seen any evidence , even in the Rav Elyashiv camp, that says he got married with kiddushin (to Chava).

    ReplyDelete
  35. you forgot to add "on a sunday morning" to your comical statement

    ReplyDelete
  36. You're asking me if I know him? You've made numerous unsubstantiated unproven false claims about him without knowing him. He never set foot in a church even once at anytime after his geirus. And it was clearly determined by beis din at the time this was raging that his kedushin was 100% kosher with valid orthodox eidim.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dayan Rav Sherman shlita is himself Modern Orthodox/Daati Leumi. He was a visiting professor at Yeshiva University in New York for a while.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Eddie I am very disappointed in your "exposition" of Rav Sherman. You have basically not explained what he did say and your objections come primarily from Rav Henkin rather than actually looking at the sources. You claim that his arguments that the conversions are against all poskim is totally false because Rav Henkin claims that there are poskim who permit it. But you don't bother researching yourself whether those poskim are supportive of Rav Henkin or Rav Sherman.

    Most of your writing is spent trashing Rav Sherman for ideological reasons or saying that he doesn't know what he is talking about - because you and Rav Henkin know better. Eddie this is not scholarship but low level polemics.

    If it is too hard for you to do the work I will simply erase the post.

    Focus on one simple issue - is it legitimate to annul conversions when there is no evidence that the convert ever observed mitzvos or even intended to do so. If it is legitimate then how main stream is the view?

    ReplyDelete
  39. What I comment on down below and the post are 2 separate issues. I am just another commentator here.

    But, you raise an important point, and i must respectfully repeat what my main argument is here.

    You are asking the question of whether a conversion can be anulled if the convert was not sincere. My main argument is that this is precisely what Rav Goren did.

    So, the question is why is it legitimate for one Rav to do it, but not for another? Since , so far, the answers are simply circular arguments, they are not sound arguments. The underlying view of the pro-Sherman camp, is that Drukman/Goren are treif therefore they can't do it, but we are Kosher, therefore we can do it.

    If you are disappointed with my argumentation, then I will bring a source which you might find more acceptable. In the Yated article, it mentions R' Weinman, who was Goren's chief enemy. he is quoted as saying


    "Rabbi Weinman asked how Borkovsky was any less Jewish than Zaidman, who had been living with a kohen at the time Goren performed her so-called conversion and moreover since the conversion the two had remained together on the kibbutz."


    So Weinman, who was Rav Eliashiv's emissary on this affair is asking exactly he same question that I ask of Rav Sherman. And it is a legitimate question.
    And it is essentially the same question you ask me. So if you do not accept my question,then you should also not accept your own question.
    If it is legitimate to cancel a giur when there is no evidence that the candidate kept and intended to keep Mitzvot at the time of conversion, then you have no argument against Rav Goren in the Langer case. BTW, according to Rav Weinman's arguments (and they presumably were guided by Rav Eliashiv ztl), the fact that later in life Mr Borokovsy went to shul, had his son barmitzvah'd and sent his kids to Jewish schools (in Israel) proving someoen to be Jewish, work equally for the lady who Rabbi Attia besmirched and cancelled her giur. She sent her kids to a religious Jewish school, had them barmitzvah'd, kept kosher etc etc.

    This is logic. In logic you have to step aside from your ideological leanings - which is difficult for all of us to do. What the talkbackers are doing is just using a simple logical fallacy, the No true scotsman fallacy.

    The lady in Ashdod was converted and kept some mitzvot, and had proof of conversion and of kiddushin. The man in the Langer case had nor proof of anything, but decades later was a shul goer and his son was barmitzvah'd.

    ReplyDelete
  40. * b'li neder, I will endeavor to work on some of the sources !

    ReplyDelete
  41. He was and he is are 2 different things. He is not a DL posek, he is in the Rabbanut, and is aligned more with the Lithuanian world. However, this is a red herring.
    Rav Dichovsky, who is massive Talmid hacham, was from the Hareidi world, and was head of the Supreme Rabbinical courts, but is now more aligned with DL/Modern world. That is why he is dissed by people in the Hareidi world.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Eddie I don't accept your entire song and dance. I asked a straightforward question and you say well what about Rav Goren's case. Rav Sherman's psak is not a function of what happened with Rav Goren - despite your endeavors to make it so. You have regularly criticised Rav Sherman's psak - I asked you to do a post on the subject - not invoke polemeics or the argument that it is no worse that X.

    ReplyDelete
  43. In the ruling, D' Sherman brings several sevaros to mevatel the giur. One of them is the argument of lifnei iver:

    ג. בטול גיור כשבית הדין המגייר עובר על אסור דאורייתא של לפני עוור

    he claims that the B'D is deceiving the candidates by deceiving them, thinking they don't have to keep mitzvot.

    However, we saw a while back, that Rav Moshe permitted a giur when the ger did not know they had to keep all the mitzvot, but only some. This is quite apart from the question of what Rav Druckman's hachshara is for the candidates, ie they teach them Torah mitzvot and how to practice them. They dont tell them that they are free from obligation, so the accusation in itself is also false.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You are asking the question of whether a conversion can be anulled if the convert was not sincere. My main argument is that this is precisely what Rav Goren did.

    So, the question is why is it legitimate for one Rav to do it, but not for another?


    Everyone agrees a conversion done insincerely is void and was never valid even if the potential concert went into the mikva and did the ritual conversion ceremony. Mr. Goren agrees with that, Dayan Sherman agrees and every Orthodox Rabbi and Dayan agrees with this point. If the potential concert went into the mikva not intending to observe Jewish law when he comes out, there was no conversion and he never became Jewish.

    The difference between the Goren mamzer case and the R. Sherman/Druckman cases is that the concert in the Goren case converted correctly, intended to keep Jewish law right from the outset, did keep Jewish law right from the outset and married fully in accordance with Jewish law. On the other hand, the Druckman conversions that R. Sherman dealt with were regarding Russian gentiles that went into Druckman's mikva fully expecting to eat pork and drive on Shabbos as soon as they dried off from the mikva waters.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I am working on the halachic sources response. I listened to you in your first request, which was to read the ruling, which I only obtained last night. And i am also listening to your second request, which is to bring halachic sources, so it will take a bit of work.

    Part of the original post is the "what about X", which is why I group these cases together.
    A good counter argument, which perhaps goes against the Goren camp, is whether a posek can direct his sources to attain a goal he wants to? I believe this was one of the basics against goren, although it was polemicised to make it into a political sell -out and briber allegation. But it is also a fair question. The problem, however, is again, what about X. Reb Dovid tells some stories of how people could not find a posek to free mamzerim, and the only person who was great enough was Rav Moshe Feinstein. They would go to him to get a good heter, when nobody else had broad enough shoulders to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This is all nonsense and fiction. In the Yated article (35 year anniversary) it states that one of the original dayanim was also doubtful of his Jewish status and wanted to rule him a goy. Had your claims been accurate, then he could not have been so doubtful. He was only swayed when the gabbai of a shul said that Mr B went to shul (some 30 years after having allegedly been converted).

    What I would repeat is that we do not really know the facts other than what documentation is available, which is the various court documents. there was no recorded kiddushin. The Yated article also admits that Mr B got married in a church and h baptized his son before he converted. But there is no actual record of if / when he did convert. It supposedly happened in Poland in the 1930s. Thus we do not know , and there are no records of it happening.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Lol, Moe, you are just a joker.
    There is no differnece - the Langer case, we have no objective facts about what happened circa 1930. we know that that after 20 years in Israel, he would go to shul when his son was having a barmitzvah.
    In the Ashdod case, we also don't have objective facts about what happened when she went to mikve and the weeks or months after that. we knwo that she sent her kids to national religious states schools, and kept the jewish holidays etc.
    You can belive with emunah shleima in anything you like.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Goren ran for the office of Chief Rabbi on the campaign platform and promise that if elected he WOULD "fix" the two siblings status as mamzers. And once he convinced enough of the secular and daati electors to elect him and he assumed the office, he kept his campaign promise and "fixed" their status by decreeing the two mamzers as being ois-mamzers. Not even having a real beis din that agreed with him, he told the public that he convened a magical "secret beis din" that he said he cannot reveal who the "other" two "secret dayanim" were.

    ReplyDelete
  49. he had written a halachic opinion on freeing them before the election anyway. The question is whether as Chief rabbi he has any authority to make halachic decisions. But nothing the chief rabbi says is accepted by certain sectors anyway, so it is irrelevant.
    For example, heter mechira is not accepted by majority of Hareidi rabbanim, with the exception of RSZA ztl. (even Goren himself said it needs to be cancelled).
    As i have said before, Goren nearly won the '64 election anyway, was short of about 3 votes. There was no candidate in 73, Rav Unterman was already very old, and Goren was famous for his victories in the 6 day war. But Moe, you would not go to the Kotel that he liberated anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  50. I may not be familiar with the elections for Chief Rabbi, but my impression is that the Chief Rabbi is elected by the Rabbis in the country. Is that not the case?
    If so, who are the secular electors? Who exactly did Goren cut this deal with who would have a vote?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think they keep changing the election rules anyway. This is an accusation leveled at R Goren, but it is not really an accusation. Firstly , rav Goren had already made his opinion known before his election. He was at this point Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, which is usually a stepping stone into Chief Rabbi of Israel (eg Rav Kook, Rav Lau etc). He was also chief rabbi of the IDF. So he could have still attempt to implement his ruling in Tel Aviv or in the IDF.
    Whilst this is a claim made by the Hareidi world, they themselves are always doing the same thing in the Knesset and in any other place in Israel. So by their own logic, all of the Hareidi rabbis who are receiving salaried positions form the State, are posul. Ironically, this was the actual halachic position of the brisker Rov. Even today, they form blocs to get their own people the high positions, and high paying ones. The chief rabbis are sons of previous ones, and they have used their voting power to block the DL candidates.
    In the previous elections, 11 years ago, the DL candidate was a DL Gadol b'Torah, whereas the hareidi candidate was corrupt rabbi who was involved in so many illicit activities, and was not even a great scholar.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Sounds very much like the Druckman converts the beis din of Dayan Sherman dealt with.

    ReplyDelete
  53. In lecture given by Rav Pruzansky, he mentions the arguments given by the Dayanim in the Langer case, as to the giur status of mr Borkovsky.
    http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/801792/rabbi-steven-pruzansky/great-decisions-part-xvii-mamzer-muddle-the-langer-case/
    Interestingly, at that time, Rav Elyashiv gave a very non-Hareidi reasoning, ie that the fact that the man had made aliya to Israel and share his fate with the Jewish people, is evidence of his being Ger. Today, this is used by the lenient Botei Din, but no longer accepted in the Hareidi Botei din.

    ReplyDelete
  54. It is a spin on the concept from another religion, and so this phrase is often used as a counter to that. Would be worse to call them the Holy Trinity?

    ReplyDelete
  55. There is no evidence that Mr Borokovsky underwent a successful giur. he could not name the BD or the rabbis who converted him. Several articles are available on the matter. The Jewish Observer of 1972, is perhaps the best one from the Hareidi perspective, but it contains many falsehoods. They cannot name the BD that converted him. They search all the cases from the previous dayanim, none have the name or details of the alleged BD. What they came up with was that he had been circumcised by a Rabbi. They argue that Mohel would not circumcise someone unless they would in the future be a successful ger through a valid BD. That is a logical fallacy. They also bring a letter signed by Mr Borkovsky admitting that he had lapsed back into Christianity. This was one of Rav Goren's pieces of evidence. They try to worm their way out of this by claiming that the first son (who had been baptised by Mr B) said that his father signed it out of compassion for the mamzerim. Again, this is laughable, if it wasn't so sad. This is hard evidence that Borkovsky had lapsed back into Christianity as was claimed by his wife and rav Goren. It is clear that he had been coached, 30 years after his alleged giur, on what frumkeit is. of course you cannot learn everything in a few weeks, even if you are coached by Hareid rabbonim,hence he did not know the verse beginning "Shema Yisrael.."


    The Yated article is a historical perspective, but is totally misleading and misrepresents the arguments brought by R' Goren. The Observer at least brought some arguments, but the Yated doesn't actually bring any of the substantive arguments, since they cannot halachically counter them so easily, and would be showing up their own side.
    Another article by Rav Bleich also brings some good points, including an analysis of Rav Zholty's critique. Again, Rav Zholty is trying to prove that you don't need a BD to be considered a convert, it's enough to live like Jew for a few weeks. (If Druckman had used rav Zholty's article, it would have embarrassed Rav Sherman big time. For that reason alone, I lose respect for Druckman). Rav Zholty is disproving everything that R' Sherman has tried to do, and for that matter also the others, such as Eisenstein and the former Rosh Yeshiva mr Tropper.

    There is an excellent article which gives the various steps used in the Heter of RSG, written by Yaaskov Weinstein. One point is



    "The Shulḥan Arukh (Yoreh Deah 268:10) implies that a ḥazakah of Jewishness can be applied only if the convert claims he was converted in a specific bet din (which Borokovsky could not do)."
    Also, there is no evidence or witnesses to Mr B marrying Chava , in a Jewish ceremony. They were married in a christian ceremony.
    (BTW, the Yated point out that their son was baptised before he (Mr Borkovsky) had converted to Judaism. Nice, so presumably he was taking a 1 year crash course in judaism, and at the same time impregnating his Jewish teenage wife, attending church, and baptising their Jewish son. The forced /bribed "conversion was under pressure from her frum parents, and yet he was so interested in Judaism from before them getting married that he baptises their son too!
    RavEitam Henkin , H'YD writes an article in Hebrew about his great-grandfather, the Posek HaDor Rav Yosef Henkin ztl. Rav Henkin gave his opinion to his son [Rav Yehuda henkin's father] and this note states that Rav Goren cannot be attacked, because he is one of the Gedolei hador, his psak cannot be thrown out either, but also that doesn't make it accepted as a new shita. Now, rav Zholty had asked rhetorically, why hasn't one single gadol come out in support of R' Goren? Well several did, including Rav Zvi yehuda Kook ztl, but also rav Henkin himself.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Reb Avraham Borokovsky z"l was 100% Jewish whose geirus had Eidem and dayanim. He never left Torah Yiddishkeit. Everything claimed about him by Mr. Goren was 100% sheker and done for political expediency to fulfill Mr. Goren's political campaign promises he made when running for the office of chief rabbi of the Zionist state.

    ReplyDelete
  57. what you're saying is totally false there never any witnesses. Rav Zholty , who supported Rav elyashiv's psak, argued that you don't need witnesses or evidence of a Bate din in in order to prove a valid conversion. you are not making your statements based on the official documents of the haredi world namely the Jewish Observer and yated. Furthermore Rabbi Bleich, who is known as the rabbi's rabbi, write a detailed article on the matter it is clear there was no evidence whatsoever that a bet din existed. The Jewish Observer which was the mouthpiece of the aguda at the time and hence represented the views of the moetzet, recognise that Mr ab had written and signed the letter that he'd lapsed into Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  58. While he was being bribed by chava's parents and threatening they would report him to the police for marrying a 14 year old in a church (she convert to Christianity), he baptised their bachur, and went to imaginary geirus classes while still going to church.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That is complete falsehoods.

    ReplyDelete
  60. you cannot bring any sources, it is just Satmar propaganda that you spread. The Agudas Yisroel rabbis at the time were the leaders of hareidi world, there was no Degel at the time. Their reponses show that what i said is true. Check Jewish Observer issue in 1972, and Rav Zholty's critique of Rav Goren, and the Yated historical rewrite (Mr Tzvi weinman was Rav Elyashiv's right hand man in the affair).
    You just make up your own beliefs and present them as facts. Perhaps you spend too much time with the demon S-m-l

    ReplyDelete
  61. religious - you mean in terms of Christianity? Was going to church and baptising his son when he was on his conversion crash-course. Perhaps that is the same standard that N. eisenstein and D' Sherman employ in their "BD" L'Intonei ha giur?
    Oh, he signed a letter stating that he was lapsing into Christianity - which the Aguda magazine admitted to and bribed his (baptised) son to come up with a buba maase to get out of that one

    ReplyDelete
  62. Every source you cited contradicted what you claimed it to say. You are spewing more falsehoods with each post.

    ReplyDelete
  63. you dont know any sources

    ReplyDelete
  64. This was an interview with Rav Druckman. He notes that the "psak" of Dayan Sherman was done by an ad hoc BD, and they made a psak against Rav Druckman,without hearing his side. This in itself disqualifies these dayanim from making any judgment on the case, it is a total violation of halachic protocol to make a decision in absence of the defendant. Next, Rav Amar , the Av beis Din rejected their psak altogether.






    ידידיה הכהן , כ"ז בניסן תשס"ח 02/05/08 11:33

    שיתוף









    בפסק-דין
    שפורסם היום קבעו שלושה מדייני בית-הדין הרבני הגדול, בראשות הרב אברהם
    שרמן, כי יש לפסול את כל הגיורים שנעשו משנת תשנ"ט ע"י הרב דרוקמן, העומד
    בראש מערך הגיור.

    הסיפור החל בעקבות דחיית גיורה של אשה שהתגיירה
    לפני 15 שנה בבית הדין לגיור בראשותו של הרב חיים דרוקמן, לאחר שלאחרונה
    בזמן גירושיה התברר שאינה שומרת מצוות. בעקבות כך פסק דיין בבית הדין
    באשדוד כי גיורה אינו תקף, ובשל כך גם ילדיה, שנולדו אחר הגיור, אינם
    יהודים. בעקבות הפסק ערערה האשה לבית הדין הגדול, ולפני כשלושה חודשים אישר
    בית הדין הגדול בראשות ההרכב הנ"ל את הפסק.

    בראיון לערוץ 7 תקף הרב
    חיים דרוקמן בחריפות את "פסק הדין", ואמר כי לא מדובר בפסק של "בית הדין
    הגדול, אלא בהחלטה של שלושה דיינים, בניגוד לדעתו של הראשון לציון, ונשיא
    בית הדין הגדול, הרב שלמה עמאר, "ישבו שלושה דיינים מבית הדין הגדול, וכתבו
    כתב פלסתר מרושע שאין לו ולאמת והצדק כלום".

    "הרב אברהם שרמן שהיה
    אב בית הדין בדיון, פרסם אותו לפני כשלושה חודשים בכנס דיינים כללי והרצה
    עליו, והזכיר אותי ב"תוארי כבוד" רבים, תוך כדי אמירת גיבובי דברים. בעקבות
    ההרצאה הזאת טלפנו אלי דיינים כשהם מזועזעים מכך, שבלי לדבר איתי או לשמוע
    את הצד שלנו, הוא פרסם פסק דין כנגדי".

    "רק שבוע לאחר הכנס הם
    הזמינו אותי לשמוע את דברי, לאחר שכבר היה פסק דין! הגעתי לדיון ואמרתי להם
    שבכך שהם פרסמו את פסק הדין בלי לשמוע את הצד שלנו, הם פסלו את עצמם
    מלדון, ופניתי לרב עמאר, שהורה להם שלא לפרסם שום פסק דין אלא להעביר אליו
    את התיק".

    "יומיים לאחר ההחלטה של הרב עמאר הם פרסמו את הפסק, כל
    מאן דהוא מבין שזה כתב פלסתר. אלו דיינים? אלו לא יכולים להיות דיינים!
    דיינים, שכביכול באצטלה של בית דין, כותבים פסק בלי לשמוע את הצד המדובר,
    איך אפשר לעשות דבר כזה?", אמר הרב דרוקמן.

    "ועוד כותבים דבר כזה
    כנגד דעתו של הרב עמאר, מצפצפים על נשיא בית הדין הגדול!". הרב דרוקמן סירב
    להתייחס לגוף הטענות לפיהם חלק מהמתגיירים לא שומרים תורה ומצוות, ואמר
    "אני לא יודע על שום טענות, אין מה להתייחס לטענות שהם מובאים על ידי
    הדיינים הללו בדרך כזאת".

    ReplyDelete
  65. https://yated.com/israels-conversion-crisis/

    This is a most fascinating article, for a number of reasons. It is from the American Yated website, which shows a mainstream Hareidi point of view (I am not hareidi, but sephardi-RZ/Dor Deah/Emdenite). It is grappling with the problems I tried to grapple with in the above post. I argued that The psak of rav Sherman is problematic, and that it makes use of the similar arguments to those made by Rav Goren 35 years previously. This idea was trashed by many here, but accepted by few. Now look at what the writer says:

    "It is fascinating to note that even Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren used this rationale to resolve the well-known shaâlah regarding the children of a woman who had remarried without receiving a get from
    her first husband. Rav Goren based his solution on the rationalization
    that the first husband was a convert who never observed mitzvos. Because
    of this, Rav Goren reasoned, he was never Jewish, the first marriage
    never took place, and the children were kosher Jews.
    This indicates that someone who converts for personal benefit and not at all leshem shamayim due
    to his attraction to Jewish belief, his status is in doubt until we see
    his end,” Rav Goren wrote. “If he behaves properly like a Torah
    observant Jew, his conversion is valid from the time he became a Jew.
    But if he does not observe mitzvos after
    conversion, lives like a non-Jew, and returns to his old ways and old
    religion, his conversion is nullified retroactively as if he was never a
    convert. So the wording of the Rambam seems to indicate.” (Pesak Hadin b’inyan Ha’ach Veha’achot, 5733, page 138)"

    It is interesting because the American cousin of the Yated Neeman is validating Rav Goren's approach, in as far as Rav Sherman's approach is similarly valid. Rav Elyashiv fiercely opposed Rav Goren, and fiercely supported Rav Sherman! This is inconsistent, and this was the main point of my argument.

    Another very interesting citation is this:

    "Rav
    Moshe Sternbuch pointed out that 98% of converts, estimated at about a
    thousand a year, “do not observe religion at all.” (Ba’ayos Hazeman Behashkofas Hatorah, Yerushalayim 5729, page 27).

    Parenthetically, Rav Sternbuch’s estimation of converts’ non-observance was statistically verified. Batei dinim in Israel follow the rule of the Toras Gittin that
    when writing the name of a convert, do not write “the son of Avraham
    Avinu” if he is non-observant, since “[Avrohom] does not link his
    honor with someone like this.” Instead, the beis din should write, “Ploni the convert.” Similarly, only observant women converts are called bas Sarah Imeinu."


    Now watch carefully: In Rav Goren's psak, one detail I have come across (not having the original book), is that mr Borokovsky later divorced his wife Chava Langer, when he wished to remarry. On The Gett, he signed Avrohom HaGer, not Avrohom b. Avraham. Rav Goren considers this as evidence that A.B. was a mumar, and his conversion was invalidated retroactively. Now, Rav Shternbuch is arguing precisely the same thing in the citation given in this article. Yet Rav Shternbuch is a very severe critic of Rabbi Goren, only referring to him by his last name, and accusing him of bringing mamzerim into Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Stop your Reform lies. You're not even Orthodox. The husband was, unlike you, a fully observant Orthodox Jew. He did none of the things you lyingly claim about him. He was a fully shower Torah U'Mitzvos, unlike yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  67. You are not familiar with the case.
    Rav Goren had a letter signed by Mr Borokovsky that he had lapsed into christianity. This letter was accepted by the Jewish Observer, which was the Aguda mouthpiece in America. Their only way out of it was to claim that his son told him to sign the letter, so as to show mercy to the brother and sister, who were obviously half brother/sister to the son.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Kalonymus HaQatanMay 8, 2022 at 3:57 PM

    Trinity does not have to be "divine" , there can be a trinity of beans on my plate.
    The existence of something which is physical does not imply that there is also a divine version of the same thing.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.