Kiruv for non-Jews who claim Jewish identity by Rabbi Shalom Chaim Spira

 A gut gebnsht yor and a gut mo'ed. Thank you for your post today describing the problem faced by kiruv organizations. You indicated that you would like to see source material on this problem, so here is my survey of the relevant halakhic literature:

R. Moshe Sternbuch, Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V, no. 296 rejects the conversion of the child of an intermarried family unless the mother converts together with the child [-including that the mother sincerely accepts all the mitzvot as being inherent to the conversion]. Rabbi Sternbuch explains that by the Beth Din attempting to convert the child without the mother, the Beth Din is essentially telling the Jewish [so-called] father to continue to commit the yehareg ve-al ya'avor transgression of remaining in the same home as the Noahide mother. Hence, the Torah will not recognize such a conversion, and the conversion attempt fails. 

In Ha-Pardes Vol. 61, no. 10 (Tammuz 5747), the Agudat Rabbanim is reported to reject the conversion of a child from an intermarried family unless the mother converts together with him [-including that the mother sincerely accepts all the mitzvot as being inherent to the conversion]. How can children be validly converted when the so-called Jewish father is obligated to commit suicide rather than remain in the home of the Noahide mother [as per Rema to Shulchan Arukh Even ha-Ezer 16:2]. Available online at 

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12413&st=&pgnum=32&hilite=

To better explain the words of Rabbi Sternbuch and Agudat ha-Rabbanim, it seems to me that the prooftext is as follows. The Gemara states lo amrah Torah shale'ach le-takalah in three different contexts: Yoma 67b regarding the scapegoat, Kiddushin 57b regarding tzipporei metzora, and Chullin 115a  and 140a regarding shilu'ach ha-ken. Thus, by the same token, the Torah cannot recognize a conversion of a child of an intermarried family, because the worst takalah imaginable is that a Jewish gentleman thinks that he can establish a normal family with a Noahide lady, taking pride in the so-called "Jewish children" he has from this intermarriage. There is no way that the Torah would recognize such a conversion of the child [even according to Abaye (in Temurah 4b)  that kol milta de-amar Rachamana lo ta'avid im avid mahanei. Abayei is discussing a one-time transgression, which he is willing to tolerate post facto, but not a permanent takalah of nasui nokhrit which is yehareg ve-al ya'avor. And how much more so should this be true according to Rava, who opposes Abayei there in Temurah].

In addition to teaching us that it is yehareg ve-al  ya'avor for a Jewish gentleman to marry a Noahide lady, Rema (Even ha-Ezer 16:2) also writes that such intermarriage has a hefsed which is not found in the other arayot, since the resulting child is gentile. Yet, why must the Rema bemoan such a hefsed; let him simply recommend converting the child after he is born by immersing the child in the mikveh  under the supervision of a Beth Din! Obviously, the answer must be that such a conversion will not take effect, and so Rema will not propose it as a "solution." 

Based on points 1-4 above, it is clear that R. Joshua Hirschorn, Teshuvot Mi-Ma'ayanei Yeshu'ah no. 57, p. 161, three paragraphs beginning s.v. ve-hineh [available online at

  https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1545&st=&pgnum=160 ]

and R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin, Teshuvot Bnei Vanim, II, no. 36, sec. 3 [available online at 

https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20022&st=&pgnum=139 

, are both completely wrong (be-mechilat Kevod Toratam) to claim that the child can be converted.

Thank you and chag same'ach,

Shalom C. Spira

Joy is... An open roof, an open door, an open heart - Succot / Shemini Atzeret

What leaked US assessment of Israeli plans to strike Iran shows

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6w6p8x7p8o

What do they not tell us?

Glaringly absent from these documents is any mention of what targets Israel intends to hit in Iran, or when.

The US has made no secret of its opposition to the targeting of either Iran’s nuclear research facilities or its oil installations.

That leaves military bases, most likely those belonging to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its affiliated Basij militia as these two institutions are seen as the backbone of the Islamic Republic, projecting its military reach abroad and suppressing popular protest at home.

Igros Moshe: Can Yeshiva students take food without permission from the yeshiva kitchen?

It was brought to my attention that there are yeshiva bochrim who steal food from the yeshiva kitchen falsely claiming that this was permitted by a teshuva of Rav Moshe Feinstein. Therefore I am presenting my translation of the teshuva where it is obvious that Reb Moshe allowed no such practice. He did say where it is financially possible that the yeshiva should provide food "even in the middle of the night" but he clearly states it is the job of the administration to decide this and not for the bochrim to take the initiative.

Furthermore my brother-in-law told me that when he was in Lakewood that Rav Schneur Kotler had him install video cameras in the kitchen to catch some very agressive bochrim - who subsequently left Lakewood after they were caught and confronted by Rav Kotler.

==============================
Igros Moshe (Y.D. 4:39): Addressed to R Yitzchok Chevroni – Nasi of Yeshiva Chevron.

It is clear that this question is a general one that is relevant to all yeshiva including mine. After considerable thought I decided many years ago that the administrators of the yeshiva have the responsibility and the authority to distribute the money which is donated to the yeshiva   because it is reasonable to assume that this is the desire of the donors. Thus the money was donated to the yeshiva by the donors with the understanding that it would be administered by the staff of the yeshiva because the donors know that the administrators of the yeshiva are responsible people who will utilize the money in a proper manner.

On the other hand it is necessary that the administrators know that the purpose of the yeshiva is for the students. Thus they need to be aware that the money has been given for the students’ welfare and benefit. It is prohibited for the administrator to conduct the yeshiva in a manner that seems cruel and unmerciful. Thus the administration needs to utilize the money for the good of the students according to the financial capabilities of the yeshiva. For example it should provide sufficient food to all the students and even to provide extra portions to those who want it. The yeshiva should even to arrange for some food in the middle of the night to those who want to eat a snack. Of course there is a distinction between a wealthy yeshiva and a poor yeshiva. Therefore it is possible that the administration might have to place restrictions according to their understanding of the needs of the yeshiva. In this manner the administration needs to balance the resources of the yeshiva with the benefits to the students also concerning things such as the use of electricity and other matters.

Halacha and Truth

 Rav Moshe Feinstein(Igros Moshe O.H. 1 Introduction): It is correct and obligatory for the sages of the latter generations to decide halacha - even if they are not qualified according to the standards of the sages of the gemora. Therefore there is definitely a concern that their halachic determinations are not in accord with the view of Heaven. However in truth we are guided by the principle that Torah is not in Heaven. Rather it is determined according to what appears correct to the rabbi after proper study of the issue to clarify the halacha according to the Talmud, and the writings of poskim. He is to use his full abilities to seriously deliberate with fear of Heaven - in order to determine what appears to be the correct halacha. Such a psak is viewed as true and he is obligated to issue his conclusion. This obligation exists even if in fact his ruling is contrary to the halacha in Heaven. His ruling is also considered the “word of the living G‑d as long as he is convinced he is correct and it is internally consistent. He will receive reward for his rulings even if the truth is not in accord with his position. Proof for this is found in Shabbos (130a): A certain city in Israel that followed the halacha according to R’ Eliezer - even though this was not the accepted halacha - got great reward in terms of long life… Thus ruling which a rabbi is obligated to teach and receive reward for is that which he decides after studying the issue with his full ability. This obligation and receiving of reward exists even if the ruling is not in accord with the truth. This is the nature of all disputes of the rishonim and achronim concerning what is permitted and what if prohibited. As long as a universal ruling has not been determined - each rabbi can make decisions for his followers according to that which he thinks is correct - even though the objective halacha is only in accord with one of them. Both will also receive reward for their rulings. Because of this we find much dispute also in the most severe prohibitions - with variations between places that rule like the Rambam and Beis Yosef and those that rule like Tosfos and the Rema. Both of the opposing views are “the words of the living G‑d even though the actual truth as understood by Heaven is only like one of them.

 Rav Moshe Feinstein(Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:92): Our Sages describe the opposing views of halachic debate as both being “the words of the living G‑d.” This means that Torah study of the diverse views of Sages inherently does not contain something which is not true. Thus the opposing views of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are both true. This rule applies also to the disputes of R’ Eliezer and all the Tannaim and Amoraim. All of them were given from One Shepherd. Thus it was not untrue when the Heavenly Bas Kol announced that the Halacha was in accord with R’ Eliezer. His words were inherently true - even though in this world we decide practical Halacha on the basis of majority decision. Because of the inherent truth of all views of our sages, we say the blessing “Who gave to us the Torah of truth” even if we are only learning the views that have been rejected from practical Halacha such as Beis Shammai or minority opinions.

Rav Tzadok(Dover Tzedek 4): The expression eilu v’eilu refers to the fact that … all the aspects and parts are in fact a unity and they all are the words of the living G‑d. However, this concept is truly beyond rational comprehension. How is it possible that complete opposites are both true. We know that it is impossible that truth is anything other than one. How can diverse and conflicting things all be a unity? … Therefore, this concept of eilu v’eilu is beyond the material intellect of man. That is also, why there is no absolutely clear Halacha in the Oral Law that is beyond dispute - except for Halacha L’Moshe which is not disputed as the Rambam states…

R’ Yisroel Salanter(Ohr Yisroel #30): Perhaps the reason that the Bas Kol announced that both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were the “words of the living G‑d” was not that a rejected opinion is not Torah (because Torah is not in Heaven and they both obviously had a tradition from Moshe at Sinai and hadn’t forgotten it). But rather so the people should not despair after seeing them dispute for three years. They might have thought that perhaps the disputing sides had slipped slightly from total objectivity and that this slight bias removed the rejected view of Beis Shammai from being considered G‑d’s Torah. Therefore, the Bas Kol informed them that the view of Beis Shammai were totally acceptable to G‑d. The debate was prolonged because each side felt strongly that their view was superior to the other. Nevertheless, even the rejected views of Beis Shammai are the “words of the living G‑d” and one who studies them is studying G‑d’s Torah.

Trump Works McDonald’s Fry Station/ Peter principle - rising to level of incompetence

<

Kiruv for non-Jews with Jewish Identity II

I am raising an issue of great importance for the future of the Jewish people. There seems to have been a major revolution in the last few years in the approach to dealing with both intermarriage and the non-Jewish children of intermarriage - and yet very few rabbonim seem aware of it. My purpose in writing the following is to provide intelligent discussion of these issues as well as to establish a literature that can be utilized by others. As Rav Sternbuch has noted - halacha depends upon accurate written discussions of issues that can be analyzed and debated. A statement by a rav - no matter how big - which doesn't provide the critical issue of context and sources is very problematic for use by others.

The issue was raised one Shabbos when I received some guests sent by a well known kiruv organization. In the course of discussing how each one of our guests had come to be interested in this particular program - the guest who was most interested in Yiddishkeit stated. "I was raised as a Methodist because my mother is a Methodist - but I am Jewish because my father is Jewish." To put it mildly I was shocked - how could this obvious fact not have been checked prior to admitting this young man into the program. The program is involved in bringing Jews with no Jewish education to Israel where there have a great time - and also learn about Yiddishkeit. The expenses of the participants are heavily subsidized by wealthy benefactors. I said nothing but after Shabbos I called the director to inform him of the problem. His response was, "We know that he is not Jewish but we were told to accept him since he has a Jewish identity."

In the subsequent months I have mentioned this to various rabbonim - who have all expressed shock that this is officially sanctioned. No one knew any teshuvos written on the subject which justify this approach. However I have found that this is not simply a quirk with one kiruv organization - it represents a major conflict between different kiruv organizations. The big money seems to be going in the direction of kiruv for non-Jews (with some kind of Jewish identity) with the hope of converting them. A friend of mine told me that on three separate occasions he was sent guests for Shabbos from a Russian kiruv program here in Jerusalem and found out that they were all non-Jews. When he complained, the program simply stopped sending him guests.

Similarly there has been a major effort to actively pursue intermarried couples and using various techniques - representive of the best American marketing techniques - convince the non-Jewish spouse to convert. This latter approach is spearheaded by R' Leib Tropper of Yeshiva Kol Yaakov in Monsey. See his website [Eternal Jewish Family - Convert to Judaism, Jewish Conversion, Universally Accepted Halachic Conversions for Intermarried Couples ] - especially the videos of testimonials from satisfied customers. It has the official backing of Rav Eliyashiv, Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Reuven Feinstein as well as many others important rabbis. I have not been able to locate any written teshuvos dealing with this either - even though it also represents a major change in the traditional approach to this issue.

I mentioned this information to Rav Moshe Sternbuch who found my revelations disturbing and he wrote a letter which he asked me to translate and distribute. He personally read and approved the translation. The original letter and its translation can be found at the following links.

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/RSternbuch_KiruvNonJew_Aug07_heb.pdf
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/RSternbuch_KiruvNonJew_Aug07_eng.pdf

Some of the discussion aroused already can be found at the following link

http://rabbisedley.blogspot.com/2007/08/kiruv-for-non-jews.html
http://haemtza.blogspot.com/2007/08/patrilineal-descent-and-conversion.html

One of the assertions being made is that Rav Moshe Feinstein has approved kiruv for non-Jews who have a Jewish identify. This assertion has been made by one of America's most widely respected poskim who was a very close talmid of Rav Moshe who said it was an oral psak that he received. I have combed the Igros Moshe and there is no support for this in the Igros Moshe. However recently I was challenged by a certain rosh yeshiva who asserted that what the hetar for this type of kiruv is inherent in the clearly stated teshuva of Reb Moshe regarding the Falashas. I rechecked this teshuva and - contrary to my challenger - it seems clear that this teshuva not only does not support this assertion but seems to directly contradict it. My translation of the teshuva is as follows:

Igros Moshe Y.D. IV. #41 page 271

After much investigation it appears that if the Falashas are not given a Jewish education they will deteriorate even more and will refuse to convert and this can possibly cause – G‑d forbid! –intermarriage between Jews and the Falashas. Therefore l’maaseh they should be given a Jewish education and be influenced through this education to convert as they need to do - as I have written to your brother R’ Mordechai Tendler. One should not be concerned by the fact that we are teaching Torah to people whose status as Jews is in doubt. Since it is actually possible that they are Jews and since there is a reason for this education - it would appear there is no prohibition to teach them Torah. But you should not teach them false halachos - an act which itself is prohibited. In other words, don’t tell them that we in fact view them as definitely Jewish.Instead tell them that while in fact there is a doubt about their status as Jews nevertheless we are prepared to educate them in G‑d’s Torah and His mitzvos. Please note that until they are actually converted they are not to be considered as definitely Jewish even in regards to counting them as part of a minyan or to receive an aliya to the Torah. They are not to be shamed or embarrassed but on the other hand they should not be deceived with false flattery. On the other hand l’chumra they are required to keep all the mitzvos because maybe they are in fact genuine Jews.

Reb Moshe is acknowledging the danger of intermarriage from a non-Jew who views himself as Jewish. However he allows the teaching of Torah only because the person is a "questionable Jew". It follows that if the person is definitely not Jewish he would not have given this heter. Otherwise Reb Moshe would have simply said "any non-Jew who has a Jewish identity should be educated in Torah and converted".

'Apprentice' faked Trump's success

Rav Moshe Feinstein and the History of Thanksgiving

 https://www.torahmusings.com/2023/11/rav-moshe-feinstein-and-the-history-of-thanksgiving/

Nevertheless, Sokolow correctly points out that thanksgiving is indeed a Jewish value. Without resorting to invented traditions or ahistorical myths, Jews express gratitude to God every day in prayer. Much like Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, which cohere with the Jewish value of honoring one’s parents, Thanksgiving reflects ideas in our own texts and traditions. As Rav Moshe reminded us, American Jews should express gratitude for the religious liberty we have enjoyed in America. May it be God’s will that America continues to serve as a safe haven for Jews.

US investigates leak of Pentagon documents on Israel’s plans to attack Iran

 https://www.ynetnews.com/article/sjohuzgxkx#autoplay

Pentagon's classified documents were posted publicly online over the weekend and deal with Israel's preparations for an attack against Iran; "The leak is very worrying," an American official told CNN, which  confirmed the documents are authentic

Probe underway into intel leak of Israeli plans for Iran strike — US house speaker

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-october-20-2024/

IDF says it targets Hezbollah intelligence command post, underground arms factory * Likud blasts opposition chiefs for not condemning ‘Iranian assassination attempt’ on PM

Pro-Iranian account leaks alleged U.S. intel on Israel's attack plans

 https://www.axios.com/2024/10/19/israel-iran-attack-telegram-leaked-intelligence

U.S. officials are extremely concerned about a potentially major security breach after two alleged U.S. intelligence documents about Israel's preparations for an attack on Iran were published by a Telegram account affiliated with Iran.

Israel's Iran Plans Allegedly Leaked

 https://www.newsweek.com/israel-us-intelligence-leaks-iran-attack-1971809

Axios reported on Saturday that two alleged U.S. intelligence documents with details of Israeli preparations to hit back at Iran appeared on a Tehran-affiliated channel on messaging app Telegram. The channel's administrators said in a statement on Sunday that it was not linked to Iran, but run by a "tight-knit team of fully independent journalists."

The documents were marked "top secret," and dated October 15 to 16. The documents purport to show "key munitions preparations and covert UAV [uncrewed aerial vehicle] activity" and were described as being linked to a possible Israeli attack on Iran. At least one document appears to bear markings from the U.S.' National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

Religious tolerance

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_tolerance

Before Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire, it encouraged conquered peoples to continue worshipping their own gods. "An important part of Roman propaganda was its invitation to the gods of conquered territories to enjoy the benefits of worship within the imperium."[7] Christians were singled out for persecution because of their own rejection of Roman pantheism and refusal to honor the emperor as a god.[8] There were some other groups that found themselves to be exceptions to Roman tolerance, such as the Druids, the early followers of the cult of Isis, the Bacchanals, the Manichaens and the priests of Cybele, and Temple Judaism was also suppressed.