Reply To: Rav Amsalem

TheChevra and SoRight, This is exactly why I wrote the first post on the board about Rabban Gamliel. Rav Amsalem has every right to learn a sugya and come to his own conclusions and psak, as long as he follows the standard, traditional method of learning with all that that entails. Rather than slinging mud at him, why not find the particular halachic issue upon which the nekuda of the machlokes rests, and learn it like a mensch understanding both sides, just as with any sugya or chakira in shas.

For example, the issue of a ger who says verbally he is mekabel mitzvos, but is not likely to do so is a complex issue. Reb Moshe writes from his father that an anan sahadi that one would not keep the mitzvos renders the kabalas mitzvos and the conversion invalid. For example, if one spouse of an intermarried couple wants to convert, while the Jewish spouse himself does not keep mitzvos, then we must assume that the ger will not keep any more than the Jewish spouse, and hence it is invalid.

However, counterbalancing to this is the principle that devarim sheblev einam devarim. For example, if a person makes a declaration in court that he has no intention of keeping, it is binding (unless he can prove coercion or issued a modaa beforehand). Another example is a person saying Harei At Mekudeshes Li and giving a ring, and then saying I didn’t really mean it and I never intended to marry her. Obviously, he must give a get, since devarim sheb’lev einam devarim. There are teshuvos about Bar and Bas Mitzvah age kids who were playing around and said Harei At in front of witnesses, and sometimes they were told they had to give a get, I believe. Because of this, I seem to remember that some poskim hold if a potential ger makes a declaration that he will keep mitzvos, then that is what matters.

Note, I did not see Rav Amsalem’s sefer, but the sugya needs to be approached from the point of view of lomdus, not mudslinging. I have no idea what your heter to call him Mr. Amsalem is, unless it was verified that he is an apikorus. Arguing with Rav Yosef in halacha does not render him an apikorus. Why don’t you find out the specific root halachic issues about which they argue.

As far as his statement that not all people should be in learning full time, it seems that Rav Yosef holds that way himself. Don’t you understand that Shas is upset at him because if he says this, then maybe people will say that the govt is not obligated to support the Shas yeshivos or kollelim at the same level as before. This may be the core reason for the extreme anger at Rav Amsalem, even though Rav Yosef agrees halachically, he may feel that it should be kept hush-hush. So there are a lot of political machinations going on here behind the scenes. None of which make Rav Amsalem deserving of the calumny that has been thrown at him, including that he is the cause of the lack of rain in Israel.

As far as Chillul Hashem, the Hamon Am has the highest respect for his academic honesty, and far from being a Chillul Hashem, in my opinion it is a big Kiddush Hashem. The Hamon Am sees there is a Rabbi who understands their concerns, and is not afraid to say what he believes is the truth, despite it not being the politically expedient thing for him to do. Remember that Kiddush Hashem is defined by Mah habrioyos omrim alav, not mah hatalmidei chachamim omrim alav.