Re: R’ Angel: there are 3 kosher edim, milah, and a kosher mikveh. Candidates verbally declare that they understand sechar ve’onesh. How is that not in line with what the gemara in Yevamot 47 says, or what the Rambam paskens in Issurei Biah? A conversion that doesn’t fit the Demai standard, or that wouldn’t be accepted by Leib Tropper is still a kosher conversion. The Rambam even says that a conversion without any instruction is valid be diavad. With the Mehaber, it’s more tricky, since in the actual ShA he quotes the Rambam almost verbatim, but earlier in the same siman, he follows the Tur in ruling that the court must inform the convert of the commandments in order that he accept them and that failure to do so invalidates the conversion even ex post facto. Hakham Ovadia Yosef’s position on giyur is even in line with the Rambam and Hakham Uziel (who gave him semikha). He relies on the same teshuva in Pe’er haDor as his teacher, and in response to those who say that this teshiva shouldn’t be followed le ma’aseh because Maran haMehaber didn’t quote it, he says that the Mehaber simply never saw it, but if he had, he surely would have relied on it (see Yabia Omer YD 8:24). Hakham Ovadia’s approach is also partly the basis for the Sefer Zera Yisrael by R’ Amsalem (Which has a glowing haskama from Hakham Meir Mazuz, rosh yeshiva of Kisse Rahamim, as well as haskamot from Rabbis Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, Shlomo Dichovsky, Shear Yashuv Cohen, Dov Lior, Yaakov Ariel, and Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch).
I prefer kiddushei al tenai as a solution to the aguanh problem (we had a panel discussion at NYU on this yesterday); a person’s opinions don’t “dig” them in any “hole,” unless we live in a place where there are thought police. Shivim panim le Torah.
Kiddushei al tenai was endorsed by many talmidei hakhamim in history, including the Seridei Esh (R’ Berkovits was his talmid), Rav Uziel (he opposed one version of kiddushei al tenai that the hakhamim in Constantinople wanted to implement, but he still endorsed kiddushei al tenai in most other instances), the Yam haGadol (R’ Yaakov Moshe Toledano expressed support the idea that at the time of the wedding, the hatan make a clear statement that his betrothal was based on the approval of bet din, which could allow bet din, at a later time, to retroactively annul the marriage, should circumstances warrant it, and Rav Uziel endorsed this).
My views on these 2 issues are not without precedent, and are rooted in the words of some of our greatest sages.
If a woman giving a drasha, or visiting the sick, or learning halakha bothers you, than I don’t know what to say about that. Graduates of Yeshivat Maharat aren’t radically reinventing Judaism. If you’ve ever gone to a synagogue with one, you’d see that they function in a supportive capacity in most cases, and the most they’ll do is teach and counsel and answer she’eilot, which is what most modern rabbis do anyways. They’re not functioning in any positions of serarah.
Rabbi of Berlin again shows his brilliance and humility.
Get me’usa is a tricky issue, admittedly. I agree with you. The Rambam I cited provides a caveat. One must be an otherwise Observant Jew who resists doing the proper thing. This would not work with a complete rebel or – as the Rambam himself notes – that Judaism does not require this act. Kiddushin 50a seems to be the makor for that Rambam; it says there that we force him to give it until he says he wants to give it, and instead of this being forced, we say that he really wants to heed divrei hakhamim. Le tzarich iyun.