March 9, 2017 1:39 am at 1:39 am #619429
Crazy Yanklowitz has said some stuff lately that’s really out there.
He has said openly that he was born to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, and underwent first a Reform conversion, then later an Orthodox conversion as an adult. However, we know that he is a chovevei guy, and his conversion could have been done by chovevei “Rabbis”. Would that invalidate his conversion? I know that Israel doesn’t recognize conversion done by Chovevei graduates.
How does the mitzvah of loving converts apply in a case like this?March 9, 2017 2:18 am at 2:18 am #1225558
An Open “Orthodox” conversion has the same validity as a Reform and Conservative “conversion”.March 9, 2017 2:21 am at 2:21 am #1225559
If Farber was the person who did the conversion, then it’s no question that the figure was deficient. And unless he just recently when off the deep end, his statements make it clear that he was not mekabel kol hatorah kulah as emes, so that is another deficiency.March 9, 2017 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1225560
Mr. Yanklowitz has openly and publicly expressed apikorsus’ opinions. Even if he had converted with a real frum beis din (who obviously was unaware that he was an apikorus), his purported conversion would be invalid as no conversion can be valid on a person who holds heretical views.
Rav Elyashiv went as far as saying that if at the time of conversion a person believed the world is older than 6000 years, he remains a goy despite converting in the mikva. Even if someone disagrees about the 6000 years point being an invalidating view, clearly an open apikorus cannot validly convert.
Given all that on top of “converting” with a non-frum “beit din” of the heretical OO movement, Yanklowitz is a gentile.March 9, 2017 3:13 am at 3:13 am #1225561
When I first saw this headline, I was certain it was about another more famous Rabbi “Shmuley”March 9, 2017 3:19 am at 3:19 am #1225562
ZD: Me too. He’s only a little better than this charlatan.March 9, 2017 5:46 am at 5:46 am #1225563
1. His conversion would only be invalid if he was an apikoros at the time of his conversion.
2. Did Rav Eliashiv change his mind after the Langer case? he resigned form the Rabbanut Supreme Rabbinical Court after Rav Goren annulled the conversion of a man who continued to go to church after his conversion and thus cleared his wife’s children from her second marriage (after #1 disappeared) from mamzerut? On what level does one have to believe that the age of the world is 5,777 years? Does the count start with the Big Bang, people starting to speak (that is to say, when they became peopel), when they started to write? Relative to what (see “Age of the Universe” by Dr. Gerald Schroeder on the Aish HaTorah website).March 9, 2017 8:45 am at 8:45 am #1225564
☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
Avi: Several batei din had researched the matter and determined that Borokovsky was a legitimate ger. Goren’s “psak” was a blatant political move (his stance on geirus was otherwise much more lenient). It’s not for nothing that the gedolim completely passeled Goren as a posek, including gedolim who otherwise generally stayed away from such controversies, such as R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R’ Moshe Feinstein.March 9, 2017 10:43 am at 10:43 am #1225565
There’s no hard evidence Rav Elyashiv actually held that, but a rabbi associated with him (who backed a conversion organization that dissolved after a disgraceful scandal) has sometimes made that claim supposedly “in his name” or something like that. Sounds like it may be his extrapolation based on what he thinks R’ Elyashiv’s views were. Anyway, even if the rabbi explicitly claimed he heard that from Rav Elyashiv’s mouth we are not obligated to believe it. There is no rule to trust every askan.
Anyway, to answer DM’s question, we don’t know if the gerus was valid at the time so we should err on the side of loving him (does that mean deleting this thread? probably), while at the same time not compromising on the truth. Think about it: if frum Jews were to befriend him, or at least treat him kindly, and speak to his heart and influence him to change his views, and he actually did so, this would be an enormous Kiddush Hashem. He needs to understand that he can engage in idealistic activism to improve the world (his biggest passion, it seems) without abandoning traditional Torah hashkafah. The same applies to other OO.March 9, 2017 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm #1225566
yytz, it was not related by the person you reference. Rav Nochom Eisenstein shlita, a talmid muvak of Rav Elyashiv and his gabbai for many years directly spoke to Rav Elyashiv and publicly related that Rav Elyashiv said that anyone believing the world is over 6000 years old is an apikorus. You can call Rav Eisenstein (he speaks English) to confirm.March 9, 2017 12:32 pm at 12:32 pm #1225567
That’s who I was talking about. R’ Eisenstein backed EJF (he wasn’t the head — that was somebody else). I’ve seen R’ Eisenstein quoted as saying that about gerus in R’ Elyashiv’s name but I’ve never seen independent confirmation that R’ Elyashiv actually said that.March 9, 2017 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm #1225568
Rav Eisenstein shlita was was Rav Elyashiv ztl’s talmid muvak and gabbai for many years. Very few other people can speak as authoritatively on Rav Elyashiv’s positions as Rav Eisenstein. Especially on an issue such as this where he spoke to Rav Elyashiv directly and is relating what he stated.
Rav Reuven Feinstein shlita also supported the EJF and was the chairman of its halachic committee.March 9, 2017 2:44 pm at 2:44 pm #1225569
1. Borokovski was compelled to go through a gerut by his father-in-law, who had info that could have gotten him in trouble with the law, after marrying his wife in a church ceremony. There is no record of them having ever had a Jewish wedding. He continued to go to church and did not know where one puts tefillin and could not even complete the first verses of “Lecha Dodi” and “Shema Yisrael”. Interestingly, Chareidi dayanim today are quick to invalidate conversions simply because the rabbanim who performed the conversions are not part of their group.
2. Your comment about Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe is hotzaat shem ra.March 9, 2017 2:54 pm at 2:54 pm #1225570
“1. His conversion would only be invalid if he was an apikoros at the time of his conversion.”
Not if the alleged bet din was the IRF, which the gerut bet din was headed an acknowledged apikoros.
Then there was no acceptable gerut, even if you were to assume that Sean has just recently changed to apikorsut. Which is what what I said earlier as well.March 9, 2017 3:27 pm at 3:27 pm #1225571
Avi, your “facts” about Borokovsky are complete fictions invented by Mr. Goren when he was seeking to fulfill his political campaign promises (when running for office of chief rabbi) to make the two mamzeirim ois-mamzer. Borokovsky went through a completely kosher geirus, never went to church thereafter, had a Jewish wedding, and not only knew how to daven well but he was a regular shul attendee.March 9, 2017 3:54 pm at 3:54 pm #1225572
“anyone believing the world is over 6000 years old is an apikorus”
It is not a contradiction to believe in both the Torah’s timeline of creation and the age of the universe estimated by current cosmology.March 9, 2017 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm #1225573
“Your comment about Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Moshe is hotzaat shem ra.”
In joseph’s defense at least regarding R’ Moshe it is true
My father learnt by R’ Moshe and said he never saw R’ Moshe as upset as during that timeMarch 9, 2017 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #1225574
There is a old Jewish Observer from the time of the Goren scandal that had letters and comments from incredible large swathe of the Orthodox Rabbinate condemning what Goren had done. It included letters from Rav Moshe and Rav J.B. Soleveitchik among many, many others. And it is was very rare for them to get involved in Eretz Yisroel halachic controversies. The only major Rabbinic figure at the time (other than Rabbi Goren himself) that refused to condemn Rabbi Goren was Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook. Rav Kook said that he disagreed with Rav Goren but would not condemn him or declare that the Langer kids were mamzerim out of kavod to the Chief Rabbinate.March 9, 2017 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #1225575
Are you claiming that Rabbi Eisenstein claimed that Rav Elyashiv said he would invalidate a geirus on those grounds? Or are you extrapolating from the statement that such a belief is apikorsus to the situation of geirus?
I am extremely skeptical that Rav Elyashiv would invalidate a geirus on those grounds. (I am also generally skeptical of things said in Rav Elyashiv’s name that are not in print)March 9, 2017 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #1225576
I am still puzzled why there was such opposition to Rav Goren’s zz’l Hetter in the Langer case. It was not outlandish at all and well in line with Hetterim that have been used for many centuries. Politics, anyone? And, by the way, if non-belief in the world’s 6000 years makes one an “apikores”-there are some very illustrious Gedolim that fit the bill-see Tiferet Yisroel.March 9, 2017 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm #1225577
If Rav Elyashiv wanted to do something so momentous as declare a huge percentage of Orthodox Jews as heretics, and a huge percentage of gerim as non-Jews, then he would have done so directly. He was fully capable of speaking for himself.March 9, 2017 5:31 pm at 5:31 pm #1225578
benig, what Rav Elyashiv paskened was that dayanim who believed the world older than 6000, are pasul l’dayanus and any conversions they conduct are invalid.
For further clarification, Rav Elyashiv’s talmid muvik Rav Eisenstein is a phone call away for first hand information.March 9, 2017 5:51 pm at 5:51 pm #1225579
I dont belive there is any sefer of any kind in Rav Elyshiv’s name
(I heard there is a work being done on his Tshuvoth, but its not out yet. or just came out)March 9, 2017 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm #1225580
Kovetz Teshuvos has been published for many years during Rav Elyashiv’s lifetime.March 9, 2017 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #1225581
for the record, it turns out Joseph was right regarding R” Shlomo Zalman as well
” we hereby proclaim that his findings and decisions are totally invalid.”
Printed in JO December 1972 (pg 16)
Available on the Agudah’s website (!!! Ashreinu shezachinu lekach)March 10, 2017 12:15 am at 12:15 am #1225582
Saying that the dayanim are posul is different from saying that the geirus would be no good if the convert himself believed. The only theological test for a Ger that we find in Shas is kabolos ol mitzvos. Lo motzinu that there is a requirement to affirm the ikkarim of Yehadus, let alone something like this which is not even an ikar.
Even l’gabey the dayanim, did Rabbi Eisenstein say this to pasul geirus done by those dayanim retroactively or only m’kan u’lhaba?
I am still skeptical of this psak (without an actual teshuvah with sources) but this is significantly more limited.March 10, 2017 12:22 am at 12:22 am #1225583
If you want to understand the opposition at the time, you should go back and read the Jewish Observers from the time. Alternatively, you can track down Rabbi Bleich’s essay on the controversy. This was not “politics,” at least not in the sense that you are thinking of.
I do believe that the opposition was especially vociferous and widespread because of the impression that Goren was specifically appointed Chief Rabbi to be matir these mamzerim (that had already been ruled upon by other batei din). This made it seem like heterim were for sale and that where there was a “rabbinic will there was a rabbinic way.” I believe it was this chillul Hashem that moved the American Rabbonim to voice their opposition.March 10, 2017 12:42 am at 12:42 am #1225584
“I am still skeptical of this psak (without an actual teshuvah with sources)”
So am I. I ran this past one or two learned people of my acquaintance and they didn’t believe it was true. One of them showed me an article by Rav Aryeh Kaplan zatsal about how there are opinions that the world is more than 6 thousand years old.
And on a previous thread, I posted a quote from Rav Hershel Schacter stating that this is not true.
In any case, I don’t think it’s right for someone to make a statement like this (which is in effect Motzi Shem Ra/Loshon Hara on a large number of Jews) without a source. Telling people to call Rav Eisenstein does not qualify as stating a source.
Without a source we are not allowed to believe you and therefore, I believe it’s assur for you to make this statement.March 10, 2017 12:57 am at 12:57 am #1225585
Rabbi Kaplan took a shitah in a kabbalah sefer that he admits the Arizal said was a base error, and decided that for the sake of Kiruv he can (a) decide that it’s correct, and (b) interpret it in a way that fits in with what some people who cannot accept the Torah believe. He based this strange methodology on his erroneous interpretation of a Rambam which he believed allowed him to basically say anything is correct if he finds it somewhere in a sefer, even if we know its a mistake, simply because it’s a hashkafa issue. I know that doesnt sound coherent, and its not, but thats basically the position.
But at the end of the day, his conclusion in that essay – that the world is billions of years old – has been declared by Rav Elyashev, Rav Chaim Kanievsky, as well as the rest of the Gedolei HaDor to be simple kefirah. He meant well, and Hashem yislach lo.March 10, 2017 1:35 am at 1:35 am #1225586
I just checked the AISH website and they have an essay that suggests the earth is more than 6000 years old. AISH isnt the gadolei Hador, but I dont think they would put kefira on it eitherMarch 10, 2017 1:36 am at 1:36 am #1225587
You can not make such statements without a source.March 10, 2017 1:38 am at 1:38 am #1225588
I wouldn’t necessarily consider Aish to be a source, depending who the author of the particular article is.
But in any case, Joseph is the one who needs a source for his statements.March 10, 2017 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1225589
R’ Kaplan is not the only one to sanction belief in an ancient universe (or to believe that the six days of creation were not literally six days). These include, for example, Rambam, R’ Eli Munk, and R’ Dessler.
In addition, in reaction to a controversy regarding Dr. Schroeder of Aish HaTorah, R’ Sternbuch and R’ Weinberg both concluded that belief in an ancient universe was not kefirah. Indeed, Dr. Schroeder’s articles remain on Aish’s website.
R’ Weinberg (and other Aish leaders) were well acquainted with R’ Elyashiv. If the latter held that the ancient-universe view was definitely kefira, then how could they have continued allowing teaching these ideas in Aish? One is certainly not allowed to teach kefira for the sake of kiruv. It must be a valid or at least permissible shittah or the gedolim would have stopped (or denounced) Aish.March 10, 2017 1:40 am at 1:40 am #1225590
I only said AISH, because I know it to be a frum website and they would not put something on there against the GedolimMarch 10, 2017 1:44 am at 1:44 am #1225591
Aish dropped Slifkin’s books after the gedolei yisroel denounced his views.
In any event, Aish publishes some secular sources. What they publish nowadays is no raya that it is permissible.March 10, 2017 2:00 am at 2:00 am #1225592
Yes, but it’s interesting that they dropped R’ Slifkin’s books (one of which was recently published by OU press, by the way, which shows his views are considered normal within MO) but kept other material about an ancient universe. Aish HaTorah is a charedi yeshivish organization. If the only permissible charedi Yeshivish view was that the world is literally less than 6k years old, Aish would be acting much differently.March 10, 2017 10:11 am at 10:11 am #1225593
benignuman: My point is that the hetter used by Rav Goren was not unusual. As a matter of fact, the same reason was used in recent years to invalidate a geirus by Rabbi Sherman. Whether you agree with one or the other side, it cannot be that ,when used by a chareidi Rov (Rav Sherman), it is a good hetter but when used by a dati leumei Rov (Rav Goren) it is not. This was my point about politics.March 10, 2017 12:04 pm at 12:04 pm #1225594
I dont know if anyone knows this answer, but after all said and done what happend to the Langers and their offspring, Was the heter ultimatly accepted (even if under protest) are the Langers children and grandchildren (If they have any) considered Mamzers or not.
I am well aware that Rav ELyshiv protested the wedding, but what happend afterwardsMarch 10, 2017 12:50 pm at 12:50 pm #1225595
anyone believing the world is over 6000 years old is an apikorus.
It’s a shame, Joseph, that I can’t find the old thread where we argued over this, but at least now I have you on record as agreeing that I am an apikorus.
The WolfMarch 10, 2017 1:09 pm at 1:09 pm #1225596
Ubiquitin, I did not see a search engine on the Aguda website nor did I find that quote on Google with the exception of your post. I did, however, find that the Aguda itself condemned the pesak. In any case, all it says is that the pesak was wrong. It does not say that he was disqualified as a posek.
As for the age of the Universe, has anyone actually read Dr. Schroeder’s article or the various explanations in “Challenge”? BTW, Rav Kook says that so far the Theory of Evolution is the closest secular theory to the kabbalistic description while adding a caveat that it may be replaced some time. He wrote (Shemonah Kevatzim 1:594):
?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ????. ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????, ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???”?, ??”? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???, ?”? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????, ???? ?????? ???????. ?????? ???? ????? ???????, ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????. ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ????, ??? ?????, ???? ????????? ??????? ????? ??? ??? ????, ??”? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???????. ??????, ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????, ??????? ?? ????? ????, ???? ???? ???? ???, ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???, ?????? ???? ????, ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????.
See also “Rav Kook on Noah: The Age of the Universe” on the ravkooktorah website.March 10, 2017 1:09 pm at 1:09 pm #1225597
The difference, rob, is that Borokovski was always a shomrei Torah uMitzvos, despite the sheker about him Goren invented to accomplish his political promise of changing mamzeirim into non-mamzeirim, whereas R. Druckman’s “converts” would eat chazir and violate Shabbos as soon as they dried the water off from their mikva dunk.March 10, 2017 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #1225598
search ” Jewish observer December 1972″
the very first link takes you to that issue on Agudah’s website.
If saying “his findings and decesuions are totoally invalid” or in the Hebrew provided in the link to Hapardes above signed by R’ Moshe “??? ????? ????????? ?????.” isnt disqualifying as a posek, I dont know what would be.
Joseph, isnt quite right on that point. IF you read the opposition to R’ Goren it stems primarily from critisicm regarding the way it was handled as put excelently by Beninugman.
Nobody claims he was “always” shomer Torah umitzvos ITs not like he was a kotzker chasid, however if he ever was, certainly in the beggining even if he later left, the heter still falls apartMarch 10, 2017 2:35 pm at 2:35 pm #1225599
You can go to the same JO issue referenced above and on pages 20 & 21 there is analysis of the bases provided by R Goren for his “hetter”.March 10, 2017 7:45 pm at 7:45 pm #1225600
ubiquitin (and Joseph): First of all, the assertions by Joseph are totally false, whether making the father (Borokovski) a “tsaddik gomur”, when many people testified that he never left his original gentile ways, or asserting, in total contradiction to the facts, that Rav Druckman’s converts never kept the mitzvos. But then Joseph has an agenda that always colors-nay-perverts his views.
My belief has always been that Rav Goren’s hetter was nothing unusual and similar hetterim were used by many Poskim before and after him (witness Rav Sherman). It may be that benignuman’s opinion may be the reason- that it was technically a decision on the process but certainly halachically correct. This is what I meant by politics and it is a sad day that politics impinge on Halacha decisions.March 10, 2017 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #1225601
How can you say that “many people testified that he had not left his gentile ways” when not a single reliable, or even remotely believable, witness has been identified. (An army buddy of the Langer boy who married a non Jew and was totally irreligious has no neemanus in such a case. It was not even remotely meisiach lfi tumoi). In fact that statement had been conclusively disproven. (Joseph never called Borokowski a “Tzaddik Gomur” he said a share torah. Big difference).
And it is “your belief” that there was nothing unusual with Goren’s hetter, is soundly contradicted by every major Posek of the time.
So much so that if this were in time of Sanhedrin, he would likely be considered a ??? ????.
There have been disagreements over psokim in the past, but I hhave not heard the proclamations by all those same poskim say as a blanket statement that no psak of ( in this case Goren) can be relied upon. That is unusual. Go look at who made those proclamations.
It seems you accept the word of Moshe Dayan over R Shach, R Moshe, R Elyashiv, and R Shlomo Zalman, tthe Steipler, to name just a few in regards to this serious Halachic matter.
Ok. As long as it is clear.March 11, 2017 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1225602
1. They do not say “all his pesakim” but “his pesakim”. Apparently they are only referring to this one case.
2. Only four gedolim signed. Rav Zolti also disagreed in print. I do not know of any other gadol (Rav Avraham Shapira, Rav Mordechai Eliahu, Rav Nebentzahl, etc.) who disparaged Rav Goren.
3. For a balanced discussion google “Rabbi Bleich the Langer case” and you will get a link to his article in “Contemporary Halachic Problems”.
4. I repeat my question. What about the recent wave of Charieidi dayanim invalkidating conversions?March 11, 2017 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1225603
Wolf, the last time this came up, Joseph actually said that you’re not an apikorus and you are a tzaddik even though you believe the world was created more than 6 thousand years ago. I will try to find the link for you.March 11, 2017 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #1225604
k, Wolf, I looked it up. These were the posts the last time it was discussed:
If you go back to the thread being referenced, this is what you find:
So it seems that according to Joseph, Rav Elyashiv zatsal did not say that someone who thinks the earth is older than 6 thousand years old is an apikorus.
So I don’t get why he seems to say the opposite here and in the last thread (the one I referenced first).
Can you explain, Joseph?March 12, 2017 1:41 am at 1:41 am #1225605
1. The letter signed y R’ Moshe in hapardes says “all”
“his pesakim” is obviously not just reffering to “one case” thoug h perhas they meant this and some other unidentified case.
2. Joseph had just mentioned R’ Moseh and R’ shlomo Zalman after you accused him of Motzi shem rah I just wanted to point out that this time he was right. I did not say any one elese dissagreed.
However, once you bring that up. In the same issue of JO Dec 1972 on pg 17 there is a letter signed by among others The stepiler, Rav Shach and Rav elyashiv z” l which says “all his judgements are batul and it is assur to rely on them”
3. Im well familiar with this
4. Ask JosephMarch 12, 2017 4:06 am at 4:06 am #1225606
I had also heard than Rav ELyshiv insisted the world is 6000 years and anyone who thought otherwise was a Koifer
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.