Remember Lipman?

Rabbi Pruzansky is correct in taking the RCA to task and resigning from their geirus committee after they capitulated to the left-wingers desire to use the unrelated DC scandal to initiate changes to halacha regarding geirus.

ROB,

Lipman’s suggestion is for the Beis Din not to be in the room at all, at any time. He propose that it be just women in the room.

And he is suggesting this as lechatichila, not b’dieved.

And how can he be relied on for P’sak himself if it is clear that either he did not look at the teshuvos himself or he did and had no clue what he was reading or intentionally misrepresented what is written therein.

rob: That is exactly what R’ Lipman said.

And no, not every Shittah suddenly becomes something that can be relied upon B’dieved. Sometimes Shittos are rejected.

And yes, in comparison to the Gedolei Olam that were R’ Moshe and R’ Ovadia I am minimizing R’ Uziel. It is nothing against him in the slightest. He was a tremendous Talmid Chacham. There was just others on a level greater than him who outweigh his opinion significantly.

There is a thread about YCT teshuvos. The actual teshuva written and posted is even worse than anything there.

Beyond that, the rational posted by Katz proves yet again that YCT, Yeshiva Maharat and OO have abandoned orthodoxy.

To quote:

Aside from the basic Halakhic question-is there a way to exempt a female convert from having to tovel (dunk) in the presence of the three men of the Beit Din?-the issue raises larger philosophical questions:

1) How do we deal with a halakhic requirement that no longer conforms with contemporary notions of ethics and morality?

There was an old Rechnitzer Rejects tape which had a ??? ???? with dyslexia reading. A paraphrase is appropriate here. ????? ???? ????.

Popa:thanks . I found the article.It raises more questions to me.I am not familiar with what goes on in Israel but ,in the article,it is intimated that the Bais Din is in the mikvah room itself during the process, which is clearly NOT what is said in halocho.If Rabbi Lipman maintains that the Bais Din should never see the woman in the mikvah,then clearly he is wrong.However,the article raises major questions to me how the process is done in Israel.As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems that conversions in Israel are done without regard to halachic standards.

rob: If we’re not great enough to reject an opinion then we are certainly not great enough to Pasken like it against bigger opinions.

Agreed

Nisht: Be fair and don’t drag “Modern Orthodoxy” into this. The vast majority of self-identifying “MO” Jews think this is a perversion of Torah.

I think you should be telling this to Katz, not to nishtdayngesheft.

First of all, I wonder: Do they think that people outside of their camps will accept their conversions? It all seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Now as for the actual halachic aspect:

In Toras Rabbeinu Shmuel Salant vol. 1 siman 29, R’ Shmuel Salant’s position is recorded as follows:

????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??”? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??”? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??”?

But it doesn’t record the ???? which R’ Shmuel was responding to. However, in Shu”t Beis Avraham, we see that the ???? was sent by Rabbi Avraham Ever Hirschowitz to R’ Shmuel Salant and R’ Yaakov Reinowitz and both of their responses are printed there. The ???? was about a place where men are not allowed in the mikva and there are serious consequences and it would cause a Chilul Hashem if the dayanim go in.

You can see it here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=59&st=&pgnum=55 (R’ Shmuel’s response is two pages later)

I would suspect that MK Lipman only saw the Toras Rabeinu Shmuel Salant and not the Beis Avraham, although it is possible to argue that the halachic reasoning would apply lechatchila. L’chal hapachos, R’ Hirschowitz, R’ Reinowitz, and R’ Salant all agreed that bedieved the geirus is good. R’ Ovadia and the Minchas Yitzchak also agree that bedieved it’s good. And perhaps lechatchila b’sha’as hadchak as R’ Ovadia writes: ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???.

The issue is applying this as a lechatchila in a non-sha’as hadchak. As far as I know, R’ Uziel is the only one to condone such a practice.

R’ Ovadia in ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ??? ???? ?? in fact has some choice words:

???? ??”? ???? ??? ????? ??????? (??? ?? ????? ???????) ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? (??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???”? ??”? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????)

He also says that R’ Shmuel Salant clearly was only mattir this in a sha’as hadchak.

However, I don’t see why they have to make such a big deal out of this. R’ Ovadia himself writes:

???? ?”? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? (????? ????? ??) ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? seemingly even lechatchila (although the Minchas Yitzchak says that it’s only bedieved and therefore suggests that the woman should tovel twice – once with this beged and with the Beis Din present, and once without the beged and with the Beis Din right outside listening). This would seem to address everyone’s concerns.

The Minchas Yitzchak can be seen here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14681&st=&pgnum=366 (and specifically ose 6 on the next page)

nishtdanygasheft:

The article is not based in false representaions. Perhaps MK Lipman based his statements on false representations, but the article is simply quoting him. If you think the article itself isn’t reliable then we need a different source that MK Lipman actually said this.

DY: I have said that to him, trust me.

PAA: Fascinating, he misrepresents R’ Uziel as well. That’s important.

I saw an Eitza from a YCT graduate that might actually work, by the way. If you put a button on the bottom of the Mikvah (that is impossible to reach without being fully submerged) that rings a bell outside the room when pushed, then it could be that according to most Shittos the B”D hearing the bell is just as good as R’iyah. It’s certainly a better idea that what either Katz or Fox has said so far.

ROB,

I addition, even if you say that one cannot reject the Shita of R Uziel, clearly, since the overwhelming majority of poskim do not accept his psak, there is no logical way to insist that this should be established as lchatchila.

NDG, according to Rabbi Gordimer, they most definitely did misrepresent the process.

PAA, I don’t think the eitzah Sam mentioned is a more substantial yedia. Yours sounds interesting. ????”?.

Popa, it’s not fair to compare ROB to Lipman. It’s one thing to be blatantly wrong and discuss it on the CR. Nu nu. It’s rish’us to try to actually change the process based on a blatant error.

DaasYochid :Thanks for defending me,although I generally do not take Popa’s comments seriously (see his latest comment!).However,you misunderstood my words.Clearly,the correct way to do this is mentioned in Rambam and s Shulchan Aruch, with the Bais Din waiting outside the mikvan and taking a quick look as the woman is fully immersed to her neck and, in my experience,also from the backb ,thereby avoiding any mishaps. However, in extraordinary circumstances, Rabbi Lipman suggests a way out,based on the Poskim who are “mattir”.In those “mekoros” mentioned,there are plenty of mattirim and,indeed,there are other Rishonim who are of similar opinion. I doubt that Rabbi Lipman would insist that it should always be done that way and,if you read the article, you’ll see that this is what he meant.

ROB, you present Lipman’s suggestion as if it’s straight out of the Shulchan Aruch. I think you are misunderstanding both.

What happend in DC was not the fault of the Gerim, they were sincere. It was the Rabbi who was at fault.

Whether they are correct or incorrect halachically, they make the point that if these people don’t convert it will lead to tremendous confusion because these immigrants have Jewish ancestry and act like Jews (not necessarily like religious Jews) and serve in the IDF and are Israeli citizens, but they are not halachically Jewish.

Wait, aren’t you the one who doesn’t understand why the zionism debate is still relevant today?

PAA: If that was a “legitimate concern”, than on the same token it should be advocated by the same people to convert hundred of thousands of intermarried couples, their children and grandchildren and all the Reform Conservative “Jews” who aren’t halachically Jewish. Since they, like the above “legitimate concern”, are acting, thinking, intermingling and intermarrying with Jews as Jews.

DaasYochid:

What does this have to do with Zionsm?

Popa:

I don’t know whether he wants to convert people without kabbalas mitzvos. He certainly didn’t say that in either the article or the video.

Better idea is to impose criminal penalties on being a relationship with them.

Maybe someone can propose this in the next Knesset session.

DaasYochid:

Why couldn’t a non-Zionist have the same concern?