- This topic has 145 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
rob: I believe that issue has been hashed out with you and others in previous threads, and the consensus clearly was that you lost that argument on the halachic merits.
rabbiofberlin:
I would like to see the sources, thanks (if you don’t mind).
Torah He V’lilmod Ani T’zarich.
chaverim- who decided that I lost the argument on halachic grounds? First of all, it is not my argument to lose, there are many bigger people than me who espoused the same view. Secondly, the ‘consensus” in the coffee room doesn’t make it the truth.
to gavra at work- I’ll bring you the quotes from the rambam and the shulchan aruch- on the particular needs of geirim and i will quote to you some interesting teshuvos of recent vintage that may surprise you. I daresay that many of the ‘coffee room” participants will not accept these arguments but it dosn’t mean that they are erroneous. give me a day or two.
Perhaps we should start a new thread for this: halachas of hilchos geirus, in which Rabbi of Berlin will prove that the halacha is decidedly against the gedolei haposkim of the chareidi sector.
BS”D
The saddest part is how the fallacies of Zionism blind even sincere men who try to blend Zionism with Torah. Rabbi Riskin is a man who has done more good than most of us and brought many Jews back to Torah. Now, he sadly is casting his lot with those who will allow all kinds of erev rav into Am Yisroel, and equating Zionist practice with Jewish practice in defense of his position.
Like Rav Kook, Rabbi Riskin is not a rosho or a rotzeach. But both try unsuccessfully to metaher the tuma of Zionism, rather than to fight it the right way which is bringing Jews back to pure Torah and gently (or not so gently in the case of those who respond only to Rav Amnon Yitzchak shlit”a’s confrontational style) pointing out the total fallacy inherent in Zionism and showing how it is not a part of Judaism but rather another errant offshoot of the Haskalah (which should be spelled hay-samach-kuf-lamed-hay meloshon skila.)
JOTHAR- you showed your hand- “gedolei haposkim of the CHAREIDI sector”- by direct implication you have decided that no one is a godol unless he is of the “chareidi” sector. this has been the strategy of the isolationist chareidi ‘sector’ for man years-to de-legitimize anyone who does not share in the ‘chareidi’ philosophy and refuse to recognize anything they say. Nothing I will show you will change your mind so I wonder why I bother.
Bear, you ought to be quiet about Rav Kook ztz”l…
Religious Zionists, with whom I proudly affiliate myself, want a Jewish state run by halacha, in the land that Hash-m Yisbarach gave to our forefathers. Whats the problem with that?!?!?!
Secular Zionism, namely kissing up to Arabs and holding regard to the land of E”Y as only of material value, with nothing spiritual behind it, and sinas chinam against frum yidden, is WRONG though, but don’t classify every person in E”Y as a terrible cofer baikar because of that.
PS: feivel there is absolutely no such thing as sinas chiyuv. No Yid should hate another for any reason. Dislike is not good, but on a higher madreiga than sinah.
Good day, David S.
rabbiofberlin:
Thank you in advance. Good point on the “Charaidi sector”. Does that mean the rest of the world (outside “EY Charaidi”, sice they don’t hold of the “Amerikanisha”) is not jewish/frum/yeshivish?
Not complaining/arguing, as that philosophy (everyone except Charaidi is nothing) is needed in EY, as per their (current) gedolim’s rules about fear of the outside world.
Kilo: just wish the “Charaidi sector” would put their money where their mouth is, instead of fighting for money from the Tzioni government. As The gedolim from top down (except for Rebbe Yoel ZTL) say, MONEY for the yishuv/lifestyle/kollels is the absolute priority. That in of itself is a strong point of the Zionists.
??????????, ??????? ???-??????
ROB, I never hid my hand- I don’t play poker, and have a lousy poker face. Chareidi poskim don’t argue on legitimate halachic sources unless they have other legitimate halachic sources upon which to base it on. The chareidi sector is usually not known for a lack of fidelity to sources. This isn’t about winning, it’s about the truth. Please present your sources so we can study them and see who is telling the truth. But as you like poker, I’m calling your bluff. Either show a winning hand on this issue or fold.
BS”D
I have no fear of criticizing Rav Kook as most of the Torah world has done the same. He was an odom godol who made a very great mistake.
Your dream of a halachic State is impossible without Moshiach and the present state is not a necessity for Moshiach. Aschalta degeula is a dangerous fallacy and one that many former National Religious are disabusing themselves of.
Everybody knows full well that the victims of secular Zionism are tinokos shenishbeu. However, their actions do desecrate kedushas eretz Yisroel and the government’s actions are those of reshoim gemurim who endanger the lives of Jews in EY and elsewhere.
David S., I think everyone wants a state run al pi halacha. That’s not Zionism. The idea of Zionism was to create a “new Jew”, a state like all the others. Herzl didn’t want Uganda to create a halachic state. The state was last run al pi halacha when Queen Shlomtzion (Salomis Alexandra) ruled through the advice of the chachomim before the churban bayis sheini.
in answer to gavra and jothar….I don’t question poskim if they want to issue certain piskei halocho. My main argument is that there are many answers to these questions, often depending on the circumstances of the time. My argument is with the so-called ‘absoluteness” of authority vested in certain rabbonim, to the total exclusion of all others.
This is a long sugya but if start looking at the Rambam and shulchan aruch hilchos gerim, it expressly says that you teach the prospective ger “mikzas mitzvos”. In other words, he does not have to know (and practice) all mitzvos. This is clear. He does have to accept toe “principle’ of Toirah and the ultimate acceptance of mitzvos but it is crystal clear that , at hte moent of acceptance to become a ger, he does not have to know everything or practice all.
Secondly, in the same hilchos geirim, it states explicitly that if a geir goes through the mechanical process of geirus (tevilah and milah for a male), EVEN IF AFTERWARDS, it transpires that he became a ger for a specific purpose (i.e. to get married) he is a ger “lekol dovor”.
Thirdly, there is absolutely no mention ANYWHERE that, if one becomes a ger, you can cancel it retroactively. “Punkt farkert” in the acharonim, they mention the gemoro in shabbos where hillel ACCEPTED a ger even though he said he did it for a purpose and woudl not accept all miztvos at the time and tosefos says hillel di it because he knew (and hoped) that he would keep ALL mitzvos as he learned more of yiddishkeit!
If you can’t look these halochos I’ll be happy to point you to the actual sources.
There is also a whole sugya about ketanim that can and should be used for the children of mixed marriages.
These are just the sources that, to mnay Poskim, maes it possible to be “meikel”. This is my whole point- that flexibility in halocho has totally disappeared in some quarters and this was not the norm in past centuries. (before you jump on me for the term flexibility- I am specifically talking about finding soruces in halocho that would permit an easier path-yes, koach de-hetira odif)
rob, who are you kidding? We both know al pi halacha a ger must accept each and every taryag mitzvos before he can become a ger. He may not know the details of each mitzvah, but he knows he must fully accept all 613.
Secondly we both know that most of these zionist so-called converts do not accept all 613. They know that beforehand, and are kidding no one. Shabbos itself is not maintained, or intended to be maintained, by so many of them.
So as a matter of fact they never were geirim, so nothing is being retroactively annulled, but rather we are just recognizing the facts.
BS”D
And sadly, we know that the Zionist rabbonim accept the supposed quote from their mentor which is along the lines of “A Jew playing soccer in EY is holier than a Jew learning in Lita”.
I highly doubt the veracity of this quote; instead I believe it is one of many examples of the complete pap wrongly attributed to Rav Kook that is used by the Zionists in their attempt to blind bnei Torah into merging their klipa with the true kedusha of Eretz Yisroel which is only from Torah.
Many say that if Rav Kook were alive today, there is much he would reject of RZ. That is the limmud zechus for him as he was indeed an odom godol.
A more telling quote (possibly just as apocryphal) was a retort to a secularist who asked Rav Kook why he was meeting with Aguda. His response was approximately: “With them there is one mitzvah that we see differently; with you it is a matter of 612 that you neglect”.
BS”D
And an interesting anecdote about Ariel Zilber (NOT Meir Ariel as I inadvertently posted it), Reb Amram Bloy ZY”A and the Lemel School, which was actually an orphanage that was located opposite the Edison Theater where Reb Amram ZYA protested.
There was an orphan girl of Teimani parentage, a real tinokes shenishbah who ended up in the Lemel School because it operated as an orphanage (it was a predecessor to D**s Hames in that it tried to suck in children from Meah Shearim to become secular, and orphans were the easiest to delude because they could easily be taken from their relatives and foster homes). The orphan girl’s name was Bracha Zefira (Tzfira), and she eventually became a well known singer. She had one son with her husband, a classical musician of Russian origin.
And her son now sings the very song she undoubtedly heard Reb Amram ZYA sing as he was being dragged away from the theater across the street from the very school that cheated her of her heritage.
That is because her son is indeed none other than Ariel Zilber, who brought Hashem Hu Malkeinu into the mainstream after his disgust with the Gaza withdrawal.
All has come full circle. The son of a student at a secular brainwashing academy, now become a Boyaner moissad, sings the song his mother heard across the street, at a theater now slated to become a Satmarer mokom Torah.
I have no more time to post on this subject, but I do not believe I have to anymore. The children and grandchildren of those who were denied their heritage by the secularists are coming back, and by and large they are rejecting Religious Zionism for pure Torah.
All I want to close with is that I hope that we can have a real victory, not only by demonstrations which show just how dear Shabbos is to us and that indeed probably will work to get the respect for Shabbos that Yerushalayim must command, but with more and more effort being put into bringing back the victims, and that is what they are, victims, of Zionism.
Then, Reb Amram Bloy ZYA will have won not only the victory of the conversion the building that he so wanted to see closed on Shabbos from the lowest klipa to the highest kedusha, but the joy of knowing that more and more Jews understand that Hashem Hu Malkeinu, Velo Hineni Avodim, HaTorah HaKedusha Hi Chayenu, VeLah Hinenu Neemanim!
chaeverim- if anyone is kidding anyone , then it must be the rambam and the shulchan aruch-PLEASE, before you spout ignorant commetns,check your sources……
BS”D
Gavra, are you referring to allegations that Yaakov deHaan HYD may have engaged in behavior that would have been chayav misso and that he continued this behavior after his return to Yiddishkeit and involvement with the Aguda? I thought you were referring to the murderer being subject to assassination by a Pinchas.
If so, there is one problem. For any Pinchas to kill him, said Pinchas would have had to be one of two witnesses to that behavior and indeed to one particular form of same.
The best indication we have of any of that is a poem which can be read as his having a very hard time controlling certain taavos. But no one has any evidence of his having committed a particular aveira in front of two witnesses, so he was not chayav misso at the hands of a human beis din.
Therefore, the rosho who killed him and perhaps the bigger rosho who ordered the hit (are those who hire hit men considered roitzchim or is only the murderer himself a rotzeach?) are the only one(s) who are chayavei misso.
Yaakov deHaan HYD died al kiddush Hashem, trying to save Jews. No one is perfect, and just as someone in Otisville is not excused from keeping Shabbos on the basis that he stole, so, too are we prohibited from taking the status of HYD away from Yaakov deHaan on the basis of some allegations of ossur behavior based on problems he had with that behavior during his non frum days.
rob, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 268:3 says the acceptance of mitzvos is an absolutely necessary condition to become a convert. Also see Igros Moshe Y.D. (1:157) where it says concerning a convert who does not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos, that it is clear and obvious that he is not a convert at all even after the fact.
Chaverim, your use again of the pejorative “Zionist converts” again demonstrates the lack of a Jewish heart and compassion, and ignorance of history. In fact, why did we get into such a mess with Russian converts? Because the Russian govt wiped out all traces of Jewish learning. Therefore many Jews did not know anything of their heritage and married non-Jews. (If anything this proves the need for a Jewish state, since intermarriage is far lower than it was in Russia, so you have disproved yourself.) But getting back to the topic at hand, we have Jews who want to make Aliyah from Russia who have a non-Jewish spouse. What is your solution? Tell them to get divorced, leaving broken families and children? Don’t allow them into the country at all, and leave them lost to yiddishkeit forever? Thankfully the medinah has compassion and is trying in the best way possible in conformance with halacha to allow these families to remain together. The best solution seems to be to motivate the non-Jewish spouse to convert and accept mitzvos. However, there may be individual cases where this fails. I believe Rav Ovadiah Yosef agrees with this approach.
It is very easy for a kannoi to scream asur and blame the medinah for a problem that was actually caused by a lack of a Jewish medinah where Jews were at the whims of cruel anti-semitic rulers in golus. It is much more difficult to solve the problem than to scream about it, because solving it actually takes compassion, careful learning and Torah knowledge to do, whereas screaming can be done by any klutz on the street. Thankfully the klal was blessed with compasionate poskim like Reb Moshe in his time, who tried as hard as he could to help Jews in trouble (he freed 2000 agunos from WW2). Far be the day when insensitive, coldhearted kannoim start to deal with difficult issues of the klal.
rob, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 268:3 says the acceptance of mitzvos is an absolutely necessary condition to become a convert. Also see Igros Moshe Y.D. (1:157) where it says concerning a convert who does not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos, that it is clear and obvious that he is not a convert at all even after the fact.
Ok, mareh mekomos for everybody:
Yevamos 24B, Tosfos there, Yevamos 47a-b, 76A.
Rambam hilchos isurei biah, located in Sefer Kedusha), perek 13, halachas 14,15,16,17. ( hebrewbooks.org rambam browser makes this convenient)
Tur and shulchan Aruch Yoreh deah siman 268, especially the end. I didn’t see the Shulchan Aruch yet, but in the tur it’s sif 4 and 12. I have a Tur set at home but not a shulchan Aruch set.
The gemara quite clearly states that they didn’t accept geirim in the days of Dovid and Shlomo because they geirim had ulterior motives. The Gemara does say that there were 150k geirim then. The Rambam says that they were converted by batei din of hedyotos. The Hagohos Mordechai (Yevamos siman 110)says that if we know they have ulterior motives, we do not accept them. the Rambam does say that if they were accepted by others and had mila and tevila, bedieved (as in, not lechatchila), they are full geirim and we watch them to see if they accepted the mitzvos. The Tur is quite clear ( by siman 4) that kabalas ol mitzvos is me’akev, even though a simple reading of the Rambam doesn’t say it. Kabalas ol mitzvos is me’aekev even if it wasn’t in front of 3, kol shekein if it was neevr done at all. That is why we can go lemafrea. However, even the Rambam is mode that we don’t accept geirim lechatchila for ulterior motives. I only put in an hour into this, and didn’t have time to read through the shulchan aruch nosei keilim and later poskim yet, but it does seem quite clear that 1. kabalas ol mitzvos is me’akev, at least according to the Tur, 2. There are those who say the Beis Yosef agrees with the Tur, and the only heter is if they didn’t inform him of the mitzvos, assuming he meant to accept all the mitzvos, not that he didn’t fully accept all the mitzvos, and 3. According to all opinions, we do not lechatchila accept geirim converting for ulterior motives. Geirim who accept all the mitzvos for ulterior motives are geirim bedeieved, but lechatchila we do not accept them. Geirim who do not accept mitzvos are not geirim (based on tur 4 who says even kabbalos ol mitzvos in front of less than 3 or at night is bad). So to lechatchila make geirim out of goyim for no good reason, and who don’t want to accept mitzvos, is AGAINST normative halacha. The only question is bedieved, if a beis din of hedyotos (a good name as nay for abeis din that goes against the lechatchila of normative halacha) if the Rambam is in fact arguing on the tur and holds that bedieved kabaalas ol mitzvos is not me’akev. However, the beis yosef holds like the Tur and has a different girsa in that part of the Rambam. This wasn’t some chumra made up by Rav Eliashiv Shlit”a.
Again, I’m not a poseik, and an hour is hardly enough time to get to the bottom of this, but it’s enough time to see the basic gist of halacha. And that is there is no heter to make geirim for ulterior motives, and if you do so, and they don’t fully accept mitzvos, many poskim like the Tur (And many say the Beis Yosef and Rem”a with him)say it didn’t count. More mareh mekomos proving that this is the accepted halacha as I spend more time being me’ayein. anyone who wants to join is welcome to do so.
“Flexibility” in halacha is what the Conservative started out with- “if there’s a Rabbinic will, there’s a halachic way”. Halacha is flexible by those who know its parameters, not by those looking to be matir a sheretz.Now the Conservative movement is allowing gay marriage, with a “teshuva” given at their general assembly explaining why it’s mutar. Very flexible. Very non-halachic.
The secular Zionists brought the goyim from Russia and elsewhere in to counteract the growing Chareidi population. It backfired. So now that the secular Zionists were oved the baal pe’or, the Rabbanut has to wipe up the mess? Why does the rabanut have to be mah-yafisniks, dancing to the whims of the Secular Zionists? It’s the Secular Zionists calling the halachic tune, and the modern Rabbanut “Mah-Yafis”niks dancing to the tune. (Note: Many rabbanim of the rabbanut do follow Gedolim, and do not deserve to be lumped in here. I am hereby excluding those.) Absolute authority rests with those who know halacha and spend their lives studying it, not with the secular Zionists. No matter how flexible you want to be, you cant make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.
BS”D
Here is the view from “the battlefield” regarding the FSU “olim”:
Not one of those mixed couples emigrated to EY for any reason other than a free ride. When they left, the situation here looked bleak and thanks to the Shamir-Bush kombina, the US was closed to them. (Some could and did choose Germany.)
Now that there are more opportunities here than in EY, the most entrepreneurial former “olim” have returned and are doing very well in larger cities throughout the FSU.
Some real Jews stayed in EY and are contributing to society, though many would like to move as they are working far below their capabilities and are looked down on because of their origins.
Today, the Sochnut representatives here basically do nothing but hold a few cultural programs because no one is interested in emigration anymore. If anyone is emigrating, it is a handful of baalei tshuva who really want to learn in EY (and many return to teach and serve as rabbonim in the FSU) and a few idealistic students who often also return once they grow older and wiser or even sooner because they realize they have become lowly, despised “Russians” in EY.
As far as potential converts and the parents of same are concerned, the non-Jewish half of the mixed couples often still wears a cross and worships in a kloister, and the worst of the non-Jewish olim, where actually NEITHER half of the couple is an halachic Jew or where a non-Jew of Jewish heritage emigrated based on the faulty Law of Return, includes quite a number of anti-Semites.
If they convert, it is not out of any sort of sincerity; it is just so that the next generation can marry Jews. This is the legacy of Communist inspired dishonesty, preserved thanks to secular Zionism and those rabbonim who are blindsided by the Zionist tuma masquerading as Religious Zionism.
This is indeed my last post regarding this subject. I only posted again because I have first hand knowledge of the fifth column that has emigrated from here and now wants to undergo McConversions so they can marry, often into the lowest social strata of “indigenous” EY secular society which is still one step up from the social status of a Russian speaking immigrant or child thereof, halachically Jewish or otherwise.
More on conversions from Cross-Currents, where he quotes what seems to be the source for ROB’s understanding of the halacha:
Most of us have seen the tendency in academic circles to take different but somewhat related authors/ musicians/ thinkers/ concepts and turn them into Two Opposing Conceptual Schema. Unconsciously, we absorbed the technique when we had to write research papers, particularly in the humanities. If we could uncover the inevitable borrowing and influence from some other names, we were on the way to a successful paper. We knew we hit pay dirt when we could make the argument that Schema A was influenced by X, while Schema B was influenced by Y because the respective authors/ designers of those schema were products of the special conditions of their times.
Should it surprise us when people operating within this mindset turn to Torah and do the same? Sagi and Zohar claim to have found two sources in the gemara, and turned them into two different shitos regarding conversion requirements. Alas, say the authors, halachic thought jumped ship in the late 19th century (motivated, of course, by waning rabbinic authority just as it had to confront the dizzying new choices of modernity) and opted for the more onerous set of rules.
Halachists, of course, do not approach text this way. Neither do ninth graders with serious gemara background. When they see conflict between sources, they generally endeavor to reduce the tension as much as possible, sometimes by successfully harmonizing sources, and where that is impossible, reducing the intellectual distance between the opposing viewpoints as much as possible.
My objective in this piece has nothing to do with conversion, Profs. Sagi and Zohar, or sniping at the academic world. It is, rather, an illustration of but one way of looking at halachic sources in a manner that is foreign to the traditional halachist. The real culprit will emerge in the continuation of this essay.
KiloBear, what you write is so totally beyond the pale of what every Jew knows from elementary school. Are you denying that there was a Soviet Jewry movement from the 1960’s through the 1980’s? Why did my school send the entire student body every year on Solidarity Day along with countless other schools and organizations and shuls of all stripes (and the most distinguished US politicians would speak) to free the Soviet Jews who were denied religious freedom and even the right to emigrate. Are you saying this was all a major hoax perpetrated by non-Jewish swindlers who managed to fool the entire world into thinking they were oppressed Jews so they could pull off a get-rich quick scheme by coming to Israel where the streets were paved with gold because of the super economy the State of Israel was blessed with? I am astounded, really. We were all a bunch of fools because they were never Jewish to begin with. The number 3 million we would always hear was a fiction. All the Jews of the USSR who were there for hundreds of years mysteriously vanished. My baby sitter’s husband who was moser nefesh to line up for matzah Erev Pesach in the USSR secretly at 5 am and keep with his family whatever Judaism they knew were all a bunch of liars. (How did all these non-Jews know yiddish so well?)
There was no Essas who studied Torah in hidden basements of the USSR, and then finally was let out and went to the Mir in Yerushalayim where he sat and learned yomam valaylah? There was no Mendelevich who sat and learned in Merkaz Harav (I believe) yomam valylah? (But indeed there was a Mendelevich, because I was privileged to eat a Shabbos meal with him at the home of my HS principal.)
What is all the more strange is that above, you knocked the Israeli economy and said it is all a sham and they have no competent drug companies or high tech industry, despite the fact that we read every day about their successes. So you have contradicted yourself, since you claim that was why all the non-Jews made aliyah.
I have come to the conclusion that there is not one bit of reality that you will not twist and distort to support your sinas chinam. Even if you have to twist it one way today, and exactly the opposite tomorrow, whatever works at that moment is fine.
Jothar, there is something called a shaas hadechak and hefsed merubah and tzorech rabim that allows leniencies. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that these families are going through a difficult situation through no fault of their own shows a lack of compassion. Very easy for you to say that because my family had no such difficulty, I am a great tzaddik and will tell you that your family is inferior and if you seek a solution, you are a conservative and a kofer. Very convenient to be frum on somebody else’s cheshbon. How does it hurt me to pasul somebody else’s family. life is great for me, and I am frum and perfect and my family is super-Jewish, and who cares about the other family, why should I be flexible since it has no bearing on my situation.
I tend to think if your family was in a bind, all of the sudden you would see things a but differently, and look for a halachic way out. I am not knocking you personally, I am only showing the fallacy in this way of thinking. Vahavta lreacha komocha means I treat yenem the same as myself and put myself in his shoes.
We all seem to have forgotten the lesson of Avraham Avinu who told the Ribbono Shel Olam the sharf words Chalilah lecha, hashofet kol haaretz lo yaaseh mishpat! And who was he defending? The Anshei Sdom who were not Jewish and were among the worst people on earth in both bein odom lamakom and bein odom lachaveiro. They were far worse than any Soviet Jew and any Zionist and any modern Orthodox YU graduate. The compassion of an Avraham Avinu is why he was zocheh to be the father of our nation.
I will not be posting any more on this thread, since I am getting too aggravated at people trying to reinvent the beautiful yiddishkeit I was taught all my life (and reinvent history, as well, for that matter). Believe me, if the kannai’s view of Judaism ever becomes the norm, I will be the first to go OTD. Who needs such an ugly religion?
?’ ????”? ???-? ??????.
The teshuva of Reb Moshe- typos due to scanning program errors on hebrewbooks.org
??”? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???”? ?????
??????? ????”? ????-? ??????.
??? ????? ???”? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????
?? ???? ??, ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????
??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????”? ???? ?????
???????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???
?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???”? ??’
??”? ???’ ?’. ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??
??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????. ???
????? ??? ????? ??????, ???? ?????? ??????
??? ???? ??,? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???
??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????. ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??”?
???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ‘???? ???????
???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????”? ???? ?????
??????? ??? 6 ???? ??????. ?????? ???? ???? ??
?? ???.
?????,
??? ?????????
Here- I fixed it up. Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT”L was known for his compassion and mercy on klal yisroel, and took heat from the more extreme elements for it. As he once said, “The almana is siting in front of me and THEY get to pasken?!” And after all the grief he took on the AID psak, even Satmar agrees with it today. Yet, he says this:
?’ ????”? ???-? ??????.
??”? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???”? ?????
??????? ????”? ????-? ??????.
??? ?????? ???”? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????
?? ???? ??, ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??????
??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????”? ???? ?????
?????????????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???
?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ???”? ??’
??”? ???’ ?’. ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??
??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????. ???
????? ??? ????? ??????, ????? ?????? ??????
??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???
??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????. ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??”?
???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?’???? ???????
???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????”? ???? ?????
??????? ???? ???? ??????. ?????? ???? ???? ??
?? ???.
?????,
??? ?????????
Kilo: I was refering to both. It’s interesting how (and who) someone gets the Zechus to die Al Kiddush Hashem.
Jothar: Thanks for posting the original teshuva from Reb Moshe.
Here is an English translation of it, from Rav Daniel Eidensohn, author of “Yad Moshe” (an index to the Igros Moshe):
Y.D. (1:157)
Question: Concerning a convert who does not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos is he considered a convert?
for whatever reason, the moderator has not published a couplf of my answers. i have no idea why, as they were measured. Anyway- in answer to jothar and chaverim.The article from cross-currents clearly discusses different ways of looking at halacha- which has been the way of Poskim for thousands of years. To a large extent, this is part of the arguments that underlie today’s different approaches. There is nothing imperative to accept one particular view as the normative one.
It is also clear from the author on whose side he stands, which is his privilege. He is clearly wrong in assuming that ‘it is not novel” (his words)to invalidate retroactively a ‘geirus”. Anything ‘retroactive” (whether in marriages, divorces, geirus) MUST have ironclad reasons to do so. Otherwise, there would never be any finality to anything. The laws of ‘chazokoh” obviously accpet this.
If -for example- we would know that there was no tevilah, clearly, it is an ironclad reason to invalidate a geirus. The question of ‘kabolas ol mitzvos’ is much more nuamced, thougth, as you can clearly see from the fact that the rambam and the Shulchan Aruch both accept a geirus that occurred under doubtful circumstances.
So, the author may want to accept Rabbi Sherman’s psak but then others can refuse to accept it. Remember that the outcry over the psak had more to do that Rabbi Sherman invalidated ALL the geirim of rav Druckman, which is preposterous.
so, halacha is not all on your side and ,as always, there are different views. This my main argument, that one is not bound to follow certain chareidi Poskim just because they say so.There are plety of poskim who disagree with the psak of rabbi Sherman.
As far as R” Moshe’ zz’l teshuvah. No on disputes the fact of “kabolos ol mitzvos”. This is why reform and conservative geirim are not accepted. If a geir comes to an orthodox bais din and says that he accepts the ‘OL”, how does one dispute it?
R’Moshe zz’l adds the phrase of ‘anan sahadi’ and in this , there is miles of latitude.How does “anan sahadi” work? is it one mitzvah? is it any mitzvah? how about if it is “leteovon”? The teshuvo is unbelievably short and does not give any explanation, a rarity for R’Moshe zz’l.
Most importantly, no one here noted the DATE of the teshuvo, which is 1929 !!! On can certainly assume that R’Moshe’s psak (and his father’s years earlier) dealt with a certain set of circumstances that would certainly have changed in other times. Do you think that R’Moshe’s psak on ‘cholov akum’ would have been the same in 1929??
I know that nothing I say here will change your mind but don’t assume that everyone has to bow and just accept any psak from whatever source you choose.
rob wrote: As far as R” Moshe’ zz’l teshuvah. No on disputes the fact of “kabolos ol mitzvos”. This is why reform and conservative geirim are not accepted. If a geir comes to an orthodox bais din and says that he accepts the ‘OL”, how does one dispute it?
rob, Reb Moshe is very clear in his psak that WE CAN dispute the sincerity of someone who went trough the mechanical motions of conversion. Again, directly from Reb Moshe’s psak:
It is clear and obvious that he is not a convert at all even after the fact…
He said in such a case that the person was not a ger in any sense whether for leniencies or strictness…
It is simply obvious that such a person is not considered a convert.
dear chaverim, with great respect, I don’t take translations as the authority of any psak or saying. If you check the original in ‘Loshon kodesh”, R’Moshe writes that “ger shelo kibbel mitzvot”, a ger who does not accept the mitzvos. No one denies that – although , quite obviously, in R’Moshe’s times there were other rabbonim who did dispute this and they had to be responsible rabbonim (not Zionists, I am pretty sure….)otherwise why quote them.
THEN, R’Moshe declares ‘anan sahadi” -we are witness- that he doesn’t accept “kabolas mitzvos” them his geirus is not valid. but ‘anan sahadi’ is a very nuanced term. How do we know? Does eating a cheeseburger- “leteovon”- means he doens’t accept the mitzvos? maybe he was just famished- I am not kidding, “leteovon’ means exactly that. He accepts the mitzvot but just is too weak ,for now, to follow them.
r’Moshe does not tell us what “anan sahadi’ means.
Lastly- you didn’t answer my last note that this teshuvo was written in 1929,under very different circumstances. how do we know how R’moshe would pasken today.
jothar- if you don’t understand that teshuvos do depend on when they are written, then you have no understanding of halacha.The gemoro sets down principles and so does the shulchan aruch. Teshuvos interpret thses principles and rule according to the requirements of the time. After WW2 there were thousands and thousands of agunos and the Rabbonim (chareidi all) used every kulloh in the book to allow them to remarry. in different circumstances, clearly, they would not have ruled similarly. THAT is why the date of a teshuvo is important.
Even R’Moshe himself accepts this. see his teshuvos on whether the shulchan has to be in the middle of the bais hamedrash and his comments on the chassm sofer’s psak on this.
The latter comments including what you quote rom R’Moshe’s teshuvo,have no place in the realm of halacha. It is a ‘feeling’ and things sure look different from which angle you look at it. R’moshe zz’l ,himself, did not heed these SAME kind of arguments when he paskened that artifical insemination is allowed.
“Most importantly, no one here noted the DATE of the teshuvo, which is 1929 !!! On can certainly assume that R’Moshe’s psak (and his father’s years earlier) dealt with a certain set of circumstances that would certainly have changed in other times.”
the crookedness that can be generated by someone attempting to win an argument is truly wondrous. how easily we can be misled by our personal interests. The Gemorrah is full of examples of how a self interest (usually a “bribe” of some sort even if unintended and small) can bend ones heart and mind and cloud ones judgement. the huge extent to which this can occur is made quite clear from our living example right here.
feivel- you are inplying- nay,actually saying- that 1) I am crooked and 2) I have personal interests. Do you have a scintilla of evidence that i have any personal interests in this matter and rather than insulting me ad hominem, how about if you answer some of the actual questions??
to the rabbiofberlin. Your point asside, It is an injustice to say he allowed artificial insemination. He did not, someone came with a shayla, after his wife had already been aftificially inseminated with donor sperm, if his wife was ossur and if the son was a mamzer. R’ Moshe paskined no on both counts, but he was never “mattir” the artificial insemination from a donor.
(I mention this not to debate you, but because some fertility clinics put of a copy of the teshuva to persuade people into following the above mentioned woman’s lead.)
jaymatt::::: HUH? I don’t remember that at all!!! I will have to review the four (I think) teshuvos on artificial examination but i am pretty convinced that this was not an “after the fact” question but an actual question for a hetter. I think you are erroneous in how you describe it. I don’t know where you have your info from.
R’ Tzvi Flaum said that in a shiur he gave about fertility issues.
If it interests you, the shiur might still be available on Torahmedia
jaymatt-thanks for your input but I prefer to rely upon the actual teshuvos, which ,if memory serves me right, indicate a contrasting approach,as I mentioned.
ROB, Reb Mshe’s Teshuva says if someone didn’t accept to keep the full slate of mitzvos, then there is no geirus. He repeats this point in the next few teshuvos. What is also indisputable is that we don’t lechatchila accept geirim whom we suspect of converting for ulterior motives. That is a befeirush gemara, not some diyuk. You keep avoiding this point, but it keeps coming back.
So yes, we want to know that the person in question did a full kabbalas hamitzvos. Kabbalas hamitzvos is a timeless principle. If we know that they did a full kabbalas hamitzvos, and they slide, that is a machlokes the Taz and Prisha. But we need to know that first. If we don’t see the convert living a Jewish Orthodox lifestyle, then anan sahadi he/she never meant to . It’s black and white- not sure how this can be distorted into being an “expired” teshuva.
The teshuvos that change are ones like Reb Moshe’s teshuva on pidyon haben where in Russia gold was the new silver, so pidyon haben had to be based off gold not silver. But a halachic principle like the requirement for kabbolas ol mitzvos does not change. Does lo sirtzach change as well? Actually, according to some here it does. but not according to most poskim. Ironclad rules do not change, no matter how much the secular Zionists want them to.
jothar-thanks for your input. Again, no one is denying what you are saying that there has to be an acceptance of the mitzvos -kabbalat ol mitzvot- in its entirety. This is the principle. But how does that relate in the details? As I asked you, say the prospective ger says that he fully accepts the mitzvos and becomes a ger. He goes out and is famished. He eats a cheeseburger. Does that invalidate his geirus? His sin is clearly “leteovon” and it is a backslide but he/she still proclaims his adherence to mitzvos. Does that invalidate his geirus?
May I also point out that R’Moshe was replying to other Rabbonim/Poskim who thought differently. This is Russia,late 1920’s(actual date Sept 21,1928). The other Poskim were most probably as authoritative as R’Moshe, yet, they had a different view. Does their view count for nothing? At that time, R,Moshe was an obscure Rav in Lubian.
As far as the question of geirus for ulterior motives- whatever the facts, if it is done, they are full geirim, so this is a moot point.You can point fingers at the bais din who did it but the actual geirus stands.
And what do you mean a “jewish Orthodox lifestyle”. What happens if the geir carries on Shabbos in Boro Park? According to some respected Poskim he is a mechallel shabos.
What if , as a female ger, she does not cover her hair? Does that invalidate her geirus? Which “mikzas mitzvos’ do we teach the ger?
I am being as polite and sensible here because simply put, the rigidity of inflexibility of the approach to geirus that you advocate is nonsensical. Every geirus is individual and should be treated as such. Rav Sherman tried to invalidate ALL the thousands of geirim made by Rav Druckman- without having a clue who they were or how they lived.
Edited to read: “Something does not seem right”
“Does lo sirtzach change as well?”
Throughout the 1900 year Golus, vulnerable Jewish communities whose existence was threatened by traitors had to take action for their survival. See the Gemara in Gittin that action against Bar Kamtza should have been taken, but was not taken due to the excessive piety of Rabbi Zecharia ben Avkolos.
Now that we have a State the need to take such action against traitors is actually less.
But in 1924 what was published in London’s Daily Express could put Jewish communities at extreme risk. Look up their March 24, 1933 headline. Type in a search engine “
daily express march 24″.
ROB, there is a massive difference between valid machloksin in halacha and clear violations of halacha. As Reb Moshe ZT”L writes, why should the wife be frummer than the husband who clearly violates the halacha? The Taz says a ger whose kavana we are not sure of who backslides has the chumras of a Jew and the chumras of goy. The Prisha says straight out he’s a goy. Others say he’s a min, who is on a lower level than a goy. And EVERYONE says we don’t lechatchila make half-geirim. I don’t know who these other rabbis were. Reb Moshe struggled to find a sevara why that should be a kabbalas ol mitzvos. The gedolei haposkim (ie, not the 2 professors from the University) clearly decided like Reb Moshe ZT”l. Rav Eliashiv Shlit”a, a talmid of Rav Kook ZT”L, agrees to this, along with the consensus of the frum community. I would sooner bet on them as to arriving at the correct halacha than the 2 professors from the university.
Advertisement:
The theme of kedushas yisrael was also addressed by some of the notable gedolei yisrael and leading rabbanim who participated in the conference. They included Rav Yonah Metzger, Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav Ela Behr Wachtfogel (Rosh Yeshiva, South Fallsburg) who made a 36-hour trip to Israel to address the conference, Rav Dov Povarsky (Rosh Yeshiva, Ponovezh), Rav Saul Alter (Rosh Yeshiva, Sfas Emes), Rav Reuven Feinstein (Rosh Yeshiva, Staten Island), Rav Pinchas Friedman (Belz), Rav Moshe Schapiro, (Rosh Yeshiva and a leading expert on worldwide kiruv), Rav Boruch Mordechai Ezrachi (Rosh Yeshiva, Ateret Yisrael), Rav Yitzchak Ezrachi (Rosh Yeshiva, Mir), Rav Yitzchok Scheiner (Rosh Yeshiva, Kaminetz), Rav Nosson Kopshitz (Dayan, Eda Hachareidis), Rav Moshe Smotny, Rav Shmuel Eliezer Stern (Bais Din of Rav Wozner), Rav Moshe Shteinman (son of Rav Aaron Leib Shteinman), Rav Shaul Kanievsky (son of Rav Chaim Kanievsky), Rav Dovid Yosef (son of Rav Ovadia Yosef), Stolner Rebbe, Rav Dovid Cohen (Rosh Yeshiva, Chevron), Rav Shmuel Deutsch (Rosh Yeshiva, Kol Torah), Rav Yehoshua Eichenstein (Rosh Yeshiva, Yad Aharon), Rav Nochum Eisenstein (Vaad Harabbonim Haolomi Leyonei Giyur), Rav Moshe Klein, and Rav Mordechai Altusky (Rosh Yeshiva, Torah Ohr),
A strong letter supporting EJF by Rav Aaron Leib Shteinman, which was also signed by Rav Yosef Sholem Eliyashiv, was read at the conference. It strongly supported the anti-assimilation theme of the conference and warned of the dangers of assimilation to the future of klal yisroel. Rav Zvi Elimelech Halberstam, the Sanzer Rebbe of Netanya, in his letter supported the new initiative to involve kiruv organizations in a direct war against intermarriage.
I have a question:
Why is every Geirus in EY not considered to be for possible ulterior purposes (citizenship, marriage, etc.). It should be like the time of Shlomo Hamelech, when they did not accept Geirim at all (if anyone has a source, please inform me) due to the advantages of being a member of Klal Yisroel.
However, once it is done, the problem is easily solved by allowing secular marriage.
Also, is the question if they ever accepted “Ol Mitzvos” or if they backtracked? If they never accepted Mitzvos then the Geirus in not invalidated retro-actively, it was never valid in the first place.
We thank everyone for sharing their opinions and thoughts in here, and quoting the various illustrious personalities on what they have said throughout the years.
Whilst we do wish to continue threads, and are against closing them for spurious reasons, we do have to take into consideration many factors.
Everyone will agree that Gedolei Yisroel have reasons for saying things. However, it is not for us to possibly argue with their words, and conflict them with things that other Gedolei Yisroel have said.
Therefore, in order to avoid this happening, and not have the possibility of not acting with Derech Eretz towards them, this thread will, for the moment, be closed.
- The topic ‘Zionist Quote’ is closed to new replies.