A Chief Rabbi Attends the Coronation in a Church?

No other jobs in great Britain? How about chimney sweeper?

smerel: That’s untrue. They have not been doing this for 150 years. It is a recent thing.

Additionally, the prohibition is to even enter a church when there are no services. But the coronation as well as weddings and funerals are official Christian church service, replete with Christian prayers and bowing to yushke. It is not a secular service.

The British coronation service was in the main sanctuary of the church.

Whenever there is a civic function, out come all the chunyocks who think they know better than big rabbis who are dealing with a din of krovei l’malchus, etc. Enough already and get back to learning.

It was an abuse of power demonstration. Why doing this ceremoney while a state of emergency is still on? Weak rabbi / abusive king.

Harry’s wife, the american actress, at least her, she wasn’t affraid to decline the invitation…

I think we forget to realize that we live in times of unprecedented freedom and tranquility for Jews. Back in the day when a king told you to come to the coronation, you came. Not going could have serious repercussions. So it’s hard for us to relate to that now and it seems odd that a rabbi would go to a church on Shabbat. I think people who judge him have are one dimensional and are not really sophisticated enough to understand the nuances of going. Is anyone really surprised that UJM had that response??

We still have yet to see a heter cited in the poskim to allow being jn a church during a ceremony that involves prayers etc…for the sake of sholom malchus. That rule isn’t a heter to do absolutely anything you want.

Funny how the same people who don’t like it when Torah jews blindly follow gedolei yisroel, who do noy engage in highly questionable behavior and who only teach daas torah, suddenly have emunas chachamim to the Nth degree for political rabbis doing things which are questionable.

“And then he sat there, in the church, listening to real goyishe blabber….

Yechiell: Well, we sit here respectfully listening to real yiddeshe blabber from you about a Rav you have obviously never met. You are entitled to your misinformed opinion about his actions (and those of prior chief rabbonim of the UK) who weighed the pros and cons of participating in key events in British history and decided on a case-by-case basis whether and hot to participate. Rav Mirvis concluded here that his presence was in the best interests of the kehilla he is responsible for and most yidden in the UK respect his decision. I wasn’t a big fan of Jared Kushner driving in a big limo to the inaugural on shabbos back in early 2016 but respected the “pikuach nefesh” rationalization underlying the dispensation for chilul shabbos ostensibly received from his Rav.
I frequently go back to the musar from Rav Yisreol Salanter who advised those who came to him seeking condemnation of the actions of others to focus on their own neshamah and leave the rest to the Ebeshter.

> I think people who judge him have are one dimensional
> We still have yet to see a heter cited in the poskim to allow being jn a church

How is the chief Rabbi not a decider here? This is his job, he is presumably qualified and, if he has a shaila, he may ask it. Presumably, Q&A will be private and not available for exposure on dailynews.

> Funny how the same people who don’t like it when Torah jews blindly follow gedolei yisroel,

I have not heard of gedolei yisroel asking people to blindly follow them. I am currently re-reading Chofetz Chaim’s letters, and he tries to patiently convince people of the things he is asking them to do. Maybe, you meant that others accuse you of blindly follow.

As to this case, I might think twice of the British Chief Rabbi tells _me_ to attend the coronation, but here it is his decision and his position. You may want to go and learn with someone halochos malchus, but people posting negative opinions about a duly appointed representative of Jewish kehilla sound like poshut apikoiresim, or l’tzad zechut, amei haaertz.

Still waiting for a source for a heter. Anyone?

Aaq, chazal say to listen blindly. But chachamim are not popes, to use an MO phrase, and they are accepted precisely because of their astounding ability to showcase their breadth and depth of Torah knowledge. We blindly listen out of a humble understanding that they know better, as evidenced by their own Torah – it’s a logical blind faith. It’s like one who trusts a doctor who is known as an expert; it makes sense to trust him, even if he says something weird to you.

And no, the chief rabbis of the past few decades were not poskim. Rabbi sacks, rabbi mirvis, etc…are political pulpit rabbis. Rav emanuel jakobovitz was a posek. Rav yechezkel abramsky was one of the gedolei hador. But most weren’t.

If r. Mirvis wants us to accept what he did, let him or his supporters bring proof that it was alright.

Mentsch, you’re not citing a source; you’re dancing around the issue with maybes and sfaikos with vague comparisons to stories which you admit you’re not familiar with. Provide a source that such things are alright. And while you’re at it, provide a source that what jared trump did was alright.

As sickening as it might be, this rabbi sent a warning message. We should see it as a distress signal. If jews don’t stand up right now, it might get too late. Each day, our strenght and our faith is getting tested. We are at war, and we must acknowledge this.

R’ Mirvis stated that he consulted with other Rabbonim, and did not make the decision to attend on his own. The reason for the heter was eivah. He also noted that when the invitation begins with “His Majesty commands”, it allows for more leniency due to eivah, as opposed to the word “requests”.

DaMoshe: Without addressing your claim, since it is irrelevant to this case for the following reason, the official invitations sent to everyone authorized to attend the coronation specifically says:

“… The Earl Marshall is directed to invite Mr. John Doe to be present… “

(Replace John Doe with the invitees name.)

It does NOT whatsoever “command” the invitee to attend.

Didn’t we have this argument during the funeral for Elizabeth II?

The Wolf

I’m not sidestepping anything. I’m pointing out some facts. Exceptions have been made when dealing with highly influential people.
Here is another example. The nephew of a kohen gadol was given the right to study Greek philosophy and shave his hair like a Greek Bc of his interactions with the govt
I recognize the difference in the situations but maybe just maybe you should truly know if you are correct bf badmouthing an orthodox rav.

Although it is clearly stated by many Poskim that one may not enter a x-n house of worship for whatever reason other than Pikuach Nefesh, in Shulchan Aruch there is no explicit Issur about simply entering.
It is Assur though, to have any gain or pleasure from a Makom Avodah Zara.
So perhaps if it isn’t raining and if one doesn’t look at any of the art or architecture, there may be Heterim to found for a Tzorech Rabim.
Perhaps one can also combine the above with the Da’as Yochid of the Meir’i that holds that x-inanity isn’t real Avodah Zara.

Mentsch, if you’ve noticed, i haven’t bad mouthed r. Mirvis. I have only said what is very clear and what he himself says, that he is not one of the gedolei yisroel or a posek, and that he requires the decision of one to do what he did. He claims that such a psak was given. I’m asking to know who that was and what was said, because it’s a very questionable action.

I didn’t say you were sidestepping, i said you were being vague. Allowing some things doesn’t mean allowing others. The examples you quoted have no bearing on the case, other than to establish that such an idea of sholom malchus exists – it does, but what are its limitations? Standing in attention of a religious ceremony is almost a tacit approval of the prayers and hymes. Did the gemara say that’s ok?

And what sholom malchus is there in England compared with the situation in Rome or bavel? One wrong move and it was “off with his head” in those places, and in old England, too. But as pointed out, today’s monarchy in England is more cultural – now it’s important to ingratiate ourselves with the upper echelons of society as part of our security and to advocate for our communitys needs, but that is a far cry from the situation of old. Where is there proof that to gain clout we may violate any of the mitzvos? Eivah, sholom malchus… These concepts are quite different now.

I’m questioning r. Mirvis. He’s not someone who I’m obligated to listen to or be mevatel daas to. And he’d be the first person to tell you that.

Rav Mavis does not owe anyone an explanation beyond his statement and the public efforts he made, with the assistance of the Charles’ staff, to participate while recognizing the shabbos context. The small-minded comments here (“political pulpit rabbis”) are not much different from those who describe R’ Yosef and R’ Lau as “political hacks”.

> And why isn’t r. Mirvis releasing the name of the posek

I agree w/ DaMoshe. Our expectations of “transparency” are going overboard. We have a sensitive relationship between a Chief Rabbi and a King, whoever symbolic his powers are now. And some are demanding that the Rav provide a written notice, specifically by a posek personally approved by the poster. Would _anyone_ be privy to medieval discussions between shtadlanim and kings?! We might have some glimpse in later writings – that might be true or just a legend. They were not published on internet the same day.

We are to see melachim as a glimpse of how we relate to King of Kings. this particular message might be that we do not always understand how and why the King do what they do, and how to approach them the right way, and we need to keep our places, unless “we are commanded to attend”. And attend when we are.

Avira, you apparently chose to ignore it but I clearly stated that the Bais Din of England ruled that Rabbi Mirvis could attend. The King further accommodated the Rabbi by not requiring the use of a microphone when Rabbi Mirvis and the other faith representatives made their declaration to the King.

Ujm, it seems that rav jakobovitz heard from the beis din that he can only attend when he was directly asked to under specific circumstances.

Anon – ash provided a source. You just said it; big difference.

Aaq, i disagree. R. Mirvis represents the Jewish community and his actions are not that of a private individual. He is to be held accountable for his public decisions and we are entitled to know the psak he received.

Aaq…kosher witnesses?

The rambam clearly writes that cohabiting is enough for marriage by goyim. No need for shtaros or aidim.