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.