Gedoley Hador Shlita have released a Kol Koreh against the IDF conversion track, while expressing support for marriage registrars who do not recognize former soldiers as Jews.
A notice issued Tuesday morning in Charedi newspapers Yated Neeman and HaMevaser following the public and legal debate surrounding the legal and halachic validity of these conversions, claimed this was a way of “approving gentiles as Jews.” The Gedolim called on all those who can to protest and prevent such conversions.
The Kol Koreh was signed by Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shteinman, Rav Nissim Karelitz and Rav Shmuel Auerbach Shlita.
The Kol Koreh was a direct attack aimed at Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar. Last month the chief rabbi issued a notice in which he referred positively to IDF conversions, and was immediately singled out by the Gedolim.
The chief rabbi’s notice was issued after the State’s representative said during a High Court debate that IDF conversion officials had no authority and that the conversions were not approved by the Chief Rabbinate. In his response, Amar surveyed many years of cooperation between the civil and military rabbinate, and called on the Justice Ministry to regulate the administrative aspects of the issue.
Amar wrote – noting historical fact – that for many years the Chief Rabbinate had married off graduates of the army’s conversion track, and said the Chief Rabbinate council will convene to discuss the issue from a halachic point of view. Amar’s granting of legitimacy to the IDF track and the interpretations given to his words sparked the wave of protest.
Have you checked out YWN Radio yet? Click HERE to listen!
(Source: Ynet)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
18 Responses
While I totally support the gedolim discussed in the article, I want to point out that “Gedoley Hador Shlita” is not specific group with a defined membership, but is used in this case as an adjective to describe those gedolim who signed the “kol koreh”. There are many other gedolim. THEREFORE under the rules of English grammer, the phrase “gedoley hador shlita” is NOT a proper noun, and should be lower case.
Perhaps if the phrase included all “gedoley hador shlita”
it might warrant be upper case, but the article does not pretend to do so since the article claims to be referring only to four specific “gedoley hador shlita” and does not assert that the list is comprehensive.
I think it is inappropriate to refer to the Chief Rabbi as “Amar”. I am sure none of the Gedolei Yisroel would refer to the Chief Rabbi without the appropriate kovod that is due, even if differing on the halachic issues cited.
And the upshot of this pashkevil is? If all it means is that chareidim won’t be meshadech with IDF converts, no big deal. I doubt there were many to begin with. The Chareidim are clearly walling themselves off into a separate world of their own. That is their prerogative. But they would be consider the future. In 100 or 200 years the effects of the forced inbreeding will start to manifest themselves.
why didnt the gedoilim’s psak on concerts make it to ywn? we are discussing it in the CR here:http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/will-rav-amnon-yitzchak-manage-to-change-the-music-industry
#2 Shlome – You got a point, but keep in mind that this article is a direct quote from Ynet.
#3 cantoresq – perhaps you’d be better off at times being silent as chazal say, סיג לחכמה שתיקה I’m sure you haven’t given as much thoughts to the ramifications here as the gedolim have. As a Rebbe of mine once said, ” Machlokes Gedolim! Don’t get involved!”
Akuperma,
I think to the extent there is such a thing, YWN style uses upper case for all transliterated words (see: Kol Koreh)
cantoresq – 1) do you believe in Mashiach’s ability to come tomorrow??
2)there is NO reason to intermarry ever ever ever ever except i’m not sure if it’s a yehareg v’al ya’avor.
you hear?? ever!! it’s Hashem’s job and concern and PROMISE (!!!!!!!) to ensure our continuality and ours to follow the Torah that He gave us.
and the gedolim show us how to do so.
The zionists have been in the fake conversion manafacturing business for a very long time already.
I agree with Shlome (Commenter No. 2). In comparing this article with the original Ynet, it is obvious that YWN has added “Rav…Shlita” to the names of the other Rabbanim. Having had the privilege and pleasure of meeting and hearing Shiurim from the Rishon LeZion, HaRav Amar Shlita, I respectfully recommend that — as a leading Talmid Chacham — he and his position require similar Kavod/respect.
#7. I don’t know why my eschatology is at all relevant to this discussion, but to answer your question, I do believe that the omnipotent G-d can send the Messiah to redeem us at any second. I do not advocate intermarriage, nor is this discussion about it. I merely addressed what I perceive to be the chareidi agenda which underlies this pronouncement, and made an observation about the consequences of that agenda’s implementation. Others may disagree with me about the existence of that agenda or that consequence I addressed. So far no one has. You should follow your gedolim for hadracha, and I’ll follow mine. Incidentally, mine have no problem with IDF converts that I know of. Then again I would not follow those who do have such problems, just as I’m sure you will follow only those leaders who do find such fault.
#5, #7 you are right about this apikores ‘cantoresq’…see his postings going back 2,3 years on YWN…im not going to bother looking them up from way back. he does NOT believe in geuleh shleime, was malik on all gedolim kedoshim thruout (chasam soifer etc,{backward ,dark ages et).why he reared his serpents (nachah hakodmoni ) head all of a sudden, beats me (maybe becaus the nachash kadmoni was last 2 week parsha)
I have learned the halachos of geirus extensively and I am familiar with the situation of conversions in the IDF and can state with certainty that (of course) the Gedolim are 100% correct and many of those converting in the IDF are complete goyim!!!
shimen says:
October 13, 2010 at 2:28 pm
#5, #7 you are right about this apikores ‘cantoresq’…
my response: Kol haposel bemumo posel
cantoresq – in reading your comments it appears that you are the one with the “agenda”. As far as following “your” gedolim vs. “our” gedolim, I don’t follow … A godol is a godol and last I checked we were one nation. Like I said, your comments appear to come from someone with a HUGE chip on their shoulders and views everything as us vs them. Check with whatever Daas Torah you consult with, I’m sure they would not subscribe to your sentiments.
Shlome I’m prepared to accept your statements to the extent of your answer to the following: Do you as accept as gedolim those who have Torah based outlooks divergent from those to which you subscribe?
Cantoresq:
To accept something that is “Emes” should not be conditional (again the “chip” keeps coming through)and if you don’t agree with the statements I made, why would you accept them on condition ? Neverthless, to answer your question, I for one don’t define who is a Godol and I definitely wouldn’t measure someone based on how their outlook matches up to those that “I subscribe to”. A Godol is someone who is great in Torah and Yiras Shamayim and Gedolim don’t always agree. A good measure a Rebbe of mine provided in defining a “Godol” is whether he would be someone you would want defending you in the Olam Ha’Emes after 120 years and that requires an “honest” assessment not one that is based on personal views and outlooks.
Shlome, please answer my question. More specifically, what is your understanding of your term “. . .great in Torah and Yiras Shamayim?” The problem with conversations like this one is that most people will not acknowledge the incredible about of subjectivity involved in the classification of “gedolim.” I personally believe that Chazal intended precisely that subjectivity (“Aseh lecha rav” i.e. subjectively make for yourself a teacher) in order to preserve the heterogeneous nature of Torah based Jewish life. While indeed there are limits to what’s within the range of acceptable options, there is considerably more room than people today are prepared to acknowledge, even though they cleave to the subjectivity.
cantoresq:
I believe I did answer your question. If you want me to be clearer, then you would have to clarify the parameters of your phrase “Torah based outlooks divergent from those to which you subscribe”. I cannot answer specifics unless you’re prepared to be more specific. I’m sure you can understand why, as according to you there is so much subjectivity involved and I really don’t know you well enough to evaluate what you are suggesting any more than I already have.