- This topic has 192 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Dear Neville,
What it should be is irrelevant. The fact is that it has real meaning to the majority of the people that the Office of the Chief Rabbi serves. I don’t know why anyone would deny this fact.
I suspect that this was never about going into a church. It’s just an educated leftist dogma not to understand that people care about ideas that elitists don’t approve of.
“The fact is that it has real meaning to the majority of the people that the Office of the Chief Rabbi serves.”
Who cares? At least Avira gave real answers. You actually seem to be of the opinion that even if this was completely assur, he should do it anyway because it makes his employers happy and it’s “meaningful” to them. So far, everything you’ve said here is at least as absurd as anything on the YCT teshuvos thread.It isn’t correct that no other rabbi has done it. When Hermann Adler was the Chief Rabbi he went to a coronation.
Yoreh Deah 178 has the halakhot of a karov lemalkhut.
the taz there says מותר בכל. ואע”ג דכל הנזכר בסי’ זה הוא בכלל ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו ואין כח לחכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה מ”מ הכא שאני כיון שלא פירשה התורה שום דבר ומסרה לחכמים והם ראו להתיר לקרובים למלכות. ב”י
There are definitely things that chazal allowed for people who have the position of a קרוב למלכות.Neville, people in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones.
Look at some of our practices that make no sense yet we defend to the hilt ( i.e. 8th day Yom tov when we’ve had a calender for 2,000 years ). Then we justify other practices when the only reason we can come up with is “minhag” and to us it makes total senseAnon – we didn’t “come up” with an excuse for yom tov sheni. It’s in the gemara, well after the calendar was established.
And there are reasons we can understand; we will use aidim once again when moshiach comes(although then there won’t be yidden outside eretz yisroel…still it will take too long to reach far away parts, as EY’s borders will increase by a lot.
And there’s a ton of reasons al ki kabalah for it, as well.
Did you spend time in yeshiva outside of high school?
Avira, you made my point for me. We have a calendar, and it will still be in effect when moshiach comes. And ,unlike in the days of the Bais Hamikdash, we won’t be dependent on hilltop bonfires to convey the testimony of aidim. We can use electronic communication. BTW, Shavuos never needed the extra day as it’s not dependent on aidim or the new moon
Dear Anonymous,
I don’t know why you call yom tov sheini Neville’s glass house. His claim of others thinking like Reform is his glass house.
Dear Neville,
“Who cares?”
Certainly not me. If not for this thread I could have forgotten that the coronation took place. I have zero interest. But I realize that my view doesn’t create what is factual for others. And I don’t know how to label this concept, but whatever it is called, it is a big factor in what the Office of the Chief Rabbi of the UK exists for. I’m claiming that you do not have an issue with Raav Mirvis as much as the institution in general. And the solution to your issue is to be aware of the facts on the ground.
I don’t know what the halachic term for vested nationalism is. But it is a real and undeniable fact. Your insistence that this cannot play a role in the halachic approach, leads way off the beaten path. But you seem not to be aware of this.
Anon…nope. we will use aidim again when we have Sanhedrin; the gemara says that openly. We use the calendar specifically because we don’t have beis din smuchim.
As for electronic forms of communication; nothing’s written in stone. The world could change, computers could all cease to exist – anything’s possible.
As for shevuos, you could have asked better – why keep the 8th day of pesach and sukkos, since the shluchim could have reached the galuyis by then?
As with your original question, the gemara openly addresses it in rosh hashanah 21a. Since we made the takanah, we are not mechalek between yomim tovim.
I have all the patience in the world for someone who doesn’t know things, be it because of their upbringing, lack of education, or learning difficulty – what i have little patience for is chutzpah. Brazenly attacking concepts that one doesn’t understand and limiting them to his tiny depth and breadth of knowledge… it’s a form of bizayon Hatorah.
If you want to know, ask. If you want to show everyone pompous ignorance, continue blasting gemaros without having learned them. I’ve yet to see you quote a single mareh makom on this forum.
And if Neville is in a glass house with chazal, and you’re outside that house… where are you? In the “enlightened” world where you can see clearly a kashya on yom tov sheni that a 5th grader asks?
What next, are you going to ask why the gemara doesn’t just say what the halacha is and skip the shakla vetarya?
Dear Avira,
He wasn’t trying to blast yom tov sheni (I think) he was making a point toward this topic. Though I can’t figure out what he wants.
*Simchas torah, not sukkos
The point I was trying ( and obviously failed ) to make was that Neville, as an outsider, appeared to be deriding Britain’s monarchy and that the Brits couldn’t see the reality. Similarly we have practices, that to an outsider, seem to make little sense, like the 8th day but I’m positive Neville wouldn’t be happy to hear a Brit use the same language and approach Neville used 7
I am, like Neville, puzzled why Yidden would care about some King, but I agree with anon Jew that it is your business, and especially your Rabanut, how to deal with the powers of your country. But there seems to be a strong recent tradition here, and everywhere, for people with little knowledge to disregard opinion of experts whether it is politics, beis din, medicine etc. This just shows how ‘modern” we are, even those of us who proclaim that they are most traditional. Would a Yid who lived in a Hungarian shtetl 700 years ago send their advice to Beis din in spain? I don’t think so, and he should not start now.
Anon, then you should say what you mean – that’s a valid point, but Neville didn’t deride it in and of itself, he was mainly saying that in halacha, it doesn’t make sense to treat the british monarchy as a malchus l’inyan koruv lemalchus, etc…a sentiment that is very hard to argue against. If not for my rebbeim praising rav jakobovitz, I wouldn’t defend the whole thing either. I trust my rebbeim as chains in the mesorah.
To clarify, I retract my original position on this thread. As I said earlier, if somebody would provide sources, I would go away, and Avira did so. The only reason I’m even posted this is so that that’s clear.
That being said, nobody other than Avira has posted real sources or reasons. All other arguments here have descended into saying the chazal don’t make any sense, therefore we shouldn’t have to either.
Lol, OK it’s officially time for me to start making arrangements to delete this account. This place is a joke now.
That last comment was not meant to be on this thread.
I am too lazy to scroll up to see what was mentioned, but last page of Sotah mentions halochos that are different for “karov l’malchus” learning hochmas yavanit by R’ Gamliel’s students, a goyishe haircut ….
Aaq….yes, that was mentioned in detail.
Since the general sense is that we never go into churches, it would be better not to post sources. As this would only lead to sway readers that it is permitted. [All the sources that something is forbidden, are not as strong as the statement that we just don’t do it.] If you really need sources for this, your just an imperceptible ideological shift from entering a church yourself.
My issue here is not that I am convinced it’s permitted to go into a church in a certain context. I am mildly annoyed that posters who have no idea what any of this is about, are making a stink out of themselves. It’s undermining to their own credibility and objectivity that they keep repeating the same lines without taking a second look at the factors.
Rav Mirvis took a very difficult position and has been blessed with success while keeping a relatively low profile. The Office of the Chief Rabbi is not an halachic institution. However it is more deliberate than any beis din or organization in all of World Jewry. When the daily tasks are akin to carrying lit dynamite sticks, it goes a long way to not being fazed and never getting carried away in the moment. There was no psak given that you or me or anyone can go into the church. What was done is what was understood to be needed.
The rationale that “oh, he is some sort of zionist and not my type” is particularly insulting. So, the Torah is reduced to whether the rabbi involved is your type or not?!? when you learn some gemara, do the statements mentioned also depend on being your type? How can anyone ever pass judgement on anything without a fully understanding what the issues are? The haphazard way some of the strongest proponents of ‘Rabbinic Judaism’ hurl their opinion without checking the facts is very depressing to me… Remember that you are a role model to many that are completely unlearned. Do you want them to also pontificate based on their gut instinct?
Nomesora:
I think you take the office of the British chief rabbi more seriously that literally anyone on this planet. He’s just a random rabbi with a title.“So, the Torah is reduced to whether the rabbi involved is your type or not?!?”
Where have you been? That’s been the case for at least 2000 years. This whole discussion ties back to a religion that technically started as a breakaway sect from Judaism, and it wasn’t the only sect at that time. Sectarianism is a huge deal whether you like it or not.How can anyone ever pass judgement on anything without a fully understanding what the issues are?
If everyone followed that rule, the mainstream news organizations would be out of business, and 99% of internet content would disappear.
Dear Dovid,
Those resources are meant to gain insight. Not to pas judgement. Just because a journalist or editor has a corrupt outlook on journalism, it doesn’t change what it is for you and me.
Dear Neville,
Schism is not a matter of who your rabbi is. If it was, there wouldn’t be any schism. You go here. I go there. The reason why Jews aren’t Christians isn’t a matter of a different rabbi many years ago. I feel like I missed some humor here.
The office of the Chief Rabbi is a major factor in Jewish political life in the UK. Unlike the US, England has recognized religions. Also, non Orthodox does not mean automatic assimilation. It’s importance to retaining Jewish integrity in the UK as well as Europe, cannot be understated.
(Think shechitah, milah, geirus, etc. these are all at serious risk throughout Europe and other places.)
“Schism is not a matter of who your rabbi is.”
So, if my rabbi is a Reform lady I can still be considered Orthodox? What’s your point?“It’s importance to retaining Jewish integrity in the UK as well as Europe”
Even if this were true, I don’t get your need to keep making these kind of points. Avira already brought halachic sources and I was modeh. You’ve kept this going because you’re insisting on people accepting non-Torah based justifications for the incident even when Torah-based ones exist.I’m ceding to Avira that there is possibly a real heter here, but I will never agree to your point that even if this is halachicly assur it’s OK because a chief rabbi’s gotta do what a chief rabbi’s gotta do.
Dear Neville,
My position is that it being permissible for the Chief Rabbi to go, does not mean that we have a halachic precedent. Rav Mirvis is a symbolic Jew besides for being a halachic Jew. And then we disagreed over the symbolism. I’m not sure were we stand. But it’s okay if we disagree. (I don’t decide these kinds of questions for anybody in any capacity.)
What irked me the most here was that this is a real Rav, and it is not within the guidelines of halachah to openly question him like this.
PS The line you quoted, was targeting the poster that a Zionistic rabbi has no benefit of the doubt.
On to Schisms!
If your rabbi was looking at Popa’s thread for inspiration to use in her actual responsa, I may break off to form a new coffee room. But not because your rabbi is from a different camp, or even because she has really detrimental ideas. [Halacha is not a factor in schisms. There is a system how to address lack of conformity.] It will be because she is actively trying to lead to matters that I am definitely not going to participate in. Schism is about the future, not the present. In the present I could always go to your rabbi and be aware of our differences. But down the road… Who knows?
“What irked me the most here was that this is a real Rav, and it is not within the guidelines of halachah to openly question him like this.”
Nonsense. Some of the founders of Conservative Judaism were no doubt “real ravs” at one point. Avi Weiss no doubt was ordained by a real yeshiva. When someone seems to be doing something outside of the halacha, you can and should question it no matter what their title is. In this case I happened to be wrong because I was uninformed of the halachah, not because it’s inherently wrong to ask questions.“Halacha is not a factor in schisms. There is a system how to address lack of conformity.”
Halacha is THE factor is schisms. The difference between the Orthodoxy and other movements is that we actually follow the halachah. If Rabbi Mirvis got his heter from a Reform rabbi, it would be invalid because they don’t follow the halachah; there wouldn’t even be a discussion. Apparently that poster views Zionist rabbis as potentially invalid regarding psak halachah. I don’t agree, nor am I sure if that’s really what he meant.Your consistency in talking about things like non-Orthodox sects in terms like “lack of conformity” or the halachah of not entering churches as “we just don’t do it” leads to serious questions that I will likely never outwardly ask.
Is the title a question – Halakho wise?
“What irked me the most here was that this is a real Rav, and it is not within the guidelines of halachah to openly question him like this.”
Questioning isn’t the problem. Doubting his authenticity without being in proximity of the context is a whole different story. Because it’s about a well respected figure who plays a major role in the community, it’s serious loshon hora.
Other than that, I agree with your paragraph about Early Conservative Rabbis.
Halachah and Schisms.
We disagree here. But I’m not sure on what terms. In straight halachah, eruvin in cities is more of an issue than women rabbis. But the Brooklyn Eruv is not causing a schism. (At most, it’s a temporary rift.) Because the both sides are behind the idea of kedushas shabbos etc. There isn’t any friction here that will cause the different sides to go two opposite ways. But women rabbis is just one instance between two sides. One wants to stay where it is. And the other wants to move off to somewhere they think is better. There can be schisms that both sides are fully within halachic bounds. [Mussar. Chassidus. amd many more.] But over time the dispute fizzles, because they both end up in the same place anyways. It does seem that the only permanent idealistic move, is to outside the bounds of halachah.
….address lack of conformity.”
LOL! What I meant here is that when Jews do not conform to halachah, it is not by itself schismatic. We have a bunch of systems (Omer muttar. Shogeg. Tinok shenishba. Taus.) that allow us to remain in close contact. It was not easy for the Conservative Movement to earn it’s mumar label. But actually, I was thinking of Orthodox groups that seem oblivious to certain parts of halachah.My insistence on using the term ‘we just don’t go into churches’ is only intend to make the matter more serious not less. It is not my own term. I heard it from a major rosh yeshivah when he had a similar issue.
PS You can always ask me anything.
“Doubting his authenticity without being in proximity of the context is a whole different story.”
Then it’s a whole other story, but it’s still related. People might be questioning him for his track record on other things as well and this was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. Had this been Shmuel Kamenetsky, people would probably not be asking these types of questions. Given your defensiveness about R Mirvis, I think you clearly realize this as well.“There can be schisms that both sides are fully within halachic bounds.”
Yes, there can be, but that doesn’t mean all schisms are within halachic bounds. Probably not even most. Schisms based on one side ignoring the halacha are a lot more relevant than subtle differences in derech halimud between one yeshiva and another.“We have a bunch of systems (Omer muttar. Shogeg. Tinok shenishba. Taus.) that allow us to remain in close contact.”
Irrelevant. We’re talking about whether or not actions are mutar, not whether or not the person would be chayev and if so by how much. Someone might be a tinok shenisba and be patur, but it doesn’t mean their actions are mutar.“My insistence on using the term ‘we just don’t go into churches’ is only intend to make the matter more serious not less.”
How do you figure? Saying, “it is assur to enter churches” certainly sounds a lot stronger/more serious than “we just don’t do it.”Dear Neville,
To the main point: Saying it is assur allows for a ‘rabbi’ to permit it. Saying we don’t do it, forces the skeptical innovator to consider the consequential shift that they are initiating.
Yet, at the end of the day, it is indeed assur and anyone violating the isser incurs a reasonable expectation that they are able to explain their heter, especially when flaunting it publicly.
Agreed. And I think the qualifier is fulfilled by the existence of the Office Of The Chief Rabbi. Not that that is a blanket heter. They know what they are doing.
Why Halachah is not (In my opinion.) a cause for schism.
You are correct that being patur does not mean it is mutar. My point is that because of the patur-chayev system we know how to deal with these sinners. But when it comes to innovations that are not purely halachic, whether it be mussar, chasidus, or women rabbis, there is no system for it. And the traditional side will have to be separated or else be carried along.
We could argue all kinds of side points here. But first, do you get what I’m trying to say and do you agree or disagree.
Nom, there is a system for dealing with schisms which aren’t in regard to practical mitzvos (even though they always spill over…. Female rabbits(not a typo) always want to violate halacha)
That system is called hilchos deos, the chelek in halacha that some people pretend doesn’t exist. Violation of heresy is as big of a Boston violation of halacha as they come, and is grounds for schism.
Actually, it is grounds for separation more than other sins, as Chazal say “”shaani minus, d’mashchi(heresy is different, in that it draws people in)
Apikorsim who keep mitzvos are excluded from klal yisroel. They lose their olam haba, no matter what mitzvos they keep. They, including feminists, wage ideological war on chazal and everything holy. I do not envy their fate
At this point I think you’re just defining schism differently than I am.
To me, Conservative Judaism is a schism because their innovations ARE purely about breaking halacha. Chassidim vs. Litvishers are just two brands of Orthodoxy/Torah-Judaism. That would by like saying Ashkenaz/Sphard is a schism.
“there is no system for it.”
Sure there is, elu v’alu divrei Torah. If someone does something different because their part of another “group” (eg. they daven a different nusach) that doesn’t mean you hold that they’re wrong. By the way, I should probably point out at this point that I’m not agreeing to you lumping female rabbis in with completely uncontroversial philosophies as if it fits with them and is of equally little consequence. That issue actually does have halachic ramifications.Dear Avira,
You misunderstood my post. Obviously, schisms are not subject to a personal outlook on the mitzvos. Even completely wrongheaded perspectives like mine. We could fight about what you just posted anyway.
For some reason, major disputes in deyos to not have lasting impact. There is no historical precedent for arguing the same theologies for generations.
Two examples.
1) The Karaites would fight bitterly over some theory they came up with. Only for the next generation to abandon it and fight about something else.
2) the attacks of the Chachmei Luniel on the Rambam did not perpetuate. The ideas of both sides started fusing immediately.I don’t know why this is, but it seems like theology is two delicate to preserve without a community.
What is a violation of heresy? Maybe you mean heresy itself.
It is clear in Hilchos Deyos that not every deviation is minus.
I’m still waiting on how we can ever ascertain who is an apikorus. I can’t read minds.
And I don’t know anything about feminism.
Dear Neville,
I’m working on you post. Please be patient I may be way off.
I define schism as an intentional separation across an entire community from a different community.
Conservative is a schism because they are not willing to take a stand for halachah. The halachah itself is not the problem. There some very modern communities that use a lot of technology on Shabbos that is almost universally understood to be prohibited. Even though this causes a lot of us to keep our distance, this is not a schism because we agree on keeping halachah in general. Whereas a Conservative Congregation that even today most of it’s members do not drive on Shabbos, is still out of bounds because we can’t trust them to take a stand.
It is interesting to note, that there is no schism between the Barely Orthodox and The Conservative. That is because the Barely Orthodox don’t know enough Torah to separate from anything. But if you educate them a drop, they usually listen. Whereas, Conservative ‘know’ that if their rabbi didn’t stop them the first time, that means it’s really allowed unless you choose to be a fanatic.
Once the Misnagdim accepted that the Chassidim were not intending to break any halachah, the whole prospect of schism evaporated. There is a whole bunch of halachic disagreements between the two which basically come down to “We don’t care so much about that”. But it’s not a schism because we both realize that we are both not willing to comprise on any bit of the Torah. Much like Sephardim and Ashkenazim.
I’m confused here. Elu v’elu is only a system by halachic disputes. If you and I disagree about kashrus issues, we will have a whole set up on how and when we can eat the others food. And everything is fine. We’ll still daven and learn together. But if you make a change in curriculum or decorum I’m going to be pulled along unless I make a strong stand not to follow your lead. And if you would change the nusach hatefilah, I would have to leave your shul or my descendants would end up davening as you do.
My understanding is, that as long as we see each other as comitted to halachah we would not schism. You agree?
Do you consider the separate orthodox circles to be a schism? I don’t.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.