About the RCA, I do shudder.

I’m still not convinced they meant to malign Rav Ovadiah along with the thugs.

But, even if I am correct about that, I agree with PBA and disagree with Sam2 that the intended audience of the letter makes any difference.

As I posted earlier, PBA’s discussion with ROB about halacha is not going anywhere because, in ROB’s view, halacha conforms to ROB’s ideals (including Zionism), not the other way around.

ROB cannot even admit that the three oaths are halacha (which even “Religious Zionist rabbis” bring down and, unfortunately, bring fallacious arguments to get around them). So it seems ROB certainly can’t admit that lo sasuru and lo sikrivu, are halacha.

He keeps repeating the Zionist lie that the opinions both ways are well settled. I suppose Korach was also well-settled in his opinion against Moshe Rabbeinu, until he did teshuva after the ground opened up. Zionism is not “Eilu viEilu”, even though the Zionists really wish that to be true. Zionism is treif and shmad.

The Brisker Rav said the State is the Satan’s greatest achievement since the eigel. Rav Elchonon Wasserman said Zionism/Nationalism is Avoda Zara. Zionists think they know better, and most probably don’t even know just how much Zionism is shmad.

As the Brisker Rav observed, it is not that the Zionists shmad in order to have a State; rather, they need a State in order to shmad. This is clear to anyone who has read Herzl’s writings, knows the history of Zionism and observes what goes on in Israel even until today.

HaKatan, what does Zionism have to do with this discussion? I think that it’s like it was said before, you’ll look for any excuse to attack Zionists, probably because your sad life was affected by Zionists in some way.

Now just come out and say you agree with the letter because R’ Yosef is a Zionist, and therefore you think he’s an apikores. It’s obvious from your posts that you feel that way, so why not come straight out and say it?

PBA: I don’t think that it was okay to say in private either. I just think that it having been said in private means that there’s no need to make such a strong (or any) statement like you are against it.

im not so keen about getting involved in this thread. id just like to point out to ROB the inyan of menuval bi’rishus hatorah. its real, and really bad. and, as far as i know, not in the S”A.

nopes, semi-retarded

toi= but this is exactly th point- you may be called a “menuval” you still are “birshus hatorah”!

Now I did.

ROB, there are Torah-true and obligatory directives which come out from divrei Chazal, Rambam and other Gedolim. Not everything is brought down in the S.A. I am sorry to tell you this — but you just have not learnt enough.

ROB, about the “noval be’rshus ha’Torah” — wrong again. Ramban brings down the concept under the mitsvah of “Kedoshim tihyu”.

mdd: You are certainly right in saying that I have not learned enough! As far as the matter of “novol birshus hatorah”, check the Ramban and you will see that he quotes this as a matter of extra kedusha, even as it is actually muttar (allowed). Clearly, he deals with matters that are allowed as per halacha but the Torah asks us to do something extra. Other rishonim disagree but this is the Ramban. Nonetheless, this Ramban has little to do with the our subject- which is whether one can use his/her own mind in “milei d’alma”.

avrah: your post is incomprehensible. First of all, the so-called “modern orthodox” name is an american invention and has absoluterly no traction in israel. You can speak about “dati leumi”- which means ‘religious national” and you would be correct.

Secondly- you don’t think that different generations impel different solutions? Did RSR Hirsch adapt to the nineteenth century? Did the early yeshivos in america -having limudei chol through high school- adapt to the americna model? Did the baal shem tov adapt to the problems of eighteenth century russia?

Of course, they all did. It is “jiftoch bedoiro and shmuel bedoiro” Every generation has its challenges. And -just for your attention- the matter of women in religion does pose a new challenge that was not here a hudnred years ago. How to solve it is the present generation’s role.

As far as Rav Ovadia shelita- yo udon’t tbhink his language was intemperate?

“100 years ago there was not a single thought by anyone that a woman had an active role in the Shul.”

That is a poor argument. Not contemplating something in the past doesn’t mean that thing is bad. 100 years ago nobody contemplated frum EMT services, the Modern Kollel system, seminaries in Israel, cell phones, cds, etc. ect.

Your argument would be better if poskim did think about it 100 years and rejected it.

I spoke with my Rav (who’s an RCA member) about the letter over Shabbos.

He said the membership of the RCA was never consulted about the letter, and the first they heard of it was when it was leaked. He said the internal message board for RCA members was the busiest he’d seen it in a long, long, time – and none of it was positive. Most members were furious with the 3 people who wrote the letter, and they let them know about it!

He said that Friday afternoon, an internal letter was sent to RCA members from the 3 writers, apologizing for claiming that they spoke for the membership of the RCA, when they had never discussed the issue. He did not know if they will also be apologizing to Chacham Ovadia.

He also told me that while he doesn’t always agree with R’ Stav’s position on many things, he does recognize that he’s a huge talmud chacham, and he has tremendous respect for him. He also respects Chacham Ovadia tremendously. He said he doesn’t know the context of Chacham Ovadia’s remarks about R’ Stav, so he can’t speculate on why it was said.

ROB – a few things

1. For you to claim that certain positions of the gedolim, i.e. the draft, are clearly against halacha, is foolish. These gedolim are quite knowledgeable in everything you know, plus a lot more you’ll never touch. Additionally, part of daas torah is knowing how to apply halacha to certain situations, and, as was mentioned, being mavin davar mitoch davar, two abilities which you, and just about everyone else with an opinion, lack.

2. Hashkafa is halacha. The rabbonim don’t make up how a Jew is supposed to live. Based on the Torah that they’ve learned, both the technical halacha, the shulchan aruch that you refer to, and everything else in gemara and midrashim that shows how we are supposed to conduct ourselves in day to day life, and how to deal with certain situations. All the Hashkafa is either derived from the Torah or is based on their shikul hadaas, which is more accurate because their whole way of thinking is dictated by the Torah, and therefore their conclusion is more likely to be in line with the Torah.

3. Gedolim aren’t perfect, they’re allowed to make mistakes. The Avos made mistakes, Moshe Rabbeinu made mistakes. But, the chance that they made a mistake is much smaller than the chance that you made a mistake, so for someone so severely lacking in daas Torah to claim that a gadol is wrong and he is right is idiocy, and probably wrong.

4. You are correct that Gedolim argue and you have to pick a rav. The same way that in a shulchan aruch related shayla there can be a machlokes, and they can BOTH be right, Hashkafa is the same thing. And just like there you have to follow your rov, and you wouldn’t pasken for yourself, Hashkafa is the same thing.

So in short, yes, you do have to listen to them, it’s the same as shulchan aruch, and they’re probably right.

Hashkafa is halakha? That’s convenient for people of your mindset. So anyone who disagrees with you is suddenly acting outside the bounds of what is acceptable.

The Talmud says that a man has to teach his son a trade. The Talmud is the only binding source of halakha we have, since we haven’t had a Beit Din haGadol since Ravina and Rav Ashi. So, you’re actually proving yourself wrong; if you disagree with hashkafic statements in the Gemara, according to your claim, then you’re acting unhalakhically.

ROB, as I posted in the Lipman thread, which I already referenced for you here, you would not give up your idolatry of Zionism even if you were proven wrong. But you can check that thread, as I wrote. Your idolatry was and is treif and indefensible no matter how much you wish that weren’t so.

Lakewood Fellow, (assuming you have learned in BMG) your past holy R”Y Rav Aharon Zatza”L was quite clear about his thoughts on Zionism. Regardless, Zionism is not a machlokes between gedolim.

Who can you bring that will take him on, and the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon Ish, among many others, who declared Zionism to be the terrible heresy that it is? There is no machlokes. I am simply repeating their holy rulings.

Even if DaMoshe is correct, PBA does not owe the RCA any apology. Au contraire. The RCA owes its members (and Rav Ovadia) an apology. It was the political leadership of the RCA, writing on their letterhead, that issued this scandalous statement. Even if it was intended to be private, that is no excuse. Regardless, they are the RCA leadership and they spoke in the name of the RCA.

Unrelated, but if I had semikha, I would not join the RCA due to the organizational positions on the following:

1) Their refusal to deal constructively with the agunah issue. Rav Soloveitchik, zt”l, knocked down any possibility of a bet din using kiddushei ta’ut or kiddushei al tenai. Perhaps the issue was personal disagreements with Rav Rackman, zt”l, or Rav Berkovits, zt”l.

2) Their position on conversion. The entire GPS conversion system is a big mistake, and the fact that they routinely exclude converts sitting on a conversion bet din (100% mutar according to Maran haMehaber) are bad policy, and the fact that they rejected the efforts of R’ Marc Angel (a mumche in inyanei giyur, and the RCA’s president in the early 90s) is shameful.

As with conversion, such kashrut policies are intended to centralize and cement power in the hands of a chosen few, rather than allow qualified Orthodox rabbis to act according to their own psakim.

5) Get me’usa: my above mentioned beliefs on the kiddushei al tenai or kiddushei ta’ut do not preclude a legitimate concern that gittin given through protests can very well be considered me’usa. Some say that there is no hashash nowadays for a get me’usa; the burden of proof falls upon them. They engage in public humiliation by holding protests outside the homes of recalcitrant husbands. Rambam, in Hilkhot Gerushin 2:20, says that If it isn’t required according to the halacha that the husband be forced to give a get and beis din made a mistake or it was a beis din of laymen – [Rabbi Tougher’s translation is ” a Jewish court or simple people compel him”] and they forced him until he gave a get – the get is not valid. But since Jews have forced him he should give her a valid get [because he might think it was valid and when he marries another without obtaining a valid get it produces mamzerim]. However if goyim force him not according to halacha it is not a get…. since the law does not require it and the force was from goyim it is not a get.”

Forcing the husband to give a get by unauthorized persons makes it a get me’usa according to my diyuk in the Rambam. Lekhem Mishna explicitly says that if individuals pressure him where he is not required to give a get the get is posul mi d’oraita, same as if a non-Jewish court forced him to give a get. The only reason that we can, on certain occasions force a get is because “it is a mitzvah to listen to the sages.” We therefore assume, Rambam explains, that the husband wants to remain a Jew and that the coercers are masters of Jewish law and are to be obeyed. But if plain people who are not accepted by the husbands as the experts on the Torah that he must obey, the get is invalid, hence my reservations about ORA activism.

6) I believe that the attacks against Yeshivat Maharat are unfounded (See Mishpetei Uziel HM 3:6; Piskei Uziel 43, R’ Daniel Sperber, “On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions, etc.)