- This topic has 334 replies, 51 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I agree that the membership does not deserve to be reprimanded. But the RCA leadership spoke in their capacity as the heads of the RCA as an entity, whom they represent as the duly authorized leaders. Therefore the RCA as an entity deserves to be critisized.
Under normal circumstances, we can condemn a group based on the acts of its leaders, with the assumption that they represent the group (entity).
In this case, we have information that the leaders were acting in rogue fashion, without consent of the members, hence, the entity is not to blame.
How can they be considered rogues? The RCA leadership is not required to take a membership vote on every action they take on behalf of the organization. The membership explicitly authorizes them to speak on the organization’s behalf on their own judgement. Hence this statement on behalf of the organiztion is no more rogue than their other recent statement condemning the mach’o in Manhattan against the Israeli draft that Rav Elya Ber and other Gedolim attended. That statement also did not entail a membership vote. To consider this rogue, you’d have to consider everything they’ve done rogue.
But if you are to be correct that they are rogue, it means they will be immediately dismissed from their leadership positions due to their rogue actions being mevaze a Talmid Chochom and Godol HaDor. In the absence of such a dismissal, the implicit understanding is that their actions were not rogue and are accepted by the membership. Time will tell which of the two possibilities is correct, and the answer will not be long in coming.
Wait one second. We have incontrovertible evidence that Rav Stav was PHYSICALLY ATTACKED by a number of chareidim at a chashuv wedding of the kosel rav’s daughter in bnei brak. A Shas MK was mevayez a talmid chacham by leaving the mitzvah tanz after Rav Stav joined. Finally, Rav Stav was forced to leave the chasunah after violence and insults escalated, and hundreds of people shouted at him and called him names like rasha and shikutz as he left.
When was violence ever okay, especially to a talmid chacham and respected rav? Why don’t the chareidi gedolim condemn this attack, and criticize those members of their tzibbur that feel it is appropriate to push a rav around?
Perhaps the RCA could’ve been a little more respectful, but they certainly did not physically attack Chacham Yosef (c”v), as chareidim did to rav stav!
i vote rd’s post the single most ironic post in history.
rebdoniel: You keep digging yourself into a deeper hole. You say that the RCA isn’t dealing with Agunos because they won’t accept Rackman’s “solution”. Pretty much every Rav said Rackman’s “solution” doesn’t work halachically. You don’t compromise on halachah for a difficult situation. You try to find an answer within the confines of halachah.
Rabbi Angel’s conversions are not viewed all that favorably by most. It’s not the politics in it, it’s because he doesn’t always do it properly, according to halachah.
Your defense of Yeshivat Maharat is laughable, as almost everyone has come out against it, except for Avi Weiss and his chevra.
You wrote about an article you wrote recently, which I looked up. I noted that you “learn” in Yeshivat Hadar, which on their website proudly note that they are “The first full-time egalitarian yeshiva in North America”.
In short, your beliefs are way, way different than most people here. Yes, I have differences also – MO vs. Yeshivish. But your differences are at a different level.
edited
rebdoniel!
I appreciated your discussion about very important matters. I support some of your ideas but you will have to answer me hoe do you reconcile a “get me-useh” (where the husband is compeleld) with “kofin oisio ad she=omer rotzeh ani”. I have not been able to delve into that very difficult sugay but this questions is so trabsparent and I don’;t see anyone answering it.
As far as Gyur- we have become so convoluted in oru reasoning that we have totally lost the original way of gyur. AS per Halacha, there should be no requirement that a prospecive ger does all the mitzvos. What is necessary is the “kabboloh”- the acceptance of the obligation. The rest is “zil gemor’- as Hillel told the ger.
Secondly, if a guyur is done ‘kehalocho “(milah,tevilah) then nothing in the world can change that,even if the ger subsequently does not follow the mitzvas. Here again, it is the original intent that is importsnt, not the actual execution.
I have only touched two serious issues where – to my humble mind- we have digressed far, farr from the original intent.
DaMoshe: Hadar is Conservative in everything but name. They count women for a Minyan there. It is very sad that Ethan Tucker had the potential to be a Gaon in Torah but instead decided to use his knowledge to create his own faction of Judaism.
Mods, if you’re going to edit my post, please at least post a bold EDITED on the bottom. You left out some of what I wrote.
Sorry, I should have.
Sam2: I agree with you. I was just posting what they say on their site. rebdoniel “learned” in that “yeshiva”.
ROB,
Kofin Oso Ad Sheyomar Rotza Ani only applies after a Bais Din has ruled that the husband is m’chuyav to give a Get. If someone forces the husband before such a ruling it will be a Get Meusa and the get will be posul.
It is not at all clear, however, that communal and verbal pressure is considered forcing such that it would make a Get Meusa.
DaMoshe,
How do you know rebdoniel learned there?
Re: R’ Angel: there are 3 kosher edim, milah, and a kosher mikveh. Candidates verbally declare that they understand sechar ve’onesh. How is that not in line with what the gemara in Yevamot 47 says, or what the Rambam paskens in Issurei Biah? A conversion that doesn’t fit the Demai standard, or that wouldn’t be accepted by Leib Tropper is still a kosher conversion. The Rambam even says that a conversion without any instruction is valid be diavad. With the Mehaber, it’s more tricky, since in the actual ShA he quotes the Rambam almost verbatim, but earlier in the same siman, he follows the Tur in ruling that the court must inform the convert of the commandments in order that he accept them and that failure to do so invalidates the conversion even ex post facto. Hakham Ovadia Yosef’s position on giyur is even in line with the Rambam and Hakham Uziel (who gave him semikha). He relies on the same teshuva in Pe’er haDor as his teacher, and in response to those who say that this teshiva shouldn’t be followed le ma’aseh because Maran haMehaber didn’t quote it, he says that the Mehaber simply never saw it, but if he had, he surely would have relied on it (see Yabia Omer YD 8:24). Hakham Ovadia’s approach is also partly the basis for the Sefer Zera Yisrael by R’ Amsalem (Which has a glowing haskama from Hakham Meir Mazuz, rosh yeshiva of Kisse Rahamim, as well as haskamot from Rabbis Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, Shlomo Dichovsky, Shear Yashuv Cohen, Dov Lior, Yaakov Ariel, and Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch).
I prefer kiddushei al tenai as a solution to the aguanh problem (we had a panel discussion at NYU on this yesterday); a person’s opinions don’t “dig” them in any “hole,” unless we live in a place where there are thought police. Shivim panim le Torah.
Kiddushei al tenai was endorsed by many talmidei hakhamim in history, including the Seridei Esh (R’ Berkovits was his talmid), Rav Uziel (he opposed one version of kiddushei al tenai that the hakhamim in Constantinople wanted to implement, but he still endorsed kiddushei al tenai in most other instances), the Yam haGadol (R’ Yaakov Moshe Toledano expressed support the idea that at the time of the wedding, the hatan make a clear statement that his betrothal was based on the approval of bet din, which could allow bet din, at a later time, to retroactively annul the marriage, should circumstances warrant it, and Rav Uziel endorsed this).
My views on these 2 issues are not without precedent, and are rooted in the words of some of our greatest sages.
If a woman giving a drasha, or visiting the sick, or learning halakha bothers you, than I don’t know what to say about that. Graduates of Yeshivat Maharat aren’t radically reinventing Judaism. If you’ve ever gone to a synagogue with one, you’d see that they function in a supportive capacity in most cases, and the most they’ll do is teach and counsel and answer she’eilot, which is what most modern rabbis do anyways. They’re not functioning in any positions of serarah.
Rabbi of Berlin again shows his brilliance and humility.
Get me’usa is a tricky issue, admittedly. I agree with you. The Rambam I cited provides a caveat. One must be an otherwise Observant Jew who resists doing the proper thing. This would not work with a complete rebel or – as the Rambam himself notes – that Judaism does not require this act. Kiddushin 50a seems to be the makor for that Rambam; it says there that we force him to give it until he says he wants to give it, and instead of this being forced, we say that he really wants to heed divrei hakhamim. Le tzarich iyun.
He recently posted about an article he had written for a website. I looked for the article, and it had his full name. I was curious if there were other articles he had written (since in the article it said he was a writer), so I did a search. I found his LinkedIn page, which says he “learns” in Hadar.
“The first full-time egalitarian yeshiva in North America”
pardon my ignorance, but what does egalitarian mean?
It could be a get me’usa, and that is a situation that must be avoided, to avoid mamzerim. Mamzerut is extremely serious, as it is a status that can never be undone.
This isn’t the place to play the gam “my rabbi vs. your rabbi.” But, I do view Rabbi Tucker as a gaon. His knowledge of halakha is astounding in its breadth and depth. Many of his shiurim are accessible, and I, for one, think it is absolutely amazing that people who are Modern Orthodox and from all other denominations are coming together to learn Gemara be iyun. Thanks to Hadar and Pardes, people raised Reform and secular with no yiddishkeit are now davening, keeping kosher, and learning Gemara with Rashi, Tosafot, and other Rishonim.
Men and women learn Gemara at Hadar. The Rav allowed mixed limudei kodesh at Maimonides School, and many other respected Modern Orthodox high schools also have mixed limudei kodesh. I cannot comment on Hadar’s davening, which I neevr attended, and wouldn’t attend.
egalitarian means men and women equally
playtime: It means it’s fully mixed, men and women learning together.
Okay first of all DaMoshe, you may indeed be a talmid chacham, but even so how can you as another human being judge the quality of Reb Doniel’s talmud torah? You even have the chutzpah to say that since he learns in yeshivas and institutions you disagree with, you’re now positive he isn’t even learning! While I too disagree with the Open Orthodox/conservadox ideology, a Daf Yomi shiur given by Rav Dov Linzer (head of yet) for example, is still learning, still valuable, and he is still a very smart guy. Please treat these rabbanim and their derech halimud with some respect, even if you disagree with them hashkafically, or even halachically. Reb Doniel certainly seems very knowledgeable in the mekoros.
Also, regarding Get, isn’t there an idea that if many years ago when Jewish courts had power, if the husband was misarev the beis din could literally send thugs to beat him up until he gave the get? Bizman hazeh, when basei din cannot physically beat anyone up, I would think they should still be able to economically and socially compel the husband to give a get. Is this correct?
ZDad, that may be true in this context, though the meaning of egalitarian is simply equality (egal in French), not specifically equality between men and women.
ROB, if a non-Jew says that he accepts all the mitsvos, but then the next Shabbos you see him driving around and eating at a treif restaurant, it obviously creates a big question about the sincerety of his kabbolas ha’Mitsvos.
rebdoniel: So you have no problem saying that a get may not be valid when most Rabbonim hold it’s fine, but when some Rabbi claims the entire marriage is voided, and there’s no get at all (not even a questionable one), you think it’s fine and won’t lead to any mamzerim?
As for the Rambam school being mixed, R’ Schachter has said that R’ Soloveitchik had it mixed out of necessity. There weren’t enough girls to allow for separate classes, so he mixed them. It was to only be temporary until the class size grew. He said that other schools asked R’ Soloveitchik about it, and he told them NOT to mix the classes, they should remain separate.
i agree with pba-sefer torah written by an apikores is ta’un sreifa. also see R hirsch’s opinion on benefiting from the institutions of those who veer in their yiddishkeit and establish alternative ways to serve Hashem, in his exchange with R bamburger.
PBA: I think you should learn a little more about R’ Linzer. If anyone at YCT is Frum, it’s him.
RD: Ethan Tucker is not a “Rabbi”. His distortions of Halachah and the Halachic process would make the JTS Beis Din proud. He knows a lot and sadly uses that knowledge for subversive reasons. If you want to learn from a “Modern” Halachic genius, go join R’ Schachter’s Shiur. How can you learn in a place that you would refuse to Daven in? The lack of understanding of basic things astounds me. Would you learn in a Church? So why do you learn in that Beis Avodah Zarah?
Once again, i find it comical that rebdoniel feels that he had sufficient knowledge of halacha and svarah yeshara to argue in halachic matters with people who are obviously more knowledgeable than he is.
Also, rebdoniel, who do you feel should decide what the proper Torah Hashkafa is? And what part of Torah is the basis for Torah Hashkafa?
Popa, why do you say that? It doesn’t seem like you’re joking, so I’d just like to advise you that inflammatory statements like that do not add to the achdus of klal yisrael.
Regarding the metzius itself, you think it is better for someone not to learn ANY Torah their entire lives rather than diligently and meaningfully learn gemara, rishonim, shulchan aruch, or other Jewish texts from a knowledgeable guy like rav linzer? Halachically, that seems problematic as every minute of Torah is worthwhile and David Hamelech even learned from Achitophel, a far less decent dude than Rav Linzer!
Also, when YCT rabbanim teach gemara shiurim, for example, correct me if I am wrong (based on your first hand knowledge) but I do not believe they are teaching it with any particular agenda in mind, just like Brisk, Vizhnitz, and YU don’t have political agendas when learning shas and poskim, they simply go through the gemara as Jews have done for thousands of years. YCT probably saves their politics for a different time, which is why it’s so machlokesdik and unfair to say their Torah learning is not real learning.
A question to ponder: I know of a conservative rabbi in my community that reportedly went through the entire Rambam Sefer Ahavah. Is it better had this non-frum guy (who I personally wouldn’t call rabbi, per rav moshe) not learn at all?
rationalfrummie,
The issue with Get is when the social and economic pressure begins before the Bais Din issues a seruv.
mdd,
According to many (most?) poskim, in evaluating geirus, what the convert does after the conversion is not relevant. What is important is whether there was kabolas mitzvos at the time of the geirus. Because devarim sh’b’lev aynam devarim, if there was a verbal kabala of the ol mitzvos then the conversion will be valid (assuming proper mila and tevila) unless it was clear (umdina d’muchach) AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME that the kabala was insincere.
Post conversion actions cannot retroactively annul a geirus.
Ben: Not quite. Someone not keeping Shabbos 3 days after they convert is a pretty good Umd’na D’muchach that they weren’t sincere. It’s like the “Ger” I knew who celebrated his conversion by going with his friends to Chipotle. That’s not Kaballas Ol Mitzvos.
The Torah im EY is not because of the zionists one iota. It is despite the zionists and their efforts against the Torah. The Torah in EY preceded them and will succeed them after they’re long gone.
Yes, you burn an apikorus’ Torah. That’s the halacha. Better no Torah than “Torah” from an apikorus.
benignuman: If a Catholic priest wants to spy on the Jews and he goes through all the motions of geirus, mouths that he’s kabala the ol mitzvos, takes some dunks in the mikva with proper tevila and successfully fooled a good beis din, your comment above would indicate that he is 100% Jewish even though he never intended to follow the Torah. That is simply incorrect.
Beninguman – It is interesting that one can use the principle of ????? ???? ???? ?????, because in a ??? ????? ???, inner thoughts DO count! I would have said ????? that a ???? ?????? is a ??? ????? ???.
But nevertheless, even if inner thoughts at the time can be ???? the ?????, if during the ???? the ger in sincere, and just afterwards is ???? ?????, there is no reason for that to be ???? the ?????. Does anyone have a ???? that it should?
The is, however, an interesting ???”? about a ?? who is ???? ?????, and a very contreversial ??? to explain it – the ???? is ????? ??? ? ???? ? writes:
?? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?’ ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????. ??? ?????? ??. ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ????
A ?? who wants to be ???? from his conversion cannot, and must be a Jew for all purposes, or shall be killed.
The ??????? ask – Why should he be killed if he did not yet do an ?????? Why is he worse than a ????? ????? The Briker Rav (right at the end of his sefer, the last few words) says ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??????. There is a very interesting ??? from ? ??? ????? ????? in ?????? ?? ?? and a ???? ??? which supports his ?????.
Have any of you learned through the ????? in depth? Have you asked a shayla about it to a knowledgeable rav? You guys are having a discussion on par with elementary school kids hocking in the nuances of foreign policy, i.e. you’re clueless. These issues have been debated by rabbonim much greater than you, and as a mod said earlier in the thread, stop sticking your head between two mountains.
Sam2,
The umdana has to have been evident at the time of the kabbola. It doesn’t work retroactively. Anything after the person comes out of the mikva is irrelevant, even if it is only 3 days.
If he had told his friends, before the kabala, that they were going to go out that night to Chipotle, that would be an umdina d’muchach.
Yekke2,
It’s not that Daas is not important, it is that we recognize the Daas he speaks out loud, not the purported Daas he has in his heart. The concept of dvarim sh’blev aynam dvarim always comes up with things that require Daas (like a kinyan), and af al pi ken, dvarim sh’blev aynam dvarim.
Those that claim you can retoractively annul geirus (not that I think this is correct) would probably argue that it is gilui milsa b’alma. What the Rambam is talking about is when the person has a genuine change of heart, not where he is suspecting of never being sincere in the first place.
beniguman: So the Catholic priest, in my above example, who intends to remain a Catholic priest, underwent a kosher geirus in your thinking. Correct?
Summa,
I think we have had this conversation before. If it was clear (to someone who knew all the facts) AT THE TIME of the geirus that the priest was insincere, or if the priest had told someone what he was planning on doing, then maybe the kabbala would be invalid. Otherwise it would be a good geirus that the “priest” would have to “live” with in the next world.
Simply saying I am incorrect without providing a source, is close to pointless.
HakunaMatada,
I have been through various secondary sources (i.e. Shailos V’Teshuvos) on this sugya. I will freely admit that I did not learn up the mekoros in Shas. I have not seen any posek (other than R’Shlomo Goren, who did so to be mattir mamzeirim) that was mevatel geirus (in theory or in practice) performed on the auspices of a competent Talmud Chacham on the basis of after-the-fact conduct.
Summa,
Outside of the scenarios I outlined in my previous post, correct.
Then, apparently, you missed the news of the psak halacha of the Beis Din of HaRav Sherman shlita, in Eretz Yisroel, that the mass pro-forma conversions of Russians by Rabbi Druckman to have never been valid from the outset.
Yes. I did. Did Rabbi Sherman write up a teshuva with sources?
Ben: I think R’ Soloveitchik also disagreed with you. I feel like it’s in either Nefesh HaRav or Divrei HaRav.
PBA,
That isn’t proper usage of the “present sense impression” exception (or maybe I am missing the joke).
Thanks, I found it.
Rav Linzer’s daf yomi shiur is available online for the whole world to hear.
A conversion, once the ger leaves the mikvah, is done. You cannot retroactively annul someone’s Jewishness. Lifestyle doesn’t make them Jews; they fact that they underwent the procedure of conversion makes them Jews.
How is a more liberal bet midrash akin to a church? What demigods or statues are they worshipping in Yeshivat Hadar?
RD: Apikorsus is Avodah Zarah. Their misrepresentation of the Halachic process is Apikorsus.
Summa and PBA,
I went through Rav Sherman’s opinion quickly in between mincha and maariv. I will re-read it later but it seems to me that he is not disagreeing with what I wrote above.
Rav Sherman writes quite clearly that if a Ger is properly mekabel mitzvos before a competetent Bais Din he is Jewish and later conduct against Torah and mitzvos in no way invalidates his geirus, even if he says he never really meant the kabala.
Rav Sherman is arguing, however, that there was no kabalas mitzvos before a competent Bais Din, because the Bais Din that oversaw the geirus didn’t do its job trying to determine whether there was proper kabalos mitzvos. It was kabalos mitzvos before an improper, incompetent Bais Din. Rav Sherman is discounting the geirus on the same sort of grounds we discount Conservative geirus.
beninugman: I have not participated much in this discussion but it seems to me that -if what you say is correct about Rav Sherman’s psak- he actually “passels’ the Bais Din that accepted the geirus. I am not sure what is worse-to reject one’s geirus “post facto” (never done before) or his attempt to disqualify a qualified Bais Din. Remember, he tried to disqualify EVERY geirus that Rav Druckman’s Bais Din did. Is that logical?
rabbiofberlin,
The issue of disqualifying another Bais Din and thereby disqualifying that other Bais Din’s psak, is not a sugya I have ever looked into. I would have to take substantial time to learn up the sugya to have an opinion. I just don’t know.
ROB: Of course it’s logical. If the Beis Din is Passul then it’s Passul. I don’t see your point. You can argue that of course the Beis Din wasn’t Passul (which I would be very willing to argue) but the argument makes sense. Just because you don’t like the conclusion doesn’t make it a bad argument.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.