About the RCA, I do shudder.

Sam2:Please show me an example in halocho where one Bais Din can invalidate another’s psak. “ein davar kazeh”. No such thing exists. We don’t have a sanhedrin today and every Bais Din is autonomous. You may not want to accept that ruling but it is inconceivable- and I bet you , never mentioned in choshen mishpot, that a Bais can invalidate another Bais Din’s psak. We are not talking here about a Nossih or a Bais Din Godol that made a manifest error- as mentioned in Torah and Horiyos- but the case before Rabbi Sherman was whether the Bais Din of Rav Druckman did a correct conversion. Even if he had his doubts, it is the height of “chutzpah’ to invalidate the Bais Din and all its rulings.

Sam2: Actually, it does change the facts. If Rav Druckman’s Bais Din accepted the giyur, it meant that, IN THEIR EYES, it was a legitimate “kabbolos mitzvos”. It is not for Rav Sherman to dispute this. He -Rav Sherman- can have more stringent conditions in his Bais Din but he cannot invalidate the giyur “lemafrea” ! Don’t you think that ,troughout history, different Botei Din had different criteria? (I know that for a certainty – especially if you read the many teshuvos on this). And please remember that Rav Druckman was acting as the main arbiter in giyur in Eretz Ysroel. It was not in Rav Sherman’s authority to change that.

And-please remember what he did (overlooked by everyone here): he was actually “mattir’ (allowed) an “eishes ish” (married woman) to be free WITHOUT A GET based on his interpretation of matters that happened years ago. Now, pray tell me, what is worse, Rav Sherman’s acts -possibly bringing mamzerus into the klal- or Rav Druckman’s acts that really have little material consequence?

As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal. The chareidi world used it as a political ploy because they were- and stil are -intent on control of religious life in Israel. BTW- R”moshe zz’l too used outlandish reasons to avoid mamzerus in the klal.

Lastly, there is absolutely no connection with the JTS Bais Din, because there we don’t recognize the DAYANIM (as they don’t believe in torah she baal peh). The problem withb a JTS giyur is that their ‘kabbolas ol mitzvos’ is manifestly not what we can accept. Not so Rav Druckman’s Bais Din.

rob: If you can’t see that these cases are identical (if you disallow R’ Sherman’s type of position then you can’t support R’ Goren’s) then you are clearly not being honest with yourself here.

rob wrote:

“Please show me an example in halocho where one Bais Din can invalidate another’s psak. “ein davar kazeh”. No such thing exists.

“

and also wrote:

“

And-please remember what he did (overlooked by everyone here): he was actually “mattir’ (allowed) an “eishes ish” (married woman) to be free WITHOUT A GET based on his interpretation of matters that happened years ago.

“

and also wrote:

“As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal.”

Man-o-man you are one confused rabbi of berlin!

What rabbi goren did is exactly what YOU said cannot be done– invalidate a psak of another bais din. In fact he did it twice:

he invalidated the gerus accepted by a bais din (and the psak of the bais din that did the gerus) and also invalidated a psak that his wife’s children were mamzerim. In doing so he made a ger shomer mitsvos into a non-jew,

a woman who married without a get into a kashera, and her children into ksherim. Just what YOU said he had no authority to do!

you are inconsistent and your thinking is confused.

Also it is outrageous to imply that Rav Moshe used really invalid reasons to permit a mamzer. You called them ‘outlandish’ but that is what you implied. In at least one tshuva he answered that there was no question to deal with, the subject (or subjects, I forget) were obviously mamzerim. He rejected the valiant tries of the Rav who asked the shaila, basically calling them (without using the word) ridiculous. You would have called them outlandish resons and thought they should have been used.

wow! The kool aid drinkers have come out en masse! Allow me to answer the comments one by one.

First=the case of Rav Goren was that the woman had children from teh SECOND husband without getting a get. The only way to make sure that these kids were not mamzerim was to invalidate the FIRST husband’s conversion,therefore making her a free woman. Rav Sherman’s psak was just the opposite: he allowed the woman to go free (and presumably get married and have children) and thereby INCREASED the possibility of mamzerim . If you posters cannot see the difference , I cannot help you, your minds are closed forever.

popa- I am not sure where my phraseology differs. I called Rav Sherman by his title and have not shown any animosity towards him. I even even said that he is fully allowed to exercise more stringent acceptance in his Bais DIN. I believe that he erred grieviously when dismissing ALL OF RAV DRUCKMAN’s conversions. Now, that is chutzpah.

Toi- In spite of what you say, no one has actually shown that Rav Goren’s sevoro was not valid.Ironically, all of these rabbonim who attacked Rav Goren viciously now stand up and speak on behalf of Rav Sherman- who did what Rav Goren did. It is correct to say that Rav Goren did it by invalidating a previous conversion ,but he did it to AVOID MAMZERIM. It was a political move by the chareidi establishment to oppose him because they wanted to disqualify Rav Goren- who was equal to them in stature and learning.

Sam2-see above. Rav Goren had a compelling reason to invalidate the earlier conversion- Rav Sherman did not and compounded it by letting the woman go free without a get. I am being very logical.Plus, do you really think that invalidating ALL the conversions was a logical step??

nitpicker- you should be more respectful of your posting name. There was no Bais Din that gave a psak that the children were mamzerim. They would have been that if not for Rav Goren’s intervention. And you must be hallucinating when you say that he “made a shomer mitzvos into a non-Jew’ The man sure wasn’t shomer mitzvos when he went back to his goyishe roots.

AS far as R’Moshe zz’l is concerned, i don;t know the teshuva you are referring to but there are numerous “ammseh rav’ where Rav Moshe did everything not to passel the children.

Politics sadly gets in the way of halakha.

ROB: I don’t disagree with you about Rav Sherman. I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy here. I think that Rav Sherman went well outside his bounds here and there is a reason he hasn’t received much support from the Gedolei HaPoskim on this. I disagree with you about R’ Goren. The logic used is not inherently invalid. If the Beis Din is Passul, then it’s Passul. And if Rav Goren had gone around for backing from the major Poskim (who were on a much, much higher level than he) he wouldn’t have had any problems. If he had had R’ Shlomo Zalman’s, R’ Moshe’s, R’ Elyashiv’s, etc. backing, even one of them, this would have been a near-non issue. He would have been attacked, but he could have supported himself. He went unilaterally against all of the big guns. And unilateral attempts by random Talmidei Chachamim to make sweeping Halachic policy changes without the backing of the Gedolim, have, historically not ended well for the person attempting them. He was wrong in considering himself on that level. Just as Rav Sherman was wrong in trying to invalidate R’ Druckman.

to sam2.

it seems that we do know and that he was far frumer than his wife.

he moved voluntarily to ey after his wife left.

please note, it was not my intention to post a judgement of Rav Goren’s psak. what I wrote were simply facts that I thought were not at all in question, and I was surprised at your question. Who ever told rob he went back to his roots? yes, people claimed that, to prove he never meant to be mekabel mitsvos, but there is no evidence. It seems to have been made up at the time of the affair.

Rabannim made a point of inviting him for shabbos to show respect for him

to ROB who wrote “there was no bais din that paskend them for mamzerim”. I am sorry but that is revisionism. there certainly was.

and I remember them proclaiming that they were crying at the time of the case and they saw no way out.

and also to rob, of course you wouldn’t be aware of that tshuva, since it doesnt match your thesis.

of course rav moshe did everything to avoid mamzerus and to free agunos. that is what a rav is supposed to do. and rav moshe zatzal had a great koach l’hatir. but how dare you accuse him of just accepting or inventing silly heterim because the halacha is inconvenient!? he was an orthodox rabbi. are you?

and to poppa.

boy! you really started something here!

“I heard a psak from Rav Schachter of all people that if the Conservative edim were shomer shabbat and believed in Torah min hashamayim, than the conversion is good. “

I heard something like that in the name of Rav Schachter from my own rav; IIRC the qualification was that the “Conservative” dayanim had to be fully observant, not just Shabat observant. Of course, if you are fully observant and profess belief in Torah Mi Sinai, you are actually Orthodox regardless of what you call yourself.

Rabbiofberlin- does that have some kind of connotation to the haskala movement that started in Germany? Seriously, that’s what it sounds like. You base your opinion of a halachic ruling by Rav Sherman on a google search?! If you want to intelligently argue the subject, I suggest that you read the actual psak (maybe using google translate if the Hebrew is too difficult). Rav Sherman found in a case that was brought to HIS beis din (actually the highest beis din in the rabbinate in Israel) that Druckman forged (!) conversions. Druckman signed on conversion certificates attesting that he personally converted them when in fact it was proven that at the same time he wasn’t around (druckman later admitted to that). Rav Sherman’s ruling was based (partially) on the fact that there was forgery on the part of the beis din of druckman which disqualified him and his beis din. I would also note that Rav Elyashiv zt”l was consulted all along the way by Rav Sherman while he drafted his ruling. As for Goren, it’s another discussion as I’m running out of space…

ROB,

Either a later Bais Din can passul an earlier Bais Din that performed a conversion or it cannot. If, as a rule, a later Bais Din cannot passul the earlier Bais Din, then what Rabbi Goren did was invalid, regardless of his sympathetic motives.

If one agrees that a later Bais Din can passul an earlier Bais that performed a conversion, then whether Rabbi Sherman is right depends on the facts regarding the conduct of the earlier Bais Din, not on a halachic rule.

Reb Moshe, as were many other poskim throughout the ages, was often maikil to be declare that someone was not a mamzer. But being maikel does not mean being “outlandish” or foregoing halacha, chas v’shalom. Being maikel means relying on a shita or a svara, that is valid but that one would not rely on under ordinary circumstances.

cherrybim,

I don’t know what language you are referring to, but if you learn those sugyos in Nidda with an Artscroll gemara you will see that it uses the proper, precise and technical terms that if used in ordinary conversation would be considered “prost.”

There are some parts of Nidda that simply can’t be understood without getting into the nitty-gritty of female anatomy.

WOW! The emotions that this subject engenders! Before answering some of the points mentioned, I will say that,unequivocally, the opposition to Rav Goren zz’l was political. For all of you who accuse me (rightfully so) that I don’t know enough to argue with other great Poskim, I must tell you that Rav Goren learned in the greatest yeshivos (Chevron) ,was considered an “iluy” and, if he would have knuckled under to the chareidi establishment, would have been considered one of the great Poskim of his generation.

He chose another way- he became a zionist, went to the Army and became a vocal proponent of Medinat Israel. THAT – the chareidi establishment could not forgive and they hounded him througout his life.Way before the Langer case, Rav Goren was attacked for everything he did- from the kashrus in the Army, for his strong support of the religious Zionists and others. So please don’t come and tell me that opposition to him was sincere . It was political.

Sam2-Rav Goren had the same credentials as the other Poskim- he just did not fit into the little box that chareidim wanted. Others suffered the same way from the intolerance of the chareidi world.See Rav kook on Eretz Yisroel, see R’Moshe Feinstein on artifical insemination.See other “zionist” Poskim,including your beloved Rav.

As far as the Langer case and halocho. You can see from the hysteria of some posters that they have no clue about history and what Poskim have done to allow agunos to marry and children to be considered legitimate. They have gone to great lengths for this.

I have not read Rav Goren’s psak in full, this case being over fifty years old. Hence, I googled to familiarize myself with that case.

First of all, the person in question (Borokowsky) never was a shomer mitzvos-contrary to what “nitpicker’ says. Secondly, there were four reasons why Rav Goren said that the Langer children were not mamzerim- and only one was the overturning of a previous conversion.

Thirdly- as charliehall says- Rav Goren did it ONCE, and he did it with Kulos, something Poskim have done forever. Rav Sherman’s basi Din and Rav Attias invalidated ALL the conversions that Rav Druckman, without investigating any of them! Now, that is unprecedented. And Rav Attias wrote in the most intemperate way about Rav Druckman.

to mdd and Moshe-D: First, you should know that, through the generations, Poskim have done everything they can to allow children of suspected unions to marry. The main reason is simple:” Mamzer vadai omar rachmono vleo mamzer soffek” (If you don’t know what that means- zil gemor!).In many teshuvos, they go through contortions to find a hetter. R’Moshe did the same. I only said ‘outlandish’ to point out that Poskim grasped at every possibility and they were right in doing so. So, spare me the insults and go look up the many cases.

Beninungman= No one here ever went against halocho-certainly not Rav Goren. But he, like all other Poskim before him, looked for a way out and a kulo. He found it in one case and used it. R”Moshe used it in many cases, to his great credit!

As far as a bais din, look, you or others, dont have to be “meshadech’ with Langer’s children but you cannot “passel’ Rav Goren’s psak ,as he tried his best to help klal Ysroel.

and moshe_d wrote to ROB

“maybe using google translate if the Hebrew is too difficult”

And then using google mefaresh, if he still doesn’t get it.

“…And proper or technical language does not diminish accuracy. There is a tznius in speech; especially when you have women listening.”

So…wait one second…

You are telling me that hilchos niddah, which concerns the halacha governing women’s bodies, needs to be discussed in delicate terms BECAUSE THERE ARE WOMEN PRESENT????

Are you kidding me?!!?!

I think women can handle hearing about their own bodies. If you are going to argue tznius, tell me that hilchos niddah should be discussed delicately in the presence of MEN. Hashem yirachem.

“sugyos in Nidda with an Artscroll gemara you will see that it uses the proper, precise and technical terms that if used in ordinary conversation would be considered “prost.””

Artscroll language is never prost and neither is the speech of yirei shomayim who manage to find proper tzniusdik albeit technical and descriptive verbiage.

Sam2- I respectfully disagree. I am not going to enter into a discussion “whose godol is bigger?” but you are wrong in saying that other dati leumi Poskim were accepted. When was the last time Rav Unterman’s piskei halocho were mentioned? When was the last time Rav Herzog’s piskei halocho were honored? Even Rav Zvi pessach Frank zz’l piskei halocho are on the second shelf because he was close to the Rabbanut. BTW- I don’t know how old you are but I go back to the 1960’s when Rav Goren was the greatest dati leumi Possek in israel and this was his sin: he was an ardent Zionist.

Benign and Feminist: If you each would have taken the time to actually listen to Linzer’s daf yomi shiur you would quickly see that it is not his description of anatomy that is particularly objectionable.Rather, he repeatedly uses a three letter word (as a verb)which has never before been heard inside the walls of a bais medresh.Moreover, he uses the word deliberately and with great gusto,apparently proud of his liberated mind and audience.I don’t see how anyone can not view him as a menuval. Additionaly,he has no problem describing his view of a Tosfos as being “far feched” and then just proceeding on with his shiur.I started feeling ill after listening to about a half an hour of him.

It fascinates me how people who justify overturning conversions will cite the Langer Case. Poskim historically have bent over backwards to avoid agunot and mamzerim; what is done in these cases cannot be extrapolated to general psak.

rob wrote

“

First of all, the person in question (Borokowsky) never was a shomer mitzvos-contrary to what “nitpicker’ says.

“

Since you have posted this three times, it must be true,

as we learn from the bellman in THE HUNTING OF THE SNARK.

I therefore stand corrected.

rebdoniel,

When poskim “bend over backwards” there still has to be a rational basis in halacha. A posek can’t just make a up something to be matir a mamzer. For Rabbi Goren to have done what he did, at the very least he must have held that a later Bais Din is capable of declaring that a previous Bais Din had not properly performed the conversion and therefore the person was never megayer.

Now it is possible that a later B”D is capable of “passuling” an earlier B”D, but that this power is only used in rare and extreme ciumstances, and Rabbi Goren held that the Langer case was such a circumstance. But at the very least that power must exist.

benignuman wrote”

“

A posek can’t just make a up something to be matir a mamzer.

“

Just to enlarge on that a bit, there is no reason for him to want to either. His job is to do his best to find a valid heter because that is what the Torah wants him to do, not because he wants to get around the torah.

I am sure most of the readers and posters here understand this.