Remember Lipman?

At least he has Smicha. I do agree that he overstepped his bounds (by a lot) here and hope he retracts.

YitzchokM,

He has no shimush and no experience with geirus other than the political impact. I read what he said and he alleges that R Moshe would allow this. Unsurprisingly, that is a bald faced lie. It did not take long at all to see that R Moshe says that a Beis Din is a requirement and this is not a heter. Specifically responding to a question if a woman can rely on women to watch her tovel for geirus.

This is political pandering to the anti- halachic groups he associates with.

He can’t be gone soon enough.

Given the recent unfortunate events in Washington, DC.

If you put a bit of thought unto it, you’ll realize that they’re not really related.

if there are poskim on the level of Rav Shmuel Salant, Rav Ben-Zion Meir Chai Uziel, and Rav Moshe Feinstein, Zichronam Levracha, who have Piskei Halacha on the issue, there is what to talk about.

That’s a big “if”, and regardless, this is not how halachah gets decided.

Chacham

No, and not a tam or eino yodeia lish’ol either.

DY – The recent events in DC are quite relevant in that they highlighted and hightened the discomfort that many female potential Gerim (Gerot?) have with being observed by men. Yes, the situations are not identical, but there’s enough of a relationship between them that one does influence the other.

As to the Poskim mentioned – I did not look into the purported piskei halacha, and don’t have a view as to how the Halacha should be lema’aseh. I am only saying that that if these great Gedolim said something, or seem to have said something, it’s worth discussing. If you’re going to disagree with MK Lipman’s interpretation, then do so, and bring facts to support your position – simply saying “Lipman said it, so it must be Treif” is mere foolishness.

You also apparently also did not understand my reference to being a Chacham. I was not referring to MK Lipman – I was referring to those who hear what he said. A sign of a Chacham is that he learns from all – even, yes, an MK he does not agree with.

an Israeli Yid

anIsraeliYid – to your specific point, there are many things about being a Jew that are “uncomfortable”. No one is forcing anyone to become a Ger, and anyone who doesn’t want to get with the program can “convert” via the conservatives or become a Noahide, and no one will think less of them for it.

This is yet another example why politics and religion don’t mix.

How is it possible to honestly read R’ Moshe, who says even b’dieved it must be redone, and based on that, go ahead and suggest that it become l’chatchilah?

Sam, read the teshuvah. It should take you less than five minutes. He even proves that it is an absolute necessity because otherwise, in the interest of tznius we would have found another way.

DY and GAW – I’m not arguing in favor or against MK Lipman’s position. I’m merely pointing out that dismissing what he says because of who he is – without actually addressing the Halachic issues he raises – is the wrong way to go. If he’s wrong, then so be it – I have no view one way or the other on the Halachic merits of his position. At least use facts, though, and not the “well he said it and he’s bad, so it can’t be right” approach in challenging what he says.

And GAW – you’ve got to be kidding when you dismiss being uncomfortable about an issue of Tznius, particularly when an individual in a position of trust has abused the situation. This is far different from one being uncomfortable, say, because they just can’t give up eating bacon. This is a discomfort on account of what would otherwise be a positive trait – modesty – so it’s not wrong to see if something can be done Halachicly to aleviate such discomfort. If not, then so be it – we accept Halacha. But don’t go saying that someone is wrong just for discussing if it’s possible to do something in a Halachicly acceptable way that less uncomfortable.

an Israeli Yid

AIY, gavra did not dismiss her discomfort (nor should it be dismissed, as you correctly point out that tznius is indeed a factor, as R’ Moshe says as well).

He dismissed her comfort overriding halachah, which is what these people want. They are not discussing, b’timimus, if there is a legitimate workaround. R’ Moshe did that already, and dismissed it as invalid.

You continue to connect this to a different, horrible story, but that was an issue of who ran the mikva, not who was on the beis din overseeing geirus.

ROB, he rejects the tzdodim l’hatir unambiguously. For Lipman to use R’ Moshe as a tzad l’hokel is outrageous.

There’s no question that, despite the way you describe the situation, there’s still discomfort. In fact, R’ Moshe says,

“???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ????”.

He calls it a safeika d’dinah

Yes, as it would be if there were no beis din whatsoever involved in the tevila, because it’s a machlokes Rishonim if that works b’dieved (see Shulchan Aruch).

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9147&st=&pgnum=193

Igros Moshe, Yoeh Deah, Chelek 3, siman 109, third part.

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st=&pgnum=357&hilite=

It is very clear that Lipman is wrong.

Very wrong.

DY – who said anything about her discomfort overriding Halacha??? I clearly said that discussing if there is a way to address the discomfort WITHIN HALACHIC PARAMETERS is fine, but if there is no way around it, so be it – Halacha is Halacha. Bringing Rav Moshe’s Psak to show that MK Lipman’s interpretation of it is wrong is absolutely fine – in a Halachic discussion, bringing actual Halachic proofs is what should be done. My entire point was that people should challenge his view on the Halachic merits, and not based on whom he is.

As to the DC story – that is clearly 100% relevant. The individual in question was not only the “manager of the Mikva” – he was the lead Rav in a number of conversions. As such (and particularly given the publicity that story has received), the whole idea of a man or men watching the Tvila of a woman for Geirus makes a number of sincere want-to-be female converts more than a bit squeemish. If you can’t understand the relevance of that incident to addressing a woman’s feelings about Tevila, I’m sorry – it seems to me to be quite obvious.

BTW, after reading Rav Moshe’s psak, I agree that MK Lipman’s understanding of it appears inconsistent with the plain meaning. Thank you for providing the link.

an Israeli Yid

Oyoyoy:thanks for your comments! To every one else:I cannot find the words that you are attributing to Rabbi Lipman. However,I did some research on the net how tevilah leshem geirus is done and I was surprised (and aghast) to read that in many places, the bais din is actually in the mikvah room. That clearly would be wrong.In my experience, the three men are in an adjoining room are asked to come in and can only see the back of the woman as she is immersed in the water to her neck.They look for a split second before she goes under.Another way I have heard is that the men listen to the woman going under the water as the mikvah lady is present.I have never actually heard that they are in the actual mikvah room

DY and PBA: I, for one, doubt that Rabbi Lipman actually read the Tshuvah. He was probably Somech on Jeffrey Fox’s and Ysoschor Katz’s gross misrepresentation of R’ Moshe’s Tshuvah. Which is certainly misguided, but not malicious.

I think ?? ???? he put himself in the category of ??? ???? ??? ???, and I’m not sure why I should assume there’s even the slightest level of sincerity here.

DaasYochid:I have not to had a chance to see the actual loshon of the Shulchan Aruch but I venture to say that it will not say that the Bais Din should be in the mikvah room all the time, only to see that the woman is actually in the mikvah. Otherwise,it would be a gross breach of elementary tsenius.

PBA: No, when a Daf Yomi Rabbi thinks he’s a Groisse Gaon you get statements like, “R’ Ovadia Yosef missed a Ramban” and the willingness to Pasken like the Mishpitei Uziel over the combined opinions of R’ Ovadia, R’ Moshe, and the Minchas Yitzchak.

anIsraeliYid,

The recent events in DC are quite relevant in that they highlighted and hightened the discomfort that many female potential Gerim (Gerot?) have with being observed by men. Yes, the situations are not identical, but there’s enough of a relationship between them that one does influence the other.

I must disagree. The horrendous events in DC were caused by violations of both halacha and civil law. They did not arise due to correctly following halachic protocols, nor from any fundamental flaws arising due to that halachic observance. To make sure nothing like it happens again, stricter oversight and privacy protocols are needed, not changes to halacha. I think those groups who are abusively taking advantage of this sad situation to promote their own ideas are bringing further harm to the victims by distracting attention from the real changes that must be made and creating uncomfortable tensions surrounding the mikveh.