Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DaasYochid: I re-checked and ,indeed, the direct quote from R’Moshe zz’l teshuvo has a date of 28 Sivan 5745 and is written to his grandson Yaakov Tendler. Interestingly, in the other source you mnetion- from Hapardes, a Torah journal edited by Rav Simcha Elberg z’l,it is a teshuvo written to his other grandson Rabbi Mordechai Tendler and is dated a year earlier, 26 Sivan 5744.Operation Moses started (in secrecy) in 1985. Nonetheless, R”Moshe zz’ still calls them “Falashas”, a name that was subsequently frowned upon. Gut shaboos and may we see nechomos for the stricken families in Paris!
DaasYochid: thanks for the sources ! If my memory serves me correctly, in the early days of the alyah of the Ethiopian jews, the israeli rabbanut required “giyur lechumro”, just as R’Moshe zz’l indicates in his teshuvo.Subsequently, with the arrival of the masses and “operation Moses” (1984), the rabbanut accepted that they were full jews. R’Moshe was niftar in 1986-so this teshuvo was probably written much earlier He still calls them “falashas” in the theshuvo-a term the Ethiopian jews were adamantly against and was subsequesntly avoided. In the teshuvo, R’Oshe zz’l also says time and time again that it is up to the rabbonim in israel to decide and he won’t mix in. Also,very importantly- he writes that there is no “cheshas” of mamzeirus, as they did not do kiddushin kehalocho.
Sam2: I am aware that one of the (najor) problems with Ethiopian jews was the case of a divorce. Whereas-as you say- their “kiddushin” would be good, their “gittin” were not in accordance with the halocho and hence, the problem of mamzerim did indeed intrude into this. I do not now how the present day Poskim -chiefly R’Ovadia Yossef- handled that (I will try to look up the teshuvo) but I suspect it does have to do with “mamzer vadai velo mamzer soffek” which (contrary to what you wrote) is indeed the halocho “mid’oraisa” (see Rambam hilchos issurei biah 15-21). The chachomim,however, added soffek mamzer as a “geder bejuchsin”. Possibly, the fsct that we were talking about a “klal” we ended up paskening on a “doraisa” basis.
DaasYochid; trying to find some time in today’s tense situation in paris to answer your query. What i meant by not being a :psul” was, that in case of mamzerus, it is a “psul’ that stays with the person and can never be changed (unless it is a very extreme situation ,like a shifcho).However, the fact of assimilation and possible intermarriage can be overcome relatively easily by “giyur”, hence the problem is not as acute.
DaasYochid:pictursq maintained that we should not accept the Ethiopians as Jews because some may have intermarried.My point was that ,if that was the case,there is no ultimate psul because intermarriage does not lead to mamzeirus.
Pictrsq:you do realize that being X-ian or marrying a X-ian does not involves mamzeirus at all?Hence,it is a lot easier to accept them as Jews without a Psul.
pictursq and Sam2: Now, you are practicing in the arrogant supercilious way the way Ashkenazim treat all Sefardim. How do you know who your grandfather was? How do you know who your ancestor of five hundred years ago? This is the most arrogant way to treat other jews. Do you think R’Ovadioa Yossef was a fool when he accepted the Radbaz psak?
I am surprised that not one poster mentioned the origin of the psak that Ethiopians Jews are indeed jews. It came from the Radbaz- the main Possek of his time (about five hundred years ago) and predated the Bais Josef. He “paskened’ that they were descendants of Shevet Dan and R,Ovadia Yossef zz’l did indeed rule accordingly that Ethiopian jews are full jews.
As far as mamzeirus goes, there is no such thing as a “sofek mamzer”. One is either a “mamzer”(if it can be proven) or a jew. The gemoro clearly says “mamzer vadai omar rachmono velo mamzer soffek”.
DaasTorah:Honestly, I have no idea what you are accusing Rabbi Lipman of.He may not follow your guidelines but he sure did not do anything you are accusing him of.
DaasYochid:I must side with Patur on this.If you read the original article,you will clearly see that Rabbi Lipman was responding to an incident and he was concerned that if such incidents become more prevalent , it would prevent many people from going through a real geirus.Hence,his suggestion. As I said before, I think that there are enough ways of doing it without relying on “makilim”.Nonetheless,I appreciate Rabbi Lipman’s concerns and I think the vicious attacks o him are not warranted.
DaasYochid: Why is a concern for Jews in the state
of israel not a concern for klal yisroel? Half of world’s Jewry lives in Israel and well over half of Orthodox Jews in the world reside there.I find your biases disturbing in someone who says h strives for emess.
PopabaAbba: I will leave to the readers of this website to determine whether your comments make any sense. I,for one, attribute your comments to a good measure of le’chaim’s in the esrly morning.
DaasYochid and others: It is easy to be “a tsaddik in pelz” (ask your yiddish speaking relatives to explain this). Rabbi Lipman is a legislator in israel and it his responsibility to look out for the continuing welfare of Eretz Yisroel and its inhabitants. The question of people with jewish fathers is a real one- especially in israel. Hence, he is looking to ease the process of geirus and not to turn away any genuine geirim-of which there are many. Again, I am not endorsing his views as I think the normal way (as I described) complies with the feelings of the vast majority of prospective Geirim (I am speaking from personal experience). All i did was to defend him against the (unjust) attacks by posters on this website.
DaasYochid:If you read the article on this (see JPost),it is clear that this was not meant to become the norm-very specifically an option only.Hence,it was only meant as “sha-as hadchak”. I am not advocating this (see all of my comments) but I am only saying that it is wrong to castigate Rabbi Lipman.
DaasYochid :Thanks for defending me,although I generally do not take Popa’s comments seriously (see his latest comment!).However,you misunderstood my words.Clearly,the correct way to do this is mentioned in Rambam and s Shulchan Aruch, with the Bais Din waiting outside the mikvan and taking a quick look as the woman is fully immersed to her neck and, in my experience,also from the backb ,thereby avoiding any mishaps. However, in extraordinary circumstances, Rabbi Lipman suggests a way out,based on the Poskim who are “mattir”.In those “mekoros” mentioned,there are plenty of mattirim and,indeed,there are other Rishonim who are of similar opinion. I doubt that Rabbi Lipman would insist that it should always be done that way and,if you read the article, you’ll see that this is what he meant.
To all posters criticizing Rabbi Lipman:see Patur aval ossur’s “mekoros”. Hence, your harsh words are very misplaced.
To those who question relying on “kulos”:again, see same “mekoros”.All of the poskim mentioned paskened as they understood and we can -if needed, rely on the”mekilim”. I totally reject Sam2 and DaasYochid opinions that you cannot relyupon the “meikilim”
Gut shabos
Popa:thanks . I found the article.It raises more questions to me.I am not familiar with what goes on in Israel but ,in the article,it is intimated that the Bais Din is in the mikvah room itself during the process, which is clearly NOT what is said in halocho.If Rabbi Lipman maintains that the Bais Din should never see the woman in the mikvah,then clearly he is wrong.However,the article raises major questions to me how the process is done in Israel.As I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems that conversions in Israel are done without regard to halachic standards.
Sam2:I cannot find Rabbi Lipman’s comments on the net. And I cannot agree with you concerning Rav Uziel.We are not qualified to dismiss a valid opinion.
Nisht:I have yet to see where he said that.Can you or anyone else point to such comments?
DaasYochid:see Tur 268 and Shulchan Aruch 268, se-if 2.Virtually same “loshon” as Rambam,with Bais Din being outside of room until the actual tevilah.I don’t know what Rabbi Lipman said contrary.
Sam2:when it comes to “bedieved” you absolutely can rely upon Makilim, even if they have many others arraigned against them.And you are minimizing Rav Uziel’s stature by dismissing him summarily.
Sam2- I don’t think that, relying on a Possek who is “meikel” is wrong, regardless of the people arraigned against him. This is the case in many circustances and should not be a subject of sarcasm.
DaasYochid: See Rambam-“hilchos issurei bi-ah”, chapter 14 mishneh 6. Exactly as I depicted it. Will get you the “loshon’ of the Shulchan Aruch.
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.
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
Daas Yochid: Although R’Moshe paskens-as you indicate-that the tevilah has to be done again, if you go through the whole teshuvo, you will see that there are many “tsedodim lehatir”, certainly “bedieved”.
However,I fail to understand the situation-“lekulei alma”, the Bais din waits until she is submerged to her neck in the water and then briefly- I repeat- briefly looks at her from the back. What is the problem in that? (I did not see rabbi Lipamn’s actual words, so i pead ignorance of his words)
Avi K : Thanks for your elucidation.I thought that this was the case. The caps on beer or mineral water are already caps-and it only requires to unscrew them. The caps that are made in one piece and where the bottom part breaks off can indeed be a problem as th action of breaking the bottom makes the top a “kli”- albeit a very tiny one! I think that-going back some decades- sardine cans were similarly a question and-if I remember correctly- the Tselemer Rov zz’l paskened that it is ok-as long as you threw away the empty can and never used it.
Just read most of this blog and am awed by the erudition of the posters. As patur aval assur writes: for once, a civil and instructive discussion.
However, to Avi K: opening a bottle is a “doraisa”?? Do you mean a regular beer or mineral water bottle?? That cannot be. Do you mean opening the top and breaking the metal cap? please elucidate because your statement- as said- is incorrect.
It is impossible to equate an event of two thousand years ago, of which we only have a fraction of knowledgde to today. BTW, when Bar Kochba started his uprising some eighty yeards later, the Tanoim of that genaration supported him wholeheartedly, so one cannot compare events,let alone something that is happening two thousand years later.As some posters have written, there are two issues here, the halachic one, upon which there certainly are different valid opinions , and the political one. Politically, it is imperative that we assert Jewish sovereignty over every inch of Jerushalaim and Jehuda Veshomron. To forbid visits to the har habayit wold only be the firat step to giving up sovereignty obver Eretz Yisroel.
gavra at work: where do yo usee from the gemoro that the geirim the gemoro mentions did not get the “benefits” of geirus, as you claim?
As far as the giyur bill- in essence, it goes back to what was always the custom: every Rov made a decision for his own community how to respond to applicants for geirus. I think it is not a good idea to have a uniform standard- life is too complicated to have “one size fits all”. That said, I think the details are important and it seems that there are various thought on this. I cannot properly jduge until one sees the actual bill.
Gavra at work: You must have stopped learning the daf halfway through. As ‘dafyomi2711’ says-we pasken that ALL geirim ,regardless of their motivation, are geirim if they go throught the conversion process. See the gemoro!
“Moreh nevuchim” written in Arabic, “Pirush Hamoshnayos min Horambam”‘ written in Arabic, “Chovos halevovus’ written in Arabic….and many others….Translations are not as accurate as the original but often,especially with dedicated translaters, it comes close.
Daas Yochid:why? Why would it invalidate the Bais Din? And nowhere does it say that,in virtually all cases,there was no proper procedure?? Indeed there were no “mass conversions”
Daas Yochid:I have reviewed that whole thread and I am not sure why I should change my mind.If you mean Rosenblum’s article, it does not make any case for mass invalidation of Rav Druckman’s geirim.
To “about Time”: To put the record straight, it was Dayan Atyas of Ashdod that invalidated the conversion. Dayan Sherman and the Rabbinical Supreme Court subseqently upheld that psak and added that he disqualified ALL of Rav Druckman’s Bais Din’s conversions.
Both of these decisions went against all that we know of geirus in the past centuries.
Details are numerous but just to point out a few: Why would Dayan Atyas think that there was no kabolas ol mitzvos? Very specifically, the Rambam does NOT require keeping all the mitzvos,only to accept the CONCEPT of mitzvos. (That is what ol mitzvos mean)
Secondly, how can Rav Sherman invalidate ALL conversions of another qualified Bais Din? That has never been the case in our history and is totally against all norms.
Lastly, just on the merits of the case, as I said earlier, better to err on the side of geirus whose consequences can be rectified than allowing a woman without a get, whose consequeneces cannot be corrected.
benignuman: thanks for the source. I did not read the teshuvah. Whatever was reported was that the Dayan (there was a Dayan in Ashdod, I think, who staretd it all) dismissed the geirus becasue there was no “kabolas ol mitzvos”. Nowhere did i hear it was because there no “kosher’ Bais Din. What makes a bais Din kosher? Three people are sufficient to make a bais din, so i have no idea what that Dayan intended.
In response to “About Time”: You are spewing accusatrions that you cannot document, let alone prove.
nisht: If there is any silliness , it was on the part of these Dayanim in Israel. It is actually not true that there was no kabolas ol mitzvos- a convenient lie. The fact that she was not following all mitzvos many years later has no connection to the original geirus. Please learn your halochos!
But to the main point: by freeing her without any get, they were making sure that any subsequent child was a mamzer. Better to accept the geirus-even if questionable because the results can be corrected than making more mamzerim, which cannot be corrected.
nisht: Can you get off your high chair and explain how Rabbi Avi Weiss is making mamzerim? In my mind, it applies more to the Dayanim in Israel that invalidated the geirus – retrospectively!!- of a MARRIED WOMAN -without asking for a get-making her future children mamzerim! NOW- that is making mamzerim!
Wow! A ressusicated thread!
Charliehall is absolutely right: so much so that the gemoro itself paskens ‘mamzer vadai omanr rachmono velo mamzer sofek” In other words, the essence of a psak on “mamzeirus’ needs absolute certainty. Otherwise, ipso facto, he/she is not a mamzer.
And yet, nisht,there is n osuch psak on agunos but Poskim have always looked for any kuloh.
May I also add that, in similar circumstances, there should be kulos with geirus too- in line with the Rambam and many Poskim-and in contrast to the ridiculous Piskei halocho on geirus by recent Israeli rabbonim that made no sense. (psul lemafrea?)
DaasYochid: 🙂 Love your reply!
gavra-at-work: your recent comments bring up a delicious irony as your screen name implies working….as per your argument- every individual is entitled to do with his life what he wants. If he wants to remain dirt poor and learn- so be it. There is precedent for that. If he wants to work and live in relative comfort- that too is fine and has plenty of precedents. What the first one cannot do is force the second one to subsidize his lifestyle, based o nsome imaginary idea. And most grieviously, to insist that only the first approach is correct is indefensible.
And for all of those who are denigrating Eretz Yisroel and the medinah, the Klausenberger rebbe zz’l specifically left the american golus for Eretz Yisroel where he built Kiryas Zanz, ‘
“leshem uletiferes”, Laniado hospital and more. This, in a time where it would have been much easier and simpler (also more lucrative) to rebuild his chassidus in the US. And, oh,yes,he got lots of help, monetarily and organizationally from the “treife’ Israeli medinah!
MDG: The problem of this matter is that a multitude of (secular) historical records indicate that the churban of bays rishon was in 586 BC. Even if we accept that Shimon Hatsaddik was part of the Knesset Hagedolah and validating his meeting with Alexander the Great), there is still the matter of a 166-year gap (from 586 to 420)that is in conflict with other historical records. The major problem is that,according to chazal, the golus bovel was seventy years long and this would be in direct conflict to historical records.
Daas Yochid:there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that many rebbetzins wore a tallis koton,and clearly there would not be a problem of “jehuro” in those circumstances.Secondly,there are other matters that are labeled as “jehuro” that are ignored.(rabbeinu tam’s tefillin,anyone?).So,indeed , it is a fairly mild rebuke.
DaasYochid:You have cut your quote from the Levush on tallis in half.Earlier,he clearly writes that women can put on a tallis and even say a brocho.What he says about “jehuro”is repeated in the Remo.”jehuro” is rather a mild critique and , in essence, women could wear a tallis, especially if it is a tallis koton, where the issue of “jehuro” is not relevant,.
HaLeiv; this is an old thread and I am not going to re-hash the whole thread. However, the original title was “kula-ization”of Judaism to which I responded that we are not at “chumra-ization” of Judaims. Nothing you say about Bais Hillel contradicst this.Actually, they did look at being “meikel” and based their opinins on that.I am not sure about your other point.
emeslaamito: Never heard of that snd certainly I never heard of that in Poland, Russia, Lithuania..etc
HaLeivi: this is an old thread but ,as you just asked a question mainly addressed to me, let me answer it. I quoted Bais Hillel as an example- nay, the norm in halacha actually- that a “kuloh’ is preferable to a ‘chumro”. : ” koach de-heteira odif”
Let’s see whether this comment finds favor in the moderator,s mind and let it through.
Most of this post concentrated-rightly- on tefillin but the last couple of comments (rebbe yid and DaasYochid) have added tallis to this ocnversation. This must be incorrect. There is much less of an objection to women wearing a tallis than tefillin. Please check the actual “loshon” of the Remo (orach chaim 38), who says,by tefillin, speaking explicitly of women, “mochin bejodon” but actually allows it by a tallis (orach chaim 17), where he does not single out women at all. He only adds the opinion of the “Ogur” that discourages it because it is “jehuro” (highmindedness). There is anecdotal history of chassidich rebbetzins wearing a talis koton-thereby negating the problem of the “Ogur’, yet executing the mitzva.
Softwords: actually, if you want me to very provocative, I will say that i do not believe that the limud hatorah of certain yechidim makes a difference. Why is the daf hajomi that thousands of working people learn any worse than what the yeshivos do? please provide sources which say that it is only the limmud hatorah of yeshivas that protect us. As a matter of fact, the alef bais of “tinokos shel beis rabbon” is more effective.
As far as thanks for the learning, I do it every shabbos…look into your davening!
benignuman and Patur avol ossur :at logician’s request, I opened a new thread for this disucssion “infallibility and chachomim”.You are welcome to join us there.
Health: your report is correct but that is the issue. At the time, the exmption may have been desperately needed, as it was after the Holocaust and European Jewry with its Rabbonim had been decimated. Additionally, you had a tiny percentage who were exempt. Today, you have a huge tsibbur that is exempt and a large amount of them don’t deserve the exemption. That was my point.