"A thorough house-cleaning, in which RCA members about whom corruption reports surfaced would be investigated and, if need be, ‘defrocked’ from serving as an Av Bet Din for conversion. However, members in good standing MUST be implicitly trusted".
"
Excellent and agreed, provided,
"The adoption of a curriculum for Hilkhot Gerim for Rabbis-in-training".
Agreed and it should include the adoption of following the laws of Hilchos GErut in practice,
"Perhaps most importantly, there needs to be a serious effort to produce halakhic literature which articulates our view of giyur and why we are confident in it and in our ability to engage in the sacred work of bringing people tachat kanfei Ha-Shekhinah".
If they coincide with the laws of Gerus and are reinterpreted by their own whim to change meaning of "kabbolas hamitzvot" and the standard thereof to be measured by the lack of observance of the masses and congregants something which has no precedence in halacha.
There can be no change in the proces of kabalas hamitvot. "Commitment" means to commit to observe in *practice*. If *later* down the road he/she fails to observe in practice that is the gap between the commitment and the practice. However, if at the outset one sees that the commitment has nothing to do with the ability to bring it into practice it is not a commitment to practice; it is ahollow verbal meaningless declaration and this is not the process of gerus where a Beys Din sets up conversions on a regular basis.
AddeRabbi, you really should add a good post on the halakhot of giyur according to Rav Uziel. The endless mantra of "there is absolutely no halakhic idea of conversion if the people didn't intend to be frum" is based on total ignorance of the basic pesak (well-accepted in Sephardic circles for centuries and by many of the dayyanim in Israel's conversion courts toda) that "Kabbalat Ha-Mitzvot" means declaring acknowledgement of the consequences for keeping or not keeping mitzvot if one becomes Jewish, not whether he actually plans to keep them or not as a Jew. This is simple peshat in the Rambam.
The ironic thing is that this pesak is so well-known in guyur circles in Israel, and widely implemented, but not in chu"l. There is no more lenient Orthodox conversion in the world than that of the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel! The RCA should be laughing at this, not crying.
Hey AddeRabbi, forget about conversions already and talk about marrying people. The rabbanut hardly lets anyone do that either.
Somewhere you wrote about a rebellion for Orthodox rabbis, to do marriages without the rabbanut's permission and then get the people registered in Cyprus. This should really be done, but only RCA people who make aliya can do it! (Tzohar can't for political reasons.) Let's find a way to organize this and get to work.
A rebellion like that would shake the Rabbinate's monopoly to its foundations!
"Commitment" means to commit to observe in *practice*. "
Exactly what myself and every orthodox convert I've met had to commit to and as I said previously we all keep shabbat, kashrut, TH, tznius, davening, tzizt & tefilling (men).
Anyone heard of the failed Denver Joint Conversion project?
Dei'ah veDibur disses it here, and look who's involved...
Somewhere you wrote about a rebellion for Orthodox rabbis, to do marriages without the rabbanut's permission and then get the people registered in Cyprus. This should really be done, but only RCA people who make aliya can do it! (Tzohar can't for political reasons.) Let's find a way to organize this and get to work.
A rebellion like that would shake the Rabbinate's monopoly to its foundations!
Another Guy in Israel | 05.15.06 - 9:51 am | #
No it wouldn't - it would increase the population of the kollel wing at the Maasiyahu jail.
It's illegal in Israel to "privately" perform a valid kiddushin for a couple that the Rabbanut would agree to marry. The reason the reform get away with this is b/c the rabbanut doesn't consider the kiddushin valid. Also for Kohen and Grusha the rabbanut usually rejects the marriage application which makes it easier to privately skirt the takana and not end up in jail. But if some new RCA sherrif comes into town and starts performing valid marriages and Yankel and Sara, with total disregard for the statutory monopoly granted to the Rabbanut in these matters, the Rabbanut will probably press criminal charges against such a Rabbi.
If you feel the need to change this then come here and vote.
How many of you RCA folks out there that feel it necessary to challenge the Rabbanut/Government authority in the matter of conversions would also readily agree with this statement by Rav Ahraon Lichtenstein. And if you would agree with it, then why are the two issues different?
Commentator: If a Torah-true Israeli soldier has a conflict between what his government tells him and what his Rav tells him, such as an order to participate in the removal of Jews from an area of Judea and Samaria - what should he do?
RAL: I think it depends on what kinds of issues come up. If the issue is one of Halakhic principle, where Morei Halakha consensually assume that a certain course of action is in clear violation of clear Halakhic norms, then we know. We don't heed a Melekh or Malkhut which issues decrees against Halakha.
If however, we aren't dealing with Halakhic principles, but with particular judgments as to the extent to which a particular initiative will or will not have some Halakhic implications, that's another ballgame.
I was involved over the summer in a sort of running discussion and discourse at one level with Rav Avraham Shapira, the Rosh Yeshiva of Mercaz HaRav, and at another level with his grandson-in-law, who took over for him at some point. Part of the issue was precisely this. The point I made was that if the government were to come and say we're going to take this initiative and give away part of Eretz Yisrael so that people should be able to enjoy life - so that each home will have two cars and three DVD's - of course you would tell people not to do it, we have Jewish priorities. But that's not what the government was saying. The government was saying that we are going to cede part of Eretz Yisrael in order to attain a goal which has Halakhic value and significance, except that some Halakhic authorities didn't think it would attain it. The judgment as to what will be the result of a certain foreign policy initiative is a judgment that the government needs to make. That's not a question of principle, it's a question of applying principles and the business of government is to govern.
BB - regarding the first issue, mah nafshach, if the Rabbanut won't accept RCA conversions, then a wedding involving an RCA ger shouldn't be in their jurisdiction; no different than reform.
Regarding R' Lichtenstein's statement, nobody's saying that the Rabbanut has no right to do what they're doing. So I'm not really sure what you're driving at.
Worth noting... Although he is usually quite the moderate, Rabbi Hillel Goldberg is good friends with RNE. They were in the same chevra in Israel many years ago.
BB-
i dont get it
rav lichtenstein was telling people that the torah doesnt OBLIGATE them to rebel against the government becase of the disengagement.
he syas you dont need to trump the governement because the gov is acting out of halackic principles.
but dont confuse this whith why its inappropriate to VOLUNTARILY resist in such a case...a soldier is told not to resist since resisting would cause such havoc in isreal it would be assur...a soldier has told the government he would obey orders. if one argues that he must resist becuase the halacka tells him too...rav lichtenstien has an aswer for that.
but the question of whether a civily disobediant person (though he has certinly no obligation to resist the rabbanutes ideas) may VOLUNTARILY resist the government is another question.
nobody is agruging that coming to isreal to protest is an obligation...
" The endless mantra of "there is absolutely no halakhic idea of conversion if the people didn't intend to be frum" is based on total ignorance of the basic pesak ...) that "Kabbalat Ha-Mitzvot" means declaring acknowledgement of the consequences for keeping or not keeping mitzvot if one becomes Jewish, not whether he actually plans to keep them or not as a Jew. This is simple peshat in the Rambam..."
This is simple amoratzoos in Rambam, talmud Shulchan Oruch!
"kaboloh' in all these texts means "commitment" to observe them! plain and simple. To the extent that the Talmud states that if the convert "rejects" tofulfill one item of Torah we should not acept him (and poskim question the covnersion even "Expost facto").
This is beyond belief that a serious scholar would interpret "kaboloh" not to mean commitment to observe but "Acknowledgment" of "consequences". Not one remez for this in Rambam and "addraboh" the literal reasing of "kaboloh" is as the name says it: "acceptance" of Torah and it's mitzvot.
Such a sweeping statment would warrant at least one source citing this intepretation. But as we ar accustomed, people that invent their own theories as fact make bombastic statements without any backing and source.
adderabbi - I think that RAL - in more than one forum - made it pretty clear that he was against the protests on the Gush Katif issue and felt that they had negative ramifications. The largest underlying factor in his decision making process is the authority he grants to the government. So why protest the government's decsion on the Gerut isue? The government decided that Israel need not admit non-citizen Arab spuses of Israeli Arabs, the court upheld the law. The government decided that the Rabbanut need not recognize as Jewish for purposes of marriage every convert that comes before them. The court has still not overturned this law (though Barak was chomping at the bit and offered up agoing away present - the government did not take the bait). These are significant issues that affect the demographic realities in israel and the fabric of Israeli society. So for the sake of unity, and in order to preserve the status of MO and NR groups within larger Israeli society, we should NOT protest these moves of the government and accept the opinions of the official leadership bodies regarding the gerut issues. We HAVE to accept the decisions of the government on the Gerut issues as well. Too much is at stake otherwise and the wrong actions can rend the fabric of Israeli society and also damage the place of the national religious within this fabric.
I will state clearly that I believe such piskei din to be in the realm of politics and not halacha (see Hilda Shatzberger's work on this issue http://benbayit.blogspot.com/
200...rabbinical.html ) (It should be obvious where I'm being a bit sarcastic above and where not).
George - you're kvetching.
"Too much is at stake otherwise and the wrong actions can rend the fabric of Israeli society and also damage the place of the national religious within this fabric"
you are assuming that by keeping with the status quo on these issues (marriages, conversions, family unity with palestinian spouses) that israeli society, and religious society within israel, are both better off. i'm not so sure that's true.
That's not what I said. What I said was that utilizing the same rhetoric that certain MO leaders utilized to criticize opposition and protest to the disengagement, one can only conclude that they should keep quiet about the gerut issue as well.
In actuality I am totally for disobeying orders that are immoral and/or cause a soldier to violate halacha; I support non-violent civil disobedience (and perhaps a bit more than that as well), and I believe that Religious Zionists should restrict the encouragement of youth in entering the army under the current regime. However, I also support civil marriage in Israel as well as expedited conversions for halachically non-Jewish female immigrants of child-bearing age that arrived in Israel under the Law of Return (though, i think this law should be changed). I - IMHO - think that all of the above is better for the Jewish people and better for the State of Israel. Others disagree with me - that's fine.
That being said, I applaud Basil Herring for being consistent on these issues. When the RCA writes (http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=100705) :
"We call upon our brothers and sisters in the Religious Zionist camp to concede that the duly elected Israeli government has the authority to determine the policies of the State. Even if one does not agree with such policies, sometimes, for the greater good, painful sacrifices have to be made."
the above is consistent with his views on how to handle the conversion issues as it realtes to people that want to move to Israel. It's other RCA-centric Rabbis that are inconsistent that bother me. Especially the Brisker types from whom I would expect some more conceptual consistency.
thanks for clarifying
Maybe a halachic conversion doesn't require one to be frum afterwards, but I would question their actual "acceptance" if it doesn't involve action. Certainly, any rabbi who converted someone who didn't have any intention of observance should be investigated and (hopefully) banned from any further conversions.
I am 100% onboard with the idea that the relative observance or lack of observance of the community should not be the standard used.
As an aside, it is extremely difficult to get an Orthodox conversion "from scratch" these days, "even" from RCA-affiliated rabbonim. Most of the gold standard folks won't even do it, either because they've had or fear having one go bad on them later on.
-DMZ (converted by Agudah-affiliated rabbonim - who'd have thought it would have mattered?)
DMZ,
Thanks for voicing your very important opinion.
It flies in the face of logic and it is against Halocho (in many matters and in this matter specifically) to state that "kabboloh": means "acknowledgment" of "consequences"; it is ignorance ("amhoartzoos") of the highest degree.
And likewise: the idea that "kaboolos hamitzvot" is not based on what *Hashem* wants but on the ""communal" observance or lack thereof is something that is contrary to the plain reading of Talmud Shulchan Oruch and authoritative sources.
I'm still waiting from both fellows to cite sources. So far, they haven't produced any source.
ben biat are you really sticking to the position that r lichtenstien would discourage any protest whatsoever...
George
Certainly, any rabbi who converted someone who didn't have any intention of observance should be investigated and (hopefully) banned from any further conversions.
What if they misled the rabbi about their intentions? I agree a pattern of mistakes, or perhaps even a single case where the would be convert publically did not keep the mitzvot either before or after should be grounds for banning. I think a single mistake where it cannot be shown that the Rabbi knew that there was no intention to keep the mitzvot should not be cause for banning.
George - George I believe that if the Knesset had a session and in a vote of 61-59 (including the arab votes in the 61) determined that it is imperativbe for the future of the Jews that the State of Israel be disbanded, and that in order to svae our lives those who can should leave Israel, RAL would instruct us not to protest that decision as it was the binding decision of the established leadership of the yishuv.
This is the logical conclusion of his (and others) piskei Halacha concerning whether we have to listen to the authorities or not. As long as they say that are acting in the best interests of the people and are taking action that has the potential to strengthen the position of the Jews and/or save lives, we have to accept their decisions. His psak may tend towards sesquipedalianism, but that's the long and short of his conclusions.
Commenting by HaloScan
