I think that "Rabbinic Rally Against Alleged Get Abuse"
would make a great stand alone post
Anonymous | 11.08.07 - 12:20 pm | #

This just appeared -- can you confirm if it is true



I just received a report from a friend of mine who attended the Eternal Jewish Family (EJF) conference here in Washington, DC. According to EJF's website, the goal of the conference was to discuss the creation of "universally accepted conversion[]" standards (see: http://www.eternaljewishfamily.o...gton/index.htm) . (Incidentally, I'm curious about who gave them the hetter to use the Internet.) This is my summation of my friend's report (to the best of my recollection).

First, in attendance were many of the "who's who" of "g'dolim" including, but not limited to, R. N. Eisenstein, R. R. Feinstein, the Chief Rabbi of Israel, in addition to many other well known dayanim and roshei yeshiva from America and Israel. Notably, the conference apparently was boycotted by several members of our local (greater Washington, D.C.) Va'ad (neither R. Anemer or R. Winter were in attendance, and the latter was maligned from the podium in front of hundreds of people for not supporting EJF's mission). On the other hand, several local rabbis, who serve in various capacities, were in attendance for various durations (hopefully, they were duped into showing up).

In any event, my friend tells me that R. N. Eisenstein declared, FROM THE PODIUM IN FRONT OF THE ENTIRE CONFERENCE, in the name of R. Eliyashiv, that anyone who believes the world is older than 5000+ years is a kofer b'ikar, and is therefore unfit to serve as a dayan on a beis din, and that consequently any rabbi that holds such a view cannot perform conversions, not to mention that all of his conversions would be posul.

Similar such pronouncements were made about anyone who maintains that Chazal made any error in science or metzeius. Another "distinguished" speaker lamented that he saw a "supposed" dayan actually wearing some "brown" article of clothing and "smelled of cologne"; the EJF speaker commented something along the lines of, "can you imagine such a person serving as a dayan?"

In sum, the conference was not about establishing universal standards for geirus, but rather about establishing who's fit to be a dayan, and by extension, what does it mean to be an orthodox Jew. Indeed, in a private conversation with my friend, R. Eisenstein did not dispute that the effect of his pronouncement, in practice, would mean that no modern orthodox rabbi could sit on a beis din due to his philosophical, scientific, or historical beliefs, no matter how observant the rabbi is in all other respects.

Anyone who heretofore believed that the Israeli charedi g'dolim were not interested in imposing their standards and philosophy on Jews in the United States better wake up before our religion is hijacked by people who resemble those running Iran. But, such pronouncements also raise a broader philosophical problem -- who has the authority to define what Judaism is? This is a question I'm betting that most orthodox Jews always confidently pose and answer when talking to our non-observant, Conservative and Reform affiliated friends and relatives. What happens when the table is turned and those on the charedi right label us as kofrim? Are we going to continue to send our kids to their yeshivas and seminaries in Israel? Are we going to continue to hire the talmidim of the above speakers and conference attendees to teach our kids in our elementary and high schools? Are we going to put our heads in the sand and say "eilu v'eilu" about them while they will most certainly not say the same thing about YU?
Anonymous | 11.08.07 - 2:01 pm | #

R' Gil -the above deserves its own post
KT
joel rich | 11.08.07 - 2:08 pm | #

I'm very skeptical of the entire 2:01 post.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 2:52 pm | #

Is Shlomo Blumenkrantz, R. Avraham's brother?
Yosef Chaim | 11.08.07 - 3:50 pm | #

It makes sense to me. If they said that Slifkin is a heretic, why wouldn't they say it about others?
Anonymous | 11.08.07 - 4:02 pm | #

In light of the fact that this was posted in two threads here, and in light of the link that I posted in the other thread, I am virtually certain that this story is either outright false or highly distorted.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 4:09 pm | #

Probably outright false, by the way.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 4:09 pm | #

And further, having seen that this is being spammed across a number of blogs, I would say it with even more surety.

Anyone who does not at least suspend judgment until the story can be checked out is either a naive fool or a hate-blinded one.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 4:18 pm | #

I'm a local and haven't heard anything of this. of course, by itself, that's no indication of anything since i'm usually clueless about most things going on here. but my wife will apprise me of that which she thinks i need to know when she thinks i need to know it. so i shall ask around. if this still has legs by shabbos i'll ask r. bieler. but color me dubious.
Mechy Frankel | 11.08.07 - 4:21 pm | #

Didn't R. Hershel Schachter speak at one of those conferences?

I agree, more or less, with F-P. Assume this is incorrect while trying to check it out. I've sent out some e-mails about this.
Gil | Homepage | 11.08.07 - 4:50 pm | #

If it is true,do MO's still want to continue to adopt wearing charedi garb?
anonymous | 11.08.07 - 4:55 pm | #

If it is true,do MO's still want to continue to adopt wearing charedi garb?

If it's true, it doesn't represent the entire Charedi world. Nor does it represent everyone who wears a black hat.

But there's no point in even speculating about something so likely to be false.
Gil | Homepage | 11.08.07 - 5:39 pm | #

I was able to confirm the statement with a reliable source who confirmed it with multiple attendees. It seems that R. Nachum Eisenstein did, in fact, say this. Presumably the RCA will have to deal with this in some way. Some of their members who perform geirus, like R. Barry Freundel, have public views on this matter (see R. Freundel's book, which has been quoted multiple times on this blog).
Gil | Homepage | 11.08.07 - 7:04 pm | #

Gil,

Don't you think your discovery is worth a post. Assuming that this rabbi is quoting R. Elyashiv properly, this is a delegitimization of the entire Modern Orthodox rabbinate. It would be a huge story, and I don't see how the Modern Orthodox rabbinate could regard R. Elyashiv as a gadol if this is true.
Anonymous | 11.08.07 - 11:06 pm | #

It's funny how you all had to act shocked and disbelieving, when it's the standard Chareidi position that those beliefs are apikorsus. There's absolutely no chiddush here at all.
Chaim | 11.08.07 - 11:49 pm | #

Just curious: as I may qualify as a newly delegated "kofer be-ikkar," I am curious which ikkar exactly I might be kofer in?
David | 11.09.07 - 12:48 am | #

The Torah says the world was created in 7 days, Chazal interpret this literally, you disagree, so #7 is a good bet.
Chaim | 11.09.07 - 2:03 am | #

You mean the seventh ikkar about Moshe being the greatest Navi? I'm a bit confused...
David | 11.09.07 - 8:44 am | #

No, the part about Moshe's prophecy being true.
Chaim | 11.09.07 - 10:21 am | #

Eisenstein himself, in the course of a recent venture in which we were both involved told me that this "standard" is the reason he will not sit with R' Chaim Malinowitz on a Beis Din.
YGB | Homepage | 11.09.07 - 12:10 pm | #

"The Torah says the world was created in 7 days, Chazal interpret this literally, you disagree, so #7 is a good bet."

Where do you have proof that chazal interpreted this literally? Throughout the Slifkin affair, I dont' think that anyone came up with a chazal that demonstrates they took the days literally. I believe Micha Berger asked for a source from chazal on avodah with no one coming up with one.
Anonymous | 11.09.07 - 2:39 pm | #

"It's funny how you all had to act shocked and disbelieving, when it's the standard Chareidi position that those beliefs are apikorsus. There's absolutely no chiddush here at all."

Actually, I would say that the modal American haredi position prior to the Slifkin ban was to take science/torah issues on a case by case basis, with the understanding that chazal could have taken from the science of their times, and also to accept the Tiferes Yisrael, and probably (may depend on the segment of haredism) also R Kaplan's shita as possiblities that are acceptable.
Anonymous | 11.09.07 - 2:43 pm | #

Also - while evolution was treated gingerly, including ancient U., the beliefs about science/torah were more open, even though the "Tone" was different than Slifkin's (so that the substance of the position might not be obvious to the casual observer).

In fact, R Dessler's work is canonical in UO circles, and R Dessler openly accepts that chazal could have erred on science.
Anonymous | 11.09.07 - 2:47 pm | #

By american haredi, I mean nonchassidic.
Anonymous | 11.09.07 - 2:48 pm | #

Shavua Tov (Israel time). FP wrote three posts in a row, and though normally unflappable he was obviously highly irritated by this business:

>>In light of the fact that this was posted in two threads here, and in light of the link that I posted in the other thread, I am virtually certain that this story is either outright false or highly distorted. Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 4:09 pm | #

>>Probably outright false, by the way. Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 4:09 pm | #

>>And further, having seen that this is being spammed across a number of blogs, I would say it with even more surety.

>>Anyone who does not at least suspend judgment until the story can be checked out is either a naive fool or a hate-blinded one. Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.08.07 - 4:18 pm | #

Poor Fool. Sorry, but whether this one is true or not is simply irrelevant. Because there are just far too many instances of Rav Elyashiv's intolerance and delegitimization in situations that cannot be denied, nor even blamed on his "askonim." The disgusting and ridiculous Slifkin ban, or the similar Kaminetzky ban before it, are both just some of the more recent examples. Who still remembers Rav Elyashiv's signature on the ban against Rav Riskin for hiring Nechama Leibovitz zt"l? (The Yated headline ran: "Riskin - pick up your cloven hooves [pig's feet] and go back to NY.") When RR called RSYE to try to verify, the latter simply hung up the phone on him. Any similarity to R. Slifkin's attempt to meet and discuss the issue?

As someone noted above, they don't tell stories like this about other gedolim. Did Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky or Rav Hutner ban people with such ease and such frequency? Probably not even Rav Shach!

The bottom line is that RSYE is a fantastic talmid chacham and should be respected as such. But he is also a kana'i who is rightly rejected by most of the Jewish people as their leader. For that segment of the Jewish people who have made him their leader, it reflects poorly on them as a whole. Sorry, but that is the reality. Difficult for Poor Fools to accept.
Anon this time | 11.10.07 - 3:09 pm | #

IIRC, RNK, during the heat of the "controversy" over MOAG, spoke at YU , Boro Park and elsewhere and contrasted the styles of RSZA with RYSE and RYSE's willingness to use the weapon of bans, cherems, etc far more than RSZA or even R Schach ZTL. Perhaps, bans of this naturem whether issued by RYSE or by his askanim, work within the community where RYSE is seen as the undisputed Gadol HaDor, but not in communities that look to other Takmidie Chachamim who are certainly capable of rendering Psak for their communities.
Steve Brizel | 11.10.07 - 8:08 pm | #

"FP wrote three posts in a row, and though normally unflappable he was obviously highly irritated by this business"

The three posts were partially dictated by an evolving situation, as I discovered that the same info was being cross-posted in the comment section of multiple blogs.

It's curious that this information has not been disseminated by more mainstream outlets.

However, as I posted to the other thread, if this is true I regard it as a great miscalculation by R' Eisenstein (to the extent that this is taken seriously), and highly counterproductive, even if one believes that the beliefs are in fact heretical. It is for this reason - along with the manner of dissemination - that I was and remain skeptical of the entire story, but I guess you never know.
Fotheringay-Phipps | 11.12.07 - 4:59 pm | #

This whole project of actively reaching out to intermarried couples and encouraging conversion of parevly committed spouses seems a little suspect to me, not very frum, RW or charedi. Does Rav Elyashiv actually know about this?
Toby Katz | Homepage | 11.12.07 - 6:51 pm | #

Could someone please explain R. Belsky's statement that he didn't go to the rally so as not to lend credence to blumenkrantz???? huh?
Grad | 11.12.07 - 8:26 pm | #

As far as the rally sponsored by ORA is concerned, has anyone read, heard or seen any comments by JOFA and Co?
Steve Brizel | 11.17.07 - 7:49 pm | #