Rabbi Riskin and the Chief Rabbinate – Seeing Both Sides of the Story
The Rabbanut’s announcement that it may not extend Rabbi Shlomo Riskin’s tenure as Chief Rabbi of Efrat has been met with blazing guns by supporters of Rabbi Riskin. I addressed this hypersensitive topic in a new essay in Times of Israel. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Rabbanut has a basis for its position, despite the exceedingly nasty attacks by liberal rabbis and accusations of capriciousness regarding the Rabbanut’s stance toward Rabbi Riskin? Please read the essay and think about it.
Excuse me, Rav Gordimer, but Rav Riskin’s employer is NOT the Chief Rabbinate, it is the people of Efrat, and this community consists largely of religious people of all types, not just “Open Orthodox” types (whatever ever that may mean), some being significant talmidei hachamim. They want him to continue. The Israeli Chief Rabbinate does not represent the people of Israel, and it doesn’t even represent the majority of the religious community. It has become a political football and the Chief Rabbis are chosen in order to placate certain minority groups who wield disproportianate political power, against the will of the public. I may not agree with all of Rav Riskin’s view, but I am awe of what he has accomplished and his true love for Am Israel, Torat Israel and Eretz Israel. That is good enough for me.
No one group has a monopoly on Orthodox Judaism as much as some may think so. For years now, a minority has been trying to force its views on the larger Orthodox community. The time has come for everyone to realize that we have to live together and all Orthodox Jews need to remind ourselves that only a live-and-let-live approach will really allow the Orthodox community, in all its manifestations, in addition to the larger non-religious community which largely looks to the Orthodox community for spiritual leadership in Israel, to flourish for everyone’s benefit.
Riskin should have been defrocked a long time ago. His association and co-worshipping together with the Xtians is a chilul H’ -period! Think he is still associated with Star-K which makes no sense. He should be ousted from that organizaiton as well as from any Orthodox groups. There is a definite agenda to water down Torah Judaism. They are trying to do it from within because they failed with their Reform movement,etal. By calling themselves ‘Orthodox’, they are programming the unlearned that this is real Judaism. This is all part of the new agenda, r’l.
“Rav Riskin’s employer … it is the people of Efrat, and this community consists largely of religious people of all types, not just “Open Orthodox” types (whatever ever that may mean), some being significant talmidei hachamim. They want him to continue.” And how do we know that? I’m curious as to what, if any, polling has been done, and if there have been any demonstrations or other forms of popular expression in his favor.
Above, Y. Ben-David wrote of “…the Orthodox community, in all its manifestations…”
The educated consumer will disregard the labeling and note which statements from leaders of any community are Orthodox in content and spirit and which are not.
You couldn’t even show Rav Riskin the smallest amount of respect and used the title “Rav” or “Rabbi”?
First they came for Open Orthodoxy, but I was silent. Then they came for R.Riskin and his ilk, and I was silent………….
Mr. Reisman:
Why not ask that of every single community in Israel? Why only single out Efrat to see if Rabbi Riskin is popular? If you’ve spent any time in Efrat (and I have, and have family there), Rabbi Riskin is clearly popular and his institutional infrastructure there continues to grow.
In fact, I have no doubt that if polling were done of every Israeli community, there would be plenty of rabbis that would receive less approval/blank stares compared to Rabbi Riskin.
Rav Gordimer, you wouldn’t be one of those Diaspora Jews who thinks he has an inherent right to tell us here in Israel what to do, who prefers sitting way up in the Galut cheap seats instead of coming down to the Eretz Yisrael playing field and actually getting in the game, like Rav Riskin has done? That the haredi and neo-haredi (to say nothing of nepotistic) apparatchiks in the Chief Rabbinate could be thinking of purging Rav Riskin is more testimony to the fact that the state religious system here is broken beyond repair. BTW, the mayor & local council of Efrat have expressed their unreserved support for Rav Riskin.
mb–
You missed the first few steps:
First they came for the Masorti and Reform rabbis….then they came for the women at the Wall…
@northwardb
R. Riskin’s successor, R. Stav, has called on Diaspora Jews to boycott the Chief Rabbis over this affair. So apparently some in Israel think that Diaspora Jews should be involved. If you don’t want Diaspora Jews involved, maybe try not calling on them to do so.
Without directly addressing the merits of retaining R. Riskin or not, there is one point for which I think some are missing the forest for the trees: giyur. (Some claim this is the real reason that R. Riskin is being questioned; others say not. I do not pretend to know which is accurate.)
The reason that the Rabbinate in Israel was given a monopoly over personal status matters at the inception of the State was to preserve the unity of Jews in Israel. Without that monopoly, it was feared, in a few generations, large parts of the population would not be able to marry other parts.
This arrangement caused and continues to cause considerable resentment and frustration among the secular population. The liberal wing of the Orthodox community likes to pretend that this resentment is solely the result of Charedim being too stringent and/or mismanaging what has grown into a large and frustrating bureaucracy. This is fundamentally false – I know many secular in Israel who resented the arrangement long before the Charedi ascendancy, and would continue to resent it even if R. Stav were made Chief Rabbi and every functionary of the rabbanut wore a kippah serugah. The resentment comes from imposition of religious law on a non-secular public, and mere adoption of a liberal psak on this or that issue would not change that basic reality.
The counter-argument is that preserving the unity (in terms of marriagability) of the Jewish people in Israel outweighs this frustration and resentment. There are many secular Israelis who are willing to swallow their frustrations in light of that counter-argument.
There is a contingent of rabbis, R. Riskin prominent among them, that want to use leniencies in halakhos of giyur to allow large scale conversion of many who would not otherwise be allowed to convert. To put it charitably, reliance on these opinions is strained at best – they are at best minority opinions, and more accurately are da’as yachid. They are not accepted by the Charedi community – which is the fastest growing religious community both in Israel and outside. Nor are they accepted by many of what would be characterized as “modern Orthodox” rabbanim both within and without Israel. The end result of such a system is creation of thousands of “geirim” which the most Orthodox authorities will not accept.
That, in my opinion, completely negates the whole purpose of giving the Rabbinate authority over personal status matters. Why should secular Israelis submit to a religiously imposed system whose justification – marital unity of the Jewish people – is belied by the fact that the products of that system are not even considered Jewish by most “religious” (read Orthodox) people? The rabbis who are doing this should ask themselves a basic question – what is the point of performing a State-imposed giyur that most Orthodox people will not accept?
Let me add a related question. Machlokes is not a new phenomenum. Bais Shammai and Beis Hillel had many – including the first perek of Yevamos, where acc. to Bais Hillel, certain marriages permitted by Beis Shammai were ervah and produced mamzerim! The gemara there tells us that they respected each other, and if a shidduch was proposed between followers of the two camps, one side would warn the other, leshitasam. IOW, in some cases, if a person considered to be completely kosher by Bais Shammai was proposed to a follower of Bais Hillel, Bais Shammai would warn them that the person was a mamzer le shitas Beis Hillel!
Are the rabbis advocating leniencies in giyur willing to do what they did? Are they willing to warn the religious community that the giyur is acceptable only on those willing to follow minority opinions? For that matter, are they willing to disclose that to the convert, as a matter of simply honesty? If not, why not?
Giyur is a matter for Klal Yisrael, not merely for Jews living in one country or jurisdiction. How much chaos in this matter can we tolerate—how about zero?
Those interested in this issue should also read R Gil’s article. R Gordimer’s article and the linked article spell out in detail many of the points that I have made previously on related posts regarding the evolution of R Riskin and his views. That IMO is the issue.
Mr Brizel
The crux of the issue is that Israeli citizens are supporting the rabbinate with their taxes and that each individual community gets to decide which rabbi best serves its needs.
People live in efrat because of rabbi Ruskin. And they are certainly not a bunch of ignoramuses there either.
Geirus has become politicized as can be seen by the attempts for different standards in different government coalitions; ultimately, it depends on community acceptance.
I wonder what the effect of the Rabbanut’s announcement will be on liberal Orthodoxy.
Reb Yid-I invite you and anyone else to trace the evolution of the LW of MO-which can be traced to the justifcation of the feinist ideology-which never retreated from positing that the conventional marriage and family was a “comfortable concentration camp.” MO would have been far better served by confronting such a philosophy which posed and still poses great hashkafic danger to Torah observance in the structure and setting of a family, and whose ideological offspring should have been confronted as contrary to Torah observance rather than viewing the same as being capable of being dissected for any purportedly positive contributions to Torah observance. In this regard, the view of RHS as expressed back in the 1980s was correct-since feminism was rooted in an ideological construct that clearly had no use for Torah observance in the setting of the family, rejection was a more proper means of dealing with the same than coopting such a decidedly hostile POV that has never been satisfied with high caliber level-precisely because feminists have always denied and continue to deny that there are any legitimate differences between the genders.
Steve Brizel-
While you are correct about the problems radical Feminism has posed to religious Jews, some of whom are attracted by at least certain aspects of it, I should point out that quite a few hard-line
“right-wing” Orthodox leaders are quite enthusiastic supporters of politicians who are in the forefront of the movements for recognizing homosexual “marriage”, abortion on demand and other radical Feminist, and anti-family policies.
R. Riskin proposed R. Stav as his successor; RAL ztl supported R. Stav as chief rabbi. Does that sound like Rabbi Riskin has crossed some imaginary line? The overreach (among many others to be expected) will have consequences as Avigdor Lieberman’s op-ed on the topic outlined. A line may have been crossed, but not by R. Riskin.
Tal Benschar-
Orthodox Judaism is surviving quite well in the US where there is no State Chief Rabbinate classify who is a kosher, halachic Jew. There quite a few people who consider themselves Jews are not viewed as such by Orthodox Jews, yet the Orthodox are managing anyway.
While it is true that currently the Haredi community is the fastest growing in Israel, but one hundred years ago it was the fastest shrinking group, so don’t extrapolate too far into the future. Who knows what will be? In any event, most Jews in Israel (90%?) are not Haredi but not only the more liberal DL community but many if not most of the non-Orthodox want their children to marry Jews. In fact, most of those who are in need of conversion are “zera Israel” and have Jewish ancestry and are living in Israel, speaking Hebrew and observing at least some Jewish religious obligations. Thus, this majority does not necessarily feel that the converts have to undergo the most rigorous conversion requirements if there are halachic leniencies available.
In any event, I am sure you are aware that many strict Orthodox Jews will not allow their children to marry the descendents of Hozrim B’teshuva (ba’alei teshuva) no matter how observant they may be, so converts of any sort would also be outside the pale. Thus there is no real danger of theses strict Orthodox “accidentally” marrying into the family of someone who converted halachically but in a lenient manner not acceptable to the stricter group.
Y. Ben-David wrote above that ‘quite a few hard-line “right-wing” Orthodox leaders are quite enthusiastic supporters of politicians who are in the forefront of the movements for recognizing homosexual “marriage”, abortion on demand and other radical Feminist, and anti-family policies.’
This is a sad situation. Support of such politicians can often be the price we pay for our all-in, escalating participation in the welfare state. Politicians extol the taxpayer-supported goodies they bring us, and our organizations and press extol them. When such politicians are caught stealing and made to resign, we’ve been known to give them a tearful send-off. Do we or do we not want to be stooges of the ruling class? Do we or do we not want to stand for responsibility, truth, and honesty in front of the outside world? Sympathetic members of that outside world often wonder how we could have sold out to liberal destroyers of society.
Y. Ben-David wrote above “Thus, this majority does not necessarily feel that the converts have to undergo the most rigorous conversion requirements if there are halachic leniencies available.”
The root question is whether or not leniencies under consideration are in fact halachic. Not everyone has the Torah knowledge, training, and temperament to judge this properly, no matter how many people imagine otherwise. Majorities have been fooled before.
By the reasoning given in the article, Rav Lior should also be dismissed (assuming that he isn’t grandfather claused in). Rav Lior encourages people to go to Har Habayit. That is a much more serious issue than a woman reading Ruth or getting smicha.
Not everyone has the Torah knowledge, training, and temperament to judge this properly, no matter how many people imagine otherwise.
Not “everyone” would be doing the conversions. City rabbis, who are supposed to have the Torah knowledge, training, and temperament, would be the ones running conversions. (If they don’t have the training and knowledge, they can get it. Or, this part of the Shulhan Aruch can be added to the exams).
Ben Waxman-
Rav Lior has announced his retirement as Rav of Kiryat Arba-Hevron.
The Har Habayit issue is similar to the giur issue. There are prominent talmidei hachamim that allow going up to the Har Habayit just as there are talmidei hachamim that support the lenient giur conditions. Now if someone says “well, they aren’t REAL rabbanim, then we have nothing to talk about”. Since, however there are true gedolei Torah who support these positions, then those who agree with those positions have on whom to rely, even if certain Orthodox political groupings aren’t comfortable with it. The State of Israel ultimately belongs to its citizens, ALL OF THEM, observant and non-observant and they have the right to choose who their Rabbinical leadership should be and they should not have to have a certain group pushed on them against their well simply due to extraneous political considerations.
“By the reasoning given in the article, Rav Lior should also be dismissed (assuming that he isn’t grandfather claused in). Rav Lior encourages people to go to Har Habayit. That is a much more serious issue than a woman reading Ruth or getting smicha.”
Actually, in the long term scheme of things, its not as serious. The latter “psakim” involve changes to practice that once made are irreversible. Once those changes are made, you can’t go back, especially given the pressure that will be put on the Chief Rabbinate to recognize these so-called smichas. Recommending going on to Har Habayis does not have the same long term implications, though it may also involve technical violations of CR’s position on this.
“R. Riskin proposed R. Stav as his successor; RAL ztl supported R. Stav as chief rabbi. Does that sound like Rabbi Riskin has crossed some imaginary line? The overreach (among many others to be expected) will have consequences as Avigdor Lieberman’s op-ed on the topic outlined. A line may have been crossed, but not by R. Riskin.”
Wrong. The CR should have done this years ago. For whatever reason, they ignored what R’ Riskin has being doing. However, his latest moves are probably being viewed as being beyond the pale and rightfully so. He has pushed the envelope too much this time, and is doing as as an agent and appointee of the State of Israel, and this is the result. To blame it on the CR is ludicrous.
Hardly technical violations. According to the opponents, the people going up are risking karet and are (at least partially) responsible for inciting multiple terrorists attacks. Not everything is measured by rabbinic politics.
They’re already looking for a way to back down.
I meant technical violations of CR policy. Of course its serious in terms of the onesh for violating prohibitions. But going up on Har HaBayis will certainly not have the long-term impact R’ Riskin’s and OO’s changes will have on Judaism – for the worse. If you think they are comparable, I don’t know what to tell you.
Mr. Araujo:
With all due respect, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is an important and dynamic segment of Orthodox Jewry that would not be observant at all (let alone shomrei mitzvot) if not for the efforts of those like Rabbis Riskin and Weiss.
Rafael Araujo, I cannot follow your comment at 1:16 where you quoted my earlier post. Let me restate what I wrote more simply. Assuming R. Riskin is beyond the pale, would he propose someone RAL ztl supported for chief rabbi as his successor? I assume proposing a successor clearly delineates what you wish for the future.
I don’t think that they are comparable. I think that (according to the Rabbinate) what Rav Lior advocates should be a greater danger. However, that they chose to focus on Rav Riskin means that they fear feminism more than people getting karet, killed, or even a potential war.
”
I meant technical violations of CR policy. Of course its serious in terms of the onesh for violating prohibitions. But going up on Har HaBayis will certainly not have the long-term impact R’ Riskin’s and OO’s changes will have on Judaism – for the worse. If you think they are comparable, I don’t know what to tell you”
Sadly IMO organized trips to Har Habayis are playing with fire-they have the potential to cause major damage to klall Israel-see impact of one visit by Sharon to Har Habayis. Of course others disagree there is certainly strong evidence that RHS has stated to say the least much more nuanced views on such visits.
“The root question is whether or not leniencies under consideration are in fact halachic.”
I wish I could believe that. There is no secret that the Israeli CR and RCA are standing behind geirus performed by an individual who spied repeatedly upon naked women-activities which alone make the person for that period very questionable to be kosher leedus-OTOH they will not recognize as a matter of course geirus from half a century ago done by Rabbonim-who’ve had no known challenges to their integrity while alive who followed the RCA procedures at the time and who gerus were universally accepted until the close to a decade ago political agreement. Of course, the Rabbi who was involved with women was a point man for attacking YCT and OO Rabbis -so in that case I guess anything goes.
“Not everyone has the Torah knowledge, training, and temperament to judge this properly, no matter how many people imagine otherwise. Majorities have been fooled
before”
Geirus is not complicated like Gittin-the major issue is the belief that the ger is honest in his acceptance of yahadus. That requires a great ability to judge the person-it does not require being a world class talmid chacham-different skills.
Hmmmmm. Employees of the caliber described in the introductory paragraph of Rabbi Gordimer’s blog and let go under the circumstances cited tend to go on to start their own companies and foment revolutions.
I think the Chief Rabbinate made a strategic mistake here in that it has generated huge publicity for exactly the views it objects to. Even if Rabbi Riskin ends up forced into “retirement,” he is hardly going to retire quietly. Sometimes you can’t just be right, you have to be smart.
Mycroft-
Your claim that Sharon’s visit to the Har HaBayit, which seems odd in view of his later actions (did he think the Har HaBayit was holy or something?) set off the suicide bomber war is a myth. Arafat had planned the war already from the time he was foolishly allowed into the country by Peres and Rabin. He said so openly.
Arab violence and terrorism has no connection with organized trips to the Har HaBayit. The Arabs object to the Jewish presence in Tel Aviv as well. They view THAT as a provocation. Thousands of Jews were killed or wounded in wars and terrorist attacks long before Israel even came to control the Har HaBayit in 1967. In fact there was massive Arab violence against Jews even before Israel became a state. It is important to keep a perspective on the big picture before falling into the trap of focusing on individual incidents.
Mycroft-I would certainly hesitate to stay that Ariel Sharon’s visit to Har HaBayis triggered the Inifada circa 2001. The Arabs had been consistently violating the terms of Oslo I and II in their killing of Israelis both within and over the Green Line and in allowing and encouraging classical anti Semitism to be part of their educational and cultural milieu. Sharon’s visit was a pretext for what had been going on a persistent basis for years and which was tolerated by the Labor Governments with no appreciable response.
Y Ben David-I wholly concur with your comment and wonder why some Charedi groups seemingly must pay tribute to Jewish politicians whose personal values, other than their supposed support of Israel, cannot be rationalized at all with Torah values.
“015 at 10:33 am
Mycroft-
Your claim that Sharon’s visit to the Har HaBayit, which seems odd in view of his later actions (did he think the Har HaBayit was holy or something?) set off the suicide bomber war is a myth. Arafat had planned the war already from the time he was foolishly allowed into the country by Peres and Rabin. He said so openly.
Arab violence and terrorism has no connection with organized trips to the Har HaBayit. The Arabs object to the Jewish presence in Tel Aviv as well. They view THAT as a provocation. Thousands of Jews were killed or wounded in wars and terrorist attacks long before Israel even came to control the Har HaBayit in 1967. In fact there was massive Arab violence against Jews even before Israel became a state. It is important to keep a perspective on the big picture before falling into the trap of focusing on individual incidents.
Steve Brizel
May 29, 2015 at 4:02 pm
Mycroft-I would certainly hesitate to stay that Ariel Sharon’s visit to Har HaBayis triggered the Inifada circa 2001. The Arabs had been consistently violating the terms of Oslo I and II in their killing of Israelis both within and over the Green Line and in allowing and encouraging classical anti Semitism to be part of their educational and cultural milieu. Sharon’s visit was a pretext for what had been going on a persistent basis for years and which was tolerated by the Labor Governments with no appreciable response”
I agree with most of what you write-even assuming Arafat intended to look for an excuse for an Intifada that does not take away from my belief that Sharon’s visit at a minimum exacerbated the situation.
“there is certainly strong evidence that RHS has stated to say the least much more nuanced views on such visits”
If you want “strong evidence,” I personally attended a shiur at the OU convention in Jerusalem in 2004 where R’ Schachter stated that it is perfectly muttar to go up to the Har HaBayit (taking the necessary precautions, of course), there is actually a halakhic requirement to do so (connected to aliyah laregel), and it should also be done for political reasons, that is, to make sure we don’t lose it. He did not state this as a p’sak because he doesn’t pasken for other countries and doesn’t challenge “local” rabbanim, in this case the Rabbinate. I subsequently asked R’ Rakeffet, and he said that if R’ Nachum Rabinovich says it’s OK, which he does, then it certainly must be.
Most of the commenters are out of touch with the truth, pointing to everything that is nonsense compared to the real reasons Riskin should be ousted. The only poster here who hits the nail on the head is Rafael Araujo. The two things which really matter because they impact on the whole of the Jewish people are conversion and affiliating with idolatry. That’s it, everything else pales in comparison. The Rabbinate is absolutely right in this matter and should clarify these reasons for his ouster! Whoever doesn’t like it, too bad- this is Torah and cannot be disputed.
“I don’t think that they are comparable. I think that (according to the Rabbinate) what Rav Lior advocates should be a greater danger. However, that they chose to focus on Rav Riskin means that they fear feminism more than people getting karet, killed, or even a potential war.”
Ben – take a look at R’ Yaakov Kamenecki’s sefer on Chumash, Emes L’Yaakov in Parshas Veyechi (page 237 – I attribute this to R’ Eidesohn on Daat Torah) that while on its face marrying a Jewish niddah is worse then marrying a non-Jewish woman because the punishment is kares, R’ Yaakov ZT”L says otherwise. In other words, looking at the punishment and then saying “Well, the Rabbinut should be going after R’ Lior since he promotes an issur kares (I note that I have not seen source that corroborates your statement) rather R’ Riskin. R’Yaakov says otherwise. I am arguing that this this anologous. Further, while my concern is that such decisions in areas of geirus and acceptance of changes to Jewish practice to accomodate radical egalitarianism, I also note that the recent recorded comments about Christianity’s founder by R’ Riskin are quite disturbing, even if given context.
Rafael Araujo, Your chiddush attributed to RYK ztl, was said by a rishon and commented on by many gedolai olam. This type of a “non” halakhic POV, has sparked serious debate that goes well beyond a blog post. It appears more often by those advocating (modern) ethical values. Those who support such reasoning either le’chumrah or le’kula would replace “non’ with “meta.”
Rafael Araujo, Your chiddush attributed to RYK ztl, was said by a rishon and commented on by many gedolai olam. This type of a “non” halakhic POV, has sparked serious debate that goes well beyond a blog post. It appears more often by those advocating (modern) ethical values. Those who support such reasoning either le’chumrah or le’kula would replace “non’ with “meta.”
Dr. Bill, there is nothing non-halakhic about RYK’s point. Which is in line with what I posted before that you cannot line up all mitzvos based on their onesh, and assume that whatever applies to the more kal also applies to the more chamur, for all purposes. The example which RYBS gave is that a Cohen mechallel shabbos may duchen, but a Cohen married to a gerushah may not. Although chillul shabbos is clearly more severe than a Cohen marrying a gerushah, in the latter case the aveirah is a direct contradiction to his kedushas Cohen, which Chillul Shabbos is not.
The same applies here. Allowing converts based on minority views that most Orthodox kehillos do not accept threatens to tamper with the yichus of the Jewish people, and split them into two camps that cannot marry each other. That is the very purpose that the Rabbinate was given authority over personal status in Israel. That is why the Chief Rabbinate is so concerned about the issue.
As for going up to har ha Bayit (which I do not support, and indeed most rabbonim and gedolim oppose), in the first place, those who do so claim they are careful to avoid the area that is the azarah (which is the only area that has karet) and are careful to keep the laws of taharah to the extent they can. So it is exaggerated to say we are talking about an issur karet. Second, and more importantly, if they are wrong, their own aveirah is just that, their own aveirah. A bad thing, but not something that will permanently damage the Jewish people. (As for the Arab reaction, that is something for the security forces to deal with. If they can guarantee security, fine, if not, not.)
“Second, and more importantly, if they are wrong, their own aveirah is just that, their own aveirah. A bad thing, but not something that will permanently damage the Jewish people.”
Tal – you eloquently expressed in one sentence the point I am have been trying to make. Yiyasher koach.
Also, I am unsure where dr. bill gets that not following the onesh is meta or non-halachic in determining the more serious violation. Where do you get, dr. bill, that onesh is the only halachic measure? Please provide a source.
Tal Benschar, non was in “”, to indicate what has been argued by those opposed such views while what proponents argue is often a “meta”-halakhic point. Often when such arguments are used le’kula, one gets an expected response. In any case your comparison to the case of a Kohen, is hardly comparable. In fact halakhic precedents of being maikil in matters affecting status may be much more relevant particularly under specific circumstances.
Dr. Bill:
The Point RA and others raised was in response to the complaint that the Chief Rabbinate is questioning Rabbi Riskin (assertedly about his position on conversions, although there may be other reasons) while not doing anything about those rabbonim who allow and even encourage people to go up to Har ha Bayis. This supposed hypocrisy is somehow made worse by the fact that the latter may involve kareis, which the former does not.
My point is that not all aveiros can be put on a linear scale. Something may be worse in terms of onesh but not as bad for other reasons. In some context, that may make the difference. In this context, the Rabbinate, quite properly, is concerned about creating serious yichus problems that going up to Har ha Bayis does not.
Rafael Araujo, I never said the onesh correlates with the severity of the aveirah or that the onesh is the only halakhic measure, just that using a criteria like RYK ztl (and as I noted was made by a Rishon) often leads to an argument over the standing of “meta/non” halakhic issues whose discussion has gone on for over a millennium.
Tal Benschar, You raise the old chestnut. So the argument goes: We must avoid the impact of a questionable geirut on “yichus problems,” by limiting the possibility by outlawing a posek’s use of any kula.
This non or meta halakhic argument has been made by many. It has both a halakhic and practical solution that does disable chazal’s statement about koach de’hetairah. Halakhically, a geirut provably performed by a Rav, is NEVER questioned. Such a position has strong historic and normative halakhic support. Practically, if a descendant of a ger ever wants to undergo a geirut le’chumra to marry into a family, it can easily be done then. Meanwhile, we can stop persecuting olim whose liberation from the soviet union was an act of intense religious meaning and significance.
Please change the sentence in my last post: “It has both a halakhic and practical solution that does disable chazal’s statement about koach de’hetairah.” by adding the word “not.” it should read:
It has both a halakhic and practical solution that does not disable chazal’s statement about koach de’hetairah.
sorry
“Halakhically, a geirut provably performed by a Rav, is NEVER questioned. Such a position has strong historic and normative halakhic support.”
It was the general rule for at least decades until the RCA andCR decided not to stand behind gerus of essentially standard RCA Rabbonim with no known halachik pgam which were accepted for decades. This includes gerus of people who I believe you may have referred to in other posts. Of course, the RCA and CR stand behind the gerus of one who pled guilty to crimes which would certainly have caused the person to be pasul leedut. Of course, coincidentally he was a point man for their new “improved” gerus procedures and a major attacker of OO.
“Halakhically, a geirut provably performed by a Rav, is NEVER questioned. Such a position has strong historic and normative halakhic support.” Actually, the first person to go against this principle was Rav Shlomo Goren, in the Langer matter.
Lawrence Reisman, Actually not; what Rav Goren ztl did was create an element of doubt as to whether a Rav ever performed the geirut. That is why I (carefully) wrote “a geirut provably performed by a Rav.” That together the fact that it was a case of mamzeirut, leaves that distinction to others.
Dr. Bill: Actually, the identity of the Rav who performed the geirut and the identity of the mohel who did the bris afterward were known. In any casae, your use of the words “provably performed” leaves a lot of leeway. Both Rav Eliyashuv and Rav Ovadia Yosef thought the geirus in the Langer affair was “provably performed.” In my book, the element of doubt was “created” by Rav Goren where it did not exist before.
I may have spoken too soon as to the identity of the Rav and Mohel. However, the thrust of Rav Goren’s argument was that the conversion was invalid, not that it hadn’t taken place.
https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/rabbi-riskin-engages-christians-in-dialogue-about-our-%e2%80%9cunited-mission%e2%80%9d/#comments the linked excerpts deserve further discussion and consideration as to the same being proof of the evolution of R Riskin’s hashkafic views.