Let’s Please Stick to the Facts: More on the Rabbanut and Rabbi Riskin

“The issue of the Chief Rabbinate and Rabbi Riskin has nothing to do with Charedi versus Modern Orthodox approaches. It has to do with the propriety of a rabbi’s maverick positions, while the rabbi is a paid representative of a rabbinate whose positions he does not represent in numerous ways.’

If it’s true that the Chief Rabbinate is embattled on all sides, then maybe it doesn’t pay to force our R. Riskin, and Efrat? It would be like the RCA and the OU forcing Open Orthodox rabbis and shuls out of their organizations. Obviously there are red lines, but the OU and RCA apparently don’t think its worth the disunity without those red lines being crossed(such as those that even YCT has distanced itself from its musmachim on different occasions).

R. Aharon Lichtenstein felt it was wrong to disqualify R. Druckman regarding conversions. Maybe he would think the same here regarding R Riskin’s maverick views?

I think we are doing a great disservice to the memory of the Rav and RMF ztl bringing them into the unique challenge that the Russian olim present. Given situations like questionable yichus, paternal affinity to judaism, army service, etc. various halakhic issues come to the fore. Both RMF and the Rav were dealing with the American scene where intermarriage was the burning issue and the reason for most (contested) cases of geirut. I believe, RMF’s position changed over his lifetime; how the Rav would view the current enigma is unclear, despite his personal stance that tended to be rather strict.

Whatever the merits of the discussion (if that’s what it is) it is hubristic of R. Gordimer to say Mr. Liebler “attacked my essay”, as if he was the focus of Mr. Liebler’s wrath. R. Gordimer even writes a “Response”, as though Mr. Liebler had written a review of something he had written. In reality, Mr. Liebler’s opinion piece concerned the totality of the opposition to R. Riskin on what he deems improper grounds. R. Gordimer’s essay – a whole single sentence of it – was cited as one example among many, to make a larger point. (And even then the focus was on the RCA, not on R. Gordimer per se.)

“Little things” like this cause one to lose credibility, and wonder if its more about self-importance than principle.

Here is a novel idea:Rabbi Riskin is an “am haaretz diorysa”(just read some of his writings)and yet the Chief Rabbinate is indeed a horribly corrupt ineffective organization that works on cronyism not merit.When Rabbi Gordimer feels the need to defend the CR he loses credibility in his takedown of Rabbi Riskin.

This whole discussion is extremely valuable.

When my kids ask me “how could it be that Rabbi Akiva’s students didn’t honor each other”?, I will point them to this story, starting from the CR’s activities, all the way through these posts.

Yasher koach.

Is it not true that conversion standards have markedly become more onerous. Both in the US and in Israel, there was a less demanding standard in the past. At a time when there are so many people in Israel of Jewish ancestry but not clearly Jewish, is it wise to make it so very hard to join the Jewish People? There have always been varying standards and why should the strictest be the only option? If you don’t want to marry someone who was converted by Rabbi Riskin, so be it,but to deny them entry to Klal Yisrael is very harsh. Rabbi Riskin bases his standards on halacha , he doesn’t make it up as he goes along.He is a respectable person and a talmid chochom. The alternative that seems to be on the table is to limit Judaism to those committed to being strictly orthodox. That is impossible in the present situation and can cause disaster by creating two classes of people in Israel, real Jews and fake Jews. If the person is sincere and if we had menchlichkeit and darchei noam, these geirim would become part of the Jewish people and in time many would become more observant. What I am saying is what normative conversion standards used to be, nothing radical at all.

http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/299587

Whatever disagreements Rav Melamed (who is in no way a liberal rabbi) has with Rav Riskin’s approach, he completely disagrees with and denounces the attempt at removing him from his job. This upshot of this article is that Rav Gordimer’s last paragraph is simply wrong.

“Rabbi Gordimer, when are you going to write about something positive? We know you don’t like liberal/OO Rabbis. What are you for?”

He has. See links here:http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/02/17/ben-yeshiva-you-need-not-leave-a-yotzei-min-ha-klal-perspective/ and here:http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2014/12/26/lessons-of-emunah-from-professional-wrestling/ and here:http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2014/12/22/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%90-publicizing-the-miracles/.

If you are looking for those who identify as MO or not as MO to let OO/liberals get away with consistently pushing the envelope and no rebuttals, you are mistaken. Also, would you make the same comment if R’ Gordimer was exposing the Chareidi World? I would hope so (Note:there are plenty more out there in the netherlands of the WWW who consistently criticize and focus on the Chareidi/Yeshiva/Chassidishe Worlds, much more than you see in regards to OO).

R’ Gordimer would do well to look in his own backyard before throwing stones at others. Just between the Freundel and Rosenblatt cases alone, there’s plenty to question about the MO rabbinate and its flagship institutions where he is a prominent leader.

Mycroft-Are you implying that in order to be a “true talmid” of RYBS, a Phd in Kant was or is necessary? Please show anywhere in RYBS’s own writings, as opposed to a sociologist’s article, that such is the case. WADR, your post is yet another example of the “lost cause” school of rhetoric at work.

Steve Brizel, The Rav ztl probably did favor a PhD in one area over another. I have only 2 concrete data points and it would presumptuous for me to even guess at his overall POV. Nonetheless, I can assure you he highly valued other areas of philosophy and mathematics, beyond just studies in neo-Kantianism. In any case, asking for an example in what the wrote indicating X, is laughable. Can you demonstrate his expertise in say hilkhot Niddah or medicine or mathematics from what he wrote??

It might suprise you, but I would not assume the Rav would guide/influence one’s graduate education today as he did 40-60 years ago. the times are quite different and I can only speculate.

BTW, i was curious who is the sociologist you refer to might be? I know of only one article about the Rav written by a sociologist. Heaven forbid, you were referring to that one!

Regarding mas conversions of Russians of Jewish ancestry who are not halachicly Jewish,this depends on how one ciews the present era and the State of Israel. Chareidim who only grudgingly accept the existence of Medinat Yisrael and do not see the Yad Hashem in its creation are not the ones who should be making the rules for the overwhelming majority of the country. If Rav Elayshiv ,zatzal, quit the Rabbanut due to disagreement with a heter given by Rav Goren the brother and sister that they were not mamazeirim. His ultimate show of contempt for teh official rabbinate was when he forced Rabbi Yona Metzger onto the nation for 10 years as Cheif Rabbi. Everyone knew that this man was far from qualified and was meant to be nothing more than a figurehead.Now, he will go to jail,nost probably and his venality is revealed for all. In my opinion, if this is how little Rav Elyashiv felt about the institution of the official rabbinate,then he and his successors should not try to control it or determine its procedures. They should not make deals with the non religious to install non Zionist rabbis who do not believe that the new Jewish Commonwealth is a miracle and that certain measures need to be taken to insure that it can in-gather all Jews. The chareidim don’t have a problem with primitives from backward countries who accept whatever they are told but they can’t deal with sophisticated Russian Jews who have been raised in a totally secular society and need special handling to acclimate to Jewish religious life. This is not so much a halachic nit pick as a fundamental variance and my contention is that since “You”, whoever you are ,don’t really believe in the State, then stop trying to dictate to it. Rabbis Lau,father and son, are nice people, good mixers, socially adept, friendly and can get along with everyone. I don’t think they are the ones fighting Rabbi Riskin.

Dr Bill wrote in relevant part:

“It might suprise you, but I would not assume the Rav would guide/influence one’s graduate education today as he did 40-60 years ago. the times are quite different and I can only speculate.”

Then why do some posters here assume that the only “true talmidim” of RYBS are those with PhD. Obviously, if the world today is not that of the 1940-1960s, as you stated, why then would anyone assume that RYBS thought that a PhD was absolutely necessary today?

Steve Brizel, I am talking how the Rav ztl saw a Ph.D. for a graduate say between 1945-1975 and a Ph.D. for someone graduating after say 2000. His view for those of that era, might not be his view of those 20+ years later. I would argue strenuously that those who interacted with Rav in those years and are accomplished talmidei chachamim AND had a relevant Ph.D. are much more likely to better understand the Rav, then his talmidim who saw him ONLY in his primary role – as a Rebbe/melamid. Those who cannot read the Halakhic Mind (and U’vekashtem), cannot know how the Rav thought. Of the three talmidai chachamim who I know as able to comment on the Halakhic Mind, only one is still among us, 2 already in Olam HaEmes. In EVERY case that I am aware of, when challenged by how they thought the Rav would react to a current situation, they would never answer as definitively as those who deign to “really know.” Personally, I doubt the Rav would not adjust his view about a Ph.D. given our very different world.

Thanks for putting me at ease by identifying Dr. chaim Waxman; I have not read anything about the Rav by him.

“Dr Bill-the article that is quoted today is that of Dr Chaim Waxman, which Mycroft quotes periodically on this thread”
True statement-It should be noted that Dr Waxman is a musmach of RIETS- although he doesn’t generally use the title Rabbi.

“Thanks for putting me at ease by identifying Dr. Chaim Waxman; I have not read anything about the Rav by him.”
Try and google Chaim Waxman and Rabbi Soloveitchik- you’ll find many listings. Note that in Dr Tovah Lichtenstein’s Tradition article about the Rav-the only thanks she gives is to Prof Waxman for his suggestions.

” I would argue strenuously that those who interacted with Rav in those years and are accomplished talmidei chachamim AND had a relevant Ph.D. are much more likely to better understand the Rav, then his talmidim who saw him ONLY in his primary role – as a Rebbe/melamid.”
I don’t disagree-however would add in addition to learning in classical Yeshivish sense and ability to understand the Ravs hashkafa-one must be aware and take seriously, how the Rav paskened halacha lemaaseh and how institutions that clearly followed the Rav such as Maimonides School and the Rabbinic Council of Americas halacha commission acted during the Ravs active leadership.

” Those who cannot read the Halakhic Mind (and U’vekashtem), cannot know how the Rav thought.”
A similar argument can be made about the Rambam and the Moreh Nevuchim.

“Of the three talmidai chachamim who I know as able to comment on the Halakhic Mind, only one is still among us, 2 already in Olam HaEmes. In EVERY case that I am aware of, when challenged by how they thought the Rav would react to a current situation, they would never answer as definitively as those who deign to “really know.””
I remember when the Neeman Commission existed I asked a relatively close student of the Rav what would be the Ravs position on the Neeman Commission-he stated he didn’t know and gave reasons why the Rav would be in favor and why he would be against. This at a time when people from both sides “knew” how the Rav would have paskened.

“The personal hashkafos of Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Lichtenstein may have been valued during their lifetimes, but are subsequently doomed to sterile irrelevance. No one can possibly deign to know what they may have thought about anything that happens today.”

Then we have no mesorah-to a great extent what hashkafic study is an attempt to understand what the attitude of our baalei mesorah would be for different changing conditions-similar to the halachik issues of new technology trying to ascertain how we would pasken in a new situation.

Well, people are going to have to decide if they have a hashkafic contribution to make to contemporary reality or not. Some tend to insist on detachment.

It is fine and wonderful to have disputes over what a person might have said – but there are two extremes here that are mesorah-killers. The first is that no one (other than those who agree with me?) can accurately apply what they think, and the other is that everyone has a right to an opinion in the name of sophistication and nuance. One means that there is no practical mesorah, and the other sucks any meaning out of the word mesorah to the point of irrelevance.

Here is the English translation of Rav Melamed’s article on Rav Riskin:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/17024

“Some maintain that the Chief Rabbinate is authorized to establish guidelines to which all rabbis must adhere, and Rabbi Riskin has flaunted these guidelines on matters such as conversion.

Indeed, the Rabbinate should take positions on contemporary communal issues. However, to do so it must engage in profound, serious analysis of each issue. The discussion must involve Gemara, Rishonim, and Acharonim, and contemporary conditions must be analyzed in all their complexity. In order to promote the discussions, the rabbis addressing these issues must study articles and books on the relevant issues. Even after this groundwork is laid, the issue must be deliberated over the course of several days at the very least. To our dismay, there are no serious discussions taking place today about any significant issues, neither in the Chief Rabbinate nor any other rabbinic body. For example, Rabbi Haim Amsalem wrote a very serious book dealing with conversion, which deserves to be discussed. Although my conclusions differ from his, most who disagree with him offer frivolous objections that are often backed up with violence.

I must add that despite the value of establishing an official position on every issue, this position must not negate the right of individual rabbis to exercise discretion. “