Rabbi Cardozo writes:
[H]ere is where we encounter one of the greatest and most tragic paradoxes in Rav Soloveitchik’s legacy. In complete contradiction to his philosophy of Halacha, Rav Soloveitchik did not move Halacha forward in areas that most urgently needed it. He did not innovate a new, practical halachic approach to major problems confronting the larger Jewish community. While brilliantly explaining what Halacha essentially is, he made no practical breakthroughs. This is true about issues such as the status of women in Jewish law (with the exception of women learning Talmud); the aguna; the mamzer problem; the application of Halacha in the State of Israel; and similar crucial halachic issues. In that sense he was not at all a mechadesh but rather a conservative halachist…
It seems that he did not realize, or did not want to accept, that Halacha had become defensive and was waiting to be liberated from its exile and confinement.
In many ways, this is an extraordinary tragedy. With his exceptional standing in the Modern Orthodox halachic community, Rav Soloveitchik could have made breakthroughs that would have given Orthodoxy – especially Modern Orthodoxy – much more exposure and influence in the Jewish world and would probably have been a major force against the growth of Reform and Conservative Judaism, of which he was so afraid. In many ways, Modern Orthodoxy was unable to develop naturally, because it had become too dependent on Rav Soloveitchik’s conservative halachic approach.
Rabbi David Hartman, in his book The God who Hates Lies, rightly criticizes Rav Soloveitchik for his refusal to find a way to allow a kohein to marry a giyoret (convert)…
Exactly where Rav Soloveitchik put Halacha on the map, in all its grandeur (without denying its possible shortcomings), and transformed it into the most dominant topic of discussion on Judaism, there is where he seems to have been afraid of his own thoughts and withdrew behind its conventional walls.
What Modern Orthodoxy did not realize is that Rav Soloveitchik himself was a Haredi, who combined that ideology with religious Zionism and tried very hard to give it a place in the world of philosophy and modernity. He therefore wavered and showed signs of a troubled man who was unable to overcome the enormous tension between these two worlds and turned into a “lonely man of faith,” with no disciples but with many students, each one of whom claimed their own Rav Soloveitchik. The truth is that the real Rav Soloveitchik was more than the sum total of all of them – a man of supreme greatness who was a tragic figure.
I can’t see any justification for the Rav openly rejecting Rabbi Rackman’s argument, which claims that there is historical contextualization in the world of Halacha…
One more observation: While I greatly admire Rabbi Soloveitchik’s essays such as The Lonely Man of Faith, I wonder why he never dealt with some extremely important issues that keep many people away from Orthodoxy. Two examples suffice: 1) The issue of Torah Min HaShamayim and Bible criticism; and 2) the matter of belief in God (especially after the Holocaust) and the conflict between science and belief. It may be true – as Rabbi Walter Wurzburger suggests – that the Rav avoided the issue of Bible criticism out of principle. But if it is true, then the Rav was out of touch with reality…
I will not address Rabbi Cardozo’s sense that he can pass judgment on Rav Soloveitchik and disparage him, but it is eminently clear that Rabbi Cardozo does not view Halacha as holistic, conceptual and highly sophisticated (in an abstract and categorical manner), and that he instead views Halacha as practical guidelines which need to be fit into the needs of the times. Such an attitude toward Halacha is pedestrian and unripe, and it overlooks the depth, profundity and true authoritativeness of the halachic system and its masters throughout the generations.
I am compelled to invoke the words of Rav Soloveitchik regarding the proper interpretation of Halacha:
Korach rebelled against authority. All Jews are equal. Hence, everyone is entitled to interpret the law… The study of the law, Korach argued, is an exoteric act, a democratic act, in which every intelligent person may engage. Moshe’s claim to being the exclusive legal authority, and the exclusive interpreter of the law, Korach argued, was unfounded and unwarranted.
The consequence of such a democratic philosophy is obvious. What Korach wanted, and what many want even now – and I’m not only speaking of dissident groups, I’m speaking of the Orthodox community – whether they speak it clearly or they use political terms and dubious language to cover it up, is that the instrument of the Torah be commonsensical for the everyday empirical intelligence, not the esoteric conceptual ideal logos, which can only be obtained through painstaking study and hard training…
The Oral Law (Halacha) has its own epistemological approach, which can be understood only by a lamdan (advanced Torah scholar) who has mastered its methodology and its abundant material. Just as mathematics is more than a group of equations, and physics is more than a collection of natural laws, so, too, the Halacha is more than a compilation of religious laws. It has its own logos and method of thinking and is an autonomous self-integrated system. The Halacha need not make common sense any more than mathematics and scientific conceptualized systems need to accommodate themselves to common sense.
When people talk of a meaningful Halacha, of unfreezing the Halacha or of an empirical Halacha, they are basically proposing Korach’s approach. Lacking a knowledge of halachic methodology, which can only be achieved through extensive study, they instead apply common-sense reasoning which is replete with platitudes and clichés. As in Aristotelean physics, they judge phenomena solely from surface appearances and note only the subjective sensations of worshippers. This da’as (simplistic) approach is not tolerated in science, and it should not receive serious credence in Halacha. Such judgments are pseudo-statements, lacking sophistication about depth relationships and meanings. (1973 shiur (lecture) at Rabbinical Council of America convention; The Rav: Thinking Aloud – Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 127-148. And see here.)
Rabbi Cardozo has written that he did not fully observe Tisha B’Av this year, and he has called for dispensing with the Codes of Jewish Law and the abolition of parts of Halacha which strike him as regressive. Please also see here. Furthermore, Rabbi Cardozo is on the advisory board of a co-ed rabbinical program. With all due respect, Rabbi Cardozo is not in a position to argue, much less denigrate, Rav Soloveitchik’s appreciation and deference to Halacha according to its traditional understanding. (Please also see here.) While some may not appreciate my candid remarks, one’s personal (and very public) attitude toward Halacha cannot be ignored and is quite relevant and justifiably considered when evaluating his criticism of someone else’s attitude toward Halacha.
Although this brief article is not the place for elaboration on issues of belief in God and Torah Min Ha-Shamayim (Divine authorship of the Torah), Rabbi Cardozo states that Rav Soloveitchik failed to address these issues, and that if the reason for this was one of principle, “then the Rav was out of touch with reality”. Again, I will not comment on Rabbi Cardozo’s tone, but it would be wrong not to address these issues in at least a very condensed manner.
Although Rav Soloveitchik’s belief in God, as described in U’vikashtem Mi’sham, was one of gripping intuition and spellbinding perception, such that he was struck by the palpable Presence of God through the very existence of the universe and its creatures and happenings, Rav Soloveitchik explained that faith by definition means trust in the Word of God and submission to His Will, specifically when one does not have answers to the mysteries and perplexities that lie beyond human understanding.
In a 1968 address to RIETS Rabbinic Alumni (published here on pp. 113-119), noting that the Torah records that the Patriarchs erected altars, but usually omits mention of sacrifice thereon, Rav Soloveitchik explained:
Apparently, the mizbe’ach (altar) of the Avos (Patriarchs) was not for the purpose of offering a live sacrifice. The mizbe’ach symbolized submission, their own surrender. Because the highest sacrifice is not when you offer an animal. It’s very easy when you offer an animal. The highest sacrifice is when man offers himself.
What do I mean “offers himself”? The Torah hated, condemned, human sacrifices… It’s one of the most reprehensible abominations. Yes, physical human sacrifice was rejected, but spiritual human sacrifice – submission and surrender, acceptance of God’s will, to abide by His will even if His will sometimes runs contrary to our aspirations, His will sometimes makes no sense to us – [that was valued and required]. We can’t understand it, it’s incomprehensible. We are full with questions, we can point out so many contradictions. [But] if we surrender and submit ourselves, actually this is the highest.
And that’s what Avrohom (Abraham) taught himself, and he taught others. This means “vayiven sham mizbe’ach” (“he erected an altar there”) actually. Whom did he sacrifice? His own independence, his own pride, his own comfort, his own desires, his own logic, his own reason. He believed. If one believes, it is an act of surrender, sacrifice…
Although some important insights were written regarding Rav Soloveitchik’s dismissive view of biblical criticism — for he stated that he was not bothered by it in the least — the message which emerges most clearly from the context of Rav Soloveitchik’s writings and public addresses is that Bible critics and those who believe in the Torah as absolute divine truth operate with radically different assumptions that prevent and obviate any challenge of the former to the latter. If one does not accept the existence of prophecy, of miracles, of God creating a universe ex nihilo, and so forth, his challenges to someone who does accept these principles are irrelevant and fall by the wayside. Stated otherwise, the Torah has its own internal system and axioms, and systems and axioms from other, external systems make no impact and simply do not register. Similarly, in terms of scientific denial of Creation Ex Nihilo — which is a foundational Torah concept — Rav Soloveitchik remarked:
Science has no right to say anything on this topic; it is a metaphysical topic. (from 1971 address to RIETS Rabbinic Alumni, published here on pp. 7-25)
The Torah, which addresses the metaphysical realm, is not impacted by that which is limited to the physical realm. (Please also see Rav Soloveitchik’s enthralling description of the Techeles color, which represents spheres that are beyond the reach of science and worldly quantification.)
Rabbi Cardozo further writes:
Coming back to my main argument, here are a few quotations by the Rav [in Halachic Man]:
“Halakhic man received the Torah from Sinai not as a simple recipient but as a creator of worlds, as a partner with the Almighty in the act of creation. The power of creative interpretation (hiddush) is the very foundation of the received tradition.” (p. 81)
“He [halakhic man] takes up his stand in the midst of the concrete world, his feet planted firmly on the ground of reality, and he looks about and sees, listens and hears, and publicly protests against the oppression of the helpless, the defrauding of the poor, the plight of the orphan….The actualization of the ideals of justice and righteousness is the pillar of fire which halakhic man follows, when he, as a rabbi and teacher in Israel, serves his community….The anguish of the poor, the despair of the helpless and humiliated outweigh many many commandments.” (p. 91)
“Even the Holy One, blessed be He, has, as it were, handed over His imprimatur, His official seal in Torah matters, to man; it is as if the Creator of the world Himself abides by man’s decision and instruction.” (p. 80)If so, why was it impossible to accept Rabbi Rackman’s opinion that one has to see certain rulings by our Sages, especially those concerning women, in the context of historical developments? If the Rav would have done so, then, in his own words, the Holy One, Blessed be He, would have abided by his decision and instruction. The obligation to shape and perfect Halacha increases over history, as human beings become more mature. That is the very foundation of Torah Sheba’al Peh. Why not make use of it and carry that responsibility with pride?
Rabbi Cardozo misinterprets the words of Rav Soloveitchik. The notion of a master Torah scholar, Halachic Man, being a partner with God in Creation via the provision of new and creative insights into Torah, and by gaining jurisdiction over Halacha, does not mean that Halacha can be manipulated or reformed by man. Rather, it means that human beings are entrusted with the interpretation of Halacha and are charged to provide penetrating insights — yet such interpretation and insights must be true to the system’s integrity and internal mechanisms, and are of course ultimately part of human submission to Halacha as the Will of God.
Let us study and revere Halacha according to its tradition. This has been the key to Jewish survival over the millennia, and it is the basis of our connection to God and His Torah.
“We must no doubt admire him for this, but he was never able to overcome his fear of isolation and remained stuck.”
Wow. This might just be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read about the Rav. What a cheap shot.
Aside from the cheap shots, it’s clear that Cardozo is more Conservative than Orthodox, and as such has no right to a halachic opinion on any topic. Thank you to Rabbi Gordimer for highlighting just how far Cardozo has strayed from Orthodoxy.
Terrible.
I found rabbi cordoza’s article troubling for a number of different reasons. first, before he talks about the publication of the halakhic mind, he ought talk to those involved in the enterprise. second, if the halakhic mind does not tell him how the Rav ztl dealt with issues around science and religion, i can only conclude he may not have fully understood. third, to accuse someone who lived a full and accomplished life, of not working on what he views as critical, is a bit strange. RMF ztl and R. Berkovits ztl were different people. Despite the haskmah of RYYW ztl, as far as i know, Tnai be’nesuin u’ve’get was not been applied broadly in practice. I am actually surprised how widespread RMF’s kula wrt mamzerut after conservative/reform marriage has been adopted.
it will take someone of the Rav’s stature to endorse what we may never have – a solution to some more issues of agunot, mamzeirut, gerushot, etc.
IMHO, halakha changes, somewhere between the pace R. Gordimer believes and the pace R. Cordoza desires. in the interim, we will continue to deal creatively with individual occurrences not broad shifts.
on a personal level, thanks for publishing me sitting in shiur!
Where were you depicted?see ShuT Minchas Asher Vol.3 for a thorough discussion of the views of the Rishonim and Poskim replied on by RYBS and RMF in their respective views. If you speak yo a home in kiruv today you will learn that RMFs position is heavily relied upon to avoid issues of mamzerus and the like.
Mamzerus is a fact – one way or the other. That RMFs position is “relied” upon in kiruv does not make it correct. We are dealing with Ishut, a mistake can be devastating that is why we see so many chumrros about not letting women who are almost virtually certain are widows from marrying wo proof of death.RMFs position was rejected by almost all of his contemporaries. Even civil marriage most people believed required a ft eye eg Rav Melech Schachters 1959 or so article on Space Age Halacha” in Tradition around 1959 where he states that vast majority believe that even a civil marriage required a get.
i may be masig Gaul on Joel Rich but isn’t the debate one of almost Type 1 or Type 11 errors what we are willing to tolerate in this situation.
Why not take a look at ShuT Minchas Asher Vol.3 where R Asher Weiss thoroughly discusses both sides of the issue. I would suggest that the same provides an indepth analysis of the same which is required before claiming that RMF suddenly reached a very mchudash type of psak which had never been seen previously in the annals of ShuT and Acharonim.
Name a leading gadol who agreed with RMF. Certainly Rav Henken disagreed, the Rav obviously disagreed, I was told by a talmid of RAKotler, that Rav Aaron, Rav Yacov (Kamenetzky) and Rav Hutner disagreed with Rav Moshe. This from a native of the Lower East Side who always talked highly of Rav Moshe.
The issue raised by Rabbi Gordimer is about Rabbis not following the Rav. I am showing that no one especially you Steve was that one must follow the Rav when they feel his position would not be useful eg “kiruv”. Thus, attack the position. Cross Currents has not become a place here one could or should attack Halachik positions. I can assure you there are strong reasons to attack the position that the kiruv professionals according to you use.
See my later reply from today at 3:26 P.M. The failure to acknowledge that the facts on the ground today are not the same as they were in 1959 is akin to relying on the Maginot Line when confronted with a blitzkrieg. That is akin to saying that since there was no eruv in Boston while RYBS was alive, one cannot use a halachically valid eruv in Boston today. Unless one follows RYBS,, Bein Lkula uLchumra, such a conclusion can easily be refuted and rejected.
The Ravs family was not opposed to an eruv. It was a simple matter that Boston would have been uncomfortable having an eruv when the Rav wouldn’t have used it. The Rav BTW never asked people to follow his minhagim.
you want to say facts on the ground are different today than the Rav spoke, so logically don’t attack OO they say things have changed you say things have changed, they simply follow different people than you.
Most Gdolei Talmidei Chachamim and especially Acharonim in any of the mainstream ShuT have worked hard and even struggled with the questions of Mamzerus and Agunos. You have to be either a complete am haaretz or someone who has surrendered completely or sold out to the feminist agenda and critique of halacha to argue otherwise.
Struggled with issue does not mean accepting RMF heter- after all having a Halachik will does not mean there is a Halachik way
Dr Bill wrote in part:
“it will take someone of the Rav’s stature to endorse what we may never have – a solution to some more issues of agunot, mamzeirut, gerushot, etc.”
How about the RCA PNA, which is very widely used within the MO/RIETS world today? When JOFA/YCT crowd acknowledges the critical role that R Willig played in writing the PNA and gaining the approval of RHS in the US as well as R ZN Goldberg , R Asher Weiss and ROY in its text and implementation in the US , let me know. IMO, addressing “issues of agunot, mamzeirut, gerushot, etc” without uprooting basic bedrock halachos by dubious means as “alternatives to kiddushin” and the like such as Hafkaas Kiddushin strikes me as attempting the irresponsible and impossible.
you prove my point. the pre-nup is not universally accepted despite its impressive endorsements. change comes slowly, perhaps painfully. when rmf ztl invoked hafkaat kedushin in isolated cases, the majority accepted. the use of dna is a good case study. further scientific breakthroughs in a number of other areas coupled with another posek like rmf or rsza ztl and i expect changes in a variety of areas. a very distinguished scientist with access to countless gedolim bemoaned privately the absence of such universally accepted figures.
i am sitting in front of the Rav ztl in the picture above. i had never seen it. i was in another picture with the Rav in the same shirt.
I would suggest that if you speak to R Willig or anyone who is RY in RIETS or an RCA member today that you will see that the use of the RCA PNA is very widespread and insisted upon by parents of either a chasan and kallah.
i have. i agree about the YU community and related orbits. but alas, i wonder how prevalent that is given some noted chareidim have declared a get after a pre-nup questionable. in chassidic or so-called yeshivish communities, i do not see more than rather isolated acceptance.
Dr Bill wrote:
“i have. i agree about the YU community and related orbits. but alas, i wonder how prevalent that is given some noted chareidim have declared a get after a pre-nup questionable. in chassidic or so-called yeshivish communities, i do not see more than rather isolated acceptance.”
I have read some of the declarations, and IMO, such declarations seem as if they are unaware of the text of the PNA and the Gdolei Talmidei Chachamim, none of whom were MO, who endorsed it. I can only tell you that if you are a parent making a chasunah , that you should insist upon the PNA a a condition precedent to preceding with a chasunah. IOW, if a potential chasan or mchutanim balk, RHS has publicly stated at an ORA conference that such a POV is grounds for breaking up a potential shidduch. It is as simple as saying “no tickei, no washee”.
Much more surprised that RMFs heter to not treat children born from a women who was married by a Conservative Reform Rabbi and then had a child with someone else as a mamzer- we have principle of safekeeping mamzer lehakhel, is the different related issue of apparently widespread acceptance that a woman married by.a C or R Rabbi can get married to someone else wo a get.
The Rav clearly disagreed with RMF in this psak, he once pasken end in a case with a women who “converted” to Judaism by a Reform Rabbi, married a pin a Reform wedding, the women could not get married wo a get.
Note the Rav was not willing even to combine potential heter in , one the woman may not be Jewish if she converted by a Reform conversion, along with potential heter of Reform wedding not requiring a get to dissolve the marriage. Thus, clear the Rav rejected RMFs heter.
Talk to anyone in Kiev today. RMFs heter is followed lmaaseh. See ShuT Minchas Asher Vol.3 for a thorough discussion of the views and shift is involved
BTW I believe you show another example of the Ravs viewpoints being ignored at RIETS both lechumra has and lekulah. Actually what Ifind intriguing the story I quote you apparently has been cited for the RIETS policy of when they are megahertz someone misafek eg a prior Conservative conversion involved they are choshed to the Ravs viewpoint and not say the bracha on the new gerus.
That is because a safek gerus , which is done lchumra,, which is not a safek doraisa, may not require a bracha.
I know that but they aren’t choshed for safek ishut that the Rav believed in the case of mistareph safek gerus. In due expect to the importance of a bracha taking a liberal position on a person not being married goes against standard Halacha of decades ago.
I know that but they aren’t choshed for safek ishut that the Rav believed in the case of mistareph safek gerus. In due expect to the importance of a bracha taking a liberal position on a person not being married goes against standard Halacha of decades ago.
BTW if one is willing to ignore the Rav on a safek ishut, don’t attack others who ignore the Rav in other situations.
Irrelevant. The question is what was and what is now the normative and accepted Psak, without descending into who supported or ignored RYBS or RMF the most or the least.
Normative psak is in the eye of the beholder.Some of the people you cite are very creative- creative in an idea does not necessarily make it accurate.
BTW it is very relevant to understand the reasons behind a psak. A pet peeve of mine is that people who find holes in Piikei tshuvot of leading gedolim are afraid to write their reasons either out of respect or dare not treat leading gedolim objectively.
Actually iirc it is a halacha lmoshe misinai with respect to safek mamzer.
Safek mamzer is technically a different issue from whether or not the woman can get married. I have at times written this psak of the Rav about the Reform convert, Reform woman requiring a get to remarry and people have followed up with the issue of what the Rav would have ruled in a case where the women did have a son by another man is son a mamzer I stated I did not know, because of the safek mamzer lekulah issue but it is clear that he would not permi t the woman to get married wo a get. Note that even the Rav was not willing to mistareph two safekot one the woman may not be Jewish and the second that the wedding would not require a get, thus a fortiori in a normal case of a born Jew the Rav certainly would not permit remarriage after a Reform wedding and no get.
mamzer
RMF obviously paskened differently. Again, until you take a look at R Asher Weiss survey of the issue, you are engaging into a partisan discussion of RYBS and RMF based on one psak of RYBS.
Mycroft wrote in part:
“Safek mamzer is technically a different issue from whether or not the woman can get married”
If such a Halacha LMoshe MiSinai is applicable, that would certainly aid the predicament of the children.
Look at it this way-RMF’s Psak views the ceremony conducted by a R or C clergyman as having no halachic value whatsoever, and therefore not requiring a get. RYBS viewing any conversion conformed by a R or C clergyman as having some , even a miniscule amount of halachic value and significance, and RYBS was being choshesh for the possibility of kosher edim, even if not formually designated as such to the exclusion of all others, which may have been the case at more than one such ceremony in the 1950s.
The factors under which such a Psak Lchumra were based clearly can be challenged based on the detachment of C and R since the 1960s from all pretenses of fealty to halacha. Merely invoking and contrasting Piskei Halacha from RYBS and RMF and asking who do you support and ignore really adds precious little to the discussion as opposed to discussing the facts on the ground whereby one or the other or both might be validly applied today.
OTOH, the children of such a union, may very well not be mamzerim. R Menken-please correct me if I have missstated the sevara of RMF.
Steve Even assuming arguendo that the marriage ceremony of a Conservative or Reform Rabbi is a nothing read Rav Melech Schachter in Space Age Halacha where he writes in the case of a civil marriage the predominant opinion is to require a get.
A Reform and Conservative marriage at a minimum qualifies as a civil marriage.
it is my understanding that the Ravwas choshed that the Reform and Conservative clergy could have validity in actions. It rally is choshed on what knowledge is required to be a rejector.
It is my understanding that counter to your viewpoint he Rav had the exact reverse viewpoint, someone in the 50 s who say went to YU and then JTS but then knew what he was doing but rejected some part of Halacha is more problematic and certainly no good compared to an am haarretz, who believes that he s accepting what is passed down to Klal Israel comes to HUC and JTS remember gerus does not require a mum he and believes that they are essentially the Jewish God and law etc. Counter to ur impression, those who might have been bright but felt that better economic circumstances as a JTS product and then rejected openly anything for economic reasons is much more problematic.
Again R Asher Weiss has written extensively on the halachic bases of the views of R Henkin and RMF . I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with the teshuvos in Mind has Asher Volumes 1 and 3 on the issue before merely assuming that RMF created a psak yesh meayin. I would ask you a simpler question-do you think that the average ceremony presided over by a R or C clergyman even remotely had any of the elements of what the Halacha calls Kiddushin and the presumptions as to znus apply go the average bride and groom in such a ceremony? ShuT Rivash tells us that such presumptions have no applicability to unobserved couples a concept of no small importance in a world where relationships are analygyzed to parts of plumbing being connected and taken apart.
One cam argue that regardless of the fact that many C clergy in the 1950s went to YU or even other yeshivishe they voted with their wallets and feet to join a deviationist movement and presided over ceremonies not just without proper witnesses but which did not even remotely approximate the elements of Kiddushin
There would be a much greater problem in accepting anything done by those YU students of the 50s who voted to follow their wallets and join the deviant movements- they knew they were rejecting versus the clergy who R and C were an increas in Jewish identification
Explain to me how a wedding presided over by C and R clergy does not at least qualify as a civil marriage under state law. The clergy has to send in marriage certificate to state. Per Rav Melech Schachter around 1959 vast majority held civil marriage required a get.
I am aware that there is minority precedent for RMFs position, but as I have written to use your framework of thinking the vast majority rejected his analysis.
You quote a Daas yachid, one can understand RMFs heter if one accepts his personal viewpoint that R and C Clergymen are reshayim. Remember what was accepted by RMFs contemporaries as the leading American gedolim.
For the purposes of our discussion what Rav Asher Weiss believes is irrelevant, he disagrees with Rav which he has a right to as does anyone else. You do, do RHS does, Rabbis Weiss and Loopitan ,Linzer do. But don’t attack people who disagree with the Rav on one issue that they are disagreeing with him, when others are not following him on an ishut issue.
not on Rambam’s list and hardly qualifying by his criteria.
I would be shocked if a ceremony presided over by a R or C clergyman even remotely approached Kiddushin. Look at it this way-neither R nor C clergy are reliable edim, regardless of gender. Moreover, I would suggest that by Rambam’s criteria, they are at least machish magideah, if not outright , total and complete Kofrim in Torah min HaShamayim and not Shomrei Torah Umitzvos. Look at R Asher Weiss’s teshuvos as to why their ceremonies cannot and should not be regarded as Kiddushin in any serious manner.
the comment you are replying to has nothing to do with kiddushin by conservative rabbis. it was in response to your comment about safek mamzer.
in any case it is a bit arrogant to say that you would be shocked by a position held by gedolai olam. you are not a bar hochi to adopt such positions.
Mycroft wrote:
“struggled with issue does not mean accepting RMF heter- after all having a Halachik will does not mean there is a Halachik way”
I think that you should go to RMF’s kever and seek mechilah for comparing the psak in question to an act sanctioned by one of JOFA’s founders.
Why even bother answering Cardozo? He is a man I once admired and has one of the best articles I’ve ever seen where he DEMOLISHES Biblical Criticism. It’s from 1991; I can’t remember where I found it online but it did a fantastic job explaining it for someone who didn’t know much about the topic.
He’s clearly switched sides and so many of the things that he writes in his weekly column are not Orthodox at all. So why do we have to refute him? It just seems that liberalism and the zeitgeist are too attractive for some people to resist. What a shame. He was once a star DEFENDER of the tradition, and taught in Ohr Sameach. Far cry from there now.
“I can’t remember where I found it online”
The article you are looking for is titled “On Bible Criticism and Its Counterarguments” on the “Simpletoremember” kiruv website, as well as on R. Cardozo’s own website.
As somebody who has learned directly with Rabbi Cardozo for many years, I will admit that negating his ideas is personally difficult for me. I am not sure if I could ever do that completely. At the same time, not only am I a long-time admirer of the great Rav Soloveitchik, but I recognize that in the battle of Jewish ideas, that Rav Soloveitchik is going to defeat Rav Cardozo every time.
Having said that, I have to admit finding that famous story about Rabbi Eliezer ben Hercanus a most puzzling one. As spiritually great as they admittedly were, how can the rulings of the Talmudic Rabbis supercede that of G-d Himself? It never made any sense to me at all. Perhaps the meaning of that whole episode is that even more important than are the answers to questions, is the idea of G-d handing responsibility for forming Jewish law, over to our Rabbis, in G-d’s quest to have mankind be partners in G-d’s Creation.
Now, there does seem to be a democratic element to this, in that majority opinion does prevail in Jewish law. So that would seem to be consistent with what Rabbi Cardozo is saying here. However, the halachic process is not run according to an absolute democracy. What I would say about any given halachic issue, obviously carries no weight at all, since I am just an ordinary citizen who would not presume to stand up to true halachic authorities. When Jewish law speaks about the majority deciding Jewish law, it is referring to the majority among the top halachic authorities. This can be compared to America’s supreme court, where legal decisions are based not on the majority of America’s population as a whole, but rather the majority of the legal experts hearing the case, in this case, the nine Supreme Court Justices. It sounds to me that that is what Rav Soloveitchik’s position was on this issue.
If what I have said so far is correct, to me the moral of the story is that it is probably not too useful of an idea to presume to be wiser than the wisest men of our generation. One may find things said by our great Rabbis to be initially puzzling to the point of questioning them, but it should always be done not to challenge their authority, but rather to delve into the issue to gain a deeper understanding of the issues involved.
Mycroft- I don’t see the comparison to OO to my analogy to either Chicago or Boston today and the YU side of the Heights all of which have Eruvin. All of the same were erected after the Petirah of RYBS and RYBS who both held to a view of Rambam that invalidated the average city street regardless of the population for an eruv a decidedly minority view.OO has no hesitation in claiming that hierarchy in Psak is irrelevant and that any mandehu regardless of his knowledge can answer inquiries of halacha and hashkafa. If you think that ceremonies presided over by C and R are entitled to the same legitimacy as they may have been in the 1950s that is your prerogative. Just don’t view the same as a closed issue and that RMF we wrong in his position as applied to the same ceremonies performed in our age today.
Very minor point. The YU side eruv — at least i thought — was erected after the passing of Rav Dovid Lifshutz — and specifically was not erected as long as he was alive.
Rav David Lifshitz was niftar less than three months after the Rav. Not disputing your causation I do not know one way or the other, but note the Rav who was very machmir on eruvim was niftar during the same time period. But if quibbling, why is it that people in English refer to R Lishitz as Dovid rather than R David Lifshitz. I have seen his stationary and in the English heading he spelled his name David not Dovid.
The issues haven’t essentially changed between RMF and the Rav and BTW in this issue almost everybody else was on the side of the Rav. What has changed is the desire for a result – see eg make it easier, easier to do kiruv etc. as I pointed out quoting Rav Melech Shachter it was the generally accepted psak to require a get even with a civil marriage to get married again wo a get.
For some reason you treat the R and C clergy with legitimacy from the 50s – they were the ones who had already broken, true some of their members hadn’t followed the logical conclusion to its extreme, but the allowing of driving on Shabbos is enough said, read the polemics in Jewish Life,Tradition etc against C and R Judaism from the late 40s to early 60s fo differences. We’re there Baal batim who felt they were essentially following a quasi Orthodox lifestyle maybe irrelevant
.RMF IMO based his viewpoint on C and R clergy on different facts and beliefs. MO based on the privilege of attending Daf Yomi shiur for a. Few ears at the Agudah given by R Elimelech Bluth a perfect mensch but I learned a lot about RMFs ideas. Irrelevant the difference between the Rav and RMF is there. Your Mentor follows Rav Asher Weiss , RMF in this matter which he is entitled to but it is not the position of the Rav.
i am aware that according to the Rambam and the Ravs position essentially no city eruv could be made today. I have been aware of that for well over half a century.
actually, an attempt was made over 50 years ago; the eiruv used actual delosot over one problematic thorofare. but you are correct; the Rav ztl required much more extensive use of delosot. otoh, he encouraged talmidim NOT to adopt his chumrah.
i had the zechut to learn eiruvin with the Rav. He followed a strict interpretation of Rambam. i forgot who humorously said in shiur that inside the rabbanut, agudah and eidah hachareida eiruv in yerushalayim, he would not carry!!
Absolutely faithful to the Brisker reading of the Rambam in 1question. Harei Kedem has an entire siman devoted to the same.
No the issue is whether a Wedding ceremony officiated at by a C or R clergyperson has any of the elements of Kiddushin not whether the same is recognized by civil law.
If you go thru the teshuvos in Minchas Asher you will see what were the antecedents of the views of RYBS and RMF.
FWIW, R Bluth is one of the Talmidim Muvhakim of RMF who was referred many difficult and sensitive inquiries by other talmidim of RMF with respect to Hilcos Nidah, etc.
I had the pleasure of learning from him for a few years. I respect his menchkite a lot.
The fact that a R or C performed ceremo y is viewed as a civil marriage has no relationship whatsoever as to whether it satisfies the elements of Kiddushin.
you are missing mycroft’s point completely. if a civil marriage is a safek kiddushin requiring a get misafek, for a variety of reasons, then a conservative marriage certainly creates similar reasons to be machmir.
Civil marriages today and in previous generations never remotely approximated what is called Kiddushin.
its not the ceremony; it is the fact that there may well be legitimate witnesses to them living together. add that to an umdenah and voila – need for a get, at least misafek. and btw, that applies to a reform ceremony
The overwhelming majority of all such ceremonies, if not all, lacked proper witnesses and “the ceremony” as you described simply cannot be called even a safek kiddushin if the requisite elements of kiddushin by the participants and presiding R, C , JP or minister for a day is presiding over anything than Kiddushin.
Who besides RYBS R Henkin and the Rogatchover so held? Their views do not constitute the view of Rov Poskim on the subject.
Who besides RYBS R Henkin and the Rogatchover so held such a view? Take a look at R Asher Weiss yeshivishe where it is clearly demonstrated that such was a distinctly minority view for many generations prior to WW2.
The assumption that you civil marriage is a safek Kiddushin was and remains a distinctly minority view notwithstanding the views of RYBS R Henkin and the Rogatchover to the contrary
Relevant per Rav Melech Schachter who represented that standard opinion is that a civil marriage requires a get.
First of all, the definition of what is meant by a “civil marriage”, thanks to expansive readings of nonexistent “civil rights” by the SCOTUS, the term no longer means a traditional heterosexual marriage. I doubt that any Posek today , let alone in 1959, would maintain that such unions require a get because the same are sanctioned by the state. Again, one should never confuse a civil marriage , however defined or a ceremony presided over by a R or C clergy person as Kiddushin in any way shape or form. Insisting upon the same can lead to unnecessary cases of agunos, let alone claims that the child of such a union is a mamzer.
What about civil marriage in Israel? If one has a common law marriage, which is recognized as such by the secular Israeli courts, one is still subject to the Rabbanut courts for divorce. Kal vechomer, I would think, Reformative marriages, since there simply is no mechanism for civil divorce in Israel. Conditions in the US are not the be all and end all of halachic reality. Evidently Israel does not hold with RMF either.
The real chidushei of the Ravs psak is that one has to be choshesh that the ” conversion” done by a Reform conversion made the women Jewish. If she were not Jewish even if Rav Moshe was me sadder kiddushin there would have been no kiddushin and no get required. It was not news that the Rav disagreed with Rav Moshe on the requirement of a get in a non Orthodox marriage that was standard Halacha.
I will note that we have always been very wary of allowing marriages wo gittin.
As RAL once said if the psak of Rav Moshe was made by anyone else it would have been laughed out.The rest of the paragraph he referred to RMF as a zaddik, but referred to the psak in terms that he didn’t agree with. Judging by he lack of current RIETS musmachim not even being aware of the Ravs position , I guess RIETS follows Rav Asher Weiss more.
See the post at 1:44 P.M. of today. WADR, and in all seriousness, unless you know and have read R Asher Weiss’s teshuvos on the subject, merely claiming that the issue revolves around conflicting Piskei Halacha of RYBS and RMF is a grave misstatement of the bases of the issue involved and how Rov Poskim in prior generations approached the issue. It borders on the delusional to claim that a civil marriage entered into and presided over by a R or C clergy member today should be accorded any of the elements that comprise Kiddushin. It borders on deliberate ignorance of the sociological evidence on the ground today to claim that such marriages today are entered with the same or even remotely similar expectations as they were entered into 1959.
You are sadly just taken if you think that the elements if a civil marriage and divorce today approximate what were the legal elements of a marriage and divorce in 1959. I don’t think the notion of what is recognized as a civil.divorce today can be seriously considered or compared to Kiddudhin . FWIW on the subject of Eruvin one can should the views of CI and RMF. The bottom line is that a properly constructed eruv attracts young couples to any community.
Explain why the situation now in 2017 in American laws of marriage has changed from 1959 and show how the changes would change the requirement for a get since 1959.
of course, an Eruv would attract people to a community, I find it intriguing your use of categories that it would encourage kiruv as a reason to accept an ishut claim, and eruv Halacha on encouraging young couples .
Simply stated it is far more easier today to get married especially among the same genders and to get divorced than in 1959 and one should never confuse whatever is permitted either by secular courts or statutes with Kiddushin.
Actually it isn’t easier in all respects. My father’s first cousin eloped at the age of 17 to marry her 21 year old boyfriend. There is no state in the US where that is legal today — marriage under the age of 18 requires consent of at least a parent or a court. (My father’s cousin and her husband were married for 66 years, until her husband’s death.)
While most states made divorce difficult, there were “quickie divorce” states even in 1959 where divorce was easily obtained. Now all states have some form of no-fault divorce
The convergence of eruvin and ishus is simple-Brisker chumros in both do not represent the views of Rov Poskim
The issue of ishut is not one eruvim. The Rav never respected people to follow Brisker chumrros . His psak in ishut was mainstream, the only remarkable part of psak was being choshesh that a Reform conversion was a valid conversion. He was not willing to combine sfekot that either person was not Jewish via Reform conversion or Reform marriage not valid. Either would have been enough t. Let woman marry wo a get.
it is the reverse way to not treat ishut very seriously because of metahalachik goals is new.
The only marriages prohibited today in the US as opposed to 1959, are set forth ( except unfortunately same gender) in Parshas Acharei Mos. Attend a typical Chupah v Kiddushin and then attend what passes for a marriage performed either by R,C or a JP-if you can’t recognize the differences, you seriously need to learn Maseces Kiddushin and Ksubos.
As we sit here today, you are prohibited only from marrying a child or your pet-but little else.
mycroft says:
March 17, 2017 at 1:44 pm
BTW if one is willing to ignore the Rav on a safek ishut, don’t attack others who ignore the Rav in other situations.
Rav Zvi Ferber wrote a sefer on civil marriage in the 1930s, titled ‘Birur Halacha’. In it he quotes the views of many, many batei din and poskim from Europe and across the world. Nearly all the poskim agreed civil marriages do not require a get and children are not mamzerim. (Obviously, everyone says it is best to try to obtain a get.) The only 2 he quotes who disagreed are Rav Henkin and the Rogatchiver. It is not Rav Henkin against Rav Moshe. It is Rav Henkin against everyone else, including Rav Moshe. Obviously, everyone agrees lechatchila we try to have the woman receive a get, but almost all poskim say that the child is not a mamzer. (I couldn’t find the article you cite from Rav Melech Schachter.)
According to Rav Ahron Soloveitchik, even Rav Henkin would not have paskened lemaaseh the child is a mamzer. (oral psak quoted by Rabbi Baruch Simon).
That is why the RIETS rabbonim go with RMF here, because his view is the large majority view.
The fact that they don’t follow the Rav on this psak is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the Rav and JOFA/OO/egalitarianism/LBGQT. The Rav’s psak had nothing to do with responding to outside pressure. It was based on is reading of the sugyas.
The issue of OO/JOFA is they paint the target and then look for ways to find it ‘within’ halacha. That approach to halacha is exactly what the Rav fought against for half a century. Saying the Rav is somehwere ‘between’ the RIETS RY and OO/JOFA is a terrible insult to the Rav and reflects ignorance of the Rav’s approach and/or ignorance (naivete) of the issue at hand.
Take for example, the kashrus of swordfish. There was a debate about this, and many O rabbonim said it was treif and the C said it was kosher. The Rav happened to hold it was kosher. Let us say for sake of argument that some RIETS RY would pasken against the Rav and say treif. Would you then say that ‘just like the RIETS RY dismiss the Rav sometimes, so too the C movement is also not always with the Rav’, and the Rav is somewhere between C and RIETS, r”l?!! That would be absurd.
It is exactly the same thing here. The fact that the RIETS RY, although they certainly encourage and try to obtain a get, but bottom line do not define the children as mamzerim, and this is based on RMF (and the vast majority of poskim), IN NO WAY INDICATES THEY HAVE REJECTED THE RAV’S LEGACY. It is a machlokes in psak. However the entire agenda of OO/JOFA, which is to try to first accept the liberal, egalitarian, NYTimes approach to the world, where there is no absolute truth, and all behavior, no matter how far from Torah observance, is respected and supported, and then somehow reconcile that agenda with ‘halacha’ is completely against anything the Rav would have agreed with on any level. That is obvious.
It is indeed tragic that OO/YCT has become a new Conservative movement. There is a lot of wasted talent there. RAG just points it out. It is ridiculous to r”l put the Rav anywhere near their camp. It is exactly the same as saying the Rav is closer to RIETS than the C because he paskened swordfish is mutar.
YG -R Asher Weiss also quotes the views of the Rogatchover and R Henkin and demonstrates that their views were at best a minority view. I agree wholeehartedly- just as there is no lack of Kavod HaTorah in rejecting the Brisker view of a Reshus HaRabim and relying on the views of the CI and RMF ( where they are not in conflict) when a psak is sought with an eruv in a community, so too there is no Kavod HaTorah in not requiring a get in such a case and following RMF based on the views of many Acharonim that there was never act of Kiddushin performed by the officiating clergy person, regardless of whether such a certificate of such an act is on file in the local clerk’s office. Anyone today who views any R or C ceremony as even remotely approaching Kiddushin requires blinders.
I am personally not in favor of certainly the vast majority of positions that OO/YCT maintain. It end t ask my sheilas of a close talmid of RHS and a recent one non emergency he told me he will Che k with RHS in his next call with him, I certainly will agree with much more of RHS than OO, ThT however does not take away from the so far ludicrousness of comparing them to Conservative Judaism, to the best of my knowledge they have never ruled that one can ride on Shabbos to schul. I am not aware of them rejecting Halacha like CJ, if they do. And I mean the leaders, alert me know,
There are plenty of YU musmachim who have rejected Torah over the years, show me how OO leader
have rejected the authority of Shas and SA.
You have to be kidding. The OO agenda is predicated on denying the authority of Shas and Poskim and especially the entire notion of halachic authority and hierarchy .
Show me how the WSJ/ Conservative approach is more Yahadus that the NYTs/liberal approach. Neither areYahadus.
Wrong thread. However the NYT is anti Israel and is relentlessly pro the LGBT agenda in news coverage and editorial and ok ed columns both of which IMO outweigh any other factors as being incompatible with Yahadus
Mycroft wrote in relevant part:
“Explain to me how a wedding presided over by C and R clergy does not at least qualify as a civil marriage under state law.”
The SCOTUS and the laws of many states also provide for same gender marriage. The mere fact that a “marriage” is conducted in accordance with the Laws of any state does not mean that we would say Dina Dmalchusa Dina and automatically such would be elevated to an act of Kiddushin.
Article is a paragraph in his Space Age Halachs, he raises the issue and states general accepted requiring a get. It is a statement of whAt he believes is the accepted position in the US. I am not arguing theoretical Halacha I am stating what the positions of accepted Halachik authorities were in the US.
i am more surprised that RIETS musmachim are often not aware of the Ravs psak,they are aware of the story of the Reform conversion. Civil divorce and I have been told by some that story is used for safek bracha in gerus, but were shocked at the basic psak even exists- that alone tells you of the reality of knowledge of the Ravs psak in.
Not responsive see the long post by yg to the contrary.
Utterly irrelevant especially in light of yg’s long post of yesterday
Re RAS and Rav Henkin and mamzerut, as I have stated I have no idea what the Rav would have pasken end in a case where the women did give birth to a child BUT it is clear that the Rav would have paskenend that the woman could not get married wo a get. Unlike any I am influenced by people similar to Dr Bill who were very reluctant to say what the Rav would have done in situations where he did not rule. He was very nuanced.
Mycroft wrote:
“There would be a much greater problem in accepting anything done by those YU students of the 50s who voted to follow their wallets and join the deviant movements- they knew they were rejecting versus the clergy who R and C were an increas in Jewish identification”
There were plenty of students from other yeshivos who did the same-WADR what makes either halachically acceptable? Marching with one’s feet and wallet says a lot more than yearning in one’s heart for the good old days of when they were learning in yeshiva x, but does not render their actions halachically acceptable Kiddushin, especially when a divorcing husband refused to give a get, when they were active holders of pulpits across America and never resigned from the same.
No I said that for respect of the Rav they did not wish to install an eruv that the Rav wouldn’t use, that is not the same as you write. The Rav never assumed that people should followcBrisker chum rot.
Re eruv in there gas been a gradual increase in their usage during the past half century, in places where the Rav is openly ignored. Different sociology.
Ha4fly an explanation as to why there were no eruvin in the locales I mentioned.
Mycroft wrote in part:
“The Ravs family was not opposed to an eruv. It was a simple matter that Boston would have been uncomfortable having an eruv when the Rav wouldn’t have used it”
See Dr Bill’s post to the contrary-There was no eruv either in Boston , Chicago or the YU side of W Heights during the lifetimes of RYBS and RAS because the Brisker reading of the Rambam as to what defines a reshus harabim would render any eruv anywhere Pasul. The notion that any other great Posek with familiarity with Eruvin would have established an eruv in either locale in their lifetime based on a contrary and accepted understanding by Rov Poskim as to what constitutes a reshus hayachid, reshus harabim , tzuras hapesach, and mechitzbos, etc, flies in the face of the realities on the ground and that well known chumra.
” The notion that any other great Posek with familiarity with Eruvin would have established an eruv in either locale in their lifetime based on a contrary and accepted understanding by Rov Poskim as to what constitutes a reshus hayachid, reshus harabim , tzuras hapesach, and mechitzbos, etc, flies in the face of the realities on the ground and that well known chumra.”
Rabbis Charlop, Schachter, Willig, and Tendler all have their names attached to the current YU eruv.
http://www.yueruv.org/about_us.cfm
True-but the critical issue is when was the YU eruv erected-certainly not while RYBS was alive and well.
No I said that for respect of the Rav they did not wish to install an eruv that the Rav wouldn’t use, that is not the same as you write. The Rav never assumed that people should followcBrisker chum rot.
Re eruv in there gas been a gradual increase in their usage during the past half century, in places where the Rav is openly ignored. Different sociology.
Mycroft you can’t say that RYBS pssk in this area is being abandoned when it is manifestly clear that this psak was at best not the view of Rov Poskim before Ww2 just ad Rob Poskim were not like the Briskers in defining a reshus harabim.
ROv Poskim? Who in America agreed with RMF at the time, he as a Daas yachid.
if you are saying today, you pick your Rav and you’ve picked yours and you follow him, no one else is required to follow him. On women’s issues he has a different me halach in approach than the Rav.I agree that he will more often agree with the Rav than YCT, but that is not the issue. Neither feel bound by the Rav
Your refusal to look at the critical sources cited by R Asher Weiss solely because you don’t think he is in the same league as RYBS borders precariously on the intellectually dishonest. Ignorance of what Rov Poskim viewed this issue is not bliss.
Mycroft ignorance based in loyalty to a minority view is not bliss. When you are ready to learn the relevant teshuvos in Minchas Asher let me know and I will be more than willing to do so with you .
I do not treat R Asher Weiss as being in the same league as the Rav. I know the psak of the Rav, he lived in the US, unlike your comment on RAL that he should not be qualified to discuss Anerican issues since he lived in Israel, be consistent, R Asher Weiss lives in Israel, he comes to America to lecture but so did RAL.
There is an interesting political/ sociological explanation for the desire to follow RMF in this situation.
R Asher Weiss is viewed today as one of the great Poskim of our generation. Please don’t dishonor RYBS by referring to unique chumros such as the one in question or on eruvin that never represented the views of rov poskim during their lifetime.FWIW, if you look at R Asher Weiss’s teshuvos, he is asked halachic inquiries by many great talmidei chachamim in the US including RHS and many Talmidei Chahcamim in Israel also from both the Charedi and RZ worlds such as R Rimon.
You may not as an individual view R Asher Weiss as in the same league simply because you view noone in the same league as RYBS. That is your misquided POV, but that kind of “moving the goalposts back” logic ignores the halachic issues that are being posed to great Poskim today, and who have the broad enough shoulders to be viewed as the proper addresses in Psak Halacha for our generation.
I am not RHS who certainly re.ies on Rav Aser Weiss eg according to Rav Shay Schachter reason that RHS stayed in US is that Rabbi Asher Weiss told him to stay in US. When Rav Asher Weiss spoke in our community a few years ago half his speech was praising his talmid Rav Shay. I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish. You apparently pick and choose where you agree with the Rav. So can Rabbi Linzer, etc.Rabbi Linzer at least as big a talmid chacham as we are.
Mycroft wrote:
” I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish:
Such a statement without historical background as to whether such a psak was representative of Rov Poskim strikes me as irresponsible.
FWIW, I was present during the same speech which began with a hakaras hatov to R Shay and a nice shiur/drasha on halachos relating to the Nine Days. Rav Asher Weiss has spoken all over the US on very complicated medical halachic issues. Take a look at R Asher Weiss’s seforim or listen to his shiurim on line before you magnanimously equate R Asher Weiss with R L:inzer and engage in being Mashveh Katan LaGadol.
Even more elementary-define the basic elements of Kiddushin and then define what is permitted either by case law or statute as marriage permitted by “civil law”. Once you realize the vast differences or even attend a chupah Kiddushin as opposed to a ceremony presided over by a R and C clergyperson or a judge you will understand that the same are vastly different in the obligations undertaken and the knowledge required by the groom and the bride and should never be compared in any fashion except yo be contrasted and chupah Kiddushin being the only means that halacha provides for marriage for any Jewish couple.
I am merely stating that my statements of where Halacha lemaaseh was in the US 60 years ago is consistent with the writings of Rav Melech Schachter, the Ravs position and certainly if I have been told correctly agreed with whose who of Torah leaders from the 50s and 60s . You wish to follow RHS who follows RASher W, and RMF go ahead- you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
Look at it this way. Open any daf Gemara and you will see that Rashi says X and the Baalei Tosfos, who more often are the grandchildren of Rashi ( Rabbeinu Tam and Ri) openly reject the explanation offered by Rashi. That is how TSBP works. Many times, the Gemara differentiates between a Mishnah Rishonah and a Mishnah Acharonah and also rejects many proofs offered from other Mishnayos or Braissos. Like it or not, the issue is not that of Issur Eshes Ish, but rather what are the facts on the ground that differentiate between any type of civil marriage and Kiddushin, Your defense of a psak rendered by RYBS based on an article written by Rav Melech Schachter ZL in 1959 fails to render the same subject to critical inquiry by Poskei Zmaneinu as to whether the same are representative of Rov Poskim before WW2 and relevant on the issue of the vast differences between a civil marriage, regardless of who performs the same and the halachic elements that comprise Chupah vKiddushin.
mycroft says:
March 20, 2017 at 4:53 pm
I am personally not in favor of certainly the vast majority of positions that OO/YCT maintain. It end t ask my sheilas of a close talmid of RHS and a recent one non emergency he told me he will Che k with RHS in his next call with him, I certainly will agree with much more of RHS than OO, ThT however does not take away from the so far ludicrousness of comparing them to Conservative Judaism, to the best of my knowledge they have never ruled that one can ride on Shabbos to schul. I am not aware of them rejecting Halacha like CJ, if they do. And I mean the leaders, alert me know,
There are plenty of YU musmachim who have rejected Torah over the years, show me how OO leader
have rejected the authority of Shas and SA.
Reply
Rabbi David Rosenthal wrote a book, ‘Why Open Orthodoxy is Not Orthodox’. I will be citing from that book. He starts by comparing statements of early R and C leaders to statements from OO/YCT leaders. I will be citing his direct quotes from OO/YCT leaders. (Members of the staff there, members of the board, graduates who are mentioned approvingly on the websites. None of the quotes below have been disavowed on any level. Just the opposite, when questioned, the heads of the movement give defenses.) He gives the exact references and context.
Rejection of ‘Mosaic’ Law
“The Rabbis reject Moses’ judicial views as conservative and archaic.”
Denial of divinity of the Torah
“The simplest explanation for these differences between the accounts in Exodus-Numbers and Deuteronomy is that they were penned by (at least) two authors with different conceptions of the desert experience.”
“We do not have access to objective truth. Humans are created in God’s image, which means that human consciousness is the instrument of divine revelation..”
“It began with the parts of the Torah which are clearly folkloristic or symbolic in character. The creation of the world in six days, the account of Adam and Eve in the garden, Noah’s flood and the tower of babel- all of these were easily identified as ahistorical…”
“Abraham and Sara are folkloristic characters; factually speaking they’re not my ancestors or anyone else’s”
Looking forward to redemption
“My teacher Rabbi Dr. Cardozo once again hits a grand slam reminding us to get our priorities straight as we approach Tisha B’v. “Whether or not the Temple will be rebuilt is not our concern, nor is it our dream. It is of little importance….”
“We have made too many mistakes throughout history. The thinking that the messiah is a person or event. They are called bar kochva… and certain Chassidic rebbes. It was Christian influence that helped further this idea of the single divine human. The Jewish notion, preceding that, suggested that all people are imbued with divinity. At the end of the day, I would like to suggest that we are moshiach- we are the ones we have been waiting for.
Many quotes supporting the Ordination of women.
The Torah subjugates women
“And often she must contend herself to davening in a cage in shul…”
” I was viscerally in pain in my body because of the repression, exclusion, and marginalization of the feminine in the jewish texts.”
Giving tacit permission to homosexual behavior (which is as (actually more)severe than driving on shabbos.)
“I believe we have to come to terms with the fact that, in the long run, Orthodox homosexuals have no choice but to allow themselves to fulfill the intense desire for emotional and physical intimacy in the only way open to them.”
Other quotes that gay men and women and their partners need to be “fully welcome and fully a part of our communities and schools”
There is an entire chapter of quotes from YCT/OO supporting the LBGQT agenda.
Criticism of the prohibition of a kohen marrying a divorcee
“It hurts seeing the divorcee compared to a prostitute. Why should we ostracize someone whose sole crime is that their marriage dissolved?”
Erasing troubling texts
“…but the problem is intrinsic to Jewish texts in general, not just to mystical texts. It is true for the Tanach, Chazal, Rishonim, and Achronim. Texts are products of their times, strongly influenced by their contemporary social reality. As time goes by, we learn to adapt those texts to our new reality, excising or updating the troubling parts or reapplying them [note- Tanach is included] them in new ways.
After the Holocaust, God needs to do teshuva, the covenant is not binding
Therefore, morally speaking, God must repent of the covenant, i.e. do teshuva for having given his chosen people a task that was unbearably cruel and dangerous without having provided for their protection…Morally speaking then, God can have no claims on the Jews by dint of the covenant.. It can no longer be commanded…
God’s imperfection
“You know what is also interesting about this reading of Shemini Atzeret? God’s loneliness,,, It is funny to talk about God’s wants and needs..
But that is clearly what we want to say as a community about God; God has issues, like all of us…”
“In the talmudic imagination, between the two clauses in our verse (Exodus 3:14) Moshe taught God (whom he had only met) a profound lesson about humanity. He taught God that there exists an important, necessary gap between who God is and what we need God to be.”
Chazal change the Torah
“Simply read the biblical sotah procedure seems capricious and patriarchal. The rabbis, incorporating Divine ordained hermeneutics, drastically revised the procedure. The result: a process that is sensitive and somewhat egalitarian. They were the progressives of their time…”
“In other words, Chazal avoided the problem by reinterpreting the laws and presenting their interpretation as the Torah’s original intent.”
Changing halacha based on social norms
Some of the leaders promote “finding within the Talmud voices that articulate those same values that are driving us…” [It is ironic that when Rabbi Weiss laid out his vision how his approach to halacha differs from the Conservatives, he wrote that the C held that “if a de’ah exists in the Talmud that never really took hold, one may follow it.” His description of C is nearly identical with what is written above from YCT.
“my immediate goals for my years in Rabbinical school [YCT] is to acquire the tools that are necessary to overcome the halakhic and social impediments to change.”
“In truth, this book also reflects my ambivalence about the binding nature of the tradition and the extent to which I follow traditional norms when they conflict with other values I hold.”
Chazal as misogynists
“We should resist relating to the metaphors of women as being humiliated and defiled as metaphors for the destruction of Jerusalem and instead cringe of their misogynist uses, we use them as a point of connection to violence against women of all types…”
[at yeshivat maharat students have a procedure when they come across a “sexist” passage]
“So we have a jar. In this jar we put a quarter, or a dollar, or whatever seems appropriate when a woman’s voice seems egregiously absent from the conversation.”
[about shelo asani isha]
“Written by male rabbis nearly 2000 years ago, these words evoke for me the sexism too prevalent in the O world and beyond. These words have echoes of religious misogynists who throw chairs at women praying at the western wall….”
“One could also argue that we are religiously compelled to eliminate or adjust the berakha because it is a source of hilul Hashem. Without in any way being critical of our sages (who, like all of us, lived inside a set of contemporary and cultural assumptions), the berakha is a vestage of an understanding of women that is less morally developed than today’s understanding.”
Diluting the difference between O and R and C
“But my dream is to have HUC, the JTS, Hadar, and Chovevei on one campus, to move in together. We’d each daven in our own ways, but it could transform the Upper West Side. I’m not talking about closing down campuses, because I want more torah, not less, I want to hear different opinions. Disagreement is OK…”
“Spiritual striving and religious growth can only be nourished in a state of openness. For this reason, Israel as a state should give equal opportunities to the C and R movements. Their rabbis should be able to conduct weddings and ceremonies.”
“R Judaism grew by distancing itself from O’s stubborn mistakes. O grew by distancing itself from R’s radical mistakes. All denominations will thrive when they start learning from each other’s strengths and not just their weaknesses….
“Opensinai.com, a unique online Jewish learning resource funded by [a YCT graduate], has launched. Read more about the impressive new initiative…”
[the website says, opensinai “seeks to empower Jews throughout the world with the access to real-time pluralistic Jewish earning..”]
See the book for many, many other similar examples.
Degrading the Avos
Many quote that avraham failed the akeidah.
“Perhaps on some level in the narrative of the akeida, Abraham failed the test. I would suggest this is why God never speaks to Abraham after commanding him to take Isaac as a burnt offering.”
“Avraham hasn’t just changed his name…. Rather, he has become utterly unrecognizable, losing his essence, his moral intuition. Avraham was willing to sacrifice. But he transcended the normative expectations for giving something up. He went too far.”
[others in YCT/Maharat say God failed the akeidah]
“While this was a test for Avraham, there was also a learning curve for God a well. So there seems to me in my read that God set out to test, assuming success, but it turns out that God has to learn along the way that there are actually dangers in this kind of universe… I think that in a sense you’ll forgive the irreverence here for those who find this blasphemous. I think in a sense it was God who failed the test here…”
I know I am not quoting the full context. Rabbi Rosenthal does give the context and his presentation is much, much more damning than mine. It is frightening to see the exact parallels between the early trajectory of the R and C movements and the positions of YCT/OO.
To these I would add the following:
Accepting the Absolute truth of the Torah that men and women are different and play different roles or not? Does one accept the complete authority of Chazal as defining our mesorah? referring to Hashem as the Godhead as opposed to Him, partnership minyanim, women reading megillah for men, women wearing tefillin, , women leading kabbalat shabat, women ‘saving’ their birchot hatorah so they can say a ’birchat hatorah’ at an aliyah,, Hashem not being ‘perfect’ because of His internal hashkafic contradictions, having publicly available podcasts discussing the most private of Jewish inyanei kedusha in the most public way, promotion of the LBGQT agenda, rejecting in one form or another the mitzvah of mechiyas amalek because it is ‘immoral’, davening maariv in a mosque to show solidarity with the Moslems, having a Church choir perform in the synagogue sanctuary to show solidarity with Christians, the list goes on and on and on.
There are many more breeches and deviations one can add to the list. See RAG’s articles and see Rabbi Rosenthal’s book.
I don’t know if one who believes in ordaining women rabbis makes him C. I don’t know if one who rejects saying shelo asani isha makes him C. I don’t’ know if supporting partnership minyanim makes one C…. But I do know, that if one supports/condones/accepts without criticism ALL of the above ideas, then such a movement is definitely Conservative (at best). And indeed it is “ludicrous” to maintain otherwise.
The combined impact of Rabbi Rosenthal’s book, RAG’s articles as amplifying RMT’s strong essays and RHS’s authoritative tehsuvas is having an impact. More and more opinion makers are defining YCT/OO as C. The Agudah world refers to them as C. Rabbi Rakeffet refers to the as C. Rabbi Maryles’s blog refers to them as C. One RIETS RY said, ‘they are worse than the C. It took the C 70 years to ordain women. It took them around 7.”
The burden of proof is not on me to show they are C. The burden of proof is on Mycroft and Dr. Bill to try some halfhearted defense to prove otherwise.
I will let Mycroft get the last word, but before closing I would like to sharpen the mashal I wrote in the previous post about theRav and the RIETS RY.
Mycroft claims the RIETS RY in many areas have left the Rav’s legacy and there is significant space between the Rav and the RIETS RY. In my previous posts I feel I successfully proved otherwise. The readers can decide.
But Mycroft makes a more fundamental error than that. Mycroft repeatedly writes that he agrees the Rav would be “closer” to RHS and the RIETS RY than to OO/JCT. In my opinion, that word “closer” expresses a tremendous bizayon to the Rav. The issue is not whether the RIETS RY agree with every psak the Rav gave. The issue is far more fundamental than that.
The word ‘closer’ indicates there is a spectrum along the same plane. On one side is OO/YCT, and far on the other side is RIETS RY, and the Rav is ‘in between’ but closer to the RIETS RY. R”l to syay such a thing. As proven conclusively, YCT/OO is C. The Rav is not along the same plane as YCT/OO.
For argument’s sake, let’s say the RIETS RY prohibited swordifsh, and the Rav and the C permitted it. Would one then say the Rav is ‘closer’ to the RIETS RY than to C?! Certainly not.
The Rav is infinitely far from C because they reject so many yesodos in eminah and have a completely corrupted approach to ‘halacha’,etc… It is exactly the same thing with OO/YCT. The Rav is not ‘closer’ to the RIETS RY than to YCT/OO. The Rav is with them completely in a different universe than the new C movement called YCT/OO. (even if one accepts there is some space between the Rav and the present RIETS RY, they are both together, infinitely far from YCT/OO.)
Here is the mashal.
There are 2 parallel lines that are one inch apart. There are two points on one line with space between them. Both points are equidistant from the other parllel line.
The nimshal is as follows. Let us accept, for sake of argument, the notion that there is some space (IMO minimal at most) between the Rav and the present RIETS RY. They are the 2 points on the line with space between them. But they are both equidistant from the other line. YCT/OO/Maharat/support of the LBGQT agenda, etc.. is represented by the other line. The Rav is just as far from YCT/OO as the RIETS RY. Any suggestion otherwise is a terrible, terrible bizayon to the Rav.
I maintain that a fair, careful reading to Rabbi Rosenthal’s book, and to RAG’s articles allows for no other conclusion.
I wish you had cited who stated the exact quotes listed and source. Certainly some of those statements IMO would be disqualifying but OO and YCT like RIETS and the White House are inanimate objects. Who stated those. Some of the other statements I might disagree with but I don’t see them disqualifying. There is a very broad leeway on hashkafa- although there are certainly red lines one can’t go beyond.
To show YCT is CJ show that they reject the Halachik system not that they reject your posek. They have no obligation to listen to any particular posek. Show how they reject the principle of the authority of the Talmud. CJ does reject that.
Show how they reject that God revealed the Torah. Do not give me a student or grad or theirs. But there leader. Rabbi David Hartman rejected openly Torah but no one would blame his Rabbeim for that.
Go borrow or buy and read the book. The quoted passages we recall brought to our attention by RAG
The above quotes deserve to be viewed and critiqued as apikorsus and kefirah.
By the way, it is clear that RHS stayed in the US because he
feels he is needed here to fight the breeches against O, exactly the same way
the Rav did. (I understood this from several shiurim where RHS discussed related
topics.) RHS regularly quotes the Rav citing a mashal of a captain not
abandoning a sinking ship. RHS comments that the Rav often used that mashal and
he (RHS) found it to be a strange lashon. Then, RHS found that exact lashon in
the teshuvos of an Acharon who was advised not to leave his shtelar in Europe
for that reason. RHS staying in the US is another example, among many, of his following
the Rav’s legacy quite closely.
I don’t know the context of Rav Shay Schachter’s comments
and the quote from R Asher Wieiss. Maybe it was referring to RHS considering moving
now (in the recent few years), and RHS may have discussed it with RAW. We would
have to ask RHS directly to know the exact context. But certainly his decision to
remain in the US for the 25 years from the 1980s and on is based on a hemshech
of the Rav.
If one listens to RHS a lot and closely reads his pesakim,
one finds more and more examples of his clinging to the Rav’s legacy.
I don’t know what life events or philosophical awakenings turned R’ Lopes Cardozo off to halachic exposition as we know it, but the results have been sad to watch. So much human potential, so much emotion gone off the rails. Does every Orthodoxy need an equal and opposite heterodoxy as a foil to keep it in fighting trim? If so, his misuse of words and concepts could have a kind of value.
I have given just a very brief sampling of the quotations. For each quote, there are several (sometimes many) others. These are all commonly stated positions.
See also the many articles of RAG on the topic.
http://cross-currents.com/2015/09/18/responding-to-new-open-orthodox-provocations/
http://cross-currents.com/2015/07/20/wish-i-didnt-have-to-but/
http://cross-currents.com/2015/06/15/ordination-of-insubordination/
http://cross-currents.com/2014/07/27/open-orthodoxy-and-the-rebirth-of-the-conservative-movement/
http://cross-currents.com/2011/08/21/yet-more-morethodoxy/
http://cross-currents.com/2013/07/18/from-openness-to-heresy/
I don’t know if one who accepts all the yesodos in emunah, and accepts the mesorah, and accepts the halachic process, and accepts torah min hashamayim, and accepts the authority of chazal, and also believes in ordaining women rabbis makes him automatically C.
I don’t know if one who accepts all the yesodos in emunah, and accepts the mesorah, and accepts the halachic process, and accepts torah min hashamayim, and accepts the authority of chazal, and also rejects saying shelo asani isha makes him automatically C.
I don’t know if one who accepts all the yesodos in emunah, and accepts the mesorah, and accepts the halachic process, and accepts torah min hashamayim, and accepts the authority of chazal, and also supports partnership minyanim makes one automatically C….
But I do know, that if one supports/condones/accepts without criticism ALL of the above ideas from Rabbi Rosenthal’s book and RAG’ articles, then such a movement is definitely Conservative (at best). And indeed it is “ludicrous” to maintain otherwise.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 5:14 am
I am not RHS who certainly relies on Rav Asher Weiss eg according to Rav Shay Schachter reason that RHS stayed in US is that Rabbi Asher Weiss told him to stay in US. When Rav Asher Weiss spoke in our community a few years ago half his speech was praising his talmid Rav Shay. I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish. You apparently pick and choose where you agree with the Rav. So can Rabbi Linzer, etc.Rabbi Linzer at least as big a talmid chacham as we are.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 am
I am merely stating that my statements of where Halacha lemaaseh was in the US 60 years ago is consistent with the writings of Rav Melech Schachter, the Ravs position and certainly if I have been told correctly agreed with those who of Torah leaders from the 50s and 60s . You wish to follow RHS who follows R ASher W, and RMF go ahead- you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
I was surprised to read from Mycroft that Rav Melech Schachter zt”l wrote in an article that the consensus was/is to require a get, since this goes against the reality at the time and goes against the sefer Birur Halacha I cited earlier.
I looked up the article. He wrote no such thing.
Rav M. Schachter was writing a book review of the first two editions of Noam. He discusses a few topics in detail. Then in the 4th section of his article he writes as follows (the parts in italics are a complete direct quote. Nowhere else does he discuss civil marriage in that book review article):
p.160
The following account of all the other problems and solutions, extremely abbreviated, eloquently speaks for the timeliness and utilitarian aspects of the Noam series.
There are many short paragraphs each briefly describing the topics and arguments discussed. The following is one of those paragraphs.
pp. 161-2
Civil Marriages:
Does a couple married civilly require a get in order to dissolve their marital bond?- i.e., is a civil marriage regarded as religiously valid de facto?
On the basis of the established rule that no man wishes to consider his continuous sexual relationship with a woman promiscuous, the marital bond is strong enough to warrant a get for its dissolution. There are some who differ with this viewpoint. They hold that one who does not care for a religious ceremony is not presumed to be troubled by the change that he is living promiscuously all his life-time.
That is it. No discussion of the consensus. Certainly, certainly no discussion of the ‘consensus’ in the US. I looked up the Noam volumes. There is nothing groundbreaking, just a discussion of the shittos. One article argues that CM requires a get. One article argues it doesn’t. One article suggests the Rabbanut should establish exact guidelines. RMS presents the discussions accurately. (There is another essay by Rav Henkin where he is discussing kiddushin al tnai and there he refers to his position that CM requires a get.) Why the writers did not refer to, as far as I saw, Birur Halacha, I don’t know.
(It is quite possible that during the 60s, the more standard psak in the US was to require a get even bedieved (not to make mamzerus but to require a get), but that is because Rav Henkin was the Posek Hador in the US at that time! So, of course his minority position took hold here. However, when RMF came along, he straightened that wobble, and the US custom reverted back to the large consensus around the world of the previous generation as shown in Birur Halacha.)
Mycroft’s claim that RMS write an article portraying he consensus of the 60s, which lasted for 50 years, until the anti-Rav minority view of the RIETS RY came along is just incorrect. We have a written record of Birur Halacha as well as RMF’s psak. In all cases, the rabbonim encourage and try to obtain a get. In the few cases where that is not possible, the RIETS RY follow the consensus, including RMF and present poskei hador, to allow the remarriage. There is nothing in that approach which rejects the Rav. Rabbi Rakeffet doesn’t follow the Rav on Land for Peace (inyanei nefashos), does he also reject the Rav’s legacy? The Rav allowed shaving every day during sefira, RAL did not. He poskened to shave only lekavod shabbos. Is that also a rejection of the Rav’s legacy?! RAL was much less supportive of celebrating Thanksgiving than the Rav was. Is that a rejection of the Rav’s legacy. There are other examples as well.
The CM issue is a machlokes in psak where the Rav is clearly in the minority position, and it is a big, big shaas hadchak, and the psak fits into all klalei hapsak.
Most of the time, the shayla is asked regarding the children from the second marriage, where it is already completely bedieved. And there is no record that the Rav would have poskened that the child is lemaaseh a mamzer. Even Rav Henkin, according to RAS, would not have said that.
So again, Mycroft has attempted, and failed, to create a lot of space between the Rav and RIETS RY. He failed because as I have shown, there is very little space, if any. There is no space regarding approach to halacha and psak and the ikarei ha’das. There might be minimal space regarding some specific psakim.
Therefore, the following underlined sentence, where Mycroft directly compares (really equates) the approach of the RIETS RY (as expressed in this thread by S. Brizel) with the OO leaders, stands out for its utter ludicrousness.
you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
The ‘only’ difference’??!!! Have you read any of RAG’s articles? Have you read Rabbi Rosenthal’s book? They (OO/YCT/supporters of the LBGQT agenda etc…) question/reject many ikarei emunah. They question/reject anything close to the mesorah of psak. They question/reject Torah min hashamayim and certainly they question/reject TSHB”PEh min hashamayim. (See my earlier post for a brief sampling, but see the entire book.) There is no comparison at all between they do and the few times the RIETS RY don’t follow the Rav’s pesakim.
Tragically, the leaders of YCT/OO, in a 100 years (maybe sooner), will go down as the founders of a new non Orthodox, out of the mesorah, movement, just as the R and C leaders have gone down in history.
It is true that Rav Melech Schachter is reviewing the 1958 Forum for the Clarification of Contemporary Halachik Problems. But if you read the whole review in many sections such as Conditional Marriages, RMS writes extensively discussing the issue with American details of Refrm and Conservative,
Note that Rav Melech Schachter introduces the topics including Civil Marriages: The following account of all the other problems and solutions, extremely abbreviated, eloquently speaks for the timeliness and utilitarian aspects of the Noam series.
Thus, I maintain that looking at the articles as a whole it is reasonable that RMS agrees with Noam the way he discusses wo comment. If you want to state a wok that RMS reviews states that is the state of the law that majority opinion civil marriage requires a get fine and good , it is even stronger that the accepted opinion was one that civil marriages would have required a get.
I don’t think that your gloss of the subject article is even remotely accurate. A book review that contrasts differing views was not taking a side .you have misinterpreted the subject article grossly .
Quote to me either Rabbi A Weiss or Rabbi Dov Linzer denying that the Torah was given by God .
If you have a quote and source let me know, the attacks on OO make them martyrs. I ask my current sheilas to a close talmid of RHS and assume he is answering his viewpoint. I would not ask my sheilas to Rabbi Avi Weiss, but that dos not equal his denying Divine Revelation of the Torah.
I think that you grossly minimize the statements made by R Linzer and the wreckage wrought and statements so aptly posted here as to the very problematic statements made bythose prominently identified with the agenda of OO, Y CT and JOFA
I am not a fan of either, but to accuse them of founding a group line CJ show how they reject Torah . Would I likely ask a Sheila of a YCT OO very likely not. I would personally take RHS or one of his good talmidim any day. When I ask a personal Sheila right now likely to be from a talmid of RHS and I would be perfectly content to have him answer my sheilas. However, that has nothing to do with the accusations spread against YCT, OO show how they reject Torah minhashamayim. RAWeiss has never been shy of being quoted and being interviewed show me where he says the Chumash was not from God and man made. Show me where he denies there was a yeziat Mizrayim. Those statements can be found in the CJ Chumash.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 5:14 am
I am not RHS who certainly relies on Rav Asher Weiss eg according to Rav Shay Schachter reason that RHS stayed in US is that Rabbi Asher Weiss told him to stay in US. When Rav Asher Weiss spoke in our community a few years ago half his speech was praising his talmid Rav Shay. I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish. You apparently pick and choose where you agree with the Rav. So can Rabbi Linzer, etc.Rabbi Linzer at least as big a talmid chacham as we are.
Here I will focus n the RAW angle.
Mycroft seems to have an agenda to continually tries to put space between RHS and the Rav where none exists. In response to Mycrofts’s misrepresenting Rav Melech Schachter’s position and building a mountain out of a molehill regarding civil marriage, S. Brizel responded with R Asher Weiss’s psak. (he didn’t know that Mycroft had misrepresented the fact originally). So Mycroft wanted to paint things as if RHS is now with R Asher Weiss (regaridn gcivil MarrIage) and against the 60 year consensus and against the Rav in a big way. In that context Mycroft quoted the story that RHS did not make aliyah now because he is litsening to R Asher Weiss, as if RHS has moved away from the Rav and to R Asher Weiss, and, this is the implication, this is part of RHS being different than the Rav.
The entire point is wrong. RHS often mentions from the Rav the mashal of a captain not leaving a sinking ship. This is his impression of one reason why the Rav never left the US. We know the Rav wanted rabbonim to stay in the US because they had work to do there. (He was very against, at least originally, RAL making aliyah. That is well known.) RHS has stayed in the US for so many years largely for the same reason, again as a direct hemshech of the Rav’s exact approach. And Mycroft is using that as another wedge between them??
RHS is a great anav. It is normal for even great gedolim to ask eitzah from those even greater, in their eyes, than they. So it is quite possible RHS consulted with RAW about aliyah recently, and RAW counseled against it, and RHS agreed. This can be checked out. But that has nothing to do with moving away from the Rav.
A parallel example. When RAL made aliyah, he became a close follower of RSZ Aurebach. And especially after the Rav was weak and not functioning normally, RAL went to RSZA for guidance and pskak. He was also a tremendous anav, like RHS is. For example, one of RAL’s children got married (in the 80s) when RAL was in aveilus. And RAL said publically that his nihug at the wedding regarding dancing etc… was based on a direct psak from RSZA. (I don’t remember what the specific psak was.) Similarly, as mentioned earlier, RAL didn’t agree fully with the Rav’s psak on shaving during sefira/three weeks. He allowed only lekavod shabbos. But there was a time period of at least several years, when RAL did not shave even lekavod shabbos during the three weeks. He explained that RSZA told him he should not shave, because ‘the three weeks are considered an extension of the 9 days’. So RAL went even further from the Rav’s psak due to RSZA. (It is quite interesting that RSZA did NOT tell him to change his custom for sefira…) Would Mycroft say or imply that RAL ‘is not following the Rav’ either because he began to follow RSZA. That is ridiculous. And RAL was certainly a big enough gadol to pasken these issues for himself. Yet, as great gedolim do, he was nichna to someone he viewed as even greater…
That is exactly what haoppened with RHS and RAW. It means nothing, literally nothing regarding RHS staying firmly with the Rav’s legacy. He is completely with the Rav on the yesodos, and very very close to the Rav in his psakim. Here and there, he may disagree, as is the derech with great talmidim of a great rebbe.
This comment was supposed to precede the previous one where I mention ‘misrepresented’.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 5:14 am
I am not RHS who certainly relies on Rav Asher Weiss eg according to Rav Shay Schachter reason that RHS stayed in US is that Rabbi Asher Weiss told him to stay in US. When Rav Asher Weiss spoke in our community a few years ago half his speech was praising his talmid Rav Shay. I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish. You apparently pick and choose where you agree with the Rav. So can Rabbi Linzer, etc.Rabbi Linzer at least as big a talmid chacham as we are.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 am
I am merely stating that my statements of where Halacha lemaaseh was in the US 60 years ago is consistent with the writings of Rav Melech Schachter, the Ravs position and certainly if I have been told correctly agreed with those who of Torah leaders from the 50s and 60s . You wish to follow RHS who follows R ASher W, and RMF go ahead- you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
I was surprised to read from Mycroft that Rav Melech Schachter zt”l wrote in an article that the consensus was/is to require a get, since this goes against the reality at the time and goes against the sefer Birur Halacha I cited earlier.
I looked up the article. He wrote no such thing.
Rav M. Schachter was writing a book review of the first two editions of Noam. He discusses a few topics in detail. Then in the 4th section of his article he writes as follows (the parts in italics are a complete direct quote. Nowhere else does he discuss civil marriage in that book review article):
p.160
The following account of all the other problems and solutions, extremely abbreviated, eloquently speaks for the timeliness and utilitarian aspects of the Noam series.
There are many short paragraphs each briefly describing the topics and arguments discussed. The following is one of those paragraphs.
pp. 161-2
Civil Marriages:
Does a couple married civilly require a get in order to dissolve their marital bond?- i.e., is a civil marriage regarded as religiously valid de facto?
On the basis of the established rule that no man wishes to consider his continuous sexual relationship with a woman promiscuous, the marital bond is strong enough to warrant a get for its dissolution. There are some who differ with this viewpoint. They hold that one who does not care for a religious ceremony is not presumed to be troubled by the change that he is living promiscuously all his life-time.
That is it. No discussion of the consensus. Certainly, certainly no discussion of the ‘consensus’ in the US. I looked up the Noam volumes. There is nothing groundbreaking, just a discussion of the shittos. One article argues that CM requires a get. One article argues it doesn’t. One article suggests the Rabbanut should establish exact guidelines. RMS presents the discussions accurately. (There is another essay by Rav Henkin where he is discussing kiddushin al tnai and there he refers to his position that CM requires a get.) Why the writers did not refer to, as far as I saw, Birur Halacha, I don’t know.
(It is quite possible that during the 60s, the more standard psak in the US was to require a get even bedieved (not to make mamzerus but to require a get), but that is because Rav Henkin was the Posek Hador in the US at that time! So, of course his minority position took hold here. However, when RMF came along, he straightened that wobble, and the US custom reverted back to the large consensus around the world of the previous generation as shown in Birur Halacha.)
Mycroft’s claim that RMS write an article portraying he consensus of the 60s, which lasted for 50 years, until the anti-Rav minority view of the RIETS RY came along is just incorrect. We have a written record of Birur Halacha as well as RMF’s psak. In all cases, the rabbonim encourage and try to obtain a get. In the few cases where that is not possible, the RIETS RY follow the consensus, including RMF and present poskei hador, to allow the remarriage. There is nothing in that approach which rejects the Rav. Rabbi Rakeffet doesn’t follow the Rav on Land for Peace (inyanei nefashos), does he also reject the Rav’s legacy? The Rav allowed shaving every day during sefira, RAL did not. He poskened to shave only lekavod shabbos. Is that also a rejection of the Rav’s legacy?! RAL was much less supportive of celebrating Thanksgiving than the Rav was. Is that a rejection of the Rav’s legacy. There are other examples as well.
The CM issue is a machlokes in psak where the Rav is clearly in the minority position, and it is a big, big shaas hadchak, and the psak fits into all klalei hapsak.
Most of the time, the shayla is asked regarding the children from the second marriage, where it is already completely bedieved. And there is no record that the Rav would have poskened that the child is lemaaseh a mamzer. Even Rav Henkin, according to RAS, would not have said that.
So again, Mycroft has attempted, and failed, to create a lot of space between the Rav and RIETS RY. He failed because as I have shown, there is very little space, if any. There is no space regarding approach to halacha and psak and the ikarei ha’das. There might be minimal space regarding some specific psakim.
Therefore, the following underlined sentence, where Mycroft directly compares (really equates) the approach of the RIETS RY (as expressed in this thread by S. Brizel) with the OO leaders, stands out for its utter ludicrousness.
you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
The ‘only’ difference’??!!! Have you read any of RAG’s articles? Have you read Rabbi Rosenthal’s book? They (OO/YCT/supporters of the LBGQT agenda etc…) question/reject many ikarei emunah. They question/reject anything close to the mesorah of psak. They question/reject Torah min hashamayim and certainly they question/reject TSHB”PEh min hashamayim. (See my earlier post for a brief sampling, but see the entire book.) There is no comparison at all between they do and the few times the RIETS RY don’t follow the Rav’s pesakim.
Tragically, the leaders of YCT/OO, in a 100 years (maybe sooner), will go down as the founders of a new non Orthodox, out of the mesorah, movement, just as the R and C leaders have gone down in history.
This should precede the previous post where I mention ‘misrepresent.’
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 5:14 am
I am not RHS who certainly relies on Rav Asher Weiss eg according to Rav Shay Schachter reason that RHS stayed in US is that Rabbi Asher Weiss told him to stay in US. When Rav Asher Weiss spoke in our community a few years ago half his speech was praising his talmid Rav Shay. I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish. You apparently pick and choose where you agree with the Rav. So can Rabbi Linzer, etc.Rabbi Linzer at least as big a talmid chacham as we are.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 am
I am merely stating that my statements of where Halacha lemaaseh was in the US 60 years ago is consistent with the writings of Rav Melech Schachter, the Ravs position and certainly if I have been told correctly agreed with those who of Torah leaders from the 50s and 60s . You wish to follow RHS who follows R ASher W, and RMF go ahead- you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
I was surprised to read from Mycroft that Rav Melech Schachter zt”l wrote in an article that the consensus was/is to require a get, since this goes against the reality at the time and goes against the sefer Birur Halacha I cited earlier.
I looked up the article. He wrote no such thing.
Rav M. Schachter was writing a book review of the first two editions of Noam. He discusses a few topics in detail. Then in the 4th section of his article he writes as follows (the parts in italics are a complete direct quote. Nowhere else does he discuss civil marriage in that book review article):
p.160
The following account of all the other problems and solutions, extremely abbreviated, eloquently speaks for the timeliness and utilitarian aspects of the Noam series.
There are many short paragraphs each briefly describing the topics and arguments discussed. The following is one of those paragraphs.
pp. 161-2
Civil Marriages:
Does a couple married civilly require a get in order to dissolve their marital bond?- i.e., is a civil marriage regarded as religiously valid de facto?
On the basis of the established rule that no man wishes to consider his continuous sexual relationship with a woman promiscuous, the marital bond is strong enough to warrant a get for its dissolution. There are some who differ with this viewpoint. They hold that one who does not care for a religious ceremony is not presumed to be troubled by the change that he is living promiscuously all his life-time.
That is it. No discussion of the consensus. Certainly, certainly no discussion of the ‘consensus’ in the US. I looked up the Noam volumes. There is nothing groundbreaking, just a discussion of the shittos. One article argues that CM requires a get. One article argues it doesn’t. One article suggests the Rabbanut should establish exact guidelines. RMS presents the discussions accurately. (There is another essay by Rav Henkin where he is discussing kiddushin al tnai and there he refers to his position that CM requires a get.) Why the writers did not refer to, as far as I saw, Birur Halacha, I don’t know.
(It is quite possible that during the 60s, the more standard psak in the US was to require a get even bedieved (not to make mamzerus but to require a get), but that is because Rav Henkin was the Posek Hador in the US at that time! So, of course his minority position took hold here. However, when RMF came along, he straightened that wobble, and the US custom reverted back to the large consensus around the world of the previous generation as shown in Birur Halacha.)
Mycroft’s claim that RMS write an article portraying he consensus of the 60s, which lasted for 50 years, until the anti-Rav minority view of the RIETS RY came along is just incorrect. We have a written record of Birur Halacha as well as RMF’s psak. In all cases, the rabbonim encourage and try to obtain a get. In the few cases where that is not possible, the RIETS RY follow the consensus, including RMF and present poskei hador, to allow the remarriage. There is nothing in that approach which rejects the Rav. Rabbi Rakeffet doesn’t follow the Rav on Land for Peace (inyanei nefashos), does he also reject the Rav’s legacy? The Rav allowed shaving every day during sefira, RAL did not. He poskened to shave only lekavod shabbos. Is that also a rejection of the Rav’s legacy?! RAL was much less supportive of celebrating Thanksgiving than the Rav was. Is that a rejection of the Rav’s legacy. There are other examples as well.
The CM issue is a machlokes in psak where the Rav is clearly in the minority position, and it is a big, big shaas hadchak, and the psak fits into all klalei hapsak.
Most of the time, the shayla is asked regarding the children from the second marriage, where it is already completely bedieved. And there is no record that the Rav would have poskened that the child is lemaaseh a mamzer. Even Rav Henkin, according to RAS, would not have said that.
So again, Mycroft has attempted, and failed, to create a lot of space between the Rav and RIETS RY. He failed because as I have shown, there is very little space, if any. There is no space regarding approach to halacha and psak and the ikarei ha’das. There might be minimal space regarding some specific psakim.
Therefore, the following underlined sentence, where Mycroft directly compares (really equates) the approach of the RIETS RY (as expressed in this thread by S. Brizel) with the OO leaders, stands out for its utter ludicrousness.
you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
The ‘only’ difference’??!!! Have you read any of RAG’s articles? Have you read Rabbi Rosenthal’s book? They (OO/YCT/supporters of the LBGQT agenda etc…) question/reject many ikarei emunah. They question/reject anything close to the mesorah of psak. They question/reject Torah min hashamayim and certainly they question/reject TSHB”PEh min hashamayim. (See my earlier post for a brief sampling, but see the entire book.) There is no comparison at all between they do and the few times the RIETS RY don’t follow the Rav’s pesakim.
Tragically, the leaders of YCT/OO, in a 100 years (maybe sooner), will go down as the founders of a new non Orthodox, out of the mesorah, movement, just as the R and C leaders have gone down in history.
I did not write the story of RHS asking RAW about Aliyah as an attack on RHS for not living in Israel. Show me a case where I have ever attacked someone who lives outside of Israel, I live outside of Israel. I brought the story of asking R Asher Weiss merely to show how close RHS s to RAW. Certainly Rav Shay Schachter is extremely close to RAsher Weiss. When Rav Weiss spoke at the schul where where Rav Shay Schachter is head of beis Medrash , he spent a goo portion of speech prising RSS. Certainly relevant that Rav Weiss and RHS have a mutual respect for each other.
Mycroft wrote in part:
“Certainly relevant that Rav Weiss and RHS have a mutual respect for each other.”
Great Talmidei Chachamim tend to do so.What is your point?
I was at the same shiur. R Asher Weiss briefly thanked R Shay Schachter and proceeded to speak in halacha and drush about the Nine Days.as he did last year also to a packed shul
Unlike some I don’t try and guess what the Rav would have paskenend in the case of the status of a child born to women having relations wo a get after a Reform marriage – I am simply reporting what the Rav paskenend that even in the case where she was safek “Jewish” by a Reform conversion, she would require at least a get me safek after being married by a Reform Rabbi.
Your argument that standard Halacha was that civil marriage would not require a get except for Rav Henkin is undercut by your emphasis that RMS is just citing viewpoint of Noam an Israeli publication, if so it is even stronger evidence that standard Halacha not just US was not like Rav Moshe.
Re the Rav not leaving US because a captain and a hip, not clear. The Rav in the 1930s tried out for CR of TA. For US I am glad that he didn’t get it.
I personally have no doubt that the Rav would be much closer to the RY of RIETS than YCT or OO. That does not mean that there ain’t differences between him and them. I don’t see the big issue in recognizing reality, the Rav as certainly much more different than Rav Chaim Brisker than HS talmidim RIETS RY are different form him. They are their own people and can do what they want as can anyone, no one is required to follow anyone.
To pretend that the answers to the Rav aRe exclusively found in any source is misleading, one must interpret reports of statements in conjunction with the Ravs known actions and actions of institutions that he X trolled during his active lifetime. What is controversial about that.
Re RAL although much closer in hashkafa to the Rav than the RY we are talking about, RAL never made any misleading statements that he was following the Rav when he wasn’t. RAL openly stated that in addition to the Rav he was influenced by Rav Hutner and Rav A SOloveichik.
that RAL did not follow the Rav in personal psak, irrelevant to our issues, Rav. I Twersky very close to his father in law , he and his family did not eat in the Succah n Shmeini Azeret, did not of course eat gebrocks on Seder night or any day before 8th day of Pesach. But I have never heard or read anyone suggesting that either of his SILs or children are not totall reliable about referring accurately about the Rav.
There is a simple reason for why R Y Twersky ZL did not eat in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres or eat gebrochts-Almost anyone who considers himself to have Chasidishe antecedents does not do so.
Re wedding wo a get, my point is simply that it is clear that the Ravs viewpoint was that a get was required and that he disagreed with RMF. It is my impression that was the standard viewpoint, when learning Kiddushin late 60s my recollection of civil marriage was discussed in passing and Halacha was accepted that a get was required, obviously YU has changed, that is my total point. It can change on a crucial matter of getting married wo a get which is much more important than any other issue a can think of.
Debating the issue, is beyond CC. The Halachik issue,the historical issue is of importance when people quote the Rav against OO.
How would you personally know whether and how much as to what changes have taken place if by your own comments you admit that you have rarely been on campus since the 1960s?
A relatively new book on the Rav which I am currently reading is The Last Rabbi by William Kolbrener. In it page 129 he quotes Prof Kaplan and Alan Yuter for roughly similar ideas that the Rav has become for various groups and camps “a culturally validating icon” often with radically different agendas. The task is to avoid the simplification of both the left and the right. It is a distortion to treat the Rav as either only a Brisker who was engaged in the classical Yeshivs world as well as a distortion to only emphasize his commitment to Western philosophy.
I would add my viewpoint that one in evaluating the Rav must if concerned about what the Rav would do is look at what he did, and what institutions that clearly followed him did,eg Maimonides School, RCA Halachik Commission , RCA policies during. 40s to 1980. It was by 1984 when they asked other RY for an answer that clearly Rav was no longer being followed.
Prof Alan Brill has his lectures on Modern Orthodoxy from about a decade ago on YU Torah. In them, someplace around lectures 13-18 or so IIRC correctly he deals with the Tshuva of RHS and how it was a change from what he calls MO to Centrism. He briefly discusses some of the changes of RHS from what was before.
Who says that Dr Grill is authoritative? I think that he engages in selective censorship on his blog and that many of the articles there are indicative of his biased and POV as opposed to understanding what prompted the teshuva of the RY in the first place,namely the Trojan horse like infiltration of feminism into legitimacy within certain sectors of MO.
Regarding the absurdity that Mycroft repeats repeatedly that RHS has “turned his back” on the Rav and his legacy…
It pays to consider the fact that without RHS, the Rav wouldn’t even have much of a Torah legacy. Almost all the Torah that we know from the Rav, we know exclusively through RHS – namely Nefesh Harav, Mipninei Harav, Divrei Harav, the entire Shiurei Harav series (from RHS notes) including Tisha B’av/aveilus, Yoreh Deah, Challah, Sanhedrin, Gittin. Then there are RHS published notes on Kiddushin, Shabbos, Psachim/RH/Megilla/Sefer Torah, and Gittin again, all the numerous Mesorah journals, plus his citation of Torah from the Rav in so many of the shiurim he gives.
RHS is the person who has made it his life’s mission to transmit the Torah of the Rav and he has been wildly successful. Without RHS, all we would have of the Rav’s torah is the Igros and chiddushei Hagram vehagrid (certainly remarkable quality), but we would have virtually nothing form his 40 years of shiurim. There’s also the philosophy stuff that he self-published like Isha Hahalacha etc., but that’s not ba bacheshbon of his Torah legacy…the importance of his philosophical legacy is only a fraction of that of his Torah legacy.
Something for you to consider before embarking on yet another ridiculous attack against RHS…
As far as turning back on legacy I am simply quoting Dr Tovah Lichtenstein who wrote the phrase in 2012 about some current RY talmidim of the Rav who have done that. does the shoe fit?
i have written that RHS is a leading talmid chacham who has a right to ave his own opinion and be different than his Rebbe. The Rav had many talmidim who are different, what makes the argument contentious is language like without RHS the Rav would not have much of a Torah legacy. The over exaggeration by supporters of RHS is beyond belief.
There is no doubt assuming accuracy of notes that RHS is a major source of what the Rav said in shiur. Certainly, we can be thankful that he is publicizing his notes which of course are not stenographic, court reporter style of many of the Ravs shiurim
Your comments about the Rav are much worse than anything I have said about RHS ” also the philosophy stuff that he self published” like Ish Hahalacha.
you are making a value judgement which either intentionally or not would succeed in marginalizing the Rav as an influence today.
“As far as turning back on legacy I am simply quoting Dr Tovah Lichtenstein who wrote the phrase in 2012 about some current RY talmidim of the Rav who have done that. does the shoe fit?”
No, it doesn’t. and you know very well she she was referring to, yet you insist on repeating this canard against RHS.
“contentious is language like without RHS the Rav would not have much of a Torah legacy. The over exaggeration by supporters of RHS is beyond belief.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, and I know it pains you to face the reality of the situation (which, to repeat, is that without RHS, we would know very little of the Rav’s Torah), but there’s no exaggeration here. Pop quiz: Can you tell me anything that the Rav ever said in shiur before 1957? I didn’t think so.
“Certainly, we can be thankful that he is publicizing his notes which of course are not stenographic, court reporter style of many of the Ravs shiurim”
Correct, they are not stenographic. However, the alternative to RHS notes is…
“you are making a value judgement”
Of course I’m making a value judgment. and I believe 100% that the Rav would make the same value judgment…that all his philosophy stuff is a mere handmaiden to his Torah, lomdus and gemara shiurim. I don’t imagine that any talmid chacham would make a different judgment. Whether or not that value judgment would marginalize the Rav as an influence is lo maaleh velo morid, if it would marginalize his influence, so be it. I’m not interested in predetermining my value judgments so that they result in more influence for the Rav.
Again, I know it pains you to hear this, but without RHS, the Rav’s torah legacy would be a fraction of what it is. You should try to be honest with yourself and everyone else and admit the truth of that statement.
You are defining Torah legacy as what he said in shiur. That is where we fundamentally disagree, I believe his positions lemaaseh and his hashkafa are more relevant than chakiras he would give in shiur to what he old have defined as the proper behavior and actions of Anerican JEwry . That is not to take away from his position as a master melamed similar to his Grandfather.
of interest as to why before RHS there aren’t that many of his shiurim published is the following story. In the 40s he once met Rav Ruderman in a train, and Rav Ruderman tells him how impressed he was about what he heard the Rav said in shiur. The Rav replied that is not what he said, and the Rav came to his shiur and told the talmidim what right did you have to tell my Torah outside of shiur. There s no secret the Rav wrote all his lectures out in long hand and thus could have if he so desired to publishes shiurim. He didn’t. The articles that he published were his choice and edited by him.
“You are defining Torah legacy as what he said in shiur. That is where we fundamentally disagree, I believe his positions lemaaseh and his hashkafa are more relevant than chakiras he would give in shiur to what he old have defined as the proper behavior and actions of Anerican JEwry .”
I guess you are right. I’m not so interested in what’s “relevant”. His gadlus was in his shiurim, not in his poitions lemaase or his leadership of American Jewry. Truth be told, as a leader, he was right about many things, but he also made many mistakes. There is no question (at least in my mind) that his shiurim and chiddushim are his Torah legacy.
It seems that this reflects an even more fundamental divergence between us, namely that I place far more value on chiddushim/shiurim/lomdus than you do; to you it seems to be that it’s “just a bunch of chakiras.” That being the case, it’s no wonder that you and Steve have had this years-long ongoing machlokes with no resolution. I think I just got to the bottom of it.
That story doesn’t explain anything. Of course the Rav published what he wanted. But where are all the shiurim that he gave between 1941 and 1957? Why has no one ever heard/seen/cited them? Why did no talmidim print anything from those shiurim? It’s only from 1957 and on that we have any idea what the Rav said in shiur. Hmm…
Response to RealityCheck March 27 916AM
in blogs we are arguing policy, and there are certainly many times the Rav has been cited by those opposing OO YCT etc, in engaging in discussions of policies. In those cases it is certainly relevant how the Rav acted lemaaseh.
You write objectively about the Rav in a way that Most don’t even write about RHS ‘ he also made many mistakes” language that is certainly OK by one not claiming to follow the Rav. Certainly, if one believes that the Rav made many mistakes one would believe his shiurim are his true legacy. Certainly, if one believes that the Ravs leadership was not a positive and not his Gadlus and rejects the Ravs positions for those of RHS fine but just don’t claim that those not following the Rav are violating Yahadus. They have as much right as anyone not to follow the Rav. Obviously even one of the Ravs better talmidim doesn’t feel obligated to follow the Rav.
The reasons why many would not have reproduced the Ravs shiurim from notes from before 1957 could be many which I have mentioned before. I would add that talmidim were aware that the Rav had his notes in longhand and thus would be very reluctant of producing lecture notes wo the Ravs permission.
Thus , I do believe that his lemaaseh and what he did in his positions are the most relevant for deciding what actions we should do. This does not take away one iota for the importance of his shiurim following the best of classical learning and chiddushim. There is no doubt the Rav was a master marbeitz Torah but when discussing his opinions of policy, hashkafic matters his shiurim in get is not where you’ll find it.,
Reality Check, I agree that his shiurim on talmud were his major legacy. that said, that may not be what he wanted published. his shiurim were (partially) meant to train talmidim and things said in shiur may not have met his standard for publication. in time, future generations of scholars/talmidei chachamim may work to prepare more of his torah for publication.
there are a number of examples where the Rav ztl addressed a topic from various perspectives, without relating his chidushim in each to each other. A work doing that would require intense effort, something not yet undertaken and perhaps it never will.
Thanks for your invaluable comments. It is important to note that until R Chaim Ozer ZL urged R Velvel ZL and R Moshe ZL to publish the Chiddushei R Cham al HaRambam, nothing had been written in R Chaim Brisker’s lifetime. RYBS knew that there were tapes and videos made of his shiurim and drashos and described the reluctance to publish as a family mallady. There was no such prohibition on the disssemination of the same from the 1950s through the 1970s. The question isn’t why haven’t other such tapes been entrusted to anyone for editing and publishing and completelty unproven claims as to their condition, but rather we should be applauding those who have published something that represents the Torah of RYBS.
Dr Bill :
Re the Ravs legacy- there is no doubt that similar to his grandfather Rav Chaim he would have described himself as someone who taught a little Torah. In YU I would guess during his four decades of active shiurim he taught between 1000-2000 talmidim.
however, in terms of influence it was because of the uniqueness of the Rav that according to Prof Waxman who once wrote that there would not have really been an MO in the US wo his influence
It has been a few decades but I recall for starters both a Time Magazine and NYTimes feature on the Rav. It is his influence which obviously caused the articles. One can see how his influence during the time period existed that his position re activities like the SCA were the Ous and RCA s position, counter to essentially all the other gedolim in the US.
i believe that wo his influence one does not really find the MO left in the US that one has in Israel today. A half a century or so ago when you were in his shiur that was not the case.
There simply would not have been a vibrant MO wo him. Of course that does not mean that he necessarily would have agreed with all the details of those advocating those positions, but wo the Rav in North America that would not have been a viable position.
Take a look at any daf Gemara-when the Baalei Tosfos refer to Rashi as Perush HaKuntres-are the Baalei Tosfos referring to “stenographic, court reporter style” of what was transmitted to them as such?
The recent NCSY highlights journal had a simply wonderful interview with RHS about Linus HaTorah his years as an adolescent in MTA his years in RYBS shiur the difference between his talmidim of earlier years and today the influence of the gap year and why he choose to be a talmid of RYBS and stay in RIETS as opposed to BMG in its early years under RAK. Simply reading for all and especially those posters who think that RHS is not a talmid neeman uvasik of RYBS. For those interested, please see the annexed link.//ncsy.org/ignite/ F
The above post was mine.
This should precede the previous post where I mention ‘misrepresent.’
I don’t see this in the thread, it seems it wasn’t posted. If it was already, I apologize.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 5:14 am
I am not RHS who certainly relies on Rav Asher Weiss eg according to Rav Shay Schachter reason that RHS stayed in US is that Rabbi Asher Weiss told him to stay in US. When Rav Asher Weiss spoke in our community a few years ago half his speech was praising his talmid Rav Shay. I am simply stating that RIETS RY are not following the psak of the Rav in ishut. A psak that the Rav was concerned about eishes Ish. You apparently pick and choose where you agree with the Rav. So can Rabbi Linzer, etc.Rabbi Linzer at least as big a talmid chacham as we are.
1. mycroft says:
March 22, 2017 at 8:36 am
I am merely stating that my statements of where Halacha lemaaseh was in the US 60 years ago is consistent with the writings of Rav Melech Schachter, the Ravs position and certainly if I have been told correctly agreed with those who of Torah leaders from the 50s and 60s . You wish to follow RHS who follows R ASher W, and RMF go ahead- you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
I was surprised to read from Mycroft that Rav Melech Schachter zt”l wrote in an article that the consensus was/is to require a get, since this goes against the reality at the time and goes against the sefer Birur Halacha I cited earlier.
I looked up the article. He wrote no such thing.
Rav M. Schachter was writing a book review of the first two editions of Noam. He discusses a few topics in detail. Then in the 4th section of his article he writes as follows (the parts in italics are a complete direct quote. Nowhere else does he discuss civil marriage in that book review article):
p.160
The following account of all the other problems and solutions, extremely abbreviated, eloquently speaks for the timeliness and utilitarian aspects of the Noam series.
There are many short paragraphs each briefly describing the topics and arguments discussed. The following is one of those paragraphs.
pp. 161-2
Civil Marriages:
Does a couple married civilly require a get in order to dissolve their marital bond?- i.e., is a civil marriage regarded as religiously valid de facto?
On the basis of the established rule that no man wishes to consider his continuous sexual relationship with a woman promiscuous, the marital bond is strong enough to warrant a get for its dissolution. There are some who differ with this viewpoint. They hold that one who does not care for a religious ceremony is not presumed to be troubled by the change that he is living promiscuously all his life-time.
That is it. No discussion of the consensus. Certainly, certainly no discussion of the ‘consensus’ in the US. I looked up the Noam volumes. There is nothing groundbreaking, just a discussion of the shittos. One article argues that CM requires a get. One article argues it doesn’t. One article suggests the Rabbanut should establish exact guidelines. RMS presents the discussions accurately. (There is another essay by Rav Henkin where he is discussing kiddushin al tnai and there he refers to his position that CM requires a get.) Why the writers did not refer to, as far as I saw, Birur Halacha, I don’t know.
(It is quite possible that during the 60s, the more standard psak in the US was to require a get even bedieved (not to make mamzerus but to require a get), but that is because Rav Henkin was the Posek Hador in the US at that time! So, of course his minority position took hold here. However, when RMF came along, he straightened that wobble, and the US custom reverted back to the large consensus around the world of the previous generation as shown in Birur Halacha. So there was never a consensus in the US supporting RH. He was the biggest posek so his position was followed. There was a consensus around the world that civil marriage did not require a get, as proven from Birur Halacha. RMF’s psak brought the US back in line with the normative psak. And there is ni evidence the Arv would have poskened the children were mamzerim bedieved. )
Mycroft’s claim that RMS write an article portraying he consensus of the 60s, which lasted for 50 years, until the anti-Rav minority view of the RIETS RY came along is just factually incorrect. We have a written record of Birur Halacha as well as RMF’s psak. In all cases, the rabbonim encourage and try to obtain a get. In the few cases where that is not possible, the RIETS RY follow the consensus, including RMF and present poskei hador, to allow the remarriage. There is nothing in that approach which rejects the Rav. Rabbi Rakeffet doesn’t follow the Rav on Land for Peace (inyanei nefashos), does he also reject the Rav’s legacy? The Rav allowed shaving every day during sefira, RAL did not. He poskened to shave only lekavod shabbos. Is that also a rejection of the Rav’s legacy?! RAL was much less supportive of celebrating Thanksgiving than the Rav was. Is that a rejection of the Rav’s legacy. There are other examples as well.
The CM issue is a machlokes in psak where the Rav is clearly in the minority position, and it is a big, big shaas hadchak, and the psak fits into all klalei hapsak.
Most of the time, the shayla is asked regarding the children from the second marriage, where it is already completely bedieved. And there is no record that the Rav would have poskened that the child is lemaaseh a mamzer. Even Rav Henkin, according to RAS, would not have said that.
So again, Mycroft has attempted, and failed, to create a lot of space between the Rav and RIETS RY. He failed because as I have shown, there is very little space, if any. There is no space regarding approach to halacha and psak and the ikarei ha’das. There might be minimal space regarding some specific psakim.
RMT has written that the Rav agreed with RHS’s teshuva of 1984. I explained at length the reality of why there is a perception that RHS moved away from the Rav. It is an incorrect perception. I will not repeat the entire piece here. There was no shift from MO to Centrism. There was a radical shift in feminism which required the leadership of the Rav to respond to, but he was too weak, so RHS took up the mantle and wrote the teshuva which turned out to have been nearly prophetic, r”l.
Therefore, the following underlined sentence, where Mycroft directly compares (really equates) the approach of the RIETS RY (as expressed in this thread by S. Brizel) with the OO leaders, stands out for its utter ludicrousness.
you just like the people who are being attacked from OO are choosing what of the Rav they agree with. They like you also state 2017 is not 1960s, the only difference is who they follow, you follow RHS they don’t. But neither follow the Rav.
The ‘only’ difference’??!!! Have you read any of RAG’s articles? Have you read Rabbi Rosenthal’s book? They (OO/YCT/supporters of the LBGQT agenda etc…) question/reject many ikarei emunah. They question/reject anything close to the mesorah of psak. They question/reject Torah min hashamayim and certainly they question/reject TSHB”PEh min hashamayim. (See my earlier post for a brief sampling, but see the entire book.) There is no comparison at all between they do and the few times the RIETS RY don’t follow the Rav’s pesakim.
Tragically, the leaders of YCT/OO, in a 100 years (maybe sooner), will go down as the founders of a new non Orthodox, out of the mesorah, movement, just as the R and C leaders have gone down in history.
Thanks for your prodigious research on this and related issues
Mycroft you wrote thatbfeminism did not require a yeharog Val yavor response. Let me suggest why you are mistaken . any movement that aims to destroy the conventional Jewish family and viewed the same as a comfortable concentration camp deserves a strongly well thought out and vociferously nnegative rejection as being inconsistent with Yahadus.
Response to Mycroft March 27 5:51
“in blogs we are arguing policy”
No, you are arguing policy. I am simply dismissing your oft-repeated claim that “RHS has turned his back on the Rav’s legacy” as entirely absurd, by noting that RHS is single-handedly responsible for the majority of the Rav’s legacy. You and Steve can continue to argue policy if you want. I’m just trying to get you to stop your canard against RHS.
“but just don’t claim that those not following the Rav are violating Yahadus. They have as much right as anyone not to follow the Rav.”
Nobody is claiming that they are “violating Yahadus” because they’re not following the Rav. They are violating Yahadus because they’re not following anybody. Stop conflating the issues.
“The reasons why many would not have reproduced the Ravs shiurim from notes from before 1957 could be many which I have mentioned before. I would add that talmidim were aware that the Rav had his notes in longhand and thus would be very reluctant of producing lecture notes wo the Ravs permission.”
Allow me to rephrase my point – the exact reason why there is nothing from before 1957 is not germane. The point is that there is nothing from before 1957- when RHS became a talmid – that RHS is almost single-handedly responsible for the Rav’s Torah legacy. Almost all that we have is from RHS. We can theorize about why that is so – but it doesn’t change the fact that RHS is responsible for the Rav’s torah legacy.
If you have anything from before 1957, please do us all a favor and publish it, I would love it, I would be extremely happy to see any of the Rav’s earlier torah. And maybe then you might appreciate all the work that RHS has done to perpetuate the Rav’s legacy.
I am aware of an attempt o find notes of earlier shiurim by the Rav a couple of years ago, I don’t know if the attempt is still in process,. Different talmidim have different styles of notes and probably most if not substantially all may be from talmidim who have gone to yeshiva shel Malah. It would be a difficult task.
Nu, let’s see you put something out, difficult task or not.
Put your money where your mouth is – let’s see you actually contribute something to the Rav’s legacy rather than just constantly running down and badmouthing those who have.
I am not the one who has at least some of the notebooks.
Who is the one who has at least some of the notebooks?
I am aware of who the person is, but since I have not seen the activity being advertised in public, there is a sad good chance that they couldn’t find notebooks with copious notes enough to reconstruct a shiur . Most notes are not good enough to reconstruct a shiur. It has been about two years since I last heard of the attempt.
I recall that RHS urged in a public hesped at the YIKGH in 1993 that talmidim who had notes of shiurim of RYBS should provide the same for publication.
There are different styles of notes, some are much easier to translate into publishable works. WO the people who took the notes and combined with people who may not have as good memories as RHS it is difficult to have accurate notes. Think about it those from early 40s if alive would be in upper 90s by now.
Excuses, excuses…
The bottom line is that you’re not doing anything for the Rav’s legacy, (because it’s too “difficult”) aside from complaining incessantly on blogs about RHS.
Do I have that right?
Try thinking about this before you launch into another one of your ever-present harangues against RHS.
There are people attempting precisely that who far more capable than I to try and publish earlier shiurim.
i have written many times that RHS is a very good source, but that is far from the only source depending especially which aspect of the Rav one is interested in.