Haredi Spokesman Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum Compares Rabbi Haim Druckman To Non-Orthodox Clergy

Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum used to stand out among haredi spokesmen (there are no spokeswomen) for his honesty. But, as haredi positions have grown harder and more extreme, Rosenblum has been forced to…

… forgo his honesty and opt for heavy, disingenuous spin.

We first saw this last year when Rosenblum misrepresented the circumstances surrounding the Langer case, and used that misrepresentation to promote the haredi cause.

Now, Rosenblum does the same with today's conversion crisis:

…Needless to say, most mainstream journalists are totally lacking the ability to read, much less evaluate, the halachic sources upon which the Rabbinical High Court based its decision, and could care less about the halachic issues involved. As a consequence, they placed a decision about a halachic issue onto a template more congenial to them, and reported it like a sports match or political contest: In this corner the "tolerant" Rabbi Druckman, and in the other corner "hard-hearted" haredi judges engaged, as always, in ruthless power grabs.

Even on its own terms, the World Wrestling Federation metaphor cannot be sustained. Rabbi Avraham Sherman, author of the Rabbinical High Court decision, served for many years as an IDF rabbi, and once spent a sabbatical at Yeshiva University, the flagship institution of modern Orthodoxy.

Another one of the judges graduated the national religious hesder system. Finally, the High Court's decision was endorsed by the European Conference of Rabbis, hardly a haredi organization…

Jonathan Rosenblum grew up in a non-Orthodox American Jewish home. Does that mean his current views represent the Bund or Conservative Judaism? Of course not.

Further, both rabbis in question are now haredi. They are both – especially Avraham Sherman – close to Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, the haredi leader behind the conversion crisis.

And, despite Rosenblum's assertion to the contrary, the European Conference of Rabbis is largely haredi.

As for Israeli journalists' ability to read rabbinic teshuvot, the rabbinic court could alleviate this problem (which extends to the vast majority of haredim, who also lack the skills necessary to read those teshuvot) by translating their sources into modern Hebrew with full punctuation (and no arcane abbreviations) and publishing them, along with the court's own teshuva, on the Internet and with its decision.

To not do this but to criticize the public for (allegedly) not understanding the basis for the court's decision is disingenuous.

Rosenblum goes on:

…Rabbi Sherman was stating the overwhelming consensus of halachic opinion that a mere pro forma declaration of one's commitment to full mitzva observance is inadequate, and that a beit din must assure itself, after searching inquiry, of the candidate's sincere intention to take on full mitzva observance. As the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Herzog wrote, the burden on the beit din is much heavier in contemporary times, when a convert is not necessarily joining an overwhelmingly observant Jewish community.

Rabbi Druckman apparently does not share that view. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, perhaps Rabbi Druckman's most distinguished defender, tacitly admitted as much when he said, "When did we ever hear that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing heretic?" (Rabbi Lichtenstein's father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, considered it axiomatic that conversion requires a full acceptance of mitzvot.)…

What Rosenblum does not tell you is that Sherman's decision overturning Rabbi Druckman's conversions was made by ruling Rabbi Druckman a willing heretic.

In other words, without doing that, Druckman's conversions would still stand.

As for the minority view, Rosenblum continues to misrepresent. He also equates Rabbi Druckman with non-Orthodox clergy:

…Orthodox rabbis have long criticized heterodox rabbis for not informing "converts" that their conversions will not be recognized by a large segment of the Jewish world, and thereby paving the way for future tragedies. And the same can be said of an Orthodox rabbi who follows a single opinion against the overwhelming weight of historical and contemporary halachic decisors.

First of all, Rabbi Druckman followed the opinions of several noted rabbis – including a former Sefardic chief rabbi of Israel. The idea that Druckman took one lone opinion and held by it when there are hundreds of opposing opinions is simply false.

Further, the job of a posek (a rabbi who decides Jewish law) is to use all decisions – even minority decisions, even lone minority decisions – to reach the correct decision. And that decision may be lenient or strict or somewhere in between. And it may be supported by dozens of poskim or by just a few.

The job of a posek is not to add up those in favor and those against and then go with the majority. It is to apply his best reasoning to the current, unique case before him, using previous decisions as guides but not as judicial fiats.

For example, it could be that Rabbi Druckman would have preferred changing the Law of Return to define Jew by halakha rather than by secular law. Now, after that move to change the Law of Return failed and Israel has hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish citizens from the Former Soviet Union, after the fact, Rabbi Druckman is willing to rely on a minority position that he otherwise would have rejected.

This same process is done day after day by poskim asked to decide everything from the kosher status of a chicken to the validity of a marriage. It is the normative halakhic process. And nowhere in that process does the "vote" of Yosef Shalom Elyashiv count more than the vote of Rabbi Haim Druckman.

Finally, Rosenblum fails to tell his readers there is a very real rabbinic discussion over what, exactly, accepting the yoke of the commandments actually means.

We do know that, until very recent times, a convert was told about a small number of mitzvot – one or two severe, a few more light – and was then converted immediately. There was no years of mandatory conversion classes and no deep investigation into the converts motives and background. And the court that did those conversions? It did not need to have even one ordained rabbi sitting on it – three laymen was enough.

The haredi arguments made against Rabbi Druckman could easily have been made 2000 years ago by Beit Shammai against Beit Hillel – in fact, they were.

Beit Hillel was never frum enough for Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel was too lenient. It cared too much about then-modern circumstance and not enough about "tradition." Beit Shammai thought Beit Hillel was intellectually weak. And Beit Shammai thought Beit Hille was too respectful and accepting of non-Jews.

So, as I wrote almost three years ago during the height of the Rabbi Slifkin Ban, Beit Shammai acted:

…The Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4 tells a story of those times. The sages were meeting at the home of a prominent supporter, on the roof of his house. Beit Shammai appeared armed, murdered several members of Beit Hillel, and blocked the exit from the roof. No member of Beit Hillel was allowed to leave until he agreed to uphold the halakha of Beit Shammai, the minority. Beit Hillel – fearing for their lives – gave in. The sages then passed 18 gezerot (decrees) proposed by Beit Shammai. Most were aimed at separating Jews from Gentiles, and included kashrut gezerot that exist to this day. The Jerusalem Talmud calls this day the blackest day ever to befall the Jewish people.

Beit Shammai was traditionalist. Its halakhot (laws) were restrictive. Its worldview was anti-modern and anti-rational. We carry the effects of Beit Shammai's intransigence to this day.

If Beit Shammai had been met with arms, if Beit Shammai had been expelled from normative Judaism, our halakhot would be less strict and our reaction to the Gentile world – and its science – would be more open.

But on a Jerusalem day 1950 years ago, fanaticism won, crushing the democracy the sages used to guide the Jewish people…

Today's haredi mimic yesterday's Beit Shammai with, I fear, results that will be even more disastrous.

So why does Jonathan Rosenblum continue to misrepresent and shill?

Two words: Cognitive dissonance.

To admit the truth would mean separating himself from everything he has spent years acquiring – his closeness to senior haredi leaders, his job, his community and, perhaps, his family. The pain of acknowledging the truth is too great.

This same process traps many in cults; today it traps Rabbi Rosenblum in his.

Comments

[Nachum Lamm]

R' Elyashiv spent his entire life working for the State of Israel's court system. That doesn't make him any less of a haredi.

""When did we ever hear that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing heretic?" (Rabbi Lichtenstein's father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, considered it axiomatic that conversion requires a full acceptance of mitzvot.)"

1. This is a non-sequitor. The statement of R' Lichtenstein in no way contradicts the statement of the Rav- in fact, is has nothing to do with it. "Commonly held" is the same as "axiomatic."

2. Rosenblum, as usual, tries to apply haredi standards to Modern Orthodoxy. "His father-in-law said X, so he must say X." Of course, R' Lichtenstein would likely point out that the MO don't believe in da'as torah and thus he can say anything he wants. Not even R' Herschel Schachter agrees with everything the Rav said.

As I recall, in "choosing to be jewish: the orthodox road..", R. Marc Angel gives a specific example with source that RYBS was more lenient...anyone got the book handy? they should check and post it to the jpost piece.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.Moshiach.ws]

B"H
Shmaryah
If R. Druckman has a right to follow the most lenient opinion possible why do you deny his opponents the right to disregard this opinion
in general or to simply state (as R. Herzog pointed out) that the situation has changed and thus it is not prudent to rely on it anymore?
If you can accept that deaf and dumb is now teachable and thus shouldn't be treated the way deaf and dumb was treated during the time of the Talmud why can't you accept that when the Jewish community is mostly not religious and there is no coercion to observe mitzvot one can't expect an average person who converted without seriously learning Torah and mitzvot beforehand to continue observing them, and if so why do you deny the chareidi rabbis the right to presume that such conversions are in doubt?
(It's not that I necessarily support their ruling disqualifying his conversions or their assertinion that he is a heretic , but I'm just trying to understand your own logic on this. )

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.Moshiach.ws]

B"H
assertion*

[Question]

Where is: Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4????

Do you mean first perek? Daf 4?

[Shmarya]

No. Yerushalmi 1:4. That's how the Yerushalmi works. It is not set up like the Bavli.

[Shmarya]

If R. Druckman has a right to follow the most lenient opinion possible why do you deny his opponents the right to disregard this opinion in general or to simply state (as R. Herzog pointed out) that the situation has changed and thus it is not prudent to rely on it anymore?

First of all, you're banned. I made that very clear. Go away and do not come back.

Secondly, it is one thing not to want to hold by a certain decision – it is quite another to resort to gutter tactics to void thousands of conversions.

If you don't understand why, go ask that student of the Rav you know to explain paskining to you.

[Ben Salomon]

The problem with the psak of Rabbi Sherman is, that at the conclusion of the ruling it is written that the converts are to be considered "safek" - questionable Jews. In the beginning of the ruling, Sherman voided the Beth Din of Rabbi Druckman and his giurim altogether.

[Bartley Kulp]

""When did we ever hear that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing heretic?"

All of this non-withstanding, nobody is addressing the fact that Rav Druckman was slapped on the wrist by the attorney general in 2006 for allegedly forging court documents, which if these allegations are to be substantiated would disqualify him from serving on any beit din or providing eidus on anything for that matter. This would even disqualify him by Conservative standards let alone Orthodox.

Which makes me disappointed with Rav Lichtenstein's response. Because he is an intellectual heavyweight. As far as I am concerned he has bunted by addressing the more debatable charge of apostasy while ignoring substantial charge of forgery.

Even Rav Druckman has not answered anything about the forgery related charges (as far as I know) except to to claim that he was not summoned to the hearing and did not even know it was taking place. While he has given halachic explanations on why Russian olim can halachically be dealt with in a more lenient manner, he has not said one word about the accusations regarding forgery. WHY?

However the ramifications of this tribunal(if I can use this term) have larger global ramifications than Rabbi Druckman and what will be with those that he converted.

[Shmarya]

All of this non-withstanding, nobody is addressing the fact that Rav
Druckman was slapped on the wrist by the attorney general in 2006 for
allegedly forging court documents, which if these allegations are to be
substantiated would disqualify him from serving on any beit din or
providing eidus on anything for that matter. This would even disqualify
him by Conservative standards let alone Orthodox.

This has been addressed many times. Have you simply forgotten?

What Rabbi Druckman did is legal in halakha but illegal in secular law – but the status in secular law was unclear until the AG ruled.

Two chief rabbis of Israel ruled on this issue, as well. Both told Rabbi Druckman not to do it again but, at the same time, endorsed every conversion he did that way. This is public information, not some secret hidden away.

You don't remember it? Sorry.

I did not address this issue in this post because I've addressed it before.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Shmarya: A suggestion. Post a link to your previous article for those who missed the reference.

[Shmarya]

I don't think he missed the reference.

[Norm]

We've obvioulsy reached a point where the haredi are no longer part of the same relgion tribe or group as the rest of the Jews from modern orthodox to secular. They don't recognize us as Jews. Like the Christian polygamous group in Texas they "drain the beast" (that group term for takign welfare fromt he system they hate. The non haredi communityneed to insist that its contributions whther through their federatiosn of Israeli charitites don't support these people. If they want to define who is a Jew, use Mitizah b'peh, engage in arranged marriages and put women into second class status I don't want anything to do with them-perhaps they could moveinto the dessert like the Essenes.

[Garnel Ironheart]

Two points.

As I've noted before, we must remember that Rav Rosenblum isn't an independent commentator. He's paid to present the "Chareidi point of view". For him to write a piece attacking that community's position in anything would be violating the terms of that contract. He's an honest, upright man and he's doing the job he agreed to do.
If one reads all his materials (and I'm sure you have) it's obvious that many times he's gone out on a limb with his reflections on all that's wrong in the Chareidi community. Unlike Rav Shafran and his cohort, he will not deny a problem exists and mindlessly attack the accuser, although he will vigorously defend the Chareidi position.
But don't forget that he also lives in the Chareidi community. His kids attend their schools and need shidduchim within that community. Forget the terms of his work contract. He cannot afford to do anything other than what he is doing. Could you imagine the ramifications on his family if a man of his stature actually came out and criticized the infallible Gedolei HaDor?

Secondly, the story about Beis Hillel vs Beis Shammai is quite apropos. You are probably also aware of the story in Beitzah where Beis Shammai students assault Hillel himself for trying to perform a sarcifice in the fashion he paskened. But now, 2000 years later Beis Hillel is the normative halachah in most cases. I just hope it doesn't take 2000 years again to clear up this mess.

[Ratso]

The reference to the Shamai-Hillel conflict depicted in Yerushalme Shabbos 1:4 is known to be a figurative account and not to be taken literally. On that occasion, Bais Shamai was Halachically victorious over Bais Hillel not by means of standard intellectual majority, but through a fundamental sense of what was necessary for Jewish survival. Here is a figurative walkthru:

1. It took place in the attic/roof - called an Aliya - representing the fact that the result of the conflict was a spiritual "hightening" for the Jewish nation.
2. The "murder" was the destruction of the small segment of Bais Hillel's intellectual process which was intertwined with the Sitra d'Achra - it needed to be eliminated in order for Bais Hillel and the Rabbinic School to obtain the mental clarity necessary to recognize the long term necessity of Bais Shammai's approach.
3. They refused to allow a 'Yerida' from the roof in order to preserve the heightened awareness until the decisions necessary to preserve the Jewish nation were promulgated.
4. The necessary decisions made were 18 in number signifying their undenyable necessity for the preservation of the 'Life' of the Jewish nation.
5. The 18 decisions were termed 'Gezeyra', a reference to 'Gezer', indicating that acceptance of these rulings was necessary to ensure the Jewisn nation's constant move forward (following the carrot at the end of the stick), and that the need for these rulings was so blatantly obvious, that to deny them would be like burying your head in the sand.
V'hamayvin Yavin...

[scotts a fool]

scottie,
did u ever ask your mother why she didn't have an abortion.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.Moshiach.ws]

B"H

The reference to the Shamai-Hillel conflict depicted in Yerushalme Shabbos 1:4 is known to be a figurative account and not to be taken literally. On that occasion, Bais Shamai was Halachically victorious over Bais Hillel not by means of standard intellectual majority, but through a fundamental sense of what was necessary for Jewish survival. Here is a figurative walkthru:

1. It took place in the attic/roof - called an Aliya - representing the fact that the result of the conflict was a spiritual "hightening" for the Jewish nation.
2. The "murder" was the destruction of the small segment of Bais Hillel's intellectual process which was intertwined with the Sitra d'Achra - it needed to be eliminated in order for Bais Hillel and the Rabbinic School to obtain the mental clarity necessary to recognize the long term necessity of Bais Shammai's approach.
3. They refused to allow a 'Yerida' from the roof in order to preserve the heightened awareness until the decisions necessary to preserve the Jewish nation were promulgated.
4. The necessary decisions made were 18 in number signifying their undenyable necessity for the preservation of the 'Life' of the Jewish nation.
5. The 18 decisions were termed 'Gezeyra', a reference to 'Gezer', indicating that acceptance of these rulings was necessary to ensure the Jewisn nation's constant move forward (following the carrot at the end of the stick), and that the need for these rulings was so blatantly obvious, that to deny them would be like burying your head in the sand.
V'hamayvin Yavin...

Posted by: Ratso | June 03, 2008 at 07:16 AM

If that is the case why does Talmud concludes this day was as sad as the day the golden calf was made?
Also why does the Talmud use such language
as it does: murder etc.. giving the ability
to people like Shmaryah to bash these 18 gzerot for generations to come as something arived at thru "terrorism"?

One can allegorize anything even the story of Rabbah slaughtering Rav Zeira as the Rebbe does here:
( Beacons on the Talmud's Sea
Analysis of Passages From The Talmud And Issues In Halachah
Adapted From The Works of The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schne'erson
A Perplexing Purim Feast )
but does our ability to explain such things as a metaphor prove they didn't happen literally...?

[MalachHamovies]

Garnel,

He just doesn't live in the community. He is trapped in the charedei community. I am sure that he disagrees with many things. But you are right. It would literally kill him and his families standing in the community.

[Ariel Sokolovsky www.Moshiach.ws]

B"H

First of all, you're banned. I made that very clear. Go away and do not come back.

How lucky are we all that you have rebelled and haven't got a smicha and became one of the chareidi gedolim you hate so much, you'd be banning concerts too and throwing out children of singers who don't comply out of chareidi schools.:-)

Secondly, it is one thing not to want to hold by a certain decision – it is quite another to resort to gutter tactics to void thousands of conversions.

If you don't understand why, go ask that student of the Rav you know to explain paskining to you.

Posted by: Shmarya | June 03, 2008 at 01:17 AM

That student of the Rav says that it seems that here might be something fishy about all those conversions because "when there is a smoke there is fire" however he says that a normal person wouldn't want to go and try to void them and also that they would have to be investigated 1 by 1 not just nullified wholesale.

[MalachHamovies]

Garnel,

He just doesn't live in the community. He is trapped in the charedei community. I am sure that he disagrees with many things. But you are right. It would literally kill him and his families standing in the community.

[Michelle]

B"h

The whole thing just makes me sad. I thought the reason we have rabbis is the fact that they need to decide each case on its own merits and not make wholesale decisions. They are supposed to use their considerable talents to find ways for the law to be flexible and humane (everyone remembers the story of the kosher chicken, right? A poor person asks if a chicken is kosher, and the rabbi sees small imperfections but knows the poor person will go without Shabbat dinner if he says it is not kosher, so he says it is kosher. Then a rich person comes and asks if a chicken is kosher. It has similar small imperfections, but the rabbi knows the rich person can afford a new chicken, so the rabbi says it is not kosher.)

If we just depend upon an inflexible book, then we lose the wisdom that is supposed to come from Rabbis who have learned not only the law, but the wise use of the law.

This is why, I was taught, we are not allowed to reference books, even the Torah, when we have a question. We are supposed to turn to our rabbis who have knowledge in the law.

No wonder our rabbis now sit alone in their offices and write sermons instead of talking to people! We have forgotten we need to ask, and they have forgotten that they learned to help people, not just read books.

[Shmarya]

The reference to the Shamai-Hillel conflict depicted in Yerushalme Shabbos 1:4 is known to be a figurative account and not to be taken literally.

That's the Marsha's position. Of course, he lived about 1500 years after the Yerushalmi was written, and there doesn't seem to be any record of that "tradition" during those years.

Also, the Marsha and other later commentators say that what Beit Shammai did stopped short of murder – but what Beit Shammai did was usurp the democratic process and force their minority opinions on the majority.

[shmuel]

I have done a bit of research on this, so let me share it with you.
First off:
"The reference to the Shamai-Hillel conflict depicted in Yerushalme Shabbos 1:4 is known to be a figurative account and not to be taken literally." --Ratso

Would it surprise you, then, to learn that Tosfos takes that Yerushalmi at face value, i.e. that Beit Shamma men killed Beit Hillel men? See Tosfos "Elah" on BT Gittin 36b. He cites the Yerushalmi in stride, doesn't bat an eyelash.

Here's a roundup of other commentators on that topic:
The Toldos Yitzchok: "So that they should not arise, they [B'S] hit them [B'H] with swords and [another weapon] so that they [B'S] should increase their [own] number over them [B'H] for [purposes of] counting [i.e. voting]."

The Pnei Meir: "They [B'H] did not want to arise since they did not agree with these decrees. But they [B'S] forced them to arise and to agree with their decrees through fear of death."

The Mashbiach: "The language of "Beit Shammai killing 'bi' ['in/with'] the students of Hillel is difficult. It should have said they were killing 'et' [introducing the direct object] the students of Hillel. Thus it appears to me that the text has a typo: the letter "heh" appears wrongly; it should have been a "chet". Thus it should have read, "they were 'chorgin btalmidei Beit Hillel..." which means they were implanting fear in the hearts of Beit Hillel." [Let me finish by summarizing:] Thus when a Karaite asked Rav Saadiah Gaon about these murders in the Talmud, Rav Saadiah said he knew nothing about murders. The Yerushalmi then extant among Babylonian Jews, which Rav Saadiah had, was spelled "chorgin" (injecting fear)--and that is the correct language. And this follows the commentators who echo it, that say Shammai instilled fear in Hillel; God forbid they killed them! And the Karaite showed Rav Saadiah a Yerushalmi text which was extant in Israel, and in which was written "horgin" [they killed], and that one is a mistaken text."

There are more, of course, but the upshot: some say they killed them, some say Chas Vshalom! Were anyone of these fine commentators there? No. So what's the answer? Pick em.

[shmuel]

Last thoughts:
1. Is it stretching to argue that an Israeli text still extant in Israel would have a typo, but that the same text extant in Babylonia would have the language right?
2. The difference between "chet" and "heh" is very small. The typo is understandable.
3. "Horgin b'..." a strange construct? I don't think it's that strange, but ok, darshan it all you want...

[Anon]

--What Rosenblum does not tell you is that Sherman's decision overturning Rabbi Druckman's conversions was made by ruling Rabbi Druckman a willing heretic

In other words, without doing that, Druckman's conversions would still stand.--

That is not entirely accurate. The case at hand was ruled invalid because of the overwhelming evidence. Absent ruling that Rabbi Druckman was not qualified to serve on a beit din, they would have had to review each gerut conducted by Rabbi Druckman separately and could not have ruled them all invalid, but in light of the evidence they would not have accepted a convert he converted without further inquiry.

--First of all, Rabbi Druckman followed the opinions of several noted rabbis – including a former Sefardic chief rabbi of Israel. The idea that Druckman took one lone opinion and held by it when there are hundreds of opposing opinions is simply false.--

Who are these other "noted" rabbis, besides for the former Sefardic chief rabbi?

--Further, the job of a posek (a rabbi who decides Jewish law) is to use all decisions – even minority decisions, even lone minority decisions – to reach the correct decision.--

You misundertand the psak as well as the process of deciding issues of jewish law. In jewish law, once a view is generally accepted as being the rule of law, that in of its own has authority and places a substantial hurdle against arguing that the original decision was wrongly made.

--The job of a posek is not to add up those in favor and those against and then go with the majority.--

Again, it is not a question of majority vs. minority - the question is whether a halachic interpretation has over time become accepted as normative halacha.

--Rabbi Druckman is willing to rely on a minority position that he otherwise would have rejected.--

The fact that Israel would have many non-jewish citizens does not seem to have any halachic significance so as to warrant changing halachic views.

--Finally, Rosenblum fails to tell his readers there is a very real rabbinic discussion over what, exactly, accepting the yoke of the commandments actually means.--

What you fail to tell your readers is that the assertion is that Rabbi Druckman made no meaningful effort to require kabbalat mitzvot at all. According to the article by Rabbi Rosenblum the "evidence is overwhelming that a large majority of those converted by Rabbi Druckman were never mitzvah observant. And that is not merely an unhappy coincidence." Why don't you address the facts. Is that true or not? Is the requirement of kabbalat mitzvot simply a sham?

[Bartley Kulp]

To Shmarya, I know that this has been spoken about before in the media. I am just saying is that all of the rabbonim who are coming to defend Rav Druckman are not dealling with the forgery allegations.They are merely addressing through hype, "This is an attack on religious Zionism!" or they are dealing with the apostasy ruling which can granted can and should be argued. However the most serious allegation in this case in my opinion is the one on forgery. While it is permissible to countersign a conversion document by proxy, to sign as one of the three judges who are supposed to be present in front of the convert I would think that this is not. You say that this is permissible in halacha? Where?

Anyrate nobody is addressing this issue and when Rav Druckman has given public statements regarding the verdict, he seems to be preoccupied with the apostacy charge and the issue of kabbalat mitzvot. The forgery charge he seems to ignore. If he has spoken about the forgery charges could you refer me to a link?

[Anon]

--I am just saying is that all of the rabbonim who are coming to defend Rav Druckman are not dealling with the forgery allegations.--

More so, while they are addressing the apostacy ruling, they are not (or at least very few are) addressing his underlying rulings. I have spoken about this issue with a number of prominent MO rabbis. While they mostly were of the view that the apostasy charges were wrong, when pushed they also admitted that they were of the view that Rabbi Druckman's approach to gerut was questionable and they were not willing to state unequivocally that they would accept converts converted by Rabbi Druckman without question. So Shmarya's trying to portray this as a MO haredi debate is just smoke and mirrrors. The only part of the debate that may a MO haredi debate is the apostacy charge.

[Shmarya]

To Shmarya, I know that this has been spoken about before in the media. I am just saying is that all of the rabbonim who are coming to defend Rav Druckman are not dealling with the forgery allegations… While it is permissible to countersign a conversion document by proxy, to sign as one of the three judges who are supposed to be present in front of the convert I would think that this is not.

Disingenuous.

I answered your "question" above. Two sitting chief rabbis ruled on those allegations long ago and found the conversions valid.

Yet somehow you think Rabbi Sherman can revisit the issue years later and retroactively void those conversions?

Please.

[steve]

RCA's gutless public statement regarding Rubashkin:

http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105319

[Shmarya]

Is the requirement of kabbalat mitzvot simply a sham?

Just because YOU are ignorant of the varied halakhic understandings of what kabbalat mitzvot means does not mean that others – like Rabbi Druckman – must be so ignorant, as well.

There are several ways to understand kabbalat mitzvot. In brief, haredim hold it means 100% acceptance of all mitzvot, meaning the performance of all mitzvot, without fail.

Sefardi poskim understand it to mean acceptance of LIABILITY. In other words, the convert does NOT need to observe all mitzvot – he only needs to acknowledge before the beit din that he understands the halalkhic system, and that violation of the mitzvot brings penalties.

There is little historical support to speak of for the haredi view.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

RCA Carries Water for Agriprocessors

[Y. Aharon]

While I am normally opposed to Shmarya's religious stance, I agree with him entirely on this issue. A great injustice has been perpetrated by those hareidi dayanim of the high court against both Rav Druckman and the thousands of converts his court has approved over the years.

Nowhere in the long ruling (55 pages) of the Sherman court is there any substantiation of the charge that Rav Druckman did not require acceptance of mitzvot by the potential converts. Nor did the Sherman court seek to depose Rav Druckman prior to making its ruling based on his alleged disqualification to be a dayan for conversions.

It all appears to come down to the issue of how certain the conversion judges must be that the candidates will actually observe the mitzvot. That is a judgement call to be made by those who are actually dealing with the candidate. Calling a lesser degree of assurance of such future actions "heretical" is nonsense, and the attempted disqualification of the Druckman court of no validity. Nor is Rav Druckman alone in his stance. The long-standing chief rabbi of Haifa, Rav She'ar Yashuv Cohen, has stated that he has used the less stringent criterion for the conversions that he has performed. The article in Hatzofeh which sets out his view also cites various precedents in the 20th century for his viewpoint. It is not just the former Sefardik chief rabbi, Rav Uziel.

Y. Aharon

[Y. Aharon]

It would have been better had the RCA not come out with any statement. As it is, their statement is just a reflection of the OU postition that, in turn, is colored by a vested interest in the matter. It's time that Orthodox Jewish organizations not feel constrained by either monetary or political considerations from insisting that all halachot be followed before giving their endorsement to a product. There is no excuse for permitting a questionable means of slaughter (the inverted pen that terrifies the animal and impedes proper access of the shochet's knife). Nor is there any excuse for watching idley when feces or machinery oil fall on the production line. Nor when workers are openly mistreated. All of these are bases for the removal of certification.

As to the effects of such discontinuation of certification. I'm sure that Empire will be only too happy to run their production line full time to support the market. Other meat purveyors should be able to take up the slack if Rubashkin loses the OU.

Y. Aharon

[michael ben drosai]

RCA's gutless public statement regarding Rubashkin:

yes - they committed the cardinal sin of trying to achieve balance and moderation (and I'm no fan of the RCA)

[Anon]

--I answered your "question" above. Two sitting chief rabbis ruled on those allegations long ago and found the conversions valid.--

No, what you did is ignored his question again. What the chief rabbis ruled upon was the validity of the conversion in light of his false certification, not the appropriateness of his false certifications to begin with (which they criticized him and he undertook not to do so again), not the impact of his continued practice of signing such certifications even though he was not present, not any issue relating to his approach to kabbalat mitzvot, etc.

--Sefardi poskim understand it to mean acceptance of LIABILITY.--

The term is kabbalat mitzvot, not kabbalat liability. In any event this is the view of a specific sefardi posek. Many sefardi poskim take an even more stringent view than the haredi poskim (e.g. the syrian communities complete ban on converts).

--In other words, the convert does NOT need to observe all mitzvot--

Please clarify, are you talking about not observing all mitzvot or not observing ANY mitzvot.

–-he only needs to acknowledge before the beit din that he understands the halalkhic system, and that violation of the mitzvot brings penalties.--

That is not Rabbi Uziel's psak. Rabbi Uziel required kabbalat mitzvot but held that it was valid even if there was significant doubt whether the kabbalat mitzvot would in fact be implemented. There are two problems with relying on Rabbi Uziel's view. (1) He acknowledged that his view was controversial and only adopted that approach in the case of an immediate necessity to avoid another evil (e.g. to prevent a specific intermarriage), not as a wholesale approach to conversions. (2) His reasoning included the assumption that if the couple were to live as jews, even if not entirely observant to begin with they are likely to become more observant. Rabbi Druckman's converts have proven that assumption to be wrong. The question is would even Rabbi Uziel be rethinking his psak in light of the evidence available today.

[Shmarya]

What the chief rabbis ruled upon was the validity of the conversion in light of his false certification, not the appropriateness of his false certifications to begin with (which they criticized him and he undertook not to do so again), not the impact of his continued practice of signing such certifications even though he was not present, not any issue relating to his approach to kabbalat mitzvot, etc.

Still at your deceptions, I see.

Process: The conversions were ruled kosher by both sitting chief rabbis. Rabbi Druckman agreed to stop using a proxy. Issue resolved according to halakha.

--Sefardi poskim understand it to mean acceptance of LIABILITY.--

The term is kabbalat mitzvot, not kabbalat liability. In any event this is the view of a specific sefardi posek. Many sefardi poskim take an even more stringent view than the haredi poskim (e.g. the syrian communities complete ban on converts).

It is not "one" Sefardi posek – it is several. And there are Ashkenazi poskim as well, including, as mentioned above Shear Yashuv Cohen, Chief Rabbi of Haifa.

And my presentation of the halakhic issue is correct.

--In other words, the convert does NOT need to observe all mitzvot--

Please clarify, are you talking about not observing all mitzvot or not observing ANY mitzvot.

In practice, it would be very difficult to find anyone alive who did not observe some mitzvot.

What you mean to ask is, Does it matter how many mitzvot the convert ignores?

The answer is that it does not.

–-he only needs to acknowledge before the beit din that he understands the halalkhic system, and that violation of the mitzvot brings penalties.--

That is not Rabbi Uziel's psak. Rabbi Uziel required kabbalat mitzvot but held that it was valid even if there was significant doubt whether the kabbalat mitzvot would in fact be implemented. There are two problems with relying on Rabbi Uziel's view. (1) He acknowledged that his view was controversial and only adopted that approach in the case of an immediate necessity to avoid another evil (e.g. to prevent a specific intermarriage), not as a wholesale approach to conversions. (2) His reasoning included the assumption that if the couple were to live as jews, even if not entirely observant to begin with they are likely to become more observant. Rabbi Druckman's converts have proven that assumption to be wrong. The question is would even Rabbi Uziel be rethinking his psak in light of the evidence available today.

Again, Rabbi Uzziel is not the only opinion relied on. Further, your explanation of Rabbi Uzziel's position is flawed.

[Shmarya]

What Rabbi Uzziel actually ruled:

http://www.jewishideas.org/node/23

Another scholar who identifies acceptance of commandments in the same way is Rabbi Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uzziel. He begins his discussion of this issue by noting that the Talmud holds that most proselytes will not observe the commandments after their giyyur. This is the assumption underlying the dictum: 'Proselytes are as hard for Israel [to endure] as a sore', as understood by Rashi and Maimonides. Uzziel therefore states:

Although we know that most proselytes do not observe the commandments after circumcision and immersion; nevertheless, they [the rabbis] did not refrain from accepting them because of that. Rather, they inform them about some of the harsher commandments, namely, the punishment for transgressing them, so that 'So that if he wants to withdraw - he can withdraw.' But if they do not withdraw, they are accepted, and each proselyte will be responsible for his [future] sin[s], and the people of Israel are not liable for his behaviour. All we have said, then, makes the following absolutely clear: if a proselyte has accepted the commandments and their punishment, then, even when it is known he will not observe them, he should be accepted after being notified about the lenient and harsher commandments, their reward and punishment.

--- B.-Z. H. Uzziel, Mishpatei Uzziel (2nd edition, Jerusalem, 1950), Yoreh De'ah, Vol. 1, # 58, p. 205

…

It follows, that according to Torah, we are allowed and commanded to accept male and female proselytes even when we know that they will not observe all the commandments... and if they do not observe the commandments, they will bear their sin and we are not liable.

--- B.-Z. H. Uzziel, Mishpatei Uzziel, Even ha-‘Ezer, # 20; Piskei Uzziel B'shelot Hazman (Jerusalem, Mossad HaRav Kook, 1977), # 68.This is a far cry from what Anon claimed.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Rav Uzziel is one of the old-school rabbanim, the likes of which we no longer see. If only he were alive today!

[Anon]

"This is a far cry from what Anon claimed.

Posted by: Shmarya | June 03, 2008 at 03:01 PM"

Have you even read Rabbi Uziel's psak or are you just parotting what you read in Professor Zvi Zohar's article? Why don't you go ahead and read the psak and then report back. While you are at it I suggest that you also read Rabbi Uziel's psak in Mishpetai Uziel vol.2, Yoreh Deah #66 which Professor Zohar conveniently omitted from his article.

[Shmarya]

which Professor Zohar conveniently omitted from his article.

You mean like the two teshuvot I posted that you "conveniently omitted" from your first comment?

What a disingenuous piece of work you are.

[Anon]

--What a disingenuous piece of work you are.--

I may be a disingenuous piece of work, but you are once again ducking the issue. Why don't you earn some of the money you Schnorred to "conduct research" and research all three tshuvot of Rabbi Uziel and report back. Better yet, why don't you post copies of all three tshuvot.

[Shmarya]

Sorry, Anon – I'm not playing your game.

No credible person holds Rabbi Uzziel held anything different from what I've already posted.

If you want to post the third teshuva and a translation, go ahead.

Just keep the order correct here.

You claimed Rabbi Uzziel held differently from what he actually held.

I posted excerpts from two teshuvot proving you wrong.

You claim (incorrectly) to have a third that supports you.

Post it here with a translation. Then we can all see if you are telling the truth or spinning the truth.

Or are you afraid?

[Anon]

--Or are you afraid?

Posted by: Shmarya | June 04, 2008 at 03:21 AM--

If you give me a cut of your schnorring proceeds, I'd be more than happy to do the legwork for you.

[Shmarya]

You made an allegation.

Either post the teshuva and a translation or shut up.

[Anon]

--Either post the teshuva and a translation or shut up.--

Since you obviously have never seen any of the tshuvot, why don't you for the sake of honesty qualify your post by saying that you have never seen the tshuvot and have no clue about what Rabbi Uziel's position was other than what you saw in a single article posted on the internet.

[Shmarya]

So you don't have the teshuva, cannot post it and do not really know what it says.

You are, as always, a coward, a liar and a disgusting person.

As for what I have seen, you can add to your "summary" several other articles, speeches, and interviews.

And you can add one other fact – no reputable person disagrees with my presentation of Rabbi Uzziel's teshuvot.

So, again – you made charges, you hurled allegations and you claimed to represent the authentic position of Rabbi Uzziel.

Either post that teshuva and a translation or admit you lied.

[Marc]

Are individuals who dont serve in an army that needs their service considered out of the "Clal" of Israel and therefore not included in a Minyan or to buried in a Jewish cemetary. Basicaly, can one daven in a Minyan of people who may be considered to have violated "al taamod al dam reacha"?

[YocavG]

Rabbi Falk dates the killing of the Hillelite prophets by Shammaite Zealots to 20-10 BCE. The House of Hillel and the House of Shammai were divided along socio-economic, geo-political and religio-ideological lines; however, not every Hillelite fully agreed with Hillel and not every Shammaite agreed with Shammai.
The purpose of the "Eighteen Measures" was to bring about greater separation between Jews and Gentiles. The House of Shammai felt that Gentiles were inherently "unclean" and would have no share in the World to Come unless they converted fully to Judaism by becoming Gerim Tzedek (Righteous Strangers). The House of Hillel, on the other hand, regarded the "Pious of the Nations" worthy of a share in the World to Come and they did not require full conversion of Gentiles and accepted HaShem-fearing Gentiles as Gerim Toshav (Repentant Strangers).

The killing of the Hillelite prophets, which I date to circa 12 BCE, served to stack the votes regarding the "Eighteen Measures" in Shammai's favor and the Babylonian Talmud states:

"A sword was planted in the Bet Ha-Midrash and it was proclaimed, 'He who would enter, let him enter, but he who would depart, let him not depart!' And on that day Hillel sat submissive before Shammai, like one of the disciples, and it was as grievous to Israel as the day when the [golden] calf was made" - (Shab. 17a).

Rabbi Falk states that the Jerusalem Talmud is less cryptic about this incident and records:

"That day was as hard for Israel as the day in which the [golden] calf was made.... Rabbi Yehoshua taught: The students of Bet Shammai stood below, killing the students of Bet Hillel. We learn: Six of them went up, and the rest stood upon them with swords and spears" - (Shabbat 1:4).

R. Falk writes the following in his book, "Jesus the Pharisee," p. 124:

Jesus of Nazareth ... introduces a most serious charge against these Pharisees [of Bet Shammai]. He quotes them as saying, "We would never have joined in shedding the blood of the prophets, had we lived in our fathers' day." The debate over the "eighteen measures," at which time a number of Hillel's disciples, identified in the Talmud as "prophets" (Sukkah 28A and Bava Batra 134A; San. 11A and Rashi ad. loc.) were killed, would have taken place between 20 thru 10 BCE, or [nearly] a half century before ... Jesus spoke these words. The members of Bet Shammai present at the debate would have been the fathers of the Pharisees whom Jesus was now attacking.

These Pharisees claimed they would not have done as their fathers (whether it was Bet Shammai themselves, or their allies, the Zealots, who did the actual killing). But, he continues, "Your own evidence tells against you! You are the sons of those who murdered the prophets!" He is referring here to the fact that R. Zadok - a leader of Bet Shammai - joined forces with the Zealot chief Judah the Galilean in 6 CE, thus proving that they followed in their fathers' footsteps by aligning themselves with these murderers and assassins.

Rabbi Zadok supported the Zealot leader, Judas of Galilee, in the 6 CE resistance to the Roman census overseen by Publius Sulpicius Quirinius. However, R. Harvey Falk is of the opinion that Rabbi Zadok didn't repent of his anti-Gentilism and his association with the Zealots until 30 CE, after Shammai died, when Rabbi Zadok began his 40 year fast to avert the destruction of the Temple.

When Jesus said ‘For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 5:20), could he have been referring to Hillel and his disciples?

After the deaths of Hillel and Shammai there was a battle between their schools over the `eighteen measures', a method of separating Jews and Gentiles. An unspecified number of members of the house of Hillel were killed by the zealots Shammaites. 35 Some of these dead were referred to as prophets in the Talmud. 36 The Gospels seem to refer to this. And then

"we would never have joined in shedding the blood of the prophets, had we lived in our ancestors day. .. And so you will draw down on yourselves the blood of every upright person that has been shed on earth." (Matt 23:30,34)

It was at Hananiah’s house, they had a retreat (Shabbat 13B) in the hopes that a private setting with a respected scholar would insure peace between the two schools. The problem was that Hananiah was biased. He was the son of Hezekiah, the founder of the Zealot Party that Josephus called a “bandit” and was executed by Herod the Great. It was the Zealots who were pushing for armed revolt against Rome, hated all Gentiles and maintained close ties with Shammai.

On the day that the first vote was taken on the “eighteen measures” several disciples of Hillel were killed by the disciples of Shammai, called the Beit Shammai. Whether it was the Beit Shammai, the Zealots or the assassin squads of the Zealots called the Sicarii (dagger men) is irrelevant. They were initially all closely affiliated. What was recognized in both Talmuds is that swords were permitted to be in the house of Hananiah on that day of infamy.

In the Talmud the sages note "he who observes the teaching of House of Shammai deserve death". 37
Jesus says:

"alas for you, Scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut up the kingdom of heaven in people's faces, neither going in ourselves nor allowing others to go in who want to." (Matt. 23:13).

Rabbi Harvey Falk argues that Jesus the Nazarene made a serious charge against the Pharisees about the year 30 CE when He was in the temple during His last Passover that was in direct reference to the conflict between the rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai and resulted in the death of many of the disciples of Hillel the Elder. (ibid 124-125)

Matthew 23:29-30 – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.”

As Luke testifies:

Luke 11:48 - In fact you bear witness that you approve the deeds of your fathers; for they indeed killed them, and you build their tombs.”

The question we have to ask, is this testimony of the serious charge against the Pharisees of the House of Shammai by Jesus the Nazarene only found in the Gospels written by the hand of His disciples? This quotation is found not only in the Gospel testimony but is also found in the Talmud:

Sukkah 28A, Bava Batra 134A and Sanhedrin 11A – “We would never have joined in shedding the blood of the prophets, had we lived in our fathers’ day.”

In this confrontation with the scribes and Pharisees in the temple, Jesus was referring back to the debate over the “eighteen measures” where many of the disciples of Hillel were killed in the house of Hananiah ben Hezekiah. The defense of the Pharisees could not hide the fact that it was Rabbi Zadok, a leader of the School of Shammai, who joined forces with Judah the Galilean, the Zealot chief in 6 CE. This was also the year of Jesus’ bar Mitzvoth and his Passover interview with the sages of Beit Hillel in the temple. Let us not forget the impressions on Jesus the youth as He watched how history was moving before His eyes.

Here in the presence of this young Jewish youth were the new generations of the Pharisees, the children of the disciples of Beit Shammai, who killed the prophets of Beit Hillel. The Pharisees, now in Jesus’ adult presence, that were now attacking Him had the same heart, soul and mind of those who killed some of the prophets, scholars and disciples of Hillel forty to fifty years prior