Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 4

One of the leaders in the forefront of fighting the "we've always done it this way" Judaism, is Rabbi Avi Weiss. A product of Yeshiva University, he has taken many unusual stances, that have alienated him from many in the "establishment". His synagogue, in the Riverdale section of New York City, has for over forty years been a center not just for performing rituals, but for spirituality, and providing the layman with solid knowledge of Jewish texts and sources. Although now emeritus, his staff of rabbis continues his work. In the last two decades, he has angered his former yeshiva with setting up an alternative institution, Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Whereas a YU trained rabbi will know how to decide whether an inadvertent mixture of meat and dairy is kosher or not, his students are trained not only in this, but in the background of how we got to where we are, and where we need to go.In addition, they are trained not only in "dos and don'ts", but in a deep spiritual understanding of Judaism. Kabbalistc and Hasidic insights are not taboo.The RCA voted to exclude his ordainees from membership, despite their being a superior "product" to the standard fare. He also founded a women's seminary, training women in Torah sources, making them rabbis in everything but name (being careful to distinguish halachically prohibited functions which women cannot do, from "this has never been done, so don't do it". The RCA was livid about this, and put forward an idea that above halachah, there is "Mesorah" (tradition). In this context, tradition means the way Orthodox Jews have conducted themselves in recent generations, as well as the practices of rabbinic "Greats". Rabbi Weiss, among others, felt that the system is broken, and needs to be fixed (unlike most rabbis who endeavor to show why an apparently baseless tradition has great meaning). This movement has become known as "Open Orthodoxy". It is not more liberal than Modern Orthodoxy, as has been assumed. Rather, it is completely source-based, which often means being strict where custom has been allowed to override halachah. An attempt to destroy him has backfired so badly, that it has greatly strengthened him. One of the top rabbis at YU, a head of the RCA, and the front runner for the position of Chief Rabbi of the UK, (probably the most prestigious position in the Jewish world), took it upon himself to take Rabbi Weiss, and his organization, apart. He joined Rabbi Weiss' blog under an assumed name. He began attacking Rabbi Weiss as being intellectually inferior to the "great,brilliant" rabbi who is about to become the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain (himself). The plot was discovered (along with the fact that a paper he had written turned out to be plagiarized). The British Chief Rabbi offer was rescinded, he was forced out of Yeshiva University, and, essentially out of the rabbinate. He is now simply teaching at a New England college. Many, including yours truly, saw in this a fulfillment of the verse in Proverbs "G-d looks after the persecuted". Rabbi Weiss maintains a liberal, albeit halalchic, conversion policy. In this, he has been joined by Rabbi Marc Angel, Rabbi Emeritus of Congregation She'arith Israel, America's oldest congregation. Rabbi Angel is a past president of the RCA., and not easily dismissed. He has, for the last forty years, been publishing in Orthodox periodicals, the true sources in the conversion issue. Both Rabbis Weiss and Angel have been swimming against the current. I see them and their students as the best hope for a revitalized Orthodoxy, free of the dominance of Charismatic, albeit often source-less, figures. In my next post in this series, I will discuss similar events in Israel. These give me cause for hope.

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 3

We have seen that based on all classical sources, a potential convert has only minimal preparation or training. His sincere desire to enter the Covenant is all that is required. We tell him, at the time of his conversion, about a few of the mitzvot. After his conversion, he begins his Jewish journey. If, at some point, he regrets his decision, or even converts to another faith, he nevertheless remains a Jew. There were different policies in different places as to what he should know, and what is expected of him. In some places, conversion was illegal, and even punishable by death for both the convert and the rabbis. Conversions were still performed clandestinely. Things began to change in the 1870s. Rabbi Yitzchak Scmelkes of Lvov (also called Leviv or Lemberg), a prominent rabbi in the Lithuanian tradition, although he lived in what was then Poland (now Western Ukraine), published a responsum that took a whole new direction. He pointed out that the Talmud says that the convert must accept upon himself the obligations of the Torah. If he says "Everything except..." he is not accepted. Rabbi Schmelkes opined that not only if he SAYS so, but even if we know that he will not be fully observant, or even if he has a mental reservation concerning any mitzvah, the conversion is completely invalid. This approach would solve the problem of non-Jews entering the Jewish people, only to continue living as non-Jews. However, it stands in complete opposition to every known source. This responsum was accepted in right-wing "yeshivish" circles, not so much for its logic, but based on the prestige of Rabbi Schmelkes. In some places (especially England) it was completely accepted by the rabbinate.It was largely ignored in other places. Although all Orthodox rabbis would want a convert to be a fully practicing Jew, there were other considerations. How about a non-Jew married to a Jew, or about to be married? Wouldn't conversion prevent an intermarriage? By the turn of the twentieth century, people had the option available of non-Orthodox (often halachically invalid) conversions. To this day, many Reform conversions feature neither circumcision nor immersion.One prominent Beit Din in a major Midwest American city, would gladly do conversions, no questions asked, for those who had Reform or Conservative preparation, in order to prevent questions about who is or isn't Jewish. As late as the 1970s, few would question such a conversion, provided it was performed correctly. This continued well into the 1980s, which I am certain would be vigorously denied today. Most Orthodox rabbis would redo a non-Orthodox conversion, even if apparently done correctly, in order to prevent doubts and confusion. One prominent rabbi, an officer in the RCA, told me of a case in which he was about to do a wedding, when he learned at the last minute that the bride was adopted, but never converted. He did a conversion for her while the guests were already seated, ready for the wedding ceremony! But change was in the air. A popular pamphlet appeared in the late 1960's, entitled "The Goyim (Gentiles) Among Us". The title is a reference to a science fiction movie about space aliens who look like humans, but are getting ready to destroy us. The pamphlet took the ruling of Rabbi Schmelkes, warning people that right next to you in Synagogue, are non-Jews with a supposedly Orthodox conversion, just waiting to marry your sons and daughters.  Moshe Feinstein, issued a responsum that if the convert will obviously not be observant, the conversion is invalid even ex post facto. He was simply spouting Rav Schmelkes' view. Anticipating objections, he incredibly gives the Talmudic sources that contradict this, concluding, however "anyway, what favor are these rabbis doing for the Jewish people, making more Jews with no strong ties to Jewishness?" Please note what happened here. Moshe  Feinstein is quoting an unfounded halachah, shows it is unfounded, and is ruling based on his gut feeling. This gained wide acceptance not because he had convinced us of his halachic stance, but his subjective feeling. Had it been any rabbi with less stature than he, it would have been laughed out of consideration, or at least been weighed against other factors. But it was "Reb Moshe". This approach became more widely accepted, although many rabbis still held out for a more lenient, and source-based, approach.But a feeling of malaise was in the air.  This feeling was strengthened by a survey, conducted in the late 1960s, that showed that only 10% of Orthodox converts in the New York area, were observing ANYTHING five years later. The view that we were being too lax in our conversion practices became more widespread. By the late 1970s, the RCA, the primary organization of American pulpit rabbis, had taken conversion privileges away from individual rabbis, and formed regional Batei Din, headed by accepted "experts". (How they had the right to do this is another question. I have no idea). At first, moderate observance was required of converts (Shabbat, Kashrut, and Family Purity). This soon changed to full acceptance of Rabbi Schmelkes' standards. Also, they reversed the long-held stance that if non-Orthodox conversions included immersion in a mikveh, it was probably OK, but good to do over "just in case", changing it to considering them completely invalid. There were, and are, Orthodox rabbis who oppose these policies, but they find themselves maligned and marginalized within rabbinic circles. Meanwhile, in Israel, the position of the Chief Rabbinate had always been very liberal about conversions, Rabbi Uziel, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi when Israel was first founded, even wrote a responsum that all we require of a convert is to accept that there is one G-d, that He is a Unity, and a desire to "live like the average Jew in his generation".But leniencies also have limits. One Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi (in the 1970s) was so lenient, that people whom he converted claimed that they didn't even know that it was happening to them! The pendulum was ready to swing in the other direction. Conversion in Israel is now very difficult. Not only that, but conversions done decades ago, according to the earlier standards, are being reviewed, and often declared invalid.The primary consideration in all these cases is not sources, but the stature of the rabbis who proposed these standards. But revolt is in the air! More about that, next time.

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 2

The mid fourth century was a devastating time for Judaism. The last Sanhedrin died off (well, was actually killed off by the Byzantines). The authentic chain of smichah (ordination) going back to Moses, was likewise, quite literally, killed off. This was supposed to be Christianity's final victory over Judaism. Perhaps even more devastating than the destruction of the Temple, Judaism was now without any Torah based authority. True, teachings of the classical sages were still being recorded. But nobody could claim to speak with authority. To be sure, there were wise men, who were often placed as the heads of communities, but their rulings were opinion, rather than being spoken with the authority of the Torah. RAMBAM writes that all sages after the late fourth century, had to be taken as voicing opinions, based on earlier texts. Except for those who were officially chosen to lead a community, within the confines of that community, their words had no legal power. It was up to the learned men to plow through the various opinions, seeking views that both fit the sources, and stood the test of logic. As to custom, it has no power if the custom came later than the last Sanhedrin, except as a local standard. This is generally the Sepharadic approach, except to the extent that Ashkenazic views have penetrated some Sepharadic areas.. RASHI, and the Tosafists, codified the Ashkenazi approach, that each recognized Torah Great did have authority over Jewish law and tradition. This continues to be a main feature of the Ashkenazi/Sephaardi divide. Moreover, Ashkenazim, following the opinion of the Jerusalem Talmud, that custom has halachic power, even to the point of trumping sources. The two approaches drifted further and further apart. Now you can understand why, when I write something, and one of our members will say "but you have negated the view of Rabbi So and So!", that means zero to me, unless I am given a written analysis of his arguments from sources, that I may judge the veracity and value of that opinion. Nobody can speak definitively. This is one of the many things that I love about the Sepharadic approach. When we have a valid Sanhedrin, Judaism will return to the way the Torah intended it to be, and we will again be unified. As it stands now, a Sepharadic sage will attempt to show legitimate sources for a view, while most Ashkenazi sages will speak from their subjective feeling of what is right, based on their knowledge and experience. Ashkenazi halachah is then more personality based. (Charismatic, if you will). One's ruling cannot be seen as final, for perhaps he is missing the view of a noted scholar. One frequently hears "he would not have said or ruled as he did, had he seen the view of Rabbi So and So". Every time a prominent Ashkenazic sage issues a ruling, it becomes part of the halachic system. This goes for stringencies that must be heavily taken into account, as well as leniencies. A typical Ashkenazi approach, since the late nineteenth century, would be to list every known posek's (halachic deciser's) view on a subject, declare the wide consensus to be the halachah, while stating that a truly pious Jew should act like the minority stricter opinion. But, in an emergency, he will be allowed to rely on a minority more lenient opinion. The Sepharadic sage would examine the basis for all opinions, and rule like the one that seems to fit the sources, whether it is lenient or strict, whether it is a majority or a minority opinion, providing it makes sense."Majority rules" only applies to a Sanhedrin taking a vote. Beyond all this, a new factor has come into play within the last century. The Orthodox "street" has come to demand the adoption of stricter and stricter views. In the area of Kashrut, for example, things that were considered kosher ten years ago, are often not acceptable today. Usually, this is not because there was a genuine problem, but because the Orthodox public demanded more stringencies. If a rabbi can come up with a new stringency, no matter how far fetched, he will become famous. If a Kashrut agency adopts a new stringency, it will have an advantage in the market over others. A few decades ago, a rabbi in Israel came up with the idea that eggplant and peppers are not kosher (!!!). He rose to celebrity status, receiving lucrative positions in a number of agencies. On the other hand, a rabbi arguing on behalf of a leniency will often be condemned and maligned, rather than accepting or rejecting that view based on its merits. When it comes to the conversion crisis, it all goes back to Rabbi Yitzchak Shmelkes (1828-1904). That will be my next post.

Charismatic Personality and Halachah part 1

When I first returned to the U.S. from Israel, I found, as I have written, a position in a small Long Island congregation. But I was soon faced with a problem. Their services began at 9:30, and ended about 11:45. That was fine for the Summer. But when Fall came, there was, for me, a real problem. In Ashkenazic tradition, the "Morning Meal" can literally be held at any time. But in Sepharadic tradition, "morning" means "morning". At midday, one would lose the mitzvah. In New York, in early November, midday comes out at 11:37. As November approached, my heart began to sink. Finally, I discussed my problem with the heads of the congregation. They were responsive to my concern, and moved the services up half an hour until December, when midday becomes sufficiently later. I mentioned this to Sima's nephew, who was studying at a Yeshiva in the area. "What's your problem? Reb Moshe 

(Moshe Feinstein, the doyen of the American Lithuanian Jewish community) writes that midday is NOT the midpoint between sunup and sundown, but a fixed time in each place. In the case of New York, it is 12:04. I had been aware of that view. In fact, it had been a debate in astronomy for centuries. Considering that the Sun arcs differently in different places, is the zenith at the midpoint, which varies, or a constant throughout the year? I had, in fact, years before spoken with three astronomers about this, including one from the prestigious Mt. Palomar Observatory. They were unanimous that the view that claims a fixed time throughout the year was in error. There was no question. It had been measured with the best instruments. I told this to Sima's nephew. His response threw me for a loop. "Of course it's wrong, but it's Reb Moshe!". He was telling me that the opinion of a prominent rabbi, with no scientific education, with no officially recognized position (other than being the head of his own Yeshiva, and being the President of a Rabbinic organization), could declare a scientific fact to be incorrect, and that becomes halachah???? My mind flew back to the era of Popes who declared that the edge of the world was Persia, and contrary to reports, there was no China. People had been put on trial, tortured, and even executed for questioning that. Does this really exist in Judaism? (There was recently a curious debate about whether or not the rabbis of the Talmud knew the value of pi, and what the implications of that are.) Even my teacher for Sofrut (Scribal law), the son of a prominent Bnai Brak rabbi, would often say "S'iz shver tzu dingen mit a metzius" (It is hard to argue with a fact). Where did this attitude of blind acceptance of a rabbi's opinion come from? I did my research. I began to see that different communities, and different authorities, had greatly different approaches to dealing with the enormous mass of rabbinic opinion, stretching back some 1,700 years. One minority approach was that individual great rabbis could, indeed, declare something to be right, and they were to be seen as infallible. (The Talmudic dictum of accepting a ruling even if illogical, is speaking about a duly authorized Sanhedrin. But even that is debated between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds). In recent decades, this has, sadly, become standard fare in wider and wider circles. Thus, we have the conversion crisis, as well as a kashrut industry that a colleague of mine calls "a sewer". I will analyze the progression of this debate, and its alternatives, in my next post.