The Noachide Dilemma part 3

We see in the Torah that there are two kinds of "Gerim" (converts).The "Righteous", or Full Convert, who becomes a Jew in every way, and the Ger Toshav (Resident Alien) who has the right to dwell among us, even in the Land of Israel, and who is to be supported by the Jewish community (where necessary).Although this is not spelled out, it is obvious from the use of the word "Ger", denoting in some contexts an equality with the Jews (there shall be one law for you and the Ger), and in others clearly indicating a Ger not bound by Torah (the Torah commands that animals that have not been properly slaughtered, are to be given to the Ger to eat) (Deuteronomy 14:21) It is pointed out that the Torah says "give", rather than "sell", as is commanded in the case of a Nochri (Gentile), implying an obligation to support. We have a term in the Talmud "Chasidei Umot HaOlam" (The Pious of the Nations of the World) for those who accept the Seven Noachide laws. The word "Noachide" (Ben Noah) in the Talmud simply means a Gentile. The use of the term "Noachide" to mean one who has accepted the Seven Laws is recent, but means the same as the Talmudic "Chasidei Umot HaOlam". Now we are faced with the question, are the terms "Chasidei Umot HaOlam" and Ger Toshav" one in the same? Here, I must again editorialize. There is a widespread, but by no means universal, idea that once a great person says something, he is ALWAYS right, and his words become a "source". It was only when I got to classes of advanced learning, did I hear the terms "right" or "wrong" applied to the ideas of great rabbis. I had always heard "we do not rule in accordance with that view" used. Only later did I find out that among "big" rabbis, that was merely a euphemism, so as not to lower a great rabbi's stature among the unlearned. It should be abundantly clear by now that I view RAMBAM's approach to halachah as light years ahead of his closest competitors. His clear and concise use of Talmudic sources, leaves everyone else in the dust. However, when he leaves the realm of halachah, and deals with ideology, philosophy, theology, or personal opinion, we must see him as opinion, rather than fully accepted doctrine. This is not only my view, but a very widespread idea among rabbis. In the case at hand, RAMBAM's assertions are primarily his own theories, lacking Talmudic basis. He says that a Ger Toshav is one who accepts the Noachide laws before three scholars (rabbis). Otherwise, he is deemed to simply be of the Chasidei Umot HaOlam. But this distinction is not found in Talmud, where the two are synonymous. In his Issurei Biah (forbidden sexual conduct) 14:8, he states that there is no such thing as a Ger Toshav today, as this status existed only while Jubilee was in effect, which ceased with the exile of the Northern Tribes. I have searched in vain for a Talmudic source for this statement. Also, his assertion that a Ger Toshav must accept his status in front of a Beit Din of three, reflects a single minority view in Talmud. (Avodah Zarah 64b)
Rabbi Meir maintains that a Ger Toshav is a Nochri (stranger) who accepts upon himself, in front of three scholars rabbis) , not to worship idols.
The Sages say that a Ger Toshav is a Gentile who accepts upon himself to observe the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach.
"Others" (a dissenting minority) maintain that the above opinions are incorrect, and that a Ger Toshav is a Nochri who accepts all of the Mitzvos except for not eating Neveilot (animals that were not slaughtered properly).
The accepted view of most post Talmudic scholars is that we rule like the majority opinion, which makes a Ger Toshav identical with the Naochide. Moreover, we do not find in the Talmud that he must accept this becasue of the Torah (as RAMBAM asserts). If a Gentile came to understand that idolatry is wrong, and living an ethical life is essential, he should be considered a Ger Toshav. Many medieval rabbis asserted that this would be true even if he is a member of another religion. All the discussions in online Torah lectures center around interpreting the views of RAMBAM in this area. I have yet to see someone questioning if these views are well founded. Can we ignore a view of RAMBAM? Suffice it to say, that not a single person reading this keeps kosher in accordance with the views of RAMBAM. Certain opinions of his are dismissed by later authorities. Why in the area of kashrut is he not seen as infallible, but in areas of ideology he is? In his introduction to his halachic magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, he writes that no one after the Talmud is accepted at face value, and must be judged by other rabbis as to logic and proper interpretation of Talmudic sources. I think we need to do just that. In my opinion, this approach would make us infinitely more inclusive of our fellow humans, and make Torah accessible to virtually all. In my next post, I will deal with the issue if Christianity is or isn't monotheistic. Can a Christian be a Noachide?

The Noachide Dilemma part 2

In a previous series, I brought the words of RAMBAM, showing that his views on conversion are identical to the Talmud, with the exception of the fact that he includes the acceptance of "Jewish fundamentals", which are not included in the Talmudic discussion, nor are they brought in the Shulchan Aruch. Indeed, many question if such fundamentals are actually a part of Judaism. In the case of the Noachide laws, RAMBAM's formulation is uncharacteristically vague. They are also not collected in one place, opening the way for misinterpretation.Also, many of his assertions are challenged by other authorities. Here are his basic principles (Kings and their Wars 8:10-11):
10
Moses only gave the Torah and mitzvot as an inheritance to Israel, as Deuteronomy 33:4 states: 'The Torah... is the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob,' and to all those who desire to convert from among the other nations, as Numbers 15:15 states 'the convert shall be the same as you.' However, someone who does not desire to accept Torah and mitzvot, should not be forced to.

By the same regard, Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah's descendants.

If one does not accept these commands, he should be executed. A person who formally accepts these commands is called a resident alien. This applies in any place. This acceptance must be made in the presence of three Torah scholars.

Anyone who agrees to circumcise himself and allows twelve months to pass without circumcising himself is considered as one of the nations.

11
Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven mitzvot and is precise in their observance is considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles' and will merit a share in the world to come.

This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses, our teacher, that Noah's descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously.

However, if he fulfills them out of intellectual conviction, he is not a resident alien, nor of 'the pious among the gentiles,' nor of their wise men.

The Seven laws are:
Do not deny God.
Do not blaspheme God.
Do not murder.
Do not engage in illicit sexual relations. (Primarily incest, adultery, bestiality, male homosexuality).
Do not steal.
Do not eat of a live animal.
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to the law.

RAMBAM brings more details, scattered through his work. Perhaps we can attribute the lack of clarity to the fact that Jews were not permitted by the Gentile authorities to act on these laws. Indeed, some of RAMBAM's assertions were very dangerous. For example, he declares in another passage that although Islam is Monotheistic (without reproach), Christianity "in all its forms" is idolatry. Interestingly, many European rabbis, both in RAMBAM's time and later, vigorously deny that assertion. Were their favorable view of Christianity as monotheistic their actual belief, or did they say this out of fear? Is the "resident alien" status applicable today? From here it sounds like it is. Elsewhere, he says it isn't. This has been a point of controversy ever since. If it isn't, what place do the "Pious of the Nations" hold? His statement that one must obey these laws, not because of "intellectual conviction", but because of the Torah, does that exclude monotheists of other faiths? Yes, it clearly does. But many other rabbis disagree strongly. RAMBAM's statement about establishing courts to enforce these laws, is elaborated elsewhere as being a requirement to apply the death penalty to any transgression of these laws. Steal a stick of gum, and one faces death. Most other rabbis feel that RAMBAM misinterpreted the sources here, and the rule is that the Court must apply appropriate punishment, which can be up to and including the death penalty, as it deems appropriate.
I will elaborate on these points and their application in subsequent posts. I must, however, editorialize a bit here. (Those offended, please just leave quietly). There was a prominent late 19th century and early 20th century rabbi who made an art of going through RAMBAM's writings with a fine tooth comb; giving great import to every nuance of a phrase, or the use of a particular word when a simpler word could have been used. He established an entire methodology of study around this, still followed by many.. Besides the fact that many of his points have, with the discovery of the oldest manuscripts of RAMBAM, been shown to be copyist's errors, my own view is that RAMBAM, more than any other rabbinic source, says what he means. Ambiguity sometimes can be found, but entire treatises written on the use of as word, can rarely be justified. I will not mention These views in my analysis.Please do not ask who I mean. Had I wanted to name names, i would have. In short, according to RAMBAM, being among the "righteous of the Nations" (Chasidei Umot HaOlam) is a very demanding status, with people very much cut off from general society. But many others see it as anyone who believes in one G-d, and lives a good and moral life. More to come.

The Noachide Dilemma part 1

Jews are a religion. We are a people. We are an ethnicity. These are all true to an extent, yet none of these is the entire answer. A few years ago, geneticists published the startling finding that the original Ashkenazic community, consisting of Jews from Italy who had come to Franco-Germany at the invitation of Charlemagne, had numbered only about 350 souls; with only five of those female. The apparent meaning of this is that the immigrants married either local women, or else purchased Slavic women being sold as slaves (this is, in fact, the origin of the word "slave"). These women were converted, and are in fact the mothers of Ashkenazic Jewry. Further genetic tests showed that this was not only true for Ashkenazim. Jews from all countries show a close affinity on the Y (male) chromosome, but very little on the female X chromosome. 
Apparently, when Jews migrated for economic (rather than persecution) reasons, females were left safely behind, while the males took the risks of going into uncharted territory. When this news hit the media, proud Jews all over Facebook treating this item as the end of the world, or at least as the end of their personal delusions of grandeur. (True, science changes, and later tests may reveal different results, but the numbers from all over the world are so overwhelming, that the basic facts are unlikely to change. Besides, most of the researchers were Orthodox Jews). People were writing cries of "Woe! This can't be true!" I wrote "I have no problem with this. Both born Jews and converts make up our People." The typical response was "You have no problem?!?! Who the Hell are you?" When Rabbi Ovadia Yosef issued a ruling that despite historical doubts, the Ethiopian Jews were to be considered as halachically Jewish, a number of Hareidi Ashkenazic rabbis denounced him as "diluting the Jewishness of our People". He wrote a very controversial rejoinder "the Ashkenazim are the last people to be able to talk". Violence was narrowly averted. This was a decade before the genetic studies came out! I realized that there was a deeper problem here. Jews have been persecuted and oppressed everywhere. "Goy, Sheigitz" (gentile, detestable) is probably the worst insult that one could possibly use for another Jew. The English threw Jews off cliffs in the 12th and 13th centuries, until their expulsion. The German and French would often herd the Jews of a city into the town synagogue, setting it on fire. Later, Poles and Ukrainians would not only murder Jews, but cut pregnant Jewish women's bellies open, throw down the fetus, replacing it with a live cat, and sewing them back up. (Very prevalent in the 17th century). The horrors of the Inquisition in Spain and Portugal are well known, but many details have only come to light recently. Jews in Muslim countries generally fared better, but that depended on who was in power. The Holocaust was not a unique event; merely more efficient. Jews always felt morally superior to their neighbors. The idea of being full blooded descendants of Abraham and Sarah was indeed a comfort. Now, the thought that I am half THEM, the enemy, the persecutor, the rapists and pillagers, was too much for many to accept. Even the Biblical idea of "a Light unto the Nations" seemed like an unreasonable demand. But the Torah tells us that Man is created in G-d's image. (Although at least one group denies that means non-Jews.) One East European rabbi in the 1920s even wrote that non-Jews feel no real connection to their families; even their own children. They are in no way "like us". But the Torah says that no man shall be punished for the sins of his Fathers. The Talmud lists many Jewish heroes who were the children of vicious antisemites. Should we let our bitter experiences blind us to the ideals of the Torah? One great rabbi of the 16th century may have been foolhardy when he came to the Pope, at the height of the Inquisition, urging his conversion to Judaism. But is it wrong to help non-Jews who seek G-d, merely becasue of what their ancestors may have done? In Czarist Russia, a Jew influencing a non-Jew about religion would be put to death. This is still true in many Muslim countries. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe urged his followers to speak with non-Jews about the Noachide laws, he was widely criticized and denounced in many quarters. In this series, i hope to elucidate what our Torah obligations are towards non-Jews. I have already dealt in detail with conversion. But what, exactly, is a Noachide? Can a Christian or a Muslim still be a Noachide? What is a "Ger Toshav" (resident alien)? Is this identical to a Noachide, or is it something else? May, or should, a Noachide take upon him/herself additional mitzvot beyond the seven? Why might he/she want to do this? What should be our attitude towards this? There is much little covered territory to explore.

The Conversion Crisis part 16

Once,a rabbi asked me to do him a favor of taking some new utensils to the mikveh for him, as I was headed there anyway. I said "Sure", but I decided to do an experiment. "Do you want me to immerse each utensil once, or are you strict to do it three times?" In fact, there was never an opinion that we are required to immerse a utensil three times. He hesitated for a moment. "Of course three times!" He had taken the bait. On the outside chance that I knew of an opinion that he didn't know, let's do it! Rabbi Shabbetai Sabato, a prominent Israeli Sepharadic rabbi, once said to me: "Did you notice that the Talmud 'sifts' every question many times, before pronouncing anything permitted or forbidden? But in recent generations, we find that something is technically forbidden, but permitted by custom, or technically permitted, but forbidden by custom?" (He was criticizing the Ashkenazi halachic system, which had overflowed into many Sepharadic communities as well). Yes, in fact, I HAD noticed. This is what Pogo said in a famous cartoon "we have met the enemy, and he is us!".If a rabbi comes out permitting something that had wrongly been assumed to be forbidden, he will be disrespected. The Orthodox community just loves rabbis who find reasons to forbid the permitted. One Israeli rabbi made a name...and many lucrative positions...for himself by declaring peppers and eggplant to be not kosher. Although this view was not widely accepted, the fact is that people are quick to respond to rumors, and be dismissive of those who debunk those rumors. Thus, extreme positions tend to become halachah, without proper peer reviewed discussion. In my opinion, this results in ever increasing stringencies, which lock people out of Judaism, and make it increasingly unlivable. We forget the verse "Its ways are the ways of pleasantness." (Proverbs 3:17) This attitude is a large factor behind the conversion crisis, as well as the reason for "fallout" from Judaism. I could give hundreds of examples, but let us speak now about just a few. In a news article that appeared about three years ago, a group of rabbis convinced the Chief Rabbinate of Israel of the view of Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes, that a convert is no convert unless he observes every facet of halachah right off the bat, as well as that Modern Orthodox rabbis who see certain parts of Torah as allegory (especially the Creation narrative) are heretics, and thus invalid to be on a Beit Din. The Chief Rabbi immediately declared all RCA conversions to be invalid. The RCA buckled, and accepted the new standard. Only fully observant converts would be accepted, and only the rabbis with a literal approach to Scripture would be approved. But conversion affects only a relatively small percentage of the community. A few years ago, on a more liberal rabbinic forum, a colleague raised the issue that being that it is "forbidden"to hold the evening service on Shavuot before nightfall, and he is the rabbi at a nursing home, where the patients must be in bed at an early hour, how should this be handled? I replied that it is not "forbidden", and only became a custom about 250 years ago in Eastern Europe only, and is denounced as baseless by Sepharadic rabbis. It should be fine to hold early services in this case. My colleagues replied "it is very dangerous to tell people that something they had always considered forbidden, is actually permitted". Kosher standards have changed drastically in the last forty years, and in some ways, even in the last five years.Some of this is due to misinformation and innuendo; but much of it is due to people demanding higher and higher standards from the Kashrut agencies becasue of something they had "heard". I will close this post, and this series, with one incident that I experienced. It is very telling. I have lost many friends over this. Please, no debate. If this offends you, please just leave quietly. When I lost my Father in 1985, the "prohibition" against listening to music weighed very heavily on me. For a "white noise" background, I would have the World Service of the BBC on the radio all day. When my Mother passed away in 1991, I dreaded another year of silence, with nothing but the sound of gunfire to fill the air in my apartment. (Remember, I was living in the "territories" ) I remembered that I had had a friend, who, in a similar circumstance had been permitted by Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik to listen to broadcast or recorded music. The fact that it was second hand information, plus the fact that I was never partial to most of Rav Soloveitchik's views, made me feel that it would not be justified to follow him in this case. I went to speak with a prominent Jerusalem Hareidi rabbi whom I knew. A remarkable scholar, Hasidic (Skver), but yet the head of a well known Jerusalem Lithuanian Yeshiva, besides being a close confidant of Rav Elyashiv, the doyen of non-Hasidic Hareidi Judaism in Jerusalem. I will not mention his name, as this was told to me in confidence. He said "Reb Yaakov (my Hebrew name), let's be honest. ALL music is forbidden after the destruction of the Temple. (An exception is made in Hareidi Jerusalem, to allow a single instrument at weddings). This is clear in all sources. It is also clear that the primary prohibition is for celebratory, instrumental music. Then why is it done? Because, outside of group celebrations, we are using music as MEDICINE, to cheer us up and encourage us. There is zero difference between the Omer period, the days before Tish'ah B'Av, one in mourning, and the rest of the year. Broadcast or recorded music is not celebratory. There is no prohibition to use it as background, or to calm one's nerves, except for Shiv'ah (the seven days after the funeral when strict mourning rites are observed) and Tish'ah B'Av itself, as on these days we are not permitted to distract ourselves from the somber meaning of the events." I asked him "Why is this not stated publicly?, In fact, nearly every rabbi lists this among the prohibitions of the days of the Omer and the three weeks before Tish'ah B"av"." He answered "because rabbis consider it unwise to declare permitted what has been assumed for three generation to be forbidden". These things I have written are the main points. As Hillel said to the man who wanted to learn the entire Torah while standing on one foot "the rest is commentary. Go study!" We all need an education!

The Conversion Crisis part 15

When I lived in Cincinnati (1973-1975), I was on the Beit Din both for conversion and divorces (Gittin). An unusual case came before us. A couple came for a "get". After the ceremony, the woman turned to the Beit Din, and said "now I want a letter that I am not Jewish". We looked at her in surprise. "My husband's mother hated me, and said that she would never accept our marriage. I told her that I would show her, and have her own Orthodox rabbi marry us. I converted just to spite her. I have witnesses that I was in Church the Sunday before and the Sunday after my conversion". Rabbi Scharfstein, the head of the Beit Din, refused to issue such a letter. It is abundantly clear in our sources, that although we check out a convert's motives before hand, if we failed to do so, or if we were duped, the conversion stands. On the one hand, this situation underscored the weakness of individual rabbis doing conversions. There had been an agreement between the Orthodox rabbis in Cincinnati that all conversions and divorces would go through Rabbi Scharfstein's central Beit Din. But this woman's conversion had been performed by an individual Modern Orthodox rabbi who USUALLY worked through the Beit Din, but did not this time. He apparently knew that there was something "fishy" about the woman, and that Rabbi Scharfstein would refuse to perform the conversion. One could only guess at what pressures the rabbi had been under to perform a conversion that he apparently knew was unacceptable. On the other hand, there was zero basis for declaring her conversion invalid. So how did we get to the current situation of conversions being routinely invalidated retroactively; sometimes even decades after the event? Sometimes, there is basis for such an action. If it can be shown that one of the members of the Beit Din was invalid, that would make the conversion invalid, according to the accepted practice of requiring a Beit Din, (although it is unclear in the Talmud if this is an actual requirement, even ex post facto. In a saner time, the conversion would have been redone as a stringency). But what invalidates one from being on a Beit Din? In the Talmud, it would only be a public sinner. RAMBAM introduces a new factor; heretical beliefs. This is unknown in Talmudic sources, and goes unmentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. This view opens up a Pandora's Box. What exactly constitutes heresy? I will here remind you of the view of certain rabbis that owning a Smart Phone not only invalidates one from being a witness or a judge (Dayyan), but even from being counted in a minyan! How far do we go? RAMBAM's definition of heresy, was itself declared heresy by some of his colleagues! But a controversial 1972 event changed the rules for all. I have discussed in an earlier series the very tragic issue of Mamzerut; usually translated "bastardy", but actually meaning the issue of a union of incest or adultery. The children of such a union may never marry a Jew (with certain limited exceptions). A cause celebre in the early '70s in Israel, was the case of the Langer twins. Before WW II, a Jewish woman married a man who was not of Jewish background. The man insisted he had converted. The woman said that he had only had himself circumcised. During the war, they lost contact with each other, and each assumed the other to be dead. They both survived, and wound up in Israel. Each remarried, and had started a family. When this situation was discovered, the Rabbinate declared the woman's second marriage to be adulterous, and her two children to be mamzerim. This stirred up great resentment in the secular community. Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Chief Rabbi of the IDF, said "If I were Chief Rabbi of Israel, I would find a solution". At that time, Chief Rabbis reigned for life. A new law was put into place, limiting the Chief Rabbis' tenure to ten years. The Chief Rabbis Unterman and Nissim were ousted. Rabbis Goren and Yosef were installed. Within days, Rabbi Goren had convened a special secret Court. The man was asked to recite the Shema. He was unable to do so. Rabbi Goren declared his belief that the man had never converted. He added that the Talmud makes the (enigmatic) statement that "all who marry or convert, do so with the consent of the rabbis". No one is quite sure of the meaning of this statement. Rabbi Goren interpreted it to mean that the rabbis could undo a marriage or conversion. He decalred the conversion of the woman's first husband, if it had happened at all, to be null and void. He also declared her marriage invalid, even if the conversion had been done. The two children, a young man and a young woman, were married to their fiances the next day, with Golda Meir acting as the "parent", giving the bride and groom away. This action of Rabbi Goren sent shock waves throughout the rabbinic world. His fellow Chief Rabbi opposed both the action and the manner in which it had been done. Those members of the Supreme Rabbinic Council who leaned in the direction of the Hareidi world, resigned their positions. The Chief Rabbinate was no longer taken seriously in many circles. Ironically, the idea that a rabbi could retroactively decalre a conversion invalid, was taken up by some Hareidi Batei Din, especially in the U.S., but by the 1990s in Israel as well (although not the idea of declaring a marriage invalid, which would solve the agunah problem for thousands of women.) Suddenly, for those who take the idea seriously that, contrary to all known sources, a conversion could be undone, a convert would always live under the threat of finding him or her self suddenly a non-Jew once again, if one rabbi or another is unhappy with something they have done.. In my opinion, this approach is without halalchic merit. I would still regard such a person as Jewish. I constantly see well meaning, but uneducated, Jews writing Facebook messages that conversions can be undone,. This would come as a shock to all rabbis before 1973, as well as non-political rabbis today. This is part of the conversion crisis. This is politics.

The Conversion Crisis part 14

Although the various doctrines I have described seem like politics, and even hate, this is not necessarily true (although there are politicians and haters among us). We essentially have two definitions of Orthodoxy. One is all Jews who believe in the  Written and Oral Torah, who practice it to the best of their ability, and see themselves as answerable to G-d alone. The other is based primarily on a devotion to emulating the ways of a community and its leaders. This is seen as an unbroken connection to Sinai, and the very embodiment of the Oral Torah, trumping any textual record to the contrary. These conflicting concepts are not new, and can be traced back to RAMBAM versus the Tosafot. Moreover, neither concept is exclusive to "Hareidi Orthodox" or "Modern Orthodox". In each group, there are those who are source based, and those who are community leadership based. A few years ago, there was a Hareidi rally in New York, with a large number of Lithuanian Yeshiva heads  delivering impassioned messages on the evils of the Internet. I overheard two young men talking about this. One commented, and the other heartily agreed, that whoever didn't attend is a "Sadducee". On the other hand, I have been astonished to see publications of followers of the late Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, that read "The view of Rabbi so and so can be ignored, because HE IS NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION". That is, if you are not in the MESORAH of Yeshiva University, your opinion is null and void. And then they criticize the Hassidim for following a particular Rebbe! Torah literature is very vast. We even find the expression "The Sea of the Talmud". There are different views on anything and everything. A corollary to the above mentioned division is, if we consider or dismiss out of hand, a classical view that contradicts the present understanding.,Should we study each view in light of sources, history and logic, adjusting our practice where applicable, or have the earlier views been made obsolete by the later rabbis who had different ideas? I was once giving a lecture on the laws of a Torah Scroll; what defects would necessitate stopping the reading in the middle, and taking a different one from the ark. I quoted a divergent view of RAN (Rabbenu Nissim of Gerona 1310–1375). Present was one of the famous Rosh Kollels (advanced Yeshivas) in Israel. The view was so out of sync with what he had studied, that he stood up, and shouted "Ein RAN kazeh!" (there is no such statement of RAN). He stormed out of the room. The next day, I showed him the statement in black and white. "It can't mean that!" was his response. "Then what does it mean?" I asked. "I don't know, but certainly not what it sounds like". I never received an acknowledgement from him, nor an apology for the public shaming and denunciation. I had, after all, challenged a tradition that everyone "knew". Many of our most basic assumptions have sources to the contrary. One can find sources for every Egalitarian and Feminist claim and demand. The first approach is to see if the source is valid and logical. Even if it is, would the effect on the community be worth the confusion of back tracking? Is truth preferable to people's sensibilities? These are by no means easy questions. The second approach, however, would argue that the community, its leaders, as well as history, have already made the alternate opinion into a "dead letter", which we have no business reopening. A Baal Teshuva or convert, confronting an Orthodox rabbi with such a source, is opening up a "can of worms", The rabbi feels pressured, as well as challenged. Anything he says, can, and will be, used against him, by the Court of Public Opinion. I have mentioned two posts ago, that the rabbis of Morasha (UTJ) have been rebuffed by the rabbis of Open Orthodoxy. This discussion is precisely the reason. The Morasha rabbis look to sources. If a point is clear in Talmud and other classical sources, that is the halachah. Someone in the twentieth century disagreed? His views will be examined for logic and faithfulness to sources. If the new opinions do not "fit" they will be rejected. OO , claimed loyalty to the "Gedolim", although they have a hugely different approach. From their perspective, fealty to the Gedolim is the very definition of "Orthodox". Morasha rabbis (and others) would say that submission to Torah, Talmud and related sources are what makes one "Orthodox".  It is my fervent hope that open dialogue will ensue, and the Great Questions will be resolved. In the area of conversions, until one rabbi issued a very strict opinion that was at first rejected by most, but, over the next century found acceptance in many circles, most Batei Din had very lenient conversion policies. Since the strict opinion was issued by one of the "Gedolim", does that become the halachah? Or should other rabbis hold that opinion up to scrutiny in the light of sources and logic? The very nature of Judaism depends on how we answer that question.