[Avodah] R' Angel & Geirus Redux

[Daniel Eidensohn]

Michael Makovi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe at 012.net.il> wrote:
>   
>>  R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>>  I wrote:
>>>>         
>>  >> *R' Angel* is not concerned with whether they are committed to keep the
>>  >>  entire Torah. He stated the following in an interview published in
>>  >>  Forward November 2007
>>  >>
>>     
>>> Rabbi Berkovits characterized it as an eit la'asot lashem, dropping
>>>       
>>  > the law of gerut in favor of unity of Am Yisrael. Not that I'm an
>>  > expert, but he has me convinced.
>>  >
>>     
>
>   
>>  If I understand you properly, R' Berkovitz argues that whenever the
>>  Torah laws become difficult to keep they should be simply abrogated
>>  because of ais la'asos. According to this if we are prepared to have
>>  Israel populated by "make believe" Jews for the sake of "Jewish unity"
>>  we should also do away with the problem of aguna and mamzerim by saying
>>  these halachos are no longer of concern because it interferes with
>>  Jewish unity. Shabbos is also a problem. Hilchos nidda and kashrus are
>>  also divisive laws.
>>
>>
>>  Daniel Eidensohn
>>     
>
> What Rav Berkovits says has to be understood along with what he says
> about Chazal in Not in Heaven: he says that Chazal could never
> abrogate a deoraita in theory, but they could okimta it so as to
> effectively get rid of it (the rebellious son) or to modify its
> operation (for example, with mamzerim, you can just simply not
> investigate the evidence, for an aguna you can rely on one witness,
> etc.). I'm not an expert on exactly what he intends, but it is very
> obvious he means nothing similar to simply wiping laws out.
>   
He basically says that whatever we think Chazal did - we can do also. 
However even if we have the arrogance to think we fully understand what 
Chazal did and even if we chas v'shalom viewed ourselves as their equals 
- but much of what they did was obviously before the closing of the 
Talmud. How can you assert that that freedom of action still exists 
after the closing of the Talmud?

> What he says is that the Torah was meant to be a living evolutionary
> code (therefore it was davka Oral and not Written), and therefore it
> could freely evolve according to the legitimate needs of human living.
> His Not in Heaven is full of examples he brings from the Gemara to
> illustrate what he intends.
>
> But he is of course committed to the halachic system (unlike
> Conservative, who use disengenous pseudo-halachic solutions), and he
> did not (or at least, he did not knowingly) import foreign values into
> Judaism (unlike Conservative); he relied on Tanachic values, as did
> Chazal.
>
>
>   
Having read through Not in Heaven - in particular Chapter 4 -Halacha in 
our Time - I am having difficulty understanding how R' Berkovitz differs 
from Reform and Conservative Judaism. What does he do with Jews for 
Jesus? The following is his lead in to his discussion of conversion.

For example he states on page 107

"It is our conviction that Halacha has to be stretched to its limits in 
order to further Jewish unity and to better mutual understanding. In the 
Orthodox camp there are certain psychological impediments that have to 
be overcome. It is time that Orthodox rabbis face without dogmatism the 
issue of their relationship to rabbis of the non-Orthodox denominations. 
Judged in the light of the real situation, it is just not true that the 
latter, because of the Conservative or Reform interpretation of Judaism, 
are incapable of Yirat Shamayim. To insist that this is so is a 
prejudice; it is insisting on an untruth that, as such, is a violation 
of important biblical commandments. There are quite a few among 
Conservative and Reform rabbis who are sincere believers in Judaism. Nor 
should one take it for granted that belonging to the Orthodox group 
automatically bestows upon one the precious treasure of Yirat Shamayim. 
It is true that some of the practices and teachings of non-Orthodox 
rabbis represent a violation of the laws of the Torah as they are 
understood by the Orthodox interpretation. But it is not true that they 
interpret and practice as they do because the mean to perform an act of 
heresy or rebellion against Judaism. On the contrary, many among them 
work to preserve, to enrich, to serve Judaism and the Jewish people no 
less than the best among their Orthodox colleagues. From the point of 
view of their ideological position, their intention may be no less 
L'shem Shamayim, for the sake of heaven, than that of Orthodox Jews. 
What is their halachic status? Since they do not violate the law with 
the knowledge or the intention of violating, but on the contary with 
conviction - however mistaken from the Orthodox point of view - of 
practicing a valid form of Judaism, they are not to be considered Mumrim 
l'Hakhis, apostates out of spite, nor even Mumrim l'Teabon, apostates of 
convenience. From the halachic point of view they are To'im, mistaken. 
This reference to non-Orthodox rabbis as To'im as erring ones, should 
not be taken as a form of condescension. We are attempting to define 
their status from the point of view of Halakha. I fully realize that 
non-Orthodox interpreters of Judaism may similarly refer to the Orthodox 
interpretation as Ta'ut, a mistake...."


Daniel Eidensohn