AJN WATCH - the on-line voice of Australian Orthodox Jewry observes and comments on matters of interest to that community.
We particularly monitor prejudice and monopolistic abuse of influence in the pages of the Australian Jewish News - the main source of information to and about Australian Jewry. We spotlight errors, expose misrepresentations and vigorously advocate our community's positions.
A brief report in "Yediot Jerusalem" reports about the new craze among Chassidim: Purchasing replicas of their Rebbes' chairs ● A distritbutor in Jerusalem teamed up with wood carving professionals in Australia to bring you an exact replica of the Rebbe's chair for $770 ● Full Story
The new craze in the Chassidic world: Replicas of chairs of the Great Chassidic Rebbes. In the recent months, replicas of various chairs are being sold, some of famous personalities of the past, and some of current Rebbes.
The idea is of Mr. Mordechai Regev, a Breslev Chossid who started by selling replicas of Rabi Nachman's Chair from the original which sits in the Me'ah Shearim. That replica sold for $2000 and many Brelev Chassidim purchased it.
Following his success, Mr. Regev proceeded to create a replica of the chair of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, and he plans on selling it to Lubavitchers around the world, and to individual Chabad Chassidim.
The chair he replicated is the one the Rebbe sat on since 5748, and after measuring the exact dimensions he contacted professional sculptors in Australia who will do the wood carving. The chair will be sold for $770.
We know of Doktor Rabbiners and Rabbi Drs, but "Rabbi chef" is definitely a new one.
Seeing that there are so many people who have received some sort of Semicha but didn't follow it up with a rabbinic post, we won't be surprised to see "Rabbi plumber", "Rabbi-taxi-driver" and "Rabbi-hairdresser".
And does a "Rabbi-chef" get an invitation to join the RCV?
UPDATE: We now find an even odder rabbinical combination: "Rabbi-boxer"!
Old-timer writes: I was a bit surprised to read that Central Shul-Chabad will be sharing its new building with the Betar youth group.
I cannot recall other times that Chabad and a Zionist organisation have combined. I realise that Betar is one of the few Zionist groups that is not anti-religion, however to the best of my knowledge Chabad was always officially non-Zionist and even anti-Zionist.
Would the Rebbe have approved? I doubt it, (though I would be relieved to hear that he allowed such partnerships in his lifetime).
Did our Vaad Ruchni give their approval to this? If so, what about inviting Bnei Akiva and even Hashomer Hatzair to open branches in Yeshiva - or at least in the new Chabad Youth building?
I was most disappointed to read in last week's Jewish News about Elwood Shul and the Yesodei Hatorah college battling it out in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the report that the Shul has already spent $430,000 on the case!
Both sides are supposed to be Torah-observant organisations, so how come they didn't do the proper Torah thing and go to a Din Torah?
Whilst I am unsure on who the religious authority currently is for Yesodei, it was established by a group of frum Jews headed by Rabbi D Nojowitz of Beth Hatalmud with the approval of the late Rabbi Chaim Gutnick and offers a Charedi agenda and curriculum. Similarly Elwood Shul, has always been Orthodox and currently lead by Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick, who heads the Melbourne Beth Din and Melbourne Kashrut.
How is it then possible that such groups defy the stern and unambiguous Halacha of not bringingour arguments to the secular courts? Rashi states that this is a Chilul Hashem - which as we know is one of the greatest Aveiros and about which our Sages say that במקום שיש חילול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב.
And what lesson doesthe average Halacha-abiding Jew learn from this? If Shuls (in this case one whose rabbi is the acting head of Beth Din!) and religious schools shun Din Torahs why should he be any different?
Additionally, onemay ask, is Elwood Shul truly so flush with money? Can they really afford to squander half a million dollars fighting another Jewish institution? And what about Yesodei?How much have they spent on lawyers?
I have no inside knowledge of the case, but from what I read and heard, the case is nowhere near the end. Isn't there anyone in the community who can knock some sense into both sides?
Can someone explain why have organisations and lay-leaders of our community - especially those who regularly criticise sections of the local media for anti-Israel bias and mis/disinformation - not made submissions about this to the current Independent Media Inquiry?
Wouldn't this have been an outstanding opportunity to publicise the frequent anti-Israel slant of the usual suspects, eg, the Canberra Times, the SMH, The Age, SBS and the ABC?
We may have missed it whilst browsing the free on-line edition of the AJN, but we cannot recall any comment or criticism by it about this bungled and missed opportunity.
Where are they all? AIJAC, ECAJ, ZFA, JCCV and all the other acronyms that claim to be representing the interests of Israel and the local Jewish community? Not sure why our fearless MP, Mr Michael Danby isn't there. Maybe being a parliamentarian has something to do with it. But where are all the others? Has there been a massive slip-up? Or what?
(At the same time, members of the Orthodox community and especially the Chabad leadership should have considered raising their concerns on the history of biased and unjust articles published in the Jewish News when reporting on the observant community.)
I am extremely disappointed to learn that Blake Street Shul, which labels itself as Orthodox, is co-sponsoring a book festival where the majority of featured speakers are married out. Whilst I am not condemning those persons for their assimilated lifestyle - no doubt influenced by their upbringing which lacked authentic Jewish values and traditions - there is absolutely no justification for an orthodox Shul to feature such speakers. Why didn't the rabbi and lay leaders of Blake Street consider the influence such well-known - but totally detached from Judaism - personalities may have on young and impressionable members of their community? Aren't they being totally irresponsible and reckless in supporting this project? There is still time to withdraw and remove their Shul's name from this blunder. For the sake of your kids, Blake Street, do it!
An AJNWATCH reader writes: While I understand the need for the KCA and Kosher Aust to publicise easily available brands of acceptable tunas, for those who seek a higher standard in Kashrut, it may be advantageous if you published the attached article from the OK Kashrut magazine "Kosher Spirit", which gives some background to the tuna Kashrut debate amongst supervising organisations. The article makes it quite obvious that the OK has more stringent requirements in approving tuna than does the OU or Kosher Australia. (I have no idea what standards are held by the NSW KA.)
Thank you for being מזכה את הרבים.
Once, tuna fishing thrived on the Pacific coast of the United States. Pioneered by adventurers straight out of the novels of Herman Melville and "Papa" Hemingway, it blossomed into a major industry, employing thousands and filling countless American lunchboxes.
Then came the dolphins.
Tuna and dolphins, it seems, travel together-the dolphins on the water's surface and the tuna below. Inevitably, the nets used for tuna caught dolphins, as well. Could we allow Flipper such a painful demise? Soon, most tuna production had shifted to the Asian Pacific, and the American tuna industry was no more. Whatever the environmental and quality standards, the world's tuna production was now in the hands of fishing industrialists in Thailand and the Philippines.
Enter the Rabbis.
In Vayikra (Leviticus) 11:9, the Torah says: "This may you eat of all that is in the waters: everything that has fins and scales." The Talmud (Chulin 66b) states that, in fact, every fish with scales has fins, making scales the sole determining sign. But what exactly are kosher fish scales? After all, some reptiles also have scales.
Biologists identify four types of scales, two of which, cycloid and ctenoid, are found on kosher fish, such as tuna.
In the pre-industrial world, fish fresh from the monger were not skinned, and their species could be identified. Even absent the actual signs, as with an immature fish of a type that grows scales late in life, the fish's kosher status would depend on its species. Only fish with the skin removed, and arriving with no clear sign of their species, demanded special measures such as constant supervision or an untouched seal with two separate Hebrew signs, indicating that it had been sent by a person trustworthy in Jewish law.
The Debate:
In 1962, prominent authority Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin wrote that without supervision from the beginning of production, consumers could not trust a can's assertion that it contained tuna. However, many tuna brands were already certified kosher without such supervision.
In place of constant supervision, the best-known supervising agency arranged intermittent visits to factories abroad to check that production was according to kosher standards. As is the case with other areas of kosher supervision, it was assumed that fear of the supervisor's appearance at any moment would motivate management and workers to prevent non-kosher fish from entering the production line. Despite these less-than-ideal conditions, widespread distribution of the tuna continued.
In the years following, Torah authorities from around the world, both Sefardi and Ashkenazi, in Israel and the Diaspora, joined in demanding constant supervision. In 1977 and 1984, the highly respected Rabbi Moshe Feinstein entered the discussion, outlining the reasons for this exceptional vigilance.
Finding it unfeasible to identify a fish as kosher without overt signs, Rabbi Feinstein insisted that a reliable kosher supervisor examine every fish before skinning. The large volume of industrial fishing, he said, makes it certain that non-kosher fish will be present in the nets. Intermittent visits, even if sufficiently frequent and surprising, would not serve their traditional purpose. At the speeds of a mechanized cannery, workers could expect any non-kosher fish to be gone before anyone would notice.
The function of supervision, Rabbi Feinstein wrote, is not to make life difficult for the producer in order to reduce the percentage of non-kosher fish to an acceptably insignificant level. Supervision, he explained, is testimony; it indicates that a reliable witness has seen production and can testify that the contents are kosher.
While certain agencies (including OK Kosher Certification) followed Rabbi Feinstein's guidelines, in most tuna supervision, upgrades were slow in coming.
In 1988, the controversy bubbled over in rabbinic journals. Arguments for and against constant supervision were passionately presented. Most leading rabbinic authorities favored constant supervision. However, invoking the classic talmudic principle that a tradesman will not jeopardize his reputation, Rabbi Tzvi Schacter asserted that since it is in the fisherman's business interest to deliver albacore tuna, for example, to the factory, he would surely allow only albacore to remain among his catch. And in the name of "quality control," the factory would check again before skinning the fish.
Have we reached a stalemate? Perhaps. Yet, by his own admission, Rabbi Schacter's position rests on the assumption that virtually no non-kosher fish slip through quality control. Kosher supervisors tell another story, and undeniable gaffes in the intervening years, such as octopus and clams in tuna cans, cast doubt on his premise. Much more problematic (as the Talmud cautions and ichthyologists corroborate), appearance and taste do not always reveal the identity of a fish fillet. Without our eyes wide open, we cannot know what we have received.
The market may take care of itself, but does it take care of kashrut? How deep is a producer's commitment to quality control? I once heard the following anecdote: A supervisor arrived late to a Philippine factory for a kosher production run. Discarding the fish processed prior to the supervisor's arrival, the plant manager remarked: "Really, rabbi...would it be so terrible if someone ate a bit of catfish?"
Well, well, well. My previous post here has achieved a quick result. The KCA has now forwarded the entire list of approved tunas which was previously banned from further publication by Melbourne's Kosher Australia. Actually it seems from the time and date that their reaction was almost immediate! Good work.
Looks like a bit of public kvetching still works.
Thank you AJN Watch for you assistance by publishing my earlier complaint.
From: KCA_Sydney@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Yankel Wajsbort Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:43 AM To: Joe.Newman@lpi.nsw.gov.au; efranklin@westpac.com.au; KCA_Sydney@yahoogroups.com Subject: [KCA Sydney] Full List of Recently Certified Tunas
The following varieties of Coles brand canned tuna, marked ‘Made in/Product of Thailand’ are kosher certified pareve by the Orthodox Union and are acceptable even without the OU symbol:
1.Smart Buy Tuna Chunks in Brine 425g 2.Smart Buy Tuna Vegetable Oil 425g 3.Smart Buy Tuna in Vegetable Oil 185g 4.Smart Buy Tuna Chunk in Brine 185g 5.Coles Tuna Sandwich Olive Oil Blend 95g 6.Coles Tuna Sandwich in Brine 95g 7.Coles Tuna Chunks in Springwater 185g 8.Coles Tuna Sandwich in Brine 185g 9.Coles Tuna Chunks in Brine 185g 10.Coles Tuna Chunks in Olive Oil Blend 95g 11.Coles Tuna Sandwich in Olive Oil 185g 12.Coles Tuna Chunks Olive Oil Blend 185g 13.Coles Tuna Chunks in Brine 95g 14.Coles Tuna Chunks in Oil 95g 15.Coles Tuna in Springwater 95g 16.Coles Tuna Chunks in Brine 425g 17.Coles Tuna Chunks in Olive Oil Blend 425g 18.Coles Tuna Chunks in Springwater 425g 19.Coles Tuna Pole & Line Chunks in Olive Oil 185g 20.Coles Tuna Pole & Line Chunk in Brine 185g 21.Coles Tuna Pole & Line in Springwater 185g
The following varieties of canned John West tuna are Kosher certified pareve when marked ‘product of Thailand’ (Kosher Australia supervision)
1.John West No Drain Tuna in Brine 130g 2.John West No Drain Tuna in Olive Oil 130g 3.John West No Drain Tuna in Springwater 130g 4.John West Tuna 185g in Olive Oil Blend (Chunk Style Tuna) 5. John West Tuna Chunks in Brine 425g 6.John West Tuna Chunks in Olive Oil 425g 7.John West Tuna Chunks in Springwater 425g 8.John West Tuna in Springwater 185g (Chunk Style Tuna) 9.John West Tuna Slices in Olive Oil 125g 10. John West Tuna Slices in Springwater 125g 11.John West Tuna Tempter Multipack Olive Oil Blend Flavour 4 x 95g 12.John West Tuna Tempter Multipack Springwater 4 x 95g 13.John West Tuna Tempter Olive Oil (Chunk Style Tuna) 95g 14.John West Tuna Tempter Springwater (Chunk Style Tuna) 95g 15.John West Tuna Tempter Springwater Light Sandwich Style (Flake Style Tuna) 95g Yankel Wajsbort General Manager, Kosher Australia Pty Ltd
I am a longstanding subscriber of the Sydney Kashrut group KCA who really do an excellent job in advising and assisting Kosher consumers here.
Today I received the following email from them:
From:KCA_Sydney@yahoogroups.comOn Behalf Of KCA_Committee Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 11:39 PM To: KCA_Sydney@yahoogroups.com Subject: [KCA Sydney] Coles brand canned tunas
Twenty-one varieties of Coles brand canned tuna marked "Made in/Product of Thailand" are kosher certified pareve by the Orthodox Union. They are acceptable even without the OU symbol.
The list includes four Smart Buy Tunas (in brine and in vegetable oil) and seventeen Coles Tuna cans (in olive oil, brine, springwater, sandwich style, and pole & line chunks).
Kosher Australia (Melbourne) issued the full list to its subscribers prior to Rosh Hashanah. It is important to note that only those varieties actually listed both by name and can size are acceptable.
Kosher Australia also recently issued a list of fifteen John West Tunas which are kosher certified pareve when marked "Product of Thailand".
For information on these products contact Kosher Australia Pty Ltd, email info@kosher.org.au; tel 03-8317 2500.
Note that the list of products certified by Kosher Australia may not be reproduced without permission.(Highlighted by JW)
KCA Committee
That last line really bothers me.
If the aim of Kosher Australia is to promote and grow Kashrut in Australia, shouldn't they rather be encouraging the reproduction of their advices - new approved items and warnings regarding non-Kosher products?
Could this be an attempt by Kosher Australia to force people to subscribe to their Kashrut Directory? Very possible. But why should those of us who live in NSW and receive to the NSWKA directory cough up another $50? (And did Kosher Australia pay OU for giving them the information?)
I also wonder, if there is another Kashrut organisation anywhere that bans publication of its information? As I see it, the most respected ones, eg, OU, OK London BD, CRC, all publicise their findings on the net - for all to see and benefit. And so too does our own Kashrut Authority. In my humble opinion, if Kosher Aust wish to be taken seriously they must work on their image to show that they are not 'moneyhungry'.
I was attracted to Kashrut many years ago when some Chabadniks approached me and explained that they were following the demand by their Rebbe to educate Jews about Kashrut. No doubt many other "non-Kosher" Jews were also influenced by this campaign. Thus I am doubly upset when learning that all the main players in the Melbourne Kosher scene are Chabadniks. Maybe someone should pass on their Rebbe's message to them too.
(Unsurprisingly,) last week's AJN messed up big time in both editions.
The people who brought you "Tzetz Chaim" inform us - via their "Jewish Festivals" calendar insert - that the new Hebrew year was תשס''ט - only 3 years out.
As any child attending a Jewish school could've toldthem, the correct year is actually תשע''ב.
An important article published in the American edition of the Yated Ne'eman newspaper. Many of the points raised are more than relevant to our own "Orthodox" bodies.
When "Orthodox" Is Really “Kosher Style” Reform
By Rabbi Avrohom Birnbaum
There comes a time when one is compelled to take a stance. Our sages tell us, “Bemokom she’ein ish, hishtadel lihiyos ish - In a place where there is no man, try to be a man.” When it comes to addressing the increasingly shrill attacks on Judaism, halacha and mesorah by people who call themselves Orthodox rabbis, and the near deafening silence by organizational Jewry, we are left with no option other than to take a stance. We would have preferred that the stance be taken by publications affiliated with the Orthodox Union, RIETS, the RCA or Young Israel. Unfortunately, that has not been done…yet.
THE PRIMACY OF LANGUAGE
Let us begin by talking about language. Language is important. Very important. If one uses a word or idea and continuously hammers away promoting that word or idea, that language and its associated meaning become mainstream and shape the narrative. A few examples:
Occupation. The Palestinians have used this word ad nauseam to describe the Israeli presence in Yerushalayim and Yehudah v’Shomron, Judea and Samaria. The Israelis are “occupiers” - a terrible connotation. Menachem Begin would say, “We are redeemers, not occupiers.” Nevertheless, the use of the word “occupation” has been so successful that even right-wing Israeli politicians use it today.
Speaking about Yehudah and Shomron, the “West Bank” is another example of how language can transform Yehudah and Shomron, an undisputed piece of Biblical Eretz Yisroel, into just the west bank of the Jordan River.
Then there is the word “terrorist.” For some reason, when it comes to terrorism against Israel, the perpetrators are no longer “terrorists,” but “gunmen” or even “freedom fighters.”
“We can’t be judgmental,” say the New York Times and the mainstream world press, “can we?” Perhaps the Israelis are the terrorists and the Palestinians are “freedom fighters,” they connote. These terms, however, infiltrate, and if they are used enough, they become the mainstream narrative.
“Pro-choice” is another. Pro-choice really means pro-abortion, or pro killing unborn children. “Choice” makes it sound so benign, like the waiter asking if you would like chicken or meat. But that, too, has gone mainstream. Once the media adopts the language of one side, it inevitably becomes the default language, for better or for worse. Today, the term “pro-choice” has been adopted by virtually everyone. It is a term that, at its core, legitimizes the snuffing out of unborn life.
THE HIJACKING OF THE WORD “ORTHODOX”
Language is very important, words are important, and that is why the abuse and misuse of the word “Orthodoxy” when describing Jewish affiliation must be analyzed and challenged.
Over the last few years, a group of clergymen who call themselves Orthodox rabbis have begun engaging in a headlong dash to introduce Reform innovations and label them “Orthodox.” They insist on calling themselves Orthodox rabbis and classifying their behavior and innovations as “Orthodox” or “Open Orthodox.” They are using - nay, abusing - language to deceitfully try bringing Reform Judaism into their synagogues, many of them affiliated with the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) under the guise of Orthodox. They are co-opting language, lying and calling themselves Orthodox in order to slip under the radar and introduce Reform anti-Torah, anti-halacha innovations into Orthodoxy.
It is high time we started using language correctly to unequivocally declare that these clergymen are Reform rabbis and unveil their insidious sneaking of Reform practice into Orthodox synagogues by having the audacity and moral turpitude to call it Orthodox.
It’s time to label “Open Orthodoxy, “Yeshiva Chovevei Torah,” “Morethodoxy” and “International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF),” et al, as Reform organizations. Yes, they are Reform organizations. No, they are not (yet) affiliated with Hebrew Union College, but their behavior, their innovations, and their own stated aims are exactly those of the Reformers of old.
It is precisely because language is important that these organizations and their rabbis should be called what they are: “Reform” organizations, “Reform Rabbis” and “Rabbahs.” This writer will henceforth call them what they are and we hope that other publications who value halachic Judaism will do the same.
REFORM PRACTICES UNDER THE GUISE OF ORTHODOXY
Let us now give a quick refresher course on just a sampling of their latest excesses, which are completely consistent with bygone Reform innovations:
TAMPERING WITH THE SIDDUR:
One of the things that characterized early Reformers was their discomfort with the siddur. They felt that it was backwards, antiquated, and not in keeping with the “enlightened” times in which they lived. They therefore decided to cut out and change sections that they felt did not belong in a “progressive” age.
Last month, a clergyman named Rabbi Yosef Kanefsky advocated removing the brochoh of “Shelo asani ishah.” Rabbi Kanefsky decided that the brochoh takes away from a “woman’s dignity.” He is obviously far more cognizant of what dignity is than our holy sages of the Gemara who instituted this blessing. His halachic rationale would be amusing if it wasn’t so tragic. He writes, “Simply for lack of male reproductive organs, otherwise qualified women are still barred from the rabbinate, and from many positions of communal leadership. She can be a judge, but not a dayan. A brain surgeon, but not a posek. And often she must content herself with davening in a cage in shul, from where her desire to say Kaddish for a parent may or may not be tolerated. This is no way to run a religion that claims wisdom as its inheritance…”
Is this the laughable halachic rationale that a rabbi who purportedly represents the “People of the Book” puts forth? It looks more like a political stump speech. Is Kanefsky a rabbi or a politician?
ASSAULTING LAWS MANDATED BY THE TORAH:
Let’s analyze another Reform nugget from Kanefsky’s diatribe: “She can be a judge, but not a dayan… This is no way to run a religion that claims wisdom as its inheritance…”
As my esteemed colleague, I. Schwartz, pointed out in his Yated article some weeks ago, “Kanefsky assaults halacha, treating dinim de’Oraisa (such as women not serving on a bais din) as if they were capriciously invented by some hateful and prejudiced rabbis, scathingly reprimanding the halacha: ‘This is no way to run a religion.’” Is criticizing a halacha derived from a gezeiras hakosuv and suggesting we do away with it not Reform practice?
Later, Rabbi Kanefsky pulled his article off the internet and wrote the same thing in language that he thought would be a bit more palatable to people not as “enlightened” as he.
LEGITIMIZING CONDUCT THAT THE TORAH LABELS TOEIVAH
Rabbis affiliated with “Open Orthodoxy” have written and released “A Statement of Principles” seeking to legitimize and neutralize the aversion to acts that the Torah calls “toeivah.” Rabbi Hyim Shafner, a clergyman who claims to be Orthodox, wrote on the Morethodoxy website that “the engagement of a couple involved in toeivah should be celebrated at the Kiddush in shul with a cake that says mazal tov.”
I kid you not. This was written by a rabbi who calls himself Orthodox.
I ask my dear readers and anyone seeking to minimize the attack on Hashem and His Torah that Open Orthodoxy represents: Is this cavalier discarding of p’sukim in the Torah, discarding “outdated” p’sukim to conform with the “enlightened” view of this issue, not Reform Judaism? Surely, it is. Are these rabbis who advocate such aberrations not Reform rabbis? Surely, they are, regardless of what they call themselves.
Language is important and we cannot let Reform rabbis hijack the name Orthodox in an attempt to spread their malignant disease. We have allowed their reprehensible conduct, their lies and their obfuscation to metastasize for far too long.
Space constraints prevent us from outlining other Reform practices that they have instituted, such as the ordination of women rabbis, tampering with the chupah ceremonyby allowing the kesubah to be read by women, and interfaith rituals. Perhaps worst of all, the IRF has made a mockery of the laws of geirus, not even requiring kabbolas ol mitzvos, the acceptance of mitzvos, as a prerequisite for conversion. And the list goes on.
“KOSHER STYLE” TARFUS
They have been very clear about their objectives. Just as Reform proposed changes in the most sacred of matters, halachos and practice to conform with what was then in vogue, so are Open Orthodoxy and the others trying to take Judaism and make it conform with the left-wing liberal ideals in vogue today.
The insistence by Open Orthodoxy, Morethodoxy, IRF and others to call themselves Orthodox is an insidious campaign of obfuscation of their goals to deceive unwitting Jews into believing that you can call yourself an Orthodox Jew while conducting your life like a Reform Jew.
The only difference between them and Reform is that they insist that their brand of Reform should be “kosher style” Reform. We have all seen those delicatessens labeled “kosher style.” They sell a mean corned beef on Jewish rye sandwich, delicious kosher style pickles, a piece of kishka reminiscent of the kishka your grandmother could have made, but it is all treif. Glatt treif.
Open Orthodoxy is Reform Judaism for those wanting a certain comfort level with Orthodox ritual and some aspects of Orthodox practice, but just as those delis are glatt treif, so is Open Orthodoxy. In this sense, they are worse than conventional Reform. Just as unwitting Jews may mistakenly patronize kosher style delis, look at the menu, and assume it is kosher when it is actually treif - after all, who would sell kishka if not a kosher place? - so too, unwitting, often innocent Jews who don’t know any better are being ensnared in the trap laid before them by the Reform purveyors of Open Orthodoxy.
THE TIME HAS COME…
In 1956, a famous p’sak halacha was released by many of the great roshei yeshiva of that era, prohibiting collaboration of any sort with Reform and Conservative clergy. I have absolutely no doubt that if they were alive today, the roshei yeshiva would treat Open Orthodoxy and all of its mutations with the same stringency.
As I. Schwartz pointed out a few weeks ago in these pages, Open Orthodoxy has given us ample proof of where they stand. They have repeatedly shown that they have no fidelity to halacha, no fidelity to the words of Chazal, and no fidelity even to p’sukim in the Torah itself.
The only weltanschauung to which they seem to have deference is the liberal value system in vogue in university campuses and certain corners of the media and intelligentsia.
It is finally time to take a stand. Organizational Orthodoxy must take a stand. Anyone who holds dear the word of Hashem, the Torah, and the Shulchan Aruch cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.
The holy Chofetz Chaim writes (laws of loshon ho’ra, 8:5), “It is permitted, and even a mitzvah, to speak loshon ho’ra about an apikores.” The Chofetz Chaim defines apikores as someone “who denies the Torah or the prophecies of Yisroel, either the written Torah or the Oral Torah, even if he says that he believes in the entire Torah except for one verse or one law which is derived from the Torah through the principles transmitted at Sinai.”
As outlined above and in the article by I. Schwartz, the Reform rabbis who are purveyors of Open Orthodoxy have shown time and time again that they wholly conform to the Chofetz Chaim’s definition of apikores.
It is time for organized Orthodoxy to take a stand. It is time for Agudas Yisroel, Young Israel, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Orthodox Union, and the leadership of RIETS to publicly ostracize Open Orthodoxy and declare it beyond the pale of Orthodoxy.
The Gemara (Shabbos 54) states that he who is able to protest and doesn’t is himself culpable in that transgression. The Gemara (Gittin 55) teaches us that when rabbonim do not protest, it is even a greater transgression: “From the fact that the rabbonim kept quiet, it shows that they agree.”
As we approach Rosh Hashanah, the Yom Hadin, we must all conduct a din vecheshbon, a self accounting. Will we and the organizations with which we are affiliated be able to say, “We did our part in stopping an organization that is attacking our holy Torah and our holy Mesorah”?
And a vintage cartoon depicting the products of the JTS seminary (from the "On the Main Line" blog:
AJN WATCH observes & comments on matters of interest to the Orthodox Jewish community in Australia. We particularly monitor prejudice and monopolistic abuse of influence in the pages of the Australian Jewish News - the main source of information to and about Australian Jewry. We spotlight errors, expose misrepresentations and vigorously respond to items that malign or defame our community.
We invite Guest Posts as well as topic suggestions.
