Q&A: Your criticism of Rabbi Druckman’s conversions
Your criticism of Rabbi Druckman’s conversions
Question
With all due respect, the Rabbi permitted the agunah, but sharply criticizes Rabbi Druckman for leniencies in conversion… when precisely a tremendous event—the establishment of the State of Israel and the ingathering of the exiles—surely urgently requires a relevant halakhic ruling.
1. Your step seems to me very similar to Rabbi Druckman’s step, no?
2. Since when has Jewish law become fixed? … And for whom are we waiting in order to adapt it to reality? After all, the Shulchan Arukh certainly could not have imagined in its rulings the complexity of running the State of Israel and the ingathering of the exiles as happens in our day.
(A provocative remark… to challenge you 🙂 … it reminds me of the criticism of the Supreme Court, that they have broad authority without responsibility for the results.
…We have a state to run and unify! … If the halakhic decisors of the past had had such immense responsibility, I have no doubt they would have bent over backwards to present relevant Jewish law… so stop being cowards!!!)
Answer
And this is what I replied by email:
In your words I found only general statements. I am very much in favor of relevant halakhic ruling, and I devoted a book in my trilogy to that. I also oppose conservatism for its own sake. But Jewish law has principles by which one proceeds, and the world is not ownerless.
My step is in no way similar to Rabbi Druckman’s step, but for that one has to get into the thick of the halakhic issues and examine the reasoning. Declarations about leniencies, adapting Jewish law, and making it relevant are not enough.
The easiest and most popular thing (actually populist) is to say that the halakhic decisors are cowards. But what is needed in order to claim that is to get into the issues and give reasons. To show what can and should be done, and how. I too accuse the halakhic decisors, but unlike many others I also did what is required in order to substantiate that. In your words here, forgive me, I saw no reasoning, only declarations.
By the way, I have no state to unify, nor to run. In my view that is not the role of Jewish law, and those considerations are actually completely foreign to me. I oppose using Jewish law to run or unify our secular state, which is no more interested in Jewish law than in the peel of a garlic clove. But that too is a topic one has to get into. And by the way, unlike the state, the Supreme Court actually does have a state to run, so your hinted criticism of it is actually unclear to me in light of what you say about the freedom you demand for halakhic decisors (who, as noted, do not have a state to run).
Discussion on Answer
Natan, please, no demagoguery. The Supreme Court stands at the head of one of the three branches of government, and it runs its own part. That is what I meant (whereas halakhic decisors run nothing here, and it is good that way). That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of its imperialism. That is a separate debate, about which I have already expressed my opinion.
“”The Supreme Court has a state to run””? In what world does the judiciary run the state rather than the executive branch?