What did the Chief Rabbi do/say that justifies such a harsh statement?

I said in the previous thread that I don’t want to keep dealing with this. There’s no point reopening threads on the same issue.

Since we’re talking about idiots.

I’ll just remind everyone that Michael Abraham said he understands why pogroms were carried out against the Jews of Europe (for example, the massacres of 1648–49). Meaning, in Michael Abraham’s view, the gentiles did not commit evil acts against Jews “for no reason,” but rather had some trigger for it coming from the Jews themselves.

Here is the quote from Michael Abraham’s words:

“…And if we were in nineteenth-century Russia or Ukraine, in my opinion massacres and pogroms would break out here. Suddenly I’m beginning to understand how that happened then (and I don’t fully understand how it isn’t happening today).”

There’s a big difference between understanding and justifying. You can understand why people rape, but that doesn’t mean you justify them.

Where did I write that Michi wrote that he justifies it?
The very fact that he thinks the Jews did something improper (say, socially speaking), and therefore the gentiles attacked them (even if it wasn’t justified), is something very sad.
And it mainly says something about Michi himself.
Jews were slaughtered, burned, and buried alive because of the wickedness and frustration of gentiles, not because they behaved in some “socially improper” way.

But I *understand* what makes Michi write something like that.
When your ratings aren’t exactly sky-high, and nobody is buying your ideas (and they also don’t really pay much attention to you, thank God), then you need to write all kinds of things to get attention. And he did in fact succeed at that to some degree.

Understand?

“In a place where there is desecration of God’s name, one does not accord honor to the rabbi”
Tractate Berakhot 19b, Tractate Eruvin 63a, Tractate Sanhedrin 82a, Tractate Shevuot 30b.
The real plain meaning: where a transgression is being committed in the presence of a rabbi and his student, the student must not defer to the rabbi and wait for him to protest; rather, the student must hasten to point it out, in order to prevent the transgression, or stop it, as early as possible.
A common mistake among many people is to think this means that it is permitted to disgrace rabbis and Torah scholars when their actions involve desecration of God’s name. And unfortunately, on this site people err and mislead and repeatedly cause the “believing” public to stumble by disgracing Torah scholars on the basis of that fake plain meaning.
And not only that, but they teach them to cling to this fake interpretation and use it however they like. Irresponsibly and foolishly.
Dear believers! Have pity on your souls and do not go after emptiness lest you become empty yourselves.

Dear believers, have pity on your souls and stay away from ignoramuses who have not yet learned how to read Talmud and have no grasp whatsoever of reasoning, yet issue halakhic rulings from their own mishnah like destroyers of the world. Those ignoramuses mistakenly think that emphatic declarations and partial, tendentious quotation are enough to issue Jewish law irresponsibly and foolishly, and who project their own flaws onto others—but that is not so. And regarding them the saying of the Sages is fulfilled: tell me who your friend/rabbi is and I’ll tell you who you are (ibid., ibid.)

With God’s help, 2 Kislev 5781

We merited to receive practical instruction from the Rishon LeZion, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, in applying the halakhah of “in a place where there is desecration of God’s name, one does not accord honor to the rabbi,” when he protested to Rabbi Eliezer Melamed over his participation in a “panel” that presented halakhic Judaism and Reform as equal sides. Such a meeting gives the Reform side importance and “ratings,” which may lead an innocent person to think they constitute a legitimate stream within Judaism.

All the more so since there is a serious problem in the appearance of legitimizing Reform figures whose “mainstream” is already prepared to conduct intermarriages through the “rabbi” and to accept those married in intermarriage and their children into the embrace of the Jewish community. In France this concerns tens of percent of intermarriages, and according importance to the Reform community through an official meeting with its leader is liable to intensify this trend.

However, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef taught us not only the obligation to protest, but also the proper form of protest. He wrote his protest in a respectful way in a personal letter to Rabbi Melamed, phrased in an objective, firm, yet respectful manner. Only after several months had passed and Rabbi Melamed did not respond (he claims the letter never reached him) did Rabbi Yosef publish his letter in the Torah journal Beit Yosef, which by its nature is not reading material for the masses but for Torah scholars, and there too the letter is phrased in an objective and respectful way.

In short: Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef taught us that even an error by a Torah scholar that causes desecration of God’s name and strengthens the Reform movement requires protest, but that protest must be carried out with proper respect. First in a personal letter, and only if there is no response, in a Torah journal, and in objective and respectful language.

Regards, S. Tz. Lewinger

And all the more so, there is a problem in giving importance to the Reform movement in France, where they are a tiny and negligible group. We are talking about 13 communities numbering a few thousand out of more than 450,000 Jews in France. A meeting on equal terms with a well-known rabbi in Religious Zionism is exactly what the Reform woman rabbi needs in order to emerge from obscurity and increase her influence in French Jewry. There is no need to give her that.

Regards, S. Tz.

Even though I “took a side” on this issue, I have an innocent question. Is the prohibition against disgracing Torah scholars really Jewish law in Judaism? Or perhaps there is a dispute in the foundational texts even about that very claim?

Enough with this nonsense. He did not give legitimacy to Reform. He said they shouldn’t be boycotted.

With God’s help, 2 Kislev 5781

To Yishai — greetings,

Of course Rabbi Melamed did not give them legitimacy; otherwise he would not have merited a respectful personal letter from the Rishon LeZion, but rather a sharp public protest.

But as I noted, a panel meeting of an esteemed rabbi from Religious Zionism with a Reform woman rabbi creates the appearance of legitimacy, as though these are two parallel streams within Judaism.

But beyond that, such a meeting gives importance to the woman rabbi, who leads a negligible stream in French Jewry. From the status of a marginal figure, she received the importance of a central figure with whom an important rabbi in Religious Zionism must conduct a dialogue.

What is this comparable to? A situation where the President of the State of Israel would hold a joint panel with the “President of the State of Akhziv” 🙂

And this is not only a problem of prestige. Giving importance and “ratings” to a Reform woman rabbi may strengthen her status as a “leading rabbinic figure.” Why provide her with that?

Regards, S. Tz.

S. Tz., are you claiming that the thing is inherently invalid, or that it may have negative consequences?

The Reform are a very central stream in Judaism abroad. You’re welcome to keep playing your games and ignoring reality.

To Yishai — greetings,

The Reform movement has held an important position in the U.S. for more than a hundred years. There they don’t need any dialogue with Rabbi Melamed. There they perform intermarriages, ordain LGBT people as rabbis, and do whatever they want.

The one who needs Rabbi Melamed’s name as a “dialogue partner” is the woman rabbi Delphine Horvilleur, one of the leaders of the Reform community in France. It consists of 13 communities and a few thousand people out of more than 450,000 Jews in France. Something on the order of 1–2 percent.

As the ancient parable might say: the cedar of Lebanon went to hold a “panel” with the partridge in the mountains 🙂

Regards, Fishel D. Nahari-Horkheimer

So basically you don’t have a substantive argument, only a pragmatic one. And for that you think he deserves a boycott and a pashkevil from important rabbis?

To Yishai — greetings,

You should read Moshe Glasner’s article, “Reformers Have Gathered Against Me,” describing the miserable state of Reform Judaism in the U.S., where 75% of its members marry in intermarriages, and in the next generation it is no longer clear whether any Jews will remain there.

The writer stood shocked at the fact that for some Reform leaders there, this is not a problem at all but a solution: the Jewish people are “connecting” with their surroundings 🙂

By the way, even Rabbi Horvilleur—I don’t know whether she herself already dares to conduct intermarriages—seems to be “on the way there.” In her words with Rabbi Melamed she defined Jewish identity as a “geological matter.” Everyone has different genetics and a different history. What makes us Jews is that we are cracked and torn. A definition that fits hundreds of millions of people…

***..

Rabbi Melamed did not receive either a boycott or a “pashkevil,” but rather a personal letter written respectfully, and even when Rabbi Melamed did not respond, Rabbi Yosef published the letter in a Torah journal not intended for the general public. Rabbi Melamed responded to the criticism leveled against him in his article in his Torah column Revivim in the newspaper Besheva (without mentioning Rabbi Yosef, whose letter according to him never reached him).

After journalists published the letter and various “supporters” of Rabbi Melamed started stirring up a storm, a public letter came out from important rabbis in Religious Zionism, among them Rabbi Dov Lior, Rabbi Tzvi Tau, Rabbi Yitzhak Sheilat, and Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, with a general call to avoid contact with the Reform, without mentioning Rabbi Melamed by name and without threatening any boycott. Likewise, the rabbi of Jerusalem, Rabbi Shlomo Amar, called on Rabbi Melamed in one of his lessons to retract.

In short: in my humble opinion, Rabbi Melamed made a mistake by engaging in discussion with the Reform woman rabbi, and for that he received sharp, substantive, and respectful criticism.

Regards, Fishel D. Nahari-Horkheimer

The article “Reformers Have Gathered Against Me” may be very interesting, but what does it have to do with the discussion here? Did he say to be Reform? He simply argued that they should be spoken to and not boycotted, because we don’t boycott every Jew. He had no halakhic discussion with her. Stop slandering him.

What is respectful about a letter that says he is threatening him with a boycott?
What the rabbis in Religious Zionism (whom I greatly respect) did was a pashkevil.
Are you serious when you say Rabbi Amar treated him respectfully??? Did you even see what he said?

By the way, Rabbi Melamed wrote after the conference why he met with Reform figures long before Rabbi Yosef published the letter. You wrote: “whose letter according to him never reached him”—I understand that now he’s also become a liar.

To Yishai — greetings,

Since you keep repeating what you already raised before and I answered in detail, I’ll be brief and move on.

The threat of a boycott is mentioned in the quote from the responsa of the Rosh that was cited in the Rishon LeZion’s letter, in order to learn from it the importance of listening to the words of the leading sages of the generation, so that not every Torah scholar should do whatever seems right to him in a place where he causes harm to others.

With arguments like these, someone may yet claim that you called for murdering heretics because you discussed with Rabbi Michael Abraham the laws of “we lower them and do not raise them” 🙂 Prepare for interrogation 🙂

Moshe Glasner’s article teaches not only about the miserable situation of 75 percent intermarriage, but about the positive attitude of Reform leaders to this phenomenon, seeing in it a positive trend of connecting with the surrounding culture; and from the words of Rabbi D. H. about the character of Jewish identity in the cracked soul—I fear that she too is on the way to blurring the meaning of Jewish identity.

In France the Reform movement is still very meager in numbers, and a dialogue between an important rabbi and one of the Reform leaders there can definitely strengthen her power and influence, and I absolutely understand the shock of Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef and Rabbi Shlomo Amar (who know French Jewry well) at Rabbi Melamed’s meeting with her.

Unlike some of Rabbi Melamed’s supporters, who imagine that trying to collide with Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef will bring benefit to Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (or to them?), Rabbi Eliezer Melamed acted wisely. He responded to the criticism, which apparently reached him not only from Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef but also from rabbis in Religious Zionism who read the interview in Makor Rishon (presumably before Rabbi Yosef did) and commented to him about it. Rabbi Melamed responded in his halakhic column in Besheva and returned to the normal order of things.

Neither Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who published his letter in a Torah journal, nor Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, who published his words in his halakhic column, sought to stir up a storm. Whoever initiated the storm got one, but it won’t help him. Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef and Rabbi Shlomo Amar will remain in their standing as great halakhic decisors, and Rabbi Eliezer Melamed too will preserve his standing as one who disseminates Torah and makes it accessible to thousands and tens of thousands.

The only one to come out profiting from the storm is Rabbi Horvilleur, who gained publicity from the affair and became, thanks to the “dialogue,” a “public figure.” The fact that perhaps a few more naive and confused people may be caught in her net is very sad. But even from her, not much of an impression will remain for future generations. Perhaps Rabbi Michael Abraham will do her a kindness and devote a post to an in-depth discussion of her definitions of Jewish identity 🙂

The Jewish world will remain with dozens of volumes of Yalkut Yosef and dozens of volumes of Peninei Halakhah, and with the rulings and innovative halakhic insights of Rabbi Dov Lior, the thought of Rabbi Tzvi Tau, and the halakhah, thought, and scholarship of Rabbi Yitzhak Sheilat.

Regards, Fishel D. Nahari-Horkheimer

In the last paragraph, lines 1–2
… and with the rulings and halakhic innovations of…

As a continuation of the words of “Tzachi the ignoramus,” let us bring another halakhic source — Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 334:42:

“If an elderly sage in wisdom, or the head of a religious court, has gone astray, he is never excommunicated publicly, unless he acted like Jeroboam son of Nebat and his fellows; but if he sinned with other sins, he is flogged privately.
Likewise, any Torah scholar who has become liable to excommunication—it is forbidden for a religious court to rush quickly to excommunicate him; rather they evade him and avoid him.
And the pious among the sages would pride themselves that they were never counted among those who excommunicated a Torah scholar, even though they would join in flogging him if he became liable to lashes or rabbinic lashes.
And if his reputation is bad—for example, if he occupies himself with heretical books, drinks at places of song, or his colleagues are ashamed of him and the name of Heaven is desecrated through him—we excommunicate him.”

So here’s the thing — A. one never excommunicates publicly. B. there is a possibility of flogging privately. C. ideally, one evades and avoids and does not excommunicate.
Notice how much caution is required when dealing with a Torah scholar who has gone astray.

And when one finally gets to someone through whom the name of Heaven is desecrated—it is ruled that he is excommunicated.
How? By calling him an idiot??? Where is it written that it is permitted, required, or a commandment to disgrace him in public???
And in addition, nobody on this site even knows what desecration of God’s name the Rishon LeZion caused. The owner of the site evades giving an answer and does not want to deal with the matter. So maybe it’s a desecration of God’s name in private?? (Which is itself a contradiction in terms!!)
Maybe he’ll bring halakhic sources? Maybe he’ll bring a different Talmudic text? A conclusive proof??
Nothing. “Ignoramuses,” and that’s it. Thanks, message received.

Of course. They also remove his forbidden mixed-fabric clothing in the bathroom where nobody sees. And what is written, “in the marketplace”? That’s only homiletic.

Apparently your memory isn’t so great either, and not only your reading comprehension. After all, what you wrote in your first message about the real plain meaning of this saying was:

The real plain meaning: where a transgression is being committed in the presence of a rabbi and his student, the student must not defer to the rabbi and wait for him to protest; rather, the student must hasten to point it out, in order to prevent the transgression, or stop it, as early as possible.
A common mistake among many people is to think this means that it is permitted to disgrace rabbis and Torah scholars when their actions involve desecration of God’s name. And unfortunately, on this site people err and mislead and repeatedly cause the “believing” public to stumble by disgracing Torah scholars on the basis of that fake plain meaning.
And not only that, but they teach them to cling to this fake interpretation and use it however they like. Irresponsibly and foolishly.

Removing the forbidden garment, whether publicly or privately, is of course not included in this. Brilliant indeed. Worthy of a kiss on the lips. 🙂

Oy vey. And the one stripping the rabbi of his mixed-fabric garment also adds and calls him “idiot”?????? Or maybe it’s also permitted just to strip the rabbi who desecrates God’s name!?

First, the view of the Rosh is known: this applies only to mixed fabric in his own garment (where he is intentional), but not in someone else’s garment (where he is unintentional). And regarding mixed fabric in another person’s garment, one waits until he comes home!! And only when the other person is wearing it intentionally does one tear it in the marketplace. (And Maimonides holds that even when unintentional one tears it in the marketplace.) And these rulings are brought in the Shulchan Arukh and Rema (Yoreh De’ah 303).

Second, tearing off the mixed fabric is to separate him and save him from a Torah prohibition, whether unintentional or intentional. (And in the Shulchan Arukh that I quoted earlier I brought even more than that—that one must excommunicate the rabbi who desecrates God’s name!!)
The owner of the site compares saving the rabbi from a Torah prohibition of mixed fabric, even if by way of disgrace, to cheap slander of the rabbi that has no benefit whatsoever?? Just gratuitous disgrace of a Torah scholar?? Especially when it is not known at all what lies behind this cheap slander?

If we really go according to Jewish law, then you should excommunicate the Chief Rabbi. Nothing more.

Tzachi the ignoramus

By the way, an example of irresponsibility and lack of sense.
One of the “believers” filed a police complaint against Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky regarding smelling cannabis. And before that he filed a complaint against Hacham Shalom Cohen regarding sending yeshiva students to work in the national elections.
When asked about this on a radio program, the “believer” replied: in a place where there is desecration of God’s name, one does not accord honor to the rabbi.

Tzachi the ignoramus

I shall now fulfill a verse that is written: Do not answer a fool according to his folly.

With God’s help, 3 Kislev 5781

Even one who sees his rabbi violating words of Torah may not say to him: “You have violated words of Torah”; rather, he must say to him: “Our rabbi taught us such-and-such” (Yoreh De’ah 242:22, and its source is in the Talmud in Kiddushin), and this is even in private, all the more so in public. Regarding one who makes dispute and quarrel with his rabbi—see the previous Sections in that same section.

Indeed, there is a source for posting a pashkevil against the great decisors of the generation, in the Talmud at the end of Sotah, that in the footsteps of the Messiah “young people will shame the faces of the elders”; but the opposing litigant may reject this, saying that the things listed in Sotah are not positive commandments but a lament over a corrupted reality, and the matter requires clarification 🙂

Regarding the rule “in a place where there is desecration of God’s name, one does not accord honor to the rabbi.” This rule is mentioned several times in the Talmud. In Eruvin 63 regarding the student’s duty to protest sinners even in the presence of his rabbi. Likewise in Sanhedrin 82 regarding the act of Pinchas, who was permitted to strike Zimri even though it was in the presence of his rabbi.

In Shevuot 30b the matter is mentioned in the context of a Torah scholar’s obligation to give testimony regarding prohibition even before a religious court lesser than himself. That is, a sage must waive his own honor in order to prevent a transgression. So too it emerges in Berakhot 19 according to the reading: “One who finds mixed fabric in his garment strips it off even in the marketplace,” meaning even if the one who finds it in his garment is a Torah scholar—he should not spare his own honor and must remove his garment even in the marketplace.

However, Maimonides apparently did not have the reading in Berakhot 19, “one who finds mixed fabric in his garment,” but rather “one who finds mixed fabric—he strips it even in the marketplace,” and therefore he rules: “One who sees biblically forbidden mixed fabric on his fellow—even if he is in the marketplace, he tears it off him, even if he is his rabbi who taught him wisdom” (brought in the Tur, Yoreh De’ah 303).

However, the Tur brings that his father the Rosh disputes Maimonides and holds that if his fellow is wearing mixed fabric unintentionally, he should not alert him until he comes to his house, because human dignity is great. The source of the Rosh’s words is, among other things, in the Jerusalem Talmud, which tells about Rabbi Ami, who saw his student alert his fellow in the study hall that there was mixed fabric in his garment. Rabbi Ami said to the one who spoke up: “Take off your own garment and give it to him.”

The Shulchan Arukh there (Yoreh De’ah 303) ruled like Maimonides, while the Rema ruled like the Rosh that one should not alert his fellow who is wearing mixed fabric unintentionally until he reaches his house, because human dignity is great.

In our case, it seems that the prohibition against protesting a meeting with a Reform woman rabbi is only from the Writings, as it says in the Scroll of Esther: “And the king’s edict shall be heard throughout all his kingdom, for it is great” 🙂 And one may say that in this even Maimonides would agree that human dignity and the honor of Torah are great, and override “the honor of the woman rabbi” 🙂 This requires further study.

Regards, the humble Fishel Dov Nahari-Horkheimer, may his Rock preserve him

For further study on the matter of “in a place where there is desecration of God’s name, one does not accord honor to the rabbi,” see the article by Rabbi Meir Gruzman, “In a Place Where There Is Desecration of God’s Name, One Does Not Accord Honor to the Rabbi,” in the journal Sidra (available online)

I have a question, S.Tz.

In all this controversy about meetings with the Reform—between the side that says the meeting appears as granting legitimacy, whether because of the meeting itself or because Rabbi Melamed called a woman serving as head of a community (or whatever it was) a “rabbi,” and the side that argues that the meeting is perfectly fine because it’s just a nice conversation about “shared values” and “finding common ground,” or whatever it was—I don’t really see the point, and the arguments of both sides seem weak to me for different reasons (simply because neither side goes down to the root of the disagreements. The side talking about shared values or finding common ground starts from the assumption that there can be tolerance or dialogue between very sharp ideological rivals without that constituting legitimacy, and because of that is willing to have a certain kind of dialogue with various Jewish heretics, maybe in order at least to advise them how to add a little more Jewishness to the prayers in the Reform temple or to Sabbath sermons, perhaps also hoping that their children might repent because of it or something else; and the other side in turn adopts the position that there is no tolerance, at least not on such a high level, toward heretics. And in my humble opinion that is the root of the disagreement, and it has existed since the time of the controversy over separating the communities in Germany. And conferences like these take place all the time, so I don’t understand at all why this suddenly caused an uproar).

But in any case, the argument you raised is what amazed and surprised me most —
You claim—and I’m pretty sure you’re right because you checked the matter and I didn’t—that the Reform movement has no real foothold in France, and that the intermarriage rates there are low, at least relative to countries with very high assimilation rates like the U.S., for example.

And I ask you—
I’m pretty sure we’ll both agree that a Jew who decides to marry a gentile woman (or conversely, a Jewish woman planning to marry a gentile man), whether in a wedding run by a Reform rabbi, or in a Christian church, or a combination of the two, is usually the kind of Jew who is pretty disconnected from tradition, or at any rate certainly doesn’t believe in any obligation to keep the commandments or in the Sinai covenant.
And do you think such a Jew—who does not see himself as bound by Jewish law and usually does not believe in the truth of the Torah at all—needs approval from Rabbi Melamed, Rabbi Ovadia, or any Orthodox rabbi whatsoever? Why would a Jew who does not see himself as bound at all by Jewish law and by commandment observance care whether Rabbi Melamed winked or didn’t wink at the Reform? He couldn’t care less. That Jew already knows very well that from the standpoint of all the faithful of Israel and all the rabbis of Israel, he is violating serious prohibitions, cutting himself and his children off completely from the nation, and is set aside as repulsive. The claim that a wink from Melamed or Binyamin Lau is what would change the decision of those Jewish heretics seems laughable to me.

With God’s help, 3 Kislev 5781

To Rationally Inclined — greetings,

It may be that the Jew entering an intermarriage comes from a religious or traditional family, and he is aware that in the eyes of religious or traditional Judaism he is doing something very severe, and nonetheless he does it because he has completely abandoned tradition, or because his love for his non-Jewish partner overcomes his traditionalism.

Equally, it may be that a Jew in Israel has already grown up in a secular atmosphere, where Jewish tradition no longer occupies an important place for him, if at all, and then his inner antibodies against assimilation are very weak, if they exist at all.

Either way, a significant anchor to cling to in the act of assimilation may appear in the form of a nice, pleasant “rabbi” or woman rabbi, full of quotations from “the treasury of Jewish books,” in favor of the blessing in “universal marriage.” Such a pleasant and articulate “rabbi,” speaking fluently in praise of intermarriage, can definitely eliminate the few antibodies that remain in a person against those “universal marriages.”

Sometimes the opposition comes from the family of the happy groom, shocked by his non-Jewish bride. The fact that the “officiant” is a woman rabbi who even merited a dialogue with a clearly Orthodox and well-known rabbi may remove the family’s opposition. After all, there is “approval” here from a “serious rabbinic authority,” and the road to the wedding canopy is paved.

Therefore there must be a sharp protest against “rabbis” and “women rabbis” who encourage intermarriage, and a rejection of any negotiation or discourse with them. “Let every Jewish mother know” that one who encourages her son or daughter to marry a gentile is not a “Jewish leader,” but an inciter and seducer. And there is no difference between someone who incites to intermarriage and a missionary. Would Rabbi Melamed be prepared to conduct a “dialogue” with a missionary?

Regards, Fishel Dov Nahari-Horkheimer

S.Tz., hello.

Indeed, there may have been cases of religious or traditional people who suddenly met a non-Jewish woman and their impulse overpowered them and they decided that romantic love was suddenly more important than faith, and it is indeed very true that hearing a sermon or a modernist/Reform/liberal Jewish argument that relies on a biblical interpretation according to which the prohibition on marrying non-Jews applies only to the seven nations—whether from a preacher in a synagogue or Reform temple, or from a heretical Bible scholar—does indeed ease certain pangs of conscience and gives the feeling of “I haven’t abandoned faith and the prohibitions, I’m just observing them in my own way,” or “Originally this wasn’t forbidden at all; it’s a later addition.”

In my opinion one should not exaggerate, and I don’t think that knowledge of some kind of dialogue conducted with that movement by Orthodox figures would also cause a devout family to start taking the matter lightly. In any case, the question is how far one may, from a religious point of view, engage in dialogue with factors that indirectly cause other people to violate very severe prohibitions—even though I do not think the comparison to missionaries is correct, because no Reform rabbi actively encourages intermarriage in an activist sense. There is indeed today a trend among those guys to say that it is a blessing and the like, simply because without that their communities would collapse completely, and because from their perspective there really is no prohibition there at all (just as desecrating the Sabbath, eating pork, or driving to the beach on the Sabbath is not a prohibition from their perspective). But there is, as stated, no activist encouragement or claim that it is obligatory to do this (in more right-wing currents, if one can call it that, within the movement there is also a certain opposition). And in any case the comparison to missionaries is not correct, because they really do act in an activist way to say that Jews must become Christians, and they even fund people who come to Israel to do this under the guise of “Messianic Judaism.”

And in any case, there is indeed an interesting point here about how far one should meet with movements that also cause other people to violate certain prohibitions, without first noting or condemning that action. This requires great further analysis.

To Rationally Inclined — greetings,

A Reform rabbi, male or female, will not influence a “devout family” to validate intermarriage, but with Jews wavering between traditionalism and secularity, who have some instinctive aversion from their parents’ home toward intermarriage—there is definitely considerable room for the influence of a friendly “rabbinic figure” who showers them with quotations from Jewish sources about the blessing of “universal marriages.”

Such a “rabbinic figure” is many times more dangerous than a missionary. The missionary explicitly declares his aim to convert people to Christianity, while the nice Reform rabbis claim that one can be married to a gentile and remain a good Jew. That is far more tempting. A Jew with only meager knowledge of Judaism has no tools at all to cope with their universalist honeyed words.

Regards, F.D.N.H.

With God’s help, 3 Kislev 5781

And beyond the problem of the risk of increasing intermarriage when you give a platform and importance to those who encourage it—one must understand that they are not interested in us and our opinions, but in imposing their view that Judaism is not Jewish law but universal liberalism.

In the U.S., where they have strong influence, they completely thumb their noses at Jewish law; and in Israel, where they have no great influence even among the secular public, they lead a militant line against Jewish law and its bearers: police complaints, endless High Court petitions, all in order to deprive Jewish law of its standing in the state and in the public sphere.

When an enemy is assaulting one of the foundations of Judaism—Jewish law—one must know how to defend oneself. And the most basic principle of defense is maintaining a united front and coordination of positions among those loyal to Jewish law. One must decide through coordinated positions when to act forcefully and when pragmatically.

That is what the Chief Rabbinate Council exists for, where great Torah scholars from all sectors sit—Religious Zionists and Haredim, Ashkenazim and Sephardim—and coordination among them is essential in the face of an assault by an enemy seeking to undermine the authority of Jewish law among the public. A rabbi who is a graduate of Merkaz HaRav is supposed to be committed to the Chief Rabbinate founded by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and defined by Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook as the central pillar of “the statehood of Torah in Israel.”

Regards, S. Tz.

The path to bringing close the masses who have become distant from knowledge of Judaism and from its practice will not come through the leaders of the Reform or Conservative movements, who are already fixed in their path, but through direct appeal to the broad public.

An important step in this direction was taken by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed in his book The Jewish Tradition, in which he summarizes foundational subjects in Jewish law, custom, and Jewish worldview in a clear and accessible way suitable for everyone—“and all this has been written for us.”

Regards, S. Tz.

With God’s help, 16 Kislev 5781

In his article in the Revivim column (Besheva, Vayetze issue 5781), Rabbi Melamed explained that he met with Mrs. Horvilleur because of the obligation to love every Jew, but in my humble opinion one must distinguish between meeting the lady as a private individual and a public meeting with her by virtue of her being a “religious leader.”

On the personal level, it is proper for a rabbi to receive every person pleasantly and speak with him, even if his views are not yet on the “path of faith.” But when the meeting is public, in a “panel” confronting “rabbis from all streams”—here the rabbi is meeting with her in the capacity of a “colleague in rabbinic leadership,” and here we already enter the problem of the appearance of according status to a Reform rabbi, male or female, as a “rabbi,” and in this there is danger, as I elaborated above.

Let him invite Mrs. Horvilleur and her husband to stay with him for the Sabbath as private individuals—they would surely enjoy the hospitality of the Melamed family and the lessons in the community, but all that only as private individuals and not as “colleagues in rabbinic leadership” 🙂

Regards, Yaron Burlai Halevi Workheimer.

He wanted to show that he loves Reform Jews too. Instead of meeting with each one individually, he met with their leader. He did not meet with her in the capacity of a “colleague in rabbinic leadership,” but in the capacity of “a leader of other Jews.”