A Chief Rabbi Attends the Coronation in a Church?

Haha all these yidden probably using unfiltered browsers the ask if a Rabbi has a heter to be in a church for a coronation. Where’s your heter to use the internet?

R. Mirvis clearly said that he received a psak from the London Bais Din. The dayanim on the bais din are well known and they are lead by Harav Gelley. Furthermore, Rabbi Brodie Z”L attended the coronation of Queen Elizabeth and at that time Harav Hagaon R. Yechezkiel Abramsky ztz”l (mechaber of the Chazon Yechezkiel on the Tosefta) was the Rosh Bais Din.
The reason a Teshuva is not written or publicized should be obvious.

You can do avoda zora for darkei shalom?! You have to die rather than do avoda zora!

Tosfas in Meseches Avodah Zara 2 beginning assur, does not consider it an a’z as מנהג אבותיהם בידיהם and the RMA O”CH 156.

“You can do avoda zora for darkei shalom?! You have to die rather than do avoda zora!”

who did Avoda Zarah?

thats awful! though maybe start a new thread about that?

For those of you who think that Aiva is not a real basis for a heter, ask anyone in Hatzala if they will answer a call on shabbos to help a non-Jew I think most would agree that chilul shabbos is a bigger issue than entering a church not for the purpose of A”Z

“The Rabonon were given the right to dispense with their gezeros to protect us from greater dangers that can occur because of them.”
Are we talking about a gezeiras d’rabbonon here? Real question because I’m not actually 100% sure either way.

“Neville, you are taking it too far. It goes on a case by case basis.”
You guys see to want to say that the only time it’s ever mutar for a Jew to go to the Christian church service is in the exact case where he’s the Chief Rabbi of England attending something for a fake monarchy. This isn’t how halacha works. If there’s room to be meikel, there’s room to be meikel. The reason you guys are uncomfortable with me extending it to other cases is because deep down you all know this was wrong. If anything, a random office worker’s boss, for example, has much more authority over him than the king of England has over anyone.

Is the heter because he would lose his job and incur a monetary loss by not going? Is it that he doesn’t want to upset the goyim? Anything you can say would apply to other cases as well. How are people supposed to explain to non-Jewish acquaintances that we aren’t allowed to even attend a secular function within a church sanctuary, but for the Rabbi of England it’s magically okay?

Finally, let’s assume there is a valid heter the logic of which is kept a carefully guarded secret by the London Beis Din. You don’t go around boasting about a heter to break the normative halacha. If I was starving and had to eat chazir, I wouldn’t go out of my way making public videos about how excited I am and how great it is.

Bs”d
I would like to ask a different question concerning the excitement of Rabbi Mirvis. How can a Rabbi show excitement at the coronation of a man who publicly, in an interview, admitted he committed adultery with a married woman, when he was still married? That is an issur that should not be ignored by a Rabbi. The fact that the goyisher government ignores it, and crowns someone “defender of the faith ” when he blatantly isn’t; when Edward 8th was forced to abdicate , just because he wanted to marry a divorcee, which isn’t recognized by their religion ; when Charles’s remarriage was only a civil one, because the church would
only have a ceremony that was not an actual wedding; just because the goyim have caved in to the predominant apikorsas culture, a Rabbi should stay firm. He shouldn’t say these things, but just explain he cannot attend for religious reasons of a church service. He shouldn’t be so happy about the coronation.

Always_Ask_Questions:
Hilchos L”H require that if someone intentionally and publicly profanes Hashem’s name that such an abomination be condemned.

Established halacha is that it is absolutely forbidden to enter a church sanctuary. You’re not even allowed to enter the sanctuary of a Conservative Synagogue – yet the UK Chief Rabbinate claims that their Chief Rabbi (and his predecessors) are perfectly fine entering a church sanctuary for a church ceremony (and proud to make videos of it and disseminate those afterwards)?

The argument that it was permitted by the “London Beth Din”, of which he is the head, and which is therefore nogeia baDavar, is not an argument.

As well, the United Synagogue (the umbrella organization of that “Beth Din”, headed by the Chief Rabbi), on their web site, states that they are “a Zionist organization”. So, there goes that “heter”.

There are world-renowned Torah greats who have guided us over the past century. Why wasn’t this asked to, and answered by, someone like Rav Moshe Feinstein, for example?

Nope.

HaKatan, so it is ossur to enter a Mizrachi yeshivah because it is a beis avodah zorah? Stop saying ridiculous things. And you know the sugyos enough to know that there was no heter for the Chief Rabbi to do what he did? Maybe, go learn some more first.

Neville/Ujm
We know hatzaloh takes calls on shabbos for goyim Bc of aivah
So if a Jewish doctor walks by a church (he’s got his lab coat on/ stethoscope over his neck, doctors bag in hand etc)
Suddenly someone runs out and says “someone inside is having a heart attack you need to come!”
The proper response is “sorry, can’t do it”?

Entering a conservative synagogue, no but entering a church under certain circumstances, yes.

mdd1:
If that question is relevant, then one should certainly ask.
Read Kovetz Maamarim and the rest. It’s Black-and-White; “Religious Zionism” is idolatry. Period.

Regardless, that question has zero to do with a church, which is absolutely forbidden to enter (certainly its sanctuary, and even more so when a religious ceremony is being conducted there).

mentsch1:
The King respects the (religion of the) Chief Rabbi, as we know. There is neither a need nor a gain by that Chief Rabbi entering a church, against the Torah.

Hakatan, i don’t know about their website, but the london beis din has normal rabbis. Rav gelley is a yekkishe rov, another is on the beis din of bais havaad in Lakewood… they’re not mizrachisten.

In kashrus, KLBD has a similar reputation to the OU in America. There are definitely modern people among the UK rabbinate, but if rav jakobovitz, who himself was quite respected in halacha, and the beis din had a heter… I’m not going to fight it. I do believe that r..mirvis would be required to distinguish himself as a non participant, as per what rav jakobovitz wrote.

AviraDeArah:
It doesn’t matter who is on their Beis Din now.

It matters who, and on what basis, initially gave this alleged heter for a Chief Rabbi to attend a church ceremony in a church sanctuary when nobody in history has ever permitted that.

It also matters that the parent organization of that B”D is idolatrous, which makes the above all the more problematic.

This is ridiculous. I just read through two pages of ignorant pontifications.

To be brief, two points will suffice.

1) The position of Chief Rabbi in England is extraordinarily complex. Many spiritual battles are at stake. This is not a matter of halachic precedent. If I would attend a church service and claim that R’ Mirvis did so, that would make me a fraud.

2) We all know (or should know) that there will be a dozen blogs this month on the topic with all types of contradictory information. This isn’t a never before phenomenon. It’s hard to pin down exactly why we do not go into churches.

For those who don’t know, there is a raging war in England for the balance of power among the Jewish factions. They have everything to gain with coming together. Yet, these attempts always get foiled by some fanatics and rabble-rousers. (Some are observant, most are passionately not.) Such is the company this conversation belongs in.

HaKatan,
I understand your passion and I see that you can come to the conclusions quiet logically – except that I disagree with your premises. As Avira, I also witnessed multiple Rabonim of different flavors, all refer to UK beis din with CRs with appropriate respect. Maybe, you are not aware how legal process work. London Beis Din _is_ the one that determines halocho there. If they have a need to consult someone else, rest assured, they will do that without your and mine advice. If you are in London, you follow their regulations. Just because you see something on the website that you disagree with does not allow you to disrespect a choshuv beis din.

HaKatan, please!!… Reb Elchonan meant to say that he had a problem with the hashkofah of the Mizrachi movement, not that it is literally, mamash, avoda zorah ke’pshuto!

R Soloveichik analyzes what interactions with christians are appropriate. He absolutely forbids any interaction about theology – no disputes, discussions, finding common points, etc. When catholics were preparing to renounce their position that Jews are in error and recognize us as “older brother”, he advised against attending: it is their problem, if they want to teshuva gezunte heig, we do not want them to expect any concessions in return! At the same time, we are interested in bettering the world and should absolutely have a dialog related to solving the issues of the society, world peace, etc.

It is telling that HaKatan brings R Elchonon here. He was probably one of the most anti-Z gedolei of his generation. There were others who were more accommodating. Weird decision to cancel a Chief Rabbi of a large country because a website of the beis din that approved Rabbi’s decision has a reference to a movement that one of the gedolei disapproved 100 years ago. It is as if it is an impression of “frumkeit” if one finds someone else to denigrate, while there is no down-side of rejecting a large community of Yidden.

Always_Ask_Questions:
I was not questioning those Rabbanim on that Beis Din who are genuine unadulterated shomrei Torah and mitzvos.

But the Beis Din’s parent organization openly states that it is Zionist. This is not merely “something with which you disagree”. As well, its Av Beis Din, the Chief Rabbi, studied in “Religious Zionist” institutions, etc.

Their Chief Rabbi claimed that, in attending that religious service in a church sanctuary on Shabbos, he was following in the footsteps of this predecessors, not that he asked the London Beth Din for permission.

So, the number of unadulterated G-d-fearing Rabbanim on that Beth Din is all irrelevant to the massive chilul Hashem of their chief rabbi attending a church ceremony in a church sanctuary on, liHavdil, Shabbos, and then producing and disseminating a video about that.

Again, given that this was universally forbidden before, where is the teshuva/responsum on this, if there really was a heter (from a century ago or more recently)?

Avira:
Why are you unwilling to question of heter of the London Beis Din, but will happily argue against the Brooklyn eruv matirim?

Both cases are similar: respectable rabbis are being matir something that is seemingly totally assur with no obvious heter and not doing a good job of explaining their reasoning. You have three main choices:
1) The left-wing approach: never question a heter. Only haters question heters.
2) The right-wing approach: conclude that the otherwise respectable rabbis have chosen to ignore halacha completely with no basis and are apparently closet Zionists or something.
3) The approach that will still make people accuse you of being a crazy right-winger: have the seemingly reasonable expectation that when rabbis make a massive chiddush publicly with far-reaching consequences, that they explain their reasoning so as to not cause confusion and halachic mishaps ch”v. And, yes, even be willing to criticize them when they don’t do so. Suddenly all these posters who usually accuse us of “gadolatry” passionately believe that all rabbis are above criticism (assuming what they’re saying is b’tzad heter).

HaKatan, as mentioned above, previous UK CRs attending similar ceremonies. On your other point, if you have a T’Ch, you interpret his actions l tzad zchus as much as possible. In this case, this is more than one, and heads of the whole shomer-mitzvos community. It looks like you are triggered by the Z word for political reasons. Please review halochos of how Jews are supposed to live with each other from pre-Z times and then apply them, rationally, to our times.

AAQ:
There is no “chazaka” and this has zero to do with politics.

1. The organization is “Religious Zionist” which means it has zero chezkas kashrus, to begin with. The Av Beis Din is this Chief Rabbi, as mentioned above.

2. Where is the original teshuva permitting the first Chief Rabbi to enter that church? Which gadol applied that alleged heter, if it did exist, to any future time?

3. There could be 1,000 fully frum and non-Zionist talmidei chachamim on that beis din but that would be totally irrelevant given the above. The question is not on them; they are irrelevant.

This whole church thing is obviously a mockery of G-d but, just for argument’s sake, even if there was a heter back then – which nobody has produced – in that specific time and for that specific king, who said that heter still applies? Where is the teshuva showing how/why that would be?