A Chief Rabbi Attends the Coronation in a Church?

Dear Neville,

What it should be is irrelevant. The fact is that it has real meaning to the majority of the people that the Office of the Chief Rabbi serves. I don’t know why anyone would deny this fact.

“The fact is that it has real meaning to the majority of the people that the Office of the Chief Rabbi serves.”
Who cares? At least Avira gave real answers. You actually seem to be of the opinion that even if this was completely assur, he should do it anyway because it makes his employers happy and it’s “meaningful” to them. So far, everything you’ve said here is at least as absurd as anything on the YCT teshuvos thread.

Yoreh Deah 178 has the halakhot of a karov lemalkhut.
the taz there says מותר בכל. ואע”ג דכל הנזכר בסי’ זה הוא בכלל ובחוקותיהם לא תלכו ואין כח לחכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה מ”מ הכא שאני כיון שלא פירשה התורה שום דבר ומסרה לחכמים והם ראו להתיר לקרובים למלכות. ב”י
There are definitely things that chazal allowed for people who have the position of a קרוב למלכות.

Anon – we didn’t “come up” with an excuse for yom tov sheni. It’s in the gemara, well after the calendar was established.

And there are reasons we can understand; we will use aidim once again when moshiach comes(although then there won’t be yidden outside eretz yisroel…still it will take too long to reach far away parts, as EY’s borders will increase by a lot.

And there’s a ton of reasons al ki kabalah for it, as well.

Did you spend time in yeshiva outside of high school?

Dear Anonymous,

I don’t know why you call yom tov sheini Neville’s glass house. His claim of others thinking like Reform is his glass house.

Anon…nope. we will use aidim again when we have Sanhedrin; the gemara says that openly. We use the calendar specifically because we don’t have beis din smuchim.

As for electronic forms of communication; nothing’s written in stone. The world could change, computers could all cease to exist – anything’s possible.

As for shevuos, you could have asked better – why keep the 8th day of pesach and sukkos, since the shluchim could have reached the galuyis by then?

As with your original question, the gemara openly addresses it in rosh hashanah 21a. Since we made the takanah, we are not mechalek between yomim tovim.

I have all the patience in the world for someone who doesn’t know things, be it because of their upbringing, lack of education, or learning difficulty – what i have little patience for is chutzpah. Brazenly attacking concepts that one doesn’t understand and limiting them to his tiny depth and breadth of knowledge… it’s a form of bizayon Hatorah.

If you want to know, ask. If you want to show everyone pompous ignorance, continue blasting gemaros without having learned them. I’ve yet to see you quote a single mareh makom on this forum.

Dear Avira,

He wasn’t trying to blast yom tov sheni (I think) he was making a point toward this topic. Though I can’t figure out what he wants.

The point I was trying ( and obviously failed ) to make was that Neville, as an outsider, appeared to be deriding Britain’s monarchy and that the Brits couldn’t see the reality. Similarly we have practices, that to an outsider, seem to make little sense, like the 8th day but I’m positive Neville wouldn’t be happy to hear a Brit use the same language and approach Neville used 7

Anon, then you should say what you mean – that’s a valid point, but Neville didn’t deride it in and of itself, he was mainly saying that in halacha, it doesn’t make sense to treat the british monarchy as a malchus l’inyan koruv lemalchus, etc…a sentiment that is very hard to argue against. If not for my rebbeim praising rav jakobovitz, I wouldn’t defend the whole thing either. I trust my rebbeim as chains in the mesorah.

Lol, OK it’s officially time for me to start making arrangements to delete this account. This place is a joke now.

I am too lazy to scroll up to see what was mentioned, but last page of Sotah mentions halochos that are different for “karov l’malchus” learning hochmas yavanit by R’ Gamliel’s students, a goyishe haircut ….

Since the general sense is that we never go into churches, it would be better not to post sources. As this would only lead to sway readers that it is permitted. [All the sources that something is forbidden, are not as strong as the statement that we just don’t do it.] If you really need sources for this, your just an imperceptible ideological shift from entering a church yourself.

My issue here is not that I am convinced it’s permitted to go into a church in a certain context. I am mildly annoyed that posters who have no idea what any of this is about, are making a stink out of themselves. It’s undermining to their own credibility and objectivity that they keep repeating the same lines without taking a second look at the factors.

Rav Mirvis took a very difficult position and has been blessed with success while keeping a relatively low profile. The Office of the Chief Rabbi is not an halachic institution. However it is more deliberate than any beis din or organization in all of World Jewry. When the daily tasks are akin to carrying lit dynamite sticks, it goes a long way to not being fazed and never getting carried away in the moment. There was no psak given that you or me or anyone can go into the church. What was done is what was understood to be needed.

The rationale that “oh, he is some sort of zionist and not my type” is particularly insulting. So, the Torah is reduced to whether the rabbi involved is your type or not?!? when you learn some gemara, do the statements mentioned also depend on being your type? How can anyone ever pass judgement on anything without a fully understanding what the issues are? The haphazard way some of the strongest proponents of ‘Rabbinic Judaism’ hurl their opinion without checking the facts is very depressing to me… Remember that you are a role model to many that are completely unlearned. Do you want them to also pontificate based on their gut instinct?

How can anyone ever pass judgement on anything without a fully understanding what the issues are?

If everyone followed that rule, the mainstream news organizations would be out of business, and 99% of internet content would disappear.

Dear Neville,

Schism is not a matter of who your rabbi is. If it was, there wouldn’t be any schism. You go here. I go there. The reason why Jews aren’t Christians isn’t a matter of a different rabbi many years ago. I feel like I missed some humor here.

“Schism is not a matter of who your rabbi is.”
So, if my rabbi is a Reform lady I can still be considered Orthodox? What’s your point?

“It’s importance to retaining Jewish integrity in the UK as well as Europe”
Even if this were true, I don’t get your need to keep making these kind of points. Avira already brought halachic sources and I was modeh. You’ve kept this going because you’re insisting on people accepting non-Torah based justifications for the incident even when Torah-based ones exist.

I’m ceding to Avira that there is possibly a real heter here, but I will never agree to your point that even if this is halachicly assur it’s OK because a chief rabbi’s gotta do what a chief rabbi’s gotta do.

“What irked me the most here was that this is a real Rav, and it is not within the guidelines of halachah to openly question him like this.”
Nonsense. Some of the founders of Conservative Judaism were no doubt “real ravs” at one point. Avi Weiss no doubt was ordained by a real yeshiva. When someone seems to be doing something outside of the halacha, you can and should question it no matter what their title is. In this case I happened to be wrong because I was uninformed of the halachah, not because it’s inherently wrong to ask questions.

“Halacha is not a factor in schisms. There is a system how to address lack of conformity.”
Halacha is THE factor is schisms. The difference between the Orthodoxy and other movements is that we actually follow the halachah. If Rabbi Mirvis got his heter from a Reform rabbi, it would be invalid because they don’t follow the halachah; there wouldn’t even be a discussion. Apparently that poster views Zionist rabbis as potentially invalid regarding psak halachah. I don’t agree, nor am I sure if that’s really what he meant.

Your consistency in talking about things like non-Orthodox sects in terms like “lack of conformity” or the halachah of not entering churches as “we just don’t do it” leads to serious questions that I will likely never outwardly ask.

“What irked me the most here was that this is a real Rav, and it is not within the guidelines of halachah to openly question him like this.”

Questioning isn’t the problem. Doubting his authenticity without being in proximity of the context is a whole different story. Because it’s about a well respected figure who plays a major role in the community, it’s serious loshon hora.

Other than that, I agree with your paragraph about Early Conservative Rabbis.

Halachah and Schisms.

We disagree here. But I’m not sure on what terms. In straight halachah, eruvin in cities is more of an issue than women rabbis. But the Brooklyn Eruv is not causing a schism. (At most, it’s a temporary rift.) Because the both sides are behind the idea of kedushas shabbos etc. There isn’t any friction here that will cause the different sides to go two opposite ways. But women rabbis is just one instance between two sides. One wants to stay where it is. And the other wants to move off to somewhere they think is better. There can be schisms that both sides are fully within halachic bounds. [Mussar. Chassidus. amd many more.] But over time the dispute fizzles, because they both end up in the same place anyways. It does seem that the only permanent idealistic move, is to outside the bounds of halachah.

….address lack of conformity.”
LOL! What I meant here is that when Jews do not conform to halachah, it is not by itself schismatic. We have a bunch of systems (Omer muttar. Shogeg. Tinok shenishba. Taus.) that allow us to remain in close contact. It was not easy for the Conservative Movement to earn it’s mumar label. But actually, I was thinking of Orthodox groups that seem oblivious to certain parts of halachah.

My insistence on using the term ‘we just don’t go into churches’ is only intend to make the matter more serious not less. It is not my own term. I heard it from a major rosh yeshivah when he had a similar issue.

PS You can always ask me anything.

Dear Neville,

To the main point: Saying it is assur allows for a ‘rabbi’ to permit it. Saying we don’t do it, forces the skeptical innovator to consider the consequential shift that they are initiating.

Agreed. And I think the qualifier is fulfilled by the existence of the Office Of The Chief Rabbi. Not that that is a blanket heter. They know what they are doing.

Nom, there is a system for dealing with schisms which aren’t in regard to practical mitzvos (even though they always spill over…. Female rabbits(not a typo) always want to violate halacha)

That system is called hilchos deos, the chelek in halacha that some people pretend doesn’t exist. Violation of heresy is as big of a Boston violation of halacha as they come, and is grounds for schism.

Actually, it is grounds for separation more than other sins, as Chazal say “”shaani minus, d’mashchi(heresy is different, in that it draws people in)

Apikorsim who keep mitzvos are excluded from klal yisroel. They lose their olam haba, no matter what mitzvos they keep. They, including feminists, wage ideological war on chazal and everything holy. I do not envy their fate

Dear Avira,

You misunderstood my post. Obviously, schisms are not subject to a personal outlook on the mitzvos. Even completely wrongheaded perspectives like mine. We could fight about what you just posted anyway.

For some reason, major disputes in deyos to not have lasting impact. There is no historical precedent for arguing the same theologies for generations.
Two examples.
1) The Karaites would fight bitterly over some theory they came up with. Only for the next generation to abandon it and fight about something else.
2) the attacks of the Chachmei Luniel on the Rambam did not perpetuate. The ideas of both sides started fusing immediately.

I don’t know why this is, but it seems like theology is two delicate to preserve without a community.

What is a violation of heresy? Maybe you mean heresy itself.

It is clear in Hilchos Deyos that not every deviation is minus.

I’m still waiting on how we can ever ascertain who is an apikorus. I can’t read minds.

And I don’t know anything about feminism.

I’m confused here. Elu v’elu is only a system by halachic disputes. If you and I disagree about kashrus issues, we will have a whole set up on how and when we can eat the others food. And everything is fine. We’ll still daven and learn together. But if you make a change in curriculum or decorum I’m going to be pulled along unless I make a strong stand not to follow your lead. And if you would change the nusach hatefilah, I would have to leave your shul or my descendants would end up davening as you do.

My understanding is, that as long as we see each other as comitted to halachah we would not schism. You agree?

Do you consider the separate orthodox circles to be a schism? I don’t.