Tuesday, 12 April 2011

The Chief Rabbi and London Beth Din: Then and now

To those interested in these matters here is a lengthy article on the right-left tensions between the Chief Rabbinate and the Beth Din which exist till this day. They may well intensify depending on the United Synagogue’s choice of the next Chief Rabbi.

As to this future appointment in some two and a half years Miriam Shaviv suggested, rather mischievously, in last week’s JC that elections be held for the next Chief. One of her arguments is that in any attack from the London Beth Din and further to the right (east?) the new Chief would be able to point to a popular mandate. I am afraid that those attacking from the right care little for popular mandates and if anything will make him more of a laughing stock in those quarters. Back room deals over dead bodies a la Padwa are the order of the day round here. And this is before even opening that delicious can of worms on whether women too would be allowed to vote…

Debates even of a halachic nature do not sway these people as was seen recently in Israel when there was disagreement between Rabbis Elyashuv and Yosef over conversion issues. Rather than trade barbed euphemisms if not direct insults in lengthy responsa employing puns and paraphrases of biblical and talmudic verses as has traditionally been the custom of the rabbis, Elyashuv threatened a demonstration. It appears that the ‘world’s leading halachic authority’, who’s barely put pen to paper in recent years and even further back has no seminal work to his name, is resorting to mob rule. At over a hundred he must be tiring from the tirade of verbal, unreasoned, if not unreasonable, rulings on anything from crocs on Yom Kipur to Shabbos lifts and prefers the power brought about by the masses and the occasional dirty nappy.

And so we come to a situation where it is the Torah-less politicians and the gentiles who conduct arguments by debate and decide by common suffrage and it is the rabbis who employ mob rule. Apparently the chosen weren’t meant to choose for the concept of choice implies that there is more than one legitimate way. Since there can be only one version of the truth giving people any say in any matter is heresy and so forbidden and bless the Lord for the state we’re in.

4 Comments:

At 12 April 2011 at 20:43 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

So this blog has become a reform blog like FM attacking todays gedolim. Shame on you.
Whoever you are, youve been reading other blogs like slifkin's too much.
This is SH and GG. We dont need your type here.

 
At 13 April 2011 at 22:02 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

How dare you attack the Gedoilim, the established and accepted leaders of our generation!

 
At 4 May 2011 at 12:19 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are great !

this is SH & GG ,

evry niuf , evry sheigetz stik , evry gneiva , is mutter !
who would dare to take one of the " berger's , lew's , englander's " to a beth din ?!? waste of time , evry one know's it .....
but if some one puts the true on the table "kummt men shreien " GEDOILIM GEDOILIM GEDOILEM .....

 
At 2 June 2011 at 16:51 , Anonymous Moshe C said...

I think your comments are rude against Tzaddikim.

Fortunately the offence is mitigated slightly by the silliness of the some of your rhetoric, mass rallies and demonstrations across the world are not seen as undemocratic mob rule, unless you're a tyrant.

Just saying.

:)

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home