Rabbi Yaakov Love’s credentials seem impressive. According to his official bio at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah he learned under Rav Yisroel Gustman. He received Yoreh Yoreh and Yadin Yadin ordinations from noted rabbis and Dayanim in Israel. He taught at Shappel Institute and Machon Pardes in Israel , completed work on a MA/PhD in Talmud at Hebrew University and is an Associate Rabbi at the Young Israel of Passaic in Clifton, New Jersey. He is also on the faculty of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT).
This is quite a resume! And it is my further understanding that Rabbi Love is a man of impeccable character. So what is up with this? According to an article in the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, he has put his imprimatur on a Mikvah built and approved under the auspices of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis.
From the article:
The rabbis involved in the project were Ben Zion Bergman, a Conservative rabbi who is professor emeritus of Rabbinic Literature at American Jewish University in Los Angeles, and Yaacov Love, an Orthodox rabbi in New Jersey. Bergman was involved in the development of Mayyim Hayyim - Living Water Community Mikveh and Education Center in Boston, the mikvah at the American Jewish University (formerly the University of Judaism), and numerous others.
In a letter certifying the mikvah, Love, who is associate rabbi at the Young Israel of Passaic-Clifton and chair of the Department of Halakha at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah in New York City, addressed the potential concerns of some Orthodox Jews about the mikvah being located on the campus of a Reform congregation for use by non-Orthodox Jews. He cites the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein that doing so no way undermines the kashrut of the mikvah.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is basing his cite of Rav Moshe on his Psak for the Chicago Mikvah Association (CMA).
When the West Rogers Park Mikvah was built about 35 years ago, the Chicago Jewish Federation (CJF) was approached for funding. The CJF gave the money on the condition that all Jewish religious denominations be permitted to use it. This of course meant allowing Conservative and Reform conversions.
Rav Aaron Soloveichik was asked a Shaila about whether they were permitted to accept funds with this condition attached. Rabbi S0loveichik was the head Posek of the rabbinic committee of the CMA. There were three members: Telzer Rosh HaYeshiva, Rabbi A.C. Levin; Rabbi Dovid Berish Meisel’s, Talmid Muvhak of his uncle, Rav Tzvi Hirsh Meisels who was considered a major Posek on Mikvaos; and Rabbi Soloveichik. He Paskin’d that it was Assur. The CMA was not permitted to take money with this condition attached as it would in effect end up contributing to non Halachic conversions.
This did not sit well with the CMA. The circumstances were dire. They really needed the funds. There was no decent community Mikva in Chicago at that time as the main Mikvah was broken beyond repair. A small Shul Mikvah in the neighboring suburb of Lincolnwood was primarily used for the entire city.
There was one kosher community Mikvah in an older run down neighborhood that was in very dilapidated condition and used mostly by Chasidic Jews. It was made available but few women wanted to use it. Many semi-observant women who had observed family purity laws were simply ‘scared off’. Many women traveled to Milwaukee, 90 miles away. A few just held their nose and went to the dilapidated Mikvah. But most women went to that crowded small Shul Mikvah.
The CMA was desperate. They decided to ignore Rav Aharon’s Psak and went to Rav Moshe. He Paskin’d they could take the money with those conditions attached. He reasoned that as long as they do not participate in any way with those non Halachic conversions, they could permit the Conservative Movement to use it for their conversions. Needless to say, Rav Soloveichik was very upset that he was over-ridden. And rightly so. It is in fact Assur to seek a Kula from another Posek once you've gotten a Psak L'Chumra from the Posek you originally asked. Once you get a Psak from a legitimate Posek, that is Halacha for you… even if the second Posek is greater than the first one.
The CMA went ahead and took the money and built what was at the time a beautiful state of the art Mikvah. Rav Soloveichik immediately resigned from the Halachic committee which was padded by the CMA with an additional 8 rabbis of lesser stature (to total a Halachic committee of ten). To its credit however, the CMA has also built many more Mikvaos in the Chicago Jewish community since then all of which are walking distance to most religious women in the various Jewish neighborhoods.
In any case... back to Rabbi Love. If this is the Psak of Rav Moshe that Rabbi Love relied upon, it is really not the same situation. Rav Moshe would hardly have given his OK to a Mikvah built and operated by a group of rabbis some of whom are members of heretical versions of Judaism. It is quite possible that the actual Mikvah is Halachicly valid. But the entire enterprise is certainly not. There is absolutely no way that any of the great Gedolim of the past, including Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik would have approved.
But that didn’t stop this YCT faculty member from citing Rav Moshe’s name in an obvious attempt to associate Rav Moshe’s prestige with this project!
I guess if you believe in pluralism this is a wonderful step forward. But in my view, this step undermines the very essence of Torah. By joining in this project one gives the false impression that all denominations are legitimate: ‘You want to observe Halacha?’ ‘Fine, we’ve got a movement for you.’ ‘You want to reject Halacha? …we’re OK with that too.’ ‘Try our Reform branch.’ ‘You want to believe the Torah is a work of allegorical fiction?’ ‘That’s OK. You are well within the confines of the Conservative branch of Judaism.’ ‘It’s all OK with God.’
But worst of, all any conversion by any rabbi of any denomination that uses this Mikva will give the false impression of ligitimization by an Orthodox Rabbi. What a mess!
Even though Rabbi Love has apparently not himself partnered with these rabbis he has …perhaps unwittingly… helped paint an inaccurate portrait of Judaism as pluralistic by involving himself at all.
Those Orthodox rabbis who do cross the line and join in such partnerships, promote by their presence heretical or non Halachic versions of Judaism.
It is one thing to maintain friendly relations with rabbis of other denominations. That is right and proper. It is another to give them equal billing. By publicly joining with these rabbis on this kind of enterprise one gives the impression of endorsing their heresy. And that in my view de-legitimizes their position as rabbis, teachers, and preachers in Israel.
Revised: 9/18/07 - 7:45 PM CDT
