Noa Yaron-Dayan and her Book "Mekimi"

14 Tevet 5768

Former television star Noa Yaron-Dayan's book Mekimi recently incurred criticism by Shlomo Aviner.

Shlomo Aviner was asked, "Is it appropriate to read the book Mekimi?"

"Certainly not," he ruled. "The author intended it for the non-religious. But it is not appropriate for them either, because it is superficial and immodest."

Mekimi describes the author's journey from a secular upbringing to Breslover Hassidic Judaism. The book has garnered a great many positive reviews, including some from the religious establishment. Even the Ma'ayanei HaY'shu'a movement, in whose weekly Parsha sheet Shlomo Aviner's response to the question as to whether one should read this book, has been publicized, has been distributing the book as part of its Torah outreach operations.¹

Elisheva Federman, Religious Zionist activist, suggests a possible reason for the strong reaction from Shlomo Aviner: fear. In her review of the book Mekimi, Federman points out that the focus of the book is love.

"In a generation which venerates wit, wisdom, and logica, we are a people whose souls are choked and crying out. HaShem is found in the heart of every Jew. The soul feels, searches, and asks."

Everyone whom she has asked about the book felt touched in a deep place, thus Shlomo's Aviner's description of "superficial" does not seem to fit.

Federman suggests that rabbis like Shlomo Aviner fear losing a hold on their "flocks," ...losing followers. It seems difficult for her to grasp how "the truth which touches the Jewish heart lovingly searching for HaShem" could invoke such a reaction of disapproval.²

After all Shlomo Aviner is a well-known advocate of "Ahavath Hinam," unconditional love.

Recently, we were made aware of another possible reason behind Shlomo Aviner's strong reaction against the reading the book Mekimi. A conference was arranged by Shlomo Aviner, at which Noa Yaron-Dayan was to speak.

After being approached, and provided with documented information supporting our concerns over Shlomo Aviner, Noa Yaron-Dayan canceled her scheduled appearance.

******************

1 NRG, Dec. 13, 2007
Click here for the complete story in Hebrew.

2 NRG, Dec. 17, 2007
Click here for the complete story in Hebrew.

Introduction

9 Kislev 5768

In 5765 (2005), the investigations into Shlomo Aviner's instruction on Niddah cumulated in the ruling by a Rabbinic Council convened by Rishon LeTzion HaRav Mordekhai Eliyahu SHLIT"A that

Shlomo Aviner is forbidden to rule on this and related issues.

This Rabbinical Council was comprised of:

Rabbi Ya'acov Yosef SHLIT”A
Rabbi, Giv'at Moshe, Jerusalem, Hazon Ya'acov Foundation

Rabbi Dov Lior, SHLIT”A
Rabbi of Qiriyath Arba-Hevron

Rabbi Mordekhai Eliyahu SHLIT”A
Rishon leTzion
Former Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel

Rabbi Zalman Nehemiyah Goldberg, SHLIT”A
Member, High Rabbinical Court

Rabbi Avraham Elqanah Kahane Shapira ZTZ"L
Rosh Yeshivah, Merkaz HaRav, Former Ashkinazi Chief Rabbi of Israel

Since then, many other respected rabbis have added their names to the list of halachic scholars instructing the public to refrain from turning to Shlomo Aviner, regarding various issues. These rabbis include, but are not limited to:


Rabbi Shlomo Fisher, SHLIT”A
Dayan, High Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem

Rabbi Nissim Karlitz, SHLIT”A
B'nei Braq

The aim of this blog is to bring forth such documents and evidence, and make it more accessible to the English-speaking public.

This blog also intends to investigate such confounding questions as:

1. How is it that so many Jews in the Binyamin Region are sill unaware of these Rabbinic rulings, even though the Binyamin Religious Council was specifically instructed to publicize the original ruling of 5765?

2. How is it that those Jews who are aware of the various rulings against Shlomo Aviner side with him, instead of following the dictates of the greatest rabbis of our generation?

3. How is it that so Jews seem to believe that rulings of Rabbinial Courts are nothing more than Lashon HaRa (forbidden speech), when in fact the halacha says exactly the opposite?

For clarity, the dates of each blog post match the dates of the letters and documents, or the approximate date of their release, in order to keep to the time line of the various investigations and rulings.