A very strange story has come to light in which a convert was discovered to never having actually been circumcised during his conversion.

And no, we are not talking about a conversion performed by some renegade or maverick beis din, not some open orthodox or other type of defamed-by-the-rabbanut beis din (e.g. such as Rav Haskel Lookstein's). This happened in the prestigious beis din in Bnei Braq led by Rav Nissim Karelitz.

The story, as reported by Radio Kol Hai, is seemingly not one of fraud or deceit, but of a mistake. This fellow went to the beis din to convert, and at the end of the process when it was time to get the circumcision, a student mohel was appointed to perform the rite of passage. This student mohel did not do what he was supposed to do, but the convert was registered as a convert.

This was discovered when he went to the Rabbanut to register for marriage, and they wanted to confirm his conversion. During the investigation they somehow discovered that he was not circumcised.

The Rabbanut mohel says that this fellow refused to be physically examined when requested. However, he said, and I heard him say this on the radio, the refusal was not because he was hiding anything but because his conversion had been confirmed in the past by multiple rabbis and he thought another examination was improper and wrong, and it was probably confusing and upsetting for him to be put through this and to have his conversion suddenly called into question.

Eventually he was persuaded to participate, by realizing that he would not be allowed to marry if he did not participate, and the mohel realized that there was a problem, as he was not circumcised. A new circumcision was performed, his conversion was confirmed and he was allowed to marry.

Supposedly, there are many stories like this in which people are given geirus certificates without having actually completed the circumcision requirements.

This is a very strange story:
1. Rav Karelitz's beis din has a reputation of being very thorough, and thusly very well respected. I don't understand how this can happen.
2. How does a mohel perform the bris but not actually perform the bris, without realizing, and give the approval?
3. how does a student mohel perform circumcisions without supervisions and oversight? especially in a beis din like that of Rav Karelitz...
4. when a convert applies for marriage do they really ask him to drop his pants? why did they suspect this convert and not just accept Rav Karelitz's confirmation paper?
5. Will incidents like this affect the standing and acceptance of the private batei din in the Rabbanut?

Kooker reports on an interesting story - this past Friday a newly married young man, in the middle of his week of sheva brachos, went to Rav Chaim Kanievsky and asked an important question. His mother, living in Ashdod, is making the sheva brachos on Shabbos. They wanted to know if they should not go because of the danger. On the other hand, not going would hurt his mother. What should they do?

Rav Chaim Kanievsky refused to answer them but instead sent them to ask Rav Shteinman.

Rav Shteinman heard the question and told them they should go to Ashdod for the sheva brachos, and they should make sure to take all safety measures and follow the instructions of Pikud Haoref - the Home Front Command.

and, more on Bnei Braq and the promise of the Chazon Ish -

Kooker adds that Rav Nissim Karelitz was asked by one his grandchildren this week regarding the famous promise of the Chazon Ish. Rav Nissim Kaarelizt is the nephew of the Chazon Ish. The grandchild asked what to do if the siren blares in Bnei Braq. Rav Karelitz told him to go into the secure room, the bomb shelter.

What about the promise of the Chazon Ish?

Rav Nissim Karelitz answered that it is true, the Chazon Ish did make the famous promise that missiles wont fall in Bnei Braq, and he heard it from the Chazon Ish with his own ears. However, he said, despite the promise, the obligation of hishtadlus one must take all precautions and follow safety instructions.

Until now, smartphones in the haredi news have always been negative and prohibited. Exceptions [for work] were not openly discussed. They were just prohibited. To the point that someone who uses a smartphone could not get an aliya, could not be a witness at a wedding, would be excluded from shofar blowing, musicians can't be hired to play at affairs, etc. None of those instances, at least the way they were reported, ever included an exception for someone using the smartphone for valid work needs.

Now, Rav Efrati, has added to the list saying that mashgichim working for his kashrus organization (dealing mostly with certifying fruits and vegetables) could not continue working in such a capacity if they use a "non-kosher" phone.

At the same time, Rav Nissim Karelitz was a bit more flexible. An avreich in Bnei Braq who had found a smartphone in the street asked Rav Karelitz what to do with it - is he allowed to return it to the owner?

Rav Karelitz did not tell him to destroy it, or that it is prohibited to return. Rather, Rav Karelitz told him to find out whether the owner needs it for his parnassa - and if he does, it should be returned to him.

So, if you find a smartphone, you can possibly return it, but not if the owner is a mashgiach working for Rav Efrati...

There was a recently a surprising psak publicized in the name of Rav Chaim Kanievsky according to which he holds, based on the Chazon Ish's opinion, that it is forbidden for a man to wear a wristwatch due it it being considered a female garment or accessory.

According to Bechadrei, Rav Nissim Karelitz was recently asked about that psak of Rav Kanievsky. Rav Nissim Karelitz, nephew of the Chazon Ish and cousin of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, said that there is no way the Chazon Ish considered a regular wristwatch to be a female garment or accessory and he never prohibited its use as such. It is possible, Rav Karelitz explained, that the psak of the Chazon Ish was referring to a specific watch that was more similar to a female piece of jewelry than to a simple wristwatch.

When asked how Rav Kanievsky could say differently, Rav Karelitz responded to go ask Rav Kanievsky, though it is likely the questioner did not understand the response. Rav Karelitz adds that a psak given in private for one situation is not supposed to be applied willy nilly to other situations. Many times the gedolim give a psak for a very specific situation, while other people than take that psak and turn it into a public decree, which was not the intention of the gadol.

Rules:
1. never rely on a psak discovered on the Internet or on a pashkevil without checking it out yourself and confirming its veracity. They make for interesting discussion, and can be a launching pad for questions and discussion, but they are not reliable enough to be acted upon blindly.
2. Ask your own questions, when you have them, and do not rely on "public" declarations of psak.

Rav Nissim Karelitz was recently asked a halachic question regarding a family that had asked the Lev Malka organization, an organization that assists children with cancer, to come say shema by the deathbed of their child.

The question was raised because the family has decided to disconnect the child from his machines because they no longer can bear to see him suffer. The doctors have not said, according to the report, that the boys situation is so critical that his days are or hours are numbered. The question asked, threfore, was can, or should, they say shema and the vidui for this child, as doing so might be considered assisting in causing his death?

Rav Nissim Karelitz paskened that it is prohibited to say shema by the deathbed of a child who's family want to disconnect his machines, as doing so will shorten his life that was designated for him by heaven.
(source: Kikar)

I find this psak fascinating, and surprising. The child is going to die anyway, as the family is cutting his machines. I would have thought that we would not want to deny the child his deathbed shema and vidui, considering the situation isnt of our choosing anyway. It is determined that the shema will hasten the child's death, and therefore it cannot be said. It makes sense to me, but it is surprising.


A question I do have based on the way it was reported, is that supposedly Rav Karelitz said that saying the shema would shorten the lifespan of the child as it had been determined by heaven - that makes me wonder: if heaven gave a specific lifespan to the child, won't he (or she) live that out regardless of the machines he is or is not attached to? Maybe this is the correct amount of time that had been determined. Is it even possible to shorten a life if it was determined Above? Do we have control over such things? I never would have thought so, but that does seem to be what Rav Karelitz is saying. And if this is true, do we also have the ability to circumvent our heavenly decreed fates on other issues, like parnassa, rain or anything else that is determined above?

Obviously teshuva and doing good deeds can be a factor that might cause such changes, as becoming evil and doing bad deeds might change it the other way, but I would view that as a way of changing the decree, not circumventing it. According to the statement quoted of Rav Karelitz, there is also a way to circumvent heavenly decrees.  

Thoughts?