Friday, May 2, 2008

Banning conversion for the sake of the community

There have been some rather peculiar assertions made regarding the appropriateness - according to both hashgofa and halacha - of a community banning gerim. The comments have not been backed by a single direct source. Let me just bring some sources that seem to justify such an approach.

I have not found any discussion in the literature regarding the ban of the Syrian community. However regarding a similar ban in Argentina, I have found no rabbonim who questioned the right of the community to make such a ban. No one raises the assertions posted in the comments sections.

Besides Rav Kook's approval, there is a discussion by Rav Tzi Pesach Frank in which he approves of the ban and also notes that if any rabbi in the community accepts gerim - against the ban - the gerus is invalid. A similar view is expressed by Rav Ben Tzion Uziel. While the latter did express concern that the tactic might backfire but acknowledged that he wasn't knowledgable about the conditions in Argentina to know whether this was likely.

A clearer proof that such a ban is not inherently problematic is the following gemora.

Yevamos(24b): Our Rabbis taught: Gerim will not be accepted in the Messianic days. This is similar to the fact that gerim were not accepted in the days of Dovid and Shlomo. R’ Eleazar asked which Biblical verse supports this assertion. Yeshaya (54:15) says, He shall be a ger only if he is converted for My sake and only he who lives with you [in your suffering] shall be settled among you.”

Avoda Zara(3b): R’ Yossi said that in the Messianic era the idol worshippers will become converts. But will they be accepted? Has it not been taught that in the Messianic era that converts will not be accepted just as they were not accepted in the days of Dovid and Shlomo? The fact is that they will act on their own as if they converts and put tefilin on their heads and arms, tzitzis on their garments and mezuzos on their doorposts. However when they see the battle of Gog and Magog they will be asked why they have come. They will answer that they have come against G‑d and His Moshiach… Then each one of these “converts” will take off his Jewish signs and leave. G‑d will sit and laugh… R’ Yitzchok said that there is no laughter for G‑d except for that day.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Devarim 21:14): Because of the concern that conversion would likely be done for ulterior motivation, gerim were not accepted during the days of Dovid and Shlomo. During the days of Shlomo they weren’t accepted because of suspicion that conversion was motivated by fear of Dovid’s power. In the days of Shlomo gerim weren’t accepted because of suspicion that conversion was motivated by the power and wealth of the nation. That is because whoever converts from the nations for the sake of material benefit is not considered a valid ger. Even though in fact there were many gerim in the days of Dovid and Shlomo – the High Court (Sanhedrin) was suspicious of them and neither rejected them once they had immersed for conversion but neither did they accept them until their sincerity was ascertained by observing their commitment. Since Shlomo himself converted women and married them and similarly Shimshon converted a woman and married her and it is well known that they did not convert except for ulterior motivation and not according to beis din - the Bible considers these women as still being non‑Jews who were prohibited. Furthermore their subsequent conduct revealed the true nature of their conversion since they still worshipped idols and altars were built for them for this purpose. Thus the Biblical verses write as if Shlomo himself built these altars as it says in Melachim (1’ 11:7): Then Shlomo built an idolatrous altar. That is why our Sages (Yevamos 47b) says that gerim are as difficult for Israel as a skin affliction. That is because most converts have ulterior motivation and they deceive Jews. It is difficult to avoid them after they have converted. Nevertheless we find that gerim are a source of problems and harm for the Jewish people. For example in the Wilderness the eiruv rav were the cause of the making of the Golden Calf. Similarly concerning the demand for meat, the asafsuf (eiru rav) were the source (Bamidbar 11:4). These gerim are the beginning of all bad and the origin of quarrels.

Rambam(Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 13:15): Therefore the beis din not accept gerim all the days of Dovid and Shlomo. They were not accepted in the days of Dovid because of concern that they would only convert out of fear. They weren’t accepted in the days of Shlomo because of concern that they would only convert because of the glory of the monarchy and the great bounty that the Jews had in those days. That is because whoever converts to Judaism for the sake of physical benefits is not considered a genuine convert. Nevertheless there were in fact many gerim in the days of Dovid and Shlomo because of the incompetent judges. Nevertheless the High Court (Sanhedrin) was concerned that they might in fact be valid converts and therefore did not reject them after they immersed in the mikveh but on the other hand did not bring them close until it became clear what they became.




8 comments:

  1. The Syrian communities in Mexico City used the Takana against intermarriage issued by Brooklyn's Syrian Jewish Rabbinical Council in 1935 until 1986 when the community Rabbis issued their own Takana against intermarriage.

    There are some differences between the Takanas in the two communities, most noticeably the requirement that in each application for membership in the community, marriage, a bar mitzvah or life cycle event, it is required that the applicant prove that they are Jewish going back four generations on both sides of their family. (My note: this has begun to be required in NY/Deal as well).

    Adoption conversions are only accepted if the child has an Orthodox conversion prior to age two.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rabbi Eidensohn:

    What shaichos do any of these mekoros you quote in this post have bazman hazeh, bechol asar ve'asar?

    Are you questioning the right of kosher properly constituted Baitei Din of qualified Dayanim mumchim to accept geirim bazman hazeh?

    Are you lobbying to have the Takana that the Syrian rabbis imposed on their people, now accepted by the entire oilam HaTorah bizmaneinu?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Recipients and Publicity said...

    Rabbi Eidensohn:

    What shaichos do any of these mekoros you quote in this post have bazman hazeh, bechol asar ve'asar?
    -----

    I really am surprised at your question. I am merely responding to your accusation that for a community to ban conversion and converts because of the widespread failure to be able to discern sincere candidates is anti-halacha and against the hashkofa that we were sent into exile to gather gerim.

    I don't understand how you would extrapolate from these sources that I am advocating a universal ban. I am just defending the right of the rabbonim of a particular community to institute such a ban.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Rabbi Eidensohn:

    You state: "I am merely responding to your accusation that for a community to ban conversion and converts because of the widespread failure to be able to discern sincere candidates is anti-halacha and against the hashkofa that we were sent into exile to gather gerim."

    Indeed I stand by my assertions and I still cannot fathom how you cite these mekoros that you do as being potentially applicable "bechol asar ve'asar" meaning in any place anywhere which is just NOT something you can derive from the sources you cite. Do you reallly think that what the Syrian rabbis did in the 20th century has any real connection to the lomdus, hashkofa and halacha in the sources you cite? Not at all. They took a look at was happening around them and screamed bloody murder at the mutiny of their flock who were "voting out of the faith" by marrying non-Jewish women and they decided to take a radical step. Did they go around and ask every last Godol on Earth at the time, including all the Sefardishe poskim, if what they proposed to do was in keeping with millenia old Yiddishkeit? And I tender to you that they did not, they panicked, put up this notorious Takana, and then found a few opinions here and there that sort of back them up. Did Rav Kook or Frank institute any such similar things for the Kehillas and Talmidim they led in Europe or in Eretz Yisroel in spite of what they wrote and allegedly "meant" to the far-away Syrians in Argentina? Decidedly no! Why, because they understood and knew full well that it is unheard of to institute such measures.

    By all means pasul the geirus of others, like Satmar that does not accept the rulings of most other Batei Din, not in geirus not in gittin and not in kashrus, that is within Halachah, that one tzad is not mechuyav to be mekabel yenem's piskei di as long as they have what to be somech on, but to stand up and say you are issuing a blanket Takana "AS IF" you were now Rabbeinu Gershom, is utterly preposterous, and that is why you will not find either Rav Frank or Rav Kook or any gadol doing such things for their own people. And that is why I say what the Syrians did is anti-Halachik because it goes against the norm.

    In fact none of the Syrian rabbis who signed the Takana can be deemed to be what we would today call a "gadol" in the fullest sense of the word so why do we have to accept or be machshiv what they said when it goes keneged hasechel and keneged Torah peshutah?

    Then you say: "I don't understand how you would extrapolate from these sources that I am advocating a universal ban. I am just defending the right of the rabbonim of a particular community to institute such a ban."

    Which I find very hard to believe the longer I stick around on your blog and read the stream of things you are pushing that seems to me klor that you want to do do to every Bais Din in the world what Rav Shternbuch and the BADATZ did to EJF -- but that is not going to work and you will only marginalize yourself and make yourself seem like a crackpot trying to push a pet project that the whole world (meaning the world of reliable Batei Din) will just not accept.

    It is all fine and good that you hold by Rav Shternbuch and the BADATZ, terrific, it's a huge madreigah, but you cannot expect every last Charedi and Orthodox Jew to accept such a supremely high and almost impossible madreigah too. And you seem to be using this whole Syrian Takana ma'aseh, that no-one in the Torah world is even goires, because very few people have respect for what the Syrian Jewish community has achieved in terms of Torah true Judaism, they are more famous in Brooklyn for their "heterim" to ride bicycles on Shabbos down Ocean Parkway, skinny ladies wearing pants jogginbg down Ocean Parkway, building huge mansions, vacationing in Deal and on the Jersey coast as if they were on the French Riviera, and spending tons of money on lavish luxuries and outlandish Bar and Bat mitzvas and playing wink-and-look-away games with their rabbis than taking grandiose Takanas not to marry shiksa seriously.

    Other groups also have corruption, but two wrongs don't make a right.

    Among other groups, like Chasidim and Yeshiva-leit there are also problems but of a different nature and scale. The takanos so far in recent times are pretty lame, the rabbonim made some takanos about not going to concerts but that does not come to not accepting geirim.

    No doubt there are kanoim lurking everywhere waiting to strike and in good time we will hear about attempts to disallow ALL genuine geirei tzedek from becoming geirim, but this is a big jump, and there is a wide chasm between modern Syrians in their personal SUVs and sportscars for everyone in the family with Haredim packed one family into two rooms in Meah Shearim, for now...

    There are better ways to fight assimilation than Takanos and gezeiros. Think Ahavas Yisroel, Chinuch, Kiruv, Yeshivas, Bais Yaakovs, day schools, shulls, youth movements.

    But the Syrians are really still not ready to hear this.

    Do you known that in the Sefardic bikkur cholim in Brooklyn dominated by the SYs that they know that they need social workers but they have set up a cocamamy system that a social worker must be tagged by a communuty worker so that no community secrets leak out. Have you ever heard of such things? You are a psychologist, would you accept that every patient you see MUST be co-handled by a member of the Kehila they come from and that you would have to share all session notes, consultations with colleagues, everything, with some community appointed watchdog less-than-a-rebbetzin? Well that is the way the Syrians function, they want "Orthodoxy" but on their own terms, and what they get is just hypocrisy and a huge mess that they then try to stop with silly "takanos" that only makes them into the laughingstock of the Torah world, like little Mike needs a monitor to keep him in check, and it gets them absolutely nowhere and it is surprisng that you are willing to defend such shtus and to even go digging up mekoros for them and shtel them tzu like arbes tzum vant.

    Maybe that is why Jersey Girl has a chip on her shoulder against Aish HaTorah, Chabad, and other Kiruv operations and why you harp on and on about the "Lakewood Ger fiasco" (and it was a fiasco, I agree with you) because it's just a way of laying the groundwork for a total ban against all converts which Rav Shternbuch or the BADATZ may have in the offing but which will only isolate them further and thrust them into looking no better than the Neturei Karta anti-Zionists who have turned logic and Yidishkeit upside down in order to "save it from itself."

    If you want to see where opposing something to the extreme can lead, just take a look at the nut jobs who travelled to Tehran and were even willing to deny the Holocaust just to make the point that they are against Zionism. Not that I am comaparing Zionism to geirus, but one needs to watch out for the danger of falling down a slippery slope of being "protesteth too much" when just a little moderation, even for those proposing extreme views, is in order, both humanly and Halachically.

    ReplyDelete
  5. RaP - When you say:

    "Are you questioning the right of kosher properly constituted Baitei Din of qualified Dayanim mumchim to accept geirim bazman hazeh?"

    Why do you persist at asking this?

    The Takana states:

    "that no male or female member of our community has the right to intermarry with non. Jews; this law covers conversions which we consider to be fictitious and valueless."


    The Takana bans conversions that kasher intermarriage which are fictitious and valueless.

    Why do you continually INSIST that this covers ALL gerim when this is clearly not the case?

    Do you have personal experience in a case of a Ger Tzedek from a qualified Beis Din who was NOT accepted in the Syrian community?

    I DO personally know of Gerim and their children and grandchildren who are fully accepted in the Syrian community.

    Here is a story from Rabbi Moshe Shammah posted back in 1994. I do know of this woman and also know that her children married in the community and her grandchildren attend the schools:

    The decree focuses on those who convert for the purpose of marrying a Jew or Jewess. A non-Jew who is clearly motivated by marriage but who sincerely and properly converts, should normally be accepted halakhically. However, the Syrian rabbis realized they were being fooled by insincere candidates, etc. and established the 1935 decree not to accept those who were converting in conjunction with a prospective or past marriage. The decree was not addressed to those who converted just for the love of Judaism.

    This was vividly brought home to me about 25 years ago by Rabbi Jacob S.Kassin, HKBH send him speedy recovery, the long-time chief rabbi of the Brooklyn Syrian community and one of the 1935 takana signatories. A community member who was also a member of an Ashkenazi yeshiva married a
    righteous convert. The marriage was performed by a leading Ashkenazi rosh hayeshiva. The Shabbat morning after the wedding he davened in our shul. The mesader aliyot (gabbay) rushed to Shaare Zion where Rabbi Kassin davened and asked him what to do. Rabbi Kassin said he's familiar with the case and it doesn't fall into the takana as the bride
    is a righteous convert who previously converted independently of marriage considerations and we should give the gentleman an aliya.
    Although the mesader was reliable I wanted to confirm this and several
    days later personally asked Rabbi Kassin. He got a bit excited and
    declared, "The takana is not for this woman - she's a refugee who came to Judaism."

    I really hope that you will stop slandering the Syrian community by saying that the Syrian community does not accept Gerei Tzeddek. It is simply NOT true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here is a more recent letter that Rabbi Shammah wrote to the NY Times:

    Oct. 15, 2007
    Letters to the Editor, Magazine
    The New York Times
    620 Eighth Ave.
    New York, NY 10018

    To the Editor,

    Jakie Kassin is the son and grandson of rabbis and a dynamic do-gooder, but he is neither a rabbi nor a scholar of Judaic studies. The statements attributed to him in “The SY Empire” (Zev Chafets, Oct. 14, 2007) are a gross distortion of Judaism as well as of the 1935 Edict promulgated in the Syrian Jewish community of Brooklyn. That Edict was enacted to discourage community members from intermarrying with non-Jews. It acknowledged the reality of the time that conversions were being employed insincerely and superficially. Accordingly, conversion for marriage to a member of the community was automatically rejected.

    However, it is important in this regard to clarify the policy of the community rabbinate and particularly that of the long-time former chief rabbi of the community, Jacob S. Kassin (the originator of the Edict), and his son, the present chief rabbi, Saul J. Kassin. I quote from an official formulation of the Sephardic Rabbinical Council of several years ago that reflects their position: “1. A conversion not associated with marriage that was performed by a recognized Orthodox court – such as for adoption of infants or in the case of an individual sincerely choosing to be Jewish – is accepted in our community. 2. If an individual not born to a member of our community had converted to Judaism under the aegis of an Orthodox court, and was observant of Jewish Law, married a Jew/Jewess who was not and had not been a member of our community, their children are permitted to marry into our community.” Based on these standards a goodly number of converts have been accepted into the community. Genetic characteristics play no role whatsoever.

    No rabbi considers sincere and proper conversions “fictitious and valueless.” (The comma in the English translation cited in the article that gives that impression was the result of a mistranslation by a layman, a matter I made clear to Mr. Chafets when we spoke.)

    In addition, the quote claiming that even other Jews are disqualified from marrying into the community “if someone in their line was married by a Reform or Conservative rabbi” is a totally false portrayal of community rabbinical policy. Many Ashkenazim whose parents were married by such rabbis have married into our community.

    Sincerely,

    Moshe Shamah
    Rabbi, Sephardic Synagogue
    511 Ave. R
    Brooklyn, NY 11223

    ReplyDelete
  7. Recipients and Publicity said...
    Which I find very hard to believe the longer I stick around on your blog and read the stream of things you are pushing that seems to me klor that you want to do do to every Bais Din in the world what Rav Shternbuch and the BADATZ did to EJF -- but that is not going to work and you will only marginalize yourself and make yourself seem like a crackpot trying to push a pet project that the whole world (meaning the world of reliable Batei Din) will just not accept.

    ------------------
    Your comments seem increasing detached from reality. You are creating a conspiracy theory - which to put it politely is baloney.

    As I have stated a number of time I have no problem with changes and varying standards which reflect the needs of the times. I do demand that the halachic rulings be presented in a cogent manner with the sources clearly explained as well as proof of who is poskening.

    Thus I have no problem with a community such as the Syrian banning gerim they deem as insincere. I have no problem with Rabbi Tropper accepting intermarried couples - if he can show a written letter from Rav Eliashiv or some other gadol that clearly supports such action and why. I also would like some clear evidence that what ever rulings are followed actually improve the situation.

    Your own creative interpretations and story telling about what happened and why - simply doesn't qualify as serious halachic discourse. Your conjecture about a wide variety of topics doesn't constitute objective facts

    Why don't you come back down to earth. Your intelligence can be put to better use in helping clarifying the issues rather than villifying others.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jersey Girl said: "that no male or female member of our community has the right to intermarry with non. Jews; this law covers conversions which we consider to be fictitious and valueless."

    Response: If you ever took an English course, read your statement carefully again and you will see that the entire segment you quote is AMBIGUOUS, especially the phrase "this law covers conversions which we consider to be fictitious and valueless" that quite CLEARLY means that they mean what they say and they are saying what they mean, that they had come to a juncture in their history that they henceforth consider absolutely ALL conversions (they don't qualify which, so it must be assumed they mean ALL conversions) as being "fictitious and valueless" because that is what they deemed as absolutely necessary in terms of their own communty's preservation (as Rabbi Eidensohn has pointed out they have a "right" to do) they viewed what was going on and it was why they were doing what they did. But of course anyone is free to play word games and find that they have come across built-in loopholes that provide "plausible deniability" that makes for ever so quaint spin.

    Jersey Girl said: The Takana bans conversions that kasher intermarriage which are fictitious and valueless.

    Response: I am not sure that you are in a position to interpret what THEY did or did not mean. What did YOU mean that the Takana bans "intermarriage" when the Takana is about banning CONVERSIONS and not banning "intermarriage". Judaism does not need a Takana from Syrian rabbis or anyone else to ban intermarriage, because intermarraige is banned by the Torah and by H-shem enshrined in the words "lo titchatnu bam". You are not making sense either. ALL intermarriages are "fictitious and valueless" because there cannot be kiddushin between a goy and Jew under any circumstances. OBVIOUSLY if a gentile is not properly converted they are not "married" (in the sense of chupa and kiddushin) to a Jew and never can be according to Halachah. So just take more care with how you respond. I read words very carefully and so should you.

    Jersey Girls said: Why do you continually INSIST that this covers ALL gerim when this is clearly not the case?

    Response: Because that is it's basic meaning and that is how it has been and is understood by anyone who has at least a passing awareness of it (which most frum Jews do not, sorry to prick your super-ego bubble here, the Syrian Jews just don't rate in the broader Haredi world, and it is not me that is making this up or is saying anying that is not known already.) Anyhow, I am now personally very happy to hear that there are indeed exceptions to this Takana which to me means that it is not as anti-Halachik as it is sold and appears to be, but I wonder if the Syrian community knows about the fact that they are OBLIGATED, as the Torah demands, to accept and love true geirei tzedek? And I dunno, something just tells me, that all these wonderful new revelations about how truly "accepting and loving" the Syrian rabbinate and Syrian Jewish community is towards genuine geirei tezedk just does not shtim (ring true). Would a Beit Din dominated by the Syrian rabbinate perform such a conversion or would they just accept someone else's only? How many such conversions do they perform, or have they performed from the time these Takanos began to be formulated and enacted? One? Ten? A hundred? A Thousand? And under what circumstances?

    Jersey Girl said: Do you have personal experience in a case of a Ger Tzedek from a qualified Beis Din who was NOT accepted in the Syrian community?

    Response: Ah, you see, your question is only proving the point that IF there were to be a case of ANOTHER Beth Din performing a geirus, then the Syrian MAY accept it, but G-d forbid that (since the 1930s) a duly constitued Beth Din of Syrian rabbis or Syrian-like rabbis should do such a thing. So that in effect you are saying something new here, that Syrian rabbis have set up a new kind of "supervision" agency and role for themselves here, they "supervise" the the results of other Batei Din who perform conversions of Syrian-connected Jews (meaning the shiksas that Syrian men want to marry) to help people from the Syrian community, much like EJF sayss it itself does not perform or want to do conversions, it just wants to supervise the conversions of candidates that it (EJF) chooses or approach it for help to getting converted, and the Syrian rabbis, as Rabbi Tropper and the EJF will then perform either hands on supervision or strict long-distnace monitering, and perhaps even guidance and sheperding of converts through Batei Din they deem acceptbale to themselves in order to truly accept the geirim coming from those Batei Din. Sorry, but this seeems like the same shallow Mickey Mouse EJF approach that has nothing to do with what really goes on in the real world whereby autonomous mature adults approach the Orthodox Rov or Rabbi of their choice and together they find and work with an appropriate Beth Din that is willing to work with them without an even bigger "Big Daddy" watching over one such as EJF or the "Supreme Council of Syrian Rabbis" (sounds like a council of "Ayatolas" lehvadil) deciding what is good or not good for the ger in question (and funnily these groups make fun of the Israeli governmental powers, but that is another discussions.)

    Jersey Girl said: I DO personally know of Gerim and their children and grandchildren who are fully accepted in the Syrian community.

    Response; Ok, good, great. I am sure it was not easy for them, but I am not sure if what you are saying is referring to Gerim who had to be examined and evaluated in the light of the Syrian RABBIS' Takana. Maybe their neighbors accept them, but what about the ALL the Rabbonim, would they ALL agree that a Syrian Jewish community should accept such people in light of the BASIC meaning of the Takana from the 1930s in its basic meaning?

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.