Chief Rabbi to attempt to revoke ruling which invalidates thousands of conversions

[this is an except which appeared in Haaretz]
[Arutz 7 published an interview with Rav Druckman who says the ruling is invalid]

Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, acting in his capacity as president of the Supreme Rabbinical Court, will attempt to revoke a ruling from last week, which invalidated thousands of conversions carried out in Israel over the last few years, Haaretz has learnt.

The judges, it emerges, went ahead with the ruling despite the stern objection of Amar, who is said to have been surprised by the decision.

Amar tried to halt the publication of the ruling, according to which conversions to Judaism that have been conducted by Rabbi Haim Druckman - a prominent figure in Religious Zionism - are void, and the converts cannot be recognized as Jewish by the Chief Rabbinate.

The ruling, which was already drafted in February, casts severe doubts on Druckman's conversion arrangements. The decision, made by a panel headed by the staunchly conservative Rabbi Avraham Sherman, stemmed from debating the divorce case of a woman who had been converted by Druckman 15 years ago.

Thousands of conversions questioned by Supreme Rabbnical Court in Israel

Ynet just published the following article Jpost also has an article See also previous post of Rav Sternbuch's views

Thousands of conversions questioned

High Rabbinical Court calls into question all conversions performed by Rabbi Chaim Drukman since 1999
Ynet

“All conversions performed since 1999 by Rabbi Chaim Avior and Rabbi Chaim Drukman, who heads the Israeli Conversion Court, must be disqualified,” the Supreme Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem concluded earlier this week, while discussing an appeal made a by a woman whose 15-year-old conversion conversion was annulled by the Ashdod Rabbinical Court, thus naming her children non-Jewish.

In the 50-page verdict,Judges Sherman, Izirer and Scheinfeld it said: "First, all conversions performed since 1999 by Rabbi Chaim Avior and Rabbi Chaim Drukman must be disqualified; second, conversions can be retroactively annulled for those who are not observant."

click on above link to see full article

Recipients and Publicity - questions the integrity of the Syrian community as well as my own

Recipients and Publicity said...

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.

May 2, 2008 3:34 PM

Daas Torah said...

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.

Syrian ban is not against sincere gerim

Jersey Girl wrote:

RaP- Here is a letter written by Rabbi Moshe Shammah:

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
==================================
Jersey Girl wrote:

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.

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.

The Syrian ban on Converts

A SEPHARDIC BAN ON CONVERTS

by Rabbi Dr. Zevuelen Lieberman

TRADITION, 23(2), Winter 1988 © 1988 Rabbinical Council of America

Dr. Lieberman is Rabbi of Congregation Beth Torah in Brooklyn, N.Y., one of the major synagogues of the Syrian-Sephardic Jewish community.

. [Beginning of article deleted]
A close-knit pattern of social and economic inter-relationships motivates most people to marry within the community; indeed, better than ninety percent of the families are intra-communally married. However, it is the realization that no converts whatsoever will be accepted that keeps all but the most marginally affiliated from embarking upon serious social relationships with non-Jews. In 1935, following the example of the Syrian-Sephardic Jewish community of Argentina, the Brooklyn beit din promulgated a ban on accepting any converts; this was reaffirmed by the rabbinical authorities in 1946 and 1972. These various proclamations were initiated by the community's rabbinical leaders. However, in 1984, sensing the increasing social rressures, the lay leaders initiated a public affirmation of the ban; they recognized it to be a necessary and effective tool for maintaining the'social cohesiveness of the community. The ban is based on the right of the community to promulgate takanot and prohibitions. This is codified in the Shulhan Arukh and goes back to talmudic times, when Rav found a problematic situation regarding oaths in the Babylonian community: Bik'a matsa ve'Kadar gader-"He found an open valley and built a fence."
The current situation in America regarding conversions, where­bv most gerut is done for the purpose of marriage, represents a sham , and travesty of the Jewish tradition. But the Sephardic community's approach is proof of the power of a kehilla to protect its heritage and traditions, even though it may not be reproduceable across all American Jewish communities. Our ban does not necessarily deny the legitimacy of any specific conversion; it does deny the convert and his or her Sephardic spouse (and their children) membership in the community. Of course, it does not apply to descendants of people who underwent a legitimate conversion prior to 1935 or to adopted children converted at birth.

What follows is an English translation of the Hebrew proclama­tions of 1935 and 1946, as well as the text of the 1984 proclamation.

A RABBINICAL PROCLAMATION Adar 5695 (February 1935)

We have observed the conditions prevailing in the general Jewish comrnunity, where some youth have left the haven of their faith and have assimilated with non-Jews; in certain cases they have made efforts to marry gentiles, sometimes without any effort to convert them, and other times an effort is made for conversion to our faith, .m action which is absolutely invalid and worthless in the eyes of the law of our Torah. We have therefore bestirred ourselves to build and establish an iron wall to protect our identity and religious integrity and to bolster the strong foundations of our faith and religious purity which we have maintained for many centuries going back to our country of origin, Syria.

We, the undersigned rabbis, constituting the Religious Court, together with the Executive Committee of the Magen David Congregation and the outstanding laymen of the community, do hereby decree, with the authority of our Holy Torah, 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. We further decree that no future rabbinic court of the community should have the right or authority to convert male Or female non-Jews who seek to marry into our community. We have followed the example of the community in Argentina, which main. tains a rabbinic ban on any of the marital arrangements enumerated above, an edict which has received the wholehearted and unqualified endorsement of the Chief Rabbinate in Israel. This responsa is discussed in detail in Devar Sha 'ul, Yoreh Deah, Part II to Part VI. In the event that any member of our community should ignore our ruling and marry, their issue will have to suffer the consequences. Announcements to this effect will be made advising the community not to allow any marriage with children of such converts. We are confident that the Jewish People are a holy people and they will adhere to the decision of their rabbis and will not conceive of doing otherwise.
Chief Rabbi Haim Tawil
Rabbi Jacob Kassin
Rabbi Murad Masalton
Rabbi Moshe Gindi
Rabbi Moshe Dweck Kassab

A SUBSEQUENT CLARIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL PROCLAMATION

Adar 5706 (February 1946) On the 9th day of Adar I in the year 5706 corresponding to the 10th day of February, 1946, the rabbis of the community and the Committee of Magen David Congregation once again discussed the question of intermarriage and conversions. The following religious rabbinic decisions were promulgated and accepted:
I. Our community will never accept any converts, male or female, for marriage.
2. The rabbi will not perform any religious ceremonies for such couples, i.e., marriages, circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, etc. In fact, the Congregation's premises will be barred to them for use of any religious or social nature.
3. The Mesadrim of the Congregation will not accord any honors to the convert or one married to a convert, such as offering himlln an Aliyah to the Sefer Torah. In addition, the aforesaid person, male or female, will not be allowed to purchase a seat, permanently (If for the holidays, in our Congregations.
4. After death of said person, he or she is not to be buried on the cemetery of our community, known as Rodfe Zedek, regardless elf financial considerations. Seal of the Beth Din of Magen David Congregation
Chief Rabbi Jacob S. Kassin

REAFFIRMING OUR TRADITION

WHEREAS. throughout the history of our community, our rabbis and lay leaders have always recognized the threat of conversions and the danger of intermarriage and assimilation; and have issued warnings and proclamations concerning these evils in February 1935, February 1946 and in May 1972. NOW. THEREFORE, we assembled rabbis and Presidents of the congregations and organizations of the Syrian and Near Eastern Jewish communities of Greater New York and New Jersey do now and hereby reaffirm these proclamations, and pledge ourselves to uphold, enforce and promulgate these regulations. We further declare that Shabbat Shuvah of each year be designated as a day to urge our people to rededicate themselves to these principles. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have caused this document to he prepared and have affixed our signatures thereto, at a special convocation held on this third day of Sivan 5744 corresponding to the 3rd day of June. 1984.

Dr. Jacob S. Kassin Chief Rabbi

The proclamation was signed by the rabbis and presidents of every synagogue. yeshivah. and social organization of the Sephardic Jcwish communities of New York and New Jersey.

Rav Kook zt"l - Supported Argentina ban on conversion - for welfare of Jews and non-Jews

Rav Kook (Daas Cohen Y.D. #154): [Written to the rabbis of Argentina] Even though the halacha is that those who convert for ulterior motives are valid gerim (Yevamos 24b) and this includes a man who converts for the sake of a woman and a woman who converts for the sake of a man, it appears from Tosfos (Chullin 3b) and Yevamos (24b) that this is only if the conversion involves a full commitment to keeping the mitzvos. But if the conversion is not complete –meaning without full observance of the mitzvos and also the motivation was not proper – then they are worse then regular lion‑converts that are mentioned there in a braissa. There is one opinion that these lion‑converts are genuine gerim but they are like the Kusim because according to the view that they are lion‑converts they are considered according to the halacha as total non‑Jews because there are two problems. 1) the conversion was not for the sake of Heaven 2) they don’t fully observe the mitzvos because as a minimum they worship idols through shituf as is learned from the verse “and yet they still worship their gods.” The language of Tosfos in Chullin is that they didn’t convert completely and thus it was not only idolatry that they violated. Thus in any case where the mitzvos are not observed properly and the motivation wasn’t proper – then there is no conversion at all. We see this in the language of the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 248) that a person who converts for ulterior motivation, we are concerned about him until his righteousness is established. In other words if we see that he is not conducting himself properly according to the halacha and he had ulterior motivation for conversion – this is not considered complete conversion. In fact by accepting a ger who is not going to be observant, we transgress the prohibition of placing a stumbling block before the blind in any case. For if we say that the conversion is not valid even bedieved and yet we accepted them – then that causes problems for society because they are treating non‑Jews as Jews. How many snares and destructions results from that – especially concerning kiddushin, gittin and yibum. The Jewish husband will mistakenly view their son as his son and if he has a Jewish wife afterwards and he dies without other children, his wife will be mistakenly allowed to remarry without chalitza even if he has a brother. There are many other harmful cases that can result. On the other hand if they are truly gerim then bedieved they are fully obligated to keep the entire Torah. Then the beis din causes the gerim problems because they are now obligated in punishment because of all the Torah prohibitions they are violating. Prior to conversion they were not obligated and not punished for transgressing the Torah. We see this in Yevamos (47a) that we are to instruct the candidate for conversion the punishment for not keeping the mitzvos. We tell him , “you should know that before you came to convert, if you ate chelev fat there was no punishment of kares. If you transgressed Shabbos you would not be punished with stoning. However once you convert , eating chelev fat is punishable with kares and profaning Shabbos is punished with stoning. Thus we see that we are commanded about lifnei ivair (placing a stumbling block before the blind – even for non‑Jews. This is stated in Avoda Zara (6b): How do you know that you should not offer a limb from a living animal to a non‑Jew? Because the Torah says “do not place a stumbling block before the blind.” And it is a kal v’chomer concerning our case because he causes him to be have a great obligation as a Jew and he will be punished for his transgressions of the Torah. Therefore it is wonderful what you and the other holy rabbis [of Argentina] have done in making and strengthening the boundaries in Argentina where there is a great breakdown in the walls and there is a great number of gerim who are not sincere – and you have decided not to accept gerim at all. Whoever genuinely wants to attach themselves to the holy Jewish people should come to Israel where they will carefully be evaluated by the Jewish courts. Only those who are genuinely committed to converting for the sake of Heaven and will be fully observant - will be accepted…

R' Moshe Feinstein zt"l - invalidating conversion for non-observant gerim

Igros Moshe (Even ha-Ezer 4:78): Concerning a woman who was married by a Conservative rabbi - in Houston who is known to openly violate Shabbos - to a man who was born in San Salvador to a non‑Jewish woman. The Conservative rabbi there claimed that he converted her together with two local men who were open Shabbos violators because he said that no one observes Shabbos in El Salvador. It is clear that the conversion is of no significance so that even if this couple were married by an Orthodox rabbi according to the halacha it still would have no significance because he is a full non‑Jew for whom kiddushin has no halachic significance. Furthermore even if he were converted by a Torah observant beis din – since he has not observed Torah mitzvos even for a moment he has not accepted the obligation of mitzvos - this is not considered conversion. However if he was a valid ger or was a Jew from birth, the marriage by a Conservative rabbi – who is presumed to deny the foundation principles of Judaism even though we don’t actually know the person and surely here where it is known for certain that he openly violates Shabbos –has no halachic significance. Consequently we have two clear factors why the marriage has no significance and therefore she is permitted to marry another man – but not a cohen since she has had sexual relations with a non‑Jew which disqualifiers her from marrying a cohen.

R' Moshe Feinstein zt"l - validating conversion for non-observant gerim

Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah 1:160): Concerning a conversion which was done by a Conservative rabbi which did not have the proper acceptance of mitzva and the immersion in the mikve was not in the presence of a beis din but rather was observed by two women. It is obvious that this conversion has no halachic significance because the acceptance of mitzvos is a necessary condition for conversion. Even if she accepted all the mitzvos of the Torah except for one it is invalid as is stated in Bechoros (30b). Furthermore the acceptance of the obligation to keep mitzvos has to be done before three judges and failure to do so invalidates the conversion even bedieved as is stated in Shach (Y.D. 268:9). Therefore there is a basis to question the validity of the conversion - even though there are Orthodox rabbis who also accept converts [who end up not observing mitzvos]. Despite the fact that “we are witnesses” (anan sahadi) that the majority of converts do not genuinely accept the mitzvos as is proved by the way they conduct themselves after conversion. In addition she is not going to be more observant then her Jewish husband for whom she converted. She sees that he violates Shabbos as well as many other Torah prohibitions. However there is a basis for saying that a convert who doesn’t observe mitzvos is nonetheless a valid convert bedieved since she said before the beis din that she accepted the obligation to observe the Torah mitzvos and it happens that sometimes such a convert truly accepts the mitzvos even though they don’t keep them afterwards. Therefore perhaps she should be considered as such a ger who does not observe the laws of the Torah after conversion. This despite the fact that it is clear to us because of her subsequent non‑observance that at the moment of conversion she did not accept the mitzvos in her heart but only said that she was accepting them. Even though I personally don’t find it reasonable for the sake of the rare individual to remove the “we are witnesses” (anan sahadi) of her subsequent behavior and to pay attention to the possibility that she was sincere in her thoughts at the time of conversion. However perhaps this is the reasoning of these Orthodox rabbis and there is some basis for their view. There is also a strong justification to assert that she is a valid ger from the fact that her husband – for whose sake she converted – does not observe Shabbos as well as many other prohibitions so that she assumed that there is not really such an obligation to observe mitzvos to be a Jew. Therefore she is like a non‑Jew who converted amongst non‑Jews which Shabbos (68a) states is a valid ger even though he still worships idols. The reason that he is a valid ger is because he has accepted upon himself to be like all the other Jews and this is considered a valid acceptance of mitzvos even though he knows nothing about the mitzvos. That is because knowledge of mitzvos is not critical to become a ger. It is only when he knows about the mitzvos and refuses to keep them that the conversion is not valid. We know this from the fact that he has no obligation to learn the entire Torah before he converts – he is only instructed in some of the mitzvos. Therefore even though the beis din told her that she must keep Shabbos, she thought that this was just merely desirable and that even if she didn’t keep Shabbos and other mitzvos she mistakenly thought that she was a good Jew. Therefore she mistakenly thought she had accepted all the mitzvos that a Jew is required in order to convert – even though this caused her not to fulfill the mitzvos. This is a possible justification to consider her to be a valid giryorus – even though she doesn’t keep all the mitzvos. It is a weak justification for those Orthodox rabbis who accept such converts so as not to view them inferior to laymen. [Despite this possible justification for a non‑observant ger to be a valid ger] nevertheless the mitzvos have to be accepted before a beis din. It is likely that the Conservative rabbis don’t do this because they don’t know the laws of conversion. In addition they are not careful to follow the law even when they know it. Consequently their conversions lack the proper acceptance of mitzvos - even of the most minimal type - which is critical for a valid conversion. In addition the Conservative beis din is invalid because they reject many fundamental principles of Judaism and transgress a number of prohibitions. Look at Choshen Mishpat (7:9) and Piskei Teshuva there in the name of R’ Akiva Eiger – that even transgressing a rabbinic law disqualifies a person from being a judge and this doesn’t require an announcement. In addition it is almost a certainty that they transgress many Torah prohibitions even though witnesses have not been accepted to testify to this but it is “like we are witnesses” (anan sahadi) that anyone who is called with the debased description of Conservative is presumed to violate many prohibitions and to deny many of the fundamentals of religion. I have already explained in one teshuva that someone who is presumed to be a heretic is invalid - even without formal testimony from witnesses. This is true even for leniences. I don’t have the time to go into greater detail concerning this matter. Therefore it is quite obvious that a conversion done by a Conservative rabbi has no significance.

.

Convert the wife to save the husband? II

The previous post about post war aliya from Switzerland was missing the halachic conclusion. A rav from Switzerland suggested to me that a series of letters of Rav Herzog concerned this matter. Below is my translation of one of these letters.

Rabbi Isaac Herzog was born in Lomza, Poland, in 1888. When he was nine years old, he moved to Leeds, England, with his family. An outstanding rabbinic scholar, he acquired a broad general education, including a doctorate from the University of London. After serving as rabbi of Belfast and Dublin, he was invited in 1936 to serve as the second Ashkenazic chief rabbi of Israel, after Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. He took an active part in rescue operations in Europe during the Holocaust and afterward, and was instrumental in saving many Jews and bringing them to Israel. He was also actively involved in the affairs of the newly established state of Israel. His posthumously published responsa reflect the trials and tribulations of the Jewish people in the twentieth century. Herzog died in Jerusalem in 1959. [taken from Bar Ilan Responsa database]

Rav Yitzchok Herzog(Heichal Yitzchok E. H. 1:21): Question: December 23, 1948 Recently there have been an increase in the cases that have come before me of Jews in our land who are married to non‑Jewish women (and the reverse). They request that their spouse be converted and that they continue being married to them by means of chupah and kiddushin because they are planning to emigrate to Israel. 1) Most of these non‑Jewish spouses have special merit because they saved their Jewish spouse from death by means of refusing to fulfill the orders of the evil Nazis to separate and divorce their Jewish spouse. Thus they put themselves in great danger and they were sent to concentration camps. 2) Some of them come when they are pregnant and wish to convert so that their child will be Jewish. 3) Some of the already have children from their Jewish husband and wish to convert their children together with them. Up until now I have refused to convert them because their motivation is not for the sake of Heaven but rather because they want to emigrate to Israel. I have conducted myself according to the Shulchan Aruch concerning a non‑Jewish woman who is suspected of living with a Jew and now wants to convert. However on the one hand I see the great and terrible tragedy of hundreds of families who wish to emigrate to Israel and on the other hand I am afraid to accept the responsibility for this decision. Therefore I am turning to you [Rav Herzog] the chief rabbi of Israel to make the halachic ruling in this matter. Answer: This is truly a difficult question….1) The main issue in this matter is not concerning the rabbinic prohibition of someone suspected of sexual relations with a non‑Jew… because as Yevamos (24b) explains the prohibition is only to prevent the strengthening of the suspicion. But in a situation where they are already married – the reason for the prohibition doesn’t apply. However Tosefta (Yevamos chapter 4:6) states that if a non‑Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman even if he converts afterwards he can not marry her because we suspect that he converted in order to marry her. But this is only lechatchila….2) However the present case is where they are already married according to secular law and thus it is not relevant to say that they are converting for the sake of marriage. Even though it is still possible that the conversion is because of remorse [for being intermarried] and thus he is putting pressure on her to convert and thus she wants to convert because of this pressure – but nevetheless the concern for such a possibility is not so great. Therefore since bedieved they are gerim we don’t have to be concerned so much with this. However it is different where they have definitely had sexual relations but they are not married even according to secular law. In such a case there is a genuine concern that the conversion is solely for the sake of marriage. In other words he wants to marry this particular non‑Jewish woman but he doesn’t want to live with her without marriage or to marry her in a secular marriage. In contrast where they are already married and bound to each other there isn’t such strong reason not to accept them and if they are accepted as converts then we definitely marry them afterwards with chupah and kiddushin. However here we have an additional concern that their motivation is in order to emigrate to Israel. This concern however depends on the conditions of the country where they are presently residing. If it is because the are aliens and they can’t remain in the country, then it is clear that they have an ulterior motivation for conversion. However if it is possible for them to remain in the country but they still want to emigrate to Israel it would seem that their intent is for the sake of Heaven because they are uprooting themselves and leaving their source of livelihood to move to a different land and specifically Israel. Thus it is clear that their intent it to be a part of the Jewish people and land. This is only so if it is clear to the beis din that they both want to emigrate to Israel. (But not if only the Jewish spouse wants it and the non‑Jewish spouse is merely agreeing to the pressure.) Then it is clear that the motivation is good and there is no basis for refusing to accept them. However if there is no possibility to remain in your country and they are forced to emigrate to Israel – they obviously have defective motivation. Nevetheless there is still basis to decide in their favor according to the view of Rav Shlomo Kluger (Chochmas Shlomo E.H. #11:5 and Tov Taam veDaas). He says that in circumstances where it is clear that they will not separate from each other under any circumstances and furthermore the Jewish spouse will give up Judaism and convert to Christianity - it is possible to be lenient. However this is only valid if the rav examines them very thoroughly and is fully satisfied that they in fact are interested in converting. The candidate has to have religious sensitivities and when he/she is explained fully and clearly the fundamental principles of our religion and the illumination of the mitzvos , it is then reasonable that he/she will observe them e.g., Shabbos and kashrus, family purity laws etc. It is also necessary that they explicitly promise with a clear conscience to completely observe Judaism. It is also necessary to obtain a promise from the Jewish spouse that he/she will also be fully observant. Otherwise the woman will follow after her Jewish husband or the husband will be influenced by his Jewish wife. It is also necessary to explain to them that even though that there are many non‑observant Jews - but a non‑observant Jew is still a Jew. However for someone who wants to convert, it is impossible unless they accept these conditions. In such a manner it is possible to convert the non‑Jewish spouse in such difficult circumstances and where these people have such merit according to what you have written in your letter. 3) You should know that even that already in the days of the Tannaim the accepted halacha was that bedieved all these who converted for ulterior motivation were considered valid gerim, nevertheless there is a serious concern raised in our day. That is because previously a sinner was despised and attacked amongst our people. Therefore when a non‑Jew accepted Judaism, even if his initial motivation was for the sake of marriage – he knew he would be in a very bad position in Jewish society (and he was already totally rejected in non‑Jewish society) if he didn’t conduct himself according to the Torah. In contrast in our day where there are so many non‑observant Jews – not only does non‑observance not cause him any difficulties – but he can be part of the elite of our people and community. Thus specifically today it is of great concern whether the conversion is truly done to accept the obligation of the mitzvos or because of some ulterior motivation. In other words whether he says one thing but thinks differently in his heart. While the Ritva said that incidental to being forced he will honestly come to accept. But today we can say that incidental to being forced he will say whatever he has to but why should he truly decide to observe the mitzvos? Thus today, in contrast to the past, there is much greater responsibility for the rav to understand all aspects of the case until he is truly confident that these people are in all likelihood going to observe our holy religion. 4) In regards to the non‑Jewish women who are married to Jews and they are pregnant and wish to convert in order that their child will be Jewish. This is really the question of the conversion of the mother and is dependent on what we just mentioned as to whether to accept the mother. However here it seems that there is greater room for leniency. Since her intent is that the child should be Jewish this seems to be motivation for the sake of Heaven and is not included in having ulterior motivation. Nevertheless if it seems that she herself has no interest to be Jewish herself then it would seem that her interest is only for the sake of the child so it will be easier for him to emigrate to Israel and she will follow him afterwards there. But this all depends on what we just discussed and it ultimately depends on the perception of the rav. So even though a child who is brought to the beis din for conversion is converted on the understanding of the beis din since it is beneficial for the child to convert – but here it is different. Because we are converting her and not the child and thus everything depends on her and thus we return to the issues previously discussed as to whether to accept her. If she is converted the child automatically becomes converted. 5) Concerning the case where she wants to convert together with her children from a Jew this again is dependent upon what we have discussed. However even though the halacha is that a child who is brought to convert by his father and mother and is converted by the court because it is viewed that it beneficial for the child to do that which his parents do and in particular what his father wants to do. Here according to the halacha even though the father is not halachically the father but since he is the biological father the reasoning still applies. But here we have a different question. If both the father and mother are not Jewish and yet it is clear that they want their child to be Jewish but they themselves refuse to accept upon themselves the heavy burden of Torah observance – it is likely that they will truly raise their child as a Jew. Because if they didn’t want him to be a Jew why would they bring him to beis din to be converted? Thus there is no reason to be concerned that their child will learn from them not to be observant since he knows that they are not Jewish. In contrast in the case where the biological father is a Jew and the son sees that his father isn’t observing the mitzvos and that the mother who converted is also not observant – what is the likelihood that he will be educated to be a Jew? Why do we need to get involved in this problem. Thus again the matter depends upon what I have said already. If according to the evaluation of the rav it is likely that the parents will fully observe Judaism and on the other hand if the conversion is not done that the Jew might convert to Christianity it is possible to accept as described above.

Convert the wife to save the husband? I

R. Yaakov Adas was born in Jerusalem in 1898 and died in 1963. He studied Torah with his father and with other Torah giants in Jerusalem. At a very young age he was appointed as a teacher in Yeshivat Porat Yosef in Jerusalem, and later he became head of that yeshiva. From 1935 he served as a rabbinical judge in Jerusalem, and from 1955 until his death he headed the Chief Rabbinic Court in Israel. [taken from the Bar Ilan Responsa Database]

The final halachic conclusions have been lost

Chedvas Yaakov(Y.D. #13): April 22, 1949. Question During World War II many of our brethren found refuge in Switzerland. Some of them - out of the constant fear for their lives and the daily dread of being deported – married non‑Jewish women with the assumption that this would give them to possibility of remaining in Switzerland. Nevetheless the Swiss government did not allow them to remain here in Switzerland and they are faced with two options – to leave Switzerland or to be placed in work camps which the Swiss government is in the process of setting up now for all refugees who are found in Switzerland. The fact is these people want to emigrate to Israel because they have no other place to go. They have turned to the Israeli office concerning emigration and have received the answer that their wives will not receive visas until they convert. The wives of these men have raised a great cry claiming that they truly want to convert and to accept upon themselves all the mitzvos. They insist that they will not separate from their husbands under any circumstances and they want to travel together to Israel to live there as Jews in every detail. To tell the truth the Agudas HaRabbonim is not convinced of the sincerity of these women’s declaration because these are things that every candidate for conversion says. Now the matter is placed before us in the full strength of its cruelty. If these women are not accepted as converts, these men will be forced to remain here and to go to the labor camps. They yell and demand that the rabbis give them the true reason why they are hesitating to accept their wives and they have no other choice not to be lost. Therefore it has occurred to a number of the members of the Agudas HaRabbonim in Switzerland to be lenient this time and to find some way to accept them for conversion so there won’t be so much commotion from both sides - because they also have children. They have to leave Switzerland and they have no where to go. In fact we don’t have the ability to be lenient without the consent of the rabbis of Israel. And because this matter is very urgent because every day they come and scream. Therefore we request that the response of the rabbis should come as quickly as possible and to be as specific as possible. It is sufficient that we receive the psak of the beis din of Jerusalem in order to take from us the responsibility in this matter….Thus we sign in the name of the Agudas HaRabbonim of Switzerland…Reply: This matter is extremely delicate and the question is very painful and complex as well as being of great practical concern in these days with the establishment of the state of Israel and immigration from all points of the globe bring hundreds if not thousands of intermarried couples of all types. There are non‑Jewish woman married to Jewish men and Jewish woman married to non‑Jewish men. We have been asked this question many types here in Israel as well as from outside of Israel. The truth is that we are also confused about this matter. Because on the one hand we have the example of Ezra the Scribe in the time of the Second Temple who was also faced with this painful question as we find in Ezra (9:1)…In chapter ten it records that Ezra announced that they had to send away their non‑Jewish wives and their children born to them… We don’t find in these verses that Ezra converted them and let the non‑Jewish women stay with their husbands neither the maidservants nor the children because the children of a slave has her status. We also find a similar description in the Book of Nechemia (13:23). There is also no mention there that they converted them. Thus from these Biblical sources it seems that they are not to be converted and we can not think that we have greater power than they. However there is another way of understanding what Ezra did. Ezra in fact had great authority along with the Great Assembly. The leaders of his time had the power to establish what the religion required. We in contrast do not have the power to separate these men from their non‑Jewish wives and so perhaps it is better for us to convert them as the lesser of two evils – “it is “better that they eat the flesh of dying animals that have been ritually slaughtered and not to eat the flesh of animals that are definitely unkosher.” In other words if their wives are not converted it is possible that their Jewish husbands will reject their religion and follow after that of their non‑Jewish wives. Thus this question can be viewed as life saving for the Jewish husbands because if their wives are not converted they won’t be able to separate from them and will be sent to these work camps. Who knows how much danger lies in wait for them in exile. We have found amongst the Achronim that in certain circumstances they were lenient in converting non‑Jewish women and letting them remain with their Jewish husbands with a proper Jewish marriage. [See Maharshal (E.H. 11:5) who writes that where there is a concern that they will leave Judaism they should be allowed to marry.] Therefore let me gather together the relevant sources with G‑d’s help from the Talmud and poskim…and G‑d should help me to determine the truth of the matter and that I should err in the halacha.

"One day they told me I'm no longer Jewish"

This article in Haaretz illustrates the dangers of a lenient [or sloppy] attitude towards Jewish status. The nightmare for someone who immigrated with the understanding that if a government official [or rabbi outside of Israel] said she was Jewish - she was secure in her status as a Jew.

About a year and a half ago, Svetlana Zakolodkin and her daughter Anastasia were summoned to the Interior Ministry's Population Registrar and told that as far as the state was concerned, they were no longer Jewish.

Clerk Mila Moskowitz confiscated their identity cards and said they would not be getting new ones unless they signed a request to change their status to non-Jewish, they said. She gave them new cards, in which the religion and nationality boxes were left empty.

Moskowitz told them that if they failed to prove they were Jewish, their citizenship would be revoked. Anastasia's university scholarship, which she received as a new immigrant, was canceled.

Proselytizing the Hispanic community I - The halachic paradox of the non-Jewish descendants of anousim (marranos)

It is well known that people who claim to be Jewish because they might be descended from the Jews who were forced to convert in Spain and Portugal - are not Jewish. However not only are they welcomed when they convert - but there are a number of organizations which encourage them i.e., proselytize them. We have mentioned Rabbi Manny Vinas in a number of posts. However there seems to be other - more well known rabbis involved. Look at the following letters.

In addition there is a puzzling letter from R' Aaron Soloveitchik which accords them the assumption of being Jewish - but at the same time requires them to convert for marriage.

The halachic minefield of geirus - The Lakewood ger IV

The Levi case is a good example of the halachic minefield of geirus. We have a couple - both supposedly converted by an Orthodox rabbi who worked for a Conservative synagogue using a beis din from the congregants. The man apparently misrepresented who he was in order to escape criminal charges. Several years later, she is reconverted in Lakewood – after having several children with this man who misrepresented himself as a Jew. He is discovered to be a fraud and the Lakewood beis declares that he is presumed to be a goy while she is considered fully Jewish.

Halachic questions.

1) Is the original conversion invalid because it was done in a Conservative shul.

2) Is the rav considered reliable since he served a Conservative congregation? Even if you want to view the rabbi as still valid – the beis din is questionable

3) Did he genuinely accept mitzvos since his motivation apparently was to avoid arrest for criminal activities.

4) The Lakewood beis din ruled that he is presumed not to be a valid convert. Was it because of the lack of validity of his conversion by a Conservative beis din or was it because of his apparent fraudulent motivation?

5) Even if he were motivated by a desire to escape arrest – how does the Lakewood beis din know that he didn’t honestly want to convert and accept all mitzvos. After all the halacha is clear that if a person converts for the sake of marriage or other ulterior motives and yet is willing to accept mitzvos – the conversion is valid. Proof of his sincerity is that he clearly devoted a number of years living an exemplary lifestyle of not only observing the mitzvos but also seriously devoting himself to Torah study. Therefore why is he presumed not to be a valid ger?

6) She had a second conversion. But why is she considered a valid giyorus if she was knowingly living with someone she knew was fraudulently passing himself off as a Jew rather than as a convert. She thus was apparently living with and having children with someone who was apparently not Jewish after she had her second conversion. How then can she be viewed as a valid convert. Accepting all the mitzvos except for the prohibition of not living with a goy – the geirus is not accepted (Bechoros 30b).

7) If her husband is declared as presumably not Jewish –that means that she was never married to him. Does that mean she can remarry without a get? Since there are obviously reasons to at least have a sofek that he might have actually converted despite the fraud - if she remarries and has children with her new husband it would seem that there is a question of mamzerim?

8) If her husband is presumed not Jewish and she has been fully aware of this and still lived with him - then there is a legitimate question of the validity of her Jewish status as noted above. That would mean her children are not Jewish.

In sum if one is lenient in terms of declaring them to be gerim bedieved because they accepted mitzvos in front of a beis din of presumably observant Jews – then there is a major danger of mamzerus – unless he gives her a get. Thus he has to be considered at least a possible Jew. If we reject them both as gerim because of their deceptive behavior – then that means that not only are they not Jewish but neither are their children.

There are teshuvos written by major poskim that support all the alternatives presented above.