Conversion crisis reflects fundamental changes in Religious Zionism

Haaretz has a thought provoking article by Avirama Golan

This Shavuot will find N. preoccupied and anguished. N., a young woman born in Switzerland, visited her local rabbinate a few weeks ago to register to get married and suddenly discovered she was not qualified to do so. All lobbying efforts were of no avail, including those waged by senior Orthodox rabbis. When she handed in her parents' ketubah (Jewish marriage contract), as requested by the dayanim (religious court judges), their eyes gravitated immediately to her mother's name, Bat Avraham Avinu, "daughter of our father, Abraham" - a code for "convert." The rabbinical court refused to register her, the validity of her mother's conversion was questioned, and N. was sent back to the drawing board. There is simply no one to talk to about it.

N. is humiliated and shocked. Her grandmother, the daughter of a well-to-do Christian family, married a Jewish refugee who fled from Eastern Europe to Switzerland, and paid a heavy price for it. Her grandfather, who became a successful businessman, dedicated his life to Zionist activities and to helping the State of Israel. N.'s mother was raised Jewish.

[...]

N.'s experiences constitute a mere corollary to the events of the last few weeks. The rabbinical court in Jerusalem retroactively canceled the conversion of a married woman with children, thus nullifying her marriage and the Jewish status of her children as well. In the course of these proceedings, one of the leading rabbis of the religious Zionist movement, Rabbi Haim Druckman, who was involved in the case, was treated like one of the worst enemies of Judaism by the court. This once again illustrates the change that has taken place in the religious Zionist movement as a whole and among its leadership in particular.

The public did not fully understand the rabbinical court's ruling and its bitter outcome. The media hype focused almost entirely on the ultra-Orthodox rabbinical court judges' "hazing" of Druckman; in the end, it seemed he had been dismissed from his position as head of the Conversion Administration. Between this media uproar and the facts there is a substantial gap. In any event, Druckman was nearing retirement age. The Civil Service Commission, following the state comptroller's harsh report, sent home several other senior conversion officials. Druckman was not among them.

The current Conversion Administration, which was hastily created by then-prime minister Ariel Sharon with the goal of bypassing ultra-Orthodox bureaucracy, suffered from its inception from internal power struggles, external pressures and efforts to delegitimize its decisions. In retrospect, it was clear also to the sworn supporters of Druckman (who is an educator, but not an authorized dayan - a halakhic conundrum that was resolved only in part with the approval of the chief rabbis and which was never accepted by the ultra-Orthodox establishment), that the idea of an administration that is separate from the rabbinical establishment is totally flawed. Its existence was a permanent subject of dispute, and the idea that conversions would be overturned and that over 1,000 converts would turn into Jews with questionable status constantly hovered above it.

Differences of opinion

The differences of opinion on conversion between the different streams of Orthodoxy (ultra-Orthodox and hardalim - a combination of ultra-Orthodox and religious Zionist) are very clear-cut, and focus on the legal and halakhic (i.e., relating to traditional Jewish law) question of whether a person who will not maintain a religious lifestyle can even be converted. This is similar, for example, to the question of whether it is permissible to marry a couple that will clearly not observe the laws of family purity, or to mourn someone who violates the Sabbath. These are serious halakhic questions, the answers to which are definitive and well reasoned.

The ruling of Rabbi Avraham Sherman, who was responsible for revoking the conversions in Jerusalem, answers this question unequivocally: As far as halakha goes, a person who tries to convert despite the fact that it is known (or even suspected) that he will not observe the mitzvot, will not be converted. The phrase "converts are as problematic for Israel as psoriasis," was never so fitting.

Sherman argued, based on detailed halakhic arguments, that anyone who converts such people is tainted by sin, and even went so far as to annul the ruling of the former head of the Tel Aviv rabbinical court, Rabbi Shlomo Dichovsky (who was always attacked for his enlightened positions), who ruled several years ago in a similar case that the rabbinical court is not authorized to annul a conversion executed by a special court. This matter will be presented soon before the High Court of Justice, but the dispute between those who want to protect the threshold of halakha and those who seek leniency for social-nationalist reasons, will remain in force.

Ever since the advent of religious Zionism, creative solutions have been found to social-national-halakhic disputes. Today there is no chance of that happening. Among the religious Zionists, not a single respected rabbi today would dare express what many conversion court judges would be willing to accept - that the vital need to absorb hundreds of thousands of immigrants, not the ultra-Orthodox viewpoint, is the determining factor in the process, and that society and the nation are more important than the intricate, fine points of halakha.

Authorities ranging from the Tzohar rabbis (a young modern Orthodox organization of rabbis) to Israel's Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar know that conversion can turn into a sweeping national-social means to ensure the acceptance of thousands of people, all of whom tremble before the wrath of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, who heads the Lithuanian sect of Israel's Haredi society. They explain their evasiveness by claiming that only a few thousand individuals want to convert, and many get married in Cyprus or don't get married at all, as if they did not know that this is not the cause but the result, whose main victims are those who observe tradition.

The Zionist rabbis have always tried to walk a fine line and upset the "blacks" - ultra-Orthodox - as little as possible, but there were times when leaders of great stature dared to breach the limits of halakha for the sake of social and nationalist values. What a difference from the Hardali rabbis of today, who speak out mostly on issues relating to modesty (or the "wickedness" of the state), and from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, who told the pioneers of Merhavia in 1913 that he came "not to influence, but to be influenced," and danced in a circle with them dressed in pioneers' clothes. Or, take, for that matter, the former chief rabbi, Shlomo Goren, who explained his decision to absolve the status of a brother and a sister who are considered mamzerim (bastards) according to halakha, saying that the "commandment to settle the Land of Israel is as important as conversion."

Back to Haredi basics

The ultra-Orthodox Sherman, well aware of the tension between the needs of society, the nation and Jewish law, waved a red flag before the nationalist religious rabbis in ruling that halakha overrode any other circumstance - but they responded with silence. Their silence does not stem from a weak capitulation to the ultra-Orthodox. It is the reflection of a process that goes much deeper and is far more serious.

The concept of the Greater Land of Israel as a central theme is gradually losing steam. The settlements are indeed still standing, but the Israeli public's attitude toward them has changed. The connection, which for a dramatic and limited period of time seemed so enchanting, between religion and the nation and between messianic faith and the state, which attracted many ultra-Orthodox to the cause, was abruptly torn apart during the disengagement. The disengagement is not the cause. It just provided a signal to mark the peak of the ongoing process, which was accelerated following the Oslo Accords and the Rabin assassination, but started even before, as rabbis, guides and educators preferred to withdraw to ultra-Orthodox values and gradually abandon the official state.

Now it seems that the circle, which evolved some 100 years ago when a handful of rabbis bravely joined the inherently secular Zionist movement, is gradually being closed. A substantial proportion of religious Zionists have been absorbed back into ultra-Orthodoxy, even if the latter is not receiving them with open arms. The almost exclusive narrative of religious Zionism concerns a spiritual return to Zion - not pragmatic political nationalism - and prominent rabbis are reverting back to the Diaspora conception that places halakha above any other principle, and primarily above society.

In this process, conversion has become a symbol. It holds the key to the gate to the Jewish people and/or Israeli society, and it pits the social-national agenda against halakha, Israeliness against the Judaism that favors "a nation that dwells alone," and the choice of forming a civil society dwelling on its land against the old longing for an existence outside history and time.

The annulment of the conversion and the denunciation of Druckman revealed a gap that is hard to breach among the religious Zionist public, and optimists hope that some kind of change for the better will emerge from it. However, it seems that the religious and secular majority, Jewish and non-Jewish, is incapable of and uninterested in waging the fight to wrest power from rabbinical tyrants.
[...]

Agudath Israel defends Rev. Hagee's remarks about Holocaust

Cross-Currents has Avi Shafran's defense of Rev. Hagee's comment about the Holocaust

From the Mouths of Ministers

by Rabbi Shafran (Director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America).

“Tonight I humbly ask forgiveness of the Jewish people for every act of anti-Semitism and the deafening silence of Christianity in your greatest hour of need during the Holocaust.”

Those words were spoken before a crowd of several thousand Jews attending an AIPAC Policy Conference in March, 2007. The speaker was Pastor John Hagee, the evangelist who heads the group Christians United for Israel – the very same Pastor Hagee whom Reform Rabbi Eric Yoffie now accuses of “insult[ing] the survivors” of the Holocaust.

Rabbi Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, was referring to a speech Pastor Hagee made about a decade ago, about Jeremiah’s prophecy that G-d would one day “bring the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers” (16:15). In the next verse G-d proclaims that He will send “many fishers” and then “hunters.” The latter word was interpreted by Mr. Hagee as referring to Hitler, leading the pastor to regard the Holocaust as part of a Divine strategy to move Jews to the Holy Land.

One needn’t agree with the pastor’s take on history; or accept his assumption that simple people can identify events with prophecies; or even consider him to be in command of the facts (in his speech, he has Theodore Herzl, a resolutely secular Jew, invoking Divine command as the reason Jews should move to Palestine). But nothing in fact could be more Jewish than to accept that, no matter how inscrutable, G-d is just; and that as we look into the maw of tragedy we are to look inward as well.

And so, while the Reform rabbi may have seen the Christian minister’s words as “an affront” to those who perished in the Holocaust, I saw only an attempt, imperfect but without malice, to discern the fulfillment of a Jewish prophet’s words in recent history.

It is possible that Rabbi Yoffie’s harsh judgment of Pastor Hagee’s sermon reflects a broader disconnect between the two gentlemen. The Reform leader has long disdained the pastor’s politics. Hagee, after all, is a social conservative, believes that Iran should be militarily disabled and strongly opposes a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. As such, his position profile is something of a reverse image to that of the Reform movement.

The Jewish clergyman might also have resented the Christian one’s reference, earlier this year at a Reform temple in Los Angeles, to the object of Christian veneration as “a Reform rabbi” (intended as a compliment, no doubt).

But one suspects that what most profoundly divide the two clergymen are issues of theology. It is the pastor’s belief, but apparently not entirely the rabbi’s, that: The Torah is the word of G-d (“Truth is not what you think it is. Truth is what the Torah says it is”); G-d chose and charged the Jewish People with heeding His laws (“[The Jews are] the chosen people, a cherished people… with an eternal covenant that will stand forever”); and the Torah explicitly warns us of the repercussions of forsaking our mission.

[...]

Many of us Orthodox Jews tend to not be comfortable with Christian evangelists. Most, after all, want Jews to accept Christianity, which a Jew is enjoined against doing, even on penalty of death. Although Reverend Hagee has clearly stated that he has no such designs, he nonetheless remains a Christian evangelist. And for Biblical interpretations, we Jews look elsewhere.

At the same time, though, an inescapable irony emerges here:

Interpretations of Biblical prophecies aside, the pastor’s approach to Torah (that it is true), Jews (that they are chosen to serve G-d) and history (that it is Divinely guided) is the Jewish one; and the rabbi’s, tragically, is not.

Zionism - Christian, secular or Jewish?

Due to the unresolved debate concerning the nature of Zionism - just wanted to cite the Britannica on the subject. [Prof Yosef Salmon's article also indicates the complexity of the issue]

======================================

Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Though Zionism originated in eastern and central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century, it is in many ways a continuation of the ancient nationalist attachment of the Jews and of the Jewish religion to the historical region of Palestine, where one of the hills of ancient Jerusalem was called Zion.

In the 16th and 17th centuries a number of “messiahs” came forward trying to persuade Jews to “return” to Palestine. The Haskala (“Enlightenment”) movement of the late 18th century, however, urged Jews to assimilate into Western secular culture. In the early 19th century interest in a return of the Jews to Palestine was kept alive mostly by Christian millenarians. Despite the Haskala, eastern European Jews did not assimilate and in reaction to tsarist pogroms formed the Ḥovevei Ẕiyyon (“Lovers of Zion”) to promote the settlement of Jewish farmers and artisans in Palestine.

A political turn was given to Zionism by Theodor Herzl, an Austrian journalist who regarded assimilation as most desirable but, in view of anti-Semitism, impossible to realize. Thus, he argued, if Jews were forced by external pressure to form a nation, they could lead a normal existence only through concentration in one territory. In 1897 Herzl convened the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switz., which drew up the Basel program of the movement, stating that “Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.”

The centre of the movement was established in Vienna, where Herzl published the official weekly Die Welt (“The World”). Zionist congresses met yearly until 1901 and then every two years. When the Ottoman government refused Herzl's request for Palestinian autonomy, he found support in Great Britain. In 1903 the British government offered 6,000 square miles (15,500 square km) of uninhabited Uganda for settlement, but the Zionists held out for Palestine.

At the death of Herzl in 1904, the leadership moved from Vienna to Cologne, then to Berlin. Prior to World War I Zionism represented only a minority of Jews, mostly from Russia but led by Austrians and Germans. It developed propaganda through orators and pamphlets, created its own newspapers, and gave an impetus to what was called a “Jewish renaissance” in letters and arts. The development of the Modern Hebrew language largely took place during this period.

The failure of the Russian Revolution of 1905 and the wave of pogroms and repressions that followed caused growing numbers of Russian Jewish youth to emigrate to Palestine as pioneer settlers. By 1914 there were about 90,000 Jews in Palestine; 13,000 settlers lived in 43 Jewish agricultural settlements, many of them supported by the French Jewish philanthropist Baron Edmond de Rothschild.

Upon the outbreak of World War I political Zionism reasserted itself, and its leadership passed to Russian Jews living in England. Two such Zionists, Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, were instrumental in obtaining the Balfour Declaration from Great Britain (Nov. 2, 1917), which promised British support for the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The declaration was included in Britain's League of Nations mandate over Palestine (1922).

Israeli Supreme Court to rule on validity of rejected conversions

Jerusalem Post reports on June 6, 2008

Do the rabbinical courts have the right to reject conversions approved by independent religious courts recognized by the state and the chief rabbis of Israel? That question will now be decided by the High Court of Justice as a result of a petition filed Thursday by attorney Susan Weiss of the Center for Justice for Women, who represents 15 petitioners.

The High Court will have to decide whether to accept or reject decisions made by haredi-controlled rabbinical courts that nullified the Jewishness of a woman who converted 15 years ago and all conversions conducted by Rabbi Haim Druckman, the head of the Conversion Authority in the Prime Minister's Office, since 1999.

The rabbinical court rulings has triggered infuriated reactions by religious Zionist political and spiritual leaders who regard the special conversion courts headed by Druckman as more tolerant than the haredi-controlled rabbinical courts. [...]

The petitioners in the case brought by Weiss include the woman whose conversion was nullified and her three children, the Na'amat women's labor Zionist movement, the WIZO-Women's International Zionist Organization, the Emunah National Religious Women's Organization and several NGOs trying to improve the situation of women in the rabbinical courts.

The petition is aimed at Dayan (Religious Court Judge) Avraham Attia, a member of the Ashdod Rabbinical Court, and Dayanim Avraham Sherman, Hagai Eiserer and Avraham Scheinfeld of the Higher Rabbinical Court.

The case began when the Danish-born woman and her sabra husband filed for an uncontested divorce in the Ashdod Rabbinical Court. According to Weiss, the matter should have been a simple one since the couple had agreed in advance on the divorce terms. Instead, Attia asked the woman a question or two about her religious observance and then ruled on February 22, 2007, that the woman was not Jewish because her conversion had been invalid. Since she was not Jewish, she could not have been married in a religious court and therefore did not need a divorce.

"Attia devoted eight pages of the nine-page decision to a crass diatribe against the woman and Rabbi Haim Druckman," Weiss said. "He used language unfit for any person, let alone a dayan."

[...]

In an interim decision, the Higher Rabbinical Court granted the couple a divorce but added that this did not reflect on the question of whether the woman was Jewish. Then, in February, during a conference including dayanim and others, Sherman, the presiding dayan in the appeal hearing, distributed a draft of the court's final 49-page decision. The decision itself was handed down only two months later.

The court ruled that the Jewishness of the woman and her children was in doubt and needed to be re-examined, that the family should be added to the list of people who may not marry for the time being, that all Druckman's conversion decisions since 1999 should be canceled, and that marriage registrars not register a convert who does not look observant from his or her external appearance.

According to Weiss, the language used in the Higher Rabbinical Court decision was also insulting. She included several quotes such as, "These [special conversion] courts are responsible for the fact that nothing will be left of the Jewish people," and, "The rabbi whose name begins with sin," a play on words because the word "chet" means "sin" while the letter "chet" is the first letter in Druckman's first name, Haim.

Weiss told The Jerusalem Post that the woman whose conversion was nullified approached the the Center for Justice for Women in the wake of the Higher Rabbinical Court decision. However, because the rabbinical decisions went much farther than the case of the woman itself by delegitimizing a court system established by the state and endorsed by the two chief rabbis, she finds herself defending the special courts and, by extension, the religious Zionist movement itself.

According to Weiss, the case highlights many of the faults of the rabbinical courts. "They have no concept of due process or fairness, and they display no sensitivity to those who come before them," she said.

Shavuos VII - why do we say it is the Time of the Giving of the Torah

We all know that Shavuos is the Time of the Giving of the Torah. However such a designation is problematic

1) There is no reference in the Torah that Shavuos is connected with the Giving of the Torah. It is specifically referred to as a harvest festival (Devarim 16:10/Devarim 16:16).
2) Magen Avraham (#494) asks why we say that Shavuos is the time of the Giving of the Torah.
3) Shabbos (86b) has a debate between the Chachomim and Rav Yossi as to whether the Torah was given on the 6th or 7th of Sivan.
4) Rosh HaShanna (6b): Says that Shavuos is sometimes on the 5th of Sivan, sometimes on the 6th and sometimes on the 7th.
5) Rivash (#96) states that there was no fixed link between Shavuos and the Giving of the Torah until the calendar was fixed by Hillel II.
6) Ritva (Shabbos 87b) also asks this question.

Rabbi Yosef Levinson discusses this in a column of De'ah v'dibur

[...]

Chachomim contend that the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan, while R' Yosi argues that Matan Torah occurred on the seventh of Sivan. Since the halacha follows R' Yosi's view (Yoreh Deah 196:11) how, asks Mogen Avrohom, can we declare on Shavuos that it is zeman matan Toraseinu (Mogen Avrohom introduction to siman 494)?

Furthermore, we know that the departure of the Jewish People from Egypt took place on a Thursday (Shabbos 87b), while the Revelation took place seven weeks later, on Shabbos (Ibid. 86b). A calculation of the number of days between that Thursday night, which would have been the beginning of the Omer period, and the Shabbos when the Torah was received, comes to fifty-one days. Inasmuch as the Chachomim concur with R' Yosi on this issue, we can conclude that the Torah was given on the fifty-first day of the Omer. Yet Shavuos is celebrated on the fiftieth day after the Omer was brought (Mogen Avrohom, ibid.; see also Rivash no. 96; Maharsha, Avoda Zora 3a; Tzelach Shabbos 88a and Pesochim 68b; Chok Yaakov 430:2 and 494:1).

The Maharal answers (Maharal, Tiferes Yisroel Ch. 27 p. 83a) that although we did not receive the Torah until the fifty-first day of the Omer which, according to R' Yosi, was the seventh day of Sivan, nevertheless Hashem had been prepared to present the Torah to us on the fiftieth day. It was only due to Moshe Rabbenu adding an extra day of preparation that the Revelation was postponed to the following day.

Thus, it is the fiftieth day that we celebrate since Hashem designated that day for Matan Torah. Thus, on Shavuos we declare Zeman Matan Toraseinu, the time of the giving of the Torah. We focus on Hashem's gift to us. Hashem was already prepared on that day to give us His kli chemdoh, demonstrating His deep love for the Jewish Nation, which was thus already fully evident on the sixth of Sivan.

Rabbi Mordechai Kornfeld also has an extensive discussion of this issue

Shavuos VI - Na'aseh v'Nishma - willing or forced acceptance of Torah? - Written vs. Oral Torah

As mentioned in my previous posting Shavuos V there seems to be conflicting views as to whether the Torah was accepted willlingly - na'aseh v'nishma or whether the Jews were threatened with death if they refused to accept it - Sinai was held over their heads. Both statements are found in Shabbos(88a). In fact Prof Auebach asserts that the view that they were forced is a minority opinion which he claims was rejected by the gemora. The gemora there asks that if in fact they were forced then there is no obligation to keep mitzvos! The gemora then replies that while that is true - the Jews did in fact accept the Torah willingly many years later at Purim.

While Prof. Auerbach's explanation seems consistent with Shabbos (88a) it is not the traditional view. There are a number of explanations offered in the classic sources. This post will be limited to the view that it is related to the difference between the Written and Oral Torah. I will present the other views in a future post.

1) The earliest source to address this issue is the Tanchuma (Noach #3) which differentiates between the Written Torah - which was accepted willingly and the Oral Torah - which required force to be accepted.

Tanchuma( Noach 3): The Jews did not accept the Torah until G‑d forced them by threatening them with the mountain held over their heads as it says (Shemos 19:17): And they were camped under the mountain. R’ Dimi bar Chama said that G‑d told the Jews that if they would accept the Torah then it will be good and if not they would be buried there (Shabbos 88a). However this raises the question. If they were forced to accept the Written Torah then why when they were asked if they wanted to accept the Torah they all answered na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand). We can answer that there is no effort or strain in the Written Torah and it is not very large either. Therefore they readily accepted the Written Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma but they were forced to accept the Oral Torah which has much detail both for the minor mitzvos and the major mitzvos and there is a great quantity as well. The Oral Torah presents great difficulties and no one would study it except someone who strongly loves G‑d with his full heart and with his entire soul and with all his might…

2) The Maharal objects to a literal understanding of this medrash

Maharal (Ohr Chadash): Tanchuma (Noach #3) asks why G‑d had to force the Jews to accept the Torah by holding Sinai over their head when it says in Shemos (24:7) that the Jews willing accepted the Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then understand)? The Tanchuma answers that they only willing accepted the Written Torah and not the Oral Torah because the Oral Torah has many difficult details and therefore they had to be forced to accept the Oral Torah. However this explanation is also problematic in saying that in reality the Jews did not want to accept the Oral Torah. It doesn’t make sense that they did not want the full merit of the Torah whether it was the Oral or Written Torah. It would appear that the explanation is that they did not want to accept the Oral Torah until they were forced. That is because it is appropriate to be forced for the Oral Torah. In contrast the Written Torah which is the beginning of the process of acceptance of the Torah needs to be totally voluntary since the Jews were essential prepared to accept the Torah and thus it wasn’t relevant that they should be forced nor was it necessary. In contrast, the Oral Torah is not such a natural thing to accept as the Written Torah which is the basis to all the Torah. The Jews were inherently ready to accept the Torah and the Written Torah is Torah so the force was only needed for the Oral Torah. However it is not correct to say that the Jews did not want the Oral Torah and that therefore it was necessary to force them and reduce the merit of the Jews. Rather the Tanchuma is say that everything was done in the appropriate manner. The difficulty addressed by the Tanchuma is that it seems that na’aseh v’nishma was the acceptance of both the Written and Oral Torah and therefore there was no need for the forced acceptance. The answer is that na’aseh v’nishma was not in fact said concerning the Oral Torah which is much more difficult. Therefore the acceptance of the Written Torah and Oral Torah was distinct and separate from each other and each one was accepted in the appropriate manner. When you understand the words of our Sages in their full truth you will understand that this explanation which we have given is the essential one and this is clear…

3) However the Ohr HaChaim presents a similar understanding to the medrash - without actually citing it.

Ohr HaChaim (Shemos 19:5): The reason for the repeated verb of listening in this verse perhaps alludes to the acceptance of the two types of Torah. The first being the Written Torah which they received at Sinai and the second being the Oral Torah and the dikdukei sofrim and seforim as well as the legistaltion which would be taught by the rabbis in the future. This is hinted at by the mitzva of lo sassur (Devarim 17:11)…. Furthermore the verse mentions “My voice” after this double expression. This alludes to the principle mentioned in the Bamidbar Rabbah (14): “That which is heard from a sage has the same authority as hearing something from G‑d.” In other words, those decrees of the sages have the same authority as if they had been said by G‑d. Perhaps this insight that they were actually accepting two types of Torah at Sinai can explain a difficulty in understanding Shabbos (88a). This gemora understands the verse Shemos 19:17) to mean that G‑d forced them to accept the Torah by threatening to kill the Jews by holding Mt. Sinai over their heads - unless they accepted the Torah. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Shemos (24:7) says that they accepted the Torah willingly – naaseh v’nishma (whatever G‑d says we will do and afterwards will learn). In view of their ready acceptance why was it necessary to force them?… It is possible to answer this question with our explanation – that they in fact accepted two types of Torah at Sinai one directly from G‑d at Sinai and a second one that they would receive in the future from the sages. Their willing acceptance described in Shemos (24:7) was the acceptance of what they heard from G‑d even before they knew what it entailed. In contrast the Torah which they would be taught in the future by the sages they refused to accept before they heard what it contained. Their objection to accepting it was that the Torah of the sage is unlimited and in each generation new laws and decrees are generated. Thus G‑d had to force them to accept the Oral Torah while the Written Torah was accepted willingly. This forced state of acceptance continued until the time of Mordechai when they saw the importance of the sage through the actions of Mordechai and Esther. They saw that without their actions there would not be any remnant left of the Jewish people because of their enemies. At that time they also willingly accepted the Torah of the Sage. However it must be acknowledged that our sages (Shabbos 88a) understood the verse differently. They say that it indicates that the Jews willingly accepted the entire Torah willingly even before they knew its contents. Consequently they praised the Jews at Sinai as being like the angels who also accept obligation fully before knowing what it is. However this explanation of the sages is homiletics. According to our explanation they also said they would accept prior to understanding what it entailed – but we insist that was only the Written Torah that they heard directly from G‑d. In fact it might be possible to reconcile these two approaches by saying that these two explanations are describing two different types of Jews. Perhaps our sages are describing the total ready acceptance by the completely righteous Jew. We would then say that the resistance to accepting the Torah of the Sages only occurred amongst the masses. It is obvious that not all the Jews were on the same level of righteousness.

The distinction between the Written and Oral Torah is also found in many other sources. Here are are few more.

Rabbeinu Bachye (Shemos 19:8): All that G‑d said we will do. They agreed to accept upon themselves the yoke of Torah and mitzvos and they did this willingly. However this that our Sages say that Sinai was held over them like a barrel and that they were told that if they accepted the Torah it would be good but if not they would be buried there – it only was in reference to the Oral Torah. That is because the Oral Torah has many prohibitions and punishments as well as additional restrictions. In contrast they Written Torah was willingly accepted by everyone with great interest and joy as well as good heartedly. There was no need to apply force except for the Oral Torah.

Alshech(Bamidbar 21:14): G‑d came to give sight to the blind and to reject the view of the Jews who mistakenly think that the Oral Torah wasn’t necessary but only the Written Torah. In fact this mistaken view was that held by the Jews at Sinai. That is the reason it was necessary for G‑d to hold Sinai over their heads and to tell them if they accepted the Torah it would be good and if not they would die. The Tanchuma (Noach 3) asked that since they had already said na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand) then why were they forced to accept the Torah under fear of death? And how could it be that there was no genuine acceptance until Purim? The Tanchuma answers that they fully accepted only the Written Torah and not the Oral Torah with its many details

Beis HaLevi(Mishlei 2:1): Shabbos (88a) says that because the Jews were forced to accept the Torah they had an excuse for why they shouldn’t be punished for sins. Nevertheless they fully accepted the Torah in the time of Achashveros… Tosfos (Shabbos 88a) asks why was it necessary to force them since they had already said na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand)? The commentaries have already explained the main reason for forcing their acceptance only concerned the Oral Torah. In other words that they should accept doing all that they would be taught by the rabbis in every generation. Thus their original acceptances was only for that which G‑d had already said. They had to be forced to accept that which the rabbis would teach in the future.

Haflaah(Kesubos – Introduction #3): …Because without the Oral Torah we would not know what to do even concerning a single mitzvah… And many commentaries write that the main reason for threatening them with the mountain if they didn’t accept the Torah – only applies to Oral Torah. In fact that is the reason that Korach was swallowed alive in the earth because he rejected Moshe who represented the Oral Torah. Consequently he perverted the foundation principles of Judaism. For example he asked whether a talis which was dyed with techeles required a blue thread in the corner. …

Rav Tzadok(Machshavos Charutz #17): And when prophecy departed - It appears to me that this was the result of the increased power of intellect associated with the Oral Torah after they accepted the Torah a second time during the days of Achashveros because of the love associated with the miracle. They accepted the Torah then strongly and passionately. That was because originally the forced acceptance concerned only the Oral Torah because of the great effort involved in extracting Torah through the intellect and in ascertaining the truth. This understanding is stated in the Tanchuma (Noach #3). However after the events of Purim they willingly accepted the struggle and toil connected with the Oral Torah and by means of this merited the prophecy of intellectual wisdom. This enabled them to know everything by means of the ruach hakodesh which was in their hearts [and therefore they didn’t need the traditional prophecy].

Impact of blogs - "Sometimes the good guys win"

Jonathan Rosenblum recently wrote sent out a column from the Yated Ne'eman (June 6, 2008). The conclusion of the column was the following.

The Good Guys Win

[...]

WHAT LESSONS CAN WE TAKE AWAY from this happy result? The first is that we should not abandon any playing field to our enemies, even when there are good reasons to suspect that it is not a level one and the chances of victory are slight. Community organizer Saul Alinsky once said, "Immoral enemies make stupid mistakes." And Enderlin's insistence on bringing a libel suit, even though the charges against his broadcast had gained almost no traction in the mainstream media (MSM) is one example.

A second lesson is that alternative sources of information have dealt a huge blow to the former monopoly of the MSM. We in the frum community tend to think of the blogosphere exclusively as a cesspool of character assassination and worse. But in many places in the world it is also a vital agent for freedom from oppressive dictatorships. Some of the greatest heroes on earth are anonymous bloggers in places like Iran and China casting a searching light on the leaders of their own societies. Dictatorships can no longer completely silence and terrorize their critics.

Nor is the salutary influence of alternate sources of information felt only in dictatorships. In the West as well, the oligopoly of the Left over elite humanities and social science faculties and the MSM has been largely broken by conservative think tanks and alternative news sources.

The French MSM paid almost no attention to Phillippe Karsenty or even Enderlin's libel action, at least until Enderlin's victory in the lower court. Only then did it proclaim Enderlin's vindication. And it is similarly downplaying the Court of Appeals decision.

But it can no longer keep the news of the hoax from getting out, and that should give us all at least a brief moment of optimism. Sometimes the good guys do win.

Israelis want more immigrants but only if they are Jewish or converts

YNET June 5, 2008

Poll: Majority of Israelis support conversions [Haaretz also had an article]

New data presented by Immigrant Absorption Ministry reveals Israelis are highly supportive of immigration, conversion process, but fear mass none-Jewish immigration may lead to assimilation

by Kobi Nahshoni

A special survey held by the Immigrant Absorption Ministry looking at public stances regarding immigration, assimilation and conversion, revealed Thursday that a majority of the Israeli public is concerned that increased non-Jewish immigration into Israel may cause assimilation of the Jewish culture.

Despite that view, said the ministry's poll, the majority of the Israeli public is highly supportive of immigration and is willing to support the conversion process in order to keep the Jewish nature of Israel intact.[...]

Among the secular participants, 88% said they believed most immigrants come to Israel for non-Jewish motives, 60% predicted immigrants would increase assimilation and 70% rooted for conversions. An additional 52% said they would have no problem with non-Jews marrying into their family.

As for the halachic need of observing a religious way of life, 74% of the poll's secular participants said all immigrants should be converted, even if they are not keen on the idea; but 26% said conversion should be denied when applied only for the purpose of marriage. Moreover, 74% said they believed only the Orthodox conversion should be considered as valid, compared to 50% who said Reform conversion should be recognized as well.

Among the religious participants of the survey, 87% said they feared mass assimilation of the Jewish people in Israel. Fifty-five percent of the respondents said they thought conversion should be denied when applied for any other reason than that of observing mitzvahs; but 45% said conversions for the purpose of marriage were acceptable. Over 90% also said conversion should be a matter of free choice and should not be forced on anyone.

"Converting non-Jewish immigrants in a national, strategic mission for Israel is one which is crucial for the State's future," Minister of Immigrant Absorption Jacob Edery told Ynet.

"The study disproves the notion that the Israeli public loves immigration but doesn't like immigrants. The Israeli public is ready and willing to make its fellow immigrants feel and be a part of Israeli society.

"The State and its religious establishments must create more solutions which could facilitate immigrants' conversion," he added. "This challenge should be our top priority. These people have chosen to become a part of the Jewish people. It is up to us to help them do that."

Ed Koch defends Rev. Hagee's Zionist theology

Jerusalem Post June 5, 2008

Koch's Comments: The Christian-Jewish alliance

by Ed Koch

[...] Several years ago Rev. Hagee delivered a sermon that was caught on tape in which he preached, "Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun, and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, 'My top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

Anyone hearing the tape would conclude that Hagee is hostile to the Jews, but nothing could be further from the truth. He and his congregants are among Israel's strongest supporters. For religious reasons, they want Israel to rule supreme over all of the lands that made up the ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judea. Evangelicals believe that the Messiah - Jesus Christ - cannot return to the earth until the Jews return to the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), they having been expelled by the Romans in 70 AD after the Second Temple -- the one built by Herod -- was destroyed.

Christian fundamentalists believe that every word of the Old and New Testaments represents the will of God. Other Christians believe that the words were inspired by God, but written by humans, and therefore are fallible. Still others believe that the Bible, while sacred, is comprised of ancient myths and allegories and is intended to teach. Rev. Hagee, being a fundamentalist, believes that each word is the word of God, and that everything that occurs on Earth happens as a result of God's direction. Events caused by people like Hitler, for some fundamentalists, are explained as a punishment visited by God on Jews who had fallen away from the faith and did not follow all of God's mandates.

Other fundamentalists would not accept that view, believing instead that while God makes it possible for one to do evil, He is angry when such evil is committed. The evildoer cannot be excused by saying, "God made me do it," because human beings have free will. Finally, as a friend and scholar said, "We don't know why God does what He does. Look at a rug on the reverse side and you see inexplicable knots of wool, while on the front, there is a beautiful pattern."

Rev. Hagee apparently believes that Hitler was used by God to bring the Jews back to the promised land.

After enormous pressure from those comparing Rev. Hagee to Senator Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, John McCain rejected Hagee's endorsement, stating that Hagee's views as expressed in the years-old sermon being distributed on the web are "crazy." McCain also said, "Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them."

Hagee was not praising Hitler the monster, he was simply offering the fundamentalist opinion that Hitler was used by God to cause the creation of a Jewish state to which the Jews of the world would return.

Hagee's followers have supported the State of Israel in many tangible ways. Evangelicals continue to visit Israel as tourists even during the most dangerous times, which is more than can be said for some Diaspora Jews.

It has become fashionable among liberals, including Jews, to ridicule and denounce Hagee and other fundamentalists. I do not. I appreciate their support of the State of Israel and thank them for their enormous contributions to the Jewish state.

This is not to say that I agree with Rev. Hagee's view of Hitler or his other views. For example, I strongly disagree with Rev. Hagee's statement that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for homosexual sin in New Orleans. I also deplore his reference to the Roman Catholic Church as "the great whore," for which he has since apologized. [...]

Is the Israeli Rabbinate an oppressive anachronism?

Bartley Kulp has left a new comment on your post "Conversion crisis - Victory for the Haredim":

Jersey Girl said...

Letter written by the renowned Rabbi Chayim Oizer Grodzinski, zt”l of Vilna to Chief Rabbi Dr. Guedemann of Vienna:

English Translation:

Your honour knows that in the matter of the Zionists and the Mizrachi, I am in correspondence with the Gaonim of this generation, and all of them, have decided that Zionism is the work of the Sitro Achro with all its seductions and incitements, for the purpose of turning Israel from the good path and, that a great danger arises from it for all the Congregation of the Exile—Heaven forbid—and that all those who venture to defend the Zionists, are no better than they."
===============

You are confusing me Jersey Girl. On the one hand you bring in a source in order to prove that the State of Israel is a product of the sitra achra. This is the position of the Badatz Eidat Hachereidit.

They believe that zero participation with the state is permissible for Torah Yidden. This also precludes being a member of the state run and funded rabbinate. It is a perfectly valid shitta and if that is how you hold that is your entitlement. So why are you questioning my logic in dismantling the rabbinate? Why should you care?

Now while you are trying to figure out which shitta you subscribe to, there are about five or so, let us address the questions that you asked me.

You asked, "If I understand correctly, it seems what you want is an "America" in the Middle East; that is, not a Jewish State but a State for Jews. It is true that this fulfills the Zionist dream.

But how does a Levantine "America" fit into the overall culture of the ME?"

I wish that all of the Yidden me included will do tshuva and come closer to Hashem's Torah. It is easier to makarve people in an open society then it is when you have placed demands on them and control their personal lives.

By any modern standard the authority of the rabbinate regarding people's personal lives is regarded by the secular here as oppressive and anachronistic. Today's generation has a din of tinnuk sh'b'nishba and they cannot be expected to listen to what the religious have to say hook, line and sinker. All the more so that we should not be surprised that they resent us when we control who they are permitted to marry or divorce. For example in a world that looks down at the cast system India, state legislated discrimination against mamzerim can be viewed outside of the Torah world as oppressive. This in itself is a chillul Hashem.

I am not G-d forbid implying that the rabbi's should change halacha in order to conform to modernity. The Torah is eternal as is Hashem. I am saying that we should run things as we do everywhere else. With independent batei dinim. The most important aspect of these batei dinim is their autonomy to posken on issues as they see proper without political intervention.

You might say that this will lead to intermarriage and mamzerut. Most Israelis who cannot get married through the rabbinate can fly to Cyprus anyway and then use that marriage certificate at the Ministry of interior. Also forcing non religious Jews to marry al pi halacha is a recipe set up for mamzerut.

"But how does a Levantine "America" fit into the overall culture of the ME?"

My answer is that I personally do not care. In a region where life is cheap, minorities are terrorized and, or murdered, honor killings condoned, slaves bought and sold, woman treated like chattels, and parents hating their enemies more than they love their children, I am not so certain that we should be trying to embed ourselves through emulation in order to mesh with our surroundings here. At any rate we are exhorted by the Torah and Chazal not to emulate the behavior of the surrounding neighbors. So your question regarding fitting in to the fabric of the surrounding society is a stillborn one.

Now to address your next question. You asked, "Can a completely secular Western style democracy ever even hope to SURVIVE among theocratic religiously conservative neighbors? (Jordan, Syria, Egypt and Palestine are ruled completely by Islamic law. Lebanon does not permit intermarriages. Religious issues have been at the center of Lebanon's ongoing civil war.)"

First of all over the past sixty years the regimes in these countries at times have barely survive amongst themselves. In many of them their has been violent regime changes and attempts. Nobody has it easy in the middle east. One conclusion that one can make of this though is that to the degree that these countries westernize, the more stable they become (the Ayatolla revolution non - withstanding).

Also Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and especially Syria are not ruled through Sharia. Lebanon is a perfect example to back up my argument on what can happen to a country that was once lauded internationally for its Leviatan spirit because some outdated status quo laws were being upheld by one part of the population. Does the word "status quo agreement" ring a bell?

You asserted, "Muslim leaders often join Haredi leaders in taking a public stance against things that are offensive to both Jews and Muslims(i.e.the Gay Parade in Jerusalem)."

My answer bogus. It only happened once and it was not something that was syncronized. Do not worry, Rav Elyashuv shlita does not have the mufti's personal cell number. It is also kind of ironic that you used that article to prove your point. Could it be that only when the Arabs see us rioting through rock throwing, burning stuff and causing general mayhem that they see in us a sort a kindred spirit? When we act like a bunch of strung out chimpanzees on amphetamines do they then see a reflection of themselves and only then remember that we are the children of Avraham (Ibrahim as they call him)?

Like I said earlier, the Arab culture is something that I wish not to emulate.

You then used an example of issues that we could could become close with. Here is an anonymous writer.
"I recently read this, on a blog posted anonymously:

"It is my view and a part of my belief as a Muslim and a believer in the one true G-d that there are no contradictions in any of the traditions I have read extensively Jewish scripts and Rabbinical opinions and Islamic law and actually find a harmony in the teaching on doctrinal level.

The only differences arise when those who would have us believe they do things in our name respectively are actually pushing a secularist agenda not fulfilling G-d's Will and law.

The war in Palestine is not Judaism versus Islam but, one set of secularist devils against another set of secularist devils who shroud themselves in the faith of their countrymen to abuse their emotions.

And let it be quite clear for all to see that Muslims do not hate Jews who keep God's commandments and fear him."

These sentiments also seem to be reflected in the December open letter from Muslims to Jews:
"As Muslims and Jews we share core doctrinal beliefs,..... laws and jurisprudence, many significant values and even dietary restrictions. There is more in common between our religions and peoples than is known to each of us.
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=1378

I know a lot of Arabs and I find his opinion highly unusual. The only thing that I will agree about with this lone man's assessment is that this is not a war between Judaism and Islam. I would say though that it is a war between Yishmael and the Jews. At any rate he is just one in 375 million Arabs. The person who blew up bus#2 in Jerusalem and the man who murdered the students in Mercaz Harav knew no such respect for Torah Jews. Most Muslim fanatics do not. Again, the only religious Jews that most of these maniacs respect are the ones who are willing to call them master.

As far as I see it, the best way to keep our society strong is through mutual respect for each other. This will help maintain the edge that we have over their (the Arabs) society.

Shavuos V - Na'aseh v'Nishma - acceptance of obligation to observe mitzvos

Viewing the Revelation at Sinai as a process of conversion - Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe(Y.D. 3:112)) suggested that the proclamation of na'aseh v'nishma (we will do and then understand) was the act of accepting the obligation to observe the mitzvos. This post is devoted to understanding this act - which is widely praised and yet little understood.

1) The beginning of the riddle is that this statement appears in the Torah after the giving of the Torah.

Shemos(24:7): “And Moshe took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people and they said that whatever G-d tells us we will do and then we understand…” The parallel statement prior to the giving of the Torah was Shemos (19:8): And all the people answered together and they said that all that G‑d says we will do. And Moshe brought back the word of the people to G‑d.

Rashi (Shemos 24:1) resolves the issue by saying the Shemos(24:7) was actually said prior to the Giving of the Torah – and that the verse was not recorded in chronological sequence. However the Ramban (Shemos 24:1) disagrees with Rashi and asserts that Shemos (24:7) was just the repetition after the Giving of the Torah – the declaration that they had said prior to the Giving of the Torah. Ohr Hachaim (Shemos 24:1) indicates the majority opinion rejects the view of the Ramban and accepts Rashi’s view. Nevertheless the Chazon Ish accepts the view of the Ramban.

2) This declaration is understood to indicate total willing subservience to G‑d – and yet our Sages tell us that G‑d threatened to kill the Jews if they didn’t accept the Torah at Sinai.

Shabbos (88a): When the Jews readily accepted the Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma (we will do what ever you want even before understanding why) , 600,000 angels came and tied two crowns on the head of each Jew—one for the na’aseh and one for the nishma….When the Jews said na’aseh v’nishma, a heavenly voice proclaimed, ‘Who revealed to my children this profound secret that is characteristic of angels?’

Shabbos (88a): R’ Eliezer said that when Israel said “we will do” before they said “we will understand” a bas kol issued forth saying, “Who reveal this secret to My children that the angels utilize.” The proof that this is the guiding principle for angels is Tehilim(103:20),”Bless G‑d you his angels you might ones who do His word – listening the sound of His words.” First the verse says they do His word and then it says they listen.

Mechilta D'Rashbi (19:17): They encamped at the mountain – this teaches that G‑d threatened them with the mountain and said that if they accept the Torah it will be good otherwise that they would be buried there. At that moment of being threatened all of them moaned and poured out their hearts like water in repenting. They then said that all that G‑d says we will do and obey. Then G‑d said He needed guarantors. He rejected the Heaven and Earth as well as the Patriarchs but he accepted the children as guarantors…

3) Our Sages tell us that because the Torah was forced on us we were not obligated to keep the Torah until years later because of the events of Purim when Jews willing accepted the Torah.

Shabbos (88a):[Soncino translation] And they stood under the mount: R. Abdimi b. Hama b. Hasa said: This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, overturned the mountain upon them like an [inverted] cask, and said to them,’If ye accept the Torah, ‘tis well; if not, there shall be your burial.’ R. Aha b. Jacob observed: This furnishes a strong protest against the Torah. Said Raba, Yet even so, they re-accepted it in the days of Ahasuerus, for it is written, [the Jews] confirmed, and took upon them [etc.]: [i.e.,] they confirmed what they had accepted long before. Hezekiah said: What is meant by, Thou didst cause sentence to be heard from Heaven; The earth feared, and was tranquil: if it feared, why was it tranquil, and if it was tranquil, why did it fear? But at first it feared, yet subsequently it was tranquil, And why did it fear? — Even in accordance with Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish said: Why is it written, And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day; What is the purpose of the additional ‘the’? This teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, stipulated with the Works of Creation and said thereto. ‘If Israel accepts the Torah, ye shall exist; but if not, I will turn you back into emptiness and formlessness.’

4) The gemora itself indicates that an acceptance without full understanding is problematic

Shabbos(88a): There was a certain heretic who saw Rava immersed in his studies and Rava’s fingers were under his feet. He was pushing so hard on fingers that blood came out of his fingers. The heretic said to him, “You impetuous people who gave precedence to your mouth over your ears you still retain this quality of impetuousness. You first should have carefully listened [to what G‑d had to offer]. If you were able to accept it only then you should have accepted it – otherwise you should not have accepted it. Rava replied, “We who have the characteristic of integrity it is written in Mishlei (11:): The integrity of the upright shall guide them… However those who are characterized as perverse it says in Mishlei(11:3): but the perverseness of the traitors shall destroy them.”

5) Our Sages explicitly state that the Jews were not sincere when they made the declaration

Tosefta (Bava Kama 7:3): We find that when the Jews were standing at Sinai they wanted to deceive G‑d. When they said regarding the acceptance of the Torah, na’aseh v’nishma (we will do what ever you want even before understanding why) they were being deceptive—as Moshe Rabbeinu noted, (Devarim[i] 5:25–26) “25) And G‑d heard your words, when you spoke to me; and G‑d said to me, I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; what they have said they said well. 26) Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!” But how could this be since everything is known to G‑d? It has been stated (Tehilim 78:36–37), “That they lied with what they said to G‑d and their hearts with not with Him and they were not faithful to their covenant—nevertheless G‑d is merciful and forgiving.”

Avoda Zara (5a): [Soncino translation] The following objection was then raised: ‘The verse, O that they had such a heart as this alway that it may be well with them and their children cannot obviously refer to the abolition of the angel of death, since the decree [of death] had already been made? It means therefore that the effect of Israel's acceptance of the Torah would be that no nation or tongue could prevail against them, as it is said, that it might be well with them and their children after them’? He [Resh Lakish] may be of the same opinion as the following Tanna, for it is taught: R. Jose said, The Israelites accepted the Torah only so that the Angel of Death should have no dominion over them, as it is said: I said ye are gods [i.e, immortals] and all of you children of the Most High, now that you have spoilt your deeds, ye shall indeed die like mortals.

[Next posting will be devoted to resolutions of these difficulties]

Eternal Jewish Family - conversion and the acceptance of mitzvos

Jerusalem Post May 29, 2008

by Jonathan Rosenblum

[...]

I was reminded of that nearly forgotten article recently by media coverage of the decision of the Rabbinical High Court of the Chief Rabbinate, affirming an earlier decision of an Ashdod beit din. The earlier decision nullified a conversion overseen 15 years earlier by Rabbi Haim Druckman. The Ashdod beit din had before it clear evidence that the woman in question had immediately after her conversion violated some of the most basic and stringent Torah commandments, and that Rabbi Druckman's beit din had made no serious effort to ascertain whether she had any intention of accepting the yoke of mitzva observance.

Needless to say, most mainstream journalists are totally lacking the ability to read, much less evaluate, the halachic sources upon which the Rabbinical High Court based its decision, and could care less about the halachic issues involved. As a consequence, they placed a decision about a halachic issue onto a template more congenial to them, and reported it like a sports match or political contest: In this corner the "tolerant" Rabbi Druckman, and in the other corner "hard-hearted" haredi judges engaged, as always, in ruthless power grabs.

Even on its own terms, the World Wrestling Federation metaphor cannot be sustained. Rabbi Avraham Sherman, author of the Rabbinical High Court decision, served for many years as an IDF rabbi, and once spent a sabbatical at Yeshiva University, the flagship institution of modern Orthodoxy.

Another one of the judges graduated the national religious hesder system. Finally, the High Court's decision was endorsed by the European Conference of Rabbis, hardly a haredi organization, which issued a statement that the conversions performed in Europe by Rabbi Druckman and other Israeli rabbis have shown a consistent ignorance of local realities - i.e., the likelihood of the candidates becoming mitzva observant.

Finally, the evidence that Rabbi Druckman signed conversion certificates falsely attesting to his presence at conversions - a practice which has already been the subject of a sharp censure from Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz - came from national religious rabbis within the Chief Rabbinate.

TUESDAY'S EDITORIAL in The Jerusalem Post claims that all sides of the Orthodox world agree that conversion requires acceptance of the "yoke of Torah, meaning an Orthodox lifestyle" - as if the issue in dispute were whether wearing a knitted kippa is sufficient or one must don a shtreimel and kapote on Shabbat. The distinction, the editorial argues, is between the national religious who "want to bring as many as possible into the Jewish fold" and the haredi world that does not.

One would never know from this account that Rabbi Sherman was stating the overwhelming consensus of halachic opinion that a mere pro forma declaration of one's commitment to full mitzva observance is inadequate, and that a beit din must assure itself, after searching inquiry, of the candidate's sincere intention to take on full mitzva observance. As the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Herzog wrote, the burden on the beit din is much heavier in contemporary times, when a convert is not necessarily joining an overwhelmingly observant Jewish community.

Rabbi Druckman apparently does not share that view. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, perhaps Rabbi Druckman's most distinguished defender, tacitly admitted as much when he said, "When did we ever hear that someone who relies on a minority opinion against the commonly held one is considered a willing heretic?" (Rabbi Lichtenstein's father-in-law, Rabbi Yosef Ber Soloveitchik, considered it axiomatic that conversion requires a full acceptance of mitzvot.)

If anyone is being political, it is Rabbi Druckman, not Rabbi Sherman. The evidence is overwhelming that a large majority of those converted by Rabbi Druckman were never mitzvah observant. And that is not merely an unhappy coincidence. The Conversion Authority, the special conversion track created in the IDF, the joint conversion institutes, in which students are instructed by Orthodox, Conservative and Reform instructors, and which work closely with the Conversion Authority were all new frameworks created by the Israeli government for the express purpose of solving the problem of 300-500,000 non-Jewish immigrants living among us via mass conversion.

Haredim would be thrilled if tens of thousands of non-Jewish Israelis made the monumental commitment to truly accept the yoke of mitzvot; we await the day when knowledge of God fills the entire world. But until then we are deeply skeptical that the miraculous individual decision to join the Jewish people through a full commitment to mitzva observance can ever be mass produced or subjected to numerical goals of the Israeli government.

TWO WEEKS ago, I spoke in Montreal for an organization called the Eternal Jewish Family, which has invested millions of dollars in working with intermarried couples where the non-Jewish partner is contemplating conversion or already in the process. I pointed out to a group of such couples that most ba'alei teshuva came from homes with a strong Jewish identity, which helped propel their decision to become fully observant. But a convert cannot draw on the desire to link more fully with his people, since he was not born Jewish.

That makes the decision of a non-Jew to fully accept the yoke of mitzvot both more awesome and rarer. National religious rabbis who claim it is possible to convert tens of thousands of immigrants without compromising on the requirement of a full commitment to mitzva observance must explain why they have produced so few ba'alei teshuva in Israel.

Undoubtedly, declaring a conversion invalid after the passage of years, as in the Ashdod case, is always a tragedy. But the blame does not belong to the bearer of the message. Orthodox rabbis have long criticized heterodox rabbis for not informing "converts" that their conversions will not be recognized by a large segment of the Jewish world, and thereby paving the way for future tragedies. And the same can be said of an Orthodox rabbi who follows a single opinion against the overwhelming weight of historical and contemporary halachic decisors.

Host mothers & Jewish identity - who is the mother?

One of the hot topics in Israel is the question of a child born from a surrogate mother. Frum women who can not get pregnant are donating eggs which are implanted in another woman. The present cases involve frum surrogate mothers - which is a separate problem.

Does Jewish identity go by the donor of the biological/genetic material or the one who gives birth to the child. There are two sources of difficulty in deciding this issue. 1) The technology to produce a child is very recent. 2) There is a paucity of relevant Torah sources. Even such a Torah giant as Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt"l was not able to decide. An excellent review of these issues is found in R' Dovid Bleich's Contemporary Halachic Problems Volume IV pp 237-272.

On the level of biology some of the variants are
1) Is the egg fertilized in the donor or outside?
2) If outside - is it in the host mother or in vitro?
3) At what stage of development is the transfer to the host mother done?.
4) If the birth mother received an ovarian transplant - do the eggs belong to her or the donor?
5) If the recipient of an ovarian transplant is not the owner of the egss - is her husband allowed to have relations with her - i.e., is this adultery?
6) Does it matter who the father is?
7) What if genetic material is taken from another person's skin cells or perhaps from a combination of donors - is there any impact on identity?
8) What if the donor is not Jewish or the surrogate is not Jewish - does that impact identity?
9) what if the surrogate mother is an animal or an incubator - or even the father?
10) There are kabbalistic sources which state that Jewish identity and yichus is dependent on producing a child through sexual relations - so a child produced by in vitro ferilization is significantly different.
11) What if the host mother was converted at some time during gestation - what impact does this have on the Jewish identity of the child?

As far as I have been able to ascertain there is only a single source which deals directly with this issue - these are the medrashim that say that Dinah was transferred from the womb of Rachel to Leah and Yosef from Leah to Rachel. These medrashim clearly hold that identity is determined solely by the birth mother. But learning halacha from medrashim is problematic

These issues also impact on the issue of conversion. R' Bleich cites the view of Rav Sternbuch in who uses the events of Sinai to help resolve some of these issues.

EJF responds to accusations

The following was posted to the EJF website

=================================

Various blogs have featured information on EJF that are full of distortions, lies, and simple inaccuracies. EJF does not as a matter of principle wish to dignify these inaccurate comments about EJF. To point out just how inaccurate these blogs are, here is our ONE-TIME sample review of the facts:

1. Rabbi Leib Tropper does not sit on any Beit din that performs Geirus, and therefore he could not nullify any conversion, as a blogger charges. Any information on invalidation (never were valid) is merely information relayed by an affiliate Beit din.
2. No beit din can "Revoke" a conversion. A nullification of conversion can happen when (like the case on the Blog) Abraham told people including the sponsoring Rabbi that his wife Sarah did not observe even the first Sabbath after her conversion or subsequent Shabbos despite her promise during the conversion process to the contrary greatly upsetting her husband.
3. EJF tried to contact Sarah for clarification to relay her response to the Beth din but EJF was told that she was unwilling to come to the phone.
4. EJF subsequently called a Chabad rabbi in their area to discuss her situation. He intimated that she was not yet observant, adding that there was 'progress'
5. Most Batei Din including those that are affiliated with EJF do NOT condition a women's conversion on her covering her hair. This was the written halachic decision of the leading Halachic Authority, Hagaon Rav Moshe Feinstein ,OB'm.
6. Please note that EJF will not discuss the Bourne case out of respect for ALL parties involved.
7. All of the assumptions and claims of S. Rosenberg and friend (host of the blog called 'Failed Messiah') are patently false. Kol Yaakov did not throw out the son of Mr. & Mrs. Bourne into the street. He made a decision to leave when he was told that the Beit din in NY that converted him would not convert his parents.

It is our view that the bloggers misrepresentation of the two cases is born out of cynicism and sounds consistent with what appears to be his negative attitude towards Orthodox Jews in general.