Prime Minister's Office has dismissed Rav Druckman

The Jerusalem Post - May 22, 2008 [See also YNET]

Conversion Authority head Rabbi Haim Druckman has received a letter from the Prime Minister's Office notifying him of his dismissal due to the fact that he has turned 75 and thus passed the age of retirement.

The dismissal comes at a particularly sensitive time, after a panel of rabbinical judges wrote a halachic ruling overturning a conversion by Druckman, and implied that all his conversions should be annulled.

The ruling, while not automatically revoking the hundreds of conversions Druckman performed, has still alarmed many converts who had gone through the process under Druckman's tutelage.

Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Legislation, and Law Committee, Menahem Ben Sasson (Kadima), asked the Prime Minister's Office Thursday to find a way to extend Druckman's position. According to Ben Sasson, Druckman's remaining in office is important "especially in these hard times, when there is a crisis regarding conversions."

During an emergency meeting of the committee, all MKs present expressed full confidence in Druckman.

According to Likud MK Yuri Edelstein, removing Druckman from office would seriously harm the little faith left with immigrants considering conversion.

"This will be seen as the government's surrender in face of a haredi attack against the conversion authority and the converts. This is another one of the government's poor attempts at survival by pleasing extreme orthodox circles, which anyway do not recognize the state's authority to convert. [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert should take an exceptional step and cancel [Druckman's] dismissal forthwith."

[...]

"Am I still Jewish?!" - personal consequences of mass rejection of conversions

Posted by: Treifalicious | May 03, 2008 at 02:10 AM Done. This decision ensures that I will NEVER return to Israel to live. They probably will revoke my citizenship anyway. As someone who converted through the Beit Din L'Giur in 1999 I am one of those people whose conversion stands to be revoked.(how else could I have converted in Israel? I asked how I can convert to Judaism, they pointed me in the direction of Ulpan Giur. Something like 2000 - 3000 people converted in these Rabbinate-sponsored conversion classes every year. . That's between 18,000 and 27,000 people - marriages annulled, children suddenly not Jewish, people then also losing citizenship and having to leave the country. 18-27,000 lives turned completely upside down) It hasn't really sunk in yet. As someone who sat through these classes in some ways they were a joke - many people were NOT sincere at all. One couple with a guy from South America converting actually put up a CHRISTMAS TREE and drove regularly on Shabbat. I would see women in my class during the day in shorts and tank tops and then later that same day see them in class with long skirts and long sleeved shirts. And these were not people like many of the Russians who treated the whole thing with naked, utter and total contempt. I felt like such a frier for actually overhauling my wardrobe and wearing the long skirts all day every day, keeping kosher and keeping Shabbat. Later on, when asked about conversion by others, I would say, "If you really want to be Jewish you will wear the long skirts and at least try to keep kashrut and Shabbat." I encouraged Orthodox conversion, discouraged Reform conversion and still do to this day. But afterwards, you cannot police people for the rest of their lives. To do so would turn the State of Israel into a fascist police state. Sure, first they have religious police to look after converts, but then they will start policing the general public, making Israel like Saudi Arabia and Iran which DO have religious police (for an idea of how people deal with religious police, see the movie Persopolis and see what happens after the Ayatollah Khomeini takes over. Basically, everyone starts leading double lives. The whole thing becomes a pointless cat-and-mouse-game). In the Jerusalem Post in one of the talkbacks there was one guy who said he would gladly go back to Christianity and wants his foreskin back. I cannot say the same. I can never go back to being a Christian. I had lived as a Jew for some SIX YEARS before I had even started the conversion class. I did not need the class in order to pass the oral exam before the Beit Din. What about the people, like my roommate, myself and others who really were sincere? What if someone was no so into it at first but then became very observant afterwards? Jewish religious observance is fluid over the course of one's life. The only real way to do this would be to go back over every single conversion, all 18-27,000 of them and do some sort of KGB like detective work to try to figure out if they were sincere at the time. But they don't want to do that because they are ultimately a bunch of lazy bureaucrats and prefer to just invalidate every conversion done in Israel over the past 9 years, upending thousands of lives. These rabbis will find themselves in the dustbin of history like the Sadducees in the not so distant future. But in the meantime, if I am not Jewish anymore, who am I?

High Court of Justice says rabbinical court can annul conversions retroactively

JPost     The High Court of Justice ruled on Thursday that a rabbinical court was within its rights to retroactively annul a conversion because the convert in question had deceived the court when she said she undertook to observe Jewish law.

The ruling could reopen the wounds of the conversion crisis in 2008 when the Supreme Rabbinical Court upheld a decision of a lower court that invalidated a woman’s conversion because it said she never intended to observe Jewish law when she converted. The ruling endangered the 40,000 conversions conducted under the state-conversion system.

On Thursday, Deputy President of the Supreme Court Justice Miriam Naor, with Justices Esther Hayut and Neal Hendel ruled on a case concerning a woman born in Romania to a Christian family who converted in Israel in the state conversion system. Two years later, the rabbinical court annulled her conversion because, according to the court, doubts had been raised as to the sincerity of the convert when she converted.

She petitioned the High Court saying the rabbinical court did not have the authority to retroactively invalidate her conversion and that its decision violated the principles of natural justice. [...]

The Hiddush religious freedom lobbying group criticized the decision saying it opened up “a Pandora’s box,” the results of which could be calamitous.

Hiddush director and Reform rabbi Uri Regev said it would require “extreme detachment from reality not to know that the majority of converts from the immigrant community from the former Soviet Union do this [conversion] without true intent to accept Torah and commandments upon themselves and are forced to promise false promises that they will observe the religious commandments.” [...]

Conversion crisis - Zionist ideolgy and Halacha II

As mentioned in a previous post - the current dispute is not so much political as ideological. In other words it is not simply the result of people seeking out power over others for the sake of power. It is also not a conflict between those who are modern, moderate and involved in the world versus those who are reactionary and out of touch with reality. It is not even a dispute about halacha per se. The Religious Zionism poskim are fully aware of the halachic views and sources that concern the Chareidi poskim. [I am not concerning myself with the ignorant masses and politicians who have a distorted or no knowledge or interest in the halachic issues.]

The prime dispute is whether the halacha should be used to advance the goals of Zionism or not. I will be publishing a number of posts which illustrate these points by citing recognized Religious Zionist rabbis.

What follows is the conclusion of an article published in the mainstream Religious Zionist journal Techumin which is published by Tzomet. It appeared originally in Hebrew in Techumin #12 pp 81-97 (5751/1991). This is an English translation which was published by Tzomet in a compilation of Techumin articles known as "Crossroads"

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

Conversion of Russian Immigrants

by Rav Yigal Ariel

Conversion as a Catalyst of Spiritual Renewal

The problem of conversion of women intermarried with Jews was seen in previous generations as one of the battlefronts in the war against assimilation. The feeling that any concession in this area would be equivalent to surrender in the war underlies the sharp and bitter tone of those who disallowed these conversions. These responsa do not relate to the special problems of the present aliya.

We are not engaged here in a “war”, but in an attempt to redeem an entire community captured by the enemy. The question applies chiefly to the second generation, the children of intermarriage, where suspicions concerning their motivation evaporates and instead the major consideration is helping Jews to return to Judaism. The problem of free-willed assimilation in the western world is not comparable to the situation in the former Soviet Union, where Jews were faced with ignorance and duress. In any event, assimilation today has become a tidal wave, where refusal to accept converts has no deterrent value. There is no difficulty in today’s secular and permissive society to live with a non-Jew without Jewish marriage. This is surely true outside of Israel, and to a great extent in Israel as well.

Conversion is not a self-contained problem, but should be seen as part of the general spiritual problem of Russian aliya. The struggle over their spiritual absorption is the heart of the problem, and it will ultimately determine the character of Israeli society in the future. The immigrants, because of their spiritual estrangement, are not rushing to convert. They find that they can manage very well without the approval of the Rabbinate.

Conversion therefore, is not the problem of the immigrants, but the interest of the Rabbinate, desiring to prevent a calamity to Israeli society. In this situation, the initiative of those who desire to convert should be seen as more sincere. The motivation is “for the sake of heaven” and nothing else. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent on the bet din to help them, even if this would be a case of “sin, in order to benefit your fellow” (Git. 38; Tosafot 4lb, s.v. ‘kofin”; Shab. 4a, s.v. “v’chi”; cf. Melamed LeHoeal 2,83).

In these circumstances, it may turn out that conversion, rather than causing injury can be the instrument of spiritual renewal not only for the convert, but for the Jewish spouse as well. In cases where the family comes of its own initiative to convert, conversion can precede the initial state of absorption. The lack of prior education is not a problem, even if it will transpire that they will not fully fulfill the requirement to study Judaism subsequently. The conversion should, however, be conditional on their being sponsored and adopted by a religious community. That kind of bond can inspire a genuine dedication to Torah and Judaism, for the convert and his entire extended family

Vaad HaRabbonim LeInyonei Giyur supports Supreme Rabbinical Court ruling against Rav Druckman

Recipients and Publicity has left a new comment on your post "Judaism as a missionary religion?":

Vaad HaRabbonim LeInyonei Giyur reveals ITS agenda (while most of what it says is valid and true, it is sad that the Vaad feels that it must go to war against the Religious Zionist and Modern Orthodox rabbis in these "Geirus Wars" because that will only inspire the other side to fight back even harder, as is the nature of these kinds of struggles:

See Dei'ah Vedibur of 3 Iyar 5768 - May 8, 2008 at http://chareidi.shemayisrael.com/EMR68avaad.htm

Vaad HaRabbonim LeInyonei Giyur Backs Beis Din Annulment of Conversion By Yechiel Sever Following a precedent-setting decision at the Ashdod District Beis Din, headed by Dayan HaRav Avraham Attia, which was certified by the High Rabbinical Court (Beis Din Godol) in Jerusalem, the Vaad HaRabbonim Haolami LeInyonei Giyur founded by HaRav Chaim Kreiswirth zt"l clarified several points related to the matter, to dispel misleading information intended to undermine halachic boundaries set by leading poskim from the previous and present generations. The beis din in Ashdod ruled that conversions performed 15 years ago by Rabbi Chaim Druckman were not done according to halacha since the conversion candidates were not observant in any way. According to Vaad HaRabbonim, the following points need to be made in order to gain a proper understanding of the issue. A. Not agreeing — at the time of the conversion — to observe all the mitzvas renders the conversion invalid under all circumstances. B. The Beis Din determined that presumably the conversion candidate never accepted ol mitzvos, which means the conversion was not annulled — but rather the original conversion was never valid. C. The Vaad is deeply shocked by various individuals, officials and rabbis associated with the National-Religious camp who claim to cite various sources indicating that prominent dayanim supposedly ruled against the Rambam and the Shulchan Oruch. These individuals muddle the halachic tradition passed down since Har Sinai without demonstrating a minimal understanding of the Rambam and the Shulchan Oruch. Their status is stated explicitly in the Mishneh Torah (Hilchos Talmud Torah, Chap. 6). D. According to directives from gedolei Yisroel in 5744 (1984), every conversion, whether performed in Eretz Yisroel or abroad, must be checked to ascertain whether the applicant did in fact accept Torah and mitzvas at the time of the conversion. This directive is aimed primarily at city rabbis and marriage registrars, since it is strictly forbidden to list the word "convert" on marriage applications before verifying the validity of the conversion. E. According to both halacha and the law, every rabbi has the right to reject a conversion that appears dubious and to return the case to the district beis din. [click the link for the full article]

Conversion crisis is conflict between Zionism and Halacha I

The following is an excerpt from an article which claims that the conversion controversy is really about whether the prime value is to proselytize as many non-Jews who identify with Israel as possible or to follow the halacha as traditionally understood. See the original for the full article. [Also See Rabbi Cardozo]

Conversion controversy boils down to bout over Zionism by Matthew Wagner

Jerusalem Post May 6, 2008 page 3

A nasty legalistic brawl that casts in doubt the Jewishness of hundreds of converts to Judaism is really a clash of political ideologies vis-à-vis Zionism, rabbis on both sides of the fray said Monday. The clash between rabbis who see the creation of the State of Israel as a positive sign from God signaling a step closer to final redemption and those who reject any religious implication resulting from the renewal of Jewish sovereignty comes as Israelis prepare to celebrate the 60th anniversary of their independence on Thursday.

[…]

Rabbi Avraham Sherman, the haredi rabbinic judge who wrote the decision, accused Druckman of forging documents to make it seem as if he were present at dozens of conversions when, in actuality, he was represented by proxy. But Sherman’s main thrust was an attack on Druckman and other judges in the Conversion Authority, the vast majority of whom are religious Zionists, who saw the endeavor of mass conversion as a “national goal.”

“All these rabbis have one thing in common,” Sherman wrote, referring to rabbis serving on state-run conversion courts. “They all see in conversion a sacred commandment as part of their national responsibility .., in other words, the conversion is not primarily the spiritual and religious need of the individual convert who wishes to join the Jewish people and accept upon himself all the commandments. Rather, conversion is a means of improving the spiritual situation of the entire Jewish nation living in Israel. It is a way of bringing Jews closer to their Judaism. “But, in reality, for dozens of years now the vast majority of converts via the Conversion Authority remain gentile in their behavior, . except for the performance of rituals, which remain for these converts empty of spirit. These converts see themselves as belonging to the Jewish people solely in a patriotic, nationalistic way, without any religiously significant feelings of belonging. Therefore, these [conversion court] rabbis should be seen as intentional transgressors of Jewish law.”

[…]

A senior member of the Conversion Authority, who preferred to remain anonymous, said conversions serve the national interest and are therefore, a mitzvah. “We are talking about a group of people who ended up in Israel because they have some sort of connection with the Jewish people,” the source said. “Their mother may not be Jewish, which makes them gentile according to Halacha. But their father is Jewish, or one of their grandparents is Jewish or they are married to a Jew. as a result, they are considered “of the seed of Israe1.” “In addition, they totally identify as Jews. They do not all see themselves as gentiles. They serve in the IDF, they are patriotic, they are Zionistic. We have a duty to bring them closer to the Jewish people.” The source also pointed out that if the approximately, 300,000 non-Jews who, immigrated to Israel under the Law of Return are not converted, there will be intermarriage and assimilation. “The haredim are not part of any of Israel’s national endeavors because they do not see any religious value in the creation of the State of Israel. That’s why they don’t serve in the IDF. And they a don’t identify with Zionism. They also don’t think their children, who are brought up in isolated communities, will ever marry non-Jewish immigrants or their offspring. But I think they are wrong. […]

Conversion crisis - Victory for the Haredim

Haaretz June 1, 2008 by Avraham Poraz (served as interior minister in the years 2003-2004.)

The state's decision to stop employing Rabbi Haim Druckman, who has for several years headed the special conversion administration designed to expedite and alleviate the conversion process, followed a ruling by the Supreme Rabbinic Court. This court nullified a conversion Rabbi Druckman performed 15 years ago, and its ruling applies in effect to all the conversions performed through Rabbi Druckman's conversion administration, as well as to conversions within the Israel Defense Forces. These sad developments are part of the struggle raging between Orthodox Zionism - whose approach was reflected in Rabbi Druckman's conversion administration and the one that operated in the IDF - and the ultra-Orthodox. Remember that we are talking about nullifying Orthodox conversions, which are the most strict to begin with. Israel has more than 300,000 citizens who came to the country under the Law of Return, largely from the Commonwealth of Independent States, but are not considered Jewish according to Orthodox halakha, or Jewish religious law. In keeping with a Supreme Court ruling long ago, anyone who converted overseas in a recognized Jewish congregation, whether Reform or Conservative, is Jewish and is entitled to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. Since Israel recognizes only Orthodox conversions performed by the rabbinic establishment (and not even those now), the Reform and Conservative movements began conducting "pop-over conversions" - conversions were performed in Israel, but in converts were sent in the final phase to Reform and Conservative congregations overseas to complete the process. This maneuver was prompted by the failure of the Neeman Committee's recommendations, accepted by the government back in 1997, to set up conversion institutes in which Conservative and Reform rabbis will officiate alongside Orthodox rabbis, and where the conversion itself will be performed in the final phase at a bet din, or religious court, recognized by the Chief Rabbinate, in other words, Orthodox. However, because of the strict requirements at Orthodox establishment courts, the number of conversions performed on the basis of the Neeman Committee's recommendations and through Rabbi Druckman's conversion administration was very small. After the Interior Ministry refused to register "pop-over" converts as Jews, those individuals petitioned the High Court of Justice in 1999. When I became interior minister in March 2003, I thought that the Interior Ministry ought to recognize conversions performed by the Conservative and Reform movements in Israel itself, without resorting to the "pop-over" trick. However, my position on this was not included in the state's reply to the High Court. Only after I exerted pressure, in October 2003, on then-attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein, did he agree to present my position to the court as a "personal opinion." [...] The government should therefore change the decision it made back when the recommendations of the Neeman Committee were adopted, and stipulate that the Interior Ministry register as Jews also people who underwent Reform or Conservative conversion. The appropriate solution of course is civil marriage and divorce, but if that is not possible yet, then the Conservative and Reform movements should be allowed to marry people and end marriages, by means of religious courts to be established by them and recognized by the state. Granting legal recognition to both of these important streams would put an end to the Orthodox monopoly, and to the sense of alienation and disaffection of hundreds of thousands of Israel's citizens. We cannot rely on conversion administrations of Rabbi Druckman's sort, particularly since the battle over conversion between Orthodox Zionism, as reflected by Rabbi Druckman, and the ultra-Orthodox will end in my opinion with a victory for the Haredim.

Attorney General Scolded Rabbi Druckman, But No Charges Brought

De'ah veDibur reports: [helpfully referred by Recipients and Publicity]

The State Prosecutor's Officer has been ill at ease. An investigation conducted by reporter Eliezer Levine showed that efforts have been made to cover up Rabbi Druckman's acts because publicity could embarrass Attorney General Meni Mazuz, who decided to forego an investigation of the affair without offering any rational explanation. The State Prosecutor's Office is cooperating by keeping the extent of the affair under wraps and a series of potentially explosive documents that have been lying for weeks in the offices of the Chief Rabbinate, State Prosecutor Eran Shender and his assistant for criminal affairs, Shuki Lemberger.

The conduct of the judicial system and figures who identify with Rabbi Druckman, such as Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, who once served as head of the Conversion Authority, is highly suspect. In his letter the Attorney General lists numerous faults in Rabbi Druckman's conduct. Similarly letters by Rabbi Rosen indicate he viewed the matter in a very serious light and was debating whether Rabbi Druckman is worthy of sitting on the panel of a conversion beis din.

Yet surprisingly they recently chose to refer to the incriminating facts as a matter of little consequence. In an inexplicable move, various figures decided to back Rabbi Druckman and point a finger at the dayanim who stood up to him, merely doing their job by gathering the facts, particularly Rabbi Druckman's testimony, in order to issue a ruling.

From a legal angle the Attorney General views Rabbi Druckman's acts with great severity. Quoting a letter the Attorney General sent to Rabbi Druckman several months ago under the heading "Complaints Regarding Failures and Defects in Your Conduct," Mazuz writes, "I cannot accept your explanation as sufficient reason to sign an official document that does not properly reflect what is written in it. We are dealing with a conversion certificate, which according to the law in Israel has ramifications in terms of how the individual is registered and his or her status. As such those who sign these documents must list every detail meticulously."

Mazuz goes on to reproach Rabbi Druckman for his conduct. "Conversion dayanim representing the State should avoid performing conversions outside of Israel. The dayanim are supposed to perform conversions within the framework of the government system, which has guidelines and limitations on accepting conversion candidates, in part based on the legal situation in Israel which grants converts citizenship. In accordance with Interior Ministry directives, converts are not to undergo government conversion unless they are present in Israel." Mazuz cites a High Court ruling (Guzman vs. the State), which determined, "The beis din decision to stipulate the conversion conditions are only provided while the candidate is in Israel is a proper one."

Atty. Mazuz also discusses Rabbi Druckman's conflicting roles, i.e. serving as a government conversion dayan and at the same time as a private dayan. "A conversion dayan," writes Mazuz, "who in addition to his public work is involved in performing conversions outside of the government system, creates a conflict of interests and is liable to convert somebody who does not meet Interior Ministry guidelines."

Mazuz speculates that the case in question that he was referring to, in which Rabbi Druckman signed a certificate for a conversion that took place in Europe and falsely represented himself as having been present, may not be an isolated incident. "Material provided to me for review included additional complaints regarding conversions performed long ago and which allegedly included your signature on the conversion certificates relating to conversion cases in which you did not participate. It was also claimed that your beis din converted two tourists, in violation of the practice coordinated with the Interior Ministry."

Despite the serious flaws the Attorney General pointed to regarding Rabbi Druckman's conduct, Mazuz fails to reach any firm conclusion. The police have not received instructions to open a criminal investigation against him and the Civil Service Commissioner has not even been asked to hold a hearing for disciplinary infractions. In fact there has not even been a recommendation that Rabbi Druckman, who is directly subordinate to the Prime Minister's Office, resign from his post. "I've reached the conclusion that the combination of circumstances is not enough to justify opening either a criminal or disciplinary investigation," writes Mazuz. The Attorney General does acknowledge he found improprieties, saying therefore he chose to send the letter "to call his attention" to the matter.

It seems in this case that the Attorney General decided to switch from jurist to chastiser. Instead of doing his job and taking concrete measures he is acting like a retired judge, sending the unruly converter a lecture on proper conduct. Mazuz has not offered a single word of explanation why he opted not to launch a criminal investigation, leaving his motives shrouded in mystery.[...]

Contrary to some rabbis - a conversion can be declared invalid I

Reading through the hysteria following last week's announcement that thousands of conversions are null and void, I kept seeing mistaken assertions that once a person is converted by a valid beis din there is no way to cancel the conversion. To clarify this issue let me just say that once a person is a valid ger - then the status can't be revoked. It is generally assumed that this is the same as saying that if a person goes through the conversion process and is examined by a competent beis din and announced that he is genuinely interested in converting and keeping all the mitzvos - that his status as a Jew can not be revoked. But this is not so. The validity of his/her status is determined by the intent of the ger during the conversion process. If it can be reasonably ascertained -anan sahadi (we are witnesses) that there was no geninue intent - the conversion is not cancelled from then on - but is declared that there never was conversion in the first place. This declaration that the convert was clearly lying about his wish to convert and accept mitzvos - that there was never conversion - is not some obscure minority opinion. It is clearly the view of the Achiezer and Rav Moshe Feinstein - amongst others. The Achiezer says here that if the convert does not keep Shabbos and kashrus - that shows that the conversion was not sincere and never took place

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:26.4):… Because of this reason it appears that Rav Posen is concerned about conversion these cases because they won’t observe the laws properly. However according to what I have explained there is no concern for this since they have accepted to observe all the mitzvos – even though it is true that they have in mind to transgress certain mitzvos later out of lust. However this intention does not disqualify their acceptance of mitzvos. It is only where they specifically refused to accept mitzvos that their acceptance of the mitzvos is disqualified. However where is clear that after conversion they will definitely transgress the Torah prohibitions against violating Shabbos and eating improperly slaughtered meat and we know clearly that their conversion was only for appearance sake without inner sincerity – it is an umdena demukach [a proven assessment] that this that he said he was accepting the mitzvos was totally meaningless. Consequently their acceptance of mitzvos is invalid [and they are not valid converts].

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:28): Concerning the common practice of converting women who are married to Jews - according to the straight halacha it is not corrrect to convert them. That is because they are converting for the sake of marriage. Therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him as is clear from the Rashba (#1205). While previously I had written to be lenient in these cases and I based myself on the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor 132) and Rav Shlomo Kluger also paskened leniently in an actual case. Nevertheless the fact is that there is not genuine acceptance of mitzvos in these cases. It is quite obvious that their hearts are not with the Jewish people since they do not observe Shabbos or niddah and they eat unkosher food as I wrote in the previous letter. This problem has already been noted by by the Beis Yitzchok who concluded that a proper beis din would not be involved in this. And regarding the issue of governing the non‑Jewish children…However the writer is correct that a good beis din should not be involved in this type of conversion. Nevertheless I don’t see that it is proper that the rabbis of the generation should make an open protest against conversion. That is because in the eyes of the masses it would be viewed as a chilul HaShem to prevent the women to convert and in particular their children since according to the straight halacha it is possible to convert them.

Reb Moshe is saying here that those who convert for ulterior motives are on probation to establish if they were sincere in their acceptance. If there is no sincere acceptance then there never was conversion.

Igros Moshe(Y.D. 3:106): A candidate for conversion who does not want to accept a certain mitzva is he a ger bedieved?… Concerning the subject of conversion, the vast majority of them want to convert because of marriage and therefore should inherently not be accepted. However if they were accepted anyway - they are in fact valid gerim. This reservation about accepting converts for the sake of marriage is true even if they accept all the mitzvos since they did not decide to convert for the sake of Heaven. Therefore it is obvious that there is suspicion that despite the fact they stated before the beis din that they are accepting to do the mitzvos – that they are not telling the truth and they need to be examined further. This in fact is the intent of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12): When it is known that they converted for ulterior motivation, they should be treated with suspicion until that their righteous is established. That is because since they converted for ulterior motivation, they should be suspected that even though they have verbally accepted the mitzvos but not in their heart. Since there is clear reason to suspect their lack of sincerity, it is not considered a merely a possible mental reservation which has no halachic significance (devarim sheb’lev). See Tosfos (Gittin 32a) and Tosfos (Kiddushin 49b)…Therefore they are to be viewed as doubtful gerim until their righteousness is establish and then they are viewed as definite gerim. Most of the time and perhaps all of the time when a Jew wants a non‑Jew, that the Jew himself is not observant. Therefore it is not logical that the non‑Jew who is converting for the sake of a Jew will be more observant. It is as if we are witnesses that the non‑Jew is not definitely accepting the mitzvos. Therefore it requires a great deal of deliberation in the acceptance of gerim. Unfortunately due to our many sins the situation has degenerated in many places that they accept these type of gerim – even G‑d fearing rabbis – because of the pressure of congregants on them. Therefore it is very critical to fix and create protective measures to stop this great breakdown of the system. It is certain because of these problems that the rabbis of Holland made a decree that gerim would not be accepted unless all of the rabbis agreed. This type of decree is a legitimate approach to protect the Torah and mitzvos against that which can not be permitted as is stated in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 228:28). Concerning the present case where the candidate for conversion wants to accept all the laws of the Torah but does not want to accept wearing modest clothing. She wants to wear the clothing that are worn – due to our many sins – by the average woman of this degenerate generation. The question is whether to accept her as a valid ger and if the answer is negative - what is her status if she is accepted anyway? This requires careful thought. Bechoros (30b) states that a non‑Jew who comes to accept the entire Torah except for one thing is not to be accepted. R’ Yose says that he isn’t accepted even if rejects one detail of a rabbinic halacha. The question is whether this gemora is only concerning initially whether to accept the candidate as seems from the language of the gemora or that even if he accepted – he is not a valid ger? It is certain that gerim are accepted even though they don’t know most of the laws of the Torah - because we instruct them only in some of the mitzvos. It is certain that we don’t even teach them most of the laws of Shabbos. Furthermore we find an even more extreme situation in that even if the ger doesn’t know any mitzvos he is still a valid ger. This is stated in Shabbos (68b) that a ger who converts amongst non‑Jews is liable for one chatas for all the violations on every Shabbos and prohibited blood and fat and idolatry. Thus we see that even if he isn’t instructed in a single mitzva or even the foundations of religious belief he is still a valid ger. That is because the case in the gemora concerns a person who has accepted upon himself to do all that a Jew is required to do – and that is sufficient for valid conversion. We are not concerned with the possibility that if he knew this particular mitzva he would not accept it. That is because even if it were so it is only a mental reservation which has no halachic significance. Thus informing a candidate for conversion of the nature of mitzvos is only something that is desirable, but has no halachic consequence if not done. Therefore we must say that the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:3) “all matters of conversion have to be in the presence of 3 fit to judge whether it is to instruct him about mitzvos or for his acceptance of mitzvos” – is not to be understood literally. That is because the point of the Shulchan Aruch is that the acceptance of mitzvos has to be in the presence of 3 but instructing him about mitzvos is not required for the validity of the conversion. The reason the Shulchan Aruch mentions instructing him in mitzvos is because that is what the beis din does concerning some of the mitzvos when he accepts the obligation to do mitzvos. That is in fact the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 268:12) “and even if he is not informed of the reward and punishment of mitzvos he is still a valid ger.” This wording of the Shulchan Aruch here is also not precise because even if the candidate is not instructed at all concerning any mitzvos – as long as he accepts the obligation to do all the mitzvos that Jews are required to do – he is still a valid ger. It is only because it is typically not forgotten to instruct him in some mitzvos that the Shulchan Aruch mentions that they forgot to instruct him regarding the reward and punishment of mitzvos – because it is possible to forget this occasionally. However if they do tell him a particular mitzva or he knows about it himself since he sees Jews observing it and he says that he doesn’t accept it – that is the case that Bechoros (30b) says that he is not accepted as a ger. Therefore it is possible that in this case even if he was accepted as a ger – despite his rejection of a particular mitzva – bedieved he would still not be a valid ger. However Bechoros (30b) says that he is not to be accepted - which seems to be that he is only not accepted initially if he rejects any mitzva. Furthermore it would seem from the statement of R’ Yose in Bechoros (30b) that even if rejects a single detail of a rabbinic law he is not accepted – it would seem that since he has accepted every Torah mitzva including not to deviate from the rabbinic teachings – but at least he would be a ger according to the Torah. That is because it doesn’t make sense that the Sages would uproot the Torah level conversion - which is relevant to the validity of marriage and other matters – and to create a leniency and that this would not be mentioned openly in the gemora. Therefore we can conclude that even according to R’ Yose he is only saying not to accept them initially but if they were accepted – even if they had rejected a rabbinic law – they are still valid gerim. Furthermore they would be obligated to keep even the mitzva that they had rejected. That is because this that they did not accept it has no halachic significance to exempt them because they are make a condition against that which is written in the Torah – and therefore the condition is nullified... Therefore this woman who doesn’t want to accept to wear only modest clothing should definitely not be accepted initially. However whether she should be accepted bedieved depends on this doubt and it would seem more likely that bedieved if she was accepted that she would be a valid convert. Furthermore concerning whether to accept her initially – any conversion which is because of marriage even if she accepted the entire Torah – she should not be accepted. If so it is certainly is a major justification for the requirement that all the rabbis of Holland agree to accept her conversion – even if she accepted all the Torah laws. Nevertheless it is good that all the rabbis did not agree to accept her because of her refusal to wear modest clothing. That is because accepting her with two issues against her is much more serious than if she only had one. However there is another consideration since because of our many sins we find that Jewish women also are not careful about wearing only modest clothing – even those who are Torah observant. Therefore a non‑Jewish woman who comes to convert might think that modest clothing in only an act of piety that the rabbis are trying to impose on her more than is actually required – because she knows women who are observant and yet wear immodest clothing. And even if the rabbis tell her that it is actually prohibited and not just an act of piety – she doesn’t believe them. If so perhaps she should be viewed as converting without knowing the laws of the Torah and would be considered a valid ger according to Shabbos (68b)? This seems logical – even though I don’t have a proof for this presently. Nevertheless with all things considered it is better not to accept her because she should not be accepted anyway since the conversion is for the sake of marriage. Therefore even though people are lenient to accept converts for the sake of marriage it is not correct to be lenient in additional factors. Consequently the decree is correct and she should not be accepted.

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.

Rav’ Moshe Feinstein – validating conversion for non-observant gerim

Igros Moshe (Y.D. 1:159): However in general the idea of conversion does not please me and I refrain from being involved in the conversion process. Not only because the halacha is not to accept them initially when they convert for the sake of marriage. But also for the reason that it is almost certain as an anon sahadi (we witness ) that she will not be accepting the obligation to do mitzvos and she is only saying the words with her mouth that she is accepting them. And without actually accepting the obligation of mitzvos - even it is only one detail, it is stately explicitly in Berchoros (30) that we are not to accept them.

This is not equivalent to the case in Shabbos (68) of someone converting while they are living entirely with non-Jews and therefore don't know about Shabbos or even the prohibition of idolatry. Nevertheless he is considered a valid convert because in that case he sincerely accepts to do all that which a Jew is obligated. That is a valid acceptance of all the mitzvos of the Torah - even though he is absolutely ignorant of the actual laws involved. This in fact is true of all converts. It is not necessary to first teach them all the mitzvos before they are accepted for conversion. Bedieved the conversion is valid without informing them of anything. This is stated clearly in the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch (12). However if they don't actually accept anything they are not to be accepted since this is the essence of conversion.

In fact in the majority of cases of conversion in this country which are done for the sake of marriage, they do not accept the obligation of doing mitzvos. Even when they declar that they will keep them. It is known that they are lying because they feel that they have no obligation to be more religious then their Jewish husband who is not observant and transgresses all the laws of the Torah.  However perhaps this one will be of the minority and actually accept doing the mitzvos.

Therefore I will not say anything in this particular case to you. Because there are in fact many rabbis in New York who accepte converts like these and consequently it is not for me to say that there is any prohibition in accepting these converts.

However I don't like the whole enterprise and neither did  my father.  But I am not saying it is prohibited. Therefore you should do what you think is best depending  on how urgent you think it is.

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.

שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קו

גרות כשלא רצה לקבל עליו איזה מצוה אם הוא גר בדיעבד ועניינים שונים כ"ב תמוז תשכ"ט מע"כ ידידי הרה"ג שמואל בארי שליט"א האב"ד האג במדינת האלנד /הולנד/.

א' הנה ענין הגרות רובן דרובן הם בשביל אישות שבעצם אין ראוין לקבלם, ורק כשקבלום הם גרים, אף כשקבלו עליהם כל המצות מאחר שלא באו להתגייר לשם שמים, ולכן פשוט שיש לחוש שאף שאומרים לפני הב"ד שנזקק להם שהם מקבלים עליהם המצות אינו אמת וצריך לבדוק ביותר. וזהו כוונת הש"ע יו"ד סימן רס"ח סעי' י"ב בנודע שבשביל דבר הוא מתגייר חוששים לו עד שתתברר צדקתו, והוא משום דכיון שבשביל דבר נתגייר יש לחוש שמא אף שקבל המצות בפיו לא קבלם בלבו, וכיון שיש טעם וסברא לחוש לזה הוא כאנן סהדי שיש ספק שאין בזה שוב משום דברים שבלב אינם דברים, עיין בתוס' גיטין דף ל"ב ע"א ד"ה מהו ובקידושין דף מ"ט ע"ב ד"ה דברים ואף ששם איירי בדבר שאנן סהדי בודאי על מה שבלבו מסתבר דכשיש טעם ברור להסתפק הוא כאנן סהדי שיש ספק שלכן חוששין לו להחזיקו רק כספק גר עד שתתברר צדקתו ויעשה בדין גר ודאי. וברוב הפעמים ואולי גם כל הפעמים הרי הבן ישראל שרוצה בנכרית ובת ישראל הרוצה בנכרי אינם שומרי תורה בעצמם, שלא מסתבר שהנכרי והנכרית שמתגיירין בשבילם ישמרו דיני התורה יותר מהם שהוי כאנן סהדי שאין מקבלין המצות בודאי שלכן צריך ישוב הדעת גדול בקבלת גרים. ובעוה"ר נתפרץ כל כך בהרבה מקומות שמקבלין אותן גם רבנים יראי ה' מפני הלחץ והדחק מבע"ב עליהם, ולכן הרי נחוץ מאד לתקן ולגדור בעד הפרצה הגדולה, ובודאי בשביל זה עשו רבני האלאנד תקנה שלא לקבל גר וגיורת אלא בהסכמת כל הרבנים, והוא בכלל תקנות לגדר ולסייג לתורה ולדבר מצוה שאין יכולין להתיר כמפורש /שו"ע יו"ד/ בסימן רכ"ח סעי' כ"ח וכדכתב כתר"ה.

והנה בעובדא זו שכתר"ה שהגיורת רוצה לקבל כל דיני התורה אבל אינה רוצה לקבל תלבושת נשים צנועות אלא להתלבש בבגדים שמתלבשות בעוה"ר סתם הנשים שבדור פרוץ הזה, אם יכולים לקבל מדינא גיורת כזו ואיך הוא בדיעבד כשקבלוה אם היא גיורת, נראה דיש לדון בזה. דהנה בבכורות דף ל' ע"ב איתא נכרי שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ולר"י ב"ר יהודה אפילו דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים, ויש להסתפק אם הוא רק דין דלכתחלה וכלשון אין מקבלין שמשמע לכתחלה, או שגם בדיעבד אינו גר. ואף שודאי מקבלין גרים אף שלא ידעי רוב דיני התורה שהרי מודיעין אותם רק מקצת מצות, ופשוט שאף רוב דיני שבת אין מודיעין אותן, וגם מצינו עוד יותר שאף שלא ידע הגר שום מצוה הוא גר, דהא מפורש בשבת דף ס"ח ע"ב גר שנתגייר בין הנכרים חייב חטאת אחת על כל מלאכות של כל השבתות ועל הדם אחת ועל החלב אחת ועל ע"ז אחת, הרי נמצא שלא הודיעוהו שום מצוה אף לא עיקרי האמונה ומ"מ הוא גר, הוא משום דאיירי שקבל עליו לעשות כל מה שהיהודים צריכין לעשות וזה סגי לגרות, ואין חוששין לומר דדילמא אם היה יודע ממצוה זו לא היה מקבל עליו, דאף אם יאמר כן הוא רק דברים שבלב, וההודעה הוא רק לכתחלה. ומוכרחין לומר בלשון הש"ע בסעיף ג' שכתב כל עניני הגר בין להודיעו המצות לקבלם צריך שיהיה בג' הכשרים לדון לאו דוקא, דעיקר הכוונה הוא שקבלת המצות צריך בפני ג' אבל ההודעה אינה מעכבת, אך נקט לשון להודיעו משום דכן הא עושין הב"ד שמודיעים מקצת המצות בשעת קבלה, וכן הלשון דבסעי' י"ב שכתב או שלא הודיעוהו שכר המצות ועונשן ה"ז גר, הוא לאו דוקא אלא אפילו לא הודיעוהו כלל איזה מצות אם אך קבל עליו שמקבל עליו כל המצות שחייבין ישראל הוא גר, ורק משום שאין דרך לשכח להודיעו איזה מצות נקט הש"ע ששכחו להודיעו שכר המצות ועונשן שזה אפשר לשכח לפעמים.

אבל כשאומרים לו שאיכא מצוה זו או שיודע מעצמו איזה מצוה שראה איך שישראל נוהגין במצוה זו ואומר שמצוה זו אינו רוצה לקבלה ע"ז תניא שאין מקבלין, וא"כ אפשר שאף בדיעבד כשקבלוהו אינו גר, אף שנקט לשון אין מקבלין דהוא לשון דלכתחלה. ולכאורה מהא שאר"י ב"ר יהודה אפילו דקדוק אחד מד"ס =מדברי סופרים=, שמסתבר שכיון שקבל עליו כל מצות דאורייתא ואף בל תסור בכלל דהא קבל עליו כל איסורין ומצות דרבנן, הרי יש לו להיות גר מדאורייתא, שלא מסתבר שחכמים יעקרו הגרות דאורייתא שנוגע לקידושין ולכמה דברים ולהקל בהם ולא היה מזכיר זה הגמ' בפירוש, וא"כ צריך לומר לר"י ב"ר יהודה דרק אין מקבלין לכתחלה ובדיעבד כשקבלוהו הוא גר, שלכן משמע שגם לדין הרישא בלא קבל עליו דבר אחד מדיני התורה נמי הוא רק דין שלכתחלה אין מקבלין אבל בדיעבד כשקבלוהו הוא גר, וחייב אף במצוה זו שלא קבל עליו דמה שלא קבל עליו אינו כלום לפוטרו דהא הוא מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה שתנאו בטל.

ויהיה ניחא לפ"ז מה שהלל קבל את הגר שלא קבל עליו תורה שבע"פ דמפורש ברש"י שבת דף ל"א ע"א דתיכף גייריה, דהא הקשה רש"י מחוץ לדבר אחד שלא מקבלין, ואם לא גייריה ממש אלא לאחר שקבל עליו גם תורה שבע"פ לא היה שייך להקשות כלל. ופלא על מהרש"א בח"א שעל העובדא דגיירני ע"מ שתשימני כ"ג פי' מצד קושיתו הא אין מקבלין גרים משום שלחן מלכים ולא עדיף זה שגייר עצמו משום כהונה שילבש בגדי כבוד ואיך גייריה הלל שלאו דוקא גייריה אלא דלא גייריה עד לבתר הכי שידע דגר אסור בכהונה, דא"כ גם עובדא ראשונה אפשר לפרש כן וליכא שום קושיא, אבל מה שגייריה הלל היה משום שהיה מובטח שאחר שילמדנו יסמוך עליו וישמור גם דיני תורה שבע"פ וגם יקבל עליו איסור זר לעבודות המקדש דצריכים לכהנים, ומה שעכ"פ הא בשעת הטבילה עדיין לא קבל מצות דתורה שבע"פ שהוא כמעט רוב דיני התורה הקשה זה רש"י, ומה שכתב לתרץ שלא דמי לחוץ מדבר אחד שלא היה כופר בתורה שבע"פ אלא שלא היה מאמין שהיא מפי הגבורה, לא מובן לכאורה אף אם נפרש בכוונתו שלא האמין להלל שמה שאומר לו היא תורה שבע"פ אבל האמין שיש עכ"פ תורה שבע"פ וכשיודע ממנה קבל לקיים, שודאי אין זה קבלה שא"כ גם כשלא יקבל עליו גם תורה שבכתב מחמת שלא יאמין שזו שבידנו היא התורה שבכתב שניתנה למשה בהר סיני מהקב"ה אלא תורה אחרת יהיה גר, וברור ופשוט שאין זה קבלת מצות מאחר שעכ"פ אינו מקבל המצות שבתורתנו, שלכן כמו כן פשוט שאין להחשיב זה לקבלה במצות תורה שבע"פ מאחר שאינו מאמין ללומדיה וחכמיה, ולכן צריך לומר שכיון שאיכא עכ"פ קבלת מצות אף שלא בכולן הוא גר ונתחייב בכולן אף שלא קבלם דהוה מתנה ע"מ =על מה= שכתוב בתורה, ואין ענין קבלת המצות משום דבלא קבלת המצות א"א לחייבו אלא דהוא דין ממעשה הגרות דבעינן קבלת המצות כמו דבעינן מילה וטבילה, וסגי לזה קבלת איזה מצות אף שלא קבל כולן. אבל הוקשה לרש"י על הלל שקבליה לגיירו לכתחלה מהא דאין מקבלין אף כשלא קבל עליו אף רק דבר אחד וכ"ש שלא היה לו לקבל גר זה שלא קבל עליו כל התורה שבע"פ, וע"ז תירץ שפיר שהיה הלל מובטח שאחר שילמדנו יסמוך עליו ויקיים גם כל דיני תורה שבע"פ, אבל נתן רש"י טעם להבטחתו דהלל שהיה זה מחמת שלא היה כופר בתורה שבע"פ שהיה יודע שאיכא תורה כזו אך לא האמין להלל שמה שאומר לו היא אותה התורה שניתנה מפי הגבורה שבזה היה שייך שיסמוך עליו אחר שילמדנו, שאם היה כופר לומר שליכא כלל תורה שבע"פ לא היה שייך שיהיה הלל בטוח שאחר שילמדנו יסמוך עליו שאיכא גם תורה שבע"פ, דהא הטעם שאינו מאמין הוא משום דלא נכתבה כמו שנכתבה התורה שבכתב כמו שכופרים הצדוקים מטעם זה, שלכן אף שאפשר שיתחיל להאמין מ"מ לא שייך שיהיה בטוח בזה וממילא היה אסור להלל לגיירו, לכן פי' שידע הנכרי שיש תורה שבע"פ אבל אמר שלא מאמין להלל שלכן שייך שיהיה בטוח שיסמוך עליו. וכן הוא במה שגייר למי שנתגייר ע"מ שיעשהו כ"ג שמצד הגרות היה גר אף שלא קבל עליו איסור זרות לעבודה אך שהיה קשה על מה שהלל קבלו הא כיון שלא קבל עליו איסור זרות לעבודה לא היה לו לקבלו וע"ז שייך תירוץ רש"י על עובדא קמייתא דכיון שהיה הלל בטוח שאחר שילמדנו יקבל עליו גם מצוה זו היה רשאי לגיירו, ובתירוץ זה מתורץ גם קושית מהרש"א דלא היה רשאי לקבלו משום שהיה לשום כבוד דכהונה מאחר שבדיעבד הוא גר סמך ע"ז שהיה בטוח שאח"כ יהיה גר לשם שמים.

ועיין ביבמות דף מ"ה ע"ב בעבדיה דר"ח בר אמי אטבלה לההיא נכרית לשם אנתתא ואכשר ר' יוסף בה ובברתה משום דעבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר, ופרש"י שאטבלה לשם אישות והלכה דכולן גרים הם אף המתגיירין לשם אישות, וגם התוס' מפרשים דהיה מטבילה משום שהיה רוצה לייחדה לו, ובטבילתה זו נעשית גיורת, והא לכאורה קשה דכיון דבמה שנתגיירה נאסרה על העבד בלאו דלא יהיה קדש והרי כיון שכל גרותה היתה כדי לינשא להעבד משום שלא רצה בנכרית הרי נמצא שלא קבלה עליה איסור לאו זה. ואין לומר דקבלה סתם כל המצות מחמת שלא ידעה מאיסור לאו דעבד שהוא קבלה ממילא גם על איסור לאו זה דעבד, דהא מאחר דידוע דנתגיירה בשביל להנשא להעבד הרי בהכרח לא היה קבלה על לאו זה מאחר שאם היתה יודעת היתה מפרשת שלאו זה אינה מקבלת, וגם הוא ממש כמפרשת אף בלא ידיעה שאם יש איסור לינשא לעבד זה אינה מקבלת זה. ולכן אולי הוא משום דסגי לגרות בקבלת מצות אף במקצתן אף שלא קבלה איזה מצות ונעשית בהכרח גיורת בקבלת שאר המצות אף שלא קבלה לאו זה דלא יהיה קדש לענין עבד זה, ומ"מ נאסרה להעבד משום דהוא מתנה ע"מ שכתוב בתורה כדלעיל. ויהיה ניחא גם מה שלא הביאה לב"ד להתגייר, משום שידע שב"ד לא יקבלוה לגיירה מאחר שלא תקבל לאו זה, לכן גיירה בעצמו אחר שקבלה המצות סתם בפני ב"ד לפי' התוס' על הסמך דמי לא טבלה לנדותה, אך בלא זה לא היו ב"ד מקבלין אותה מטעם דהיה לשם אישות ואין צורך לומר שבשביל זה דלא קבלה איסור לאו דעבד לא היו מקבלין, אבל מסתבר דבשביל שנתגיירה לשם אישות היה מוצא ב"ד הדיוטות, ובשביל זה דלא קבלה הלאו לא היו מקבלין אותה גם הדיוטות, דצורך קבלת מצות שהוא מעיקרי דיני גרות היה ידוע גם להדיוטות, דאם לא היה ידוע להדיוטות דצריך קבלת מצות לא היו מתירין גרים שנתגיירו אצל ב"ד הדיוטות, ואיך אמר סתם דכולן גרים הן ולא מסיק והוא שיעידו בפני ב"ד שקבלו המצות, אלא משמע שסומכין אף על ב"ד הדיוטות שיודעין העיקרים שצריך לגרות בדיעבד, ואולי גם זה שצריך שיתגיירו לשם שמים נמי יודעין דאנשים שאין יודעין דיני גרות מסתבר שלא היו מקבלין כלל דייראו מלקבל שמא אין עושין כדין, ומה שקורא אותן ב"ד הדיוטות הוא מטעם שאין חוששין לאיסור דלכתחלה כל כך ומגיירין אם אך הוא גרות דמורין בזה היתר. אבל בחדושי ביבמות בארתי דרך אחר בהא דהיתה גיורת כשרה וליכא ראיה משם ואין לפני הפנאי עתה להאריך, אבל מהא דהלל ודאי היא ראיה.

וא"כ גיורת זו שאינה רוצה לקבל תלבושת נשים צנועות, לכתחלה הא ודאי אין לקבלה ובדיעבד אם קבלוה תלוי בספק זה ויותר נוטה שבדיעבד היא גיורת, ולענין לכתחלה הא כל גרותה הוא לשם אישות שאף בקבלת כל התורה אין לקבל, וא"כ ודאי איכא טעם גדול מה שהיו מסכימים כל הרבנים דהאלאנד לקבל אותה לגיירה אם היתה מקבלת כל דיני התורה, אבל מ"מ טוב מה שלא מסכימין כולן בשביל זה תלבושת הצניעות שלא לקבלה דשני דברים חמור מדבר אחד.

ויש לדון מצד אחר דמאחר שנפרץ תלבושת הפריצות בעוה"ר גם בבנות ישראל ואף באלו שהן שומרות תורה, שלכן הנכריה שבאה להתגייר הרי חושבת שהוא רק חומרא בעלמא שרוצים הרבנים להטיל עליה יותר מהדין מאחר שיודעת מנשים שמחזיקין אותן לשומרי דת ומתלבשות בתלבושת פריצות, ואף שאומרים לה הרבנים שהוא דבר איסור אינה מאמינה להם, וא"כ יש לידון אותה כנתגיירה כשלא ידעה מדיני התורה שהוא גר כדאיתא בשבת. ומסתבר זה אף שלע"ע =שלעת עתה= אין לי ראיה ע"ז, אבל בכל אופן טוב שלא לקבל דהא בעצם יש לדחות מצד שהגרות הוא לשם אישות, לכן אף שמאיזה טעם הקילו בזה מהראוי שלא להקל עוד קולות. בכל אופן התקנה היא ראויה ואין להתירה.

ב' באב נכרי שרוצה להוליך בתו מישראלית לחופה שרב אחד רצה להניח לו מחמת שהיה עושה טובות לבני העיר.

ובדבר שעלה על דעת רב אחד להניח לאב נכרי להוליך את בתו מישראלית לחופה, יש לגעור בו אף שכוונתו הוא מחמת שהאב הוא איש חשוב במדינה ועושה טובות לכמה יהודים, כי הרי בזה נמצא שמקטינים את איסור החמור הזה ושעודנו חמור גם אצל הרבה עוברי עבירות חמורות, מאחר שיראו שהרבנים מקרבין אותן, וגם הרי אף אם הרבה יהודים צריכים לנכרי זה ואין רוצים שיכעוס מאיזה יראת הפסד מסתבר דכשיסבירו לו שהוא ענין דתי שאנשים שאינם יהודים אין להם להיות שושבינים לא יקפידו ולא יכעסו כלום וכדאמר אביי כה"ג לענין שבת בע"ז דף כ"ו ע"א. וגם חזינן שהרב ההוא רוצה להניח לכל אב נכרי שהרי נותן עצה בשביל זה לבשל את היין כדי שיוכל האב הנכרי להשקות לבנו ובתו החתן וכלה כמנהגם, או לתקן שכל אב ואם לא יוליכו בניהם לחופה כדי שלא יהיה חלוק בין אב ואם יהודים לאלו שאחד מהן נכרי וח"ו לעשות זה, שהרי נמצא שהוא תקנה להקל על עוברי עבירה הרשעים שגם לא יתביישו ויהיה בזה סיוע להפושעים הגדולים האלו ולכן ודאי יש לגעור בו ובכיוצא בו.

ומה שהאריך כתר"ה במנהג השושבינות ודאי שהיו שושבינים מימות עולם כדברי כתר"ה, אבל מנהג שבגמ' היה בהשושבינים של רעים וחברים ולא שייך זה למה שהאבות ואמהות של החתן והכלה מוליכין את בניהן ובנותיהן וזה לא הוזכר בגמ'. אבל עכ"פ הוא מנהג בכל המדינות שההורים מוליכין בניהם ובנותיהן לחופה שג"כ אין לשנות מנהג אבותינו, וכ"ש שבשביל טובת הרשעים שלא יתביישו אין לשנות.

ג' בעיר שנהגו לכתוב בכתובה בשתוקי ואסופי בן אברהם אבינו אם יש ממש במנהגם.

ובדבר איך לכתוב באסופי ושתוקי שלא ידוע שם אביהם בכתובה, הנה באשר הם פסולים לקהל הרי אם יכתבו עליהם בן אברהם אבינו יאמרו שהוא גר ויבא מזה מכשול שיכשירוהו לקהל כמו גר, וכן אין לכתוב כשידוע שם האם על שם אמו כדהיה רוצה לומר הדגמ"ר באה"ע סימן קכ"ט סעי' ט' לבד טעמו דלשתוקי יש אב שזהו טעם קלוש דמאחר שאין אנו יודעין שם האב ואת שם האם ידעינן מ"ט לא נכתוב שם האם, אבל הא כשיכתבו אותו על שם אמו הרי יאמרו שהוא בן ישראלית מנכרי שאין לו אב לפי הדין וכדאשכחן בגמ' ב"מ ע"ג ע"ב וברש"י ד"ה רב מרי ברב מרי בר רחל שנקרא בשביל זה על שם אמו שהוא כשר לקהל ואף לכהונה כשהוא זכר לכו"ע ואף בנקבה הא להרמב"ם כשרה אף לכהונה ואם ניסת לכהן אין מוציאין מידו כדאיתא בב"ש סימן ד' ס"ק ב' עיין שם, ויבא מזה מכשול שיכשירו גם את השתוקי והאסופי לקהל וגם לכהונה, ולכן אין לכתוב על שתוקי ואסופי אלא שמותיהן בלבד כמפורש בש"ע בגיטין וה"ה בכתובה וצריך כתר"ה לכתוב בהכתובה רק שמותיהן לבד ואין בזה משום שינוי מנהג שנהגו בעיר לכתוב על שתוקי ואסופי בן אברהם אבינו או אם נהגו לכתוב על שם האם דשלא כדין היה מנהגם. וגם לא שייך מנהג על דבר שלא שכיחא.

וגם נראה דאף אם הוא אסופי כזה שכשר לבא בקהל כהא דניכר שרק בשביל רעבון השליכוהו כדאיתא בקידושין דף ע"ג ע"ב ובש"ע סימן ד' סעי' ל"א שליכא מכשול נמי אין לכתוב בן אברהם אבינו דאף דלא יהיה מכשול מ"מ הא נפסיד לדידיה, דגר הא בתו פסולה לכהונה והאסופי הכשר לקהל כשר גם לכהונה דרוב העיר כשהן של ישראל הם כשרין גם לכהונה עיין בסימן ד' בפ"ת ס"ק מ"א דמאותו הטעם שכתב שם דאין לו דין שתוקי הוא גם טעם שלא לפוסלו לכהונה, אם ליכא חשש שמא הוא ממיעוט הנכרים דלענין יוחסין הא חוששין גם להמיעוט נכרים כדאיתא ברש"י כתובות דף ט"ו ע"ב ד"ה אבל ליוחסין לא דאף באסופי שאין בו פסול אסופי נמי אם בת היא פסולה לכהונה כגון שהוא מהול שאין עליו ספק עכו"ם, וכגון שהתרי רובי הם ישראל רוב סיעה ורוב העיר שלא חיישינן לשמא הוא בן עכו"ם כשר גם לכהונה. ואף בלא טעם מכשול והפסד נמי אין לכתוב שלא כהראוי לכתוב.

ובעצם מאחר שרק בשתוקי ואסופי כותבין שמותיהן לבד ליכא החסרון דלא כתבו שם האבות שיש פוסלין, דהא שתוקי ואסופי מועטין טובא אפילו בעיר גדולה שאף בלא שם האבות ידעו מי הם כמו בסתם אנשים בשמות אבותיהם ואולי עוד יותר, ודוחק לפ"ז לשון ולפיכך שבש"ע שם שהכוונה לפיכך שמכשיר שם בש"ע בלא כתב שם האבות, דגם לכו"ע יש להכשיר, וצריך לומר בלשון ולפיכך דהוא קודם שנתפשט לכתוב כפי שנוהגין עתה ולא היה כתיבת השמות לבד סימן כי הוא שתוקי ואסופי, שהיה מקום להסתפק גם שמא כתבו אף על סתם איש בלא שמות האבות, ולכן לא הכשיר אלא לשיטתו דמכשיר בלא שמות האבות, אבל עתה שהנהיגו שרק בשתוקי ואסופי כותבין בלא שמות האבות הוא כשר לכו"ע. והנני ידידו מוקירו ומברכו בשלום הגוף והנפש ושיוכל לעמוד בפרץ. משה פיינשטיין.

Was not sincere and never observed mitzvos - not valid convert

שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ג סימן ד

הנה בן נכרית שהוא נכרי גמור בדיני התורה נשא בת ישראל בחוקי המדינה ואחר זמן כשבאו לעיר וויניפעג ששם נמצא אבי האשה וזקנה בכו לפניהם שילכו גם אל רבאי /ראביי/ שיסדר להם קידושין ולא רצה הרבאי לסדר קידושין עד שיטבול במקוה וטבל בלא הטפת דם ברית כי מהול היה ע"י רופא נכרי כדרך כל הנכרים במדינה זו שנימולים, ואחרי עבור איזו שנים עזב את אשתו בדיווארס ונשא אשה נכרית ועקבותיו לא נודעו, ואף אם ימצאו אותו משערין המכירים אותו כי לא יתן גט בשום אופן כי הוא תחת השפעת אמו הנכרית שהיא שונאת ישראל, ומסתפק כתר"ה אם יש לו דין גר שנתפסו קידושיו או שאין גרותו כלום ולא נתפסו קידושיו ואינה צריכה גט. 

והנה מצד שלא הטיפו דם ברית הוא ספיקא דדינא מחלוקת הבה"ג עם הר"ח כדאיתא בתוס' שבת דף קל"ה וביבמות דף מ"ו ואיפסק ביו"ד סימן רס"ח סעיף א' דהוא ספיקא דדינא דלכן צריך להטיף דם ברית ואין מברכין עליו כדאיתא בש"ך סק"א ובהגר"א סק"ג. וא"כ היה ספק נכרי ספק גר שהוא לחומרא שיש לדונה כספק א"א לחומרא. אבל משמע לי מלשון רבאי שכתב כתר"ה על מסדר הקידושין ולא בלשון רב שהיה מהקאנסערוויטיוון, שאם הוא כן גם טבילתו לא היה כדין דהרי מחזיקין עצמן לב"ד כשרים והם ודאי פסולין שרובן דרובן הם כופרין בכמה עיקרי הדת ועוברים בכמה איסורים מדיני שבת ונדה החמורים ועוד איסורים, שלכו"ע אינו גר. אבל אם היה רב ארטאדקסי שמסתמא עשה הטבילה כדין, אף שאיכא ריעותא עליו על זה שלא הטיף דם ברית מ"מ מה שעשה יש לתלות שעשה כדין, מ"מ הא ודאי לא קבל המצות כלל שזהו עיקר בהגרות וגם שתהיה קבלת המצות בפני ג' כשרים, דהא ראינו שלא נזהר מאיסורי התורה והמצות אפילו יום אחד שלכן אף שאמר בפיו שמקבל מצות ברור שלא היה בלבו כן וגם כפי שרואין שעזב את אשתו ולקח נכרית ע"י השפעת אמו הנכרית אשר היא שונאת היהודים כדכתב כתר"ה שהיה תחת השפעת אמו כל העת. אבל אולי יש לנו לחוש שמא בשעת קבלתו המצות בפיו לפני הב"ד קבל כן גם בלבו ואחר זה חזר בו שלא נבטל גרותו והוא בדין ישראל מומר, שהרי חזינן שיש לחוש אף לזמן שאחר כדי דבור שרק אח"כ נעשה רשע בב"ק דף ע"ג בהעידו על הגניבה ועל הטביחה והוזמו על הטביחה שכשרין על הגניבה אם היה אחר כדי דבור ואם לאו כדבור דמי כשרין על הגניבה אף שהעידו בתכ"ד עיין שם, וכן בש"ך יו"ד סימן א' סוף סק"ח שאם שחט ואח"כ המיר באותו יום שחיטתו כשרה ופשוט שה"ה אם המיר תיכף אם היה זה אחר כדי דבור. והא דהקשה בגליון מהרש"א משחט סתם ואח"כ חשב לזרוק דמה ולהקטיר חלבה לעכו"ם שהוא ספק זבחי מתים כדאיתא /ביו"ד/ בסימן ד' סעיף ב' שכן הוא בברייתא בחולין דף ל"ט, נראה דהוא מכיון שעשה כדרך הקרבה לעכו"ם אפשר דאין לנו לחלק מה שעשה לומר דרק הסוף עשה לע"ז ולא השחיטה שלא שמענו ממנו לאיזו כוונה עשה דע"ז אולי לא מהני חזקת כשרותו לחלק מעשיו לשני דברים אלא שהוכיח סופו דמעשה זו שעושה על תחלת המעשה שזה עדיף ואולי זהו כוונתו שכתב לתרץ דהתם דנין על בהמה זו אי גם בתחלה חשב כן והכא דנין על האדם אבל משמע שהוא מטעם אחר דמסיק ודומה לסכין אתרעי בהמה לא איתרעאי ולמה שכתבתי אינו מטעם זה, ועיין בש"ש ש"ג פ"ד. עכ"פ חזינן שאיכא מציאות כזה שיתחלף דעתו ויעשה רשע תיכף ברגע אחד שלכן על רגע הקודם הוא בדין שמעמידין אותו על חזקת כשרותו, וא"כ הרי יש לחוש גם בגר זה שאמר לפני הב"ד שמקבל המצות אולי קבל ממש גם בלבו בשעה שאמר ואח"כ חזר בו אף באותו יום ולהחמיר בשביל זה באיסור א"א. ונראה שאין לחוש לזה דהרי מצינו שגם חזקה דהשתא נחשבת חזקה בקידושין דף ע"ט דאמר רב ה"ה בוגרת לפנינו ועוד בכמה מקומות וצריך לומר במאי שהוא בדין עד כשר ונאמן לשחיטה קודם לזה אף בסמוך ממש דהוא משום דחזקה שמעיקרא שהיה כשר עדיף, ועיין בש"ש שם פט"ז שכתב שכן סובר רש"י קידושין שם /דף ע"ט/ ד"ה מי איכא דפי' דביומא דמשלם שית אין בה לא חזקת נערות ולא חזקת בגרות שהיום היא עומדת להשתנות שלכן סובר רב הרי היא בוגרת לפנינו וקיי"ל כרב, ומש"כ דהר"י בתוס' שפי' דהוא משום דרגילות הן לבא בבקר ואין שייך חזקה דנערות פליג וסובר דלא אזלינן כלל בתר חזקה דהשתא אלא היכא דנוטה לרובא, אינו מוכרח דטעם הר"י הוא דאם לא היה רגילות לבא בבקר היתה עדיין בחזקה דמעיקרא דהיא נערה הוא משום דסובר דאף שעשוי להשתנות היא חזקה וכדכתב הש"ש בעצמו פי"א לתוס' ולרמב"ן דחזקה העשויה להשתנות הוא נמי חזקה, ולכן הוצרך לומר דרגילות הן לבא בבקר שלכן אף שאינו רוב ממש איתרע עכ"פ החזקה דמעיקרא עי"ז שלכן אזלינן בתר חזקה דהשתא. ונהניתי שמצאתי כן בספר צילותא דשמעתא לדודי הגאון ר' יעקב קאנטראויץ זצ"ל, ולכן בגר זה שאין לו חזקת כשרות שהרי לא הוחזקה בהנהגה דקבלת מצות, ומצד דבריו שמקבל עליו ודאי לא הוי מוחזק שקבל דהא האומדנא הוא להיפוך שרק בפיו אמר זה ובלבו מעולם לא קבל המצות, לכן אם נימא שיש להסתפק קצת יש למיזל בתר חזקה דהשתא שראינו כל העת שאינו מקיים המצות כמתחלה שכן היה דעתו גם בשעה שאמר שמקבל שהיו זה רק פטומי מילי לרמות את הב"ד ומכיון שלא קבל מצות אינו גר לכו"ע ואין קידושיו כלום. 

ואף אם נתעקש לומר שעדיין איכא קצת ספק, או שנימא כהש"ש להר"י דחזקה דהשתא אינו כלום רק היכא שנוטה לרובא ואף שדעתנו נוטה לפי האומדנא שלא קבל מצות נימא שאין להתחשב עם אומדנא שלנו להחשיב שנוטה כן הדעת, שלכן איכא קצת ספק שמא קבל עליו מצות בעת שאמר לפני הב"ד שמקבל וחזר בו אח"כ שקידושיו קידושין, הרי איכא ס"ס ספק שמא הלכה דצריך הטפת דם ברית וכיון שלא עשו הרי אינו גר אף אם טבל וקבל מצות, ואם א"צ הטפת דם ברית הרי הוא ספק שמא לא קבל מצות ושכן גם נוטה יותר שלכן אינו גר אף שליכא חסרון מצד הטפת דם ברית. ולכן נראה שאינה א"א ומותרת להנשא לכל אדם חוץ מלכהן שנפסלה בביאת הנכרי. ידידו, משה פיינשטיין 

Conversion cancellation II by a Religious Zionist beis din

I am following up a previous post with the following article which appeared in the Religious Zionist publication Techumin. I translated the first part of the article. The remainder of the article consisted of a very erudite analysis of the nature of acceptance of mitzvos by a ger - and the basis for annulling a conversion when the acceptance of mitzvos was not valid. I also included one of the 9 points in their conclusion which is relevant to the present debate.

This is to demonstrate 1) that the concept of canceling conversion after the candidate has been officially converted by a recognized court - is an accepted halachic reality 2) that canceling conversions is not limited to chareidi poskim.

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

Nullification of conversion when the acceptance of mitzva obligation is defective

HaRav Tzvi Lipshitz

Techumin #19 5759/1999

Our beis din recently dealt with two important cases which concern the question of whether the conversion should be nullified.

1) The first case involves an immigrant from the former Soviet Union who was already married to her husband in a civil marriage. Our investigation determined that she appeared to be an appropriate candidate for conversion and she accepted the mitzvos in our presence and then she immersed in a mikveh before 3 for the sake of conversion. Because she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and had serious medical issues we set an early date for them to marry. Thus it happened that she converted on Friday and the next week on Friday afternoon she was married to her husband - according to the halacha - by a recognized rav. However afterwards the beis din was informed that the wedding meal occurred in an establishment that had no hechsher and continued into Shabbos causing chilul Shabbos. The question is whether these are grounds for annulment of her conversion?

2) The second case concerns a 25 year old man from Western Europe who appeared before beis din after study in a conversion study program. He made an excellent impression and the beis din was convinced that he was in fact a ger tzedek. However two years later an article appeared in one of the major newspapers concerning this young man. He presented himself in the article as someone who had had sexual relations with men for years. He mentioned that he was an active homosexual even while he was in the conversion study program on a kibbutz. He continued this activity after conversion and was still an active homosexual at the time he was interviewed for the article. When the reporter asked him whether he viewed that he obtained his conversion fraudulently he replied, “I obtained their Judaism fraudulently but my Judaism – which is the honest and true Judaism - I obtained appropriately.” In addition, it appeared –according to what the reporter wrote – that he also was not observing mitzvos. Additional support for this is that a week after he was converted he met one of the judges in the street and he was not wearing a head covering. He gave a very bizarre explanation to the judge which was not credible.

The question we were faced with is whether there are grounds to nullify the conversion based on the facts we were presented – because of the lack of a valid acceptance of mitzvos? It is reasonable to assume that these converts had not truly accepted the obligation to keep mitzvos at the time of their conversion – or at least a number of major Torah prohibitions. This in spite of the fact that they clearly knew the seriousness of the matter. We will not go into the laws concerning evidence and the believability of the testimony which were used to establish the facts in these cases – but it was done properly and the facts are as stated.

[....]

Conclusions [...]

8. .. we wish to add that society is not always benefited by looking for leniencies in these type of cases. In our experience - when those who come to convert are not always the ideal candidates - there is also benefit from being strict in these matters. Therefore in blatant problematic cases such as these there is justification to follow the stricter halachic views in order that these candidates for conversion should be fully aware that joining the Jewish people is not something they should take lightly and is not automatic. Further by being strict in these cases it makes them aware that they need to fully accept the mitzvos with honesty and integrity.

New Yorkers flooded with unsolicited book pushing religious change

 https://nypost.com/2022/03/19/new-yorkers-flooded-with-unsolicited-book-pushing-religious-change/

It’s junk mail for Jesus.

A California man took his proselytizing to New York, flooding mailboxes with unsolicited copies of his 85-page self-published book.

The purple envelopes, which appeared in several Manhattan neighborhoods this month, contain “Changed” by Tom Cantor, detailing his path from a Jewish upbringing to embracing Jesus Christ.

Christian missionary group targets evangelists to convert Jews in New York

 https://www.thejc.com/news/world/christian-missionary-group-targets-evangelists-to-convert-jews-in-new-york-5cu8wutKOA5yjvYrP7Cxrq

A Christian missionary group is recruiting evangelists to target “our beloved Jewish people” in New York with the “good news” of Jesus, the JC can reveal.

Chosen People Ministries is advertising the upcoming trip for trainee missionaries as “Shalom New York”.

The group says its mission is to “pray for, evangelise, disciple, and serve Jewish people everywhere”.

Its promotional material says: “Believers from all over the United States will gather in New York City to proclaim the good news of Messiah Yeshua [Jesus Christ] to our beloved Jewish people.

The Western Wall is for all Jews - opinion

 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-695434

God forbid if only Orthodox Jews would be welcome to come to pray at the Western Wall or at any other Jewish sacred place.