Researchers decipher oldest known Hebrew inscription on 'cursed' tablet

 https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-702271

Researchers say they have deciphered a 3,000-year-old formulaic curse inscription recovered on a small, folded lead amulet found on Mount Ebal, making it the oldest proto-Hebrew text ever found in Israel.

In the 23-word English translation of the inscription, the word “curse” appears 10 times and the word “YHWH,” the biblical spelling of God’s name, appears twice, the Associates for Biblical Research (ABR) said in a press conference on Thursday night.

Orthodox petition urging people to report child abuse reopens for more signatures

 https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-702098

A kol koreh (declaration) that was originally opened in 2015 to prevent abused children from having their situation be ignored within the orthodox community was reopened for a limited time to allow for more people to sign it.

When it first opened in 2015, it was signed by over 100 rabbis around the world.

The declaration states that "any individual with firsthand knowledge or reasonable basis to suspect child abuse has the religious obligation to promptly notify the secular law enforcement of that information."

Anti-missionaries cry foul as Messianic Jews aid Ukraine refugees, Bibles in hand

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-missionaries-cry-foul-as-messianic-jews-aid-ukraine-refugees-bibles-in-hand/

Jews for Jesus and other Messianic groups are helping Ukrainian refugees in Europe and in Israel, and are combining religious outreach with their relief efforts, drawing fire from anti-missionary activists.

The Messianic groups see their religious message as beneficial to those in distress, and say they offer it unconditionally, apart from essential aid, while critics say the groups are exploiting vulnerable people in a compromised situation.

“We give people food and medicine and Bibles and gas for their cars to get them moving. We see the Bible as just as practical as all these other things,” said Susan Perlman, one of the founders of Jews for Jesus.

Rabbi Tovia Singer, the head of the counter-missionary organization Outreach Judaism, said Messianic groups were “weaponizing humanitarian aid in order to share the gospel.”

In spat over pistol, police threaten to arrest man who shot Beersheba terrorist

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-spat-over-pistol-police-threaten-to-arrest-man-who-shot-beersheba-attacker/\

Police confiscated pistols from two civilians who shot a terrorist attacker in Beersheba on Tuesday, leading to an altercation between one of the men and an officer at a police station.

Police threatened to arrest one of the men after he refused to leave the police station without his pistol, and a crowd gathered outside the station to demonstrate in support of the men.

An Arab Israeli knifeman killed four people in the southern city of Beersheba before the two civilians confronted him with pistols, urged him to lower his knife, then shot him when he lunged at one of them.

Police said they took the pistols for ballistics tests after the incident as part of standard investigation protocol, and will return the weapons to the men after the tests are complete.

URGENT: ABORTION BILL IN CT: Debate THIS Friday

• BS"D
• 
  
• 20 Adar II, 5782 / Parshas Shemini (Lev. 10:19 ) / 23 March, '22
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Leaders,
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• ALERT: Please alert the public to urge CT Legislators: Vote NO on SJR 30 {Abortion-license legislation}.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• This is state level legislation. That means we have much more of ability to actually make a real difference.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• For our Jewish audience, just imagine the impact on Jewish babies alone. Additionally, we all know that millions of dollars are expended on ostensibly "combating antisemitism," while the actual goals of Jew-hatred - I.e. physical and spiritual decimation of the Jewish People - are being quietly advanced - with support of anti-Torah-values "Jews" in office -, via abortionist, homosexualist, and transgender legislation - all without much of a peep from most of those pompously raising money to ostensibly defend Jews against our enemies. It's not so much that they raise money to grandstand, it's that they then abandon the most important work that their own self-adulatory mission statements mandate.
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Let's leverage the Heavenly Assistance with which we may be graced in this Adar Sheini" (second month of Adar), and rally against those who rebel against G-d by drawing His People and others away from Him, by providing state sanction of evil.
• 
  
• ~~
• 
  
• »»» To register for the Zoom meeting, to be able to speak, by tommorow 3pm:
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• https://conta.cc/3588ReK)
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• The bill:
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• https://www.cga.ct.gov/2022/TOB/S/PDF/2022SJ-00030-R00-SB.PDF
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Please post/ share ASAP. Thank you all,
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Rabbi Noson Shmuel Leiter,
• 
  
• 
  
• Executive Director,
• 
  
• Help Rescue Our Children
• 
  
• NathanAdvisors@gmail.com / personal account
• 
  
• USA: 845-642-1679* «»
• 
  
• * for calls and texts, but not WhatsApp
• 
  
• Israeli Helpline: 03-721-3337

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.