Israel Rejecting American Conversions
The New York Jewish Week has the first coverage of a story that’s been bubbling up to the surface for a while: the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is rejecting conversions done by many American rabbis.
You have to piece together elements from various parts of the story to get at what’s really going on, but it’s essentially this: the Chief Rabbinate has a list of 50 rabbis whose conversions it accepts, but it’s a really old list with a lot of deceased rabbis on it, and according to everything we know, this is the first Chief Rabbinate in at least a good long while to hold strictly to the list. A good many of the conversions from mainstream American Orthodox rabbis that are initially contested seem to eventually be accepted, but after much heartache and so forth — and some are still not accepted after all is said and done.
The story does a good job at delivering all the facts of what and how, but it seems relatively little attention was given to the why, which to my mind is the biggest question:
While the Rabbinate has always scrutinized conversion documents issued abroad, those who deal with the authority say that in the last year or so, it has routinely begun to question the credentials of many respected Orthodox rabbis in the U.S. and elsewhere on matters related to conversion.
Exactly what precipitated the Chief Rabbinate’s more stringent criteria is open for debate.
Some American rabbis suggested that the Rabbinate’s failure to automatically recognize most conversions performed by RCA-affiliated rabbis is a form of retaliation for the RCA’s recent decision to oust Monsey Rabbi Mordechai Tendler from its ranks after he was accused of sexually abusing and harassing several women.
When Rabbi Tendler, the son and grandson of prominent rabbis, was barred by the RCA, “the Tendler family turned to the Chief Rabbinate for support,� said one of the rabbis, on condition of anonymity.
Others disagree.
“The idea that this was to get back at someone is ridiculous,� said Rabbi Avrohom Union, an administrator for the Rabbinical Council of California.
Some rabbis feel that the chief rabbinate has become more haredi in recent years and is seeking to raise the bar in terms of halachic standards.
At first glance, the Tendler angle seems pretty unlikely, though then there’s the fact that other Tendler allies have taken the same approach, towards some of the same people. But it still seems extreme.
I don’t know that the haredi-ization of the Chief Rabbinate makes much sense as an answer, either. After all, there are a lot more than 50 haredi rabbis, too, and the unlisted ones’ converts could be facing the same difficulties; unfortunately, the reporter doesn’t seem to make any effort to determine whether it’s simply Modern Orthodox rabbis whose conversions are being contested.
Rabbi Seth Farber provides the most plausible answer when he asserts that previous Chief Rabbinates “were familiar with the American rabbinical leadership.” Add to that the implied notion that the previous ones perhaps respected the American rabbinical leadership more, and you’ve got your most likely answer.
The quoted party from the Chief Rabbinate, Rabbi Yigal Krispel, provides some responses that seem to indicate a cultural difference is a pretty key factor:
He intimated that the Chief Rabbinate will no longer accept conversions performed by community, synagogue or other rabbis who do not specialize in conversion.
“Only dayanim [religious judges] are permitted to do this and just as the rabbi of this or that municipality in Israel is not permitted to be involved in conversion, so too in the diaspora.�
That would seem to make a lot of sense to an Israeli rabbi, who is familiar with the more bureaucratic approach to religion that’s in place in Israel, and wouldn’t trust the more ad hoc Jewish organizational structure in the United States. Perhaps there’s more than a bit of disdain coming with it.
At the same time, the Modern Orthodox rabbis — as embodied for the most part by the RCA, whose members’ conversions it’s claimed used to simply be accepted — aren’t in much of a position to complain about the Chief Rabbinate’s attitude, when there are items like this from their own leadership:
Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the RCA, which is holding its annual conference next week, said he “preferred to understand this change as being done for positive reasons. The fact is, there are many people who call themselves rabbis who may have studied in certain seminaries and received certain kinds of smicha [ordination]. Unfortunately, given the realities of Jewish life, it is necessary to establish appropriate standards for conversion.�
If I were an RCA member upset about this whole conversion issue, I’d see that quote from Herring as selling my cause up the river.
May 5th, 2006 at 9:28 am
As was asserted in a recent letter to the editor in the Jewish Press - conversion rejection is a convenient tool for intimidation and retaliation in games of rabbinic one-upmanship. It’s standard procedure. Someone here makes a phone call to someone in Israel, and the next think you know, weddings have to be postponed, mikva immersions have to be redone, and the dignity of new Jews-by-choice is trampled underfoot by these so-called rabbis.
Maybe it’s part of the whole concept that we have to make conversion difficult for potential gerim.
All I know is, it’s not impressive. It’s not an adherence to high standards, either. It’s just plain harrassment.
May 5th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Hirhurim is reporting that he will give a seminar at the RCA conference Monday, May 8, 2006 (not open to the public) explaining blogs and has posted the seminar outline (with some omissions that are apparently not for public consumption).
see: ...
It appears that the RCA is taking bloggers and blogging seriously. I wonder why (sarcasm).
Highlights:
I. Introduction
a.Why should a rabbi care about blogs?
b. 3 types of rabbis
…
II. What impact do blogs currently have?
…
V. What blogs and topics are popular?
…
H. Scandal blogs
…
VI. Which blogs must a rabbi follow?
A. NOT BEING POSTED
…
VII. Are blogs a permanent part of the Jewish community
..
B. The fading thrill of scandal and skepticism
…
May 5th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Mr. Weiss states that The Jewish week has first coverage of this story. This is a lie, as The Jewish Press reported this six weeks ago — and one of the story’s biggest critcs was Steven Weiss himself, in his post “How low can the Jewish Press go?” Weiss reveals himself to be highly selective and hypocritical as well. Of course, as these comments are filtered, they may not see the light of day, but Mr. Weiss will read it, and to him I say, shame. Yuor’e not the objective, play-no-favorites journalist you pretend to be. It’s obvious you’re driven by a deep dislike if the Jewish Press. Your prerogative, of course, but to blast the Jewish Press six weeks ago for reporting that the Israeli Chief Rabinnate has a problem with RCA conversions — including those of Rav Schwartz — and then to now give a respectful assessment of the same story as it appears in the Jewish Week, without even mentioning that the Jewish Press was first out with the story — is mind-boggling hypocrisy. I’ve lost a lot of respect for you.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:06 am
this herring smells a bissel
May 5th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Leon - I linked to my previous post about the Jewish Press above; no cover-ups here. The Jewish Press story was about CRC conversions being contested by the Chicago rabbinate, and had nothing to do with the issue discussed here.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Mr. Weiss- go back and read the Jewish Press story. The headline and main thrust was about Chicago due to problems specifically with CRC and Rav Schwartz — but the story highlighted Rav Schwartz’s important ties to the RCA, which is in fact one of thwe things you got all upset about, claiming the Jewish Press was trying to get back at Rav Schwartz because of his affiliation with the RCA. At the very least, even if one accepts your point that the Jewish Week is the first to have the story since the their story is specifically about the RCA, it was the Jewish Press that broke the story of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate’s problems with Rav Schwartz’s conversions. And again, as you yourself implied with your knee-jerk reaction when the Jewish Press story appeared, the fact that Rav Schwartz is the head of the RCA’s bet din in and of itself would seem to therefore raises questions about the RCA’s conversions.
In re=reading your diatribe against the Jewish Press, I also notice that you claim the JP never even attempted to get a comment from the CRC. But in the JP story there’s a quote from the executive director of the CRC, and the JP article also stated tht they tried to get a comment from Rav Schwartz himself. So what story were you reading when you made that statement?
A little fairness, please, Mr. Weiss.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:43 am
>and had nothing to do with the issue discussed here.
The connection is that there is an ongoing and active effort to discredit the legitimacy of the RCA and its Rabbis. Those efforts involve discrediting their kashrut, the bais din hakavod, senior members, conversions, gitim and whatever else they can. This process has been conducted for the past year by a group I refer to as Team Tendler for simplicity.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Leon - I can’t go back and read it, because the Jewish Press is off-line, but as I recall it made no mention of the Chief Rabbinate — and there’s certainly nothing in my post indicated it did, or complaining of such.
The Jewish Week isn’t the first to have the story because it’s about the RCA, but because it’s about the Chief Rabbinate rejecting American conversions; there’s simply no connection between this story and the one from the Jewish Press, which was a transparent effort to drum up yet more controvery for R’ Gedaliah Schwartz and the CRC (whose kosher supervision the Jewish Press had already tried to malign).
In point of fact, the Jewish Press story did not highlight Schwartz’s connection to the RCA, but failed to mention it at all — thus showing how far from the original source of conflict the Jewish Press was willing to go in pursuing its agenda. Indeed, if you’d read my post on the issue, you’d see that I noted the Jewish Press’s omission of the RCA connection as evidence of a new turn for the paper.
Also, in my original post, I was not suggesting that the Jewish Press didn’t try to get on-the-record comment from the CRC, but that it failed to do so from the other party in the dispute, Merkaz.
I’m being entirely fair. It’s you who’s making things up out of thin air.
May 5th, 2006 at 10:53 am
JWB - And the connection between Krispel and Team Tendler is…?
May 5th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I have the Jewish Press article in front of me. It most certainly does mention the Chief Rabbinate — that’s the whole point of the story (that the chief rabinnate is rejecting Schwart’s conversions). And it most certainly does mention that Rav Schwartz is the RCA av beis din. You’re being disengenuous here, Mr. Weiss, and I say that as someone who in the past has admired your work and defended you when others criticized you.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:21 am
rom the Jewish Press article in question:
“The Jewish Press has also learned from sources close to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate that Rabbi Schwartz, who also serves as the av bet din of the Rabbinical Council of America’s Beth Din of America, continues to issue certifications, or ishurim, for conversions across the country in which he has not personally participated. In some of those cases, non-Orthodox clergy sat on the conversion panel. Several of the cases were recently rejected by the Chief Rabbinate notwithstanding Rabbi Schwartz’s certifications.”
May 5th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Leon - It’s entirely clear from the citation you provide that the Chief Rabbinate angle was a side-angle brought in to add legitimacy to the main point, and not the thrust of the story, and is certainly not, as you put it “the whole point of the story.”
The point of the Jewish Press story was to deligitimize the CRC and Schwartz as part of its larger campaign against those who had attacked Tendler. It had no reasonable support for its primary assertion — that CRC conversions were being challenged in Chicago — and was particularly grotesque for going to such absurd lengths in attempting to deligitimize people’s conversions just to find a new way to dig at those it had in its pro-Tendler sights. And all of this atrociousness was compounded by the fact that the Jewish Press used its consciously unethical and inaccurate form of reporting to do so.
The NYJW story is entirely about the Chief Rabbinate and the RCA, and it’s a factually-based item with (mostly) legitimate sourcing indicating precisely what’s going on.
These are fundamentally different stories, and my criticism of the Jewish Press story only serves to highlight the relative quality and differentiated approach and attitude of the NYJW story.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:30 am
>JWB - And the connection between Krispel and Team Tendler is…?
1) Team Tendler through their mouthpiece the Jewish Press AND others has been disparaging the authority of the RCA, its members and its coversions for a year.
2) Who do you think has been putting out #1? Team Tendler.
3) Where do you think the Chief Rabbanute’s information is coming from? Team Tendler.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:34 am
JWB - Your jump from 2 to 3 has no specific factual basis. As I note in my post, it’s entirely possible that non-RCA American rabbis are having their conversions challenged, too; unfortunately, the reporter didn’t care to research that, so we can’t say for sure, either way. Fundamentally, we simply don’t have nearly enough information to posit that the change is owing either to the Tendler situation or to haredi-ization on the part of the Chief Rabbinate.
I noted in my post what seems to make the most sense.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:46 am
With all due respect, Mr. Weiss, you’re talking out of your you-know-what. I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation. I’ve already showed how you were being less than truthful in characterizing what the Jewish Press article did or didn’t say, and all you can do in turn is continue to make vague statements about differing motives, sourcing, and the like. You don’t even attempt to explain why you said the Jewish Press story did not mention the RCA or the Chief Rabinnate when in fact it did, or why in your March 23 post you claimed the Jewish Press did not bother to contact the CRC for comment when in fact the article plainly stated it did and actually featured a quote from the CRC executive director. Your hubris astounds me. Bottom line is, there;s nothing in the Jewish Week’s story that contradicts or puts the lie to anything the Jewish Press said weeks earlier.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:47 am
1) Why do you think Team Tendler went to Israel to the bais din of the Chief rabbanute? Because they could be manipulated and misled. Because they are considered friendly to Team Tendler.
2) Why do you think this change has occured so recently and specifically with conversions Rav Schwartz signed off on?
Make some inquiries. This is just more of Team Tendler’s smear campaign against the institution of the RCA.
May 5th, 2006 at 11:54 am
Leon - Wow, what an act of manipulation you’ve pulled. I only said in a comment in response to yours that “as I recall” the Jewish Press story didn’t mention the rabbinate, and you’re turning that into an act of conscious mischaracterization in which I was “less than truthful.”
You then go on to repeat claims against me and/or about the articles that I’ve adequately and clearly explained above.
You either have a severe inability to properly read and process information, or are a liar.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
>You either have a severe inability to properly read and process
>information, or are a liar.
Isn’t that the criteria for working at the Jewish Press?
May 5th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I think you have the wrong link above, the correct link is: ...
May 5th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Greg - Thanks; fixed.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
“Isn’t that the criteria for working at the Jewish Press?”
It also doesn’t hurt your prospects for employment at the Jewish Press if ….
A) You are an indicted felon and thief like one of their writers
B) You go to NY Magazine to publicize a tremendous Chillul Hashem like one of their owners
C) You are a sexual deviant and philanderer who abuses the fiduciary duties of the rabbinate
D) You engage in motzee shem ra befarhesya to smear the good names of rabbonim at the Chicago beis din and elsewhere
E) You are a laughing stock of the Jewish community for having zero credibility and looking foolish everytime you write something
I should also mention that if you are obnoxious and have an unpleasant disposition on the phone, you should apply for customer service rep at the Jewish Press classifieds department.
May 5th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Note that the Chief Rabbinate accepts Rabbi Ralbag’s conversions! So I guess he is better than the RCA-OU.
The whole thing is crazy. Just another reason why the Chief Rabbinate is a joke. How can you be regarded as Jewish in the U.S. and accepted in every RCA shul, but not be accepted in Israel
May 5th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I just read the article and posted on it, making the same point about Rabbi Ralbag and Tri-K.
SIW, can you get the list and publish it?
Thanks!
May 5th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
The whole article in The Jewish Week is some disingenuous rabble rousing. In fact, the RCA knows quite well that the Israeli rabbanut will only accept conversions from an established beis din. They simply don’t accept conversions from randon combinations of rabbis, no matter who they are. That is why when Rabbi Schwartz does a conversion with his beis din, they will accept it, but when he signs off on some other beis din’s work, they will not.
Cheif Rabbi Amar spoke before pesach at the conversion conference in Florida and made it clear to all in attendance, including a number of RCA rabbis, that there is no individual discrimination, but they will only allow a conversion by an accepted and established beis din that is on their list.
The story cited with Lincoln square has a seperate issue, that Rabbi Buckwald was mekarev the woman, and they NEVER accept any conversions done by a baies din where the mekareiv sits. Watch the coming weeks YAted and Jewish Press for confirmation.
May 5th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
You are misreading Rabbi Herring’s comment. He is saying that the BDJ should indeed enforce standards, just as the RCA has high standards to determine who can become (and remain) a member. He is saying that after the administration of the chief rabbinate does its homework, the RCA, Rav Schwartz and all those subtly (and not so subtly) maligned will be vindicated.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Fed Up - How is that possible, when the explicit difference here is that RCA membership is no longer being taken as a credential?
May 5th, 2006 at 5:22 pm
dan k zechus, what are you talking about ?
Probably most gerim in America have their mekarev sit on the beis din, no matter how modern, yeshivish or chassidish the people involved are. Does it say anywhere in halacha that a mekarev is disqualified as a nogaya badavar ?
Regarding Rabbi Buchwald, there are issues that are very unique to him, where I could see many rabbonim possibly not accepting his standard. They take issue with his Shabbat Across America program targeted to Reform & Conservative temples and say that he is not the kind of rabbi to listen to gedolim.
May 5th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I always wondered about the validity of many modern orthodox conversions. Unless someone truly accepts all the mitzvos, something which is only known in the elyonim, they do not receive a Yiddishe neshama. Considering that many modern orthodox could not care less about keeping various mitzvos, how could someone in those circles with that kind of attitude have a proper geirus ? Examples of what I mean include not being careful about “hachana” on Shabbos and shemiras negiah which is all but non-existent on the Upper West Side. Many modern orthodox have the attitude that they do not need to keep those mitzvos, as opposed to admitting that they succumb to yetzer hara.
May 6th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
As a Reform Jew, I guess I have no dog in this fight.
But it remains galling that while I respect the authenticity of Orthodox Jews, they devalue and denigrate mine. Isn’t that kind of internecine disrespect and strife the traditional reason given for the fall of the second Temple.
May 6th, 2006 at 9:13 pm
Does it say anywhere in halacha that a mekarev is disqualified as a nogaya badavar
I think Boaz was Ruth’s mekarev.
May 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
David in D.C.,
Orthodoxy has nothing against the rank and file of the “Reform” movement. Orthodoxy is simply a fancy title for the way Judaism has always been practiced since Sinai. Our beef is with the leaders of your movement, especially the founding fathers, who were educated enough to know right from wrong, but made a choice to abandon the faith in order to do as they pleased. The rift that this group of people caused in Germany was destructive to our religion. You speak of “internecine disrespect”. Internecine derives from “internecinus”, the Latin word for destructive.
May 6th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
To David in DC
Stop talking about the how orthodox Jews “devalue and denigrate” your authenticity!
The Reform movement by its very nature is not authentic. Up till just a few years ago they didn’t even recognize the State of Israel (just like the Satmars).
Stop talking about the “traditional reason” given for the fall of the 2nd Temple …
your movement does not accept any of the reasons our sages gave!
Talking about reasons, I’ll give you one
Some historians, however, believe that the reason 6 million Jews were brutally murdered was because Orthodox Jewry did not fight strongly against the rise of the Reform movement, that started oddly enough in Germany!
Think about that.
May 6th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Lumpy Rutherford,
Excellent point, as Boaz was also the gadol hador at the time. There is an even better example in Nach of a different gadol hador who was mekarev a former prostitute. If anyone tried that today, they would be scandalized to no end by the all the freelance and organized muckrakers out there. This is exactly what happened to one contemporary talmid chochom in Israel who was lambasted by the secular press for marrying a giyores who formerly worked as a stripper or the like in France. After they gave this poor rabbi a pounding, he meekly informed them that he has a psul in his reproductive organ that precludes him from marrying anyone but a giyores.
May 6th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Shrink,
I don’t know that your assessment is correct. Gedolei Tora that I have heard quoted, ascribing possible reasons for the Shoa, do not mention that the Reform movement was insuffuciently opposed. There is a concept that they do mention, borrowing from Medrash in parshas Noach that there are times that the punitive force “Andralamusya” visits because of the wicked, but does not distinguish between good and evil. If there there were any inital shortcomings in opposing the Reform, I would venture to say that Rav Shamshon Refoel Hirsch more than made up for it.
May 6th, 2006 at 10:19 pm
I agree with you “something s” but I was just answering David, since he was quoting the Chazal, which the reform movement dont even recognize …
This reason that I gave used to circulate during the 1
May 6th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
got cut off
during the 1950’s … when I was a child
My father lost a wife and two children and his whole immediate family and so did my mother!
May 6th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
“Orthodoxy is simply a fancy title for the way Judaism has always been practiced since Sinai.”
False, unless the claim includes the unwritten historic reality of change in the practice of Judaism. There have been a “few” changes between then and now, and even in the days of the writing of the Gemara they recognized this fact and wrote the cute story of Moses looking down at the Yeshiva not recognizing the law being attributed to him. The halacha has always changed, as it must, to reconcile the dynamic tension of the ways of the past with the needs of the present.
May 6th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
Stinky: Orthodoxy is simply Judaism as its been practiced since Sinai? At Sinai we all dressed like 17th century Poles and and followed self-proclaimed rebbes? I think not. At Sinai we dressed liked escaped Egyptian slaves and followed the guy whose faith in the Eternal led him to action.
Judaism has been dynamic through the millenia. We were nomads in the desert, we we’re agrarians when we settled ba-aretz. We survived in a million different ways in the galut, as shopkeepers and peddlers, tailors and milkmen. And we have always adopted new minhagim as fit our circumstances.
Sephardim’s and Askenazim differ over whether legumes are kosher l’pesach. The different paths they follow are obviously related to the normal staples of their diet in vastly different climates and cultures. You think either (or both) of those divergences came from Sinai? Not to put too fine a point on it, but in technical terms of formal logic, that’s called poppycock. (Except among logicians in America’s wild west, where thay called it horsefeathers). (I may have cleaned up the feathers part.)
Shrinky: up until a few years ago? I think not. Reform Jews learned the lesson of the Holocaust and became Zionists more than half a century ago. And America’s Rabbi Wise wised up to Zionism long before that.
The libel that Reform Judaism somehow caused the Holocaust is vile beyond words. Hiding behind “some historians” to promote that libel compunds the vileness with cowardice and duplicity.
Aim higher, my misguided cousins.
Free hint: any commenter who directs me to “stop talking” about a particular topic betrays the weakness of his or her position. Even if I’m wrong, the cure for bad speech is more speech, not heckling the speaker into silence.
May 7th, 2006 at 5:16 am
As someone who has had experience with the Rabbanut on conversion issues, I do not think this has anything to do with Tendler. I spoke four years ago with Rabbi Ehrentreu of Israel (son of R. Ehrentreu from London), who works for the Rabbanut, and he was very wary of conversions from Rabbi Gedalya Schwartz. While he admited that Rabbi Schwartz was a scholar of merit, he still had reservations about conversions signed by him. I believe the reason is that Rabbi Schwartz accepts conversions from Rabbis that he himself ordained who are not strictly speaking Orthodox (their congregations have mixed seating).
As for Ralbag, the only reason that his conversions (and gitting, by the way) are recognized by the rabbanut is that the Ralbag family is heavily connected in the Rabbanut. There is a strange respect for the man in Israeli circles, even though he is in the dog house in the US.
Mordy Tendler, by the way, is also respected in Rabbanut circles, although I have had a hard time understanding why.
May 7th, 2006 at 7:11 am
why should all RCA rabbis be accepted? To get on the RCA, all you need is semicha from YU. And wasn’t there a discussion on the blogs around Chag Hasemikha how much semicha from YU is worth? The Rabanut is right, a beis din for geirus should be made up of dayanim (those with yadin yadin) not your 24 year old YU guy who took a few SR’s on geirus
May 7th, 2006 at 9:57 am
David in DC,
Your ignorant and facetious rebuttal that dodges the issue, just doesn’t cut it. Though thanks for your stroll down memory lane with your Galut timeline. You prove my point exactly in invoking escaped slaves from Egypt. The way of Orthodoxy and Torah-true Judaism is that we dress a certain, modest way. Although we had sunk to very low depths in Egypt, we still merited redemption because we did not change our way of dress to imitate that of the idolators. True, advances in science and craftsmanship had not yet afforded us an opportunity to don the tailored clothes of 1800s Poland. So what ?
You mention a faith in the “Eternal”, something that has never been a prerequisite for good standing in the Reform movement. Are you sure of which movement you identify with ? You confuse minhagim with a wholesale abandonment of mitzvos. And yes, if you had ever studied Scripture and Talmud in depth, you would know that the Torah itself called at Sinai for allowing different minhagim. Reform and COnservative have always rejected the concept of Torah from Sinai, so there’s no surprise there. Maybe you should sign up for beginner courses at Aish Hatorah so you can learn a thing or two. Your current strategy of throwing out terms like “poppycock” when you know nothing, does not exactly make for an informed opinion.
May 7th, 2006 at 10:06 am
Neo-Conservaguy,
The only thing that’s false is your absurd claim that halacha changes. That’s so typical of the Conservative movement which keeps stripping the Torah of it’s principles so they can chase every materialistic pursuit. When the fressers at JTS decided they wanted to stuff their faces with expensive caviar, the latest thing to go, was the prohibition against eating sturgeon.
May 7th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Gerut Expert,
I have spoken over the weekend with charedi rabbis involved in gerus. They are no fans of the Israeli govt rabbinate, but say that the rabbanut should have acted earlier against certain sham conversions that are rubber-stamped by the RCA. Another potentially huge problem looming at the RCA is the coming acceptance of the jokers from “Chovavei Torah” as rabbis.
As far as the Ralbags, they are another joke. Between their questionable hashgocha (I’m being diplomatic) and the sham titles they throw around, like the raavad and gaavad of Amsterdam, you have to wonder. Just for the record, charedi Jews from Holland are furious at them for that carpetbagger use of those titles. And here’s a hilarious anecdote. The old man’s grandson attended Yeshiva Torah Temimah. One day, the children brought food to class as part of an activity. The rebbe inspected the kashrus of every item and confiscated the little baggie that lay on the Ralbag boy’s desk. Daddy Ralbag called the yeshiva to make a hullabaloo.
Tendler is self-destructing, so just leave him be.
May 7th, 2006 at 10:53 am
Where can I get a list of the official rabbi’s who can do conversion? Are there any in the midwest
May 7th, 2006 at 11:16 am
a) Giving reasons for the Holocaust — and especiallly conveniently pinning it on anyone other than ourselves — is equally decried by many Gedolei Yisroel.
b) When I was a bochur in Yeshiva I used to earn some pocket money by translating a weekly “Torah sheet” from Hebrew to English for a Sephardic organization in Florida. One week they had a quote from one of their Rabbis that the reason the Holocaust did not affect Sephardic Jews as much as it did Ashkenazic was because they were more careful in kavod beis hakneses (respecting the synagogue). I refused to translate it that week, as that is as vile as the statements higher up on this thread.
c) Self-righteousness has never had a positive impact on anyone. There’s a lot that could be said to David or NCG, but in the context of the tone used earlier, there’s–understandably–no way any of it could be heard.
d) To Something Stinks re: the mekarev: I don’t know about past policy, but Rabbi Block in Los Angeles has just stepped down from being involved directly in giyur because he was told that as someone involved in the kiruv element he should not be sitting on the Beis Din for some of those same people. (And before you ask, I don’t know by whom — but it would fit the information shared above.)
May 7th, 2006 at 11:20 am
To Tell Us Something We Don’t Know:
You raise a very valid point, which is probably at least partially behind this whole discussion. Many “Orthdoox” conversions today unfortunately involve no more “kabolas hamitzvos” in a real sense than many Conservative or Reform ones do.
Unfortunately, the only ones setting absolute standards or a list of any sort that people can check against are the Israeli Cheif Rabbinate. (They also offer a convenient explanation — as many of the candidates for Orthodox conversion are very focused on whether they’ll be accepted in Israel.)
May 7th, 2006 at 11:56 am
With all due respect, all of the contributors are approaching this story with American eyes. I suspect they are way off base in terms of what is going on at the Rabbanut.
With the new Olmert adminstration a great deal of new funding for the Rabbanut that was being squeezed has been freed up, including the resumption of the former Ministerial level offices closed by Sharon in 2004.
The Rabbanut is in an administrative disaster having seen an entire wave of mid level and mid generation rabbis leave when the government paychecks stopped. These rabbis are generally not available now for rehire, having moved on professionally out of necessity. There is, therefore, no reliable history at the Rabbanut today for reference. That is why the lists are not only small but include deceased Rabbis overseas, etc.
The Rabbanut is effectively starting over with a new slate of management, staff and history. America, and America alone poses a collosal administrative nightmare for the Rabbanut. There is no Chief Rabbi of the UK or France to act as ultimate arbiter. Every Rabbi in America thinks every other Rabbi is treif, and writes it to the Rabbanut (such complaints about colleagues is something that never occurs in nations with a proper Chief Rabbi Office structure, only with the Americans).
From a jerusalem perspective it is impossible to comprehend what is going on in the US except on the basis of personal experience –and most of that personal experience history walked out of the Rabbanut two years ago.
The problem is just as acute with gittin as it is with conversions. It is just as acute with charedi Rabbonim as it is with the RCA. There is no one-upmanship being played. There is simply chaos in the Rabbanut.
American Rabbis are offended that they are now being questioned when their Get of five years ago was accepted without question–but the staff that dealt with the Rabbi five years ago is long gone and no one in present positions knows this Rabbi in Chicago. Then the RCA aggravates the situation by trying to get a list of almost 1,000 rabbis rubber stamped approved. It was a recipe for disaster, and simply represented American total disdain for learning what is going on locally or how to properly manage the local bureaucracy.
The American Rabbis are going to have to stop by on their shul visits for a day and reacuqint themselves with the new Rabbanut staff, who are generally quite helpful and a major step up in professionalism from the staff of a few years ago. But cancidly, they know no one personally right now, and are not about to fall into traps in gittin and geirus.
May 7th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Different approaches,
I could name you a very long list of rabbis in many cities who are both mekarev the geirim, as it were, and who sit on the beis din. That’s a very interesting piece of information about Rabbi Block and I wonder if this will signal a new trend. I could speculate on possible reasons for this. There may be a desire to prevent any conflict of interest. I know of one case in a non-American city where the local vaad was furious at a particular rabbi, enough so that they enacted a takkana that no one besides them can form a beis din for giyur. In that particular case, a somewhat shyster rabbi was approached by a frantic mother whose son was going to marry a shiksa. The rabbi gave the “giyores” a crash course in Yiddishkeit over the weekend to be “megayer” her. It’s unclear what kind of remuneration the rabbi received for his services. There have been other rabbis with possible ulterior motives who have been megayer the very women they married. A rosh yeshiva in Monsey and a rabbi in Brooklyn, among others have come under fire for this.
May 7th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Inaccurate, from your point of view, maybe. Ingnorant and facetious? I deny ignorance and disclaim facetiousness. I’m most serious.
The notion that Judaism must remain static to survive would be the death of us yet. Thanks be to the Eternal that it’s not a universally held view.
Reform has very little absolute theology, but the one irreducible theology we DO have is faith in one G-d. Insistence on Prof. Alec Reines’ poly-heterodoxy is about the only cause the UAHC (now-URJ) ever found to deny a congregation membership.
Reines is a provocative scholar and I’m glad his tenure means he can go on theorizing and go on challenging conventional wisdom from his perch in Cincinatti, but the suggestion that Reform does not require a belief in a monotheistic G-d is flatly wrong.
(Of course, in all streams of Judaism, the old joke about the athiest father who denies hypocrisy to to his son by saying “Jews go to shul for many reasons; Goldberg goes to talk to G-d. I go to talk to Goldberg” still obtains. And that’s quite ok with me.)
Even the charge that we split K’lal Yisrael by adopting patrilineal descent is flawed. The accusers often, like the statements above, insist we got matrilineal descent at Sinai. They are wrong on the history. Matrilineal descent is an artifact of the Crusades. It protected the Jewishness of the children of rapist Crusaders who stopped along the way to the Holy Land to defile Jewish women and destroy Jewish communities.
Different Approaches: I’ve tried to take you point re self-righteousness to heat and hope you detect less in this post. You are right, it interferes with reasoned discussion. My love of a good polemic is a weakness. Thank you for pointing it out.
May 7th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
The word on the street is that this weeks Jewish Press will have a rebutal article explaining away the controversy. My sources in the rabbanut tell me that they have soured on Tendler, and wish that he didn’t plan on moving to Israel, thereby becoming their problem.
May 7th, 2006 at 6:48 pm
David in DC, the problem with the Reform movement is reflected in your acknowledgement that Reform has very little absolute theology. It also has no absolute standards on practice. I’m not discrediting the spiritual desires of active Reform Jews, but Reform rejects the very concept of a mitzvah being obligatory. I believe the cliche popular in the 70s was “a vote, not a veto”. The problem that Reform Jews face is that if you concede the existence of one God, how do you then deny the obligatory nature of Mitzvot?
I’m pretty much in the traditionalist camp here, but halacha unquestionably has developed over the years. The Gemara itself talks of thousands of halachas being “lost”. In the past 200 years alone, we’ve lost the mesora for identifying 9 of the 22 breeds of kosher birds that were identified two centuries ago (though recently the mesora has been restored for two of those breeds). However, there is a big gulf between saying that halacha is not static, and saying that it’s okay to serve bacon at a Bar Mitzvah party. The Reform movement simply rejects major aspects of traditional Judaism. I’m not talking about wearing a black hat or not eating gebruchts on Pesach, I’m talking about basic Judaism: following Kashrut, observing Shabbat, marrying Jews.
Reform conversions are a joke. You can’t embrace a culture, let alone make a change of truly ultimate value based on one 12 week course. And though I haven’t undergone a Reform conversion myself, I’m very close to a number of currently halachic converts who initially went through a Reform conversion. I say that those conversions are a joke not in terms of the motivations of many of the Reform converts, but rather as a description of how seriously, intensely, or accurately Jewish they are.
As for the Conservative movement, don’t ask me, ask rabbis like Irving Schnipper, retired rabbi of a large suburban Detroit conservative synagogue who called the movement “a failure”, or R. Milton Arm, musmach of JTS, who resigned from the Rabbinical Assembly in protest over its wholesale abandonment of the movement’s own halachic standards in its zeal to be politically correct in the 21st century. Most Conservative shuls are literally dying, with aging congregants and mergers needed. In terms of practice there is no difference between 99% of Conservative and 99% of Reform Jews. Most of them observe almost nothing outside of Passover seders, the High Holidays and bar/bat mitzvahs. Even large congregations have only maybe a dozen active families, families whose kids you will see in shul on a Sat morn or Fri nite.
I’m not saying that Orthodoxy is much better. I’m disgusted with much of the Orthodox community. It’s producing a generation of dispicably arrogant twentysomethings who think they are better than other Jews and are entitled to sit on their asses and not work for a living. They’ve created the narrowest possible interpretation of the most magnificent “thing” in the universe and it is very hard to have ahavat Yisrael for them.
But ham is still treif.
May 7th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Wait, let me get this straight.
Someone wants to convert to Judaism and rabbis are trying to stop them?
Is that what the article is saying? “The Israeli Chief Rabbinate is rejecting conversions done by many American rabbis.”
Huh?
Listen guys. We need more Jews. Do you hear me? WE NEED MORE JEWS.
Oh never mind. This is hopeless. Goodbye Canonist.
May 8th, 2006 at 5:10 am
if the rabbanut isnt being political and just finds problems with the system in america of a non central and burocratic system the isrealis arnt familair with..then why didnt they reject british canadian french german and ausstrailian conversions??
May 8th, 2006 at 8:12 am
“As for the Conservative movement, don’t ask me, ask rabbis like Irving Schnipper, retired rabbi of a large suburban Detroit conservative synagogue who called the movement “a failureâ€?, or R. Milton Arm, musmach of JTS, who resigned from the Rabbinical Assembly in protest over its wholesale abandonment of the movement’s own halachic standards in its zeal to be politically correct in the 21st century. Most Conservative shuls are literally dying, with aging congregants and mergers needed. In terms of practice there is no difference between 99% of Conservative and 99% of Reform Jews. Most of them observe almost nothing outside of Passover seders, the High Holidays and bar/bat mitzvahs. Even large congregations have only maybe a dozen active families, families whose kids you will see in shul on a Sat morn or Fri nite.”
Ah, there’s nothing like the joy of firing out those overreaching, unprovable tirades of joy against the Conservative movement, is there? I’d take the bait and knock the ridiculously overstated claims out of the park, but what fun would that be? I have my issues with the Conservative movement too, but my position is informed by first-hand knowledge. Is yours?
Suffice it to say that, hyperbole aside, there are indeed declines in the membership of many large suburban Conservative shuls, but indeed, so too are there in many large Orthodox shuls. American Jews in general have been turning away from congregational membership, which is the real problem underlying the issue.
As for the observance level of Conservative Jews, I know a little something about it given that I’m surrounded by them in my shul. In short, it’s all over the map. There are shomer Shabbath, shomer Kashruth folks as well as Shomer bagels and lox folks. Most people at shul on Shabbath drive there and park in the lot, as opposed to the smaller number of folks that drive to the local large Orthodox shul and park around the block. I can only control my own family’s behavior, and we walk to shul when we should, as do many other families. At least our shul is located such that we can do so safely with sidewalks, unlike many other Conservative and Reform shuls.
As for Conservative approaches to Kashruth, let’s get this straight: you are complaining because JTS/RA thinks about and advocates keeping kosher? Are you nuts? So what if they rule on some issues in a way that you don’t follow. What are your other kashruth concerns besides whether sturgeon? Swordfish? Soft cheeses that aren’t strictly observed during production? Big deal - if you want to be machmir on those issues, have a blast. Or an apple, if you’ll still eat those without an “OU” sticker.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:49 am
David in DC & Neo-Conservaguy are classic Apikorsim who talk in circles to advance their ideas. They do not sound like the typical Reform / Conservative, tinok shenishba Jew who shows up in temple on Yom Kippur to open up the abridged machzor to a random page and stare into space. These guys are most likely “rabbis”, seminary students or organizational officials who are honing their skills here to mislead their flocks. Contrary to David’s denial, Reform “rabbis” are on record as saying that belief in G-d is not necessary in their movement. One particular Kodak moment was when one of these buffoons made this claim to a non-Jewish talk show host. The host was stunned and asked the “rabbi” how Reform “Judaism” could then claim to be a monotheistic religion. The “rabbi” got tongue tied, hemmed and hawed, but could not answer the question. Once again, David either knows nothing about Torah from Sinai or is lying, but falsely lectures us that the most basic precepts of Jewish lineage are some Medieval invention. It’s lost on these spinmeisters that the (Orthodox) Jews have survived the milennia when every great civilization such as Rome is no more. Both of these guys can spin the facts as much as they want. At the rate Reform and Conservative are going, they will disappear in a few generations like other groups in eras past that have broken from the faith only to be swallowed up among the Goyim through intermarriage.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Different approaches and Tell us something we don’t know,
Regarding modern orthodox “standards” that are sometimes no better than Conservative. I know of one city that showcases a perfect example of this dilemma. This city has 3 batei dinim that deal with geirus (perhaps 4 if you count Lubavitch). One group is not exactly mainstream chareidi, but they are close enough and happen to have excellent standards. They are even said to be too machmir. Next is the RCA affiliated group. The main rabbi there is married to a woman who will not cover her hair, and this may not be relevant, but the rabbi’s grooming habits and appearance leave much to be desired. The modern orthodox singles in this city are not particularly well behaved. As a matter of fact, many of them are quite promiscuous. They party at treif restaurants, even indulging in some of the less severe treif and sleep around with each other. Both the young men and women will date potential converts, with some of the men specifically seeking out these “hotties” because they don’t look Jewish. The RCA rabbi is not very concerned with this. The most he will do to prevent it, is force a potential convert to rent a separate apartment if they are living with a Jew. The rabbi completely ignores the fact that they rent another apt, but continue sleeping together in sin. The third beis din, which is not affiliated with any particular group is even worse. The main rabbi there actually invites mixed couples who are dating each in sin to meals at his Shabbos table. Even Kohanim will pursue these converts in the works for temporary gratification, that is until the women learn that they could never be married by any rabbi, not even an RCA footman.
What a sad state of affairs. I wonder how many offspring of these sham conversions are not acceptable as marriage partners for the rest of us.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:44 am
I’m sad for you that so few of us live up to your expectations, Something Stinks.
In post 1 above you call me and Conservaguy apikorsim, liars and assorted other mean things. In post 2 above you disdain the Orthodox of some unnamed city with similar fervor.
How’s your medical insurance? It seems to me, if it’s any good, it would cover having that pole removed. It must be uncomfortable and I would think it would make davening especially painful.
May 8th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Yes David in DC,
You are among the frauds of our faith who do not live up to my expectations, no matter which denomination they claim. Every one of your posts was full of convoluted drivel or distractions from the argument. Keep up the good work, misleading your fellow Jews. As I said, in a few generations, your intermarrying comrades will be no more.
What any reasonable person should find painful is fighting for a lost cause.
May 8th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
And do you?
May 8th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Best writing on this topic I’ve found all day is at halfjew.com, by Bobby Abramson,
...
Some excerpts:
Matrilineal descent, or whether a child is Jewish being determined by his or her mother’s Judaism, is not a biblical principle in Judaism. In fact, the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament, dictates patrilineal descent in all instances, and it was the practice during biblical times for the children’s status to be determined by the father’s religion. Many Jewish men married non-Jews in biblical times. Indeed, several of the most prominent Jewish men of the Bible did. According to current halacha, or the legal part of the Talmud, derived from the Torah, which Orthodox adherents follow, the children of these men would not have been regarded as Jews. Jewish historian Shaye Cohen, now a professor at Brown University, summarizes it thus:
“Numerous Israelites heroes and kings married foreign women: for example, Judah married a Canaanite, Joseph an Egyptian, Moses a Midianite and an Ethiopian, David a Philistine, and Solomon women of every description. By her marriage with an Israelite man a foreign women joined the clan, people, and religion of her husband. It never occurred to anyone in pre-exilic times to argue that such marriages were null and void, that foreign women must “convert” to Judaism, or that the off-spring of the marriage were not Israelite if the women did not convert.”
So where does the matrilineal view derive from? By the second century C.E. (Common Era - or AD), a new law defined a Jew as someone who had a Jewish mother. No one knows exactly when this happened. Some scholars place the change around the first century C.E., some place it earlier, and still others later. Many believe that it came about in response to intermarriage, and was based on the book of Ezra. Others point to verses in Deuteronomy as the reason, while others believe that the matrilineal principle was borrowed from Roman law.
…
The only context in which the matrilineal principle came into play was the frequent and tragic phenomenon of Jewish women being raped by non-Jewish men during the pogroms and other attacks, which were common from the Middle Ages through the nineteenth century. It would have been inhumane to regard the offspring of such rapes as non-Jewish, since the rape victim, and her child, would remain living within the Jewish community.
So today, we have a rule that is neither based on the Torah, nor supported by persuasive Talmudic reasoning. Consider that the traditional blessing for all Jewish boys is that they should be like “Ephraim and Menasheh.” But Ephraim and Menasheh, the grandsons of Jacob (also known as Israel) and the sons of Joseph, were also the sons of their mother — Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest. It is difficult to believe that the traditional Jewish blessing would be, “You should be non-Jews!”
May 8th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
David, I’m sorry to say but that halfjew.com source is completely mistaken — starting very clearly with a target he wants to get at and then trying to build his sources around it.
a) Almost every element of the Oral Tradition — including the laws of Shabbat (such as the not driving that you — admirably — adhere to), the concept of Kiddush, the very notion of Tefillin beyonf the most vague, all of the details of Kosher slaughter, etc. — can be argued to have “not been around until the 2nd century”, and “some scholars” can pontificate about “what caused the change” etc. The fact of the matter is that these concepts, interpreatations, and rules, were there and accepted all along, and only recorded between the 1st and 5th centuries with the recording of the Talmud. There is nothing in Judaism other than the Written Torah itself that was recorded before that time. For a full treatment of this topic see Maimonides introduction to his Mishneh Torah.
b) The ridiculous element of mr halfjew.com’s arguments is that most of the “proofs” he brings from Biblical figures attempting to prove patrilineal descent are actually from figures who lived before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Judah, Joseph, and Moses all married before that time — a time at which there was not yet any formal concept of the Jewish people. At that time, he would be correct: A woman’s choice to be adopted by the particular clan was all the conversion neccessary, and there was no formal procedure. (Which still does not mean that they followed patrilineal descent at that time. There just wasn’t a formal conversion process.)
Once the Torah was given, however, everything changed. Boaz and Ruth lived before David or Solomon, and in that case there clearly was a formal process of conversion already enacted (in fact, it is from Ruth that we derive many of the requirements).
David and Solomon, our tradition tells us, converted their wives before they married them. Yet, they are criticized, for due to the “superpower” status of Judaism in their time’s (specifically in Solomon’s), the conversions are deemed to be of suspect conviction.
The Oral tradition clearly focuses on the verses in Deuteronomy — that our dear author undermines and considers no more certain that the possibility of adoption from the Romans — as being indicative of the rule of matrilineal descent.
In other words, it’s all very nice to write an article and make claims, but it would be nice if some of those claims actually took into account the actual traditions of Judaism, rather than attempting to portray clear traditions as some later added component.
May 8th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
Something Stinks — to quote our Sages “divrei chachomim benachas nishmo’im” - the words of the wise are heard when spoken pleasantly.
Your post implies that the Lubavitch beis din in your city is involved in conversions. Are you sure? Generally it is Chabad policy to not be (at least directly) involved.
May 8th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Different approaches,
Thank you for reminding me of that Chazal. Just for the record, I adopted this moniker for posting on the Tendler scandal thread. I took a stand over there against someone and his henchmen who stink and pervert the Torah. I do not live in that particular city that I described in great detail, but I happen to be close to rabbinical authorities in a number of cities. I mentioned Lubavitch as a possibility there because I am not aware if they are doing conversions in that city or not. Are you sure that Chabad does not usually have a direct hand in geirus ? I know of cases, scattered around the country where Lubavitch is very involved with geirim. I assumed that they also use their own beis din. Just fyi, Rabbi Union who is chief (I think RCC) dayan for geirim in LA is a Lubavitcher.
May 8th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
David in DC is archtypical of the warning from our sages that arguing with a heretic is futile. If he was actually interested in the truth, he would debate like a mentch and be willing to learn from others. He is not interested in what actual scholarly works and factual resources state. He has an agenda to promote a “sprucing up” of the Jewish bloodline with some Nordic or Italian shiksas, whatever your particular taste in women is. Getting David in DC to come around is just about as likely as getting ZZ Top to shave their beards.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
>> Just fyi, Rabbi Union who is chief (I think RCC) dayan for geirim in LA is a Lubavitcher.
Not true. He did not learn in a Chabad Yeshiva, nor does he Daven Nussach Chabad or in a Chabad Shul, he does not wear a Kapotte or send his children to a Chabad school.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
“If he was actually interested in the truth, he would debate like a mentch and be willing to learn from others.”
Pot calls kettle black. Keep it up, you’re providing more entertainment than most fanatical lunatics that post on these blogs.
Please, keep analyzing people whom you’ve never met - it speaks well of your total lack of credibility. Make my job, showing that you’re a fundamentalist nut case, all that much easier.
Tell me, my “Oral Torah” proponent, which time for saying the evening Shma’ was whispered into Moshe’s ear? The option during temple times? The changed opinion after the destruction? The later positions through the times of Tosafoth? Which one, my friend, did God specify?
Next, we’ll discuss the “First Mishna” and its positions, which are noted in the Mishna we actually have, the second one.
“Oral Torah” indeed. Give credit where credit is due, to our sages that edited and wrote these magnificent legal discourses that formed the basis of our halachic system.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:00 am
To Something Stinks
If anything, a common complaint against Rabbi Union (head of the RCC in LA) is that he tends to be slightly anti-Chabad, often pushing potential converts who are referred to him by Chabad Rabbis towards involvement in non-Chabad or anti-Chabad circles instead. He has been known to question whether a Chabad House in walking distance fits the requirement for potential converts to live near an Orthodox community, etc.
That being said, there’s no question that the standards employed by RCC for geirus are thorough and impeccable.
Again, general Chabad policy is not to be directly involved in the geirus process, though they may get involved in the learning stages. That is not to say that there aren’t some individual Chabad Rabbis who do.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:25 am
If Rabbi Union is not a Lubavitcher, I stand corrected. Someone in hashgochos told me that he is. Is he the same Rabbi Union who runs KSA ? In any case, I have much respect for the head of RCC, for refusing to be megayer that lowlife pornographer Luke Ford, who was thrown out of Young Israel and two other shuls. (Luke admits to all this beapei tlasa on his website and quotes Rabbi Union as saying that he is the most evil person who ever came before the beis din.)
As far as Lubavitchers and the geirus process, I know of cases where the Lubavitcher mentor insists that their disciple not marry anyone except a Lubavitcher. It’s an old story that some Lubavitchers arrogantly negate the concept of aylu veaylu divrei Elokim chaim, and believe that every other shita is in error, but further limiting the shidduch prospects for geirim is pretty selfish.
May 9th, 2006 at 9:40 am
For the benefit of readers who may be confused by Neo-conservaguy’s agenda-driven distortions,
The Oral Torah is a special gift from G-d to the Jewish people. A gift that distinguishes us from the Christians and one which dark souls who know better, spend all their energy trying to disprove so that they may feel more comfortable throwing off their obligations to the Divine. Most people do not have the ability to accept it with blind faith which is understandable. If one studies it in depth, only the most hardened heart of Pharaohic proportions would reject it. The Oral tradition transmitted to Moses by G-d at Sinai, includes every opinion in Jewish law that will ever be thought of until the end of days. Different opinions that emerge from analytical study of the Torah is something that the written Torah itself calls for. It does not include the right of wholesale rejection / revisionism of Jewish law as some of the resident posters connivingly claim it does.
May 9th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
“He has an agenda to promote a “sprucing upâ€? of the Jewish bloodline with some Nordic or Italian shiksas, whatever your particular taste in women is.”
I’m not interested in sprucing up any bloodlines. I married a girl from my home shul who I’ve known since before we were teens and I’m the luckiest guy in the world.
What NCG said bears repeating:
“Please, keep analyzing people whom you’ve never met - it speaks well of your total lack of credibility. Make my job, showing that you’re a fundamentalist nut case, all that much easier.”
Calling people things like apikorsim and heretic ought to be out of bounds. I think you’re wrong. You think I’m wrong. Why isn’t that enough? Why must I be not only wrong, but a menace and an apostate, to boot.
Earlier on you identified me as a “rabbi”, seminary student or organizational official. Wrong, wrong and wrong. Just an active, proud Reform Jew.
I regret my comment above about your health insurance and that pole. I apologize. If you’re comfortable with it in place, it’s none of my business to suggest otherwise.
May 9th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
siw and leon - you’re both wrong. yated wrote about it months ago. it’s also clear from their article that it has n/t to do w/ tendler scandal. all relevant links from my post on the subject.
May 10th, 2006 at 9:24 am
NO ,SORRY adderabbi , you need to not speak what you have no clue about!!
It was the Jewishpress who broke this story first, and then people like Mr. Weiss who start to bash them. Well done steve, people like yourself have zero credibility! find another job!
May 10th, 2006 at 11:35 am
It was not clear if David in DC was himself married to a shiksa. I criticized him for being everyone else’s advocate.
“Calling people things like apikorsim and heretic ought to be out of bounds.”
I wasn’t aware the poor fellow is so thin-skinned. The fact that he is an apostate is not decided by me, but by the 13 articles of Jewish faith required by every Jew as outlined in Maimonides.
Yes, I know, this will send David into a new froth, that those articles are “invented by man”, just like he denies the validity of everything else.
It’s nice to know David married a Jew, but with his sad beliefs (or lack thereof), there’s no reason to believe his children / grandchildren will.
Bid David farewell, as any trace of his family disappears forever among the Goyim, just like the rest of the Reform “movement”.
May 10th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Rabbi S,
Tell me if I’m wrong …. You think the Jewish Press is some kind of gold standard and there’s something wrong with Steve for bashing them ?
May 10th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
To SS
Never once did I say the Jewishpress is “gold standard”. However on this subject, I have been reading that paper and many other jewish Publications here in Chicago for over 10 years. I am educated( law degree) and yes by far the JewishPress is the best of them all. I know it is cool to bash them all the time, But grow up!
On the matter at hand, Mr. Weiss wrote things like “how low can they go” regarding the JP, yet when the JewishWeek ( a rag of a paper) writes on the SAME topic …well then they must be correct.
May 10th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
No new froths. Just the observation that my son is the a third generation Reform Jew on my side and a fifth generation Reform Jew on my wife’s.
Reform Jews are Jews. And we have no intention of disappearing forever among the other nations.
What we intend is to keep Judaism alive despite the Something Stinkses of the world.
When mankind finally moves out among the stars, as we must if we are to survive our sun’s eventual explosion, who wants to bet on Something Stinks’ version of Judaism making the journey. I wouldn’t bet a plug nickel on it.
May 15th, 2006 at 11:38 am
I’m responding to “Tell us something we don’t know Says,” who wrote the following:
“I always wondered about the validity of many modern orthodox conversions. Unless someone truly accepts all the mitzvos, something which is only known in the elyonim, they do not receive a Yiddishe neshama. Considering that many modern orthodox could not care less about keeping various mitzvos, how could someone in those circles with that kind of attitude have a proper geirus ? Examples of what I mean include not being careful about “hachanaâ€? on Shabbos and shemiras negiah which is all but non-existent on the Upper West Side. Many modern orthodox have the attitude that they do not need to keep those mitzvos, as opposed to admitting that they succumb to yetzer hara. ”
All I can say is: How dare you! That is blatant lashon hara, it is a gross generalization, it is unfair, and it is untrue.
It’s very hard to be human and to be perfect. But — and I speak as a Modern Orthodox Jew, and as a proud convert — when I do wrong, it is because I succumb to yetzer hara, not because I don’t accept the halacha.
An apology would be appropriate.
Naomi
May 22nd, 2006 at 10:36 am
Does anyone have access to the list of approved Rabbis that are accepted vy the Rabbinate? Where can I get ahold of the list?
May 24th, 2006 at 8:44 am
As someone who converted through the Rabbinate in Israel, via the RCA course in the same country, and who literally went through hell for several months waiting to reach the Beit Din and mikvah, I do feel qualified to comment from my perspective.
Personally, I do not really understand power plays and politics, nor do I feel they should have any bearing on halachic standards. I believe that Hashem is bringing alive Jewish neshamas and bringing the Jews home both spiritually and physically, which is why so many people nowadays are converting.
What came alive inside me made it impossible to do anything else but to convert as well as to live in Israel. While I am very glad to be Jewish and to live a religious Jewish life, to be whom I am supposed to be at last, and to be whole in a way I have never been in my life before (and I really did receive a new soul at the mikvah), it was not actually something I would previously ever have imagined happening. However, once the spark inside had erupted through a very difficult and confusing spiritual journey, and I came to the realisation that conversion was my only option, every single day of waiting to become Jewish was immensely and unbelievably stressful and painful. As a result I feel strongly that, while everything should be halachic and obviously it is right to make sure that people are converting for the right reasons and truly understand what they are taking on, delaying converts unnecessarily, or doubting the reality of their conversion after the fact without very good grounds to do so, is deeply cruel. Only if you have gone through the process of conversion can you begin to understand the immensity of the suffering involved.
Please will you sort out your house, all of you who have been given the immense responsibility by Hashem of accepting converts into the Jewish people, and make sure that there is a universally acceptable orthodox halachic conversion. And please do all you can to remove any unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that sincere converts have to overcome, because the trauma, pain and suffering involved in conversion is already huge.
May 25th, 2006 at 5:21 pm
I was converted 15 years ago by RABBI DR. ABNER WEISS. He is a former chief rabbi
of SOUTH AFRICA. The conversion was done in LOS ANGELES. He is well respected by
the torah gedolim of ISRAEL. He is a personall friend of former chief rabbi ISRAEL MEIR LAU. I was wondering will i have trouble in making aliyah and being accepted
by the rabbinic courts of ISRAEL. PABLO
May 26th, 2006 at 12:41 am
If you are truly Orthodox and can back it up with references and knowledge even if you have a problem it will be temporary. Please be advised that Rabbi Weiss is not well respected or liked within the Rabbanut by anyone Ashkenazi who is Charedi who knows him and his most recent life events.
July 21st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
To all concerned, I do have references and i am truly othodox in practice,belief,and
knowledge. My background is anusim. I am involved with the PINTO TORAH CENTER.
It is a SEPHARDIC ,CHAREIDI synagoue. I also go to congregation ANSHE EMET.
In refrence to his recent life events, there is no truth to ,i base this on reliable sources
here in LOS ANGELES.PABLO
October 2nd, 2006 at 2:16 am
something stinks, if you’re so observant, why all the lashon ha ra?
October 4th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Dear j3562,
First, i dont appreciate your attack on me. Second, i was merely atempting to find out
if i would have a problem in ISRAEL because i am trying to make aliyah, so next time
please check your facts. Third, i would appreciate it if you could explain how this is
LASHON HARA. If , it is , i would like to put on the blog an statement of clarifacation.
Four, where can i read in english, a complete book on the subject,
pablo