Talking With R’ Basil Herring About The Conversion Flap
In one of the most candid interviews I’ve had in a while, we spoke this morning by phone.
Herring started off by mentioning my post about his letter and the interview with R’ Seth Farber [1,2], and wanted to address the questions in the former.
“Why would we want, ask, or expect Gedalia Dov Schwartz to sign a letter indicating support for Rabbi Schwartz?” he asked. I responded that there were two reasons why his absence struck me: that it indicated that possibly the RCA and Schwartz are not entirely in step with each other on this issue (to which Herring responded “The letter was intended to indicate our full confidence in him”); and that readers were left to wonder if Schwartz would characterize the Chief Rabbinate and its move in a similarly positive fashion (to which Herring responded “I believe he does, but I can’t speak for him…the Beit Din of America is a separate entity…but I believe he fully agrees with that letter…the RCA has ongoing, full relationships with the Rabbanut HaReishit, the Beit Din of America…unfortunately, many journalists want to drive a wedge between these organizations that does not exist.”)
As to the RCA’s relationship with R’ Shlomo Amar, “It’s not that we are in some kind of heavy conflict with him.”
“The first story, as it appeared in the Jewish Week, did not reflect the reality of the situation. Clearly the second story was an attempt fix the distortions of the first story…that first story appearing on page one above the crease has caused much damage and pain to many people and many relationships. Whether those distortions are the responsibility of the reporters or the editors — and certainly I must put the responsibility for the headline at the doorstep of the editors; it was incendiary.”
“I don’t think it can undo it, because the damage is done – the old story of putting the feathers back in the pillow. RCA members are getting calls from converts concerned about themselves, who have children going on aliyah.”
As to how long the RCA has known about these changes in policy, Herring said “The RCA attended the conference on geirus that took place in Florida…[and agrees with] the attempt to establish whatever universal, so-called standards was laid out by Rabbi Amar and others. This is an evolving policy, which I don’t know is official policy…I don’t know if you saw the story in the Jerusalem Post this week, about internal complications…we don’t know what is the official policy of the Rabbanut, and I’m not sure that they know. It’s true that we did not inform our membership.”
As to whether the RCA has changed its policy at all, “We do promote getting an ishur from the Beit Din of America.”
But isn’t that one of the key issues at hand — that the Chief Rabbinate isn’t accepting that secondary ishur?
“Automatically accepted – that’s very important…in [the NYJW’s Michele Chabin’s] original [story], the word ‘automatically’ was put in, and then it was taken out by her editors. To say it’s not automatically accepted means they will look at it…to our knowledge not one person who’s walked in with an ishur has had their conversion rejected. Not one.”
But if they’re not using it as something automatically accepted, are they granting it any authority at all?
“It’s a fair question, I don’t know the answer…If I’m a convert coming in with a conversion certificate signed by R’ Chaim Yankel, I won’t be in nearly as good shape as if I come in with one from the Beit Din of America.”
“The same phenomenon is now taking place with geirim who come with a conversion performed by chareidi rabbis in Israel…[with converts] from London…those, too, we have been informed, have also been deferred for review. It is an across-the-board attempt to create whatever standards they want to create.”
It’s been suggested that R’ Nochum Eisenstein and other explicitly anti-Modern Orthodox or anti-RCA rabbis are engineering this change within the Chief Rabbinate; what do you think?
“I don’t know the internecine relationships and power plays that are taking place in Israel…it is not clear to me and to us who is in control of anything…that is entirely unclear to us, all we know, bottom line is that there are attempts in Israel to establish universally, so-called universal standards.”
“They’re going about it in a way that is perhaps not right.”
“I do not believe that in its essence and in its primary motivation this is an attempt to deligitimate Modern Orthodoxy…as I said before…[however, the lack of conversion standards is] a big problem, and there must be a way to deal with that.”
“I believe that it’s an absolute mistake, naïve, simplistic, to say that this is being used to get at the Modern Orthodox…that said, are there those who would love to say, ‘oh, look at the Modern Orthodox, this is a way to get at them,’ there might be that going on…but that is not the story here, that is simply not the story.”
“We know Rabbi Eisenstein very well, and we know has ideas. [The suggestion that he’s getting the Chief Rabbinate to take on the RCA with these changes] would have been true if it was the RCA and the RCA alone – that’s only, I believe, a side-story here…but that is not the major reason, focus or purpose of these developments.”
“We have a very good relationship with the Chief Rabbinate. Rabbi Amar…I have a letter on my desk right now, that says ‘we are asking the RCA for help with the Falash Mura,’ it is very respectful. We have another letter that was written by Rabbi Metzger a week ago as a welcoming note for our convention.”
“Are there individuals here who may have this [attacking the Modern Orthodox] as a benefit add-on, maybe, but..anyone who thinks that the Rabbanut of the state of Israel is against modern orthodoxy doesn’t understand Israel; we are the biggest supporters of the Rabbanut…The Rabbanut are having their problems in Israel, we are their allies, friends and supporters.”
Two more questions: Firstly, what is the status of Schwartz’s ishur for the Chief Rabbinate?
“Clearly it is not trusted the way it was in the past; I can tell you that the Beit Din of America, together with the RCA, in this as in many other areas, are reviewing policies…this, too, is under review…indeed, as with many things in the RCA over the past three years there have been significant changes here…and a good part of that is awareness of the need to be constantly reviewing and changing standards.”
Secondly, with all of this talk of universal standards, what are some of those standards that are being aimed for, and what are they trying to remove?
“I don’t think at this point I’d like to comment…I don’t know what ‘those people out there’ are seeking, I was not at the conference. In terms of what we would like to see, we would like to see all the parties, in close consultation, talking with each other; we are happy to meet with the group that met in Florida, they invited us to that meeting, and we’d be happy to attend more meetings. The goal is optimal and realistic standards, if that is at all possible, both for couples that are intermarried, and for those who are not yet married, but plan to marry.”
May 12th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
indeed, as with many things in the RCA over the past three years there have been significant changes here…and a good part of that is awareness of the need to be constantly reviewing and changing standards.�
So the nightmare will literally never end.. no matter how much your conversion followed the standards of the time it may not be accepted under the standards of the future.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Secondly, with all of this talk of universal standards, what are some of those standards that are being aimed for, and what are they trying to remove?
“I don’t think at this point I’d like to comment…I don’t know what ‘those people out there’ are seeking, I was not at the conference. �
He wasn’t there so he “doesn’t know”? But the RCA was there! And this man heads the RCA!
Please.
Is this an attack against MO? I think so. But even if it is not, Rabbi Herring is wrong. Conversion halakha is clear. If the RCA is going to “change standards,” pony up the goods. Tell us what those standards are, so we can see what’s happening.
Of course, if one were not in control of those changes, one might be afraid to say publicly what they are, for fear those in charge may move those changes even further rightward once spoken.
SIW – Would you please try to get a list of the rabbis currently approved for geirut? That list should tell us a lot.
Good Shabbos …
May 12th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Ahem, let’s look at the statistics:
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Shouldn’t we be meikel in geyrus?
May 12th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Thank you for keeping us informed. Rabbi Herring is being honest and prudent with the audience. For Rabbi Amar would not be interested in the least bit to have a confrontation or deligitimize Modern Orthodox Rabbis and rabbinate. Far from it. Whoever knows this man knows that he attempts to be peaceful and work with everyone. Despite the naysayers, all he is interested is having an the minimal standards of conversion be performed and that no insincere people abuse the system to “convert” himself/herself in order to go through the motions and bring into klal yisroel more people who are not interested in the least bit to keep basic shabbos observance, kashrut, taharat hamishpacha. The RCA and other Orthodox Rabbis and Orthodox laymen (as opposed to those who try to destroy it from within) should applaud the Chief Rabbinate for bringing this to our attention so that we fix the problem that was so overlooked and everyone will work together to bring about their positive experiences in how to make the standards implemented and remove all past practices.
Thanks: to Rabbi Amar and Rabbi Basil Herring and members of the RCA who are interested to make the system more honest and implement the Will of Hashem through His Torah and Halacha.
May 14th, 2006 at 3:40 am
Does this willingness to “be peaceful” and “work with everyone” extend to his daughter’s boyfriend?
May 14th, 2006 at 10:03 am
thanks for including R’ Herring’s hemming and hawing on your question about RNE. it sure is a long and funny way of saying ‘i don’t know’.
note that i never suggested that RNE is out to get the RCA specifically, just that he’s taking advantage of the opportunity to. note also that i clarified my definition of what RNE means when he talks about ‘moodern orthodoxy’.
May 17th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Never mind, I found it.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:15 am
I thought it would be wise to explain some of the background let us start with the following:
The RCA has a Gerut Commision headed by Rabbi Solomon Ryback according to Rabbi Ryback there are a bit more then half a dozen rabbinic courts that are “associated” with the RCA that the RCA will recognize and allow to apply for an Ishur from the Bet Din of America i.e. Rav Gedalyah Dov Schwratz Shlita. There are Batie Din in: Los Angeles, Cleveland, Washington D.C. Miami, Seattle and other cities.
The issue is as I have experienced first hand as a Rav in a small city can be illustrated in the following story:
A Sephardic Rabbi with an Orthodox semicha of a non mechitza shul decides to convert a gentile who is not Shomer Shabbat and is married to a non Jew who is a Christian and has no aim or interest in converting. This rabbi had a relationship with an RCA Bet Din for some time and decided to decieve his colleagues on this rabbinic court by not informing them as to these facts of ths converts reality but rather stressing the “good points” of this person relationship to Judaism. The RCA rabbinic court on the basis of trusting this rabbi (who is not accepted in kashrut by the OU and as mentioned does not have a mechitza and does not have a significant institutional yeshiva background) converts this individual without getting to know him personally as we can see- at all. When local rabbi’s called to understand how an RCA rabbinic court could have shown such a flagrant disregard for normative halakhic standards as to the definiton of Kabalat Hamitzvot- they the court are themselves “shocked” and decide to ask a Sheylah from Rav Herschel Shachter Shlita. Unfortunately, they still are misinformed as to the reality of the situation even after being briefed by the local rabbi’s and they unintentionally misrepresent the case to Rav Shachter Shlita that the issue was that the person “after” the conversion stopped keeping Shabbat and was living with a non- Jewish woman. Based on this erroneous information Rav Shachter Shlita ruled that it was a kosher conversion and one of the local Yeshivish rabbi’s whom this person davened at his shul did not feel the need to be more “frum” then Rav Shachter. The “Modern Orthodox” rabbi (me) having studied some of the responsa literature could not believe that Rav Schachter could have issued such a psak as the person was known to have never been Shomer Shabbat and was always married to a non Jew “before” the conversion and afterwards as well. So the Modern Orthodox Rabbi calls Rav Schachter explains the facts which are then corroborated by everyone and then Rav Shachter rules it an invalid conversion with letters being sent to all parties as needed.
The following observations can be made:
1. A rabbinic court associated with the RCA acted in a completely incompetent manner.
2. It is quite likely that if this RCA court requested an Ishur from Rav Schwartz Shlita for this “conversion” that based on Rav Schwartz’s trust in the RCA affiliate court that such an Ishur would have been granted.
3. Given this and that such anecdotal stories are known to have occurred more then just this time it seems reasonable that an Ishur from the Bet Din of America is not to be acepted at face value unless the rabbi’s who actually performed the conversion are known to be reliable and knowledgable in the laws of conversion.
So I think it is fair that the Israeli Rabbanut like any other organizaton that functions in some capacity as a Bet Din need not respect standards of another Bet Din that it either cannot verify its reliability or where such presumed reliability has come into serious question.
In terms of the Universally Recognized Standards that Rabbi Amar is seeking it should be mentioned that in general lenient rulings among the later Poskim are not going to be “universally” recognized so by example if Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman decided to convert (but not marry) a Goyah that was living with a Kohen and was going to live with a Kohen after the conversion as a Zonah and most later authorities including the Rav reject this then you can presume that it will be a universally recognized standard not to convert a female convert who will be living with a Kohen. Lkewise, it will be a standard not to convert a child if both parents are not significantly Shomer Torah U’mitzvot and if the child will not be raised in an envronment i.e. Orthodox day school system etc..
Another standard that is on the agenda is to take the “Bet Din” component of giyur out of the hands of the rabbi’s who know the convert on a perosnal level. So the shul rabbi or Kiruv rabbi will not be on the conversion court. (This is a policy they are very committed to. When I say “they” I mean those Rabbi’s who Rabbi Amar is being influenced by like Rav Nachum Eisenstien described as Rab Elyashiv’s right hand man on conversion and a recognized Kanoi in this arena. It should be understood that Rabbi Amar is not an “expert” on conversion and I have confidence that he himself has not passed the giyur test that the Rabbanut requires of its own Dayanim for Giyur.) The basic concern is that the local rabbi’s are not trained in Giyur and as well that they are nogeah bedavar. I think that in some cases this clearly can be an issue. However the definition of trained is not so simple. One can perform a kosher conversion without being involved in all the intricate cases that conversion can involve. For instance, if you as a rabbi do not know that a man who canot be circumcised for medical reasons cannot be converted then this will not affect your conversion of a man who can be circumcised or only requires hatafat dam. If you only work with people who will accept a fully observant life the fact that you do not know the heterim for working with people who have an issue with a particular mitzvah is irrelevant as long as you know you need to ask if this comes up. If you do not know all the situations where poskim have allowed the rabbi’s not to see the actual immersion bediavad- it does not effect your doing a conversion where you see the tevilah. The point I am making is that the training required to do good conversions is not that intensive it can be a 3 month course in a Semicha program at YU or elsewhere. In fact Eternal Jewsh Family which has the blessings of Rav Nachum Eisenstien, Rav Reuven Feinstien and Rav Elyashiv Shlita offer such a course for rabbi’s. By insisting on “Dayanim” they are trying to insure that the more learned and what often but not always comes along with that more right of center people control conversion standards while this may from one side be a necessary corrective it can have its own abuses as well.
I would say that in general the desire for universally recognzied standards is worthy in principal but what is occuring here is not only the “promotion” of these standards by the imposition of these (Da’at Torah) standards by means of state power i.e. the State of Israel. I have to say while I have seen the difficulties withn the American conversion system and am deeply critical of it it does not come off well to have Rabbi Amar who barely can manage his personal affiars in a non- criminal non chilul hashem way and is a minor scholar incomparison with former chief Rabbi’s who authored Heichal Yitzhak, Da’at Kohen or Mishpatie Uziel challenge people like Rav Schwartz in such a public way.
While I can understand the concerns of local rabbi’s being involved I challenge Rabbi Amar and Rav Eisenstein to produce one Teshuvah in the last 1000 years that says that a local Rav in conjuction with 2 other Rabbanim who are versed in giyur that they cannot perform a converson that should be universally accepeted. If the Poskim of all prior generations had no issue with local Rabbi’s I do not see a reason to be machmir. Even if Rav Elyahsiv would sign off on this takanah it seems entirely questionable as to the sechel of attempting to impose this on the American rabbinate who has its own gedolim.
May 24th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
There are three requirements for giyur: Mila, Kabbalat Mitzvot and Tevila.
The issue is almost always kabbalat mitzvot. Rav Moshe Feinstein (z”l) poskened that the person must really intend to fulfill the mitzvot, and if the “ger” violates mitzvot immediately after the giyur, we may assume that there was not a valid kabbalat mitzvot. Kabblat mitzvot does not mean that they have to know all of the mitzvot in advance, but it is like giving a blank check “I will do whatever is required by the Torah as interpreted by the chachomim”.
There may be others of even equal or greater stature who disagree, but I have personal acquaintance of cases where the gerus was later rejected, resulting in tragedy.
It does not matter so much (as long as the beit din meats the minimal standards for themselves being kosher dayanim) who the beis din is whether they be local or national or official, but if they don’t know the minimum standards and/or don’t enforce them, then we can’t accept the gerus without investigation.
Local rabbis are often pressured into doing things such as giyur from fear of parnassa loss. Centralizing such things as giyur (which I believe is done in England) removes the pressure from the local rabbi.
What does anyone think that the c’lal yisroel gains from enrolling people who are not loyal to the Torah?
May 24th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
While it may be true that giyur may be done or questionable conversions accepted for parnasah reasons it also may come from a desire to keep a Jew or Jewess in the fold even when a sincere Kabalat Hamitzvot is absent for their prospective spouse/convert. I have to say that if you are ever placed in the situation of seeing a Jew going off to get intermarried and wanting his non Jewsh wife to be converted and they will have some relation to Orthodoxy it is as difficult as necessary to say no to such a conversion. I know of one YU rabbi from the 50’s who had an extermely high perentage of his conversions were in this category. These are based on da’at yichidim like Mishpetie Uziel.