A Memory Jog on R. Barry Freundel, the RCA, and the Rabbanut

Jogging my memory by reviewing the whole history of the Rabbanut-RCA crisis that led to the revamping of the conversion system, I came across something significant (I collected the best posts from that era under the label "best of giyur")

In June 2006, Rabbi Barry Freundel and Rabbi Heshy Billet traveled to Israel on behalf of the RCA to meet and negotiate with the Rabbanut on conversion policy. There were some people close with Rav Elyashiv, notably R. Nachum Eisenstein and his Vaad Haolami Leinyonei Giyur, who wanted to make sure the negotiations failed so that the RCA is not recognized and so that a new initiative, the EJF, would be the address for conversions in the US.

To that end, they whispered some terrible things about Rabbi Freundel in the ears of Rabbanut officials. What is the worst thing they found to say about him, this group of rabbis with an interest in completely ruining Barry Freundel's reputation?

That his shul has a women's prayer group, even against the ruling of his rebbi, R. Hershel Schachter.
There are some important takeaways:

1. The man was 54 years old and had a squeaky-clean reputation. Not everyone loved him, but nobody had any dirt on him. There was nothing. [UPDATE: It seems that there was some bad behavior at the beginning of the 2000s, maybe earlier; this doesn't detract from the main point - that his reputation was squeaky clean.]
   
2. He enjoyed enough respect amongst his colleagues that he was selected to lead the negotiations with the Rabbanut.
3. The initial reports about bad and bizarre behavior - which certainly pointed to control issues but were not sexual in nature - would have been addressed within the context of a lifetime of exemplary behavior [by reputation if not fact]. I still think that I would have responded to his treatment of prospective converts as cheap or slave labor more harshly and removed him from conversion on that basis, but I understand why colleagues familiar with his reputation would have given him the benefit of the doubt and simply asked him to desist.
4. I do not claim to know how truly dark is the heart of any man, and I can't claim that I would resist the temptations of power if I had them. The moral of the story - the moral that I will keep coming back to, again and again - is that no person can be entrusted by our community with that much power over over another person.

Avoiding Extremes in Orthodox Conversion

Over the past 2 weeks, we have had 3 Shabbat guests who are in the process of conversion, two men last week and one woman this week. There could not be a more stark study in contrasts. This also came upon the heels of having done some translation work for an organization that works with potential converts, and which adds fuel to the fire.

I am not a stranger to the conversion process, nor am I a stranger to the politics of it. I have been intimately involved with a number of conversions over the past few years, I’m familiar with the halakha and with numerous modern responsa on the issue. On multiple levels, I am disheartened by the extremes that contemporary batei din for conversion tend toward and, ironically, I believe that there is a certain commonality to the two extremes.

Last week, we hosted two young men who were completing the IDF’s Nativ program. The young men were very nice, personable, and very respectful. However, they were not sincere candidates for conversion – not by a long shot. They spent Shabbat with us at the end of the program – and it was the first time they were spending Shabbat together as a group! Every other Shabbat they had been given off, to return to their (non-Jewish) families. They did not know anything about the rhythms and routines of Jewish home or synagogue life. They sad in shul and did nothing or wandered around outside. They had learned a bit of Jewish and Zionist history and TaNaKh, and that was the extent of their Jewish education.

Even more problematically, though I cannot be sure about it, I believe that at least one of them stepped out of my house for a smoke at some point over Shabbat. The area outside my front door usually does not smell of nicotine, as it did when I woke up on Shabbat morning (they had gone to a mandatory Oneg Shabbat while I called it a night). One of them carried his cell phone to shul for Maariv on motza”sh.

One of these fellows is a vegetarian for religious reasons- in other words, because that is the view of his community, the African Hebrew Israelites. This young man, it became abundantly clear, has no intention to leave his community. I’m all for giving the Hebrews citizenship – they have more than demonstrated their commitment to this country. But the fact remains that specious claims of being descendant of the King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba based on the visions of a latter-day prophet does not a Jew, or and Israelite, make. Even if this group would completely observe all of the mitzvot, conversion means becoming part of the Jewish community, and precludes remaining part of another religious community.

Upon the conclusion of the Nativ program, it is only a few more months until conversion. This program is a joke of a conversion program. It may be a good program for one to convert to being an Israeli, but not a Jew. I probably would not go so far as to say that these people are not even safek Jews after the conversion – even though the position that kabbalat ha-mitzvot is not me’akeiv or that a general willingness to identify as a Jew counts as a de facto kabbalat ha-mitzvot is clearly the minority position (as R. Lichtenstein pointed out in his letter of defense of R. Druckman, if you read between the lines) – but you can be darn sure that I would not count such a convert as part of a mezuman or minyan, and that I would insist that he or she go to the mikva if any of my kids ever comes home with one. This process of giyur is an absolute joke.

This past Shabbat we had an example of the opposite extreme. We hosted a student of my wife’s who is studying for the year at a seminary in Israel. She is the daughter of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother who was raised with virtually no religion. She began her journey to Judaism in her early teenage years and began keeping Shabbat over a year ago, leaving home to spend Shabbat with a host family each week. She is serious about her observance. She was upset because she overslept her nap and only woke up after shkiah, and she had not yet been mechallel Shabbat as a good non-Jew must. Learning, davening, etc. – she was on the ball.

After becoming fully committed to observance 1.5 years ago, she approached her local Beis Din, who then told her that it would take 2 years before they would convert her. In the mean time, they gave her a list of books that she had to study and master, and keep tabs on her via monthly progress reports from her “supervisors”.

Some of the areas of halakha that this girl must study are completely superfluous. For example – she is learning some of the basics of slaughtering and salting fowl. She is studying the laws of niddah (which under normal circumstances she would only learn after becoming engaged) and the laws of aveilut (entirely superfluous, nost people do not study these laws until it becomes an unfortunate necessity; I studied it as part of my semicha from the Rabbanut). After completing this curriculum, she will have to take a comprehensive examination on all of it – an exam which lasts upwards of 15 hours.

This process is simply too much. Why does this Beis Din need to go so far beyond that which is required by the Shulchan Arukh, and beyond that which is advocated by the major poskim of the 20^th Century. Is this part of the “universally accepted standards” shtick? Is there really a beis din out there that would “flunk” a potential convert because he/she doesn’t know how to salt a chicken or rays kri’ah?

The common denominator to both of these “processes” is that they do not get to know the prospective convert. Instead of having a rabbi who gets to know the ger and chaperone him/her through the process, keeping an eye on the ger’s integration into the frum community, answering questions, mobilizing resources, etc., you have a situation where the prospective convert must go through an impersonal standardized “process”. One process is designed to cover somebody’s idea of the most watered-down basics, and the other is designed to cover all bases, regardless of the needs and situation of the individual convert.

The ideal situation does not veer so far from the Shulchan Arukh – neither to the right nor to the left. The basic curriculum includes the laws of Shabbat, Kashrut, and Brachot/ Tefillah (plus Taharat ha-Mishpacha where applicable), certain basic works of Jewish thought and attitude (such as “The Book of Our Heritage”), and a considerable amount of time spend living in and integrating with the observant community (including sending kids to Jewish schools, if applicable). And, of course, it is important that there be a chaperoning/ sponsoring Rabbi to make sure that the potential convert is progressing properly.

Unfortunately, the extremes seem to be carrying the day.

The RCA and the Rabbanut

I’m a few weeks off, but I wanted to discuss the ramifications of the RCA-Rabbanut agreement.

The first issue is internal to the RCA, and I think that the results are largely positive. The Regional Beit Din Network is a long-overdue idea which will hopefully achieve a balance between complete bureaucratization of giyur and complete decentralization. Local rabbanim will be able to recommend, or ‘sponsor’ potential geirim and to serve on Batie Din. At the same time, the regional batei din will have the final say over who is accepted.

Given that the RCA is an organization – really a confederation – which does not hire its members, there will of necessity be a system of checks and balances in place. Any regional Beit Din which becomes either too draconian or too liberal in its standards will end up being restructured. If all of the LORs aren’t happy, they will make their voices known.

For the same reason, RCA members will respect the Network. They know that regionalizing things can prevent a lot of the problems caused by conversions done by individual Rabbis; if these Rabbis ‘play ball’ with the regional batei din, then there is some quality control. If they don’t, then they further marginalize themselves and risk being regarded as unacceptable conversions in the mainstream of Modern Orthodoxy.

The regional batei din, by the very fact that they are under the auspices of different ga’avads, will have differing standards. One may emphasize Hilkhot Shabbat more, another taharat ha-mishpacha. But each will be respected enough amongst his peers – and if he’s not, he won’t last – for his geruyot to be acceptable.

The new arrangement will also be excellent for those who are regarded as being the fringe of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Rabbi of a “traditional” (orthodox liturgy, mixed seating) synagogue, or in a more contemporary setting, the Rabbi of a ‘Shirah Chadasha’ style minyan or the ever-controversial YCT musmakh will be able to sponsor a potential ger and work with them without having to enter into the extremely sticky question of “Who is an Orthodox Rabbi?”.

The fundamentally democratic nature of the American Rabbinate – the balabatim hire the Rabbis – insures that insures that Rabbanim will have a vested interest in maintaining a unified front. A Rabbi who breaks ranks – to the right or to the left – incurs serious professional risks. Therefore, when the RCA as a body signs an agreement, they can expect adherence from its members.

Of course, there will be cases where people fall through the cracks. There will be sincere gerim who are rejected by the regional Batei Din, and there will be insincere ones who pass through. That much is inevitable. The former scenario is difficult because it undermines the judgment of the sponsoring Rabbi, but, ultimately, that’s the reason for having a regional beit din in the first place. The standards themselves are, in my opinion, a very appropriate blend of yedi’at ha-halakha and good, old-fashioned common sense. It recognizes explicitly the role of the community in acculturating the ger to Jewish life paying specific attention to living within walking distance of a shul and sending kids to an Orthodox day school where available. These are not requirements that you will find in the Shulkhan Arukh, but they make all the sense in the world. The RCA standards also take what I think is a very sensible approach to havchanah. There are batei din out there who can be draconian when it comes to this requirement.

Enter the Rabbanut.

Israeli Rabbis – municipal Chief Rabbis and Dayanim – have what basically amount to lifetime political appointments. They can say what they want and do what they want without endangering themselves professionally. Many times, they act very irresponsibly (the most recent one that I heard was that a Rav, at a secular Bar Mitzvah, taught the halakha that if a Rabbi is drowning and one’s own father is drowning, it is incumbent to save the Rabbi. Aside from being halachically incorrect, it is so unbelievably insensitive and oblivious that it would probably warrant the immediate firing of a Rabbi whose balabatim have that power), or even corruptly. Even if they are not jerks, they have no reason or need to listen to the vox populi. Their jobs are secure no matter what.

Thus, you have a situation where there is little or no incentive for Rabbanut –affiliated Rabbis to adhere to an agreement that the Rabbanut makes. The recent story in Ashdod where a woman who converted 15 years ago with R’ Chaim Druckman, currently the head of the Conversion Authority and Rosh Yeshiva of Or Etzion (and a very mainstream figure in the dati le’umi world, for better or for worse), but whose conversion was retroactively annulled is an excellent case in point. There is no accountability for this type of behavior. There is no Rabbinic statute of limitations – a goy is always a goy, no?

Furthermore, one may be accepted by one Rabbi – an Oleh Chadash can get his or her brank-spanking-new ‘tooty zooty’ with the word ‘Yehudi’ proudly emblazoned upon it, but when it comes time to get married, or one’s kids to get married, then you are once again at the mercy of the local Rabbinate.

To give an example, I know from someone who works very closely with the Rabbanut on matters of Jewish status that there are senior members of the Jerusalem Beit Din for matters of giyur who would not accept a conversion done under the auspices of Rabbi Barry Freundel. Rabbi Freundel was the RCA’s chief negotiator and architect of the current agreement as the Chairman of the RCA’s Geirut Policies and Standards Task Force. He is the director of the Greater Washington regional Beit Din. On a personal note, I did one gerut with him and he approved three others that I did with other Rabbanim while I was living in his general area. He is very serious about the giyur process, even if, like any other ga’avad, he is more machmir in one area and more meikil in another.

The day before Rabbi Freundel met with Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar last summer, the latter was visited by senior members of that same Beit Din who tried to passul Rabbi Freundel by demonstrating that there is a Women’s Prayer Group under the auspices of his shul, and that this goes against the wishes of his own Rebbi, R’ Herschel Schechter. For those who are not aware, Rabbi Freundel is the Rav of Kesher Israel in Georgetown, Washington,DC. It is an extremely liberal crowd made of primarily singles and newlyweds. In matters like this, the Rav needs to know his kehilla well and respond to their needs in kind. I think that R’ Freundel’s respect amongst his peers speaks for itself about whether some of his more ‘liberal’ psakim have crossed any boundaries.

The attempt to discredit him then, and the refusal to accept his conversions if the issue arises in the future, was/will be made by a few individuals with a personal agenda. They may have their ‘mehalech’ in Hilchot Giyur, and that’s fine. The point of an agreement is that even if two individuals or groups have different methodologies or standards, each can rely on the other’s decisions as being a halachically sanctioned gerut.

Unfortunately, that is not what the RCA will be getting from the Rabbanut.

Giyur Stories

I just received the Summer 2006 edition of Jewish Action, which profiles stories of five gerei tzedek (which should be available online soon). It would seem that this was intended long before the current situation became big. In any event, the stories are interesting and often inspiring.

These articles are a part of a growing corpus of people chronicling their journeys to Judaism, many of whom use blogs to tell past and ongoing experiences – Naphtoli, Malka Esther, David (who actually makes a very funny cameo appearance in one of the JA stories), MissShona, and Ger Tzadik are but a few who have given glimpses of the process.

It’s also encouraging that many gerim are willing to speak more and more openly about prejudices that they faced before, during, and after their giyur. There’s a relatively recent book called Strangers No More by Shlomo ben Avraham Brunell, a Finnish former Lutheran minister, which candidly describes the encounters that he and his family had with the Rabbanut. He draws a delicate balance between trying to understand why the Rabbanut must operate in a particular way and feeling rebuffed and estranged by those encounters. The book is a bit preachy, but, well, the author was a preacher.

I’ll share another story – not for its inspirational value – that’s actually related to this week’s parsha (in chu”l), and is not very inspiring at all.

I’d also like to share an email that I received a few weeks ago from the apartment-mate of a woman that my wife and I have been working with, and who will iy”h be megayeret this summer. Several proper names have been changed:

This is Plonit Almonit, Sarah’s roommate.  I wanted to just tell you about an experience Sarah had this morning, as I'm sure she's too modest to tell you about it herself.
I teach 4th grade at B'nai Israel Hebrew School, and I invited Sarah to come speak to my class this morning about her conversion process.  Well, as soon as the other teachers heard about it and met her, they begged us to let their classes come and hear her speak.  So five classes, from 4th grade to 7th grade (approximately 35 students, most kids were absent because of Mothers' Day), came to my classroom, and for 45 minutes the kids asked Sarah question after question about her conversion.
Not only were the kids completely engaged by and interested in Sarah's story, but the other teachers were asking questions as well.  And the only reason the session ended was because we ran out of time-- otherwise, there's no doubt the discussion could have continued for an hour. 
When we ended, I asked the students why they thought I brought Sarah in, and what kinds of things we can learn as Jews from someone like her and the things she shared with us.  Their answers were wonderful-- they said things such as, if a non-Jew can appreciate Judaism so much, we should feel lucky to be able to come to Hebrew school and learn...We should feel proud that we were born into Judaism and not take it for granted...etc. etc.
It was an amazing morning for everyone.  Sarah was able to reach these kids on a level that sometimes their teachers cannot.  She showed them that being Jewish is a struggle, but a struggle well worth it, one in which we should take pride.  She showed them that our struggles to keep Hashem's mitzvot should not burden us, that they instead set us apart and make us special as Jews.  She showed them that being Jewish and becoming more religious is an ongoing process, and that no one can do everything at once, but can only take steps in the right direction at their own pace.  For these kids--kids who feel that the only reason they come to Hebrew school is because their parents force them to--to hear a perspective on Judaism, one that is so passionate and full of belief, coming from someone who was not even born a Jew, was an experience I know they will never forget.  And Sarah answered every question with genuine conviction.  She was great.
Anyway I just wanted to let you know about this since I know how close you are with Sarah, and since it was with your help  that she's been able to get this far. 

Spinning the RCA-Rabbanut Agreement

Haaretz reports on the RCA-Rabbanut agreement. In it, Seth Farber says what’s on the opposite side of the coin: that according to the text of the agreement, there’s nothing to say that the Rabbanut won’t ultimately decide to make every single American conversion an ‘exception’ to the rule. As such, it “does not provide a complete response”. But as I pointed out, and as RBF told me before he even left for Israel (so saying that it’s merely an attempt to put a positive spin on a bad deal won’t wash), the goal was to get the two organizations talking. As such, it was a success. The joint commission will be convened, and in three months we’ll see how this shakes out. In the mean time, every RCA conversion reviewed by the Rabbanut – even if accepted – will be scrutinized.

Shmarya goes after the RCA with both barrels blazing. I think that there’s definitely room to criticize the way that the RCA has handled this from the beginning, but to suggest that their delegation to Israel failed and that all we have is a poor attempt to put a positive spin on it simply isn’t true. Whereas earlier, the Rabbanut had stopped accepting RCA conversions pretty much altogether, they are now assuming them to be OK as they had always been, until the joint committee gives its report. It’s a bit convoluted, but they’re trying to figure out if they should accept past conversions in the future (for the lomdishly inclined, it’s a mi-kan u-lehabo lemafrei’a). Personally, I think that the RCA will compile some sort of list, make better use of their semi-abortive regional scheme, and give the Rabbanut a ceremonial veto power over conversions they certify.

Finally, I really can’t stress enough that any agreement that is reached – and the RCA seems to have gone to great lengths to preserve this – must give a degree of trust to local Rabbis. It’s the ones on location alone who are truly in position to judge the sincerity of potential gerim – and so it should be, according to Rambam, Beit Yosef, Shach, etc. “Ha-kol le-fi re’ot einei ha-Beit Din” is Halakha Psukah.

There are places – Toronto, for example – where the giyur standards are objective and well beyond anything mandated by halakha psukah. They administer a 500-question test which includes need-to-know topics like demai. The impulse is to guarantee sincerity by imposing a draconian process. Never mind that there is no guarantee of sincerity, for any court. It’s a process that simply can’t address the infinite human nuance that comes into play in these situations. It’s devoid of sensitivity and compassion. What would they say about children of mixed marriages? Adopted children? Bnei Anusim, Falash-mura, Russians, Bene-Menashe and the other tribes of doubtful or dubious Jewish lineage, whom we can neither shun nor embrace without some type of giyur? Tell them to stay away from Toronto?

At the end of the day, there’s no substitute for good, old-fashioned Rabbinic intuition and sensitivity to the situation of the prospective ger. Unfortunately, that’s a very difficult attribute to quantify – it’s much easier to grade a test – and tends to get crushed by the wheels of bureaucracy, potentially along with thousands of gerei tzedek. Kudos to Rabbis Freundel and Billet for making sure that the framework of the agreement will trust Rabbis, not Standards.

On the Agreement between the RCA and the Rabbanut

Before looking at the agreement itself, take a look at jpost’s article on it (Hat Tip: Shmarya). The original document, posted here last week, is more informative and not much longer than the jpost article.

Also, I feel for Benjy Balint. His article appeared in the WSJ just as the agreement was released (Hat Tips: Larry and BOTH). The beginning of a resolution to the conversion issue doesn’t really undermine his central contention, though it certainly weakens it. I thought his quotation from A. B. Yehoshua, that Diaspora Jews are “just playing at Jewishness”, wasn’t as dismissive of the Golah as it seems, nor was it terribly original. Nachmanides said the same thing.

Regarding the agreement, it’s significant on several levels. Most importantly, it means that the RCA and the Rabbanut are entering into a direct relationship with each other. Even if they don’t see eye-to-eye on all issues, the Rabbanut understands that the RCA is the address for issues pertaining to American Orthodoxy (i.e., not EJF or anyone else). This was despite several attempts by various kannoim, including RNE, to undermine the credibility of the RCA through a variety of means, several of which would be considered underhanded (for example, calling the fact that RBF’s shul has a Women’s Prayer Group to the attention of the Rabbanut).

Additionally, the agreement was signed by 4 people: Rabbis Krispel and Wiener from the Rabbanut (I don’t know a thing about the latter) and Rabbis Heshy Billet and Barry Freundel representing the RCA (they were the only 2 delegates that the RCA sent). Rabbi Krispel, you will recall, is R’ Amar’s secretary who was responsible for certifying overseas conversions who lacked a real knowledge of the American Orthodox landscape. This made him fertile ground for the disinformation campaigns of groggers like RNE. This agreement means that the RCA is recognized by the bureaucracy itself, which is where this whole mess started in the first place.

There were some nerves on the part of Rabbi Freundel (with whom I spoke last week after the agreement was signed) that theoretically the Rabbanut could still disqualify many conversions on an ad hoc basis, but the hope was that the Rabbanut’s right to do that would be seldom exercised. As he put it, the main goal of the trip was to enter directly into a relationship with the Rabbanut. Mission accomplished.

Some might say that this is a ‘loss’ because it means that the RCA basically has bought into the Rabbanut’s desire for universal standards. That can be countered in 2 ways:

1. the RCA will be submitting a list of Rabbis, not a standard; those on the list are deemed trustworthy and we don’t have to look over their shoulders


2. essentially, that was always the RCA’s policy. R’ G.D. Schwartz didn’t certify every giyur that crossed his desk. There are those who would have us believe that R’ Schwartz took a stance of “ka-zeh re’eh ve-kadesh”, but it’s simply untrue.

A more difficult situation, alluded to in recent comments, pertains to the ‘out-of-town’ communities. Will every one be on the list, or will there simply be no giyur there?

My answer is that officially no, but really yes. In theory, the RCA set up – a long time ago – a system of ‘regional’ recognized authorities. These regional authorities can – and do – ‘deputize’ other trustworthy local Rabbonim with gerut. I’ve had three constituents who converted during my tenure, and in all the Av Beit Din for the giyur trusted me that they are ready. The Av Beit Din himself, when one of these gerim asked for RCA certification, obtained it through the regional authority’s recommendation to R’ G.D. Schwartz. Thus, though I, unrecognized by the RCA or Rabbanut, prepared this ger for conversion and served on the Beit Din, it was ultimately recognized because of trusting relationships that we build. This particular ger happens to be making Aliyah in the near future, so that ishur will hopefully come in handy. I think that a similar procedure will be developed by and for other way-out-of-town Rabbis.

The selection of 9/11 to be the day that the joint committee reports its findings is completely coincidental. The choice of 18 Elul was not coincidental.

How Will the Conversion Issue Shake Out?

In the punchline of the more recent of the Jewish Week articles on the subject, R’ Basil Herring was quoted as saying:

“it is not an attack on Modern Orthodoxy or American Orthodoxy, and it does not represent the haredization of the rabbinate”

These are 2 separate claims. I would like to address each claim independently, and then to offer some alternatives to how this thing can shake out.

Regarding the second claim (which is the easier of the two to demonstrate as false), there is a definite ‘haredization’ of the Rabbanut on conversion issues. In the same Jewish week article, it is reported that:

Rabbi Krispel said he had recently established a committee of three rabbis to determine the qualifications of any rabbi performing conversions.

As Stephen commented, “the identity of those three Rabbis is pretty important. Well, Rav Nochum Eisenstein is one of the three members. I don’t know the identity of the other two. Furthermore, it was overheard at the EJF conference that R’ Ryback, Chairman of the RCA’s Geirus Commision and a signatory on this letter , was trying to convince R’ Nochum to accept RCA-approved conversions.

That R’ Krispel takes his cues from others is corroborated by his testimony at a Knesset hearing involving the conversion of the Indian Bene Menashe. This 25-page Hebrew report can provide some incredible insight into the how the Rabbanut perceives the conversion process and its relationship with batei din all over the world.

I’m not suggesting that R’ Nochum is behind everything, or that the Rabbanut is being controlled. R’ Nochum is a grogger; he makes noise wherever he sees or hears (what he believes to be) Amalek. But he’s been making noise about the RCA and many, many other organizations that engage in giyur. He would disband the RCA tomorrow if he could, and because he thinks that it’s not really Orthodox. And he has found an audience in a Chief Rabbi who is trying to generate universal conversion standards and a bureaucrat, R’ Krispel, who must rely on others for his information about the American Rabbinate. Thus, to the degree that RNE influences decisions about which American Rabbis are acceptable, the Rabbanut is being ‘hareidized’.

This leads to the other issue – is this an attack on American Orthodoxy or Modern Orthodoxy? From the perspective of the Rabbanut, certainly not. But there is a mistrust of the American Orthodox Rabbinate as a whole, and an attempt to impose a standard upon it. It is not insignificant that the RCA was not a major player in a conference whose mission was to bring the standardized conversion agenda to American soil. If the EJF begins to compile its own network of Rabbis, and the Rabbanut accepts their conversions implicitly, then the RCA will have been completely undermined.

Personally, I believe that the RCA doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have universal standards because of the diversity of Orthodox communities in America. The sincerity and commitment of each potential ger must be evaluated in context, and by a beis din who is familiar with the community that the ger wishes to join. Neither RNE nor R’Amar want to leave subjective decisions in the hands of community Rabbis: RNE because he thinks that, as a class, they’re not really Orthodox, and R’ Amar because there’s no objective standard.

So is it a Catch-22 – the RCA either adopts a standard or gets shafted? I hope that it’s not too late and that there’s a third way. Here are what I think would be some of its key points:

• A thorough house-cleaning, in which RCA members about whom corruption reports surfaced would be investigated and, if need be, ‘defrocked’ from serving as an Av Bet Din for conversion. However, members in good standing MUST be implicitly trusted.


• The adoption of a curriculum for Hilkhot Gerim for Rabbis-in-training.


• Perhaps most importantly, there needs to be a serious effort to produce halakhic literature which articulates our view of giyur and why we are confident in it and in our ability to engage in the sacred work of bringing people tachat kanfei Ha-Shekhinah.

The Rabbanut and RCA Conversions: Clarifications and Response

Since posting my interpretation of the Rabbanut’s procedural changes with regard to RCA-approved conversions, I’ve found myself at or near the center of what’s fast becoming a major news story the Jewish and Orthodox print and electronic media. A number of Jewish bloggers linked back to my post, including one of the most venerable, twice.

The Jewish Week has featured an article on this for the second week in a row (plus a letter from the RCA hoohas), and this week’s interpretation is a lot closer to mine than last week’s was. The speculation about a Tendler family vendetta has been virtually (and thankfully) silenced, and procedural and personnel changes within the Rabbanut have become the focus of attention. I have no idea if my post or my pseudonymous letter to the editor of TJW (which didn’t make it into the paper) had anything to do with their re-evaluation, but it doesn’t seem unlikely.

I’ve altered my original thesis since Monday, as I learn more and have more conversations, but I maintain the central point, namely, that the Vaad HoRabbonim Haolami LeInyonei Giyur stands behind the current ‘procedural changes’ in the Rabbanut, and that they are consciously trying to disenfranchise the American Modern Orthodox Rabbinate. Since there have been a number of disagreements, refutations, arguments and counter-arguments about this thesis and the details surrounding it, I will try respond and clarify.

There were several details that I got completely wrong. I insinuated that there’s really no difference between Rabbis Ohana and Krispel, and even related to personal interaction that I had with R’ Ohana. The major shift in procedure happened when R’ Krispel replaced R’ Ohana, which happened during the tenure of Chief Rabbi Amar. There seems to be a much broader shake-up going on in the conversion authority. See, for example, this article, which hasn’t been discussed much, but states:

certain rabbinic judges and administrative managers are recalcitrant hardliners who refuse to adhere to authority and have adopted unnecessarily stringent criteria for conversion

R’ Krispel refers to a sort of ‘kitchen cabinet’ of three Rabbis who evaluate conversion affidavits, and who are quite literally starting from scratch, with everyone presumed to be unqualified until it’s shown to be otherwise.

So the question is, why was there a personnel shake-up, and why did it result in stricter policies for the acceptance of conversions?

Part of the answer is with Chief Rabbi Amar. He is a very strong advocate of universal conversion standards. At the EJF conference, he criticized the American Rabbinate for not being as systematic as the Rabbanut, and that there should be more centralization of conversion. Personally, I feel very strongly that the large, impersonal, bureaucratic, and despised Rabbanut has much to learn from the American Rabbinate. That’s why institutions like Itim are so crucial. Furthermore, there is, of necessity, a certain amount of flexibility when it comes to a pre-conversion curriculum (the Rambam and Shulchan Arukh are extremely vague about what must be taught) and subjectivity when determining the sincerity of the potential convert (as the Beis Yosef says in YD 268, following Tos. Shabbos 31a). There are certain issues which are the subject of dispute (for example, if a woman will not cover her hair, or will wear pants, can she be accepted as a convert?), but for which context is extremely important. The situation in a community where women simply don’t cover their hair is different than the situation in Monsey. Without justifying anything, do we demand, a priori, the same degree of commitment from someone who will not have communal support as someone who will? More than ‘experts’ in the issue of giyur (which, after all, is one relatively short siman in Shulchan Arukh), there’s a need for sensitive and compassionate Rabbonim. You’re more likely to find those in out-of-town shuls than behind the desks of the Rabbanut.

The temporal proximity of the change in Rabbanut policy and the EJF conference was, I thought, more than coincidence. EJF’s agenda is very different than the Rabbanut’s or the Vaad’s – the want to encourage the conversion of gentile spouses of Jews. Nevertheless, the issue of standards is an inevitable part of these endeavors.

The EJF states that they follow the guidance of R’ Dovid and R’ Reuven Feinstein and R’ Elyashiv on these matters. That’s not a monolithic group. R’ Elyashiv is far more machmir than the Feinsteins, a point which apparently caused a bit of exasperation for R’ Dovid (IIRC – only one was there, and I’m not sure which), who had a difficult time during a panel discussion dominated by outspoken members of R’ Elyashiv’s camp – R’ Leib Tropper, R’ Nachum Eisenstein, and Dayan Ehrentrau. R’ Hershel Schachter did not attend the conference because of an illness, but gave a single shiur via satellite hook-up.

Thus, the cards are stacked. R’ Amar wants to universalize conversion procedures. EJF does as well, though it’s more of a secondary goal. The Vaad/ R’ Elyashiv camp, and R’ Nochum in particular, has a very long history of opposition to numerous conversion procedures and a desire to universalize according to their own interpretations. R’ Nochum also has a history of animosity toward the RCA, as I think I documented pretty darn well.

Thus, all parties at this conference – the EJF organizers, R’ Amar, the Vaad – can agree that they want to universalize standards and that the greatest barrier to that is the RCA. R’ Schachter wasn’t there, but even if he was, is known to be very independent; he would not feel compelled to defend the RCA. R’ Reuven and R’ Dovid – well, they’re R’ Mordy Tendler’s uncles. Keep quiet, perhaps. Stand up to defend the RCA? No way.

R’ Amar’s relationship with the R’ Elyashiv camp is deeper, though. They were the Israeli contingent at EJF. R’ Amar owes his job to R’ Elyashiv, and even though this is not a halakhic issue per se, it’s naïve to think that R’ Elyashiv’s team would try to influence even procedural issues. R’ Amar, at least according to the Yated, has followed the lead of the Vaad on conversion issues in Israel as well.

What’s still not determined is the degree to which the Vaad is actually influencing the Rabbanut. That they’re bedfellows in the attempt to undermine or replace (and I think that the Vaad definitely wants to replace, not reform) the RCA as the dominant conversion authority in America is, to my mind, clear. Has R’ Amar bought into the Vaad’s anti-RCA rhetoric? Has he retained them as his advisors or consultants, perhaps as members of R’ Krispel’s 3-man advisory panel? I don’t know for certain. That there’s a relationship is undeniable. And that the Vaad would jump on any opportunity to expand its influence and take down its opponents is equally undeniable.
[UPDATE: An anonymous commenter reports that R' Nochum Eisenstein is a member of R' Yigal Krispel's advisory panel; if this is true, as I suspected, then there's nothing left to talk about].

Regarding the semantics of MO vs. Chareidi, Modern Orthodoxy here doesn’t refer to an ideology. Take, for example, my friend, mora d’asra and abdk”k Yehupitz. He’s not what you’d call ideologically MO. But being in Yehupitz, or wherever else, and dealing with PEOPLE, leading a flock, means engaging them ba-asher hem sham. R’ Nochum, representing the eretzyisruldike approach, deems this to be a compromise of the ‘truth’, and chazer-treif. I’m not just talking about conversions now; American Orthodox pulpit Rabbis, as a class, are made out to be a quai-Reform group of one-time Bnei Torah (perhaps) who use their polished English to say what the balabatim want to hear. As such, they are deemed to be inherently untrustworthy. The color of your hat or the yeshiva you attended has nothing to do with it (just ask Natan Slifkin). For American Orthodox Rabbis, there’s no chezkas kashrus: guilty until proven innocent.

Has the Rabbanut bought that story? Again, it’s speculative. But their disregard of the main body of American Orthodox Rabbis indicates that, at least practically speaking, this position has been adopted. Otherwise, there would have been a different process of accreditation of trustworthy Rabbis. Corrupt or unqualified conversion courts – we all have our lists of batei din which we suspect or know are a sham – can be investigated without disenfranchising the RCA. R’ Gedalya Dov Schwartz wouldn’t have been treated as he was. It wouldn’t have been so quick and taken so many off guard.

This battle is over the Rabbanut. The Vaad is using the Rabbanut, to the degree that it can, to advance its own agenda. Our response is twofold – advocate and articulate out own positions vis-à-vis giyur and our credentials to be involved in them, and clean house so that kangaroo conversion courts are, if not disqualified, identified.