My Writings on Religion and State

I've been getting a lot of questions about my views on religion and state in Israel since this past Saturday night, when Israel's Channel 2 News interviewed me for a story on Orthodox rabbis who officiate at weddings not under Rabbanut auspices (and TOI followed up with an article that makes it look far riskier than it is). I've also been asked to write a manifesto of sorts on my religion-state views; someone's even talking about a book project.

Either way, here is a list of articles and blog posts that I've written on the subject over the past 8-9 years for various outlets. Meanwhile, I'll get working on that manifsto:

Jewish Review of Books
Why I defy the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/1917/why-i-defy-the-israeli-chief-rabbinate/

Halakha and State: An Exchange
https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2056/halakha-and-state-an-exchange/

Mida

The Riskin Opportunity for Religious Privatization
http://mida.org.il/2015/06/25/the-riskin-opportunity-for-religious-privatization/

(Hebrew version)

The Myth of the Conversion Crisis
http://mida.org.il/2015/05/22/there-is-no-conversion-crisis/

Why Rabbi Goren Matters: The Legacy of the Langers
http://mida.org.il/2015/02/06/rav-goren-matters-legacy-langers/

Elazar Stern's Conversion Bill: Bad for Religion, Bad for the State, Bad at Math
http://mida.org.il/2014/04/07/elazar-sterns-jewish-conversion-bill-bad-for-the-state-bad-for-religion-bad-at-math/

(Hebrew version)

Moment

The Israeli Rabbinate: The Origin Story
http://www.momentmag.com/opinion-the-israeli-rabbinate-the-origin-story/

Jerusalem Post

Got Kosher Milk?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Got-kosher-milk

Jewish Ideas Daily

Love, Marriage, and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/1012/features/love-marriage-and-the-israeli-rabbinate/

Tal Tales
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/4619/features/tal-tales/

Yair Lapid's Religion
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/5979/features/yair-lapids-religion/

New York Jewish Week

God's Gatekeepers: Signs of Progress?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/gods-gatekeepers-signs-progress

Does the US now have a Chief Rabbinate?

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/does-us-now-have-chief-rabbinate

Regime Change, Realpolitik, and the Rabbanut
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/regime-change-realpolitik-and-rabbanut

Middle Class Rising? (not about religion and state per se, but touches on it)
http://www.thejewishweek.com/special-sections/israel-now/middle-class-rising

Not all Orthodox Rabbis Oppose Civil Marriage in Israel
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/opinion/not-all-orthodox-rabbis-oppose-civil-marriage-israel

A Gaon in Every Sense (an obit for Rav Ovadia)
http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/israel-news/gaon-every-sense

Intermountain Jewish News (cross-posted to TOI)
A Jewish Holiday and a Civic Dilemma
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-jewish-holiday-and-a-civic-dilemma/

Book Chapter

Perversion of the Priesthood: The Decline and Fall of the House of Eli
https://www.academia.edu/12394669/Perversion_of_the_Priesthood_The_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_House_of_Eli_in_the_Talmud

TOI Blog Posts

Why Israelis don't Realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was Religious
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-israelis-have-trouble-realizing-that-mlk-was-religious/

A Pilot Plan for Reorganizing the Rabbinate
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-pilot-plan-for-reorganizing-the-rabbinate/

Buying Haredi: A Win-Win
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/buying-haredi-a-win-win/

Bourekas are not Burkas
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/bourekas-are-not-burkas/

Same-sex Unions and Intermarriage: Against as a Jew, For as a Citizen
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/same-sex-unions-and-intermarriage-against-as-a-jew-for-as-a-citizen/

An Ironic Observation on Freedom of Religion at Israel's Holiest Site
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/an-ironic-observation-on-freedom-of-religion-at-judaisms-holiest-site/

Personal Blog Posts

Will Tzohar Declare War on the Rabbanut?
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2007/09/will-tzohar-declare-war-on-rabbanut.html

A Modern-day Korach?
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2010/06/modern-day-korach.html

On Tzohar Rabbis Accepting Pay to Officiate Weddings
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2009/07/on-tzohar-rabbis-accepting-pay-for.html

The High Court's Decision on Heter Mechira
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2007/10/regarding-high-court-decision-regarding.html

Conversion Collision Course
http://adderabbi.blogspot.co.il/2007/10/conversion-collision-course.html

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.

Hillel Praises; Shammai Appraises

Hillel and Shammai are perhaps the most famous pair of rabbinic rivals in the Talmud. Their rivalry, and their differences in personality, are a theme that runs through all parts of rabbinic literature - halakha and aggada, Mishna and Tosefta, Bavli and Yerushalmi. Any discussion of Jewish attitudes toward pluralism and its limits begins with Hillel and Shammai.

This rivalry has been treated extensively, so I doubt that I would have much to contribute on this front. Nevertheless, I had an insight into their names several years ago (thanks, David G, for reminding me about that blog post), and I believe it to be a true chiddush.

The name Hillel is related to hallel - praise. The name Shammai is related to shuma - evaluation. In fact, the Modern Hebrew word for an appraiser is a "shammai". The personalities of Hillel and Shammai are thematized along these lines. While Shammai and his disciples are concerned with the true, present, objective value of something, Hillel and his academy have a more generous outlook; they are able to see how something might have greater subjective value or potential value.

In the audio shiur I posted yesterday (and in a latent form in this post), this difference is used to understand the divergent approaches of Hillel and Shammai when confronting the prospective gerim. Shammai kicks them out using a yardstick - a tool of precise quantification, symbolizing the standards that potential gerim must meet, but that these do not. Hillel, in my reading, perceives some nobility in their motives and is willing to act based on their potential.

A similar dispute appears in Avot De-Rabbi Natan 2:9. Shammai's academy had very strict acceptance standards, whereas anyone could study at Hillel's. According to that passage, Hillel's lack of standards was not predicated on the belief in universal Torah education, but on the notion that it is impossible to know what sort of background will produce the next rabbinic leaders. Both Hillel and Shammai want to produce greatness, but whereas Shammai insists that greatness requires certain raw materials, Hillel contends that one's present state is not a good predictor of potential. So he refuses to evaluate, and lets everyone in.

Perhaps the most poignant example of this difference between Hillel and Shammai appears in Sanhedrin 16b-17a. The disciples of Hillel and Shammai disagree about "how one dances before the bride." Beit Hillel maintains that one should always tell the groom that "the bride is beautiful and charming," whereas Beit Shammai states that one should tell it like it is. The dispute, according to the ensuing discussion, is about whether there is value in reinforcing the groom's subjective perception. For the Hillelites, the true "worth" of the bride is irrelevant; this is what the groom has settled upon, and it is proper and generous to reinforce his beliefs, even if they are erroneous on some objective plane. Beit Shammai is unwilling to violate its objective evaluation - that is, lie - to make another person feel good (an outstanding and hilarious dramatization of Shammai's dilemma can be viewed here).

A final example further illustrate this theme and may even locate the differences within the general demeanor of the two sages. In Beitza 16a, it is recorded that Hillel and Shammai took different approaches to Shabbat, and really to life. Shammai would constantly be on the lookout for delicacies that he could serve on Shabbat. Even if he already bought a fine beast, he would look for a better one and compare it to the first. The impression here is that Shammai's life was an unending series of appraisals and evaluations. He simply could not turn off his faculty of judgment; Halakhic Man on steroids or, if you wish, a life-long appointment with an optometrist ("Is this better, or is this? Which is better, this or this?"). Hillel, on the other hand, felt that as long as one was living life for the sake of heaven, there was no need for the constant evaluation; one could live life as it happened.

In this passage, Hillel's position is not articulated in the form of a dissenting opinion. His position is introduced by the phrase "Hillel had a different demeanor" ("mida acheret hayta bo"). Similarly, in his response (and later in the passage, his disciples' response), he does not directly dispute Shammai's incessant appraisal, but simply quotes Psalms 68:20 "Blessed be the Lord, day by day." "Barukh Hashem yom yom."

This "dispute" straddles the line between halakha and aggada. Shammai acted a certain way, and his disciples transformed their stories about him into a halakhic position. Hillel does not get drawn into Shammai's impulse for constant evaluation, and his disciples resist the temptation to transform stories about their master into actual halakhic positions. The poetics of this short passage indicate that the Bavli has indeed thematized the divergent tendencies attributed to Hillel and Shammai, and subsequently to their respective circles of disciples.

One might ask, so what? What difference does it make if the Bavli conceptualized Hillel and Shammai in this way? What is the aggada le-ma'aseh? As I noted in yesterday's post (and here I am indebted to insights of Barry Wimpfheimer as well as Moshe Simon and Chaim Saiman), I think this insight is significant because it externalizes a certain tension that every rabbi feels to a certain degree. On one hand, there is the impulse toward rule-making, and on the other hand is an impulse to accept every moment and every individual with a spirit of generosity, without trying to impose an existing set of rules and standards on it. The rabbis of the Bavli felt this tension, too. Thus, although they engaged in formulating and standardizing law, they also expressed reservations and resistance to that attitude. My contention here is that the Sages externalized these opposing tendencies through the figures of Hillel and Shammai, and that by showing Hillel to be their clear favorite, they, in some way, legitimated the resistance that has accompanied the impulse toward codification, standardization, and rule-making every step of the way.

A New Venture and a Pre-Shavu’ot Podcast

It has been an eventful few weeks. After three and a half years, I am no longer working for Jewish Ideas Daily. The parting was amicable and we did not discount the possibility of doing some work for JID or its affiliated projects.

The work that I’ve done for them, specifically building a model to take in the entire sweep of Jewish and Israeli news, opinion, and analysis on a daily basis, has prepared me for the next step. Together with Dr. Judah Levine, who worked with me for JID, I have launched a new venture called FindNeedles. We serve clients by going through vast amounts of content to find the items that are specifically relevant to them. Our process combines the power of machine aggregation with the human intelligence of curation. You can learn more by visiting our site, www.findneedles.com . And here’s a sample of something we recently provided for a client.

Please get in touch if you think we can be of value to your business or organization.

A few weeks ago, I gave a shi’ur in honor of my grandparents, as I do every year. This year I explored the uneasy and blurry relationship between halakha and aggada, between law and lore. I used the well-known stories of the non-Jews who came to Hillel and Shammai with the intention of converting to Judaism. The central thesis (and chiddush) of the shiur is that the figures of Hillel and Shammai are typologies that externalize rabbinic ambivalence about standardizing and codifying practice. I further argue that this ambivalence persists even after these stories are domesticated by halakha – that is, that aggada resists domestication and occasionally succeeds in injecting something of life’s messiness into the halakhic codes themselves. In fact, I argue, the impulse toward standardization of conversion and the impulse to resist standardization, both of which are manifest in contemporary debates about conversion, are discernible within the Talmud’s discourse; looking only at halakha or aggada simplifies the picture considerably.

This reading of the stories in the Gemara and the subsequent codification is both indebted to and critical of a recent work by Barry Wimpfheimer  called Narrating the Law. I hope to have occasion to flesh this out further in a review essay.

Since the subject matter pertains directly to the upcoming holiday of Shavu’ot, I thought it might be of interest over the next few days. The audio of the shiur is available here, and the associated source sheet is here.

Chag Sameach.

Same-Sex Unions and Intermarriage: Against as a Jew, For as a Citizen

Cross-posted to the Times of Israel.

Though it is not a new dilemma, the issue of same-sex marriage took on became a larger topic of public conversation just this week, in the wake of President Obama's endorsement of same-sex marriage.
The dilemma had taken a personal dimension just a few weeks earlier, when I was invited to the same-sex wedding of two former students.
I am torn, but ultimately feel the same way about this that I feel about civil unions in general in Israel: while I am against them personally and religiously, I believe that the state should not impose specific religious values on individuals.
Jewish law, halakha, does not recognize intermarriage or same-sex marriage, and views sexual relationships between Jews and non-Jews and between members of the same sex as forbidden, even sinful.
In Israel, religious bodies (not just Jewish ones) have controlled marriage, divorce, and by extension have established the boundaries of their religious communities since the Ottoman Period. It is an anomaly in a secular state apparatus (though there are still some in the Rav ZY Kook camp who imbue the state apparatus itself with religious significance).
Yet although this has been the state of affairs here for centuries, there are many reasons for even halakha-observant Israelis to oppose state enforcement of these halakhic considerations.In fact, whether separation of religion and state is conceived as protection of religion from the state or the individual from religion, exclusive religious control of marriage should be abolished.
With regard to the protection of the individual from the state, it goes without saying that the current system of religious control violates individual rights. In 1964, the United Nations adopted a convention on marriage that recognizes marriage as a human right. Since Israel upholds human rights and even enshrines them in its Basic Laws, the fact that the right to marry and found a family is not universally applied is deeply inconsistent.
The other side of the religion-state coin - the protection of religion from state - offers an even more compelling case for changing the system. As a result of the rabbinate's intimate involvement with this aspect of state functioning, it has become a wholly political entity, and has resulted in a situation in which conversion to Judaism - a purely halakhic issue - is subject to broad political debate and legislation. The absurdity of a secular state getting involved in the business of religious conversion could end tomorrow if there were a civil marriage option that allowed halakhic Jews and halakhic non-Jews (who often are equally Jewish in terms of background and culture) to wed.
Furthermore, by insisting on holding onto a very thin slice of governmental power, the rabbinate dooms itself to a much more profound irrelevance and contempt. By winning the marriage battle, they lose the much broader war for the hearts and minds of Jews. Installing a civil option will, hopefully, help rehabilitate the image and restore the relevance of halakha to broader Jewish life in Israel.
Same-sex marriage falls under the same rubric: it is increasingly acknowledged as being worthy of protection as a human right, like all marriage, and once a marriage option that functions independently of religion is established, there would be no reason to exclude same-sex unions from it.
I hope one day to marry off all of my children by means of huppah ve-kiddushin, according to the law of Moses and Israel. But the task of educating children about the importance of these values belongs to parents and communities, not to governments.

Dozens/ Hundreds of Rabbis Say…

… that homosexuals should be welcomed into the Orthodox community

… that Jews should not rent property to non-Jews in the Land of Israel

… that they oppose the rabbis who signed on the above
… that brain stem death constitutes halakhic death [HT: Ben]

… that Rupert Murdoch should sanction Glenn Beck for attacking George Soros

… that the Interior Ministry should recognize all Orthodox conversions in North America

… that convicted rapist and former President Moshe Katzav is a victim of injustice

… that the rabbis who signed on the above should renege

Am I missing any from the past 10 months or so?

[Full disclosure: I signed on the first letter, before there was a trend.]

Getting 100 rabbis to sign on something used to be difficult. After all, the “escape clause” on the rabbinic ban on polygamy, now over 1,000 years old, allowed the husband of a woman who could not or would not accept divorce to marry a second wife if he could obtain the signatures of 100 rabbis from 100 different communities. This loophole was designed to make sure that the ban on polygamy would be difficult to circumvent. It appears not to be too difficult anymore.

The trend is disturbing for several reasons. Firstly, there are tens of thousands of rabbis in the world, if not more than 100,000; there is no rabbinic consensus on virtually any issue. Thus, getting a bunch of rabbis to support one thing or another is not difficult, but it can give the mistaken impression that there is some sort of broad agreement on an issue.

When numerous rabbis sign on a single document, it flattens dialogue. Positions tend toward sound-bites and away from nuance. There is little room for shades of grey, and there is little room for the rabbis with unique voices to create their own space. Furthermore, these letters tend to give the erroneous impression that all rabbinic voices are equal. A social media-savvy recent rabbinical school grad is not the same as a gadol be-Yisrael, but on a petition they each get one vote.

Rabbinic disagreement has classically taken place in a beit midrash or through the exchange of personal letters. Rarely were there public pronouncements that did not invite dialogue. It would be terrible if as a result of these letters different groups stop having dialogue with each other. As Rav Shach once lamented to Rav Amital, “we’ve grown so far apart that we don’t even argue anymore.”

Finally, people will eventually stop listening to rabbis who cry “Wolf!” When everything is worth a public petition, those things that really demand a public outcry will be ignored. Rav Moshe Lichtenstein calls this “inflation.”

I hope that rabbis, individually and collectively, begin to realize that the cost of these statements are not worth the benefits and, accordingly, think long and hard before affixing their signatures to such petitions.

Ruling of Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rav Shlomo Amar on Conversions

The full translation appears at Kol Ha-Rav. I’ve added my own comments and analysis in square brackets below.

This is the Law that Emerges from the Three Aforementioned Court Rulings:

Conversion (geirut) is a purely halakhic concept. It is not subject to substitution or punditry (parshanut). It is thus mandatory that geirut be in accordance with the halakha as explained by Maimonides and the Shulchan Arukh.

[Classic Rav Ovadia. Rambam and Shulchan Arukh represent an approach to conversion that avoids extremes, is very straightforward, and trusts that the rabbinical court is qualified to make judgment calls. It’s amazing that such a classical, traditional, and mainstream approach to giyur generates so much controversy. We have become accustomed to the extremes of rubber-stamp conversions and draconian standards]

1. A convert who was circumcised and immersed but did not accept the commandments (mitzvot) of the Torah in the presence of three who are qualified to judge, is not a convert at all. Even if he accepted the mitzvot upon himself, if it was not in the presence of three who are qualified to judge, it is meaningless.

[This is the clause that will allow Israeli rabbinical courts to disqualify conversions of certain courts—mainly non-Orthodox courts, but it’s elastic enough to exclude conversions of some Orthodox courts or include the conversions of certain non-Orthodox courts]

2. The rabbinical conversion court (beit din) must adequately examine whether the prospective convert has studied and knows the fundamentals of faith, and also has studied the rudimentary halakhot of Judaism (as practiced in Israeli rabbinical courts).

3. Similarly, they will examine his motives and objectives for conversion. They will examine whether he is sincere in saying that he accepts the Torah and mitzvot upon himself, and is not deceiving the rabbinical court.

[Clauses b. and c. are extremely important and often misunderstood. The ruling speaks to what conversion courts ought to do. It opposes conversions if the prospective convert is unfamiliar with Jewish practice or has hidden and ulterior motives. However, it does not disqualify such a conversion. There is clearly a hierarchy of le-khatchila (ab initio) and be-di’avad (ex post facto). There is how conversion should be done, then there is a less-than-ideal but still valid conversion (clauses b, c, and d), and finally there are invalid conversions (clause a)].

4. If their assessment is that he will certainly not uphold the mitzvot, they should not accept him as a convert.

[This is the shortest but most significant clause in the entire ruling. Here are some implications:

1. The court is given discretion to assess the sincerity and motivation of the prospective convert. Both extremes within Orthodox conversion tend to be bureaucratic—by insisting on either maximal or minimal standards that leave little room to gauge the individual. This is a return to a classical model in which the court actually gets to know the convert.
2. The court should not accept a convert who, in its opinion “will certainly not uphold the mitzvot.” The clear—if shocking—implication is that one who might uphold the mitzvot should be accepted for conversion. This is serious Hillel territory.
3. Once again, “should not” does not mean “it is invalid if they do.” In fact, it means the conversion is valid, though less than ideal as it could lead to the scenario described in clause e.]

5. A convert who was circumcised and immersed and accepted the mitzvot of the Torah in the presence of three who are qualified to judge, and everything was done properly and halakhically, and he then reverted to his mistaken ways and violates the mitzvot of the Torah, he is like an apostate Jew: his wine is forbidden, but his marriage and divorce are valid, as is stated explicitly in the Talmud, the code of Maimonides, and the Shulchan Arukh.

[This means that there’s not such thing as a retroactive annulment of conversions that were done properly to begin with.]

Homosexuals and Conversion

A recent article by Dina Kraft profiles the plight of a homosexual would-be convert to Judaism. It's written in a way that arouses the reader's sympathy: this poor, obviously Jewish (I mean, come on, he's wearing a star-of-David necklace) kid running up against an intolerant and backward Orthodox establishment. You've got Uri Regev imploring the IDF not to be part of a "wall barring such soldiers from entering into the Jewish fold and declaring them to be unworthy of Jewish status." And you've got the young man's rationalization/ recontextualization of the Torah at the end, because God does not hate homosexuals.

Here are my thoughts:

• I agree with Regev's implication that the state should get out of the conversion business (at least I hope that's his implication, not that the state should recognize Reform conversions). The notion that the state is involved in religious conversion is absurd, and should end as soon as possible. I was gratified to learn recently that Rav Amital z"l seems to have felt this way as well (pp. 199-200 of Be-emunato - which is coming out in English over the summer).
• If you read between the lines of the article, he never told the panel of rabbis that he's gay, but they found out anyway (he didn't go out of his way to hide it, either, apparently). If I was on that panel, it would be something I'd like to know. Back at UMD, I once received a long letter from a young woman who was interested in converting, and in fact ended up converting. In her letter, she described a protracted spiritual journey that led to her conclusion that Judaism was right for her. It was really quite touching. Then I got on Facebook and discovered that she was "in a relationship" with a Jewish, in fact Orthodox-affiliated, student. To me, the fact that she did not disclose her relationship was more problematic than the relationship itself. In our first meeting, I told her that she had to dump the guy if she wanted to begin the process (she did). Rabbis involved in this process have to make it known that they're not a bunch of pushovers or rubber-stamps, that the process is serious, and that we're going to look into matters more earnestly than you might expect. 
• I'm not sure what an "aberration of Jewish law" is, or what the original Hebrew term used by the rabbi was. Was it an indication that gay sex does, in fact, deviate from Jewish law, in which case it's a neutral statement, or is it calling the kid a deviant or aberration. Impossible to tell from context.
• The army spokesman's statement is either excellent or problematic. When saying that "sexual orientation cannot have an impact on his or her ability to appropriately complete the conversion process," was he saying that orientation itself has no impact, which is true, or that homosexuality in general cannot hinder conversion, which is false.
• I've often wondered under what conditions I would be willing to be megayer a homosexual, and frankly I would be strongly disinclined under all but the most limited circumstances. I've discussed the issue with other rabbis as well, and I understand the reasons some of them have for leniency. This case, however, seems to be a classic case of one accepting everything but one mitzva, which the Gemara through Shulchan Arukh disqualify. It's open and shut. This kid thinks that gay sex is not a problem, that it's muttar, and that's clear ground for rejection. The same would apply, by the way, to any other mitzva in the Torah. Obviously, this one mitzva is particularly painful to this young man, and I sympathize with him. But I strongly believe that any conversation about Orthodoxy and homosexuality has to begin with certain mutual acknowledgment, one of which is that the Torah forbids gay sex.
• In most cases, Orthodox conversion in Israel is necessary because it's a ticket to all sorts of other parts of Israeli society (as bizzaro-Heinrich Heine once said, "Conversion to Judaism is the passport to Israeli culture"), especially marriage. In the US, Orthodox conversion is far more rigid than in Israel, but people know that if they're not interested in keeping halakha they can go elsewhere. In Israel, due to the aforesaid issues of personal status, they can't go elsewhere. But this guy CAN go elsewhere! What's he worried about, not being able to marry a Jewish girl? He's already a citizen, and he wants to marry a member of the same sex. It's not like conversion's the only thing holding that up with the Rabbanut. So he can go convert with Uri Regev's beit din, and shalom al  Yisrael.

Conversion and Naturalization

Two laws proposed in Israel over the past few months stirred up international controversy. The Rotem Bill, which would make the Israeli Chief Rabbinate the de jure arbiter of conversion to Judaism, generated a tremendous amount of opposition, particularly among non-Orthodox Jews in the United States. The more recent proposed amendment to the Citizenship Law, which would require an oath of loyalty from applicants for Israeli citizenship, has been criticized and condemned globally, with the strongest voices coming from the Muslim world. Although public criticism came to each bill from vastly different quarters, the bills, and their respective oppositions, share certain similarities, beyond the obvious fact that both address the conditions under which an outsider becomes an insider.

"Converting to Judaism" is something of a misnomer. From its inception the term conversion implies an instantaneous transformation, an experience after which one is no longer the same. The paradigmatic conversion experience is that of Saul of Tarsus, beholding a vision on the road to Damascus and becoming the Apostle Paul. The Jewish term for a new adherent is “ger,” which literally means “migrant,” implicitly recognizing that giyur, the process by which a gentile becomes Jewish, corresponds to the process by which a foreigner adopts and is adopted by his new host society. Both processes are—or ought to be—gradual, allowing the neophyte time to absorb the language, lifestyle, and values of the adoptive society. In other words, giyur is much closer to naturalization than to conversion.

Of course, there is a moment at which the new legal status is conferred, at which the gentile becomes a Jew and the immigrant a citizen. And certainly this moment, coming as it often does at the end of an arduous and often traumatic process of acculturation, is a significant milestone in the life of the newcomer. Nevertheless, there exists a tendency to confuse the moment of conferral with the process, to relate to naturalization as a form of conversion. Yet naturalization, like giyur, is not stand-alone moment; it is a process.

In fact, proponents of both laws seem to have fallen into this very trap. Mandating a loyalty oath will not solve any potential problem of immigrants opposing Israel’s core democratic and Jewish values. If most non-Jews who become Israeli citizens are loyal to the state, it is not due to the presence or absence of any oath, but to their adoption of and by their new home. As for giyur, the raison d’etre of the Rotem Bill is to streamline the process and facilitate the mass conversion of hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the FSU. The bill views giyur as a bureaucratic formality and aims to define who may—and who may not—confer the status of “Jew” in Israel. Bracketing the question of whether streamlined giyur, which all but the incorrigibly naïve understand does not entail any commitment to Jewish law, is halakhically valid, reducing giyur from a gradual, community-based process to a bureaucratic state-run form of lip-service to Jewish tradition reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the giyur process.

Critics of the legislation are not immune to confusing naturalization with conversion either. To be sure, both pieces of proposed legislation literally alienate—render alien—certain populations by enshrining de facto realities—that Israel is a democratic Jewish state and that only (some) Orthodox conversions are recognized by the Chief Rabbinate—in law. Nevertheless, opposition to the loyalty oath may succeed in removing it from the political agenda, but will not change the fact that becoming an Israeli citizen implies embracing the Jewish and democratic fabric of Israeli society. Both sides are thus fighting to win a meaningless and potentially Pyrrhic victory. Opponents of the Rotem Bill have tended to focus their criticism on the identity of the state-sanctioned gatekeepers instead of where it belongs: on the bill’s misguided approach to giyur in general, and on the question of whether conferral of religious status is even a power that an inevitably bureaucratic state should arrogate to itself.

Laws pertaining to the related processes of naturalization and religious reaffiliation should recognize that they are among the most arduous and anxiety-inducing that human beings undergo voluntarily. As such, they deserve to be handled by the state in a manner that reflects their subtlety, without reducing them to mere slogans.

Conversion and Naturalization

Looks like this article will be in print in the near future. The publisher wants it down until such a time, at which point I'll re-post.
Update: It won't be printed anywhere. I reposted it here.

Quick Takes I

Migrant Workers

Israel has decided to allow most children of migrant workers to stay, and to expel others. It could have been a lot worse. I was truly afraid that they'd expel them all. At some point, I hope we realize that having a Jewish State has nothing to do with the relative proportions of Jews and minorities. Our Nevi'im envisioned a state founded on certain cardinal values, not a state with a Jewish majority. [Further reading]


Interns

Tablet Magazine is looking for interns to work in NYC. A word of advice, instead of overpaying for some just-out-of-college wannabe journalist in New York, you can get much more bang for your buck in Israel. There's a heckuva lot of talent in the Jewish State, and it's much cheaper than in New York. Jewish Ideas Daily has figured this out. And frankly, after a hot start, the quality of writing at Tablet has really deteriorated over the past few months. Aim high, guys.


Conversion

Regarding the conversion issue in Israel, I think that putting conversion in the hands of local rabbis is a positive step, but ultimately not far-reaching enough. On a fundamental level, there is a problem when marriage and divorce are controlled by a religious body that does not have the buy-in of large swaths of the population. The only answer is the institution of civil marriage and divorce. People have figured out how to privately check yikhes for centuries without the Rabbanut's help. And if anyone out there wishes to get civilly married outside of Israel and wants an Orthodox rabbi to officiate at a non-Rabbanut ceremony in Israel, let me know. [Further reading]


Statement of Principles

I signed the SOPOTPOJWAHOIOC. Do I agree with every last formulation, implication, etc.? Of course not. But it's crucially important that it be made crystal clear that there is an Orthodox alternative to homophobia, condemnation, and recommendations for conversion therapy. [Further reading]


Conservative Name Change

Apparently, the Conservative Movement is contemplating a name change, and Traditional and Masorti are the leading candidates. I say just leave it. "Conservative" might be a poor descriptor, but so are the rest. Personally, I can't stand the term "Orthodox," but at some point you just accept it and move on. [Further
reading]

A Linguistic Observation about Hillel and Shammai

 I just (literally, minutes ago) realized something about the famous names of Hillel and Shammai.

The name 'Hillel' means 'praised'; the name 'Shammai' means 'appraiser'. I wonder if thee meanings correlate to the positions ascribed to them - with Shammai more inclined to evaluate things as the truly are and Hillel inclined to allow for generous leeway. A few of their famous disputes seem to go in that direction:

• The well-known dispute of 'KeitzadMerakdin', in which the Hillelites instruct that every groom must be praised for his choice of a bride, whereas the Shammites ruled that a spade must be called a spade.
• The Shammites placed a 'real' value on kiddushei kessef, whereas the Hillelites placed a symbolic value.
• In the set of three narratives about potential converts who approach Hillel and Shammai, Hillel is willing to look beyond the present reality, whereas Shammai looks at the present situation; indeed, Shammai chases one prospective convert out with a yardstick. (I discussed this set of narratives here and here).

 So what does this mean? Did Hillel and Shammai choose positions based on their names? Are 'Beit Hillel' and 'Bait Shammai' actually philosophies or attitudes, with the characters of Hillel and Shammai being later literary constructs? Were they real historical figures who were later 'enlisted' as paradigms? Some combination? Does this entire endeavor smack of 19th century Eastern European Wissenschaft?

EJF answers question: Why did the Rambam include the laws of giyur within the laws of forbidden relations?

A few readers have asked if I would address the issue of Leib Tropper's (I think we can dispense with the honorifics, no?) resignation from the EJF amid serious scandal. In truth, I don't have anything to add. I'm not one of the scandal blogs, and there is not much to analyze here. Dude's apparently a lowlife. Nuff said.
There are a few related points:
1) As a critic of EJF since pretty much its inception, and as one of the first to note the danger that the EJF posed to the Modern Orthodox rabbinate in America, I think this is a happy day. I'm not happy about the scandal itself since, as Gil writes, one should not rejoice at his enemy's downfall (and one may speculate that he is referring to this issue). I am happy that an organization that has been a thorn in the side of many has been crippled, if not killed. I have no doubt that people like R. Nachum Eisenstein will go on screaming about the evil Modern Orthodox rabbis, but he will slide right back to the margin that he occupied before the EJF gave him a bully pulpit.
2) There is very little doubt in my mind that Guma Aguilar is behind the scandal breaking. He and Tropper have been feuding openly (and suing each other) for the past year plus, and Aguiar is big on recording conversations; this is not the first conversation pertaining to Laib Tropper that he has recorded.
3) As a friend pointed out, and to answer the question posed in the title of this post, it is now clear that the Rambam's placement of the laws of giyur was done be-ru'ach ha-kodesh.

A Very Bitter Rabbi

I originally called this blog "Self-hating Rabbi". I was bitter. I still have some of those sentiments, but, since I'm not a practicing rabbi anymore, I tend not to get all worked up about things anymore. Sometimes I miss it, but usually not. For example, the whole conversion thing is rearing its ugly head again; apparently, R. Metzger backed R. Sherman at a recent EJF convention - and I don't really give a darn (to be sure, if my son came home with a girl who is a ba'alat teshuvah, whose non-religious mother had converted through R. Druckman, I would insist that she do a tevilah le-chumrah before marrying my kid). I took it much more seriously when I was performing conversions and experienced personal outrage when conversions were being threatened. No more.

Anyhow, I'm currently learning a book called Yamin u-Smol by R. Yehuda Leib Graubart. This is the second work of his that I'm learning with someone who is interested in learning the works of this Rav specifically. The rav had a wonderful sense of humor, but was clearly a very bitter person. The current book is a series of essays on his hashkafa, but with a very then-contemporary bent - he talks about the balance between kodesh and chol, personal hygiene, business vs. agriculture (this was a huge issue then), communism, socialism (he believes that the Torah is fundamentally socialist; funny enough, Rav Lichtenstein has expressed similar ideas), Reform (boy, does he go after them) and a host of other issues. It's a lot of fun.

He has a few essays on the role and status of the rabbi, especially in America. He even discusses the relative merits of American rabbinical schools like RIETS and HTC (Skokie, before it was in Skokie). He laments the futility of being a rabbi in America often, but here's a real money quote:

My translation:

Who shall ascend the mountain of the Rabbinate? One who does not have clean hands and a putre heart (cf. Tehillim 24:4) - he will withstand and endure, be sated with bread, and it will be good with him - even though those charlatans did not choose the rabbinate out of wisdom, because had they employed their trickery and strategies in business, they probably would have become wealthy. The situation in the rabbinate is that with all their cunning, they will not amass much of a fortune. The rabbinate is not fertile ground for wealth.

Honest man - do not come here! Do not put your energies into the rabbinate. Run from it. Be a craftsman or peddler, and eat your bread, the fruit of your efforts, in peace, be it a lot or a little. Do not be take on the concerns of the many. Do not be a bundle of nerves. Be absorbed amongst the people - see, but do not be seen. You will fear God, and you will not hate people.

Lieberman’s Civil Agenda

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about Avigdor Lieberman’s terms for joining a coalition, as strong component of which is a civil agenda with three main elements:

a. An oath of loyalty as a prerequisite for citizenship (upon reaching 18 years of age).

b. Easing of the conversion process.

c. Creating of a civil union/ marriage mechanism.

With regard to (a), I’m neither here not there. I have not been convinced that it is such a big that it warrants vehement promotion or opposition. It’s like pledging allegiance.

With regard to (b) and (c), I see significant overlap between the issues. The main reason for easing the conversion process is to make it easier for people to get married in Israel. There may be some other objective, but the primary one is that personal status issues in Israel are largely halakhically defined. Relaxing conversion standards will make a whole lot of people very happy.

The thing is, recognition of civil unions would accomplish pretty much the same thing. It would allow people to gain a certain personal status without having to go through a halakhic framework.

Allow me to illustrate: let’s say Sergei and Svetlana (names chosen at random) wish to wed. Sergei’s father and Svetlana’s mother are Jewish, and from a secular social perspective, neither identifies as being more or less Jewish than the other. Unfortunately for them, they may not wed in the State of Israel, as those who are halakhically Jewish and those who are halakhically not Jewish may not wed legally in this country.

Both (b) and (c) can provide a way out for our lovebirds. (b) would allow Sergei to get a Vegas conversion (sans kabbalat mitzvot, for all but the most incorrigibly naïve) so that he and Svetlana can live happily ever after. (c) would allow them to obviate the whole issue by essentially importing Cyprus into Israel. Sergei can therefore remain his (halakhically) gentile self and marry his basherte without having to convert.

In general, I’m in favor of civil unions in Israel, though I understand that the issue is very complicated. When compared with (b), however, it is by far the lesser of two evils. The conversion agenda is being promoted by people with minimal respect for the halakha and even less interest in observing it. The “problem” with conversion is that it requires a commitment to a lifestyle change that many potential converts are simply not interested in adopting. So what happens? Yvette and Tzipi get together and agree to promote an interpretation of the halakha that allows for wholesale conversions.

Civil unions, at the very least, would not further politicize the halakhic process in Israel. At best, it may start to rehabilitate it, as halakha begins once again to operate free of massive political pressure. Sure, there will always be rabbis who would be megayer a horse if you pay him enough. Nevertheless, we should not go around eating onions just because our breath already stinks.

An interesting difference of opinion regarding (b) and (c) stems, as far as I can tell, from the Reform and Conservative movements. The Reform movement does not want to stop with civil unions because they are aiming for state recognition. They want the state to actively recognize Reform conversions and weddings, and not simply offer a secular alternative to a religious ceremony. The Conservative movement seems to tend more toward (c) – let there be a civil union, the Rabbanut ceases to be the sole authority for weddings, and people can arrange their wedding ceremonies however they desire after visiting the civil authorities. They seem much less interested in state recognition of their religious services. I’m not really sure what causes this distinction.

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.

ADDeRoundup

I like interesting juxtapositions in real life. One will often, if on the lookout, come across things whose proximity paints an interesting picture or narrative. Last week, driving from Honesdale, PA to Monticello, NY, I saw a veterinary clinic right across the street from a taxidermist. I guess they’re much easier to stuff and pose before rigor mortis sets in.

People think I’m pluralistic. Maybe I once was. I’m not so sure anymore. It’s easy to confuse indifference with pluralism. I think that’s worthwhile remembering in general.

On the same note, I think my heart is going deaf. Kudos to whomever correctly understands that reference.

This Jpost article talks about how Ehud and Tzipi are afraid that Russian Jewry will disappear because only about 10% of the 880,000 Jews in the FSU are Jewishly engaged. The same article says that only about 10% of Jews currently making aliyah from the FSU are halachically Jewish. Tzipi thinks that more lenient conversion standards will encourage more to come. The whole thought process seems so backward, I just don’t know where to begin.


Finally, can anyone identify the subject of my new profile picture? At least one reader should get it right away.

Upcoming Posts

Please don’t take my lack of posts on the subject of the current conversion issue for lack of interest. I’m terribly interested. I don’t think that I have much to add, though, except for a few observations. I hope to address them in some upcoming posts, all somewhat related to this issue, including:

· Part 2 of my post on the differences between American and Israeli rabbis.

· The Date Leumi Rabbinate: Sleeping in the bed they helped make.

· What this means for the RCA.

· Reading between the lines of Rav Lichtenstein’s response.

Hopefully:

· A series on some of the major contemporary dilemmas in giyur.

It’s all just a question of having the time.

Mishpat Echad Yihyeh Lachem Ve-lager...

In this post, Menachem Mendel compares the declared values by which Obama would nominate Supreme Court justices with the role of the poseik as described by Prof. Sperber. I think it's right on the money (and didn't even need Prof. Sperber to tell me so). The greatest poseik is the one who combines knowledge of the law with sensitivity to the plight of the petitioner.

In many recent halakhic issues that have been heavily debated (Shira Hadasha-style minyanim, conversion, etc.) the two sides tend to pit these as the issues - the liberal side contending that the conservative side lacks compassion, and the conservative side contending that the liberal side lacks fealty to halakha.

Ultimately, though, both sides are vital. The greatest poskim understood that, implicitly if not explicitly. There are many of them out there today as well, but they are unfortunately not as visible as the ones on one side of the debate or the other.

NYT on Proving Jewishness

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/magazine/02jewishness-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=3&ref=magazine&oref=slogin