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.

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.

Hate to Say I Told You So, But...

About a year and a half ago, when the whole Rabbanut vs. the RCA issue developed, I started writing about how a fellow named Rabbi Nachum Eisenstein and his organization, the Vaad HaRabbani Haolami Leinonei Giyur, were pushing the Rabbanut to discredit American orthodox rabbis. I mentioned that he was influencing organizations like EJF to adopt Rav Elyashiv's standards universally. I also mentioned that he doesn't really consider American community rabbis, (the modern orthodox variety in general, but lav davka) to be orthodox.

Those posts drove a lot of traffic to my blog, but my 'theories' didn't really gain much traction. Steven I. Weiss even spent an entire post debunking me and denying that RNE has anything to do with the whole issue. Granted, the fact that RNE did what he did at the EJF conference doesn't 'prove' that he was behind the whole Rabbanut vs. RCA thing. I actually have confirmed from other sources that, at least at the time of the scandal, RNE was part of a three-member 'kitchen cabinet' advising Rabbi Yigal Krispel, who was in charge of evaluating conversions from abroad. RNE remains a veteran member of the Jerusalem Rabbinical court establishment.

So last week, when RNE got up at the EJF and disqualified the conversions of any Rabbi who believes that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, people were shocked, up in arms, going nuts. I wasn't terribly surprised. RNE's been saying these things for years. The difference is that now he has a platform.

An angle of his speech that I haven't heard elsewhere is that he had a specific rabbi in mind with that diatribe: Rabbi Barry Freundel. RBF is the RCA's recognized giyur person for Greater Washington, and is very involved in giyur in general, through his shul (Kesher Israel in Georgetown). He is a big part of the RCA's restructuring of its giyur registration. He was the point person in the RCA's negotiations with the Rabbanut, which RNE was working hard to stop (to the extent that he informed Chief Rabbi Amar, the day before his meeting with Rabbis Freundel and Billet of the RCA, that RBF's shul has a women's tefillah group, in the hopes of discrediting him. I don't know whether RBF believes in a young Earth or not; I do know that there are members of Jerusalem's Rabbinical Court who would not accept his conversions (which, I might add from the experience of personally having worked with him on a few instances of giyur from the UMD community, are done with a very thorough and serious process). RBF also doesn't 'look' like the 'dayan' that EJF/RNE/RYSE envisions - no suit, colored shirt, knit kippah, and, IIRC, wedding band. I cannot imagine that it was an accident.

Giyur: Here We Go Again

The EJF just held a conference in Jerusalem. There, a video was aired where R' Elyashiv called for the dismantling of the Rabbanut's Conversion Authority.

Jpost link

Many readers will remember that in May I wrote that a pro-R' Elyashiv group called the The Vaad HaRabbonim Haolami LeInyonei Giyur was strong within the EJF, and that they were also trying to manipulate the Rabbanut itself to accept their particular standards. This article spells it out, and includes a grat picture of RNE with R' Moshe Klein, Deputy Director of the Conversion Authority (R' Klein is the one with the knit yarmulke).


This will give me the opportunity to continue my posts on giyur 'standards'. The issue sorta died after the RCA-Rabbanut agreement. I'm glad that the hostile takeover failed.

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.

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.

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.

Shut Ha-ADDeRabbi, Part II

I just got the following question from the same guy as I got this one:

Rabbi F.,

I was wondering if you'd be able to answer a question for me. My fiancee and I are recently engaged and are starting to plan our wedding for next year. One detail that we are attempting to work out is the fact that I am Jewish and she is Catholic. We would like to encorporate (sic) traditions from both relgions (sic) into our wedding ceremony and I was wondering if you have any advice on how this is done. To make things even more difficult, the wedding is in ******, a community I am not really familiar with.

Ideally we'd love to have a priest and a rabbi there, but we don't know what the logistics on something like this are. Can you fill me in on any advice you may have on this subject?

Thanks very much.

So, like, what are my options? Ignore him? That would kill one of probably a very limited number of relationships with anyone connected to Torah. On the other hand, there’s obviously not much help I can offer him. Do I give him a few ‘customs’ like having the bride walk around seven times (or even let them walk around each other 7 times; nisht geferlach at this point. Maybe he’d break a glass? That might be appropriate. Ash on the forehead? Also might be appropriate, and the in-laws can even relate J. Empty pockets to recall the day of death? Having a ‘shomer’? Fasting? Doing a Vidui right before? Using the opportunity to pray for sick individuals? These are all things that are positive in any context, so if it adds some Jewishness to his life, mah tov. Maybe they’ll eventually get hooked up with EJF.

Alternatively, I can give him the straight dope. If he is lost to Judaism forever, no big deal, right? It ends with him anyway. Tell him that anything ‘Jewish’ about the wedding is a farce, and that Judaism doesn’t recognize intermarriages. Let him experience a bit of rage, or guilt, or both.

In any event, here’s how I responded. Comments welcome, since I'm very uneasy about this whole situation:

Hi A.,

First of all, congratulations on your engagement. I hope that the two of you find much happiness. I'm glad to see that you were able to successfully heal your relationship and move forward.

I have never officiated at a multidenominational ceremony, and don't really have an idea of what one would look like. It probably depends a lot on the two of you - how you would like your wedding to look. I would meet with you to discuss it, but, if you didn't already know, my wife and I moved to Israel over the summer. I'd suggest reading up on Jewish wedding customs on-line, and seeing what resonates with you. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to email me.

Regarding a Rabbi to officiate, I have some contacts in the @@@@@@ Rabbinate. You would be looking for a Rabbi who affiliates with the Reform movement, who would officiate at a wedding between a non-coreligionist couple. I will make the initial contact and then put you in touch.

Take care,

E.

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.

Good Torah, No Viagra

YU seems to be getting it. 3 learning packets are being promoted for self-study during the night of Shavuot, for adults, teens, and kids. Skimming through, the one for teens looks like a winner (on the topic of halakhot of steroid use). They’ve even come up with some really nifty marketing.

The packet for adults is very similar to the teen packet in structure and content, though it addresses issues which are ostensibly of greater concern for adults – IVF, anti-depressants, etc. The topic is ‘Medical Enhancement’. When I first read that, I thought that it was going to be about the halakhic, er, viability of Viagra and other drugs whose stated goals are ‘enhancement’. That might have been a pretty good topic, too, but the packet just doesn’t go there. Sorry, Rafael Palmeiro, only the teenagers will be talking about you.

Well, the Tzelem Project is still pretty new, and is just now starting to address female sexuality. Maybe next year these two arms of the CJF (not to be confused with the EJF) will talk to each other and crank out a packet on that topic.

I plan on tackling Lawrence Kaplan’s article on Levinas’ view of the Revelation at Sinai (based on the chapter called ‘The Temptation of Temptation’ in Nine Talmudic Readings), will be giving a shiur on that same topic (which I also gave, and posted, last year), and probably go through the Yad Ramah’s intro to Perek Chelek, where he takes Rambam to task, with a chavrusa that I’m finishing Rambam’s intro with.