I mentioned, merely as an additional point, that a Conservative convert usually intends to merge with his or her new peers — a laity that does not observe even by Conservative standards. While Reb Yid may call this “the worst of intentions,” I do not agree. And even should one find a Conservative convert who intended to accept all 613 Commandments by Orthodox standards, the fact remains that there was no Bais Din.

I agree with Larry that the Rabbinate is tightening its standards to avoid false conversions even by allegedly “Orthodox” Rabbis. I disagree if he believes that’s a bad thing. The problem doesn’t lie with Rabbi Amar, but with those whose “conversions” rendered the bureaucratic hassles necessary.

“How many converts are there about whom we have any doubts as to whether there was a valid Bais Din, and whether they ever intended to observe even by Conservative standards, much less Maimonidean?”

On the latter point we don’t know, but why assume the worst of intentions in almost all cases?

And why assume that all or most converts who go to an Orthodox rabbi for conversion have motives/intentions that are any more “pure”?

Lacking any solid empirical data here, the conclusions that follow from the rest of that post are pretty meaningless.

I would think that whenever there are particular reasons to suspect on the giyur or the rabbis who make the giyur (they are known to have made valueless gerus) there may be room to question, before marrying off one’s child to that person.

Fifteen years ago I met a young woman who was NCSY’s student of the year, and then discovered her senior year that her non-observant mother was converted into the Conservative movement. It was obvious to her that she needed to convert genuinely, because there was no question that her mother had never intended to accept mitzvah observance.

Meanwhile, it is true that we have “a few Lubavitch Rabbis who pray to the Rebbe.” I am not aware that they have converted anyone; most “shlichim” are at most Meshichist, but not praying to their Rebbe. Obviously any conversion by an “Elokist” would be valueless… but we need to first find out that it happened, and that’s far less common than, say, the sham “Orthodox” conversions of American basketball players to get them onto Maccabee Tel Aviv. At least it used to be common — I think the state rabbinate may have cleaned house in that area.

There’s no doubt that there are invalid conversions in Orthodox circles, but those are fortunately quite rare. Today, any conversion done by a Conservative Rabbi fails simply because of his professed beliefs. There’s nothing to be “judgemental” about.

We see now what a Trojan horse Conservatism has always been for Judaism. All the moral/religious problems Conservatives now have are open expressions of the contradictions concealed within their belief system from the start. The comfort of convenient lies has led the movement from the progressive abandonment of Torah principles to the progressive abandonment of practical mitzvot to the open toleration of deviant behavior. If the flock has wandered off this far, we can blame the shepherds.

I don’t think that the group of G-d fearing, mitzva observing Rabbi’s who recieved smicha from JTS (when smicha from there really meant something) have to prove anything to you. I guess you will remain unsatisfied. The fact that you can be so judgemental, without knowing anything about the people that you are talking about, reflects very poorly on you.

Not to my satisfaction whatsoever!

Ori: Thank you. May I ask a related question? How far back do you need to check this? Imagine your son is about to marry a giyoret. Would you be obligated to ask about the Beit Din that converted her? What if she was born Jewish, but her mother is a giyoret? If it’s earlier than that, in the female line, would you need to look for court records on the Beit Din members?

At what point do you invoke the Mishnaic percept of: If we did that, we’d have to look into every court since the time of Moses (Mishnah Rosh Hashana 2:9: “אמר לו, אם באים אנו לדון אחר בית דינו של רבן גמליאל–צריכין אנו לדון אחר כל בית דין ובית דין שעמד מימות משה ועד עכשיו”).

Questions about observance of the Commandments are not pro forma. The actual acceptance of those Commandments as Divine Law is a prerequisite for conversion. If a person converted in front of three great Rabbis intending to celebrate his new status over a ham sandwich (knowing it was not Kosher), those Rabbis themselves would tell you he never converted, though there might have been no way to know it at the time.

Is Noam asserting that the majority of Lubavitchers pray to the Rebbe? I do not believe that to be true (and no, please, let us not go off on this tangent!).

The chance that C or R clergy will spend time on someone who wants to be Orthodox (that is, to buy into the whole Torah package and not selected short subjects), or that such a person will approach them to begin with, is laughably low.

Essentially, anything that makes one to be unfit to be considered a kosher witness, makes him be unfit to a member in the beth din. If he violates a a precept that would make him punishable with “malkot” (flagging) in the times of the Beit Hamikdash, knowingly that would make him unfit to be a witness and member of the beth din. Likewise a thief or a fraudulent would be unfit to be a witness and obviously a judge. With regards to your “shevach” scenario: most probably the conversion would be worth zilch if it was performed after the time that shevach was selling treyfe meat (even before the discovery). If at a time that it is suspicious if he was already selling that meat, it may also require a new conversion “misofek”.

It must also be noted: That a bes din has to have the expertise and honesty and integrity in the process they are performing. TTherefore, with regards to conversion, they must have knowledge about issues of conversion: in issues of halacha, issues of sincerity of the convert to convert and the plausibility of the potential convert to actually live a lfie of a Jew who will observe the mitzvot.

It is also important to note: that although we do not teach the convert every single mitzvah of the torah prior to the conversion; nevertheless the convert must have the COMMITMENT to keep the whole torah. This is the essence of the conversion: the commitment to live a life according the code of jewish law and the belief system given by the Torah as Maimonedes details those laws in the laws of tEshuva. IF a prospective convert says: “ill accept the whole torah except one” even if that may any mitzva (if he rejects it out of ideology) it throws the whole conversion in a doubt.

“…it is my understanding that people converted by a Bais Din of three observant Rabbis affiliated with the Conservative movement of the early 20th Century could be presumed to be Kosher converts. That might include Saul Lieberman, perhaps include him earlier but not later in his JTS career—I do not know enough of his biography or his personal statements, and don’t claim to be in any position to judge. He was always personally very observant and was very knowledgeable—he apparently was invited by Rav Hutner zt”l to give a shiur in Yeshivas Chaim Berlin, but joined JTS instead.”

So why say that a Lieberman conversion would be kosher before he went to JTS, but not after? Sounds like the reasoning here is political or sociological rather than on technical halachic grounds.

If you argue it’s because he taught at a Conservative rabbinical school….so what? Rabbinical schools of all denominations (including YU) have had numerous teachers and professors of different denominations instruct students there over the years.

On the quickie conversion–my point was that as long as someone asked the convert the pro forma question about accepting the mitzvot (and the response is yes), that’s OK.

And finally, it’s a very slippery slope to start talking about “changing Torah law”. That’s pretty subjective, as is claiming the Rambam as the exclusive province of Orthodoxy.

What kinds of sin make a man unqualified to sit on a Beit Din and therefore conversions invalid? Rejecting the eternity of the Torah and public violation of the Shabbat are two such sins - are there others?

For example, take the Monsey Treif Grocer ( http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2006/09/26/the-monsey-poultry-scandal-%e2%80%93-a-non-response/ ). Imagine that the day before his dishonesty was discovered he sat on a Beit Din that approved Ploni’s conversion. Would Ploni be a Kosher Jew, or would Ploni need to convert again?

My point was that not every conversion with a certificate signed by a rabbi with smicha from JTS was ipso facto invalid. In fact, many from the older generation in fact were done k’dat v’k'din(according to traditional Jewish law and practice). And, lumping the Conservative with the Reform on this issue is not fair(although more recently it is more and more fair). I think we have some agreement on the point, just not on the frequency of this happening.

[I didn't see Ori's excellent outline while I wrote this, but, while it is accurate, I'm not "happy" dividing into four groups like that. First of all, I would prefer to see three true talmidei chachamim sitting on a conversion Beis Din, and I would feel uncomfortable doing so myself. But furthermore, while it is true that in general Judaism is a religion of action, professing to deny the eternity of Torah and G-d's Commandments (both Written and Oral) is as certain to invalidate as is public violation of the Shabbos. The Talmud and Codes don't divide them up into different classes of people.]

It is, therefore, not a blurry line at all. To affiliate with the Conservative movement is to accept the belief that Torah law can be changed. To be a Conservative Rabbi is to disagree with Maimonides. That is the right of every person, it’s a free country and a free world, but they cannot then respond with surprise when those who agree with Maimonides are unable to accept the validity of conversions performed by those who do not.

Nowhere did I intimate that “‘quickie’ conversions from Orthodox rabbis” would be valid… regardless of who does it, a conversion without acceptance of the Commandments is meaningless.

There are four groups of Jewish men above Bar Mitzva age:

1. Tzadikim Gmurim, the perfectly rightous. This group is vanishingly small, more of a theoretical limit than a real group.

2. Those who sin, but whose sins are minor enough to allow them to sit on a Beit Din, a religious court. A Beit Din is necessary for a conversion. I’m pretty sure Rabbi Yaakov Menken would put himself in this group.

3. Those whose sins are too griveous to for them to sit on a Beit Din. I’m intermarried and not Shomer-Shabbat, so I’m sure I’m a member of this group.

4. Those who are not qualified to sit on a Beit Din for a different reason, for example mental retardation or insanity. Those are not sins, but they still disqualify one from being a judge.

A Rabbi in a Conservative congregation can either believe in Conservative Judaism’s official positions ( http://www.jtsa.edu/about/cj/sacredcluster.shtml for example), or be dishonest by showing a false front to his congregants.

If I understand Rabbi Yaakov Menken correctly, either a belief in Conservative Judaism’s official positions or that level of dishonesty would disqualify a man from serving on a Beit Din. Therefore, any Conservative Rabbi ordained after those positions were accepted would be disqualified, and therefore no recent Conservative Beit Din is valid and no recent Conservative conversion is valid.

Note that this argument does not address the convert’s level of commitment, or the other practices of the members of the Beit Din. Nor does it mean that anybody who claims to be Orthodox is a member of groups 1/2 and qualified for Beit Din service.

Rabbi, did I explain it correctly?

I can think of plenty of C rabbis who would come up to specs, at least based on the criteria I mentioned.

The issue I’m still trying to figure out is what is the “line in the sand” that YM is trying to paint, and from where this criterion has emerged to determine whether or not the actual conversion is deemed kosher.

Most discussions about this topic that I’ve seen in the past have usually involve the O community/rabbis saying that there’s no mila to begin with (in the case of Reform conversions for males, and therefore the conversion not legit. Plus occasionally some discussion about the absence of discussion of taking on mitzvot.

But it hasn’t really been clear to me about the objections to a C conversion, and where the line gets blurred between sociology and actual standards for conversion.

The actual conversion process itself may be identical to an Orthodox one, and the Conservative rabbi in question may l’maaseh pray 3 times a day, be scrupulous ethically, study Jewish texts every day, etc.

Meanwhile, there may be individuals who get “quickie” conversions from Orthodox rabbis, with little to no idea if the converts themselves are going to be shomer mitzvot in any way, shape, or form…and this is all well and good.

Feel free to clarify.

Since his time? The Conservative movement that people have affiliated with in the last several decades, and the training at JTS, do not reflect his thinking. To be affiliated Conservative is to adopt an approach to Torah SheBa’al Peh that ensures the Bais Din would not be valid.

The Gemara in Yevamos certainly doesn’t mean you don’t teach a convert about Shabbos and Kashrus, nor that a potential convert can refuse to accept any mitzvah as binding. So how is it relevant? While I am no fan of Lubavitch meshichisten, I know only a few Chabad converts and none were asked to “accept the Rebbe as messiah.” I don’t think that would invalidate the conversion, though. Praying to the deceased Rebbe would be another matter entirely.

I would also remind R. Menkin that the gemara in Yevamot, 47b (top of the page), notes that one teaches converts a few of the difficult mitzvot, and a few of the easy mitzvot, obviously not the entire corpus of mitzvot. Clearly there is a requirement of accepting the yoke of mitzvot and the Divine nature of the Torah(both oral and written), but not each and every mitzva specifically (however, a convert cannot say that there is a specific mitzva that they will not observe). I think if R. Menken wants to add more theological tests, he may want to examine Lubavitch conversions as well, and decide if asking people to accept the Rebbe as messiah may be outside of the Rambam’s rules as well.

My original point was that Heterodox Jews should neither expect approval of their religious practices from Orthodox Jews, nor be upset at the lack of such approval.