R. Henkin’s position that signing a falsehood on an official document should be seen as an “error in administrative judgment” is not one that particularly resonates. Without chas v’shalom implying any comparion between the people, should we perhaps call Yeravam ben Navat’s placing of two golden calves a momentary error in political administration? Signing a sheker on an official document is NOT like tying knots on Shabbos, where widespread ignorance may allow us to attribute the action to ignorance of the law. The difference between truth and untruth is well known. Taking liberties with truth is at the core of disqualifying people from testimony and sitting in judgment.

We are still in need of a better treatment.

I wish I could say that an apology was in order, but that is not the case. To spell out more would only add more fuel to the fire. My assessment was not my own, and came entirely from sources within the DL world.

http://hazofe.co.il/web%5Cnewsnew%5Ckatava6.asp?Modul=24&id=59336&Word=&gilayon=3190&mador=136

Bottom line from the article:

Is it really pshat in the Rambam? Yes.

Is it really a serious halachic viewpoint, even if a minority one? Yes. (And it is certainly not just “one or two” lonely voices.)

Is there any validity to what Rav Sherman did? No.

Rav Sherman, by the way, is being accused of very serious moral breaches in his conduct as a dayan:

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/756/267.html

For a lecture about who Rav Druckman shlit”a is and also his approach to giyur, see here (Rav Rakeffet on “Nationalistic Geirus”):

http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/716812/Rabbi_Aaron_Rakeffet-Rothkoff/2003-02-23_Nationalistic_Gairus

This lecture is from long before the current controversy, and reflects the essentially positive approach that one would expect regarding something like this, had power-politics not gotten involved.

Rabbi Alderstein, I really think you should apologize for what you wrote: “Rav Druckman, to the best of my knowledge, is a fine gentleman, but not one of the halachic luminaries of the DL world.” He is a posek easily of the stature of some of the best in North America.

http://www.inn.co.il/Besheva/Article.aspx/7488
http://www.inn.co.il/Besheva/Article.aspx/7505
http://www.inn.co.il/Besheva/Article.aspx/7521

I also read through R’ Elyashiv’s opinion on the Langer case again as well as R’ Yisraeli’s counter-opinion. It seems that R’ Elyashiv’s position contradicts that which is attributed to him by R’ Sherman. What is most amazing is that R’ Elyashiv gives a high level of importance to the society in which the ger lived in after the conversion. To the point that he does not mind if the ger ignores major portions of Torah law as long as he displayed some level of change. Rav Yisraeli takes issue regarding this point - how can the red line be so subjective?

I have also spoken to several rabbis who have worked with R’ Drukman’s beis din and they all claimed that the assertion that the beis din does not take seriously the issue of kabbalat haMitzvot is slanderous. They had all sponsered potential gerrim and were asked about the gerim’s progress in the community and their dedication to mitzvot.

What they DO advocate, however, is a sort of “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude beDiavad. The sort of equivalent to how we treat a get after its complete - we rip it up so that no mistakes can be found later on. This is of course a matter of public policy and needs to be decided by bodies such as the chief rabbinate. Of course, if it can be shown that a beis din converts gerim who consistantly make no change in their lives, then such a beis din should be “taken off duty.”

I know this is off topic but might you go into more depth on this?

One man’s pshat is another’s krumkeit

Correct, so why not leave each group to their own devices and if/when their paths cross it is up to each individual to look out for themselves?

One more important opinion on the matter is Rav ISrael Rozen’s opinion on similar issues in the past (a person in the centre of this debacle) : IN TEchumim VOl. 23 page 198-202 (one can see page 201 for the conclusions of his opinions) where he is extrmely stringent on these matters:

1) a constant situation of contravening laws of torah cannot be equated to a situation of “onness”.In addition there are many who hold that if a ger cannotwithstand to an onness (where he is mandated to withstand) there is a problem in the kabbalat hamitzvot.

2) Where the prospective convert knows the strignency of the prohibition and willfully deceives the beit din that is certainly “anan sahadi” that there is no kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not accept even bedieved conversion done with umdenah demuchach that there will be no kabbalat hamitzvot.

3) He does not accept even bedieved “deah dechyuyah yechidait” (a sinlge REJECTED opinion) that the concept of Kabbalat Hamitzvot refers to accepting the punishment for violating the mitzvot when there is no intent to keep and perform the mitzvot.

This is an opinio of Rav ROzen REligious Zionist RAbbi as recorded in the aforementioned periodical.

Further, he is widely respected in the RZ world as well. He has the kind of stature that the ashkenazi chareidim will not be able to ignore. And Rav Ammer, is a close talmid/haver of rav Ovadia. I think that a peshara would be to let R’ ovadia decide what to do about past conversions as well as what to do about giurim for the future.

I am also looking into Rav Yisraeli’s position on giur. I have just purchaced a book with all of his piskei din when he was on the beis din haGadol. I am guessing there is something to be found there.

I would still like some clarification regardin the questions I posted above (they have not been removed from moderation yet).

My biggest question is the difference between motive for giur and kabbalat haMitzvot and the interplay between them. It seems to me that allowing someone to be megayer for ishut carries with it an implicit assumption that there is severe danger for a lack of kabbalat haMitzvot.

I am not surprized by Rav Lior’s teshuva. Most rabbanim that I know in the RZ world are pretty strict on kabbalat haMitzvot as a component of giur. Frankly, for a public policy perspective, I am not convinced that being leniant in this regard is the best policy - I fear that such a course holds more dangers than it actually solves.

In any case, I think the public reaction from the RZ side is more due to the fact that the psak is seen as blatently political in its nature and it attacks R’ Druckman in terms which are too strong.

The other question is (and the one which is often ignored): What ARE we supposed to do about the current situation? Even if we say that the solution of the left of orthodoxy is no good. That does not give us the right to ignore the problem. an alternative MUST be found! I actually find the silence from halachic luminaries on the center and the right to be just as disturbing as the reliance on daat yachid on the left!

Charedi Leumi -
Sure looks to me like R Lior holds a position identical to, close to, or perhaps even more demanding than R Sherman! He certainly dismisses R Daichovski’s position! (He then elegantly sidesteps having to comment directly on R Druckman’s conversions.) It is a response completely consistent with the manner of talmidei chachamim, in directly relating to the halachic issues, instead of simply whipping the crowd into a frenzy, as certain other articles did.

Thank you for posting this. It is good to hear Rabbis from the RZ expressing their opinions on this matter. Most importantly where we agreement on the essential parts of the contentions that the conversions must carry sincerity and most importantly that they can even invalidate it ex post facto if for instance there was laxity in shabbat kashrus and tfillin. Let us hope that we can find more and more such announcements and a lot of problems will be highly minimized. Todah Rabbah vekol tuv,

Shalem

On the contrary. No one is forcing the Chareidim to abide by anything they dont want to abide by. They can examine the yichus of someone they want to marry and decide if further “conversion” is desired. They can decide that the food they thought was ok should be be classified as bishul akum and establish their own kashrut seperate from the rabbanut. Oh, they already do that, sorry. They can even establish their own group of “mehadrin Jews” if they want, and exclude everyone they have even the slightest suspicion of. No one is forcing them to accept anything. Unlike the situation earlier this year when they tried to force the rest of the country to eliminate reliance on the Heter Mechira.

I reccomend this article by rav Shlomo Riskin, who reads the Rambam according to pshat.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659738513&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

– out of curiosity, and as a point of clarification, when rav adlerstein visits Israel, and obviously goes to see the mosdos hatorah and the gdolim,
i wonder what is included in that spectrum. to some that spectrum is from black to black; too many people can only lend legitimacy to another camp for Shiva calls…..

שאלה:
רציתי לדעת מה דעתו ההלכתית של הרב, כיצד ראויי לגייר לאור מצב הגויים בארץ, ומה הרב אומר על פסילת הגיורים של הרב דרוקמן?

תשובה:
אני לא בדקתי את הנושא, ואני לא יכול להביע דעה ולהתייחס לדבר שאני לא יודע. רק עיתונאים פועלים כך לפעמים, אך אני לא יכול לעשות דבר כזה. אני יודע שמטפלים בבירור הסוגיה הזו, ונחייה ונראה מה יגידו.
גירות צריכה להיות בבית דין שמשתכנע שהמועתד לגיור, בין איש ובין אישה, יודעים את החומר וחושבים שהם יקיימו אורח חיים של שמירת תורה ומצוות. אם זה בספק, אסור לגייר. אם בתי הדין האלו פעלו כך או לא, אני לא יכול להביע דעה, אני לא בדקתי את הנושא.

אם אחר כך התברר שלא שומרים תורה ומצוות,השאלה מתי זה קרה. אם תקופה מסויימת הם הקפידו על תורה ומצוות, ולאחר מכן נחלשו, כתוב מפורשות שגר שחזר לסורו, זה שמו ישראל עבריין, ש”אף על פי שחטא, ישראל הוא”. אם לפחות נשאר בדברים בסיסיים כשבת, כשרות, תפילין, ולא הקפיד על גילוח בחול המועד זה פחות בעיה. אך אם התברר למפרע שתיכף למחרת הגיור, נסעו בשבת,אכלו אוכל לא כשר זה מגלה שאף פעם לא הוחזקו במנהגי ישראל ונמצא כל הגירת היתה בהערמת בית הדין, זו הייתה הצגה. גם אחרי עשרים שנה מתברר למפרע שכל הקבלה הייתה מן השפה ולחוץ. וצריך לבדוק כל מקרה לגופו, האם שמר דברים בסיסיים המקובלים לשמור בחברה דתית ורק בדברים אחרים הייתה לו חולשה, ואי אפשר להתייחס בצורה גורפת.

This should read:

Further, some of the responsa I have seen regarding number 1 above seem to me to obviously also lack the kind of kabalat haMitzvot which would satisfy you.

It is posts like yours which leave me a bit confused. I am far from an experct in these matters. But I have been trying to educate myself more in this area. Frankly, most treatements on the matter from both the left and right leave me more confused than before. There seem to be several components at play here and I am not sure where each begins and the other ends. In the rishonim and achronim that I have looked at, there seem to be several inter-related issues as I understand them:

1. intent of the convert (leShem ishut, etc)
2. kabbalat haMitzvot
3. things beis din are required to inform the ger
4. potential hazara leSuro

This is where confusion sets in. There seems to be a lot of room for kula regarding number 1 in cases where two people have already been living together or if avoiding conversion will lead to more problems than it will solve.

It seems that the Rambam identifies number 2 with number 3 (not like you say that 3 comes after 2. However, this is not as clear to me in other rishonim.

What is NOT clear to me is what kabbalat mitzvot means. On the one hand, in order to understand the various gamaras, we have to assume it is a kabbala in a very abstract sense without any connection to a specific din (as you explained above regarding a goy that did not know ikkar shabbat). On the other hand, the beis yitzchok and R’ chaim ozer seem to say that there needs to be SOME particular change of behavior to validate the kabbalat haMitzvot. Nobody seems to be explicit to what extent this is the case - you bring opinions that he must commit to deOraitas but you must concede that the gemara seems to imply that this is not a requirement - that kabbalat mitzvot can exist without this - you did this above (although not leKatchila). Somehow, the beis din needs to decide the sincerity of the prospect before the conversion but nobody seems to be explicit how to decide this sincerity. Many rishonim even seem to suggest that you should not tell him too much, lest we scare him off. Someone like my self is left in utter confusion.

Add to all this the fact that there does not seem to be many sources suggesting that a beis din has any responsibility to check after a ger after the conversion and the confusion gets even worse.

Further, some of the responsa I have seen regarding number 1 above seem to me to obviously also lack the kind of number 3 which would satisfy you. For example, in R’ Dovid Zvi Hoffman’s psak permitting marriage leShem Ishut, it is hard to believe that the ger in question would keep the law knowing everything we know about german Jewish society during that period.

B’Vracha,

A confused Chareidi Leumi

I agree that it’s silly to question Mrs. Shear’s integrity based on an innocent misspelling of a name (there are different ways of spelling “Soloveitchik” in Hebrew, too), and on the fact that she didn’t include the first name of the Rav Soloveitchik in question. After all, I imagine those commenters probably don’t refer to RYBS by his first name either; they just call him the “Rav”!

But Rabbi Oberstein, why do you think Mycroft is hiding behind an assumed name? I assure you, he’s a real person; I knew his brother well.

“Shalem,

I am not aware of any written source where anyone associated with R’ Druckman’s beis din has argued that kabbalat haMitzvot should not be a requirement for conversion”.

Shalom! Unfortunately there are many people (and here too we had commenters that repeat this mantra) who write in part of their defense to Rav Druckman’s position that Kabblat Hamtizvit is not necessary, that the Rambam did not write it (something we have shown that it is utterly FALSE!) and so on. I beleive that there is a Proffessor (I forgot their names (Zohar ) forgive me if i’m wrong) who wrote a whole dissertation on this point exactly. I do not recall at this moment that Rav Druckman’s bais din themselves wrote it (And I apologized if I wrote that the themselves have written it); but certainly people associated with their positions keep defending them (and I saw it in numerous places) partially based on this false misconception.

Charedi Leumi continues:
“The most I think anyone can say is that they are too naive in their appraisal of the intent of the prospective ger. If it could be shown that the majority of converts comming out of the court show no change in their lifestyle than maybe someone can make an argument for the court being unreliable”‘.

Dear Charedi Leumi, please if you can, take your time to read what has been said by Rav Sherman in his ruling (even if you disagree with what he ruled, you should at least know what he claims so that you can attack him appropriately. IT is very disconcerting that after such long attacks on him people repeat things that are not actually what he said or that he actually has claimed what some would liked what he should have said), to see that this is actually what he claims and even worse! That Rav Druckman’s Bais Din systemically disregards the requirement to ensure that the convert commits himself to live JEwishly. I don’t know if they claim that these are majority of his conversions; but he claims that there are huge numbers where RD totally disregards the requirement that the convert should commit to do mitzvot. This is a serious breach as far as the literal halachik meaning of kbbalat hamtizvot is concerned.

Charedi Leumi writes:
“However, everyone must admit that EVERY court would have some percentage of its converts who do not sincerely accept the mitzvot. The issue seems to be how tamim should a court be when appraising prospective gerim”.

TRue every Bais Din fails here and there. But they at least try hard to ascertain that a certain serious commitment has taken place.Actually you write about “Tamim”; In our case it is actually worse than that: RD converts whom it’s obvious that they will not observe shabbat kashrut and taharat hamishpacha and he did that systematically convert them in this state and with a shitta about it!

Charedi leumi writes:
“Has anyone claimed that the beis din in question does not inform the gerim of the mitzvot kalot and chamurot, their schar and onesh? What evidence is there that this court has changed any of the traditional components of giur?”

It is not enough to “inform”; the heart and blood of conversion is the commitment to live jewishly. The “informing” comes after the person accepts to live jewishly according to the lifestyle of Torat Hashem to Am yisrael. After this has been established we can move on to “inform” them about kalot vechamurot and schar veonesh; if there is no serious acceptance on the essence of commitment to Jewish tradition and lfiestyle and of beleif in certain basic principles (as fate of the Jewish people and G-d of Israel etc.) then “informing” is merely robotic and conversion is a matter OF LIFE NOT OF INFORMATION!

Charedi Leumi writes:
“Will finding a ger who never accepted mitzvot now serve as ground for paseling dayanim?”

Not the finding of one or few isolated cases; but if one finds that the daayan systematically converts people without them committing to observe especially when it is done with a “shitta” to “davka” do so it is grounds to passel them. ACtually none other than Rav MOshe Feinstein OBM in IM YD 160 raises the problem that such dayanim may not be eligible to fit for dayanim and maybe they are “garua mihedyotot” for this concern exactly!

Charedi leumi writes:
“It seems to me that this is something that is very much up to the subjective judgement of the dayanim and that it stands to reason that sometimes they would get it wrong”.

Actually Rav Moshe writes in his name and his name of his father: that in situations where the convert is converting to marry a jewish spouses and the jewish spouse is not observant it becomes “anan sahadi” grounds for objective assessment that the fellow is not commiting to live jewishly. IN one place RMF writes that there should a “zman gadol” of observance to verify that there was genuine commitment to observe! And unfortunately in these cases (where they convert for marriage and the spouse is non observant) they would “get it right” in most of the cases! -while some would surprise the rabbi as the convert remains observant even if the spouse does not and at times the covnert brings the spouse back to judaism but those are from the “Few” and the “most” are unfortunately the reverse-.

Charedi Leumi writes:
“Now, if it can be shown that there is a pattern where most procpective gerim comming out of a beis din show NO change in behavior (and I mean no change, I think that most would agree that even a slight change like lighting shabbat candles or saying kiddush or saying shma yisroel would signify kabbalat haMitzvot of SOME kind),”:

This too is probably not the accepted opinion of the majority of posskim (actually I would challenge anyone to show me a “minority” who concurs with you in a written pssak din!): Most would not agree that “slight change” like lighting candles or even saying shma yisrael is enough. FOr instance Rav Chayim OYzer who was lenient in some of the issues under discussion, wrote clearly that we would need serious commitment to observe shmirat shabbat, kashrut and taharat hamishpacha meaning restricting oneself from practices that violate issurim deorayta. It would appear that just lighting shabbat candles would certainly not suffice and it does not show any commitment to refrain oneself from practices that are contrary to issurim deorayto. I would even ask you to find a written responsa by Possek that he states that refraining from biblical prohibtions and still violating biblical prohibitions (n shmirat shabbat or kashrus or mikvah) would suffice. IT would appear literally that the fellow must commit to all biblical restricitions. (In fact, even if he rejects outright some of the rabbinical prohibtions may cause a huge problem but certainly if he clearly rejects the acceptance of some biblical command or that he does not accept to refrain in practice from biblical prohibtions to keep shabbat wuld create a rpoblem at least in the realm of “vaday” and put him or her in the realmof “Safek”).

Charedi Leumi writes:
“However, in this particular case, it seems to me that an entire beis din was all their conversions were delegitimized based on ONE case”.
This is really unfair! The Rabbi deligitimized the conversions based on his knowledge about his numerous other conversions as he WRITES IN HIS RULING! (please read it inside).

“Further, the dayan who did this did not invite the members of the beis din in question for questioning -”:

The claim of RS is that they once did request to come and he refused.

” did not have all the information regarding this particular woman,”
Why did he not have the information regarding this woman? Is that BD the only source of information about the woman?? There obviously can be other avenues for information about this woman.

” and ignored the explicit instructions of the chief rabbi who is his superior!”
I’m sorry, but this argument is totally beyond me! How can an honest dayan NOT rule according to his honest to goodness opinion??? His superior is THE ALMIGHTY G-D! and he responds to him only! He must rule according to his understanding as to what is the Will of Hashem. Actually Hashem writes in His Torah “loy taguru MIPNEY ISH” that one of the requirements of a judge is not fear ANY MAN (including the chief rabbi!).

Shalom, Shalem

Ori: Do they insist that a Charedi court tell Charedim that these gerim are Jews? Or do they insist that a government court allow these gerim to marry spouses who are not Charedi, and who either accept them as gerim or don’t care?

In the time of Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai marriage did not have government involvement. That made it easy to live with disagreements. This is not the situation today.

Imagine you were Beit Hillel, and you loved and wished to marry a woman who was permitted to you according to Beit Hillel’s opinion. You went to your town’s Rabbanut, who happened to be Beit Shammai, and they told you to forget it. Halacha forbids the marriage, so you’d better find somebody else. How charitable would you feel towards Beit Shammai afterwards?

Comment by mb — June 18, 2008 @ 10:11 pm

As I mentioned previously, the pictures and mementos of this visit are packed away as I am moving to Israel in 2 weeks. I truly do not have time for this. Either accept what I said or don’t. For those who know me, my integrity and honesty in my dealings is not something that comes into question. For those who do not know me, I am sorry I cannot accomodate you at this time. Moving my family and myself to Eretz Yisrael is pretty big stuff. Everything else right now has to take a back seat.

No, she didn’t want a get. She wanted to get divorced. Her “desire” for a get was only because, as long as one is “civilly” (i.e., legally) Jewish, one NEEDS a get to get divorced, even in the secular environment. There is no indication from what we have heard that if she didn’t need one, she would want one. I can’t see how this constitutes a change in behavior which, by all accounts, is what is being required of her.

I am not aware of any written source where anyone associated with R’ Druckman’s beis din has argued that kabbalat haMitzvot should not be a requirement for conversion. The most I think anyone can say is that they are too naive in their appraisal of the intent of the prospective ger. If it could be shown that the majority of converts comming out of the court show no change in their lifestyle than maybe someone can make an argument for the court being unreliable.

However, everyone must admit that EVERY court would have some percentage of its converts who do not sincerely accept the mitzvot. The issue seems to be how tamim should a court be when appraising prospective gerim.

Has anyone claimed that the beis din in question does not inform the gerim of the mitzvot kalot and chamurot, their schar and onesh? What evidence is there that this court has changed any of the traditional components of giur? Will finding a ger who never accepted mitzvot now serve as ground for paseling dayanim? It seems to me that this is something that is very much up to the subjective judgement of the dayanim and that it stands to reason that sometimes they would get it wrong. Now, if it can be shown that there is a pattern where most procpective gerim comming out of a beis din show NO change in behavior (and I mean no change, I think that most would agree that even a slight change like lighting shabbat candles or saying kiddush or saying shma yisroel would signify kabbalat haMitzvot of SOME kind), then I think that it is valid to discuss the competance of the beis din.

However, in this particular case, it seems to me that an entire beis din was all their conversions were delegitimized based on ONE case. Further, the dayan who did this did not invite the members of the beis din in question for questioning - did not have all the information regarding this particular woman, and ignored the explicit instructions of the chief rabbi who is his superior!

I just don’t see this as a valid reason to pasel a beis din - nor does someone in R’ Sherman’s position have the authority to do so. The discipline of dayanim correctly rests in the hands of the chief rabbi - R’ Ammar.