You Are Not Jewish Anymore! Haredim Revoke Conversion Done 15 Yrs Ago – Woman's Children Ruled Non-Jewish

Israel's haredi-dominated state-sponsored rabbinic apparatus controls the personal lives of millions of Israelis. They cannot marry or divorce without it. Haredim continue to abuse that system and abuse the Israeli populace, as Rivkah Lubitch reports in Ynet:

A rabbinical judge ruled recently that a woman who converted to Judaism 15 years ago was no longer Jewish, and that her children, who were born after she had already converted, were also not Jewish.

Moreover, the judge stated that the woman's marriage was invalid, and that there was therefore no need to grant her a divorce.

The judge ordered that the woman, her children and even her husband, a Jew by birth, be added to the list of those not allowed to marry by an Orthodox rabbi.

Rachel (not her real name) converted 15 years ago in a special conversion court headed by Rabbi Haim Druckman. Following the conversion she married Boaz (not his real name), and they have lived in Israel ever since. There two children were brought up Jewish and Israeli.

Recently, the couple decided to get a divorce. They separated on good terms, reached a dignified divorce settlement and held a respectable divorce ceremony at the rabbinical court.

However, during the divorce process, one of the rabbinical judges decided to inquire a little further about Rachel's conversion, and asked her about her mitzvot observance. Displeased with the answer he received, the judge ruled that Rachel's conversion was null, and that subsequently her children were not Jewish too.

All conversions invalid 
Did the judge forget the Halacha ruling that states that a convert is a Jew in the full sense of the word? Where is the "love for the foreigner" Judaism prides itself in? Where are the compassion and morality?

The judge in fact ruled that all conversions signed by the special conversion court were invalid, because the court was headed by "heretics" and "criminals." [I.e., Modern Orthodox rabbis.] This ruling implies that the thousands of conversions conducted by such courts were unacceptable.

Rachel and Boaz decided to fight the ruling, for their sake and the sake of their children, but their personal battle also represents tens of thousands of people, who according to the new rules will discover that they are no longer considered Jews and are therefore unable to wed by an Orthodox rabbi or be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

Rivkah Lubitch is head of the Center for Women's Justice Haifa office. She is a rabbinical pleader with six years experience and has an MA in the history of the Jewish people

[Hat Tip: KK.]

UPDATE 5-17-07: The Center for Women's Justice tells me the rabbinic judge in question is Rabbi Avraham Atiya from Ashdod.

UPDATE 5-18-07: The Jerusalem Post confirms the Ynet story and adds the name of the judge – Avraham Attiya of Ashdod, as we reported earlier. It is clearly a political decision. Rabbi Attiya refers to Rabbi Druckman as "Het," ("sin") in his judgement. I'll post the JP story after the jump …

Rabbi annuls conversion after 15 years
Matthew Wagner, THE JERUSALEM POST    May. 18, 2007

A rabbinic judge has retroactively annulled a woman's conversion to Judaism, performed 15 years ago by the present head of the state's Conversion Authority.

In his extraordinary recent intervention, Rabbi Avraham Atia of the Ashdod Rabbinic Court also ruled that the woman's three children and husband were "unacceptable for marriage to the Jewish people."

Atia issued the ruling based on the woman's admission that she did not observe the halacha (Jewish law) governing Shabbat or family purity.

The woman had come to Atia for a divorce from her husband. But Atia ruled that she was not a Jew, since she had not intended at the time of conversion to adhere to halacha. Therefore, she did not need a get (writ of divorce), since Jewish law does not recognize the marriage of a gentile to a Jew, he said.

A copy of the ruling, which was issued in February, was obtained by The Jerusalem Post this week. Rivkah Lubitch, a Rabbinic Court advocate who represents the family, said she would appeal Atia's ruling in the High Rabbinic Court.

"Permitting the retroactive annulment of conversions means that the convert will live in a constant state of fear that he or she will one day not be considered a Jew," Lubitch said.

A week ago, Jewish Agency Chairman Ze'ev Bielski called on Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar to appoint conversion judges who were willing to be more lenient in the acceptance of converts.

However, Atia's decision highlights the difficulties that converts can face when their conversions are performed by more lenient rabbis.

Rabbi Seth Farber of the ITIM Jewish Life Information Center, an organization that helps Israelis navigate the bureaucracies of the religious courts, said he had dealt with several cases in which people converted by the Conversion Authority had difficulty being recognized as Jews when they registered to get married.

"This case highlights an absurdity," he said. "On one hand, the government created the Conversion Authority to augment conversions. But at the same time, other rabbis - also state employees - are disqualifying those conversions."

As part of his legal decision, Atia issued a nine-page attack, complete with scholarly rabbinic glosses, against Conversion Authority head Rabbi Haim Druckman, who performed the woman's conversion.

Atia's ruling never mentions Druckman by name, but rather refers to him by the Hebrew letter "het," a homonym for "sin."

Atia also attacked the Conversion Authority and the conversion courts that operate under its aegis.

"These 'courts' permit 100 percent gentiles to marry into the Jewish people," Atia wrote. "And they cause many people to sin terribly. And they have turned conversions into a joke. The judges are nothing less than blasphemers and evil-doers. And since the judges are criminals, none of the conversions they perform should be recognized."

Rabbi Moshe Klein, deputy head of the Conversion Authority, said in response that "Rabbi Druckman fears only God. Atia's vulgarity speaks for itself."

Klein said he hoped Rabbi Eliahu Ben-Dahan, administrative head of the rabbinic court system, would rebuke Atia, but Shimon Ya'acobi, legal adviser to the rabbinic courts, said there were no plans to do so.

"Within the context of a judicial ruling, Atia enjoys immunity from charges of slander," Ya'acobi said.

Sources familiar with the rabbinic courts said it was very rare for a conversion to be annulled retroactively.

Comments

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

You can thank Shlomo Amar for this idiocy.

[steve]

This is not idiocy. Conversions have to be done according to Halacha. Otherwise, you will have wholesale phony conversions by Reform and Conservative "rabbis". Any Arab living in Israel can then go to these phony rabbis, give them a few shekels, and voila, they are Jewish, with full Israeli citizenship and rights. Better yet, we can have online conversions. If these aspiring converts are sincere about their love for Judaism, then they should do it the right way and see an Orthodox rabbi. This is a very serious matter and "mi hu yehudi" is a very serious issue today in Israel.

[Shmarya]

She was converted by modern Orthodox rabbis, Steve. Haredim retroactively ruled her to be not Jewish. This has nothing to do with non-Orthodox rabbis.

[shmuel]

Yo Steve, wake up: Rabbi Haim Druckman is an orthodox rabbi.
This is a travesty, an outrage, of the highest order. It's time to start shutting down charedi institutions in Isarel. Not a single penny of mine will go to them until they do heartfelt tshuvah for this outrage. Since they never will---they're infallible, don't you know---these cultists won't see any of my money.

[george]

Just when you think we've seen the sickest of incidents, comes along an even sicker one. The haredim are now going to decide "me hu orthodox"? F**d I swear!

[Josh]

The matter of conversion is no simplicity. Even if the Rabbi performing the giyur is the most rightous haredi Tzadik on this planet, the halakha dictates that if one disregards the laws that they had accepted to heed upon becoming a Jew or Jewess then their conversion is nul and void. End of stroy. The Rabbi of this article clearly voided her conversion on that basis. That's precisely why we persuade gentiles out of converting to Judaism since there has to be true sincerity and commitment to our religion in order to join.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

"The matter of conversion is no simplicity. Even if the Rabbi performing the giyur is the most rightous haredi Tzadik on this planet, the halakha dictates that if one disregards the laws that they had accepted to heed upon becoming a Jew or Jewess then their conversion is nul and void. End of stroy."

Your text to support this absurd theory? In fact, the rabbinic literature is full of exactly the opposite - of finding ways to accept conversions with a wide variety of "technical" issues. The madness of ever more chumroth imposed upon gerim by "frum Jews" must stop!

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

the halakha dictates that if one disregards the laws that they had accepted to heed upon becoming a Jew or Jewess then their conversion is nul and void. End of stroy.

Your source for this is?

Full acceptance of the Mitzvoth is an integral part of a kosher conversion. Did she agree to this at the time of the conversion? Did she later stop observing Mitzvoth? Or was there never a committment on her part? These are the questions that must be answered.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Look who's subverting the Torah

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

"There shall be one law both for you and for the convert that lives with you. This is a law forever for all generations, as you are, so shall the convert be before God. One Torah and one law shall be both for you and for the convert (Numbers 15)."

I propose a change in halacha to make it fair for both native born Jews and gerei tzedek. Anyone who commits one aveira is no longer Jewish.

[Chicago Sam]

Once again the stupid Haredim continue to behave like the of the old mideaval Catholic Church.

Who in the Hell do they think they are? My prayers go out to the family, may their faith remain intact after this lunacy as they must endure yet further family hardships. Dante was correct when he said that the lowest level of Hell is inhabited by the religious hyprocrites -- e.g., the Haredim and those who support their fanatical Taliban-esque ideaology.

Chicago Sam

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Full acceptance of the Mitzvoth is an integral part of a kosher conversion.

The Bnei Yisrael pledged to keep the Mitzvot at Har Sinai. Jews today sin yet remain Jewish. Why do you want to so strict with Gerei Tzedek?

[yisroel]

To all those MO rabbis that always kowtowed to the charedeim - You are getting your just desserts !!

[Commenter]

"If these aspiring converts are sincere about their love for Judaism, then they should do it the right way and see an Orthodox rabbi."

And someone seriously interested in Islam should go see Bin Ladin.

[Commenter]

"If these aspiring converts are sincere about their love for Judaism, then they should do it the right way and see an Orthodox rabbi."

And someone seriously interested in Islam should go see Bin Ladin.

[Liorah Lleucu]

This rabbi should be reincarnated into a situation similar to this woman's or her childrens'.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Geirim who are indeed shomrei mitzvot, but are Modern Orthodox and not chareidi, are being classified as invalid. They need not become secular, reform, conservative, etc.

Modern Orthodox rabbis, who are shomrei mitzvot and yirei shamayim- because they don't wear the clothing of the 18th century Polish nobility (in hot Eretz Yisrael, no less), are classified as "criminals" and "heretics."

Why doesn't the Modern Orthodox world declare its independence and say "shalom al yisrael" to the chareidim? Why don't Israeli taxpayers- Modern Ortho and secular alike- cut them loose? Cowardice? Laziness? Hope for validation from their rightwing cousins? (Dream on. It ain't gonna happen.)

Yisroel is right- you reap what you sow.

[Anon]

I don't know the details of this case, but if it is accurate it is not suprising to me that this related to a conversion presided over by Rabbi Druckman. Rabbi Druckman, as President of the Religious Conversion Court, presided over "The Druckman Commission" which had proposed numerous leniencies in the conversion process many of which were concession to the Reform and Conservative movements, including allowing representatives of the Reform and Conservative movements participation in the conversion process. Rabbi Druckman was strongly criticized by many orthodox rabbis for some of his proposals (including allowing people to convert without actually monitoring whether they truly attended to be observant - and it sounds like this was the case here), including many MO rabbis. I would love to know the details of this case, but my guess is that we had a rabbi who had some radical positions relating to the conversion process (even by MO standards) and now some rabbi has declined to recognize his conversions. My biggest criticism would be against Rabbi Druckman - not for his views - which may be right or wrong - but knowing that he had views that were not acceptable to a majority of the orthodox movement how could he be so callous as to lead two new converts down the road in reliance on his leniencies knowing that it could turn around to harm them with such devastating effect so many years later. If he did actually warn the couple of the risks of following his leniencies - in that case they went into this with open eyes.

[Anon]

I don't know the details of this case, but if it is accurate it is not suprising to me that this related to a conversion presided over by Rabbi Druckman. Rabbi Druckman, as President of the Religious Conversion Court, presided over "The Druckman Commission" which had proposed numerous leniencies in the conversion process many of which were concession to the Reform and Conservative movements, including allowing representatives of the Reform and Conservative movements participation in the conversion process. Rabbi Druckman was strongly criticized by many orthodox rabbis for some of his proposals (including allowing people to convert without actually monitoring whether they truly attended to be observant - and it sounds like this was the case here), including many MO rabbis. I would love to know the details of this case, but my guess is that we had a rabbi who had some radical positions relating to the conversion process (even by MO standards) and now some rabbi has declined to recognize his conversions. My biggest criticism would be against Rabbi Druckman - not for his views - which may be right or wrong - but knowing that he had views that were not acceptable to a majority of the orthodox movement how could he be so callous as to lead two new converts down the road in reliance on his leniencies knowing that it could turn around to harm them with such devastating effect so many years later. If he did actually warn the couple of the risks of following his leniencies - in that case they went into this with open eyes.

[Anon]

Shmarya, I just read the YNET report and there is no indication there that the rabbi that issued this ruling was a haredi. Do you have any basis for your statement that the revocation was done by haredim or is that your bias speaking? R' Druckman had some radical views relating to conversion so it would not suprise me at all if the rabbi was even a left wing MO rabbi.

[Shmarya]

Anon's comment makes a good argument for my point made on an earlier post about learning halakha with poskim and Shu"t literature.

What Rabbi Druckman wanted to do was within halakha. As the Rambam says, we do not check converts for observance. Once they convert, they're Jewish.

Yet haredim cite the MINORTY of poskim who would disagree with the Rambam and then try to enforce that on the majority.

This is all about power and money. It has little to do with sincere application of halakha.

[Shmarya]

Anon –

Haredim control those courts. There are few MO judges left.

[Anon]

Shmarya that is still just an assumption - not fact. You are entitled to make assumptions but if you want people to take you seriously you may want to be a bit more careful about it. Also, do you know the underlying facts of the case so that you can conclude that what Rabbi Druckman did was within halacha? Rabbi Druckman had some views relating to conversions that were not accepted by most MO rabbis either. This may not be a haredi vs. MO dispute at all but an haredi-MO vs. Druckman dispute.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

Or, perhaps more accurately, a haredi-MO vs. historically accurate halachic positions on conversion.

[Bozoer Rebbe]

Full acceptance of the Mitzvoth is an integral part of a kosher conversion. Did she agree to this at the time of the conversion? Did she later stop observing Mitzvoth? Or was there never a committment on her part? These are the questions that must be answered.

The gemara says that the convert must accept all the mitzvot. Nowhere does it say that they must observe all of them, as there is no many that is completely righteous and does not sin. As long as the process was halachic and the intent of the convert at that time was to accept the yoke of the commandments, I don't think there is any halachic basis for retroactively voiding a conversion.

This, like the women's clothing recently forbidden by chareidim in Jerusalem, is just another example of how some chareidim are guilty of bal tosif.

My children's mother is a ger. At least one of the rabbis on her beit din was undoubtedly a modern orthodox rabbi. The kanoim might accuse a second as being "modern orthodox" because he has long attended a Young Israel, though his father was a respected rav, and his brother is a pulpit rabbi in a chareidi shul.

The question that I have for the rabbinical judge who made this atrocious ruling is if modern orthodox rabbis are heretics and criminals, why would R. Lazer Levin, the last surviving disciple of the Chafetz Chaim (and R. Berel Wein's father in law), and the preeminent 20th century Detroit rav, sit on a beit din with heretics and criminals.

With R. Levin's signature on her teudah geirut, nobody would dare question it's validity.

[Chaimkeh]

Dearest webby and co.

I notice that this website has very strong ties with the chabad community. So I will take the liberty then to share with you what the chabad bet din in my neighborhood does in regard to conversions.

When an individual, a perspective convert approaches the chabad runned rabbinical court for conversion to Judaism the Rabbis demand that they attend various classes and courses in Judaic studies. The people usualy comply and willingly go to the classes, unless they prefer to convert elsewhere.
The Rabbis also established certain prerequists for conversions in the chabad court. For example one can't convert merely for the sake of marrying a Jew. Such conversions will never be conducted by OUR chabad bet din, unless the individual is genuinely sincere about joing the Jewish faith and it so happens that thye also have a Jewish spouse or life-partner to be. Likewise, the chabad court won't perform any conversions for any person who doesn't commit to observe the commandments of the Torah to full religous fashion. They do make it very clear in advance that anyone converting under their Rabbinate and ceases to remain steadfast to the Jewish religous beliefs will lose their convert status, ie their conversion will be revoked.
What I write above is not my own concuction, rather what I recall hearing at lecture series in our community delivered by one of the very prominent Lubavitch Rabbis. The only aspect that I am unclear of is as to how long past the date of conversion would they revoke the "giyur" full Jewish status. For example if a convert decides to abandon the religion 20 years after converting does he/she still lose their status...? Do their children lose their Jewish status...? I don't think so because I know of children of converts in my community who have left the religion and they haven't lost their Jewish status according to any of the chabads around here... so the Rabbi at the lecture was most probably refering to a certain time line that they must have... Interesting points...

[Michael]

A conversion to judaism is not a contract predicated on a condition. It is merely a change in halachik status for the convert from being non-Jewish to being Jewish. All that is required are 3 shomer shabbat and shomer kasrut men. None of them need to be rabbis. These 3 men form the most basic level beit-din which is all that is required to perform a conversion. All that is required on the part of the convert is to have the intention to accept the mitzvot and to dunk in a mikva. Once this is accomplished, no beit-din of any kind can rescind the conversion. The actual observance of the mitzvot by the convert has no bearing on the validity of the conversion or the status of the convert as a Jew. Despite the ruling of the beit-din in Israel, this woman is still Jewish. The beit-din has no halachik jurisdiction to revoke her, or anyone's conversion ever. If due to this ruling, this woman should stop obseving mitzvot, a good case can be made that the rabbis on the beit-din are in violation of the biblical prohibition of "lifnei iver," in addition to being utter thugs and an outright disgrace to Judaism.

[Josh]

Michael you sound like you afre the ultimata athuarity in halakha. Perhaps YOU should be elected to the chief Rabbinate of Universal Judasim along with Shmarya.

I'm not quite sure you'd be elected by the majority of observan Jews. Any reason why? Strange hareidm always making things complicated. Coming to think about what were the authors of halkah thinking to begin with...? Rabbi Jospeh Karo must've been smoking something way too hight while composing his highly complex book of the "set table" and probably his stringent colleagues such as Rabbi Moses Isserlus too. Even before them the Talmud is chuck full of starnge commentaries who make all sorts of starnge statments... no wonder why contemporay Jewry is so confused. It didn't start today, it goes wayyyyyyyy back!

[PishPosh]

WHO IS NEXT? Ruth, Rachav? When a women whose husband is presumed missing, lets say his ship sank, she can get a get based on the fact that he probably did not survive the sinking which may have taken place in a terribel storm. Even if he is found years later she is still no longer married to him. You cant make her kibush once she is chofshi, except when there are lunatics running the show.

We the children of the Southern Kingdom as a whole have to take back our Torah from these manyookim. GOD TORAH ISRAEL not RABBIS TALMUD AND BEIT DIN.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I am not a bumper-sticker kinda guy, but if I was, I would adopt PishPosh's motto:

GOD TORAH ISRAEL not RABBIS TALMUD AND BEIT DIN.

Amen.

(Hat tip to Bozoer, too. I don't know why the inyan of baal tosiph isn't applied to these chumraniks).

[aryeh]

THe heart of the debate in gerut is over whether there is true acceptance at the time of conversion.nobody can read another persons mind to judge their intentions. rabbi elyashivs clear position is that if a person is not observant after conversion then based on thier actions they never accepted the obligation of the doing the mitzvoth. the other position is to take the acceptance of mitzvoth by the ger at the time of the bais din at face value and if they dont observe the mitzvoth they are jews who sin but still jews.The belief being that we cant make judgements about thier intent based on later actions.

[Alex]

Its about the time that the Jewish people and the Israeli state reins in the Jewish bin-ladins.

Perhaps the kenesset can tell the haredim that if they don't chill out with their extremism, then the kenesset is going to strip the haredim of their monopoly of certain social institutions and share it with conservative and reform Jews and if the haredim even think about rioting they can go to jail for conspiracy to incite religious-motivated violence until they actually riot in which they can go to jail for religious-motivated violence.

Theres no reason to force the woman to do more halachot than what alot of other Jews do, and as per the religion as long as she accepts that she's bat avraham after going through the process I don't see a problem.

Alex
http://www.thedojblog.blog.com

[Anon]

This exchange is laughable. A bunch of yodels who are not experts in hilchot geirut pontificating about a case of which they don't even have the facts.

[Lawrence M. Reisman]

"Even if the Rabbi performing the giyur is the most rightous haredi Tzadik on this planet, the halakha dictates that if one disregards the laws that they had accepted to heed upon becoming a Jew or Jewess then their conversion is nul and void. End of story."

35 years ago, this was the argument that Rabbi Shlomo Goren used to nullify the conversion of a Polish-born ger named Zborowski. Thus, when the man's wife went to live with another man (named Langer) she was not committing adultery, and the children of that relationship were not mamzerim.

When Rabbi Goren came down with this ruling, the entire rabbinical world, from Rav Eliashuv (who at the time headed the rabbanut office on marriage and divorce and whose courts had allowed Zborowski to give his wife a get) on down, condemned him. And now, we are to believe that "rabbi elyashivs clear position is that if a person is not observant after conversion then based on thier actions they never accepted the obligation of the doing the mitzvoth"? So maybe Rabbi Goren was right 35 after all?
On the other hand, what do we say about a rabbi who writes up a teuda saying that the gerus is only valid in Eretz Yisroel?

[Anon]

Michael, you got a couple of things wrong that even an am haaretz like me knows. Three men who are "shomer shabbat and shomer kasrut" is not sufficient to conduct a geirut. They must be "shomer mitzvot" or to be more technically accurate they may not be "kofer" in any mitzvot. Also, while actual observance of the mitzvot by the convert has no bearing on the validity of the conversion, the failure to observe does reflect on whether the original intention ever existed. If someone converts and never observes mitzvot then it it somewhat farfetched to assume that they had the real intention and that intention changed the moment the person dunked in the mikvah. There are also a number of other technicalities. Assuming you still resect R' Joseph Cairo you can look it up in the Shulchan Aruch.

[Michael]

First of all, reguardless if you want to use the argument that a convert's failure to perform mitzvot is a clear indication of that person's lack of intent from the onset, no beit-din today has the halachik authority to revoke the conversion. The reason is that you could gather the three greatest rabbis of out day and put them on a beit-din, and they would have no more halacik authority than any three religious Jews on a beit-din. Without proper smicha, the only type of beit-din that can be formed today is the most basic court of three, whose jurisdiction is limited to financial matters and a few other things, one of them being conversion. While I agree with you that the members of this bein-din must be "shomer mitzvot," the way one is judged as being "shomer mitzvot" insofar as his public halachik status is wheather he appears to be shomer shabbat and shomer kashrut. This is how the gemara defines a "tzadik" (this is also the qualification to make someone eligible to be a witness in court). In reguards to the issue of not being a kofer, it is not enough for the person to merely not keep one of the mitzvot, he must publicily desecrate it for the sake of violation "God's commandments" in order for his being a kofer to both halachikly and practically affect his "edut" and his ability to serve on a beit-din of three.
At the end of the day, what cannot be disputed is that there is no beit-din today that has the halachik authority to revoke conversions.

[Michael]

First of all, reguardless if you want to use the argument that a convert's failure to perform mitzvot is a clear indication of that person's lack of intent from the onset, no beit-din today has the halachik authority to revoke the conversion. The reason is that you could gather the three greatest rabbis of out day and put them on a beit-din, and they would have no more halacik authority than any three religious Jews on a beit-din. Without proper smicha, the only type of beit-din that can be formed today is the most basic court of three, whose jurisdiction is limited to financial matters and a few other things, one of them being conversion. While I agree with you that the members of this bein-din must be "shomer mitzvot," the way one is judged as being "shomer mitzvot" insofar as his public halachik status is wheather he appears to be shomer shabbat and shomer kashrut. This is how the gemara defines a "tzadik" (this is also the qualification to make someone eligible to be a witness in court). In reguards to the issue of not being a kofer, it is not enough for the person to merely not keep one of the mitzvot, he must publicily desecrate it for the sake of violation "God's commandments" in order for his being a kofer to both halachikly and practically affect his "edut" and his ability to serve on a beit-din of three.
At the end of the day, what cannot be disputed is that there is no beit-din today that has the halachik authority to revoke conversions.

[Anon]

--In reguards to the issue of not being a kofer, it is not enough for the person to merely not keep one of the mitzvot, he must publicily desecrate it for the sake of violation "God's commandments" in order for his being a kofer to both halachikly and practically affect his "edut" and his ability to serve on a beit-din of three.--

That is not correct. Rabbi M. Feinstein wrote a number tshuvot on this issue - particularly relating to the qualification of a bet din for geirut purposes where he discusses these qualifications. I do not have citations available but you may want to look it up if you are interested. (There is an English index to the Igrot Moshe that is available.)

--At the end of the day, what cannot be disputed is that there is no beit-din today that has the halachik authority to revoke conversions.--

I doubt they "revoked" the conversion. In all likelihood they ruled the conversion was never valid. It would make more sense to get the facts first before we criticize what a bet din did. If you have this information, please share it.

[Michael]

There are only two ways to rule the conversion invalid. The first is to disqualify the members of the beit-din, but to do that you must show that they are not shomer mitzvot Jews. The rabbis on the beit-din in question are most certainly religious. Being Modern Orthodox does not invalidate you from being on a beit-din. The second way would be to say that the convert did not fulfill her requirements (mikva and accepting mitzvot). No one is disputing the mikva part. The problem with disputing the convert's acceptance of mitzvot is that you can never know what the convert's intention was at the time of the conversion. A person's action ex post do not reveal anything about their intetnions at the time of conversion. Since there no way to ever prove intent, how can one invalidate the conversion?
One last thing - the point of my previous comment was that if you say that three rabbis on a beit-din have the halachik authority to invalidate a conversion, why can't any three random orthodox Jews get together, form a beit-din, and start ruling other people's conversions invalid. The crux of the matter is that these rabbis just don't have the authority to rule on this issue. They are exceeding their jurisdiction. The combination of lack of definitive proof (circumstantial evidence holds no ground in beit-din)and lack of jurisdictition makes this a case which no one can rule on.

[Anon]

--A person's action ex post do not reveal anything about their intetnions at the time of conversion.--

You must really have your head buried in the sand to assume that someone who converts and did was not shomer mitzvot for even one day had the proper intent at the time of the conversion. Its possible, but extremely unlikely.

--why can't any three random orthodox Jews get together, form a beit-din, and start ruling other people's conversions invalid.--

Its not a matter of "invalidating" anything. A conversion is either valid or not and in this case a rabbi subsequently ruled that it was not. This subsequent ruling does not require three people and if you rely on that rabbi you will abide by his ruling if not you won't. Its no different that one rabbi saying that the food another rabbi certified as kosher is really not kosher.

--They are exceeding their jurisdiction.--

Lack of jurisdiction? This is not civil court.

[Alex]

Why give the rabbis any political/halachic authority at all? The have zero power di'orisah and only rose to prominence after the fall of the bait hamikdash. Rabbis are supposed to be teachers not rulers.

[TM]

Well, well, well, look at this discussion. A bunch of people actually agree with this ruling. A woman goes to an Orthodox rabbi and converts as per his directions and approval. She lives in Israel, raises children - who will be obligated to serve in the IDF - and is to her knowledge part of the community. One day, somebody decides that this has all been a lie and invalid. Some of you folks actually think this is understandable and excusable.

Well, you should be ashamed of yourselves because this woman has changed her life and her religion to become a Jew and a member of the Jewish people. She even did it though an Orthodox rabbi so even the offensive bullshit above about Conservative and Reform rabbis doesn't hold any water.

She's Jewish. Period.

So are her children. Period.

Oh, and just to be clear. This kind of event is actually good for most Jews because it forces the Modern Orthodox to realize that they have far more in common with the rest of us than they do with the Haredim. Let the Haredim enjoy their own little sects.

[Rivka]

A woman converted to Judaisim and, consequently went on to have three children, all without a father. The eldest of the children has now married a Pakistani Muslim, had a child and taken to wearing a full muslim veil. The mother has been attending church. The younger children? No idea. Would you say that this was a Jewish family?

[Anon]

--She's Jewish. Period.--

Can't comment on the substance of this issue as I don't know the facts. (Neither do you but that doesn't seem to prevent you from commenting.) But it seems to me that the underlying dispute between you and the rabbis is that the rabbis prefer to follow halacha while you prefer to follow what your get tells you is right. You are entitled to do so, but at least acknowledge the underlying difference.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Would you say that this was a Jewish family?

Well, people do have בחירה.

[anon]

a bunch of morons and haters of halacha full ignoramuses decide to deride rabbis who looked into the matter...

Just for startes (though shmarya the ignoramus who thinks he knows everything aboiut halacha but knows less than a 4rd grade student...) Rav Feinstein in Igrot MOshe YD 157 rules that is it is clear that the convert never inded to keep and accept the practice of mizvot it's RETROACTIVELY null and void. He fooled the rabbis in the essence of conversion and the rabbis can and must decide that since he was a sham that the whole process is null and void.

[Shmarya]

--A person's action ex post do not reveal anything about their intetnions at the time of conversion.--

You must really have your head buried in the sand to assume that someone who converts and did was not shomer mitzvot for even one day had the proper intent at the time of the conversion. Its possible, but extremely unlikely.

This is actually a classic case discussed in the gemara and it Shu"t. Rov poskim here go with ruling the conversion kosher. The idea is just as Michael states it. Rav Moshe's ruling is a departure from the norm.

[Anon]

So Shmarya, do tell us, are you smarter that Rabbi Feinstein, or is it just that he was one of the corrupt haredi rabbis that you so despise?

[Shmarya]

Rav Moshe ruled in a way that departs from the halakhic norm. He did so for what he felt were valid reasons. I'll look at the teshuva later for the details of the particular case, but the point is that, even if it is exactly as you present it (which I doubt), there are plenty of poskim who disagree.

In issues like this that effect the status of children, etc., we are required to go to kula rather than humra. I suspect Rav Moshe would have done so in our case, for that reason.