Haredi Spokesman Attacks Former Chief Rabbi, Defends Haredi Rabbi Who Voided Woman's Conversion 15 Years After The Fact – Endorses Haredi Organization Linked To Bait-And-Switch Conversion Tactics

Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum has done a despicable thing.

Rabbi Rosenblum is the only haredi spokesperson I respect. While I often disagree with him, he is usually honest and forthright, and he tires to make his case in a clear logical manner without using the tricks and verbal gymnastics so common to those who ply his trade.

Rabbi Rosenblum has a column in today's Jerusalem Post defending the haredi rabbi, Avraham Attiya, who voided a woman's conversion 15 years after the fact and ruled that her children are non-Jews. He forbade anyone in the family – including her husband, who either was converted separately or was born Jewish – from marrying into the Jewish community. Not content with this butchery alone, Rabbi Attiya went on to excoriate the state-sponsored Orthodox conversion courts and the rabbis who serve on them, calling them sinners and non-Jews. He summarily voided all conversions – thousands of them – done by these Religious Zionist Orthodox rabbis.

To defend Rabbi Attiya, Rabbi Rosenblum uses former Chief Rabbi Shlomo Goren:

…I WONDER how many of those calling for Rabbi Attias's scalp remember that Rabbi Shlomo Goren "freed" a brother and sister from the halachic status of mamzerut by voiding their mother's marriage at the time of their conception. And that was done, in turn, by voiding her husband's conversion, despite the fact that he had been living as a fully observant Jew for decades. For his promise to "solve" the problem of two mamzerim, Goren was rewarded by prime minister Golda Meir with appointment as the Ashkenazi chief rabbi and became a national hero.…

There was a German girl in my ulpan class 30 years ago who was living at a nearby kibbutz. She was personally converted by then-chief rabbi Goren late in her ninth month of pregnancy. When I asked her whether Goren had inquired about the likelihood of her keeping mitzvot on the completely secular kibbutz, she laughed. "Right," she said, "a little German girl is going to come here and tell a group of German Holocaust survivors that they should make the dining hall kosher."

In the famous Seidman case, Goren personally converted a woman who had repeatedly stressed that she saw no need for an Orthodox conversion and had no intention of becoming mitzva observant in order to forestall a civil marriage law in the Knesset.…

Of course, what Rabbi Rosenblum does not mention, what he does not tell his readership, is that every Goren case mentioned involved ruling leniently, to kula, in order to reduce or prevent suffering (or, in the Seidman case, to protect the integrity of the rabbinic monopoly over marriage as a whole, which would have been removed in its entirety by the Knesset). What Rabbi Goren did, as controversial as some of it was, is well-supported in halakhic thought.

As I've written many times before, the idea is not for rabbis to be strict, especially with people who will not abide by that strictness. From Hillel the Elder onward (at least until the birth of haredism in the early 1800s), this has been the norm. As Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach told a former teacher of mine (and I paraphrase), "It is easy to be strict. It is much more difficult to be lenient. My job is to ease the burden on Jews and to be lenient whenever possible."

To void a conversion 15 years after the fact, to be as harsh and uncaring, as brutal and as barbaric as Rabbi Attiya is to turn the entire halakhic process on its head.

There is no way Rabbi Attiya can know why this woman's converting rabbis did what they did. (More telling: He did not even bother to find out.) Rather than behave with kindness, to try to draw the woman closer to observance, to try to befriend the family, he lashed out, causing irreparable harm.

Rabbi Rosenblum goes on to compare the case of this poor woman to conversions done by non-Orthodox rabbis.

Then, Rabbi Rosenblum discusses with approval the work of the Monsey-based haredi group, Eternal Jewish Family. EJF, founded and run by Rabbi Leib Tropper, is a major player in the haredi move to control the conversion process worldwide.

Rabbi Tropper, who is also the founder and rosh yeshiva of Kol Yakov, a Monsey-based haredi ba'al teshuva yeshiva, is a controversial figure.

Rabbi Tropper has been accused of using bait-and-switch tactics to lure potential converts from intermarried families. In one southern city, Rabbi Tropper promised potential converts that a mikva would be built and a shul opened – no one would need to move to Monsey or another Orthodox enclave. But, when the time for conversion neared, no mikva existed and no synagogue functioned. The promised rabbi Tropper was to send had not arrived. Then, Rabbi Tropper dropped a bombshell. These potential converts, all serious, all had studied for more than a year, would have to move from the southern United States to Monsey, New York – or their conversions were off.

Rabbi Tropper told me these converts confused his hopes with promises. But in email correspondence shared with me, Rabbi Tropper admits in part to misleading these poor people.

Further, there are cities with mikvas, Modern Orthodox congregations and YU-trained rabbis relatively close to where these people live. They could drive for an hour and a half and spend Shabbat and holidays with families there until a congregation can open in their home town. Rabbi Tropper did not propose that option. (In their home town, by the way, there are other such Tropper-involved families facing similar decisions, and where one or two observant Jews live. Some of those potential converts have been said to be fearful that Tropper will cut them off, too, if they speak out about his dishonesty.)

The husband of this family is in his 50s. He has years vested at his job with a pension due on retirement. He will lose all that if he moves, along with facing the problem of finding a new job at that age. Rabbi Tropper made many cloud-like promises – this friend in Monsey will find something for you or that man who works for the city will take care of you – but nothing concrete, and the family was unwilling to trust a man who had already lied to them.

Rabbi Tropper summarily threw the eldest son of this family out of his yeshiva, leaving him broke with no way to get to the airport and back home. He claimed the boy was not serious about his learning yet the boy's teachers had given the family nothing but praise – until the day they refused to move to Monsey. This teenager had to borrow money to get home.

Tropper had promised the family the boy would be able to get his GED at Kol Yakov, and he urged them to withdraw the child from public school and send him to Monsey and Tropper's yeshiva. But Tropper made no arrangements for that GED. It did not matter, however,  because the boy was ineligible for a GED under NY law because he was too young. He lost a year, and had to regroup and restructure his life, all because Rabbi Leib Tropper cannot tell the truth.

These people spent thousands of dollars on new kitchen appliances and dishes, kept strictly kosher and did whatever Rabbi Tropper demanded. They appeared on Tropper's EJF website praising the organization and were used by Tropper as examples of his "successful" approach. This material was apparently shown to Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Israel's Sefardic chief rabbi, and to other Israeli haredi leaders who later moved to block acceptance of all Rabbinical Council of America (Modern Orthodox) conversions. Now this family is "lost" to "Yiddishkeit" because of Tropper's failings.

(By the way, I, along with David Kelsey, pitched this story to a major Jewish newspaper last year. The paper, familiar with this blog, would not assign the story to me because I'm too close to the issue and too outspoken. But they were not aware of Kelsey's blog, and were willing to assign it to him. Or, if we wanted, we could do it as an op-ed. I was game for that; Kelsey was not. In the end, we turned it down hoping the paper would relent. It did not. No one else has the story, so, as far as I know, this is the first place this has appeared.)

While it is true that Rabbi Rosenblum can hardly be expected to know the details of this story, there are other similar stories about Rabbi Tropper. A bit of poking might have served Rabbi Rosenblum well.

To sum up: Extremely lenient rulings to spare individuals pain is the halakhic norm, not the halakhic exception. Using halakha for political gain, while unfortunately the common these days, is neither laudable or supported by normative halakha.

Jonathan Rosenblum should apologize for his lapse in judgment. He can then go on defending that which I believe he often, in his deepest thoughts, knows to be indefensible.

Comments

I have being living in Monsey all my life and I am familiar with tropper, he is evil person. Most of the people here do not like him or his yeshiva, he used to be nobody and considered a weirdo before he converted a shiksa from rich southern American family (Kaplan) and got an access to a lot of money.

He is rumored to engage in inappropriate behavior and JWB should look into it.

Even before his rise to fame he was known to make his students cut off any contact
with their families. He controls their shiduch and forces them to cancel it if he does not like to girl (he got now his own BT shiduch services).

Students who left the yeshiva and decided to practice MO, Tropper tried to get them fired from their job. Students who decided to go to college Tropper bad mouthed them with their new community and new rabbi,

For converts, he convinced intermarried couple to cancel their RCA beis din and to go with him only to cancel the woman conversion because they did not want
to move to black hat community, this after the couple
had children.

I can go on and on but I will just ad about his background, he is best friend with Leib Pinter a serial crook, he got his semicha from Pini Scheinberg of the ‘No Pentration, No harm done’ and he is cousin of Shlomo Carlebach another sexual predator.

http://www.theawarenesscenter.org/Carlebach_Shlomo.html

I believe the reason the community let people like Kolko and Shapiro molest tens of children for decades is because we let people like Tropper to position of
power

[monseyguy]

there is plenty of crap on tropper is divorced is a dangerous guy look into him there is tons of scandal surronding him

[Alex]

Not content with this butchery alone, Rabbi Attiya went on to excoriate the state-sponsored Orthodox conversion courts and the rabbis who serve on them, calling them sinners and non-Jews.

lolololololololololololololololololol

ORTHODOX CALLING OTHER ORTHODOX GOYEM!!!!!!!!!

I guess they got bored venting over the CHelonim.

[The Grave Digger]

ברוך שלא עשני בהמה המתקרית חרדית

j. rosenblum (and chum rabbi atiya) can be called each in his own merit: yeshu (for yimach shmoy vezichroy).

and brochos (blessings) to them from tehilim 109:
7 When they are judged, let them go forth condemned; and let their prayer be turned into sin.
8 Let their days be few; let another take their charge.
12 Let there be none to extend kindness unto them;....
13 Let their posterity be cut off; in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
17 Yea, they loved cursing, and it came unto them; and they delighted not in blessing, and it is far from them.

[Alex]

HEY LAWRENCE U LISTINING? Orthodox calls other orthodox goyem now! roflroflrofl

[Garnel Ironheart]

Am I the only one who feels sorry for Rosenblum? Don't forget, it's his job to defend the indefensible. As Shmarya said, normally he writes very intelligently and articulately. This article is a piece of crap with arguments that are easy to refute. That, in itself, should tell you his heart wasn't in it.
In the end, there is no justification for what Attiah did. Maybe to say "Hey, there might be a problem here. Let's meet privately and see if there is" might have been acceptable but what he did breaks all rules of civility and decency, even chareidi ones!

[aryeh]

here are some facts about the mamzerut case referenced by jonathan rosenblum. The original conversion was done in poland. the girls family forced him to convert. the couple later moved to israel. there was no evidence of him leading a religious life. they seperated and she remarried. her children were in the army and wanted to get married. a bais din headed by Rabbi elayashiv looked into it and determined that the original conversion was valid and since she remarried without a proper divorce the children were judged mamzerim and unable to marry. Rabbi Goren,who was the chief rabbi of the IDF,was asked to look into it.Rabbi Goren ruled them legitamate and married them himself.Many people felt he was rewarded by recieving the chief rabbinate and rabbi elayashiv left the chief rabbinate because of the Langer case.His relations with Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,who was a part of Rabbi Elyashivs Bait Din,were extremely strained by the Langer Case

[Monsey Avenger]

Tropper would not be able to do all those things if Thomas Kaplan was not sponsoring him. Kaplan is the founder of Apex Silver (www.apexsilver.com) a public held company we have to let him , the shareholders and financial writers know what Tropper his doing with their money.


Some contact information:

[EDITED BY SITE OWNER.]

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Does Tropper have a son-in-law in kiruv?

[The Monsey Tzadik]

This is one creepy guy, yes, he does have very dark rumors about him. I wonder why The Awareness Center does not have a page about him.

His students are the weirdest of all the BT mills students here. They walk around spewing hate against Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews, Chabbad, the state of Israel and the most hated one, the evil one, the big imposter; rabbi Noach Weinberg.

Tropper hates Rabbi Weinberg more than anything in the world.

No, I do not think he has any son-in-law (at least not from his current wife) he does have two daughters, Gila and Rina (or something like that)

I hope he does not molest them too.

[Shmarya]

People, please do not post people's phone numbers, fax numbers, home addresses, etc. in the comments.

Thank you.

[Shmarya]

aryeh –

Thank you for pointing out the connection between Rabbi Goren, Rabbi elyashiv and Rabbi Yosef.

Rabbi Rosenblum views himself as working for Rabbi Elyashiv. That he did not disclose Rabbi Elyashiv's role in that sad affair is telling.

It seems to me this is a breech of journaism ethics, something the Post should discipline him for.

The Post's editor is David Horovitz. Perhaps this blatant breech of ethics should be pointed out to him.

[Yankel]

Please note that unless the Awareness Center has specific information that a sexual crime or clergy impropriety has occurred they do not post any information about an individual.

I would urge anyone who has any information to contact the "The Awareness Center " directly.

[Bava Kama Sutra]

Tropper hates Rabbi Weinberg more than anything in the world.

LOL

More seriously, it is very sad that your story was not published, he and his sponsors should be exposed. (why did David refuse to take the assignment ?)

Maybe we could ping it to the UOJ, he gets results

[Nachum]

People like Rosenblum and his ilk on Cross-Currents (like, say, Menken) are sad cases. They became baalei teshuva (and left quite a lot) under the promise that the gedolim know everything and only a Charedi lifestyle is true. They then have to spend their lives defending anything the gedolim or Charedi world does, lest it invalidate their own choices. Nebach.

[Nachu]

Oh, one more thing: Rosenblum makes the classic Charedi fallacy of assuming that everyone thinks like Charedim. Therefore, if a Religious Zionist "Gadol" like R' Goren said something, every Religious Zionist Jew *must* agree with it, just as every Charedi agrees with their gedolim. Of course, this just isn't true: Modern Orthodoxy stands for people working it out for themselves.

(And, of course, the Chief Rabbinate, at least today, is not at all Modern Orthodox anyway.)

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Rabbi Attiya went on to excoriate the state-sponsored Orthodox conversion courts and the rabbis who serve on them, calling them sinners and non-Jews.

Did he really call them non-Jews? I ask because over here it was reported that he called them "heretics and criminals."

[yisroel]

Rosenblum and his ilk are taking advantage of the weak-kneed mo leadership that has been around for the past 50 years.

The mo leaders are a joke. Most of their kids are going to right wing charedei yeshivas here and in israel.

Most melamdim in mo schools are charedei.

The charediem are swallowing up the last remnants of modern orthodoxy and gleefuly spitting out the bones.

[frank]

to first commenter: you are a sick a pathological liar. You probably a rejealous at some feat by tropper (propbably money) that you go on a rampage and lie like this.

The Shiksa covnerted (kaplan) was NOT converted by tropper but by your friend HERBERT BOMZER and other chabad coleagues! TOrpper did NOT WANT convert! But Bomzer AND coMPANY did CONVERT! Look who are the sleaze money mongers and who has principles.

[Fred]

Scotty,

You are indeed the chanppion from the erev rav company that hates everything jewish. But to top it all off you are big ingoramus and know very little of halacha and has the chutzaph to challenge rabbonim.

For your information you laughable childish points tha t"kuloh" makes or breaks what constitutes a conversion would pass a 4rd grade talmud torah boy and even that itwould not muster. The Am hooratzim of the day and the haters of the era have hijacked the meaning of conversion. Conversion does NOT MEAN that you date a shiksa and you "convert" her for a "kuloh"; conversion menas entering the covenant of G-d no "kuloh" or compassion would allow to give a medical liscence for an amteus just for compassion and finding a "kuloh" for it. It would be irresponsible disastrous and endagering people's. but obviously you don't care about this, for all you care is you antisemitic venom at observant jews and animal love. Yididshkeyt is not your theme.

But for those folow yididshkeyt know thatconversion without observing the laws of shabbat and kashrut and taharat hamishpacha is a no starter and even if one declared that he would observe but we all knew that he was insincere (and it is clear that e have tools to know how a person is sincere or insincere : if the person attempts to lvie a jewish life or is able to live jewishly accordibng to his lifestyle or not) there was never an ounce for the begining of a conversion.

kudos for RAbbi Rosenblum. Obviously you AND your erev rav ilk cannot stand how he clings to obserant judaism and is a baal teshuva for more htan just a decade and he did not succumb to the pressures of the erev rav to revert to the paths of his origin on the contrary he still sees the beauty and most importantly the truth in torat hashem etc.

[frank]

one more point: your reference to Rav SZ Aurbauch is so laughable. Have you been familiar with his works itself (as opposed to your animal lovers and antisemitc diatribes) you would see how HE HIMSELF DECRIES MOST OF THESE PHONEY CONVERSIONS AND HE HIMSELF CONSIDERS THEM PHONEy!

[THEODORE]

You know: you lost ALL credibility. If you have tried or attempted to been even handed or fair there would be something to talk about. but you have shown that you are interestwed in yuor vendetta whenther it reflects the truth or nt. How can you LIE to state that TRopper admitted that he MISLED" the lady??? YOU ARE A PATHOLGOCIAL LIAR HE NEVER ADMITTED AS SUCH he claimed that he made amistake but not that he misled her. you mislead your audience with your antisemitic diatribes and LIES111 REMEMBER THE SEAL OF G-D IS TRUTH! AND YOU PUT HERE ACCUSATIONS OF PEOPLE AS TRUTH FOR YOUR VENDETTA: YOU ARE FAKE FRUAD UNETHICAL EREV RAV ANTISMEITC PIGGY SCOTTY!

[Lawrence M. Reisman]

First of all, Alex, whatever Attiyah called other Jews is as disgusting as Ben Gurion calling Jabotinsky "Vladimir Hitler," and it is despicable.

Second, after the entire rabbinic community condemned Rav Goren over the Langer case, how the hell (and I do mean hell) does Rosenblum now go and try to cite what Rav Goren did in the 1970s. If Rav Goren was wrong then (and he was) then Rabbi Attiyah is just as wrong now.

But then, consistency has always been the hobgoblin of non-Jewish minds.

Scotty, as Teddy Roosevelt would have said, "CHARGE!"

[Shmarya]

"Frank," and "Theodore" are the same person. Who is that person? avrohom, the notorious Chabad commenter so many of you begged me to ban.

I just banned him again.

Let me point out that this supposed religious person repeatedly uses different names on the same post, and does so to nmake it seem as if several people, rather than one demented soul, hold his views.

As for the substance of his claims, again, he doesn't know what he is is talking about. He confuses general directives with specific cases and valid halakhic theory with politics.

He misrepresents and lies, and does so as a Chabadnik. Enough said.

[Shmarya]

Frank, Theodore, avrohom writes:
How can you LIE to state that TRopper admitted that he MISLED" the lady??? YOU ARE A PATHOLGOCIAL LIAR HE NEVER ADMITTED AS SUCH he claimed that he made amistake but not that he misled her.

You'll note that my information comes from emails Tropper sent the family. You'll also note that avrohom appears to believe he has seen those emails.

avrohom is either delusional or close to Rabbi Leib Tropper.

[The Grave Digger]

The charediem are swallowing up the last remnants of modern orthodoxy and gleefuly spitting out the bones.

sez yisroel.
the truth is, chareidim and chabad, are busy burrying judaism.
if this is judaism, why be jewish?
G-d even wouldn't want that!

[Yochanan Lavie]

"Frank," and "Theodore" are the same person. Who is that person? avrohom.

Maybe he suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.

[kalev]

scotty,

you are a sick liar you have no respect for truth whatsoever. you hae your agenda and that is it. you could have a million emails. tropper did NOT tell you he "misled" the lady. you are deranged...for no sane inidicidual would say that. what he told you is that hhe made a mistake and not that he misled them!

But frank and others are right: you are an ignoramus and so are the rest of your ilk who knows zero to nothing about halacha and sound off as the greatest sages. you are small 4rd grade children!!!

BTw: why do you rail against banning slifkin if you ban Avohom and others????

CONVERT TO THE NEW RELIGION ALREADY

[kalev]

scotty,

you are a sick liar you have no respect for truth whatsoever. you hae your agenda and that is it. you could have a million emails. tropper did NOT tell you he "misled" the lady. you are deranged...for no sane inidicidual would say that. what he told you is that hhe made a mistake and not that he misled them!

But frank and others are right: you are an ignoramus and so are the rest of your ilk who knows zero to nothing about halacha and sound off as the greatest sages. you are small 4rd grade children!!!

BTw: why do you rail against banning slifkin if you ban Avohom and others????

CONVERT TO THE NEW RELIGION ALREADY

[Shmarya]

The "Scott" who left comments on another post today and "Kalev" who left the commets above are really avrohom, the Chabadnik who leaves comments under multiple aliases to support his own arguments, as he has done again here.

I banned him for that reason awhile ago after warning him, but I did not get every one of his IPs. I'll keep banning him – shutting off the entire IP if necessary.

Note waht he writes above as "Kalev":why do you rail against banning slifkin if you ban Avohom and others????

CONVERT TO THE NEW RELIGION ALREADYThis from a "religious" Jew. It's called geneivat daat, avrohom. Maybe you out to think about that.

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2007/06/this-entire-post-is-plagiarized.html#comment-922507749970653352

UOJ Fan on Wall St said...
Before these misinformed people get worked up into a frenzy and start bothering Apex Silver Mines about Leib Tropper and Thomas Kaplan, let's get the facts straight.

It's true that Kaplan left hedge fund management in 1993 to found Apex but he retired in 2004 and was replaced by Phelps Dodge exec Jeff Clevenger.

Apex started as a Cayman Islands holding company in shutfus with George & Paul Soros.

http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0807/6604064a.html

See this Forbes article for the background.

Commodities Trader said...
Tom Kaplan started Leor Energy, a gas exploration outfit in Houston when he resigned from Apex.

He's also the biggest individual shareholder in some companies like Afplats (African Platinum) and Southern African Resources (palladium mining) and likes sticking his nose into internal affairs. He's gone so far as to take out full page ads worth 400k in the Wall St Journal & London's Financial Times.

He's an Oxford Phd who may be currently living in Switzerland like Dovid Cohen's pals Pinky Green and Marc Rich.

[rabbidw]

Getting back to the main issue of the nullification of the conversion, No Beis Din can undo the work of another Beis Din. This is Elementary Halacha 101. Otherwise no case would ever be decided as there is always a chance that another beis Din would overule the firest. And maybe a third Beis Din will overule the second. What can be fdone is that others can differ on the law as expounded by the first Beis Din, and that law may not become a valid precedent, but there are no "appellate courts" and the decision of the first Beis Din stands as to its parties.
What Rabbi Goren did was extremely controversial just for that reason. But he stepped into a tradition of halachic authenticity, of trying to find a loophole to undo the stigma of mamzerut. I do not know if he cited this in his decision, but there is a precedent in American law that states that facts established in a case are only binding toward those represented in that case. For example, in a suit against Doctor A for negligence the jury finds that the negligence was really by Doctor B. That gets Doctor A off the hook, but does not bind Doctor B to that decision because Doctor B was not a party to that case and did not have a chance to put up his own case. When he does, his jury may very well come back with the opposite decision, that the negligence was with Docror A. What Rabbi Goren might have found that the children were not parties to the original Beis Din and their interests were not represented. Looking at the facts from the childrens point of view, he could nullify the conversion as ti affects them.
Anyway, as we were frequently taught tough cases make for bad precedents. But if any Bais Din can be overuled by any other Bais Din, there is no decision that cannot be overturned and the Conservative movement is correct. Why can't there Beis Din authorize whatever they want? Who says the Chareidim are bigger, Maybe they only wear bigger and blacker hats.

Kaplan started Leor Energy with his Portugese / Brazillian nephew named Guma Aguiar.

Guma Aguiar
Vice Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Phone: [EDITED BY SITEOWNER]

[PLEASE DO NOT POST PEOPLE'S PHONE NUMBERS, ADDRESSES, ETC. THANK YOU.]

What's the problem if the company's website publicly lists the contact info?

[Shmarya]

You have not made a case to link these people with any criminal acts. Encouraging the public to call and harass them – which is what you are in effect doing – is illegal, unless those calls are based on company business or policies and the like.

[ed]

>The charediem are swallowing up the last remnants of modern orthodoxy and gleefuly spitting out the bones.

Ha! And all the MO can do in return is to spew all their vomit and bile on blogs. What pathetic losers.

[ed]

And no, I'm not Avrohom/Kalev etc.. Shmarya can confirm that.

[Yochanan Lavie]

"Ha! And all the MO can do in return is to spew all their vomit and bile on blogs. What pathetic losers."

What wonderful ahavat yisrael! Are all Modern Orthodox Jews "pathetic losers?" Or just Shmarya, in your opinion? Please clarify.

[Alex]

The Orthodox have nothing to offer except an implausable creation story, strict rules that make no practical sense, hatred of the outside, POVERTY, and promises of joy in the next world ... all u have to do is suffer in this one.

"Please join us in our economic DEATH MARCH so that you can be successful in the next world ... which probably exists because abah told me it does."

The only sane thing to do is run from the frum world. Scientific investigation, college and carrer guidance, and having fun in life are for apikoruses.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Alex:

I dig your righteous anger, but don't tar everyone with the same brush. Modern Orthodox Jews work for a living, are usually college educated, and sometimes do not take everything in the torah literally. However, they are observant. Unfortunately, they are squeezed by both the right (who have contempt for them as compromisers and "pathetic losers") and the left (who regard them as obscurantists).

I cannot, in all intellectual honesty, call myself Modern Orthodox anymore. I am too much of a freethinker, and my praxis is more Conservative these days. But I have friends in that community, and I daven at an MO shul, where I'm also active. So that's where my sympathies lie.

I think the MO should form their own denomination, and stop looking over their right shoulder for approval that will never come.

[Alex]

From my experience, Yochanan, Modern Orthodox is orthodox mentality minus the standard black and white attire. there are no real discernable differences.

I think people should focus more on being Jewish as a nationality and not so much as a religion. The religion just is not compatable with modern times particularly because of shabat and kasharut.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I respectfully disagree. True, many MO are now plainclothes chareidim. That's because they have abdicated their roles as educational and rabbinic leaders in their community. So black hats brainwash their kids.

But I think human beings need religion. (That may address how our brains are wired rather than if God exists, but that's another conversation). And rituals such as shabbat and kashrut sacrilize time and food- some things our postmodern junk culture have debased. I no longer wear a kippah full time, but I keep shabbat. It keeps me sane in this 24/7 world.

Secular nationalism has been tried, both in Labor Zionism and in Bundism (diaspora Yiddish nationalism). It lasted only a few generations. I dislike the quietism of certain strands of Orthodoxy- I too am a Jewish nationalist. But so far, secular Jewish nationalism has not been sustainable.

However, I agree that there should be greater flexibility in halacha. And the evidence of science should not be ignored. I do manage to live in the (post)Modern world, even with shabbat and kashrut.

I wish you well, but total secularism is not emotionally fulfilling for me.

[Alex]

i wish u well also, but i don't feel an intrinsic need for "emotional fufillment" and I personally cannot understand the concept. I understand "emotional stability" and that I have without religion.

[ed]

>What wonderful ahavat yisrael! Are all Modern Orthodox Jews "pathetic losers?" Or just Shmarya, in your opinion? Please clarify.

I was obviously refering to all the Haredi haters.

[Anon]

Shmarya, assuming you were in agreement that Rabbi Druckman's initial conversion of this woman was in fact invalid would you agree with Rabbi Attia's ruling?

UOJ is all over Tropper with details still developing.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

"However, I agree that there should be greater flexibility in halacha"

There IS often greater flexibility - but it's not being taught and ruled upon by "Modern Orthodox" rabbis. In this sense, Alex's comment:

"From my experience, Yochanan, Modern Orthodox is orthodox mentality minus the standard black and white attire. there are no real discernable differences."

...appears increasingly correct, and is being ruled with an iron hand by the RCA and the OU, the later of which is in no way, shape, or form truly "Modern Orthodox".

[Neo-Conservaguy]

Alex wrote:

"The only sane thing to do is run from the frum world. Scientific investigation, college and carrer guidance, and having fun in life are for apikoruses."

...and then:

"I think people should focus more on being Jewish as a nationality and not so much as a religion. The religion just is not compatable with modern times particularly because of shabat and kasharut."

It saddens me that the impact of the rigidity of Orthodoxy is to lead you to these conclusions. They are incorrect: in fact, many religious Jews live in a reality that does not require giving up secular knowledge, fun, or good (kosher) food. Keeping mitsvoth doesn't have to be painful. On the other hand, defining Jews as people that have a rich legacy in bagels and lox is not a recipe for the future - or, more seriously, for trying to perform the work required to try to heal the world and create holiness in your life.

You might consider finding a Conservative rabbi near you that observes Shabbat and kashruth - some don't, but many do - and open your mind to the possibility that religious Judaism is not incompatible with a life of enjoying the pleasures haShem created for us. Keep fighting, keep questioning, and keep seeking - but have the open mind to consider the answers offered.

I hope some day you'll find such a path as powerful and fulfilling as I have been blessed to discover.

[Shmarya]

Shmarya, assuming you were in agreement that Rabbi Druckman's initial conversion of this woman was in fact invalid would you agree with Rabbi Attia's ruling?

My suspicion that it was invalid is different than proof. For it to be invalid, one must show that the convert deceived the beit din and that the convert never intended to keep mitzvot. Neither is true here.

If it were true, then the next question is one of impact – what will this do to the children, etc., and how best can this be handled.

What Rabbi Attiyah did fits neither scenario. The only thing that should be revoked is Rabbi Attiya's smicha.

[Anon]

You did not answer my question. My question is if R' Attia is correct that the conversion is without any doubt invalid would you then agree that he is right. To put it differently is your disagreement with R' Attia that he was in error in ruling that the conversion is invalid or is your disagreement with him that even if his legal conclusion is right then it is still not proper to rule that this woman and her children are not jewish?

[Shmarya]

No.

1. There is no way Rabbi Attiya could know.

2. If by some amazing quirk of fate, he did find out that she deceived the beit din, etc., then he would need to do leg work – notify the converting rabbis of his discovery, etc.

3. And then, it is up to THOSE RABBIS to do what THEY believe best.

4. Rabbi Attiya has no authority to overrule a beit din he was not part of.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Neo: I tried Conservative Judaism. While I have met wonderful people, and some good rabbis, I think the movement as a whole is totally adrift. It tries to please everybody, so it has no core values anymore. I predict (and I may be wrong) that it will merge with Reform, since Reform has become more traditional in praxis, since when I grew up with the Union Prayerbook and a High Church organist.

There was an interesting article in the magazine "Conservative Judaism" from about 10 yrs ago called "Positive Historical Judaism- Exhausted" that says the movement needs a new paradigm. Sadly, it has been ignored.

There are things I like about Chovevei Torah and the Union for Traditional Judaism. They try to keep the flame of the old Conservative and Modern Orthodox movements alive. But they are fighting a rearguard action, so I am not sanguine about their chances for success. Furthermore, even they may be too rigid for today's world.

Maybe rabbinic Judaism itself is an exhausted paradigm. I keep harping on that theme (not that anyone asked me), so maybe I am a lone wolf. I don't know what can replace it, and I don't want to throw out the good within it. Whatever comes next needs to integrate both our religious and national aspirations, since we are neither a Unitarian denomination, nor solely a nationality.

[Yochanan Lavie]

One more thing: For the record, even though I prefer a Modern Orthodox service, it would be intellectually dishonest to call myself an Orthodox Jew. I believe in God, and in some kind of Divine Revelation as expressed in tanach. But I don't believe Moshe rabbeinu came down with a Stone Chumash and a Vilna Shas balanced on his head. And I don't believe the self-serving rabbis when they say everything they make up is "oral law." And, as a literary critic, I think parts of tanach are allegorical, not literal. And I most emphatically don't believe in daas torah. My observance isn't up to par, either.

So from the p.o.v of a secularist, I am a religious fanatic, and from the p.o.v of the frummies, I am a bum.

I am searching for a form of Judaism that is not parve, like Mainline Prostestantism is (which is dying), and not foaming at the mouth like Fundamentalism. It does not exist, so I can either remain at home, or pick a shul I find least offensive. It is important to have a community, for many reasons, so I daven most of the time MO, and occasionally Conservative.

[rabbidw]

Yochanan, It's not easy being a grown up these days, is it? In my day, the MO rabbis who were my fathers age agreed with many of the things that you said. Most of them chose to only hint at their positions, and then in private conversations, may have elaborated slightly. The Yeshiva's were always dominated by a more fundamentalist thinking, as it is easier to teach children a less complicated story. The problem is that most of the Rabbis today have never grown up, and they remain at the same level of understanding as the 9 and 10 year old children in elementary school. The truth is that many people understand that the Torah developed over time, and that the Rabbis had a major role in determining the forms of Jewish observance that have come down to us today. My son, when he was in a black hat high school (his mothers doing, we were divorced) refused to believe me when I told him that the RAMBAM did not wear a black hat. While most Rabbis understand that, they do not understand the implications, hence all these people running around wearing long black coats and fur hats in 90 degree heat.
The one thing you should look into is Franz Rosenzweigs attitude of NOT YET, I do not do this practice yet, but I do not rule it out for the future. Come join the UTJ and you will find many who share your thinking. Good luck.

What a crock from "rabbi" dw.

If his father's peers held Yochanan beliefs then they were NOT Orthodox.

Yochanan is honest while pseudo-rabbi dw is constructing a deceptful maze to attract people to his UTJ. While he slanders all real rabbis, it is dw that behaves like a child. His anecdotal "evidence" from the Rambam is just as childish. The point is to wear a double head covering. This has taken many forms and styles including turbans and the caps that the Yekkes wear in Breuer's.

[The Monsey Tzadik]

RAMBAM did not wear a black hat
----------------------------

You are a kofer !!!, he wore shtreimel as well. Even Avraham Avinu wore Shtreimel I saw picture of him in Art Scroll children book

Scotty and the heretic rabbis (who is like a 4rd grader):

you were given sources aleady that there are ways to determine that there wasnever a covnersion to beging with. Look again at IM YD 157. Just as we can observe that Scotty talks like an heretic and kofer so too we can observe that the covnert never intended to keep shabbat kashrutand taharat hamishpacha. He works on shabbat; he lives alfiestyle before and right after the covnersion where there is no significant change from before his palns to "convert"; he lives with a nno observant spouse and so on and so forth. Look also at the words of R SZ Aurbach in his Minchat Shlomo how he considers these conversions to be "phoney". Your halacha belongs to the "Secular" religion it has got nothing at all to do with Torah.

[Shmarya]

Funny. In all the years Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach lived, he never voided one of those conversions? Why? He never ruled a woman to be a non-Jew 15 years after her conversion? Why?

Because he had no authority to do so. He could not overrule another beit din and he could not look into converts hearts.

You mistake RSZA's political position, his personal judgement, for his actual actions on the ground.

RSZA would have *preferred* tougher conversion standards, all being equal. (But massive immigration from the FSU that took place after RSZA passed may well have caused him to become less strict, rather than more strict.) And anyone who followed him would demand those tougher standards for those *they* personally convert. They would also fight to have the state toughen its standards. But they would not, could not and have not void conversions of others.

You also mistake RSZA's position regarding Conservative and Reform conversions for those done by Orthodox rabbis who are less strict than RSZA.

BTW, Avrohom, you're banned. Go away.

[Anon]

--Rabbi Attiya has no authority to overrule a beit din he was not part of.--

I'm not going to argue with you over the substance of Rabbi Attiya's analysis as neither you nor I know the facts. But there are no jusidiction rules applicable here - jurisdictional rules would relate solely to a situation where bet din A say you owe me a million dollars and you go to bet din B to overrule that (permissable only under very narrow circumstances). This woman went to R' Attiya for a get and if he believes she is not jewish he should not grant the get as she is not married. Similarly, if someone wants to marry one of her children that person should consult with his rabbi as to whether her children are jewish and his rabbi may or may not give deference to R' Druckman but he is not required to do so.

I've discussed this issue with two very prominent MO rabbonim both of whom (while disclaiming actual knowledge of the facts at hand) were extremely critical of R' Druckman's approach to conversion (some of their comments made R' Attia's comments seem quite tame) and noted that they are not at all suprised that a rav invalidated one of his conversions. In fact they both said that if they were on a bet din they would treat any conversion officiated by R' Druckman as automatically suspect. So in fact your position on this issue is squarely outside that of anyone within the mainstream orthodox community be it charedi or MO. While you ar entitled to do that, describing R' Attia as a rogue judge and Jonathan Rosenblum as doing a despicable thing by defending him is disingenuous. If you feel that way you should be up front and come right out and say that the entire orthodox establishment is despicable. You've come close to saying that at times but you always hide behind some thin veneer of still maintaining some part of the orthodox viewpoint - though clearly not the charedi viewpoint. In this instance, among others, I think you've stepped well beyond any mainstream MO viewpoint as well.

[Shmarya]

1. Disagreeing with an approach that has halakhic support does not give one the right to void rulings based on that approach.

What does this mean?

It means a convert converted by Rabbi Druckman is at worst a sofek Jew.

The two rabbis you consulted need to go back to school.

2. Your two rabbis confuse political positions with halakha. To get over this, I suggest they learn.

3. What this means is that your two rabbis would not accept, let's say, a Rabbi Druckman conversion, so they would not marry a Druckman convert to a born Jew or a convert of another rabbi.

As long as these two rabbis do not work for a larger rabbinic system that accepts Rabbi Druckman's shita, their refusal to do this mariage would be permissible.

But they still would not be able to rule the convert not Jewish because they have no way to ascertain the convert's true feelings and intentient at the time of conversion. Further, they do not know the halakhic process used by the converting beit din.

4. My argument with Rosenblum is clear – try rereading what I wrote.

What is despicable is that Rabbi Goren ruled leniently to remove suffering, something with a long halakhic pedigree and with halakhic endorsement, and Rosenblum misrepresents that, just as his fails to note Rabbi Attiya's move to humra.

He also does not acknowledge that his leader, the man he owes fealty to, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, was on the beit din in one of Rabbi Goren's cases (as was Rabbi Ovadia Yosef). It was Rabbi Elyashiv's ruling that was voided by Rabbi Goren.

In other words, Rosenblum has a conflict of interest that he failed to disclose.

5. If your two MO rabbis have any guts (which I doubt) have them contact me.

[Anon]

--If your two MO rabbis have any guts (which I doubt) have them contact me.--

Ha, ha. That is laughable. Your ego grows by the day. Why would a rov (even if not a prominent rov) want to call you? Do you really care a rov cares what you think?

I'm through trying to make you see reason on this issue which seems to be a lost case but I'll just note in parting that the notion that a rabbi who presides over a conversion now has exclusive authority to determine whether the conversion is valid is the most assinine thing I've heard in quite some time (which is something considering that I've read a number of your other posts). This is a halacha question like any other and rabbis can disagree. According to you if Rabbi A is a shochet and uses a questionable procedure Rabbi B can't assur it because he has no jurisdiction? Or perhaps he can't assur it but only say that it is a safeik? Wake up and smell the coffee - if you go to Rabbi B he will rule based on his view - assur or permitted - not safek. I don't know if R' Attia's ruling is or is not correct. But the greatest blame here should be directed to Rabbi Druckman. Not for following procedures he believes (I will assume his belief is genuine) are correct. But for not being forthcoming and telling the convert that I will be converting you based on procedures that are not accepted by the vast majority of orthodox jews and it is likely that you will not be accepted as a jew by many orthodox rabbis. By failing to do so, he was grossly (if not maliciously) negligent in setting up an innocent woman for this fall. If he did disclose this to the woman than she new what she was getting into.

[Shmarya]

Rabbis contact me all the time.

As for Rabbi Druckman, his conversions ARE regularly accepted. This is the first case of one being voided, and haredim control the varying religious courts dealing with divorce, etc. and control marriage.

I suggest you have your two rabbinic "experts" pony up.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Where does it say you must wear a double head covering? Isn't that just a chumra?

[Shmarya]

Your comparison to shechita is foolish.

Conversion has a different approach. Remember Hillel and the potential convert who anted to converted as he stood on one foot (ie.e, in a moment, without study)?

It is the machmir approach that is new, not the lenient approach.

Further, if rabbi A opposes something rabbi B allows in shechita, he can tell HIS FOLLOWERS not to eat it, but he CANNOT say that rabbi A's followers eat treife. In our case, that would mean Rabbi Attya doesn't have to marry someone Rabbi Druckman converted, but he cannot call that person a non-Jew.

Now go and learn.

[Shmarya]

As for two head coverings, that is a relatively recent thing. The Gra held that NO headcovering was necessary, even to daven or say brachot.

This two head covering shtuss is simply more 'kabbalah' passed of as halakhic Judaism.

The Mishna Brura and others pasken that a double head covering for tefila and brochos is mandatory.

In a scenario where someone will miss a minyan if he fetches his hat or whatever headgear, there is a machlokes haposkim if you forget about it to make the minyan.

Where does the Gro say "NO" headcover is needed?

Even the Germans, Dutch and Sefardim who didn't normally wear a yarmulka would put one on to daven, eat, etc.

It sounds like Shmarya is confused with the shitas Beis Yosef that no head cover is needed if there's a roof over your head.

[Alex]

Covering your head with even merely a yamica does not even seem to be apart of the 613 mitzvot. It would seem to be in direct violation of the Biblical rule against creating new halachot.

There have been some ignoramouses posting here and on UOJ to the effect that everything they don't like is bal tossef.

Please read up on the Minchas Chinuch for background on that issur before making foolish statements.

Can I take it that Shmarya is arrogant enough to accuse the saintly Chofetz Chaim and others of promoting a "shtuss"?

Can Shmarya not allow for aylu ve'aylu or will that send his blimp of an ego crashing to Earth?

[Anon]

--Can Shmarya not allow for aylu ve'aylu or will that send his blimp of an ego crashing to Earth?--

Aylu Ve'aylu? Sure its Sharmya and Shmarya who is wise and all knowing. Don't you find it ironic that he then turns around and criticizes chabad for their messianism?

[Anon]

--Remember Hillel and the potential convert who anted to converted as he stood on one foot (ie.e, in a moment, without study)?--

dumbest statement I've heard in quite some time. The convert didn't ask to be converted as he stood on one foot - he asked to be taught the entire torah while he stood on what foot. As far as his conversion process went it was presumably conducted in accordance with halacha whatever that is.

--It is the machmir approach that is new, not the lenient approach.--

I suggest you brush up on your learning a bit. Every posek from the Shulchan Aruch down to the previous generation (e.g. Rabbi Feinstein) explicitly said that an intention to observe is a required component of the conversion process. You want to play dumb and blind and assume that this woman had the proper intention when it is clear she was never observant, not even for one day, and she testified that no one ever asked her whether she would be obervant and that she never had any intention of being observant then be my guest. I for one want to maintain some shred of logic in my approach to halacha.

--Further, if rabbi A opposes something rabbi B allows in shechita, he can tell HIS FOLLOWERS not to eat it, but he CANNOT say that rabbi A's followers eat treife.--

Why not? If Rabbi B thinks Rabbi A is distorting halacha he will tell his followers that Rabbi A is a fraud and is shechita is treif.

--In our case, that would mean Rabbi Attya doesn't have to marry someone Rabbi Druckman converted, but he cannot call that person a non-Jew.--

damn right he should call her that if that is what you believe. You are free to accept your rabbi's view but if R' Attia were my rabbi I would want his unadultered view on the subject which is the she is a gentile.

--Now go and learn.--

I am a publicly professed ingoramous. You, however, claim to know it all while spewing opinions that are so assinine that even an ignoramous like me can see right through them. Tell me have you confirmed that your views are correct with any reputable rabbi? If yes will they allow you to go public with that or do they have no guts (to use your term)? Face it Shmarya you are a fraud. You are a fraud because you profess to know the halacha when you haven't a clue. You are a fraud because you profess to follow halacha when you are creating you own rules based on your warped views of what is just. And you are a fraud because you masquarade as still being of the orthodox persuasion when you aren't even close. Take it from someone who was conservative for more than half his life - most traditional conservative rabbis would consider you a heretic. My only question is is this funnier than it is sad.

[Alex]

Apparently Anon consulted with Professor X from the X-men to know what the woman's intentions were.

It is wrong to force converts to do more halachot than the average Jew does.

Anon, based on your logic, would you consider non religious or jews less religious than u not jewish?

[Anon]

--Apparently Anon consulted with Professor X from the X-men to know what the woman's intentions were.--

Perhaps I did. But Rabbi Attia seems to have taken the more direct approach and just asked the woman herself. Sharya seems to have gotten information from Professor X that allows him to conclude that the woman herself doesn't know what her intentions were.

--It is wrong to force converts to do more halachot than the average Jew does.--

The convert need to have an honest intention to observe halacha. What the average jew does or doesn't do is irrelevant, but in any event the average "observant" jew does do that.

--Anon, based on your logic, would you consider non religious or jews less religious than u not jewish?--

This has been addressed numerous times before here (and I believe Shmarya would agree with this in principal) - with the exception of a convert, being jewish is a hereditary status. Your level of observance may make you a sinner but won't make you make you less jewish. The only time level of observance (or at least intent) counts is with respect to someone converting. A necessary condition to the conversion process according to ALL reputable (and no, Shmarya is not reputable) orthodox authorities is that the convert have the attention to observe halacha and that if no such intent exists that the conversion is invalid.

[Alex]

Where does it say that Attia asked the woman herself? Further Rabbi Rosenblum's arguement seems faulty since it defends Attiya's decision by using strawmen situations of totally different people with different situations.

Fifteen years and with kids would seem to violate a certain unwritten statute of limitations for voiding conversions, like, why now? especially if everyone knew it was invalid all along.

The thing is it is unfair to force converts to live a jewish-spartian life, if a born jew decides to do so, thats his choice.

[Shmarya]

Anon –

You simply don't know the halakha. There is a lot of discussion about Hillel converting people w/o what we would consider normal pushing away and teaching. And there is a famous case in the gemara about a guy converted this way who went back to his tiny village and ate treife, etc., because he did not know better.

The problem here is not my alleged ignorance – it is with the rabbis who taught you huimrot and called them "halakha."

Now go and learn.

[Shmarya]

Re; Two head coverings.

The CC held that you must PUT ON A HAT to daven. Why? Because you are standing before the king, and in his day, when greeting royalty, one dressed in suit with a hat.

Yekkes do not need two head coverings, they wear a hat –or– a yarmulke. The shaliach tzibbur often wears a hat to mekabbel the CC's shita (which, of course, is older than the CC).

The idea of two headcoverings is a recent addition to Judaism, added in from kabala, starting largely with the spread of the hasidic movement.

[Anon]

Shmarya, there you go again with avoiding addressing the issue. How about you name five reputable orthodox poskim (excluding Rabbi Druckman) who believe that an intent to be observant is not a necessary element of the conversion process.

[Shmarya]

Sigh. There YOU go again. You do not understand this issue at all.

How does one prove intent? Do you know what was in this woman's heart when she converted? Of course not, and neith does Rabbi Attiya.

Do you know why Rabbi Druckman and his beit din converted her? Was there deception? Or did they know something you – and Rabbi Attya – do not know?

Go back to your two MO rabbis and ask them to put up or shut up. If they support Rabbi Attiiya, let them say so publicly and defend all of what he did.

They will not do that, of course, because they are not able to defend what he did. All they did is say they disagree with Rabbi Druckman's shita. What to do about that disagreement? When their names are attached to that thing? Deafening silence.

[Shmarya]

For more on two headcoverings see the newest issue of Hakira:

http://www.hakirah.org/Volume%204.htm

Dan Rabinowitz has an article on the halakhic history of headcoverings for men.

[Anon]

--Sigh. There YOU go again. You do not understand this issue at all.--

There you go again avoiding the issue and instead making personal insults. How about naming the five reputable rabbis who support your view?

--How does one prove intent? Do you know what was in this woman's heart when she converted? Of course not, and neith does Rabbi Attiya.--

We still need to make a judgement call based on the information available. This is not the first conversion in history that was invalidated because of lack of intent. Rabbi Attiya at least had the benefit of questioning this woman before he made his decision.

--Do you know why Rabbi Druckman and his beit din converted her? Was there deception? Or did they know something you – and Rabbi Attya – do not know?--

Rabbi Druckman was quite open about the fact that he fudges the intent factor and he was criticized for that position from all orthodox viewpoints from charedi to MO.

--Deafening silence.--

Deafening silence is that you can't come up with five reputable rabbis that support your view on this.

[Shmarya]

You really do not process well, do you? Name 5 leading MO rabbis who side with Rabbi Attiya?

Can't do that, can you?

You can't even name two and back it up.

[Shmarya]

The point is, until you can bring any support for Rabbi Attiya from MO rabbis, you have no case.

I can site Rabbi Marc Angel, who came out publicly against Rabbi Attiya, Seth Farber, and others in Israel.

So, either put up or, how does that go? Shut up.

[rabbidw]

Haven't any of you heard of the halachic principal "Ein Adam meisim atzmo Rasha" a person is not believed to give testimony about himself, (or herself). The second principal is that"Ein ladayan ellah mah shelefanove" A judge can only weigh the evidence that is in front of him. So here we have Rabbi Attiya, questioning a woman 15 years after her conversion about the conversion. Whatever she has to say now is totally irrelevant. Halachically, she CANNOT be believed. Rabbi Druckman and his Beis Din are the ONLY ones who can testify as to the conversion as they were the only ones who were there. This really is Halacha 101. Think about it. Suppose the husband does not want to give a get, or that she just wants to make trouble. She CANNOT be believed. And even if she could testify, (she cannot) Rabbi Druckman and his Beis Din, by the fact that they converted her, are testifying that she did have the proper intent. This means that the conversion is final. Now there are two halachic streams regarding acceptable mental states for conversion, one more demanding and one less demanding. I am not going to go into this as this is more advanced, but conversions that are done by a Beis Din have never been overturned on the basis of the converts later testimony.

[Shmarya]

Spot on.

And look at what Rabbi Goren did. He overturned a conversion (with much evidence to support him) ONLY in order to spare Jews from suffering. And halakha mandates doing this.

מנחת שלמה לה
בהך ענינא דלפני עור, הנני רושם את אשר אמרתי מכבר להיושבים על מדין, בנוגע לחלק גדול מהגירות שנעשה לצערנו הגדול בזמננו, דאף אם היינו אומרים דדברים שבלב אינם דברים וכיון שבפיהם הם מקבלים עליהם עול מצוות אין מתחשבין עם מחשבת פגול שבלבם ונעשה על כרחו גר גמור, מ"מ לאותו סוג גרים אשר קבלתם עול מצוות קרובה להחשב כדברים שבלבו ובלב כל אדם, שלבם בל עמם, והננו כמעט בטוחים שאינם חושבים כלל לקיים ולשמור מצוות ד', בכגון דא נלענ"ד שכל המסייעים לגירות כזו, אף אם הם טועים לחשוב שהם גרים גמורים, אפי"ה גם לשטתם המגיירים אותם עוברים בלאו של לפני עור וגו', שהרי כל דבר הנעשה נגד רצון ד' קרוי מכשול, וכידוע שאסור להושיט אבר מן החי אפי' לבן נח, והוא מפני שעבירה קרויה מכשול, ונוהג לאו זה בין בישראל ובין בנכרי

Scotty, try to understand past your level of understanding (which isn't much) the literal meaning:

"...אף אם הם טועים לחשוב שהם גרים גמורים"
those who think that these fellows are realconverts are mistaken!

rabbidw

"eyn ledayan elo mah shenov rooys"

you are missing the literal and real understanding of this concept and turn it upside down!

It means that you don't speculate beyond *your* eyesight and understanding and if that rabbi is convinced that a convertor a conversion process does not require any kabbalat hamitzvos it is according to "eynov roos" of the dayan his honest to goodness opinion and he must not shy away from sharing his honest to goodness opiinion. this is pishut pshat 101 in this concept.

If given rabbi investigates that in the past 15 years he or she never kept mitzvot and they have eydut that they led a lifestyle that is antithetical to accepting mitzvot "beliboy ubelev kol adam" then he *must* rule accordingto "eynav root" that there never ever was kabbalat hamitzvot.

regarding your "eyn odom messim atzmoyrosho" 101: I am not familiar with the exact procedure of drawingtestimonyused in this case, but your "all knowing" statements do not necessarily deny the ability to sometimes rely on the eydut of the rasha (see exaceptions in encyclopedia talmudit in the erech of "eyn odom messim azmoy rasha".

[Anon]

--I can site Rabbi Marc Angel, who came out publicly against Rabbi Attiya, Seth Farber, and others in Israel.--

Rabbi Angel is very knowledgeable about hilchot gerut having written extensively about the issue, however, I would not consider his support of R' Druckman influential in this regard. Rabbi Angel, who I know and highly respect, has been very forthcoming in proposing that the convert's intent no longer be a required factor for conversions. His position is based on a super minority view of a former Sephardic Chief Rabbi which is clearly inconsistent with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch and is based on a minority view of certain rishonim that was not the accepted view at any time since. So yes, clearly Rabbi Angel would side with Rabbi Druckman because like Rabbi Druckman he is of the view that intent is not relevant. However, the vast majority of poskim, charedi or MO, disagree. You too did not claim this should the law, rather you were assuming (correctly I think) that intent is a required element but that one cannot prove that the requisite intent did not exist. My response to you was that if intent is required and the woman claimed she never had the intent, it is clear that she was never observant and she was converted by a rabbi who is upfront about saying that he does not require the requisite consent based on this minority position of certain rishonim that has not been the accepted view in any generation since, assuming that the intent existed seems silly to me. Citing Rabbi Angel in support of your view is wrong. Yes, he would support the conclusion but for a very different reason. Again, I have the greatest respect for Rabbi Angel and I would like to believe that if were of the view that intent was required he would not be gullible enough to assume that in this case the intent existed.

I don't know Rabbi Farber personally. However, he runs some sort of convert-assistance program in Israel so it is only natural for him to seek to pursue a more liberal approach toward conversions. In any event, while I understand he is a upright fellow and I don't intend to criticize him in any way, he is relatively young and has not developed any sort of reputation of being a halachic power house. I doubt his view would carry much weight in the MO world.

Finally, I find it somewhat ironic that you and Rabbi Druckman are on the same side considering your misguided views on the jewish approach towards human rights. Rabbi Druckman has a long history of anti-Arab statements. Most recently he was one of the rabbis who publicly encouraged the IDF not to flinch from killing Palestinian civilians as part of their operations in the West Bank and Gaza. He served in the Israeli parliament for some time and authored a number of anti-arab proposals during his tenure.

[Anon]

--regarding your "eyn odom messim atzmoy rosho" . . . --

Please post a name under your posts as it would make it easier to address your comments (but try for something with more ingenuity then Anon). I haven't responded to rabbidw's comment myself because it was just silly. Firstly, this is not a matter of this woman saying edut which is where "eyn odom messim atzmo rasha" would come into play. Also, since a non-jew has no obligation to convert, in fact we try to discourage it, even if this was a matter of saying edut, I doubt her statement that she never converted would be considered "messim atzmo rasha." As you noted the Ein ladayan ellah mah shelefanove statement was even sillier as the facts here are quite clear and unless someone wants to play blind, dumb and stupid it is obvious that she never had the requisite intent.

[Shmarya]

"Scotty, try to understand past your level of understanding (which isn't much) the literal meaning:

"...אף אם הם טועים לחשוב שהם גרים גמורים"
those who think that these fellows are realconverts are mistaken!"

Show me even one case where RSZA or any of his close talmiding voided a conversion 15 years after the fact. I'll even take 10 years.

You won't find any case.

You mistake RSZA's halakhic OPINION on how conversions should be done with what he would actually PASKEN in INDIVIDUAL cases.

Further, if one is going to sit on State rabbinical courts, then one must accept the shita of state conversions. If not, do not sit on the State courts.

Hardim can be as strict as the want – for themselves. They cannot impose that strictness on others.

You'll see that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, for example, was very clear in the early 1980s, when the chief rabbis were both Religious Zionists, that it was up to the Rabbinut to rule. It was their turf, and what they ruled held.

Other haredim – like Rabbi Elyashiv – do not respect those boundries and work to undermine them.

That is what Rabbi Attiiya was doing, as well.

Of course, in the end, there will be two groups of Israelis. The secular, who pay for everything and defend the state with their blood; and the haredim, who steal, sit on their butts, and cause division.

When the Israeli civil war happens, who is going to win?

You have a choice – deal with Judaism in the context of a modern state, or hide your ghettos.

The second choice will lead to disaster.

[Yochanan Lavie]

"Of course, in the end, there will be two groups of Israelis. The secular, who pay for everything and defend the state with their blood; and the haredim, who steal, sit on their butts, and cause division"

In the end, all will be united in the atomic fireball that Iran (or its terrorist allies) unleash on Israel. We are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[anon 2]

scotty,

RSZA did not sit in *BEIT DIN* to rule on particular cases, so he would not have the opportunity to rule on them! But his general opinion is what *he* wroe in the sefer.

All of a sudden the expert thinks we revert to communism and the rabbi should not pasken his opinion but the opinion of R. Scotty and Rabbi Angel. No the Rabbi paskens according to his honest to goodness opinion. And all of a sudden Rav Scotty thinks he also knows the "states" opinion as if he read all cases in the batey dinim and knows that they pasken like Rav Scotty. Read some teshuvot of Rav Kook and Rav Herzog and see how much credence they give to conversion without kabbalat hamihatzvot!. Seeother teshuvot by Chacham Ovadya and by members of Batey DIn. You will see that basides conseervatism pseudo halacha, you have no clue in halacha. You think that hilchot gerut and mamzerut and issurey biah an the whole body of halacha revolves around "kulah" and whatever mumbo jumbo. You are gravely mistaken. You dont know the essence and aleph bet of halacha.

[rabbidw]

One last time. Please try to understand. It is one thing for the Beis Din who are doing the conversion to make whatever inquiries it feels are appropriate. The prospective Ger is not supposed to have the knowledge of the entire shulchan aruch, and every Beis din that does giyur is going to ask certain questions. Most will accept the answers of the prospective ger in good faith, as they are entitled to do. That is the meaning of ein laDayan ellah mah shelefonove. Some Batei Deenim will go beyond the answers of the ger candidate and make further investigations, as they are entitled to do. Once the Beis Din has completed the Geirut, the issue is closed. We cannot ask her 15 years later if she meant her geirut sincerely. The fact that Rav Druckman's Beis Din converted her is conclusive evidence and cannot be overturned for this individual. She cannot come 15 years later and say she was lying to Rav Druckman. We have all seen this on TV. The lawyer tells the witness "You admit you you lied to the court 15 years ago. Maybe you told the truth then and are lying now"

[Shmarya]

I wrote:Show me even one case where RSZA or any of his close talmiding voided a conversion 15 years after the fact. I'll even take 10 years.

You won't find any case.

You mistake RSZA's halakhic OPINION on how conversions should be done with what he would actually PASKEN in INDIVIDUAL cases.RSZA had many students, some of whom I knew. Name one who ever voided a conversion after 10 or 15 years.

You can not name one, can you?

Now why would that be?

Those students sit on Israeli rabbinical courts. You would think there would have been many opportunities to do so.

You do not understand the difference between what RSZA wanted l'chatchilla and what is done after a conversion takes place and there are now children, a spouse, etc. You do this because you don't understand how halakha works.

Learning what one forbids lechatchilla is not learning the halakhic process. All too often, haredim (and Chabad is a big offender here as well) only learn halakha in that manner. They do not learn the kulot, the what do we do after the fact when others will be hurt.

I've written before about a rabbi-physician, a haredi, who spoke with RSZA during a medical ethics conference. How could RSZA have paskined so leniently? It made no sense to my friend. RSZA set out each kula he used to reach the very lenient deciasion. Note this well: EACH kula. RSZA strung together a bunch of disparate, contradictory and often minority and daat yahid views to reach his lenient decision. RSZA explained he did so to alleviate suffering.

What so many Orthodox Jews do not understand is that what RSZA did is what is supposed to be done – lessen the burden, not pile on with more.

Opposing a particular form of Orthodox conversion, believeing it to be invalid and staking out a position he wants the polity, the state, to follow, does not in any way mean RSZA would have ruled in individual. real life cases that conversions were invalid. Nor would he have necessarily revoked them.

In every instance with that medical shaiyla, each component part, each daat yahid, minority opinion and kula relied on, were positions normally opposed by RSZA. But to ease the burden, he not only adopted one, he adopted several.

Think about that.

[Anon]

--You think that hilchot gerut and mamzerut and issurey biah an the whole body of halacha revolves around "kulah" and whatever mumbo jumbo.--

Please leave issurey biah out of the discussion. Since Scotty is single this would be getting too personal.

--Most will accept the answers of the prospective ger in good faith, as they are entitled to do. That is the meaning of ein laDayan ellah mah shelefonove. Some Batei Deenim will go beyond the answers of the ger candidate and make further investigations, as they are entitled to do. Once the Beis Din has completed the Geirut, the issue is closed.--

There is a whole body of law in tshuvot about how the intent is established and what happens when we see someone was not observant for even one day aftewards. (Rabbi Feinstein for one addresses this is some of his tshuvot relating to conservative conversions as another reason why their conversions are invalid even if we were to assume that the conservative rabbis involved were eligible to serve on the bet din). Latter day poskim (Rabbi Feinstein and his contemporaries) were very clear that just accepting the convert's word in modern times where we no that people are converting without an intent to be observant is not sufficient. It may have worked in prior generations when converting meant joining a group that was being persecuted and no person in his right mind would do so unless there was a sincere belief. Similarly, there are many tshuvot written about when one should question the validity of a gerut performed years before. The only time the issue becomes "closed" is with respect to the children (not the convert herself) if they were "nechzak" as shomrei torah umitzvot. In this instance (a) we are dealing with the convert herself who does not get the benefit of this chazaka and (b) they were never observant. The blanket statements you make essentially say the dozens upon dozens of tshuvot were based on false premises. (No, I can't start giving citations but you will find quite a number of such tshuvot in Igrot Moshe which is indexed should you be inclined to look this up.)

"You mistake RSZA's halakhic OPINION on how conversions should be done with what he would actually PASKEN in INDIVIDUAL cases."

This is one of your better statements. You know that RSZA would not have paskened in accordance with this written opinions but in accordance with your hallucinations. Right, now I'm totally convinced.

Putting aside the examples I noted earlier that Rabbi Feinstein used this as one of the reasons why conservative conversions should not be recognized even if there was a basis to believe that the conservative rabbis in question were observant, there is no question that this would have been a rear occurrence and a rabbi would be quite hesitant to get involved in a conversion presided over by another rabbi who is shomer torah umitvot. However, today we have an unprecedented situation. The conversion bet din in Israel (which converts thousands of people each year) was placed outside the jurisdiction of the Rabbanut because those involved wanted to adopt guidelines that are contrary to halachah and that the rabbanut (even the MO rabbanut rabbis) would not approve. So yes, you have an unprecedented situation today where there is a conversion court conducting thousands of conversions and explicitly states that it will not follow certain accepted halachic requirements relating to conversions. Rabbi Attia's ruling was inevitable and I would not be suprised if we see many more such rulings, including from MO rabbis.

Lastly, I note that you are absolutely right that RSZA and other of his ilk, such as Rabbi Feinstein and, at the risk of offending some of the more charedi folks hear, Rabbi Soloveitchik, utilized their knowledge and abilities to rule based on kulas in circumstances they deemed appropriate. It is also universally acknowledged that one needs to at that level to do so and most lesser rabbonim would be laughed out of town if they tried to do the same. Also, the determination of under what circumstances they were prepared to rely on their kulah was complex and detailed and usually not transparent from their ruling. They would weigh all factors, the character of their issur - is a d'oyraysa or not - can they be matir in a way that certainly won't implicate the d'oyraysa - is the need based on a medical issue that is at least borderline an emergency - what are the implications of they don't adopt the kulah - if they are machmir is it likely that many will be nichshol in more serious issurim, etc. Take some friendly advice Shmarya, you make enough of a fool of yourself without implying that you, of all people, have the knowledge and judgement to know when a kulah should or should not be relied on.

[Alex]

There is a whole body of law in tshuvot about how the intent is established and what happens when we see someone was not observant for even one day aftewards.

Aren't teshuvot just rabbinical opinions and not law in the full sense of the term?

[Shmarya]

Anon –

Rav Moshe writing about the CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT is not the same as Rav Moshe writing about Orthodox Jews whose halakhic opinions he may disagree with.

Again, as I wrote above:

Name students of RSZA who voided conversions 10 or 15 years after the fact.

You cannot do so because they did not void any. Period. End of story.

RSZA was actually Machmir on a medical issue where Reb Moshe was MEKIL: hatzoloh member are not allowed to go back with their amublances after the finished their job. He even asked Reb mOshe permission to print his teshuva where he argues with Reb Moshe.

RSZA writes his opinion; he did not have an opportunity to rule on inidivduals (he did not sit in a beys din). but even people like R. Atiya do not cancel all gerus on all individuals. But they do happen from totime.

[Alex]

Not allowing hatzola abmbulences to drive back sabbath or not is insane.