We Are Not One People

It's sad, but it's true:

These are painful statements, but they must be said loud and clear: Two peoples live in this land, both Jewish - they and we. They are the ultra-Orthodox, who see themselves as emissaries of God on earth. We are all the rest - secular, traditional and religious. It is not that we have suddenly separated; we never were one people. We tried to delude ourselves that we were. They knew all along that we were not.

What did we not do to preserve unity? We were ready to admit that they personified the true Judaism; we accepted marrying and divorce according to the laws of Moses and Israel based on their version; we accepted - willingly or gritting our teeth - limitations on our lifestyle; we agreed to ignore the status quo agreement that was wrung from us as hush money, so that they would not show up before the United Nations investigative committee and persuade it to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state; we sent our young men and women to defend them, while they spend their time at yeshivas or just wandering the streets; we agreed to support them, since after all they do not have time to work for a living; we even came to terms with their spitting at us, we whose "wagon is empty" while theirs is full.

All these things did us no good. They continued to take the fruits of our goodwill from us, while giving nothing in return. A unilateral treaty was created in which we give and they take.

They sold us the mendacious argument that we must give in to their whims to protect the unity of the people. This is a lie. The family trees are already on record. Have you ever seen an ultra-Orthodox person marry outside their own sub-group? They accept as obvious our willingness to accept limitations that are in opposition to our lifestyle and conscience. In exchange they belittle us, doubt our Judaism, do everything they can to make things hard for us and make Judaism, perhaps the greatest creation on earth, repulsive to us.

And now they have thrust the divorce papers in our faces. In one fell swoop, they have revoked the Judaism of a woman 15 years after she converted. Her children's Judaism was obviously also revoked. Could it have been someone who converted in a Reform rabbinic court, Heaven forbid? No, she was converted in Rabbi Haim Druckman's court, the head of the Bnei Akiva Orthodox youth movement and the head of the conversion court system. The Supreme Rabbinic Court was not satisfied until it had cast aspersions on all the conversions carried out by Rabbi Druckman, and declared them "null and void."

With the stroke of a pen the rabbinic court judges removed thousands of converts from the Jewish fold, they and their children, cursing and abusing Rabbi Druckman in the process. They did all this without looking at each case, and in opposition to every principle of halakha (Jewish law).

Rabbi Druckman does not need my defense. His religious observance is no less strict than that of the three religious court judges who slung mud at him, and his Torah learning is no doubt greater than any of theirs. Rabbi Druckman may have one fault: He has the "deficiency" of loving the Jewish people and a sense of responsibility for the Jewish people. I thought that the Torah commanded us to have such characteristics. It turns out that I was wrong…

–– Asher Maoz writing in Ha'aretz

[Hat Tips: Two Anonymous Readers.]

Comments

[jewishwhistleblower]

Chabad vs. Belsky
http://www.col.org.il/show_news.rtx?artID=37846

[Yochanan Lavie]

Unfortunately, Shmarya's headline is correct this time, not hyberbolic. There are over 500 religions that call themselves "Christian" and the notion of a united Christendom has been a fantasy since the Catholic/Orthodox split (and later Protestant Reformation). Protestantism itself fragmented, and then Mormonism proclaimed a third testament and very different cosmology.

Muslims crow about Dar-al-Islam, but sunnis and shias are not on speaking terms (let alone Ismailis, sufis, Achmadis, Alawites, and other small groups).

A modest proposal: Maybe we are no longer one religion, but we can see each other as one ethnicity. We can go our seperate ways, but unite to help the poor in all communities (who are willing to work, but are on hard times), fight anti-Semitism, and support a Jewish-ethnic but religiously neutral Israel. If you will it, it need not be a dream.

[rabbidw]

Yeshayahu Leibowitz (a strictly Orthodox Jew) had it right. Separation of Church and State. Secular marriages and divorces for those that want them. All religions and sects are equally entitled to perform marriages, divorces and conversions, and NO GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE ANY RELIGION. No Government funded Rabbis, no Government funded Yeshivos, no Government funded Kashrus supervisors.
We have Yeshivot and Kashrus in America without the govenment beeing involved. Let them manage in Israel. Enough.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Rabbi DW: I don't always agree with Y. Leibowitz, but he is 100% correct in this case. The reason why religion thrives in the USA and not in post-Christian Europe is largely because of the seperation.

[a very ennoyed jew]

the circus goes on.
tisha be-av was moved to rosh chodesh iyar!

news from jpost:
Amar calms converts after decision

MATTHEW WAGNER , THE JERUSALEM POST May. 5, 2008

Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar attempted on Sunday to calm thousands of converts whose Jewishness has been cast in doubt by a High Rabbinic Court decision, assuring them that their conversions would continue to be recognized by the rabbinic establishment.

However, rabbinic sources said that despite Amar's declaration, the repercussions of the court's scathing indictment of a central figure in the conversion courts would continue to be felt.

The High Rabbinical Court, the highest rabbinical authority in Israel, released a decision last week that accused State Conversion Authority Rabbi Haim Druckman of intentionally transgressing Jewish law, forging official rabbinic documents and lying.

As a result of Druckman's alleged criminality, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of conversions performed by Druckman were totally illegitimate, the court ruled.

According to Jewish law, the honesty and uprightness of the three rabbinical judges who conduct the conversion process are essential to the validity of the convert's transition from gentile to Jew.

Rabbi Avraham Sherman, a highly respected halachic authority, headed the three-judge panel that issued the decision.

Shaney Gilbert, a convert to Judaism who might be affected by the court's decision, said she was distraught by the callousness of the judges.

"When I first heard about it I started shaking all over," said Gilbert, who leads a totally Orthodox lifestyle.

"I could not believe that I had been through so much and now this court could come along years after the fact and take away my Jewish status retroactively. Just like that, without any investigation into who I am."

Gilbert said the decision was a clear violation of the biblical commandment to love the convert and not to wrong him or her.

"On Judgment Day, those judges will be accountable for every tear that I and thousands of other converts shed," she said.

If the High Rabbinical Court decision is upheld by the rabbinic establishment, people like Gilbert will not be recognized as Jews even if they have embraced an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle for years.

The ramifications of the decision, if upheld, are far-reaching for converts like Gilbert: they will be unable to marry another Jew in Israel, where all marriages are governed by Jewish law.

If they are already married, the marriage will not be binding.

Also, the children of female converts will not be considered Jewish, since Jewishness is determined by matrilineal descent.

Religious schools might expel these children; marriage registrars would refuse to register them for marriage; ritual circumcision would not be performed on their sons.

Converts who converted under Druckman who wish to be recognized would have to repeat the process before an approved rabbinic conversion court.

In a short written statement to the press, Amar said he was sorry about the controversy caused by the rabbinical court's decision.

"The decision relates to one particular incident that has yet to be resolved. At any rate, no one has annulled the conversion of anyone. Rather, the court just criticized one of the panels of judges on the conversion court."

An Amar spokesman said the chief rabbi stood behind Druckman and recognized his conversions as kosher.

The spokesman also said the rabbinical court decision was published against Amar's express command. He hinted that disciplinary measures might be taken against Sherman and the two other judges who signed off on the decision - Hagai Izerer and Avraham Sheinfeld.

Despite Amar's backing, however, rabbinic sources said the allegations leveled against Druckman were so severe that inevitably, fault would be found with Druckman's conversions by some rabbis.

Rabbi Shaul Farber, head of ITIM, an organization that has helped hundreds of converts - including Gilbert - navigate the bureaucracies of the Israeli rabbinical establishment, said his organization planned to contact marriage registrars, religious schools and mohels [ritual circumcision performers] and other religious officials and try to convince them to ignore the high rabbinical court's decision.

"Marriage registrars are not obligated to adhere to the decision," Farber said.

"In parallel, we initiated a Knesset committee discussion to expose this legal outrage in which rabbinical judges who are government officials are scoffing at the decisions of the governmental bodies vested by the cabinet to perform conversions," he said.

Immigrant Absorption Minister Ya'acov Edri said, "I'm saddened by the fact that the state of Israel, particularly the rabbinic establishment, has not internalized the importance of conversion to the State of Israel. As a traditional man, I am worried about the terrible obstacles being erected on the path to conversion. The Absorption Ministry, together with the Prime Minister's Office, will do everything necessary to enable conversion by the proper authorities of the State of Israel, he said.

"I will not let this go. The Jewish people always went with the [more lenient school of] Beit Hillel. In Israel, Beit Shammai [said to be more strict] seems to be the stronger party. The rabbinate is necessary in the life of the state, but it has to be responsive to the will of the people. The people want religion and tradition, but not impossible decrees and extremism," Edri said.

"I support dialogue for a solution along the 'golden mean,' so people don't have to resort to flying to Cyprus to get married."

Haviv Rettig contributed to this report.

[Anon]

It is important to note that the Rabbinical Court has accused Rabbi Druckman of not just violating halacha (actually what they accused him of is intentionally transgressing halacha) but also of forging official rabbinic documents and lying. We can argue about whether Rabbi Druckman halachic position is or is not defensible but I would like to know the basis of the accusations of forgery and lying before I form my personal conclusion about this matter.

I also take issue with Maoz categorizing the ultra-Orthodox and one group and secular, traditional and religious as a second group. As a MO jew, I am no more secular than I am ultra-orthodox.

[one of many]

ITs all about Controll and power, not about kindness and love. especially new converts.
that could be a threat to the system.
thats what they fear, that new converts will influence the average Jew to think outside the box, there fore threatening there postition as leaders having to now make a reply to a new convert when they are asked questions about there "added Laws" where a lifelong Jew would'nt dare ask the Rabbi or the leader for fear of expultion excommunication, disfellowshiping....ect..

What other reason would there be for this mass controll of who can be a Jew or who cannot be a Jew?
Fear!!
my opinion not saying that Jews that are inherintly born Jewish, dont think outside the box, I in fact know that they do, but this act of outsting New Jews, sort of speak, will put the fear right back into the Faithful Jew just incase he or she thinks they can question the motives of the leaders. So they can control and keep things the way they are. Comfortable for them that is. like someone stated, they go and teach what is beyond Torah.
Now is this something rather new,or has this been going on for the past 2 thousand years? just wondering.

[TheAdlerian]

"What other reason would there be for this mass controll of who can be a Jew or who cannot be a Jew?
Fear!!"

No, it's called "Power" and they have as much as you're willing to give.

The costumes they wear, and whatnot, are to evoke heuristics in your mind which condition you to respond like so, "Oh, he has the special hat on, so I have to listen to him." Well, no you don't.

I'm also amazed at how the initial article mirrors Nietzsche's explanation of how religion works, in his book The Antichrist. He believed it a kind of con game. The fake religious leaders trick strong and competent people to give them money and take care of them while they do little or nothing in life. That's what was described in the article. It is also the reason that China tried to kick the Tibetan monks out of Tibet. They were seen as exploiting the people.

Put an end to it in your life. Be a kind and ethical person and fear no one.

[jewishwhistleblower]

Chabad vs. Belsky Continues

http://www.shmais.com/news.cfm?ID=45826
Monday, May 05, 2008

SHMAIS.COM EXCLUSIVE: RABBI DR. TZVI HERSH WEINTREB, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE OU RESPONDS TO RABBI BELSKY’S REMARKS

SNS ED. In light of the open attack on Chabad by Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, Rosh Yeshiva Yeshiva Torah Vodaas and the Posek for the OU Shmais News Service asked the Executive Vice President of the OU, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb if he agreed with Rabbi Belsky said.

The following is Rabbi Weinreb’s response. We thank him for responding so soon to our inquiry.

We must point out that Rabbi Weinbreb has not yet read Rabbi Belskys entire remarks – we hope he will do so soon - though some of the remarks were related to him by Rabbi Shmuel Kaplan over the phone.
...

[jewishwhistleblower]

Chabad vs. Belsky Continues

http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=11772

[one of many]

fear of loosing power

[yidandahalf]

Good post, Adlerian. The monks of Tibet are another bunch of parasites. I am sick ad nauseum of hearing about their 'plight' since the old guy went Hollywood.

[Shmarya]

t is important to note that the Rabbinical Court has accused Rabbi Druckman of not just violating halacha (actually what they accused him of is intentionally transgressing halacha) but also of forging official rabbinic documents and lying. We can argue about whether Rabbi Druckman halachic position is or is not defensible but I would like to know the basis of the accusations of forgery and lying before I form my personal conclusion about this matter.

Funny. The information about this is public. It's even linked in an earlier post I made.

Yet you "don't know" this information but you do know what the haredim accused Rabbi Druckman of doing.

And all your posts defend haredim even though you claim to be MO.

An observer might be led to believe you are, shall we say, not telling the whole truth about your affiliations.

Rabbi Druckman appointed a court of three learned rabbis to oversee conversions for him. He did this when he was a Member of Knesset and did not have the time to sit for each individual case. Some of the conversions he signed off on were done that way.

Rabbi Kahane-Shapira and Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu (both Chief Rabbis) called in Rabbi Druckman when this information became known. They told him to stop doing conversions in this way. At the same time, the emphasized all conversions done that way remained valid.

It is Rabbi Druckman's signing off on those conversions that haredim are now calling "forgery."

BTW, the new American system approved by the Chief Rabbinate of Israel a couple of months ago essentially allows for the same thing, if the rabbis chosen are qualified and pre-approved.

And nowhere in halakhic history is there any problem with doing what Rabbi Druckman did. A rabbi (or anyone else) can appoint an agent to act on his behalf.

You may be familiar with this concept. Abraham, the first convert, did this when he sent his servant Eluezer to find a wife for Isaac.

Of course, you can see why haredim would oppose this – after all, Abraham was only a convert.

[Anon]

--Rabbi Druckman appointed a court of three learned rabbis to oversee conversions for him. He did this when he was a Member of Knesset and did not have the time to sit for each individual case. Some of the conversions he signed off on were done that way.--

You neglect to say that he signed a document that said that the person in question underwent a conversion in front of the "undersigned" judges. That may fit within your interpretation of honesty, not mine.

Again, I don't know the underlying details but Mazuz investigated Rabbi Druckman and, while he didn't bring any legal proceedings, he did issue a public statement to the effect that his investigation found various violations of law, including false testimony.

[Shmarya]

So you begin to reveal more about your real identity.

Attorney General Mazuz functions according to secular state law. The beit din in question led by Rabbi Sherman functions according to religious law carried out within the confines of state law.

What Rabbi Druckman did is perfectly kosher in Jewish law.

The conversions were carried out in from of his appointed agents, who act as him using his vested power.

All Rabbi Druckman can be accused of here is believing that, because these are religious documents being signed, he was allowed to do this.

He stopped doing it when he was told to.

The "false testimony" is because secular law does not recognize the power of an appointed agent in the way Jewish law does.

This is a far cry from what you try to make Rabbi Druckman guilty of.

Your pretense to be an unbiased, MO observer is clearly false. Now what does that say about your honesty?

[Yoel B]

So Rabbi Druckman used a method (shlichut) supported by halacha but not by civil law, and the charedi rabbinate is using that to invalidate geirut and condemn him? Pardon me while I get my blood pressure under control.

(Actually, to the extent that Rabbi Druckman's actions have a bearing on status under civil law as well as halacha, he should make sure that what he does is valid both ways. That said, any Rabbanut officials who don't honor R' Druckman's conversions should be off the gov't payroll ASAP.)

[Anon]

--What Rabbi Druckman did is perfectly kosher in Jewish law.--

Is the only thing he was accused of signing the conversion papers of converts that he did not personally convert or are there other things as well? Why don't you try to earn the funds you schnorred by getting copies of Mazuz's reprimand as well as the recent ruling and posting those so that we can all make an educated judgment. It shouldn't take too much effort as they are both public documents.

--All Rabbi Druckman can be accused of here is believing that, because these are religious documents being signed, he was allowed to do this.--

Even if all he is accused of is signing conversion papers of converts he did not convert, you make him sound like a complete simpleton. How any semi-rational person can believe that it is appropriate to sign a certification that a person was converted in his presence when the certification is blatantly false is beyond me. If this were a haredi rabbi you would be all over him nominating him for your hall of shame.

--This is a far cry from what you try to make Rabbi Druckman guilty of.--

I didn't try to make Rabbi Druckman guilty of anything. If you had the slightest reading comprehension skills you would have noticed that I said in my post that other than the instance of signing conversion papers when he was not present at the conversion (was there only one instance?) I don't know the underlying facts of Mazuz's reprimand. What I said was that before I give Rabbi Druckman the benefit of the doubt I would like know what the specific accusations were. One would assume that an attorney general doesn't publicly issue something that was described in the Israeli media as a scathing reprimand of a public official for what you would have us believe is at worst an innocent mistake.

--Your pretense to be an unbiased, MO observer is clearly false. Now what does that say about your honesty?--

You can believe what you want about me. I frankly don't care.

btw, you are completely off the reservation is saying that Rabbi Druckman has the right according to halacha to appoint agents on his behalf to perform geirut. The requirement of having a beit din present is mandated by halacha and the members of the beit din must be present in person. They cannot appoint an agent, though the agent may be qualified to serve in his own right. So the issue of sending an agent is not a halchic issue at all.

[Shmarya]

btw, you are completely off the reservation is saying that Rabbi Druckman has the right according to halacha to appoint agents on his behalf to perform geirut. The requirement of having a beit din present is mandated by halacha and the members of the beit din must be present in person. They cannot appoint an agent, though the agent may be qualified to serve in his own right. So the issue of sending an agent is not a halchic issue at all.

I say this with the greatest respect. MORON. Any person can according to halakha appoint an agent to do something for him. That agent can buy a car or acquire a wife. He can sell or buy property.

A rabbi can appoint members of a bit din and then sign off on the conversions done by that beit din.

A rabbi can send a mashgiach to a food producer and sign off on the kashrut of that food even though he has never seen it.

And the list goes on.

You're a dishonest, abusive person with little to say for yourself.

If you had any courage – which you clearly do not – you'd post using your real name so people could say, Reuven Ploni can or cannot be trusted.

Instead, you hide behind anonymity and attack.

What a pathetic example of the Judaism you act to represent.

[Anon]

--Any person can according to halakha appoint an agent to do something for him.--

Try listing some of the things he cannot appoint an agent for, such as giving testimony or serving on a beit din.

--A rabbi can appoint members of a bit din and then sign off on the conversions done by that beit din.--

He can but this is not a halachic issue, just one of simple verification. To be clear, the rabbi who who appointed this agent was NOT a member of the beit din that approved the geirut. The agent may have been a member, but in his individual capacity, not as an agent.

--A rabbi can send a mashgiach to a food producer and sign off on the kashrut of that food even though he has never seen it.--

He can, but what he can't do is certify that he personally watched the production process.

--What a pathetic example of the Judaism you act to represent.--

The one complimentary thing I can say about you is that you are consistent. When you have nothing intelligent to say you simply revert to personal insults.

[Shmarya]

What a disingenuous piece of work you are.

1. A senior rabbi can appoint a beit din for conversion and then sign off on the conversions done. A beit din for cvonversion does not operate as and is not the same as a regular beit din hearing dinei mamaot or dinei nafashot.

If you don't know this, go learn. If you do, apologize to Rabbi Druckman.

2. Similarly, rabbis end their agents, mashgichim, to food plants. The rabbis sign off on the food and give their personal ishur that the food is both kosher and up to the standards the rabbi endorses.

This is what goes on all over the world. It is the norm in kashrut, not the exception.

3. Signing off on a conversion is not the same as being a witness at wedding or the like. The rabbi does not need to be present. All he needs to do is to endorse the process and the rabbis he appoints to run it.

Many conversions in America and Europe are done in a similar way, with a potential convert learning and studying under one rabbi but the conversion done by a beit din that relies on this one rabbi's endorsement of the potential convert.

The beit din often will not know the convert at all. They'll ask a few perfunctory questions and then sign the conversion. They do so because they rely on the rabbi who does know the convert.

That is far more "problematic" than Rabbi Druckman appointing a beit din to act for him and then signing off on the conversions.

In Rabbi Druckman's case, his agents know the convert and test him. His schools previously educated him. He has full access to test scores, teachers evaluations and reams of other documentation.

4. Two chief rabbis already said all of Rabbi Druckman's conversions are valid and there is no halakhic problem with what he did.

Further, Rabbi Amar, the current Sefardi Chief Rabbi and President of the High Rabbinical Court opposed what Rabbi Sherman, et al, did. He tried to block release of the ruling and his spokesperson has supported Rabbi Druckman.

Now why is it you disregard this but rely on the opinion of a man known to be an extremist, and who is a loyal follower and agent of a man whose goal is to remove all Modern Orthodox rabbis from power?

[Anon]

--What a disingenuous piece of work you are.--

Glad to see that you are being consistent again.

--A beit din for cvonversion does not operate as and is not the same as a regular beit din hearing dinei mamaot or dinei nafashot.--

Wrong. Geirut requires a full fledged beit din, same as dinei mamaot and dine nafashot. Why don't you read the ruling the relevant citations are listed there.

--In Rabbi Druckman's case, his agents know the convert and test him. His schools previously educated him. He has full access to test scores, teachers evaluations and reams of other documentation.--

Sounds wonderful, but not an excuse to certify that he was part of the beit din. His agent should certify that and Rabbi Druckman could issue some sort of certification to the effect that the rabbi in question acts under his supervision.

--Two chief rabbis already said all of Rabbi Druckman's conversions are valid and there is no halakhic problem with what he did. . . . Now why is it you disregard this but rely on the opinion of a man known to be an extremist, and who is a loyal follower and agent of a man whose goal is to remove all Modern Orthodox rabbis from power?--

To be clear, I have no clue who the rabbis that affirmed Rabbi Attiah's ruling are. Nor do I express any views as to whether Rabbi Druckman's conversions are valid or not as I am not qualified to express that view. All I am saying is that Rabbi Druckman acted in a questionable manner and that before you criticize Rabbi Attiah and the rabbis that affirmed (actually they went a step further than Rabbi Attiah) his ruling you should have the decency to list the facts. You seem to have a problem listing facts as someone can then challenge you assertions so you prefer to just post conclusions.

Since you don't have the decency to list the facts, I read the ruling and here is my understanding of some of the underlying facts. I don't know if the ruling is right or wrong, but I do know that if these "facts" are correct then Rabbi Druckman certainly did not act appropriately. If anyone with a better understanding of Hebrew is inclined to read the ruling, please correct or supplement this post. Please note that the ruling was apparently issued following an investigation conducted by the rabbinate (in addition to Mazuz's investigation). The findings of the investigation were presented to the Chief Rabbis and a copy was sent to Rabbi Druckman. So Rabbi Druckman's assertion (noted in some Israeli news reports) that he wasn't given notice of these proceedings and an opportunity to defend himself is certainly not entirely true.

1. The ruling states that Rabbi Druckman and his beit din would conduct conversions where there was absolutely no assumption that the person would be observant.
2. The ruling cites tshuvot by Rabbi S.Z. Auerbach (the Rabbi that Shmarya loves to cite as the model posek), Rav Kook and Rabbi Y. Y. Weinberg (author of Seridei Aish who while technically a haredi is often considered of having held views that are more in line with moder orthodox views than haredi views) all of whom cite that such conversions are invalid. The tshuvot also state that the beit din that conducts such conversions transgress the biblical violation of lifnei iver (regardless of whether the conversion is valid or not). Again to cite Shmarya's favorite posek, Rabbi Auerbach in his tshuvah refers to dayanim who do this as sinners.
3. The ruling states that the Rabbinate's investigation uncovered almost 200 instances where Rabbi Druckman's signature was falsely attached to the certifications. (Apparently, most of these Rabbi Druckman did not even sign personally, but someone else in his office would sign these on his behalf.) Not one instance as Shmarya would have you believe. The ruling also states that many of these were done after Rabbi Druckman was questioned and warned about this and pledged to Rabbi Amar not to allow this to happen any more.

Are these conversions valid or not? I don't know, but they certainly are questionable.

Did Rabbi Druckman act appropriately? Definitely not.

Did Shmarya read the ruling before he posted his knee jerk criticism of the beit din? Apparently not.

Did those of you who contributed to the cause of allowing Shmarya to "investigate" issues relating to the jewish community waste you money? Apparently yes.

The greatest harm perpetrated by Rabbi Druckman is against the converts. Conducting these conversions without full disclosure to the converts that he would conduct the process in a questionable manner and that they may have to undergo the pain of someone questioning the validity of their conversion in the future was unconsionable.

[Shmarya]

--A beit din for cvonversion does not operate as and is not the same as a regular beit din hearing dinei mamaot or dinei nafashot.--

Wrong. Geirut requires a full fledged beit din, same as dinei mamaot and dine nafashot. Why don't you read the ruling the relevant citations are listed there.

Did it ever occur to you that there are other citations that disprove those?

I know this is truly difficult for you, but I'll try to lead your "unbiased" mind to the answer:

1. Any three shomer shabbat men can form an ad hoc beit din and do a conversion.

2. while this is technically true of certain dinei mamamot cases, it is not true of dinei nafashot cases.

3. The idea that a conversion needs a sitting beit din and a court apparatus is a wholly modern idea.

Sounds wonderful, but not an excuse to certify that he was part of the beit din. His agent should certify that and Rabbi Druckman could issue some sort of certification to the effect that the rabbi in question acts under his supervision.

He's signing a GOVERNMENT form verifying the conversion.

Again, to help you grasp this, what Rabbi Druckman did is 100% kosher halakhicly. It was not even clear it was wrong under secular law until AG Mazuz made his decision.

Please note that the ruling was apparently issued following an investigation conducted by the rabbinate (in addition to Mazuz's investigation). The findings of the investigation were presented to the Chief Rabbis and a copy was sent to Rabbi Druckman. So Rabbi Druckman's assertion (noted in some Israeli news reports) that he wasn't given notice of these proceedings and an opportunity to defend himself is certainly not entirely true.

Again, the issue was resolved by the rabbinut a long time ago. Rabbi Druckman stopped using agents to do the conversions and the rabbinate ruled all those earlier conversions VALID.

What these haredi judges did is not the same thing as or a natural outgrowth of the Ranninate's investigation.

The assertion that Rabbi Druckman continued to act inappropriately is made by these haredi rabbis – NOT BY THE RABBINATE ITSELF.

1. The ruling states that Rabbi Druckman and his beit din would conduct conversions where there was absolutely no assumption that the person would be observant.

I suggest you actually learn a little bit more about conversion halakha. Try looking at some of the Sefardic poskim, like RAbbi Uzziel, for example.

Again to cite Shmarya's favorite posek, Rabbi Auerbach in his tshuvah refers to dayanim who do this as sinners.

This is cherry picking. You also have rabbis – mostly Sefardic – who rule differently.

Not one instance as Shmarya would have you believe.

I never said it was one instance.

I suggest you stop your disingenuous attacks on Rabbi Druckman.

[Anon]

--The assertion that Rabbi Druckman continued to act inappropriately is made by these haredi rabbis – NOT BY THE RABBINATE ITSELF.--

This is a factual question. Perhaps the rabbis issuing this ruling were lying, but if they were not lying than Rabbi Druckman can no longer excuse these acts.

[Anon]

--I suggest you stop your disingenuous attacks on Rabbi Druckman.--

I suggest you stop your disingenuous attacks on Rabbi Attiah and the rabbis who affirmed his ruling. What Rabbi Druckman did was at best questionable and certainly forms a basis for the views expressed by this ruling. You want to disagree with the ruling, be my guest, but asserting that the ruling was without basis and solely for the reason of attacking a RZ rabbi is disingenuous.

[Shmarya]

Not really.

Rabbi Attiya did not revoke the conversion in question because of the "false signing of documents" that you mention.

He did so because he opposes the entire halakhic outlook of Rabbi Druckman, even though Rabbi Druckman has, as we say, on whom to rely.

But the poskim Rabbi Druckman relies on are National Religious or old-style pre-haredi Sefardic, not haredim, and Rabbi Attiya opposes them, as well.

As, I must add, do the followers of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv – two of who sat on the high court panel that annulled Rabbi Druckman's conversions.

[Shmarya]

http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080506conversionsrca.html

Published 5-6-08

American Orthodox rabbis slammed the decision by an Israeli rabbinical court to nullify conversions by an Israeli Orthodox rabbi.

The Rabbinical Council of America said Tuesday that the ruling, which retroactively nullified the conversions performed under the auspices of Rabbi Chaim Druckman, was "entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice," is a violation of "numerous Torah laws" and constitutes a "massive desecration of God's name." …

I guess my understanding of the relevant halakhot is shared by the RCA.

[Dave]

Of course I am delighted with RCA's comments on this issue.
However, I find it funny how when the Orthodox (who by definition think that the Oral Torah is on a par with the Written Torah, which I do not agree with) want to get serious, they say, "it's a violation of Torah law". What happened to the Talmud/ the mesorah/ halacha? Suddenly only Torah law is important?

[SJ]

What exact halachot did Druckman break? I have not heard an elaboration about this particular question yet.

[Anon]

--What exact halachot did Druckman break? I have not heard an elaboration about this particular question yet.--

In addition to the forgery / false certification issue, the psak asserts that he violated the issur of lifnei iveir. There were a couple of other referenced (don't have a copy of the psak anymore) but, if I recall correctly, the focus was on lifnei iveir.

[RabbisAreNotGods]

"When I first heard about it I started shaking all over," said Gilbert, who leads a totally Orthodox lifestyle.

"I could not believe that I had been through so much and now this court could come along years after the fact and take away my Jewish status retroactively. Just like that, without any investigation into who I am."

That's because with Charedism (and sometimes other forms of Orthodoxy) it's all about the Rabbis.

HaShem isn't the issue. The ger and his/her observance and relationship with HaShem isn't the issue.

It's all about the Rabbi.

They decide what is kosher, they decide what is not kosher. They make things permitted, they make permitted things forbidden. They pronounce you converted, then they pronounce you as never converted.

Their retraction of your conversions can destroy your marriage, your family, your peace of mind, your sanity, your life. But, that doesn't matter. Just as HaShem can send an earthquake or tidal wave to destroy lives and cities in the blink of an eye without we humans being privy to His concern, the little gods called the rabbis can wave their hands and wreak havoc in the lives of gerim and others. "It's all for the best," they probably say . . . as thousands of lives lay shattered. "It's all for the best . . . "

[SJ]

>> In addition to the forgery / false certification issue, the psak asserts that he violated the issur of lifnei iveir. There were a couple of other referenced (don't have a copy of the psak anymore) but, if I recall correctly, the focus was on lifnei iveir.

This answer is too vague. Allow me to rephrase. What was the exact halacha in the conversion procedure that Druckman broke while he was officiating conversions?

[Anon]

--This answer is too vague. Allow me to rephrase. What was the exact halacha in the conversion procedure that Druckman broke while he was officiating conversions?--

If I recall correctly, the accusations are (i) that he intentionally certified invalid conversions in that he knew that there was absolutely no kabalat mitzvot and (ii) that he approved conversions that may technically be valid according to certain authorities, but are questionable, and where it was clear that the convert would not keep most mitzvot. In either case the psak asserts that would be an issur of lifnei iveir. If the conversion was invalid then there was the risk that the convert (or if it was a woman, her children) would marry jews. If the conversion was technically valid but the convert would not observe many mitzvot then the lifnei iveir relates to the aveirot this convert would commit post conversion. There was other stuff in the psak, but this is what I recall off-the-cuff.

[SJ]

now we are getting somewhere.

it seems to me that there was a stunning lack of due process on the part of the rabbinate in order to write of that many converted jews without viewing each individual case individually, if such a review indeed did not happen yet. does the lack of convenience on the part of the rabbinate mean that the convert looses his/her right to due process?

Further it would seem to me that nothing short of reviewing every single convert that Druckman converted is necessary for providing any kind of evidence of these accusations.

[Shmarya]

Not only that, but the Chief Rabbi, Shlomo Amar who is also President of the High Rabbinic Court rejects this ruling as does the RCA, which clearly states that it violates many different halakhot.

The problem with Rabbi Druckman is that he tried to be a mentch in a system that has no mentchen.