The Conversion Crisis part 8

While it is true that the Temple had a Court of Women, it is not true that the sexes were completely segregated. Men were allowed in that Court. In fact, the Sanhedrin met in that Court! Men mostly gathered in the Court of Israel, where the altar and most Temple appurtenances were. . According to RASHI, women were never allowed into the Court Of Israel. However, according to RAMBAM and the Tosafot (a group of about a thousand rabbis, the grandsons of RASHI and their students), women DID enter the Court of Israel when bringing a sacrifice. There were eight days a year when this was not true. The Talmud relates that King Solomon made a "great innovation". During the Sukkot holiday, every night featured a great celebration of singing dancing, and even juggling. The celebration was connected with the "Water Libation". Whereas nearly all sacrifices were associated with a libation of wine, during Sukkot, water would be drawn from the nearby Gihon spring, and poured upon the alter. This Is not mentioned in the Torah except by way of a hint, but was understood to be a tradition going back to Moses. It was a sort of symbolic prayer, for a blessed rainy season. (Eretz Yisrael, like other Mediterranean lands, has two distinct seasons; Rainy and Dry). The celebration took place in the Court of Women. Solomon feared that if singing and dancing through the night were to take place with men and women together, it would likely lead to debauchery; a common feature in pagan Temples. So a balcony was constructed for the women, so they could see and enjoy the spectacle. But it is important to note that this balcony only existed for eight days a year.The Talmud mentions that some rabbis actually enforced this practice in synagogues, as a way of insuring proper concentration and decorum during worship. The wording of the Talmudic passage indicates that this practice was, however, not common. We are unable to determine if the ancient synagogues which have been found in Israel had separate women's sections of not. Mosques have not only separate seating, but also partitions that are way over the worshippers' heads. Churches in Southern Europe had women's balconies until the tenth century. (My friend, Msgr Tutone, once told me "not in Ireland! The women would not have stood for it!") It is likely that the same situation existed in medieval synagogues. But no rabbi mentions this, until the thirteenth century. Rabbi Mordecai ben Hillel (known as the Mordecai), writes that this is a universal practice, but by no means a halachic requirement. It is merely a symbol of modesty. The issue goes again unmentioned until the eighteenth century PRI MEGADIM, who likewise declares it an symbol of modesty, with no halachic significance.This all changed in 1840. The Reform Temple in Albany, New York, suffered major damage from a fire. A local Church allowed the congregation to use its sanctuary for Friday night services. The people loved the mixed seating, and it was soon adopted by Reform congregations all over America. This was slow to be accepted elsewhere; it flew too much in the face of tradition. (I have been in two European Reform synagogues, in France in 1965, and Hungary in 1989.The former had a women's balcony. The latter had separate seating, albeit without a mechitzah (partition)). When the Conservative movement began in about 1880, their stance was that separate seating was good and proper, but mixed seating would be allowed on a temporary basis, until the people would be "won back to tradition". In fact, the main sanctuary at JTS, the Conservative seminary, had separate seating, WITH a mechitzah, until the 1980s, when feminism and egalitarianism saw this as an affront to women. But even before this, the public perception was that the main difference between Orthodoxy and Conservatism ,was the question of mixed seating. Orthodox leaders, fearing a new sect in Judaism, were adamant. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein declared mixed seating a Biblical prohibition, and separate seating without a mechitzah a rabbinic prohibition. Any rabbi serving in such a congregation was not "kosher", and all his actions were to be seen as null and void; even if he were personally fully Orthodox. Rabbi J.B., Soloveichik, the head of Orthodoxy's left wing (his wife did not cover her hair, and he would practically force guests in his home to partake of ordinary, unsupervised cheese), issued a declaration that if one heard the shofar on Rosh HaShanah in a mixed seating situation, one has not heard the shofar. If one's options are to hear it in a Conservative synagogue or not hear it, better to not hear it. Neither of these views had any halachic basis (some were offered, but were flimsy and easily refuted). Others argued that the silence on the subject in our sources was due it it being too obvious to mention.Others saw this argument as ridiculous. But these harsh actions were seen by there rabbis as necessary in order to separate "the men from the boys"; Traditional Judaism needed to be saved from an upstart, and potentially dangerous sect. Many Orthodox synagogues had been without mechitzahs as well. By 1970, this had all but disappeared. Until 1985, when the Conservative movement ordained women rabbis, the RCA rabbinic placement service was placing members in Conservative congregations that were unable to get a Conservative rabbi (who get much higher salaries). This stopped, and rabbis who had been placed in these congregations were ordered to leave their positions, or face sanctions. Conservatism continued their Leftward path, until today, in most places, it differs from Reform in only a few details. In 1991, I needed to come to the States for a week, to visit my Mother before her death. I spent Shabbat with the local Conservative rabbi, a man as pious and careful about halachah as any Orthodox rabbi I know,. We had been friends since 1966. I asked him if he would eat in the home of the average Conservative rabbi. He answered "Five years ago, yes. Today, no". Had Rabbis Feinstein and Soloveichik foreseen this direction, and minimized the damage by aggressively persecuting anyone connected with Conservatism? Or had they brought the current rift about, by pushing away a third of American Jewry? This is a question often heard whispered in rabbinic circles. G-d only knows. However, one thing is certain. Suddenly, thousands of people who had converted in completely halachic ceremonies, were now driven out of the Jewish people. This will ultimately be judged by the True Judge. 

The Conversion Crisis part 7

Reform in some parts of Eastern Europe was mostly outwardly distinguishable  from Orthodoxy by the placement of the readers desk, with prominent rabbis writing responsum after responsum attacking this, declaring the podium of the prayer leader being in the front of the synagogue, and the Torah reader's desk in the middle of the synagogue, to be absolute fundamentals of Judaism. The fact that Reform had rejected the concept of halachah, and was allowing many major violations of Jewish law. In Philadelphia, they even moved the Sabbath to Sunday. This became standard in many places. I spent the Summer of 1973 in Cleveland. The main Reform Temple still maintained a Sunday Sabbath. This was largely ignored in rabbinic literature, as it meant nothing to the uneducated Jew. The "evils" of both the reader's desk and the prayer podium being in the front of the synagogue, dominated the conversation in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.By the mid twentieth century, many Orthodox synagogues had adopted the practice of the reader's desk being in the front.. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein issued a responsum that "for us" it is not really a problem (although many will still not set foot in such a synagogue). The bigger issues of Reform deviation from traditional Jewish ideas were now apparent. (Again, let me stress that this was American Reform. Reform took different forms in different places. Indeed, even in America, there were huge differences between Reform of Cincinnati, and Reform of the South and West). Conservative was more of a problem. Among the early Conservative leadership were scholars who, for all intents and purposes, were Orthodox (roughly from 1880 to 1980). The long time Dean of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Dr. Shaul Lieberman, is still highly regarded in most Orthodox circles. But the Left Wing had thinkers who were, in almost every way, Reform. Professor Seymour Segal (no relation!) openly declared many parts of the Torah to be "immoral".But JTS was generally seen as an "Ivory Tower" of "eggheads". The people who attended Conservative synagogues were, until the late twentieth century, people who had grown up in Orthodox synagogues, but who enjoyed the less legalistic atmosphere of Conservatism. Much changed in the 1950s. After WW II, the U.S. governemnt gave generous mortgages to veterans. Roads, traversing the U.S. made access to previously remote areas easy. Jews began moving to the newly created suburbs, and even to rural areas. Few traditional Jews would dream of coming to synagogue by car. But in the suburbs, the synagogue was often three miles, rather than three blocks, away. Reform had a stigma attached to it for most Jews. That was not seen as an option. The Conservative Committee for Jewish Law and Standards officially forbade driving on Shabbat. But they published a minority opinion that driving is permissible, as all the "labors" involved in driving are indirect actions (turning a key is permissible. That the key makes a fire, is "none of our concern".) The Committee stressed that they do not agree with this view, but, at the discretion of the local rabbi, it could be relied upon for the purpose of getting to and from synagogue only. After a few years, this became "standard operating procedure", although, at that time, almost no Conservative rabbis would dream of driving on Shabbat. In this way, Conservatism became the religion of suburban Jewry. When it came to conversion, Orthodox rabbis generally accepted Conservative conversions on a case by case basis, and would perform a "quicky" reconversion for the others.. Until the early 1990s, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate maintained a list of which Conservative rabbis were acceptable (although this fact was never made public). By the late 1960s, Conservatism had become the largest Jewish group in America. Orthodox rabbis began to panic. While there was surely some politics in this, there was mostly a feeling of how can we trust a movement that is largely halachic, but has a significant part of its leadership that is not. The Committee for Law and Standards, which had historically given reasonable compromises between what had been done, and what seemed appropriate now "until we win marginal Jews back" had taken some very dangerous, and deviationist positions. For example, the Torah forbids a Kohen from marrying a divorcee. With divorce becoming more and more common, this became a real problem. The Committee issued a responsum that, as there is NO CHANCE that the Temple will ever be rebuilt (!!!), we need no longer keep the laws of Priestly purity. At first, this "heter" stipulated that such a marriage may not be held in the main sanctuary of the synagogue. This was reversed a few years later, with the stigma removed. For the first time, the Conservatives had reversed a law in the Torah, and had codified disbelief in the restoration of the Temple Service. In the Musaf Service of Shabbat and Holidays, instead of the prayer that read :"restore us to Jerusalem that we may perform our obligatory sacrifices" an emendation was made "restore us to Jerusalem, where our ancestors performed THEIR obligations". At first, the amended version was optional. Soon, it became obligatory. There were, of course, many Conservative rabbis who disagreed with this. But they remained silent. After all, even RAMBAM in his "Guide" had opined that sacrifices would not be restored (a position which he contradicts both in his legal code, as well as in his commentary on the Mishnah). Nearly all Orthodox rabbis now saw Conservatism as a heresy. But how to fight it? Some continued dialogue. A number of prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis continued to have Conservative rabbis address their congregations, allowing time for debate and discussion. But most felt that the Conservative movement must be deligitimized. Just as Hungarian and Polish rabbis had fought Reform over the issue (or non issue) of synagogue architecture, a symbol that everybody could see and understand was sought as the battleground. By 1960,the "Mechitzah" (partition traditionally put up in synagogues between the sexes) became that battleground The details of this dispute, and its effects on the recognition of Conservative conversions (and just about anything else done by Conservative rabbis, or even Orthodox rabbis in Conservative pulpits) will be the topic of my next post.

The Conversion Crisis part 6

Leaders of societies and religions often are faced with a conflict between making a choice which affirms the rights of people, and upholds justice on the one hand, but which, on the other hand,, might have devastating consequences for the nation. A case in point is the way Mahatma Gandhi dealt with the problem of the caste system. He knew that the system was fundamentally immoral. Millions are born into the lowest caste. They are called "untouchables" They are doomed, from birth, to a life of poverty and misery. They mainly work at cremating the bodies of the dead. Gandhi considered outlawing the caste system, thereby freeing these people from millennia of discrimination. But he realized that ending the caste system, would, essentially destroy Hinduism. He felt that doing so, would rob India of its roots. He left the system in place. Although we think of Gandhi as a great non-violent liberator, he is cursed by millions who live in misery because of his inaction. But millions of others bless him for saving their heritage.We find the same thing in every religion, including Judaism. The cutting off of the Samaritans probably saved Judaism. Likewise, those rabbis who expressed the view that Karaites are the enemy, and they need to be shunned in every way, and should not be considered Jews, apparently had the same viewpoint as Gandhi. It is a fact that simple Jews do not understand theology or ideology. Few Jews, even Orthodox Jews, can describe to you the basic tenets of Judaism. Jews tend to think of Judaism in terms of what we do or don't do. Realizing this, whenever a heresy or supposed heresy arose, rather than fighting their ideology, the rabbis would fight their deviation from standard Jewish practice; however minor. Although Shabbat candles have many levels of significance, many rabbis, and virtually all historians, see their origin in negating the Sadducees, who believed that the Torah forbids having a fire burning on Shabbat. The rabbis REQUIRED having a fire burn into Shabbat in order to negate this view. Similarly, when Karaism came on the scene, with an understanding of Shabbat similar to that of the Sadducees, the rabbis urged all Jews to have at least one hot dish on Shabbat. Ashkenazim called it "chulent", which derives from an Italian word meaning "hot". (Yes, I am aware of all sorts of fanciful etymologies that have been suggested). Sepharadim called it "Hammin" (also "hot") but developed all sorts of delicious recipes, in addition to the Ashkenazi meat and bean stew. In the late '60s and early '70s, I was a frequent guest in the home of the Syrian Chief Rabbi of New York (one of his sons was my professor for Arabic in college). Before he tasted the Hammin, he recited a short poem, blessing those who partake of hot food on Shabbat, but cursing with the fire of Gehinnom those who do not. This became a powerful tool against Karaism. When Hasidism began, it was considered a heresy by the Yeshivah heads, especially in Lithuania. But when we read the "bans" of excommunication that were issued, none spoke of their ideology, but rather their customs. In the early days of Hasidism, Hasidim wore white garments on Shabbat (one still sees this in Israel). One of the "bans" says that if you see a Hasid dressed in white, strip him naked by force, even in the middle of the street. Hasidism adopted a different type of knife for ritual slaughter (shehitah) of animals for food. They were far sharper than those that had been used up to that point (and later became the norm for all). A ban was issued saying that any animal thus slaughtered must be considered non-kosher. Utensils used in preparing such meat must be either kashered or destroyed. Mezzuzot and Tefillin which were written in the Kabbalistic variation of the Ashkenazi script were declared invalid. Not that any of these things were intrinsically wrong, but they promoted and legitimized Hasidism, which was seen by those rabbis as a threat to traditional Judaism. People died, families were broken up, many lost their livelihood. It would seem to us as the ultimate immoral policy. But those who promulgated this policy, believed that these were necessary measures meant to save Judaism. Fighting the trappings, rather than the ideology of a new movement, was very effective. When Reform came on the scene in the late eighteenth century, it took different forms in different places. All, however, included deviations from standard beliefs and practices. But it was not these that were fought against, but rather external changes, such as the placement of the table on which the Torah was read. Mixed seating of the genders only came in in 1840. There are still Reform synagogues in some parts of Europe that have separate seating. The responsa written about Reform, until fairly recently, attacked not their ideology, but rather their ritual deviations. The same is true of Conservatism. As I have written in the past, the Conservative movement was, from its inception, an uneasy cohabitation of those who sought Orthodoxy with a more liberal interpretation (very much like today's "Open Orthodox"), and those who essentially wanted a less radical Reform. Up until the 1950s, the Conservative movement put out pamphlets on how to keep Shabbat, and even Family Purity (mikveh). Some Orthodox rabbis recommended dialogue with Conservatism. But the most prominent rabbis went on the attack. Again,not on the basis of ideology, but on the basis of trappings. The result was that Conservatism drifted further and further away from Orthodoxy. Did the rabbis who declared it completely invalid simply show them for what they were all along, or did they force them into a corner, thereby distancing millions of Jews from Judaism? (Recently, I have unfiended and blocked several people who were claiming that any Jew who does not accept a handful of Jerusalem and Bnai Brak Yeshivah heads as their leaders, is a heretic, and any converts who do not accept that concept are invalid. I am reminded of the French Revolution, when succeeding leaders decided that the previous leaders were counter revolutionary, sending them to the guillotine).That will be my next post.

The Conversion Crisis part 5

I will now do an about face, and explain why the centralization of conversion in one body might be a good thing. Yes, I do resent that an unelected body has hijacked the process, rather than leaving conversion standards to the local community and its rabbis, as is the case in most other areas of halachah. But, as I have explained in an earlier essay, all rabbis are NOT created equal. The curriculum of the non-Orthodox rabbinical schools is totally different from that of the Orthodox. Orthodox, however, produces different types of rabbis with varying levels of training. The real scholars almost never become community rabbis, but become teachers in the great Yeshivot. Others become "rabbis' rabbis", central figures who delve deeply into Torah, and become resources for other rabbis, as well as answering serious questions for knowledgeable laymen. In some circles, these are the heads of Yeshivot, doing double duty. In others, they are different men with different talents; with the Yeshiva heads expert in Talmudic interpretation, while these men are expert in applying the theory to actual life. Those who head congregations are usually only proficient in every day halachah, bringing the real questions to others more knowledgeable. The interview for hiring an Orthodox  rabbi, usually includes the question "when we ask you for a halachic ruling, who will be answering the question?" When I have answered "I will". that always results in "your are very arrogant, get out of here". I like the analogy of the medical profession.. There are specialists, there are competent general practitioners, and there are EMTs. The Orthodox pulpit rabbis are, in my opinion, the EMTs. To my knowledge, no Yeshiva teaches how to convert, or even how to do a wedding. When I was in Israel, I took a course in ketubot (marriage contracts), open only to rabbis. We all brought in our own ketubot. Eight of the eleven proved to be invalid. There can be many reasons why a conversion might be invalid, but I will now show how a leniency can become a major problem. The Talmud is clear that a public sinner is invalid as a witness, and certainly as a judge. Indeed, his status as a member of the community is doubtful. There is another statement, however, concerning a Jew who is ignorant of the law for reasons beyond his control. One is a Jew who was kidnapped as a child, and raised in a non Jewish environment. (Tinok Shenishba'). In this category also is a convert, who had his conversion performed in an environment where learning was unavailable to him, to the extent that he never heard of Shabbat!. The Talmud discusses how many sacrifices must be brought to the Temple by one who has not kept Shabbat. It then goes on to say that if one is in either category where knowledge of Judaism was impossible, he has limited liability, and needs to bring a minimum number of sacrifices. RAMBAM gives this a much wider interpretation. Speaking of the Karaites, he says that they must be killed, as they are such a danger to the very foundations of Judaism. (Again, this must be understood as theoretical, as Jews have no power to implement capital punishment today). In our present day editions of RAMBAM, the statement goes on to say "In what case are we speaking? Where one has become a Karaite of his own volition. However, this does not apply to the children of Karaites, as they are like children who have been kidnapped". (This has since been shown to be a censor's emendation, with the original only saying that they are given a chance to recant).This was applied in a very liberal way by the rabbis of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Reform Jews are not necessarily people who have abandoned Judaism, but are simply following the ways they have been taught; like kidnapped children! They are, in every way, our brothers and sisters!. This has been the approach of most rabbis ever since. However, the clear intent of the principle was to express understanding and compassion, not to say that they are Tzaddikim. Even a Jew who attends an Orthodox synagogue, but openly violates the Torah, would invalidate himself as a witness in halachic matters. Nevertheless, many laymen, and some under qualified rabbis, chose to understand this as a complete acceptance of non observance if done because of lack of knowledge. One city I lived in, had a synagogue that claimed the title of "the foremost Orthodox synagogue in the Midwest". In fact, not a single congregant was a Sabbath observer! When the rabbi needed a witness for a conversion, wedding or divorce, he would take any member from the rank and file, relying on the principle of "Tinok Shenishba'" This was, and to a lesser extent still is, the common procedure in outlying communities. These marriages and divorces are almost certainly not valid., As to conversions, if we say that a Beit Din is essential (which, as I have shown, is not necessarily the case), this would likewise be invalid. This would appear to be an excellent argument for centralizing the conversion process,putting it into the hands of more competent rabbis. I would not be surprised if, eventually, the same would hold true for weddings and divorces. But again, who decides? Chabad has been pressured into a no conversion policy. Satmar conversions are largely unrecognized. Who gets to decide? And who gets to make the final decision as to what standards are essential? Many Batei Din that are certainly much better than the RCA are despised and go unrecognized. It has just happened  recently, that the secular Israeli courts have decided to punish rabbis on Battei Din not sanctioned by the official Chief Rabbinate. Did anyone say "Freedom of Religion"? To be continued.

The Conversion Crisis part 4

The decision to regard the Samaritans as Gentiles, has far reaching implications, not dealt with in the Talmud. Can the rabbis declare a Jew to be a non-Jew? By what authority? Is there any basis in either Tanach or Talmud for "cutting of" a segment of the Jewish people? Is it not a fixed, basic principle in Judaism that once a Jew, always a Jew? To take the last question first; the short answer is "no". There are discussions in the Talmud about many nations and ethnic groups that are descended from Jews, but now practice other religions and do not consider themselves Jews.. The Talmud refers to such people as "dough" (isah); that is, they are so integrated into other ways that the Jewish element is no longer distinguishable. The conclusion is that in some cases, they will come back. In other cases, they will not. The primary example of those who will someday come back, is the Pathani (Pashtun) people. You know them as Afghanis. They maintain tribal orders based on Biblical clan names, and have certain rituals that are clearly Jewish. Yet, I do not recommend that you tell this to them; especially the Taliban.. But there is hope for their return. (It is virtually certain that Afghanistan is the primary home of the lost tribes). There are other groups that are so assimilated, that the rabbis conceded that they will not return. Getting back to the Samaritans, who were, after all, considered Jews, albeit renegade Jews, for a thousand years, it is more complicated. When the rabbis declared them to be Gentiles, did they mean that literally? Or did they mean "to be considered as Gentiles"? Several early rabbinic authorities postulated exactly that. The Samaritans, with their revisionist history, vastly changed Torah (some 6.000 deviations from ours), and especially with accusations that they have adopted and maintained some pagan ways, seemed too dangerous to accept into our midst. without fear of forever corrupting Judaism beyond recognition. Perhaps the rabbis saw cutting off a limb as better than losing the whole body.This question became real again with the rise of the Karaite heresy. Could a Karaite marry a Rabbinite Jew? For centuries they did! We have found marriage contracts (ketubot) from such marriages , stipulating in what areas the couple will observe Rabbinite Judaism, and in what cases they will follow Karaite ways. This came essentially to a halt in the twelfth century with RAMBAM declaring Karaites the enemy of Judaism, and even encouraging violence against them. (This was purely theoretical, as the Jews were powerless to enforce either capital or corporal punishment). Generally speaking. the Sepharadim were more forgiving of people who had opted into heresies, as long as they renounced their ways. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (RAMA), the major Ashkenazi voice in the Shulchan Aruch, opines that any group or family that has been away from the path of Torah for three generations, is no longer Jewish. I know of no proof either for or against this view in Talmud. Therefore, when Jewish groups of questionable lineage come to the fore, Sepharadic rabbis are inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt; either accepting them "as is", or performing some simple, no questions asked, conversion ceremony. Ashkenazim will usually require full conversion.These matters often come to national attention in Israel, and, sadly, often wind up in the secular courts. But there are other issues. In my next post I will delve into a common LENIENCY, which is of unlikely validity, that puts even some Orthodox conversions into question. It is called "the principle of the kidnapped child". Stay tuned.

The Conversion Crisis part 3

I have used the term "heresy" in these essays on a number of occasions. If we are to take the tenets and practices of any religion seriously, major deviations must be seen as a threat. In Christianity, for example, there were many wars in Medieval Europe over the "right way" to celebrate Mass. To one who takes things dispassionately, this seems both bizarre and tragic For the believer, the very foundations of his faith, or even the connection between Man and G-d, may be at risk.What is or isn't a major deviation is not always easy to determine, and may itself be a casus belli. A deviation in custom may have little or no theological import, but may be a political, or even a personal, issue. Let us remember that the Anglican Church was founded for the express purpose of Henry VIII marrying Anne Boleyn. The split between the Roman and Orthodox Churches, was primarily over the issue of what type of bread was appropriate for Communion. These sorts of issues have long been a reality in Judaism as well. The first major case of this was the Samaritans. During the Assyrian conquest of Northern Israel, they exiled most of the Jewish inhabitants, and put in their place a mixture of pagan peoples.For fear of mountain lions, they adopted a form of Judaism, in order to appease the "local Deity". Mount Gerizim took the place of Jerusalem. Their Torah scrolls contain, in the Ten Commandments, a command to build the Temple there. Eventually, they developed an entire conspiracy theory, that David, Samuel, and Eli the Priest, changed the Torah for political purposes. For the next thousand years, the Samaritans became the sworn enemies of the Jews. They attempted to stop the rebuilding of th Temple by Nehemia, and later urged Alexander to destroy it.To this day, they cling to the claim that only THEY have the true Torah. For most of those thousand years,Judaism took the attitude that they were indeed Jews, and would be fully accepted into the community, as soon as they recognized the primacy of Jerusalem. At the end if this period, however, there was a decision made to consider them fully non-Jewish. If a Samaritan wants to join us, he/she would be required to convert. A similar situation exists regarding the Karaites. (I am not speaking of the online variety). Since the seventh century, they have largely rejected the Oral Torah. Although they claim to follow Talmud "95%", in reality, little they do is in accordance with the halachah. The have no tefllin, they affix a metal plate containing the Ten Commandments over their door in lieu of a mezzuzah, Hanukkah simply doesn't exist.Their laws of Kashrut are vastly different. Their calendar is different, Passover can be as much as a month away from ours, and Shavuot is kept on a different date. There are some 30,000 Karaites living in Israel. Every few years, a new ruling is issued by the Chief Rabbinate as to whether or not they are to be considered as Jews. (Is it enough for them to renounce their heresy, or must they convert?) The current Chief Rabbis have ruled that they are not Jews. These issues have come to the Israeli secular courts. (Can a Karaite butcher shop be designated as "kosher" when it follows THEIR rules?) Although these disputes seem very distant to us, a great deal of the conversion crisis is based on how we regard non-Orthodox Jews. Are the differences minor? Do they constitute a heresy? Are they our brothers and sisters, or must we brand them as the "other"? Is it applicable to see them in the light of the Samaritan and Karaite heresies? Once someone converts, can a later rabbinic court declare their conversion to be invalid, even if done centuries earlier? Much of this is basic Jewsih theology. Much is also politics. I will attempt to explore these issues in my next post.