The Conversion Crisis part 15

When I lived in Cincinnati (1973-1975), I was on the Beit Din both for conversion and divorces (Gittin). An unusual case came before us. A couple came for a "get". After the ceremony, the woman turned to the Beit Din, and said "now I want a letter that I am not Jewish". We looked at her in surprise. "My husband's mother hated me, and said that she would never accept our marriage. I told her that I would show her, and have her own Orthodox rabbi marry us. I converted just to spite her. I have witnesses that I was in Church the Sunday before and the Sunday after my conversion". Rabbi Scharfstein, the head of the Beit Din, refused to issue such a letter. It is abundantly clear in our sources, that although we check out a convert's motives before hand, if we failed to do so, or if we were duped, the conversion stands. On the one hand, this situation underscored the weakness of individual rabbis doing conversions. There had been an agreement between the Orthodox rabbis in Cincinnati that all conversions and divorces would go through Rabbi Scharfstein's central Beit Din. But this woman's conversion had been performed by an individual Modern Orthodox rabbi who USUALLY worked through the Beit Din, but did not this time. He apparently knew that there was something "fishy" about the woman, and that Rabbi Scharfstein would refuse to perform the conversion. One could only guess at what pressures the rabbi had been under to perform a conversion that he apparently knew was unacceptable. On the other hand, there was zero basis for declaring her conversion invalid. So how did we get to the current situation of conversions being routinely invalidated retroactively; sometimes even decades after the event? Sometimes, there is basis for such an action. If it can be shown that one of the members of the Beit Din was invalid, that would make the conversion invalid, according to the accepted practice of requiring a Beit Din, (although it is unclear in the Talmud if this is an actual requirement, even ex post facto. In a saner time, the conversion would have been redone as a stringency). But what invalidates one from being on a Beit Din? In the Talmud, it would only be a public sinner. RAMBAM introduces a new factor; heretical beliefs. This is unknown in Talmudic sources, and goes unmentioned in the Shulchan Aruch. This view opens up a Pandora's Box. What exactly constitutes heresy? I will here remind you of the view of certain rabbis that owning a Smart Phone not only invalidates one from being a witness or a judge (Dayyan), but even from being counted in a minyan! How far do we go? RAMBAM's definition of heresy, was itself declared heresy by some of his colleagues! But a controversial 1972 event changed the rules for all. I have discussed in an earlier series the very tragic issue of Mamzerut; usually translated "bastardy", but actually meaning the issue of a union of incest or adultery. The children of such a union may never marry a Jew (with certain limited exceptions). A cause celebre in the early '70s in Israel, was the case of the Langer twins. Before WW II, a Jewish woman married a man who was not of Jewish background. The man insisted he had converted. The woman said that he had only had himself circumcised. During the war, they lost contact with each other, and each assumed the other to be dead. They both survived, and wound up in Israel. Each remarried, and had started a family. When this situation was discovered, the Rabbinate declared the woman's second marriage to be adulterous, and her two children to be mamzerim. This stirred up great resentment in the secular community. Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Chief Rabbi of the IDF, said "If I were Chief Rabbi of Israel, I would find a solution". At that time, Chief Rabbis reigned for life. A new law was put into place, limiting the Chief Rabbis' tenure to ten years. The Chief Rabbis Unterman and Nissim were ousted. Rabbis Goren and Yosef were installed. Within days, Rabbi Goren had convened a special secret Court. The man was asked to recite the Shema. He was unable to do so. Rabbi Goren declared his belief that the man had never converted. He added that the Talmud makes the (enigmatic) statement that "all who marry or convert, do so with the consent of the rabbis". No one is quite sure of the meaning of this statement. Rabbi Goren interpreted it to mean that the rabbis could undo a marriage or conversion. He decalred the conversion of the woman's first husband, if it had happened at all, to be null and void. He also declared her marriage invalid, even if the conversion had been done. The two children, a young man and a young woman, were married to their fiances the next day, with Golda Meir acting as the "parent", giving the bride and groom away. This action of Rabbi Goren sent shock waves throughout the rabbinic world. His fellow Chief Rabbi opposed both the action and the manner in which it had been done. Those members of the Supreme Rabbinic Council who leaned in the direction of the Hareidi world, resigned their positions. The Chief Rabbinate was no longer taken seriously in many circles. Ironically, the idea that a rabbi could retroactively decalre a conversion invalid, was taken up by some Hareidi Batei Din, especially in the U.S., but by the 1990s in Israel as well (although not the idea of declaring a marriage invalid, which would solve the agunah problem for thousands of women.) Suddenly, for those who take the idea seriously that, contrary to all known sources, a conversion could be undone, a convert would always live under the threat of finding him or her self suddenly a non-Jew once again, if one rabbi or another is unhappy with something they have done.. In my opinion, this approach is without halalchic merit. I would still regard such a person as Jewish. I constantly see well meaning, but uneducated, Jews writing Facebook messages that conversions can be undone,. This would come as a shock to all rabbis before 1973, as well as non-political rabbis today. This is part of the conversion crisis. This is politics.

The Conversion Crisis part 14

Although the various doctrines I have described seem like politics, and even hate, this is not necessarily true (although there are politicians and haters among us). We essentially have two definitions of Orthodoxy. One is all Jews who believe in the  Written and Oral Torah, who practice it to the best of their ability, and see themselves as answerable to G-d alone. The other is based primarily on a devotion to emulating the ways of a community and its leaders. This is seen as an unbroken connection to Sinai, and the very embodiment of the Oral Torah, trumping any textual record to the contrary. These conflicting concepts are not new, and can be traced back to RAMBAM versus the Tosafot. Moreover, neither concept is exclusive to "Hareidi Orthodox" or "Modern Orthodox". In each group, there are those who are source based, and those who are community leadership based. A few years ago, there was a Hareidi rally in New York, with a large number of Lithuanian Yeshiva heads  delivering impassioned messages on the evils of the Internet. I overheard two young men talking about this. One commented, and the other heartily agreed, that whoever didn't attend is a "Sadducee". On the other hand, I have been astonished to see publications of followers of the late Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik, that read "The view of Rabbi so and so can be ignored, because HE IS NOT PART OF THE CONVERSATION". That is, if you are not in the MESORAH of Yeshiva University, your opinion is null and void. And then they criticize the Hassidim for following a particular Rebbe! Torah literature is very vast. We even find the expression "The Sea of the Talmud". There are different views on anything and everything. A corollary to the above mentioned division is, if we consider or dismiss out of hand, a classical view that contradicts the present understanding.,Should we study each view in light of sources, history and logic, adjusting our practice where applicable, or have the earlier views been made obsolete by the later rabbis who had different ideas? I was once giving a lecture on the laws of a Torah Scroll; what defects would necessitate stopping the reading in the middle, and taking a different one from the ark. I quoted a divergent view of RAN (Rabbenu Nissim of Gerona 1310–1375). Present was one of the famous Rosh Kollels (advanced Yeshivas) in Israel. The view was so out of sync with what he had studied, that he stood up, and shouted "Ein RAN kazeh!" (there is no such statement of RAN). He stormed out of the room. The next day, I showed him the statement in black and white. "It can't mean that!" was his response. "Then what does it mean?" I asked. "I don't know, but certainly not what it sounds like". I never received an acknowledgement from him, nor an apology for the public shaming and denunciation. I had, after all, challenged a tradition that everyone "knew". Many of our most basic assumptions have sources to the contrary. One can find sources for every Egalitarian and Feminist claim and demand. The first approach is to see if the source is valid and logical. Even if it is, would the effect on the community be worth the confusion of back tracking? Is truth preferable to people's sensibilities? These are by no means easy questions. The second approach, however, would argue that the community, its leaders, as well as history, have already made the alternate opinion into a "dead letter", which we have no business reopening. A Baal Teshuva or convert, confronting an Orthodox rabbi with such a source, is opening up a "can of worms", The rabbi feels pressured, as well as challenged. Anything he says, can, and will be, used against him, by the Court of Public Opinion. I have mentioned two posts ago, that the rabbis of Morasha (UTJ) have been rebuffed by the rabbis of Open Orthodoxy. This discussion is precisely the reason. The Morasha rabbis look to sources. If a point is clear in Talmud and other classical sources, that is the halachah. Someone in the twentieth century disagreed? His views will be examined for logic and faithfulness to sources. If the new opinions do not "fit" they will be rejected. OO , claimed loyalty to the "Gedolim", although they have a hugely different approach. From their perspective, fealty to the Gedolim is the very definition of "Orthodox". Morasha rabbis (and others) would say that submission to Torah, Talmud and related sources are what makes one "Orthodox".  It is my fervent hope that open dialogue will ensue, and the Great Questions will be resolved. In the area of conversions, until one rabbi issued a very strict opinion that was at first rejected by most, but, over the next century found acceptance in many circles, most Batei Din had very lenient conversion policies. Since the strict opinion was issued by one of the "Gedolim", does that become the halachah? Or should other rabbis hold that opinion up to scrutiny in the light of sources and logic? The very nature of Judaism depends on how we answer that question.

The Conversion Crisis part 13

In 1807, Napoleon, concerned if Jews could ever become real Frenchmen, in exchange for full civil rights, convened what he called a "Sanhedrin" of 71 rabbis from all over his empire, presenting them with questions as to their beliefs, and how they regarded non-Jews. The rabbis reported back to him that their beliefs could be divided into two separate doctrines. About half of them felt that the Torah was no longer operative, except as a guide. These decided to dub themselves "Reform". The other half believed that the Torah, with all of its laws and doctrines, is eternal. This group decided to call itself "Orthodox".. This was the first time that these terms were used in a Jewish context. Until then, one was "just Jewish", with some observing the Torah, and others not. To be sure, Orthodoxy had different forms, and even different beliefs, in different times and places, but the common denominator was the acceptance and practices of Torah and Talmudic tradition. The inclusive nature of Jewish tradition can be best illustrated by the publishing of Mikraot Gedolot (Great Scriptures) in 1524. This work, in various editions, is still used in virtually all Jewish schools around the world. It consists of the full text of the Tanach, together with the traditional Targum (Aramaic translation). In some Biblical books, there are two or three Targumim in different styles. In addition, there were a host of commentaries from different medieval rabbis, surrounding the Biblical text. Their approaches were as different as day and night. Subsequent editions contained additional commentaries. Perhaps the most venerated is the commentary of RASHI. His commentary attempts to give the literal meaning of Scripture, with much added Aggadic material. He is sometimes called the most Jewish of the commentators. Also present is RASHBAM, a grandson of RASHI, who is so super literal, that he often departs from Jewish tradition in his interpretation, albeit insisting on observing the tradition, rather than his interpretation. He posits a complete separation between text and tradition. For example, he understands Scripture as declaring the day to begin at dawn, rather than nightfall (interpreting "there was evening and there was morning, One Day" as meaning evening came; when morning came it was now one day). But he never suggested that his interpretation should be in any way accepted as halachah, nor did he change his own practice.. Also present is RAMBAN (Nachmanides), who makes frequent use of Kabbalah to understand problems in Scripture. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra is also present in Mikraot Gedolot. He is a literalist, a grammarian, and a philosopher. However, in some difficult passages, he writes an enigmatic "there is a secret (sod) here". In his other writings, he clarifies the meaning of this "secret" that he recognizes the possibility that some passages may contain human errors, or even may be from a later hand. Nevertheless, when he saw RASHBAM's interpretation of the day beginning at dawn, he tore it out from his own copy on Shabbat, for fear that some people would be misled! His commentary also includes polemical diatribes against Karaism. Newer editions contain fifteen different commentaries, all in different directions. The common thread is the Divine origin of Scripture, and the eternal obligation to observe it, along with the elucidations of the Oral Torah. Few have questioned the special place of Mikraot Gedolot in Judaism. Until about 1800, no one questioned the validity of its commentaries. With the rise of Reform, lines were drawn in the sand. Orthodox means "straight belief". What exactly DO we believe, that separates us from non-Torah "Judaism"? Books were written and are still being written, trying to pin down what is "straight" and what is crooked. This was virtually unknown in earlier times. As I have written in a previous series, RAMBAM's Thirteen Principles of Faith were largely ignored, or even denounced, in the Middle Ages. After the Sabbatean debacle of the mid seventeenth century, most rabbis sought a philosophical, logical, non mystical and clearly defined Judaism. RAMBAM became central. Modern translations of Mikraot Gedolot in English, have been edited (censored) to make them conform to our current "accepted" concepts. Even RASHI is not immune, with passages which might challenge some current rabbinic ideas conveniently disappearing. In my opinion, these developments stand at the center of the controversy between different factions of Orthodoxy. Rather than the earlier concept of "both these and these are the words of the living G-d", now there was only one approach. But which one? Who gets to decide? Yeshiva heads? Rabbinic organizations? (Which one?). Local practices? Views of a particular rabbi?This kind of intolerance can be argued to have saved us from heresy, or, on the contrary, formed a new Judaism that would be unrecognizable to our ancestors. I believe that if today's controversies had existed five hundred years ago, there probably would have been books written defending one approach over another. But there would not have been the rejection and delegitimizing of other groups, so long as they were Torah based. Present day controversies about conversions; whose we recognize and whose we don't, would not have exist. In my next post, I will get into some of these present day groups, and examine how they differ from each other, and why. I believe that then we will not only come to a better understanding of Judaism, but also why Baalei Teshuvah, and more so converts, often unknowingly step on the toes of major rabbis and organizations, raising anew issues that have been "hot topics" in recent generations, and had been considered as having been laid to rest. In other words, how much of the controversy is Law, and how much politics.

The Conversion Crisis part 12

(Please remember that this series is NOT about Jewish Feminism, but rather how feminist attitudes and demands have been, and continue to be seen as a threat to the rabbinate, especially in terms of female converts)

As you may recall from previous series, the Conservative movement was, from its inception, an uneasy cohabitation of two philosophies. Based, as it was, on the German Wissenschaft idea (Jewish knowledge), one group sought to establish Torah Judaism on the basis of analysis of sources; jettisoning folklore, and establishing a pure Judaism based on Torah and Talmud. The other group sought to discover why we have what we have, with a de emphasis on practice. It was essentially "Reform Lite", except that changes were based on historical analysis, rather than the whims of one group of Jews or another. Keeping peace between these divergent ideas was not easy, and conflicts were real, although they were generally kept from the public eye. Around the year 1980, Feminist demands for an equal place in Judaism became a real issue. Many Jewish observances make a clear distinction between men's roles and women's roles. But how many of these distinctions are actually embedded in the system, and how many were simply the result of sociology? There were clearly cases of both in the sources. But there was also a vast "middle ground" that required analysis.The "Reform Lite" branch of Conservatism favored a complete acceptance of equalizing of roles. The group that believed in observance of halachah, albeit with an eye to how things came about, also generally felt that change was in order. It would be necessary to check Talmudic and Medieval sources, to see what was really essential and unchangeable, and what could be altered, yet remain within the halachah. Could women count in a minyan? Lead services? Be called to the Torah? These were all not simple questions. Many of these rabbis rejoiced at the opportunity for reanalysis; publishing peer reviewed articles, engage in debate, and make badly needed decisions. The first issue to come up for discussions was weather or not women could be ordained as rabbis. Reform had already done this a decade earlier. Anyway, our modern ordination is only symbolic, the authentic ordination having died out (or had been murdered) in the fourth century. It seemed like an easy issue. Several Modern Orthodox rabbis had even made "theoretical" declarations in favor of ordaining women. All that woulds be required was for these halachically committed Conservative scholars to do some research, write some papers, have a conference and present their findings for adoption of this historic innovation. All Jewish "denominations" are run by two groups. One is a lay organization, the other rabbinic. In the Conservative movement,the lay organization is known as the United Synagogue, while the rabbinic group is called the Rabbinical Assembly. The Rabbinical Assembly eagerly rose to the challenge. Meetings were held, papers were written. But an order came from the United Synagogue. The women are in an uproar. Synagogue sisterhoods are demanding the ordination of women...yesterday! The rabbis MUST come up with an immediate solution. It was seen that there was no ready majority for a vote of the rabbis; most were for the proposal, but only after careful further research. The rules were changed. It would not be a vote of the rabbis, but of the entire Jewish Theological Seminary faculty. Teachers of music, art, poetry..would join in the vote. The proposal passed. It would be the first of several that would first give women complete equality in all things Jewish, and eventually to rule that Conservatism is not a halachic movement, but rather a historical movement. This happened step by step, issue by issue, over a twenty five year period.. It had long been predicted that the Conservative movement would eventually split down the middle over the issue of halachah. In fact, the split was not fifty fifty, but rather only an intellectual elite resigned from the movement Some became Orthodox. Some remained, but chose to keep silent.,Some formed a separate group, called the Union for Traditional Judaism, with its rabbinic group called Morasha. Some congregations left the United Synagogue. The reason was not so much halachah, but more that the innovations were felt to be a break from Jewish continuity. Laymen, unlike rabbis and cantors, generally do not like change. There is a comfort in attending a service that is identical to the ones you attended with your grandfather and grandmother. For the rabbis of Morasha, it WAS a halachic matter. But only a limited number of synagogues were keeping the traditional ways. Efforts to unite with Open Orthodoxy were rebuffed. Morasha, and its lay group, the Union for Traditional Judaism remained small. There is currently a revitalization in progress. Many Conservative congregants simply either stopped coming, or else joined Orthodox congregations. Like the Catholic Church, which lost millions of its members when it abandoned the Latin Mass, (I was once at a meeting of Ohio Right to Life, where many faithful Catholics expressed their sentiments that Row vs Wade was a punishment for abandoning the traditional Mass).Conservatism had been serving those Jews who liked tradition, more than following rules. They felt disenfranchised. Within a few years, the Conservative movement lost approximately one million members. We have here a case where rapid change, even when based on sound reasoning and sources, backfired. This must give us pause. Orthodox rabbis generally ignored the changes; giving apologetical explanations why the status quo was right. Women who were converts or potential converts, continued to ask questions, which rabbis saw as potentially dangerous. They saw a slippery slope before them. Even if there are plenty of sources to allow women to be called to the Torah..what will be next? Intermarriage? (already practiced in Reform, but also by Conservative in some areas, yet to be accepted by the movement). Would the same happen to Orthodoxy? . There is an Arabic proverb "Al 'agel min ash'shaitan". (Haste is of the Devil). But there are times where decisions need to be made...and quickly. Open Orthodoxy is now struggling with these issues. Some say that they are on the same road as Conservatives. Some accuse Morasha of Neo Conservatism. Many disagree. That will be my next post.

The Conversion Crisis part 11

In the Talmud, we have many pro and anti feminist statements. What I found remarkable is the fact that although some rather disparaging remarks about women are made, the rebuttals of some of the rabbis' wives are also quoted. One story, however, has caused much of the negative feelings towards women. It is a virtual certainty that the story is false. Rabbi Meir, a great second century rabbi, was married to Beruriah, the daughter of Rabbi Hananiah Ben Teradion, himself a great scholar, and one of the rabbis martyred (burned alive) under the Roman persecution. Beruriah was no ordinary woman. She was a great scholar, presumably taught by her illustrious father. She would argue halachah with the rabbis, who often would concede to her superior knowledge. There is an enigmatic statement in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 18b), that Rabbi Meir had to flee to Asia Minor (Turkey) because of the incident with Beruriah. We are nowhere told in any Talmudic source what was the nature of the "incident". There appeared in about 800 ce, a scurrilous work called "The Alphabet of Ben Sira". It was recognized by Sepharadic rabbis as a brutal satire of Judaism. (RAMBAM wrote a scathing denunciation of the work), and is recognized as such by all modern researchers. The medieval Ashkenazic rabbis, however, accepted it at face value. The book is full of "X Rated" stories about both Biblical and rabbinic figures. Ben Sira was a real enough person, who lived in the second century BCE. He wrote a book, known either as "The Wisdom of Ben Sira" or "Ecclesiasticus". It is a book of wisdom. The rabbis regarded it highly, and often quoted it, but did not regard it as Scripture. It was, however, accepted as Holy Writ by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. In the book "the Alphabet of Ben Sira", he is moved back to the sixth century BCE, and is the accidental offspring of the prophet Jeremiah and his daughter, who, unfortunately, bather in the same pool as her father. (!!!). (Despite the fact that G-d orders Jeremiah not to marry or have children).One of the many horrible stories in this work, "fills in the gaps" on the "incident with Beruriah". We are told that the rabbis opposed Beruriah's learning, and taunted her with the statement of "Women have weak daat". Rabbi Meir rebuked her for her "uppityness",and warned her that she would eventually be brought to shame for not accepting the words of the rabbis. The rabbis who opposed her, chose a young scholar to seduce her. After "many days" of entreaty, she finally agreed to commit adultery. The young rabbi then said "Aha! Women have weak daat!", whereupon she killed herself, and Rabbi Meir had to flee in shame. The Ashkenazi Talmudic commentators somehow accepted this story, and included it in their commentaries. It has since become a part of the Jewish consciousness in many circles (although rejected by the Sepharadic rabbis. Even many Ashkenazic rabbis named their daughters Beruriah, to show their contempt for the story.) But the message sank in; women, no matter how pious and learned, can never be trusted. On the contrary, their learning will make them too devious and sure of themselves; so better let them remain ignorant. Somehow, no one raised the question of how a male rabbi would respond to repeated seduction attempts, or how holy rabbis could possibly justify bringing a righteous woman to shame, just to prove a point. In Ashkenazi consciousness, one does not question the writings of a great rabbi, especially a Talmudic commentator. But RAMBAM (along with most Sepharadic rabbis), who was also a great rabbi, totally rejected the story as a fabrication, and the book as a forgery. Before any discussion of women's place in Judaism, I believe this story must be dealt with honestly. Any "principles" derived from the story must be reexamined. (One famous twentieth century rabbi even relied on this story in issuing a very controversial halachic opinion concerning artificial insemination). This has also been a factor in many rabbis' hesitancy to convert women.In my opinion, we owe women a huge apology, for this and many other injustices. In my next post, I will deal with how the Conservative movement attempted to deal with these issues, but whose sloppy handling,, brought itself from being the largest Jewish denomination in America, to the smallest.

The Conversion Crisis part 10

A fact in discussing conversions to Judaism, is that the overwhelming majority of converts are female (in my experience,about 10 to 1). I know of no research as to the reason for this, My observations of male-female relationjships are that about one third of men dislike women (although they may find them useful), one third like women, but are unable to understand their thought patterns and are constantly bewildered by their thoughts and actions, and another third like women, and have taken the trouble to try to understand them. The Talmud remarked "women are a people unto themselves". All those who know me, will testify that I fit into that third group. There is a statement in the Talmud that a woman "understands more than a man", but also "women have weak Daat" (usually translated as "weak minds", but actually means "weak ability to connect with ideas"). In my opinion, putting this into modern parlance, women have the remarkable ability to see the implications of things,far beyond men, as their thinking is far less linear. A woman notices details that few men would, as well as the ability to extrapolate the implications of those details. On the other hand, a woman is far less likely to accept an argument based on doctrine or ideology, if it goes against her inner feelings and instincts. In a paternalistic, doctrinal context, a woman's intuition can be seen as dangerous. In TANACH, we find female prophets, even advising Kings, but not advising sages. Women are closer to G-d, while men are closer to rules. If we believe in the Divine origin of these rules, both are vital. In my opinion (and all of this is my opinion), female converts, who are the majority,  can be seen as a great threat to any established system. In Judaism, in particular, women coming in from the outside, will often question basic assumptions that rabbis are often hesitant to deal with. "Because I said so, that's why" will satisfy few woman. But, unknowingly, these women are falling into very old controversies, that are still smoldering. They are unaware of stepping on very sore toes. I believe that much of the hesitancy about conversion stems from this. Consciousness raising is essential on both sides.I will elaborate in my next post.

The Conversion Crisis part 9

Several people have asked me if I see any hope in the current wave of intolerance in the area of conversion. I am not a very good prognosticator, but my answer is a tentative "yes". I have already written of my admiration for the new movememnt of Open Orthodoxy, and its Israeli counterpart, Tzohar. I realize that many are against my assessment. But my reasons are that unlike Modern Orthodox, these movements are completely halachic rather than "we need to do this because we've always done this" (with the "always" usually going back 100 years or less). It is also spiritually based, rather than a blind commitment to questionable, fairly new legalisms. Perhaps most importantly, these movements consider the needs of all Jews, rather than just the already committed. The establishment, both in Israel and the U.S. is "stonewalling" them. But I believe the walls already show cracks. In response to evidence that many assertions of Modern Orthodoxy are baseless, they have come up with the new concept of "mesorah" (tradition), meaning that the way the American synagogue does things, is in itself a level of Judaism that may not be tampered with. This theory has few sane adherents. But, perhaps even more significantly, I beleive that Chabad is about to play a very major role. When the Lubavitcher Rebbe passed away in 1994, most people thought that the entire movement would soon fade into oblivion. But, on the contrary, it has grown exponentially. I am well aware of the criticisms of Chabad; many of them well founded. But which group is perfect? Some over zealous followers may do unethical, or even heinous things. But the movement as a whole has been wildly successful at bringing in alienated Jews, as well as essentially founding the Noachide movement. When I was in Chabad (1965-1975), the thrust of their outreach was primarily to win new adherents to their own group, and often to stifle other views. This is mostly no longer true. Most Chabad houses around the world try not so much to make new Chabad Hasidim, as to bring people back to Judaism, at any level with which they are comfortable. Chabad is, today, "user friendly". Chabad emissaries may vary in their openness and acceptance, but by and large are tolerant and receptive. I am deeply disappointed by Chabad's submission to the RCA in no longer doing conversions (this was a feature of Chabad houses until the 1980s, with far more liberal standards than are now imposed). I am no longer privy to behind the scenes Chabad considerations, but I can see two possibilities as their reasons for their capitulation. First, the RCA is powerful and influential. . They can cut off funding for Jewish causes with which they are not happy, or even arrange for the removal of a Chabad presence from a community. The Chabad rabbis may have felt that their activities in bringing back lost Jews was their main priority,with pragmatism demanding a moratorium in the area of conversion., There was never any love lost between Chabad and Modern Orthodoxy. Both the OU (which is rarely relied on by Chabad Hasidim) and the RCA are adjuncts of Yeshiva University.The sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn) once remarked "I don't know in what way Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan (Spector 1817-1896) could have sinned, as to have such an institution named for him. They should have called in Belkin's College". (The official name of YU's rabbinic school is the Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary. Its Dean was a Dr. Belkin). But YU shifted to the right in the mid-1970s, and was no longer considered anathema to Chabad and most "yeshivish" groups. Perhaps Chabad decided that it was both acceptable and expedient to give over the conversion work to them. However, I beleive that there is likely another reason. In middle and small sized Jewish communities around the country, Chabad has been gaining ground, at the expense of Modern Orthodox congregations. People are (usually) made to feel welcome. The scrutiny and judgement one needs to go through at organized synagogues are (usually) absent. Also, Chabad works by getting donations, so their services to the community are almost always free. Recent sex scandals involving some Modern Orthodox leaders, have also served to make Chabad seem more genuine. My strong suspicion is that Chabad feel that they need to "play ball" with the RCA in the short run, but see the day as not far when they will be bigger and more mainstream than the RCA. At that point, they will be able to "call the shots" in American Orthodoxy, including in the conversion arena. I do not see Chabad as ideal, by any means. But it is a great leap forward. Moreover, the leaders of Open Orthodoxy (known for their integrity) have for decades maintained a close relationship with Chabad. I know this will be interesting. i have hopes that it will be good.