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.