Conversion to Judaism part 9

In 1979, after two years of campus work, and two years of congregational work, I became interested in the military chaplaincy. I was only twenty six. I eagerly toured several air force bases, and spoke at length with the chaplains. Jewish chaplains were, and still are, first approved by the Jewish Welfare Board (JWB), that, in turn, deals with rabbinical organizations of the three major denominations. In the case of Orthodox rabbis, that was the Rabbinical Council of America. I was, in fact, a member of  a smaller, more Right Wing organization; the Rabbinical Alliance of America. The JWB informed me that this presented no problem. The RCA would simply approve me or disapprove me on the merit of my credentials. I was summoned to the RCA headquarters in New York (I lived in Cincinnati at the time). One of the bigwigs of the RCA met with me. "Look" he said "each denomination has an annual quota of chaplains. If we are short, we recognize you. If we have enough of our own people, we don't". I suddenly realized I was essentially dealing with a labor union, and I wan't one of "his people". I told the bigwig that I had gone to college with his son. He placed a call to his son. "He doesn't remember you. Goodbye". That's how the U.S. military lost me as a chaplain. That's how I lost my respect for the RCA. Little by little, over the years, I discovered that the whole system was about power and influence. Up until about 1980, any conversion, performed by any Orthodox rabbi, was recognized both in the U.S. and in Israel. Although conversion requirements differed greatly from rabbi to rabbi, all were recognized. Then, the RCA let it be known that they wished to standardize  all Orthodox conversions, by means of a central Beit Din. This proved impractical, so they modified it to include only certain RCA rabbis, who would follow RCA guidelines. Other rabbis, even RCA members, were no longer authorized to perform conversions. Who granted the RCA such sweeping powers? They simply took it, as they had taken control of virtually all major Orthodox synagogues. An expression my late Mother used to use a lot comes to mind; "Who died and left you boss?" People with other conversions, were told that they are not Jewish at all. Chabad, which used to do many conversions, stopped (at least in places where there were  RCA rabbis). Hasidic and right wing Yeshiva conversions were no longer recognized, although, with considerable pressure, they could often be recognized ex post facto, after the RCA deigned to grant recognition. Often, these involved rabbis far more qualified than the RCA ones. Twenty years later, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate made a deal with the RCA that they were to be seen as the only rabbinic representatives of U.S. Jewry. Any RCA rabbi coming to Israel, would also automatically be recognized to serve in an Israeli rabbinic position. (Whereas I, and many others, had to seek the approval of one of the Chief Rabbis.) A similar situation exists regarding kashrut and the OU. (Same people as RCA). Millions have been spent on public relations, to make the OU the ultimate name in the field. A large part of their success lies in the fact that they weaken and destroy smaller hechshers, by spreading all sorts of nasty rumors. On the other hand, mistakes of other agencies are often covered up for political expediency. My mind races back to my abortive attempt of becoming a chaplain. But with me, it was just an issue of a position. For numerous converts, these policies often signal a lifetime of hurt and rejection. I do not know how some people sleep at night.

Conversion to Judaism part 8

Although several American cities became centers of Jewish life and education since colonial times,  In the early  twentieth century, New York City emerged as the ultimate center; a position it held for most of that century, and, to a lesser extent, until today. It was home to the Jewish Theological Seminary, that gave birth to the Conservative movement, as well as the Jewish Institute of Religion, that composed a major part of the Reform movement. From the 1930s, several European style Yeshivot made their homes in New York, even ordaining American born rabbis. However, then as now, these ordainees seldom sought to occupy pulpits, preferring instead to concentrate on education. Accepting "Out of Town" rabbinic positions (anything other than New York), almost never occurred to these men. In 1886, and elementary school, Etz Chaim, was founded on the Lower East Side, that took the unheard of position of teaching in English, well as teaching some secular subjects. In 1898, it progressed to hosting a Rabbinical school. Their rabbis did take pulpits, some even going to the "unknown" territories beyond the Hudson. Eventually, this institution became Yeshiva University (YU), and its Rabbinical School became the Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Theological Seminary (RIETS). The rabbis of the European style yeshivot mocked YU, with its acceptance of American culture, and especially its inclusion of secular subjects. The Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe quipped "I don't know how Rav Yitzchak Elchanan could have sinned, to have such an institution named for him". But YU proudly sported the motto "Torah U'Mada" (Torah and Science). Indeed, their logo is a microscope with a Torah scroll. There were several Orthodox Rabbinical organizations at that time, but none were willing to accept these newfangled rabbis as members. The fact is, that the American Orthodox rabbinate was in shambles at that time. Most of those serving as rabbis (as opposed to educators) were without credentials. Some took grandiose titles for themselves. One "rabbi" in the Bronx, put  a shingle by his door "Chief Rabbi of New York". Another "rabbi" across the street, not to be outdone, hung a shingle that read "Chief Rabbi of America". Hasidic "Grand Rabbis" were soon to follow. In the mean time, YU rabbis began to occupy established Orthodox synagogues, first in New York, but soon in all major American cities. Two new organizations were formed; a federation of YU rabbis, called the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), that was, and is, open to all YU ordainees, and theoretically, graduates of eight other Yeshivot that they recognized, but, in fact, only those with "connections" in the RCA need apply. Those synagogues that got their rabbis from YU, formed an association of synagogues; the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America" (OU).. For all intents and purposes, the YU. RCA, OU triumvirate had taken over American Orthodoxy. Although other groups sprang up, they have little of the recognition that the YU confederation commands. By 2003, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate recognized the RCA as the sole representative of American Orthodoxy. The meaning, and repercussions, of this arrangement, especially regarding conversion, will be my next installment.

Conversion to Judaism part 7

A big consideration in the non recognition of non Orthodox conversions has more to do with history and politics than actual halachah. Both Reform and Conservative Judaism differ on many important points from Orthodoxy. As such, they are considered heresies, much like the Karaites and the Samaritans. But Samaritans WERE considered Jews for 1,000 years before the issuing of a ruling declaring them not to be Jews. Similarly, marriages between Karaites and Rabbinites were common for 400 years, until RAMBAM campaigned for their non recognition. The Chief Rabbinate in Israel keeps going back and forth between declaring Karaites to be Jews or non Jews. The Conservative movement began before there was an organized Orthodoxy in America. While some of its leaders were essentially "Reform lite", most were fully observant and for all intents and purposes Orthodox. In fact, the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary very nearly merged with the Modern Orthodox Yeshiva University in the 1920s.  The merger fell through, not because of halachic differences, but because of differences in methodology in Talmudic study.With time, however, it drifted further and further away from Orthodox principles, even as Orthodoxy was drifting to the Right. In about 1960, two prominent American Orthodox rabbis declared war on the Conservative movement. (I do not wish to reveal their names). One, a very Right Wing rabbi, had a young rabbinic scholar enroll at JTS, in order to find out what was said there. I spoke to that scholar many years later. He described to me what happened. He was in a class on Chumash. An unusual word was under discussion. The professor explained it by using a cognate word from another Semitic language. The young man protested "but RASHI says..." The professor interrupted "THIS is the approach of our yeshivah". After reporting back to the rabbi, a ban was put on the Conservative movement. Everything they did was declared invalid. Even if an Orthodox rabbi took a Conservative pulpit, he was to be considered invalid. This position was endorsed by the Right Wing Agudas HaRabbonim. Had that rabbi taken the time to send a spy four miles North  to Yeshiva University, he would have heard the same thing. He was, in fact, a prisoner of the mindset of the European yeshivot. At about the same time, a highly influential  Modern Orthodox rabbi applied for a teaching position at JTS. He was rejected. Personally miffed, he also declared the Conservative movement to be heretical and invalid. This all begs the question if these men had the foresight to see what was to become of the Conservative movement, which now rejects the binding nature of halachah, or whether they brought this about by pushing them away. In any case, this resulted in an ostracizing of any and all rabbis with any connection to that movement, even if personally observant and dedicated to the spreading of Torah Judaism. This also served to write off two thirds of American Jewry. A few years ago, in the neighborhood where I live, and Orthodox rabbi was seen talking to a Conservative rabbi on a street corner. The Orthodox rabbi was immediately fired. In my opinion, this attitude is, in my opinion, bad for the Jews, and even worse for converts. Next, I shall discuss how American Orthodoxy, including conversions, has been hijacked by one narrow group.

CONVERSION TO JUDAISM PART 6

So why, in apparent violation of the Biblical commands to "Love the Convert" and "do not oppress the Convert" and the Talmudic admonition not to "lock the door before potential converts" are converts today being dragged over hot coals, and finding deadbolt locks on every door? The reasons are varied; some making some sense, others being more political, although most would balk at my use of the word. Let's first take the arguments that are genuine concerns. First is the reality that we live in an open society. Whereas once, the Jews lived behind ghetto walls, either figuratively or in actuality, today, a large percentage of even ultra Orthodox Jews suffer the heartbreak of having one or more children go "off the derech (path)". Even those who are doing the most for bringing people in, have no clue how to handle this. Throwing that child out, and changing the locks, does happen. This is primarily an attempt to "save" the other kids. Those families are forever broken, with feelings of hurt and resentment on all sides. When it comes to converts, enthusiasm for Judaism today may give way to secularism tomorrow, or conversion to another faith the day afterwards. Many rabbis feel that we must, at the very least, be as certain as possible that the new convert is prepared for the real world. That is the reason that although, in classical sources, there are no requirements of knowledge or observance before the conversion, today, most rabbis require significant knowledge and full observance beforehand. Full disclosure of what it means to be a Jew, will prevent someone from thinking "hey, had I known this law or that, or this attitude or that, I would not have chosen this path". Another really major hurdle is the view I recently explained of Rabbi Yitzchak Schmelkes in the late nineteenth century, that a conversion is invalid if the candidate had any mental reservations about any law, or indeed about any Jewish principle. This was an entirely knew idea, accepted, at first in some right wing circles, but now fairly standard in most of Orthodoxy. Some have written against this idea, but find themselves marginalized. Beyond that, the idea has become so fundamental in people's minds, that all converts are now looked upon with suspicion; what were they  thinking at the moment of conversion?. One acquaintance of mine, a former Minister as well as an attorney, attended a lecture given by a prominent rabbi who did much in "kiruv" in the mid twentieth century (my wife, Sima, had also been a follower of this rabbi when I met her). When the rabbi opened the session to questions, the former Minister challenged one of his assertions. The rabbi thereupon said "I have grave doubts as to the validity of your conversion". (This statement violates several Biblical laws).The support given the view of Rabbi Schmelkes, was endorsed by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, considered the greatest rabbi in America, or perhaps the world, in right wing Yeshivish circles in the U.S, (I do not share that view). essentially guaranteeing its acceptance . It should be stressed that in those circles, Rabbi Feinsteins views were accepted more for his reputation, than for  examining  his logic and faithfulness to sources.Please see my series on "Daat Torah" for the explanation of that approach. Actually, in his responsum, he shows that this is NOT the view of Talmud, but goes on to question how bringing in a not fully observant convert could benefit the Jewish people.  When I was researching the background for this post, I had been studying the different views, especially between RAMBAM and the Tosafot, if non-Jews may, if they choose, observe mitzvot beyond the Seven Noachide Laws. RAMBAM says "yes". The Tosafot say "no". RAMBAM only excludes a few; namely, the ones of which it is written "It shall be a sign between Me and the Children of Israel". Whereas many take RAMBAM at his word, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein had written that virtually all mitzvort have a Jewish theme, and are therefore forbidden to non-Jews. RAMBAM, according to Rabbi Feinstein, only included the mitzvot of charity, and bringing certain sacrifices. The rabbi writing the article on this topic, rather than seeing if this explanation fits RAMBAM's words, simply concluded with the words "since Reb Moshe was more widely recognized than the other rabbis, his view must be accepted". These are the ideas that have made life so difficult for converts and potential converts. In my next post, i will cover those that I consider to be politics.

Conversion to Judaism part 5

When I went into the rabbinate in 1971, placed in a prominent Midwest University, I asked the rabbi who had prepared me for ordination (as a young man, he had studied under the Chafetz Chaim in Radin, and was now a member of the Right Wing Agudath HaRabbanim), how was I to relate to those people who had had non Orthodox conversions. Without hesitation, he opened Tractate Yevamot in the Babylonian Talmud to page 47, and showed me two remarkable passages.Both spoke of people who were living as Jews, but there was doubt about their mothers actually having been Jewish. People were referring to them as non-Jews. In the one case, the person in doubt was a woman. One of the rabbis remarked "It is impossible that she never immersed for her menstrual cycle (nidah)" (and therefore is considered Jewish) In the other case. a man with the same issue was under discussion. Again, a rabbi interjects "It is impossible that he never immersed for a seminal emission".(The Torah requires immersion in such a case only in relation to the Temple Laws of Purity. Ezra extended that to Torah study and prayer. This was suspended during Talmudic times, although some still practice it). The implication here was that once immersion had taken place, either with intent of conversion, or intent of fulfilling a mitzvah, the person was now Jewish.(RAMBAM has a different, non literal interpretation of the passage). The rabbi who had taught me concluded, that any convert who had undergone immersion was now Jewish, independent of our recognition or non recognition of the converting rabbi. This has been my policy ever since, although I favor re-conversion, no questions asked, as a stringency. This, in fact, was the policy of most Orthodox rabbis at the time. Today, you will hear vociferous denials from Orthodox rabbis and rabbinic organizations. Where does the dispute lie? Why the shift? The above mentioned Talmudic discussion in Yevamot, goes through several stages of discussion. In practive, we do all of them, but the question is, if all was NOT done, what are the minimum requirements needed for the conversion to be efficacious? The ideal conversion consists of informing the candidate of some of the mitzvot and their seriousness. (Whether a formal acceptance of the convert is necessary, or merely acknowledgement of what he has been told, is not clear). This is to be done before three dayyanim (judges), but any three adult, male, observant laymen would also be 100% kosher. The candidate, if male, is then circumcised, and given time to heal before completing the conversion. If already surgically circumcised, a drop of "blood of the covenant" is drawn. At that pointy, both male and female converts are immersed in a mikveh (or suitable body of water). That's it. A discussion ensues concerning what if only circumcision was done? (The Babylonian Talmud rules "no" the Jerusalem Talmud says "yes") Another view says that immersion alone is required for conversion, circumcision being an obligation incumbent on every Jewish male, but not an absolute requirement for conversion. Another opinion is that circumcision is the main requirement for conversion of males, immersion for females. Whether a Beit Din is an absolute requirement or not is also discussed. One man came to a rabbi and confessed to him that he had "converted himself" The rabbi asked "do you have any witnesses?" (Implying that corroborating witnesses are necessary). When the man replied "no", he was told "you are believed enough to disqualify yourself, but not your children." The Talmud also speaks of "Converts who converted among the Gentiles, and never heard of Shabbat". (Shabbat 68b). No one questions the validity of the conversion; only the degree of liability of the convert.Are witnesses absolutely required, or would definite public knowledge be sufficient?In Tractate Sanhedrin, many leniencies are allowed for the makeup of the Beit Din for a conversion "SO AS NOT TO LOCK THE DOOR BEFORE CONVERTS." The legal codes written after the time of the Talmud all quote the "ideal" way, and that has become standard. But, as all the other ways are left in the Talmud (with the possible exception of circumcision only) as open questions, it is impossible to say that they are not valid. So why the extreme stringencies that are practiced in the last twenty five years? That will be my next post.

Stringencies part 4

The vast majority of Ashkenazi rabbis continue to see electricity as fire, or at least so much so, that no leniencies are accepted that would not be utilized with actual fire. On the other hand, most do not permit use of electricity on Yom Tov, when fire is, in many cases, permitted. Rabbi J.B. Soloveichik was an exception. He permitted all appliances on Yom Tov, as long as their use didn't detract from the enjoyment of Yom Tov. Thus, he permitted dish washers, but not vacuum cleaners. Today, few of his students still rely on his ruling in this area. Most Sepharadic communities freely used electricity on Yom Tov, until coming to Israel and submitting to Askenazi influence. I mentioned in my series on Shabbat, that there exists an organization in Israel called the Tsomet Institute, that creates appliances, primarily for the military, police, and hospitals, Most of these are electrical, and based on the idea of indirect, or delayed, action (causation). They produce a microphone, as well as a telephone, that work on a delay of one one hundredth of a second. This microphone is in use today in many Modern Orthodox synagogues, as well as in the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem. They also make a hot water machine, that heats up water for tea or coffee, by means of delayed action. While some are opposed to this, it has gained wide acceptance not only in hospitals, but in yeshiva dormitories as well. A delay would render a Biblical prohibition rabbinic, and a rabbinic prohibition permissible, in case of necessity. On the other hand, about eight years ago, a company came out with a "Shabbat Switch", which was met with great opposition. It connected to the main electrical outlets of the house, turning on the power, after a short delay. One could hook up not only lights, but radio, TV and all other gadgets. Why was this different from the Tsomet appliances? Rabbis pointed out that this was not intended for emergency situations, but was, rather, designed to make Shabbat like a weekday. It might not violate the laws of Shabbat, but it essentially makes Shabbat into a dead letter. Numerous rabbinic prohibitions in the Talmud are designed to not undo the feeling of Shabbat. What would be left of Shabbat if we sat around the table while checking our cellphones, and then went to visit our friends driving our electric cars? Sepharadic and Yemenite rabbis are less convinced of the idea that electricity, especially when not used to heat metal to a glowing point, is in any way to be considered :"fire", but nonetheless insist on its avoidance, because of the reason of "Uvdin D'Hol" (weekday activity). Many will, however, permit electricity to be used in case of great difficulty, even without illness or danger, on condition it is turned on in an unusual manner. (as with the elbow, for example). These things are never given as general rulings, but are dealt with on a case by case basis. Things that may not be used on a Shabbat, such as a pen, may not be moved (muktzeh). This is a basic idea in rabbinic law. Many Sepharadic rabbis do allow moving an appliance, such as a fan, as long as we do not detach it from its power source. (Rav Ovadia Yosef permitted this with appliances that had no lighting or cooking function, but many other Sepharadic rabbis do permit even that). In short, Ashkenazi opinion generally sees electricity as either fire, or likely fire, whereas Sepharaidim see it as risky, but enough of a doubt that it can be permitted in emergencies. So, is care regarding electricity a matter of halachah, or a stringency? Greater minds than mine will need to decide.This is but one of many situations where a particular activity may be permissible, but the consequences could lead to the demise of Judaism. Discretion is oft the better part of valor.

Stringencies part 3

The issue of electricity on Shabbat has been a sticking point between rabbis for well over a century, and continues to raise hackles. Many rabbis take one stance publicly, but privately maintain quite different views. One side of the argument has been so vociferous, that many assume it is the only side. Issues come into play that are not only halachic, but also pragmatic. Whether to be strict or lenient takes on another whole dimension.There can be no real solution, either, until a genuine Sanhedrin will arise. This question is a paradigm for other issues as well, that lack any solid guidelines in sources. Rabbis are forced to go with gut feelings, as well as utilizing tiny shreds of evidence that can conceivably be applied to the issue. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski (1863 - 1940), at the introduction of electrical lighting, visited a power plant, and spoke with the engineer. At the rabbi's question of what is it and how does it work, the engineer gave a grossly oversimplified answer. "We make fire in the generator, and send it through the wires". Upon hearing that, he issued a ruling that it is Biblically forbidden to turn on  the electricity, or start up any appliance on Shabbat. On Yom Tov, however, when fire is permissible (so long as it comes from an existing fire), we may feel free to turn on lights, or use appliances. This view held sway for half a century. Some rabbis even used an electric light as a havdalah candle, in order to demonstrate that we are actually dealing with fire. Rabbi Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz, (1878-1953), know as  Chazon Ish, disagreed. He was unconvinced that electricity is fire, but equally unconvinced that it is not fire. He ruled that we must be strict both ways, and turn on electricity neither on Shabbat nor Yom Tov. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995), believed that the premises of his two predecessors were incorrect. He said that an electric circuit has no halachic significance. However, if electricity heated up a piece of metal, that would, indeed, be considered fire, perhaps even Biblically. He based himself on a Talmudic statement that certain Shabbat prohibitions may be ignored, in a case where the full observance would lead to pain and injury. Thus, broken glass in the street may be swept up, even in a place where there is no "eruv", as injury is likely. Similarly, the Talmud discusses a glowing metal fragment sitting in the public domain.The ruling is that it may be extinguished RASHI maintains that such a piece of metal poses a threat of injury. It isn't really "fire" by Biblical law, but is nevertheless "fire" by rabbinic law. Rabbinic law is not applicable in a case of injury or great pain, so it may be extinguished. The Tosafot say that a glowing piece of metal is indeed Biblical fire, but as the glowing metal is not easily seen by passersby, people might become so badly injured that their lives might be threatened, thus rendering even a Biblical labor permissible. Rabbi Auerbach therefore ruled that an incandescent light bulb, operating with a tungsten filament, is clearly fire, either rabbinically or Biblically. But appliances that have no glowing element are at least theoretically permissible, to be decided by a qualified rabbi on a case by case basis, so as not to bring to widespread disrespect for Shabbat. The one exception he made was with hearing aids, which he considered completely permissible, even to the extent of changing a battery. (In the 1950s, hearing aid batteries needed replacement about every three hours). However, out of respect for the Chazon Ish, he did not publicize his view widely. These three men are considered the greatest rabbinic authorities in halachic matters of their age (at least in Lithuanian circles), although none of them had any education in science. Nearly all that has been written since, struggles between these views. One prominent twentieth century rabbi went so far as to say that even if Rabbi Grodzinsky's views were based on misinformation, once it came out of his mouth, it is forever halachah. (I consider that view to be heretical). Another prominent rabbi, on the other hand, said "Had I been there when the Chazon Ish ruled against electricity, I would have gone against him...and I would have been wrong". We shall see what this means in my next post. A great Rosh Yeshivah, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman (1900-1987) was adamant that a microphone is permissible on Shabbat. We would be hard-pressed to get that ruling from a prominent rabbi today. These are the battle lines. How they are applied by different rabbis today will be the topic of my next post.