Conversion Conundrums – Response to Rabbi Michael Broyde

I thank Rabbi Michael Broyde for his illuminating response to my recent article about geirus standards. It seems that my article sparked serious interest and provoked much thought, which is of course a good thing.

Rabbi Broyde poses several arguments, to which I would like to reply. Due to the sheer gravity of this issue and its broad and paramount ramifications, I feel compelled to explain why, in my opinion, Rabbi Broyde’s approach is incorrect, unworkable and would result in an untenable situation on the most profound levels.

Throughout his article, Rabbi Broyde compares geirus to kosher certification of food products, advocating for a free market-type system of multiple geirus standards and leaving it up to the consumer/prospective convert to choose his own tailored specifications:

Consider the kashrut model as a real life example of how a spectrum of policies successfully functions. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel oversees multiple standards, and America has several major kashrut agencies and countless minor one with diverse standards. This diversity empowers consumers to choose according to their preferences—whether chalav yisrael, glatt, or heter mechira and more: Many people do not, in the real world, eat in the homes of every person who claims to keep kosher. Similarly, conversion policies should accommodate diverse needs without compromising integrity. Integrity is not about the highest standards for everyone, but instead means honest and transparent standards so that everyone knows which criteria are employed where.

Rabbi Broyde proposes that conversion standards should fall within consensus parameters and does not endorse a free-for-all:

Like kashrus, we need to develop a consensus about what are the legitimate views reasonably present in the halachic community on conversion, and a spectrum of acceptable deviations that are part of the halachic tradition, albeit not always accepted by all poskim… Conversion policies should accommodate diverse needs without compromising integrity… Each community should determine its appropriate standard—without imposing an exceptionally high universal standard.

That said, Rabbi Broyde does not call for reining in unacceptable conversion programs. And since it is not realistic for the many Orthodox geirus authorities and organizations, as well as the numerous individual Orthodox rabbis who oversee private conversions, to convene and develop a consensus about acceptable boundaries of divergence for geirus, the reader comes away with the general impression that a free market Orthodox conversion system is the way to go, just like kosher certification operates with a free market system.

There is one huge and dispositive difference, though, which dispels Rabbi Broyde’s comparison between geirus and kosher certification of food. (There are of course other major differences which I believe negate this comparison, but let’s focus on the difference most relevant to the topic at hand.) If I eat something subject to a lower or suspect kosher standard, it impacts me alone. It is my potential sin and responsibility – mine alone. Geirus, on the other hand, affects a person’s progeny for eternity. If one undergoes a subpar or questionable conversion, that individual’s descendants will forever bear the consequences. As I wrote in my original article, there are countless cases of heartbreak and tears related by community rabbis whose congregants or their relatives have discovered that their Jewish status, and that of their progeny, is now in jeopardy, due to a questionable or problematic conversion.

Rabbi Broyde writes that there is a simple solution:

(A) person who converts under a legitimate but lenient halachic interpretation (which others might reject) may not be recognized as Jewish by everyone, but if the individuals ultimately find it important to obtain more universal acceptance[,] “fixing” it tends to be relatively straightforward through another conversion.

In truth, it is not so simple, especially when the subpar geirus comes to light a generation or more later, and entire families now need to “reconvert”. To do so can be costly, time-consuming, and most importantly, something that less Jewishly committed descendants of the “original convert” will very likely not do. The assumption that people will “fix” problematic geirus in the free-market conversion system advocated by Rabbi Broyde is not practical and hence will not remedy the real-life tragedies that occur all too often. Were the situation so simple to correct, these tragedies would not have occurred in the first place.

Rabbi Broyde writes, “I think we have no such tradition that ‘geirus must be performed to exceptionally high standards and must be unimpeachable.’” Taking a step back, the logic does not flow here. Historically, geirus was a rarity; in fact, in a great many of the countries where the bulk of the Jewish People lived for the past few millennia, conversion to Judaism was punishable by death on the part of the ruling gentile governments. (The story of the Ger Tzedek of Vilna, Avrohom ben Avrohom, of course comes to mind, but that is merely one illustration of how unacceptable conversion to Judaism in general society was, to make a gross understatement, and hence why conversion was quite uncommon.)

We thus do not have any tradition of dealing with multiple conversion standards being available and offered to the public, as it was basically a non-issue. Rather, in the exceptional instances when geirus occurred, each region’s preeminent rabbinical authority administered protocol according to his best understanding of Halacha, believing that his standard was fully correct, in compliance with his expertise. There was no opportunity for masses of rabbis to offer uniform standards or varied standards, for geirus was a true rarity and anomaly that occurred ever so sparsely. Whereas today, most of us probably know or encounter geirim on a personal and regular basis, as do I, in former times, conversion to Judaism was as common as an exotic, highly endangered species. Hence there is no tradition of offering either uniform or varied standards of geirus, for the issue was moot.

There were of course during times of war or mass assimilation odd and tragic situations that might appear to be exceptions, in which (a few) poskim applied surprising conversion standards (which those poskim believed were fully valid, but are not accepted as mainstream); however, Rabbi Broyde and I are dealing with the implementation of normative geirus policy rather than anomalous and extremely rare scenarios.

Rabbi Broyde writes:

‘Exceptionally high standards’ may not always be what we should strive for in conversion. To the contrary, there are times when implementing such standards can have negative consequences for our community….

(I)mposing ‘exceptionally high standards’—also creates hardship by excluding many with ties to the Jewish community who cannot meet such rigorous criteria. We all know such individuals, and they include those who (1) socially identify as Jewish, (2) participate in Jewish life, (3) marry within the community, and (4) serve in the IDF as Jews. In that sense, conversion has its own unique issues kevod ha-briyot issues are a more significant factor in conversion than in kashrus, since the inability to convert when membership in the Jewish people is wanted (and maybe already culturally present) is a significant issue of dignity.

A person who is not Jewish has no entitlement to geirus, such that we must lower conversion standards in order to accommodate this individual – especially if such a person, as implied in Rabbi Broyde’s words above, is unable or unwilling to commit to “hard-core” (my words) Torah observance and belief. We are not obligated to lower the bar in such cases, or ever.

More importantly – and I do not mean this in a disparaging manner – geirus is not like an ice cream store, in which the prospective convert can choose his flavor, or in this case, the criteria of his geirus. To argue that unless relaxed standards are available, geirus will not be possible for many, is (circling back to Rabbi Broyde’s kashrus example) akin to asserting that should kashrus agencies refuse to certify a certain product that does not meet unquestionable kosher standards, an injustice will occur, as this product will otherwise not be available with kosher certification. If in good conscience, something does not meet proper halachic standards, there is no obligation to approve it, and it is in fact a falsification to do so. Public policy-type considerations, kevod ha-beriyos, or amorphous identity factors which lack halachic significance, such as the four examples cited by Rabbi Broyde above (“those who (1) socially identify as Jewish, (2) participate in Jewish life, (3) marry within the community, and (4) serve in the IDF as Jews”) cannot precipitate the lowering of geirus standards when we otherwise in good conscience would not fully accept these lower standards.

Rabbi Broyde attempts to bolster his argument for halachic precedent to offer lower geirus criteria in deference to apparently stronger competing factors:

Second, ‘exceptionally high standards’ may not always be what we should strive for in conversion. To the contrary, there are times when implementing such standards can have negative consequences for our community. This is particularly true when it comes to conversions. We have a long tradition – going as far back as the Rambam – that, when given the choice, we prefer a weaker [but valid] conversion to an intermarriage; the Maimonidean formulation (Teshuvot Rambam 211) of  “מוטב שיאכל רוטב ולא שומן עצמו” tells us that in a bad situation, a non-ideal conversion [= רוטב] is better than an intermarriage.

This selection from Teshuvos Ha-Rambam – please see it here (where it is numbered differently but is indeed the source invoked by Rabbi Broyde) – does not at all speak of offering lower geirus standards or making available more flexible conversion options in deference to overriding considerations, and whatever may be derived from the teshuva regarding geirus is far too vague and limited to use as a broad basis to advocate for free market-type conversion criteria.

Not too long ago, conversion was mostly decentralized and was prone in some cases to become like the Wild West, with unregulated standards and sole practitioners offering their services with no accountability. Untold damage ensued, with conversion performed according to subpar standards resulting in people’s Jewishness being questioned or denied, and families being thrown into halachic crises. It is for this reason that numerous major rabbinic organizations fought for uniformity and unimpeachable geirus standards.

Although large numbers of communal rabbis can share their own horror stories of people being acutely impacted by shaky or shady “Orthodox conversions”, I am reminded of a situation to which I was privy long ago. A well-meaning but out-of-touch rabbi from a European Orthodox background, whose own religiosity had become compromised after years of living in a remote community in the United States with very few fellow observant Jews, felt that he could assist people seeking to convert. Over a period of decades, this rabbi performed invalid “Orthodox” conversions for countless individuals, and often for entire families, who did not know any better and believed that they were undergoing authentic geirus. (To attest to the Orthodox validity of these conversions, the rabbi wrote his geirus certificates on letterhead that featured his membership in an Orthodox rabbinical organization.) Some of these families subsequently made aliyah, and one of the rabbi’s conversion clients married into a large rabbinic family (a very complex story) – only to later find out that they were not accepted as Jewish. My impression is that since most of these people did not realize the enormity of a Torah-observant life and were far from normative observance at the time of their faux geirus and onward, they were obviously not in a position to “reconvert” and live as regular frum Jews.

Are these the types of scenarios we should be enabling? And do we want to grant de facto license to the various other invalid “Orthodox” conversion programs, such as that of Rabbi Mintz, to carry on, even though the broad consensus is that Rabbi Mintz’ conversion program is totally unacceptable? Rabbi Broyde is of course not advocating for acceptance of these illegitimate conversion endeavors, but anything short of a demand for incontestable geirus standards will enable subpar conversion to continue unabated, and movement toward more of a free market-type geirus system is very likely to precipitate further deterioration of standards and a proliferation of inferior and inadmissible conversions.           

Yes, we are playing with fire and are dealing with one of the weightiest areas of Halacha – for the impact of questionable or unacceptable geirus can destroy people’s lives and last forever.

For this reason alone, and for so many other reasons, it is imperative that conversion standards be safeguarded and unassailable. Anything short of this is gambling with the Jewish status of countless people and their families, for now and for perpetuity.

You may also like...

46 Responses

  1. Bob Miller says:

    Rabbi Gordimer, as in other instances, is the realist.

  2. Michael Broyde says:

    Thank you Rabbi Gordimer for your reply. It is nice to exchange ideas honestly and politely. We might be speaking at cross-purposes. You initially advocated that conversions be performed “at exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable” but you now seem to be advocating something else, which is uniformity which will lead to unimpeachability, since we will all have the same standard. I think that is a different conversation with very different parameters. For example, Rambam advocated conversions for the sake of marriage, which many rishonim thought were invalid, and is less than an “exceptionally high standard” but is now widely accepted and widely accepted.

    I also noticed that you did not address the conversion standards in Israel, which are substantially lower than those in America in some circles and which are regularly impeached. Do you think your rule should not apply in Israel or maybe you think that Rabbi Yosef’s approach is wrong? I was hoping you would directly address the decision by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef to validate the Nativ IDF program, and why you think that to be mistaken. Maybe you can also tell us why he – certainly a gadol – thought it was proper to have lower standards in that case. Michael Broyde

    • Benjamin Waxman says:

      Rav Broyde

      Thank you for bringing up the situation in Israel, which saved me the time needed to write that up. 🙂

      I will admit that I don’t quite understand the entire issue being discussed. I understand that there is a beit din that some conservative (small c) rabbis object to. Putting that particular beit din aside for the moment, is there a universal standard amongst recognized Orthodox rabbis about geirut? I had thought (full disclosure: I know very little about conversion in the US or Europe) that each beit din decides for itself what are its conversion standards. For example, British batei dinim have a reputation for having an extremely high standard.

      The only time that someone has to meet a certain predetermined standard is if that convert wants to move to Israel. In that situation the ger must go to certain certified batei dinim to have his conversion recognized by the Rabbinate. But if a person wants to stay in the US, he can convert via his local rabbinate and shalom al yisrael. What happens in the beit din in Philadelphia isn’t what will happen in the beit din in Los Angeles, and neither have the same standard as the beit din in Chicago. Is this incorrect?

      Where does this demand for a universal standard come from? Or is this an entirely new idea being brought up because of the Project Ruth Program?

    • Write a Comment says:

      You persist on repeating your false claim that the Rambam ‘advocated’ for marriage based on marriage.

      Even when the Rambam, in Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah, clearly writes the opposite.

      • Michael Broyde says:

        I did not understand this comment? What do you mean “Rambam ‘advocated’ for marriage based on marriage.” Can you help me understand your comment?

      • write a comment says:

        For example, Rambam advocated conversions for the sake of marriage

        Who wrote that?

      • Michael Broyde says:

        This comment is that “Rambam advocated conversions for the sake of marriage” was in the context of a discussion of whether one can do a conversion of the sake of marriage or not. Rambam is of the view that one can do a conversion even when we know that the couple [him Jewish and her not] is living together now and intend to marry after her conversion. You can find the teshuva at https://library.alhatorah.org/?r1=Teshuvot_HaRambam_130. I think this is the correct recitation of the halacha. Tell me more what you are asking about?

      • write a comment says:

        The Rambam was talking about a shifcha, who can be converted against her will by being freed. He wrote nothing about converting a non-Jewish woman when you have a choice not to convert her. As he wrote in Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah, that it is forbidden to convert someone for the sake of marriage.

      • Michael Broyde says:

        The notes by “Write a comment” state “The Rambam was talking about a shifcha, who can be converted against her will by being freed. He wrote nothing about converting a non-Jewish woman when you have a choice not to convert her. As he wrote in Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah, that it is forbidden to convert someone for the sake of marriage.” This is not the widely accepted view of the Rambam. For a clear recitation of this, see for example Yabia Omer YD 8:24 who discusses a case “נשאלתי אודות יהודי שנשא אשה נכריה בנישואין אזרחיים אצל הערכאות, וילדה לו בנים, וכעת באה האשה הנכרית להתגייר ולהנשא אליו בחופה וקידושין, ולגדל בניה בדת ישראל, האם רשאים לקבלה ולגיירה כדת? ” and based on this Rambam concludes that the conversion can be done. The comments of this writer are not the common or normative way to understand the view of the Rambam.

  3. Steven Brizel says:

    .We know from the Gemara that Gerim should undergo by a rigorous process of education and examination as to why they seek to convert and that Kabalas Ol Mitzvos is paramount .The citation to one Teshuvah permitting a Ger to marry a Kohen does not render the same the view of Rov Poskim which R Broyde clearly rejects

    I think that what R Broyde is advocating, in both in terms of Kashrus, which in Israel as R Broyde admits, is a series of mutually exclusive and incompatible standards based on what is available in different cities as to what is an acceptable lowest common denomominator and Gerus is advocating is that we should be satisfied with being a Beinoni as opposed to seeking the acceptance and fullfillment ofTorah and Mitzvos in a way which shows our Ahavas HAShem and Yiras Shamayim as noted by CI in a famous letter.

    • Michael Broyde says:

      Steven, What I am advocating is that when a case comes up in a community, and the community has a well accepted posek who determines that a less than ideal gerus is better than the alternative, that we accept that this psak is the right think to do and we follow it. That is what poskim do all the time in many areas of halacha — they note that this bedeeved solution is better than the status quo. Rambam notes, for example, that accepting a sincere convert who is only converting for the sake of marriage, is better than the intermarriage that would otherwise have occurred. The fact that other poskim in other communities might disagree is a factor, but need not control the outcome. Were I a congregant of the Rambam in Egypt, I would have accepted his psak as correct, even though it is less than ideal and contracts many rishonim, since Rambam is the accepted posek. The same is true for Rav Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Shlomo Amar, who authorized the conversion of many soldiers at a standard below that which Rav Elyashiv accepted as the minimum, since they thought that this was in total better for klal ysirael. Your view deprives poskim — gedolim, shemepihim unu chaim — with this authority. I think your view is mistaken.

    • WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

      Please identify the gemara to which you are making reference: “We know from the Gemara that Gerim should undergo by a rigorous process of education.”

      I know of many gemarot to the contrary!

      • mycroft says:

        thought standard halacha is teach miksat -certainly not years of education. I believe Dr Bill and I agree in general about this point.

      • WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

        if mycroft and I agree, it is soon to be yemot ha-mashiach

  4. Bob Miller says:

    What we’re talking about here are not exceptional rulings by qualified and accepted poskim, but rather the determination of policy by fakers whose semicha should now be questioned.

    • Michael Broyde says:

      Bob, Let’s put aside the specifics that started the original column by Rabbi Gordimer and focus on his rule, which is he put as “More than perhaps any other area of the Torah, geirus must be performed to exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable” and which is — in his view — unrelated to any particular case. Do you agree with it, or do you agree that accepted poskim do not have to follow that rule? It is easy to tell me that rules of halacha by fakers should not be accepted. I agree! Can you tell me if you think accepted poskim should be allowed (or even encouraged) to do gerus that they think is proper that other poskim think is not. That is the question Rabbi Gordimer and I are discussing. Tell us your view?

      • Bob Miller says:

        Rabbi Broyde, it’s not for you or me to regulate the actions of poskim. We can play a constructive role in weeding out antinomian poseurs for profit or fame Do you accept that the latter are a threat, not just a nuisance, and that rabbinic organizations should weed them out? As for that rule, barring some real emergency, he’s right.

  5. WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

    a demand for uniformity in any area of halakha is contrary to tradition; It is unprecedented in our halakhic history. Were it to have been present, it would have invalidated the heterim of both Rav Shlomo Kluger ztl and RCOG ztl – unthinkable.

    If A wants to marry B, whose conversion is questioned, the ability for B to re-convert is available.

    • Steven Brizel says:

      Look in the main Sugya in Yevamos as well in Bchoros about the failure to accept a Kal VaChomer Rashi in Yevamos points out that one of the main obstacles for many gerim is realizing that Tzedaka and Chesed are ongoing obligations

      • william gewirtz says:

        What does this have to do with anything I said? For that matter, what do your comments have to do with the issue under discussion?

    • mycroft says:

      Done all the time. In fact a major percentage of many Rabbis gerus were people brought up Jewish, become frum and determine-either mother, grandmother wasn’t Jewish or converted in a manner that is at best a questionable Gerus.
      Marriage in this area, not nearly the problem of second Jewish marriages wo a get.

  6. Steven Brizel says:

    This is what a Ger Tzedek goes through https://www.commentary.org/articles/kassy-akiva/anti-semitism-jewish-conversion/ as opposed to the decidly minimalist and sociological factors which echo those of RYG , especially witn respect to what R Broyde cites as four factors that would render such conversions without a full Kabalas HaMitzvos as at least Bdieved

    • Michael Broyde says:

      Steven, My point is that there is a place in hilchot gerim for bedeeved rules (in bedeeved cases), which in many situations are invalid according to some poskim, even if valid according to others. I can not tell if you do not agree? This is the halachic norm in almost all areas and should be the norm here as well.

  7. Steven Brizel says:

    R Broyde-see this articlehttps://traditiononline.org/conversion-in-jewish-law/ What are the differences between your views on Gerus and those advocated by the speaker at Footnote 4 of the linked article by R Riskin, may he have a Refuah Shelemah which R Riskin clearly rejected in 1973?

    • Michael Broyde says:

      Steven, I do not understand. You seem to think that the achronim are united on this matter? There is a spectrum of achronim on the nature of KhM and its relationship to shemirat hamitzvot — and that is why I used as an example ger katan. Given the spectrum of great achronim, each posek should do what they think is the correct halacha. Focus on ger katan and tell me what you think?

  8. WILLIAM GEWIRTZ says:

    Geirut is an area, perhaps the only, where RMF ztl changed his mind and acknowledged conversions that he himself would not perform. Which standard would a uniform approach adopt?

    • mycroft says:

      acknowledged conversions that he himself would not perform.

      Standard approach-many if not most Rabbis did not perform gerus on cases where marriage is the purpose-given the right circumstances of reasons halacha could allow-just they would say in their experience just would be unable to accept the gers word as truthful. If a BD was able to believe the ger they would not have rejected the gerus

  9. Michael Broyde says:

    Bob Miller asked me “We can play a constructive role in weeding out antinomian poseurs for profit or fame Do you accept that the latter are a threat, not just a nuisance, and that rabbinic organizations should weed them out?” and if he means “fakers and profiteers” then I favor weeding them out. But, I worry that the word “antinomian” demotes — in a broader sense someone — who opposes established rules or norms, even if they are well known poskim, albeit those who follow minority opinions. Rav Moshe was antinomian on the matter of the proper standard for conversion of children in the sense that he had a fairly novel approach not widely accepted. And I favor allowing such voices to act as they feel wise. “Fakers and profiteers” are easy, but I think that is frequently not what is being discussed.

  10. H Gurwitz says:

    Rabbi Michael Broyde is wrong. But even if he is right he is wrong:
    Putting aside the world of private hechsherim, the standard of kashrut certification is normative Halakhah. Mehadrin, by definition, is chumra.
    In gerut the standard (hopefully) reflects normative Halakhah. The others rely upon (at best) non-normative positions. They are precisely equivalent to private hechsherim that everyone decries. There used to be a “Wild West” in kashrut. That was true of gerut as well. Now, after significant improvement, a return to sub-standards would be a communal tragedy.

    • Michael Broyde says:

      H Gurwitz, I did not understand. “Normative halacha” is a good standard and I could see that as a general rule in gerus as well. It is reasonable and to be applied lechatchella, with lower standards applied in bedeeved or shat hadechak cases — that is the normative process in halacha for most areas. That is not what Rabbi Gordimer calls for. He calls for “geirus must be performed to exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable” which is far higher than normative standards. I do not want a return to sub-standards at all. I want conversion to be halachically normative, with a lechatchella standard that is normative and lower standards in times of urgent need. That is exactly what normative halacha is in most areas. Maybe say more about what you want? (I think the central problem with private hechsherim was transparency and integrity and not normativity.)

  11. Michael Broyde says:

    Bob, you asked me “Rabbi Broyde, are you against consensus because of impracticality, or on principle?” and the real answer is we were not discussing consensus in this exchange with Rabbi Gordimer — we were discussing whether conversions should be done [in the words of Rabbi Gordimer] “to exceptionally high standards and be unimpeachable” which is not the “consensus” standard at all. Are you, Bob, in favor of conversions being done to the consensus standard, even as this means that some will think that the consensus standard is too low and the conversion is invalid? If so, you disagree with Rabbi Gordimer also, I think.

    As to your question itself, I think that halacha does not have a tradition in most areas of requiring poskim to adhere to the consensus. This is true in hilchot gerus as well (very much so in minhag ashkenaz, and less so in minhag sefard), both for practical reasons and principled reasons. I think as a matter of prudence, secondary halachic authorities should generally adhere to either the consensus of poskim or the firm tradition of their rabbeim or the common minhag as a matter of normative halacha in most areas of halacha.

    • Bob Miller says:

      There are always outlier cases and poskim, but Rabbi Gordimer explained the right approach to the general case. I don’t include the faux poskim his first piece identified as such. What have you done to expose and evict them?

  12. Benjamin Waxman says:

    If I zoom out of this post and conversation, I would see the following:

    Rav Broyde made a few simple claims: 1) Halacha recognizes conversions that are performed under less than ideal conditions. 2) There is no halachic requirement that a conversion be performed according to the highest standards for everyone (nor is there any agreement about what that would mean).

    So far none of the people responding have in any way refuted those claims or in fact even tried to refute them. I would assume that no one refuted those claims because there is no way to refute them.

    Rav Gordimer did make a claim that given the differences in the situation today and the situation in the past, those halachic criteria no longer apply. To that claim I have to ask: One second. Who gave today’s rabbis the right to decide that the psak of the rishonim and achronim no longer applies? How does anyone say that we can simply rule that the Shulhan Aruch no longer applies? Does anyone get what can of worms the Orthodox world would be opening up if it openly adapts that approach?

    In addition, I will repeat the point that this post and the people here are not addressing the situation in Israel.

    On a recent Yeshiva of Newark Podcast podcast, one of the speakers said that chareidism is a club and one of its features is that it tries to make sure that everyone knows who is in the club and who is not. It would seem that this proposal of a “universal, highest standard possible conversion standard” falls into that type of thinking. A single standard isn’t about ensuring proper conversions (because in halacha there is no such thing). Rather the idea is to make sure that everyone knows who is in and who is out.

    • Bob Miller says:

      “Who gave today’s rabbis the right to decide that the psak of the rishonim and achronim no longer applies? ”
      Isn’t Religious Zionism an innovation in itself?

      “chareidism is a club and one of its features is that it tries to make sure that everyone knows who is in the club and who is not.”
      Isn’t Klal Yisrael a club in this sense?

      • Benjamin Waxman says:

        “Isn’t Religious Zionism an innovation in itself?”

        Every religious Zionist rabbi knows the sources that say that the 3 Oaths are not binding/in effect/halacha etc. RZ isn’t saying “we have a clear tradition of 2000 years in which it is absolutely clear that going back to Eretz Yisrael as a political movement is absolutely forbidden and we are going to ignore that completely because we have a fight with another group of Jews”.

      • Bob Miller says:

        Benjamin Waxman, please say what you mean, directly.

      • Benjamin Waxman says:

        Bob Miller: I will simply say that instead of answering my points directly, you gave a couple of What About answers.

        My point is that even if an “overly meikel conversion” may not be desirable according to halacha, it is acceptable (de facto) according to halacha. That is the claim A and so far no one has challenged that claim. Claim B is that a universal standard for conversion is unheard of in halacha. Again, no one has challenged that claim.

      • Bob Miller says:

        Benjamin Waxman,
        What about your failure to prove or at least convincingly demonstrate your own blanket assertions?

      • Benjamin Waxman says:

        Mr Miller:

        I haven’t attempted to prove anything because so far no one has actually challenged what I wrote. You simply answered with a couple of “what abouts” and I am not going to answer what abouts.

        To try and make sure that we aren’t talking past each other I am going to take a step back. RMB wrote that the halachic world always accepted, maybe post facto, conversions that don’t meet the highest standards. Secondly, there is no agreement about what is the “highest standards”. Therefore the attempt to refuse to recognize, across the board, conversions that don’t meet this demand of “universal high standard” doesn’t have a halachic basis.

        So far no one has challenged that basic claim. I can suggest what could be a way to challenge Rav Broyde’s claim:

        1) What is being proposed is a simple extension of what the Ashkenaz gedolim did in the 19th century when confronted with the early Reform movement. Back then, the changes that they (the Reform or proto-Reform rabbis) proposed were also changes based on halacha and precedent. However, the rabbis understood exactly who they were dealing with and didn’t allow these changes. So yes, it doesn’t matter if the Rambam writes that a beit din made up of three non-scholars can do a conversion, the halacha is not the issue at hand.

        2) עת לעשות לה’. We aren’t basing ourselves on anything, we understand perfectly well that our refusal to recognize those conversions isn’t based on halacha, but this is what we have to do to save the Torah.

        Now to each of these claims I can think of objections or counterpoints. But that’s not the point. The point is that these ideas directly address Rav Broyde’s article. I don’t understand why no one is engaging with RMB’s idea and instead are concentrating on side issues.

  13. Michael Broyde says:

    Folks, See the following by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed who notes:

    Recently, I have clarified the position of our rabbis, that in order to prevent assimilation, it is correct to convert someone who in principle accepts the mitzvot, even though chances are he most likely will not lead a religious lifestyle. Various allegations have been made against this. One of them is that the Chief Rabbinate has authority in this matter, and our Mentor and Teacher, Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook was very careful about guarding the status of the Rabbinate, and a public position that runs contrary to the Chief Rabbinates’ position should not be expressed.

    https://en.yhb.org.il/revivim993/

    This is a clear statement of bedeeved conversions.

    • Bob Miller says:

      Do the follow-up data show that this policy actually prevents assimilation as intended? Is Israel a special case because generally assimilation is less easy and frequent there?

      • Michael Broyde says:

        I want to follow up on Bob Miller’s call for better data. He is not asking a halachic question, as I understand it, but a social one — do policies allowing bedeeved conversions [where the convert in principle accepts the mitzvot, even though chances are he most likely will not lead a religious lifestyle] produce better outcomes for the community than hard conversion policies. I would love to know.

    • Sholom Ber Pinndus says:

      I read that article and now feel I need a shower. ‘Prevent assimilation’ by pretending it didn’t happen.

      • Benjamin Waxman says:

        I can’t give numbers but I know people involved in the Rabbinate conversion program. A very large percentage of people who enter the program are married to Jews.

        Former Minister of Religious Services Matan Kahana has said that today, 10% of the marriages in the Jewish sector involve people who are not Jewish (ie Russian olim who are not Jewish).

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This