quote:

Originally posted by rob:
So he's possibly a Jew. He can always undergo a halachic conversion to remove doubt if it bothers him that Jews don't want to risk transgressing marrying a goy, or reciting kadish without a minyan. Doesn't seem baseless, and doesn't seem like hatred, either.

Which would mistreat a goy worse - to treat him as a Jew, and cause him to trespass into Hashem's intimate relationship with the Jewish people? or to make it clear that he cannot be counted in a minyan of Jews?

Rob,

You are right. But if, on the other hand, the ultra-orthodox of old could bear with the Tzaddukim who were true deviants from traditional Jewish thought (see: Shabbos 152b on the Tzaddukim and their view of life after death), and could allow them to act as judges in their courts on the condition that they adhered to traditional views of "pesika," then perhaps we can say without any shadow of doubt that converts who were, in accordance with halacha, converted in Conservative "Batei Din" are full-fledged Jews fit to marry-in with other Jews.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Tzaddukim were never accepted as Kosher judges. I don't know where you get that they were held as Kosher? They did have their own judges and they ruled under where they had jurisdiction, but it was never sanctioned by the Chachamim."

Rav Chaim, Rebbe Yisroel, and others,

Actually, Yoseph Hakohen says in his book, "Antiquities," that "...when they (the Sadducees) become magistrates (דיינים), as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them." (Antiquities, Book XVIII. ch. I, vs. 4) So, here, it is clear that they served as judges for the common populace who adhered to the doctrines of the Pharisees. They were accepted by them, in spite of their unconformed views on "life after death" (see: Shabb. 152b) and their view on those oral traditions which were delivered unto us by Moses from Sinai.

Not only so, but writs then issuing in their courts of law (Beis Din) were binding. They divided the inheritance between parties to a suit, they settled disputes, acquited the guiltless, charged the debtor, oversaw conversions, etc. in witness whereof they did set their hands and affix their seals. Anyone who says that what they did was not "kosher," he slanders our early forefathers (מוציא לעז על ראשונים) who gave them space in their judicial bodies. For it is plain that these men who entertained ill-beliefs served in the courts of Jewish law, and had the approbation of the religious rulers at that time. No doubt men that were great personages, but men of uncommon beliefs all the same. (see: Rambam's commentary on Mishnah Avos 1:3, s.v. Antiginos Ish Socho, on how this sect was first established).

Having said this, who amongst us can say that he is not a descendant of a man or a woman who were converted to Judaism in one of their "Batei Din," some 1,950 years ago?! Or which convert amongst us today, who was made a convert in an Orthodox "Beis Din," can say that one of the judges who officiated over him never had an ancestor that was a convert himself, and made that way solely on account of some decision passed in a court run by Tzaddukim (Sadducees) many years ago? If you rule-out as "pasul" their halachic decisions made long ago, by nature, the thread is unravelled, and he that thinks that he is a Jew is not a Jew! And he that thinks that he was halachically converted to Judaism, was not halachically converted! It's an endless and futile cycle.

Rather, in my simple conjectures, since we have given ourselves to speak out more candidly about this subject, I would caution against "writing-off" someone simply because he had been converted in a Conservative "Beis Din."

As for Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's remarks, after begging his forgiveness and after licking-up the dust of his feet, I would say to our friends here that had he seen the writings of Yoseph Hakohen (Antiquities), he would not have written what he had written about the Conservation Movement. If, on the other hand, the "kabbalas hamitzvos" which he has spoken of about them means that the Conservative "Beis Din" did not act in accordance with proper procedure in the woman's conversion, then he is correct. Their ruling means nothing.

Sincerely,
David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yisroel Phillips,

quote:

As for Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's remarks, after begging his forgiveness and after licking-up the dust of his feet, I would say to our friends here that had he seen the writings of Yoseph Hakohen (Antiquities), he would not have written what he had written about the Conservation Movement.

R' David, how do you know R' Moshe did not read the wroks of Josphus? His name comes up in a couple of his Teshuvot.

In any event, R' Moshe was only interested in what the Halacha is, and it was his considered opinion (not contradicted, as far as I am aware, by any other Posek) that the Halacha demands that we do not recognise Conservative conversions.

Kol Tuv.

Did yosef hakohen say whether this practice was supported from the Chachumim or not. Even if the Hamon Am accepted them, it does not prove that it's correct. Also, Bava basra 130b that we cannot rely on stories to teach us Halacha, only from Rambanim telling us halacha L'Maseh. So in this case, where Shas and Poskim are all clear that a Rasha may not be a Dayon, we cannot accept what Yosef Hakohen witness to be any proof.

Further more, if both parties accept a Pasul Judge in the case of MONETARY, like 3 shepards, then it could be binding. (though Reshayim are a step lwer, as in Sanhedrin 26a and maybe not as acceptable as 3 shepards, see there.) but by Issurim, then without Kosher judges, the conversion is definitly Passul. Only by Mommon can we say that they were Mochel to accept Dayanim P'Sulim.

Just to go through the steps in Shulchon Orech to prove R' Moshe correct (though he doesn't need my Haskama.)

Yorah Daya 268:3 says that the judges for a conversion need to kosher to judge regularly

Choshen Mishpat 7:9 those that are Pasul to say witness, either because he's related or that he's a Rasha, he's Pasul for being a judge.

Ibid 34:2 any person that did an Aveira that carries a punishment of lashes and, of course, Kareis or death in BD is Pasul to be a witness.

Therefore, since Conservatives drive to shul on Shabbos (besides all the other ISsurim they do) would make them Chayiv Misah, thus unfit to say witness and to be a Judge and to make conversions.

quote:

Therefore, since Conservatives drive to shul on Shabbos (besides all the other ISsurim they do) would make them Chayiv Misah, thus unfit to say witness and to be a Judge and to make conversions.

3 questions on this:

If a conservative shul hired an Orthodox rabbi, and the rabbi remained Shomer Shabbos, and was silent and/or tolerant about institutionalized desecration of Shabbos in his shul, would he be pasul as a witness or as a judge?

How about in a purportedly Orthodox shul if the rav is perceived to encourage congregants to desecrate Shabbos by driving to shul?

And regarding the Yorah Daya part, is this prohibition against judging "regularly" coming to permit an occasional judging, or an occasional conversion?

Friends,

Conversions are problematic even when they are orthodox conversions by the most machmir rabbonim. So entertaining a Conservative conversion is nuts. Again the issue is not the validity of the Conversion but rather its acceptability. Here validity means nothing if the Conversion is not accepted.

If 3 of the most machmir Conservative rabbis performed the conversion according to the strictest observance of halacha, there would always be a safek on that conversion. Because if they are so machmir, what are they doing in the Conservative community. One conservative rabbi once told me he was doing kiruv. Right, his wife drove to the movies on Shabbat after lunch.

So re-conversion will always be a lingering issue even among people with orthodox conversions, depending on their communities.

Avi

Quote "If a conservative shul hired an Orthodox rabbi, and the rabbi remained Shomer Shabbos, and was silent and/or tolerant about institutionalized desecration of Shabbos in his shul, would he be pasul as a witness or as a judge?"

If he uses a microphone, R' Moshe held that would Pasul him.

Quote "How about in a purportedly Orthodox shul if the rav is perceived to encourage congregants to desecrate Shabbos by driving to shul?"

i'm not sure. this would go on how stretched this Heter is to the end of Simon 306. Maybe they feel it's justified. i don't know,.

Quote "And regarding the Yorah Daya part, is this prohibition against judging "regularly" coming to permit an occasional judging, or an occasional conversion?

No, regularly meant on other Dinim in general. there are no "one time" fit judges.


limudtorah.jewishweb.org
http://globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums?a=frm&f=9291076782

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Bava basra 130b [says] that we cannot rely on stories to teach us Halacha, only from Rambanim telling us halacha L'Maseh. So in this case, where Shas and Poskim are all clear that a Rasha may not be a Dayon, we cannot accept what Yosef Hakohen witness to be any proof.

Rav Chaim,

The corollary has been made, not by a mere "story" that was told, but rather by an "external source" written only a few years after the temple's destruction. I believe that someone remarked that the Gaon of Wilna also recognised the authority of Yoseph Hakohen's "Antiquities" as a primary source for accurate knowledge regarding events during that troubling time in history. One can either accept him, or reject him.

Since our disquisition has treated on judges, and what makes them either valid or invalid, I wish to bring down here those traits or qualities to be expected in judges, found in this week's Parasha (Yisro). Yisro, in giving advise to Moses, names specifically four qualities which one ought to look for in judges. He said: "...And you, take notice of all the people, [looking out especially for] (1) men of power (in the sense that they are wealthy, and stand not in need of taking bribes. -Rashi), (2) those that fear G-d, (3) men of truth (in the sense that if they make a promise, they will keep their word. -Rashi), (4) and those that hate unjust gain." (Shemos 18:21)

The Sanhedrin that came along many years later added three more criteria to the first four. According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 88b), they made it a requisite that a judge (1) be wise (חכם), and that (2) his deportment is with humility (שפל ברך), and that (3) he has the general approval of the people (דעת הבריות נוחה הימנו).

Rambam, when treating on this topic, writes in Hilchos Sanhedrin 2: 6-7:
"Just as the Beis Din (i.e. Sanhedrin) is clean as far as equitous living is concerned, so too must they be clean from all physical deformities in their bodies. And one must make every attempt to search out those who are aged men with grizzly beards, those of tall statures, men of fair countenances (pleasing in appearance), and those that are gifted orators, and that they know the rudiments of most languages, so that the Sanhedrin will not need to listen to a translator.
The Beis Din of three [judges], even though we are not so scrupulous with them concerning all these things, there must nevertheless be found in each one of them seven [basic] qualities, which are these: Wisdom, humility, the fear [of G-d], the hatred of money, the love of truth, a general populace which loves them, and those who have acquired a good name and reputation. Now all these things are explicitly mentioned in the Torah."

Rabbi David Ben-Zimra (הרדב"ז), the great Rabbi of Egypt, wrote in his commentary on the above Rambam (ibid.) that these seven qualities which we look for in judges are not indispensable qualities (לא לעיקובא אלא לכתחילה). Rather, these qualities are what we should look for as a first resort in the judges. If they can be found in all three judges, then well! If not, the "Beis Din" is still a "Beis Din."

In Yemen, as in other places of the diaspora, judges were drawn from the rank and file of the most eminent scholars that learned in the Yeshivos (Talmudic academies). Any man who was eminent in his learning could become a judge in his city. He simply came together with two other scholars and formed a Beis Din in the courtyard of a house, or in one of the synagogues. Although these judges were not given any salary for their services (and only exacted a fee for the scribe's writing of the court document), they still had the full backing of the local governors and the king, so that they were empowered to issue out arrest warrants and decrees of imprisonment, which same orders were duly carried out by the king's soldiers.

May Hashem bring back our judges as at the beginning, and our counsellors as from the start. And may He fulfill in us that scripture that says:
אלהים נצב בעדת אל
בקרב אלהים ישפוט

"G-d stands present in the congregation of the godly, in the very midst of the judges He executes judgment." -Psalm 82:1

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by Rav Chaim:
Just to go through the steps in Shulchon Orech to prove R' Moshe correct (though he doesn't need my Haskama.)

Yorah Daya 268:3 says that the judges for a conversion need to kosher to judge regularly

Choshen Mishpat 7:9 those that are Pasul to say witness, either because he's related or that he's a Rasha, he's Pasul for being a judge.

Ibid 34:2 any person that did an Aveira that carries a punishment of lashes and, of course, Kareis or death in BD is Pasul to be a witness.

Therefore, since Conservatives drive to shul on Shabbos (besides all the other ISsurim they do) would make them Chayiv Misah, thus unfit to say witness and to be a Judge and to make conversions.

Rav Chaim,

Would a Conservative conversion be valid if the officiating Conservative Rabbis happened to keep the Shabbos, and were not guilty of any insolent conduct, and happened to be honest and shamefaced in their daily lives? Moreover, that person that they accepted to the fold of Judaism sincerely wished at that time to observe all the Mitzvos? If we have all these conditions, does it not make the conversion valid?

Have we been called on to delineate the character of every Conservative Rabbi? Of course, not! First, it is impossible for us to know this. Rather, it seems to me to still be a "grey-area."

David

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yisroel Phillips,

David,

What a Conservative Rav may consider Shomer Shabbat may not necessarily be Shomer Shabbat according to halacha. That alone will bring safek to a conversion.

I once met a Reform Rav who didn't know that "carrying" on Shabbat was an issue. Granted, the Reform movement is not Judaism, but one would think that out of curiosity something so mundane would be part of his knowledge base. Why do I bring this up? The Conservative movement is a backlash to the Reform movement. Their hashkafa is more akin to the Reform than the Orthodox. However, the Masorti movement in Israel is really not out of the same mold as the Conservative movement in the US. It is a backlash to the Orthodox and it's hashkafa is more akin to the Orthodox.

Most Conservative Rabbonim are machmir and live lives that are "orthodox" but notice that I say "most". So when a Conservative conversion is performed, we don't know which of these "most" were involved? Again, this introduces safek. Don't forget that even some "orthodox" conversions introduce safek. That's why today one needs to convert before a renowned and recognized Va'ad of Orthodox Rabbonim in order to avoid pitfalls we are discussing. Long gone are days when some rav could convert you, unless that rav is an undisputed Gadol, like Rav Elyashiv sh'lita or Rav Ovadia Yosef sh'lita . And I don't think these Gedolim do conversions anymore, for this very reason. In Israel they refer them to the va'ad.

You also mentioned that if the convert turns out to be machmir and fulfilling the mitzvot then the conversion would be valid even though there may have been safek at the outset? Well, at conversion, the halachic responsibility is on the beit din, not the goy who is about to become a Jew. The goy can't possibly bear halachic responsibility. If what you say were true, anyone who started observing mitzvot could call himself a "de facto" Jew because his observance would be his evidence.

At the end of the day, giving them the benefit of the doubt, the very best Conservative conversions their rabbonim can perform, following halacha to the minutest detail, will always create a safek.

Avi

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yisroel Phillips,

B"H

Thanks, Avi. I agree that these conversions might be "doubtful cases." However, what I wrote to Rebbe Yisroel and Rav Chaim, I shall write to you.

I can understand the sentiment of the orthodox towards the conservative movement. I have been in the orthodox camp for 23 years. I know their feeling of repugnancy towards men and women sitting side-by-side in the shul, or driving their cars to shul on the Shabbos, and the women's provocative (modern) dress, and dancing of the two sexes, and general inter-mingling. These are all, indeed, repugnant. But put all this aside for a moment and look at the real issue. Can a Conservative Rabbi who does keep the Shabbos (and there are Rabbis like this), can he officiate legally over an halachic conversion? Afterall, some Conservative Rabbis are observant, and only run a Conservative shul because the people that make-up his congregation would never go to a shul had it been any other way, and he (the Rabbi) wants to make "kiruv." So, this was my question, and Rav Chaim has already answered the question for me.

Sincerely,
David

quote:

Originally posted by Yocheved Broscova-Guerra:
About the conversion, since she needs to accept all the Mitzvos, and if she doesn't agree not to marry any Kohanim, so basically she hadn't accepted all the Mitzvos, so how can she be Migayir?
END QUOTE


Very good question--

I would point out that this is far easier said than done. You effectively have to prove they had intent to defraud the beit din, otherwise there aren't grounds for it. In the case of a woman who converted [properly] and married a Cohen she is a Jew who is aiding and abetting in the violation of a commandment - she's a sinner.

A rav on a conversion court in Israel tried this recently with a woman who never fulfilled any of the commandments and Rabbi Druckman, the head of the conversion courts, very publicly called him on the carpet for it. The poskim, in cases where the stringent level of proof to overturn a conversion is not met [and unless it turns out they were practicing another religion all along, such as missionaries who try to infiltrate, its nigh impossible to meet that criteria] follows the Rambam:

The Rambam rules they are a Jew and obligated in all of the mitzvot and, like any other Jew who does not perform them, is liable to punishment as appropriate, be it the earthly or heavenly court. Converts can be sinners, or they can be saints, but they are still Jews. If they become heretics (which is different than having a yen for someone you aren't supposed to shack up with) then we put them to the sword, but we don't yank their status as a Jew.

Of course, Masecta Geirut (geonic), says a convert who did not convert for the sake of heaven is not a convert [not Jewish] - so only ideological converts - but that text, while saying a beautiful thing, isn't the authoritative halacha. Instead, sadly, we allow conversions in the name of marriage.

I say sadly because both I and my wife are orthodox (sephardi) converts and did so, individually, out of honest conviction. Conversions for marriage give real converts a bad name (though the non-ideological convert may come to do the Torah for the right reasons later G-d willing). I cannot tell you how many times in the last ten years people have assumed I (or she) converted for marriage - and declared so openly and publicly. Its always amusing to point out that we're both converts, though I'm always polite about it.

I would hate, however, for someone to think because I came to error, or had a human struggle like any other Jew, that they could come and argue I was a false convert and throw me out [thankfully, they can't].

quote:

Originally posted by Vondy:
I would point out that this is far easier said than done. You effectively have to prove they had intent to defraud the beit din, otherwise there aren't grounds for it. In the case of a woman who converted [properly] and married a Cohen she is a Jew who is aiding and abetting in the violation of a commandment - she's a sinner.

Welcome to TGY, Vondy.

The Dayanim of the London Beis Din last year ruled in two cases that the conversion in Israel of a convert who married a Kohen after the conversion was invalid.

quote:

I say sadly because both I and my wife are orthodox (sephardi) converts and did so, individually, out of honest conviction. Conversions for marriage give real converts a bad name (though the non-ideological convert may come to do the Torah for the right reasons later G-d willing). I cannot tell you how many times in the last ten years people have assumed I (or she) converted for marriage - and declared so openly and publicly. Its always amusing to point out that we're both converts, though I'm always polite about it.

There's no need for anyone to know you are converts. I'm sure very few people in my own community know I am one.

quote:

Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips:

Welcome to TGY, Vondy.

The Dayanim of the London Beis Din last year ruled in two cases that the conversion in Israel of a convert who married a Kohen after the conversion was invalid.

There's no need for anyone to know you are converts. I'm sure very few people in my own community know I am one.

In general, I don't bring it up unless its directly relevant to the discussion [like this one], and many people in my community don't know.

However, in my experience, the first line of questioning in the Jewish world with new people is always about your family and background - and something akin to the Jewish who did you go to school with game - and its pretty easy ferret us out if we don't give some creative answers.

I heard about the London Beit Din issue. One of the Rabbis on my block was a Rav in Leeds and was less than pleased when he heard about it. He and I spend time together because he comes from Turkish roots, and the community I came from was Turkish.