RCA speaks out against attempts to nullify conversions
- Author: Ami Eden
- Filed under: Conversion, Orthodox
May 6,2008
The Rabbinical Council of America has taken heat over a recent deal on conversions that critics describe as a complete capitulation to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. Well, in the latest conversion-related controversy, the RCA is speaking out against Israeli religious authorities:
Rabbinical Council of America Reacts to Ruling of Israeli Rabbinical Appeals Court regarding Past Conversions by the Israeli Conversion Authority
Leviticus 19:33: “You (plural) shall not oppress the convert in your land.”
Commentary of the Netziv: “The plural form of the verse teaches us that a third party who sees the oppression of a convert and does not protest is also guilty of oppression.”
The Rabbinical Council of America, having taken note of the recent ruling of the Bet Din Elyon (Rabbinic Court of Appeals) of Israel, nullifying certain conversions performed by the State Conversion Authority led by Rabbi Chaim Druckman, has today issued the following statement:
Having reviewed the ruling of the Bet Din Elyon in detail, and being fully mindful of the respect due the rulings of duly constituted rabbinical courts in their respective jurisdictions, the RCA finds it necessary to state for the record that in our view the ruling itself, as well as the language and tone thereof, are entirely beyond the pale of acceptable halachic practice, violate numerous Torah laws regarding converts and their families, create a massive desecration of God’s name, insult outstanding rabbinic leaders and halachic scholars in Israel, and are a reprehensible cause of widespread conflict and animosity within the Jewish people in Israel and beyond. The RCA is appalled that such a ruling has been issued by that court.
We have been assured by Israel’s Chief Rabbi Rav Shlomo Moshe Amar, who is also the President of the Rabbinical Courts System of Israel, that in releasing this ruling the court in question directly countermanded his instructions and policies. He has confirmed that the ruling has no legal standing at this time. We commend Rav Amar for his positive role in this matter since its very inception in the Ashdod regional court.
We add our rabbinic voice to those of others who have called for a thorough review and repudiation of the actions of a select few of the Bet Din Elyon, who in this ruling as in other previous instances, have sought to undermine the Conversion Authority.
For this reason, and others, it is more important than ever that the Conversion Authority be strengthened in its important work in bringing about halachicly proper conversions to our faith and to the Jewish people.
Given the very public nature of the challenge posed by the ruling in question, we call on the Chief Rabbis of Israel to reaffirm their support of the Conversion Authority and its leadership in clear and unambiguous terms at the earliest possible time. Until that will happen, each passing day will cause reprehensible anguish to halachic converts, irreparable harm to the fabric of the Jewish people, and a considerable debasement of the good name of Torah, halachah, and tradition.
Breaking News
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- "Iran to hang 30 people in next 24 hours Saturday, 26 July 2008 Iran Focus: Tehran, Iran, Jul. 26 - I" Majid Saatchi on L.A. Times: No to warmongering on Iran
- "Obama is a dreamer who believes in Magical Wishes... He will negotiate Israel to its bitter end wher" aaron levy on Dear Barack… Love, Shaul
- "Mr. Kristof is either deaf or uninformed..."Tough Love" Israel has experienced terrorism in one way " aaron levy on Kristof’s argument
One Response for "RCA speaks out against attempts to nullify conversions"
As the American “Centrist Orthodox” Rabbinical Council of America joins to condemn the ruling, its heated tones hint at just how much is in stake for the one-time Modern Orthodox establishment. At stake is a central (albeit implicit) claim of the Orthodoxy of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik z’l: That Halacha is an objective, positivist discipline.
In mid-20th century America, it was crucial to claim that halacha — and in particular, Shabbat and Kashrut — were an objective demand of Judaism, rather than a personal eccentric whim. Eccentric whims were not well regarded in mainstream America in the 50s. This claim to objectivity also was used to rebut the reforms of Conservative Judaism.
Conversion, however, may well prove the achilles heel in the scheme, because there are two halachic approaches. The liberal approach — advocated two decades ago by R Eliezer Berkovits, z’l — was that conversion required a ritual immersion, circumcision when appropriate, and a vaguely defined acceptance of Jewish rites and peoplehood. The conservative approach insisted that kabbalot ol mitzvot — acceptance of the yoke of the commandments — was not a cultural requirement that could be fudged (e.g. by Reform converts who swore off pork and shellfish) but required a commitment to Orthodox Jewish law. (This is part of what blew up the Denver joint conversion court in the 80s.)
The problem is that in choosing the latter course, the once-modern Orthodox were unknowingly setting themselves up for sabatoge by the Postmodern Orthodox. Postmodernists say there is no “objective” knowledge of any kind; the Haredim, who say that halacha is only what conforms with their leader’s rulings, implicitly agree. For a Haredi, acceptance of Modern Orthodoxy is a rejection of Torah truth; so how could one accept a convert who isn’t haredi?
None of the options at this postmodern juncture are good for RCA orthodoxy. The Haredim may prevail, in which case conversion is not an option for mainstream Israelis and personal status gets fully divorced from the rabbinate.
The political chief rabbi may overturn the ruling for now in the RCA’s favor — but this only highlights the political nature of Israeli conversion. In this scenario, the rabbinate avoids increasing the need for civil marriage, but it further undercuts its moral argument.
Or — and this is the least likely option, but the one I prefer — they can return to the liberal Orthodox position, in which conversion has a ritual aspect and a cultural aspect, where a rite is followed and a peoplehood is accepted. Such a shift on conversion, now as in the ’80s, could have a powerful unifying effect on American Judaism as well. But as I have come to understand, for the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council, the prospect of a pluralistic Jewish unity is a bug, not a feature.
Leave a reply