Rabbi Yisrael Rosen: Ban MK Einat Wilf!

Does the Rabbi reads this blog? Here is an excerpt (translated into English) of what he wrote for this week's Shabbat B'Shabbato parasha sheet:

For now we will put aside thoughts about this situation that are related to political science. Let us also put aside any thoughts about "Israeli democracy," which after the founding of "Kadima" – "Go forward towards the Disengagement" – will never surprise me again by its shenanigans. What I want to do here today is point a finger of guilt at one of the dwarfs in Atzmaut, by the name of Einat Wilf. It has been announced that she will be appointed the head of one or more Knesset committees, either Education or Immigration and Absorption.

I hereby call for a complete ban on all of this woman's public activities in the above matters, because of the totally negative image she projects as the wife of a German who is not a Jew (as far as I know, he has not even taken on Israeli citizenship). This call is not made on a religious basis (there are greater sinners than she is) or on a nationalistic basis (there are greater "nationalistic traitors" than she is), and not even on a cultural basis (there are MK's who present a worse example of personal behavior). I simply cannot accept the idea of an MK in a mixed marriage. The opposition to such a marriage is still within the broad consensus of our people (and I am not referring to a case of "Jewish blood" which is common among Russian-speaking immigrants).

I know very well that some members of the Knesset are not Jewish, including Moslems and Druze. I would not be surprised, and I would not even object, if some immigrant from the former Soviet Union would declare that he represents the community of immigrants who have not yet converted to Judaism or who want to maintain non-Jewish communities, but who want to be loyal citizens of our country. Five years ago I wrote an article titled, "We can learn to live with a significant Gentile minority, descendants of the Jews" (it is reprinted in my new book, "Love the Convert," published recently by Zomet Institute). I have not changed my mind since then. But an MK in a mixed marriage, just like that, is too much for me. Especially when this is touted under the name of Israeli "Independence," or when the individual involved is slated to head a committee on such subjects as education, immigration, or absorption.

Do not take this case of the MK and her husband lightly. It is a subject that carries an educational message. Richard Gutjahr (her husband and the father of her son Yonatan – I wonder if the child has been circumcised) has shown that he is a pioneer in education! How can we ever forget that he was the very first customer to receive the new iPad ("It's heavy and very shiny!") because of the determination that he showed by standing in line in New York for ten hours! This record totally dwarfs the fact that he has no command of Hebrew and that as the host of a television show in Bavaria he spends only part of his time in our country!

With all this, the lady has written educational books in Hebrew which are eminently suited to our generation. Here is her vision for solving problems in education: "Expelling children from the class who cause disturbances, giving low marks in response to bad behavior or violence in class, limiting the day-to-day contact between parents and teachers, and giving the teachers stronger backing by the principals" (as quoted on internet). But don't make any mistake, she is not so conservative! Her world vision is based on a view of the global world (could it be otherwise?) and allowing the use of light drugs because of the high cost of fighting them (remember that she has a background in economics, for example as the manager of a financial fund). She expounded (or perhaps absorbed) these messages as a Senior Fellow in the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute!

In summary, and in protest, I say once again: FOR SHAME!

For shame indeed!

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Rabbi Yisrael Rosen published the following in this week's issue of the popular parsha sheet, Shabat BeShabato:

To: The Honorable President of the United States, Barack Obama:

I assume that this is a moment for self reckoning after the significant losses of the Democratic Party in the United States Congress, in relation to the opposing Republican Party. It can be assumed that you are surrounded now on all sides by strategic advisors, perhaps trying to draw you into various aspects of the discussion about "What happened?" – And all this in an effort to improve your situation and your status, and perhaps also your image.

From my miniscule position, as a Jew born in Israel who lives not far from Jerusalem, I am allowing myself to presume to write you with typical Israeli "chutzpah" and in a straight manner to give you a small piece of advice. Perhaps this will not help your situation, your status, or your image, but it stems from a basic point of truth, both humanitarian and moral, and in my opinion it also corresponds to the democratic principles which you so proudly uphold.

My advice is this: Do what you can to give a pardon to Jonathan Pollard and to set him free! This month marks a full twenty-five years that he has been kept in prison (starting in November, 1985)!

I can imagine your reply to this request. Such a move will not add to your political credits on a global scale, and certainly not within the Middle East. Granting a pardon might even force you to give up a "card" in the hand which you are using to pressure Israel into making various political moves. I am aware of the advice that your predecessor Bill Clinton received from his Jewish advisor Dennis Ross - to keep the "card" Jonathan Pollard close to home and take advantage of having him under your control, making use of this factor in very small doses. Anybody familiar with Jewish history realizes that in giving this advice Ross was acting in the role of those "little Jews" who gave advice to their Gentile governments which was against the best interests of the Jews, evidently in order to avoid being accused of collaborating with their own people. Such people have been objects of total disgrace within the Jewish nation, which has a very long memory, for good and bad.

In any case, you are a man who rose to the presidency on a platform promising to improve the lot of the weaker people in society, to uphold human rights, and to be fair and open, all based on a deep religious faith (perhaps you should consult the compassionate preacher from the Trinity United Church who has had such an influence on you in the past). As far as I am concerned the time has come for you to make what is a very small move on your part, but one that is very significant in practical terms. I read your autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," and I was quite impressed by the humanitarian approach that you demonstrated in the book. You managed to convince your readers that among everything else you are a man with humanitarian values. This feeling instills in me some hope that you might not just throw this letter of mine away.

For the record, here are some relevant details, which I assume you already know: Twenty-five years ago Jonathan Pollard was put in prison for the crime of spying for a friendly country, the State of Israel, without any intention on his part to cause harm to the United States. In his trial (twenty-three years ago), no claim was made that he gave any indirect help to the Soviet Union, through Israel, although as years have gone by this was one of the suggestions that appeared in various speculations by the press. A secret declaration by the Secretary of Defense at the time, Caspar Weinberger, which was seen only by the judges and not by Pollard's defense lawyers, seems to have been the main reason for the punishment meted out to him – life imprisonment, with no chance of parole or a reduced sentence. Your great nation has never given such a harsh sentence to any person who spied for a friendly country. Just last month those who ask for leniency for Pollard were joined by Lawrence J. Korb, the deputy of Secretary of Defense Weinberger, who gave this important declaration to the court. Korb stated that Caspar Weinberger himself felt that the case and the punishment have been blown out of all proportion.

Even if you feel that Pollard's motives were as low as possible (in the interests pf financial gain and for the "adventure" involved), and that the security interests of the United States were harmed, take into account the spy-prisoner exchange that took place this year between the United States and Russia. Remember too how many murderous terrorists Israel had set free as a result of pressure by the United States, in return for dead bodies. Where is the proportionate character of justice?

Mr. President, I will end on the same note that I started this letter: In a moment of reckoning, it is good to rack up a few merits in the eyes of the Almighty and of humanity.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Alon Shevut, Israel 90433.

Rabbi Yisrael Rosen Wins Libel Suit Against "Yated Ne'eman"

22 Marcheshvan 5769

Here's some more fallout from the disengagement: Rabbi Yisrael Rosen took the "Yated Ne'eman" newspaper to court for libel, and he won. I know. What does this have to do with the disengagement?

The story starts way back in the beginning of 2005. The Israeli government makes one of the stupidest decisions ever, the decision to to destroy the Jewish towns in the Gaza Strip, and to withdraw the army from it. The name that they gave to this crime was "disengagement". The National Religious Party (NRP) leaves the coalition, and the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) party joins the coalition. Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, a well known NR rabbi, writes a column in the Shabbat BeShabbato parsha sheet deeply critical of the UTJ. Among other things he writes the following:

"ואומר מיד, עם נציג הפלג החסידי אין לי כלל דין ודברים, "כי השוחד יעוור..ויסלף דברי צדיקים", כולל 'צדיקים' (=אדמו"רים). ומה לנו שוחד יותר מקופת המדינה כולה, הממושכנת כערובה אצל יו"ר ועדת הכספים...".

My translation:

"And I will say immediately, that with the Hasidic faction (of UTJ) I have nothing to deliberate with them at all, 'for a bribe doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.', including 'Tzadikim' (=Hasidic Rebbes). And what is a bigger bribe than the purse of the entire country, which is mortgaged as a guarantee with the Chairman of the Finance Committee (of the Knesset)."

These words upset the people at Yated Ne'eman very much. A scathing article about Rabbi Rosen appeared in the satirical section of the paper. This is the quote caused Yated Ne'eman to lose the case:

"אם כבר מזכירים גיור המוני, מן הראוי לציין, כי את תחילת דרכו המקורית עשה הרב רוזן בהפעלת פס ייצור לגיורים המוניים, באמצעות שיטת הוקוס- פוקוס. השיטה היתה פשוטה בתכלית: נרשמים, משלמים במזומן, שומעים כל מיני הרצאות בנושאי יהדות-בדרכי-נועם, לומדים תפריטים נבחרים מהמטבח היהודי, עוברים עוד אי-אילו עניינים פרוצדוראליים, קופצים למים, ו...הוקוס-פוקוס: אתה יהודי חילוני כשר. ברוכים הבאים לעם הנצח.

Again the translation according to your's truly:

If we are mentioning mass conversion, it is proper to point out that the beginning of Rabbi Rosen's original path was the running of an assembly line for mass conversions, using the hocus-pocus method. The method was ultimatively simple: you register, you pay cash, you hear all kinds of lectures about ways-of-pleasantness-Judaism, you learn selected menus from the Jewish kitchen, you go through a few procedural matters, you jump into the water and... hocus-pocus: you are a kosher secular Jew. Welcome to the nation of eternity.

The judge, Shirli Renner, wrote the following about this:

הצגת התובע, שהינו רב, כמי שמספק הכשרים לעקיפת ההלכה תמורת בצע כסף נועדה להשפיל ולבזות את התובע. הנתבעים בתצהיריהם לא הניחו כל תשתית ראייתית ולפיה מצג עובדתי זה הוא בגדר אמת. מדובר אפוא בפרסום שאין כל ראייה לאמיתותו ולפיו מספק הרב הכשרים הילכתיים בשל תאוות ממון. סבורה אני כי אמירות אלו הן בגדר לשון הרע.

That is to say in Mamme Loshon:

The presentation of the plaintiff, who is a rabbi, as one who supplies certification for the circumventing of Jewish law in return for money was intended to humiliate and put down the plaintiff. The defendants in their declarations did not bring any proof that this presentation is true. Therefore we are dealing with a publication that has no proof to (back up) its truthfulness, which according to it the rabbi provides halachic certification out of the desire for money . I am of the opinion that these statements are in the realm of libel.

A bizarre aspect of the case is that the rabbinic committee of Yated Ne'eman, which is supposed to be a spiritual supervising body of the paper, instructed the editors to react to Rabbi Rosen's article in the satirical section of the newspaper . Even more bizarre is that Yated Ne'eman claimed in its defense that the article is not libelous since it appeared in this satirical section of the newspaper. The judge did not accept this claim.

The bottom line is that Yated Ne'eman - Yeteidot Publications, Yisrael Wertzel (Wortzel?), Yitzchak Rot, and Natan Grossman were found by Judge Renner to be responsible for the libelous publication. The amount of damages will be set at a later hearing.

I can understand how the Yated Ne'eman newspaper, and the public which they serve, would be offended by Rabbi Rosen's article. But that does not justify printing things about Rabbi Rosen that have no basis in fact. I hope that the amount of damages will be high enough to deter the newspaper and others from publishing things that are so distant from the Torah that they purport to represent.

Porush Meets the Srugim

25 Tishrei, 5769

Last night Jerusalem mayoral candidate Meir Porush had an "eye-level meeting" with residents of Giv'at Shaul at the Noam School. The purpose of the meeting was to enlist the support of the National Religious public for his candidacy.

The residents expressed the feeling that Mayor Lopolianski and United Torah Judaism have been discriminating against the National Religious community in different areas. Porush said that if he is elected mayor he will be a true partner of the National Religious community, just as he was when he was head of the Housing Ministry.

A flier was available containing letters from Rabbis Dov Lior, Elyakim Levanon, and Yisrael Rosen is support of Porush.

Here's an exclusive Cosmic X picture from the meeting:

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 10)

I saw an article in HaTzofe that gave an answer to a question that I asked in one of my previous posts on this subject. Among other things, I wanted to know what Rabbi Rosen's halachic basis was for certifying the conversions .

Here is Rabbi Rosen quoted in HaTzofe:

שניהם, בנפרד, גערו ברב דרוקמן שהבטיח לא לשנות באיוולת זו, ושניהם הורו שלא לערוך גיור מחודש ואפילו לא להחליף תעודות מחשש לחילול השם. כמובן שקבלתי בשמחה ואישרתי את כל גיורי הרב דרוקמן

My translation:

Both of them [Rabbis Shapira zt"l and Eliyahu shli"ta] , in separate, castigated Rabbi Druckman who promised not to repeat this foolishness [of signing conversion certificates for conversions where he was not present] , and both of them instructed me not to perform a renewed conversion [i.e. the converts do not have to repeat the conversion ceremony] and even not to replace the certificates for the fear of desecrating God's holy name. As is understood I received [this instruction] happily and I certified all of Rabbi Druckman's conversions.

So here it is, black on white, that the former Chief Rabbis ruled that the conversions are just fine in spite of the "forgeries", and as Rabbi Rosen wrote:

With regards to the conversions that were already performed - since in the end there were three rabbis that sat in judgment, the conversion is valid because the certificate as a document is not necessary according to Jewish law, and even if there is 'a forgery in it' this does not harm the conversion. As is understood that such a decision intrinsically implies that he who signed [Rabbi Druckman] this kind of 'forgery', and also Rabbi Avior that caused [Rabbi Druckman] to sign because of a certain interest, and is himself [Rabbi Avior] a signatory as well, there is nothing in all this to cast a personal blemish or illegitimacy to judge [on Rabbi Druckman or Rabbi Avior].

Now I need to try to understand Rabbi Sherman shli"ta and his esteemed colleagues in the Great Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem. In their ruling they quote Rabbi Rosen at length, obviously accepted what he wrote as reliable. The head of the court, Rabbi Sherman wrote:

Among all of the voluminous material that exists in the file on the conduct of the Merkaz Shapira Conversion Court, and the conduct of the Court President Rabbi Druckman and his deputy Rabbi Y. Avior, I did not find any reaction, responsum or opinion by any expert rabbinic authority to the piercing halachic questions of Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, former head of the Conversion Administration.

Nu, because they found nothing in the file they decided to answer Rabbi Rosen's questions by themselves, arriving at conclusions that have serious implications for the converts. They mention that Rabbi Rosen sent questions concerning the matter to Rabbis Shapira zt"l and Eliyahu shli"ta. However, did they bother asking Rabbi Rosen if he received an answer from the Chief Rabbis? Although the answer received from the former Chief Rabbis was apparently oral, Rabbi Sherman obviously considers Rabbi Rosen's testimony reliable since he quoted him at length, as I have already mentioned!

At his point, as far as I am concerned, the instructions of two former Chief Rabbis outweigh the deliberations of Rabbi Sherman and his court. To be continued.

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 8)

In spite of the fact that there are those that disagree with me, I insist that the "forged conversion certificates" issue is important, perhaps even crucial, to understanding and perhaps solving the conversion crisis. It seems to me, a simple layman, that without "the Rabbi Rosen letters", the cases of Rabbis Atiya and Sherman for casting doubt on at least some of the conversions of the Merkaz Shapira Rabbinical Court would be much weaker.

Perhaps this post should be titled, "The Conversion Crisis: The Missing Document". It seems to me that a very important document is missing from the case. From section 6 of Rabbi Avraham Sherman's ruling we learn that Rabbi Rosen wrote a letter to former Chief Rabbis Shapira zt"l and Eliyahu shli"ta and asked the following questions (the words in square brackets were added by me for the sake of clarity):

מה לעשות עם כל "מעשי בי"ד הידועים לי כ"זיוף", ואשר טרם נמסרו למתגיירים, האם לדרוש החלפתם בחתימת השמות הנכונים?

What should be done with the conversion certificates that I know are "forgeries", but have not been passed on to the converts, should I request that they be replaced with the signatures of the correct names?

מה לעשות עם כל "מעשי בי"ד הידועים לי כ"זיוף", ואשר כבר נמסרו למתגיירים. האם לדרוש החלפתם בחתימת השמות הנכונים? (היבט חמור של חילול ה'!)

What should be done with the conversion certificates that I know are "forgeries", and have already been passed on to the converts, should I request that they be replaced with the signatures of the correct names? (A serious aspect of the desecration of God's name)

מה לעשות בעוד 120-150 "מעשי בי"ד שאותו רב פלוני חתום עליהם במהלך מחצית השנה האחרונה? האם לברר נוכחותו עם המתגיירים במישרין או בעקיפין? חשוב לציין כי אותו רב פלוני מוכר בציבור, ומתגיירים יגלו בעתיד את ה"זיוף", וכדי בזיון וקצף!

What should I do with an additional 120-150 conversion certificates that Rabbi Ploni[Druckman] is signed on during the last half year? Should I clarify his presence with the converts directly or indirectly? It is important to note that Rabbi Ploni[Druckman] is well known, and the converts will reveal the "forgery" in the future, and this will cause much humiliation and wrath [RYR is citing Esther 1:18].

האם אותם פלוני ואלמוני, יכולים להמשיך ולשבת בדין גירות?

Can Ploni [Rabbi Druckman] and Almoni [Rabbi Avior] continue to sit in the conversion court?

ונפשי בשאלתי, למי עלי לדווח או להגיש תלונה אם בכלל?

And my soul in my question [RYR is citing Esther 7:3], who should I report to and issue a complaint if at all?

Now these are heavy duty questions that were posed to two of the greatest rabbis of our generation. What was their answer? Did they answer RYR in writing? If so, does their answer include their halachic reasoning, or did they answer each question without bothering to supply sources?

Rabbi Avraham Sherman wrote in the same section of his ruling:

בכל החומר הרב שמצוי בתיק התנהלותו של בית הדין לגיור במרכז שפירא, והתנהלות אב בית הדין הרב דרוקמן וסגנו הרב י. אביאור, לא מצאתי כל תגובה, תשובה או חוו"ד של גורם רבני תורני בר סמכא, לשאלותיו ההלכתיות הנוקבות של הרב ישראל רוזן, ראש מנהל הגיור לשעבר.

Among all of the voluminous material that exists in the file on the conduct of the Merkaz Shapira Conversion Court, and the conduct of the Court President Rabbi Druckman and his deputy Rabbi Y. Avior, I did not find any reaction, responsum or opinion by any expert rabbinic authority to the piercing halachic questions of Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, former head of the Conversion Administration.

I think we can assume if the file contained an responsum from Rabbis Shapira zt"l and/or Eliyahu shli"ta, RAS would not have dismissed them in such a way. On the other hand, is RAS hinting that there was some kind of responsum in the file, but by rabbis who are not "experts" in his eyes?

Rabbi Rosen wrote in one of his letters:

With regards to the conversions that were already performed - since in the end there were three rabbis that sat in judgment, the conversion is valid because the certificate as a document is not necessary according to Jewish law, and even if there is 'a forgery in it' this does not harm the conversion. As is understood that such a decision intrinsically implies that he who signed [Rabbi Druckman] this kind of 'forgery', and also Rabbi Avior that caused [Rabbi Druckman] to sign because of a certain interest, and is himself [Rabbi Avior] a signatory as well, there is nothing in all this to cast a personal blemish or illegitimacy to judge [on Rabbi Druckman or Rabbi Avior].
After this "move" - I was calmed and did not investigate the subject further. From my perspective the affair was over.

RYR does not explicitly tell us who made this decision. If one looks at the original letter the wording is vague. It could be understood that this is the answer that he received to his letter to the Chief Rabbis, but this is certainly not stated explicitly. If RYR did receive a written response from the Chief Rabbis, this could certainly help solve the crisis. If the response was oral, I don't think that it will carry much weight. What's more, it seems strange to me that RYR would have settled for anything less than a detailed written response to the questions that he asked.

So I ask, what was their answer, and if it is in writing, where is it?

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 7)

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, whose articles about Jewish law are almost always enlightening and thought provoking, wrote an article in last week's issue of BeSheva entitled "Shmirat Mitzvot KeTnai LeGiur" (Keeping the Commandments as a Condition for Conversion). The article stresses the importance of the prospective convert accepting upon himself to observe the Torah. I recommend that all of you that understand Hebrew read the article.

With regards to the conversion crisis Rabbi Melamed wrote the following:

כל העקרונות שהזכרתי עד כה עומדים בבסיס המדיניות המנחה את בתי הדין לגיור של הרבנות הראשית, ובכללם בית דינו של הרב דרוקמן.

All of the principles that I have mentioned so far stand at the base of the policy that guides the conversion courts of the Chief Rabbinate, including the court of Rabbi Druckman.

That's just splendid. However, Rabbi Sherman and his court apparently feel otherwise, and they accuse Rabbi Druckman's court of not following these guidelines, i.e. of not making sure that the prospective converts are serious about keeping the mitzvot. Personally I would like to see evidence in order to judge the merits of these conflicting claims.

Rabbi Melamed makes no mention of the forged conversion protocols, which is perhaps the most serious issue raised by Rabbi Sherman and his court. Instead he finishes the article with the following:

עוד חשבתי להוסיף דברים קשים על השערורייה שחוללו דיינים בבית הדין העליון, אבל נגמר המקום, ואולי טוב שכך, כי מי יודע, אולי בינתיים יחזרו בתשובה, ולא נצטרך לדבר עוד בזה.

I thought to add harsh words with regards to the scandal caused by the rabbinic judges of the Upper Court, however the space [allotted in the newspaper for his article] is [already] used up, and perhaps this is for the good, for who knows, perhaps they will repent in the meantime, and we will not need to speak more about this.

Somehow I don't think that Rabbis Sherman, Izirer and Scheinfeld are going to "repent" so quickly. In any case I left the following comment on the internet addition of his article:

I am interested in hearing the rabbi's opinion with regards to the forging of rabbinic court protocols by Rabbis Druckman and Avior as was documented by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen and quoted in the ruling of Rabbi Sherman.

Let's see if Rabbi Melamed will respond.

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 6)

Here's my transaltion of an interesting letter to Rabbi Yisrael Rosen and his even more interesting answer as posted on the Tzomet web site (hat tip: Rav Tzair). Rabbi Rosen's response sheds much light on how Rabbi Sherman's ruling is affecting him as well as many converts. The response also raises quite a few questions and things that I would like to comment on. In the meantime I am posting it as it is without my interjections. I do not claim that this is an exact translation, although I did my best. Words in square brackets were added by me for the sake of clarity:

Dear Rabbi Yisrael Rosen.

Do you confirm what was said in your name in Rabbi Sherman's ruling concerning Rabbi Druckman and Rabbi Avior (concerning the forgeries)? If so - why did you take part in the rally in support of Rabbi Druckman? These are not vexing questions [i.e. in order to vex you] - I want to know since I learn in Rabbi Druckman's yeshiva, and it is important for me to clarify the subject from its source. Excuse [me], and thanks in advance.

The question is not clear to me.
I unqualifiedly support all of the conversions of The Conversion System, including those that were performed by the most lenient [rabbis] (and there are those that say that I am among them...).
The Conversion System is one of my life works, and ever since the ruling I walk bent over and am worried about what will be. Quite a few converts telephoned me in tears, and I had to use all of my power of persuasion in order to calm them.
I took part in the assembly of the Tzohar rabbis in order to express my support in all the conversions, including Rabbi Druckman's conversions, including the years 99-2005 that with regards to them the Great Rabbinic Court, as if it were possible, invalidated. At the end of the assembly they requested signatures - and I signed unqualifiedly.

In the [Hebrew] year of 5760, it seems to me, when I was the head of The Conversion Administration, it suddenly became clear that Rabbi Druckman occasionally signs rabbinic court rulings [i.e. conversion certificates] which he did not take part in. In the wording of the ruling it is said that the signatories confirm that the convert came before them, and that they checked him and found him suitable and he took upon himself [to fulfill] the commandments in front of them [i.e. in their presence] and the like - this wording is truly impossible for one that did not sit in judgment at all.
I did not know what to with myself because of the responsibility that was upon me, and what I must do halachically, publicly and ...legally.

I reported this to [then Ashkenazic Chief] Rabbi Lau , who was my supervisor, and at his suggestion, and perhaps it was my suggestion and with his agreement (I do not remember), I turned to [former Chief] Rabbis Shapira (of blessed memory) and Eliyahu (may he live a long life) to ask them what I should do, and similarly if I should inform these converts and give them a new rabbinic court ruling[i.e. a new conversion certificate signed by the rabbis that were really present]. In order to fulfill my administrative obligation (and perhaps [my] legal and ethical [one]), I put my questions and concerns in writing, in a letter to Rabbis Shapira and Eliyahu that was quoted in the present ruling. By the way, in my letter I accused Rabbi Avior of causing Rabbi Druckman to stumble in this [matter], and I explained the reason why he did this.

To the best of my memory both of them (in separate) called Rabbi Druckman and woke up his ear [i.e.discussed the matter with him] (I did not take part in the meetings. This is what I heard from their confidants) and he on his part promised that such events would not be repeated.
With regards to the conversions that were already performed - since in the end there were three rabbis that sat in judgment, the conversion is valid because the certificate as a document is not necessary according to Jewish law, and even if there is 'a forgery in it' this does not harm the conversion. As is understood that such a decision intrinsically implies that he who signed [Rabbi Druckman] this kind of 'forgery', and also Rabbi Avior that caused [Rabbi Druckman] to sign because of a certain interest, and is himself [Rabbi Avior] a signatory as well, there is nothing in all this to cast a personal blemish or illegitimacy to judge [on Rabbi Druckman or Rabbi Avior].
After this "move" - I was calmed and did not investigate the subject further. From my perspective the affair was over.

At the end of that year I finished my job. The file with the correspondence and its addendum remained in the offices of the rabbinic court management. Years later I heard that the file 'became thicker' with additional events that I have no knowledge of.

It is superfluous to mention, that I never raised a waggling of an argumentation that, as if it were possible, because of this deed Rabbi Druckman should be personally invalid to judge ( and perhaps to testify etc.) as the judges in the Great Rabbinic court impudently argue. It is superfluous to mention that I did not transfer anything to the media, and until I read Rabbi Sherman's ruling I did not at all know that this old material was included in it, and use was made of it that is totally out of proportion.

It is not clear to me what - and perhaps who - brought you to turn to me. In any case I saw fit to clarify [this matter] and you can make fair use of my words by distributing them, or bringing them to whoever thinks that perhaps I have a hand in this trespass.

And be a blessing,

Rabbi Yisrael Rosen

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 5)

This week's volume of "Me'at Min HaOr" (A Little Bit From the Light), Rabbi Chanan Porat's parsha sheet, features an article by Rabbi Druckman on the front page. It is a nice dvar Torah, certainly worth reading. I hoped for naught that the rabbi would mention something about the conversion crisis.

However, Rabbi Porat, in his column "Midrashir", praises Rabbi Druckman and then adds the following:

על כן כמה צר ומר פסק דינם של כמה דיינים שהעיזו פנים להטיל בו דופי ולפסול את הגיורים שגייר בלא לשמוע אפילו מה בפיו. חובת המחאה על ביזוי תלמיד חכם מוטלת על כולנו ולה אנו שותפים ב'מעט מן האור'.

ברכתנו שלוחה לרב דרוקמן שליט"א שימשיך ללכת על פי ה' ויוסף לקדש שם שמים ברבים ללא מורא וללא חת

My translation:

Therefore how narrow and bitter is the ruling of a few rabbinic court judges that acted impudently to defame him and to invalidate the conversions that he performed without hearing what he had to say. The obligation to protest the degradation of a Torah scholar is incumbent upon us all and we at "Me'at Min HaOr" are partners to this [obligation].

Our blessing is sent to Rabbi Druckman (may he live a long life) that he will continue to go according to God and to fearlessly sanctify the name of Heaven in public.

Let's take a look at this and see if this statement is "A Little Bit From the Light" or something else entirely.

"Therefore how narrow and bitter is the ruling of a few rabbinic court judges that acted impudently to defame him and to invalidate the conversions that he performed without hearing what he had to say."

If we are concerned with the honor of Torah scholars, this includes the rabbinic court judges who for some reason are not mentioned here by name.

The claim that they invalidated the conversions is also not exact. Rabbi Rosen got it right when he wrote, "The ruling casts a doubt on myriads of conversions (and their offspring), but does not invalidate them in a sweeping manner (each case should be considered on its own)."

Rabbi Porat raises an interesting point with by saying that the judges did not hear what Rabbi Druckman had to say. This is what Rabbi Druckman told Arutz 7:

"הרב אברהם שרמן שהיה אב בית הדין בדיון, פרסם אותו לפני כשלושה חודשים בכנס דיינים כללי והרצה עליו, והזכיר אותי ב"תוארי כבוד" רבים, תוך כדי אמירת גיבובי דברים. בעקבות ההרצאה הזאת טלפנו אלי דיינים כשהם מזועזעים מכך, שבלי לדבר איתי או לשמוע את הצד שלנו, הוא פרסם פסק דין כנגדי".

"רק שבוע לאחר הכנס הם הזמינו אותי לשמוע את דברי, לאחר שכבר היה פסק דין! הגעתי לדיון ואמרתי להם שבכך שהם פרסמו את פסק הדין בלי לשמוע את הצד שלנו, הם פסלו את עצמם מלדון, ופניתי לרב עמאר, שהורה להם שלא לפרסם שום פסק דין אלא להעביר אליו את התיק".

"יומיים לאחר ההחלטה של הרב עמאר הם פרסמו את הפסק, כל מאן דהוא מבין שזה כתב פלסתר. אלו דיינים? אלו לא יכולים להיות דיינים! דיינים, שכביכול באצטלה של בית דין, כותבים פסק בלי לשמוע את הצד המדובר, איך אפשר לעשות דבר כזה?", אמר הרב דרוקמן

Rabbi Druckman explains that before the ruling was made public Rabbi Sherman publicized it at a convention of rabbinic court judges. A week later they invited Rabbi Druckman to tell his side of the story. Rabbi Druckman told them that since they came to a decision without hearing him first, they invalidated themselves from adjudicating the matter. Rabbi Druckman notified Chief Rabbi Amar who instructed the court not to publicize the ruling. Two days later they publicized the ruling against the explicit instructions of Rabbi Amar who is the President of the Great Rabbinic Court.

In summary: They did not hear his side of the story. When they invited him to hear his side of the story he refused to tell it. In the meantime, I, and others like myself are waiting to hear Rabbi Druckman's response to the "forgery affair" as described by Rabbi Rosen.

"The obligation to protest the degradation of a Torah scholar is incumbent upon us all and we at "Me'at Min HaOr" are partners to this."

We also have an obligation to make sure that the special conversion courts are acting in accordance with Jewish Law. We have an obligation to demand that the rabbis that sit in the courts will not act in a way which will cast a doubt as to the validity of the conversions. We have the obligation to protest the continuing disinformation being circulated with regards to this affair which gives the impression of an attempted whitewash.

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 3)

It seems that the National Religious Party is on a trip to Strawberry Fields, the place where "nothing is real." In the last issue of "Kippah Achat" (vol.11) the conversion issue is mentioned several times. But for the NRP, "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see." The theme of "let's blame the ultra-Orthodox" while systematically ignoring the "forgery affair" of Rabbis Druckman and Avior repeats itself over and over again.

I encourage those of you that are concerned about this affair to download the document and see what I am talking about. I am not going to waste my time translating such cheap propaganda. I wonder, if the forgeries were perpetrated by Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak, would the NRP MKs be willing to whitewash it in such a shameless manner? Is there anyone wearing a knitted kippah who will demand accountability from the Beit Din in Merkaz Shapira?

Because I admire Rabbi Druckman I expect him to fully address the forgery issue that has been documented by Rabbi Yisrael Rosen. Continuing to ignore it will not help the converts harmed, nor will it bring voters to the NRP. Emet MeEretz Titzmach.

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis (Part 2)

Here's an interesting question that was posed to Rabbi Yisrael Rosen and his answer:

B"H Iyar 5768, 5.08

To Rabbi Yisrael much peace,

I read the ruling that Rabbi Sherman wrote concerning the conversions, and I saw the he relied a great deal on things that you wrote as the head of the Conversion Administration about Rabbi Druckman's forged rabbinical court protocols. It seems to me that in the entire ruling these are the most serious things that are said against Rabbi Druckman and Rabbi Avior.

If you in fact stand behind the things that you wrote why did you add your signature to the announcement protesting the insult to Rabbi Druckman, after all the Rabbinic Court that wrote the insulting things just quoted the words that you wrote?!

And in general, and in general, what is the truth in connection to the ousting of Rabbi Druckman under the pressure of the ultra-Orthodox, as has been publicized?

Answer:

A. With regards to the ruling of Rabbi Sherman:

1. The ruling contains three parts: Chapters 2-5 deal with the stringent conversion policy, including the ability to retroactively invalidate a conversion fairly easily if the convert say that she did not keep [the Mitzvot] so much. The ruling casts a doubt on myriads of conversions (and their offspring), but does not invalidate them in a sweeping manner (each case should be considered on its own).

2. In chapters 6-9 the "forgery affair" of Rabbis Druckman and Avior is described. Rabbi Avior was accustomed to have Rabbi Druckman sign rabbinical court protocols which he was not present at (because without his signature the conversion would not be approved, even though three rabbis were actually present). The wording "In a council of three we sat and came before us...and we checked...and accepted the commandments in front of us etc." is not true. Details further on. Rabbi Sherman tends to personally invalidate Rabbis Druckman and Avior, and as a result all of their conversions since the year '99.

3. The third part deals with the authority of the Great Rabbinic Court regarding the Conversion Courts.

4. I totally censure the first and last part of Rabbi Sherman's ruling, and I publicized a very sharp stance against it in "Shabbat BeShabbato" (Parshat Behar). I signed with both hands on the Tzohar Rabbi's Manifest concerning this, which is completely acceptable to me, including the unqualified recognition of the conversions of Rabbis Druckman - Avior.

5. With regards to 'my part'; When it became known to me (in the year 2000 my last year as the head of the Conversion Administration) the 'sign on blind' procedure I was obligated to act by virtue of my position. In coordination with Chief Rabbi Lau, who was my supervisor, I turned to Rabbis Shapira (of blessed memory) and Eliyahu (may he live a long life) and I spread my distress before them, orally and in writing, including questions if to replace the rabbinical court protocols, and if the conversions are invalid? Both of them castigated Rabbi Druckman who promised not to repeat this way [of signing rabbinical court protocols which he was not present at] . Neither of them instructed to invalidate the conversions or to replace the rabbinical court protocols. I accepted this and I kept quiet all these years and "I closed the file" in my mind.

6. Rabbi Sherman extracted the subject from the files of the Rabbinic Court Administration that administered the conversions after me. He discovered that Rabbi Druckman continued to sign in this way. In spite of this I cannot agree to the ruling that casts a personal flaw!

7. For the sake of Rabbi Druckman's honor I prefer not to relate to the subject publicly. I know that there are those that falsely suspect me of 'collaborating' with Rabbi Sherman. I prefer to be among those that do not answer.

B. With regards to the ousting of Rabbi Druckman as Head of the Conversion Alignment

1. The story of the 'ousting' of Rabbi Druckman on the background of Rabbi Sherman's ruling and 'the encroachment of the ultra-Orthodox' as is being hinted to by the media, is a clever spin. In my opinion the source is the rabbi's advisor, and in the end this will hurt the rabbi himself.

2. The Public Service Commisioner, Shmuel Hollander (national religious) is not working in the service of the ultra-Orthodox. He informed Rabbi Druckman (as well as his assistant, Rabbi Klein) two months ago (!) that he would not continue until the end of his term because of a serious comptroller report on his performance (and the performance of his assistant) in the Conversion Alignment. The central remark with regards to Rabbi Druckman is his great absence and lack of being present, in spite of having a full time position (including a car and a driver). Since the contract expires in 6.08 the reason given was age (75).

3. To the best of my knowledge, there is no 'letter of dismissal' because of the affair of Rabbi Sherman's ruling, and there is no connection between the termination of his work to the 'ultra-Orthodox' aspect. Rabbi Druckman (or his advisor) spoke to the media about a 'focused thwarting' and a 'shameful ousting' in connection to Sherman's ruling. And it is not so! In my opinion, such claims will lead only to embarrassing the rabbi due to the revelation of unpleasant facts.

Yisrael Rosen

And a comment to slanderers: On Yom Kippur eve (!) I sent a letter to Rabbi Druckman and in it I mentioned that I will in no way be a candidate to 'inherit him', and that my criticism was not meant to undermine him, God forbid. My life's work is Machon Tzomet, and in a full time position!

Rabbi Druckman, Rabbi Sherman and the Conversion Crisis

I really did not want to blog about this. I consciously try to blog about positive things, and do my best to stay away from issues where there is a Chillul Hashem (desecration of God's name).

As is well known, the Great Rabbinic Court in Jerusalem, led by Rabbi Avraham Sherman, came out with a controversial ruling (file number 5489-64-1) severely criticizing Rabbi Chaim Druckman and his conversion court in Merkaz Shapira. This of course was followed by a large outcry from Rabbi Druckman's supporters, since Rabbi Druckman is a very highly respected rabbi and educator in the National Religious sector. What's more, the ramifications of the ruling upon those converted by Rabbi Druckman's court and their progeny are devastating. The jblogosphere and talkbacks on various news web sites also took Rabbi Sherman and the Great Rabbinic Court to task.

I wonder how many people who are criticizing the ruling of Rabbi A. Sherman and the Great Rabbinic Court in Jerusalem actually read it. I did, and it looks like a very logical and sound halachic document, supported by the many sources cited in it. Any attempt to deal with this ruling in an emotional and non-Halachic manner is doomed to fail. Halachic issues are not solved by screams, petitions and mass gatherings. Those that think otherwise are fooling only themselves.

The attempt to present the ruling as an attack by the ultra-Orthodox on the National Religious Public is at best a nice spin for the MSM, and at worst an attempt to divert the public's attention from the very real issues raised in the ruling. The truth is that the ruling is "Zionist" in a number of ways.

First of all, the "star" of the ruling is the religious-Zionist Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, head of Machon Tzomet and well known for his weekly column in the "Shabbat BeShabbato" parsha sheet. In his letters which are quoted in the Psak, he accuses Rabbi Druckman of signing conversion certificates which falsely state that he was part of the Rabbinnic court which presided over the conversion. This is not simply an administrative matter, as one blogger claimed. This is bearing false witness, something which is forbidden for every layman and certainly for a judge in a rabbinic court. Rabbi Rosen also claims that some of the conversion certificates bearing Rabbi Druckman's signature were not signed by Rabbi Druckman. He accuses Rabbi Avior (a member of Rabbi Druckman's rabbinic court) of being responsible for the forgery.

Rabbi Sherman states that the halachic ramifications of these acts of bearing false witness are that Rabbi Druckman and Rabbi Avior are halachically unfit (pasul) to be rabbinic judges. Therefore any converts that converted in their court never appeared before a fit rabbinic court, and therefore never converted! These are very harsh words with very severe ramifications. I really do wish that Rabbi Sherman and his court are mistaken here! However I cannot find any flaw in Rabbi Sherman's arguments.

Another star of the ruling is Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook zt"l(of blessed memory), the revered Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi, founder of the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva, and perhaps the greatest rabbi of the previous century. Rabbi Sherman quotes Rabbi Kook's responsa (Da'at Cohen 154) in which RAYK states that a rabbinic court that accepts converts, when it is clear that these converts will not keep the commandments, is itself in violation of the commandment "do not put a stumbling block before the blind". If we hold that the halachically binding, i.e. that this gentile has really become a Jew, then the rabbinic court is guilty of putting a stumbling block in front of the convert in that many acts that were permitted for him as a gentile (desecrating the Sabbath, eating shrimp, etc.) are now forbidden to him as a Jew. Therefore, every time that he violates these prohibitions he incurs Divine punishment, and the rabbis that converted him are responsible for this. On the other hand, if we hold that the conversion was not halachically binding, the gentile is still a gentile but the Jewish community thinks that he is a Jew. This situation can cause all kinds of halachic problems. For instance a "female convert" marries a Jew, and they have a son. They get divorced, and then he marries a Jewess. He dies without any children from his second wife. In this case, if he has any brothers they have to do "yibum/halitza" to his second wife. However, the community mistakenly thinks that his first wife's conversion was valid, and since he had a son from her they let his second wife marry again without "yibum/halitza"!

(One of the points of contention is that Rabbi Druckman's rabbinic court is allegedly accepting converts even when it is clear that the potential converts have no intention of keeping the commandments. This is in clear of violation of Rabbi Kook's opinion, as well as the opinion of most rabbinic authorities, and this is another reason to invalidate Rabbi Druckman's rabbinic court and its conversions. It would be interesting if empirical evidence is available comparing the results of Rabbi Druckman's conversions to the conversions of other rabbinic courts.)

Here's another "Zionist moment" in Rabbi Sherman's ruling. Among the Torah prohibitions that Rabbi Druckman is accused of is the following:

גניבת דעת של רשויות השלטון במדינה, שיש לה נפקות והשלכה על עניני סטטוס החל במרשם התושבים, וכן במתן זכיות ממוניות ואזרחות שהמדינה מזכה בעלי תעודות אלו, וכלה בקביעת מעמד אישי, ובזה יש אסור דאורייתא מטעם דינא דמלכותא דינא.

"Deceiving governmental authorities of the state (of Israel), and this has ramifications with regards to status starting with the population registry, and similarly in giving monetary and civil rights that the state awards the owners of these (conversion) certificates, and ending with the determination of personal status, and in this there is the Torah prohibition of "the law of the land is the law".

Do I hear the strains of "Hatikva" playing in the background?

In my humble opinion, the questions raised with regards to Rabbi Druckman and his rabbinic court have to be dealt with. A million petitions and mass gatherings won't make the problems go away. While we are certainly commanded to honor Torah scholars, this cannot hinder the search for the truth.

במקום שיש חילול ה' אין חולקים כבוד לרב

I turn my eyes to the Chief Rabbinate. Only they have the ability and authority to solve these problems. May we merit seeing the solution of this crisis, for the benefit of the converts, the Torah scholars, and the entire nation of Israel.