I was talking with a buddy of mine who works in the kiruv industry about the different set of skills you need to make it as kiruv rabbi in the bay area and we both agreed that it would be tough for a straight laced fresh out of kollel guy to really get it. Would he be able to keep his shit together if one of his slowly frumming out protege’s told him that the reason he was interested in orthodoxy was that his boyfriend was frum.
I was wondering what it takes to be a kiruv rabbi on the front lines in places where most of the Jews don’t have much exposure to Judaism of any kind. For instance I was sitting at a meal today in a chabad in the middle of nowhere California when one of the guests whipped out her iPhone to show the rebetzin some pictures of her eldest boy. She then made another mistake by feeding some treife candy to one of her kids who didn’t take a special liking to cholent or Asian noodle salad.
I remember was davening in the Berkeley chabad house last year and one of the folks there for mincha was a rather yeshivish fellow. God only knows why he was in Berkeley, not exactly the frummest place, but after mincha he said something along the lines of “Nu Rabbi why are the nashim saying kaddesh?” The Rabbi tried to tell him to Shut the F up, but the guy clearly didn’t get it. It’s true that women don;t say kaddesh for the deceased, but if it makes them feel good, why rain on their good feelings with a little shulchan aruch – let them be – maybe some day they may actually learn the halacha.
When I lived in Dallas, I used to hang by the shul which the yeshivish kiruv industry views as one of the poster children for successful out of town kiruv. I once overheard an intense discussion about whether or not they were halachically allowed to sing benching since there was a chance of kol isha (hearing a woman singing benching may cause men to become aroused and waste seed) so I guess there is a skill when it comes to figuring out a way to do things without breaking halacha.
It’s almost like kiruv professionals have to throw out everything they’ve been taught about frumkeit and start anew. They need to learn the ways of the world around them, the world that doesn’t hold of daas torah, has no idea what the shulchan aruch is and isn’t really sure why you aren’t excited about the pictures of their wedding on their i[Phone in the middle of shabbos lunch.
Like anything, kiruv is basically a form of marketing, in this case it’s religious marketing. Some people take the traditional approach, like chabad ladies delivering freshly baked challahs on erev shabbos and showing their guests the beauty of family meals with 7 wild children all under the age of 5. Aish will prove to you that Judaism is fact, I have no idea how they managed to dupe so many people into believing, but they have an army of gung ho folks that do the kiruv marketing pyramid scheme as well. Then some folks will simply get you a free shabbos lunch, shabbat.com does this and in the process tries to get you to marry or at least bang Jewish chicks with their built in shidduch service – they do say there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
So what kind of skills do kiruv industry professionals need to have?
They have to believe wholeheartedly in their mission: I would suck at kiruv, I’m too much of a skeptic and a cynic, I would simply tell the truth about all the social problems of being frum and scare people away. Real professional kiruv artists learn how to ignore the crap and only show the beauty of what orthodox Judaism has to offer. There is no talk of the ridiculously high yeshiva tuition for the ridiculously low quality of education. There is no talk about Israeli politics, gender issues or how some communities may place wearing certain articles of clothing before actually believing.
Dealing with people who think they are Jewish: You find out the girl you’ve been teaching to read Hebrew used to be a man and isn’t really Jewish or that the family that comes to your house every week is not actually Jewish, but feels Jewish. You have to learn to keep a straight face and figure out how to deal with every kiruv professionals nightmare – how to tell someone they aren’t a member of the tribe.
Teaching the kids to be PC: There’s nothing like having some rabbis kid tell you you aren’t really Jewish because you don’t dress like tatti on shabbos – it’s funny to me – but said to the wrong person and it could have some damaging effects.
This is an awesome post. Chabad rabbis usually see me as a potential recruit -since I like Chassidus and am young enough to switch over- so they’re always nice to me. Works for me, I’ll take conditional love.
In Chabad I am told that the Lubavitcher Rebbe said that they should just look beyond all of the craziness and focus on the fact the people have a yiddishe neshoma. My daughter was at her Chabadsker friend’s (not shlichim) house one Friday night. They had invited an extended Israeli Family. One brother came with his “husband”. Another brother in the family came with his goyishe scantilly clad Korean wife and children. My daughter told me that no one in her Chabad friends family even batted an eyelash. They are really excepting.
I don’t know how my fellow Yeshivishe peeps could pull this off.
Here’s what gave away that you’re Chabad:
“I am told that the Lubavitcher Rebbe said”
“shlichim”
“my fellow Yeshivishe”
The trick to successful kiruv is not to push too hard.
true chabad says shluchim, not shlichim
Libavitchers are not renowned for their spelling, and the U and I keys come in close proximity.
Ok, I’ll give you that one. The other hints that he/she is preaching are more telling anyway
Good article.
By the way, Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin has an article about women’s kaddish in his book Equality Lost: Essays in Torah Commentary, Halacha and Jewish Thought. He says that while the Shulhan Arukh and such DO say that women do not say kaddish, the issue, he says, is that back then, ONE person said kaddish for the whole congregation. So THAT is why women did not say it: because women should not get up on the bimah and say kaddish for all the men. But nowadays, he says, when everyone says kaddish on his own, there is no halakhic reason to silence women.
And many others besides Rav Henkin say that women say kaddish. e.g., http://www.jewishideas.org/responsa/women-and-kaddish
I read an excellent account some years back called “Kaddish From the Other Side of the Mechitza”. It was about a woman’s experience saying Kaddish every day for a member of her family, what it was like to be alone in half the shul and how the men in the congregation responded to it. Haven’t been able to find it for a long time now.
“there is no halakhic reason to silence women.” Ah, but since when do we need a halakhic reason?
So true.
Didn’t you hear that women are on a higher spiritual level than men? That’s why they stay in the kitchen all day – they may burn someone with their eyes because they are so holy.
Great post (and I am a former kiruv non-rabbi “professional”).
You points are on the money!
Maybe the question isn’t, “Why don’t those kiruv guys judge everybody?” Maybe the question is, “Why *do* others?”
Chabad rabbis have been pretty good in most cases to g ay guys who have come to their places for davening etc.
A Chabad Rabbi certainly would be able to “keep his shit together if one of his slowly frumming out protoges told him that the reason he’s interested in Orthodoxy is because his boyfriend was frum” chabad is out there getting people to do the Mitzvos. Key word do. Actually and physically doing a Mitzvah connects you to God, in contrast to what Aish preaches, & I heard this myself at an Aish Chanukah event “being Jewish is about the feeling. If you feel Jewish you’re good to go”. At that same event, there were Chabad boys at the door giving out Menorahs by the dozen. It was irrelevant to Aish whether or not these hundreds of Jews would light a Menorah on Chanukah. So nope, the Chabad Rabbi is not losing his shit over the gay guy who’s interested in Orthodoxy only because his boyfriend is frum, on the contrary, it’s a huge success because this precious Jew is fullfilling God’s will and making his soul one with God.
Great point!
“Dealing with people who think they are Jewish”
This must be hard. What happens if a non-Jew who comes every week (say, a girl with a mother who converted Conservative) meets a nice Jewish guy thru your kiruv and they end up getting married?
You just caused an intermarriage!
“You just caused an intermarriage!” Depends whether the “Conservative” conversion in question was done in accordance with halakha. Contrary to what you apparently have been told, most are. Of course, like the silencing of women mentioned upthread, this issue isn’t really about “halakha,” and never was.
Given that most Conservative conversions involve posul eidim and don’t require accepting all the mitzvos, it’s hard to say that most Conservative conversions are halachic.
Neither of your points is true in most cases. And even if they were true, the halakhic default until the last few years was to assume that a conversion was valid unless two witnesses (or the individual in question) said it wasn’t. Heck, in my community even reform conversions are halakhic, by the halakha that was practiced thirty years ago.
But then again I’m not a rabbi just one of the thousands of geirim who are tired of hearing this kind of stuff.
Read the discussion below to see why the Orthodox community has a valid reason to assume these things.
Sounds like a tough but rewarding job, one that requires commitment combined with flexibility in dealing with people who aren’t just like you. Most of all, it demands a sense of perspective and proportion.
“most Conservative conversions involve posul eidim and don’t require accepting all the mitzvos. . .” Would it even matter to you if that claim weren’t true? In any event, the litmus test for a conversion wasn’t whether it “was Orthodox” or “was Conservative.” The litmus test is “did it conform to the requirements of halakha.” Period. If you disagree, then you prove my earlier contention that this is not, and never was, about halakha in the first place.
If Conservative conversions were halachic, I’d be willing to accept them. However the fact is that they are not. This is in fact entirely about halacha.
What specific halachic requirements are there which you think Conservative conversions do not meet?
I’m not an expert, but here’s my understanding of the two biggest problems:
Eidim (witnesses): Normative halacha places a number of restrictions on who may be a valid witness for a conversion. These rules are rarely followed in Conservative conversions. (In particular, the witnesses are rarely halachically observant themselves to the extent required to be valid witnesses, and in addition the Conservative movement allows female witnesses.)
Acceptance of the mitzvos: There are issues with conversions where the convert does not consider all mitzvos to be binding. The prevailing attitude among Conservative laity does not consider halacha to be fully binding. It is hard to believe that converts are held to a higher standard (i.e. keeping a halachic level of kashrus, Shabbos, tznius, etc.) especially given that many of the Rabbis who officiate these conversions are not fully observant themselves. (I personally have seen Conservative Rabbis of the more traditional variety carry on Shabbos outside of an eruv, and eat in unkosher restaurants.)
Like I said. Your litmus test isn’t “was it halakhic.” It’s “was it Conservative.” You may protest, but to an objective reader, your statement speaks for itself.
Here is my opinion:
The litmus test of whether a conversion is valid is whether it is halachic. Conservative conversions do not follow halacha, so they may be presumed invalid.
Is that unreasonable?
And to clarify: There are Orthodox conversions which are invalid too.
“Conservative conversions do not follow halacha, so they may be presumed invalid. Is that unreasonable?” No, but the litmus test you prosose is still, plainly, “is it Conservative,” not “is it halachic.” The statements “Conservative convsersions do not follow halacha” is absurd. You recognize clearly that the statement that “Orthodox conversions do follow halacha so they may be presumed valid” is incorrect but you continue to insist on the converse formulation for Conservative ones because your litmus test there is not “was it halachic,” but rather, “was it Conservative.”
Now, the details:
“I’m not an expert. . .” True, that.
“These rules are rarely followed in Conservative conversions.” Well, we’ve agreed that you’re not an expert so I’m not prepared to accept your testimony on the matter.
“the witnesses are rarely halachically observant themselves to the extent required to be valid witnesses. . .” They are generally rabbis themselves are usually are indeed adequately halakhically observant. If in a given case they are not, then the conversion is invalid, just like it would be if it were done in an “Orthodox” setting.
“in addition the Conservative movement allows female witnesses.” I’m not certain that is correct but in any event it has no bearing on a conversion in which a woman was not used as a witness.
“The prevailing attitude among Conservative laity does not consider halacha to be fully binding.” The prevailing attitude among Conservative laity? That is not what the Conservative Movement itself believes. The laity at large may or may not be aware of that but that is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not a specific conversion was or was not valid. That is not the prevailing attitude among the Conservative rabbinate and leadership and certainly not among the ones who are actually personally involved in conversions.
“I personally have seen Conservative Rabbis of the more traditional variety carry on Shabbos outside of an eruv. . .” That is not a rejection of either halakha or ol malchut shamayim. It is a specific p’sak with which you disagree. Ditto your comment about eating in unkosher restaurants. You’ve seen a rabbi eat something (a salad? A wrapped baked potato? A strictly vegetarian restaurant? Fish only? Dairy only? A cheeseburger?) in a nonkosher restaurant so therefore Conservative conversions are b’chlal not halakhic QED? Seriously?
Your litmus test is not halakhic. It’s team affiliation. Own it. Embrace it. It’s clearly the case.
“Conservative conversions do not follow halacha, so they may be presumed invalid. Is that unreasonable?” Yes. With Orthodox conversions you judge them on their own merits. With Conservative ones you say some Conservative rabbi ate something in a nonkosher restaurant so all conversions done by any Conservative rabbi is “presumed invalid.” Is that unreasonable? Yes, absolutely.
“I’m not an expert. . .” I would agree with that.
“These rules are rarely followed in Conservative conversions.” Well, since we’ve established that you’re not an expert suffice it to say I’m not prepared to accept your testimony on the matter.
“witnesses are rarely halachically observant themselves to the extent required to be valid witnesses. . .” Actually, the witnesses are usually rabbis and usually are indeed adequately observant. That said, if not, then that conversion would be invalid.
“the Conservative movement allows female witnesses.” I’m not certain that is correct vis a vis conversion but in any event, if that is the case then again, that conversion might be reasonably considered invalid.
“The prevailing attitude among Conservative laity does not consider halacha to be fully binding. . .” The prevailing attitude among Conservative laity? Irrespective of whether the claim has merit it has no halakhic bearing on whether or not a particular conversion is valid.
“many of the Rabbis who officiate these conversions are not fully observant themselves. . .” Again, we’ve established you’re not an expert on the matter. Suffice it to say I challenge the veracity of the assertion.
“I personally have seen Conservative Rabbis of the more traditional variety carry on Shabbos outside of an eruv. . .” That would only be relevant if that rabbi were involved in the conversion in question. Even he were, just because you disagree with a rabbi’s specific p’sak in a specific area doesn’t in and of itself posul a conversion.
“and eat in unkosher restaurants” You saw a Conservative rabbi eat in a nonkosher restaurant? Do you realize how unlikely that is? Ok. I’m going to assume you were in a nonkosher restaurant and saw someone you knew to be a Conservative rabbi eating. What was s/he eating? Salad? Cooked food? Meat? Double wrapped baked potato? Anyway, again, same answers to the eruv comment.
Torah achat tihyeh lachem. You ask “is it unreasonable?” Yes, it is. It is unreasonable to judge Orthodox conversions by a standard of “was halakha followed” and Conservative ones to a standard of “they’re all bad.” You’re welcome to do it, but it would at least be honorable to admit that’s what you’re doing.
Female witnesses is indeed a large problem. As for the observance of Conservative laity, it is an issue because this observably includes Conservative converts, who are not held to higher standards. I’m willing to grant that my observations of Conservative Rabbis are anecdotal, though I do think they establish a pattern (and good luck finding a p’sak that will let you push a stroller outside an eruv or eat unwrapped hot vegetarian food in a treyf restaurant!).
The strongest issue, I think, is of the observance of the witnesses. To quote Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (34:1-3):
“??? ???? ?????… ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????; ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???. ?? ??? ?? ??? ???????, ?? ??? ?? ??? ??????. ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????.”
“A ‘rasha’ is invalidated from being a witness… Who is a rasha? Anyone who violates a commandment whose punishment is lashes, and it need not be said that this applies if their punishment is the death penalty. This applies whether they acted out of pleasure or out of spite. One who incurs a Rabbinic infraction is invalidated Rabbinically.”
Thus the requirements are fairly strict. How many Conservative Rabbis do you honestly think follow all of the following laws?
* yichud
* bishul yisrael
* don’t allow women to lead shachris (causing a bracha in vain would be lifnei iver)
* don’t condone congregants driving to shul on Shabbos (again, lifnei iver)
* shomer negia
“As for the observance of Conservative laity, it is an issue because this observably includes Conservative converts, who are not held to higher standards.” You err in confusing common practice with what is actually taught. I apparently cannot post a link here but if you go to the USCJ website and roll over “Jewish Living and Learning” on the upper left and click “living Jewishly” and then choose “Jewish observance,” you’ll find a good place to start to understand a bit better what Conservative Judaism actually teaches vis a vis halakhic observance.
In pointing to specifics of halakhic practice you completely ignore the reality that there are differences of specific practice. Sefardim put meat and milk dishes together in the same dishwasher. Shall I call them posul l’edut on the grounds they “don’t keep kosher” since my community would absolutely forbid it? The fact that an individual’s practice might differ from your own does not make that person a “rasha” who is violating laws. You don’t like shmuel’s rabbi’s p’sak? Don’t follow it. But it doesn’t mean either shmuel or his rabbi are r’shaim and psul l’edut because your rabbi teaches that his opinions are just plain absolutely wrong.
The challenge is how to live in a world in which differing communities have seriously differing interpretations of halakha. One approach, the one you advocate, is to declare whole vast segments of the Jewish community to be simply outside the bounds, unacceptable. The other, the one described in the Talmud, is to maintain the differences of practice and opinion as sharply and passionately as ever, yet to nevertheless accept the ultimate legitimacy of the other. B’nei Yehuda and B’nei Galil had substantively different understandings of how to prepare k’tubot with potential mamzerut consequences–every bit as big as the largest of the issues you identify. Yet we are specifically told in Masechet Ketubot that they were willing to marry into each others’ communities anyway.
So my point is that the chances of a halachic Conservative conversion are astronomically low. As you can see, the important factor here is halacha, not denomination.
It appears I can’t answer. My response won’t go through moderation.
In pointing to specifics of halakhic practice you ignore the reality that there are differences of specific practice. Sefardim put meat and milk dishes together in the same dishwasher. Shall I call them posul l’edut on the grounds they “don’t keep kosher” since my community would absolutely forbid it? The fact that an individual’s practice might differ from your own does not make that person a “rasha” who is violating laws. You don’t like shmuel’s rabbi’s p’sak? Don’t follow it. But it doesn’t mean either shmuel or his rabbi are r’shaim and psul l’edut because your rabbi teaches that his opinions are just plain absolutely wrong.
The challenge is how to live in a world in which differing communities have seriously differing interpretations of halakha. One approach, the one you advocate, is to declare whole vast segments of the Jewish community to be simply outside the bounds, unacceptable. The other, the one described in the Talmud, is to maintain the differences of practice and opinion as sharply and passionately as ever, yet to nevertheless accept the ultimate legitimacy of the other. B’nei Yehuda and B’nei Galil had substantively different understandings of how to prepare k’tubot with potential mamzerut consequences–every bit as big as the largest of the issues you identify. Yet we are specifically told in Masechet Ketubot that they were willing to marry into each others’ communities anyway.
In pointing to specifics of halakhic practice you completely ignore the reality that there are differences of specific practice. Sefardim put meat and milk dishes together in the same dishwasher. Shall I call them posul l’edut on the grounds they “don’t keep kosher” since my community would absolutely forbid it? The fact that an individual’s practice might differ from your own does not make that person a “rasha” who is violating laws. You don’t like shmuel’s rabbi’s p’sak? Don’t follow it. But it doesn’t mean either shmuel or his rabbi are r’shaim and psul l’edut because your rabbi teaches that his opinions are just plain absolutely wrong.
Last paragraph:
The challenge is how to live in a world in which differing communities have seriously differing interpretations of halakha. One approach, the one you advocate, is to declare whole vast segments of the Jewish community to be simply outside the bounds, unacceptable. The other, the one described in the Talmud, is to maintain the differences of practice and opinion as sharply and passionately as ever, yet to nevertheless accept the ultimate legitimacy of the other. B’nei Yehuda and B’nei Galil had substantively different understandings of how to prepare k’tubot with potential mamzerut consequences–every bit as big as the largest of the issues you identify. Yet we are specifically told in Masechet Ketubot that they were willing to marry into each others’ communities anyway.
With that I’m probably done. What’s to be said’s been said I think. cya. . .
yichud, bishul yisrael, etc. are halachos deoraysa, and a Rabbi can’t pasken not to follow them. There is a difference between legitimate halachic debate and not following Torah law. If your Rabbi ate pork, would you say that it is just a p’sak and doesn’t make him posul l’eidus?
Sorry, bishul yisrael is not de’oraysa, I mis-typed. However it is a mitzva derabanan from the Talmud and cannot be overturned either.
“Rabbi can’t pasken not to follow them.” 1) Specifics can indeed be different in different communities. Your rabbi for example might indeed permit food that my rabbi determines to be flat out treif. 2) Posekim have more lattitude than you are acknowledging. Read Roth’s “Halakhic Process” or indeed numerous other works on the function of halakha. You are vastly oversimplifying halakha throughout this discussion in the service of supporting your black and white simplified version of the actual halakhic world we inherit from its thousands of years of mesorah.
I’m sure Kaplan’s “The Rules of Halacha” would not be to your liking…
Dunno. What does he say about rabbinic authority vis a vis deoreita precedents? d’rabbanan ones? You’ve said there is no rabbinic authority regarding such matters at all. Does Kaplan agree?
If I recall correctly, the authority to change Rabbinic takkanot follows the Talmudic rule that that “en bet din yachol levatel divre bet din chavero ela im ken gadol hemenu bechochma uvminyan” (a beit din can’t overturn the ruling of another beit din unless it is greater in wisdom and number) In practice this means that takkanot of the Talmud can’t be overturned.
Read Roth’s book. It is magisterial and extremely well documented and researched.
Read Rav Kaplan’s book if you want a mainstream Orthodox view.
Maybe if I break it into parts:
“As for the observance of Conservative laity, it is an issue because this observably includes Conservative converts, who are not held to higher standards.” You err in confusing common practice with what is actually taught. I apparently cannot post a link here but if you go to USCJ and roll over Jewish Living and Learning then click Living Jewishly and then Jewish Observance you’ll find a good place to start to understand a bit better what Conservative Judaism actually teaches vis a vis halakhic observance.
I was in the Conservative movement for years, and I’m not unfamiliar with what the movement teacher. The issue is the vast gap between what is preached and what is practiced.
“The issue is the vast gap between what is preached and what is practiced.” Not so. Vis a vis conversion the issue is what is taught to the convert, not what is practiced by someone else. Afterall, an Orthodox convert doesn’t get a pass on observance on the grounds that much of Orthodoxy observes so why should a Conservative convert fail because much of Conservative Judaism doesn’t. Neither is true. Both must be judged on his/her own merits.
At this point it’s time to be done. What’s to be said’s been said and getting my comments up is getting way to difficult anyway. cya. . .
All I can say is that the chance of finding a Conservative conversion where
(1) all witnesses were male
(2) all witnesses were halachically observant, according to a traditional definition
(3) the convert intended to become traditionally halachically observant
seems to be close to zero. You are allowed to disagree, but it’s not fair to condemn the Orthodox viewpoint when it has a reasonable basis.
“You are allowed to disagree, but it’s not fair to condemn the Orthodox viewpoint when it has a reasonable basis.” lol. You and I disagree about that “reasonable basis” part.
Let me ask you, what do you think the percentage of Conservative conversions that follow criteria 1 through 3 is? I ask out of genuine curiosity.
A. I will say that I do think that Mo is right, that it’s not just denominational. I mean, the decision allowing driving on Shabbat to go to synagogue exists, and things like that affect Orthodox perceptions of the Conservative movement. The problem is that (aside from the disputes about what is or isn’t halakhic, and whether it’s fair to paint to whole movement with one brush), if Ken is correct about the practice of most Conservative edim (e.g., maybe they don’t hold by such decisions) and what is expected of the converts whose conversions they attest, the Conservative movement has terrible PR.
B. At the Hillel at my university last year, an MO rabbi came and discussed the problem of how to deal with a halakhic safeq, especially where standards have changed over time. The example he used as a springboard was this issue of gittin, and how requirements have developed over time, and the issue of the validity of gittin that don’t meet contemporary standards but were kosher for their time versus contemporary gittin that go by the old standards rather than the new consensus. He used this example to then go into the issue of conversions and the current developments in the requirements of Orthodox conversion candidates (versus what these requirements may have been 10, 20, or 50 years ago). During the Q&A, two pertinent questions came up:
1. What about Conservative conversions? He conceded that if they were done halakhically, they would be kosher, but said that he had never heard of a Conservative conversion with halakhically valid witnesses and a valid qabbalat ‘ol mitsvot.
2. What about people to his right rejecting his conversions? What’s the difference between his questioning Conservative conversions and Haredim questioning MO conversions? I’m not sure that he ever gave a non-evasive answer to this one.
That being said:
Ken,
At what point would you concede that the Orthodox have a reasonable basis, even if you yourself disagree, that a potential convert (and the underlying beth din) have not fulfilled the halakhic requirements? Or must the Orthodox accept all (or at least all Conservative) opinions as mere differences of pesaq?
Mo,
How far to the left (assuming Reform-Conservative-Orthodox and everything in between can be charted on a left-right plane) would you be willing to concede that a beth din, its underlying denomination/community/hashkafa, and its (disputed) convert’s practice (assuming that the convert will be centrist or center-right compared to his or her community) are halakhic and kosher? Weiss-Halivni traditionals? YCT/IRF? RCA? Toldos Aharon?
GerTrained–excellent post–thanks for contributing. I think you get the ikkar exactly right. The standards Mo has presented as absolutes probably rule out not only Conservative conversions as a klal but those significantly to the right of Conservative well into the lefter elements of the Orthodox community as well. Which is fine but I am reminded of the important drash on Lo titgodedu: “lo taasu lacehm aggudot aggudot.”
“At what point would you concede. . . a potential convert. . .” I think what I’ve been reacting to is that Mo’s comments were never about “a potential convert,” but rather about “all Conservative converts,” quite irrespective of the actual approach taken to conversion. In terms of “accepting” differences of pesak, yes, I do think that today’s Orthodoxy deviates sharply from prior and normative halakhic tradition in its relative inability to handle mahloket.
” the Conservative movement has terrible PR.” The Conservative movement has absolutely abysmal “PR,” and not merely to outsiders but to its own insiders. This is not the place to analyze how that came to be but in very very brief I believe it is the product of a historic heavy emphasis on esoteric academic scholarship at the expense of the development of an informed activated laity.
“I’m not sure that he ever gave a non-evasive answer to this one.” Because there is none, and I am reminded almost daily of the famous poem: “First they went after the Reform and I was not concerned because I am not Reform. Then they went after Conservative and I was not concerned because I am not Conservative. Then they went after the liberal Orthodox becuase I am not liberal Orthodox.” Will you be concerned when they go after the mainstream Orthodox?
I think you are pretty much spot-on. I don’t pretend to have a good answer to your question, and I think this is something which will be a topic of debate for years to come.
I sent a detailed reply but it seems to have died in transmission (that’s been happening to my posts lately–not sure whether it’s a “moderation” issue). In brief, I also think you are spot on and appreciate your contribution. Forgive me for writing without paragraphs–they seem to trigger the problem. 1) “the Conservative movement has terrible PR.” Yes, it does. Not only externally, but internally as well, such that most of the community really does not know what the Movement actually teaches. Much ink has been spilled on how this came to be. In a very very brief summary I attribute it to the historic emphasis on academia at the expense of development of an informed activated laity. 2) “I’m not sure that he ever gave a non-evasive answer to this one.” Because there is none. I am reminded of the Holocaust poem: “First they went after the Reform but I was not concerned because I am not Reform. Then they went after the Conservative but I was not concerned because I am not Conservative. Then they went after the liberal Orthodox but I was not concerned because I am not liberal Orthodox. Now they are going after mainstream Orthodox and there is no one left to be concerned.” I am also reminded of the midrash on Lo Titgodedu: Lo ta’asu lachem aggudot aggudot. 3) “At what point would you concede that the Orthodox have a reasonable basis, even if you yourself disagree, that a potential convert. . .” My issue all along has been Mo is not speaking of “a potential convert.” He is speaking of *all* converts of an entire community. “Or must the Orthodox accept all (or at least all Conservative) opinions as mere differences of pesaq?” Indeed modern day Orthodoxy’s inability to tolerate halakhic mahloket and pluralities of practice is a modern invention and not consistent with normative rabbinic/halakhic tradition.
“modern day Orthodoxy’s inability to tolerate halakhic mahloket” This misrepresents the Orthodox view. Orthodoxy tolerates a vast degree of disagreement (compare Rabbis Weiss and Eliashiv). However Orthodoxy does not view Conservative as operating within a halachic framework. I understand that you disagree, but this is where we are coming from.
““modern day Orthodoxy’s inability to tolerate halakhic mahloket” This misrepresents the Orthodox view.” No it does not. You reference Rabbi Weiss as an example of acceptance of differing halakhic conclusions? Seriously? Good choice. You’ve illustrated my point quite nicely. He was advised that if he did not retract his conclusions he would be thrown out of the RCA. So he did. You are happy to describe all the ways you feel Conservative Judaism is “not halakhic” (with, of course, some merit to some of your criticisms) but you are quite blind to the ways in which modern day Orthodoxy is, increasingly, itself “not halakhic.”
I recognize that there are extant problems in Orthodoxy. This does not affect my argument at all. When I say “tolerates”, I am referring to the range of behavior that is subsumed under the umbrella of the term “Orthodoxy” (with some caveats, which I don’t want to go into because of their complexity).
“I am referring to the range of behavior that is subsumed under the umbrella of the term “Orthodoxy” Here’s some yuks about what “is” or “is not” “Orthodox.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ezn0vCb4I8
The challenge is how to live in a world in which differing communities have seriously differing interpretations of halakha. One approach, the one you advocate, is to declare whole vast segments of the Jewish community to be simply outside the bounds, unacceptable. The other, the one described in the Talmud, is to maintain the differences of practice and opinion as sharply and passionately as ever, yet to nevertheless accept the ultimate legitimacy of the other. B’nei Yehuda and B’nei Galil had substantively different understandings of how to prepare k’tubot with potential mamzerut consequences–every bit as big as the largest of the issues you identify. Yet we are specifically told in Masechet Ketubot that they were willing to marry into each others’ communities anyway.
You state that “declare[ing] whole vast segments of the Jewish community to be simply outside the bounds [is] unacceptable”, and yet Conservative does precisely this for Reform Judaism. Why do you think that is?
Yeah, Conservative is a bunch of crap. Whenever you point out the obvious, the posers come out on forums like this and engage in protracted argumentation defending the indefensible, and engaging in endless blurring of halachic lines to legitimize garbage.
Actually, if that is your perception you should look into conservative teshuvot on the subject. They are online. The conservative movement goes to great lengths not to do this. It is only orthodoxy which seeks to cut people out of the tribe rather than adopting the most inclusive stand they could.
My impression was that Conservative certainly does not accept Reform conversions that did not involve circumcision, for example. That in fact does cut out a wide swath of people from the fold.
Yes, conservative converts are expected to have Brit Milah and tevila and a beit din. However:
A. Most reform rabbis require this today as well.
B. Conservative rabbis are instructed to encourage Reform converts to “complete” their conversion, not to inform them at they are completely not Jews and give gem a pamphlet on the noahide laws.
If you check out the teshuvot on the united synagogue’s website you will find that the official position is to go to great lengths to find conversions acceptable.
So you agree that both Orthodox and Conservative Judaism are willing to declare many conversions invalid. I understand that your views on what the requirements are are different, but hopefully this will contribute to a better understanding of the Orthodox view.
You think my “understanding” of Orthodoxy is at issue? Really? lol.
Well, you assume that the Orthodox community does not accept Conservative conversions for non-halachic reasons. This seems to be a misunderstanding.
In my opinion it is you that is misunderstanding. It is very important to you personally that what I’ve illustrated not be true and I understand that but I for one don’t find your apologetics pursuasive.
Yes, both sides will view some conversions invalid. The point im trying to make is that the conservatives are lenient in halakha while the orthodox are continuously adding chumras. Read an orthodox book on conversion from the eighties like “becoming a jew” by maurice lamm. The halakhic landscape of orthodoxy is very different today, and i think rabbis should think twice before adding chumras when they ought to take a lenient position here.
“the orthodox are continuously adding chumras”. You can’t talk about “the Orthodox” in a general way like that. There is no one central organization that regulates Orthodoxy; it is not a “movement” in the way that Conservative is.
It’s a dodge to claim general comments about Orthodoxy cannot be valid.
I was referring to this specific claim, which I do not think can be generalized to all of Orthodoxy.
How does someone “think” that they’re Jewish? It seems to me, either you are or you aren’t. Your mother is either Jewish, or not, or you have converted kosher, or not. Why the confusion?
1. Maybe one is under the impression that one’s conversion is kosher, but from the perspective of others it is not (see the Ken-Mo debate above). (E.g., woman converts conservative, marries, kids will see themselves as Jewish.)
2. One may (known or unknown) be descended maternally from a woman for whom #1 holds. (E.g., kids in #1 become “BTs” but don’t believe that they have to convert, marry, and the grandkids’ generation see themselves as Jewish. This is basically anonimo’s scenario.)
3. One may have a Jewish father but not a Jewish mother, but have been raised primarily in a Jewish environment, such that one identifies as Jewish, ignorant (or in spite) of the halakhic definition of Jewish.
4. One may have taken on a Jewish lifestyle ignorant (or in spite) of the requirements of a formal conversion and be resistant to claims that one needs to have one’s identity validated by an outsider/piece of paper.
5. One can be a part of a community whose Jewishness others dispute (e.g., the Beta Israel).
3 and 4 would seem to be pretty clear cases of people not being Jewish but nevertheless believing themselves to be. 1 and 2 would in large part depend on the underlying facts of the disputed conversion, and 5 is similarly a landmine because we don’t have any real records of what was going on back when these disputed communities were developing, so people outside the community are going to be suspicious of a group who looks and practices differently and people in the community are going to take offense at having their identity/legitimacy questioned.
Exactly. One of the main goals of kiruv is to prevent intermarriage by promoting a strong Jewish identity and an environment where non-observant Jews can meet each other. The problem is that many people outside of the frum world who identify themselves as Jewish are not halachically Jewish, in fact this number may be over 50%. Coming to a kiruv center, one of these non-Jews may very well strengthen their “Jewish” identity and start to observe more mitzvot meant for Jews and in turn meet a Jew similar to them and then start dating and get married. With the large number of non-halachic “Jews”, kiruv will end up making more people more Torah-observant, but they would at the same time be unwittingly causing intermarriages and (in some people’s opinions) hastening the annihilation of the Jewish people and therefore Judaism itself. IMO unless kiruv people start some sort of non-PC genealogy screening of their regular guests, they may be contributing to the “silent holocaust” (not my words) they are trying to stop.
It would seem that the only solution would be to cut off all liberal or secular Jews from the Jewish people forever. Is that what you are advocating? What if your great great great great grandmother converted in a beit din that is no longer recognized by the RCA?
The point I’m trying to make is that faced with a demographic crisis we should adopt the most halakhically inclusive position possible. More Jews is good. Why should we be adding chumras to conversion at a time when Jews are assimilating and intermarrying faster than ever? Does the army become more selective during a war? Do you become more picky about your dietary choices in a famine? So why is it that halakha has become more strict at exactly the same time in Jewish history when people are leaving the tribe at alarming rates?
And then there are the geniuses described here actually rescinding conversions long after the fact. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4083037,00.html
And then there are the geniuses actually rescinding conversions long after the fact. See Rivkah Lubitch’s 6/19 column at Ynet.
“More Jews is good” This policy evidently hasn’t worked for the Reform movement to solve its demographic anemia.
Well it hasnt reversed the tide but it has still made reform the largest movement in the US.
Firstly, I don’t think this had much to do with making Reform the largest movement (there are many other factors at work). Additionally the median commitment level of Reform Jews is quite low; the real question is how many will still affiliate in one or two generations.
You are right on all account here, but it is not their position on conversion that is causing this. It is a response to the issue. I never said being accepting of more converts would reverse demographic flows, only that you cant be picky in a famine.
Well, the question is whether it has helped, and it is not at all clear to me that it has. It may have even had a deleterious effect. I’m not sure your “famine” metaphor is fitting.
We would need serious sociological inquiry to know either way. But more jews means more jews. To make a case that it is having a deleterious effect is at the moment based on nothing, unless you can show that reform jews are choosing to become secular and raise their kids as christians because too many people are converting to judaism?
The onus of proof is on you to show that the Reform movement’s radical innovations are justified.
Thanks for the clarification. I can see how all the above factors could lead an ignorant (wittingly so, or not) person to be mistaken as to their identity. I guess I just expected anyone who loves Torah enough to think of themselves as Jewish would know what that means. I thought the knowledge was more common.
On the other side of the coin, I would say some people claim others are not Jewish when they are, in fact, Jewish. If someone converts to Judaism, they are Jewish. However, some people who think the convert’s conversion wasn’t kosher would say that convert only “thinks” they are Jewish.
And some inbred bigot with smicha, a bobbed pecker and a treif corpse on his head can (and will) pop up years later to retroactively de-Jew the most sincere, kosher convert. It gets him points for being “shtark”, and the misery of the spouse and children is an added bonus.
I would encourage you to reconsider some of the stereotypes that you are expressing.
Im gonna agree with mo on this one. Harsh words dont solve problems.
“Why do you think that is?” There is no issue of legitimate halakhic mahloket there. Reform does not say “we recognize halakha as binding but reach different halakhic conclusions than you do,” nor do they function as if they do. It is a troubling issue that has to be dealt with on a case by case basis and with sensitivity and respect and dignity. Telling them that “they are completely not Jewish and giving them a pamphlet on the Noahide laws” doesn’t qualify.
But so, what do you think invalidates these conversions? Is it only lack of circumcision or immersion? Is the status of the witnesses a problem? Is the dedication of the convert a problem? You have only described how Reform differs from Conservative, not why Reform conversions are not always accepted within Conservative.
And then there are the geniuses described here actually rescinding conversions long after the fact. Can’t post a link–see Rivkah Lubitch’s column in Ynet from 6/19/11.
““modern day Orthodoxy’s inability to tolerate halakhic mahloket” This misrepresents the Orthodox view.” No it does not. You reference Rabbi Weiss as an example of acceptance of differing halakhic conclusions? Seriously? Good choice. You’ve illustrated my point quite nicely. He was advised that if he did not retract his conclusions he would be thrown out of the RCA. So he did.
Also it’s worth noting that the RCA does not define who is or is not “Orthodox”. Rabbi Weiss is entitled to chose how valuable his RCA membership is to him, but this has no bearing on tolerance of halachic dispute in the Orthodox movement as a whole.
And Young Israel is getting into the business of throwing out member kehillot who dare to allow a women to hold the halakhically meaningless position of president. You want everyone to believe the choice is between a halakhic movement and a not halakhic one, but reality is not quite so simple.
Just because Young Israel does something you don’t agree with, doesn’t mean that they are not halachic.
No just because they did something that was not halakhic they are not halakhic. You excuse everything Orthodox–just because I don’t agree with it doesn’t mean it’s “not halakhic,” while simultaneously damning everything Conservative–everything they do you “don’t agree with” does mean they are “not halakhic.” You don’t have insight into how this works for you–you’re not consistent/honest about it but you sincerely believe you are.
What halacha do you believe them to be violating?
Anonymous 2.0 said:
> “It would seem that the only solution would be to cut off all liberal or secular Jews from the Jewish people forever. Is that what you are advocating?”
No, in fact I don’t have a solution. But I’m curious as to what strategy kiruv rabbis are using to deal with people who think they are Jewish but are not halachically Jewish. IIRC, secular and liberal Jews are seen by the kiruv movement as “tinokot shenishbu” who will hopefully return to a Torah lifestyle and hashkafah. The problem is that it’s hard to tell who’s a tinok shenishba and who’s a goy.
Again im not a rav but the conservative teshuva i read cites precedents where a person is presumed to be jewish if they identify as such. If more info becomes available about their mother or grandmother’s status, then that can change things. But the default position in history has been to assume jewish status, not to make people prove it.
Of course these are very old precedents, and the halakha that moses received from god at sinai that we use today is different.
“I was referring to this specific claim.” With respect, no you weren’t. Your statement was “You can’t talk about “the Orthodox” in a general way like that. There is no one central organization that regulates Orthodoxy; it is not a “movement. . .” That wasn’t a specific statement. It was a general one. And it is a dodge.
Let me clarify. I do think that this is true in general. However the purpose of my statement was to challenge the claim that “the orthodox are continuously adding chumras”. How else am I supposed to answer that question? I don’t feel like playing semantic games.
To put in in a more rigorous logical setting:
I disagree that “the orthodox are continuously adding chumras” because I don’t think that this applies to the whole Orthodox community. Therefore I think that the scope of the statement is too broad, i.e. that this claim is an instantiation of a particular type of statement that I disagree with, viz. one which makes a blanket statement about the Orthodox that does not, in my experience, have universal applicability.
Is that better?
“Is that better?” Yes, I rather think it is. 🙂
It seems like so many of these threads end up turning into debates about what conversions are valid and which ones aren’t even if the article is not about conversion. It is really saddening because I feel this only pulls our community apart. The issue of a valid conversion truly comes down to being only between the convert and HaShem. Totally just my thought, I would just like to see us all more united.
Infomraoitn is power and now I?m a !@#$ing dictator.
Truth be told is that Orthodox definitions of conversions can be narrow, stupid, and hypocritical. For instance, if a Conservative rabbi converts someone, who converts to marry a Jewish person, then that conversion is invalid. But if an Orthodox rabbi does it for the same reason, it is up to what the convert does. Does that not sound like hypocrisy to you? Cause it definitely is.