50 members of family required to convert after 1960s convers

Volunteer

Sun, May 17 2015, 4:58 am

Here's a serious halacha question.
Why is a bet din required for giur? Is it an indispensable part of the conversion process itself, or is it just there to ensure the truthfulness of the convert, and make sure he or she knows all the mitzvot that need to be kept as a jew?
If it is just to ensure quality control, and formally accept a convert into the Jewish people, then shouldn't the fact that this family has been observing the Torah and has been accepted in,to the fold enough to validate them?
I can only think of one instance in the gemara when the conversion of a group of people was considered invalid. The cutheans (aka Samaritans) were questionably Jewish because their ancestors converted were moved to Israel by the Assyrians in order to repopulate the land, and they decided to worship God as a way to save themselves from being killed by lions. Only layer on, they were considered non Jews because it was discovered that they had been worshipping an idol all along. Shouldn't the fact that this family has been observant all this time testify for their legitimacy?

Sanguine

Sun, May 17 2015, 5:00 am

imasoftov wrote:

I am hoping that the religious parties make things so unbearable during the next government that the people rise up and burn down the rabbanut. I do hope no one is in the building when that happens.

I'm very happy with the idea of a Rabbanut. Religion should be at the head of a Jewish state. The problem is that the Rabbanut is always too Chareidi which is crazy cause none of the Chareidim would trust the Rabbanut anyway. So the Rabbanut should always be DL. Likewise, our Jewish army puts Kashrut and Shmirat Shabbat at high levels. It works cause there is mutual respect. A chiloni soldier isn't looking to treif up the army kitchen when his army buddies wear kippot. It stops being rules made by some Rabbis with big beards.

samantha87

Sun, May 17 2015, 9:19 am

imasoftov wrote:

I am hoping that the religious parties make things so unbearable during the next government that the people rise up and burn down the rabbanut. I do hope no one is in the building when that happens.

One thing that is clear from the formation of the new government: no-one not religious cares. On one side, the religious parties care and on the other side Elazar Stern cares. That's it. Non religious Israelis just solve their problems with a flight to romantic Prague.

HindaRochel

Sun, May 17 2015, 9:49 am

Sanguine wrote:

I don't know that it has to be strictly DL, but it shouldn't be overwhelmingly Haredi.

animeme

Sun, May 17 2015, 9:55 am

Volunteer wrote:

I think this is the reason for giyur l'chumrah. Giyur requires kabalos ol hamitzvos and mikvah. They have shown Kabalas ol hamitzvos by living their lives and aren't requiring beis din supervision here, so they just need to do mikvah to make sure, which does need the supervision.

Barbara

Sun, May 17 2015, 10:37 am

shabbatiscoming wrote:

I was never asked for my parent's ketuba. I was asked to have a letter from the rav of my shul stating that I was jewish and that my parents are. That was all.

Barbara, lets not be overly dramatic. Just because this terrible story happened does not mean that everyone who might have something not perfect in their history may not be able to live here. It is not that way all of the time. Not even close.

They can live in Israel. They just can't get married there.

And we've known that for years. This story, because it involves a Charedi woman, simply underscores that fact.

The right wing, Israeli Rabbanut wants to control who is considered a Jew throughout the world. And it does that by controlling marriage in Israel. You want to convert with that highly respected Orthodox rabbi in Texas? Maybe they'll consider you a Jew in Texas, but if your grandchildren want to be married in Israel, you'd better go to the rabbi we chose in New York.

They have famously ruled that certain Orthodox rabbis are not ok to state that someone is Jewish. They don't accept non-orthodox ketubahs that would have been considered acceptable by Orthodox rabbis at the time they were entered into. (The Conservative rabbi who married me sat on a bet din with Orthodox rabbis for years, and signed dozens of gets for Orthodox couples. I'm waiting for the Rabbanut to declare the kids of those second marriages mamzers. Nah, I know that won't happen, although there's no logical reason why.). They're reconsidering conversions that took place half a century ago.

This has been going on for more than a decade, and I've made my feelings known time and time again.

Amarante

Sun, May 17 2015, 11:02 am

What I find troubling is that there appears to be a presumption of "guilt". Where there is no question of fraud, why in the world would anyone go out of their way to find this entire family "guilty" - and on such flimsy evidence - because they hadn't heard of a rabbi from 50 years ago?

At least in the US, I think most Orthodox rabbis would make every effort to presume a person was Jewish under these circumstances.

Perhaps I am being simplistic but most people in the US wouldn't be able to "prove" their Jewishness to the satisfaction of this little weasel of a clerk.

vintagebknyc

Sun, May 17 2015, 12:04 pm

Raisin wrote:

You raise some good questions. But I am curious - what happens if someone in your situation wants to get married in an orthodox shul in the states? Say a Young Israel shul. Do they require any documentation?

I don't know what others do. for us: DH and I had both grown up in the same suburban area outside NYC; a quick round of jewish geography found that our our surviving grandparents knew people in common. the ONLY question asked to me was at a family yom tov early on--"so, I hear your parents were married by xx rabbi?"

there was likely digging around after this by his family/rav, but if so we weren't told about it.

Ruchel

Mon, May 18 2015, 11:20 am

In Israel like in chul the Orthodox rabbis are very careful. Some complain too much, some complain not enough.
C'v there are cheaters, too, in both locations. And civil weddings (Cyprus! right?) come with no guarantee. "Being in Israel" is no guarantee you marry another Yid. Not all Israeli (real or not real) Jews are acting proud either.

There are rabbis who make it easier for zera Israel and all to convert, of Shoah descendants so they are very sensitive to adding new Jews. Some Israeli conversions are quick (unfortunately some of them not acknowledged in France Sad

my friend who was doing it was told she couldn't come back because she couldn't make her life here so she stopped cnverting :'( ).

ora_43

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:02 pm

Did nobody read my post?

This wasn't a decision made by one "weasel of a clerk." A beit din made a decision after clarifying with top officials at the rabbinate, calling Jewish leaders abroad, etc. They didn't decide to "undo" a conversion. They decided that there was reason for concern but that the family was Jewish, but that a quick conversion l'chumra would be good for removing any possibility of doubt.

ETA - I'm not saying you have to like the real story, but enough with bashing the beit din over the details of the story as invented out of nowhere.

Barbara

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:18 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Source?

From what I read:

Quote:

The woman submitted her documents to the rabbinical court, which turned to the Chief Rabbinate, as it is required. A clerk at the Chief Rabbinate said the credentials of the rabbi who performed the conversion in the US were unknown to the body, and therefore the conversion was not recognized.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Ne.....03111

But I really don't care WHO made the decision.

This is a woman who lived her entire life as an observant Jew. Whose family ... generations of her family ..; lived their lives as observant Jews.

Where in the Torah does it tell us to re-investigate conversions that took place half a century ago, that had been accepted by the rabbis at their shul, at their schools, who married her siblings, who conducted brisim and namings and whatever else, for 50 years?

It was dead wrong. And each and every Jew in the world needs to stand up against it. Conversions cannot EVER -- ever ever ever -- be challenged.

ora_43

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:21 pm

Also, anyone who thinks this only happens in Israel is dreaming. There are problems with Jewish status all the time in America. It is not at all infrequent that a Jewish woman in America wants to get married in an orthodox wedding, only to discover that her mother's mother's conversion was done in a non-halachic conservative ceremony or something like that.

Back in the day when I went to a conservative shul in America, something like 50% of the congregants age 30 and under weren't halachically Jewish. For a lot of them it will never matter, but for some it presumably will. (I'm not saying 50% is the average in all conservative shuls.)

I do think that orthodox rabbis need to be very sensitive in that kind of situation. OTOH, I also think it's really unfair to blame orthodox rabbis for the situation and not, say, the rabbis who created the problem in the first place by deliberately not letting would-be converts know the issues they're going to face with certain types of conversion. (And I include in that orthodox rabbis who do conversions they know full well are widely considered problematic without letting geirim know about the potential issues.)

Barbara

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:28 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Disingenuous and irrelevant. There is no question that the mother's conversion was Orthodox in the case being discussed.

Also please recall that well into the 1980s, there were joint Orthodox/Conservative bet dins on conversion, and they were fully authorized by the RCA. These are fully legitimate conversions. No one has the right to change the rules after the fact.

ora_43

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:31 pm

Barbara wrote:

Where in the Torah does it tell us to re-investigate conversions that took place half a century ago, that had been accepted by the rabbis at their shul, at their schools, who married her siblings, who conducted brisim and namings and whatever else, for 50 years?

It was dead wrong. And each and every Jew in the world needs to stand up against it. Conversions cannot EVER -- ever ever ever -- be challenged.

Since when do rabbis investigate conversions in order to accept kids to school, or conduct brissim? Certainly not in Israel. Rabbis don't do namings here at all, as far as I know, although I'm not sure because I'm not entirely sure what you mean (naming a baby? The father does that).

The only weird thing is that it didn't come up when the young woman's older siblings married. That's the only other time it could potentially have been noticed.

I'm sorry, but I think it's absurd to say conversions cannot ever ever be challenged. If a conversion isn't done according to halacha, it doesn't become halachic just because time passed.

I do think it's something that should only be done when absolutely necessary. But without knowing what the beit din thought was problematic in this case (and without being an expert in the halachot, and the opinions in various communities) it's hard to say if they were going overboard.

Note that in this case the beit din decided that they were Jewish.

My source - I mentioned it in my first post.

ora_43

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:35 pm

Barbara wrote:

Disingenuous and irrelevant. There is no question that the mother's conversion was Orthodox in the case being discussed.

Not irrelevant. "Orthodox" and "according to halacha" aren't the same thing. I'm orthodox, but if I offer to convert someone (for a fee, of course) using tevila in the local swimming pool, with my Christian neighbor and his brother as witnesses, it won't be a kosher conversion.

Obviously I'm giving an over the top example, and that wasn't the issue here. My point is just that orthodox is not automatically =kosher.

Quote:

Also please recall that well into the 1980s, there were joint Orthodox/Conservative bet dins on conversion, and they were fully authorized by the RCA. These are fully legitimate conversions. No one has the right to change the rules after the fact.

Who did?

Barbara

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:40 pm

ora_43 wrote:

The text you quoted does not say that any investigation was done. It said that they allowed a "quiet and dignified" visit to the mikvah.

So, let me understand this. I have reason to believe that your mother's mother's mother's mother' mother, in the 19th century, simply went off with a Jewish man, and married him in another village. Something like "your people are my people." You agree that you are not Jewish. That your children are not Jewish. That, in fact, they are not legitimate children. And, if your husband happens to be a Kohen, that he should leave you and find himself a real Jew to marry. Because the passage of time didn't right this. And if you think there was a rabbi, but you can't find the papers because of the Holocaust, well, you can't be too careful.

Ridiculous.

And cruel to all of the many devoted converts out there, who need to look over their shoulders and wonder if their conversions will be attacked.

ora_43

Mon, May 18 2015, 12:54 pm

Barbara wrote:

The text you quoted does not say that any investigation was done. It said that they allowed a "quiet and dignified" visit to the mikvah.

I didn't translate the entire article. But everything I'm saying about the story that wasn't in the jpost article is from there.

Quote:

So, let me understand this. I have reason to believe that your mother's mother's mother's mother' mother, in the 19th century, simply went off with a Jewish man, and married him in another village. Something like "your people are my people." You agree that you are not Jewish. That your children are not Jewish. That, in fact, they are not legitimate children. And, if your husband happens to be a Kohen, that he should leave you and find himself a real Jew to marry. Because the passage of time didn't right this. And if you think there was a rabbi, but you can't find the papers because of the Holocaust, well, you can't be too careful.

Because there's no difference between noticing a problem with someone's mother's conversion, and a conversion five generations ago.

Or between a giyur l'chumra and a full conversion.

Or between a situation where there's no proof of Jewishness, and a situation where the details are known, but a problem is found.

Or between a beit din telling someone they aren't Jewish, and a beit din telling someone they are Jewish.

I'm being sarcastic, of course. There is a big difference between a conversion one generation ago or five. As I've mentioned repeatedly. And the final difference I noted is also a pretty big one.

Barbara

Mon, May 18 2015, 1:00 pm

ora_43 wrote:

You said, "If a conversion isn't done according to halacha, it doesn't become halachic just because time passed."

So why does it matter if it was half a century ago, or a century ago?

If, like many Charedim, the first child was born to a woman at age 20, the original convert could be a great-grandmother. So the Jewish status of her children' children's children was questioned. And you were A-OK with those 4 generations.

ora_43

Mon, May 18 2015, 1:03 pm

Barbara wrote:

So just to be clear, you're upset not over what actually did happen, but over the possibility that the story could have gone the same way even if the situation were different? Because there weren't actually 4 generations involved. The issue was with a mother and her daughter. The rest of the family's giyur l'chumra was apparently by choice (they came to the rabbinate to clarify their status).

Barbara

Mon, May 18 2015, 1:26 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Yeah. Right. The woman was told "gee, we're not going to allow you to marry because in our opinion, your mother's conversion may not have been valid, and you're not a Jew."

But that had nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with her siblings. Or their children. Or their grandchildren. Because, gee, maybe the conversion was valid for THEIR mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, but not the original woman's. Even though it was the same person.

For 50 years these people lived as Jews. They're Jews. No one has the right to look back half a century ... or half a year ... to question a completed conversion.