Alan J. Yuter, “Naftali Bennett is Right Regarding Conversions,” Jewish Values Center (1 July 2019) (original) (raw)

Rabbinate-monopoly-to-solve-conversion-time-bomb-593397, MK Naftali Bennett calls for the breaking of Israel's Chief Rabbinate's monopoly regarding accepting of converts. Mr. Bennett's position is correct on Halakhic, political, and ethical grounds In his Introduction to his Yad, his Compendium of Jewish law, Maimonides maintains that Halakhah is determined by the most reasoned, rational reading of the Oral Torah canonical library. This canon came to closure with the end of hora'ah, or Talmudic legislation, in the early 5 th Century at the Babylonian academy of Rabina I and R. Ashi [bBava Metsi'a 86a]. Mr. Bennett's position is based upon a rational reading of bYevamot 47a-b, where the following rules are memorialized: a kosher conversion minimally requires a rabbinical court of three religiously observant men to supervise the circumcision [for males], the conversion candidate's acceptance of Halakhah as personally binding, and immersion in a kosher miqvah [the latter two apply both to women and men]. The conversion candidate is informed of some [i.e. not all] of the commandments. "Accepting the commandments" [qabbalat '0l malchut shamayim] does no mean that candidate agrees to be fully observant; it does mean that the new Jew consents to be governed by Jewish law. The Hebrew idiom should be rendered into English as "accepting the yoke of the commandments," i.e. that the convert agrees to be bound by and accountable to all of the norms of Jewish law, the metaphor for which is "yoke." And if the conversion court fails to inform the candidate of these details, and the candidate nevertheless accepts the yoke of the commandments, the conversion is still valid after the fact. And once the conversion is ratified by a proper conversion court, which technically could include and consist of three religiously observant, non-rabbinic lay men, and the candidate does not observe Jewish law completely, or for that matter not at all, that conversion remains irrevocably kosher! Furthermore, at jewishvaluescenter.org/jvoblog/conversions 2/3 Moses challenge God's fairness]. If someone contradicts God's law, they must be held to account, even if they claim to be divinely inspired prophets [Deut 13:1-6] and even if God declares the claimant to be correct [bBava Mezi'a 59b]. By adopting a Legal Realism approach to Jewish law, the Haredi rabbinic elite proclaims itself to be immune to assessment, criticism, or accountability. Naftali Bennett may not be permitted to retain his Orthodox identity because, by dint of his challenge, he has expressed disregard for Orthodoxy's true leaders and Torah spokespeople, whose charisma validates their intuition, authority, and infallibility claims. When a conflict arises between Talmudic law an historically conditioned, social and religious expectations, almost all Orthodox Jews will in practice observe the convention and disregard the law. For instance, relevant to this conversation is the unambiguous Torah law that requires the conscription of both men and women in times of defensive wars [bSo 44b]. Most Orthodox Jews are unaware that clapping and dancing on Jewish holy days is forbidden [bBetsa 30a], even though the Tosafot ruled that the la does not apply in his times. The Talmud here teaches the rabbis not to protest this violation; it is better to sin out ignorance than intentionally. But [a] the act of clapping and dancing are called "mistake," which cannot be read as a permissive license. Similarly, the Jewish community is required to nurture every kosher convert, for to do otherwise tempts otherwise good Jews to violate the very commitments they made. And when the Israeli Chief Rabbinate rejects conversions of Orthodox rabbis in good standing, whose converts are fully observant, without explanation, accountability or appeal, and when R. Isaac Schmelkes' innovation carries more clout-and domination-than Maimonides' conversion leniency precedent, the Chief Rabbinate has some explaining to do if it wishes to maintain the confidence of Orthodox Jews who follow Jewish law seriously, consistently, and with integrity. According to Jewish law, the judgment call to accept a conversion resides in the office of the local rabbi. Allowing non-Zionist rabbis to rule on conversions based upon R. Schmelkes' innovative suggestion [a] in violation of Oral Torah law [b] and ignoring the population that they are commissioned to serve, is a political error. Mr. Bennett wisely does not ask or worse, coerce Haredi rabbis to violate their conscience. But Zionists learn Torah and have Torah informed consciences, too. Haredi Orthodoxy has a right to its standards; and so do Religious Zionists. The ethical bottom line for Jewish Orthodoxy is located in the plain sense of the Oral Torah library and the norms derived therefrom, not the standing, intuition, or charisma of any authority, however great his reputation may be. For those who view Jewish life as a life style, culture convention, and social habit will define Halakhah as minhag Yisrael, what Orthodox Jews happen to do. According to this folk religion Orthodoxy, the kosher convert is required to adopt the behavior and beliefs of the living Orthodox community. Those conversion candidates who are unprepared to observe the "Judaism" of the Orthodox street are unwelcome in this iteration. The Torah was given to jewishvaluescenter.org/jvoblog/conversions 3/3