Conversion in America: Historical and Halakhic Perspectives

Rabbinical Council of America Website

January 11th 2009
Recent allegations of impropriety on the part of the founder and head of the Eternal Jewish Family (EJF), an organization involved with potential converts to Judaism, has again focused the attention of the Jewish community on the conversion process. Rather than dwell on the failures of other organizations, the Rabbinical Council of America prefers to use this opportunity to highlight those aspects of the RCA's GPS (Geirus Policies and Standards conversion system established in February 2008, that prevent the kinds of problems associated with EJF and other conversion programs, in the Orthodox community. We would also like to discuss some of the positive aspects of the GPS structure that serve the community beyond any concerns about inappropriate activities.
GPS was established to aid potential converts to Judaism, while at the same time diminishing thorny questions of personal status. For years, conversion had been performed in ad hoc fashion by local rabbis, but without detailed mutually agreed upon standards and procedures. While the vast majority of conversions were handled appropriately, some were not. As a result, in recent years even those who had fulfilled the halachic requirements were finding their conversions unfairly questioned and scrutinized - not just in Israel but in many Orthodox communities to which they or their children had moved. It is significant that because of such inconsistencies, in the early 1990's the RCA established regional conversion courts that were not organized into a formal network. That action alone, however, did not sufficiently address the problems.
To help solve this growing crisis, therefore, the RCA, in partnership with the Beth Din of America, took the next step and established the GPS network based on the following principles.
Courts and Judges
Qualifying regional courts are established, or if they already exist, are included. To ensure equal treatment, the courts follow transparent and published rules and procedures, fully disclosed to every candidate.
These procedures were formulated by the RCA, without being imposed by any outside rabbinate. Indeed in almost every respect the standards of GPS are consistent with the voluntary conversion guidelines adopted by the RCA in 1989, even as they allow for greater flexibility.
The courts function under the direction and leadership of local rabbis from across the Orthodox ideological spectrum. The judges are approved by GPS leadership. They do not have to be members of the RCA, but to avoid confusion a rabbi who serves as a GPS judge cannot do "outside" conversions. The courts meet candidates several times during the process to monitor progress and suggest additional areas of study.
GPS is a not-for-profit system. There are incidental expenses such as tutoring, mikveh, mohel, and operating costs. None of the judges profit financially from their many hours of dedicated service.
Sponsoring Rabbis
To ensure that each convert is shepherded through the process in a personalized fashion, each candidate is introduced to the court by a sponsoring rabbi. Because he is not a judge on that case, that rabbi avoids the conflict of being an advocate who is also an objective judge. The sponsoring rabbi mentors and guides the candidate, working with the Bet Din. To be a sponsoring rabbi one does not have to be a member of the RCA.
Administration of GPS
GPS has a centralized office at the RCA, reporting to a committee representing the various regional courts. Complaints are handled jointly by the GPS administrator and the GPS committee, in consultation with the Bet Din.
A GPS website facilitates information sharing, education, and communications among the courts, candidates, and others. A confidential database of all GPS converts is maintained, ensuring that future questions will be appropriately answered.
Non-GPS Conversions
While the RCA encourages its members to use GPS, it recognizes that some may choose not to, in their role as the local rabbinic authority. Such rabbis recognize that other rabbis are similarly free to not recognize conversions from outside GPS in their jurisdiction.
Conclusion
In less than two years approximately 300 GPS fully accepted conversions have taken place, under the supervision of scores of approved judges across North America, with hundreds more candidates in process. For a new system, GPS is working astonishingly well. There are, of course, improvements to be made in some areas, and the RCA is committed to a constant review of all aspects of the program.
We believe that GPS will continue to help establish the credentials of those who choose, of their own free will, to join the Jewish people, while avoiding problems that sometimes occur, as sadly becomes evident from time to time.
GPS does not presume to claim, as others have, that its conversions will be "universally recognized," insofar as we believe that there can be no such thing before the arrival of mashiach. Yet we do believe that our system goes a long way toward establishing widely accepted outcomes, given that GPS conversions have been accepted across the ideological spectrum of Orthodoxy.
Aside from all of the benefits to the converts themselves, GPS thus contributes to precious Jewish unity and cooperation, among rabbis, laymen, and their communities.

And You Shall Love the Proselyte: an op-ed by Rabbis Avi Weiss and Marc Angel

(This article has appeared in various publications, most recently the Jerusalem Post of April 22, 2014)

Back in 2008, the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) announced a new system of conversion (GPS – Geirus Policies and Standards).

Ostensibly, their goal was to create a universal and centralized standard for all conversions.

We warned then that the GPS system would result in invalidating conversions that had been done in the past in accordance with Orthodox law and approved by the RCA (JTA , March 10, 2008, “RCA Deal Hurts Rabbi, Converts”).

Unfortunately we have been proven correct. In a letter sent by the Beth Din of America (BDA , which is under the auspices of the RCA) to the Chief Rabbinate’s office, it was stated that “we cannot accept the conversion of any rabbi who served in a synagogue without a mehitza [a partition between men and women].” The RCA should clarify whether this refers to any rabbi who ever served in a synagogue without a mehitza, or if it refers to a rabbi who performed that specific conversion while serving in a non-mehitza synagogue.

Either way, this pronouncement should alarm countless converts.

Back in the ‘60’s and ‘70’s, many Orthodox rabbis ordained at Yeshiva University (YU) served in mixed-seated shuls. The Rav, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, felt that in certain communities, YU rabbis should serve because the shuls might one day construct a mehitza. The BDA letter now places the conversions of all of those rabbis in jeopardy.

This means that the children and grandchildren of these converts, some living in Israel, could be declared to not be Jewish. This is a terrible violation of the law which prohibits the oppression of converts.

It is also a violation of the RCA’s own promise when it declared, “...any conversions performed previously [before GPS] that met its standards then, would continue to be recognized” (RCA Response to Public Attack on GPS Geirus Policies, March 19, 2009).

PRIOR TO the GPS system, when conversions were questioned, the RCA would vouch for its members who were in good standing. The RCA didn’t think twice about Orthodox rabbis who served in mixed-seated shuls in the ‘50’s or ‘60’s, as this was common practice. This has now changed.

When we wrote that the RCA would question conversions done prior to the 2008 GPS standards, we never asserted that the RCA would conduct a witch-hunt to actively search out converts, find them, and declare them invalid. What we said was that those converts who now needed to have their conversions validated by the RCA would be in jeopardy as the RCA would cast aspersions on pre-GPS conversions by imposing post-GPS standards.

This is precisely what is happening. When a convert or their children or grandchildren make aliyah, he or she needs Jewish status validated.

Because of the centralization of the GPS standards, the Chief Rabbinate’s office now turns to the Beth Din of America for guidance. The upshot of this is that conversions performed by RCA rabbis who served in non-mehitza shuls for years – some who even went on to become presidents of the RCA – are now in question.

RCA validation of conversions may not be limited to converts who emigrate to Israel. It can also encompass those applying to Orthodox day schools right here in the United States, or applying for membership in an Orthodox synagogue, as these schools and synagogues will be looking to the RCA for guidance.

And the matter is even worse. As a result of the GPS system, the RCA now has a practice of not only evaluating converts at the time of conversion, but for years after. Most recently, a convert who converted through the GPS system informed us of a call received from an RCA official. Having heard that the convert was struggling with Orthodox communal norms, the official threatened to retroactively invalidate the conversion.

The RCA practices should be of great concern to every convert who converts today. Now, the RCA is not only invalidating conversions done prior to the GPS system but threatening to undo conversions done through the GPS system itself.

It is these issues that require immediate detailed clarification from the RCA. In the meantime we should all be concerned about what seems to be both a retroactive application of current GPS principles and also a creeping reduction of the convert’s status in the Orthodox community.

An Open Letter to Rabbis Mark Angel and Avi Weiss

Dear Colleagues:

We write to you with a deep respect for your heart, passion and decades of dedicated service to the Jewish community on many levels.

Once again, however, you have seen fit to attack the Rabbinical Council of America in the media concerning its establishment of “Geirus Protocols and Standards” (GPS), a centralized system for the performance of Orthodox conversions in the United States. We take great exception to your attempt to rewrite history and to accuse us of purposely inflicting pain on the vulnerable. Most problematically, you do so while pursuing an approach that will continue to create problems for sincere converts.

In this most recent attack (The Jewish Week 12/15/16), you hearken back to the days when “Members of the RCA routinely convened a bet din, or Jewish court, and performed conversion.” You maintain that, “When confirmation of these conversions was requested by rabbis in Israel or America, “the leadership of the RCA would pro forma verify that the RCA rabbis who performed the conversions were members in good standing, knowledgeable and reliable.”

Contrary to these claims which were first made (almost verbatim) in an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post in 2014 and then rebutted by Rabbi Basil Herring (former RCA Executive Vice President), there was never a time when membership in the RCA automatically granted its members pro-forma recognition for private conversions.

Then, as now, while the vast majority of conversions performed by RCA rabbis were accepted in America and Israel, there were conversions that were not accepted. This is confirmed by Rabbi Binyamin Walfish, (executive vice president of the RCA from 1980-1994) who reports“[It is] not true that we stood behind every [RCA] member for conversion. There were Rabbanim who were very angry with me.”

In fact, it is extremely surprising that you, Rabbi Angel and Rabbi Weiss, continue to make these claims because, in 1987; when Rabbi Angel served as a vice president of the RCA; a survey was conducted among RCA membership due to the growing discomfort with conversions performed by some RCA members. That survey confirmed the existence of serious problems including (and we quote directly from the survey report):

1. The running of “factories” where there is a “profit motive” for conversion.
2. In cases of conversion for marriage, pressure exerted on the Rabbi from members to convert individuals even in cases where commitment is lacking.
3. Ignorance on the part of some individuals involved in gerut [conversion] as to the proper standards, requirements, and procedures.

As a result of these findings, in 1989; the year before you, Rabbi Angel, assumed the presidency of the RCA and during the time when you, Rabbi Weiss, were an active member; conversion guidelines were distributed to all RCA members. Even more significantly, the decision was made by the RCA executive to establish regional Batei Din [religious courts] or to develop cooperative relationships with existing ones. This decision, as with all subsequent decisions concerning conversion on the RCA’s part, was motivated by a sincere desire to create a system that would protect potential converts from ever having to defend their conversion after-the-fact.

In a letter dated October 4, 1989, the RCA announced: “Geirut procedures which will be approved by the respective Batei Din will automatically receive the imprimatur from the national office. Those conversions which will not be authorized by the regional Beis Din will not be registered at the national office. Consequently, if an inquiry will be made by Israeli or other recognized Batei Din or Rabbonim, the national office will refuse to respond positively regarding the status of the conversion.” By insisting that all conversions performed by RCA members be done so in consultation with regional courts, the RCA moved to protect the converts from subsequent questions concerning their Jewish identity.

Unfortunately, for technical reasons, neither this plan nor a similar plan put forward in 1996 was ever fully implemented. What is clear, however, is that: a minority of conversions performed by RCA members could not be pro forma authenticated by the RCA; discomfort was steadily growing due to the vulnerability of specific converts created by these circumstances; and concrete efforts were made by the RCA to remedy the situation.

To claim that all conversions performed by RCA members were automatically accepted prior to the establishment of GPS in 2007 is either a terrible lapse of memory or an egregious attempt to advance an agenda that is more favorable to some rabbis than converts. The attempt to trumpet this in the media reinforces the perception of your politicizing the issue. Similarly, to repeatedly and publicly maintain that the establishment of GPS represents a “capitulation to the Israeli chief rabbinate” ignores the clear historical evidence that this act actually marks the culmination of repeated attempts by the RCA to assume real responsibility for the process of conversion in the United States.

Dear colleagues, instead of yearning for a process that never existed and could certainly not exist today, we should be looking for ways to make conversions in America more compassionate, more reliable, more respected, and more halachically valid. We should be searching for ways to ensure that none of our converts to Judaism will ever be open to after-the-fact scrutiny of their conversions. While we debate lofty goals, the practical concerns of the converts must be uppermost in our minds. We encourage you to speak with us, or turn to the RCA president, Rabbi Shalom Baum, who has been, as were we, open to working with all segments of our community. We recognize that while our GPS system has resolved many problems both with conversions in America and with their acceptance, there is still room for improvement. Therefore we continue to work to improve GPS not only by listening to rabbis, but to the converts themselves.

We sincerely believe that potential converts in the United States are best served by a well- functioning uniform but nuanced system that will allow their status be to be unquestioned in the future. This, GPS has accomplished. As a recent survey of hundreds of recent converts affirmed, 94% of GPS converts chose an RCA Beth Din because of a desire for a “recognized, Orthodox conversion.”

As in the past, questions will naturally arise when rabbis perform conversions outside of the system. This is an unfortunate consequence of anyone functioning outside of an accepted structure. However, we continue to respect the right of every RCA member to perform private conversions when they deem it necessary. We have supported, and will continue to support, any conversion performed by one of our members, whether prior to or after the establishment of GPS, that meets halachic standards. Recently, in fact, we have privately and publicly defended several conversions that were done outside of the GPS system.

We and many others are working diligently to support and protect those who sincerely desire to join our people. By attacking us in the press for these efforts, you inadvertently cause pain and create needless anxiety among these wonderful present and potential converts.

Rabbi Shmuel Goldin

Congregation Ahavath Torah

Rabbi Leonard A. Matanky

Congregation K.I.N.S. of West Rogers Park

Rabbis Goldin and Matanky are both past-presidents of the Rabbinical Council of America. However, this letter represents their own opinion and not necessarily the position of the RCA.

In Rabbinate protest, Lookstein and Sharansky call for revisions, not revolution
Read more: The Jewish Chronicle - In Rabbinate protest Lookstein and Sharansky call for revisions not revolution

NEW YORK — Three months after Israel’s Chief Rabbinate rejected his authority to perform conversions, one of America’s most prominent Modern Orthodox rabbis joined with Natan Sharansky to advance a message: The rabbinate needs to become more open. But not too much more.
A widely respected rabbi in New York’s Orthodox community, Haskel Lookstein saw his credentials called into question when a conversion he performed was deemed invalid by a rabbinical court in the Tel Aviv suburb of Petach Tikva. The court’s decision has amplified calls for the Haredi Orthodox-dominated rabbinate to reform.
On Wednesday, Sharansky spoke at a 200-person protest on Lookstein’s behalf in front of the Chief Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem.
But in a joint interview last Thursday in New York, the changes Lookstein and Sharansky proposed were relatively mild. They want the rabbinate to recognize a wider range of Orthodox rabbis. Sharansky — chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel — wants the Israeli government to accept or reject rabbis according to a set of objective criteria.
The two, however, stopped short of backing calls for the rabbinate to dissolve, to recognize non-Orthodox movements or to surrender its monopoly on Jewish marriage and conversion in Israel. They’re not asking the rabbinate to change its core philosophy or mission — only its procedures

“My specific overall goal is to reach a point where the Chief Rabbinate of Israel will recognize the conversion work done by recognized rabbis, respected rabbis, in America,” said Lookstein. “I believe it should be broader than the RCA — rabbis who are communally recognized as Halachah-abiding rabbis."

The Rabbinical Council of America is the main professional association for Modern Orthodox rabbis in the United States.
Lookstein, who has performed hundreds of conversions, is the former rabbi of Kehilath Jeshurun, a tony modern Orthodox synagogue on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. He also previously served as the head of school at the Ramaz School, an elite Manhattan Modern Orthodox preparatory school.
A woman who converted under Lookstein’s auspices last year applied for marriage registration with the rabbinical court in the Tel Aviv suburb of Petach Tikva in April, only to have her conversion declared invalid. The court did not recognize Lookstein’s authority because he was not on its list of approved rabbis.
The woman has appealed her case to Israel’s Chief Rabbinical Court, which held her hearing Wednesday and is expected to deliver a judgment soon. Israel’s Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi David Lau has vouched for Lookstein, making it likely the Petach Tikva court’s decision will be overturned.
“They are guilty of persecuting a convert, for which the Talmud says there are 46 prohibitions,” said Lookstein, who also supervised the conversion of Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka. “They are guilty of every single one of these prohibitions. This is very serious persecution of a person, and it casts doubt on the whole system that doesn’t trust American rabbis.”
The case has shined light on how the Haredi Orthodox-dominated rabbinate has begun to alienate even its Orthodox allies. The rabbinate has never recognized non-Orthodox rabbis or ceremonies. But the past few years have seen it question the credentials of a few leading liberal Orthodox rabbis as well.
In 2013, the rabbinate rejected — then later accepted — a conversion by New York Rabbi Avi Weiss, who founded the liberal Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Last year, it threatened to revoke the appointment of American-born Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, who advocates progressive Orthodox policies, as chief rabbi of Efrat. Sharansky said as long as the rabbinate’s protocols stay the same, American rabbis will continue being delegitimized.
“We are lucky it happened with Rabbi Lookstein, because it makes a lot of noise,” said Sharansky. “OK, we accept Rabbi Weiss. OK, we accept Rabbi Riskin. OK, I’m sure they will say we accept Rabbi Lookstein. And tomorrow it will be some rabbi from Phoenix [or] Omaha.”
Lookstein said the rabbinate should accept conversions by all U.S. Orthodox rabbis — including members of the Rabbinical Council of America and graduates of Chovevei Torah. Sharansky suggested Israel’s Interior Ministry could set out objective criteria for Orthodox rabbis to meet: a congregation of a certain size, for example, and certification from a recognized Orthodox seminary.
Conversions should be accepted “as long as there’s a community that is a recognized Jewish community, and there is a rabbi who got semicha,” or rabbinic ordination, Sharansky said. “If there is a group of people who for years have this community, everyone can check if it is a real one.”
But neither Sharansky nor Lookstein called for more radical changes to the rabbinate, which a coalition of Israelis — Orthodox and not — have pushed. Pluralism activists in Israel have long called for the rabbinate to be abolished or replaced with a system that also recognizes non-Orthodox movements. According to polls by Hiddush, a group that advocates religious pluralism in Israel, solid majorities of Israeli Jews support instituting civil marriage in Israel and recognizing non-Orthodox conversions.
Lookstein did not comment on calls to abolish the rabbinate or remove its monopoly over Jewish marriage in Israel. Sharansky said that despite the body’s flaws, it provides valuable religious services to Israelis.
“I think the Chief Rabbinate is playing an important role in the life of Israelis,” he said, crediting the rabbinate for “connecting the Jewish state with Judaism.”
Lookstein said he generally refrains from criticizing Israeli government actions. But he spoke out on this issue, he said, because of the hurt it caused one of his converts.
“I did not start this fight,” Lookstein said. “The rabbinate in Petach Tikva rejected a convert who was converted properly and was living a religious life.”
Read more: The Jewish Chronicle - In Rabbinate protest Lookstein and Sharansky call for revisions not revolution

Piskei Uziel 65 (Rav Uziel, first Rishon LeZion of Israel)

A non-Jew who has been circumcised and has immersed in a Mikvah for the purpose of conversion...we do not require that he observe the Mitzvot, and the Beit Din does not even need to know that he will observe Mitzvot, for otherwise converts will not be accepted in Israel, because who can guarantee that the Nochri will be loyal to all of the Mitzvot of the Torah…the requirement to fulfill Mitzvot is not an indispensable component of the conversion even LeChatchilah (ideally)…it is permissible to accept male and female converts, even if it is known to us that they will not fulfill all of the Mitzvot, because eventually they will come to fulfill Mitzvot, and we are obligated to open this door for them. And if they do not fulfill Mitzvot, they will bear their sins and we are free from responsibility for this.

Summary of Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman (R' Chaim Jachter)

Rav David Zvi Hoffman (Teshuvot Melamed Leho’il 3:8), the leading Rav in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Germany, was faced with the following difficult issue. A Kohen married a non-Jewish woman in a civil ceremony and they had a son who received a Brit Milah. The son subsequently died and the wife was distraught over what she perceived was the fact that she was not of the same religion as her deceased child. In addition to the concern over the intermarriage, there was fear that the wife would be driven to insanity if she was not allowed to convert and that a Chillul Hashem would be created as people would say that Jews had no concern for the wellbeing of the wife.

However, among the Halachic impediments to sanctioning such a conversion was the fact that the wife expected to remain married to her husband, but a Giyoret is forbidden to a Kohen (Yechezkeil 44:22). Accordingly, the conversion is cast in grave doubt in light of the Gemara (Bechorot 30b, cited last week) that forbids admitting a convert who accepts all of the Torah except for even one rabbinic precept. In this situation the wife implicitly does not accept the prohibition for a convert to a Kohen.

Rav Hoffman writes that the conversion should be discouraged by informing the wife that her son was not Jewish since he was not converted. If she persisted in her desire to convert and believed in the God of Israel, though, he permitted the Geirut. Rav Hoffman suggests two approaches to overcome the obstacle of her lack of acceptance of her prohibition to a Kohen. First, he argues that the Gemara forbids accepting a Ger only if he explicitly states his rejection of a particular Mitzvah and in this instance she is not making such a declaration.

Second, he argues that only when one is conducting the conversion only for the sake of the convert does the Gemara apply. In such an instance it is better that the convert not become Jewish than become Jewish and violate any part of Jewish law. However, if the Geirut is performed for the sake of the Jewish mate, to avoid the severe sin for him to be with a Nochrit, then the Gemara’s concern is not relevant since the Beit Din acts in the interest of the convert’s partner. Rav Hoffman concludes that his permission applies only if the couple will observe Niddah laws because otherwise, the conversion does not serve the spiritual interest of the husband.