New Route to Conversion Challenges Israel’s Ultra-Orthodox Establishment
New York Times, 8/11/15
Rabbi David Stav, who is modern Orthodox and two years ago ran unsuccessfully to be one of Israel’s two chief rabbis, said the new conversion court was a necessity after the government’s reversal on the conversion bill. He said 4,500 children are born each year to Israeli families whose Judaism is not recognized, “boys and girls who are going to the university, they are going to the army — if they are not converted, there will be an assimilation crisis in Israel.” Rabbi Stav, who attended the conversion ceremony on Monday, said the children’s parents had been required to sign papers to prove they understood that the rite would not be recognized by the government or by the Chief Rabbinate, even though it had been performed according to Jewish law.“It is recognized by God,” he noted. “Eventually, there will be no other way but to recognize them officially.”
Letter of 8/10/15
We, the undersigned, wish to strengthen the hands of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate, the sole source of halakhic decisions that affect the State of Israel on a national level and the central authority on matters of conversion to Judaism,” wrote the rabbis.
“We are the generation that merited the establishment of a Jewish State. The Chief Rabbinate, established by our mentor Rabbi Avraham HaCohen Kook, zts"l, is the nucleus of this state's Jewish identity.
Private conversions deal a severe blow to our national unity in this country and shake the very foundations of our definition as a Jewish state. This is a de facto separation of religion and state, in total contradiction to our holy Torah, the sole wellspring of our Religious Zionist ethos.
And above all, the mass conversion of minors goes against the halakhic opinions of the vast majority of Torah Sages of recent generations, first and foremost Rabbi Kook – it is an act that is not accepted by the halakhic decisors of the People of Israel.
Therefore, we declare that we will recognize only conversions that have been certified by the Israeli Chief Rabbinate and those who stand at its head. We call on all rabbis from every sector to stand as one behind the Chief Rabbinate, to strengthen and support it, to raise the level of Judaism in our land and to guard the principles of halacha.
With the blessings of Torah, signed:
Rabbi Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Hevron
Rabbi Chaim Shteiner, Merkaz Harav Yeshiva
Rabbi Tzvi Yisrael Tau, Har Hamor Yeshiva
Rabbi Eitan Eisman, Pres. Noam Educational Institutions
Rabbi Eliyahu Zini, Pres. Haifa Hesder Yeshiva
Rabbi Elyakim Levanon, Chief Rabbi of the Shomron
Rabbi Yehoshua Shapira, Rosh Yeshiva (Dean,) Ramat Gan Hesder Yeshiva
Rabbi Michael Hershkowitz, Merkaz Harav Yeshiva
Rav Micha Halevi, Chief Rabbi of Petach Tikva
Rabbi Mordechai Sternberg, Rosh Yeshiva, Har Hamor
Rabbi Amiel Sternberg, Rosh Yeshiva, Har Hamor
Rabbi Shlomo Levi, Kollel Head, Har Etzion Hesder Yeshiva
Rabbi Shimon Cohen, Chairman, Beit Moriah Institutions
Rabbi Baruch Efrati, Head of the Rabbanei Emunah Organization.
There is no "Conversion Crisis"
Rabbi Elli Fischer, Mida, 5/22/15
... However, closer scrutiny of reality shows that the entire approach is unfounded since there is no “crisis” in the first place. The presence of non-Jews in Israel does not endanger its Jewish character. We may ask why there are not more converts, and it is certainly worthwhile to suggest ways to encourage conversion. No doubt we should be considering alternatives to the present situation, in which the process of conversion, a highly personal process that ought to be individuated and attuned to the convert’s needs, is a soulless encounter with bureaucracy.
Yet we should not mistakenly think that there is an emergency. The problem is already shrinking, and, given a few generations, will solve itself. Moreover, the data are so clear and simple that one would be justified in asking to what extent these organizations simply do not understand basic math and to what extent they are in fact well acquainted with reality but take an alarmist approach in order to advance their religious and/or political agendas.
Let us set out the cold, hard facts. Each year, before Rosh Hashana, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics releases “A Selection of Data from Israel’s Statistical Yearbook.” Each November, the CBS publishes “A Collection of Data for Universal Children’s Day.” In both of these publications, the very first item is a segmentation of the general population of the State of Israel—the entire population in the Rosh Hashana report and the population of children on Universal Children’s Day. The most recent publications report on conditions at the end of 2013. These are the most official and up-to-date data available in Israel.
According to these data, the number of “Others” (that is, citizens who are not “Jewish” and not “Arab”; the vast majority of this segment of the population are non-Jewish immigrants from the FSU and their descendants) is decreasing significantly as a proportion of the Jewish population and, it goes without saying, as a proportion of the overall population. This can be illustrated with the following chart:
| The Population of “Others” as part of the Population of “Jews and Others” in Israel at the end of 2013, Segmented by Age(All data are from Israel’s Central Bureau of statistics) | ||||
| Jews & Others | Amongst them Jews | Amongst them Others | Others as a % of the total population of Jews & Others | |
| Age 18 and up | 4,476,000 | 4,209,000 | 267,000 | 5.97% |
| Total population | 6,451,000 | 6,104,000 | 347,000 | 5.38% |
| Age 0-17 | 1,975,000 | 1,895,000 | 80,000 | 4.05% |
Stated simply, whereas 6% of adults in Israeli-Jewish society are not halakhically Jewish, only 4% of children in the same society are not halakhically Jewish.
There are several reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly, the emigration rate is higher among immigrants from the FSU. Secondly, the birth rate among this segment of the population is lower than that of other segments.
The most important reason, however, is conversion itself. According to the IDI abstract, about 1,800 immigrants from the FSU convert annually in Israel. That is not a lot. But the important question is not “How many convert?” rather “Who are the converts?” The various organizations raise the alarm by relating only to the first question, while ignoring the second, more important question.
Who, then, are the converts? The overwhelming majority of them are women between the ages of 18 and 30. As is well known, according to halacha the mother determines the status of the child. A Jew is someone born to a Jewish mother.
It stands to reason that a similar scenario plays out in many Jewish homes in Israel. When a daughter comes home with her beau and he turns out to be a non-Jew, perhaps the family is not pleased, and they may even encourage him to convert. They may even become frustrated when some rabbi insists that the groom must accept Orthodox observance in order to convert, even if he already identifies as a Jew, speaks Hebrew, served in the IDF, etc. Ultimately, though, the family knows that the grandchildren will be Jewish. Therefore, if the couple must fly to Cyprus or the Czech Republic in order to wed civilly, or if they opt for a common law marriage, it is not so terrible. The grandchildren will be Jewish.
However, if a son comes home with a non-Jewish woman, and suddenly there is concern that the grandchildren will not be Jewish, the parents will be adamant that the woman convert. They want Jewish grandchildren, of course. Moreover, once the conversion process begins, they may discover that the rabbis on the conversion court also want this couple to have Jewish children, and many of the obstacles faced by other potential converts will not be faced by women of child-bearing age—because the next generation is of paramount importance.
This is how we end up with a situation in which the number of non-Jewish, non-Arab “Others” in Israel slowly shrinks. In essence, this is a natural process of assimilation: in a country with a Jewish majority, the “others” assimilate into the Jewish population, and not the other way around. It turns out that fear of assimilation is a habit inherited from the Diaspora, the remnant of a mentality that we developed as a minority. Today, in the State of Israel, there is nothing to fear.
It seems that the natural response of many Israeli families contains a great deal of wisdom, and there is no need for experiments in social engineering to treat a nonexistent problem. As the Jewish sages said: “Leave the Jews alone; if they are not prophets, they are the children of prophets.”
גמ׳ אמר רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת בית דין מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו מהו דתימא עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה דהא קיימא לן דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה קמ"ל דהני מילי גדול דטעם טעם דאיסורא אבל קטן זכות הוא לו לימא מסייע ליה הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד מאי לאו דאטבלינהו על דעת בית דין לא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שנתגיירו בניו ובנותיו עמו דניחא להו במאי דעביד אבוהון אמר רב יוסף הגדילו יכולין למחות איתיביה אביי הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד כתובתן מאתים ואי ס"ד הגדילו יכולין למחות יהבינן לה כתובה דאזלה ואכלה בגיותה לכי גדלה לכי גדלה נמי ממחייא ונפקא כיון שהגדילה שעה אחת ולא מיחתה שוב אינה יכולה למחות
GEMARA: Rav Huna said: With regard to a convert who is a minor, one immerses him in a ritual bath with the consent of the court. As a minor lacks the capacity to make halakhic decisions, the court is authorized to make those decisions in his stead. What is Rav Huna coming to teach us? Is he teaching that it is a privilege for the minor to convert, and one may act in a person’s interests even in his absence? We already learned that explicitly in a mishna (Eiruvin 81b): One may act in a person’s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a person’s interests in his absence. Rav Huna’s statement was necessary lest you say: With regard to a gentile, licentiousness is preferable for him, so conversion is contrary to his interests, just as we maintain that with regard to a slave, licentiousness is certainly preferable. Just as a slave has no interest in assuming the restrictions that come with freedom, in that a freed Canaanite slave is a convert to Judaism, a gentile would have the same attitude toward conversion. Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us: That applies only with regard to an adult, who has experienced a taste of prohibition. Therefore, presumably he prefers to remain a slave and indulge in licentiousness. However, with regard to a minor, who did not yet engage in those activities, it is a privilege for him to convert. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rav Huna’s statement: With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who were freed with regard to the maidservant, when they were less than three years and one day old; what, is it not referring to a case where they immersed the minor converts and the maidservants with the consent of the court? Apparently, a conversion of that sort is valid. The Gemara rejects that proof: No, with what are we dealing here? It is with a convert whose minor sons and daughters converted with him, as they are content with whatever their father does in their regard. However, that does not apply to a child who is converting on his own. Rav Yosef said: In any case where minors convert, when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from the mishna: With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant who were ransomed, or who converted, or who were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred dinars. And if it enters your mind to say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her the payment of the marriage contract that she will go and consume in her gentile state? The Gemara answers: She receives payment of her marriage contract once she has reached majority and does not protest, but not while still a minor.
על דעת בית דין - שלשה יהו בטבילתו כדין כל טבילת גר שצריכים ג' והן נעשין לו אב והרי הוא גר על ידיהן ומגעו ביין כשר:
By the consent of the court - There must be three [judges] present at his immersion, just as is the rule concerning all immersions for conversion. They become as his father, and he is a convert by way of them. And his contact with wine does not contaminate it.
תוספות מסכת סנהדרין דף סח עמוד ב
ומיהו קשה מההיא דפ"ק דכתובות (דף יא. ושם) דאמרי' גר קטן מטבילין אותו ע"ד ב"ד ולכל מילי חשיב גר להתירו בבת ישראל וקידושיו קדושין ובניו חולצין ומייבמין ולכל מילי דאורייתא... ונראה דזכייה דגירות לא דמי לשאר זכיות דמה שב"ד מטבילין אותו אינם זוכין בעבורו אלא הוא זוכה בעצמו ובגופו שנעשה גר ונכנס תחת כנפי השכינה.
Tosafot Sanhedrin 68b
However, it is difficult from the first chapter of Ketubot (11a), where we say that a child convert is immersed by the consent of a Jewish court, and for all matters is considered a convert to permit him to marry a Jewish daughter. His betrothal is a betrothal, and his children may perform chalitza and levirate marriage, all for all biblical categories... And it appears that the merit of conversion is not comparable to other merits, for that which the court immerses him - they do not merit on his behalf. Instead, he merits for himself and with his body, for he becomes a convert and enters beneath the wings of the divine presence.
שו"ת זכר יצחק חלק א סימן ב
אבל כאן שאביו ואמו עבריינים הם לכל התורה והם אינם רוצים באמת להכניסו בכלל המצות אחרי שגם הם בעצמם אינם מקיימים, אין זה כהביאו אביו להתגייר דהרי הגירות היא קבלת כל התורה כולה, וא"כ הוי רק כמו שאנו בעצמינו מכניסים אותן ולזה אין בידינו כח... ועוד כיון דאנו יודעים, דיעבור בודאי על כל איסורין שבתורה כשיתגדל בבית כזה, א"כ אין זה זכות לו כי אם חובה ובכגון דא לא אמרו זכין לאדם.
Responsa Zecher Yitzchak 1:2
But here, where the father and mother are sinners for the entire Torah and do not genuinely desire to introduce him into the category of the commandments since they themselves do not observe, it is unlike a case in which his father brought him for conversion, because conversion is the acceptance of the entire Torah. If so, it is as if only we brought him, and we lack this power... Moreover, since we know [that he will not observe the commandments], he will certainly violate all the prohibitions in the Torah when he grows up in such a home. If so, this is not a merit for him but a demerit, and in such a case we do not say that we perform a merit for a person.
שו"ת דעת כהן (ענייני יורה דעה) סימן קמז
אמנם כ"ז הוא רק אם הוא באופן כזה, שאנו יודעין שבגדלותו יקיים את המצות, דבאמת הלא קבלת המצות היא עיקר של הגירות, שהרי היא מעכבת, ואפי' אם קבל אלא שלא היתה הקבלה כדין, דהיינו שלא היתה ביום ובשלשה, כמבואר בשו"ע, א"כ מסתברא מילתא, דלדידן דקיי"ל דגר קטן צריך שיהי' מדעת אביו או מדעת אמו, שאז מטבילין אותו על דעת בי"ד, ודאי צריך עכ"פ שאביו או אמו, או שניהם יחד, ימסרו אותו על דעת קבלת המצות.
אבל בענין שהדבר מתברר, שאין דעתם כלל לקיים ולהזהר מאיסורי תורה, מאי מהני מה שהם מוסרים אותו לגירות ע"ד ב"ד, דפשיטא דלא עדיפא מסירתם מאילו מסר א"ע לגירות במילה וטבילה, שכיון שחסרה קבלת המצות אין זו גירות כלל, וה"נ כן מדין ק"ו.
Responsa Daat Kohen 147
However, all this is only in this situation, that we know that he will observe the commandments as an adult. For in truth, is not the acceptance of the commandments the essence of conversion? For it is a prerequisite. And even if he accepted [the commandments] but it was not in accordance with the law, namely it did not take place during the day or with three judges, as is explained in Shulkhan Aruch, it would appear logical that for we who hold that a child convert must act on the basis of his father's or mother's knowledge, he requires that at least his father or mother, or both together, transmit him with the intention of the acceptance of commandments.
But where it is clear that their intention is in no way to observe and refrain from the Torah's commandments, of what use is it that they transmit him to the court for conversion by the court's consent? For it is obvious that their transmission is no better than had he transmitted himself to conversion with circumcision and immersion. For since the acceptance of commandments is lacking it is not a conversion at all, and it is indeed the case a priori.
שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קנח
אך נכון הדבר כשיגדיל להטבילו עוד הפעם לגרות בפני ב"ד משום שלא ברור הדבר במדינה זו שהוא זכות כיון שבעוה"ר קרוב שח"ו לא ישמור שבת וכדומה עוד איסורים. אך אפשר שמ"מ הוא זכות שאף רשעי ישראל עדיפי מעכו"ם וגם הוא זכות מחמת דניחא ליה במאי דעביד אביו ובפרט אחרי שגם אמו נתגיירה שבאופן זה הוא יותר זכות ועיין בחת"ס סי' רנ"ג שסובר שבזה לא יוכל למחות כשיגדיל והובא בפ"ת סק"ח לכן יותר קרוב שהוא זכות אבל לצאת מידי ספק לגמרי יהיה טוב לזכור להטבילו כשיגדיל.
Responsa Igrot Moshe Yoreh Deah 1:158
However, it is proper that when he grows up we should immerse him again for conversion before the court, for it is not clear in this country that it is a merit, for in our great sins it is likely that he will, God forbid, not observe Shabbat and similar prohibitions. However, it is plausible that it is nonetheless a merit, for it is better to be a sinning gentile then a gentile. It is also a merit because what his father does is beneficial for him, especially because his mother wishes to convert him - in this case it is an even greater merit. See Chatam Sofer 253 who holds that in this case, he cannot protest when he grows older; it is brought in Pitchei Teshuvah note 8. Therefore, in this instance it is more likely a merit. But to avoid any doubt, it would be best to remember to immerse him once he grows older.
Rabbi Chaim Jachter, Kol Torah 12/13/08
Rav Yosef Adler and Rav Haskel Lookstein (as well as many others) report that Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik also considered it a Zechut if the non-observant parents commit to providing the child with a Yeshiva education. Rav Yisrael Rozen (Techumin 20:249-250) suggests this compromise as well, but insists that Jewish education does not suffice when the child will be raised by a non-Jewish parent.
Rabbinical Council of America and Beit Din of America Guidelines
Where a Jewish Couple wishes to Convert an Adopted non-Jewish Child
i. The premise on which conversion for a child is based is that it is a zechut (benefit) for that child to convert. While some have argued that simply becoming Jewish is a zechut, others believe that only in circumstances where observance of mitzvot is likely to be part of the child’s life as an adult is it really a zechut to convert an underage person. ii. Therefore, a Jewish couple that has adopted a child to be converted must:
• belong to an Orthodox synagogue within walking distance of their home, and
• commit to 12 years of Orthodox day school education for that child.
The Bet Din should set criteria for what it considers to be schools in which the child will receive a serious Orthodox day school education, and
• In addition, full observance of elements such as Shabbat, Kashrut, holidays, etc., should be part of the adoptive family’s lifestyle. To that end, the sponsoring rabbi and the converting Bet Din should use the opportunity to encourage the family to accept a complete standard of observance.
However, where this can not be accomplished, then at the very minimum, if there is
• significant observance of Shabbat
• complete observance of Kashrut
• a positive attitude towards full mitzvah observance and commitment to Halacha within the basic family unit,
after consultation with the RCA/BDA and after writing an explanatory memo that will be included in the conversion file explaining the circumstances, giyyur katan (conversion of the child) may be allowed.
שו"ת אחיעזר חלק ג סימן כח
מ"מ י"ל דדוקא באופן שיתנהג כישראל דהוי זכות גמור בכה"ג אינו יכול למחות, אבל באופן שיתנהג באיסור אף דמ"מ הוי זכות, כמו שכ' בשו"ת בית יצחק שם, אבל אפשר דלא הוי זכות גמור ובכה"ג יכול למחות בגדלותו. אבל באמת מאי שיחלל את השבת ושאר עבירות אין זה כמחאה על הגרות רק שעובר עבירה כישראל ובודאי דהוי גר.
Achiezer 3:28
Nonetheless, it appears that specifically in a case where he acts like an Israelite, where it is a full merit, in this case he cannot protest. However, in a situation where he acts in prohibited fashion even though it is a merit, as Beit Yitzchak writes there, it is possible that it is not a complete merit and in such a case he can protest when he grows older. But in truth, that which he will violate Shabbat and other prohibitions is unlike a protest against conversion, just that he violates a sin like an Israelite, and is certainly a convert.
שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ב - אבן העזר סימן ד
וכ"ז מן הדין, אבל כשרואים הב"ד שיש חשש שהבנים הללו יחללו שבתות וי"ט בגדלם, נכון שלא לגיירם. ואם עברו וקבלום מה שעשו עשוי. ואיך שיהיה אין לבנים אלו שום דין חללות כלל, ובנותיהם מישראלית כשרות לכהונה בלי פקפוק.
Yabia Omer Even Haezer 2:4
And all this is according to the letter of the law, but when the court sees that there is a concern that the children will violate Shabbatot and holidays when they grow up, it is proper not to convert them. But if they violated and accepted them, what is done is done. And in any case, the children do not have the status of those disqualified from the priesthood. Their daughters from Jewesses are fit for the priesthood with any doubt.